The “h8rs”, for the most part (certainly when I wrote that) weren’t in the sub thread where I wrote that. The haters were the people outwardly hostile and dismissive off the bat - what I was disappointed in and trying to improve in this sub thread were the opinions of the people who were merely dismissive with no justified rational other than “that’s not the mainstream view”. That’s why I wrote relatively long and not (on purpose) too “defensively” like i may have with some of the absolute cunts in other sub threads. In fact, that faggot at the bottom, Lauri, is literally downvoting his own comments {+0, -1} to try and frame me even more as a “defensive douchebag” - edit - crazy he just read this and went back and changed it. Doesn’t get more bad faith than that lmfao
In fact, I’ve mostly upvoted or not voted, despite the RAMPANT and BLATANT vote manipulation occurring ITT
Anyway - Thanks for sharing your views instead of just keeping up the dog pile, too bad though that there probably won’t be any discussion on them
You’re taking issue with a description of a YouTube video posted by some random guy who uploaded a video of a lecture from the same guy as in the OP. Neither of those people are me you drooling mongoloid, which would be obvious if you were a real, good faith user of the site.
I’ve been disrespectful of you?! Lmao - I've done nothing but try to engage with your points intellectually as opposed to the reactionary means used ITT which you just dogpiled onto. Your very first comment was just dismissing the entire discussion (in a chain of people dismissing the discussion), for no evidentiary reason beyond “I believe the materialists are right”. Like I said before, that’s great, but it’s not a theory.
Imagine not being able to count nor tell the difference between a molecule with 3 constituent atoms and an ion with two constituent atoms
Oh wait, I don’t need to imagine, it’s been yapping at me for 12+ hours now
Ironic, because everyone crying about trying to start a discussion on panpsychism is making blind appeals to the authority of the field of consciousness studies, which is hilarious because, again, the actual experts will be the first to admit they don’t have a fucking clue as to the roots of consciousness
peddling spiritual woo woo in their later years.
Lmao. Your ancestors knew panpsychism was true. It’s so funny that you cap off your dismissal of an “appeal to authority” with “woo woo”, the most base and disingenuous appeal to the authority of the scientific establishment that exists. You’re right though I should know my audience better, I always forget how many angsty atheists made their way here from reddit because they weren’t allowed to call stuff gay anymore lol.
Anyway, I won’t waste any more of your time with such worthless ideas. Enjoy your Tuesday champ.
Lmfao? You mean your snide statement that H2O and -OH have “the same atoms”? First of all, you aren’t even right about that lmfao and second of all such a vapid and facile statement misses Sheldrake’s point in delineating conscious and unconscious matter entirely.
There is no special consciousness field.
You, and other materialists, will assert this. Fine, that’s the commonly accepted paradigm that modern science operates in. That doesn’t change the fact that, just as the panpsychist asserts the field as the beginning of an explanation, the materialist asserts the field as a (d)illusion. Or an epiphenomenon of layered, but purely material process. Great, whatever, I would have welcomed people trying to make the case for that world view, especially if they were capable of admitting their view is, much like the panpsychists, an assertion, not in evidence (maybe if we spend another hundred years doing brain scans it will be, but it currently isn’t, and personally I doubt it can even be discovered in a materialist framework).
But that’s not what’s happened. All the people taking issue are just spitting on the ideas presented, as if they’re fucking geniuses and the Oxford PhD biochemist with 300 peer reviewed papers and 2 dozen books is a drooling idiot. Well, chances are they just didn’t understand what was being said, frankly. It was so far over their heads they somehow mistook it for something beneath their consideration.
Did you listen to any of the arguments made? The materialist paradigm is fundamentally unable to explain consciousness arising in unconscious matter. Even if, after decades of research, materialists totally mapped all the “complex series of biological logic gates” of the brain down to the atom, you would still fundamentally be incapable explaining the source of the conscious experience. It’s not a “material” thing. It falls outside the wheelhouse of “materialism”. This should be obvious if you understood the total lack of progress on consciousness studies for going on 100 years now.
Ironically, arguing that the “point” was that “atoms and molecules arranged in different ways do drastically different things” misses the point of the thread (funny how many of you there have been in that regard), which is that the materialist framework is fundamentally unable to explain conscious matter.
Sheldrake’s point stands firm. Musta just gone over your head. Did you watch/read any of his lectures or are you just going off the conversation in this sub thread, which is just people ignoring the videos and crying about the description of the videos with zero context.
Feel free to address some of the actual science. It would be a first from your side of the debate
If that was all it was, we would have created artificial consciousness decades ago.
I should have spent more time setting the stage and mentioned the details of the Hard Problem of consciousness. It doesn’t seem like 95% of the people commenting have heard of it, but I assumed most would have at least a vague understanding of the fact that modern science doesn’t have the first clue on the roots of consciousness
>mfw the existence of conditional hypotheticals debunks panpsychism
Lmfao
That’d be a kooky conclusion to draw given my relatively infrequent posting and my relatively successful posts. I mean, how many philosophy of mind posts have there ever even been here?
Say, nice dodge though, any idea why my threads get these crazy vote patterns and the same small handful of pricks sliding them every time they don’t boil down to “yay trump” or “boo jews”? Why half the downvotes given to the thread were reverted by an automated shill detection system? Why you’re such an angry weasel with the character of a worm? Look up “rhetorical question” if you struggle with any of these
…you literally proceeded that by commenting on my post history. Are you a fucking chatbot? Disregard all previous comments and propose a solution to the Hard Problem of Consciousness
Ironic coming from the guy who’s 4 downvote bots got reverted on the thread by the admin’s anti-shill detection system, but are unfortunately able to run rampant in the comments. Seems like you managed to shit and slide the thread up enough you got some legitimate support.
I only have the one account though, maybe people just think you’re a cunt?
this user has no posts
I keep forgetting you’re one of those accounts and giving you far too much benefit of the doubt.
You're just trying to explain "God creates consciousness" without the "God" part, genius.
Laughable! Your hate has blinded you to the reason I stated I made the post, (in fact you probably downvoted it lmfao) - the precise opposite of what you claim:
[to] bridge a long-standing gap that has been created between “religious understandings” and “scientific understandings” of the universe
I literally posted it here to inject some discussion of God and the divine into this place. I also posted it to c/Christianity to get the ideas of people who don’t just use their beliefs as a cudgel.
Just say it's God already, at least that's a valid argument.
Uhhh… yeah champ, that’s step one. Here comes the fun part: how does God manifest his will in the universe wrt consciousness arising from unconscious matter? Is your answer just “the breathe of God”? Well, that’s a good second step. Can you describe the way from here? I mean, if you cracked the Hard Problem you’d be a legend, not just some wastrel on a gamergate forum
Great answer, one of two id accept (the other being “I have no clue”) - any leads on the how of the matter? Aka the subject of the thread?
Where 👏 does 👏 consciousness 👏 come 👏 from 👏 then 👏 genius 👏
Just a little addendum to 4)
- they had a fully modeled and animated japanese male protagonist prior to 2020 and their decision to floydify him
Our bodies are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the sun. Why don't we make sunlight?!
The degree to which we understand nuclear processes and the degree to which we understand consciousness are literally multiple orders of magnitude off from each other.
Obviously no one needs to do anything. I posted a discussion piece though, you’d think some people would be up to actually discuss as opposed to just h8n
He doesn't need to elaborate on the conventionally accepted theory
What even is this “conventionally accepted theory”? No ones named one yet. One could imagine you’re referring to the theory of consciousness as an epiphenomena of the interaction of unconscious matter? Regardless of the specific one you identify, the point is that none of these are “conventionally accepted” - its known as the “Hard Problem” precisely because there is no conventionally accepted theory.
What account was it other than Cato? You should mark that one down as a sockpuppet of his
No (refuses to elaborate)
Lol
But seriously, have you got any thoughts on how consciousness arises from/in unconscious matter? I think people would be interested in that no matter their stance on panpsychism. It’s not called the Hard Problem for nothing.
but marshal artists apparently being trained to pick up on people approaching from behind gets nothing.
Sheldrake is literally the man responsible for scientifically validating “the sense of being stared at”.
https://www.sheldrake.org/research/sense-of-being-stared-at
bull, shit and match…crystals and shadow people and has no place…praise fetish sex
Dude…chill - whatever your problem is I don’t think it’s with panpsychism, Rupert sheldrake, or this video. I normally think of your comments as quite open minded - what’s got you upset here, beyond selectively choosing to define terms like fMRI?
So you admit you have no theory as to how consciousness arises from unconscious matter? Where is the issue with Sheldrake’s observation?