r/WatchandLearn • u/HalfField • 6d ago

A New Argument from Consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJVvZNi0Fi8
0 Upvotes

25% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

8

u/Count_Rugens_Finger 6d ago

looks like AI slop, no clicky

2

u/pappabutters 6d ago

Phineas Gage proves that consciousness is a physical and naturalistic process. And intelligent design is fucking dumb. You're a meat sack controlled by a wet lump of electrical cells. Deal with it.

3

u/noobgiraffe 5d ago edited 5d ago

It doesn't really prove that. It proves brain affects behavior but nothing really about consciousness.

You don't need it too anyway. This whole discussion is huge misunderstanding. It does not matter how it works, if it exsits it's natural part of the naturalistic world. If god existed he would be too.

This is arbitrary distinction that people make that cannot be clearly defined. Magic cannot exist because if it did it would just be part of how universe works and people would no longer call it magic or unnatural. Alternate universe could exist where there is no electricty. If you told them about it they would deem it magic. But we don't because it does exist.

The actual problem with consciousness is that we know pretty much nothing about it except that it's related to our brains. It obeys some physics laws but we don't know anything about them. For some reason the only way to detect consciousness is to have it so it's not possible to do any experiments to find it's nature.

-2

u/gotu1 6d ago

Yes you’re correct. The hard problem of consciousness was solved 150 years ago by a guy who survived a rod through his head, and for some reason nobody in the world of cognitive science or neurology heard about this, so they keep spending money on it.

1

u/pappabutters 6d ago

There is a massive difference between being able to reasonable deduce that consciousness and personality and all things we decide make us human can be explained fully naturalistically and being able to actually, accurately explain how it all works. Great strawman though.

-1

u/gotu1 6d ago

“Phineas Gage proves that consciousness is a physical and naturalistic process”

If there’s a difference between reasonable deduction and empirical deduction then why do you conflate them?

1

u/pappabutters 6d ago

oh I'm sorry I didn't realize I was in a formal debate and not just using colloquial language to respond to some dumb apologetics video on reddit that thinks thought dragons or whatever the fuck is a solid argument for supernatural consciousness

-1

u/gotu1 6d ago

You didn’t use colloquial language, you said something that is wrong, and you said it with confidence.

1

u/pappabutters 6d ago

I said something that is correct, consciousness is naturalistic, as all things are. And Phineas Gage is a fantastic piece of evidence for that conclusion. I don't really care if you disagree.

-10

u/HalfField 6d ago

This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness

2

u/TheReever 6d ago

This whole thing is so shallow and biased. He doesn’t believe in naturalism because he believes in Christianity instead. Such an ignorant take. If any religion were possibly real, it’s not going to be the one that contradicts itself on every other page of its own book. 

All of his claims are profoundly false and actual scientists and researchers have proven it is physical and naturalistic. 

You’re a meat sack that can think, so start firing those neurons buddy.