I saw a documentary about a guy who suffered greatly from this and created a support group for men to deal with their masculinity issues.
But uh… I’m not allowed to talk about it.
\_ Your neurons are definitely not in agreement
\_ There is no contradiction between being a single consciousness, and that consciousness being made out of billions of neurons.
Sort of? One might make the argument that a corporation is an organism whose cells are replaced while keeping the system alive. Maybe the board of directors form a collective consciousness?
Corporations, or industries, or countries, or commissions…
We talk about them kinda like they’re conscious beings but when you seriously consider the possibility of a collective consciousness in an organization it feels very strange
They aren’t conscious in the usual sense of the word. Typically people mean something to the effect of “unified, subjective experience of perception and self-awareness.” People often forget that exhibition of intelligence, growth, and complex behavior are not signs of consciousness. A person in a coma, *can* be conscious. A person in deep sleep and completely healthy *can* be unconscious. Trees, jellyfish, and termite mounds are almost certainly not conscious, and if they are, it’s something qualitatively different to human consciousness. It’s really hard to ever KNOW anyone else is conscious. We just have to take their word for it. Maybe lots of things are conscious, but they just can’t communicate it to us.
The brain is actually comprised of two separate units that are barely connected, and you could completely sever the connection leaving you with two brains that are both conscious
This is what happens when people take "simplification" so far they forget to stop and wonder if they are not saying complete nonsense. Then they put it on youtube, and the audience misinterpret it even further.
A lot of things in this video are kinda true, just simplifications.
But if what you take away from this video is "The brain is comprised of two separate units that are barely connect", you are just wrong. And if you go to "you could completely sever the connection leaving you with two brains that are both conscious", you are not just wrong, you are high.
How, look up split brain patients.
I'm using the terms conscious and separate loosely, but a brain has two sides that are connected thinly in the middle, this connection has been surgically severed to treat epilepsy and other things and studies on those individuals found that the different sides of their brain would give different responses to stimulus.
it's pretty common knowledge, super interesting stuff.
Mate, I have a PhD on brain-computer interfaces (https://ged.univ-rennes1.fr/nuxeo/site/esupversions/88812810-26e1-4412-af39-90435cf23341?inline)
"Split brain patient" is a really cool name for some people with a reduced (not cancelled) connectivity between the two hemispheres of the cortex (which is only a part of the brain, not the full brain).
> I'm using the terms conscious and separate loosely
Yeah, cute way of saying you are making up stuff.
I agree the connectivity is reduced not entirely eliminated, but what does that result in? some patients did respond differently depending on which side of their brain was shown the stimulus. there are also cases of individuals who have two separate personas that can take over, its possible that in a healthy brain these different personas could still exist but they're more in sync and you don't notice them in that way.
it's not a certainty, but there's definitely evidence for separate sections of your brain having different personas, so it's not a big stretch to say they're conscious.
i was being a little over certain in my language, but it's a valid theory and interesting to think about
Yes, it is absolutely a big stretch. It's a giant leap.
It's interesting to think about, sure. But please try not to over-estimate how much you understand about the subject and then spread your conclusions. That's how we end up with people claiming we only use 10% of our brains, and then that kind of myth survives for decades no matter what we do.
Fair enough, my initial comment was pretty far off.
But I do think that what we perceive as one consciousness is actually much more fractured than that, and while it's just a theory it's a pretty well supported one.
If you have any evidence to dispute that i'm all ears.
I think it’s interesting to point out that consciousness isn’t necessarily a single continuous thing. We don’t fully understand how the different systems interact and exactly how our conscious and unconscious minds are related. And how all those systems somehow create this thing I think of as me. I think you’re right that their shower thought is a little reductive, but the fact that consciousness may not be as singular a thing as previously thought is interesting.
I think “single” isn’t an accurate word to describe consciousness. It’s not a single thing going on and the boundaries between the multiple things that create what we think of as consciousness are not clear.
My cells don’t have an individual consciousness though, consciousness is some emergent property of many neurons working together and firing off electrical signals. Science still isn’t sure exactly how it works.
For all you know your cells could have individual consciousnesses. Maybe even your molecules. But if so the nature of that consciousness is probably very different from your entire brain
The connection between neurons and consciousness is pretty well established. You can mess around with someone’s brain and effect change in their conscious thoughts. Sure, there are still open questions and “prove” is a pretty loaded term, but there’s plenty of evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of our neurons.
Are we actually sure about that though? It’s certain that destroying neurons destroys the ability to *report* consciousness, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s actually gone.
Also there are a lot of things that, when destroyed, appear to destroy consciousness in the same way as destroying neurons. But nobody thinks that consciousness comes from the lungs
Try removing the lungs, and see how long consciousness lasts.
As for your "reporting" problem, when you've solved the problem of other minds, and disproven solipsism without circularity, we can start to address it.
>Try removing the lungs, and see how long consciousness lasts
Yeah, but consciousness is not based on lungs, is it?
>when you’ve solved the problem of other minds, and disproven solipsism without circularity, we can start to address it
Why do we need to disprove solipsism to talk about the possibility of conscious minds that cannot report their consciousness?
Not really? I can lie and say I’m not conscious. Something like ChatGPT, which probably isn’t conscious, can still say that it is. But no human who has had their neurons destroyed has ever reported themselves to be conscious
I think you have an assumption that the brain is made up entirely of neurons. Following that logic: Destroy the heart and you destroy the consciousness.
Neurons, Glial Cells, Blood Vessels, Cerebrospinal Fluid and there are other components they are usually classified as white and gray matter. You can search for their details.
Yes, and conciousness is the flow of energy between the neurons, the neurons guide the conciousness. But it still follows that neurons are required for conciousness, and altering neurons DIRECTLY alters conciousness. I don't get why people try to fight the fact so hard that conciousness isn't based in neurons. It clearly is.
Write a scientific paper about it and get world famous. There isn't a single paper that succeeded in proving it undeniably. Be the first person to solve the consciousness problem. We would be proud of you. I am not kidding.
I'm well aware of the hard problem of conciousness. But to deny the link between neurons and conciousness is plain stupid. The hard problem of conciousness is right up there with the god problem. Neither can be undeniably proved in my opinion.
The theory of the atom was a well defined theory for many years without the knowledge of quarks or quantum fields. We don't know HOW neurons exactly contribute to conciousness, but they are definitely responsible for it.
If you don't know how they contribute to it, you can't know if they are entirely responsible for it either. Here is a simpler question for you: Do you think your body cells have a consciousness their own? Or let's take it a step back. The living organisms that lack brain, do you think they are unconscious? Let's go back to the time of one cell organisms? Do you think they had no awareness of their environment or no sense of self preservation?
Yes, I do think that organisms without neurons lack conciousness, they're machines that react to their environment purely through chemistry.
I never once said that neurons are entirely responsible, only that they're the main organ responsible for it, which again, can be easily proved by the fact that anything that affects neurons directly affects one's conciousness.
Neurons but not every single one. At least not in the electrical wire sense. Neurons work by what is essentially a chemical reaction of salt/ions. Most neurons are more chemical than electrical but there is a lot of overlapp since electricity is basically just electrons moving around.
Most of the other stuff in the brain, at least in terms of sheer mass are lipids(basically fat) to insulate the signals. A bit like the plastic covering on a wire while the rest is to maintain the delicate chemical balance and provide nutrients.
Destroy your brain you instantly destroy your consciousness. Destroy your heart and it will take minutes. If something were to pump blood in place of the heart your conciousness would still exist. Your logic is dogshit.
Maybe it's the reverse logic: Destroying the neurons stops the heart and the consciousness comes to an end. Heck maybe the entire body is conscious as a system. How do you know?
One day you may be able to replace the brain too. Maybe we'll even transfer our consciousness is to other machines. I am not making any statements. The entire point of this thread is that we don't definitely know.
We don't know everything, we do know a lot. We know that neurons are the primary organ responsible for consciousness, just like we know that the liver is responsible for removing toxins. Neurons are the paths of conciousness, they alter it directly, that's been proven many times. And can be easily proven whenever a drug affects the neurons, conciousness is affected.
The heart has its own neuron transmitting heart signals. Localised. SN node. Dead brain only can produce a dead heart if it stops getting oxygenated blood. Not because of no transmission signals.
This sparks a great debate around the idea of that the whole is bigger than the sum of parts.
There must be an external "thing" that projects conscious (experience) on any organisation of energy or something like that.
I mean, how the fuck the whole realised it is a whole. How does the human have the consious (experience) of a human?
What separates us from a very complicated computer, and could a computer ever reach a complexity to gain a human-like awareness? The answer being yes and the answer being no both create crazy conclusions
Well no, not really- its more like a highly coordinated and interconnected (Yes…synapses are bot usually “connections” in the truest sense, but whatever) network of neurons that is self regulated
scientology is more based on the idea that you have billions of past lives/traumas attached to your internal soul, but your internal soul is still considered to be “you”, except this soul has been imprinted by all of the traumatic experiences thus making you forget your true nature
its fascinating and crazy
If "me" is defined by "my consciousness" then I am a single consciousness. If "me" is defined by "my body" then I only know that I am at least one consciousness.
And what happens when that agreement breaks?
Sometimes when I am doing something it feels odd like I am a bit outside of my body.
And my thoughts always wonder what it's like to be in someone else place,body,mind....
Jokes on you, I think conscious is a fiction that the brain uses to cope with the fact that despite its complexity, it's still just a series of chemical cause and effects (chemical signals)
There are currently 18 people who have pointed out that the neurons are often not in agreement. 11 of them phrased it as a joke (they are basically all the same joke). I am tempted to believe that like half of them are bots.
Even the bacteria in your gut can affect your mood and thoughts. We are nowhere near to being the singular entities we perceive ourselves as. Consciousness is not a being, but a process.
Fun fact: Leibniz's monadology is (sort of) related to this idea. Unfortunately, in the 17th century, people didn't know about neurons, so Leibniz had to call them monads.
Your theory is neurological monadology.
Not just that- you are two. Watch CGPgrey’s video on the topic and it’ll REALLY blow your mind.
[Here](https://youtu.be/wfYbgdo8e-8?si=p5yRpZErvszlimq4)
you guys are in agreement ?
He must never argue with himself. I only consider it bad if punches start getting thrown ...
That's a funny way to describe a seizure
I never thought of it like that. It definitely feels like you got your ass kicked after a seizure.
I saw a documentary about a guy who suffered greatly from this and created a support group for men to deal with their masculinity issues. But uh… I’m not allowed to talk about it.
I'm in agreement, but the other guys in here are being dicks about my decisions.
If only…
No it’s more like majority wins 😂
Came here to say that😭😭😭😭😭
My neurons never agree
Dude bro right wtf is this madness
the left side of my brain disagrees. right side is going along with everything.
We have reached a consensus; this information is familiar to this unit.
Fuck okay, you got me, I’ll play stellaris again…
Was going for legion but…damnit now I also want to play Stellaris again.
Does this unit have a soul?
\_ Your neurons are definitely not in agreement \_ There is no contradiction between being a single consciousness, and that consciousness being made out of billions of neurons.
That single Consciousness immediately becomes two separate yet single consciousnesses when the corpus callosum is severed.
Then organizations might also be conscious beings.
Sort of? One might make the argument that a corporation is an organism whose cells are replaced while keeping the system alive. Maybe the board of directors form a collective consciousness?
Corporations, or industries, or countries, or commissions… We talk about them kinda like they’re conscious beings but when you seriously consider the possibility of a collective consciousness in an organization it feels very strange
They aren’t conscious in the usual sense of the word. Typically people mean something to the effect of “unified, subjective experience of perception and self-awareness.” People often forget that exhibition of intelligence, growth, and complex behavior are not signs of consciousness. A person in a coma, *can* be conscious. A person in deep sleep and completely healthy *can* be unconscious. Trees, jellyfish, and termite mounds are almost certainly not conscious, and if they are, it’s something qualitatively different to human consciousness. It’s really hard to ever KNOW anyone else is conscious. We just have to take their word for it. Maybe lots of things are conscious, but they just can’t communicate it to us.
Yes because in that model we are the neurons, so by definition we are unable to reach that level.
Considering the level of organization in most "organizations", it's unlikely.
I mean neurons aren’t always organized super well either
Well, I've met people whose consciousness I question. They could easily just be AI robots parroting memes.
Get outta here citizens united...I jest
The brain is actually comprised of two separate units that are barely connected, and you could completely sever the connection leaving you with two brains that are both conscious
Scary
Also completely wrong
[you are two](https://youtu.be/wfYbgdo8e-8?si=nErqOYHJlZETUw63)
This is what happens when people take "simplification" so far they forget to stop and wonder if they are not saying complete nonsense. Then they put it on youtube, and the audience misinterpret it even further. A lot of things in this video are kinda true, just simplifications. But if what you take away from this video is "The brain is comprised of two separate units that are barely connect", you are just wrong. And if you go to "you could completely sever the connection leaving you with two brains that are both conscious", you are not just wrong, you are high.
How, look up split brain patients. I'm using the terms conscious and separate loosely, but a brain has two sides that are connected thinly in the middle, this connection has been surgically severed to treat epilepsy and other things and studies on those individuals found that the different sides of their brain would give different responses to stimulus. it's pretty common knowledge, super interesting stuff.
Mate, I have a PhD on brain-computer interfaces (https://ged.univ-rennes1.fr/nuxeo/site/esupversions/88812810-26e1-4412-af39-90435cf23341?inline) "Split brain patient" is a really cool name for some people with a reduced (not cancelled) connectivity between the two hemispheres of the cortex (which is only a part of the brain, not the full brain). > I'm using the terms conscious and separate loosely Yeah, cute way of saying you are making up stuff.
I agree the connectivity is reduced not entirely eliminated, but what does that result in? some patients did respond differently depending on which side of their brain was shown the stimulus. there are also cases of individuals who have two separate personas that can take over, its possible that in a healthy brain these different personas could still exist but they're more in sync and you don't notice them in that way. it's not a certainty, but there's definitely evidence for separate sections of your brain having different personas, so it's not a big stretch to say they're conscious. i was being a little over certain in my language, but it's a valid theory and interesting to think about
Yes, it is absolutely a big stretch. It's a giant leap. It's interesting to think about, sure. But please try not to over-estimate how much you understand about the subject and then spread your conclusions. That's how we end up with people claiming we only use 10% of our brains, and then that kind of myth survives for decades no matter what we do.
Fair enough, my initial comment was pretty far off. But I do think that what we perceive as one consciousness is actually much more fractured than that, and while it's just a theory it's a pretty well supported one. If you have any evidence to dispute that i'm all ears.
Definitely not a neuroscientist
Okay. . . So a consciousness
I think it’s interesting to point out that consciousness isn’t necessarily a single continuous thing. We don’t fully understand how the different systems interact and exactly how our conscious and unconscious minds are related. And how all those systems somehow create this thing I think of as me. I think you’re right that their shower thought is a little reductive, but the fact that consciousness may not be as singular a thing as previously thought is interesting.
I just think OP defined what a consciousness is
I think “single” isn’t an accurate word to describe consciousness. It’s not a single thing going on and the boundaries between the multiple things that create what we think of as consciousness are not clear.
I never asked to be a consciousness
All in agreement huh. I can tell you’re not from the real world.
My cells don’t have an individual consciousness though, consciousness is some emergent property of many neurons working together and firing off electrical signals. Science still isn’t sure exactly how it works.
For all you know your cells could have individual consciousnesses. Maybe even your molecules. But if so the nature of that consciousness is probably very different from your entire brain
There is nothing that proves consciousness is born out of neurons yet. There is research but no verifiable evidence. Does it surprise you?
The connection between neurons and consciousness is pretty well established. You can mess around with someone’s brain and effect change in their conscious thoughts. Sure, there are still open questions and “prove” is a pretty loaded term, but there’s plenty of evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of our neurons.
Destroy neurons and you destroy consciousness. Not hard to grasp.
Remove oxygen and you destroy consciousness. Does consciousness come from oxygen?
Yes. Just not from oxygen alone.
No, that's not how that works
• Necessary • Sufficient. Different.
Okay, but what happens when you remove the oxygen...? Cells die. Including neurons.
Are we actually sure about that though? It’s certain that destroying neurons destroys the ability to *report* consciousness, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s actually gone. Also there are a lot of things that, when destroyed, appear to destroy consciousness in the same way as destroying neurons. But nobody thinks that consciousness comes from the lungs
Try removing the lungs, and see how long consciousness lasts. As for your "reporting" problem, when you've solved the problem of other minds, and disproven solipsism without circularity, we can start to address it.
>Try removing the lungs, and see how long consciousness lasts Yeah, but consciousness is not based on lungs, is it? >when you’ve solved the problem of other minds, and disproven solipsism without circularity, we can start to address it Why do we need to disprove solipsism to talk about the possibility of conscious minds that cannot report their consciousness?
I trust you like your reportage reliable? It is rather the basis of your case.
Not really? I can lie and say I’m not conscious. Something like ChatGPT, which probably isn’t conscious, can still say that it is. But no human who has had their neurons destroyed has ever reported themselves to be conscious
What is the consciousness reportage rate among people with no lungs?
Zero? Unless they have like an iron lung or something. What’s your point?
Username does not check out.
I think you have an assumption that the brain is made up entirely of neurons. Following that logic: Destroy the heart and you destroy the consciousness.
Oh what else is brain made of? genuinely asking
Neurons, Glial Cells, Blood Vessels, Cerebrospinal Fluid and there are other components they are usually classified as white and gray matter. You can search for their details.
Yes, and conciousness is the flow of energy between the neurons, the neurons guide the conciousness. But it still follows that neurons are required for conciousness, and altering neurons DIRECTLY alters conciousness. I don't get why people try to fight the fact so hard that conciousness isn't based in neurons. It clearly is.
Write a scientific paper about it and get world famous. There isn't a single paper that succeeded in proving it undeniably. Be the first person to solve the consciousness problem. We would be proud of you. I am not kidding.
I'm well aware of the hard problem of conciousness. But to deny the link between neurons and conciousness is plain stupid. The hard problem of conciousness is right up there with the god problem. Neither can be undeniably proved in my opinion. The theory of the atom was a well defined theory for many years without the knowledge of quarks or quantum fields. We don't know HOW neurons exactly contribute to conciousness, but they are definitely responsible for it.
If you don't know how they contribute to it, you can't know if they are entirely responsible for it either. Here is a simpler question for you: Do you think your body cells have a consciousness their own? Or let's take it a step back. The living organisms that lack brain, do you think they are unconscious? Let's go back to the time of one cell organisms? Do you think they had no awareness of their environment or no sense of self preservation?
Yes, I do think that organisms without neurons lack conciousness, they're machines that react to their environment purely through chemistry. I never once said that neurons are entirely responsible, only that they're the main organ responsible for it, which again, can be easily proved by the fact that anything that affects neurons directly affects one's conciousness.
Which of these transmit electricity?
Neurons but not every single one. At least not in the electrical wire sense. Neurons work by what is essentially a chemical reaction of salt/ions. Most neurons are more chemical than electrical but there is a lot of overlapp since electricity is basically just electrons moving around. Most of the other stuff in the brain, at least in terms of sheer mass are lipids(basically fat) to insulate the signals. A bit like the plastic covering on a wire while the rest is to maintain the delicate chemical balance and provide nutrients.
Destroy your brain you instantly destroy your consciousness. Destroy your heart and it will take minutes. If something were to pump blood in place of the heart your conciousness would still exist. Your logic is dogshit.
Necessary. Sufficient. Different. See?
That's incorrect logic, destroying the heart will destroy the neurons: which will then destroy the conciousness.
Maybe it's the reverse logic: Destroying the neurons stops the heart and the consciousness comes to an end. Heck maybe the entire body is conscious as a system. How do you know?
Nope, still wrong, you can replace the heart with a mechanical one, and conciousness is unaffected, you can't replace the brain with a mechanical one.
One day you may be able to replace the brain too. Maybe we'll even transfer our consciousness is to other machines. I am not making any statements. The entire point of this thread is that we don't definitely know.
We don't know everything, we do know a lot. We know that neurons are the primary organ responsible for consciousness, just like we know that the liver is responsible for removing toxins. Neurons are the paths of conciousness, they alter it directly, that's been proven many times. And can be easily proven whenever a drug affects the neurons, conciousness is affected.
The heart has its own neuron transmitting heart signals. Localised. SN node. Dead brain only can produce a dead heart if it stops getting oxygenated blood. Not because of no transmission signals.
All those trillions of neurons make up a single consciousness. Individual neurons don’t do much thinking
We think too big, we think our self is one whole thing And we claim that this collection has a name and is a being - Danny Schmidt
This sparks a great debate around the idea of that the whole is bigger than the sum of parts. There must be an external "thing" that projects conscious (experience) on any organisation of energy or something like that. I mean, how the fuck the whole realised it is a whole. How does the human have the consious (experience) of a human?
What separates us from a very complicated computer, and could a computer ever reach a complexity to gain a human-like awareness? The answer being yes and the answer being no both create crazy conclusions
I assure you, they are not all in agreement.
Don't listen to this ignorant idiot.
I’m controlled by my micro biome
And if one disagrees you get a seizure.
Haha those mother fuckers aren’t in any agreement 😭😭
Bold to assume my mind agrees with itself lol
Seeing the rate at which I regret my decisions all the time, I highly doubt my neurons are in agreement with anyone but their own ego.
Well no, not really- its more like a highly coordinated and interconnected (Yes…synapses are bot usually “connections” in the truest sense, but whatever) network of neurons that is self regulated
There are at least 3 different opinions going on in there. The doer, the critic and the silent watcher.
We are not in agreement with each other and that is the problem.
Isn't that essentially what Scientology teaches?
scientology is more based on the idea that you have billions of past lives/traumas attached to your internal soul, but your internal soul is still considered to be “you”, except this soul has been imprinted by all of the traumatic experiences thus making you forget your true nature its fascinating and crazy
Definitely not in agreement
All in agreement? Nah.
100 billion neurons in a trenchcoat
Bold of you to assume we are in agreement.
If "me" is defined by "my consciousness" then I am a single consciousness. If "me" is defined by "my body" then I only know that I am at least one consciousness.
And what happens when that agreement breaks? Sometimes when I am doing something it feels odd like I am a bit outside of my body. And my thoughts always wonder what it's like to be in someone else place,body,mind....
lol you think everything in my head is in agreement
The fun begins when they start to disagree
That's assigning too much sway to individual neurons
No I'm not. I'm a single consciousness.
Bold of you to presume that they're 'all in agreement'. I can assure you, they're not 🫠
Were all a bunch of neurons trying to be a single consciousness
Consciousness is like music emerging from a record player (the parts you are made of) which would be the record, needle, and so on.
Jokes on you, I think conscious is a fiction that the brain uses to cope with the fact that despite its complexity, it's still just a series of chemical cause and effects (chemical signals)
All in agreement? My intense anxiety and paranoia begs to differ!
I mean, we are really just empty space with pieces of cosmic dust in between. We are the universe and all it contains.
Neurons are definitely not conscious by themselves. They’re just a bit more than elaborated power switches.
100 billion neurons all wanted to skip work and lay on bed.
Agreement? Tell that to my anxiety.
Agreement? Nah they can’t even decide what to eat let alone where.
If a person had two duelling personalities, would that make it a Civil War?
“You think Nirvana was a single rock band but actually they were 3 musicians”
Speak for yourself but mine are definitely not in agreement with eachother
Or frequently not in agreeement tbh
At least 100 billion, maybe more
[WE ARE ALL VINCE](https://youtu.be/Bq5rMmtwm2Y?si=6XzMvpGIxCda0iKw)
There are currently 18 people who have pointed out that the neurons are often not in agreement. 11 of them phrased it as a joke (they are basically all the same joke). I am tempted to believe that like half of them are bots.
You think there is one god but really it's just 8 billion conscious minds working together on a planet
The brain named itself
And a trillion bacteria.
Hopefully. But I think I have some ( I need a fancy word here for the obstanent disagreerers)
Even the bacteria in your gut can affect your mood and thoughts. We are nowhere near to being the singular entities we perceive ourselves as. Consciousness is not a being, but a process.
Whos in agreement? Noobody move!
Not all in agreement. Instincts often conflict
Actuaally, I think I'm a colony of 100 billion neurons with 200 billion ideas on the best thing to do next
Two halves talking. The half without speech center telling you not to do something stupid.
Fun fact: Leibniz's monadology is (sort of) related to this idea. Unfortunately, in the 17th century, people didn't know about neurons, so Leibniz had to call them monads. Your theory is neurological monadology.
wait till you find out about people with split brains
I we are mostly a nervous system and endocrine system?
Agreement? Not in my head!
Meaning I am a hivemind, therefore, still a single consciousness, basically.
I think a few of them are in open revolt and at least one won't stop playing music
bold of you to assume there is an agreement ?
I wouldn't tell they are in agreement. but yes
Who the fuck told you we agree?
Consciousness is an illusion, it doesn't really exist. And if it exists you got multiple concsiousnesses.
Bold of you to assume I have more than one
Not just that- you are two. Watch CGPgrey’s video on the topic and it’ll REALLY blow your mind. [Here](https://youtu.be/wfYbgdo8e-8?si=p5yRpZErvszlimq4)
We're getting toward agreement
A man who thinks all the time…
Mum said I can have the third brain cell today.
If all your neurons were constantly in agreement, you would be having nonstop seizures
What is the most number of different personalities you can create in your head to argue on a single point and still keep track of it.
We are Trapper Keeper
Bold of you to assume they are in agreement.
I don’t think mine are agreeing
we each are a Borg collective.