He doesn't need to elaborate on the conventionally accepted theory. That's your responsibility to research and know when discussing alternatives. I think this topic is interesting, but you quoted this yourself in another comment:
According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are caused by physical processes, such as the neurochemistry of the human brain and nervous system
While not fully proven as the seat of consciousness, those mechanical processes are heavily studied and documented. It's not the mystery to materialists that you make it out to be. Your implication of "How come I can think and a rock can't? Nobody knows!" is completely false. Our bodies are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the sun. Why don't we make sunlight?!
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.
Bro I'm not sure if you are autistic or just obstinately argumentative. LibertyPrimeWasRight and BandageBandolier already elaborated on my comment enough, but I have no issues with your thread topic, only that comment and your defensive attitude in replies.
IMO RondoOBlongo's criticism of Sheldrake's attempt at sound like an Indian Guru WAS legitimate discussion and not 'h8n.' Your dismissiveness is rich when you're the one proposing an alternative theory in the first place. Pretending there is no mainstream theory comes across as disingenuous when other comments of yours show that you knew exactly what I was talking about.
I do think the ideas of panpsychism make a lot of sense from a philosophical point of view. One of the reasons I liked the 2017 Prey game was the allusions to pansychism as you got deeper into the story. It's also the only way I'd ever believe real AI could ever be achieved - when we "unlock" the correct combination of materials and the innate structure of the universe reveals it to us.
Depressingly, with enough reading you'll find that the common zeitgeist among materialists is that consciousness doesn't exist the way you are expecting. What you perceive is merely an artifact of cascading neuron activity. Biological creatures have awareness from the senses, and self-awareness is just numerous hidden layers of neural networks reflecting back at themselves. Thought is then an illusion that fades away on brain death when neuron activity stops. I hate the idea, I don't believe it, but I'm not going to pretend that The Science hasn't attempted an explanation because I don't like their explanation. Non-materialists don't exactly have the unassailable rational theories you're demanding from materialists either.
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
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.
Completely missing the point, which is that the same atoms and molecules arranged in different ways do drastically different things. The argument that “our brains have the same molecules as [any other thing], therefore [other thing] should be able to perform the functions of a brain” is vacuous. That was the point.
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.
It’s a direct response to an argument put forth in video description you posted:
But how can some forms of matter possess consciousness while others do not? After all, our brains are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the rest of the universe.
Responding to something you posted is hardly “missing the point of the thread.”
He doesn't need to elaborate on the conventionally accepted theory. That's your responsibility to research and know when discussing alternatives. I think this topic is interesting, but you quoted this yourself in another comment:
While not fully proven as the seat of consciousness, those mechanical processes are heavily studied and documented. It's not the mystery to materialists that you make it out to be. Your implication of "How come I can think and a rock can't? Nobody knows!" is completely false. 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
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.
Bro I'm not sure if you are autistic or just obstinately argumentative. LibertyPrimeWasRight and BandageBandolier already elaborated on my comment enough, but I have no issues with your thread topic, only that comment and your defensive attitude in replies.
IMO RondoOBlongo's criticism of Sheldrake's attempt at sound like an Indian Guru WAS legitimate discussion and not 'h8n.' Your dismissiveness is rich when you're the one proposing an alternative theory in the first place. Pretending there is no mainstream theory comes across as disingenuous when other comments of yours show that you knew exactly what I was talking about.
I do think the ideas of panpsychism make a lot of sense from a philosophical point of view. One of the reasons I liked the 2017 Prey game was the allusions to pansychism as you got deeper into the story. It's also the only way I'd ever believe real AI could ever be achieved - when we "unlock" the correct combination of materials and the innate structure of the universe reveals it to us.
Depressingly, with enough reading you'll find that the common zeitgeist among materialists is that consciousness doesn't exist the way you are expecting. What you perceive is merely an artifact of cascading neuron activity. Biological creatures have awareness from the senses, and self-awareness is just numerous hidden layers of neural networks reflecting back at themselves. Thought is then an illusion that fades away on brain death when neuron activity stops. I hate the idea, I don't believe it, but I'm not going to pretend that The Science hasn't attempted an explanation because I don't like their explanation. Non-materialists don't exactly have the unassailable rational theories you're demanding from materialists either.
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
Completely missing the point, which is that the same atoms and molecules arranged in different ways do drastically different things. The argument that “our brains have the same molecules as [any other thing], therefore [other thing] should be able to perform the functions of a brain” is vacuous. That was the point.
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.
It’s a direct response to an argument put forth in video description you posted:
Responding to something you posted is hardly “missing the point of the thread.”