Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

auryn

Rank #300 on Comments
no avatar Level 327 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Offline
Send mail to auryn Block auryn Invite auryn to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:3/17/2012
Last Login:12/24/2014
Location:The Netherlands
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#300
Highest Content Rank:#14558
Highest Comment Rank:#46
Content Thumbs: 95 total,  175 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 34069 total,  42482 ,  8413
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 73.8% (738/1000)
Level 327 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 328 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:2
Content Views:12830
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:6762
FJ Points:27621

latest user's comments

#247 - Ater each kill you get a tiny amount of opium pumped in your b… 11/29/2014 on u ded 0
#287 - My 8th image. 11/28/2014 on Reaction Image 0
#56 - I once decapitated a fly by shooting at it with a rubber band.… 11/27/2014 on Fly on a Bug Zapper in Slo-Mo 0
#122 - Ah yes, ADHD. I used to have ADHD too, but after a wh… 11/27/2014 on Only 6 hours? +1
#42 - Must proceed swiftly. 11/27/2014 on PINGAS 0
#113 - causality* typo. 11/27/2014 on freak out 0
#112 - What I mean with "everything would still be the same"…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/27/2014 on freak out 0
#113 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
causality*

typo.
#111 - > "We might just have created the illusion of awarness…  [+] (5 new replies) 11/27/2014 on freak out 0
User avatar #115 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1 answer
Yes and that is how I personally believe it's, everything is happening in the physical realm and the sense of awarness is something we evolved for better survival odds since our brain is thing that made us into the apex predator of our world.
And it's very possible our consciousness is an illusion that we cannot se past or and illusion we created to explain something we dont understand.
The ability to see things from a that perspective is an imortant tool that allow us to think outside the box and that alone I see as a "proof"/reason to why we would evolve it to better our survival. The possibility that we evolved it for our survival rather than we got it from some kind of soul thing, is much more likely, you know Ockham's Razor. That said I do not say your theory is not a possibility but there exist none evidence to say thats the only possibility that could be real.
User avatar #114 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2 answer
You believe that the connections in the brain cannot create the sensation of awarness. And if the sense of awarness is an illusion then you are not feeling it you only think you are.
Similar as we had a damn hard time to explain how lightning strikes down into the ancient oceans managed to jumpstart the first living cells, yet it did.
Really if you have unlocked every secret to how we think and why we think or why/how we make thoughts in our brain maybe you should go to tell someone cause that would automaticlly give you a Nobel prize.
Just cause you cannot explain or understand something dont mean it dont exist or happens, you really dont know how we think, take in experience or how making all the connections in our brain through electricity and other things so you should stop making things up of how our brain works to promote your idea.

You requested proof from me for some reason but you dont even know what you wanted me to give you proof of since I only been saying until we got definite facts and proof only one solution is right and possible we should still be open to others.
I REQUEST FROM YOU, give me and others here definite, indisputable proof that our own MINDS dont exist inside our own heads.
#118 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1

It's unfortunate how I still haven't been able to make you comprehend to what I have been trying to convey multiple times now.
The actual sensation/feeling of being consciousness/aware has nothing to do with our capability of survival, or the capability for an organism to evolve.
Because if everything was purely physical, the brain and body would be a self-operating system, it would think and feel for itself automatically, it would use its capability to survive automatically.
It still would've used all of its aspects and assets, it still would have evolved all those aspects and assets.
It still would have that ability to 'see things from that perpective and think outside of the box', there just wouldn't be an "I" to experience it.
It still would have appeared to be conscious in each and every regard. But merely as the result of the billions of seperate actions and reactions in the brain working themself out. It wouldn't actually have the internal experience of being conscious in the sense that there wouldn't be an entity that experiences itself as all of these actions and reactions and the many different body and brain cells composed of the numourus different chemical elements at once and as one.
#117 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2

You must understand your implication that by saying everything is purely physical you're also implying that all internal processes of the brain are physical, thus that every thought and feeling within the brain has a physical existence.
And as we all know matter and energy behaves in certain predictable and logic ways which we call the physical laws of cosmos.
It means there wouldn't be a difference whether we would be an automaton or actually have the sensation of being conscious, because regardless of our sensation of consciousness, matter and energy behave in certain ways.
Feeling consciousness isn't magically going to alter the physical laws of the cosmos, it wouldn't add or change anything to a materialistic deterministic universe.

If things were purely physical It would make no difference whether we actually feel conscious or not.
So not only does it not explain consciousness, it wouldn't even make a difference.

Your reasoning makes no sense.
#116 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 3

And the very fact that you feel conscious is already evidence that consiousness exist.
Because if conscious didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to feel it. The word 'illusion' means 'having to appearance of'.
If consciousness was just an illusion, you would just appear to be conscious and not actually be conscious.
If this is not what you mean to say than you might want to rephrase yourself because saying it like this doesn't make any sense. You're arguing against the very definition of a word.

All in all, that we feel conscious is just an indication that things are connected on a deeper level.
That there are more layers to the cosmos than we're currently aware of.

It isn't implying anything illogical or contradictory to current knowledge. It isn't implying any breaking of the laws we are aware of.
It just means there is more than we currently see and know of. But that shouldn't be such a hard fact to accept should it?

Although you are right that I'm no authority on how the brain works, or that there's even somebody in the world who comes close to understanding it, for the illustration of my point it doesn't make any difference how the brain works.
Because regardless how it works, if everything was purely physical, it would still be all matter and energy, this is your claim, not mine.

My point isn't build upon how the brain works, it's build upon the nature of matter and energy and how it could never account for the feeling of being consciousness.

#109 - You're still missing the point. If, once again hypoth…  [+] (3 new replies) 11/27/2014 on freak out 0
User avatar #110 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
And you who is the one saying it only got 1 solution still wont bring any proof yet you expected me to when I claim there are many possible theories, you do know it's the one who are arguing for 1 definite thing who has the burden of proof right, or is that something you missed completely?

What do you mean everything would be the same?! Not even data in computers is the same even though their smaller parts it's made up off are the same.
Once again bring some fucking proof that your theory is the only possible one, at this moment the only thing you are doing is screaming loudly "NO MY IDEA IS RIGHT, CAUSE I SAY SO!!!".
You are only bringing up hypothetically scenarios that might be as you describe them but you cannot know that, you only believe they are so, until it can actually be tested it's still only a theory.
#112 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
What I mean with "everything would still be the same" is that:

If, assuming everything would be purely physical, so would your thoughts be, and so would your feelings be, and your fantasies, etc. etc.
Everything would exist in the physical brain as a combination of certain chemical elements and electro signals running through these.

This means that if everything was purely physical, the human body would still think, feel, fantasize, and everything else.
But merely as the result of logical causualy, it would all just be individual actions and reactions, one after another. And even though in a situation like this someone would appear to be conscious, consciousness would just be an illusion. There would be no one to experience, there would be no part in this that would explain the fact that you experience yourself as an singular being, that you experience yourself as all these seperate actions and reactions within the brain as one.
#113 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
causality*

typo.
#181 - **auryn rolled comment #164 ** : Wor… 11/26/2014 on White people -1
#177 - Just roll with it.  [+] (2 new replies) 11/26/2014 on White people +2
#180 - hashtronaut (11/26/2014) [-]
#181 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
**auryn rolled comment #164 ** :
BOOM BOOM POW SUPER BASS! - aioFAILS


Word of advice.
#137 - "Discrimination is action that denies social participatio…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/26/2014 on Ferguson 0
User avatar #138 - starblood (11/26/2014) [-]
That's true. It's 'fair' because the n word has been used harmfully towards black people since like, forever. It's just a matter of not being racist
#135 - That's discrimination.  [+] (3 new replies) 11/26/2014 on Ferguson 0
User avatar #136 - starblood (11/26/2014) [-]
Yes. It's only fair
#137 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
"Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".

Discrimination is by definition unfair.
User avatar #138 - starblood (11/26/2014) [-]
That's true. It's 'fair' because the n word has been used harmfully towards black people since like, forever. It's just a matter of not being racist
#106 - But the keywords are really: "logical negation", &qu… 11/26/2014 on freak out 0
#105 - One more related example that might make it a bit more clearer… 11/26/2014 on freak out 0
#104 - I'm coming off as a religous nutjob because I don't belief thi…  [+] (12 new replies) 11/26/2014 on freak out 0
User avatar #108 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 1
No the religious nutjob came from when you started to say that everything in the univers happens for a reason and goes on about our mind exist outside our bodies that sounds very much like you trying to say souls are real.

If you talking about everything happens as a response to something else then I understand your point, which you did explain in this response yes, but in the former it sounds very much like some religious nutjob saying "all bad things happens for a reason".

I dont even have a problem with the "idea" of our minds existing outside of our bodies in some sort of form, but I see no evidence or fact that says that is the ONLY explanation possible.
And the burden of proof is more on you who is trying to say there is only 1 answer possible while I'm still open to that their can be many explenations.
Your point simplified is "We are aware therfor we must exist outside our physical bodies." but you could just as easily say "We are aware cause a god made us to be it." and that would have the same amount of proof, evidence and probability.

You believe the robot could not have the same amount of awarness cause you believe the sense of awarness cannot be in a physical body, I believe it can and we both have the same amount of right cause neither can prove the other wrong in it.

Yes without the sense of awarness/consciousness we would still take in our input the same way, but our output is determined by our past experiences and without awarness we would not understand those experiences the same way, we would not dream or fantasize which has been shown to be our own simulater where we test and try things to better prepare us, awarness could through that be explained/thought off as a survival skill we evolved.

And exactly where in cosmos is life required? Still it's. Where in cosmos is gravity required? Still it's.
Just cause you havn't seen or understood the need for it does not mean the need is not there.
#109 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
You're still missing the point.

If, once again hypothetically accepting your claim, everything was simply the result of physical matter and energy interacting with eachother, then so would dreams and fantasies be. If the mind is purely physical it means that every thought and feeling exists within the brain in a physical form. In this situation EVERYTHING in the brain would still be the same, we would still dream, fantasize, we would still (appear) to be aware and conscious in every regard, apart from the very fact that we wouldn't be aware of our awareness, there would be "no one" to consciously FEEL itself as one being experiencing itself through the body and brain, because everything would simply be the result of a series of seperate interactions within the brain.

There would be "no one" there to experience the mind because the mind itself would be an automaton, I would just be seperate electrical currents running through billions of "propositions"
User avatar #110 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
And you who is the one saying it only got 1 solution still wont bring any proof yet you expected me to when I claim there are many possible theories, you do know it's the one who are arguing for 1 definite thing who has the burden of proof right, or is that something you missed completely?

What do you mean everything would be the same?! Not even data in computers is the same even though their smaller parts it's made up off are the same.
Once again bring some fucking proof that your theory is the only possible one, at this moment the only thing you are doing is screaming loudly "NO MY IDEA IS RIGHT, CAUSE I SAY SO!!!".
You are only bringing up hypothetically scenarios that might be as you describe them but you cannot know that, you only believe they are so, until it can actually be tested it's still only a theory.
#112 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
What I mean with "everything would still be the same" is that:

If, assuming everything would be purely physical, so would your thoughts be, and so would your feelings be, and your fantasies, etc. etc.
Everything would exist in the physical brain as a combination of certain chemical elements and electro signals running through these.

This means that if everything was purely physical, the human body would still think, feel, fantasize, and everything else.
But merely as the result of logical causualy, it would all just be individual actions and reactions, one after another. And even though in a situation like this someone would appear to be conscious, consciousness would just be an illusion. There would be no one to experience, there would be no part in this that would explain the fact that you experience yourself as an singular being, that you experience yourself as all these seperate actions and reactions within the brain as one.
#113 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
causality*

typo.
User avatar #107 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 2
And in all of this you seem to forget, the term awarness is a human term, it's not a physical law, it could be a phycological law but thats harder to test.
We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist.

You are so totally shut in your own thoughts that you refuses to even think about other possibilities other than your own.
You told me "You must ask yourself why do you think that", I do that every day over most things, big and the ones that seems trivial to always think about things in a new way and get new perspective so I keep my mind open for new ideas.
When did you stop doing that?
#111 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
>"We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist."

Well, that's exactly related to my point. If we indeed were nothing but chemical and electrical reactions, awareness would only be an illusion.
I thank you for using that word, because it perfectly describes what I intended.

But If conconsciousness / awareness was only an illusion you wouldn't experience it, it would just all be millions of seperate electrical and chemical reactions running through the brain automatically.
But what makes you experience all these seperate actions and reactions? What makes you experience your thoughts, There is nothing in a serie of deterministic causality that could ever account for the feeling of consciousness.
Why do you think it would? There is no indication. Clearly you must think this way because of a reason? But I haven't heard you mention it yet, so I'm curious what makes you think this way.
User avatar #115 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1 answer
Yes and that is how I personally believe it's, everything is happening in the physical realm and the sense of awarness is something we evolved for better survival odds since our brain is thing that made us into the apex predator of our world.
And it's very possible our consciousness is an illusion that we cannot se past or and illusion we created to explain something we dont understand.
The ability to see things from a that perspective is an imortant tool that allow us to think outside the box and that alone I see as a "proof"/reason to why we would evolve it to better our survival. The possibility that we evolved it for our survival rather than we got it from some kind of soul thing, is much more likely, you know Ockham's Razor. That said I do not say your theory is not a possibility but there exist none evidence to say thats the only possibility that could be real.
User avatar #114 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2 answer
You believe that the connections in the brain cannot create the sensation of awarness. And if the sense of awarness is an illusion then you are not feeling it you only think you are.
Similar as we had a damn hard time to explain how lightning strikes down into the ancient oceans managed to jumpstart the first living cells, yet it did.
Really if you have unlocked every secret to how we think and why we think or why/how we make thoughts in our brain maybe you should go to tell someone cause that would automaticlly give you a Nobel prize.
Just cause you cannot explain or understand something dont mean it dont exist or happens, you really dont know how we think, take in experience or how making all the connections in our brain through electricity and other things so you should stop making things up of how our brain works to promote your idea.

You requested proof from me for some reason but you dont even know what you wanted me to give you proof of since I only been saying until we got definite facts and proof only one solution is right and possible we should still be open to others.
I REQUEST FROM YOU, give me and others here definite, indisputable proof that our own MINDS dont exist inside our own heads.
#118 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1

It's unfortunate how I still haven't been able to make you comprehend to what I have been trying to convey multiple times now.
The actual sensation/feeling of being consciousness/aware has nothing to do with our capability of survival, or the capability for an organism to evolve.
Because if everything was purely physical, the brain and body would be a self-operating system, it would think and feel for itself automatically, it would use its capability to survive automatically.
It still would've used all of its aspects and assets, it still would have evolved all those aspects and assets.
It still would have that ability to 'see things from that perpective and think outside of the box', there just wouldn't be an "I" to experience it.
It still would have appeared to be conscious in each and every regard. But merely as the result of the billions of seperate actions and reactions in the brain working themself out. It wouldn't actually have the internal experience of being conscious in the sense that there wouldn't be an entity that experiences itself as all of these actions and reactions and the many different body and brain cells composed of the numourus different chemical elements at once and as one.
#117 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2

You must understand your implication that by saying everything is purely physical you're also implying that all internal processes of the brain are physical, thus that every thought and feeling within the brain has a physical existence.
And as we all know matter and energy behaves in certain predictable and logic ways which we call the physical laws of cosmos.
It means there wouldn't be a difference whether we would be an automaton or actually have the sensation of being conscious, because regardless of our sensation of consciousness, matter and energy behave in certain ways.
Feeling consciousness isn't magically going to alter the physical laws of the cosmos, it wouldn't add or change anything to a materialistic deterministic universe.

If things were purely physical It would make no difference whether we actually feel conscious or not.
So not only does it not explain consciousness, it wouldn't even make a difference.

Your reasoning makes no sense.
#116 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 3

And the very fact that you feel conscious is already evidence that consiousness exist.
Because if conscious didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to feel it. The word 'illusion' means 'having to appearance of'.
If consciousness was just an illusion, you would just appear to be conscious and not actually be conscious.
If this is not what you mean to say than you might want to rephrase yourself because saying it like this doesn't make any sense. You're arguing against the very definition of a word.

All in all, that we feel conscious is just an indication that things are connected on a deeper level.
That there are more layers to the cosmos than we're currently aware of.

It isn't implying anything illogical or contradictory to current knowledge. It isn't implying any breaking of the laws we are aware of.
It just means there is more than we currently see and know of. But that shouldn't be such a hard fact to accept should it?

Although you are right that I'm no authority on how the brain works, or that there's even somebody in the world who comes close to understanding it, for the illustration of my point it doesn't make any difference how the brain works.
Because regardless how it works, if everything was purely physical, it would still be all matter and energy, this is your claim, not mine.

My point isn't build upon how the brain works, it's build upon the nature of matter and energy and how it could never account for the feeling of being consciousness.

#89 - Generally the word of advice is to not have a really **…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/26/2014 on Fallout Cannon 0
User avatar #92 - deadnanners (11/26/2014) [-]
fallout 3 doesn't run properly on windows 7 and only walks on windows 8 at best
#44 - What makes you so sure it's a Gameboy Color and not a Gameboy … 11/26/2014 on Pokemon Trainer +1
#102 - (Part 2) Outside from the fact that the cause of sens… 11/26/2014 on freak out 0
#101 - Matter and energy of the physical plane might be the result of…  [+] (16 new replies) 11/26/2014 on freak out 0
User avatar #103 - stifflimb (11/26/2014) [-]
"Logical and plausible hypothese" is the keywords here, you already said the mind must be seperated from the physical body meaning there are no room for maybes.
If it works and does something then it requires energy, or if it does not require any energy then it already breaks other laws of physics.

It might be as intelligent but it might not percieve things the same way meaning it could result in lesser chance for our survival.
It would still require an awarness to better take in new information and experiences which in turn would result in better automatically responses.

Fine then where in this string of events does life magically arise, where in this string of events does energy magically take solid form.

"Consciousness - The state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc." Nothing in that definiton goes against that it's a function for better survival to be aware of yourself and your surroundings.
To knowingly control your body you need to be aware of it.
And you know you really starting to come of as some religious nutjob when starting to say that everything happens for a reason and got a cause.

And you should know by now that just cause we cannot explain it at the moment does not rule it out, if it did then the Earth actually was flat in the dark ages.
We still dont quite know how gravity works but that dont mean it's the work of a freaking space god.
#106 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
But the keywords are really: "logical negation", "determism"

If you really understood them you would also understand the implication that nowhere in a purely physical world would there be a cause or explanation for the sensation of awareness, because everything would just be a series of events working themself out naturally and automatic through the laws.

Nowhere in this situation would it require anything to actually feel aware of consciousness.
#105 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
One more related example that might make it a bit more clearer. Imagine we would build a "self-aware" robot that would process the world around him in a similar that we do, through similar senses, and similar cognitive functions.
And imagine he would be able to form equally complex thoughts about everything and himself, and imagine he could express itself too in similar way and communicate, and that it able to learn and adapt too, and too form habits and a personality.

But no matter how infintely complex or humanlike it would become, it would all still be mere NEGATION, it would and could APPEAR to be aware perfectly in each regard but it wouldn't actually have the sensation of being aware.
It might process the incoming information through senses, like we do. It might process and analyze the incoming information, it might process and analyze it's own thoughts or hypothetical situations, it might perform actions based upon his thoughts, it might do everything we do, but in the end it would all be the result of NEGATION.

It might seem and perform aware, but It wouldn't actually have the sensation of being aware, it would all be NEGATION.
Similarly if would be purely physical everything would simply be NEGATION.

You don't need to have the sensation of awareness to able to seem or act aware.
To quote you: "It might be as intelligent but it might not percieve things the same way meaning it could result in lesser chance for our survival."

No,(hypothetically accepting your claim we would be purely physical) you would still perceive things exactly the same, you would still think, feel, analyze exactly the same, you just wouldn't be aware of it.
This is what automatic means.
#104 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
I'm coming off as a religous nutjob because I don't belief things magically happen? Lol? This is really the world upside down.
That nothing ever happens without reason is basic science, and just common logic, it's basically Newton's Third Law of Motion (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
Small basic example, particles or ojects don't magically start to move out of their self for no reason, there must a cause for them to move. Things don't fall to the ground for no reason, it is because of gravity.
Nothing ever happens without a cause. Things don't magically happen out of themselves, it goes against all known laws of the cosmos.
This is the very foundation of science and logic.

And you're still completely missing my main point. None of these questions would've been asked if you actually comprehended what I meant.
I'm having difficulty explaining because there's little other ways too say it and I'm already sounding repetitive.

And you're the one adhering to illogical assumptions based on no ground.
There is no reason or indication to assume the sensation of consciousness or awareness can or would be caused by a series of deterministic of individual but connected string of events, in fact it goes against all logic.

You claim something for which is no appearant reason, so the burden of proof is on you.
You must ask yourself why do you think that, what do you see as a plausible cause or indication?



User avatar #108 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 1
No the religious nutjob came from when you started to say that everything in the univers happens for a reason and goes on about our mind exist outside our bodies that sounds very much like you trying to say souls are real.

If you talking about everything happens as a response to something else then I understand your point, which you did explain in this response yes, but in the former it sounds very much like some religious nutjob saying "all bad things happens for a reason".

I dont even have a problem with the "idea" of our minds existing outside of our bodies in some sort of form, but I see no evidence or fact that says that is the ONLY explanation possible.
And the burden of proof is more on you who is trying to say there is only 1 answer possible while I'm still open to that their can be many explenations.
Your point simplified is "We are aware therfor we must exist outside our physical bodies." but you could just as easily say "We are aware cause a god made us to be it." and that would have the same amount of proof, evidence and probability.

You believe the robot could not have the same amount of awarness cause you believe the sense of awarness cannot be in a physical body, I believe it can and we both have the same amount of right cause neither can prove the other wrong in it.

Yes without the sense of awarness/consciousness we would still take in our input the same way, but our output is determined by our past experiences and without awarness we would not understand those experiences the same way, we would not dream or fantasize which has been shown to be our own simulater where we test and try things to better prepare us, awarness could through that be explained/thought off as a survival skill we evolved.

And exactly where in cosmos is life required? Still it's. Where in cosmos is gravity required? Still it's.
Just cause you havn't seen or understood the need for it does not mean the need is not there.
#109 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
You're still missing the point.

If, once again hypothetically accepting your claim, everything was simply the result of physical matter and energy interacting with eachother, then so would dreams and fantasies be. If the mind is purely physical it means that every thought and feeling exists within the brain in a physical form. In this situation EVERYTHING in the brain would still be the same, we would still dream, fantasize, we would still (appear) to be aware and conscious in every regard, apart from the very fact that we wouldn't be aware of our awareness, there would be "no one" to consciously FEEL itself as one being experiencing itself through the body and brain, because everything would simply be the result of a series of seperate interactions within the brain.

There would be "no one" there to experience the mind because the mind itself would be an automaton, I would just be seperate electrical currents running through billions of "propositions"
User avatar #110 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
And you who is the one saying it only got 1 solution still wont bring any proof yet you expected me to when I claim there are many possible theories, you do know it's the one who are arguing for 1 definite thing who has the burden of proof right, or is that something you missed completely?

What do you mean everything would be the same?! Not even data in computers is the same even though their smaller parts it's made up off are the same.
Once again bring some fucking proof that your theory is the only possible one, at this moment the only thing you are doing is screaming loudly "NO MY IDEA IS RIGHT, CAUSE I SAY SO!!!".
You are only bringing up hypothetically scenarios that might be as you describe them but you cannot know that, you only believe they are so, until it can actually be tested it's still only a theory.
#112 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
What I mean with "everything would still be the same" is that:

If, assuming everything would be purely physical, so would your thoughts be, and so would your feelings be, and your fantasies, etc. etc.
Everything would exist in the physical brain as a combination of certain chemical elements and electro signals running through these.

This means that if everything was purely physical, the human body would still think, feel, fantasize, and everything else.
But merely as the result of logical causualy, it would all just be individual actions and reactions, one after another. And even though in a situation like this someone would appear to be conscious, consciousness would just be an illusion. There would be no one to experience, there would be no part in this that would explain the fact that you experience yourself as an singular being, that you experience yourself as all these seperate actions and reactions within the brain as one.
#113 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
causality*

typo.
User avatar #107 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 2
And in all of this you seem to forget, the term awarness is a human term, it's not a physical law, it could be a phycological law but thats harder to test.
We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist.

You are so totally shut in your own thoughts that you refuses to even think about other possibilities other than your own.
You told me "You must ask yourself why do you think that", I do that every day over most things, big and the ones that seems trivial to always think about things in a new way and get new perspective so I keep my mind open for new ideas.
When did you stop doing that?
#111 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
>"We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist."

Well, that's exactly related to my point. If we indeed were nothing but chemical and electrical reactions, awareness would only be an illusion.
I thank you for using that word, because it perfectly describes what I intended.

But If conconsciousness / awareness was only an illusion you wouldn't experience it, it would just all be millions of seperate electrical and chemical reactions running through the brain automatically.
But what makes you experience all these seperate actions and reactions? What makes you experience your thoughts, There is nothing in a serie of deterministic causality that could ever account for the feeling of consciousness.
Why do you think it would? There is no indication. Clearly you must think this way because of a reason? But I haven't heard you mention it yet, so I'm curious what makes you think this way.
User avatar #115 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1 answer
Yes and that is how I personally believe it's, everything is happening in the physical realm and the sense of awarness is something we evolved for better survival odds since our brain is thing that made us into the apex predator of our world.
And it's very possible our consciousness is an illusion that we cannot se past or and illusion we created to explain something we dont understand.
The ability to see things from a that perspective is an imortant tool that allow us to think outside the box and that alone I see as a "proof"/reason to why we would evolve it to better our survival. The possibility that we evolved it for our survival rather than we got it from some kind of soul thing, is much more likely, you know Ockham's Razor. That said I do not say your theory is not a possibility but there exist none evidence to say thats the only possibility that could be real.
User avatar #114 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2 answer
You believe that the connections in the brain cannot create the sensation of awarness. And if the sense of awarness is an illusion then you are not feeling it you only think you are.
Similar as we had a damn hard time to explain how lightning strikes down into the ancient oceans managed to jumpstart the first living cells, yet it did.
Really if you have unlocked every secret to how we think and why we think or why/how we make thoughts in our brain maybe you should go to tell someone cause that would automaticlly give you a Nobel prize.
Just cause you cannot explain or understand something dont mean it dont exist or happens, you really dont know how we think, take in experience or how making all the connections in our brain through electricity and other things so you should stop making things up of how our brain works to promote your idea.

You requested proof from me for some reason but you dont even know what you wanted me to give you proof of since I only been saying until we got definite facts and proof only one solution is right and possible we should still be open to others.
I REQUEST FROM YOU, give me and others here definite, indisputable proof that our own MINDS dont exist inside our own heads.
#118 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1

It's unfortunate how I still haven't been able to make you comprehend to what I have been trying to convey multiple times now.
The actual sensation/feeling of being consciousness/aware has nothing to do with our capability of survival, or the capability for an organism to evolve.
Because if everything was purely physical, the brain and body would be a self-operating system, it would think and feel for itself automatically, it would use its capability to survive automatically.
It still would've used all of its aspects and assets, it still would have evolved all those aspects and assets.
It still would have that ability to 'see things from that perpective and think outside of the box', there just wouldn't be an "I" to experience it.
It still would have appeared to be conscious in each and every regard. But merely as the result of the billions of seperate actions and reactions in the brain working themself out. It wouldn't actually have the internal experience of being conscious in the sense that there wouldn't be an entity that experiences itself as all of these actions and reactions and the many different body and brain cells composed of the numourus different chemical elements at once and as one.
#117 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2

You must understand your implication that by saying everything is purely physical you're also implying that all internal processes of the brain are physical, thus that every thought and feeling within the brain has a physical existence.
And as we all know matter and energy behaves in certain predictable and logic ways which we call the physical laws of cosmos.
It means there wouldn't be a difference whether we would be an automaton or actually have the sensation of being conscious, because regardless of our sensation of consciousness, matter and energy behave in certain ways.
Feeling consciousness isn't magically going to alter the physical laws of the cosmos, it wouldn't add or change anything to a materialistic deterministic universe.

If things were purely physical It would make no difference whether we actually feel conscious or not.
So not only does it not explain consciousness, it wouldn't even make a difference.

Your reasoning makes no sense.
#116 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 3

And the very fact that you feel conscious is already evidence that consiousness exist.
Because if conscious didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to feel it. The word 'illusion' means 'having to appearance of'.
If consciousness was just an illusion, you would just appear to be conscious and not actually be conscious.
If this is not what you mean to say than you might want to rephrase yourself because saying it like this doesn't make any sense. You're arguing against the very definition of a word.

All in all, that we feel conscious is just an indication that things are connected on a deeper level.
That there are more layers to the cosmos than we're currently aware of.

It isn't implying anything illogical or contradictory to current knowledge. It isn't implying any breaking of the laws we are aware of.
It just means there is more than we currently see and know of. But that shouldn't be such a hard fact to accept should it?

Although you are right that I'm no authority on how the brain works, or that there's even somebody in the world who comes close to understanding it, for the illustration of my point it doesn't make any difference how the brain works.
Because regardless how it works, if everything was purely physical, it would still be all matter and energy, this is your claim, not mine.

My point isn't build upon how the brain works, it's build upon the nature of matter and energy and how it could never account for the feeling of being consciousness.

#102 - This confirms my theory that Roswell was a terrorist attack fr… 11/25/2014 on Wake up America 0
#130 - Their first two albums were pretty good, as far as Nu-Metal concerned. 11/25/2014 on It's not just a phase, mom +1
#99 - I'm not saying consciousness is special, and the mind isn't br…  [+] (19 new replies) 11/25/2014 on freak out 0
User avatar #100 - stifflimb (11/25/2014) [-]
You are saying that our mind exist outside our physical body (the brain) meaning for it to keep functioning it would require energy, but it dont get energy from anywhere else meaning it would be breaking the laws of physics.
And how does the roots of cosmos matters when neither you or I knows what those roots are?

It's very possible that our every actions and thoughts are completely automaticly done from whatever input we recieve based on our genetics and our past experiences and the feeling of awarness is evolved forward to better understand and analyze your past experiences giving you a higher chance of survival.
Also the sense of awareness could just be a figment of our imagination made up from us trying to figure out all things including ourselfs.

I know of "logical negation" and then dumbed down pretty much means if P is false then -P is true, but what is it that makes you believe there is only two possible answears for this question?

You believe it would not give the feeling of being aware, how do you actually know this?

Consciousness likely does have a need to improve our survival.

Omg you go on about me not understanding you while you go above and beyond to simply ignore what others say.

The sense of "I" could simply be there to differs ourselfs in groups to "yet again" better our own survival.
#102 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
(Part 2)

Outside from the fact that the cause of sensation of awareness can not be explained from a purely physical point of view, it wouldn't even make a difference, everything obeys the laws of the cosmos, If everything would simply be physical action and reactions things would work themselves EXACTLY the same regardless of having the sensation of being aware or not.
It doesn't require the sensation of being aware, similarly how a calculator doesn't require a sensation of awareness how to do math. It would all be negation.

The assumption the sensation of awareness is caused by physical actions and reactions is quite illogical.
Why would you think it is? Why would there be the sensation of awareness in mere seperate physical actions and reactions? Where in this series of events can you specifically point the cause for this?
#101 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
Matter and energy of the physical plane might be the result of and dependant upon higher finer interpenetrating planes.
There are a lot of logical and plausible hypotheses of metaphysical systems with gradients of interpenetrating increasingly less limited spheres/planes.
There's no reason to dismiss the mind might not be dependant upon physical matter and energy. It doesn't necessarily break any law.

But you still miss my point, the brain would be just as intelligent if it didn't have the sensation of awareness, it would still have all its functions, it would still have just as much memory, just as much cognitive functions, just as much critical and analyticial abilities, everything would be exactly the same.
But everything in the brain would be the result of seperate deterministic actions and reactions, the brain would still use the eyes, register light, and use all its other senses, it would still process thoughts, feelings and everything else exactly the same, but it would be dry negation, it would all be the result of millions of seperate responses working itself out naturally and automatically.

Now you tell me why would it be conscious? Where in this string of events does a consciousness magically arise? There's absolutely no reason for, nor can a possible cause be appointed.
Nothing in the phenomenal world every happened without reason, everything within time and space has a cause.
There is no cause for the sensation of consciousness if the body would be purely physical.

Natural physical actions and reaction don't require sensation of awareness, and can't explain the sensation of awareness.
It would be completely illogical and contradictonary to anything science has ever taught us about the universe to assume that if we are purely physical, somewhere in this logical working out of millions of seperate actions and reaction within the brain, that doesn't require an awareness, for no reason it would create a sense awareness.

(Continued in part 2)
User avatar #103 - stifflimb (11/26/2014) [-]
"Logical and plausible hypothese" is the keywords here, you already said the mind must be seperated from the physical body meaning there are no room for maybes.
If it works and does something then it requires energy, or if it does not require any energy then it already breaks other laws of physics.

It might be as intelligent but it might not percieve things the same way meaning it could result in lesser chance for our survival.
It would still require an awarness to better take in new information and experiences which in turn would result in better automatically responses.

Fine then where in this string of events does life magically arise, where in this string of events does energy magically take solid form.

"Consciousness - The state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc." Nothing in that definiton goes against that it's a function for better survival to be aware of yourself and your surroundings.
To knowingly control your body you need to be aware of it.
And you know you really starting to come of as some religious nutjob when starting to say that everything happens for a reason and got a cause.

And you should know by now that just cause we cannot explain it at the moment does not rule it out, if it did then the Earth actually was flat in the dark ages.
We still dont quite know how gravity works but that dont mean it's the work of a freaking space god.
#106 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
But the keywords are really: "logical negation", "determism"

If you really understood them you would also understand the implication that nowhere in a purely physical world would there be a cause or explanation for the sensation of awareness, because everything would just be a series of events working themself out naturally and automatic through the laws.

Nowhere in this situation would it require anything to actually feel aware of consciousness.
#105 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
One more related example that might make it a bit more clearer. Imagine we would build a "self-aware" robot that would process the world around him in a similar that we do, through similar senses, and similar cognitive functions.
And imagine he would be able to form equally complex thoughts about everything and himself, and imagine he could express itself too in similar way and communicate, and that it able to learn and adapt too, and too form habits and a personality.

But no matter how infintely complex or humanlike it would become, it would all still be mere NEGATION, it would and could APPEAR to be aware perfectly in each regard but it wouldn't actually have the sensation of being aware.
It might process the incoming information through senses, like we do. It might process and analyze the incoming information, it might process and analyze it's own thoughts or hypothetical situations, it might perform actions based upon his thoughts, it might do everything we do, but in the end it would all be the result of NEGATION.

It might seem and perform aware, but It wouldn't actually have the sensation of being aware, it would all be NEGATION.
Similarly if would be purely physical everything would simply be NEGATION.

You don't need to have the sensation of awareness to able to seem or act aware.
To quote you: "It might be as intelligent but it might not percieve things the same way meaning it could result in lesser chance for our survival."

No,(hypothetically accepting your claim we would be purely physical) you would still perceive things exactly the same, you would still think, feel, analyze exactly the same, you just wouldn't be aware of it.
This is what automatic means.
#104 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
I'm coming off as a religous nutjob because I don't belief things magically happen? Lol? This is really the world upside down.
That nothing ever happens without reason is basic science, and just common logic, it's basically Newton's Third Law of Motion (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
Small basic example, particles or ojects don't magically start to move out of their self for no reason, there must a cause for them to move. Things don't fall to the ground for no reason, it is because of gravity.
Nothing ever happens without a cause. Things don't magically happen out of themselves, it goes against all known laws of the cosmos.
This is the very foundation of science and logic.

And you're still completely missing my main point. None of these questions would've been asked if you actually comprehended what I meant.
I'm having difficulty explaining because there's little other ways too say it and I'm already sounding repetitive.

And you're the one adhering to illogical assumptions based on no ground.
There is no reason or indication to assume the sensation of consciousness or awareness can or would be caused by a series of deterministic of individual but connected string of events, in fact it goes against all logic.

You claim something for which is no appearant reason, so the burden of proof is on you.
You must ask yourself why do you think that, what do you see as a plausible cause or indication?



User avatar #108 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 1
No the religious nutjob came from when you started to say that everything in the univers happens for a reason and goes on about our mind exist outside our bodies that sounds very much like you trying to say souls are real.

If you talking about everything happens as a response to something else then I understand your point, which you did explain in this response yes, but in the former it sounds very much like some religious nutjob saying "all bad things happens for a reason".

I dont even have a problem with the "idea" of our minds existing outside of our bodies in some sort of form, but I see no evidence or fact that says that is the ONLY explanation possible.
And the burden of proof is more on you who is trying to say there is only 1 answer possible while I'm still open to that their can be many explenations.
Your point simplified is "We are aware therfor we must exist outside our physical bodies." but you could just as easily say "We are aware cause a god made us to be it." and that would have the same amount of proof, evidence and probability.

You believe the robot could not have the same amount of awarness cause you believe the sense of awarness cannot be in a physical body, I believe it can and we both have the same amount of right cause neither can prove the other wrong in it.

Yes without the sense of awarness/consciousness we would still take in our input the same way, but our output is determined by our past experiences and without awarness we would not understand those experiences the same way, we would not dream or fantasize which has been shown to be our own simulater where we test and try things to better prepare us, awarness could through that be explained/thought off as a survival skill we evolved.

And exactly where in cosmos is life required? Still it's. Where in cosmos is gravity required? Still it's.
Just cause you havn't seen or understood the need for it does not mean the need is not there.
#109 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
You're still missing the point.

If, once again hypothetically accepting your claim, everything was simply the result of physical matter and energy interacting with eachother, then so would dreams and fantasies be. If the mind is purely physical it means that every thought and feeling exists within the brain in a physical form. In this situation EVERYTHING in the brain would still be the same, we would still dream, fantasize, we would still (appear) to be aware and conscious in every regard, apart from the very fact that we wouldn't be aware of our awareness, there would be "no one" to consciously FEEL itself as one being experiencing itself through the body and brain, because everything would simply be the result of a series of seperate interactions within the brain.

There would be "no one" there to experience the mind because the mind itself would be an automaton, I would just be seperate electrical currents running through billions of "propositions"
User avatar #110 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
And you who is the one saying it only got 1 solution still wont bring any proof yet you expected me to when I claim there are many possible theories, you do know it's the one who are arguing for 1 definite thing who has the burden of proof right, or is that something you missed completely?

What do you mean everything would be the same?! Not even data in computers is the same even though their smaller parts it's made up off are the same.
Once again bring some fucking proof that your theory is the only possible one, at this moment the only thing you are doing is screaming loudly "NO MY IDEA IS RIGHT, CAUSE I SAY SO!!!".
You are only bringing up hypothetically scenarios that might be as you describe them but you cannot know that, you only believe they are so, until it can actually be tested it's still only a theory.
#112 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
What I mean with "everything would still be the same" is that:

If, assuming everything would be purely physical, so would your thoughts be, and so would your feelings be, and your fantasies, etc. etc.
Everything would exist in the physical brain as a combination of certain chemical elements and electro signals running through these.

This means that if everything was purely physical, the human body would still think, feel, fantasize, and everything else.
But merely as the result of logical causualy, it would all just be individual actions and reactions, one after another. And even though in a situation like this someone would appear to be conscious, consciousness would just be an illusion. There would be no one to experience, there would be no part in this that would explain the fact that you experience yourself as an singular being, that you experience yourself as all these seperate actions and reactions within the brain as one.
#113 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
causality*

typo.
User avatar #107 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 2
And in all of this you seem to forget, the term awarness is a human term, it's not a physical law, it could be a phycological law but thats harder to test.
We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist.

You are so totally shut in your own thoughts that you refuses to even think about other possibilities other than your own.
You told me "You must ask yourself why do you think that", I do that every day over most things, big and the ones that seems trivial to always think about things in a new way and get new perspective so I keep my mind open for new ideas.
When did you stop doing that?
#111 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
>"We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist."

Well, that's exactly related to my point. If we indeed were nothing but chemical and electrical reactions, awareness would only be an illusion.
I thank you for using that word, because it perfectly describes what I intended.

But If conconsciousness / awareness was only an illusion you wouldn't experience it, it would just all be millions of seperate electrical and chemical reactions running through the brain automatically.
But what makes you experience all these seperate actions and reactions? What makes you experience your thoughts, There is nothing in a serie of deterministic causality that could ever account for the feeling of consciousness.
Why do you think it would? There is no indication. Clearly you must think this way because of a reason? But I haven't heard you mention it yet, so I'm curious what makes you think this way.
User avatar #115 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1 answer
Yes and that is how I personally believe it's, everything is happening in the physical realm and the sense of awarness is something we evolved for better survival odds since our brain is thing that made us into the apex predator of our world.
And it's very possible our consciousness is an illusion that we cannot se past or and illusion we created to explain something we dont understand.
The ability to see things from a that perspective is an imortant tool that allow us to think outside the box and that alone I see as a "proof"/reason to why we would evolve it to better our survival. The possibility that we evolved it for our survival rather than we got it from some kind of soul thing, is much more likely, you know Ockham's Razor. That said I do not say your theory is not a possibility but there exist none evidence to say thats the only possibility that could be real.
User avatar #114 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2 answer
You believe that the connections in the brain cannot create the sensation of awarness. And if the sense of awarness is an illusion then you are not feeling it you only think you are.
Similar as we had a damn hard time to explain how lightning strikes down into the ancient oceans managed to jumpstart the first living cells, yet it did.
Really if you have unlocked every secret to how we think and why we think or why/how we make thoughts in our brain maybe you should go to tell someone cause that would automaticlly give you a Nobel prize.
Just cause you cannot explain or understand something dont mean it dont exist or happens, you really dont know how we think, take in experience or how making all the connections in our brain through electricity and other things so you should stop making things up of how our brain works to promote your idea.

You requested proof from me for some reason but you dont even know what you wanted me to give you proof of since I only been saying until we got definite facts and proof only one solution is right and possible we should still be open to others.
I REQUEST FROM YOU, give me and others here definite, indisputable proof that our own MINDS dont exist inside our own heads.
#118 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1

It's unfortunate how I still haven't been able to make you comprehend to what I have been trying to convey multiple times now.
The actual sensation/feeling of being consciousness/aware has nothing to do with our capability of survival, or the capability for an organism to evolve.
Because if everything was purely physical, the brain and body would be a self-operating system, it would think and feel for itself automatically, it would use its capability to survive automatically.
It still would've used all of its aspects and assets, it still would have evolved all those aspects and assets.
It still would have that ability to 'see things from that perpective and think outside of the box', there just wouldn't be an "I" to experience it.
It still would have appeared to be conscious in each and every regard. But merely as the result of the billions of seperate actions and reactions in the brain working themself out. It wouldn't actually have the internal experience of being conscious in the sense that there wouldn't be an entity that experiences itself as all of these actions and reactions and the many different body and brain cells composed of the numourus different chemical elements at once and as one.
#117 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2

You must understand your implication that by saying everything is purely physical you're also implying that all internal processes of the brain are physical, thus that every thought and feeling within the brain has a physical existence.
And as we all know matter and energy behaves in certain predictable and logic ways which we call the physical laws of cosmos.
It means there wouldn't be a difference whether we would be an automaton or actually have the sensation of being conscious, because regardless of our sensation of consciousness, matter and energy behave in certain ways.
Feeling consciousness isn't magically going to alter the physical laws of the cosmos, it wouldn't add or change anything to a materialistic deterministic universe.

If things were purely physical It would make no difference whether we actually feel conscious or not.
So not only does it not explain consciousness, it wouldn't even make a difference.

Your reasoning makes no sense.
#116 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 3

And the very fact that you feel conscious is already evidence that consiousness exist.
Because if conscious didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to feel it. The word 'illusion' means 'having to appearance of'.
If consciousness was just an illusion, you would just appear to be conscious and not actually be conscious.
If this is not what you mean to say than you might want to rephrase yourself because saying it like this doesn't make any sense. You're arguing against the very definition of a word.

All in all, that we feel conscious is just an indication that things are connected on a deeper level.
That there are more layers to the cosmos than we're currently aware of.

It isn't implying anything illogical or contradictory to current knowledge. It isn't implying any breaking of the laws we are aware of.
It just means there is more than we currently see and know of. But that shouldn't be such a hard fact to accept should it?

Although you are right that I'm no authority on how the brain works, or that there's even somebody in the world who comes close to understanding it, for the illustration of my point it doesn't make any difference how the brain works.
Because regardless how it works, if everything was purely physical, it would still be all matter and energy, this is your claim, not mine.

My point isn't build upon how the brain works, it's build upon the nature of matter and energy and how it could never account for the feeling of being consciousness.

#95 - Do you understand the term logical negation? Do you a…  [+] (21 new replies) 11/25/2014 on freak out 0
User avatar #96 - stifflimb (11/25/2014) [-]
Do you understand that just because we believe consciousness and the sensation of awareness is real dont mean it's anything special.
The human mind is wired to always look at things in a new way to come up with new things and understand the world, it's not odd we would look at ourselfs aswell and coming up with these suggestions.

You do not know how a robot having the same kind of connections and thought process as a human brain would react and function.

I think you have spent to much time thinking about this if you come to the conclussion "I can think about myself therfore my mind is magical and it's breaking the laws of physics".

I don't believe we are more than our physical bodies and what we think and believe comes from the connections we make in our brain as a result of our upbrining and genetics.
#99 - auryn (11/25/2014) [-]
I'm not saying consciousness is special, and the mind isn't breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying consciousness does not and can not have its root in matter.
But you must take in mind that the entire physical cosmos has it's root in something else to, whatever it came out of, and that it might just be the outer layer of a set of interpenetrating and interdependant planes.

But before straying too far away let's stick to the main point, all the processes and connections in the brain don't explain nor can it produce the sensation of awareness.
It would mean it's just a string of events. A string of events is automatic and doesn't require the sensation of being aware nor could it ever explain or produce it.

I suggest you look up the term "logical negation" to get a better grasp of what I mean. If the brain was purely physical it would mean it would just be input going through a series of propositions that would produce the output.
It would mean a automatic deterministic processes, such processes do not require awareness nor could it ever explain or produce awareness, only the appearance of awareness, but one wouldn't actually have the feeling of being aware.

Consciousness doesn't just magically come out of nowhere, nor would there be a need for.
To assume this wouldn't just be highly unscientifical but simply absurb.

I still feel you didn't actually grasp much of what I previously said. Please look up definitions of words and terms you don't fully understand to have a better chance at understanding what I mean.

If we would be purely physical we could still be doing the same things, we could still hear, see, feel, think, and do things, but there wouldn't be "anyone" there to experience it. There would be no awareness or consciousness experiencing these things, there would be no sense of "I".
Everything would simply be a logical reaction working itself out in a deterministic way.
Such a string of connected events does not require sensation of awareness.


User avatar #100 - stifflimb (11/25/2014) [-]
You are saying that our mind exist outside our physical body (the brain) meaning for it to keep functioning it would require energy, but it dont get energy from anywhere else meaning it would be breaking the laws of physics.
And how does the roots of cosmos matters when neither you or I knows what those roots are?

It's very possible that our every actions and thoughts are completely automaticly done from whatever input we recieve based on our genetics and our past experiences and the feeling of awarness is evolved forward to better understand and analyze your past experiences giving you a higher chance of survival.
Also the sense of awareness could just be a figment of our imagination made up from us trying to figure out all things including ourselfs.

I know of "logical negation" and then dumbed down pretty much means if P is false then -P is true, but what is it that makes you believe there is only two possible answears for this question?

You believe it would not give the feeling of being aware, how do you actually know this?

Consciousness likely does have a need to improve our survival.

Omg you go on about me not understanding you while you go above and beyond to simply ignore what others say.

The sense of "I" could simply be there to differs ourselfs in groups to "yet again" better our own survival.
#102 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
(Part 2)

Outside from the fact that the cause of sensation of awareness can not be explained from a purely physical point of view, it wouldn't even make a difference, everything obeys the laws of the cosmos, If everything would simply be physical action and reactions things would work themselves EXACTLY the same regardless of having the sensation of being aware or not.
It doesn't require the sensation of being aware, similarly how a calculator doesn't require a sensation of awareness how to do math. It would all be negation.

The assumption the sensation of awareness is caused by physical actions and reactions is quite illogical.
Why would you think it is? Why would there be the sensation of awareness in mere seperate physical actions and reactions? Where in this series of events can you specifically point the cause for this?
#101 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
Matter and energy of the physical plane might be the result of and dependant upon higher finer interpenetrating planes.
There are a lot of logical and plausible hypotheses of metaphysical systems with gradients of interpenetrating increasingly less limited spheres/planes.
There's no reason to dismiss the mind might not be dependant upon physical matter and energy. It doesn't necessarily break any law.

But you still miss my point, the brain would be just as intelligent if it didn't have the sensation of awareness, it would still have all its functions, it would still have just as much memory, just as much cognitive functions, just as much critical and analyticial abilities, everything would be exactly the same.
But everything in the brain would be the result of seperate deterministic actions and reactions, the brain would still use the eyes, register light, and use all its other senses, it would still process thoughts, feelings and everything else exactly the same, but it would be dry negation, it would all be the result of millions of seperate responses working itself out naturally and automatically.

Now you tell me why would it be conscious? Where in this string of events does a consciousness magically arise? There's absolutely no reason for, nor can a possible cause be appointed.
Nothing in the phenomenal world every happened without reason, everything within time and space has a cause.
There is no cause for the sensation of consciousness if the body would be purely physical.

Natural physical actions and reaction don't require sensation of awareness, and can't explain the sensation of awareness.
It would be completely illogical and contradictonary to anything science has ever taught us about the universe to assume that if we are purely physical, somewhere in this logical working out of millions of seperate actions and reaction within the brain, that doesn't require an awareness, for no reason it would create a sense awareness.

(Continued in part 2)
User avatar #103 - stifflimb (11/26/2014) [-]
"Logical and plausible hypothese" is the keywords here, you already said the mind must be seperated from the physical body meaning there are no room for maybes.
If it works and does something then it requires energy, or if it does not require any energy then it already breaks other laws of physics.

It might be as intelligent but it might not percieve things the same way meaning it could result in lesser chance for our survival.
It would still require an awarness to better take in new information and experiences which in turn would result in better automatically responses.

Fine then where in this string of events does life magically arise, where in this string of events does energy magically take solid form.

"Consciousness - The state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc." Nothing in that definiton goes against that it's a function for better survival to be aware of yourself and your surroundings.
To knowingly control your body you need to be aware of it.
And you know you really starting to come of as some religious nutjob when starting to say that everything happens for a reason and got a cause.

And you should know by now that just cause we cannot explain it at the moment does not rule it out, if it did then the Earth actually was flat in the dark ages.
We still dont quite know how gravity works but that dont mean it's the work of a freaking space god.
#106 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
But the keywords are really: "logical negation", "determism"

If you really understood them you would also understand the implication that nowhere in a purely physical world would there be a cause or explanation for the sensation of awareness, because everything would just be a series of events working themself out naturally and automatic through the laws.

Nowhere in this situation would it require anything to actually feel aware of consciousness.
#105 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
One more related example that might make it a bit more clearer. Imagine we would build a "self-aware" robot that would process the world around him in a similar that we do, through similar senses, and similar cognitive functions.
And imagine he would be able to form equally complex thoughts about everything and himself, and imagine he could express itself too in similar way and communicate, and that it able to learn and adapt too, and too form habits and a personality.

But no matter how infintely complex or humanlike it would become, it would all still be mere NEGATION, it would and could APPEAR to be aware perfectly in each regard but it wouldn't actually have the sensation of being aware.
It might process the incoming information through senses, like we do. It might process and analyze the incoming information, it might process and analyze it's own thoughts or hypothetical situations, it might perform actions based upon his thoughts, it might do everything we do, but in the end it would all be the result of NEGATION.

It might seem and perform aware, but It wouldn't actually have the sensation of being aware, it would all be NEGATION.
Similarly if would be purely physical everything would simply be NEGATION.

You don't need to have the sensation of awareness to able to seem or act aware.
To quote you: "It might be as intelligent but it might not percieve things the same way meaning it could result in lesser chance for our survival."

No,(hypothetically accepting your claim we would be purely physical) you would still perceive things exactly the same, you would still think, feel, analyze exactly the same, you just wouldn't be aware of it.
This is what automatic means.
#104 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
I'm coming off as a religous nutjob because I don't belief things magically happen? Lol? This is really the world upside down.
That nothing ever happens without reason is basic science, and just common logic, it's basically Newton's Third Law of Motion (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
Small basic example, particles or ojects don't magically start to move out of their self for no reason, there must a cause for them to move. Things don't fall to the ground for no reason, it is because of gravity.
Nothing ever happens without a cause. Things don't magically happen out of themselves, it goes against all known laws of the cosmos.
This is the very foundation of science and logic.

And you're still completely missing my main point. None of these questions would've been asked if you actually comprehended what I meant.
I'm having difficulty explaining because there's little other ways too say it and I'm already sounding repetitive.

And you're the one adhering to illogical assumptions based on no ground.
There is no reason or indication to assume the sensation of consciousness or awareness can or would be caused by a series of deterministic of individual but connected string of events, in fact it goes against all logic.

You claim something for which is no appearant reason, so the burden of proof is on you.
You must ask yourself why do you think that, what do you see as a plausible cause or indication?



User avatar #108 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 1
No the religious nutjob came from when you started to say that everything in the univers happens for a reason and goes on about our mind exist outside our bodies that sounds very much like you trying to say souls are real.

If you talking about everything happens as a response to something else then I understand your point, which you did explain in this response yes, but in the former it sounds very much like some religious nutjob saying "all bad things happens for a reason".

I dont even have a problem with the "idea" of our minds existing outside of our bodies in some sort of form, but I see no evidence or fact that says that is the ONLY explanation possible.
And the burden of proof is more on you who is trying to say there is only 1 answer possible while I'm still open to that their can be many explenations.
Your point simplified is "We are aware therfor we must exist outside our physical bodies." but you could just as easily say "We are aware cause a god made us to be it." and that would have the same amount of proof, evidence and probability.

You believe the robot could not have the same amount of awarness cause you believe the sense of awarness cannot be in a physical body, I believe it can and we both have the same amount of right cause neither can prove the other wrong in it.

Yes without the sense of awarness/consciousness we would still take in our input the same way, but our output is determined by our past experiences and without awarness we would not understand those experiences the same way, we would not dream or fantasize which has been shown to be our own simulater where we test and try things to better prepare us, awarness could through that be explained/thought off as a survival skill we evolved.

And exactly where in cosmos is life required? Still it's. Where in cosmos is gravity required? Still it's.
Just cause you havn't seen or understood the need for it does not mean the need is not there.
#109 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
You're still missing the point.

If, once again hypothetically accepting your claim, everything was simply the result of physical matter and energy interacting with eachother, then so would dreams and fantasies be. If the mind is purely physical it means that every thought and feeling exists within the brain in a physical form. In this situation EVERYTHING in the brain would still be the same, we would still dream, fantasize, we would still (appear) to be aware and conscious in every regard, apart from the very fact that we wouldn't be aware of our awareness, there would be "no one" to consciously FEEL itself as one being experiencing itself through the body and brain, because everything would simply be the result of a series of seperate interactions within the brain.

There would be "no one" there to experience the mind because the mind itself would be an automaton, I would just be seperate electrical currents running through billions of "propositions"
User avatar #110 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
And you who is the one saying it only got 1 solution still wont bring any proof yet you expected me to when I claim there are many possible theories, you do know it's the one who are arguing for 1 definite thing who has the burden of proof right, or is that something you missed completely?

What do you mean everything would be the same?! Not even data in computers is the same even though their smaller parts it's made up off are the same.
Once again bring some fucking proof that your theory is the only possible one, at this moment the only thing you are doing is screaming loudly "NO MY IDEA IS RIGHT, CAUSE I SAY SO!!!".
You are only bringing up hypothetically scenarios that might be as you describe them but you cannot know that, you only believe they are so, until it can actually be tested it's still only a theory.
#112 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
What I mean with "everything would still be the same" is that:

If, assuming everything would be purely physical, so would your thoughts be, and so would your feelings be, and your fantasies, etc. etc.
Everything would exist in the physical brain as a combination of certain chemical elements and electro signals running through these.

This means that if everything was purely physical, the human body would still think, feel, fantasize, and everything else.
But merely as the result of logical causualy, it would all just be individual actions and reactions, one after another. And even though in a situation like this someone would appear to be conscious, consciousness would just be an illusion. There would be no one to experience, there would be no part in this that would explain the fact that you experience yourself as an singular being, that you experience yourself as all these seperate actions and reactions within the brain as one.
#113 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
causality*

typo.
User avatar #107 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 2
And in all of this you seem to forget, the term awarness is a human term, it's not a physical law, it could be a phycological law but thats harder to test.
We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist.

You are so totally shut in your own thoughts that you refuses to even think about other possibilities other than your own.
You told me "You must ask yourself why do you think that", I do that every day over most things, big and the ones that seems trivial to always think about things in a new way and get new perspective so I keep my mind open for new ideas.
When did you stop doing that?
#111 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
>"We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist."

Well, that's exactly related to my point. If we indeed were nothing but chemical and electrical reactions, awareness would only be an illusion.
I thank you for using that word, because it perfectly describes what I intended.

But If conconsciousness / awareness was only an illusion you wouldn't experience it, it would just all be millions of seperate electrical and chemical reactions running through the brain automatically.
But what makes you experience all these seperate actions and reactions? What makes you experience your thoughts, There is nothing in a serie of deterministic causality that could ever account for the feeling of consciousness.
Why do you think it would? There is no indication. Clearly you must think this way because of a reason? But I haven't heard you mention it yet, so I'm curious what makes you think this way.
User avatar #115 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1 answer
Yes and that is how I personally believe it's, everything is happening in the physical realm and the sense of awarness is something we evolved for better survival odds since our brain is thing that made us into the apex predator of our world.
And it's very possible our consciousness is an illusion that we cannot se past or and illusion we created to explain something we dont understand.
The ability to see things from a that perspective is an imortant tool that allow us to think outside the box and that alone I see as a "proof"/reason to why we would evolve it to better our survival. The possibility that we evolved it for our survival rather than we got it from some kind of soul thing, is much more likely, you know Ockham's Razor. That said I do not say your theory is not a possibility but there exist none evidence to say thats the only possibility that could be real.
User avatar #114 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2 answer
You believe that the connections in the brain cannot create the sensation of awarness. And if the sense of awarness is an illusion then you are not feeling it you only think you are.
Similar as we had a damn hard time to explain how lightning strikes down into the ancient oceans managed to jumpstart the first living cells, yet it did.
Really if you have unlocked every secret to how we think and why we think or why/how we make thoughts in our brain maybe you should go to tell someone cause that would automaticlly give you a Nobel prize.
Just cause you cannot explain or understand something dont mean it dont exist or happens, you really dont know how we think, take in experience or how making all the connections in our brain through electricity and other things so you should stop making things up of how our brain works to promote your idea.

You requested proof from me for some reason but you dont even know what you wanted me to give you proof of since I only been saying until we got definite facts and proof only one solution is right and possible we should still be open to others.
I REQUEST FROM YOU, give me and others here definite, indisputable proof that our own MINDS dont exist inside our own heads.
#118 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1

It's unfortunate how I still haven't been able to make you comprehend to what I have been trying to convey multiple times now.
The actual sensation/feeling of being consciousness/aware has nothing to do with our capability of survival, or the capability for an organism to evolve.
Because if everything was purely physical, the brain and body would be a self-operating system, it would think and feel for itself automatically, it would use its capability to survive automatically.
It still would've used all of its aspects and assets, it still would have evolved all those aspects and assets.
It still would have that ability to 'see things from that perpective and think outside of the box', there just wouldn't be an "I" to experience it.
It still would have appeared to be conscious in each and every regard. But merely as the result of the billions of seperate actions and reactions in the brain working themself out. It wouldn't actually have the internal experience of being conscious in the sense that there wouldn't be an entity that experiences itself as all of these actions and reactions and the many different body and brain cells composed of the numourus different chemical elements at once and as one.
#117 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2

You must understand your implication that by saying everything is purely physical you're also implying that all internal processes of the brain are physical, thus that every thought and feeling within the brain has a physical existence.
And as we all know matter and energy behaves in certain predictable and logic ways which we call the physical laws of cosmos.
It means there wouldn't be a difference whether we would be an automaton or actually have the sensation of being conscious, because regardless of our sensation of consciousness, matter and energy behave in certain ways.
Feeling consciousness isn't magically going to alter the physical laws of the cosmos, it wouldn't add or change anything to a materialistic deterministic universe.

If things were purely physical It would make no difference whether we actually feel conscious or not.
So not only does it not explain consciousness, it wouldn't even make a difference.

Your reasoning makes no sense.
#116 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 3

And the very fact that you feel conscious is already evidence that consiousness exist.
Because if conscious didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to feel it. The word 'illusion' means 'having to appearance of'.
If consciousness was just an illusion, you would just appear to be conscious and not actually be conscious.
If this is not what you mean to say than you might want to rephrase yourself because saying it like this doesn't make any sense. You're arguing against the very definition of a word.

All in all, that we feel conscious is just an indication that things are connected on a deeper level.
That there are more layers to the cosmos than we're currently aware of.

It isn't implying anything illogical or contradictory to current knowledge. It isn't implying any breaking of the laws we are aware of.
It just means there is more than we currently see and know of. But that shouldn't be such a hard fact to accept should it?

Although you are right that I'm no authority on how the brain works, or that there's even somebody in the world who comes close to understanding it, for the illustration of my point it doesn't make any difference how the brain works.
Because regardless how it works, if everything was purely physical, it would still be all matter and energy, this is your claim, not mine.

My point isn't build upon how the brain works, it's build upon the nature of matter and energy and how it could never account for the feeling of being consciousness.

#33 - Apart from the fact that it's impossible for the source of con…  [+] (24 new replies) 11/24/2014 on freak out 0
User avatar #60 - stifflimb (11/25/2014) [-]
In what way is it a "fact" our consciousness can't be purely physical.
I have never seen or heard any evidence that it can't.
#95 - auryn (11/25/2014) [-]
Do you understand the term logical negation?

Do you alo understand the implication of negation and the fact that it can't produce or explain the sensation of awareness?

That it's just input going through through a series of propositions which results in the output?
But this is just logical action=>reaction. It's an automatic process.
It would mean your brain would be just a series of electrical impulses between neurons.

It does not explain the sensation of being consciousness, nor would it magically create an awareness.
Similarly to how you migh create a super robot that would perfectly mimic humans in each and every way up unitl the point they are indistinguishable from real human beings, it is still all logical negation, the robot would APPEAR to be consciouss it wouldn't actually have the_ sensation_ or experience or being conscious.

It's just input going through a string of formula's which causes the output, it's an automatic and logical process/reaction.
Similarly if the brain was nothing but a series of electrical surges, synapses, neurotransmitters and cells, it would just be a string of connected events.

It would be AUTOMATIC, it doesn't require the sensation of consciousness, nor does it explain the sensation of consciousness.
Nowhere in this string of events would it magically create a sensation of consciousness out of nothing. Everything would simply be a string of connected events.

That consciousness can't be the product of the physical is self-evident.
I think you haven't contemplated it enough to understand the full implications.
User avatar #96 - stifflimb (11/25/2014) [-]
Do you understand that just because we believe consciousness and the sensation of awareness is real dont mean it's anything special.
The human mind is wired to always look at things in a new way to come up with new things and understand the world, it's not odd we would look at ourselfs aswell and coming up with these suggestions.

You do not know how a robot having the same kind of connections and thought process as a human brain would react and function.

I think you have spent to much time thinking about this if you come to the conclussion "I can think about myself therfore my mind is magical and it's breaking the laws of physics".

I don't believe we are more than our physical bodies and what we think and believe comes from the connections we make in our brain as a result of our upbrining and genetics.
#99 - auryn (11/25/2014) [-]
I'm not saying consciousness is special, and the mind isn't breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying consciousness does not and can not have its root in matter.
But you must take in mind that the entire physical cosmos has it's root in something else to, whatever it came out of, and that it might just be the outer layer of a set of interpenetrating and interdependant planes.

But before straying too far away let's stick to the main point, all the processes and connections in the brain don't explain nor can it produce the sensation of awareness.
It would mean it's just a string of events. A string of events is automatic and doesn't require the sensation of being aware nor could it ever explain or produce it.

I suggest you look up the term "logical negation" to get a better grasp of what I mean. If the brain was purely physical it would mean it would just be input going through a series of propositions that would produce the output.
It would mean a automatic deterministic processes, such processes do not require awareness nor could it ever explain or produce awareness, only the appearance of awareness, but one wouldn't actually have the feeling of being aware.

Consciousness doesn't just magically come out of nowhere, nor would there be a need for.
To assume this wouldn't just be highly unscientifical but simply absurb.

I still feel you didn't actually grasp much of what I previously said. Please look up definitions of words and terms you don't fully understand to have a better chance at understanding what I mean.

If we would be purely physical we could still be doing the same things, we could still hear, see, feel, think, and do things, but there wouldn't be "anyone" there to experience it. There would be no awareness or consciousness experiencing these things, there would be no sense of "I".
Everything would simply be a logical reaction working itself out in a deterministic way.
Such a string of connected events does not require sensation of awareness.


User avatar #100 - stifflimb (11/25/2014) [-]
You are saying that our mind exist outside our physical body (the brain) meaning for it to keep functioning it would require energy, but it dont get energy from anywhere else meaning it would be breaking the laws of physics.
And how does the roots of cosmos matters when neither you or I knows what those roots are?

It's very possible that our every actions and thoughts are completely automaticly done from whatever input we recieve based on our genetics and our past experiences and the feeling of awarness is evolved forward to better understand and analyze your past experiences giving you a higher chance of survival.
Also the sense of awareness could just be a figment of our imagination made up from us trying to figure out all things including ourselfs.

I know of "logical negation" and then dumbed down pretty much means if P is false then -P is true, but what is it that makes you believe there is only two possible answears for this question?

You believe it would not give the feeling of being aware, how do you actually know this?

Consciousness likely does have a need to improve our survival.

Omg you go on about me not understanding you while you go above and beyond to simply ignore what others say.

The sense of "I" could simply be there to differs ourselfs in groups to "yet again" better our own survival.
#102 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
(Part 2)

Outside from the fact that the cause of sensation of awareness can not be explained from a purely physical point of view, it wouldn't even make a difference, everything obeys the laws of the cosmos, If everything would simply be physical action and reactions things would work themselves EXACTLY the same regardless of having the sensation of being aware or not.
It doesn't require the sensation of being aware, similarly how a calculator doesn't require a sensation of awareness how to do math. It would all be negation.

The assumption the sensation of awareness is caused by physical actions and reactions is quite illogical.
Why would you think it is? Why would there be the sensation of awareness in mere seperate physical actions and reactions? Where in this series of events can you specifically point the cause for this?
#101 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
Matter and energy of the physical plane might be the result of and dependant upon higher finer interpenetrating planes.
There are a lot of logical and plausible hypotheses of metaphysical systems with gradients of interpenetrating increasingly less limited spheres/planes.
There's no reason to dismiss the mind might not be dependant upon physical matter and energy. It doesn't necessarily break any law.

But you still miss my point, the brain would be just as intelligent if it didn't have the sensation of awareness, it would still have all its functions, it would still have just as much memory, just as much cognitive functions, just as much critical and analyticial abilities, everything would be exactly the same.
But everything in the brain would be the result of seperate deterministic actions and reactions, the brain would still use the eyes, register light, and use all its other senses, it would still process thoughts, feelings and everything else exactly the same, but it would be dry negation, it would all be the result of millions of seperate responses working itself out naturally and automatically.

Now you tell me why would it be conscious? Where in this string of events does a consciousness magically arise? There's absolutely no reason for, nor can a possible cause be appointed.
Nothing in the phenomenal world every happened without reason, everything within time and space has a cause.
There is no cause for the sensation of consciousness if the body would be purely physical.

Natural physical actions and reaction don't require sensation of awareness, and can't explain the sensation of awareness.
It would be completely illogical and contradictonary to anything science has ever taught us about the universe to assume that if we are purely physical, somewhere in this logical working out of millions of seperate actions and reaction within the brain, that doesn't require an awareness, for no reason it would create a sense awareness.

(Continued in part 2)
User avatar #103 - stifflimb (11/26/2014) [-]
"Logical and plausible hypothese" is the keywords here, you already said the mind must be seperated from the physical body meaning there are no room for maybes.
If it works and does something then it requires energy, or if it does not require any energy then it already breaks other laws of physics.

It might be as intelligent but it might not percieve things the same way meaning it could result in lesser chance for our survival.
It would still require an awarness to better take in new information and experiences which in turn would result in better automatically responses.

Fine then where in this string of events does life magically arise, where in this string of events does energy magically take solid form.

"Consciousness - The state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc." Nothing in that definiton goes against that it's a function for better survival to be aware of yourself and your surroundings.
To knowingly control your body you need to be aware of it.
And you know you really starting to come of as some religious nutjob when starting to say that everything happens for a reason and got a cause.

And you should know by now that just cause we cannot explain it at the moment does not rule it out, if it did then the Earth actually was flat in the dark ages.
We still dont quite know how gravity works but that dont mean it's the work of a freaking space god.
#106 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
But the keywords are really: "logical negation", "determism"

If you really understood them you would also understand the implication that nowhere in a purely physical world would there be a cause or explanation for the sensation of awareness, because everything would just be a series of events working themself out naturally and automatic through the laws.

Nowhere in this situation would it require anything to actually feel aware of consciousness.
#105 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
One more related example that might make it a bit more clearer. Imagine we would build a "self-aware" robot that would process the world around him in a similar that we do, through similar senses, and similar cognitive functions.
And imagine he would be able to form equally complex thoughts about everything and himself, and imagine he could express itself too in similar way and communicate, and that it able to learn and adapt too, and too form habits and a personality.

But no matter how infintely complex or humanlike it would become, it would all still be mere NEGATION, it would and could APPEAR to be aware perfectly in each regard but it wouldn't actually have the sensation of being aware.
It might process the incoming information through senses, like we do. It might process and analyze the incoming information, it might process and analyze it's own thoughts or hypothetical situations, it might perform actions based upon his thoughts, it might do everything we do, but in the end it would all be the result of NEGATION.

It might seem and perform aware, but It wouldn't actually have the sensation of being aware, it would all be NEGATION.
Similarly if would be purely physical everything would simply be NEGATION.

You don't need to have the sensation of awareness to able to seem or act aware.
To quote you: "It might be as intelligent but it might not percieve things the same way meaning it could result in lesser chance for our survival."

No,(hypothetically accepting your claim we would be purely physical) you would still perceive things exactly the same, you would still think, feel, analyze exactly the same, you just wouldn't be aware of it.
This is what automatic means.
#104 - auryn (11/26/2014) [-]
I'm coming off as a religous nutjob because I don't belief things magically happen? Lol? This is really the world upside down.
That nothing ever happens without reason is basic science, and just common logic, it's basically Newton's Third Law of Motion (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
Small basic example, particles or ojects don't magically start to move out of their self for no reason, there must a cause for them to move. Things don't fall to the ground for no reason, it is because of gravity.
Nothing ever happens without a cause. Things don't magically happen out of themselves, it goes against all known laws of the cosmos.
This is the very foundation of science and logic.

And you're still completely missing my main point. None of these questions would've been asked if you actually comprehended what I meant.
I'm having difficulty explaining because there's little other ways too say it and I'm already sounding repetitive.

And you're the one adhering to illogical assumptions based on no ground.
There is no reason or indication to assume the sensation of consciousness or awareness can or would be caused by a series of deterministic of individual but connected string of events, in fact it goes against all logic.

You claim something for which is no appearant reason, so the burden of proof is on you.
You must ask yourself why do you think that, what do you see as a plausible cause or indication?



User avatar #108 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 1
No the religious nutjob came from when you started to say that everything in the univers happens for a reason and goes on about our mind exist outside our bodies that sounds very much like you trying to say souls are real.

If you talking about everything happens as a response to something else then I understand your point, which you did explain in this response yes, but in the former it sounds very much like some religious nutjob saying "all bad things happens for a reason".

I dont even have a problem with the "idea" of our minds existing outside of our bodies in some sort of form, but I see no evidence or fact that says that is the ONLY explanation possible.
And the burden of proof is more on you who is trying to say there is only 1 answer possible while I'm still open to that their can be many explenations.
Your point simplified is "We are aware therfor we must exist outside our physical bodies." but you could just as easily say "We are aware cause a god made us to be it." and that would have the same amount of proof, evidence and probability.

You believe the robot could not have the same amount of awarness cause you believe the sense of awarness cannot be in a physical body, I believe it can and we both have the same amount of right cause neither can prove the other wrong in it.

Yes without the sense of awarness/consciousness we would still take in our input the same way, but our output is determined by our past experiences and without awarness we would not understand those experiences the same way, we would not dream or fantasize which has been shown to be our own simulater where we test and try things to better prepare us, awarness could through that be explained/thought off as a survival skill we evolved.

And exactly where in cosmos is life required? Still it's. Where in cosmos is gravity required? Still it's.
Just cause you havn't seen or understood the need for it does not mean the need is not there.
#109 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
You're still missing the point.

If, once again hypothetically accepting your claim, everything was simply the result of physical matter and energy interacting with eachother, then so would dreams and fantasies be. If the mind is purely physical it means that every thought and feeling exists within the brain in a physical form. In this situation EVERYTHING in the brain would still be the same, we would still dream, fantasize, we would still (appear) to be aware and conscious in every regard, apart from the very fact that we wouldn't be aware of our awareness, there would be "no one" to consciously FEEL itself as one being experiencing itself through the body and brain, because everything would simply be the result of a series of seperate interactions within the brain.

There would be "no one" there to experience the mind because the mind itself would be an automaton, I would just be seperate electrical currents running through billions of "propositions"
User avatar #110 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
And you who is the one saying it only got 1 solution still wont bring any proof yet you expected me to when I claim there are many possible theories, you do know it's the one who are arguing for 1 definite thing who has the burden of proof right, or is that something you missed completely?

What do you mean everything would be the same?! Not even data in computers is the same even though their smaller parts it's made up off are the same.
Once again bring some fucking proof that your theory is the only possible one, at this moment the only thing you are doing is screaming loudly "NO MY IDEA IS RIGHT, CAUSE I SAY SO!!!".
You are only bringing up hypothetically scenarios that might be as you describe them but you cannot know that, you only believe they are so, until it can actually be tested it's still only a theory.
#112 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
What I mean with "everything would still be the same" is that:

If, assuming everything would be purely physical, so would your thoughts be, and so would your feelings be, and your fantasies, etc. etc.
Everything would exist in the physical brain as a combination of certain chemical elements and electro signals running through these.

This means that if everything was purely physical, the human body would still think, feel, fantasize, and everything else.
But merely as the result of logical causualy, it would all just be individual actions and reactions, one after another. And even though in a situation like this someone would appear to be conscious, consciousness would just be an illusion. There would be no one to experience, there would be no part in this that would explain the fact that you experience yourself as an singular being, that you experience yourself as all these seperate actions and reactions within the brain as one.
#113 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
causality*

typo.
User avatar #107 - stifflimb (11/27/2014) [-]
Part 2
And in all of this you seem to forget, the term awarness is a human term, it's not a physical law, it could be a phycological law but thats harder to test.
We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist.

You are so totally shut in your own thoughts that you refuses to even think about other possibilities other than your own.
You told me "You must ask yourself why do you think that", I do that every day over most things, big and the ones that seems trivial to always think about things in a new way and get new perspective so I keep my mind open for new ideas.
When did you stop doing that?
#111 - auryn (11/27/2014) [-]
>"We might just have created the illusion of awarness and it actually dont even exist."

Well, that's exactly related to my point. If we indeed were nothing but chemical and electrical reactions, awareness would only be an illusion.
I thank you for using that word, because it perfectly describes what I intended.

But If conconsciousness / awareness was only an illusion you wouldn't experience it, it would just all be millions of seperate electrical and chemical reactions running through the brain automatically.
But what makes you experience all these seperate actions and reactions? What makes you experience your thoughts, There is nothing in a serie of deterministic causality that could ever account for the feeling of consciousness.
Why do you think it would? There is no indication. Clearly you must think this way because of a reason? But I haven't heard you mention it yet, so I'm curious what makes you think this way.
User avatar #115 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1 answer
Yes and that is how I personally believe it's, everything is happening in the physical realm and the sense of awarness is something we evolved for better survival odds since our brain is thing that made us into the apex predator of our world.
And it's very possible our consciousness is an illusion that we cannot se past or and illusion we created to explain something we dont understand.
The ability to see things from a that perspective is an imortant tool that allow us to think outside the box and that alone I see as a "proof"/reason to why we would evolve it to better our survival. The possibility that we evolved it for our survival rather than we got it from some kind of soul thing, is much more likely, you know Ockham's Razor. That said I do not say your theory is not a possibility but there exist none evidence to say thats the only possibility that could be real.
User avatar #114 - stifflimb (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2 answer
You believe that the connections in the brain cannot create the sensation of awarness. And if the sense of awarness is an illusion then you are not feeling it you only think you are.
Similar as we had a damn hard time to explain how lightning strikes down into the ancient oceans managed to jumpstart the first living cells, yet it did.
Really if you have unlocked every secret to how we think and why we think or why/how we make thoughts in our brain maybe you should go to tell someone cause that would automaticlly give you a Nobel prize.
Just cause you cannot explain or understand something dont mean it dont exist or happens, you really dont know how we think, take in experience or how making all the connections in our brain through electricity and other things so you should stop making things up of how our brain works to promote your idea.

You requested proof from me for some reason but you dont even know what you wanted me to give you proof of since I only been saying until we got definite facts and proof only one solution is right and possible we should still be open to others.
I REQUEST FROM YOU, give me and others here definite, indisputable proof that our own MINDS dont exist inside our own heads.
#118 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 1

It's unfortunate how I still haven't been able to make you comprehend to what I have been trying to convey multiple times now.
The actual sensation/feeling of being consciousness/aware has nothing to do with our capability of survival, or the capability for an organism to evolve.
Because if everything was purely physical, the brain and body would be a self-operating system, it would think and feel for itself automatically, it would use its capability to survive automatically.
It still would've used all of its aspects and assets, it still would have evolved all those aspects and assets.
It still would have that ability to 'see things from that perpective and think outside of the box', there just wouldn't be an "I" to experience it.
It still would have appeared to be conscious in each and every regard. But merely as the result of the billions of seperate actions and reactions in the brain working themself out. It wouldn't actually have the internal experience of being conscious in the sense that there wouldn't be an entity that experiences itself as all of these actions and reactions and the many different body and brain cells composed of the numourus different chemical elements at once and as one.
#117 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 2

You must understand your implication that by saying everything is purely physical you're also implying that all internal processes of the brain are physical, thus that every thought and feeling within the brain has a physical existence.
And as we all know matter and energy behaves in certain predictable and logic ways which we call the physical laws of cosmos.
It means there wouldn't be a difference whether we would be an automaton or actually have the sensation of being conscious, because regardless of our sensation of consciousness, matter and energy behave in certain ways.
Feeling consciousness isn't magically going to alter the physical laws of the cosmos, it wouldn't add or change anything to a materialistic deterministic universe.

If things were purely physical It would make no difference whether we actually feel conscious or not.
So not only does it not explain consciousness, it wouldn't even make a difference.

Your reasoning makes no sense.
#116 - auryn (11/30/2014) [-]
Part 3

And the very fact that you feel conscious is already evidence that consiousness exist.
Because if conscious didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to feel it. The word 'illusion' means 'having to appearance of'.
If consciousness was just an illusion, you would just appear to be conscious and not actually be conscious.
If this is not what you mean to say than you might want to rephrase yourself because saying it like this doesn't make any sense. You're arguing against the very definition of a word.

All in all, that we feel conscious is just an indication that things are connected on a deeper level.
That there are more layers to the cosmos than we're currently aware of.

It isn't implying anything illogical or contradictory to current knowledge. It isn't implying any breaking of the laws we are aware of.
It just means there is more than we currently see and know of. But that shouldn't be such a hard fact to accept should it?

Although you are right that I'm no authority on how the brain works, or that there's even somebody in the world who comes close to understanding it, for the illustration of my point it doesn't make any difference how the brain works.
Because regardless how it works, if everything was purely physical, it would still be all matter and energy, this is your claim, not mine.

My point isn't build upon how the brain works, it's build upon the nature of matter and energy and how it could never account for the feeling of being consciousness.

#50 - stokey (11/25/2014) [-]
I'm not too familiar with the subject, but I might have some points to it

So I'll just assume that even if the human brain was "just" that non conscious supercomputer, at some point we still would have developed the ability to communicate via spoken words.
Then, we'd probably talk about "us" and why we are here.
It seems kind of realistic to me that even in that case, we'd start to philosophy and talk about consciousness.
So i don't know the facts, but wouldn't that mean that consciousness would exist as well?
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 0 / Total items point value: 0

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#71 - auryn (12/21/2014) [-]
*roll comment*
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)