Are you saying that the universe is homogeneous? I think that's probably true. It is my understanding that matter is well distributed within the observable universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation is uniform in all directions. I think that is a scientific finding, not an underlying assumption. — Clarky
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature. — Clarky
I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that simply correlating X neural activity with Y subjective experience isn't the hard problem anymore. That is part of the easy problems. Rather, how is it that neural activity is one and the same as subjective experience is what is to be explained. — schopenhauer1
These are easy questions of consciousness. Not the hard question. So you are not asking the right question(s). You can point all day to brain sizes, neural activity, and information processing, and you will still not get at it. How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate. — schopenhauer1
How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate. — schopenhauer1
I think that even though for him a conscious self is just an artifact , a convenient function, he would still argue that humans operate on the basis of complex motivational systems that computers currently lack, but that eventually we will be able to construct machines with such systems , and those machines es will indeed be capable of ‘suffering’. — Joshs
Why does an organism with a brain have consciousness and not a single cell or a plant or a blade of grass. The kind of substance and the form of material doesn’t get at it. — schopenhauer1
Consciousness came about through evolution. That doesn't explain why consciousness is the same thing as neural/biological activities. — schopenhauer1
How does one actually get the point across why this is not an acceptable answer as far as the hard problem is concerned? Can this be seen as answering it, or is it just inadvertently answering an easier problem? If so, how to explain how it isn't quite getting at the hard problem? — schopenhauer1
Ok, now I am really messed up. I cannot remember which threads I have been posting in. I miss the "MY THREADS" function. — Sir2u
I deleted my last post to Down The Rabbit Hole because upon reading it myself, it sounded so rude. — L'éléphant
My heart tells me God exists, P(G) = 100%
My mind tells me God doesn't exist P(G) = 0%
P(G) = The probability that God exists. — Agent Smith
The thing that I find basically materialism is always in danger of doing is committing the homunculus fallacy. — schopenhauer1
The problem with subjectivity is trying to determine what part of the experience is about the object perceived vs the object doing the perceiving. — Harry Hindu
How does a "physical" brain create the feeling of visual depth perception? How do neurons generate the feeling of empty space between me and the other objects in my vicinity? The empty space is not made up of neurons. It is made up of information about location relative to my eyes. — Harry Hindu
Surely there could be arguments for and against god/s that adjust the likelihood we should put on their existence? — Down The Rabbit Hole
I assume then you have no problem with accepting theoretically literal 0% probability — Geerts
How do you approach then having 7 in a 6 sided dice which is mathematically considered as 0% — Geerts
What about then paradoxes and clear illogical assumptions? Does your standpoint transcend boundaries of the logic? — Geerts
Indeed random pixel generator is another version of perhaps more popular Borges' Library of Babel or infinite monkey theorem examples which may be simpler to explain. — Geerts
I don't know what a view from outside of a head would look like. It's an impossibility. Third-person views are simulated first-person views. — Harry Hindu
My conscious experience is composed of shapes, colors, sounds, feelings, visual, auditory and tactile depth, etc. — Harry Hindu
I'm not sure if this makes sense. I can have a view of your body and it's behavior and deduce that you have experiences that are the causes of your behavior. But can I view my own view? Does that make sense? — Harry Hindu
Your elaboration is appreciated. I think you're just making a generalization by saying zero percent probability never truly exists. Can you explain please? — Geerts
In a sense the antipyschotic medication = disproof, an argument! — Agent Smith
our ability for self-reflection is basically how I'd sum it up — schopenhauer1
as to why humanity simply didn't just perish — The Last Messiah Wikip
How is it that the mind that I experience as my own is the illusion but the brains that appear in my mind (like when I look at your brain scan while you are inside an MRI) when looking at your mental processes isn't an illusion? — Harry Hindu
It doesn't get at the problem of explaining why I experience my mental processes differently than how I experience everyone else's. — Harry Hindu
The Universe is definitely finite — Varde
:chin: — Agent Smith
But that is the question the hard problem shines a light on - how does electrical signals bounding around in our heads deceive our heads? In essence the brain is fooling itself into believing that it is not a brain. Why would it do that? What evolutionary problem would that solve (ie why would such a thing evolve in the first place)? — Harry Hindu
but our experiences themselves are not merely subjective. — Jackson
In conversing with you on this forum, would I be hallucinating your existence? — Harry Hindu
Realism and non-locality are compatible. If the wave function is real, it constitutes a causal, non-local fork, causing both — Jarjar
that was hilarious when the dumb monkey threw the blasted cucumber at the scientist — Merkwurdichliebe
I did not catch the part when the monkey was thinking (about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done). Those thoughts never came close to occurring to me. I think the source of its anger was that it wanted to eat grapes over cucumber. I agree with the monkey. Grapes are tastier than cucumbers. — Merkwurdichliebe
What I noticed intitially, was that there was no mention of ethics or morality in the entire video. So im curious where you made the connection that, anything the monkeys did, demonstrated their behavior to be of an ethical nature. — Merkwurdichliebe
My point is that, at its core, ethics depends on and is based in a belief in ethical ideas, not in feelings like empathy. — Merkwurdichliebe
The question is what are thoughts composed of, or what forms do they take? What makes a thing a thought as opposed to not a thought? — Harry Hindu
All descriptions of mental activity from a third-person scientific perspective are actually first-person visual subjective descriptions of other's mental activity. — Harry Hindu
You never experience your own mental activity the way you experience others' mental activity. — Harry Hindu