philosophy

20217 readers

2 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes

Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net

MiraculousMM@hexbear.net

Leon_Grotsky@hexbear.net

What do you think of panpsychism/the hard problem of consciousness? (hexbear.net)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by itsPina@hexbear.net to c/philosophy@hexbear.net

241 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Personally I think it's silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience... Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I've been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism... Maybe I am just tripping idk

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Evolution isn’t teleological, so random shit just happens.

And yet you've already defined being part of an evolutionary dynamic as the thing that causes consciousness; literally implying that evolution causes teleology in the first place

Some creature down the line developed eyes and it helped them get their fuck on and that’s why we have consciousness.

Well that's the most unjustified leap of logic I've ever seen.

Butterflies do fine without consciousness, but humans do a lot better

And ants do a lot better still. Are ants conscious? Is algae conscious? How are you even defining "better" here without makeing a teleological argument?

I legitimately cannot imagine a p zombie that would do okay in the modern world.

The whole bloody point of the p-zombie is that it's behaviour is identical to a regular person! It would by definition do exactly the same as anyone else. Maybe you should actually make a token fucking effort to understand an argument before you arrogantly dismiss it.

You need consciousness to adapt.

Source: it came to me in a cryptic dream. So all. Adaptive systems are conscious? Computers are conscious? Rivers are conscious?

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And yet you've already defined being part of an evolutionary dynamic as the thing that causes consciousness; literally implying that evolution causes teleology in the first place

Evolution furthers complexity, and furthering complexity seems like a universal constant as we have theoretically started from the neutral point of "a fuck load of useless heat" and got here.

Well that's the most unjustified leap of logic I've ever seen.

A creature with eyes has an evolutionary advantage over one that doesn't as they can interpret new stimuli. A creature with consciousness can do the same thing by interpreting theoretical stimuli.

And ants do a lot better still. Are ants conscious? Is algae conscious? How are you even defining "better" here without makeing a teleological argument?

Historical Materalism applied to an evolutionary timeline.

Time self selects for the superior by nature of it being superior. Superiority is only relevant when you apply temporality. You could theoretically say time is teleological but like... idk

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Evolution furthers complexity

So does geology. So does stellar fusion. So does planet formation.

and furthering complexity seems like a universal constant

Lol. And you were seriously trying to claim you had a masters in physics. You're literally now setting that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong

we have theoretically started from the neutral point of “a fuck load of useless heat” and got here.

Literally the opposite of what happened.

Historical Materalism applied to an evolutionary timeline.

I like how you quoted me even though you clearly didn't read what I said.

Time self selects for the superior by nature of it being superior.

No it doesn't. This is spiritual mumbojumbo

Superiority is only relevant when you apply temporality.

Incoherent.

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net 0 points 3 weeks ago

hey man, I am too drunk, too incorherent. Sorry for maybe questioning your world view? Sirry for being incogerebt, Wghat I possess is surely not useful long term an d activerly detrimnetal. The fact that I can acknowledge that while drunk maybe proves the point? Maybe the fact that I can prove the point while drunk proves the point that what we are experiencing (what I consider to be consciousness)is maytbe inhorent is PROOF that consciousness isnt real. Its all real time. Anyways I am sorry. either to my past self for proving me wrong, or my current self for arguing with myself