x
Click to expand

auryn

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:3/17/2012
Last Login:3/04/2015
Location:The Netherlands
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#233
Highest Content Rank:#14558
Highest Comment Rank:#46
Content Thumbs: 96 total,  176 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 40324 total,  49343 ,  9019
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 33.1% (331/1000)
Level 332 Comments: Practically Famous → Level 333 Comments: Practically Famous
Subscribers:2
Content Views:12936
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:7607
FJ Points:32214

latest user's comments

#73 - That's correct. I apologize. Care to post the picture…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/31/2015 on New gym 0
User avatar #74 - nigeltheoutlaw (01/31/2015) [-]
I didn't save them, but /fit/ has Crossfit hate threads all the time and the dozen or so pics are posted in those if you're curious.
#70 - ***** , he's just doing an olympic lift. …  [+] (3 new replies) 01/31/2015 on New gym 0
User avatar #71 - nigeltheoutlaw (01/31/2015) [-]
Somebody hasn't seen the pictures of Crossfit people doing oly lifts with their babies.
#73 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
That's correct. I apologize.

Care to post the picture you're talking about?
User avatar #74 - nigeltheoutlaw (01/31/2015) [-]
I didn't save them, but /fit/ has Crossfit hate threads all the time and the dozen or so pics are posted in those if you're curious.
#184 - You haven't represented a single actual argument on why it wou…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/31/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#185 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
well just as you believe our conciousness is something deeper thatn our understanding which is something you'vebeen repeating trough all the argument
and i believe that it is not, and that it is all physical, and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, since the way we act is not bound to it which is something i've been repeating trough the whole argument
so lets go back to the original question
are those chemicals combined actually love?
we won't ever agree
because you believe love goes along with our conciousness in the deeper than our understanding thing
and i believe its al physical because even if our conciousness was in another plane of understanding it would be useless
so i guess we should end this now, because we won't ever agree
#186 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You still haven't explained why or how there's 'someone' able to experience itself if everything would be a string of seperate subsequent actions and reactions.

Surely you must have reasons to belief the things you do? Could you give any indications why on you think that way?

Also what exactly do you mean by 'and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, , since the way we act is not bound to it'? What case are you talking about? And could you elaborate on ', since the way we act is not bound to it'.
I'm completely in the dark what you're trying to convey here.
#187 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
as you still haven't explained how concience is separae from the body "someone" is able to experience itself because that someone is the brain, the brain experiences itself and creates the illusion that we're something else

and by "the way we act is not bound to it" im talking about that even if it was something appart from the body it wouldn't matter because of what i explained before that we don't have control over the way we act and its all automatic, and we just believe we do
so a conciousness (your version of it) would be completely useless as it would not have any control
#188 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
I see what you mean, thank you for explaining. But you're dismissing the possibility that higher planes/dimensions are not seperate from the physical but interpenetratable, and that the physical is dependant upon and the outcome of the higher planes/dimensions and able to exert influence, not through breaking the physical laws, but using the physical laws as a framework.
There's nothing unreasonable nor disprovable about such a hypothesis.

But back to the point, the burden of proof isn't really on me. I'm not the one claiming here, I'm just dismissing your claim. I'm just pointing out that a purely materialistic deterministic view doesn't account for our internal experience.
I don't see any reason or indication that it could, so that's why I'm asking you.

Surely you must think this way because of certain reasons? So what are these reasons?
#56 - I've never seen a more unfortune use of the expression 'for so… 01/31/2015 on OC drawing +2
#182 - That's not what I'm saying at all, that's not what I mean at a…  [+] (6 new replies) 01/31/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#183 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
i don't see why not, i repeat our brain is a bunch of microscopic cells that transmit electric impulses one another
if we replicate that with a machine (to cellular scale) so far i don't see why it couldn't achieve a conciousness
you're implying that theres something else , something that trascends the physical plane just because of yes
well what if those "magic spirit aliens" decided to get on a robo brain then? jesus fucking christ
life happens all automatically? yes
it can be proven? yes
conciousness is just our brain experiencing itself
that it seems so weird for you to know that you have a conciousness that you have to make it "something out of body" is not my problem
#184 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You haven't represented a single actual argument on why it would create the sensation of being a singular being and why it wouldn't just be all automatic seperate processes.
Neither have you come with a counterargument that actually applies to anything I've said. I don't think you've understood me.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to realize that you're making conenctions that aren't there.
If everything was material determinism, everything would be seperate actions and reactions.
There wouldn't be 'someone' experiecing/observing these processes. Sure there could still be a body and a brain with all its current functions, but it wouldn't magically create a sense of "I" out of nowhere.
That it doesn't doesn't imply anything vague or weird, it just implies that things are connected on a deeper level on that our current understand of the world in incomplete.
Neither do I believe that consciousness as we know it is something out of the body, it just means that the essence of our mind and body is more than the material, that there are deeper levels that we're currently unaware of.

You might be able to create a highly intelligent computer with senses and enviromental awareness but in the end it's just negations, it isn't really a single thing, in essence it's just a bunch of seperate subsequent processes, there is nothing there observing these processes. There is nothing there that experiences itself as these processes. Such a case only simulates conscious behaviour, but it doesn't actually feel conscious, you could even program it to (appear) have a sense of 'I' and to have feelings, but it would still just be simulation, it wouldn't actually have the internal experience.

Similarly in a case with humans, if everything was just chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain it would just be a bunch of seperate actions and reactions, there wouldn't be 'anyone' there to observe these actions and reactions within the brain, it would just be blind (not in the literal manner) and automatic.
It would only be simulation of consiousness, we wouldn't have the interal experience of feeling conscious, neither would we need interal experience of feeling conscious. It doesn't make sense whatever way you look at it.

I belief in a logical universe, and I try to adhere to reason. And I too belief in causality.
But the internal sensation of us experiencing ourself as a single being can't be explained on a purely physical level. If everything was purely physical causality, it would mean everything was blind and automatic. Everything in the mind would be seperate processes following each other one after another, there wouldn't be anything there that could explain or cause how these combined seperate processes experience themself as an united single being living in a single moment.

All this just means our current understanding is limited and incomplete, that our understanding of matter and energy is just partial, that there's more for us to investigate and uncover. This shouldn't really strike you, should it?


#185 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
well just as you believe our conciousness is something deeper thatn our understanding which is something you'vebeen repeating trough all the argument
and i believe that it is not, and that it is all physical, and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, since the way we act is not bound to it which is something i've been repeating trough the whole argument
so lets go back to the original question
are those chemicals combined actually love?
we won't ever agree
because you believe love goes along with our conciousness in the deeper than our understanding thing
and i believe its al physical because even if our conciousness was in another plane of understanding it would be useless
so i guess we should end this now, because we won't ever agree
#186 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You still haven't explained why or how there's 'someone' able to experience itself if everything would be a string of seperate subsequent actions and reactions.

Surely you must have reasons to belief the things you do? Could you give any indications why on you think that way?

Also what exactly do you mean by 'and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, , since the way we act is not bound to it'? What case are you talking about? And could you elaborate on ', since the way we act is not bound to it'.
I'm completely in the dark what you're trying to convey here.
#187 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
as you still haven't explained how concience is separae from the body "someone" is able to experience itself because that someone is the brain, the brain experiences itself and creates the illusion that we're something else

and by "the way we act is not bound to it" im talking about that even if it was something appart from the body it wouldn't matter because of what i explained before that we don't have control over the way we act and its all automatic, and we just believe we do
so a conciousness (your version of it) would be completely useless as it would not have any control
#188 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
I see what you mean, thank you for explaining. But you're dismissing the possibility that higher planes/dimensions are not seperate from the physical but interpenetratable, and that the physical is dependant upon and the outcome of the higher planes/dimensions and able to exert influence, not through breaking the physical laws, but using the physical laws as a framework.
There's nothing unreasonable nor disprovable about such a hypothesis.

But back to the point, the burden of proof isn't really on me. I'm not the one claiming here, I'm just dismissing your claim. I'm just pointing out that a purely materialistic deterministic view doesn't account for our internal experience.
I don't see any reason or indication that it could, so that's why I'm asking you.

Surely you must think this way because of certain reasons? So what are these reasons?
#180 - If everything was material causuality there would be no consio…  [+] (8 new replies) 01/31/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#181 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
how do you know it would not have a conciousness
our brain works as a bunch of microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other
divided in various parts that do different things with them
its not that hard to understand, its not somethng super dooper pooper scooper
and it being automatic doesn't mean all would be the same
its all connected to the point of "that cell was made to do that thing, and then duplicate, then it did and after that the other cell acted differently maybe because it travelled to a part of the planet with different conditions or something, the experience was stored in its memory and then evolved in a different way
that's why everything is not the same, because its impossible for it to be the same
if you put a bunch of rbots designed to walk and stand up and keep walking in a straight line in an empty room they will evntually bump into the walls and then into each other and end up walking in different patterns, unles the room was designed for them not to do so which is not the case both in the metaphor and in real life
#182 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
That's not what I'm saying at all, that's not what I mean at all with 'being the same'
What I mean with 'being the same' is that in a hypothetical situation like you're describing everything could maybe be exactly the way like it is in this universe, indiscernible from the outside. With the only difference that there wouldn't be the internal feeling of experience.

I still have failed trying to make you comprehend my point, and I can't explain it any more clear without repeating myself.
You're claiming a very illogical and absurd thing, it doesn't make sense. You can't account for the actual internal experience of your consciousness through mere materialistic causality.
It implies that everything is a bunch of seperate automatic actions and reactions, it doesn't and it can't explain why matter/energy can experience itself.
You can explain certain functions of the mind, you can explain all the processes in the mind, but it can't account for why the mind experiences itself as these processes.

Plus, as I said before, apart from the impossibility of having the internal sense of experience as a singular being in a scenario like yours, it doesn't even have a need.
Everything would happen anyway in the exact same manner as it it's happening now, but everything would be automatic, everything would happen in the exact same manner whether you experience it or not, but it would just be an automatic process.
You would still behave and act in the same manner you're acting now, your mind mind would still be able to produce the exact same thoughts and feelings like it would now, it would still have the exact same abilities and functions as it has now, but everything would be automatic, there would be no actual internal experience where you experience yourself as all these processes.

And yes, our brain works as a bunch of microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other. But there's a lot more to it than that, that's just part of it. There's 'someone', a focal point of awareness, experiencing itself as these combined microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other.
If everything was just automatic chemical and electrical actions and reactions, there would be nothing that connects everything in a direct and instantaneous manner that would cause the ability to feel itself as all of these chemical and electrical actions and reactions at once, and as one.
#183 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
i don't see why not, i repeat our brain is a bunch of microscopic cells that transmit electric impulses one another
if we replicate that with a machine (to cellular scale) so far i don't see why it couldn't achieve a conciousness
you're implying that theres something else , something that trascends the physical plane just because of yes
well what if those "magic spirit aliens" decided to get on a robo brain then? jesus fucking christ
life happens all automatically? yes
it can be proven? yes
conciousness is just our brain experiencing itself
that it seems so weird for you to know that you have a conciousness that you have to make it "something out of body" is not my problem
#184 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You haven't represented a single actual argument on why it would create the sensation of being a singular being and why it wouldn't just be all automatic seperate processes.
Neither have you come with a counterargument that actually applies to anything I've said. I don't think you've understood me.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to realize that you're making conenctions that aren't there.
If everything was material determinism, everything would be seperate actions and reactions.
There wouldn't be 'someone' experiecing/observing these processes. Sure there could still be a body and a brain with all its current functions, but it wouldn't magically create a sense of "I" out of nowhere.
That it doesn't doesn't imply anything vague or weird, it just implies that things are connected on a deeper level on that our current understand of the world in incomplete.
Neither do I believe that consciousness as we know it is something out of the body, it just means that the essence of our mind and body is more than the material, that there are deeper levels that we're currently unaware of.

You might be able to create a highly intelligent computer with senses and enviromental awareness but in the end it's just negations, it isn't really a single thing, in essence it's just a bunch of seperate subsequent processes, there is nothing there observing these processes. There is nothing there that experiences itself as these processes. Such a case only simulates conscious behaviour, but it doesn't actually feel conscious, you could even program it to (appear) have a sense of 'I' and to have feelings, but it would still just be simulation, it wouldn't actually have the internal experience.

Similarly in a case with humans, if everything was just chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain it would just be a bunch of seperate actions and reactions, there wouldn't be 'anyone' there to observe these actions and reactions within the brain, it would just be blind (not in the literal manner) and automatic.
It would only be simulation of consiousness, we wouldn't have the interal experience of feeling conscious, neither would we need interal experience of feeling conscious. It doesn't make sense whatever way you look at it.

I belief in a logical universe, and I try to adhere to reason. And I too belief in causality.
But the internal sensation of us experiencing ourself as a single being can't be explained on a purely physical level. If everything was purely physical causality, it would mean everything was blind and automatic. Everything in the mind would be seperate processes following each other one after another, there wouldn't be anything there that could explain or cause how these combined seperate processes experience themself as an united single being living in a single moment.

All this just means our current understanding is limited and incomplete, that our understanding of matter and energy is just partial, that there's more for us to investigate and uncover. This shouldn't really strike you, should it?


#185 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
well just as you believe our conciousness is something deeper thatn our understanding which is something you'vebeen repeating trough all the argument
and i believe that it is not, and that it is all physical, and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, since the way we act is not bound to it which is something i've been repeating trough the whole argument
so lets go back to the original question
are those chemicals combined actually love?
we won't ever agree
because you believe love goes along with our conciousness in the deeper than our understanding thing
and i believe its al physical because even if our conciousness was in another plane of understanding it would be useless
so i guess we should end this now, because we won't ever agree
#186 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You still haven't explained why or how there's 'someone' able to experience itself if everything would be a string of seperate subsequent actions and reactions.

Surely you must have reasons to belief the things you do? Could you give any indications why on you think that way?

Also what exactly do you mean by 'and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, , since the way we act is not bound to it'? What case are you talking about? And could you elaborate on ', since the way we act is not bound to it'.
I'm completely in the dark what you're trying to convey here.
#187 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
as you still haven't explained how concience is separae from the body "someone" is able to experience itself because that someone is the brain, the brain experiences itself and creates the illusion that we're something else

and by "the way we act is not bound to it" im talking about that even if it was something appart from the body it wouldn't matter because of what i explained before that we don't have control over the way we act and its all automatic, and we just believe we do
so a conciousness (your version of it) would be completely useless as it would not have any control
#188 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
I see what you mean, thank you for explaining. But you're dismissing the possibility that higher planes/dimensions are not seperate from the physical but interpenetratable, and that the physical is dependant upon and the outcome of the higher planes/dimensions and able to exert influence, not through breaking the physical laws, but using the physical laws as a framework.
There's nothing unreasonable nor disprovable about such a hypothesis.

But back to the point, the burden of proof isn't really on me. I'm not the one claiming here, I'm just dismissing your claim. I'm just pointing out that a purely materialistic deterministic view doesn't account for our internal experience.
I don't see any reason or indication that it could, so that's why I'm asking you.

Surely you must think this way because of certain reasons? So what are these reasons?
#158 - Uhh..like 2 comments ago.. >What is nothing: Abse…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/31/2015 on More Dank WebMs #5 +1
#160 - afaik (01/31/2015) [-]
2 of my comments (4 comments) or 2 comments back in the thread?

Also, aye, I get it. And thanks for disagreing. Feels like as soon as I go against something stupid or something many disagree with, everyone agrees with me by default.

All in all, this requires more thinking.
#138 - Because time and space is still something.  [+] (3 new replies) 01/29/2015 on More Dank WebMs #5 +1
#139 - afaik (01/30/2015) [-]
What does time and space have to do with matter and energy in this context?
When have I ever deinied that time and space weren't things?

Pls, make sense.
#158 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
Uhh..like 2 comments ago..

>What is nothing: Absence of matter (or/and energy)
>What is something: Presence of matter (or/and energy)
#160 - afaik (01/31/2015) [-]
2 of my comments (4 comments) or 2 comments back in the thread?

Also, aye, I get it. And thanks for disagreing. Feels like as soon as I go against something stupid or something many disagree with, everyone agrees with me by default.

All in all, this requires more thinking.
#177 - I don't think rigid predeterminism on a material level on its …  [+] (11 new replies) 01/29/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#179 - ilikepatatas (01/30/2015) [-]
and by conciousness just like ours i mean the definition of conciousness
what im talking about is that we'd have to consider it a sentient being
#178 - ilikepatatas (01/30/2015) [-]
its exactly that we're like robots
WE ARE automated that's what i just explained
just like the fact that the chaos theory is wrong
results can be predicted with good enough technology
we are automated, the point is that most of us don't realize it
that's why i repeat that everything is bound to happen
awareness of our conciousness is just like a "program actualization"
its so we are able to see things in a more dynamic point of view, thus maximizing our chances of survival
so yes, we are all "robots"
there is nothing more to it than that
alive is a "state of matter"
and yes, the universe is one really big ruben goldberg machine
i know the conciousness thingy is hard to grasp, i was so confused when i was a kid about if i was the only one with a conciousness and the other people were like robots
but after that i understood
and maybe if we get to recreate a synthetic human being
maybe it will have conciousness just like ours?


#180 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
If everything was material causuality there would be no consious feeling of consciousness.

Just like in a computer there is no entity that experiences itself as the computer, it's just a string of data.


If everything was a mechanical like determinism everything, our body and our mind, would just be a string of 'data', it would just be a string of seperate actions and reactions.
Nowhere in such a scenario could you explain the actual sensation of consciousness, neither does such a scenario have a need for the actual sensation of consciousness, because everything would go automatic and exactly the same regardless of whether we would have the sensation of being conscious.

It doesn't make sense at all. I don't think you realize the implications of your statement.
In such a scenario everything would be mere negation. There is no sense of 'I' in string of propositions, it's just automatic data working itself out in a logical manner.

It doesn't need the feeling of "I' and neither could it account for the feeling of 'I".

You don't realize, that if everything was automatic then so would our ability ' to see things in a more dynamic point of view, thus maximizing our chances of survival' be.
Everything would be automatic, our thoughts, our feelings. Everything would be exactly the same in your scenario, the mind would still see with eyes, it would still produce thoughts and feelings, it would still learn, BUT there wouldn't be 'anyone' there to experience it, there would be no feeling of 'I'. All living things would only APPEAR to be conscious in all regards.

The fact that you experience is the living contradiction to what you're saying.
#181 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
how do you know it would not have a conciousness
our brain works as a bunch of microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other
divided in various parts that do different things with them
its not that hard to understand, its not somethng super dooper pooper scooper
and it being automatic doesn't mean all would be the same
its all connected to the point of "that cell was made to do that thing, and then duplicate, then it did and after that the other cell acted differently maybe because it travelled to a part of the planet with different conditions or something, the experience was stored in its memory and then evolved in a different way
that's why everything is not the same, because its impossible for it to be the same
if you put a bunch of rbots designed to walk and stand up and keep walking in a straight line in an empty room they will evntually bump into the walls and then into each other and end up walking in different patterns, unles the room was designed for them not to do so which is not the case both in the metaphor and in real life
#182 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
That's not what I'm saying at all, that's not what I mean at all with 'being the same'
What I mean with 'being the same' is that in a hypothetical situation like you're describing everything could maybe be exactly the way like it is in this universe, indiscernible from the outside. With the only difference that there wouldn't be the internal feeling of experience.

I still have failed trying to make you comprehend my point, and I can't explain it any more clear without repeating myself.
You're claiming a very illogical and absurd thing, it doesn't make sense. You can't account for the actual internal experience of your consciousness through mere materialistic causality.
It implies that everything is a bunch of seperate automatic actions and reactions, it doesn't and it can't explain why matter/energy can experience itself.
You can explain certain functions of the mind, you can explain all the processes in the mind, but it can't account for why the mind experiences itself as these processes.

Plus, as I said before, apart from the impossibility of having the internal sense of experience as a singular being in a scenario like yours, it doesn't even have a need.
Everything would happen anyway in the exact same manner as it it's happening now, but everything would be automatic, everything would happen in the exact same manner whether you experience it or not, but it would just be an automatic process.
You would still behave and act in the same manner you're acting now, your mind mind would still be able to produce the exact same thoughts and feelings like it would now, it would still have the exact same abilities and functions as it has now, but everything would be automatic, there would be no actual internal experience where you experience yourself as all these processes.

And yes, our brain works as a bunch of microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other. But there's a lot more to it than that, that's just part of it. There's 'someone', a focal point of awareness, experiencing itself as these combined microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other.
If everything was just automatic chemical and electrical actions and reactions, there would be nothing that connects everything in a direct and instantaneous manner that would cause the ability to feel itself as all of these chemical and electrical actions and reactions at once, and as one.
#183 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
i don't see why not, i repeat our brain is a bunch of microscopic cells that transmit electric impulses one another
if we replicate that with a machine (to cellular scale) so far i don't see why it couldn't achieve a conciousness
you're implying that theres something else , something that trascends the physical plane just because of yes
well what if those "magic spirit aliens" decided to get on a robo brain then? jesus fucking christ
life happens all automatically? yes
it can be proven? yes
conciousness is just our brain experiencing itself
that it seems so weird for you to know that you have a conciousness that you have to make it "something out of body" is not my problem
#184 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You haven't represented a single actual argument on why it would create the sensation of being a singular being and why it wouldn't just be all automatic seperate processes.
Neither have you come with a counterargument that actually applies to anything I've said. I don't think you've understood me.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to realize that you're making conenctions that aren't there.
If everything was material determinism, everything would be seperate actions and reactions.
There wouldn't be 'someone' experiecing/observing these processes. Sure there could still be a body and a brain with all its current functions, but it wouldn't magically create a sense of "I" out of nowhere.
That it doesn't doesn't imply anything vague or weird, it just implies that things are connected on a deeper level on that our current understand of the world in incomplete.
Neither do I believe that consciousness as we know it is something out of the body, it just means that the essence of our mind and body is more than the material, that there are deeper levels that we're currently unaware of.

You might be able to create a highly intelligent computer with senses and enviromental awareness but in the end it's just negations, it isn't really a single thing, in essence it's just a bunch of seperate subsequent processes, there is nothing there observing these processes. There is nothing there that experiences itself as these processes. Such a case only simulates conscious behaviour, but it doesn't actually feel conscious, you could even program it to (appear) have a sense of 'I' and to have feelings, but it would still just be simulation, it wouldn't actually have the internal experience.

Similarly in a case with humans, if everything was just chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain it would just be a bunch of seperate actions and reactions, there wouldn't be 'anyone' there to observe these actions and reactions within the brain, it would just be blind (not in the literal manner) and automatic.
It would only be simulation of consiousness, we wouldn't have the interal experience of feeling conscious, neither would we need interal experience of feeling conscious. It doesn't make sense whatever way you look at it.

I belief in a logical universe, and I try to adhere to reason. And I too belief in causality.
But the internal sensation of us experiencing ourself as a single being can't be explained on a purely physical level. If everything was purely physical causality, it would mean everything was blind and automatic. Everything in the mind would be seperate processes following each other one after another, there wouldn't be anything there that could explain or cause how these combined seperate processes experience themself as an united single being living in a single moment.

All this just means our current understanding is limited and incomplete, that our understanding of matter and energy is just partial, that there's more for us to investigate and uncover. This shouldn't really strike you, should it?


#185 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
well just as you believe our conciousness is something deeper thatn our understanding which is something you'vebeen repeating trough all the argument
and i believe that it is not, and that it is all physical, and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, since the way we act is not bound to it which is something i've been repeating trough the whole argument
so lets go back to the original question
are those chemicals combined actually love?
we won't ever agree
because you believe love goes along with our conciousness in the deeper than our understanding thing
and i believe its al physical because even if our conciousness was in another plane of understanding it would be useless
so i guess we should end this now, because we won't ever agree
#186 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You still haven't explained why or how there's 'someone' able to experience itself if everything would be a string of seperate subsequent actions and reactions.

Surely you must have reasons to belief the things you do? Could you give any indications why on you think that way?

Also what exactly do you mean by 'and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, , since the way we act is not bound to it'? What case are you talking about? And could you elaborate on ', since the way we act is not bound to it'.
I'm completely in the dark what you're trying to convey here.
#187 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
as you still haven't explained how concience is separae from the body "someone" is able to experience itself because that someone is the brain, the brain experiences itself and creates the illusion that we're something else

and by "the way we act is not bound to it" im talking about that even if it was something appart from the body it wouldn't matter because of what i explained before that we don't have control over the way we act and its all automatic, and we just believe we do
so a conciousness (your version of it) would be completely useless as it would not have any control
#188 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
I see what you mean, thank you for explaining. But you're dismissing the possibility that higher planes/dimensions are not seperate from the physical but interpenetratable, and that the physical is dependant upon and the outcome of the higher planes/dimensions and able to exert influence, not through breaking the physical laws, but using the physical laws as a framework.
There's nothing unreasonable nor disprovable about such a hypothesis.

But back to the point, the burden of proof isn't really on me. I'm not the one claiming here, I'm just dismissing your claim. I'm just pointing out that a purely materialistic deterministic view doesn't account for our internal experience.
I don't see any reason or indication that it could, so that's why I'm asking you.

Surely you must think this way because of certain reasons? So what are these reasons?
#122 - So, 'nothing' can not be defined as 'absence of matter (or/and…  [+] (5 new replies) 01/29/2015 on More Dank WebMs #5 +1
#135 - afaik (01/29/2015) [-]
Whut? How'd you get to that conclusion?
#138 - auryn (01/29/2015) [-]
Because time and space is still something.
#139 - afaik (01/30/2015) [-]
What does time and space have to do with matter and energy in this context?
When have I ever deinied that time and space weren't things?

Pls, make sense.
#158 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
Uhh..like 2 comments ago..

>What is nothing: Absence of matter (or/and energy)
>What is something: Presence of matter (or/and energy)
#160 - afaik (01/31/2015) [-]
2 of my comments (4 comments) or 2 comments back in the thread?

Also, aye, I get it. And thanks for disagreing. Feels like as soon as I go against something stupid or something many disagree with, everyone agrees with me by default.

All in all, this requires more thinking.
#121 - Comment deleted 01/29/2015 on More Dank WebMs #5 0
#46 - Time and space is still something.  [+] (7 new replies) 01/29/2015 on More Dank WebMs #5 +1
#50 - afaik (01/29/2015) [-]
Yes. And?
#122 - auryn (01/29/2015) [-]
So, 'nothing' can not be defined as 'absence of matter (or/and energy)'

And 'something' can not be defined as 'presence of matter (or/and energy)'
#135 - afaik (01/29/2015) [-]
Whut? How'd you get to that conclusion?
#138 - auryn (01/29/2015) [-]
Because time and space is still something.
#139 - afaik (01/30/2015) [-]
What does time and space have to do with matter and energy in this context?
When have I ever deinied that time and space weren't things?

Pls, make sense.
#158 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
Uhh..like 2 comments ago..

>What is nothing: Absence of matter (or/and energy)
>What is something: Presence of matter (or/and energy)
#160 - afaik (01/31/2015) [-]
2 of my comments (4 comments) or 2 comments back in the thread?

Also, aye, I get it. And thanks for disagreing. Feels like as soon as I go against something stupid or something many disagree with, everyone agrees with me by default.

All in all, this requires more thinking.
#41 - >salvia >I want to relax ***** … 01/29/2015 on Drugs +10
#23 - Well Spongebob isn't square, he's shaped like a rectangle. 01/29/2015 on Squid +6
#86 - I know, I was trying to make a reference to his mispell…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/29/2015 on Villain +3
User avatar #87 - TheHutchie (01/29/2015) [-]
I haven't been awake long enough to have caught that. Consider me ashamed.
#84 - Since when?  [+] (3 new replies) 01/29/2015 on Villain +4
User avatar #85 - TheHutchie (01/29/2015) [-]
All I can think of is when you try to wipe your eyes, and they just keep fucking watering. Fuck you, eyes, why do you hate me?
#86 - auryn (01/29/2015) [-]
I know, I was trying to make a reference to his mispelling of the word 'sense'
User avatar #87 - TheHutchie (01/29/2015) [-]
I haven't been awake long enough to have caught that. Consider me ashamed.
#78 - I never have this problem. Glorious single stream mas… 01/29/2015 on Guy Problems (implied) 0
#77 - It has nothing to do with that per se. I also never h… 01/29/2015 on Guy Problems (implied) +1
#175 - Just because there's a strong tendency to behave a certain way…  [+] (13 new replies) 01/29/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#176 - ilikepatatas (01/29/2015) [-]
its not a tendency, its a whole range of past experiences that you've gone trough that "force you" even if you think you could have gone with another alternative
they are mostly from when you were 1-5 years old
there is the illusion of free choice, but in the end it was "meant" to be that way
now that doesn't mean imma cross the street without looking and get killed
looking first to see if there are any cars and be precautios is part of my behaviour
if i ever decide to behave another way it will be beacuse of a past experience
#177 - auryn (01/29/2015) [-]
I don't think rigid predeterminism on a material level on its own makes any sense in the first place. You'll never be able to account for the actual sensation of being conscious if everything (the human mind) was just negation, mere causality.
Nowhere in a string of seprate chemical actions and reactions within the brain could ever account for the fact that you experience it all at once, and as one.
If everything was a dry mechanical working out of the physical laws on a material level, like in the classical newtonian view, than human beings would just be automatons, everything would go automatic.
Humans would still walk, talk, eat, sleep, and appear to think and feel, everything would be exactly the same as now, but there wouldn't be the actual awareness of your consciousness, there would be no experience of being.
The entire cosmos would be one big ruben goldberg machine. Although everyone in it might appear to be conscious, they wouldn't actually feel conscious. In a similar way like computers might be able to simulate sentience but never actually be sentient.

My very existence, or to be precies, my (and your, I assume) actual experience of my existence already proofs that this is not the case.

It goes a lot deeper than this. I too believe in a rational and predeterministic universe, but as paradoxical as it sounds you have to keep in mind that predeterminism and free will don't necessarily have to exclude one another.
That there might still be choice in predicament.
#179 - ilikepatatas (01/30/2015) [-]
and by conciousness just like ours i mean the definition of conciousness
what im talking about is that we'd have to consider it a sentient being
#178 - ilikepatatas (01/30/2015) [-]
its exactly that we're like robots
WE ARE automated that's what i just explained
just like the fact that the chaos theory is wrong
results can be predicted with good enough technology
we are automated, the point is that most of us don't realize it
that's why i repeat that everything is bound to happen
awareness of our conciousness is just like a "program actualization"
its so we are able to see things in a more dynamic point of view, thus maximizing our chances of survival
so yes, we are all "robots"
there is nothing more to it than that
alive is a "state of matter"
and yes, the universe is one really big ruben goldberg machine
i know the conciousness thingy is hard to grasp, i was so confused when i was a kid about if i was the only one with a conciousness and the other people were like robots
but after that i understood
and maybe if we get to recreate a synthetic human being
maybe it will have conciousness just like ours?


#180 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
If everything was material causuality there would be no consious feeling of consciousness.

Just like in a computer there is no entity that experiences itself as the computer, it's just a string of data.


If everything was a mechanical like determinism everything, our body and our mind, would just be a string of 'data', it would just be a string of seperate actions and reactions.
Nowhere in such a scenario could you explain the actual sensation of consciousness, neither does such a scenario have a need for the actual sensation of consciousness, because everything would go automatic and exactly the same regardless of whether we would have the sensation of being conscious.

It doesn't make sense at all. I don't think you realize the implications of your statement.
In such a scenario everything would be mere negation. There is no sense of 'I' in string of propositions, it's just automatic data working itself out in a logical manner.

It doesn't need the feeling of "I' and neither could it account for the feeling of 'I".

You don't realize, that if everything was automatic then so would our ability ' to see things in a more dynamic point of view, thus maximizing our chances of survival' be.
Everything would be automatic, our thoughts, our feelings. Everything would be exactly the same in your scenario, the mind would still see with eyes, it would still produce thoughts and feelings, it would still learn, BUT there wouldn't be 'anyone' there to experience it, there would be no feeling of 'I'. All living things would only APPEAR to be conscious in all regards.

The fact that you experience is the living contradiction to what you're saying.
#181 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
how do you know it would not have a conciousness
our brain works as a bunch of microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other
divided in various parts that do different things with them
its not that hard to understand, its not somethng super dooper pooper scooper
and it being automatic doesn't mean all would be the same
its all connected to the point of "that cell was made to do that thing, and then duplicate, then it did and after that the other cell acted differently maybe because it travelled to a part of the planet with different conditions or something, the experience was stored in its memory and then evolved in a different way
that's why everything is not the same, because its impossible for it to be the same
if you put a bunch of rbots designed to walk and stand up and keep walking in a straight line in an empty room they will evntually bump into the walls and then into each other and end up walking in different patterns, unles the room was designed for them not to do so which is not the case both in the metaphor and in real life
#182 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
That's not what I'm saying at all, that's not what I mean at all with 'being the same'
What I mean with 'being the same' is that in a hypothetical situation like you're describing everything could maybe be exactly the way like it is in this universe, indiscernible from the outside. With the only difference that there wouldn't be the internal feeling of experience.

I still have failed trying to make you comprehend my point, and I can't explain it any more clear without repeating myself.
You're claiming a very illogical and absurd thing, it doesn't make sense. You can't account for the actual internal experience of your consciousness through mere materialistic causality.
It implies that everything is a bunch of seperate automatic actions and reactions, it doesn't and it can't explain why matter/energy can experience itself.
You can explain certain functions of the mind, you can explain all the processes in the mind, but it can't account for why the mind experiences itself as these processes.

Plus, as I said before, apart from the impossibility of having the internal sense of experience as a singular being in a scenario like yours, it doesn't even have a need.
Everything would happen anyway in the exact same manner as it it's happening now, but everything would be automatic, everything would happen in the exact same manner whether you experience it or not, but it would just be an automatic process.
You would still behave and act in the same manner you're acting now, your mind mind would still be able to produce the exact same thoughts and feelings like it would now, it would still have the exact same abilities and functions as it has now, but everything would be automatic, there would be no actual internal experience where you experience yourself as all these processes.

And yes, our brain works as a bunch of microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other. But there's a lot more to it than that, that's just part of it. There's 'someone', a focal point of awareness, experiencing itself as these combined microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other.
If everything was just automatic chemical and electrical actions and reactions, there would be nothing that connects everything in a direct and instantaneous manner that would cause the ability to feel itself as all of these chemical and electrical actions and reactions at once, and as one.
#183 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
i don't see why not, i repeat our brain is a bunch of microscopic cells that transmit electric impulses one another
if we replicate that with a machine (to cellular scale) so far i don't see why it couldn't achieve a conciousness
you're implying that theres something else , something that trascends the physical plane just because of yes
well what if those "magic spirit aliens" decided to get on a robo brain then? jesus fucking christ
life happens all automatically? yes
it can be proven? yes
conciousness is just our brain experiencing itself
that it seems so weird for you to know that you have a conciousness that you have to make it "something out of body" is not my problem
#184 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You haven't represented a single actual argument on why it would create the sensation of being a singular being and why it wouldn't just be all automatic seperate processes.
Neither have you come with a counterargument that actually applies to anything I've said. I don't think you've understood me.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to realize that you're making conenctions that aren't there.
If everything was material determinism, everything would be seperate actions and reactions.
There wouldn't be 'someone' experiecing/observing these processes. Sure there could still be a body and a brain with all its current functions, but it wouldn't magically create a sense of "I" out of nowhere.
That it doesn't doesn't imply anything vague or weird, it just implies that things are connected on a deeper level on that our current understand of the world in incomplete.
Neither do I believe that consciousness as we know it is something out of the body, it just means that the essence of our mind and body is more than the material, that there are deeper levels that we're currently unaware of.

You might be able to create a highly intelligent computer with senses and enviromental awareness but in the end it's just negations, it isn't really a single thing, in essence it's just a bunch of seperate subsequent processes, there is nothing there observing these processes. There is nothing there that experiences itself as these processes. Such a case only simulates conscious behaviour, but it doesn't actually feel conscious, you could even program it to (appear) have a sense of 'I' and to have feelings, but it would still just be simulation, it wouldn't actually have the internal experience.

Similarly in a case with humans, if everything was just chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain it would just be a bunch of seperate actions and reactions, there wouldn't be 'anyone' there to observe these actions and reactions within the brain, it would just be blind (not in the literal manner) and automatic.
It would only be simulation of consiousness, we wouldn't have the interal experience of feeling conscious, neither would we need interal experience of feeling conscious. It doesn't make sense whatever way you look at it.

I belief in a logical universe, and I try to adhere to reason. And I too belief in causality.
But the internal sensation of us experiencing ourself as a single being can't be explained on a purely physical level. If everything was purely physical causality, it would mean everything was blind and automatic. Everything in the mind would be seperate processes following each other one after another, there wouldn't be anything there that could explain or cause how these combined seperate processes experience themself as an united single being living in a single moment.

All this just means our current understanding is limited and incomplete, that our understanding of matter and energy is just partial, that there's more for us to investigate and uncover. This shouldn't really strike you, should it?


#185 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
well just as you believe our conciousness is something deeper thatn our understanding which is something you'vebeen repeating trough all the argument
and i believe that it is not, and that it is all physical, and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, since the way we act is not bound to it which is something i've been repeating trough the whole argument
so lets go back to the original question
are those chemicals combined actually love?
we won't ever agree
because you believe love goes along with our conciousness in the deeper than our understanding thing
and i believe its al physical because even if our conciousness was in another plane of understanding it would be useless
so i guess we should end this now, because we won't ever agree
#186 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You still haven't explained why or how there's 'someone' able to experience itself if everything would be a string of seperate subsequent actions and reactions.

Surely you must have reasons to belief the things you do? Could you give any indications why on you think that way?

Also what exactly do you mean by 'and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, , since the way we act is not bound to it'? What case are you talking about? And could you elaborate on ', since the way we act is not bound to it'.
I'm completely in the dark what you're trying to convey here.
#187 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
as you still haven't explained how concience is separae from the body "someone" is able to experience itself because that someone is the brain, the brain experiences itself and creates the illusion that we're something else

and by "the way we act is not bound to it" im talking about that even if it was something appart from the body it wouldn't matter because of what i explained before that we don't have control over the way we act and its all automatic, and we just believe we do
so a conciousness (your version of it) would be completely useless as it would not have any control
#188 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
I see what you mean, thank you for explaining. But you're dismissing the possibility that higher planes/dimensions are not seperate from the physical but interpenetratable, and that the physical is dependant upon and the outcome of the higher planes/dimensions and able to exert influence, not through breaking the physical laws, but using the physical laws as a framework.
There's nothing unreasonable nor disprovable about such a hypothesis.

But back to the point, the burden of proof isn't really on me. I'm not the one claiming here, I'm just dismissing your claim. I'm just pointing out that a purely materialistic deterministic view doesn't account for our internal experience.
I don't see any reason or indication that it could, so that's why I'm asking you.

Surely you must think this way because of certain reasons? So what are these reasons?
#171 - (replying here since the thread ran out of replies) …  [+] (15 new replies) 01/29/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#172 - ilikepatatas (01/29/2015) [-]
well its the same you and i both do, just that you don't know you're doing it, i still do good things for others, and are generally kind
i know i do it to feel good, its not something terrible either
if you thought i actually was a selfish person just because i understand it then you're no different than bible bashers who say all atheists are criminals because there is no divine force stopping them from doing bad things
im just not close minded and chose to accept the way i behave, and i know that if i change its because it was meant to be that way
really simple
#175 - auryn (01/29/2015) [-]
Just because there's a strong tendency to behave a certain way doesn't mean it'\s impossible to behave another way.

Also, I'm not calling anyone anything. This isn't about you or me in specific, I'm talking in general.
And personally speaking, I'm a pretty selfish person, don't be mistaken to think I've got a holier-than-thou mentality, I don't consider myself unselfish.
#176 - ilikepatatas (01/29/2015) [-]
its not a tendency, its a whole range of past experiences that you've gone trough that "force you" even if you think you could have gone with another alternative
they are mostly from when you were 1-5 years old
there is the illusion of free choice, but in the end it was "meant" to be that way
now that doesn't mean imma cross the street without looking and get killed
looking first to see if there are any cars and be precautios is part of my behaviour
if i ever decide to behave another way it will be beacuse of a past experience
#177 - auryn (01/29/2015) [-]
I don't think rigid predeterminism on a material level on its own makes any sense in the first place. You'll never be able to account for the actual sensation of being conscious if everything (the human mind) was just negation, mere causality.
Nowhere in a string of seprate chemical actions and reactions within the brain could ever account for the fact that you experience it all at once, and as one.
If everything was a dry mechanical working out of the physical laws on a material level, like in the classical newtonian view, than human beings would just be automatons, everything would go automatic.
Humans would still walk, talk, eat, sleep, and appear to think and feel, everything would be exactly the same as now, but there wouldn't be the actual awareness of your consciousness, there would be no experience of being.
The entire cosmos would be one big ruben goldberg machine. Although everyone in it might appear to be conscious, they wouldn't actually feel conscious. In a similar way like computers might be able to simulate sentience but never actually be sentient.

My very existence, or to be precies, my (and your, I assume) actual experience of my existence already proofs that this is not the case.

It goes a lot deeper than this. I too believe in a rational and predeterministic universe, but as paradoxical as it sounds you have to keep in mind that predeterminism and free will don't necessarily have to exclude one another.
That there might still be choice in predicament.
#179 - ilikepatatas (01/30/2015) [-]
and by conciousness just like ours i mean the definition of conciousness
what im talking about is that we'd have to consider it a sentient being
#178 - ilikepatatas (01/30/2015) [-]
its exactly that we're like robots
WE ARE automated that's what i just explained
just like the fact that the chaos theory is wrong
results can be predicted with good enough technology
we are automated, the point is that most of us don't realize it
that's why i repeat that everything is bound to happen
awareness of our conciousness is just like a "program actualization"
its so we are able to see things in a more dynamic point of view, thus maximizing our chances of survival
so yes, we are all "robots"
there is nothing more to it than that
alive is a "state of matter"
and yes, the universe is one really big ruben goldberg machine
i know the conciousness thingy is hard to grasp, i was so confused when i was a kid about if i was the only one with a conciousness and the other people were like robots
but after that i understood
and maybe if we get to recreate a synthetic human being
maybe it will have conciousness just like ours?


#180 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
If everything was material causuality there would be no consious feeling of consciousness.

Just like in a computer there is no entity that experiences itself as the computer, it's just a string of data.


If everything was a mechanical like determinism everything, our body and our mind, would just be a string of 'data', it would just be a string of seperate actions and reactions.
Nowhere in such a scenario could you explain the actual sensation of consciousness, neither does such a scenario have a need for the actual sensation of consciousness, because everything would go automatic and exactly the same regardless of whether we would have the sensation of being conscious.

It doesn't make sense at all. I don't think you realize the implications of your statement.
In such a scenario everything would be mere negation. There is no sense of 'I' in string of propositions, it's just automatic data working itself out in a logical manner.

It doesn't need the feeling of "I' and neither could it account for the feeling of 'I".

You don't realize, that if everything was automatic then so would our ability ' to see things in a more dynamic point of view, thus maximizing our chances of survival' be.
Everything would be automatic, our thoughts, our feelings. Everything would be exactly the same in your scenario, the mind would still see with eyes, it would still produce thoughts and feelings, it would still learn, BUT there wouldn't be 'anyone' there to experience it, there would be no feeling of 'I'. All living things would only APPEAR to be conscious in all regards.

The fact that you experience is the living contradiction to what you're saying.
#181 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
how do you know it would not have a conciousness
our brain works as a bunch of microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other
divided in various parts that do different things with them
its not that hard to understand, its not somethng super dooper pooper scooper
and it being automatic doesn't mean all would be the same
its all connected to the point of "that cell was made to do that thing, and then duplicate, then it did and after that the other cell acted differently maybe because it travelled to a part of the planet with different conditions or something, the experience was stored in its memory and then evolved in a different way
that's why everything is not the same, because its impossible for it to be the same
if you put a bunch of rbots designed to walk and stand up and keep walking in a straight line in an empty room they will evntually bump into the walls and then into each other and end up walking in different patterns, unles the room was designed for them not to do so which is not the case both in the metaphor and in real life
#182 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
That's not what I'm saying at all, that's not what I mean at all with 'being the same'
What I mean with 'being the same' is that in a hypothetical situation like you're describing everything could maybe be exactly the way like it is in this universe, indiscernible from the outside. With the only difference that there wouldn't be the internal feeling of experience.

I still have failed trying to make you comprehend my point, and I can't explain it any more clear without repeating myself.
You're claiming a very illogical and absurd thing, it doesn't make sense. You can't account for the actual internal experience of your consciousness through mere materialistic causality.
It implies that everything is a bunch of seperate automatic actions and reactions, it doesn't and it can't explain why matter/energy can experience itself.
You can explain certain functions of the mind, you can explain all the processes in the mind, but it can't account for why the mind experiences itself as these processes.

Plus, as I said before, apart from the impossibility of having the internal sense of experience as a singular being in a scenario like yours, it doesn't even have a need.
Everything would happen anyway in the exact same manner as it it's happening now, but everything would be automatic, everything would happen in the exact same manner whether you experience it or not, but it would just be an automatic process.
You would still behave and act in the same manner you're acting now, your mind mind would still be able to produce the exact same thoughts and feelings like it would now, it would still have the exact same abilities and functions as it has now, but everything would be automatic, there would be no actual internal experience where you experience yourself as all these processes.

And yes, our brain works as a bunch of microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other. But there's a lot more to it than that, that's just part of it. There's 'someone', a focal point of awareness, experiencing itself as these combined microscopic cells transmitting electric impulses one to the other.
If everything was just automatic chemical and electrical actions and reactions, there would be nothing that connects everything in a direct and instantaneous manner that would cause the ability to feel itself as all of these chemical and electrical actions and reactions at once, and as one.
#183 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
i don't see why not, i repeat our brain is a bunch of microscopic cells that transmit electric impulses one another
if we replicate that with a machine (to cellular scale) so far i don't see why it couldn't achieve a conciousness
you're implying that theres something else , something that trascends the physical plane just because of yes
well what if those "magic spirit aliens" decided to get on a robo brain then? jesus fucking christ
life happens all automatically? yes
it can be proven? yes
conciousness is just our brain experiencing itself
that it seems so weird for you to know that you have a conciousness that you have to make it "something out of body" is not my problem
#184 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You haven't represented a single actual argument on why it would create the sensation of being a singular being and why it wouldn't just be all automatic seperate processes.
Neither have you come with a counterargument that actually applies to anything I've said. I don't think you've understood me.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to realize that you're making conenctions that aren't there.
If everything was material determinism, everything would be seperate actions and reactions.
There wouldn't be 'someone' experiecing/observing these processes. Sure there could still be a body and a brain with all its current functions, but it wouldn't magically create a sense of "I" out of nowhere.
That it doesn't doesn't imply anything vague or weird, it just implies that things are connected on a deeper level on that our current understand of the world in incomplete.
Neither do I believe that consciousness as we know it is something out of the body, it just means that the essence of our mind and body is more than the material, that there are deeper levels that we're currently unaware of.

You might be able to create a highly intelligent computer with senses and enviromental awareness but in the end it's just negations, it isn't really a single thing, in essence it's just a bunch of seperate subsequent processes, there is nothing there observing these processes. There is nothing there that experiences itself as these processes. Such a case only simulates conscious behaviour, but it doesn't actually feel conscious, you could even program it to (appear) have a sense of 'I' and to have feelings, but it would still just be simulation, it wouldn't actually have the internal experience.

Similarly in a case with humans, if everything was just chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain it would just be a bunch of seperate actions and reactions, there wouldn't be 'anyone' there to observe these actions and reactions within the brain, it would just be blind (not in the literal manner) and automatic.
It would only be simulation of consiousness, we wouldn't have the interal experience of feeling conscious, neither would we need interal experience of feeling conscious. It doesn't make sense whatever way you look at it.

I belief in a logical universe, and I try to adhere to reason. And I too belief in causality.
But the internal sensation of us experiencing ourself as a single being can't be explained on a purely physical level. If everything was purely physical causality, it would mean everything was blind and automatic. Everything in the mind would be seperate processes following each other one after another, there wouldn't be anything there that could explain or cause how these combined seperate processes experience themself as an united single being living in a single moment.

All this just means our current understanding is limited and incomplete, that our understanding of matter and energy is just partial, that there's more for us to investigate and uncover. This shouldn't really strike you, should it?


#185 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
well just as you believe our conciousness is something deeper thatn our understanding which is something you'vebeen repeating trough all the argument
and i believe that it is not, and that it is all physical, and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, since the way we act is not bound to it which is something i've been repeating trough the whole argument
so lets go back to the original question
are those chemicals combined actually love?
we won't ever agree
because you believe love goes along with our conciousness in the deeper than our understanding thing
and i believe its al physical because even if our conciousness was in another plane of understanding it would be useless
so i guess we should end this now, because we won't ever agree
#186 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
You still haven't explained why or how there's 'someone' able to experience itself if everything would be a string of seperate subsequent actions and reactions.

Surely you must have reasons to belief the things you do? Could you give any indications why on you think that way?

Also what exactly do you mean by 'and even in the case it was like you say (which i believe its not the case) it would be completely useless, , since the way we act is not bound to it'? What case are you talking about? And could you elaborate on ', since the way we act is not bound to it'.
I'm completely in the dark what you're trying to convey here.
#187 - ilikepatatas (01/31/2015) [-]
as you still haven't explained how concience is separae from the body "someone" is able to experience itself because that someone is the brain, the brain experiences itself and creates the illusion that we're something else

and by "the way we act is not bound to it" im talking about that even if it was something appart from the body it wouldn't matter because of what i explained before that we don't have control over the way we act and its all automatic, and we just believe we do
so a conciousness (your version of it) would be completely useless as it would not have any control
#188 - auryn (01/31/2015) [-]
I see what you mean, thank you for explaining. But you're dismissing the possibility that higher planes/dimensions are not seperate from the physical but interpenetratable, and that the physical is dependant upon and the outcome of the higher planes/dimensions and able to exert influence, not through breaking the physical laws, but using the physical laws as a framework.
There's nothing unreasonable nor disprovable about such a hypothesis.

But back to the point, the burden of proof isn't really on me. I'm not the one claiming here, I'm just dismissing your claim. I'm just pointing out that a purely materialistic deterministic view doesn't account for our internal experience.
I don't see any reason or indication that it could, so that's why I'm asking you.

Surely you must think this way because of certain reasons? So what are these reasons?
#169 - There's also unselfishness where the individual gains nothing …  [+] (1 new reply) 01/29/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#170 - ilikepatatas (01/29/2015) [-]
well that kind of unselfishness does not exist
#166 - There's nothing vague,abstract or spiritual about what I'm say…  [+] (3 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#168 - ilikepatatas (01/28/2015) [-]
bu i do, unselfishness exist in a simple point of view, when you understand how it works, its no longer called unselfishness
#169 - auryn (01/29/2015) [-]
There's also unselfishness where the individual gains nothing for itself, neither physically nor psychologically.

#170 - ilikepatatas (01/29/2015) [-]
well that kind of unselfishness does not exist
#165 - How you act is choice. A limited choice indeed, being…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/28/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#167 - ilikepatatas (01/28/2015) [-]
i've already explained this before so imma give you a link
funnyjunk.com/Wheelchair+science+man+is+right/funny-pictures/5377537/73#73
#163 - You keep equating the feeling with love itself, but what I'm t…  [+] (5 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#164 - ilikepatatas (01/28/2015) [-]
its because in reality your definition of love does not exist
people were and are able to easily make up a concept for a bunch of stuff and events put together
all those things are able to be synthetically recreated and put together thus making syntethic love, but love nonetheless
but then youd go again and tell me how "that isn't love"
love is the word we use for that, a concept, meaningless ,its not something spiritual or anything
and i repeat:
what im telling you is that we can synthetically recreate that stuff and put it together , just in the way of the concept of love, thus making SYNTHETIC LOVE
after seven posts or so my english starts to fai so sorry
#166 - auryn (01/28/2015) [-]
There's nothing vague,abstract or spiritual about what I'm saying.

All I said is that love is unselfishness.

But you don't seem to be able to imagine a world where unselishness might exist, and I do. Really, that's the difference.
#168 - ilikepatatas (01/28/2015) [-]
bu i do, unselfishness exist in a simple point of view, when you understand how it works, its no longer called unselfishness
#169 - auryn (01/29/2015) [-]
There's also unselfishness where the individual gains nothing for itself, neither physically nor psychologically.

#170 - ilikepatatas (01/29/2015) [-]
well that kind of unselfishness does not exist
#160 - Not every action we make has to come from an egocentric point of view.  [+] (4 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Ima Stay Inside 0
#162 - ilikepatatas (01/28/2015) [-]
btw thats if we speak psychologically, biologically speaking its just your brain doing usual chemical administration shit brains do
#161 - ilikepatatas (01/28/2015) [-]
in fact they do, but its not entirely you, its your brain try, psychology describes us as 3 different "beings" in a brain the last last one is the one acting
#165 - auryn (01/28/2015) [-]
How you act is choice.

A limited choice indeed, being subconsiously influenced, and generally strongly driven by the ego.

But a choice nonethless. You don't have to give in to your tendencies or follow the path of the least resistance.
Although in reality they seldom are, and in a lot of cases, consciously or subconsciously, there's usually selfish motives mixed in, but actions don't have to stem from selfishness per se and not everything is driven by and can be explained in this matter.
#167 - ilikepatatas (01/28/2015) [-]
i've already explained this before so imma give you a link
funnyjunk.com/Wheelchair+science+man+is+right/funny-pictures/5377537/73#73

items

Total unique items point value: 0 / Total items point value: 0
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #62 - maybetraffy (09/05/2014) [-]
you're not ajrin
User avatar #65 to #64 - maybetraffy (09/06/2014) [-]
death by dying
User avatar #63 to #62 - ajrin (09/05/2014) [-]
no he's not
#37 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
here have more LEARNING on FJ
#42 to #37 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
The fact that you think this would even annoy me the slightest cheers me up.

I wish I could thumb that comment up.
User avatar #46 to #42 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
so when someone else posts something educational and not funny to you, you bitch, when i do it, you want to thumb me up

logic is a white woman and youre the ****** raping her
#49 to #46 - auryn (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't bitch.

I tried to explain the fallacy in your assumptions.

On the other hand, you started by rebuking the people who had a different opinion.
Haha, that hypocrisy thing again, huh.
User avatar #29 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
You're literally on a track to get yourself banned from too many thumbs down because you feel the need to post your opinion. You know that, right?
#30 to #29 - auryn (01/18/2013) [-]
I need over 7500 more red thumbs to get close to that, so I've got a while.

Although I once managed to get over 9000 red thumbs within 3 weeks on my previous account.
Definitely worth the ********** .
#36 to #30 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
so you admit to what i said

you troll for fun
#38 to #36 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
I hardly do, check my previous comments.

And even if I did, it wouln't make a difference, my intentions doesn't take away from my arguments, even if I were trolling it doesn't mean I'm not right, and most certainly doesn't make any of what you said any less ridiculous. lol.
User avatar #39 to #38 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
ahem....9000 red thumbs in 3 weeks = Troll
#40 to #39 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
You're point being?
User avatar #41 to #40 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
stating my fact
youre a troll who comes here to be a dick for a giggle

again ill hope you hit puberty soon
#43 to #41 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
Yes, I come here for a giggle.

You're point being?
#45 to #43 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
* comes here for a giggle   
* bitches at me for having a different opinion
* comes here for a giggle
* bitches at me for having a different opinion
#47 to #45 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
I didn't bitch at you for having a different opinion.

I tried to explain some things to you that you had, and still have, difficulty understanding.
Things like that people might have thumbed the content down for other reasons.
User avatar #53 to #47 - konradkurze (04/25/2014) [-]
well you obviously dont know funnyjunkers

if you ever paid attention to them. they largely bitch at anything that contradicts mainstream ideals of political corectness

in the case of this pic, providing the non-PC truth about race/species, the FJ kids would bitch about it being 'racist'

then again you seem to devote your time to ************ others instead of paying attention to them
#52 to #47 - konradkurze has deleted their comment [-]
#48 to #47 - konradkurze has deleted their comment [-]
#51 to #48 - auryn (04/25/2014) [-]
Read back all the comments of our conversation and you'll find that 90% of the ************ is done by you. I've said a thing or two but you resort to ungrounded insults pretty much every comment.

Hypocrisy much?
#50 to #48 - auryn (04/25/2014) [-]
Read back all the comments of our conversation and you'll find that 90% of the ************ is done by you. I've said a thing or two but you resort to ungrounded insults pretty much every comment.

Hypocrisy much?
#44 to #43 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
Your*
#31 to #30 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
WHAT, 9000?!?!
#32 to #31 - auryn (01/18/2013) [-]
Haha, yeah.

It was on the ponytime channel, bronies are very easily to startle.
#33 to #32 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
What if I told you that I'm a brony?
What if I told you that I'm a brony?
#35 to #34 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
Well, then good day, sir.
Well, then good day, sir.
User avatar #14 - wittyuser (05/31/2012) [-]
your user name is my name without the L
inb4 cool story bro
#15 to #15 - auryn (05/31/2012) [-]
I picked Auryn because I liked the symbol of the talisman and what it represents, both depicting duality and infinity.
User avatar #55 to #15 - Falkor (05/21/2014) [-]
you didn't pick it for the neverending story? : (
#56 to #55 - auryn (05/21/2014) [-]
Ofcourse I did!

That's why I chose it in the first place.
User avatar #57 to #56 - Falkor (05/21/2014) [-]
i just looked up what talisman was, lol
User avatar #12 - kylecolb (05/05/2012) [-]
are you on bodybuilding.com? do you have a profile there? love that site
#13 to #12 - auryn (05/05/2012) [-]
I've read an assload of articles and threads on that site, but I don't have a profile.
#10 - sharkwaffle **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#7 - neededllama (04/02/2012) [-]
So you're gonna keep trolling?
Also, why did you choose this name, and not another Trek name?
Did you not want to be known as Trek anymore?
#8 to #7 - auryn (04/02/2012) [-]
I figured I'll just keep a low profile this time and keep the trolling to a minimum.

User avatar #3 - coolponyboy ONLINE (03/29/2012) [-]
hey whats up?
#6 to #3 - auryn (03/31/2012) [-]
The sky.
 Friends (0)