/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11242727]

what is consciousness?

[Anonymous No.11242737]

>>11242727
Being selfaware of your on thinking and your "I", which is the transendental object of your unreflected reflective act of thinking yourself

[Anonymous No.11242738]

>>11242727
an eggplot in a stock of diadems

[Anonymous No.11242745]

The pot calling the kettle black

[Anonymous No.11242747]

A self-similar knot in the fabric of being

[Anonymous No.11242753]

Magma

[Anonymous No.11242761]

>>11242737
No, that’s self-awareness. You can be conscious without being self-aware, like a massive chunk of the animal kingdom.

[Anonymous No.11242778]

>>11242761
I don’t think you can, actually
Self-consciousness is the only thing that keeps me from considering all life a soulless manifestation of the physical laws of our existence
I’m not sure if it’s like anything to be a dog. They might just seem that way because we tend to project, and because we’ve bred for emotive traits

[Anonymous No.11242897]

The possibility of living through logos

[Anonymous No.11242902]

>>11242727
maybe its asking that question

[Anonymous No.11243426]

>>11242761
>like a massive chunk of the animal kingdom.
Bullshit. Most animals have significant ability to look internally and they obviously have a notion of self, it's necessary to function. They do not have a human notion of self, or human self-awareness. Because they're not human.

[Anonymous No.11243464]

>>11242727
Processes in the brain that simulate future outcomes to improve your survival. Basically next step from intelligence and nothing that interesting or special.

Now whatever the NEXT step in evolution is, that's a much better question.

[Anonymous No.11243465]

>>11243464
what is the NEXT step

[Anonymous No.11243483]

>>11243465
Well, all the cybernetic crap seems given, so we'll basically take a more hands on approach to evolving, eventually leading to some hive-mind-y shit but then again, seeing how crappy humans are with long term predictions, who knows, nigga.

[Anonymous No.11243525]

>>11242727
A human term for an abstract thing or state which is always described in parts as though any section were a whole of some thing or state, consciousness, making common between the speakers this thing or state.
---
>tfw y'all got some consciousness that aint mine, though mine isn't much different I'd agree, is just a bit murky around the edges, like I haven't got the words, mines just a bit battier, bat-shit crazier you'd say and I'd just say unique ... which in effect rules out the similarity of the thing in itself being common enough that we could safely use a word for all that obscurity ... though, yes, I know, referring to a thing or state or whatever is necessary along the way to talk about what it is that we're talking about, I'm just saying that consciousness aint no thing which there is pure relation too, no equals dropping from my aural friends, and I's not got a reading on their pulse of humour either, so be it as it may, or becoming what it wills, a thousand joys or a whole lot of ills, I is an utter of which we drink to celebrate domestication of beasts, a part of the animal, a part of the stock, apart of the herd, grazing in between milkings, not a calf on site except /lit/tles and Them, a reassurance that the world is in deed conspiring against you and with you because the world thing or state likes a good song or two to keep the day moving like a stream.

[Anonymous No.11243562]

the lens of the soul. proof of god.

[Anonymous No.11243626]

Humans are the only animal I’d be willing to call conscious, and that is exclusively because of self-consciousness
Everything else, possibly humans included, are just meat machines created through the mathematical properties of the evolutionary mechanism
Prove me wrong
“My dog looks sad sometimes” isn’t proof

[Anonymous No.11243647]

>>11243626
i only have proof of my own consciousness

[Anonymous No.11243664]

that which voyages in the plane of immanence

[Anonymous No.11243744]

>>11243647
You stupid selfish bastard

[Anonymous No.11243928]

>>11242727
mental properties of a physical substance, supervenient on the physical but not ontologically reducible to it

[Anonymous No.11243935]

>>11243647
But that only proves what I said

[Anonymous No.11243940]

>>11242778
This idea that animals, who express love and empathy, are really just all automatons and human beings are the first manifestation of actual consciousness, is a retarding thought.

[Anonymous No.11244066]

Consider ventriloquism. People think of ventriloquism as an illusion of hearing and seeing. You hear the performer’s words and see the puppet’s mouth move at the same time, therefore the sound seems to come from the puppet. Ventriloquism is more than a sensory illusion. The sensory illusion is actually quite incidental. If you watch ventriloquism on TV, the sound comes from the same location anyway, regardless of whether the puppet or the performer is speaking. The visual-capture illusion is the same—a voice seems to come from a moving mouth, even though the sound is actually coming from a different source—yet you are entranced by the puppet speaking and not by the performer speaking. Why? The charm of ventriloquism really depends on a social illusion. Your brain constructs a model of a conscious mind and attributes it to the puppet.
Ventriloquism is not a cognitive error. You don't mistakenly believe the puppet to be conscious. You know cognitively that there is no brain in the puppet. Perceptually, you fall for it. That's what makes ventriloquism fun. You can’t help feeling as though awareness were emanating from the puppet as it looks around the room and comments on its surroundings. In fact, your social machinery builds two models of minds, one that you project onto the performer and the other that you project onto the puppet. Ventriloquists have worked out a set of tricks to enhance this illusion of two separate minds. That is why the puppet always has a different tone of voice and usually argues with the performer. At this point in the stage version of my scientific story, I normally reach into a bag and take out Kevin, a hairy two-foot-tall orangutan puppet, and carry on a conversation with him. I try to be polite and stick to the science, but he cracks jokes and offends the audience with comments about my hand up his backside. I am a passable ventriloquist. I am not superb, but it doesn’t matter because the social illusion is so powerful that it works anyway.
It seems crazy to insist that the puppet’s consciousness is real. And yet, I argue that it is. The puppet’s consciousness is a real informational model that is constructed inside the neural machinery of the audience and the performer. It's assigned a spatial location inside the puppet. The impulse to dismiss the puppet’s consciousness derives from the implicit belief that real consciousness is an utterly different quantity, a ghostly substance, or an emergent state, or an oscillation, or an experience, present inside of a person’s head. Given the contrast between a real if ethereal phenomenon inside of a person’s head and a mere computed model that somebody has attributed to a puppet, then obviously the puppet isn’t really conscious. In the present theory, all consciousness is a computed model attributed to an object. That's what consciousness is made out of. One’s brain can attribute it to oneself or to something else. Consciousness is an attribution.

[Anonymous No.11244114]

Heh heh I don't no XD

[Anonymous No.11244129]

holograms, mirrors, lasers, and screens going controllably haywire

[Anonymous No.11244136]

>>11244066
The fact that a puppet appear conscious is because a conscious being is behind the string though, if you somehow taught a highly educated Orangutan to use a puppet he wouldn't be able to fool us into thinking it is conscious.

[Anonymous No.11244157]

>>11242727
awareness

[Anonymous No.11244159]

>>11242727
the fundamental axiom-subject that cannot be accounted in terms of anything else

[Anonymous No.11244384]

>>11242738
what does this mean.

[Anonymous No.11244394]

>>11242897
explain?

[Anonymous No.11244413]

>>11243626
Not even memeing.

[Anonymous No.11244482]

>>11244413
What does the Bible say about consciousness in animals?

[Anonymous No.11244505]

>>11243940
>who express love and empathy
Yes, to evolutionarily beneficial degrees
This does not prove experience in animals

[Anonymous No.11244512]

>>11244505
We struggle to prove it in ourselves, how can we readily make any conclusions of its presence in other species? Making this point is just contrarian

[Anonymous No.11244523]

>>11243626
definitely too much of a biased worldview to have any merit. A dog looking sad is the same as your dad looking sad when he comes home from work

[Anonymous No.11244542]

>>11244482
There's a talking snake in it.

[Anonymous No.11244549]

many different types of interconnected prisms and crystal beams of vibrating lattices

[Anonymous No.11244758]

the single awareness can see and do multiple things at once: the single awareness inside the mind, can visualize a hand, and two fingers alternately going up and down, the single awareness bulks this double activity into a single concept: and performs it.

It can see the singular event as one whole, so at once, though there are two components, 2 fingers, moving up and down in opposing directions alternately, it can treat it and behave and perform as if it is a single action: the command comes from a single source of awareness, aware of multiplicity, and performing multiplicity,

though the mind visualizing this, has to create a hand and fingers in its inner vision: and the two fingers are separated from one another by space (in the vision), and so the mind must focus on area of the pointer finger, and area of the middle finger, a single awareness, inner visualizing in the mind, and keep its focus continually on both, while moving the first up while the middle down, and then the first down as the middle comes up, doing this repeatedly, a single awareness, at once, focuses on two separate actions; must the single awareness have two branching awarenesses, at least (in this case), one focusing on the pointer finger and one focusing on the middle? Even if the awareness is one singular awareness, must part of the awareness be incharge of the pointer, and part be incharge of the middle, as if the singular awareness was a singular flashlight beam, would half the flashlight beam take the pointer, and half the flash light beam take the middle: or, would 1 tiny sliver of the beam take the pointer, and another tiny sliver take the middle, as there is a lot more beam to pay attention to other activity (as evidenced by the complexity of dreams, and complex multifaceted tasking, and piano playing, where there are more than 2 fingers moving at once)?

now in the vision, in the head, something is conjuring up this image, and something is focusing on all areas of it, and something is forcing the separate areas to move appropriately, in the head is something actually correlating moving up and down? or is it some symbolic representation of the fingers moving up and down: how 3d is this representation of fingers, where is the source of control of their movement, and is it the same exact precise source of the awareness/visulization of the movements? how much and what type of material/light is representing the area of the fingers and how much of that material is moving up and down; when a cursor mouse on a computer screen is moved up and down how much material of what type is correlatingly moving up and down?

[Anonymous No.11244777]

>>11243426
This.

[Anonymous No.11244786]

Something you don't have. God fucking damn I hate OPs like this.

[Anonymous No.11244886]

>>11244523
The difference being that I know I’m self conscious, and my dad is the same species as me, and I’m a descendant from my dad, so there’s some good reason to assume that my dad is also self conscious

[Anonymous No.11244891]

>>11242761
>>11242778
>>11243940
>>11243426
>this doesn't have a soul

[Anonymous No.11244895]

>>11244891
I see a machine acting in ways that improved the survival and reproductive rates of its ancestors, primarily by looking soulful to suckers like you so that they will be bred

[Anonymous No.11244899]

>>11244895
Then away with thee, soulless khabalist scum.

[Anonymous No.11244968]

>>11244895
I enjoy to no end the confidence you have in the idea that you don't function in the same way the dog does.
If you program a machine to say "I have feelings, I experience myself, I have consciousness" it will be just as true. Because that's all that consciousness is: a cognitive machinery focused on survival-driven quick sketch lo-rez models of deeply complex realities.
You say "I know that I am conscious" and it's because you have a model of attention in your brain that is only a functional analogy.

[Anonymous No.11245023]

>>11244968
>a model of attention in your brain that is only a functional analogy.
>a model of attention in your brain
The whole body and brain is swarming with energy of various types, chemical reactions and different frequencies of light surging, the mind is like a wind up clock each day, that its ticking down sets all these gears and springs and pistons into motion that produce glows, the thing saying these words right now is a pulsing glow of much energy, that will wind down around night time; where the body will then do what it does to wind the gears back up, so the glowing light ghost in the machine machine will puff up again the next day.

[Anonymous No.11245054]

>>11244895
posts like this make me think that we shouldn't teach Darwinism in schools

[Anonymous No.11245058]

>>11242727
benis

[Anonymous No.11245064]

>>11244758
>where is the source of control of their movement, and is it the same exact precise source of the awareness/visulization of the movements?

When the single awareness of the mind says to itself: I want to visualize 2 fingers on a hand continually alternatingly moving up and down: how is this awareness making the fingers move, how the single awareness makes my real two fingers move: it has a 2 fingers section on its inner control console, is the mind like octopus with many arms, is this what neurons and connections are, many arms and hands and fingers and eyes, and they network to create the ability to control thoughts and images: to visualize a car with spinning wheels takes different parts than to visualize 2 fingers moving. So when the awareness visualizes 2 fingers moving up and down, does the awareness have 2 tethers that it is reaching out into its visualization area and mechanically moving 'stuff' up and down, and then this process is sent back to it, so at once it is controlling the desire to witness this, and controlling the movement of the desired, and witnessing the continual effect: the awareness in the head must reach out in some way and create the image of the fingers, and be forcing the movement of the image of the fingers, and seeing the results of this activity.

[Anonymous No.11246337]

dopeee

[Anonymous No.11246341]

a dream

[Anonymous No.11247248]

well?

[Anonymous No.11247261]

>>11244895
soulless brainlet

like saying someone whose naturally, genetically cheerful is "faking" it.

they're not faking it, they ARE that cheerful, the same dogs really do love, just because that love was bred into them doesn't mean it's artificial, anymore than a mother's biological love for her son is artificial

[Anonymous No.11247274]

>>11242727
Cogito ergo sum.

[Anonymous No.11247395]

>>11247261
The humans and the dog alike-- they only have an attribution. If you think you are love, if you say you're in love, you are: that's what love is - thoughts.

It is the same for mind. It is mechanical and informational. That in itself does not require that one value the mechanical as a negative or neuter. Machines do many awesome things.

[Anonymous No.11247448]

>>11244066
>Consciousness is an attribution.
My dear subject, no. I'll have no exploding here.

[Anonymous No.11247842]

>>11242727
something you lack

[Anonymous No.11247844]

A bundle of sensations

[Anonymous No.11247845]

Congratulations! You have once again succeeded in posting a thinly-veiled 'literature' thread with the intention to gossip like a schoolgirl!!

[Anonymous No.11247849]

>>11247845
Hey dude your use of this is getting a little too liberal here
Let's cut back a bit, huh?

[Anonymous No.11247850]

>>11247849
>People who think this is just the work of one person