The mind is just neurological activity produced by the random mutations of evolution

I swear I've seen this same comment on this same thread before

>random
Not random, they have to correspond with reality well enough to allow the organism to interact with it

This doesn't explain subjectivity, only behavior

>The mind being located in the brain is an assumption and there's no evidence to support it
as is the idea that you subsequently propound. the only difference being the whole field of neuroscience takes the former assumption while outdated want to be idealist dilettantes on Yea Forums take the later

Prove it

subjectivity is the epiphenomenon of neuro processes

Your conception of "correspondence with reality" is the product of mere chemical reactions.

Yes, but those chemical reactions have to cause the organism to be able to interact successfully with its environment

your use of the word "merely'' is not necessary. The chemical reactions are incredibly sophisticated, and are what allow our mental models to exist and be useful

the only difference is that user is wise and humble enough not to feign greater knowledge of something than he actually has, unlike materialist neuroscientists who prefer to cut corners thinking they'll look smart by pretending to already know most things about the mind and reality and that we're only working out the "minor kinks" now

if you don't even know what or where memory is, you don't know anything, as far as i'm concerned

Prove evolutionary theory. Oh wait, it's central claims have never been empirically observed...

I don't take a position on it which is why I said "the mind could just as easily be X" instead of saying "it is X." Neither assumption is justified and empiricists are just as dogmatic as the spiritualists.

princeton.edu/~graziano/evolution_of_consciousness_2017.pdf

I don't accept random links as arguments

nice groundless assertion

Ressentment

>Random
And you exposed yourself

Robert Sapolsky
Iain McGilchrist

he was just repeating OP's buzzwords, actually

The mutations of evolution are random, neurological activity is not random

ah, design-by-randomness. an ordered process produced by a random process. always a coherent doctrine

That's the present theory of how evolution works

My thoughts exactly. This is why I don’t get too far into evolutionary theory

What are the evolutionary advantages of consciousness?

What is interacting successfully? Any number of "models" could cause an organism to navigate or interact to some arbitrary standard. Why should I "navigate" the world according to your theory, for instance?

Yeah, I'm thinking this is based and redpilled.

Every empiricist ever, Jefferson believed something like this. Almost any enlightenment thinker. Heraclitus is the biggest guy about that.

Hegel is the philosophical underpinning of darwinism btw, wo hegel there is no theory of evolution. Anyways it's a dead end and leads to nihilism and it makes you more incorrect to take that path

>What is interacting successfully
Reproducing. Which means getting food, social interaction, mating with organisms likely to have good genes, etc.

To do all this the organism's behavior has to correspond to actual things in the world, or it would not reproduce. All organisms that do exist had ancestors that could navigate the world successfully to some degree

>Hegel is the philosophical underpinning of darwinism btw, wo hegel there is no theory of evolution
imagine being this dumb and wrong

If there's no G*d, why is there something rather than nothing?

Attached: CdtcO33WoAE5Xkk.jpg (600x849, 76K)

please be a bit kinder to your fellow anons

>reproduction is a measurement or correspondence

Attached: IMG_7033.jpg (360x289, 17K)

It's true, you can't have darwinism wo hegel. He was the intellectual force of the 19th century. Without dialecticism you get none of the intellectual movements after mid 19th century. Phenomenology was a reaction to him so was existentialism

This

Why should you reject it just because it *could* lead to nihilism? I don't see how you can reject something because it would be more likely to lead to a bad outcome philosophically.

Attached: 1536102702847.png (996x549, 416K)

It does, you have to argue against your path in the other direction to not reach nihilism. Subjective pluralism objectively leads towards nihilism

I mean maybe nihilism is accurate

i've always loved this one, but the "fight or perish like a dog" part is trying too hard. still a good comic about epistemological limitations

>The mind is just
the use of the word just as in 'merely' unjustifiably implies that the mind being neurological activity has somehow loses something significant compared to if it were anything else, but it's not clear that it does

>The mind is just neurological activity
and my landlord is just atoms and energy, but this reduction veers off the course of what we really need, which is supervenient facts the describe a taxonomy of neural activity, whereas looking at 'just' neural activity would have been an exercise in futility in developing, for instance, theories of abnormal psychology

Attached: 1536463824732.jpg (1311x438, 162K)

>reality
spook

>The mind is just neurological activity
soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/dr-james-madden-the-compatibility-of-neuroscience-and-the-soul

Attached: 60fe30.jpg (624x500, 165K)

This user reads.

t.doesn't understand Reijer Jochems

>aquina
Why should i take the word of a pedo for granted

Gravity's Rainbow

Attached: 00db15eb937e43b9d296134b6729f21d.jpg (724x1067, 129K)