Theories of Consciousness

[Flannel Jesus]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -networks/

-Imp

That link doesn't use the word lobotomy once

Exactly. I ended up having a look against my better judgement. I doubt if he read it himself

Yeah but your reply was off the mark too. "For fuck sake. I asked YOU. I'm not interested in what 'scientific' american has to say about anything." This implies that even if the article WAS about successful lobotomies, it wouldn't have been acceptable as a response because it's a link to scientific america and not his own words. But actually, in response to the question you asked, a link to an article about successful lobotomies would have been entirely relevant - it's jus that that's not what his link was.

[accelafine]

That link doesn't use the word lobotomy once

Exactly. I ended up having a look against my better judgement. I doubt if he read it himself

Yeah but your reply was off the mark too. "For fuck sake. I asked YOU. I'm not interested in what 'scientific' american has to say about anything." This implies that even if the article WAS about successful lobotomies, it wouldn't have been acceptable as a response because it's a link to scientific america and not his own words. But actually, in response to the question you asked, a link to an article about successful lobotomies would have been entirely relevant - it's jus that that's not what his link was.

What a wanky response. I didn't 'imply' anything. I asked the fuckwit a question and got a stupid fucking link. What kind of weirdo is only capable of writing one sentence at a time anyway, and then signing it, EVERY time? I've had it with weirdo freak men. You are all cunts. I've never seen so many weirdo freaks in one place. This site is truly a mental asylum.

[Flannel Jesus]

What a wanky response. I didn't 'imply' anything. I asked the fuckwit a question and got a stupid fucking link. What kind of weirdo is only capable of writing one sentence at a time anyway, and then signing it, EVERY time? I've had it with weirdo freak men. You are all cunts. I've never seen so many weirdo freaks in one place. This site is truly a mental asylum.

Do you ever ask yourself why you come back? You seem very upset when you're here, even more so than most other people (seems like very few people enjoy it here, and the ones that do are mostly trolls lmao). If you ask yourself why you come back, what does the rest of that conversation with yourself look like?

[Atla]

What a wanky response. I didn't 'imply' anything. I asked the fuckwit a question and got a stupid fucking link. What kind of weirdo is only capable of writing one sentence at a time anyway, and then signing it, EVERY time? I've had it with weirdo freak men. You are all cunts. I've never seen so many weirdo freaks in one place. This site is truly a mental asylum.

Do you ever ask yourself why you come back? You seem very upset when you're here, even more so than most other people (seems like very few people enjoy it here, and the ones that do are mostly trolls lmao). If you ask yourself why you come back, what does the rest of that conversation with yourself look like?

Yet when she was posting over at ILP, she was hysterical about PN being down lol

[accelafine]

Fucking weird male freaks

[Flannel Jesus]

Fucking weird male freaks

What makes you so addicted to interacting with weird male freaks?

[Atla]

Despite all the theatrics, she likes men more than she likes women haha

[accelafine]

Despite all the theatrics, she likes men more than she likes women haha

I hate men. I'm no actress.

[Atla]

Despite all the theatrics, she likes men more than she likes women haha

I hate men. I'm no actress.

Sorry but you'll need more hate to be really convincing.

[Impenitent]

Why not? And have lobotomies ever worked?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -networks/

-Imp

For fuck sake. I asked YOU. You are the one who keeps making this same claim as if it's some kind of profound 'gotcha'. I'm not interested in what 'scientific' american has to say about anything.

I thought you asked if the mind was connected to the brain, so I presented an article showing the connection.

I'm not a neurosurgeon, and it depends on your definition of "worked"

https://www.webmd.com/brain/what-is-lobotomy

here is another link that will give you more information on the subject of lobotomies

the claim that the mind is connected to the brain is not profound or a gotcha -

-Imp

[anonymous66]

In each case all that is really being referred to are just 'thoughts', and/or 'thinking', itself

This appears to be a problem for materialism. I understand materialism to be saying that everything can be defined and explained in terms of its physical properties. If so, then what is the mass of a thought? How much space does it take up?

Maybe as much as light, itself.

How is light, itself, defined and explained in terms of its physical properties, exactly?

Is there a so-called 'problem' for so-called 'materialism', here?

If yes, then how, why, and what, exactly?

Light is made up of photons, which are particles with physical properties.

[anonymous66]

Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

Both panpsychism and property dualism subscribe to dualisms, there is zero evidence for any kind of dualism.

Okay - property dualism. If property dualism is the case, then mental properties exist. Qualia (thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc) have no physical properties - they are mental properties (the first person experiences involved in qualia) - therefore mental properties exist - therefore there is evidence for property dualism.

[anonymous66]

In each case all that is really being referred to are just 'thoughts', and/or 'thinking', itself

This appears to be a problem for materialism. I understand materialism to be saying that everything can be defined in terms of its physical properties. If so, then what is the mass of a thought? How much space does it take up?

Thoughts can be the consequence of material processes, rather than just "material things". A process doesn't have to have a weight right?

Are you alluding to emergence? The idea that neural processes arise from a physical brain?

[Atla]

Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.




Both panpsychism and property dualism subscribe to dualisms, there is zero evidence for any kind of dualism.

Okay - property dualism. If property dualism is the case, then mental properties exist. Qualia (thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc) have no physical properties - they are mental properties (the first person experiences involved in qualia) - therefore mental properties exist - therefore there is evidence for property dualism.

Mental and physical are one and the same thing, we just have developed a weird cognitive double vision over the centuries. There is no actual evidence.

[anonymous66]

Okay - property dualism. If property dualism is the case, then mental properties exist. Qualia (thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc) have no physical properties - they are mental properties (the first person experiences involved in qualia) - therefore mental properties exist - therefore there is evidence for property dualism.

Mental and physical are one and the same thing, we just have developed a weird cognitive double vision over the centuries. There is no actual evidence.

Are you suggesting that mental states are identical to brain states?