Consciousness is a product of stable matter organisation in Spacetime with the resultant ability of interfacing with...

Psychic phenomena has been proven via the scientific method.

thats ok, you can use the word "parapsychology"

no one here will believe you anyway

Use the word parapsychology where? And you don't believe in evidence? Kys.

nerve cells do everything to defy organization in the 'stable matter' sense

Badly phraesed: what has the ability to interface with other energies, consciousness or the "stable" matter? And wtf is stable matter? Not radioactive?

no

fuck off retard

howdu mean?

Consciousness has the ability to interface with other energies, that which is not matter.

Stable matter is elements arranging themselves in patterns which hold form, move, and multiply, resulting in cells, neurons.

Consciousness thus as a result of multiple complex chemical reactions, the second law of thermodynamics, neuron structure, electricity, and other mechanisms not yet identified.

no u

it is the interaction between two things.

which things?

it explains quite a bit

Let me translate that for you.

>Consciousness is a product of stable matter organisation in Spacetime with the resultant ability of interfacing with energies outside of the current understanding of matter and spacetime, eg, psychic phenomena

>Consciousness is matter that can do stuff we dont understand.

INCORRECT. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF: YOU DONT EXIST, KILL YOURSELF

Do you understand your buttfrustration?

I posted this in another consciousness thread but it got pruned straight after

I think you should be able to come at this from any angle, just as long as it makes sense and people know what you mean when you use the vocabulary you use.

So here's what I think:

The hard problem (which is actually the easy problem) has the answer: Consciousness is the recognition of experience. It really is that simple. You could ask "well what determines whether the recognition has taken place?" or "what determined whether there is experience?" These are good questions but probably more relevant to the other problem. After all, whatever the answer is to these, there is no doubt that there is experience. Experience is KNOWN, and experience IS. That is what is meant by consciousness. Not as a matter of language processing or abstraction or whatever, but as a reality.

The other problem, the easy problem (which is actually the incredibly hard problem), is how does the content of experience and/or consciousness correlate with the physical structure of the brain? I don't know the answer to this one. A neurologist would have vastly more knowledge about this; even then, there isn't yet a complete picture. This is where questions like "Well are plants or rocks conscious?" come into play. The better we know the relationship between experience and the brain, the better we will be able to answer those types of questions.

I posted a response to your post in the thread as well, guess I'll post it again.

>Experience is KNOWN, and experience IS. That is what is meant by consciousness. Not as a matter of language processing or abstraction or whatever, but as a reality.

You would be surprised by the number of people who would disagree with this. Even after being described the definition of experience in a number of ways, they lack that intuitive understanding of what we mean when we say it. One might ask, is it that they have gotten so used to experience being in the center of their lives, that they are unable to question it, or do they simply lack first person experience?

>The hard problem (which is actually the easy problem) has the answer: Consciousness is the recognition of experience.

How exacly does that correlate to the hard problem? The hard problem is about how there can be any experience at all, not neccesarily about how the brain acknowledges it, but that is an interesting question as well. If consciousness is fundamental and its existance is governed on the quantum level or below, it is kind of weird how the higher biological systems of the brain can even understand the nature of experience and the hard problem at all, when experience is not directly connected and integrated with it on the biochemical level.

u r schizotypal.

>Do you understand your buttfrustration?
It is clear in our sample of this one butt flustered scion that we ourselves as observers can only conceptualize the rump pained point of being and thus find it alien in understanding. In turn, this indirection element intrinsic to grasping at the buttox badgered leaves us with an uncertainty coefficient mapping a strange attractor orbit about the point of popper pain we aim to describe.

By mapping all such points in the nD fractal orbit we can then localize the finite area where the booty bane started. And by inversion of the function map the entire field of the rear raged.

And in doing so we will surely find, were my hypothesis to hold, that autism speaks of the game.

...

Bravo

>Even after being described the definition of experience in a number of ways, they lack that intuitive understanding of what we mean when we say it

They may not know what we mean when we say it but they undoubtably experience something, don't they? Or maybe they don't, in which case they aren't conscious. Experience doesn't require language to be known.

>or do they simply lack first person experience?
Interesting question. I would love to know if this was possible. I've heard of people experiencing something called 'no-self,' and indeed fewer people actually abide in this experience - not sure if that's the same thing.

>The hard problem is about how there can be any experience at all, not neccesarily about how the brain acknowledges it.

I reckon that from the perspective of experience itself, that question doesn't make any sense. It is the most intimate and real thing there is. I'm trying not to sound philisophical or mumbo jumbo here but it's true. The only possibly answerable question that could actually be implying is "How does experience/consciousness correlate with its physical correspondents?"
But I also get the idea that most of the confusion with "How there can be any experience at all?" comes from an incorrect intuition that experience is located within the brain and therefore somehow the screen will be found in there if we look hard enough. That's absurd.

>They may not know what we mean when we say it but they undoubtably experience something, don't they? Or maybe they don't, in which case they aren't conscious. Experience doesn't require language to be known.

Then you haven't argued enough with reductionists. The usual response to the hard problem is that experience isn't an actual thing, but we simply believe that we have it because it's convinient for us to think. The distinction between behavior and experience is simply not conceivable to them, no matter how many ways you try to explain it in.

>Interesting question. I would love to know if this was possible. I've heard of people experiencing something called 'no-self,' and indeed fewer people actually abide in this experience - not sure if that's the same thing.

What people mean with "No-self" is usually subjective experience but without the ego.

>I reckon that from the perspective of experience itself, that question doesn't make any sense. It is the most intimate and real thing there is. I'm trying not to sound philisophical or mumbo jumbo here but it's true.

Sure. The question of "how can there be experience at all?" is asked precicely because biochemistry / physics fails to fill the gap between behavior and experience. Because according to physics, we should all be operating in the dark, with no experience what so ever. Yet the experience is there. And from there comes the question, "how can there be experience?"

>Consciousness is _________________ .

Consciousness is subjective experience.

> incorrect intuition that experience is located within the brain and therefore somehow the screen will be found in there if we look hard enough. That's absurd.
Then....
what?
I guess that makes sense...in its own way. If that were the case, it'd still be better to ask what the correlation between what we believe is experience and the brain.

>we should all be operating in the dark, with no experience what so ever. Yet the experience is there. And from there comes the question, "how can there be experience?"

"How there can be any experience at all?" comes from an incorrect intuition that experience is located within the brain and therefore somehow the screen will be found in there if we look hard enough. That's absurd.

"How can there be experience at all?" might be an easier question to answer if we first ask "What is experience appearing on/in?" or "What is the substance of experience?" or similar things. But obviously, the screen can never be found within any particular portion of the movie playing on it (i.e. the brain). So as you've said, biochemistry/physics fails to bridge the gap between behaviour and experience. But doesn't that mean the question just dissolves? The question was fuelled by thinking that the gap could be bridged, but now we know it can't, the question doesn't make sense. The question that DOES make sense, is "what is the correlation between experience and the brain?"

Sorry, first quote was meant to be

>experience isn't an actual thing, but we simply believe that we have it because it's convinient for us to think. The distinction between behavior and experience is simply not conceivable to them, no matter how many ways you try to explain it in.

>I guess that makes sense...in its own way. If that were the case, it'd still be better to ask what the correlation between what we believe is experience and the brain.

If what the reductionists believe is true then there wouldn't be a need to find a correlation, because "what we believe is experience" could be explained by behavior.

>"How can there be experience at all?" might be an easier question to answer if we first ask "What is experience appearing on/in?" or "What is the substance of experience?" or similar things. But obviously, the screen can never be found within any particular portion of the movie playing on it (i.e. the brain). So as you've said, biochemistry/physics fails to bridge the gap between behaviour and experience. But doesn't that mean the question just dissolves? The question was fuelled by thinking that the gap could be bridged, but now we know it can't, the question doesn't make sense. The question that DOES make sense, is "what is the correlation between experience and the brain?"

I think it's essentially the same question, yours is just more specific. If you know the correlation between experience and the brain, then you know how there can be experience.

"How can there be experience" is simply a very general question that talks about our intuitive definition of experience, and the fact that biochemistry hasn't made much effort to address it.

What's to say that there is only 1 stream of subjective experience in your brain? What if you're only one of the many systems that have experiences, and the actions you consider subconscious is still subjectively experienced in another part of your brain? That would mean that there are many conscious entities in your brain that are all experiencing reading this text in one way or another, depending on what functions that part of the brain is concerned with. Suicide then becomes a very direct ethical concern considering a single conscious entitiy is not in charge of making every decision.

This idea begs a question of identity. The thoughts and actions of your person would therefore not longer be you. The only thing that is truly yours is your conscious experience, which is arguably still true even if there is only 1 stream of consciousness, but this illustrates that reality in a clearer way.

dude weed