Leave consciousness to me

If consciousness is an illusion then who is being fooled?

nice language game, sophist

You see this is the way you filthy marxists faggots try to win debates against us. You build ideological structures on foundations of clay and then try to bait us into arguing against said structure. You confuse your adversaries by stating prepositions so obviously false that makes them mad and then you declare that you've won because you've hit a criteria that has been conveniently enstablished by some zionist communist. what you are doing right now is trying to produce a red herring to avoid confronting the main topics of /pol/ head on. Why are you so scared of opening you ears and listen to us? If it is true that your ideology wasn't the product of century long marxist propaganda you wouldn't be so inclined to defend would you? What's the matter, did I hurt your feelings? Well get used to it, because the world isn't a magical land of ponies and rainbow. This reminds me of another thing that I despise immensely about Veeky Forums. it's subverted gayness. You can read in between the lines of the threads here that there is a systematic brainwashing that has rendered the modern man more feminine and prone to irrational thoughts. The way people pretend to be so devoted to reading some cuck-tier novels because they want to "feel" more just fucking disgusts me. Are you really so immature that you cannot have an objective point of view? Fuck off.

Veeky Forums is getting better and better at creating copypastas. There may be an AI monitoring us and learning to do it itself, better and more triggering than anyone ever did before. Shitposting at the speed of light incoming.

Nick Land is obviously behind this AI. Creating the perfect shitposting army is how he will destroy humanity and accelerate us all through this horrid history we are living in. Oh well let's enjoy these end times while we can!

hey mr. dennet explain consciousness

>it doesn't exist LOL I AM SO FUCKING SMART

ok santa

wait, so is his book worth reading even to disagree with or is his writing just shit? "consciousness Explained"

...

Shitposting only seems like shitposting when you're not the mark. Imagine how useful it would be to have a tool, not necessarily what you first think of as AI, but a tool used by small teams of specialised techs, profilers, and enforcers that target specific individuals that play important roles in influencing others.

Sometimes the endgame of others is to contain by categorising a subject and then making detailed reports about how accurate these others predictions are, and sometimes the endgame is power through breaking down the ego, then destabilising the re-emergent self, or manipulation of that self to the advantage of their power to predict outcomes.

PPP

holy...

also want answer to this

If you can bear to read it then go right ahead. I, for one, could not get over the smugness of his prose and the sheer philosophical thuggery. Got a couple of chapters in before committing it to the flames.

>people anticipate the singularity will bring about a cornucopia of technological wonders
>cancer will be cured, pollution will be no more
>the reality: shit-posting so effective it makes even the most tolerant man a frothing wreck hammering a rebuttal into his keyboard

thank you robot overlords

Your goal generation system. If we are to take connectionism to the extreme (he brain is made of neurons and neurons are simple sensory input, action output, units) then the only thing that matters is the action generated. In other words you respond differently to different stimulus. So you don't really have a self, you only have a self response. A collection of actions that is together, constitute a self. And sometimes the self response gets triggered by mistake. You combine the self response with the goal generation subsystem and you get something that is akin to practical consciousness.

Why does this board, especially in a thread so apt as this, fail to see that a human is indistinguishable from a machine, and that all notions otherwise are a failure of ascribing nature on to mechanics or mechanics on to nature. Both either arrive as insufficiently as needed, or sufficiently as is necessary to the stability of your self. But as is the case with inconsistencies in complex mathematics, which still don't stop the work of applying knowledge pragmatically, we build an understanding, a wisdom of the actual workable world through physical cases - and symbolic knowledge must bend or break to those outcomes, regardless of the consequences.

Dennett is a very bad philosopher.

Many Anglos are worth reading. Even some Anglo philosophers of mind are bearable, and have insights despite being divorced and disconnected from much better German philosophy on this subject. But Dennett is not one of them.

For a guy whose doyen is Quine, who can't get over how Quine changed his entire life, he sure hasn't read much Quine. Weird reductivism, weird blindness to his own ontological commitments, and everything he says has been said a thousand times better by a thousand others. Reading Dan Dennett on consciousness is like reading some neoliberal "Why We're Getting Better at Being Nice" glossy book for fucking rubes, by a pop science author who hasn't done any academic work in 20 years.

The only reason Dennett gets any notice is this: Philosophy of mind is complex, but one of the more popular philosophical fields out there, because any layperson has thought about it at one time or another. It also has a deceptive learning curve, because its fundamental antinomies are gigantic and very obvious, and beyond them, thinks get very obscure and metaphysically complex. Dennett's entire career is based on being the gatekeeper for plebs who do an internet search for "is mind a computer or a magic????" because those are the only two options, and he's there to swoop in and go
>Heh, magic doesn't exist kid. Science is badass. Science made your CELL PHONE. Isn't that rad? Don't believe in those phony astrologers lmao. Proud atheist here.

Dennett is a pleb trap, and a pleb. His whole career is based on strawmanning that the only alternative to reductivism is magic.

>tfw too afraid to read Quine because his underdetermination thesis might fuck your shit up forever

Never read Wittgenstein

>Moore's view really comes down to this: the concept 'know' is analogous to the concepts 'believe', 'surmise', 'doubt', 'be convinced' in that the statement "I know..." can't be a mistake. And if that is so, then there can be an inference from such an utterance to the truth of an assertion. And here the form "I thought I knew" is being overlooked. - But if this latter is inadmissible, then a mistake in the assertion must be logically impossible too. And anyone who is acquainted with the language-game must realize this - an assurance from a reliable man that he knows cannot contribute anything.

>So one might grant that Moore was right, if he is interpreted like this: a proposition saying that here is a physical object may have the same logical status as one saying that here is a red patch.

>Suppose I replaced Moore's "I know" by "I am of the unshakeable conviction"?

>And now if I were to say "It is my unshakeable conviction that etc.", this means in the present case too that I have not consciously arrived at the conviction by following a particular line of thought, but that it is anchored in all my questions and answers, so anchored that I cannot touch it.

>Instead of "I know...", couldn't Moore have said: "It stands fast for me that..."? And further: "It stands fast for me and many others..."

"One can show the following: given any rule, however 'fundamental' or 'necessary' for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite."
"My intention is not to replace one set of general rules by another such set: my intention is, rather, to convince the reader that all methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits."
- Paul Feyerabend

Oh no

doesnt this just fall out of wittgenstein's type of nominalism—that analogy he makes of the net of triangles

from non-being to being, from being to life, and from life to consciousness. are these meaningful distinctions and which leap are we closest to understanding? looking it up, journalists would make you think that being to life has been solved, when in fact, they are pretty far off.

It doesn't fuck up your shit as long as you stick to your normal "conceptual scheme" and then after Quine you can read Davidson who demolishes the idea of a conceptual scheme -- so the underdetermination thesis disappears. That's assuming you're talking about ontological relativity or indeterminacy of translation. If you mean a general underdetermination of scientific theories by the evidence, which is just a fact of science that Quine and many others acknowledge, you'll just have to accept that theory-choice has aesthetic elements.

haha yeah, I guess William James and Bertrand Russell are the height of philosophy of mind

>Why does this board, especially in a thread so apt as this, fail to see that a human is indistinguishable from a machine

I concede that I myself cannot distinguish people who think like this from machines.

nor anyone else, dualist scum

physical-mental split is just a convenient way of describing phenomenal experience; neither the split nor the splitted exist in any real sense of being. once you make the split to study one or the other, the gap is unbridgeable from the get-go.

Nor can anyone else...distinguish you from a machine? I agree.

learn how to read
a dualist has no way to distinguish other people in general from machines, so your ~clever point~ is trivial and empty

But I'm not a Dualist, and I can distinguish them.

>that the only alternative to reductivism is magic
But it is? Any sort of dualism, including property -, is the ultimate just a brute fact lol -cop out. Invoking irreducibility explains nothing.

Do you have an ESP connection to other persons' consciousnesses?

You realize that seeing all matter as fundamentally mechanical/inanimate is as unjustified, if not more unjustified, than seeing all matter as living and animate, right?

We shouldn't disregard this, actually. There have been reports of ESP and telepathy throughout history, many simple and common people that you can ask on the street will probably claim to have experienced something like it (knowing when someone died, for instance, without having a rational way of knowing it), and if it's true, it'd have a great impact on what we think of physics, biology, and consciousness.

couldnt you combine the first and the last? i say that phenomenologically there are two things (the physical and the mental) that are both experienced as modalities of being, but that the word "consciousness" is just a word for that experience, it doesn't actually exist.

>We shouldn't disregard this, actually.
Given our current knowledge of, well, basically everything related to the natural sciences, yes we should. Your best bet would involve quantum entanglement between brains a and b leading via mechanisms xyz to such-and-such psychological representations, which from the point of view of physics would be the most arbitrary hypothesis of all time.

>shouldn't disregard this, actually.
>Given our current knowledge of, well, basically everything related to the natural sciences, yes we should
...Yeah, you know that denying the experiences of people because it doesn't fit our current scientific frameworks is the exact opposite of science, right? Just like the topic of this thread, I find it as stupid as scientists who deny that consciousness exists just because they can't find a scientific explanation for it. People in modern civilization are brainwashed from an early age to worship so-called "science" and "scientists" so that they don't see that this is literally, and without exaggeration, about as stupid as if some tribe of savages believed the sun didn't exist and was an illusion because they had no explanation for it.

>Yeah, you know that denying the experiences of people because it doesn't fit our current scientific frameworks is the exact opposite of science, right?
But they do, that's what mental health professionals work on full-time. Delusions and cognitive biases are a huge area of study.

>Both either arrive as insufficiently as needed, or sufficiently as is necessary to the stability of your self.

Thanks for restating what I either didn't write clearly enough or you didn't comprehend from my statement. Are you still missing the point I'm making or are you arguing against what you believe to be my position? I can't tell.

>Go ahead and believe in Consciousness, if you like, but don't imagine that you have been given any grounds for such a belief by science.
t.BTFO

dennett is such a boss. a titan of philosophy and a god of thought

Machinations was the word you're looking for, though personified and naturalised.

Yeah, I read it too quickly, sorry. I do that a lot on Veeky Forums and feel like an asshole, lel.

Dressing it up in scientific terminology doesn't make it any less stupid.

Holy.... I want more

really makes you think

What's so special about consciousness

too late.

There's nothing special about consciousness

Jung wasn't a metaphysicist.

Phenomenology isn't enough. We have to explain consciousness on a pure metaphysical basis.

whats his position?

would love to have an old kooky incompatabilist to hang out with. Eliminative materialists are just as weird and extreme as the mystics

I'm not sure to be honest. I've only been in his intro to philosophy class and one he did on Parfit's Reasons and Persons, never had a chance to take anything of his on philosophy of mind or cognitive science, etc.

He isn't old or kooky, probably about in his 40s if I had to guess. Haven't had a chance to read his book or the few articles he has out or I could probably tell you more.

who is we

>Your goal generation system.
Can't be fooled any more than a mathematical equation, since all it does is take inputs and produce outputs.
>And sometimes the self response gets triggered by mistake
There can be no mistakes made by what is only matter and energy obeying the laws of physics.

Hey buckos! What's going on in this thread?

>Your goal generation system
>Your

You started your reply by directly invoking the immanent Subject.

sit down peter jordanson the metaphysicians are talking

Consciousness explained away :)

Hello Mr. Peterson have you figured out consciousness yet?!?

>corrected

consciousness ignored

Jordan dont you have trannies to fight

leave the marxists alone