Why did humans evolve a consciusness? How did consciousness even begin to take shape?

>associating psilocybin in the bag of "drugs".

We've been using it for decades and it's been shown to enhance users' conscious state.

As I said, it was hypothesised, it's an interesting idea since there aren't that many that have merit.

Do you have any decent rebuttals or ideas of your own?

Language. Consciousness is not as unique to us as most humans think - plenty of other mammals show signs of lower level consciousness and emotions such as pigs, elephants, dogs, cats, and very especially primates. The difference with us is language. Humans hit a sweet spot of being highly able to both think at more complex levels and communicate those thoughts to other humans. Evolutionarily, this is a lot less amazing than most people might think. Multiple species of primates have shown capabilities to understand and even produce language as humans have developed it, and many of the other mammals I mentioned before can also understand it. There's a clear path for where our linguistic ability came from. The next question would be why it developed so much further in us than in those other species that have shown capability, but even that is relatively simple: language allows for social interaction, which allows for teamwork, which produces increased rates of survival. Eventually natural selection was going to favor language, that is plainly obvious in many species of insects that have more effective communication and group working skills than any mammal ever has - all they lack is consciousness. The question isn't how humans evolved a consciousness, because humans weren't the first to be conscious. The question is where along the spindling threads of the history of life on Earth did consciousness build its way into existence via natural selection, and how does that kind of a thing even happen.

a piece of chalk has self awareness when it strikes a surface

OP is baby-tier philosopher who needs to lurk more or disappear to reddit forever

Conciousness was an evolutionary mistake. That's why highly intellectual people are usually the most miserable.

It's also why people seem to be be getting less and less intelligent as time goes on. Nature is correcting itself.

Give it a few hundred more years and we will be naked, flinging shit at each other.

>Do you have any decent rebuttals or ideas of your own?

Nah, man. I haven't taken any drugs to unlock the secrets of the universe. I'm just a pleb who is ignorant of 99.99% of all things in this universe, and I'm okay with that.

Do some exploring with yourself. You'll find that inner peace makes the world outside a lot better and easier.

it's what normal people believe

we have been interbreeding with "druggies" who alter their chemical balance and develop new structures of thought.

what do you think this is doing to the genetics of man? Do you think you come from a long line of straight edge ancestors who have never ingested a mushroom?

99.999999% of people have never done shrooms.

I agree it can be an extremely thought provoking, life changing experience but to claim mushrooms have affected our evolutionary biochemistry is retarded.

Peter Watts has an interesting take on it in his book "Blindsight". It could very well be an evolutionary dead end, a metabolically expensive, slow, data fusion process. Modern research has shown that unconcious processes pretty much dominate concious

Book is free on his site btw

The stoned ape theory is pants on head retarded bud.

>Implying the most metabolically expensive and specialized tissue in the human body was just chilling out before some ape ate a mushroom

You didn't answer my question. Do you think you come from a long line of straight edge ancestors who have never ingested a mushroom?

Read that recent paper where ants pass the mirror test? Its insane fucking ants pass it but African 3 year olds don't.

If you evolve enough intelligence you will eventually become "conscious" to your being. It's pretty simple.

From what perspective are you saying that? Why is it retarded? Without saying, "urhg, it's a drug".

It was in the same state as any other animal you see in the world today. Extremely evolved and capable. If you give mushrooms to any animal, they will start to think about what they are experiencing.

It's not hard to think that this derived into the common thought and language.

Not even close. My parents were hippies. Your point?

>and it's been shown to enhance users' conscious state.

I'm going to need you to elaborate on this here

youtube.com/watch?v=aAnlBW5INYg

tl;dr: soul, consciousness and free will don't exist. it's just neurochemistry and delusions

Honestly yes, look at the San people. Oldest human group, capable of language, and live hundreds of km from the nearest possible source.

>tfw you eat a pot lollipop after an intense kettlebell session while taking your daily alpha-brain supplement

We are not of consciousness, we are consciousness. Just like you can cut a drop of water a hundred different ways, it is always water. Just as consciousness has been cut millions, even billions if times, we all are of one consciousness and of one mind, just as one drop of water makes up an ocean.

>The question is where along the spindling threads of the history of life on Earth did consciousness build its way into existence via natural selection, and how does that kind of a thing even happen.
I can answer this pretty easily

When the first person drew a symbol in the dirt. To symbolize is to embed in consciousness.

Everyone has experienced the benefit of drug use. Your chemistry is built off ancestors who have altered theirs.

Thank you Italy

Enhanced vision, hearing, sensations... Psilocybin allows your whole brain to communicate instead of just some areas being more highlighted than others. You can produce some great ideas in this state.

any-thyme

Also this. I eluded to this with my chalk example, here >San people
I don't think unevolved niggers helps the devils advocate in this case, leaf. If it's true that these nignogs have never explored their subconscious mind, then it's utterly unsurprising to me. Niggers don't explore anything.

>Why did humans evolve a consciusness?
Depends on your definition. Do you mean what Humans have that animals don't? Because what we have that most other species don't have is cumulative knowledge due to thumbs.

>How did consciousness even begin to take shape?
Patterns of behavior, if you cut it down to the basics. All organisms learn and grow, simply because of wanting to survive. Being able to remember things(or more importantly, read symbols/impart knowledge) increases that chance, so it evolves eventually.

>Is this the biggest question the theory of evolution faces?
No. The biggest question to evolution right now is how so many people don't understand it and refuse to accept it as the fact it is.

>Why did humans evolve a consciusness?
Either it doesn't exist or all sorts of animals have it.

We're are a special snowflake, but only in the sense that we're a little better at communication and a hell of a lot better at tool use.

>How did consciousness even begin to take shape?
If it's a real thing with a real definition, it probably came about with the development of the brain.

But show me that an ant isn't conscious.

>Is this the biggest question the theory of evolution faces?

No. The biggest question is abiogenesis, or what started it all. Technically it's not even a part of evolution, but there's a very obvious logical step from one to the other.

Specifically, which came first, the lipid membrane or the copying RNA strands.

But only a complete fucking idiot would question if evolution is real.

Psilocybin is not that interesting or mind opening. I've generally just played video games on it like GTA, and if I do have mind opening stuff it is things I already know, and that feeling of being poisoned never goes away.

I've done a FUCK ton of LSD though and it changed my life

Rogan listens to the wonders of McKenna or Hancock and spouts out everything that sounds wonderful in a very simplistic way. Some things he says are just completely wrong too.

But again, you're not giving any argument as to why this hypothesis doesn't have any meritable aspects. Not saying it's true, it's just worth thinking about. Maybe have a read.

>No, I don't like /sci/
No shit.

>Where did it come from then? Consciousness isn't physical, so how does evolution explain it?

The brain. It's physical. There is no mind-body duality.

Aaaaaaaaannnnd poof. The fucktard is gone.

Humans are not the only ones on the Earth who have evolved consciousness.

What sort of dosage were you using?

OP means sentience. Everything alive is conscious.

Consciousness didn't really evolve out of anything consciousness existed before anything, things evolved out of consciousness, without consciousness there is NOTHING!!!!

So if you look at the human brain it has very specialized regions for language, Broca's and Wernicke's areas in particular. One can argue that the fact that its sometimes in the opposite hemisphere in left handed people gives it a degree of anatomical flexibility. These areas have very hard coded genetics much like the visual cortex which given the genetic history of the genes involved (its a fascinating read but I can't post everything from mobile) it seems likely language evolved stepwise with increasing specialization of these regions.

An example of this "hardwiring" is that there are specific neuronal pathways that explicitly function to recognize faces (and interestingly fail with upside down faces).
There also exists genetic conditions linked to face-blindness where people cannot remember faces beyond point facts (eg: blue eyes, scar on right cheek).

I've done a lot of shrooms, I don't really remember the dosage. I remember doing stuff high enough that my pals were seeing like actual visuals but for me it makes everything look like a fucking dream world and it's just a lil spooky.

LSD has helped me through so many fucking issues though

Amen

Unless you mean consciousness to be this particular human pair of sensory perception organs?

yeah it helped with a lot of my issues too

But it was proven that language as it is used by humans is a completely different thing to what animals use. We think the same way we talk and the two things are directly connected, animals don't talk they make simple noises that are nothing more than reflex functions and it's separate to how they think which is primitive in itself

Also people have never looked quite the same since I did shrooms.

I was kinda a schizo before but I wanted to kill myself. Now I'm still a schizo but I don't wanna die that much but the schizo shit is a lot worse.

That's related to the whole kek, Berenstein, universe b shit though.

Basically grammer makes us human?

Because McKenna can't prove any of his shit, and the things he uses as a basis for his theory are so far fetched it's hilarious.
Psilocybin doesn't enhance your vision or any of your senses, it just alters them. Someone who is on mushrooms is not a more effective human being than someone who isn't.
And just look at what a vested interest he had in his theory, the guy loved shrooms way too much and couldn't view them objectively.

Confirmation bias.

It still doesn't discredit this hypothesis though. It's just adding more onto the question of how we evolved these parts so quickly compared to the "normal" timescale of evolution.

Have you ever made a grunty sound even motioning someone to do something. Or said uh uh to mean no?

Think like that

What are you talking about? He's the only person who did look at them objectively. There are so many unanswered questions with psychedelics and he was just opening up the discussion and giving his 2 cents.

Do you really find it hard to believe that we ate some mushrooms a very long time ago in a time period where we literally couldn't talk.

>Psilocybin doesn't enhance your vision or any of your senses, it just alters them.
An alteration can be useful to the intelligent man who can use his altered state to attack problems from a new perspective.

You just admitted this; I made you aware of this. Think of me as your conscious.

Creative thought actually and it's a fairly recent phenomenon actually. We could suddenly speak one day for some reason

We have tons of theories on that which fit more into mainstream science. Among others one that stands out is how mutation prone our genome is and all that starts around 150k years ago.

If you look at it, roughly ~50% of human pregnancies end in spontanious abortion and infant mortality is ridiculous pre-industrial revolution. As a species our DNA is basically fucked compared to most other mammals, maybe it comes from transponsons, endogenous retrovirii, or the fact everyone outside Africa and possibly Australian Abo's ancestors literally fucked neadrathals and every vaguely human thing with two legs to extinction.

Its an interesting theory but fringe science at best.

When did it happen? Are you referring to what they call creative revolution or whatits?

Kinda wanna do 55ug of LSD today to see if it makes me feel good but I'm .1% away from killing myself and I haven't done psychs In a long time. Even at a baby dose like that I know I'd be forced to face my issues, not look at them in a new light and be at peace.

I guess I'll keep doing opiates until I die

That's the thing. these "missing link" races are not extinct. They are the nigger. They are the Australian Abo.

No we ate mushrooms, just like cats rub themselves on catnip.
It wasn't a driving force in our evolution though. Prehistoric man also consumed alcohol, yet weirdly enough noone believes it was particularly important to our evolution.
Yep, intelligent people use drugs, therefore we evolved because of magic mushrooms. You just proved it and convinced me. Godspeed.

>from what we know it seems to be the brain

Nope.

neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/146/146

We're not allowed to actually affirm these theories because of PC.

I wish we could legit do a huge study on African pygmyies and Abbos, full blooded.

no one believes alcohol is important to our evolution? Maybe they should, because it was.

>yet weirdly enough noone believes it was particularly important to our evolution

Lemme find you a study that contradicts that

what a pretentious faggot. why are all DUDE PSYCHS LMAO so fucking annoying

The consciousness does not stem from the brain. It is connected to the brain in some matter, but it is its own thing. Read .

We literally just allow a bunch of pre-historic niggers on sentinel island go unstudied.

Affirming the theory is unimportant to me. I have accepted it as fact, and continue my research despite jewish roadblocks.

Stop listening to Steafan Molyneux fag.

DUDE
MUH STONED APE THEORY

Just saying, people don't tell you this for no reason. It literally enhances how you see and experience life.

Do you really think self-improvement is wrong?

Megumi a qt. A QT.

I believe you but I've never actually heard of this theory. What do they think it enhanced? I could only think it enhanced bad shit in our heads

Why are you trying to reason with an unintelligent kneejerk?

I could spend all day on the greatness of alcohol. But let's just stay with "Increased cognition after ~1-2 shots" to make the argument neater.

This is about how consciousness is non-computable (within the current axioms and theories that are used to define computability in the first place) therefore it can't originate from the computing capacity of the brain?
I promise to read it later, but can you whip us a tl;dr? And who is this Diogenes Song?

> It literally enhances how you see and experience life.
If that's what you took away from your mushroom experiences, you are a dumbass who is leading an extremely unreflected life.
Also where's your alcohol study?

Do you not think the discovery of fire and the development of cooking may have had a bigger influence? With a much better diet than unprocessed raw meat and plants, our ancestors developed their brains over many generations. Then once they were conscious enough to develop self-awareness and intelligence, they realized that Africa was shit and decided to migrate.

Sure, psychedelics may have had some influence but to completely attribute brain development to them is pretty silly.

Trying to make them question themselves. It helps.

It's in regards to sentience. Not natural brain evolution.

I'm light 5'2 and 110lbs so 2 shots has me floored. I used to drink like a shot and I would feel more focused and idk well put together but like idk if that was placebo

I'm really interested

>consciusness
First prove that's an actual thing

user's just trying to put that philosophy major to use in between McDonald's shifts.

Perhaps because of the same stupidity that made you choose to do a philosophy degree, you made your thread in the wrong board.

2 shots is obviously too much for you

there's a "sweet spot" with alcohol where your cognition is greatly increased before it absolutely crashes due to intoxication.

You can find it yourself if you experiment.

And so what? If you already have cognition selected for it doesn't really matter how dumb or smart the population is at the start vis-a-vis the end result. Alcohol effects are not inheritable either, thank god.

give it me you emo fag

I have a bunch of bourbon, should I take half a shot? What exactly does it help with

I'm pretty scared to leave the house, and I don't know if that would help, I generally do Xanax for that. I've used alcohol to calm my nerves but, only ever really abused it

This really interests me for some reason

If consciousness is the result of the nervous system them why do we only experience a single consciousness and not all consciousnesses? If the nervous system creates a kind of awareness them why aren't we aware of all nervous systems? Why is it localised?

He's a senior research scientist over at South Korea's Handong Global University.

Basically, I'll just take use his own statement as a quick summary.

>"If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."

The idea I'm getting at with my examples is this:

Humans have "achieved" while ingesting the chemistry-changing substances known as "drugs". It follows that the breakthroughs made are passed down to their children.

Consequently, everyone has a psychonaut in their family tree. We stand on the shoulders of space hackers on steroids.

Oh yeah I like this. you're super aware and I'm just some dumb asshole that never introspects. try dropping 7 hits of lsd you hippy pussy and not your gay mushrooms. can u transcend this plane without the aid of your crutch little faggot? can you even into transcendental meditation or do you lack so much self discipline because you're shooting portobellos into your eye balls all day?

Yes, and why, if I eat something, does it not get digested in all of our stomachs? Why is it localised?

Damn, really seems like you practice all this stuff you've learned. You seem real calm and chill. Would love to hang with you!

Yeah consciousness just doesn't make any sense

we could create a robot to do all the work an animal(or human) does and still we wouldn't have to program in a consciousness(if we even knew how)

So why did evolution make us conscious and what creates it?

Dude what? Don't take alcohol if you're on Xanax. That's how you die.

If you want to use bourbon the right way. Prepare 2 shots in a glass with ice. Sip it as it melts. Enjoy it while you read Cred Forums or some shit.

As long as you're aware, you'll be able to track your results. If you fuck up typing, you've taken too much. sip slower the next time.

ancient aliens n shit

Consciousness is the result of a number of different processes in the brain. It can be altered through any number of drugs and procedures.

of course it evolved. god doesn't real

see, this is what I mean when I say you hippy scamps are a bunch of pretentious dipshits who think they know it all. more than that, you idiots are the ones with your heads furthest up your own ass full of vain conceit and arrogance

>muh meditation is for muh health
>le goal is to become a fucking potato that turns oxygen into carbon dioxide
>I'm so zen n shit xD

keep reading your gay eastern gook bullshit you relativist dipshits. you spend all this time telling ppl "not an argument" and yet all you've given me are gay passive aggressive sarcastic replies with no arguments other than regurgitated bullshit from that hobbit fag McKenna you stroke yourself to on jewtube.

CRY MORE FAGGOT

Because food is a physical object. Consciousness isn't. It's a thought that doesn't exist in a particular place. You can't measure it or see it

I got this basic message, what I was hoping for was the summary of the math involved, dumbed down for retards, on qualitative level. Would be even better if you could arrange it as a greentext story. What is it exactly about consciousness that makes it non-computable, is this something really necessary for a consciousness to form, stuff like this.

What makes humans unique is the ability to see into the future.
We can see consequences.

Other animals can communicate.
Other animals can dream and likely imagine.
But only humans can see or know the results of actions they take. In fact, you'll notice that people with less ability to do this(niggers) are more primitive and animalistic than higher humans.

Okay so way back before humans were around, ETs implanted DNA into a few different applicable species on earth. And TA DA human history.

You dumb nigger, magic mushrooms do not mutate your chromosomes. If you get your arm chopped off and then have a kid, will he have only one arm? The physical changes of your brain chemistry from shrooms wont change your DNA at all.

My basic thought is that emotions are what allow us to survive and emotions don't work without some conscious being too experience them. For instance how would fear work without someone actually BEING fearful? There must have been some creature at some point that evolved the ability to feel and therefore survive longer.

You DNA changes over your life based on many things. Achieving higher levels of thought is one of those things.

You really sound like the toddler here, buddy.

If I really was everything you're saying, do you not think I'd be the one responding like you are?

Sure, but all those breakthroughs are civilizational, i.e. not inherent in human species, right? Take a little nog and place him on an uninhabited island. Will he be conscious even without those breakthroughs? Will he be conscious even though he can't tell you he is (and never will be able to, since you can't learn language after a certain age)? If he take those drugs, are you telling me he'll be able to achieve those ephemeral breakthroughs on his own?

I don't really place much faith in the ability of natural selection theory to explain EVERYYYthing, so.

keep proving me right. don't forget to tell me how I'm putting out "negative vibes brooo" and to wash your nasty dreds you subhuman ape nigger

Not entirely true. Collective knowledge can also be passed down by genes. So a monkey knows that if he eats a certain fruit he'll die, so he won't eat it. Domesticated dogs know the consequences of letting in a stranger, and hence they don't.

I think the part that differentiates us from animals is morality which is why (((they))) want to destroy it so badly.

I suppose from a biological POV a consciousness is just the chemicals in your brain working in time with your synapses and other brain stuff to create an organism to function autonomously. Your question of how it evolved is that what you're experiencing right now as consciousness is a very advanced (according to our brains) form of what causes a cell to divide or causes a bacteria to move around and interact with other bacteria.

While you might think this is impressive, you're suffering this delusion because your consciousness is measuring its own self and you have no frame of reference for comparison, you can't experience another persons consciousness. A person with a small penis probably thinks they're normal or large sized until they check out other guys at urinals/in the locker room. You can't do that with consciousness.

E D G Y
D
G
Y

I think it's worth studying. Take a group of per-civilization niggers and have multiple tribes on psychoactive substances. Maybe they will achieve in a number of generations?

I doubt it, honestly. There are probably way more factors involved. My point was only the clear benefit.

Food is a physical object, digestion isn't.
Can you put a pound of digestion on a table?
Yet digestion happens in the stomach and is localized there.
Why would it be different for conciousness?

Damn man, you're negative vibrations are really starting to hurt my feelings

It's almost like your words on my screen are like, effecting me and stuff and like, making me think about myself and stuff man, I was wrong all along

Thanks man

This is true.

If you play pool at the pub, you will find that you start out a bit shit, get really good after about 2 pints then immediately absolutely terrible after the third.

Digestion is physical you dumb dumb. I'm sure you can even find videos of it online

>evolve to have a hand instead of paw
>grab a rock
>kill all other dumb monkeys with your superior weapon (stone)
>use brain to survive
>the better the brain the more advanced weapon you get (sharp stick)
>main selection principle becomes intelligence
>humans become the most intelligent animals
>become smart enough to come up with a language
>knowledge can accumulate through generations instead of dying with it's bearer
>civilization
>agriculture
>industry
>etc

Consciousness is not a particular feature.
It's just you're smart and know enough to understand yourself.
But in principle you're not any different from other animals, you just have more INT points.

>2 posts by this ID
>AYY LMAO
>disregarded

more passive aggressive sarcasm. let me know when your balls drop and you can talk with big boys without getting triggered by adult words.

answer this much tho, can you or can you not reach elevated states of consciousness without the aid of psychs?

consciousness is electric
certain thoughts produce certain physical symbols

Vladimir gets it.

Tons of stroke patients have this, knock out the frontal and temporial lobes plus some other real estate with a massive infarct and you basically end up with a hyperemotional zombie a'la 28 Days Later.

A lot of our emotional processing is done in the midbrain, particularly the limbic system

Emotions are one of the aspects of consciousness so you're basically saying consciousness doesn't work without consciousness. For instance how would consciousness work without someone actually being conscious?

The more basic kind of "emotions", more primitively defined, exist just fine even without consciousness - you can scrape your neocortex off, the lymbic system will still work (I think), meaning fear is working. Stab a comatose patient - the pain is there, but he isn't there to feel it.

How can you tell if the roach is afraid of the light or it's just a cascade of reflexes that starts at his eyes and ends in his legs anyway?

Wait what? I know fruit flies have epigenetic inheritance of avoidance of certain smells but this is totally unproven in mammals

Who the fuck is going to respond rationally to you? Look at the first thing you wrote and ask if you'd wanna have a real "talk with the big boys".

I've practiced mindfulness for a while and can get there with meditation with some ease.

So you missed the great breakthrough when it was proven that a woman's previous partners manifest themselves in her kids from a different partner through the magic of epigenetic inheritance?

Digestion is a process, thought (and by extensions consciousness) is a process.
Gut bacteria digest, neurons transmit signals.
How is consciousness not physical if digestion is physical?
Electric signals are a part of it, but I would say hormones are more important.

Brain is a survival tool, even cockroaches fear what's bad for them, like when you're bashing them with a shoe

>bad thiongs(shoe) = away from it = fear
>good things(sugar) = get more of it = love

We only love each other and our children because animals that didn't love children died out.
We are horny because non-horny animals didn't reproduce
Animals that didn't fear danger died
Animals that had no disgust have ate shit and died.

Think about it, why do you hate shit? Eating shit is something absolutely unthinkable for a healthy person, that is because you're biologically not supposed to do it.
Also thats why fags and perverts are disgusting to you.

I would go so far as to say even your heartbeat/rate/rhythm is important.

I was just trying to meet this gook at a level he can understand.

What makes you think consciousness is uniquely human? I would think everything with a brain at least, possibly everything, has a consciousness.

damn, you're so aware and yet you aren't even aware of how triggered you are. it's almost as if this whole enlightened Buddha face you have is just that, a facade. my favorite part is how you react to it too, like "I'm going to say really sarcastic gay shit, that'll show him."

>hahahahahahahahahahahaha

what's wrong bong boy? ran out of shrooms to put in your pipe? I doubt you've actually ever transcended this realm

>Digestion is a process, thought (and by extensions consciousness) is a process.

Dog has four legs, table (and by extensions tablecloth) has for legs

>Why did humans evolve a consciusness? How did consciousness even begin to take shape?
>Is this the biggest question the theory of evolution faces?

There is no proof to consciousness, just because you react to stimuli doesn't make you conscious.

Consciousness is just a self-simulation in addition to the outside-world-simulation.

Both help to keep track of the past and predict the future.

We (the consciousness) don't actually make decisions, the brain does and we experience them.

But my point is that consciousness provides a higher level of abstract fear that makes us better survivors. Like we fear getting diabetes so we avoid drinking sugary drinks that all of our instincts tell us we must drink.

The secrets of time travel is collecting enough legitimate information to imagine what will happen before it does.

Consciousness is not a distinct feature.
Animals are also conscious to a certain very little degree.

It's not like we have someting special that makes us different from the rest.

What parts of the brain make up your consciousness?

You guys are retarded.

>delusions
what is deluded then?

>a leaf

That's not time travel, though.

Our simulation isn't nearly elaborate enough to be comparable to the real thing.

It's very abstract, but works well enough.

So consciousness is just the abilty to plan?
If I beat a dog while blowing a whistle, he will learn to avoid the whistle.
I guess it makes sense since humans have an unusually well developed prefrontal cortex.

It's time travel. Reality is the simulation.

>consciousness
better even DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS
>hurr recognize yourself in a mirror
monkeys do that, my cat also does.
What is it that you call consciousness?

I can feasibly write a computer program that would consume virtual sugar, until it would learn about diabetes and the fear function would kick in. Human brain could have quite feasibly evolved to show the same "emotional" behavior even without any consciousness. The question is why is consciousness necessary for this behavior and is it really necessary for any behaviors at all.

If emotions are consciousness then abstract emotions are abstract consciousness. If your fear requires rationalization to exist then you're manufacturing consciousness through abstract thought, which itself requires consciousness to formulate. You can't think something through without being aware of yourself, especially a new concept.

It helped avoid infections in Europe as wine was almost always safe to drink and also helped preserve food. Europeans have way more ALDH2 activity than other races (notably East Asians) because of this. East Asians also apparently are more resistant to the phytoestrogens in soy than Europeans as well.

You don't get it, most people are not conscious. It implies self awareness and an awareness of your surroundings.

I hope you're trash talking and not a stoner.

It's true that the reality we experience is a simulation, but it's still directly based on sense data in the moment.

The simulation of the future we are doing is not directly based on sense data in the moment, but faked/predicted from past sense data.

I think you're the stoner for buying into hollywood time travel. That shit isn't possible.

Your "sense data" as you call it, is forced to experience "time". There is no avoiding this. We are prisoners of the 3rd dimension as far as we know. But "You" can travel forward in time with enough accurate information, thus preparing your brain for the "decisions" it will make referenced in this post

It is physical
It's simply the way that our brain interprets and decodes information
A sort of an interface that allows us to make use of the information that we recieve

1) They didn't.
2) It was instilled in us by God.
3) One of many.

>89491861
This, to an extent
We have something that makes us special, it's simply the extent and complexity of our consciousness that allows us to interpret more and more complex and abstract ideas

>how to say nothing in as many words as possible
If you're going to use unprecise language, at least set a framework within which you are going to use it.
What is abstract thought in this context? What does being aware of yourself mean? What is a new concept in this context?
I doubt it is necessary for behaviours, but I would say it becomes unavoidable with increasing brain complexity.

>It is physical
Or, alternatively, it isn't.
Come up with an explanation of intentionality yet?
plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

>free will don't exis
>Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action

Someone offers you a piece of chocolate cake or a piece of strawberry cake, according to you it's impossible to choose which piece you want

T. Projecting autist

I've never even done shrooms

Just on /k/ and people were talking about it. Why do I keep running into such based blindsight/echopraxia fans?

How could it be anything other than physical?
What would it be?

It's a matter of perspective.
What power do you have over your preferences?
Can you choose what you prefer in life?

According to me I want strawberry cake, but I never made any choice.

Not-physical. Mental. Mind. Immaterial.
Intentionality already makes absolutely 0 sense in regard to a physicalist/materialist ontology, while simultaneously being absolutely indispensable to human reasoning and communication.

Fluctuations in the stability of microtubules in your neurons, born from quantum (non-material) effects.

I never said hollywood time travel was possible.

Our brains aren't capable of perfectly simulating the future, even with perfect data.
It's very abstract, far removed from the simulation of the current moment.

You're not travelling in any meaningful sense, though.

"You" are still bound to the current time.

Otherwise you would have to argue that you also travel in other dimensions when simulating nonsense realities.

If you believe that you do, then we're arguing semantics and probably agree anyways.

We are arguing semantics, and agree.

Time travel is something of a thought experiment to me. A tool I use to navigate my world and empower my unconscious mind.

I'm curious as to how intentionality disproves the physical nature of consciousness, the idea or feeling of intentionality could be created by the interaction of neurons within our brain.

>Not-physical. Mental. Mind. Immaterial.
Then what is it?
Our mind is our brain, no?
And our brain is a material/physical object.

>PROJECTING
the nerve of this eternal Anglo piece of shit. go ahead and show me where I was being a bitter sarcastic fag?????? link the fucking post. from the beginning you were bitching about how "le immature" and "le uncouth" I was being. let's take a look at your older posts since apparently you also suffer from dementia

(You)
>Damn, really seems like you practice all this stuff you've learned. You seem real calm and chill. Would love to hang with you!

(You)
>You really sound like the toddler here, buddy.

>If I really was everything you're saying, do you not think I'd be the one responding like you are?

(You)
>Damn man, you're negative vibrations are really starting to hurt my feelings

>It's almost like your words on my screen are like, effecting me and stuff and like, making me think about myself and stuff man, I was wrong all along

>Thanks man

tell me which one of these isn't passive aggressive and/or pompous faggotry

>evolve
>evolution
>people believe this lie

First you would have to prove that something non-physical could even exist.

So far there is nothing that would indicate this.

Our consciousness is a physical process, just as the digital world is.

Computer software is not immaterial.

consciousness doesn't real, if I scoop out half your brain you will still be "conscious" but you will also be retarded and not aware.

You assert that consciousness has a physical nature, despite intentionality being a necessary function of conscious thought that is definitively not material.

That's contradictory.

>Our mind is our brain, no?
No; I think that's absolutely false.

The fact I'd have to begin to explain why I responded in the way I did to specific things makes me realise that talking to you is only gonna go backwards.

S'wrong with you?

Intentionality exists and is definitively non-physical.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/#9

idk man probably aliens modeled us or something from space disturbed our natural evolution
we're just too different from other living things on this planet

>Fluctuations in the stability of microtubules in your neurons, born from quantum (non-material) effects.

I've heard of that theory, but just because it occurs on a quantum level, it does not make it immaterial or not physical in the sense that I'm talking about.

It is still, at a base level, explainable by the laws of physics, even though we may not understand them well enough to describe it yet.

I love all you sci autists. You come across something that is universally experienced among humans but has yet to be explained and you just put your fingers in your ears and shout NOT REAL NOT REAL NOT REAL while simultaneously saying psychology isn't a real science. Extra irony posting a smug anime face from a show centered on existential philosophy

Consciousness doesn't mean being awake retard.

why did your butt evolve my dick

Psychology isn't a science m8. You don't have to be an autistic scientism-worshiping empiricism-touting nutjob to reject psychology as a worthless pursuit.

What about intentionality makes it 'definitively not material'?

>No; I think that's absolutely false.
If our mind is not our brain, then what is it?
You can quote intentionality all you want, but you have no other explanation for it other than 'it's not physical', then what is it?

There's nothing special about consciousness.

The smarter our species grew, the more it started to be aware of its natural surroundings. And our own self, i.e., our own body, is just another part of the natural world like everything else. Why wouldn't you become aware of it and start to reason about it at some point?

We're not even the only animal capable of recognizing ourselves in a mirror. "Smart" animals like elephants, dolphins and even fucking magpies recognize themselves in a mirror to some extent.

This whole supposedly 'deep' and 'mysterious' aspect of consciousness that people sometimes babble about is mostly esoteric gobbledigook.

wtf does that even mean? if your experience with me is so not progressive then why are you still talking to me you twinky cuck?

Not gonna lie this is the most jewish thing I've read all week.

>the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs
where is the proof any of this exists? I guarantee if it does, there's an electric structure (thought) behind it which has once thrown it into motion -- and would easily change form with new electric signals (argument) introduced. Proving these structures are mutable by physical means, and therefore physical.

Consider your bullshit countered and tell the Rabbi to bring more heat!

Read the article - it tells you.

The red exclamation mark excites me user

>consciousness doesn't mean being woke
its like you forgot about us kangs

This is why the dsm V is so shit

>If our mind is not our brain, then what is it?
Itself? Seems pretty damn simple.

>thought is an electric structure
Hello presuppositionalist. You need to be a little more subtle m8.

It is.

Evolutionary flaw.

>having hopes and dreams and art and contemplating your own mortality are the same as simply being awake

I also presuppose you're a kike.

Bonus points: I used confirmation bias to arrive at that conclusion.

>Itself? Seems pretty damn simple.
That answers nothing.
You mean to say that the mind is a completely separate entity that has no basis in the physical world.
What does this entity consist of? What gives it it's properties? How does it interact with the physical world?

So time travel is said dimension travelling, but since you perfectly simulate the past/future you claim it's identical with the time axis - and therefore you time travel?

Could you summarize what exactly the concept of intentionality is supposed to be?

As I understood from quickly skimming, it sounds like the idea is that your thoughts are directed towards an object.
How could it be any different, as everything you can work with is sense data, past and present.

Why it is 'definately non-physical'?

It's just forming abstract concepts of patterns of sense data and then working with these concepts.

Everything above the quantum level is stable, as in it doesn't fluctuate.
I think it's reasonable to treat the brain as a non-quantum thing.

Most people don't do those things, that's why we have skydivers and motorcyclists.

No no no you're attitude about psychology is why the dsm v is so shit

I sometimes think unreasonable things, like the idea that the whole planet has a consciousness. That we perhaps as humans are the effort of the planet to expand life into the universe.

Just think of the fact that 52% of our bodies are bacteria.

And that bacteria may evolve fast, or interact with the environment in weird ways.

pastebin.com/ekSR1hwE

If intentionality is mental, and the mental and physical are indistinguishable from each other as the physical gives rise to the mental, then intentionality is physical in nature.

No no no your oppinion on psychology is why it is so shit

Neat

Does everything have to be reducible to some other thing?
You have spoken as if you think a mind is simply a brain. So a mind is reducible to a brain. But then what is a brain? And what are the components of whatever you reduce the brain to? And what are the components of those components? Ad infinitum.
I hold a mind as an irreducible existential reality. I bear no onus to reduce the irreducible.

Let's us take direct control of our evolution

Evolution before conciousness was blind trial and error. Being able to fathom ourselves past, present, future, and our legacies post-mortem is necessary for plotting our evolutionary path

how will I recover? you got me, I'm on my phone and currently harvesting you for (you)s. you cracked the case Mr. Homes. What's more is that you've continued to tip that massive fedora by STILL being a smug little pretentious faggot. but apparently you have zero self awareness despite having trained mindfulness from master Alan Watts. me wonders how big of a katana collection you have

Yes. I can discover a dimension that - at worst - is a perfect copy of a potential future. Along with a bunch of other meaningless scrap, destroyed by interference patterns, making no impression on me.

This is way easier to do in a system with strict rules (a chess game on a well defined board), but it can be done using reality itself.

Do you have aspergers perhaps?

>implying that increased sensory input = better thinki winkie.
I bet you think that jerking off to science books helps you read you silly billy.

>I hold a mind as an irreducible existential reality. I bear no onus to reduce the irreducible.
So literally all this does for you is cripples your sense of wonder and hinders your ability to invent.

Jew confirmed

It has been shown in numerous studies that psychedelics provide "out of the box thinking". You ignore previous neural patterns and form new ones.

You don't even know what you're talking about.

It would take me far longer to summarize than I'm willing to commit in a Cred Forums thread desu. It's not actually very easy philosophy at all.

No, it's shit because psychology itself is shit.

>and the mental and physical are indistinguishable from each other
The problem is that they *are* distinguishable from one another, and trying to assert they aren't leads to absurdities.

It doesn't cripple anything. Can you name a single thing I'm prevented from doing by virtue of holding minds to be irreducible?

Well if we accept that there are base laws that govern the universe, we must accept that everything is reducible to a certain point, at which point you can no longer reduce it to anything else.

However, this explains not how the mind is able to function if it is not physical, how does it interact with the physical, what gives it it's properties?

We must assume that something so complex consists of something more simple than itself, that it can be reduced down to a complex of simpler structures that then give it it's properties, as we understand with the human brain.

>I hold a mind as an irreducible existential reality.

Does mind = consciousness?

If so, then what do you make of the fact that consciousness comes in various degrees, as shown by stimulating certain areas of the brain or being tired, etc?

The brain is an antenna, mind is the signal theory?

Create a mind.

OP here is the best answer you're going to get:

Go on Youtube and search for this very question. There are some great TED talks on this subject.

For example, there is some debate right now about whether consciousness is an emergent phenomenon (like waves), or that perhaps it is a fundamental property of the universe, like gravity. Go check out the TED talks on this, they're great.

ALIENS DID IT

>The problem is that they *are* distinguishable from one another, and trying to assert they aren't leads to absurdities.

You claim this, but you fail to provide an alternative explanation in any sort of detail, all you say is that it's not physical, based on what evidence do you make this assertion?

I fail to understand what you mean by not physical, what is it if not physical? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

>(if) we accept that there are base laws that govern the universe
>(then) we must accept that everything is reducible to a certain point
That's not good logic though. Your "then" does not follow from your "if".
Believing there are LONs (laws of nature) does not necessitate irreducibility in anything.
I certainly believe there are irreducibles, but that's not a function of my belief in LONs at all.

i want to cum on those beutiful 2D breasts if you know what i mean

Only jews have souls

/thread

You didn't finish my sentence in the (then) part, I said "We must accept that everything is reducible to a certain point, at which point you can no longer reduce it to anything", I was actually agreeing with you there, my rebuttal was in the next part of my response.

Nobody can do that, no matter what they believe, because humans cannot create anything. They can only assemble what's already available.

>The brain is an antenna, mind is the signal theory?
That's close to my own beliefs, yes. You can mess up the antenna, but ultimately that has no impact on the mind itself.

Lol you are literally a jew.

Posting a shit tier girl

As expected of the shit taste of Nigel

T. Chang

My Jewdar is never wrong

I don't need to provide a full alternative explanation in order to reject that which is obviously untrue, which is the idea that everything is physical/material. It's not true by virtue of intentionality existing. You can deny that intentionality exists, but when you do that you open up an entirely insurmountable can of worms in that you then have to believe that human beliefs and desires aren't real. And that's absolutely silly.

Trying to define consciousness is like looking for darkness with a flashlight.

(((intentionality)))

Human beliefs and desires are just a far more complex version of base animal desires.

Also if you believe that the mind is purely physical, there's nothing stopping you from believing that intentionality is derived from that physical mind.

are aspies fully aware of their lack of respect for others emotions? do you want to lean a bit more into that armchair while making your diagnosis?

> how did humans evolve a consciousness
Well first off you can't even prove you exist so who cares?

>brain contains basically the information about you
>brain clearly is what makes decisions, and does every operation
>for some reason there needs to be a floating/inter-dimensional entity that represents you

Humans are only special because of their intelligence, and that is linked to the brain as well.

Self-awareness does not require an outside observer, as well, the very definition of self-awareness is something being aware of itself.

There is no observable proof for anything regarding the mind you believe in.

It is unfalsifiable.

Do you know how much mind masturbation I can do to come to in themselves perfectly consistent theories about such things, without ever gaining any actual insight?

If there is anything falsifiable about your claims, please correct me.

I left out the last sentence
>at which point you can no longer reduce it to anything else
because it didn't change anything.

>We must assume that something so complex consists of something more simple than itself
But we must make *no* such assumption.

I FUCKING HATE JEWS SO MUCH

I love Cred Forums philosophy threads, it's like watching tards play with lego.

>MUH SIM YOU LASIONS

I stopped being serious a while ago, you're taking this to heart too much

It appears to me that everyone is arguing whether the mind is physical or not.

Your (You), fucking leaf.

>I stopped being serious a while ago, you're taking this to heart too much
WOOOOOW I HAD NO IDEA YOU FUCKING IDIOT YOU ARE SUCH AN EPIC TROLLOLOLOL

KILL YOURSELF

I wasn't making any distinction between human and non-human beliefs and desires in that post. I just added in "human" as a specific qualifier - not as an exclusionary qualifier -, because that's what most of us are concerned with.

>there's nothing stopping you from believing that intentionality is derived from that physical mind
But there is, because intentionality *cannot* be accounted for as being given rise from anything physical - you cannot say "a mind is physical" and simultaneously say "but it has non-physical properties" in a materialist/physicalist framework, because *ONLY* physical/material things exist for the physicalist/materialist. The existence of anything that is not physical/material - such as intentionality - cannot exist (even though it obviously simply does) in a physicalist/materialist world.

Again, s'wrong wichu?

>tfw you realize humans are like DnD mages. They have a slow start but are OP in the late game

Nope. You're assuming a whole lot.

My criteria for what I'm willing to believe isn't based on observability, it's based on logical possibility coupled with being compatible with my axiomatic commitments about the nature of reality.
I'm not an empiricist, nor is there any reason I ought to be.

Intentionality from what I'm reading is the belief that all our mental states are intentional.

It's very clear that many of our mental states aren't intentional, considering our circadian rhythm which is outside of our control from the most part and can only be altered through conditioning.

Even if all of our actions were intentional (chosen by us), they could still be physical, as the way I see it, even if our mind was ethereal and unaffected by outside sources in some way, it would still be outside of our control to be fully in control of our meta mental state, as there'd be an infinite regression of causes or a lack of causes and thus randomness or chaos. Both being rather unintentional, so intentionality should just be defined as an ability to choose low tier aspects of our mental states and not all aspects. And it could be argued that our physical minds do a fine job of allowing for that already.

Intentionality isn't a belief, it's a property/power of mental states.

Ignore the non-observability and focus on the fact that it's unfalsifiable.

>changed through conditioning

you dont know the half of it

archive.is/gP9yr

I don't use falsifiability as a belief criteria. I thought blatantly stating I'm not an empiricist might have made that clear.

Did I upset you, user-kun? Was my behavior a tad bit uncouth and in poor taste? Does it rustle your Jimmies?

So when someone loses a part of their brain and they have amnesia, why do they have amnesia if their brain is merely an antenna meant to pick up a signal?

Is our circadian rhythm from our ethereal minds, in which case, why is it we can't choose to go against it without dying eventually? If it is from our physical body, what is its purpose if our brain is merely for connecting to a higher source?

Do animals have ethereal minds? If not, why is it that even though we are composed of the same materials, and have very similar structures, we're somehow different?

You seem to assume a lot, or at the very least bury your head in the sand when something poses too much of a threat to your ideas.

It's easily falsifiable. He says it's an antenna - all you have to do is isolate your brain and see if you're still conscious.

>why do they have amnesia if their brain is merely an antenna meant to pick up a signal
Because what a physical body and what a physical body is able to pick up on/facilitate is separate from the mind itself, which retains and attempts to communicate what it wills, but which a physical body doesn't necessarily receive, especially if that body is damaged in a way that impairs its reception.

How does the mind gain that information? Does it have separate sensory functions from our physical bodies, or does it piggyback off of our physical senses?

I can't not respond to things, it's rude

But just stop user, you're not doing a good job here

...

So why believe the mind is non-physical?

If you don't take falsifiability as a criteria, then just believe in gods that magic the mind into existance.

Or supernatural unicorns.

They're all equally valid then.

The radio without electricity doesn't still play music.

If our brain is the antenna it could easily be argued that it's function as an antenna stops as soon as it's seperated from the blood-flow and other important bodily functions.

I've always thought it simply functions in somewhat like fashion to a mirror. Everything in the material world is reflected in the mind as a perfect image, which it processes and determines what it will with it.

I don't know, dude. You've been responding back for like what? More than an hour? I mean, fuck. Not sure how exactly I'm not doing a good job.

So you're saying the mind has sensory functions.

If we are capable of true sight, or in other words, sight that reveals what truly is, why the fuck do we have imperfect sight and seemingly exclusively make use of it?

I mean, so have you. I'm just lurking the thread and replying to the shit you're saying. It's not exactly emotionally driven, I'm just curious why you're still trying to make this a thing.

I'll reply to you until the end of time, but I'll always love you user

>tfw not believing in free will
>tfw always wondering what the hell is this shit behind my eyes, using my hands to write this shit

Free will is just an illusion, but the fact I am ...myself is something I cannot comprehend. Why am I me and not you, guys?

Because to believe otherwise would conflict with axiomatic commitments I have in relation to the world.

I could believe in those, but I don't, nor do I have any real reason to do so. I could dismiss everything as "God did it", but there'd still be a question of "how did God do it", "why did God do it", "when did God do it", "what else did God do", etc that I'd be perfectly fine in desiring to pursue as areas of inquiry.

People have this mistaken assumption that if someone engages in non-empirical metaphysical musings that their ambition and interest must magically be no more interesting than "(something) did it", but that's just a silly caricature.

Free will isn't an illusion, just a misunderstanding, no an unrealistic expectation.

Reasonable things have causes, no? Well, then for us to be reasonable, to be a part of a sane world with consistency, we have to have causes affect us and drive us.

Obviously, this means we can't be self-determining, but that doesn't mean we don't make choices, it just means we don't make the choices that makes the choices that makes the choices... into infinity. We still are responsible for our choices for the most part (some concessions are made) and we must take heart to our role and play it earnestly to live a fulfilling life, following our nature.

> I could dismiss everything as "God did it", but there'd still be a question of "how did God do it", "why did God do it", "when did God do it", "what else did God do"

If you claim "the mind is non-material", there's also still a question of "how does it produce thoughts", "why does it produce thoughts", "when did it produce thoughts" and "what else does it do"

There's still no reason to believe one over the other.

Not necessarily. I could hold that the mind has data processing functions, and data is necessarily accessible to it. That doesn't mean it must sense the data - it could simply be a true correspondence. If x then y - if data then data processing. You could use omniscience as a baseline, and then just narrow that to being applicable just to a particular data set (so, say, what's around physical body z) with time sensitive parameters for broadcasting based on that data.

>Why did humans evolve a consciusness?
There's no reason for it, evolution is a random process.
>How did consciousness even begin to take shape?
Science still hasn't figured out what consciousness is so we cannot know how it took shape but we do know the process of evolution of intelligence.
>Is this the biggest question the theory of evolution faces?
No.

>so have you
Well, geez. I guess that would mean more under different circumstances other than the current ones.

>It's not exactly emotionally driven
Who said it had to be?

>It's just curious why you're still trying to make this a thing.
Ah, it still doesn't know my game.

>I'll reply to you until the end of time
That sounds more like a cheap cop-out to ignore that you haven't exactly interacted with the thread since you started responding to me, a thread you were heavily involved in I might add. But if you say so.

Believing a non-material mind is cooler, so that's why he chooses it on the more empirical material, animal mind. He wants to feel all spiritual and above it all.

That's my guess. If all things are equal logically, then the deciding factor is almost always emotional.

Need sauce, all I can find is a source for male DNA from spontaniously aborted pregnancies is found in the brain and a seperate story claiming this in mice

I do have reason to believe one over the other though. One conflicts with my axiomatic commitments while the other doesn't.

So you commit yourself to falsifiability as a criteria some proposition ought to be able to satisfy for you to be able to believe it in some degree. So when a premise comes before you that can't be falsified, your reaction is to reject it because it conflicts with your precommitment to falsifiability as a criteria a proposition must meet to be 'taken seriously' as it were.

You're working too hard on this

Rest your fingers, calm your mind, ease your soul, tickle your pickle

It's the fluoride in your water, right? I understand

Okay, so you're proposing we're fucking omniscient. Alright buddy, why the fuck don't we have access to that information all the time? Seems rather disadvantageous.

And if we have all that information, why the fuck do we need sight or hearing or any sensory organs? Why wouldn't the information already stored in our ethereal mind be broadcasted to our meat vessel?

As always, these dualistic beliefs always never account for the functions they either claim have duplicates, or claim have direct fucking upgrades.

Your world has to either be extremely shitty, having unnecessary features naturally, or horribly designed as if by a horrid cosmic toddler.

>t. Anti-intellectual, troll, or both

People do tend to believe things that align with what they want to believe.
I'd imagine you want to believe your sensory experience corresponds to real objects, for instance, rather than being something akin to a projected illusion. And you'd commit yourself to interacting with the world around you under the assumption - but not the guarantee - that such is true. And you do such ultimately because you want to, not because you're rationally compelled to.
News at 11?

Not at all. You misread m8.

I don't know

Therefore God did it

Hemispherectomy bud, aside from shit peripheral vision and losing control over the contralateral hand these people often do fine

Troll and he thinks he's being deceptive and playing cool mind games

Doesnt the material world depend entirely on the mind. Without minds, there's no material to be sensed or conceived of.

Everything that comes out of your end sounds like absolutely cringeworthy vomit spouted from Timothy Leary's ass. Stop trying to act like you're cool and an undercover badass you fucking mental retard.

Do you mind sharing your >axiomatic commitments ?

Yes, I commit to falsifiablity.

I start with "cogito ergo sum" and when it comes to the question of if the reality I experience is real, as in objective, seperate from my mind and shared by other minds, I'm agnostic.

I just behave in the way I would if it was, in order to function in this world.

The rest of my opinions stem from experience and rationality, especially logic, bayesian reasoning and falsifiability.

I was joking, mate.
I saw this bullshit on Cred Forums some time ago and instantly dismissed it as a load of crap without even looking at the source. Should be easy to find in the archives - anons relished the cuckery implications for a long while. Chances are it was in mice, but the media or Cred Forums herself blown it out of proportion.

>cool mind games
LITERALLY TWO FUCKING HOURS OF REPLIES

So if I scoop out half your brain then there is two consciousness' or two people who are aware? I don't think so.

My point is what part of you makes up you.

One could hold something can exist without a mind that might perceive it m8.
Now, there'd be a question of whether that something - or anything - might *matter* if there were no minds that might ascribe value to that something (to which I believe the answer is a very straightforward 'no'), but that's different.
I don't think a tree must necessarily blink out of existence just because the last mind in the universe were to cease to be. It might, but I don't think that *must* be the case.

Point still stands, why the fuck do we need eyes if we already have the information in our ethereal minds?

No, the senses can be tricked, because our very physical minds are imperfect. Ever heard of optical illusions buddy? Just because we generally see the world, doesn't mean we have perfect sight.

How does believing nothing or close to nothing you see is real help you interact with the world?

I'm explaining the reason behind the belief. You're still caught on the surface level.

You believe in things because of needs and wants outside of your control. You probably believe in higher functions because then you can feel enlightened and can look down on others that you assume don't have this belief.

congratulations, you played yourself

No, once you suppose that something exists outside of a mind, you draw it inside of your own mind. Is that not still a mind dependent object?

"Consciousness" Is a combination of memory and a big brain.

>DUDE MUSHROOMS LMAO
Keep trying to hide the fact you believe stupid bullshit you drank up like Kool-aid from your YouTube gurus.

Pfft, the tree would continue to exist.

If reality is what we perceive, and when our perception wanes, it still returns to us, that would imply that it is independent of our minds.

There isn't that much power to our minds. If I will for something to move here or there, it doesn't. You know why? Because our minds don't control or form reality, it only perceives it.

We have literal case studies for this

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy

Don't get me wrong, I find a lot of this stuff very interesting and I've always been curious; doesn't mean I believe it.

I'd rather there was more meaning to life and that we use our brains etc... Because it's nice to think that there's something afterwards, but I'm still aware that we could just die and that's all.

Again, not even done shrooms ya goon.

My axiomatic commitments are basic Christian ones. Like any and all axioms, they're ultimately faith/preference based.

>I just behave in the way I would if it was, in order to function in this world
It's the very same for me.

>why the fuck do we need eyes if we already have the information in our ethereal minds
Why do we exist rather than not-exist?
You can come up with innumerable "why" questions, but I think "why" questions in terms like the one you posed and the one I just reflected aren't very interesting at all. You're essentially questioning intent, which assumes something is there which has an intent. You can do that, surely, but you ought to recognize that such is indeed what you're doing.

BUT MAYBE THIS POWER IS LATENT

MAYBE IF WE COULD ACCESS THE IDLE 90% OF OUR BRAIN

I MEAN YOU CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE THE TREE IS ACTUALLY THERE

WHAT IF YOU AND ME AND EVERYONE ELSE IS HALLUCINATING THIS TREE INTO EXISTENCE

WHAT IF ALIENS SPAWNED THAT TREE ON THE SERVER THEY HAVE YOU AND ME CONNECTED TO

I MEAN YOU CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE

Adult hemispherectomy in a carefully selected population works quite well.
Some processes are lost but the general "self" of the person does not seem to significantly change. Smaller more focal lesions seem to cause other issues
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17323346

>No, the senses can be tricked
Yes indeed - that was part of my point.
>but not the guarantee
>not because you're rationally compelled to

>once you suppose that something exists outside of a mind, you draw it inside of your own mind
That doesn't mean that that something doesn't have an objective existence that isn't dependent on me.

>the tree would continue to exist
I'm a metaphysical realist, so I'd agree.

No, but what I'm asking is what's the point of having duplicate functions?

I'm not questioning intent, I'm questioning simplicity and elegance (in a loose mathematical sense). Your scenario is infinitely more complicated and redundant.

I'm confirming this so I can shank you with Occam's Razor you shit.

I assume that the physical is all there is, or at least all that interacts with us.

You assume there's some mystical force that causes shit or allows shit to be in addition to the physical from the sounds of it.

Reduce, reduce, reduce to it's purest form motherfucker.

What's the point of having functions at all?

Well, by the definition of functions, they do things.

So you're basically asking the point of doing things.

It's the difference between something and nothing.

Since I'm something, and have the capacity to do, why should I waste it for what I know to be a finite lifetime? We are biological inclined to do. It is in our nature, and thus, it is best for us.

Oh, fuck OFF. You don't start suggesting ideas you don't consider at least highly plausible. You might have some doubt but you're practically sold on the New Age cult bullcrap. Stop trying to act like you're really on the fence about how significant a role mushrooms played in human evolution. You clearly have a bias towards that theory and others have already ridiculed you for it. It's high school meme tier """intellectualism."""

>It's actually kind of hard to think of another explanation

You're so easy to read. You're just another cookie cut post-enlightenment empiricist / materialist /relativist making a cheap attempt at metaphysics.

zzzzzZZZZZzzzzz

My bias is based on what I want to believe but I'm still aware that it could be wrong. What don't you understand about that?

That's exactly what I mean.
>It's the difference between something and nothing.
Why have something rather than nothing?
Why do we exist rather than not-exist?

You're asking questions of purpose, which *necessarily* stem from a will/intent toward a purpose. Do you think, as you imply by saying
>We are biological inclined to do. It is in our nature, and thus, it is best for us
That *nature* or *biology*, as concepts, have a will or intent by which they might purpose anything at all?