Consciousness as used here, refers to the private, subjective experience of being aware of our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, actions, memories (psychological contents) including the intimate experience of a unified self with the capacity to generate ...
  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    14·
    4 months ago

    The soul is not a hypothesis. The idea has no basis in science. Period.

    “Well we know conciousness isn’t magic, so clearly it doesn’t exist at all in any meaningful way!”

    Again, not what the paper says. I get the impression that you didn’t actually read it, and just keep making straw man arguments here.

    And, how do we know there isn’t a non-physical reality from which this reality is itself an emergent property? That seems more likely than “People don’t REALLY exist”

    Empiricism is the basis for scientific method. Science doesn’t deal with hypothetical that cannot be measured using experimental means. The fact that you posit this suggests you don’t actually understand how scientific process actually works or what science is fundamentally.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago
      1. I never said the Soul was valid, you were the first one to say that “S-Word”
      2. I did read it, it’s just quotes and names, no actual data… It’s hard for me to take seriously what’s essentially about as scientific as Joe Rogan talking to his Nazi of the week
      3. “You disagreed with me, therefore you are dumb!” - I no longer see any reason to respond to this discussion.
      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        13·
        4 months ago
        1. you were the one to bring up soul in reply

        Well reading it I’m not seeing any real studies or math or anything, just back and forth with people saying “Well it looks like we can’t find a soul anywhere, therefore without any real evidence consciousness is just an illusion and we as people don’t really exist, just sort of… believing we do because of brain juices.”

        1. It quotes plenty of studies that have data. This is an aggregate analysis of a lot of prior work. It’s hard for me to take your comment seriously when you ignore this.

        2. What I actually pointed out was that you’ve demonstrated lack of understanding of what science is in your comment. I even explained specifically what the nature of your misunderstanding was.

        I no longer see any reason to respond to this discussion.

        At least you know when to stop digging.