When I show you a picture of a cat, this certain area of your brain lights up

so if i give a picture for an AI to analyse and it managed to tell whats the picture is, doesn't that mean it has consciousness according to this logic?

dualist detected. BTFO

I apologize that you have a low IQ

>it managed to tell whats the picture is
According to his definition, that isn't necessary. An Arduino with a LED, ultrasonic sensor, and 10 lines of code would be conscious according to his definition.

According to Dan Dennett yes. Untill you confront him on this, and he retreats his stance to a shrouded version of panpsychism.

Let's yest it -- Look to the left, and let me know if your brain lights up...

Yup, I'm conscious alright. Thanks based dan dennett

I have listened to many lectures and read a lot of Dennett's writings, and I still have no clue what his real stance on consciousness is. He seems to just flipflop between attacking dualist strawmen, and relying on semantic tricks to get out of any bad arguments he makes

There is literally no refutation of eliminative materialism other than "muh invisible soul"

It's the most scientific and rational stance.

D A N
E
N
N
E
T
T

>>Is this psychology? I ain't googling shit so you better fucking spoonfeed me, I fucking deserve it.
some here say it is. some here call it neuroscience.

People love to argue against this because they hate having their sense of agency undermined. What they neglect in doing so is that our agency is already under attack from one hundred other sources.

People also love to argue against this because Dennett doesn't explain anything.

Well what people like you want "explained" is something that isn't really there. That's why the explanation seems "too simple"

I don't think I've ever seen an original idea from Dennett that didn't completely miss the point, or was totally pointless.
>If you could simulate vision in a blind person's brain, they would be able to see
>Therefore qualia don't exist

>qualia
the fuck is qualia

>tfw we are actually just organic robots

You know how it looks when you see an apple? There's an experience called "red" that happens when your brain detects light of a certain frequency. Why does that experience subjectively seem the way it does? Some people say, "well it seems the way it does because the cone cells in your eyes transmit electrical signals which encode the wavelength, blah blah balh," but that totally misses the point. We could understand everything about the computation of visual perception so perfectly that we could even build a device that carries out exactly the same computation that humans do, and we wouldn't understand why the experience we get when we do that computation subjectively feels the way it does. We wouldn't know whether the device that carries out the visual computation has a subjective experience of "seeing." The device could detect objects in a retinal image exactly when humans do, and using the exact same computation, but we wouldn't know why "red" looks the way it does, instead of the way "blue" looks.

it's when you browse the chan in your sleeps

He's not doing a very good job of it then. The explanation is useless and won't convince anyone who takes qualia seriously that it doesn't exist, because all he does is to dance around the central arguments for the hard problem.

>tfw we lie to the captchas every day

>There is no reputable alternative to a completely incoherent theory, therefore it's only rational to accept it

>all real systems are of infinite complexity

>i will used a limited unit of data, not even knowledge, just data...

>to refute comprehensive procedural paradigms that assist in dealing with the infinite complexity effectively.

>tfw modern people are using common trivia to try and invalidate directly constructive models of reality, as if electrical activity in part of the brain somehow can be taken to mean, 'there is no soul', given systems of infinite complexity

and there are no inferences that can be excluded on that account.

scientists need to fuck off until they invent a useful gadget. for everything but inventing useful gadgets, scientists are worse than actual fucking witch doctors.

>won't convince anyone who takes qualia seriously

Why would anyone care what the mentally retarded think?

Wow got em! :^)

are you high? learn how to express your ideas clearly. I feel like you are trying to say something interesting but your writing is horrible.

ok that's one of the most stupid things i've ever heard

i haven't slept in two days. i think that what i wrote is within at least 75% of the best explanation possible in such a small format. it's actually a subject that i wrote a 22 page essay on. single spaced.

how do i say this in layman terms...

the flaw in reductionism is that no amount of finite data can invalidate the range of possible explanations or models that accurately describe infinitely complex systems. in order to pursue real, effective, and useful truth, we have to practice constructivism, and craft more and more comprehensive and flexible theories by which to act.

religion is essentially a taxonomic system that provides tools, frameworks, and models with which to interpret and act on inner experiences. so far nothing superior has been invented, and there's fucking zero funding for researching and developing more advanced and superior religions. to imagine that you somehow 'disprove god and religion' through an electroencephalographic MRI scan or some rhetorical 'le burden of proof' is absurd and counterproductive. the consequences of this foolishness are felt across the western world in suicide, depression, anomie, and sundry other psychopathologies.

the reductionist approach to knowledge is completely inflexible and maladaptive. legacy models of metaphysics, philosophy, and religion represent a far more sophisticated, far more advanced design. they have procedures by which one can process and integrate anything that one encounters.

reject reductionism. embrace constructivism. we get it, 20th century. you can destroy any meaning or significance you encounter. but it's time to focus on results, and start rebuilding.

nigga it's the 21st century already

What is stupid about it, the fact that apples look red and grass looks green, or that you can't explain why it isn't the other way around?

Why would you put any resources into studying something that, by its nature, must be taken on faith?

There is no meaning or significance. Souls very clearly aren't real. If the best of us become depressed and apathetic and the worst and dumbest of us have fulfilling lives with meaning, then our existence as a species is a mistake.

Consciousness, qualia, and mind are not valid scientific constructs.

t. Behaviorist

Right, they aren't. They are insurmountable barriers to understanding. Insurmountable barriers to understanding can't be used in science. Doesn't mean they don't exist.

>>When I show you a picture of a cat, this certain area of your brain lights up

If this were true, /b/ during the "Golden Age" would have been the smartest board on Veeky Forums.

Wow, it's almost like "best" and "mistake" can be measured with different metrics.

>behaviorism
>2017
>"mental states can be reduced to behavioral states"
this absolute madman

OK you little faggot, assume I'm blind and explain what red looks like.