2
Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

1
Graphenium 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

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

0
Graphenium 0 points ago +1 / -1

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

0
Graphenium 0 points ago +1 / -1

…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

0
Graphenium 0 points ago +3 / -3

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?

-1
Graphenium -1 points ago +1 / -2

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

-1
Graphenium -1 points ago +1 / -2

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?

14
Graphenium 14 points ago +15 / -1

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
2
Graphenium 2 points ago +3 / -1

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.

1
Graphenium 1 point ago +6 / -5

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.

1
Graphenium 1 point ago +5 / -4

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?

1
Graphenium 1 point ago +2 / -1

(which it does not control and hasn't for over a decade)

The gall of these creatures

3
Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

My understanding is that the “legacy domains” (kia2.win, conspiracies.win, ConsumeProduct.win, etc) operate with a different (older, and mostly deprecated afaik) code base, which says they’ll probably only get buggier and buggier as the “main” site is updated. I think the idea of communities running their own domains under the main one has kind of been abandoned by the admins

6
Graphenium 6 points ago +7 / -1

Do you or dom know who owns the kia2.win domain? The original thedonald.win domain seemingly went down because of internal conflicts between their mods, and consumeproduct’s unique domain was shut down by (iirc) cloudflare or the registrar or some company like that. All of which is to say, unless you know who runs that domain there’s no harm in switching to communities.win imo (and it works better)

-5
Graphenium -5 points ago +5 / -10

The illusions you name are outgrowths of consciousness, how could you possibly comprehend any of them fully if you can’t understand their foundation?

-2
Graphenium -2 points ago +5 / -7

By any chance was it The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot? That book was hugely influential on my thinking on subjects like this, but it always seemed like a rather obscure book and theory in terms of how much it reached the world, so it would be quite cool if you had come across it too! Small world and all.

But yeah absolutely, the theory of the holographic universe is an excellent candidate to explain much of these “non-physical” phenomena we nonetheless observe the physical effects of, glad you brought it up

0
Graphenium 0 points ago +9 / -9

Panpsychism seems to be a better explanation of reality than the mainstream scientific paradigm of materialism

Panpsychism:

In the philosophy of mind, panpsychism (/pænˈsaɪkɪzəm/) is the view that the mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality.[1] It is also described as a theory that "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe".

Materialism:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are caused by physical processes, such as the neurochemistry of the human brain and nervous system, without which they cannot exist.

Obviously heavy concepts, not strictly “gamergate related”, but I think a beneficial discussion appropriate enough to take place here

-6
Graphenium -6 points ago +5 / -11

Here’s another lecture on the idea and the accompanying description:

Where does consciousness come from? Most people have been taught that consciousness only originates in small lumps of grey matter, such as the brains of humans and possibly other higher species, while the rest of the universe is devoid of this quality. 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. More and more philosophers are approaching the theory of panpsychism, which claims that all matter has some form of consciousness or mind.

The British biologist Rupert Sheldrake has long proposed similar ideas. In his book A new Science of Life (1981), he introduced his well-known theory of morphic resonance, which suggests that all self-regulating systems in nature, such as cells, plants, and animals, inherit a form of collective memory called the morphic field. Patterns of behavior and organization are influenced by similar past forms and experiences, creating a non-local transfer of information and memory across time and space, known as morphic resonance. In his bestselling book "The Science Delusion" (2012), Sheldrake addresses similar topics in the chapters "Is Nature Mechanical?" and "Is Matter Unconscious?»

In 2021, he published a paper in the Journal of Consciousness Studies titled "Is the Sun Conscious?" Sheldrake admits that even asking such a question seems utterly ignorant, even childish. However, he draws on numerous sources from different fields of science to support his ideas. He argues that it is certainly possible that self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity, including stars and galaxies, might have experience, awareness, or consciousness.

-6
Graphenium -6 points ago +5 / -11

Such are the limits of graphical representation of (currently) invisible phenomena. I’m sure many in the past have reacted as incredulously as you towards the ideas of fields of electricity, magnetism, gravity, mass, and so on, yet that had no bearing on their truth

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›