File: images - 2026-02-03T225428.997.jpg (40.3 KB)

40.3 KB JPG

>>16904919
>explain or falsify qualia
No...not because I cant do it but because it breaks the organic process of becoming not one...errrp!

>>16904919
>Will neuroscience ever be able to explain or falsify qualia?
No, because this flawed concept is disconnected from the rest of reality by conception.

>Even if you could somehow engineer an interface that would transfer subjective experience back and forth to another person without the intermediary of language, how would you know that their interpretation doesn't differ from yours?
This isn't even coherent. If their "interpretation" can differ from yours, you aren't transmitting subjective experience, only mapping its correlates onto another brain.

File: 1768726641186533.jpg (41.1 KB)

41.1 KB JPG

>>16904919
>an interface that would transfer subjective experience back and forth to another person without the intermediary of language
it's called art

>>16904919
>mary.png
The flaw with this thought experiment is that it assumes the experience of color can be boiled down to a finite number of facts. When you try to understand color in such abstract terms, you're trying to grasp it in terms of relationships, of which there is in fact an infinite number. She can learn every piece of poetry ever written comparing the sensation of seeing a color to some other kind of experience, then see red for the first time and be struck by how it invokes the association of a particular sound she knows, which wasn't in her curriculum. Given her expertise with neurology, maybe she could figure out why her brain perceives that particular analogy and conclude that it's still derivative from her knowledge, but again, there's an infinite number of other facts that may be derivable from it.

>>16904929
And that is all to say: when you actually perceive, all of that infinitude of relationships is embodied at once by the absoluteness of a singular perception.

File: mantis-intimidation.gif (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB GIF

>>16904928
>art
Interpretive dance got a bad rap from a really jazzy time in history.

>>16904919
Frank Jackson recanted Mary's red room and is a physicalist now.

>>16904937
You can't "recant" a thought experiment, retard.

>>16904939
>you can't publicly disavow or change your mind a previously held belief if it was a thought experiment

>>16904939
Sure you cant, by rerunning the expetiment and coming to a diffetent conclusion. Look up Oopsie v The People (1792).

File: AJmYnK.gif (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB GIF

>>16904943
>Sure you can*
Corporation won...this time.

>>16904942
>you can't publicly disavow or change your mind a previously held belief
Sure you can, but...

>if it was a thought experiment
That's not even coherent. The thought experiment is what it is. He doesn't own it and he doesn't dictate what the appropriate conclusion is. All he can do is say "I thought it implies X but now I think it implies Y", to which I say "I don't care".

>>16904945
"He recanted his conclusion of the thought experiment" then. He's also correct in this case, in that mary does not gain non-physical knowledge upon seeing red light for the first time.

>>16904946
>He recanted his conclusion
Who cares? He was never any kind of authority on anything.

>>16904946
>mary does not gain non-physical knowledge
>non-physical knowledge
What is this rhetorical slop supposed to mean?

>>16904923
You both experience "red", but one's red still looks different.

>>16905137
If one person's experience is different from the other's, you're not transferring the subjective experience. Do you not understand what a subjective experience is?

>>16904937
>>16904939
It doesn't matter either way. Mary's room is obsolete as a thought experiment when gene therapy for complete blindness inevitably hits the market.

>>16905144
>when gene therapy for complete blindness inevitably hits the market
As in, they're gonna modify their human cattle to have no visual perceptions?

File: anthropics iceberg.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>16904919
Neuroscience and physicalism will never be able to explain why I experience existing as this person and not as someone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

>>16904919
Science will never be able to explain the "experiencer" that exists when the brain is active because its existence is by definition subjective.

>>16905155
By definition, nothing can answer that question. It's not a real question. It's a sense of arbitrariness that stems from a flawed mental model that reifies the ego. It's purely noncognitive.

>>16905159
>Science will never be able to explain the "experiencer" that exists when the brain is active because its existence is by definition subjective.
If you can ask a real question about the "experiencer", there is at least in principle the possibility of a scientific answer.

>>16905143
Depends on the definition. You colloquially share the same experience of an object of interest with other subjects.
I assume what's being meant with this interface is that it literally streams a movie like some retarded plot line out of Black Mirror.

>>16905173
See >>16905143
>Do you not understand what a subjective experience is?

>>16904919
The aim is not to explain it, the aim is to continuously explore the phenomenon with new ideas and new measurements afforded by modern technologies.

Trying to "explain" it is a dead end, and anyone who talks about qualia that way basically gives away that they have no background in any field seriously related to researching it.

File: smart_brainlet.jpg (29.8 KB)

29.8 KB JPG

>>16905455
>the aim is to continuously explore the phenomenon with new ideas and new measurements
>nyone who talks about qualia that way basically gives away that they have no background in any field seriously related to researching it.
So, what's your favorite method of measuring subjective experience? Since you clearly have experience in a relevant field, maybe you can tell me what qualia-measuring devices does your field use?

>>16905155
Blame your parents. If they had reproduced with someone else you wouldn't exist

>>16905480
People just have an intuition that their point of view is like a TV tuned in to a particular channel. That kind of mental model lets you conceive of your TV showing a different channel, so then then question arises: why am I stuck on this one? And there can never be a satisfying answer. Once you fool yourself into thinking you're anything other than that particular stream of experience, the attachment between you and your particular viewpoint is arbitrary by definition. And you can try to explain this to people but a good chunk of them will act like you just don't understand the philosophical depth of their question, even though it's literally just the kind of thing children contemplate when they're starting comprehend the meaning of death.

File: dac.jpg (807.3 KB)

807.3 KB JPG

>>16905466
>So, what's your favorite method of measuring subjective experience?

>>16905532
Why are you getting mad, fellow consciousness expert? I was just hoping to exchange new ways of measuring it.

>>16905551
Huh what do you mean?

>>16905554
I dunno. I guess I mean whatever this means:
>>16905455
>the aim is to continuously explore the phenomenon with new ideas and new measurements
What's the latest science on measuring a subjective experience?

File: 1604928885196.jpg (22 KB)

22 KB JPG

>>16905559
>What's the latest science on measuring a subjective experience?

>>16905561
I accept your concession, even though it comes in the form of mentally ill seething. :^)

>>16905563
What concession?

>make up word
>try to link it to reality
>get surprised you can't
many such cases

>>16905565
>biobot thinks the problem is about bad tokens
So what's your solution for grounding subjective experience in "reality" without making a logical leap from correlation to causation?

File: 1596650378309.png (37.8 KB)

37.8 KB PNG

>>16905566
>So what's your solution for grounding subjective experience in "reality" without making a logical leap from correlation to causation?

File: Psilocybe.semilanceata.Alan.jpg (200.9 KB)

200.9 KB JPG

>Thread deleted
lol

>>16905488
>TV tuned in to a particular channel
The thing I find interesting about psychedelics is that they show you can radically alter your stream of experience without an interruption. In this analogy, it would amount to the channel suddenly being broadcast in HD despite the TV being ancient. Either it somehow had a secret decoder built in all along that the heckin' machine elverinos built for us, or this model doesn't quite hold up.

>>16905568
Again with your psychedelics. They actually do nothing to challenge that model except (ironically) by way of spiritual experiences that dissolve the sense of separation. But they're also very prone to doing the opposite. Like I said in the other thread before faggot mods deleted it:

The Cartesian Theater regression pic depicts is a reductio-ad-absurdum of a real state of mind. You actually can detach not only from the experience, but also the first-order "I" that thinks of itself as experiencing it. The limit of that "regress" is actually your mental capacity. Get too caught up in it and you'll end up with a flawed mental model. Psychs easily trigger exactly that kind of recursion and the smarter you are, the worse it gets.

>>16904919
No. Just like science will never get past the problem of induction, it's fundamentally irrational. You seem to be under the impression that science is concerned with finding some kind of truth, which is absolutely not the case. It's just a study of patterns.

File: sChQWSr.jpg (67.4 KB)

67.4 KB JPG

>>16905570
>>16905563
god damn you love stroking yourself off to your meaningless garbage thinking you're super philosophical and enlightened, don't you?

File: Infinite_regress_of_homunculus.png (446.6 KB)

446.6 KB PNG

For all you actually know, you may really be this kind of infinite meta-circular onion trying to peel itself and it's just your means of analysis that enters an infinite regression, not the matter of fact being analyzed. Maybe it's the same kind of problem Zeno illustrates in trying to capture the implicit infinity of continuous motion as an explicit sequence of distinct events, but here you're trying to reduce the circle of self-reflection into an infinite number of distinct meta-levels. This kind of argument proves nothing in the end. The only way pic related becomes an unforgivable flaw is if you're stupid or if you have an unforgiving aesthetic sense when it comes to abstract modeling.

>>16905570
As I already stated in the other thread, the supposed insights of psychs are largely irrelevant. There is a neurological basis for them affirming whatever biases you already have. My point is that, just like the Cartesian Theater, they demonstrate the absurdity of there being an internal observer (the TV) and the perceptions (the channel).

>>16905606
>just like the Cartesian Theater, they demonstrate the absurdity of there being an internal observer (the TV) and the perceptions (the channel).
You haven't actually "demonstrated" anything except that psychedelics affirm whatever biases you already have:

>it would amount to the channel suddenly being broadcast in HD despite the TV being ancient
No, it would amount to finding out that your TV is actually HD-capable and you didn't know it because you had been watching black-and-white programs up until then.

>>16905611
>finding out that your TV is actually HD-capable and you didn't know it
Which I acknowledges as a possibility, but one that just raises a question. Why is it HD-capable in the first place? What else is it capable of displaying? Is there even a limit, or is it possible to decode pure noise and still have what we could consider an experience? Is there even a distinction between TV and signal at that point?

File: 1610916069081.jpg (14.1 KB)

14.1 KB JPG

>>16905606
>As I already stated in the other thread, the supposed insights of psychs are largely irrelevant. There is a neurological basis for them affirming whatever biases you already have.

>>16905616
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00120-6#:~:text=Abstract,optimally%20leverage%20their%20therapeutic%20potential.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356916989_Right-Wing_Psychedelia_Case_Studies_in_Cultural_Plasticity_and_Political_Pluripotency

Etc.

File: 2wPdrqI.png (221.8 KB)

221.8 KB PNG

>>16905619
>Right-Wing_Psychedelia_Case_Studies

File: psilocybin mice.png (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB PNG

>>16905620
One of the early pioneers of psychonautics was a German conservative called Ernst Jünger, but I digress. I'm eager to see the day psychedelic medicine becomes politicized by schizos for a whole different reason.

>>16905613
>Why is it HD-capable in the first place? What else is it capable of displaying? Is there even a limit, or is it possible to decode pure noise and still have what we could consider an experience?
Because why would the mental space be limited by the structure of normal mental content? I don't know what your point is. If anything, this question poses a problem for materialists who need to explain why the brain is so much more capable than what normal existence requires. Why is there a mental space at all? Why aren't sense inputs just reduced into predefined relationships (optimized by evolution for pure practicality) and get translated into behaviors? You now have various "AI" systems proving that could work.

>Is there even a distinction between TV and signal at that point?
The distinction obviously happens in your mental model when you're doing self-reflection. I just don't take it to reflect any ontological truths (except the truth of reflection).

File: p0jppwvy.jpg (44.6 KB)

44.6 KB JPG

>>16905624
>One of the early pioneers of psychonautics was a German conservative called Ernst Jünger

>>16904919
I'm pretty sure that your brain being able to recognize that you are experiencing qualia is evidence that qualia is linked to the processes of the brain.

>>16904919
>Will a physical science ever be able to explain or falsify a non-physical entity?
If you need to ask that question it means you don't get what qualias even are.

>>16905634
In the same way chemistry was pioneered after alchemy.

>>16905630
It does not need to be limited, but it's also completely arbitrary at that point. It amounts to little more than pure noise that us primates attribute significance to and intuit as unlocking a super secret HD mode. There isn't much more to it than normal existence requires. There is a reason why astrology is so popular.

>>16906040
>it's also completely arbitrary
Proof?

>It amounts to little more than pure noise that us primates attribute significance to and intuit as unlocking a super secret HD mode
Then why did you introduce this false analogy in the first place? It's clear at this point that you have no idea what you're arguing. You're just trying to salvage your vague feelings that psychedelics prove materialism, even though it's nonsense and you never approached substantiating this claim.

File: Prof._David_Nutt_Presenting_2020.jpg (117.4 KB)

117.4 KB JPG

>>16906048
>You're just trying to salvage your vague feelings that psychedelics prove materialism
Now you're just being asinine. I don't even subscribe to materialism for unrelated reasons, which I did disclose. See
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16905183#p16905511

>>16906072
Since you've dismissed your own analogy, what's your argument? Psychedelics alter your perceptions by messing with the brain, therefore what? Make sure your conclusion follows from your premises.

File: UCSF_20220610_Carhart_Harris_027a_new.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>16906073
The argument IS that it's absurd, if that's what you're asking. I extended the analogy made by someone else as a reductio ad absurdum in my case against the notion of a separate, spiritual being.

>>16906080
>The argument IS that it's absurd
That's not an argument. That's your emotional bias. Try again.

>>16906093
Is this some kind of equivocation going on? The insinuation made prior kind of suggests so.

>>16906108
Psychedelics alter your perceptions by messing with the brain, therefore what? Make sure your conclusion follows from your premises.
>The argument IS that it's absurd
That's not an argument. That's your emotional bias. Try again.

File: psychedelics.png (79.4 KB)

79.4 KB PNG

>>16906110
Yeah, thought so. The warnings of bad faith were there with the materialist strawman and the dismissal equivocation.

>>16906114
Pretty funny how quick I can shut you down just by asking "what's your argument?"

>>16906116
Pretty funny how easily you can handwave an argument if you reframe it differently.

>>16906117
Quote the argument in question. Notice the sheer confusion you feel as you're reading the previous question and failing to understand what action you are supposed to be taking. I can smell just how brown you are from all the way back here.

File: psilocybin.png (147.1 KB)

147.1 KB PNG

>>16906118
The link I already posted plus the post that moved the discussion here. But you quite literally doubled down on that same equivocation like some kind of thought-terminating cliché. It's hilarious watching how quickly generic image board smearing manifests once you bring out the fallacy card.

>>16906123
>doesn't quote any arguments
Notice how I've correctly predicted your inability to perform even the simplest task. You're a clinical imbecile.

File: lsd.png (1 MB)

1 MB PNG

>>16906126
Whatever make up for you not being spoonfed by the dad missing in your life.
>Because there is little synchronicity between the state of mind alteration and the spiritual experience (or lack thereof). Sure, if you are a part of a religious ceremony, then it's easy to rationalize that God or whatever is pulling the strings and using the substance merely as a means to bridge the gap, but you could also be in the lab of CIA and fleetingly think you are an orange just because they happened to spike your water with LSD and prime you afterwards. If they really were a key to the spirit world or whatever some psychonauts and spiritualists love to proclaim, you'd think there would be something more insightful in common than something as nebulous as an entity or machine elf. Rather, those with biases seem to have them chemically reinforced, as the substance is well-known to trigger neurogenesis.

>>16906128
There's literally nothing resembling an argument there. Your premises are retarded and every statement is a nonsequitur.

>there is no "separate, spiritual being" (whatever the fuck that means) because if there was, everyone would have the same spiritual experience on psychedelics
Imagine shitting out an "argument" like this and thinking you're smart. I've never met people this fucking retarded trying to engage with "intellectual" topics. This place is 100% a psyop.

File: Single_P._fimetaria_with_sharp_papilla.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>16906130
I'm sorry I didn't construct a syllogism so your internal LLM could parse it, but feel free to use this as training data.

>>16906135
I'm sorry that you're a dumb subhuman who thinks the following is a coherent argument:
>there is no "separate, spiritual being" (whatever the fuck that means) because if there was, everyone would have the same spiritual experience on psychedelics
Your mother really should have been sterilized. Thanks for once again demonstrating the necessity of state-enforced eugenics.

File: chad.jpg (254.3 KB)

254.3 KB JPG

>>16906138
>(whatever the fuck that means)
So we agree? Starting out a thread with something as ill-defined is dumb. Even the mods recognized it and deleted it.

>>16906139
>So we agree?
We agree that the following is your actual argument:
>there is no "separate, spiritual being" (whatever the fuck that means) because if there was, everyone would have the same spiritual experience on psychedelics
Now, besides the argument itself being incoherent, the "conclusion" is meaningless word salad, so it's unclear what "agreeing" with it is supposed to entail.

File: acid.jpg (56.1 KB)

56.1 KB JPG

>>16906142
>meaningless word salad
That's the point. The notion of there being souls, whatever the fuck that entails, in opposition to materialism quite literally depicted as getting deBONKED, is nonsense. It does however not follow that I am arguing for the truth of materialism like insinuated. Both can be wrong at the same time, and for the wrong reasons.

>the point is that i can't specify what i'm arguing against
And I guess this imbecile's inability to make a coherent argument is supposed to be a secondary point in favor of his case?

>(You)
This shit again with the conflation of rhetorical reductions as dismissals of the argument itself. Also, two can play this quote game, and if you were also in the last thread, you failed to respond to it, so I consider that a win :^)

You're a mentally ill cretin and I accept your repeated concession of all my points. You will prove that you're less than human by attempting to address me again, even though I am now closing this thread and it's guaranteed that no one will read your bioautomaton token salad.

>>16904937
was it ever supposed to prove otherwise? obviously it's a physical process explained by physics. i thought it was supposed to be criticism of ivory tower intellectualism

>>16906159
It's supposed to demonstrate that there's an entire category of knowledge that's inaccessible to "objective" empirical inquiry. One defensible conclusion you can draw from it is that such accounts of reality can never be complete, because evidently, subjective experience contains something that can be known but not inferred from brain activity (or from any directly communicable facts, for that matter). I'd say Mary does a good enough job demonstrating this, because the only "counter-argument" physicalists managed to come up with, is that knowing what a color looks like just doesn't count as "real" knowledge.

>>16904937
Idealist/dualists and other braindead tards will keep seething at this.