What are Veeky Forums's thoughts on the hard problem of consciousness...

The implication was there. What I said was logical, from one step to the next. If you don't understand something, ask instead of talking irrelevant nonsense.

It's also deductive and constructive.
Don't be so simple.
Inductive doesn't build a coordinate reality model if there are contradictions or connections/associations.

But you are implying what a zombie is. You are implying humans are not defined by the made up comncept called "zombies".

And you are implying there is something inside you, but "you can't perceive it".

KEK

I think the electromagnetic field theory of consciousness feels the most intuitive out of all the explanations, although it doesn't answer the hard problem. It basically goes like this:

Consciousness could be an electromagnetic field created by the firings of neutrons. If this is true, then comes the question of how the brain can know of consciousness if the field is not directly connected to the brain. The answer would be that the field can affect the physical brain in the same way magnetism can induct current in a wire. The brain creating a field that then interracts back with it creates a feedback loop, which is how you can think about consciousness for example. Synchronous firing of neurons amplify the effect of the field.

The problems with this theory:
>Would other, stronger electromagnetic fields (that we are exposed to every day) not influence the brain's EM field and alter our consciousness?
>EM field would persist while you sleep, though consciousness is not active. Is there a required amount of complexion required for the field to be conscious?
>Hard problem of consciousness persists, although moved down a few levels.

Why don't you explain your premises, then?

>implication
>logical
You can't use logical fallacies and still be logical.
again, stop being stupid and just google "list of logical fallacies" you idiot.

The "thinking" you're doing has already been empirically proven wrong.

I can never understand why people refuse to look things up and stand corrected?
Are you afraid of being judged?
People will always judge you more for being stubborn and wrong than for standing corrected.
Idiot.

Those points are all addressing the easy problems of consciousness. You're essentially doing what's depicted in the OP image. Assuming it's as simple and straight forward as you say, we should all be philosophical zombies.

Lol conciousness is simple, if you try and differentiate it with logic then it becomes exponentially complex... so why not keep it simple!
Lets define conciousness to be a group of collaborative connections.
So for example, I am happy to accept that countries, companies and cultures are concious. Why? Well every individual which makes up said examples of conciousness are acting as neurons.
It is simple :)

>Zombies
You mean we don't have free will.
Talk like an adult please.
And we don't. This is the scientific consensus because it's based on empirical science.
Our "choices" are determined by genetics [sensitivity], environmental [induction], training [deduction], and repetition [connection].
People may "irrational" or "broken" decisions when they're brain is malfunctioning.
Malfunctioning isn't free will; free will does not exist.
Neither cognitive scientists nor neurologists believe in the circular logic you and the other idiot user are using.
Quick tip: You haven't been exposed to what logical fallacies are; that is why you are malfunctioning right now.
Scientific proof: Learn them and you will stop malfunctioning.

>is you try to use logic than things aren't intuitive
or intuition is wrong, which is why we invented science and logic

You have some serious backward thinking.
Talking about "affirming the consequent" fallacy taken to an existential level.