Slavshit anon back. Previous thread has reached the limit. I had to take a deep breath and stop sperging out and get my shit together. Ok, let me reformulate my position and the question that bothers and always bothered me in proper terminology. What really bothers and always bothered me was Other Minds problem, which is separate from the Hard Problem, but which I used to conflate and confuse up to this day. Thank you niggerfaggot anon for actually correcting me, making me sperg out, and learn something new. I unironically, genuinely appreciate it. With great butthurt come great revelations. Anyway.When I was 11, the idea of solipsism randomly independently crossed my mind without even reading anything on the topic and it left me genuinely scared. "What if I'm simply hallucinating my mom and my dad" I thought as a kid. "What if they don't experience stuff". I was terrified by this thought. It eventually led me to getting interested in analytic philosophy and neuroscience. And I came to realization that the question of Other Mind still boils down to (not so blind?) faith. Because you can't prove that spike trains, hemodynamics, EM fields, behavior, etc. actually corresponds to something inside that actually "feels shit" the same way I do. You can believe or not believe it. The patterns (aka "laws") of the world of experience though make "me" act and behave surprisingly similar to other "humans" in this stream of experience though, which makes me subject to automatic intuitive assumptions that others "feel shit" too, because I possess certain momenta (aka empathy and similar phenomena) that makes me automatically, intuitively, pre-rationally assume that "others" and me are quite similar and "hence" (not truly a logical "hence", thus the parentheses) "they" most likely "feel shit" too. Idk, I'll try elaborating more a bit later, but I genuinely find this question probably the most important philosophical question ever.
>>17083711>When I was 11, the idea of solipsism randomly independently crossed my mind>And I came to realization that the question of Other Mind still boils down to (not so blind?) faith. Just wait until you hit 12 and finally realize that by your kiddie logic, pretty much everything is "down to faith", rendering your musings completely moot.
>>17083714The problem of the possible "experienced hallucination" we cannot quite get rid of anyway. It is just highly unlikely. Instead, we could compare behavioural complexity and consistency.
>>17083714>Just wait until you hit 12Happened years ago and didn't quite help. Maybe it's because I'm neurodivergent, who knows. I do realize that literally everything is up to faith (in case of what I call consistent and convergent experience, I find the scientific/materialist/physicalist/(post-)positivist model the most practical and utilitarian thing to believe in, because it predicts future experience with immense accuracy, but still, it doesn't explain why there is only one subject), it just always seemed counter-intuitive to me that there is more than one conscious subject in the world because I can't quite grasp how more than one could possibly exist. Well, I couldn't until I discovered Hume, James and Kastrup in my late teens, they offer a pretty good explanation - the subject, if we even introduce such category, is indeed only one, and the illusion of it "being trapped in its head" is simply a part of this universal stream of experience.
>>17083750>Happened years ago and didn't quite help.Then you're mentally challenged and will forever remain stuck in a stage of intellectual development that any moderately intelligent kid passes by the end of middle school.
>>17083750>Maybe it's because I'm neurodivergentWe used to just call that retardation.
>>17083753>>17083756Ok, so the very moment I decided to calm down and get my shit together, you decide to go back into the territory of personal insults instead? I thought we could finally have a decent discussion.If you for some reason do truly believe that I possess an IQ score below two standard deviations though (which is one of the main criteria of mental retardation), then what really makes you think so? Just curious.
>>17083765The fact that you're unable to make the natural progression from:>How can I prove that Bob really feels pain when I whack him with a hammer?To:>I guess I can't prove it, so now what?To:>Come to think of it, I can't actually prove anything about anything outside of abstract axiomatic systemsTo:>I guess demanding impossible proofs isn't very deep or useful, so what's a viable standard for justified belief?When you get to the bottom of this sequence you'll be asking babby's first serious epistemological question. But you're (supposedly) a grown-ass adult and still stuck on Level 1 thinking you're very advanced, so I doubt that's ever gonna happen.
>>17083769>I guess demanding impossible proofs isn't very deep or useful, so what's a viable standard for justified belief?I partially touched this topic in >>17083750, specifically, in the >in case of what I call consistent and convergent experience, I find the scientific/materialist/physicalist/(post-)positivist model the most practical and utilitarian thing to believe in, because it predicts future experience with immense accuracy, but still, it doesn't explain why there is only one subject.part - what I'm trying to say is that belief (to a certain extent) in physicalism is justified for me due its ability to accurately predict future experience, but where this belief reaches its epistemic limits for me is in the part where I'm trying to reach for something beyond mere prediction of experience.
>>17083805It reaches its "epistemic limit" where your mental retardation kicks in and you arbitrarily decide that the normal standards don't apply for some reason, even though you're obviously still applying them when you're not pumping out pseudointellectual takes on the internet.
>>17083806There is a good reason I "arbitrarily" decide that these standards stop applying - because physicalist model, no matter how good at prediction of experience, ultimately exists inside my stream of experience. I can try modeling the stream of experience inside the physicalist model and frame it as if the stream of experience exists inside the physicalist model and not vice versa, but the thing is, I know I'm conscious by direct experience (specifically, by the fact that I am experiencing experience), while I only "know" you are conscious by observing your physical behavior and applying a physicalist model and that is what mainly concerns me
>>17083769how do i know bob really dies when i murder him you mean?
The existence of my experience is the only a priori knowledge I have by default, whereas the existence of other experiences can only be "inferred" from the observations that others behave similarly to what is called "my body".
>>17083820Does your retarded "stream of experience" follows any consistent rules? Are you human according to your "stream of experience", or do you think you're some kind of special entity?
>>17083823nta, and you most likely don't want to talk to me, but im gonna just put forward the idea that one of the rules is you can't know the superset of all the rules you already know
>>17083831>you can't know the superset of all the rules you already knowOk. And?
>>17083823Well, according to the physicalist model inside the stream of experience, "I" "am" "human" indeed, but outside of that model, I'm not even so sure if the concept of "I" or "me" even really makes sense - the only thing "I" know is that experience exists as a stream of... experience.At this point I'm not even sure if it makes sense to use language to philosophize (see "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" and Cratylus' finger-pointing - keep in mind right now I'm not using these as strict logical formal arguments akin to how they're traditionally used in analytical philosophy - rather I'm trying to point out towards the vibe, the intuitive insight of the concept I'm attempting to formulate with words right now, because I don't wanna eventually spiral into circular definitions where I'll have to define what is a definition, what is what, what is I, etc. - I think at a certain point language and wordceldom might actually become an obstacle for philosophizing, not an aid)
>>17083832you can combine rules to make new sets of rules to predict some things, but you can't predict everything
>>17083833I didn't ask anything about "the physicalist model". Do you think you're human? Or are you some kind of special entity?
>>17083834>but you can't predict everythingOk. And?
>>17083835Can you elaborate your question a bit more? In which paradigm or model exactly do I think I'm a human or a special entity? As I said earlier - in the physicalist paradigm/model - I am human. Outside of that model - I'm not sure if this question is even applicable.
>>17083837>he can't tell me if he believes he's human or notHoly mental illness. This is what Philosophy 101 does to babby's 80 IQ brain.
>>17083836well, for one you can't predict if everything in the set creates consistent rules. if only some sets make consistent rules then arguably _______ (potentially the set of all intersections) is not consistent with the superset
>>17083839I don't care. Do you believe reality follows consistent rules?
>>17083844maybe in some hypothetical world where you don't care about my answer?
>>17083845>can't answer a basic question coherentlyIf you're gonna samefag at least try not to display the same mentally ill patterns as your other samefag.
>>17083838>babbyOn a separate note though, what is a "babby"? Is that some word you made up? Or I'm unaware of some niche slang? Or I haven't visited this board for a few years and this is a common term used here nowadays? Or is it a misspelled "baby"? What does that word mean?Also why do you keep using personal insults such as unsubstantiated claims about your opponent's cognitive abilities? What is your motivation for such behavior?
>>17083847k, let me ask you a question. between three laws of motion do you believe that they stand in dramatic tension or are they just kind of separate and don't interact?
>>17083848Do you think you're human? Or are you some kind of special entity?
>>17083849>samefag samefags after exactly 1 cooldown period down to the secondZero impulse control. Lol. Do you believe reality follows consistent rules?
>>17083851i believe you can affirm whatever you want, yes
>>17083853>mentally ill retard replies incoherently again
>>17083854would you prefer a mentally sound retard?
>>17083855Yes. A mentally sound retard would go do something more appropriate like playing with legos or eating glue or something. A mentally sound retard knows his place and purpose.
>>17083862mate, i know my place and my purpose because i'm reminded of it daily. enjoy the rest of your day
>>17083863>i know my place and my purpose because i'm reminded of it dailyKek. I'm sure you are. And you're welcome for today's daily reminder. Now go, the glue is drying up.
Slav anon back. What did I miss out on?
Oh, I see. There's an "ally" of me in the thread now. Interesting.
OP is literally mentally disabled and I feel bad about bullying him now.
>>17083880imagine being such a pathetic faggot spending an entire thread bullying an obvious clinical autist with neuroticism flowing over the topthere's not really much dignity in chosing easy targets like that
>>17083936Yeah, I agree. This is a new low. There are many retards on this board that I genuinely enjoy tormenting but OP just makes me feel bad about myself.
>>17083711Yes OP, that is why solipsism and p-zombie is consistently a thing.While the Hard Problem is "separate", it stems from the same root, which is what is the source of consciousness.Materialists postulate consciousness is an emergent property of intelligence (aka complex organization of matter such as the brain)Idealists postulate consciousness is fundemental and matter is the emergent property (objects simulated/dreamed up by a super intelligence, aka the Mind of God, which is either you yourself if you subscribe to solipsism, or a Matrix created by another consciousness whose mind you logged into for a game session).And since there is no way to objectively define and measure consciousness other than observe your own within yourself, the two sides are locked into an impasse while on this plane of existence.
>>17083821define death (you'll fail)
>>17083962>And since there is no way to objectively define and measure consciousness other than observe your own within yourself, the two sides are locked into an impasse while on this plane of existence.no they aren't.again, if I make another You it will obligatory experience what you now experience, there is no known scientific way around this. you must argue for it, if you think that isn't so, and prove it.thus, if you know your own experience, you must accept another identical you has the same experience, and thus you bridge the gap of you knowing someone else has the same experience.this is banal, I do not really understand why it's breaking your brain so hard.you refusing to accept this simple fact is a different matter, you can try and cling to your religious ideas as much as you want, but a simple thought exercise btfo's your perspective.I know you will refuse it, which is typical for people rejecting reality. meds are in order, in that case.
>>17084129>if hypothetically I magically manifest a perfect example to counter your argument your argument will be counteredYes, you are somehow perfectly capable of making "another me" just as you are perfectly capable of somehow objectively proving this "other me" you made have the exact same experience as I do.Just as I am perfectly capable of creating an universe where I am god and you are nothing but a figment of my imagination. You must accept these perfectly reasonable argument or you are in need of meds.
>>17084159>>17084129>but a simple thought exercise btfo's your perspective.suppose you didn't have breakfast
>>17084161>suppose I didn't have breakfast = suppose you make a perfect copy of meYou know what, you want this so bad, I'll give it to you: I concede that if you make a copy of me that will experience exactly what I experience, then this copy of me will experience exactly what I experience, by definition.There, now go claim your Nobel while I take some much needed meds.
>>17084177you are not the same one second to the next, so if it's slightly off, will it still experience what you experience? you keep being conscious, yet your structure is pretty different, to when you started reading this post
Oh boy I sure love when /sci/ turns into /x/
>>17083711Can you predict how a pair of dice you throw are going to land? If you can, go to a bunch of casinos and take their money until they all kick you out. There's no difference between that and "other minds."
>>17084181I know for a fact I can experience what I experience, because I directly experiences it, form change from one second to the next or no form change.I do not know for a fact you really experience what you claim to experience because I simply cannot observe your inner experiencing. I am taking you at your word for the sake of social cohesion, as everyone is.
