+- Lookism (https://bookism.net)
+-- Forum: Lookism Forums (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Shitty Advice (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you (/showthread.php?tid=26645)
Pages:
1
2
@slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - MysteriousWeeb420 - 24-08-2024
why do we have consciousness if the subconscious exists? if my brain/body is capable of learning and acting subconsciously in some situations wtf is the point of it being conscious in other situations
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Sexual chocolate - 24-08-2024
There is no sharp discontinuity
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - MysteriousWeeb420 - 24-08-2024
(24-08-2024, 04:39 PM)KnightOdds Wrote: There is no sharp discontinuity
y=1/x
QED
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Altruist - 24-08-2024
why do we have fingers if wrists exist
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Honest - 24-08-2024
consciousness is an illusion
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Sexual chocolate - 24-08-2024
(24-08-2024, 04:40 PM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote: y=1/x
QED
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - slop slinger - 24-08-2024
You would have to define so many terms in this post to even begin.
If the subconscious were useful in itself, why would it necessarily follow that nothing else could emerge on top of it? Or in other words, why does usefulness have to be the metric of why all features of the mind come about?
And how do you know the subconscious and the conscious are two discrete systems. What if it is a matter of difference in degree not difference in kind.
Any characterization of the subconscious would inevitably project features of consciousness onto it since we can only access it from the perspective of consciousness anyway.
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Altruist - 24-08-2024
op effortlessly nuked to oblivion
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Honest - 25-08-2024
specifically, it is the development of language that has led to the illusion of consciousness. words allow for a belief in a continuous 'self', and can provide 'rational explanations' for behavior that had its origins entirely in the subconscious
it's ironic (given the thread's title) that much of philosophy is founded on the belief that language offers 'objective insight into reality'. thankfully, modern philosophy has drifted in the other direction.
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Hate - 19-01-2025
maybe there is no distinction between active / inactive thought and both are just what takes us. intuited problem solving and conscious problem solving are the same. consciounness is observation of what has already occurred and sets the limits of "active" thought and appearance of it is just possessing memory. beings with no appearance of consciousness like bacteria possess no memory.
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - n9wiff - 19-01-2025
slop is so smart and cool
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Altruist - 19-01-2025
(25-08-2024, 01:11 AM)Honest Wrote: specifically, it is the development of language that has led to the illusion of consciousness. words allow for a belief in a continuous 'self', and can provide 'rational explanations' for behavior that had its origins entirely in the subconscious
it's ironic (given the thread's title) that much of philosophy is founded on the belief that language offers 'objective insight into reality'. thankfully, modern philosophy has drifted in the other direction.
correct.
we are taking words for granted and assume the meaning we assigned to them automatically perfectly translates to some "value" or "property" of reality. that's obviously wrong, because language is a useful approximation at best. that's why i cringe at the religious "god has to exist because we couldn't have come from nothing" nonsense - "nothing" means jack shit in nature, even humans know it at this point of development
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Hate - 19-01-2025
(19-01-2025, 10:22 PM)Altruist Wrote: correct.never really found this to be an interesting observation seems like you could extend that to our ability to conceptualize anything
we are taking words for granted and assume the meaning we assigned to them automatically perfectly translates to some "value" or "property" of reality. that's obviously wrong, because language is a useful approximation at best. that's why i cringe at the religious "god has to exist because we couldn't have come from nothing" nonsense - "nothing" means jack shit in nature, even humans know it at this point of development
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Altruist - 19-01-2025
(19-01-2025, 11:14 PM)Hate Wrote: never really found this to be an interesting observation seems like you could extend that to our ability to conceptualize anything
no idea what you just said. there's clearly some overlap between the concepts as we make them and constituents of reality (at least as we perceive it, because the opposite would be paradoxical), the mistake lies in reversing that process and assuming something exists in nature in a certain way because it would fit our conceptualization
the relation between our current perception of "rationalist" axioms and earlier people's perception of religious dogmas is the fucking same. how is this not water and how do people still make the same mistake despite having a larger sample size than abrahamic religions' apologists beats me (speaking in general, not attacking you)
RE: @slop slinger i have a philosophy question for you - Hate - 19-01-2025
(19-01-2025, 11:20 PM)Altruist Wrote: no idea what you just said
words downstream from concepts
words are approximations so are our thoughts