Reasons Humans Are Doomed

[stanky]

conclusions have been jumped to regarding a simple unprovable claim: that everything is made of consciousness.
we don't know what that is, nor do we know what sparky and TA think they know, but can't say what it is.
physics is increasingly moving toward more ephemeral conclusions about the nature of reality...and further from the stodgy materialism of yesteryear. You'll see.

the universe is also magical. unless you look for evidence that it isn't.

that would be stupid.

[arthwollipot]

Soory, saying that "consciousness is simply what brains do" seems a pretty meaningless response to my criticism of the claim/belief that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of brain function.

If you can't see what it means, that's not my fault.

Epiphenomenalism isn't compatible with knowledge of our own mind so how in the world can you know or believe that epiphenomenalism is true?

Rubbish. It's perfectly compatible. A sufficiently complex brain begins to perceive itself. We see this in varying degrees in the animal kingdom. Corvids can solve problems that require understanding of their own existence. Dolphins communicate complex ideas to one another. Chimps pass the mirror test. There are many signs of varying degrees of consciousness in many animals. There is no firm cutoff line between them and us. It's all a matter of degree. They have brains, we have brains. There is nothing fundamentally different between them. Just complexity.

Again, the idea that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of brain function... why would you begin to believe an idea which directly implies you'd have no practical reason to believe it?

I have every practical reason to believe it. The most compelling one is that if consciousness isn't an epiphenomenon, it means that consciousness is necessarily supernatural and that's something that genuinely makes no sense.

[President Bush]

arthwollipot, starting to sound like you don't know how epiphenomenalism is defined. Here is a definition:

Epiphenomenalism is a position of philosophy of mind on the mind–body problem which holds that subjective mental events are completely dependent for their existence on corresponding physical and biochemical events within the human body, yet themselves have no influence over physical events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism#See_also

Going back to what I said earlier...

Epiphenomenalism isn't compatible with knowledge of our own mind so how in the world can you know or believe that epiphenomenalism is true?

Epiphenomenalism denies physical effects of mental events. Isn't knowing something/saying something/posting something about what is taking place in your mind a physical effect?

Hadn't thought of this before... maybe you, arthwollipot, are an actual epiphenomenalist and you do not experience any mental events which would cause the physical effect of you responding to my posts. You'd be saying what you are saying, there would be no difference, whether you were or were not experiencing mental events.

How do you know you are not a zombie?

[sparks]

conclusions have been jumped to regarding a simple unprovable claim: that everything is made of consciousness.
we don't know what that is, nor do we know what sparky and TA think they know, but can't say what it is.
physics is increasingly moving toward more ephemeral conclusions about the nature of reality...and further from the stodgy materialism of yesteryear. You'll see.

the universe is also magical. unless you look for evidence that it isn't.

that would be stupid.

I haven't said a fucking thing about "thinking I know". You pulled that one right out of your ass stank. I'm just trying to get you to supply the evidences and facts that have brought you to the conclusions you've posted here, namely that "everything is made of consciousness".

And as usual, you are remiss in supplying same.

[stanky]

the evidence for anything is suspect.
i have to wonder what evidence of that which you trust, negates my proposition?
as mentioned, i'm seeing the flow of esoteric physics heading in my direction. or, the flip side.
it's having to stretch its parameters, constantly, but lately, it's exploding.

consciousness is self-evident
our knowledge is incomplete
we speculate

maybe there's a particle we haven't met yet that will explain the anomalies?
maybe quantum gravity will be understood better.
maybe consciousness is supplied by the background microwave energy from the big bangaroo?
doesn't much matter to me.

happy to accept the facts; happy to speculate on that which remains a mystery.
Arth's "facts" about consciousness have shit-stains.

i'm making a reasonable claim regarding a subject which remains un answered.

my hunch is that the hard-materialists among us will assume i'm heading into religion territory. I'm not.
However, some scientists will cling to out-dated dogma in a way that is reminiscent of Catholicism.

It's far too late to not believe in the invisible 'worlds' around us. Technology helped us access all manner of waves previously hidden from us, but part of the same energy spectrum.

folks that can handle non-humans and consciousness should soon handle all pervading consciousness as a possibility.

(or they might explain the point at which there is no 'consciousness'. frog? electron? what? where?)

[Admin]

my hunch is that the hard-materialists among us will assume i'm heading into religion territory. I'm not.

Scream all you want about not diving head first into religion, because that's exactly what you're doing.

It's fuckin' funny you act as though your "arguments" are either new or interesting. Let me give you a tip.

The most compelling one is that if consciousness isn't an epiphenomenon, it means that consciousness is necessarily supernatural and that's something that genuinely makes no sense.

I find it absolutely hilarious that my old pal Tommy Aquinas wrote that down 750 years ago and people still don't get it.

It's a very simple dichotomy - consciousness is either natural or supernatural. There is no other position, and since Tommy also proved the Holy Roman god is the only supernatural being, you either accept that consciousness is a by-product of brains, or get on your knees and start singing Ave Maria.

Here's a link to Summa Theologica for anyone still struggling with the concept.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/

[sparks]

Stank, we're back to the same old debate. You made a claim. Now back it up or shut the fuck up.

Scientific method 101: You make the claim, you provide the evidence and show us all how you're right.

It has never been and never will be up to us to show how you're wrong without the evidence you claim proves you're right.

[arthwollipot]

arthwollipot, starting to sound like you don't know how epiphenomenalism is defined. Here is a definition:

Not quite how I would have defined it, but it's okay I guess.

Going back to what I said earlier...

Epiphenomenalism isn't compatible with knowledge of our own mind so how in the world can you know or believe that epiphenomenalism is true?

Epiphenomenalism denies physical effects of mental events. Isn't knowing something/saying something/posting something about what is taking place in your mind a physical effect?

Huh? No, you're mixing levels. The physical effect is the motion of electrolytes and neurotransmitters and bioelectrical impulses that takes place in the brain. This motion causes consciousness, but you cannot consciously influence the brain at that level. Or do you really think that something like "free will" exists?

Hadn't thought of this before... maybe you, arthwollipot, are an actual epiphenomenalist and you do not experience any mental events which would cause the physical effect of you responding to my posts. You'd be saying what you are saying, there would be no difference, whether you were or were not experiencing mental events.

How do you know you are not a zombie?

You mean a p-zombie? Cogito, ergo sum. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[President Bush]

arthwollipot, starting to sound like you don't know how epiphenomenalism is defined. Here is a definition:

Not quite how I would have defined it, but it's okay I guess.

Going back to what I said earlier...

Epiphenomenalism isn't compatible with knowledge of our own mind so how in the world can you know or believe that epiphenomenalism is true?

Epiphenomenalism denies physical effects of mental events. Isn't knowing something/saying something/posting something about what is taking place in your mind a physical effect?

Huh? No, you're mixing levels. The physical effect is the motion of electrolytes and neurotransmitters and bioelectrical impulses that takes place in the brain.

Oh, okay, I will assume you are not a zombie. Now a question:

Was the thoughtful reply to me that you just posted not a physical effect?

[arthwollipot]

Oh, okay, I will assume you are not a zombie. Now a question:

Was the thoughtful reply to me that you just posted not a physical effect?

Again, levels. I'm not physically affecting my neurotransmitters when I reply to you, I'm physically affecting my computer.