|
larry.fisherman
shoulda died already


Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,294
|
Re: The illusion of freedom [Re: poofdargon]
#26936682 - 09/15/20 09:37 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Consciousness as a harnessed signal and the brain as a reciever. I'm not sure what is circular about that. People could argue that we can't prove or disprove the existence of non-corporeal consciousness, but at the same time there's also been people saying for a long time that we can. Religion, shamanism, even the idea that there is multi-dimensionality with fundamentally different variables. Observability in quantum mechanics. Dreams, if consciousness is a "signal" of a kind, or ether, then dreams themselves are evidence that consciousness expands outside the physical.
|
tyrannicalrex
Strange R



Registered: 04/24/03
Posts: 38,323
Loc: subtropics
|
|
Over the years, his criminal empire flourishes, as does his legend. Remarking on Söze's mythical nature, Kint says, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist", a line borrowed from Charles Baudelaire.
|
poofdargon
Stranger


Registered: 08/06/20
Posts: 57
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
Observation in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness, despite the term being used. I had to learn that what physicists mean by observation isn’t what we mean by it. Dreams don’t really prove it either from what I’ve read since some drugs can induce a dreamless sleep (as I’ve had).
You are still making an assertion that consciousness is a signal of some sort but then you run into the problem of what is broadcasting the signal. How do you know the brain is a receiver and not a producer? How does the brain receive it if it is a signal? It seems like you just add another layer to it without evidence. The brain producing consciousness seems simpler to me and there is evidence to back it. Though then one runs into the problem of how though, which isn’t known.
Personally I wouldn’t use religion or shamanism as evidence of anything.
-------------------- You think yourself immune to madness? Are you certain it has yet to take hold? I'm gonna be the greatest music star in all of Riboflavin. -Grup
|
Calm_A_Llama_Down
Deep down in the ocean blue



Registered: 05/09/14
Posts: 1,287
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: The illusion of freedom [Re: poofdargon]
#26936722 - 09/15/20 10:01 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Freedom only exists on the individual level. There is no such thing as corporate or religious freedom, because what groups do to individuals is inherently oppression. There are no states rights or fedral rights, there are only the rights of the individual. Only individual people are capable of processing and experiencing freedom.
-------------------- "You will laugh at your fears when you find out who you really are." --Piccolo
 
|
poofdargon
Stranger


Registered: 08/06/20
Posts: 57
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
Well I would argue that individual people can believe or feel they are free. Doesn’t make it so though.
I forgot to add my “so what?” Like to the Hoffman argument. I mean if the guy is writing a book to tell others reality isn’t real and you and I don’t exist then my next question is “so what?”
-------------------- You think yourself immune to madness? Are you certain it has yet to take hold? I'm gonna be the greatest music star in all of Riboflavin. -Grup
|
Crazy_Horse
I’m Rick James, bitch!


Registered: 08/15/16
Posts: 13,283
Loc: Hampsterdam
|
|
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.
--------------------
|
tyrannicalrex
Strange R



Registered: 04/24/03
Posts: 38,323
Loc: subtropics
|
|
Nothin', don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free, no no
|
Nonagon Infinity
Mycologist



Registered: 06/02/20
Posts: 756
Loc: Polygondwanaland
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
|
Re: The illusion of freedom [Re: Northerner]
#26936813 - 09/15/20 11:02 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Northerner said: Well actually, Jesus is a fable.
In all likelihood, yes.
-------------------- Nonagon Infinity Opens the Door
|
larry.fisherman
shoulda died already


Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,294
|
Re: The illusion of freedom [Re: poofdargon]
#26937013 - 09/15/20 12:56 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
poofdargon said: Observation in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness, despite the term being used. I had to learn that what physicists mean by observation isn’t what we mean by it. Dreams don’t really prove it either from what I’ve read since some drugs can induce a dreamless sleep (as I’ve had).
You are still making an assertion that consciousness is a signal of some sort but then you run into the problem of what is broadcasting the signal. How do you know the brain is a receiver and not a producer? How does the brain receive it if it is a signal? It seems like you just add another layer to it without evidence. The brain producing consciousness seems simpler to me and there is evidence to back it. Though then one runs into the problem of how though, which isn’t known.
Personally I wouldn’t use religion or shamanism as evidence of anything.
You're the one making assertions and leaps, dude. What I mean is, things can exist in various states even if it's on a micro micro micro scale. You're welcome to measure consciousness for me. How can you tell me dreams don't prove it when you reject my reasonings for saying it in the first place? If this, then perhaps this. "Yeah well you're wrong because.." I don't know how to have a conversation when I'm trying to philosophically debate and have ideas when your response is to just tell me I'm wrong while simultaneously destroying whatever opinion you have.
Please tell me how the brain makes consciousness. You admit your version has problems but you assert the same question as if it's a point of contention. The signal is god. The signal is the ether. It is the pervasive energy field which every thing is a part of. That is not an issue for me. That is an issue for you. You say I add layers without evidence but your points are kind of baseless of their own. Telling me something simpler to you is not debate.
Lastly you simply reject the idea that people's experiences are worth something. I mean we're having a conversation about non-corporeal consciousness. god, gods, or simply multi-dimensional entities existing as mere consciousness. A great many of the world's smartest minds have been on that boat so I can't say I feel bad for thinking outside the box you'd constrain us to. The only thing you've accomplished here is basically having nothing to refute me with while patting yourself on the back. Excuse me while I go find the world's largest hand
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 1 day, 10 hours
|
|
So do all animal brains work as receivers? Or just humans?
Your going to tell me there's something producing the signal of my cats consciousness which is received by its cat brain making it act like a cat?
What about a fly? Is its consciousness simple enough to be localized?
How conscious does something need to be to warrant the belief that an outside influence is creating its consiousness?
And you don't see how that's more convoluted and full of assertions than just; the brain creates the perception of consciousness?
-------------------- LAGM2020 LAGM2021
|
Nonagon Infinity
Mycologist



Registered: 06/02/20
Posts: 756
Loc: Polygondwanaland
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
|
|
I feel like this thread is about to get moved to the philosophy sub-forum lol.
Here's my own contribution to the discussion: just a way of framing the debate.
When it comes to free will there are a few terms that might be useful for discussion, none of which require you to define what free will is:
- Determinism - the belief that all events are caused by previous events.
- Compatibilism - the belief that the existence of free will is logically consistent with determinism.
- Incompatibilisim - The belief that the existence of free will is not logically consistent with determinism (i.e., if one is true, the other is false)
Defining the competing position to determinism isn't exactly straightforward, as it's not quite clear whether non-determinism means pure randomness and chaos or a mixture of events caused by previous events and events which have no previous cause.
Philosophically, you can either accept or reject determinism, and philosophers still haven't come to an agreement over whether or not determinism is true (though, most contemporary philosophers seem to accept determinism as true). If you reject determinism, then I think it's pretty easy to make some sort of argument in favor of free will. Without determinism, you can just define a free action as an event caused by a conscious actor's will, which has no prior cause.
If you accept determinism as true, then you can either take the compatibilist or incompatibilist position, and this is where much of the contemporary debate over the topic of free will takes place. There are many arguments for and against either of these positions, and it's a pretty fascinating topic to look into.
Ultimately, I don't know where I stand with all of this, but if I was pressed to pick a position instead of fence-riding, I'd probably just say that I'm an incompatibilist. I believe in determinism (though I'm not certain of that belief), and I believe that the concept of free will is incompatible with determinism. If there is any doubt to be cast over my belief here, it would be over the concept of determinism itself. Whether or not determinism is true depends on how you define an event, and how you define what it means for one event to cause another. I think the concept of distinct events isn't obvious from a philosophical standpoint. It could be that, in reality, there aren't distinct events: only one large event. I don't see any reason that this conception of reality would be obviously false, so that's enough for me to at least question whether or not determinism is true.
-------------------- Nonagon Infinity Opens the Door
|
poofdargon
Stranger


Registered: 08/06/20
Posts: 57
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
larry.fisherman said:
Quote:
poofdargon said: Observation in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness, despite the term being used. I had to learn that what physicists mean by observation isn’t what we mean by it. Dreams don’t really prove it either from what I’ve read since some drugs can induce a dreamless sleep (as I’ve had).
You are still making an assertion that consciousness is a signal of some sort but then you run into the problem of what is broadcasting the signal. How do you know the brain is a receiver and not a producer? How does the brain receive it if it is a signal? It seems like you just add another layer to it without evidence. The brain producing consciousness seems simpler to me and there is evidence to back it. Though then one runs into the problem of how though, which isn’t known.
Personally I wouldn’t use religion or shamanism as evidence of anything.
You're the one making assertions and leaps, dude. What I mean is, things can exist in various states even if it's on a micro micro micro scale. You're welcome to measure consciousness for me. How can you tell me dreams don't prove it when you reject my reasonings for saying it in the first place? If this, then perhaps this. "Yeah well you're wrong because.." I don't know how to have a conversation when I'm trying to philosophically debate and have ideas when your response is to just tell me I'm wrong while simultaneously destroying whatever opinion you have.
Please tell me how the brain makes consciousness. You admit your version has problems but you assert the same question as if it's a point of contention. The signal is god. The signal is the ether. It is the pervasive energy field which every thing is a part of. That is not an issue for me. That is an issue for you. You say I add layers without evidence but your points are kind of baseless of their own. Telling me something simpler to you is not debate.
Lastly you simply reject the idea that people's experiences are worth something. I mean we're having a conversation about non-corporeal consciousness. god, gods, or simply multi-dimensional entities existing as mere consciousness. A great many of the world's smartest minds have been on that boat so I can't say I feel bad for thinking outside the box you'd constrain us to. The only thing you've accomplished here is basically having nothing to refute me with while patting yourself on the back. Excuse me while I go find the world's largest hand
My position is I don't really know. But I know that some views are more grounded in evidence, such as the case that the brain produces consciousness. It's not clear how, but there is a wealth of evidence to suggest it does so I'm going with that.
However I will say that you are inventing extra entities to hold your theory together, which to me violates Occam's Razor. You mention God, ether (or aether by some mentions), but these have no evidence for their existence. As far as I know there is no energy field around everything (unless you count some degree of magnetism or electric fields that all living animals emit, which allows some predators to detect them).
Quote:
Lastly you simply reject the idea that people's experiences are worth something. I mean we're having a conversation about non-corporeal consciousness. god, gods, or simply multi-dimensional entities existing as mere consciousness. A great many of the world's smartest minds have been on that boat so I can't say I feel bad for thinking outside the box you'd constrain us to. The only thing you've accomplished here is basically having nothing to refute me with while patting yourself on the back. Excuse me while I go find the world's largest hand
Which minds exactly? Certainly not neuroscience, or quantum physics (in the early days many said that but then later on retracted their statements). I don't outright reject it, I just don't count it as evidence for the nature of reality. Knowing how flawed our feelings, sensations, etc are is why anecdotes don't mean much. Just because you had en experience doesn't meaning anything other than you had that experience. It could be X, Y or Z. Maybe not even that. That problem I've had is people trying to assign value to such experiences and to make them be something more than what they are.
I go where the evidence leads me, I don't form opinions. I know that I can't really argue with personal experience but not because it's right but because it's powerful. From what I have gathered and learned there is no reason to believe in non corporeal consciousness or gods of any form or shape or conception. I'm pointing out that there doesn't appear to be evidence to warrant your belief. I don't need to refute something that doesn't have evidence for itself.
Going against the grain doesn't necessarily mean you're thinking outside the box, a lesson I learned the hard way. Based on the evidence there is nothing to suggest consciousness exists apart from the body.
-------------------- You think yourself immune to madness? Are you certain it has yet to take hold? I'm gonna be the greatest music star in all of Riboflavin. -Grup
|
poofdargon
Stranger


Registered: 08/06/20
Posts: 57
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
I think the larger mistake is when people equate determinism with fatalism.
-------------------- You think yourself immune to madness? Are you certain it has yet to take hold? I'm gonna be the greatest music star in all of Riboflavin. -Grup
|
|