[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1779091543845-0.png (6.2 MB, 1920x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1779091543845-1.png (1.86 MB, 758x1024, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1779091543845-2.png (6.17 MB, 1418x2000, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1779091543845-3.png (793.47 KB, 561x917, ClipboardImage.png)

 

Any sufficiently advanced materialism is indistinguishable from idealism in the same way that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. From a materialist perspective, consciousness is not something separate from the physical world. It is what happens when matter becomes organized in sufficiently complex ways, especially in brains capable of memory, self-modeling, and recursive feedback. Conscious experience, in this view, emerges from physical processes rather than floating above them as a soul or independent substance.

Modern physics pushes this one step deeper. Matter itself is no longer understood as tiny solid objects at bottom, but as patterns or excitations in underlying fields, with these fields being a universally extant substrate that is present even in the vast cosmic voids between galaxies, where there is very little matter or energy. If consciousness comes from matter, and matter comes from these universal fields, then consciousness may ultimately depend on certain highly organized field dynamics. A brain would not contain some extra ingredient beyond physics; it would be a particular arrangement of the same substrate underlying matter itself that makes up everything else in the universe, including "empty" space.

The open question is whether consciousness is only a rare effect produced by very complex systems, or whether it reveals something more basic about reality itself. One possibility is that consciousness is just an emergent process, like liquidity emerging from molecules. Another is that experience is somehow woven into the fabric of the universe from the start, with minds being especially dense or sophisticated expressions of it. Physics does not settle that question yet, so the debate remains philosophical as much as scientific.

Religion and the supernatural is not needed here, the conclusion is that the ideal and the material are part of the same substrate, and the evolution of mind out of matter is built into physics itself, possibly as a deterministic inevitability. Speak with the fungi for more info.

It was a grave mistake of cuckery to abandon xviii century french materialism

File: 1779095767306.jpg (104.42 KB, 639x999, participatory-universe.jpg)

Indeed; consciousness cannot come from non-consciousness. Matter can then be described simply as "unconscious" and so an inert state of mind, which may develop into self-awareness. Reality is like a klein bottle; it curves into itself in an endless loop.

>>2815863
>consciousness cannot come from non-consciousness
Why?

>>2815870
Because there would have to be a gradient from non-consciousness to consciousness, which is not identified. This is why some materialists claim that consciousness is just an illusion, to clear out the contradiction.

>>2815873
>Because there would have to be a gradient from non-consciousness to consciousness

There clearly is a gradient of this, look at animals and bugs.

>>2815874
animals and bugs are clearly conscious beings which respond to stimuli and have an internal will - but this is the hypocrisy. Why are humans considered agentic while other life forms arent? What is special about us apes?

>>2815873
>Because there would have to be a gradient from non-consciousness to consciousness, which is not identified.
yes and? When it come to spectrums there is no such thing as absolute categories, but doesn't mean the range of phenomena covered by said spectrum simply isn't.

>>2815878
>yes and?
And so if consciousness emerges into phenomena, we can presume that consciousness comes from consciousness, as a spectrum (with the unconscious being the lowest level).

>>2815877
Is a single celled amoeba as conscious as a human being? Its a gradient even if you deny it.

>>2815881
What does it mean be more or less conscious?

>>2815883
higher and lower stages of perception, thought and awareness of reality.

>>2815884
>higher and lower stages of perception, thought and awareness of reality.
An eagle has better visual perception than a human and its inner awareness of reality is tied to its instincts (which is genetic memory, a type of knowledge). Now, thought is more ambiguous, but its quite clear that animals do think, and have emotions, play, etc. So we are still too unspecific. An eagle has a state of consciousness particular to its own being, so how could this be measured against humanity? But internally of being, lets say that there are some humans who are more or less conscious than each other; can this be measured?

>>2815886
>can this be measured?

Yes with cognitive testing.

And yeah humans aren't the peak form of consciousness, other parallel forms of life will be superior in niches.

>>2815886
>lets say that there are some humans who are more or less conscious than each other
A single human won't even constantly display the same level of consciousness during their lives. That's even measured medically.

>>2815889
>cognitive testing
So what is the unit of measurement? Consciousness points?
>>2815891
>level of consciousness
What are these levels measured in?

>>2815893
It requires abstraction but its the ability to interface with reality at a higher level than just following base survival impulses, things like problem solvings and such.

I think its fair to say human brains likely operate on some quantum level whereas I wouldnt make the same argument that a slug does.

Its also just not concretely understood but we are managing to build some theory of the mind up to suggest it.

>>2815896
>It requires abstraction but its the ability to interface with reality at a higher level than just following base survival impulses, things like problem solvings and such.
Animals can solve problems. But more pressing is the fact that computer programs can solve problems, and have a sense of continuity in existence, or survival, so are these conscious beings?
>whereas I wouldnt make the same argument that a slug does.
But don't you feel as though this is just speciesist? A slug knows things humans can never know.

>>2815893
Glasgow score.

>>2815900
the ability to form a religion might genuinely be one of the signs of higher consciousness.

>>2815900
>But more pressing is the fact that computer programs can solve problems
no
>and have a sense of continuity in existence, or survival
no
>so are these conscious beings?
no

>>2815906
Yes. Yes. Yes.
I'm sorry that your anthropocentrism clouds your judgement.
>>2815904
Well… Some people have perceived what they recognise as religion in animals.

>>2815846
Yeah that's pretty much the post-1870 developments but MLs usually disregard that because of Lenin's empirio-criticism.
In essence, in the early 1900s, the development of physics had made the idea of matter as these external tiny atoms a bit redundant. This prompted philosophers to reassess the division between idealism and materialism in a new way. In particular, within the marxist movement, you had Ernst Mach and Avinarius who both developed new theories.

Ernst Mach was essentially a kantian reinterpretation of Marx. He believed that the external world to us only appeared through the lens of sensations, and that atoms and forces were only fictions used to organize experience, rather than reflections of an objective reality (which modern physics somewhat agrees with).

Avinarius on the other hand developed "empirio-criticism" in which he argued that knowledge arose from pure experience in a neutral and undifferentiated flow of sensations. There was not a "thing in itself", and to him abstractions like the subject or the object were just abstractions from this monist experience.

Lenin, who saw these tendencies as contesting his power within the Party, developed a critique of both where he strawmanned them into oblivion. This paved the way for a quasi-dogmatic interpretation of Marx's materialism with no regards for the development of science. Later, Pannekoek summarized all of this in a book on Lenin. He argues that albeit both theories have some issues, Lenin's mistake is to have developed a poor strawman critique of them which destroyed the development of theory in that field.

>books related, couldn't find Mach's book in pdf

<https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/39508/pg39508-images.html

>>2815907
>>2815907
No they really don't, they crunch numbers. Nothin more nothing less. Everything else is the operator's interpratation and biases.

>>2815909
>Ernst Mach was essentially a kantian reinterpretation of Marx.
And that sums up your illiteracy.
Lenin was right and is right. So called modern physics is a crock of bullshit too btw.

>>2815846
I bet you feel like a smartass but if consciousness is a product of matter, why is people stupid? LOL

>>2815913
>>2815913
>No they really don't, they crunch numbers. Nothin more nothing less. Everything else is the operator's interpratation and biases.
And what is the difference between this and a human brain?

>>2815919
quantum reasoning

FUCK IDEALISM

DEATH TO ALL IDEALISTS

ONLY BRAINDEAD SUB DOUBLE DIGIT SLUGS ARE STILL TRYING TO RECONCILE THIS SHIT

THERE'S NOTHING AFTER DEATH

YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS A RESULT OF THE REAL WORLD

THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN A CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE

>>2815920
What does this mean?
>>2815922
The universe is unconscious.

File: 1779103193078.png (184.3 KB, 1518x379, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2815924
the ability to work like a quantum computer or to act on quantum levels of reasoning - basically non-linearity of thought and super positions are possible within the human brain.

The fact we're even able to observe and rationalize quantum phenom elevates our consciousness above anyone else's in terms of raw abstraction, it suggests we can likely think along the same lines.

It puts us above computers.

>>2815927
So the human brain is a quantum computer while other animal brains are binary computers?

>>2815928
Its a spectrum, thats probably the case for forms of life that act on basic survival and reproduction instincts like lower stage lifeforms and not the case for higher stage animals like chimpos

>>2815932
I still don't recognise the concept of a higher and lower form of life, or of a standardised natural intelligence. States of consciousness may be variable, but not linear to anthropocentric illusions.

>>2815934
Amoeba are as intelligent as humans, got it.

>>2815935
What is more intelligent? A catepillar or an ant?
You are comparing apples and oranges.

>>2815938

>What is more intelligent? A catepillar or an ant?


Both are similar, ants demonstrate *society* and group dynamics so id probably but them above the pillar.

>You are comparing apples and oranges.


You are just wrong here, we're discussing alive entities on earth, I am quite literally not doing that.

DUDE
WEED
LMAO

>>2815944
Apples and oranges ARE alive
What is more intelligent, an apple or an orange?

>>2815947
arent you glad I didnt say banana?

>>2815914
>So called modern physics is a crock of bullshit too btw.
sorry grandpa, there is empirical evidence for dark matter, anti-matter, and quantum fields. you can cope about it until your face turns blue and continue living in the 19th century if you want.

>>2815946
zero
args
lmao

>>2816437
why even care to argue about it. none of us are qualified to have a real opinion on it and it has no impact on our lives anyway.

>>2816437
There is empirical evidence for anti matter and quantum fields. dark matter however, is just an hypothesis scientists made up to make their models of the universe work because all observable matter in the universe have too little mass otherwise.
We have no empirical evidence of its existence so far. Could be we don't know how to detect it, could be our current model of the universe is flawed.

File: 1779142184587.png (472.37 KB, 352x469, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2816440
>none of us are qualified to have a real opinion
You insist, but we know all this stuff from accumulated scientific experimentation over the past 2 centuries.

We know matter is field excitations. The idea of quantum fields emerged gradually from a chain of experimental discoveries in early modern physics. First, experiments on blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect showed that light behaves as discrete quanta, later called photons, rather than as a purely continuous wave. Then atomic spectroscopy revealed that matter itself has quantized energy levels, while electron diffraction experiments confirmed that particles also behave like waves. As relativity and quantum mechanics were combined, physicists found that particles could be created and destroyed in high-energy collisions, something ordinary quantum mechanics could not naturally describe. Quantum field theory solved this by treating particles as excitations of underlying fields spread throughout space. Its validity was then confirmed with extraordinary precision: quantum electrodynamics correctly predicted phenomena such as the electron’s magnetic moment and the Lamb shift, particle accelerators discovered the many particles predicted by quantum fields, and later experiments at colliders, culminating in the discovery of the Higgs field through the detection of the Higgs, provided direct evidence that fundamental fields are physically real. Go to school for physics and you will learn this.

We also know mind is matter. In the 19th century, doctors observed that specific injuries to the brain could selectively destroy language, memory, or personality, implying that mental abilities were physically localized rather than spiritual abstractions. Later, scientists discovered that neurons communicate through electrical signals and chemical neurotransmitters, and that changing brain chemistry with drugs could reliably alter perception, mood, and consciousness. In the 20th century, brain stimulation experiments showed that touching tiny regions of cortex could evoke memories, movements, or emotions, while modern neuroimaging revealed patterns of neural activity corresponding to perception, decision-making, and even imagined experiences. Cases such as split-brain surgery demonstrated that altering physical connections in the brain could divide aspects of conscious awareness itself. Today, artificial neural networks inspired by brain architecture can perform tasks once thought uniquely mental, reinforcing the idea that cognition may emerge from organized matter rather than exist independently of it. Taken together, these discoveries build a cumulative empirical case that mind is not separate from matter, but an activity arising from extraordinarily complex physical systems.

What we call “mind” is a higher-order phenomenon emerging from the dynamics of quantum fields organized into living matter. Physics progressively replaced solid, independent objects with underlying fields whose interactions generate particles and structure, while neuroscience progressively replaced the idea of an immaterial soul with evidence that consciousness tracks the organization and activity of the brain. Put together, the realization that the universe is having about itself through our minds which it generated by itself is that thought, memory, emotion, and selfhood are not exceptions to the physical universe but among its most complex field-based processes. In this view, a human mind is what certain arrangements of excitations of the universal substrate do when they become sufficiently self-organizing, recursive, and information-rich. Consciousness would therefore not float outside physics. It is a rare but natural mode of behavior that the universe can produce under the right conditions, much as stars produce fusion or crystals produce order.

Dude, what if like *hits a massive bong rip* our eyes aren't real, then how can we be real *hits bong* I've been reading a physics textbook and saw this one argument that we're all made out of foam and *hits bong again* exist on something called fields

You feel me bro?

>>2816451
Far out dude

message me when an ant discovers quantum fields jewish niggers

>>2816465
you don't understand what anon even said, so you confuse it for stoner ramblings


Unique IPs: 19

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]