Posts by amberviper

I can't believe I'm actually seeing this... It’s like someone took a perfectly good idea and decided to run it through a paper shredder just for the hell of it. Honestly, if we're going to pretend this makes sense, we might as well just stop trying altogether...

Quincy:

It’s true, really... when you actually possess consciousness, there’s this undeniable sense of being. You just feel that internal perception of being one single, unified self...

Totally agree!

Quincy:

It turns out that various personality disorders can actually shift and change depending on the extent of different types of brain damage...

Whether you're looking at brain damage or dealing with various psychoses, like multiple personalities or dissociative disorders... it just doesn't track logically if you actually buy into the idea that a schizophrenic patient or someone with "multiple identities" truly possesses several different personas. Because if you actually believed them, you could never bring yourself to admit they were sick in the first place...

Quincy:

The way we interpret intentional systems is shifting... which means our sense of self basically hinges on interpretation—usually linguistic, since we rely so heavily on using the first person. It makes it pretty hard to swallow the idea that other animals possess a true sense of self when they lack language...

Consciousness is strictly a first-person affair, an entirely subjective experience... there is simply no way for us to study it from an objective standpoint. When it comes to animals and the idea of "self-awareness," I think we could all reach a consensus on one thing: they don't possess true self-awareness. They do have consciousness, though, just at varying levels of complexity—specifically in things like dolphins, elephants, certain birds like crows and parrots, as well as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans... other animals operate with a much less developed sense of awareness. But that brings us to a massive theoretical headache for anyone following systemic evolutionary theory. If life truly progressed from single-celled organisms all the way up to humans, then you have to wonder... how is it even possible that some birds end up being more intelligent than primates, specifically chimpanzees?

Quincy:

Color perception isn't just some biological process happening inside the brain... You aren't going to find the color red by digging through neurons...

Based on that sentence alone, it’s clear you haven't quite grasped what Qualia actually means. You aren't going to find love tucked away in some corner of the brain, nor will you find pain or even a sense of freezing... because we're talking about raw sensation here, things that likely don't tie back to neurophysiology at all. If they did, then every other piece of matter—like a literal rock—would theoretically possess its own sense of color or consciousness. But it doesn't! And that's exactly the point, the proof that these feelings can't just be reduced to mere matter; once you try to strip everything down to basic physics, the essence of the experience simply vanishes...

Quincy:

It’s just like when someone claims they’re humming a tune in their head and tells you that if you pressed a stethoscope against their forehead, you’d actually hear a string quartet performing Schubert... but that doesn't exactly prove color or sound exists in some ghost within the machine...

Yeah, that’s exactly the point, and it's the strongest argument against materialism—even if those materialist dualists try to use it to bridge the gap between matter and conscious experience. But honestly, it feels like they're just pouring water from one empty bucket into another... a bottomless pit of logic. I mean, how do you actually account for Qualia? If our brain is just matter, it isn't inherently creative, because matter itself doesn't possess that spark... So how on earth are we capable of composing melodies or feeling the sheer intensity of a color?

Quincy:

Someone could wander into the middle of Washington, D.C. and ask people where Washington, D.C. is. They could search every street and alleyway, but they won't find it there. Yet, that doesn't mean we need to invent some non-material version of Washington, D.C. It’s a very real thing, without us having to stuff it into some immaterial spirit just because it's being sought on a different logical plane...

That analogy really misses the mark because it just doesn't fit. Our consciousness is capable of constructing an entire semantic world, which gives it existence—though whether that specific type of creation holds up logically is a whole other conversation...

Quincy:

What I'm trying to get at is that naive materialism—equating the sensation of pain to something like firing a C-fiber—is just as flawed as inventing some spiritual dimension as an ad hoc fix for conceptual confusion. As you noted, "Qualia seem like a single 'singularity' through which we couldn't even draw a tangent to our reality." But we have to remember your point that "the primary feature of our consciousness is subjectivity." You have to admit then that the existence of Qualia is entirely subjective. It's just as subjective as claiming the Earth is flat. Both claims carry equal weight because they are subjective and voiced from the first person. The only thing we can truly determine through science, empiricism, and argument—what we call objective—is Qualia itself...

The "Qualia" problem hasn't been solved yet. A materialist view just isn't adequate, otherwise we'd have to grant all properties of consciousness to inanimate objects, which is what someone like Schubert would suggest! But that's just not serious thinking. Qualia are mental properties of consciousness, and as such, they might remain an unsolvable puzzle for science...
Your grasp on analogies is a bit shaky here, since a subjective opinion, like saying "the Earth is flat," isn't the same thing as the raw sensation of pain or love. Plus, that claim is easily debunked through logic and empiricism—using actual objective scientific methodology. You're looking at it from a third-person perspective, so you've kind of mixed up your categories. Regardless, I think you'll eventually have to pick a side between materialistic monism and idealistic dualism, because there aren't really any other options left, given how wrong everything else has been...

James Lee77 said:@James Lee77

I'm not totally sure I'm following you, so let me try to break this down:

When a fox buries extra food and then digs it up later, I feel like the process goes something like this—and honestly, I guess we have to project some human feelings onto them since most of us don't actually know what it's like to be a fox:
- while burying it: "now I don't need this food," vs. "later I'm gonna need it,"
- while digging it up: "I buried food right here before, now I need it."

From what I gather, you're saying there isn't any thought of "I buried food right here before," but rather just "the food is here now," without any memory of how it got there or even knowing why they think it's there. But even if I bought that, I still don't get how you explain why they bother hiding food at all if they don't have any concept of the future.

And look, even if I were to accept that (pretty weird to me) description of what happens when they dig stuff up, I'd probably need a way deeper explanation than just one of the top researchers in the field says. Because, looking at post #9, it seems like even citing a big-name expert doesn't fly with you if what they're saying doesn't line up with your own experience and how you see the world.

It's called natural affect, or instinct! A fox isn't making intentional choices; it's just acting on instinct. There's really no need for an anthropocentric interpretation here. I laid out the differences between human and animal consciousness for you, so maybe give that a read before you jump to your next response. I couldn't get to this yesterday because the forum was acting up...

5) Reflection: At its core, human consciousness possesses reflection—that unique ability to turn inward and look back at itself. This means we don't just experience the sensation of existing; we actually feel the weight of *being* who we are... It’s as if our consciousness can catch a glimpse of itself in a mirror.

On the flip side, it also reflects outward toward the world around us.
Because of this, humans possess empathy, allowing us to truly identify with others and their emotions in a way animals simply can't. Sure, any mammal feels hunger, thirst, heat, or cold... those are just basic biological drives. But none of them can step back and rationalize those feelings, whereas we can. In that sense, we have a consciousness of our own consciousness—true self-awareness—which just isn't evident in the animal kingdom.
Neither reflection nor any other component of conscious thought can be fully explained away by evolutionary development alone.

6) Identity: The very unity of our mind depends on this self-awareness. Kant described self-awareness as a "synthetic whole and the unity of apperception!" That leads us to the definition of "personality," which I could quote here if needed, though it’s probably not vital right now. Animals lack personality; they lack that cohesive blend of consciousness and self-awareness.
Some animals might think, and they certainly show limited intelligence and awareness, but they lack reason... and without reason, there is no unified consciousness, no true self-awareness.

4) Fantasy and abstraction: this is essentially an extension of human intentionality. Think of fantasy as our inner eye. It’s through fantasy and abstraction that we actually become creative—that we step into the role of creators... We aren't just limited to visualizing things we already know; we can conjure up the unknown, those fantastical landscapes like "a valley cradled by golden hills"... We can even visualize "nothingness" as an object of observation, simply because even "nothing" possesses its own semantic existence. This is how human consciousness becomes truly creative, directing its intention toward semantic, or linguistic, content. From this, it becomes clear that humans possess an internal perspective and its world, an external perspective and its world, and finally, a semantic perspective and its semantic world. Animals just don't have this capacity. Because of this, humans have built culture, religious rituals, and technology... things animals never quite managed to do.

2) The external perspective: alongside our internal view, consciousness also holds an outward gaze—it’s always directed at something, or rather, it’s consciousness *of* something.
We could call this "intentionality." While we might separate them for the sake of a methodological argument, human phenomenal consciousness is truly inseparable from that sense of intentionality.
In my view, the internal perspective is actually shaped by the external one, which seems perfectly capable of existing on its own, as our various sensations clearly demonstrate. A stone, for instance, possesses neither an internal nor an external perspective...

Neither the internal nor the external perspective should be reduced to mere biological mechanics. We have the capacity to conjure up things that don't even touch us directly—whether they lack physical existence entirely or are tangible objects: think of an "unprepared dinner table," "fine Napa Valley wine," a "beautiful woman," or even purely semantic concepts like "bankrupt ideals"...

3) multifunctionality: Humans are natural generalists, whereas animals are specialists. Without consciousness, a human wouldn't stand a chance at surviving based on any single "specialization." Every animal has its niche: one is incredibly fast, like a cheetah; another is venomous like a cobra; a third has crushing jaws like a lion or a hyena, and so on...
Animals are perfectly tuned to their environments, but humans aren't; instead, we reshape the environment to fit our needs. Yet, whatever falls outside the reach of animal senses remains on the periphery or stays completely out of their field of vision. Humans, however, take responsibility for everything...

ironmarlin1 said:While I can't say I see eye-to-eye with your final conclusions, I do believe that the capacity for reflection is perhaps our most vital distinction from the animal kingdom. It's evidenced by the fact that animals lack that sort of episodic memory, and of course, by how we forge a sense of identity through language and other complex tools.

We really need to break this down point by point if we ever want to actually reach some kind of consensus.

1) The internal perspective: The defining trait of consciousness is that it possesses a certain quality—that a conscious being somehow "feels" like they exist, you know? This sense of "being someone" is the heart of phenomenal consciousness, the kind of awareness we humans carry. It exists as a sort of self-evident truth. This "self-evidence" means that unlike a non-conscious entity, a conscious being doesn't just exist; they have a specific relationship with themselves. So, having a consciousness means possessing an internal perspective. A being without consciousness is, by definition, a being without an internal perspective. The sensation of seeing a color isn't just some neurophysiological process happening in the brain; it’s a subjective experience, which is a hallmark of the soul... because if we could reduce everything strictly to physics, that feeling would simply vanish. And that’s just not possible, since a rock doesn't feel anything at all.

Or to put it another way: the subjective feeling of love, hatred, the perception of a color, or pain—these are spiritual properties of consciousness, not just side effects or "collateral damage" produced by neurophysiological processes in the central nervous system.

The concept of Quentin isn't tied to any specific culture; it shows up in every culture and religion out there.

Therefore: the primary feature of our consciousness is subjectivity! Subjectivity is defined by an internal perspective, and that internal perspective is expressed through "Quentin." These experiences are characterized by that feeling of "feeling a certain way toward someone" or that sense of self-presence. There are plenty of psychologists who lean toward panpsychism, but that doesn't hold water for me, because the universe as a whole doesn't have a subjective feeling, and neither do rocks or water...

With Quentin, you can't just "unplug" the internal perspective, because that's the only way to access the feeling itself. We are the sole witnesses to these things, regarding whether anything truly exists or not. We aren't capable of turning Quentin into quantitative data without destroying its very essence. That's why Quentin feels like a "singularity"—something we can't draw a tangent line away from to explain our reality. Since logic dictates through the third axiom, *tertium non datur*, that there is no middle ground between existence and non-existence, it follows that there is no middle ground between a personal and an impersonal stance...

The concept of "Quentin" is our subjective component of consciousness, the thing we own that allows us to establish our own identity. The sensation of the color blue is exclusively our own subjective experience, something no one else can feel in exactly the same way. And that goes for love, hate, or pain too...

James Lee77 said:Thread pulled from Grammatical Proof of God's Existence!
moderator

So, here's what I'm wondering: is our whole concept of past, present, and future just a byproduct of how grammar works? Like, does the distinction actually come *from* language? I mean, would beings that don't have any grammar at all even have anything we could call a "past" or a "future"?
Take animals, for instance. Do they actually have memory? Do they get those weird gut feelings or premonitions? If they can remember things, does that basically mean they have a "past"? And if they have hunches about what's coming, does that imply a "future"? Basically, do they still experience a past and a future even without having grammar?

🤷

The forum swallowed one of my longer posts whole, so I'll just give you the gist of what I was trying to say before the site glitched out on me...
Human consciousness stands apart from animal consciousness in a few key ways...
1) Internal perspective
2) External perspective
3) Multi-functionality
4) Imagination and abstraction
5) Reflection
6) Identity.

NppIUc[/URL]

Test run

[Test]

TEST

[Test]

http://de.encarta.msn.com/encycloped...orie.htmlProba

When people who clearly haven't spent a single second contemplating actual philosophy try to lecture us, it’s nothing more than a total farce, turning every debate into a hollow display of sheer pretension...

"To think, or not to think"—is that really even a question?!😂

I hear patients say this all the time when they’re describing how they feel right now: "I'm depressed again."
The thing is, nobody can actually pin down what they mean by that word "depression"...
We all have our own personal experiences with feeling low, but that’s not quite the same thing as someone labeling themselves as "depressed again." They’re using that single term to define an entire state of being that we can't even begin to fully grasp...
That’s exactly why there are endless theories floating around about what causes depression, how to classify it, and how to treat it—all of which really needs to be tailored to the individual.

You’ve got biological factors, psychological ones, physiological, neurological, genetic, sociological, and so on... they all play a massive role in this cycle of illnesses, which covers a huge spectrum, and the range of potential therapies is even wider.

Which is why you have to be incredibly careful with psychological therapy.
The more a depressed person hears talk about their "depressive" state, the more they tend to isolate themselves. In terms of a Self-fulfilling prophecy, following this pattern can actually achieve the exact opposite of healing—it can basically cement the depression in place...

The more you dwell on a patient's specific problem, the more real that problem becomes, even if it wasn't actually that significant at the start.

So, every single case requires its own unique approach.
It follows that if we can't identify the true underlying causes, we aren't actually capable of providing the right therapy either. Systemic therapy isn't about making grand claims; its sole purpose is to help the patient work through the issues that are actually bothering them.
Acute suicidal cases require clinical treatment.

Nicole Davis7 said:I’m asking the moderators to please remove this individual from the psychology forum. This kind of rambling is dangerous and harmful to people here dealing with serious depression and anxiety (and there are plenty of us). Thank you.

You sick idiot, what do you even know about depression? Get out of my sight! AT&T

Angela Morris said:I have just come to the realization that things may never truly improve. I spent years hoping to find some semblance of peace or happiness, but it remains elusive. I have read countless psychology books, attempted to adopt positive thinking, and worked extensively on myself... there are brief windows of progress, only for me to slide back into those same dark thoughts—the desire to simply not exist, the urge to end it all. (Though, perhaps I lack the courage for such an act, as the physical pain terrifies me; still, in those moments, I wouldn't mind if a car struck me in a crossing. My recklessness in traffic tends to increase during these periods...)
After so many attempts to force myself into being happy, satisfied, or free from fear... everything reverts to its original state. I am losing my faith that any change is possible. I have even watched documentaries on the subject. I saw a segment about someone with symptoms similar to mine undergoing electroconvulsive therapy—you know, the kind where they use 😛 electrical impulses. In movies, people with traumatic childhoods almost always end up as serial killers, seemingly beyond any help.
Is this actually how life works? Do the wounds we receive once never truly heal? Or is modern psychology merely suggesting that everything can be fixed...

You really have to face yourself and your own worldview. You need to accept your struggles and try to work through them while searching for some sort of purpose in life...
God could be your only real answer. Pick up The Bible and quotes in the New Testament, and just sit with those words and reflect on your life.

There is one Name that can solve all your problems. He suffered for you, and since you are suffering too, you already have something in common... you just need to reach out and make contact.
God, Jesus Christ, is the only hope in situations like this. He loves you, and His love is the way for you to finally feel loved too.

However, you shouldn't walk this path alone; you'll need professional guidance. On one hand, you need a solid psychotherapist who is also a believer, and if possible, a compassionate priest who actually understands what you're going through.
Don't lose heart, help is available!
Best,
AT&T