The so called "hard problem of consciousness."

There is no hard problem of consciousness, and if you think there is a hard problem of consciousness, I doubt you are conscious.

In a battle to the Death between Dennett and Chalmers who would win? Maybe that's how we can settle this once and for all.

Never heard of this before
Sounds like its just the result of us thinking we're more than just organisms and we can't grasp that fact

There is a hard problem of matter, too. When you think about that it's a bit easier to see why there might be a hard problem of consciousness.

There is a hard problem of problems, where problems are sometimes too hard so you make up bullshit woo like the immortal soul or the homunculus and make a career out of spreading your shitty woo to Christfags with money for coffee table books.

Fuck you!

What? Who said anything about souls?

There is no hard problem, but dualism is still true.

Post your address so I can come murder you.

Lol

Were you in the thread a few days ago? I argued with some guy that didn't want to/couldn't explain the difference between the signal for blue and seeing blue. I'm still looking for an answer.

Do you believe in ghosts as well?

There is no difference, fuckhead. That's the point.

What makes blue a signal?

pic related: the real hard problem of consciousness

That's Chalmers you're talking about. Dennet is saying there is no hard problem.

That was my argument, no need to be rude. I'm looking for an explanation of his position.

specific wavelength brings on a conformational change in a specific protein that gets integrated through a fuckload of pathways and gets translated as blue. you could see it as a signal i suppose.

Neural networks with interneuronal latency of less than about 400ms tend to exgibit a specific set of activities one might label as "waking up".

Dennett's got it right. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if half the people talking about this still think free will is a thing. Nonsensical concepts, both of them.

Just because I believe in material objects doesn't make me superstitious

Dennett is a compatibilist, so he believes in free will.

I find it pretty amusing that Sam Harris believes in qualia, but not free will, while Dan Dennett believes in free will, but not qualia.

Consciousness is biosemiotic evaluation of the mind. All life is minded in that it interprets meaning from external signs. Consciousness is the same kind of process, the external signs are the mind(if you aren't a radical externalist gtfo), it requires the ability to memorize experienence(remembering signs such as; the room you are in and the meaning of words you are using)
Most humans aren't even ecologically conscious so of course they think it's a problem. This also btfo homunculi arguments

Thinking Matter is basal will only lead to problems, culminating in the absurdity of the hard problem. Thinking Mind is basal will only lead to solutions, culminating in the resolve of Pleroma.

Shut up Christfag. Go back to /pol/.

Yes, there is no hard problem, because what's called the hard problem is really a mystery which is inaccessible to human understanding. Humans are organisms with brains, just like ants, fish, chimpanzees. Just like ants, fish, and chimpanzees have limits to their understanding, so do humans. The "hard problem" is one of those things that we can't understand in principle. However, we can come up with a theory about it, and we could understand the theory.

mysterion nonsense

kys

>thinking human understanding has no limits

Mother was smarter than I gave her credit for. Now she's gone.

animal drives are very easy to explain

No it's just a different interpretation of what we as organisms are. Not understanding whats being talked about reflects a complete lack of effort on your part

Not too bright this one

>There is no hard problem of consciousness
>There's not, there's not, there's not
Yes, there is.

>through a fuckload of pathways and gets translated as blue
>translated as blue.
You sure solved the problem there.

Of the two the former seems a trillion times more likely to me, yet the latter is a trillion times a better philosopher. This bothers me.

>Only Christians are idealists
>Christians are idealists
Retard alert

This thread is so stupid.

>he thinks symbols on tape can ever be conscious even if the tape is made of organic matter

Fucking kek.

>translated as blue
Cool, how does it encode "blue" then? Who is it showing the translation? No computer in existence stores the color blue.

honestly I don't understand how people convince themselves that neurons can produce consciousness but electronic circuits can't.

D A N
E
N
N
E
T
T