What is consciousness?

File: 774 KB, 1957x1898, beautiful0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:32:14 2018 No.11269366 [Reply] [Original]

What is consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:32:39 2018 No.11269369 >>11269366 A mistake

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:33:16 2018 No.11269373 The amalgamation of all our senses

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:33:44 2018 No.11269374 >>11269369 t. Zapffe

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:34:37 2018 No.11269377 >>11269366 that thing you barely got, what splooshed out of your mum's cunny

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:44:23 2018 No.11269424 File: 362 KB, 1280x429, 5persec.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] deus sive natura

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:46:18 2018 No.11269428 File: 21 KB, 350x348, G-man_heart_to_heart_headshot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >thread will be full of reductionist retards

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:47:33 2018 No.11269434 >>11269366 You won't find your answer on a forum for vietnamese reality TV shows. also, who gives a shit. go get laid

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:51:15 2018 No.11269460 >>11269434 >who gives a shit I do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:51:49 2018 No.11269464 A mini captured star dancing on a lake of lattices suckling on a surrounding discoball of carefully controlled nuke juice

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:54:26 2018 No.11269478 File: 62 KB, 573x368, hqey9crzv3111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] A set of principles and exceptions which have grown too complicated to govern themselves under their own sovereign nature.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 22:57:23 2018 No.11269494 >>11269478 this is actually what zizek says. what does it say that nature's runaway complexity leads to subjectivity? isn't that strange?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:08:22 2018 No.11269536 >>11269494 fractals dude... little single celled, and multi celled organisms, different atoms interacting and making patterns...snowflakes... consciousness is the congress of many cells, democratic republic of little cells

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:12:46 2018 No.11269556 >>11269536 consciousness is a dictator tho

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:13:11 2018 No.11269557 >>11269536 >nature's machinery becomes so complex it literally wakes up to itself weirdest fucking thing

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:14:29 2018 No.11269564 >>11269556 yeah but dictators are made of many intelligent cells

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:20:05 2018 No.11269587

>>11269557
feedback loops, harmonic oscillations, multi layers and dimensions of various stabilities, various materials, all the suns radiation bombarding the earth, stirring up the material, boiling mud pits, and lakes, the air, evaporation cycles, how many insects and bacteria exist, how much dna happened to come into existence, at how many locations, chemicals, proteins, and the earth still turning, and the radiation still bombarding, and the rain, and the wind, and the magnetosphere, and the moons gentle pull, and the tides, and the sea, and the volcanic plumes, and the little tiny cells, a see saw, a back and forth, a beating heart, a feedback loop, a membrane, a chemical reaction, a different chemical reaction, a hundred different types of chemical reactions, stabilized, in close proximity, a membrane, micro organisms are conscious, consciousness had to be solved on the smallest scale, before it could be built up to larger scales, the key is in the smallest

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:22:47 2018 No.11269600 >>11269564 yea but intelligent cells are dictators yea but intelligent cells were dictated too by their surroundings yea but their surroundings are composed of many 'cells' 'of information'

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:25:15 2018 No.11269609 >>11269587 >people ignoring this genuinely beautiful post

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:30:19 2018 No.11269631 >>11269587 comfy post, thanks for not being a reductionist git

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:31:58 2018 No.11269635 >>11269587 >>11269600 are there electron microscope images of ants brains? Have their brainwaves been detected?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:32:44 2018 No.11269638 The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:35:23 2018 No.11269645 consciousness is the splitting of many beams of light reflected off many mirrors and meeting back with itself in the middle

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:36:18 2018 No.11269650
File: 14 KB, 245x249, 1523881140726.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11269366
Y'all are brainlets.

A conciousness is an entity consisting of that resides in a being (doesnt have to be self aware) usually in an organ called a brain from which all senses are recieved, all signals issued from and from which a beings present thought and state resides.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:38:30 2018 No.11269661 >>11269645 incidentally, also hegel's god really made me think

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:41:32 2018 No.11269672 >>11269587 >the key is in the smallest but the smallest required all those separate interactions of largenesses

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:42:35 2018 No.11269676 >>11269650 No...watch this... Consciousness is a particular mixture

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:42:46 2018 No.11269677 >>11269609 sadly i read the first few words decided it was fedora then kept reading

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:43:37 2018 No.11269682 >>11269635 >been detected? and by detected I mean mapped and correlated to behavior and activity?

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:47:12 2018 No.11269694

>>11269366
here's the dualism pill.
There can be no materialist explanation of consciousness which does not fall upon the humunculus fallacy.
If neurons give rise to consciousness than they must contain something which amounts to a "quantum of consciousness". To use the (overused) computer metaphor, a transistor satisfies this requirement: It can switch connections on and off, and all computation can be reduced to specific lines in the circuit being connected to the power source, while others are not.
But what could a "quantum of consciousness" be? How could we ever possibly reduce subjective experience down to a collection of building blocks?

Neurology might one day come up with a complete map of the workings of the brain, the connectome, and still all we would have is a description of WHAT we are aware of. Not of HOW.

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:50:16 2018 No.11269709

>>11269694
>But what could a "quantum of consciousness" be? How could we ever possibly reduce subjective experience down to a collection of building blocks?

precisely, its like attempting to reduce the qualitative experience of music to the notes. when I decide to do one thing instead of another, does one complex of neurons "choose" for the rest?

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:55:37 2018 No.11269737

>>11269682
Experts estimate that an ant brain contains about 250,000 brain cells. That number pales in comparison to the human brain, which is believed to contain over 86 billion neurons. However, for the ant, its brain is quite powerful. Ants are widely considered to be the smartest insect in the world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:01:38 2018 No.11269753 >>11269587 lmfao at all these buzzwords

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:10:13 2018 No.11269785

>>11269694
>connected to the power source
the trick is likely that consciousness partly is the powersource. Or the interaction between the powersource and the material that houses the power source, the wire that the power runs through: the side interactions the powersource moving through the wire gives off (like water spilling over river banks, or static electricty outside power lines)

The situation is: Atoms are not consciousness (subatomic particles are not consciousness). Light is not consciousness. (the gravity field is not consciousness)(nuclear forces are not).

But put a certain number, of a certain kind of atoms, and a certain number and kind of light, in certain proximity, melded together over time = consciousness.

There are many examples of similar things, almost everything, greater than sum of parts, wheat isnt bread, yeast isnt bread, eggs arent bread, flour isnt bread, water isnt bread... put them together in a certain way

bricks arent a home, a refrigerator isnt a home, a toilet isnt a home... put them together in a certain way

its just that the complexity and fine grain detail and orientation carefulness of stacking and parts is ridiculous

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:14:13 2018 No.11269797 File: 324 KB, 1552x1130, pHhFQi4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11269737 >>11269785

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:26:56 2018 No.11269836 that which cognizes

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:28:16 2018 No.11269839

>>11269785
>But put a certain number, of a certain kind of atoms, and a certain number and kind of light, in certain proximity, melded together over time = consciousness.

but this doesn't really answer it, since either there's some arbitrary threshold where a system passes from no consciousness to consciousness, or you have to admit there's a gradient and atoms are latently conscious somehow

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:29:01 2018 No.11269842

>>11269836
And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:33:18 2018 No.11269856 File: 38 KB, 338x610, 1506054846812.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11269836 >>11269842

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:41:44 2018 No.11269880 >>11269839 >some arbitrary threshold where a system passes from no consciousness to consciousness Yes, take a human brain and take it apart >admit there's a gradient Yes, an ants consciousness is different than mans

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:45:13 2018 No.11269891

>>11269880
I mean either there's a threshold or there's a gradient. if there's a threshold, we got a neurological heap paradox, if it's a gradient, you have to admit some kind of panpsychism since atoms would possess some kind of extremely rudimentary proto-consciousness for them to even become self-aware in complex arrangements (or else it's some particular arrangement or number of neurons, and we're back to the heap paradox)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:51:51 2018 No.11269911 File: 11 KB, 238x166, Peter Wessel Zapffe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11269366 >>11269369 >>11269374 A burden more than a mistake. It still is useful, to some, for a time. Most, anyhow. Sorry, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:53:52 2018 No.11269920 File: 14 KB, 236x318, beckett.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11269556

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 00:58:24 2018 No.11269944

>>11269891
no, its not heap: because you can make a jet plane engine and a lawn mower engine, a hummer and a mini cooper, an ant brain and a man brain: its not necessarily just the quantity, but actually, yes, my bad, it may be heap, because obviously you can only go so small, as you cant make a finger nail size gas engine lawnmower.. you likely cannot make an atom sized brain. and theres just no way to rule or rule out panpsychism, its just the last resort hand toss in the air well fuck if I know the universe might be fundamentally made of magic. And I mean, if a single atom had some type of consciousness, I mean I dont think it does.. just because how few parts it is, and how much information is required to provide to the senses for ants. But what if atoms are like a bunch of toy train tracks all disjointed, and there are so many ways to organize them connected to get a train to run on them, and a running train on them is consciousness.

look at this pic:
>>11269797
250,000 brain cells

and how complex ants are, you ever see them cleaning their antene all cutely? or carry things and stuff.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:04:07 2018 No.11269962 miss me with the pseudoscience bullshit desu senpai DUDE NEURONS LMAO

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:04:33 2018 No.11269965

>>11269556
yeah but what of times when concousness weighs options? Should I do this or that or that, hmm how do I really feel, what do I really want, am I in the mood for this, what do I think, this, and that, and that, im divided, im split, I cant make up my mind

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:05:59 2018 No.11269969
File: 1.22 MB, 1920x1080, Rorty.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11269694
>How could we ever possibly reduce subjective experience down to a collection of building blocks?
Is this that argument about there being a god because of the natural laws of the universe? Cause that shit is always a copout for not wanting to humble yourself before facts about the universe that are seemingly contradictory or even impossible to conceptualise. IT IS AN ABSTRACT KIND OF FEEL. Simplifying this contradiction is intellectually dishonest and will only satisfy you while the sun revolves around the earth.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:06:57 2018 No.11269972

>>11269944
well sure, the toy train tracks make sense, but at some specific point, you're putting the train on the tracks and letting 'er rip. I don't think atoms are conscious but they are somehow, someway, doubling as the units of consciousness as they are the units of matter (which, at that scale, are the same thing, somehow).

if consciousness is a phenomenon of the whole (and it is), and if there are properties of the whole irreducible to the properties of the parts, then we got a heap paradox or we have to admit the gradient.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:08:28 2018 No.11269979 >>11269969 no, it's drawing attention to a philosophical distinction in kind, not degree. like trying to locate the exact point when words pass into sense, or notes into music. it's nonsensical.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:08:48 2018 No.11269980 >>11269369 FPBP

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:10:36 2018 No.11269983 >>11269587 >>11269609 samefag

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:16:54 2018 No.11270007

>>11269785
well, my arguments seem to have gone over your head.
> greater than sum of parts
right, but for this the parts require the potential to be combined into this greater whole.
The ingredients of bread aren't bread, like you said, but each one is already edible. they are already food. they assemble to become a better food item.

What do atoms and light possess that enables them to be assembled into a subjective experience?

>>11269969
I didn't say anything about god. I implied that what we take to be the physical universe isn't sufficient to explain consciousness. This doesn't mean angels exist though. In the event that we do discover the basis for consciousness we'll just incorporate all of it into our definition of 'physical'.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:17:29 2018 No.11270010 File: 13 KB, 336x89, 245742724.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11269983 hate when people do this, but more when a wrong person thinks their right

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:18:34 2018 No.11270014

>>11270007
>The ingredients of bread aren't bread, like you said, but each one is already edible. they are already food. they assemble to become a better food item.
sneaky, I believe this is called cherry pick, and if you read my entire post, intellectual dishonesty to boot, try using my engine example

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:19:21 2018 No.11270018 >>11269369 fpbp

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:22:01 2018 No.11270028 >>11270014 but he's right, if it's only a matter of complexity/organization, then I should be able to create a brain out of clothes and some paperclips, properly assembled

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:22:42 2018 No.11270031

>>11269972
>then we got a heap paradox or we have to admit the gradient.
No heap paradox... A 3 year old is conscious, but has less brain matter and neurons than an adult.

And maybe a mouse smaller than a kid.

And then there are centipedes, and ants, and dust mites.

And maybe 1 ant has less brain atoms than another.

Its not a heap, paradox, because consciousness is not a heap, it is a network, an organization, not just quantity, but quality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:24:05 2018 No.11270033 >>11269972 It's not a heap paradox. The whole creates the conscious. If you remove a single part of the whole the conscious (the heap) is no longer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:24:14 2018 No.11270034 >>11270007 >What do atoms and light possess that enables them to be assembled into a subjective experience? Particular complex orientation

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:24:44 2018 No.11270036

>>11270031
then you have to admit the gradient. that's my point, the heap paradox applied to consciousness is silly.

but if we admit the gradient, why CAN'T I make a brain out of any old thing lying around the house, if I knew precisely how to assemble them? is it the ingredients themselves? but the ingredients are made of the same atoms as everything else...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:25:48 2018 No.11270041 >>11270034 then the question is: why can't I make a brain out of kitchen utensils as long as they conform to this orientation?

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:26:06 2018 No.11270043

>>11270028
>then I should be able to create a brain out of clothes and some paperclips, properly assembled
lol, you must be trolling.

How would the type of atoms/molecules and their orientation in a brain: = the type of molecules in clothes and paperclips

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:27:07 2018 No.11270046 >>11270036 >but the ingredients are made of the same atoms as everything else.. Oh, you dont know how complicated biochemistry is.. ok

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:28:23 2018 No.11270049 >>11270041 Why cant you make a gas powered lawn mower out of grass and sticks? Why cant you make a computer out of water and mud? Why cant you make a lego pirate ship out of the lego castle set

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:29:33 2018 No.11270054

>>11270043
trap sprung nigger, now it's on you to explain what it is about neurons that produces consciousness if organizational complexity is irrelevant - since reproducing this orientation with other materials would not produce consciousness.

is it specifically the ORIENTATION of NEURONS themselves? then at what point does the system click "on"? round and round we go

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:30:30 2018 No.11270057

>>11270014
I really don't think I cherry picked anything. The thing that makes bread bread is its edibility.
I don't know what engine example you mean. Regarding the home example:
what makes a house a house is its structure. The fact that a person can go inside and it doesn't collapse around them. In this sense, a brick is a 'quantum of structure'. If you want to build a house to be X feet tall, all you need is a brick of non-zero height and enough strength to be stacked X / brick times without crumbling.

A refrigerator or a toiled isn't a home, but on this point, a home is a collection of things which improve the life conditions of a human being. Those objects possess that fundamental capability.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:30:39 2018 No.11270058

>>11270049
>>11270041
>>11270036
Ok, I see what you are getting at:

Why should it be possible for particular atoms/molecules/chemicals/networks of reactions to allow minds to exist.

The only answer that can be was, it was. You can ask the same thing about all objects, why could some molecules allow pancakes, and plums, and fish, and toasters, and jet planes, and jelly, and baseballs, and basketballs, and violins to exist

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:30:48 2018 No.11270060

>>11270033
I explained poorly there. What I mean by conscious is not a mere collection of brain cells. To equate a conscious to a heap is reductionist for it diminishes the complexity of sections of the brain that process specific information. What's more accurate is to say a consciousness is a network like anon said here >>11270031

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:30:58 2018 No.11270062

>>11270046
>>11270049
you're making my arguments for me, if it isn't the orientation of neurons (since the orientation is irrelevant with regards to other materials arranged the same way), then it's the complexity of the neural system itself, and then we're back to the heap paradox - at what point is the sufficient density threshold crossed?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:34:09 2018 No.11270071 >>11270034 orientation? what? care to elaborate? >>11270049 Hydraulic computers are possible. It won't have the right stickers, but I can make a boat out of any lego set. Maybe I just have particlarly low standards for what a boat is.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:35:08 2018 No.11270074

>>11270058
>The only answer that can be was, it was. You can ask the same thing about all objects, why could some molecules allow pancakes, and plums, and fish, and toasters, and jet planes, and jelly, and baseballs, and basketballs, and violins to exist

okay, we're getting somewhere, so it's only matter of a specific kind that's responsible for consciousness (neural networking), then what is it about neurons specifically? and don't say complexity of the system since the complexity only actualizes this potential for consciousness latent in them

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:40:03 2018 No.11270087

>>11270074
>then what is it about neurons specifically?
well this is an interesting thing. An anecdotal aside can be asked, what is it about dna specifically, we can also wonder if all 'conscious' creatures of earth, all animals, have the neuron set up, and we can ask how many different ways were there to fundamentally make a computer: there seems to have evolved a certain trend and standard, of micro chip theory and concept and material and practice.

Neurons are just one piece of the brain/mind puzzle, but we suppose they are like high % responsible for brain and mind function: like, how much does brain matter support, brain cells, fluid, particular fluid, how many other materials could the brain have been made from and still housed and let neurons do their thing, could neurons have ever formed without the eyes and eye connections to them etc.. but this stuff takes us back to having to look at the earliest and most primitive forms of brains.

im gonna send this now and see if I think of anything else to add about your question:

>then what is it about neurons specifically?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:40:45 2018 No.11270089 >>11269369 t. Ligotti

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:42:21 2018 No.11270094

>>11270062
>if it isn't the orientation of neurons
There are different layers: When I say type and orientation, I mean the orientation of the atoms that make up the neurons have to be a certain orientation for neurons to exist: the certain molecules: and they have to be in certain spatial orientation from one another. And the orientation of all the cells and processes that are necessary besides just neurons.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:44:02 2018 No.11270101

Lemme try a crack at it.

Consciousness is clearly a product of the immense involutions (circular self-referentiality) of the nervous system. There's a recursive property to it in that it's self-referential; you can't be conscious of an impression without "being" that consciousness. It always folds back on itself.

Consciousness is an information receipt system where the most salient and relevant high-level signals of the environment or body are communicated to the organism that makes responding to these signals unmissable. Because if those signals break into the threshold of consciousness, there is no more unambiguous way for the body to communicate information to the whole organism to initiate top-down control.

But how do you characterize that ineffable "suchness" of qualia? Maybe there is an answer to it, but a certain Gödelian loophole in the mind as a closed system means there are truths which can be proven using the finite resources if the brain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:47:56 2018 No.11270111 >>11270101 > means there are truths which can be proven Meant to write "there are truths which can't be proven"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:48:59 2018 No.11270116 >>11270094 >that are necessary besides just neurons. >>11270062 there are cells that construct neurons, and repair them (?), and send them energy, neurons are living cells, I just googled, longest living cells in the body apparently.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:49:13 2018 No.11270120

>>11270087
so we have emergentism (makes sense), but the objection to emergentism is two-pronged: either complexity is responsible for consciousness (heap paradox), or the system merely brings out what is always-already latent in the atoms themselves (gradient)

BUT the objections to both is the same:

if what's important here is simply material complexity - than any sufficiently complex orientation of matter can produce consciousness, of any material - this doesn't seem to be the case. Option A is out.

If it's the atoms themselves, then I can theoretically make a brain out of old newspapers. B is out.

so we're forced to accept it is both something latent in neurons AND their complexity.

the question is then, just what is it about neurons? I think your post hit on it, specifically here:

>there seems to have evolved a certain trend and standard, of micro chip theory and concept and material and practice.

this is kind of crude but the best way I can put it is it's somehow the "modality" of neuronal structure that is responsible for consciousness. it's somehow specifically neurons and yet, because neurons are obviously made of atoms as everything else, somehow not. it's just one of many things atoms "do"

thanks anon this has been illuminating

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:51:52 2018 No.11270123

>>11270101
langan says consciousness is something like "causal subprocessor", locally confined. it is definitely a recursion of the system, and something about that recursion precludes the system from ever getting behind its own back/"suchness".

good post

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 01:59:54 2018 No.11270149

>>11270101
That the BRAIN has circular connections and is self-referencing is fair enough. That's neurons communicating with neurons. All the qualitative statements you make are about the brain and its operation, not consciousness.

>Consciousness is an information receipt system
who's the receiver?
>are communicated to the organism
how does the organism communicate outside of neural impulses?
>that makes responding to these signals unmissable.
Who's responding? responding to whom?
>the body to communicate information to the whole organism
what the heck is this body/organism dichotomy? Who are these entities and how to they communicate outside of nervous system?
>initiate top-down control
who's the controller? How does it make decisions?

You're talking about the brain. All you've done is replace "neurons" with euphemisms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:02:30 2018 No.11270154 File: 160 KB, 1200x1200, 7ye.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw a consciousness thread on /lit/ is filled with stimulating and thought-provoking discussion good stuff boys im gonna hit the hay hope you niggers have cracked it by then

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:03:47 2018 No.11270158

>>11270120
I wish you would explain better why you believe complexity is heap paradox. I thought I sufficiently denied that.

You can take computer parts, the same quantity. And orientate them in such a way that they produce a computer, and orientate them in such ways as they dont. You can even make it more complex, and make it not work. Maybe you can make it less complex, and make it not work.

And computers can be made of varying quantities and complexity, but there may be a limit on the small end: of "not enough quantity, and not enough complexity"

where is the paradox?

I think part of the issue is you already seem to have a conclusion, and part of the issue may be that you believe 'conciousness' is some particular substance, or thing, or independent thing, or novel thing, or absolutely unique thing, and it may not be... though it may be.

There is no breadness, in wheat and yeast and water.

Bread only exists when there is a particular quantity of them, and they are arranged in a particular way.

You are stating 'conciousnessness' exists in some way, perhaps, in atoms, or neurons, or the cells that make neurons, and that by building them up, adding more and more, you add more and more consciousness.

Consciousness is how about light carries information. And how the information carried in that light can be projected and stored in the head: and somehow inside the head that information can be experienced

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:10:32 2018 No.11270168 >>11270154 >dude consciousness is totally like an engine >nah dude its totally like bread is not stimulating and thought-provoking discussion

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:11:33 2018 No.11270171 File: 50 KB, 500x667, main-qimg-9aaf96cb122a02802152d3c10b89dbcb-c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] change perceiving itself

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:12:16 2018 No.11270173 >>11270168 What can you contribute to make the discussion better?

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:14:44 2018 No.11270178

>>11270158
one last post. the heap paradox is basically: if you think it's only the complexity of a neural system (it being a neural system is irrelevant, like you said, just network density), then you're telling me at 15,000,000 neurons the system is "off" but at 15,000,001 (or whatever #) neurons it must turn on. this is, of course, if you deny that consciousness is additive. if it isn't additive, then at some point it has to pretty much appear out of nowhere (because it definitely wasn't there before) after some arbitrary and unknowable threshold of complexity has been crossed, which is silly.

BUT, if you think consciousness is additive, and it's in everything, and the brain is just a big complex clumping of "consciousness atoms", then theoretically I can make a brain out of bike tires if they were arranged right, but that's silly too.

to use the bread analogy: how can what fundamentally has no breadness within it "jump the gap" and become bread if the potential to be bread was not already latent within them? but the potential to be bread of course only lies within these ingredients.

it seems we're pretty much saying the same thing but you're denying breadness is somehow latent within the ingredients, and that's what I'm trying to catch you on

that's why this thread's forced me to conclude it is something both latent in neurons, as neurons, and their complex interconnectivity. you need both, can't have one without the other. that's the best I can come up with right now, besides you know more continental conceptions of consciousness, as the Hegelian void of the subject, etc. stuff like that

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:22:09 2018 No.11270189

I just don't understand why do you pull neurons and """neuroscience""" protip: it's literally pseudoscience out of your ass, specially since this is /lit/ and not /sci/.
All your arguments fall apart if we look at the semantics of all the terms you use.
This discussion shouldn't be taken from the scientific point of view, lest you want to circlejerk around literal spooks and build a theory that has no basis whatsoever and thus it needs to build a completely retarded method for it to work within it's own autistic universe.
You could tackle it from the psychological point of view which is slightly better than the scientific but it still lacks substance.
When we look at it philosophically, this whole thing was already solved by Hegel and several Indian philosophic systems.
Sorry if I sound confrontational, but there is no other way you can see the pile of shit you are getting yourself into.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:22:09 2018 No.11270190

>>11269587
>dna
nah bro, DNA is too complex for that. The early organisms replicating would be more like a chemical reaction to us than an organism. It didn't use DNA, not RNA either. Most likely something much more simplistic, then built up to much more, slowly. It could essentially be no different than a chemical reaction that produces a certain substance from materials, with that eventually growing into more complexity and thus independence from the very specific conditions it would only be able to exist in. We may not even recognise the beginnings of life as life, because we look for certain substances and reactions to indicate living organisms or the potentiality of them. We could be off with this.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:25:22 2018 No.11270196

>>11270189
>When we look at it philosophically, this whole thing was already solved by Hegel and several Indian philosophic systems.

it was, even admitting it's an emergent phenomenon of neural systems doesn't solve it though. there is no full reduction of consciousness to the brain, but it still arises out of the brain (or: certain kinds of matter interacting in certain kinds of ways), and that's what we're trying to crack (hint: we won't).

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:27:40 2018 No.11270204 >>11270028 No you shouldn't. It's like saying you can make water with metal. They're different substances.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:29:56 2018 No.11270212

>>11270101
>where the most salient and relevant high-level signals of the environment or body are communicated to the organism that makes responding to these signals unmissable.
This is pretty much the essence. And real interesting. Imagine the body without consciousness. different cells, different organs, they are living in their own right, and the organs are different, need different things, do different things, signals hit them, they send signals, I need this, I see this, I feel this: energy crossing back and forth space, interacting with different organs causing them to spazz and act in different ways, signals go left, hit, signals go right...

theres another organ over here, and over here, signals go up, hit, signal goes down. more over here, more over here. Signals going all different ways, bouncing off, causing actions which cause more signals.

The organs, the cells, their getting hit with signals that mean something to them, and reacting, and that reacting containing signals, which mean something, and then signals sent out, they are experiencing change: the existence of that action ....

I mean, all the organs of the body, the consciousness is not privy to, all their signals, our conscious mind is only privy to some signals of the inner body/brain. But just as organs send signals, and just like parts of the brain send signals: the signals sent by the organs of the body do not hit the consciousness (some do, some times you are aware of your heart beating, sometimes you feel your stomach do something): there is something in the mind, that is the spokesperson for the cells, for the parts, for the signals: just as cells react to signals sent from the organ (but we are not going to say they are conscious) consciousness reacts to signals sent from parts of the brain:

the signals bombard something.. and that something experiences the bombardment, and the 'thing' typing these words right now, is that experience, is the final experiencer of particular brain part signal bombardment.

Its just a matter of the how, obviously, the multiplicity of it, how smooth it feels to be conscious, how familiar it feels to be the presence in my head, how multi tasking I can be, seeing the constant stream of lights showing me many images while at the same time see things in my imagination and feel things of my body. All signals hitting different parts, and it is those parts themselves, notifying... but how does this result in the me that is aware, it is like my eyes are a periscope, all the many interact so fast, and their desire is so unified it becomes the oneness of me, responsible for doing them right.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:34:25 2018 No.11270224

>>11270212
>and that something experiences the bombardment, and the 'thing' typing these words right now, is that experience, is the final experiencer of particular brain part signal bombardment.

and incidentally, the buddhist anatman, the receiver of all signals and impressions, the sum of all vectors, and as such, irreducible to them.

>Not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:35:58 2018 No.11270229 >>11269366 Sense of self developed somewhere throughout the evolutionary history of humankind by manipultion of apstractions of how to prevent snakes and sabertooth cats from eating our infants.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:37:23 2018 No.11270233 >>11270189 >Sorry if I sound confrontational >this whole thing was already solved by Hegel and several Indian philosophic systems. In what way, give a small gist

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:38:03 2018 No.11270236

>>11270196
>there is no full reduction of consciousness to the brain, but it still arises out of the brain
?? why do you say "but". That sentence should make sense if you actually understand what the theories I mentioned say. There is no "but" there, they are interdependent. whatever the fuck you think conciousness is let me tell you that is way closer to the christian concept of the Soul than to science. For some reason you think that you can define conciosuness as a separate entity independent of the body (aka brain) and the objects it cognizes. Refer to >11269856 if you don't understand what I'm saying.

>certain kinds of matter interacting in certain kinds of ways
Yeah, and? I still don't understand how that is problematic here. I feel that deep within your understanding of this, there is a feeling that there is a One behind everything, or alternatively that everything single thing forms a part of the collective One.
You can't fathom the actuality of Zero and the necessity of Two. At least that's the feeling I get from this thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:39:12 2018 No.11270238 >>11270178 >breadness is somehow latent within the ingredients, and that's what I'm trying to catch you on But its not... Breadness cant exist without them... but they themselves are not breadness

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:42:03 2018 No.11270250

>>11270196
> but it still arises out of the brain
There is no basis for this assumption. You guys are just unwilling to consider any non-materialist theory.
A non-physical consciousness experiencing the brain without interacting fits all observation.

>>11270238
Breadness boils down to edibility. all ingredients of bread are edible.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:42:13 2018 No.11270252

>>11270236
>>11270233
>Refer to >11269856
*Refer to >>11269856

>>11270233
You know how subject and object are concepts created by the never ending process of the self trying to understand itself and the world around it?
They are *concepts* (subjective, relative, not any absolute behind it) created by a *process* (we can call it consciousness if you like) that keeps itself going and going never reaching any actual conclusion. Thus Two is governed by One trying to understand Zero.
There is no Absolute behind any of this.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:46:53 2018 No.11270266

>>11270178
>that's why this thread's forced me to conclude it is something both latent in neurons,
Ok, well... now I see what you may mean... but..hold a sec.... It may be that the only way for consciousness to ever exist, is if neurons are created, but there may be other ways..

Then there is, well I mentioned before, do all conscious animals have neuron system.. the same type, similar, design, molecules? Cells that make them?

Then theres the, how did the cells 'know' to make neurons, how did they make them in order,, a whole lot of random luck, yadayada, but anyway,

lets say neurons are in fact the only possible way for consciousness to be possible (on earth? in the universe?)

this would not necessarily mean, what we know of as consciousness, in some way existed in little parts in neurons... that would not mean that.

This is what I meant in my parts analogy,

There is no latent bicycle in a bike chain or pedal.

Neuron may be a part that is required for consciousness to exist; but consciousness does not need to be a part of neuron.

Consciousness arrives, comes about, is produced, by a very complex interaction between many parts, and energies, types, and chemical reactions; the parts dont need to possess consciousness, for that to be true.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:47:01 2018 No.11270267

>>11270236
Of course they're inter-dependent, I'm trying to understand this inter-dependence.

>You can't fathom the actuality of Zero and the necessity of Two. At least that's the feeling I get from this thread.

Not really sure what you mean by this, I'm purposely not going full bore with the metaphysics cuz it always trips people up.

>>11270250
>A non-physical consciousness experiencing the brain without interacting fits all observation.

it does, but there is still a conditionality within consciousness that means it is imbricated with the brain, or otherwise getting drunk would be impossible. there is the pure void of experiencing/observation, and there is the content provided by embodiment. Recall the two birds from the upanishads

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:49:13 2018 No.11270273

>>11270252
>They are *concepts* (subjective, relative, not any absolute behind it) created by a *process* (we can call it consciousness if you like) that keeps itself going and going never reaching any actual conclusion. Thus Two is governed by One trying to understand Zero.

Pretty much this, Mind is the circle of the One constituted by dialectical Two (its reflecting itself into itself), drawn in and acting as the appropriation of the Zero.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:50:47 2018 No.11270276 >>11270266 I can buy that, but then consciousness as accident just becomes more and more inexplicable and miraculous. Why should chaos auto-cognize itself?

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:55:22 2018 No.11270293

>>11270267
the brain is altered and consciousness experiences this alteration. it doesn't have to be the brain to do so.
Also, nothing forbids this link, this imbrication as you put it, from existing anyways given that we know nothing about the consciousness-brain interface.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:55:52 2018 No.11270295

>>11270250
>You guys are just unwilling to consider any non-materialist theory.
and you have an emotional conclusion you would be willing to be dishonest and simple and ignoring to cling to. You start with a conclusion, and then try to make all thought and observation fit:
Your conclusion, that you have an immortal soul, and it is non material? As an excersise you should be trying to think of all the ways that that may be wrong, incase it is.

And then you will use your incomplete understanding of this topic we are discussing and arguments to try to say: your conclusion cant possibly be wrong, because look at how much we are having trouble discussing the topic and finding a satisfying answer? Imagine how hard it would be to talk about all the components of a computer and how it functions, all the molecules involved, screen materials, wiring, how much volt the wires can handle, how the screen works, what kinds of light at what rates over what times courses through the system, how many of what types of logic gates, their dimensions, what types of software, the theory behind the software, the language of the software... how many posts of this thread would it take for someone to explain how a computer works most fundamentally to someone who doesnt know? Consciousness may be more difficult to explain

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:57:25 2018 No.11270298

>We can be unconscious in our sleep.
>we can be conscious of past perceptions
>when awake, we must always be conscious of something (it is involuntary)
>life forms are different from non-life in that life produces ongoing reactions in response to stimuli
>consciousness seemingly occurs in brains only, a collection of neurons capable of transmitting electric signals
>given a stimulus, consciousness is the last reaction of all reactions produced by the stimulus
Idk, just throwing out ideas. Is consciousness necessary to prevent an infinite loop of reactions in the brain? Maybe someone can continue with these ideas.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 02:57:29 2018 No.11270299

>>11270267
>I'm trying to understand this inter-dependence.
Good. To theorize about this you need to either build a framework by yourself (I wouldn't recommend this) or take available works that tackle this. Try reading Hegel if you have the background in philosophy or Buddhism if you don't mind the religiosity behind it.
You basically want to study psychology to understand the workings of the mind and complement it with some kind of metaphysics to get away of its romance with science.

All this thread has been focused on the essence and nature of consciousness and mind. This is way off the topic and you should understand it won't lead you anywhere. That's why you want to escape the DUDE NEUROSCIENCE LMAO stuff.

>>11270273
Exactly.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:01:50 2018 No.11270318

>>11270293
>the brain is altered and consciousness experiences this alteration. it doesn't have to be the brain to do so.

Yup, exactly, glad someone gets it, this takes the wind right out of the sails of any Phineas Gage-type argument.

>>11270299
Both posts you replied to were from me, I'm the anon you think cant get away from the neuroscience stuff. I've actually already read Hegel and studied Buddhism, you're pretty much right I don't really have any objections. I was specifically holding back on the metaphysics to pop some holes in the emergentism which is such a lazy solution these days. Cheers

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:04:51 2018 No.11270329

>>11269694
There's no reduction or tying of consciousness to the material in the first place.
There's no need for what you call the how between the material and the conscious, because consciousness isn't separate from the material in the first place. The conscious world is neither inside nor outside the material world, they're the same. The issue of the supposed connection between them being impossible to justify only occurs when you conceptualize them as separate. It's a self-creating problem.

Before you can investigate the supposed answer to a question like what consciousness is, you need to investigate the conceptual structures you use to form the basis of your inquiry. Questions are statements too, in the sense that for them to be valid they always have an assumption that makes an answer even possible in the first place.

Your assumption is that consciousness needs to be explained by some "how", but why does it need that kind of explanation in the first place? How and why are just human modes of conception, useful for manipulating our environment, but there's no reason to think they're useful to describe consciousness. That kind of truth confounds the regular methods of understanding. You need different sorts of conception, maybe even conception itself is called into question. One example of a flawed mode of conception is dualism, which is one of the most strikingly common.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:05:38 2018 No.11270332

>>11270298
To add on, it seems to me that all effects exist to eliminate contradiction. Consciousness, then, exists because there would be some sort of contradiction if it didn’t. Consciousness itself doesn’t seem illogical, we just don’t understand how it arises. It isn’t inherently contradictory, but it solves a contradiction. But what is that contradiction?

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:07:16 2018 No.11270337

>>11270295
you're painting me very wrong and very uncharitably.
I didn't start from the conclusion, and religion/spirituality has nothing to do with my convictions (see >>11270007, at the bottom).

You bring up the computer and how complex it is, how hard to explain in detail. Consciousness isn't complex. it's not hard to explain. It's just impossible.
Who is the observer? How can matter observe, experience, "feel" the way we feel?
The contemplation of these questions is what led me to dualism. Any material explanation falls into the humunculus fallacy. The buck stops at some point. the impulses can flow in circles and influence themselves in neural feedback loops but at some point they have to be "perceived" they have to enter the mind's eye. There's no amount of complexity that makes this problem go away.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:09:42 2018 No.11270342

>>11270276
maybe this is leading or begging question
>Why should chaos auto-cognize itself?
the universe is not chaos, there is lots of law and order, then you may ask why would, how could, law and order material auto cognize itself?

Why did river and tree, and gold, and star auto-formulate

just happened to be possible, or God

>inexplicable and miraculous
everything is already even if consciousness didnt exist

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:09:51 2018 No.11270343 >>11270332 >But what is that contradiction? The impossibility of the Nothing to remain simply itself (in essence, the impossibility of the Nothing to have a ruleset limiting it to what it can or cannot be). Boom: consciousness. Experientiality. Life.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:12:22 2018 No.11270351

>>11270329
This also has to do with problems like infinite regress and the first mover -- the idea that whatever you use to justify the universe existing needs it own justification, which ends up repeating forever no matter how many layers of justifications you come up with.

The real issue is the way we think that things need to be justified is flawed basically. Material existence and conscious existence don't need that sort of justification, they just are. If you assume they need justification beyond that inconsistencies pop up everywhere, like problems of infinite regress and so forth.

Paradoxes are created only when you ask the question in the wrong way.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:12:51 2018 No.11270352

>>11270120
>any sufficiently complex orientation of matter can produce consciousness, of any material - this doesn't seem to be the case
Why do you thing the problem is in the materials, rather than the lack of sufficiently complex orientations in nature, other than the nervous system of humans?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:15:00 2018 No.11270360 >>11270337 What do you make of organisms that can only be conscious of feeling? Or the vague detection of light source? This is still consciousness, but do you think the non-material interacts with them the same as with humans?

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:15:22 2018 No.11270361

>>11270318
I see. Then there is nothing more for me to say.

I just get so triggered when someone starts using neurons and atoms as arguments. They don't even know that atoms have never been an actual true statement. They never stopped being a theory, a simple mathematical probability that there is *something* in a specific place at an specific time (place and time of course are also presumptions). That something has always been defined as a possibility.
Trying to get an absolute truth using this system that has no absolute truths other than what they say it's absolute is just pure bullshit. It's like trying to eat soup with a fork rather than a spoon.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:16:37 2018 No.11270368

>>11270352
Can a sufficiently complex orientation of wood, grass, and morning dew become a brain? Fine, that's silly, what about my phone? I'm not ruling it out but it seems highly unlikely. Is a star conscious? The laws governing a star's life and inter. structure are relatively simple compared to a brain, but it still produces electromagnetic radiation, so? That last ones a legitimate question. Maybe there are intelligent systems that do not utilize neurons, but I don't think theyre on this earth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:17:43 2018 No.11270372 >>11270361 No I hear you, I'm pleasantly surprised how civil this threads been, reductionists give me ulcers

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:17:48 2018 No.11270374 >>11270351 But Nothing as a prime mover needs no justification, because Nothing needs no cause. And since Nothing has no limits, the impossibility of creation would be a contradiction, making Nothing something.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:21:27 2018 No.11270387 >>11270374 Goddamn based where are all these woke niggas coming out of the woodwork from?

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:23:17 2018 No.11270391

>>11270368
>Can a sufficiently complex orientation of wood, grass, and morning dew become a brain?
In principle, why not. Make a big enough Turing-complete mechanism out of wood somehow, and you have the foundation. That is if we think the consciousness is the product of complexity, which I do think.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:25:56 2018 No.11270395 >>11270329 >Your assumption is that consciousness needs to be explained by some "how", a monkey doesnt need to be explained how a car engine works, but a man may be curious, same for how the brain/consciousness works

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:27:23 2018 No.11270399 >>11270391 Well I don't think its possible but I can't make any absolute statements about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:27:43 2018 No.11270400 >>11270337 >There's no amount of complexity that makes this problem go away. you dont have enough knowledge, evidence, understanding, to make that definitive claim

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:28:31 2018 No.11270403

>>11270329
>The conscious world is neither inside nor outside the material world, they're the same.
I'm sitting here trying to process this statement.
If "mind and its contents are functionally identical" (which I generally take to be true) then your statement must be false, because it would mean that it would be impossible to hold false views about the world. Am i wrong?

> needs to be explained by some "how", but why does it need that kind of explanation in the first place?
"Every phenomenon operates under some set of laws". Understanding things in this way turns out to be useful, which reinforces the validity of the approach. but...
>but there's no reason to think they're useful to describe consciousness.
the converse is also true.

>>11270360
we can't know if there is "someone" experiencing these lower organisms, just as we can't know this about each other. Yes, dualism allows for the possibility of p-zombies. In fact any theory that doesn't is suspect if you ask me.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:32:06 2018 No.11270413

>>11270374
Well, you can think of it that way.

But my point is whatever logical rules we think abstracts like "nothing" or "something" work by in the first place are just things we made up. Concepts are just stand-ins for reality.

As a result, when we think in this way we're trying to find justification for whatever our concept of reality conscious or material is. But because humans always assign too much importance to what's inside their own heads, we got confused and thought we were talking about reality itself, rather than the concept we made of it.

The one undeniable thing is what Descartes already observed centuries ago. Unfortunately he had to express it with words, and language only occurs in a conceptual framework. The actually valuable observation he made isn't even an argument, it's just an experiential truth with which there wasn't the same concerns of valid or invalidity we apply to intellectual concepts in the first place. It's before intellectual affirmation or denial, because it's not a conceptual argument. Again, it's just an experiential truth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:35:42 2018 No.11270417 >>11270361 youre wrong, youre an ignoramous

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:37:53 2018 No.11270421 [DELETED]

>>11270391
>consciousness is the product of complexity, which I do think.
complexity + types of part:

Types of parts without certain organization = no consciousness

certain type of organization complexity without certain types of part ...how would that be possible or mean anything... the idea of complexity requires parts

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:43:37 2018 No.11270429

>>11270391
>consciousness is the product of complexity, which I do think.
complexity + types of part:

A: Types of parts without certain organization = no consciousness

A: Take a brain from a morgue: scoop a bunch of neurons out and throw them on the floor = no consciousness

B: Certain type of organization complexity without certain types of part = no consciousness

B: Take sand and marbles and beads and organize them in the exact same way neurons are organized = no consciousness

C: Consciousness exists
C: There are certain types of parts in certain type of organization which allows this

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:46:04 2018 No.11270435

>>11270417
Will you deny that if I ask you to prove me wrong you'll use the system that creates itself and its own rules in a way that it's impossible for anyone else to refute whatever conclusion it gets to through that same arbitrary system?
To me you are just a dog following its own tail, doomed in its own ignorance that it's in fact just its own tail.
You'll obviously deny or maybe you even can't see the similarities between that system which claims to be as impartial as possible; which claims to be _the_ system through which we can make any true statement and conclusion (effectively denying that other systems can reach true statements), with any other particular system that is not compatible with the former. I'll give you a hint: all of them come to be through the intellect and just by this single reason they can't be unflawed, not to talk about the myriads of reasons we can postulate. By definition.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:48:50 2018 No.11270442

>>11270400
increased complexity in electronic circuits, for example, doesn't grant them any fundamentally new capabilities. Computers manipulate symbols, that's all they do. Same for calculators, same for a light switch.
I push keys on my laptop, momentarily connecting two wires. By convention, lines of conductor in a computer symbolize digits in a binary number, these numbers in turn represent more complex ideas, which are ultimately put out by the screen and speakers.
I push the light switch doing or undoing an electrical connection. To say that the power line running up to my light bulb symbolizes a Boolean value which should dictate the state of the bulb is overkill, but it's not incorrect.

My claim is that the ability to have subjective experience is completely beyond the mechanics of matter. I simply cannot conceive of how physical consciousness could be achieved. You say I lack evidence, but you're asking me to prove a negative! In fact the burden of proof is on you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:55:26 2018 No.11270463 >>11270442 But why do you think the non-physical, whatever that means, allows consciousness to better explained? It seems you only think it can’t be purely physical, but you haven’t demonstrated how it would operate if it weren’t only physical.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:56:16 2018 No.11270465

>>11270403
>because it would mean that it would be impossible to hold false views about the world

Could you explain why it would mean this? If you thought I was making a solipsistic argument that would be false. I'm not saying that the material world arises from the conscious world rather than that the conscious world arises from the material world. I'm saying they're the same.

The fact that the material and the conscious world are the same thing doesn't mean that the world can't be taken to have finite parts, or be in a certain chemical state. So the finite part that is 'me' could still be wrong about some viewpoint on the state of the rest of the world. I could be wrong in some viewpoint on the state of myself too, since it's not like I'm all-knowing in that regard either.

It might help you if you understand that I'm not coming from a viewpoint of believing in things like a soul, true self, free will, god, or etc. Those are nebulously constructed concepts that mean nothing when investigated deeply. Artifacts of the way the human mind processes information.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:58:01 2018 No.11270471 >>11270435 So make a claim

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 03:59:47 2018 No.11270475

>>11270465
>I'm not coming from a viewpoint of believing in things like a soul, true self, free will, god, or etc. Those are nebulously constructed concepts that mean nothing when investigated deeply.
Do you think truth could exist and a human could be ignorant of it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:01:03 2018 No.11270477 >>11270471 ur gay

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:04:10 2018 No.11270484

>>11270442
>My claim is that the ability to have subjective experience is completely beyond the mechanics of matter.
And I claim:
you dont have enough knowledge, evidence, understanding, to make that definitive claim

>I simply cannot conceive of how physical consciousness could be achieved.
>I simply cannot conceive
>I simply cannot conceive
A monkey simply cannot conceive how a car works. What you simply cannot conceive has nothing to do with anything

>increased complexity in electronic circuits,
Increased complexity/organization in electronic circuits, and increased complexity/organization in manipulating symbols/software/code

has granted them new capabilities.. over the last 60 years

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:05:45 2018 No.11270486 >>11270477 make a claim as to how you think consciousness exists/works

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:05:59 2018 No.11270487

>>11270475
Taking the common-sense definition of the word truth, yes.

Of course, if you're a post modernist or something you might question the definition of "truth", which is interesting as a line of thought but not what I'm getting at in this discussion.

But when I say truth, I'm just making the regular assumptions of the regular definition of the word -- that the universe exists and isn't just a big illusion, that it can be empirically described, that from that you can make verifiable assertions about it, etc.

So of course, in that sense I would say a human can be ignorant of some given truth, yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:06:30 2018 No.11270489 >>11269369 fpbp

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:06:48 2018 No.11270490 >>11270442 >completely beyond the mechanics of matter do you include 'light' in your definition of matter?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:07:37 2018 No.11270497 >>11270486 I already did

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:08:21 2018 No.11270501 >>11270435 >>11270442 you are turning the entire conversation about what consciousness could be and how it could work into: "I think consciousness is nonphysical, lets talk about that" What do you mean by nonphysical?

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:13:21 2018 No.11270523

>>11270501
You are artificially trying to define consciousness as either physical or non physical.
Is consciousness physical? No
Is consciousness nonphysical? No
Is consciousness physical and nonphysical? No
Is consciousness neither physical nor nonphysical? No

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:15:59 2018 No.11270530 The generative source of All

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:19:00 2018 No.11270538

>>11270463
I don't think it allows for it to be "better" explained. I think it cannot be explained otherwise. I think material explanations must be false.
I'm also open to the possibility that this means it is impossible to know how consciousness operates or anything else about it, from within our physical universe.

>>11270465
if consciousness equals its contents and conscious world equals physical world than the mind's contents must always be equal to the physical world. That was the proposition. Do you disagree with the predicate that "mind and its contents are functionally identical" or have I made some logic error (or neither)?

The things you say make sense, but you still haven't shown me how mind and matter are the same, being that subjective experience is such a peculiar and singular phenomenon.

>>11270484
I lay down a whole framework to show that electric circuits have one fundamental capability: to manipulate symbols. You ignore me, say complexity has given them new capabilities, and do not name them.

you have the burden to prove how complexity alone could endow matter with subjectivity, but instead you call me a monkey.

I'm done with you.

>>11270490
yes...

>>11270501
I mean consciousness is not any physical substance, nor an interaction of substances through the 4 fundamental forces.
(I'm just the second guy you referenced, btw)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:25:55 2018 No.11270556 >>11269366 Take the pantheism pill.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:35:30 2018 No.11270575

>>11270442
Consciousness as a mechanical concept relating to the physical is like the mechanical concept of information in physics. Even if it seems abstract it's not just possible and sensible, but necessary.

>>11270538
>if consciousness equals its contents and conscious world equals physical world than the mind's contents must always be equal to the physical world.

My minds contents are equal to the physical world, but only the finite part of the physical world that is also my mind.

Maybe the difficulty here is this word 'equal'. The contents of my mind are equal to the its physical contents in the sense that they're the same, yes. But random matter isn't perfectly self-knowing, or in general knowing of anything at all, first it has to be arranged in such a way that it computes information in some way. The way in which it computers information can be flawed. So my mind, calling it a sort of biological computer, is equal to itself, but it can still be a flawed computer. And since it knows things by the faculty of that computation, and not automatically, if it is arranged it such a way that is sometimes reaches false conclusions, even 'equal' to itself those conclusions are what it has, and can be false.

To illustrate, when photons hit a rock, there's no "vision" as we experience it there, because there's nothing done with that information. When my information processing system that my nervous system is computes that information, it is vision. The subjective experience of vision is equal to that physical processing, but it is still not necessarily accurate. The signals from my eye indicating the array and arrangement of photons that hit it might be false due to any kind of fluke, like near-nearsightedness, or etc.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:39:36 2018 No.11270590

>>11270538
>I lay down a whole framework to show that electric circuits have one fundamental capability: to manipulate symbols.
And consciousness has one fundamental capability, to manipulate symbols

>You ignore me, say complexity has given them new capabilities,
think about the computers from the 40s and 50s. anyway, fundamentally the computers may have the same concept as to how it goes about doing things: but qualitatively, and in terms of capability, there is a real, and big one, difference between autopilot flying a plane, and making a factory run, and the appearance of a video game, and robots.

But ok, the intial point was:
>increased complexity in electronic circuits, for example, doesn't grant them any fundamentally new capabilities.

Thee complexity, is the organization of the circuits, from minerals and metals. A complex proccess, of raw materials, perfecting, and planning and designing circuit board.

That is not a given. That is a complexity that is created that produces possibilities.

At one point (maybe...) the human (mammal) mind was not a given. Material existed... but it was not in the appropriate organization, to have the existence of human consciousness.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 05:04:53 2018 No.11270653

>>11270575
>but necessary
...in order to avoid the only other alternative: that consciousness is non-physical.

>So my mind, calling it a sort of biological computer, (...)
the mind that computes isn't consciousness. Are you conscious of how you brain arrives at 4 when asked what is 2+2?
The "computer" is the physical brain. you're conflating things.
>The subjective experience of vision is equal to that physical processing
...at this stage in the game and it's still just these basic aphorisms...
how. how does experience arise from the information processing? Is my laptop conscious?
how do you avoid the humunculus fallacy?

>>11270590
>And consciousness has one fundamental capability, to manipulate symbols
I suppose this has been our problem all along. You don't get my computer analogies because you don't understand how computers differ from human minds.
What's your honest (non-googled) definition of subjectivity?

> but qualitatively, and in terms of capability, there is a real, and big one, difference between autopilot (...)
You also don't seem to understand computers period. Computers of higher complexity performing more complex tasks is an almost dictionary example of a QUANTITATIVE difference. It's just more. more RAM, more FLOPS, more cores. Nothing fundamentally new being done, or being done in a fundamentally different way.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 05:27:45 2018 No.11270685

>>11270653
>how do you avoid the humunculus fallacy?

Well, like I already said, if you're applying that fallacy to the concept of self, I already don't think of the self as actually existing. So there's no regress of "self" to experience anything. Concepts like self, free will, etc are separate from actual reality and an artifice of how humans conceptualize reality. I'm already not viewing my body like a container for something else.

If you're talking about the mind-body dualism, I already told you they're the same thing. I don't need to reduce consciousness to matter. They're already the same, so within my conceptual framework the issue is dodged, or rather doesn't originally exist.

>how. how does experience arise from the information processing? Is my laptop conscious?

This is the part where it's a little trickier. Perhaps we should stop thinking of it terms of consciousness, which is a term loaded with connotations of human things like sentience and self-awareness, and start thinking of it as experience, or simply mind, or whatever the widest possible category for this kind of thing is.

How exactly it works mechanically doesn't invalidate my stance any more than the fact that we don't have a unified theory of physics doesn't invalidate the existence of the world described by what we have now. I do not claim to fully mechanically understand consciousness, just that in a meta-theoretical sense it isn't separate from matter.

My theory of "computation" is likely wrong in many ways, but it nevertheless shows that it can be explained in such a way that it isn't theoretically necessary for it to be impossible to make false statements if the mind and body are one and the same.

the mind that computes isn't consciousness. >Are you conscious of how you brain arrives at 4 when asked what is 2+2?
>The "computer" is the physical brain. you're conflating things.

It's the computer, the physical brain, and the consciousness. In empirical experience there's no indication they're separate. We only conceive of them as separate for philosophical reasons, but their correlation is one to one, so strictly speaking, all three are referring to the same thing.

Like different ways of walking to the same place.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 06:06:37 2018 No.11270757 >>11269434 gamers rise up

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 06:10:56 2018 No.11270769 >>11269369 Top kek

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 08:14:53 2018 No.11271082

>>11269366
It's processing of information in our brains itself. Nothing more. Hard problem of consciousness doesn't exist. Culadasa said so and I rather believe him than some random person trying to figure it out through pure reason while believing science is bullshit at the same time.
Had insight into nature of consciousness myself after meditation. I stopped idolizing it and realized everything you can say here about it must necessarily be effect of working of your brain.
Also there is problem of 'compactness'. Many people say 'consciousness' while thinking about 'consciousness + intellect + memory' but you cannot experience consciousness without either intellect or memory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 08:31:48 2018 No.11271121 >>11269369 Fpbp

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 08:32:20 2018 No.11271122 something greater than the sum of its parts

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 10:08:18 2018 No.11271380

Consciousness:
On a bright sunny July afternoon, ancestor anon kneeled down at the rivers bank to grab a refreshing, flourideless, drink of water, when looking back at him was something he had seen before. Instead of ancestor anon swiping at the water and running to inform the others of an outsider, he gently touched the water with his fingers and suddenly realized that that figure was himself: self awareness. He quickly informed the others of his discovery and the whole group gathered at the waters edge to discover themselves. He was saged and given a throne to which to rule from. Thus, consciousness became a meme and we are still trying to figure it out today.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 11:41:42 2018 No.11271712 That which consciousness allows is distinctly different from that which allows consciousness.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 11:49:39 2018 No.11271746
File: 83 KB, 960x741, Infinite reality - TheAbsolute-Unmanifest-Manifest-Individual.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11269366
Everything.

All is one bro.

Pathway of Negation: Who are you? What is experiencing?
- a Person?
- a Brain?
- a Spirit beyond the brain?
- an Observer?
- a Substratum of consciousness manifested as an observer?
- No-mind: Existence or No-existence?
- Christ-consciousness. All is consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 11:51:06 2018 No.11271755 >>11271746 Individual self -> Manifest Self -> Unmanifest Self -> The Absolute

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 11:58:38 2018 No.11271801

>>11271082
Intellect and memory is merely the products of our body.

It is a merely pragmatic for survival.

However, it does lead to the problem of self-consciousness, because we become enarmored by our own intellect and memory, and the assumption of seperation arises.

The dawn of the Ego: the assumption that one is the source of ones' own life.

Consciousness is thus not to be confused with the intellect and memory.

It is the pure being of I.

The timeless existense of ones' Self, which is only realized by surrendering ones' affection for life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 12:01:13 2018 No.11271815 >>11269366 When ure goin to the fridge at 3 am to get water and you step in a puddle in total darkness and it's peaceful

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 12:23:00 2018 No.11271938 >>11270120 Not sure why you think Option A is out. It's possible we could develop AI that is conscious. Though because of the hard problem we have no way of verifying if anything is actually experiencing qualia.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 13:12:26 2018 No.11272183

>>11270190
We have to set a concept of organism. The generally accepted limit between biotic and abiotic is RNA or a lipid membrane.

Following this I bet Virus may be movers of culture and history. Tiny little expressions of life which hijack more complex systems to do their work for them.

In the same way Mushrooms shape meadows and forrest.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 13:28:47 2018 No.11272255

>>11269972
>atoms are conscious but they are somehow, someway, doubling as the units of consciousness

I have put myself down this rabbit hole many times, and the only thing I can conclude is consciousness begins with a metabolism.
A metabolism is a state of wanting: more atoms, more energy, etc. A metabolism also tries to find ways to become more efficient and improve via feedback loops.

Atoms don't want more atoms, or more energy. Not really. Yes, an atoms form more complex structures, but that is a consequence of a lack of space, temperature, pressure, or rearranging of energy states. Not even to a lower energy states unlike a metabolism.

Now atoms however have properties like harmonic oscillation and bulk properties, so, for example, when atoms are forced to form Water due to being trapped in a rock face with carbon chain structure these bulk properties act forcing them to group like with like. This is a proto-metabolism. Not yet aware, but starting to "want" to lower it's entropy state.

The minute a lower entropy pathway is created in a lipid membrane, RNA, or catalyst we now have rudimentary awareness. Which stacks gives us a sliding scale of awareness: ant vs us.

I believe this allows atoms to act as "units of consciousness" by transmitting their properties in the systems which makes up metabolism. Think of it like atoms are operators projecting properties onto consciousness, but are not consciousness.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 14:55:02 2018 No.11272736

>>11270685
Ok, I've stuck with you, and read you as carefully as I could, but at the bottom I've found nothing. You reject dualism because you are content with the possibility that somehow consciousness arises out of complexity. That's enough for you.

Not for me. I cannot perceive other consciousnesses out there, and there is no mirror by which I might study my own. Therefore I cannot equate my consciousness with any physical phenomenon. I have no reason, no basis to do so. I must conclude it is fundamentally different and separate. A neuron sends and receives bio-electrical impulses. That is nothing to me, no different from dice knocking around in a cup or any other physical phenomenon. It has no relation whatsoever to the inexplicable sensation that I AM, I FEEL, I see, I hear, I think.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 14:56:49 2018 No.11272743 >>11269366 Off-topic.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 15:06:53 2018 No.11272793

>>11272736
>That is nothing to me, no different from dice knocking around in a cup or any other physical phenomenon. It has no relation whatsoever to the inexplicable sensation that I AM, I FEEL, I see, I hear, I think.

stick to your guns because this is infinitely more intuitive than the linguistic balloon animals the other guy's trying to pass off as an argument

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 15:15:06 2018 No.11272845 >>11269366 An illusion as all things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 15:17:24 2018 No.11272862 >>11272736 there is no reason to think that c is either a different substance, or just a feature of complexity. As in it could be either and there is no possible evidence for one or the other

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 15:18:42 2018 No.11272868 >>11269366 Me and only me

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 15:19:57 2018 No.11272875 >>11272736 >I cannot perceive other consciousnesses out there everything you perceive is consciousness dipshit

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 15:25:24 2018 No.11272894 >>11269366 is that image of a real place?

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 15:25:47 2018 No.11272896

>>11272862
Not quite. If you concede it can't emerge from complexity (or any other physical phenomena) you must conclude that it is non-physical.

>>11272875
You misunderstand. Yes, everything I perceive, I perceive with my consciousness, I mean to "perceive other consciousnesses" as in to empirically determine that another person or creature or artifact has subjective experience.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 15:54:01 2018 No.11273038

>>11272255
This makes sense. Michelstaedter attributes a rudimentary will to atoms and their being disposed to bonding only with atoms of certain elements. Even at this level we can discern some kind of "preference". Im not implying an atom thinks but there is something in it large-scale structures more unambiguously reveal

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 16:05:01 2018 No.11273085 >>11269556 There is no tyranny in the state of confusion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 16:07:37 2018 No.11273100 >>11271746 “I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. the will to a system is a lack of integrity.” - Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 16:44:51 2018 No.11273346 >>11272896 all you are is proud of your ignorance

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 16:46:45 2018 No.11273355 >>11273100 >I mistrust all systematizers writing any coherent thought is an act of systematizing

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 16:48:20 2018 No.11273368 >>11273346 Not an argument

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 16:54:13 2018 No.11273407 >>11273355 exactly

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 17:09:18 2018 No.11273483 File: 66 KB, 1000x1000, b7d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11269366 free will

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 17:11:06 2018 No.11273492 >>11273368 yes it is, you are proud of not knowing truth. You believe things that may be wrong, confidently

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 17:12:10 2018 No.11273498 An evolutionary trait meant to help us survive and reproduce, not unlike thumbs

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 17:13:15 2018 No.11273507

>>11273492
>>11273368
you are confident in your lack of knowing. You believe you are smart and intelligent and knowing, but you dont believe that you may be wrong. We are discussing difficulties and mysteries and complexities, and you have a simple answer you are emotional attached to and barge in here tossing it everywhere with the sole intention of more convincing yourself that you can ignore all points thrown in your way allowing you to proudly dwell in your proud accepted simple ignorance

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 17:17:23 2018 No.11273531 >>11273498 only self-conscious beings commit suicide. nonsensical argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 17:21:23 2018 No.11273562 >>11273483 chill hegel

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 17:52:13 2018 No.11273719 >>11269369 dabs

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:01:52 2018 No.11273762 >>11269369 oof

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:10:29 2018 No.11273808

>>11273498
Exactly! Though, considering the use of consciousness, it can't be a mere resource heavy observer - or as I like to think of such, a leech -, but it must be a user as well.

>>11273531
Thumbs allow for strangulation and a great multitude of suicide methods. The benefits greatly outweigh the harm, however. Though both opened up gates to realms beyond mere biology, which themselves have plenty of tar traps for humans. Self-defeating ideologies, parasitic entities, social viruses...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:15:38 2018 No.11273835 >>11273808 consciousness is not a survival strategy, consciousness is consciousness. your post reeks of a teleology. it isn't "meant" to do anything, it is what it is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:17:49 2018 No.11273844 >>11271746 >tfw infinite reality resembles a gigantic benis

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:18:24 2018 No.11273850

>>11273835
>our ancestors could afford to waste energy on a passive observer
>selection process didn't favor the more energy efficient ones, for whatever reason
Hmm. Either consciousness takes up no energy (aka. has no material component or relation, or has a higher hierarchical position upending the causality to be mind -> matter) or these leeches are useful.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:18:28 2018 No.11273851 File: 124 KB, 728x546, 1465019851800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11269434 >also, who gives a shit. go get laid

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:20:34 2018 No.11273863 >>11273850 why a passive observer at all? why does there have to be someone for whom a system is present "to"? why not just a planet of p-zombies? evolution doesn't explain boo

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:20:50 2018 No.11273865

>>11273835
Nothing about nature is passive. Society functions by turning some aspects in us on and some off. Violent impulses, symbols of power, consciousness, access to technology and information...
If you believe that consciousness is a passive phenomenon without any actual interaction, I have some good news for you: you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:22:15 2018 No.11273874 >>11273863 No, evolution explains this perfectly. P-zombies are on their way to Darwin award gala. All you need to do is advertise suicide, non-heterosexuality, abortion and infanticide.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:24:19 2018 No.11273884 >>11273874 Somehow I forgot determinism and atheism from the list.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:25:44 2018 No.11273895 >>11273874 what? are you agreeing with me?

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:27:50 2018 No.11273908

>>11273895
I think so. Consciousness is an active component in our biological existence, and as with all other factors, all passive traits are being selected out. Sure, it can be 'misused' and even ignored or opposed, but it remains a biologically beneficial factor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:28:15 2018 No.11273911 >>11273908 but that isn't sufficient to explain consciousness qua consciousness

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:32:49 2018 No.11273933

>>11273911
Evolution doesn't seem to favor the loss, inhibition and atrophy of consciousness, even though our social cues might indicate otherwise.
In fact, it seems that the current selection pressure is on those using their consciousness to breed consciously. Though there are other niches as well, such as those not in an internal contact with our perception sphere - such as niggers and 3rd worlders.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:59:14 2018 No.11274087 [SPOILER]

File: 65 KB, 763x572, 1528239554261.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11269650
>Y'all are brainlets.
>A conciousness is an entity consisting of that resides in a being
>A conciousness is an entity consisting of that resides in a being
>A conciousness is an entity consisting of that resides in a being

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 19:13:25 2018 No.11274162

Consciousness is the momentum of data pouring in a babies hardly conscious head and creating many moving images which are categorized and the movement of the images and categorization associations with feelings and value relations of the content of the images take on a life of their own inside the babies head, and the realness of their associations inside and out create a thickness of realness in: so the images inside and relations to objects outside, the need for desiring certain things, valuing and not valuing objects, and their movements and relations, creates a rhythm and momentums of see:need:want:get: object outside:image inside: scale of value:

and the activity of this network system of sensation parts which are able to take data from outside and declare that it has intrinsic meaning to the body (that apple tastes good! those potatoes made you feel good! that water made you feel better!: The parts of the body which seek these materials to continually repair and establish itself: send their declarations to the head: which correlates these declarations with the data it receives from the vision of objects (and smells, and taste)) are images:declarations:moving images:associated with signal/feeling/declaration of value: the atoms/neurons/braincells pass all these signals and images: and their projecting of these things in a part of them,

is the awareness that we are.

We are a baby, who has had a head, with the potential of moving images:value associations: to by little degrees, crammed inside it, and the moving images took on a life of their own, and we are the life they took on, we are the brain cells and neurons provoked into extreme enough motion and data sharing and proximity and networking, to light up the head, with mirrors and prisms and memory banks, and coordinations, for the system to have so much data, so coherently organized, and reflected, and bound, and a constant stream of light pouring in the eyes, and constant energy maintenance, abundance, that the atoms which have an impression of an image, an apple, tossed against them, like the game telephone pass the idea on to the next, and to the next, and to the next, until so many atoms are full of this idea, and one molecule cant fully represent the idea, maybe 5 can, but it can be better represented by 1000s and millions more together (like 8bit, 64bit, ...) and so the representation grew larger and larger and more accurate in relation to details of the outerworld, until part of the molecules had a full accurate representation, and tossed it against other connected molecules which then received that full accurate representation, and then tossed it back and forth: while the first half stored the representation in memory, so then could expect, and recognize what was being tossed to them, and there another section of molecules that would detect the motion of the information representation being tossed between those two sections, to get a different vantage point,

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 19:15:13 2018 No.11274167 >>11269369 /thread

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 19:21:24 2018 No.11274192

>>11274162
the vision of an apple is seered on a data collection membrane: conciousness is just the data of light, the images of objects being passed around, and the passing of them around being collections of molecules that experience a different reaction when they are met with the data seer light impression of an apple, than with an orange, and how they react when they are hit with the apple, is like throwing an apple at a fire pit, and certain sparks go in the air (but the mind is a much finer subtler firepit with more orderly and sensitive sparks): the light hits the molecules that are the apple, and the light is impressed upon the body of the apple and then sent away: same for the orange, and their bodies molecules are different so the light that bounces off them are different.. those differences hit molecules in the head, which react differently according to those differences, and the differences of those reactions, is the creation of the vision of an apple, and the creation of the vision of an orange,

The movement of the difference of signal through the different types of molecules in the head, produces the imagery of what the signal represents, and these signals touch upon the instrument of the brain material in such away as to play particular songs, and the playing of the songs is the inner molecules experiencing the data that is interacting with them: my seeing an apple, when I say me, the thinker, is the molecules in my head, seeing the light that bounced off an apple once, hit the molecules in my head, and impress it with apple qualities.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 19:35:45 2018 No.11274247

>>11274192
>is the molecules in my head, seeing the light that bounced off an apple once, hit the molecules in my head, and impress it with apple qualities.
Like those Korean (other people do em too) stadium shows with all the people holding up different cards to create a big image

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 20:02:50 2018 No.11274339 however a small multi or singled cell organism (reacts to stimuli, and can choose to go left or right depending on what sensations touch them) is what consciousness is, for us on a large scale

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 20:10:58 2018 No.11274378

>>11274339
>however a small multi or singled cell organism (reacts to stimuli, and can choose to go left or right depending on what sensations touch them) is what consciousness is, for us on a large scale
is there some kinda 'post gibberish on /lit/'-meme going on today?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 20:27:12 2018 No.11274455 >>11274378 I'd say it's a /sci/ raid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 21:46:38 2018 No.11274902 File: 24 KB, 400x397, 1527824118627.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11274378 >what I am too deficient to understand is objectively gibberish

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 22:08:23 2018 No.11275055 how does consciousness develop in a baby that is deaf and blind from birth? Any cases of, without taste, or sensation?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 22:27:12 2018 No.11275152 >>11274339 Mechanical analysis hasn't been able to answer any questions regarding the experience of anything, much less consciousness. However, you seem to have told us the function of consciousness instead.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 23:48:32 2018 No.11275563 >>11269557 first chapter of the selfish gene kinda talks about this in a neat way. "Waking Up in the Universe"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 23:50:04 2018 No.11275570 >>11275563 the selfish gene is such an absolutely comfy book. he's got another one where he goes backwards through the entire evolutionary tree to the beginning of life and it's also top tier comfiness

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 23:58:44 2018 No.11275601 >>11269366 Conglomerate of qualia, which itself is an inherent property of collapsing wave functions dabs

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 01:14:38 2018 No.11275904 >>11269373 Actual good reply getting no (You)s due to epin post above

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 01:15:46 2018 No.11275909 File: 7 KB, 250x250, 10155306570280286.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11269434 >go get laid

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 01:18:24 2018 No.11275920 File: 447 KB, 1620x1080, plitvicka_jezera.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11272894 I'd like to know too

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 01:34:13 2018 No.11276000 >>11275055 Oliver sacks goes into this in his book Seeing Voices. However, if consciousness is interdependent on our senses, then I suppose our conscious would then formulate around the nexus of our remaining sensations.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 03:16:17 2018 No.11276287 >>11269373 >no conversation centered around this answer okay, I'm leaving lit forever, you are all fucking retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 04:31:44 2018 No.11276519 youll know when you see it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 04:35:08 2018 No.11276528 File: 31 KB, 513x399, nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11273355 dude

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 04:44:10 2018 No.11276550 >>11269587 >MOM LOOK HOW DEEP I AM

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 07:33:41 2018 No.11277009 >>11269373 Bullshit, even if you had 1 sense you'd still be conscious

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 08:04:35 2018 No.11277100 the mind's shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 08:05:47 2018 No.11277106 why bother talking about something which cannot be proved

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 11:16:40 2018 No.11277734 >>11270010 they're*

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 12:35:05 2018 No.11278046 >>11277106 There's nothing to indicate that inaction is the reasonable position.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 12:50:57 2018 No.11278124
File: 87 KB, 600x927, Ong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11270007
>just incorporate all of it into our definition of 'physical'.

You are missing the point that I was trying to make. Certain discoveries alter our frame of consciousness so widely that we have to renew our understandings of things and systems of things within a spectrum of new classes and categories. The new physical definition is already relative to linguistic fluctuation, being useful to brainlets.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 13:15:45 2018 No.11278258
File: 69 KB, 426x650, CricketGod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11276000
>>11276287
>if consciousness is interdependent on our senses, then I suppose our conscious would then formulate around the nexus of our remaining sensations.

Lets just get to the part where we talk about plant neuro-biology, what it is like to be a bat, then accept that each consciousness within a group has predictability and that doesn't mean that each is Not specifically complex and unique - the setting apart or obscuring through grouping is only a useful method of finding different perspectives on some thing in order to idealise an image to capture the essentials, truth-to-nature.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 13:28:33 2018 No.11278317 >>11269434 based

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 13:40:45 2018 No.11278356
File: 206 KB, 380x364, Infans_Philosophicus_tres_agnoscit_patres,_ut_Orion.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11271082
>I stopped idolizing it and realized everything you can say here about it must necessarily be effect of working of your brain.
Interesting. But it's when the workings of your brain meet the reality of the universe in a manner that gives you indoor plumbing, hot showers, that you allow your brain to find reason to idolize itself and want to understand it so as to reveal more pathways to our ends.
>It's processing of information in our brains itself.
How does the information end in projection of experience? How does this information sort itself? Can I tweak an information set for a rabbit to always be attributed with two periods and an easy on the (X)?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 13:59:33 2018 No.11278455 >>11272894 >>11275920 Looks to me like Rainbow Falls near the Devil's Postpile on the john muir trail

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 16:18:16 2018 No.11279156 >>11269366 I don't think it's a book

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 16:20:55 2018 No.11279172 >>11277009 Then that would still be the sum of all your senses

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 16:23:19 2018 No.11279183 >>11269366 Consciousness is life, we are life. You are not your body or mind, these are only tools that your consciousness (life) uses. We are all one life expericing reality in the ever present now moment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 19:06:35 2018 No.11279987 >>11269369 i actually disagree

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature