Alright /sci/ bros it's time to take a vote.

What is your personal opinion here?

Also where do you think is the /x/ cutoff?

those are all fucking wrong

>>15415297 (OP)

If you flip the order of the text and the images so it's inverse it's a bit more correct.

Then in your opinion the correct view would be..?

the physical isn't 'stuff', it's just the process by which 'stuff' (perceptions) change

Cartesian dualism is the only stance compatible with quantum mechanics.

>>15415297 (OP)

Where's the option for

>I don't know and neither does anybody else

>>15415297 (OP)

https://nintil.com/consciousness-and-its-discontents



>What theories do I think are probably true, with probabilities, as of today:



>1. Neutral monism/Panpsychism(60%)

>2. Interactionist dualism(30%)

>3. Epiphenomenalism(10%)

>4. Idealism(~epsilon%)

>5. Non-interactionist dualism(~epsilon%)

>6. Identity theory(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)

>7. Eliminativism(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)

Literally the last one in OP's pic

>>15415297 (OP)

>you are pure creation in dream

WAKE ME UP INSIDE 

I CAN"T WAKE UP

>>15415297 (OP)

I chose to think that consciousness is something outside of us and related to the underlying mechanics of reality. However it really functions probably isn’t within the capacity of our brains to create abstract thoughts about in the right ways to make sense of it. Our bodies and minds in a way isolate a part of it, binding it to linear time through our self perpetuating bodies and minds.

A big problem with science nowdays is that people can’t realize weather or not their methodologies and initial assumption are actually flawed.

Where do you finde this info. I mean i know its vague on net. But after deeper research of eliminativism and physicalism it is clear thst they dont reject consciousness. They just dont agree with conception of it. Thats why Dennet say that HPC can be explained via EPC. He even says in Quining Qualia that he does not claim that subjective experiance does not exist (if i remember corectly).

No one rejects anything they debate about the nature of "thing" in question.

Edit:

Remember that meme where two guys stand oposite and number in the middle? One claims its 9 one thst is 6. This is what is happening. No one is saying there is no number

>>15415297 (OP)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY [Embed]

See >>15416870

>>15415297 (OP)

fucking midwit thread

Has this been replicated?

This shit is vitalism. I am not "conscious", and neither are you. Scientifically, the notion of "life" itself is meaningless and arbitrary, the existence of consciousness would imply panpsychism which is absurd.

I watched it and it striked me. For it had potential to finally shift my view on the topic.

But, i went to search for papers on this particular work and found two of them remaking experiment and showing that results are insignificant. One of the papper even criticises the method used by original experimentors.



> The problem

I didnt quit get the notification part. They say they notified the person in the room when colapse happens? (Or something like that). But is not allready observing experiment? What if this observation to notify meditator allready does what they asume meditator contributes?

>navel gazing thread

>would imply panpsychism

non sequitur

*tips fedora*

We used to think "life" was special and distinct from "non-life". We know since the 19th century that there is no such difference. Thus, either everything is "conscious" or nothing is. The latter is more logical and parsimonious.
