/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11099258

103KiB, 858x649, you're not conscious.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 16:34:30 2019 No.11099258 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11099298 >>11099326 >>11099453 >>11099519

Scientifically, why does Daniel Dennett think that consciousness is an illusion?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dennett.jpg, 605KiB, 750x1011

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:41:08 No.11099280 Report

Quoted By: >>11099285 >>11099306 >>11099529

>Dennett

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:42:16 No.11099285 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099280
Does Dennett have any counterarguments to this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:44:48 No.11099295 Report

Quoted By: >>11099302

>consciousness
>free will
Not science. Both of these things unambiguously exist, btw

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:45:05 No.11099298 Report

Quoted By: >>11099308

>>11099258
He's delusional. Consciousness is the only thing that cannot be an illusion.
Even people like Sam Harris admits this. And Chalmers has said already that Dennett has come to accept that there is something else in consciousness rather than being a mere illusion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:46:30 No.11099302 Report

Quoted By: >>11099304 >>11099305 >>11099347

>>11099295
Why does free will exist?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:48:09 No.11099304 Report

Quoted By: >>11099317 >>11099318

>>11099302
Because we experience it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:48:19 No.11099305 Report

Quoted By: >>11099416

>>11099302
It doesn't.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:48:33 No.11099306 Report

Quoted By: >>11099323

>>11099280
it's not observing the delusion, it's only naming it, observation is a spook, which is why blind people who have been blind their entire lives and gain sight are still unable to see until they learn the names of the objects they are looking at

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:49:21 No.11099308 Report

Quoted By: >>11099311

>>11099298
>And Chalmers has said already that Dennett has come to accept that there is something else in consciousness rather than being a mere illusion.
Sauce?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:50:11 No.11099311 Report

Quoted By: >>11099313

>>11099308
Sam Harris David Chalmers talk in youtube.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:51:42 No.11099313 Report

Quoted By: >>11099315

>>11099311
Post a link faggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:52:20 No.11099315 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099313
No. Is a podcast. Move your fat ass fingers

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:52:39 No.11099317 Report

Quoted By: >>11099321 >>11099392

>>11099304
How do you know that you have experienced it? How can you prove that any decision you have made was not just a result of the way some particles were positioned / oriented, and your decision could be pre-determined?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO microwave brainlet.jpg, 51KiB, 480x480

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:53:07 No.11099318 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099304
>free will is nothing more than an experience

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:54:26 No.11099321 Report

Quoted By: >>11099334

>>11099317
How do you know that you experience anything? What an idiotic question. I want philosophy niggers to leave.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:54:56 No.11099323 Report

Quoted By: >>11099344

>>11099306
Wrong. A blind mute deaf guy who gained sight could not learn names of things but would still see.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:55:10 No.11099326 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099258
He wanted to be different from the Buddhist but he's wrong. Buddhist notion of consciousness is right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:55:41 No.11099328 Report

Quoted By:

Daniel approaches the problem like any scientist would and that is objectively. He completely disregards the explanation of his own consciousness and proceeds to explain the complexity of another person, by assuming he is conscious. This is how scientiests study subjects. They are not used to studying themselves, but studying other subjects. You can only go so far with this approach. Sure you can map out the exact physiochemical reactions and neural circuitry that engages by using imaging techniques and plot that information on a graph but after you have done all that would you be anywhere near 'feeling it' in your firstperson view point how all that data translates to? No. There is a gap between translating 3rd person objective data into 1st person subjective experience and consciousness is unlike any other phenomenon we have seen. You can simulate an entire rainstorm on a supercomputer particle for particle but that don't change the fact that it is just a simulation where as the real thing is well, the real thing. We have another quantum leap. Daniel just doesn't get this subtle clue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:57:25 No.11099334 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099321
>I don't know the answer, therefore, your question is idiotic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 16:59:21 No.11099339 Report

Quoted By:

If you assume the reality of your first person experience you must also accept that it is a nonphysical phenomenon that emerges from the activity of physical substances moving around. I am more inclined to explore the electromagnetic theory of consciousness as it is the closest physical substance that is near to it. The theory goes like on to assume that there might be another field which is influenced by electromagnetism and consciousness is an excitation in this field.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:00:43 No.11099344 Report

Quoted By: >>11099395 >>11099415

>>11099323
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem
>In 2003, Pawan Sinha, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, set up a program in the framework of the Project Prakash[8] and eventually had the opportunity to find five individuals who satisfied the requirements for an experiment aimed at answering Molyneux's question experimentally. Prior to treatment, the subjects (aged 8 to 17) were only able to discriminate between light and dark, with two of them also being able to determine the direction of a bright light. The surgical treatments took place between 2007 and 2010, and quickly brought the relevant subject from total congenital blindness to fully seeing. A carefully designed test was submitted to each subject within the next 48 hours. Based on its result, the experimenters concluded that the answer to Molyneux's problem is, in short, "no". Although after restoration of sight, the subjects could distinguish between objects visually almost as effectively as they would do by touch alone, they were unable to form the connection between an object perceived using the two different senses. The correlation was barely better than if the subjects had guessed. They had no innate ability to transfer their tactile shape knowledge to the visual domain. However, the experimenters could test three of the five subjects on later dates (5 days, 7 days, and 5 months after, respectively) and found that the performance in the touch-to-vision case improved significantly, reaching 80–90%.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:00:54 No.11099347 Report

Quoted By: >>11099386

>>11099302
Free will cannot exist in the physical realm. anybody who tells you otherwise is either a genius or a nutjob. More likely the latter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:21:25 No.11099386 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099347
Why can free will not exist in the physical realm. Also, what is the physical realm? Furthermore, if someone is a genius for telling me otherwise, then that would imply that they know something that contradicts your initial statement, meaning that your initial statement is not necessarily true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:23:52 No.11099392 Report

Quoted By: >>11099401 >>11099419 >>11099441 >>11099530

>>11099317

try to predict what i will do next then nigger

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO backtopol.jpg, 136KiB, 546x700

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:25:01 No.11099395 Report

Quoted By: >>11099421

>>11099344
>molymeme

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:26:56 No.11099401 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099392
you will breathe in some air sometime in the next few minutes

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:33:21 No.11099415 Report

Quoted By: >>11099447

>>11099344
>hand-eye coordination is a skill that develops over time
wow, never knew that

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:33:25 No.11099416 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099305
weird that you link lesswrong when you argue that free will doesn't exist. their (that is to say Eliezer's) solution is that free will exists and is not only compatible but REQUIRES determinism (not total determinism everywhere but the part of your actions that are actually choices are causally determined, and have to be in order to be choices)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1 (You).jpg, 1MiB, 3840x2160

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:34:39 No.11099419 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099392
you will respond to his post to say that he failed to predict your next action.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:35:00 No.11099421 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099395
Is that a /pol/ meme? I dunno.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:44:18 No.11099441 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099392
Not knowing the answer to something, does not mean that your claim is correct. This is as retarded logic as:
>Well what happened before the big bang?
>idk
>Therefore god must exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:47:00 No.11099447 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099415
it's not about just about coordination it's about identification, without knowledge you wouldn't have consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suXxkAXDV90

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:50:17 No.11099453 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099258
is there some universally agreed upon and fully accepted scientific Definition of "Consciousness" to which he is referring?

Or is he implying he doesn't agree with the commonly accepted definition or concept of "Consciousness"?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dumbass.png, 10KiB, 645x773

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:52:40 No.11099457 Report

Quoted By: >>11099525

Descartes -I can be sure I exist, but can not sure of anything else existing
Dennett - I can be sure everything else exists, but not me

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO boomer wojaks.png, 66KiB, 810x800

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 18:24:49 No.11099519 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099258

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 18:26:52 No.11099525 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099457
>one end is wrong therefore other end is right
Brainlets. Annihilationists and Eternalists are never right

-t Buddha

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 18:29:33 No.11099529 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099280

>there's nobody to observe illusion therefore there is no illusion

What kind of retarded logic is this? Does this mean life also doesn't exist because there's nothing else in the solar system observing life in the universe?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Oct 2019 18:29:57 No.11099530 Report

Quoted By:

>>11099392
kek I love how people seethe when they can't demonstrate a single act of free will

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches