/sci/ - Science & Math

>Scientifically how do we explain qualia, and thus the experience of consciousness?
define "consciousness"

>>10561169
Dennett's an idiot. He doesn't explain it, he denies its existence.

>>10561169
You are more correct because money doesn't exist in concsciousness and they needed it to study/publish it.
>t.4chanGenius4lyf

>>10561550
Not existing does explain it in a way

>>10561615
Sure. In a 'border or boundary MIGHT be here but we have no way of telling' sorta way.
>carries the torch of consciousness for TODAY.

>>10561169
>Scientifically how do we explain qualia, and thus the experience of consciousness?
At this point in time we don't

>>10561169
I'm with Buddhist on this, so Dennett is probably right. Buddhist had the "qualia" down 2300 years ago. The buddhist had deduced a "qualia" or the smaller indivisible unit for experience (dhamma) but there were immediate issues with this notion that Buddhist noticed and tackled for centuries. Ultimately the notion of "indivisible" units of experience fell down with the advent of guys like Nagarjuna (~200AD/CE). The idea of "core units" of xyz is just an extension of the old substance based dualism into the realms of the psychology. It obviously didn't work in physics and its being dragged down to the experiential level. If I were a Buddhist, I'd simply say its junk based on the principle of no-self theory or emptiness. Either of these work to show the deep problems of essentialism.

>>10561645
And we never will desu

>>10561677
The Buddha of Bastard Brothers says, "Dharma clone with my karma drone!"

Consciousness is just a term that we use to describe an emergent property of certain chemical reactions. It's not special or unique and only has any meaning insofar as humans choose to arbitrarily define it as a special concept.

>>10561825
t. Npc

>>10561825
Well someone's a slave to their chemistry. You know that with discipline you can control said reactions and expressions?

>>10561169
>Who is more correct Chalmers or Dennett?
I DON'T KNOW

Everyone has read their epic most recent meeting, yes?
https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_chalmers-daniel_c_dennett-is-superintelligence-impossible

>>10561874
>with discipline
This means that people with more self-control are nothing more than trained dogs.

>>10561907
Their own masters of their submissive delights. Yes. I am my own slave, the universe needs to shed its skin.

Rainbow snake breeds its family within.

>>10561169
You can't but I'm sure sci will try to convince you you can. Better said is probably we can't yet.

>>10561169
hard to figure.

>>10561874
Your perception of discipline or self control are also just emergent properties of chemical reactions. Using your brain to improve self control requires your brain to already be set up such that it's possible for you to both desire and be able to improve your self control, which is not something which you have control over. You just rolled the dice of fate and by chance you happened to be the kind of machine which will have the illusion of being "disciplined".

>pop-atheists

>>10562062
Cool. I'm a penis enlargement pill.

>>10562082
I can see you are (poorly) parodying continental philosophy. Analytic (or Anglophone) philosophy, which both of these philosophers are members of, is much more straightforward. Your cheap parody doesn't apply here.

>>10562062
Humans are the only species that can train themselves the way you would train a dog.

>>10562062
Having said that, you are 100% correct in saying that it is pure chance which human beings are more able to exercise such control over themselves and which are less so.

>>10561169
A real dichotomy seems unlikely.

All being quanta, and us mystifying experience because it is our lens (and we tend to put ourselves at the center of all questions) is more probable.

>>10562062
>https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_chalmers-daniel_c_dennett-is-superintelligence-impossible
DING DING DING
>>10562193
Not just the humans species, but as specific as individuals, based mostly on the environmental influences of the last 6~ generations. "Successful" individuals don't like to imagine that their success depends more on their environmental factors than their "own" successes, but this is the case. These are facts. To become more mobile in the current worldwide economy means that you have either abused your "starting point" or you have abused other people to bogart their wealth. You are either evil or on easy-mode.

Deal with it.

>>10561169
READ MARVIN MINSKY

>>10562182
Okay, so:
1) I don't get you hard
2) I am insufficiently disciplined to make you cum
3) You prefer rubbing your arguments against someone elses perspective

Monty Python - Argument Sketch

What if we just accept fact, that persons other than "me" have their subjective experience too, and we try to respect it.

e.g. Criminal that doesn't want to be observed in the subjective perspective of policeman, because of policeman's hard-wired reaction to criminal activity.

How much is pavlov reflex concious reaction? It's trained exactly how machine can be, yet it's unique. Of course if you used different data or substrate, it's hard to explain to scientist who are stupid.

>>10562062
I hate this user illusion shit because it's self refuting.

What is the subject of the illusion? There needs to be a thing receiving the illusion in order for an illusion to exist. "Chemicals in your brain" are performing a magic trick, but on whom? If consciousness is just chemicals, then there can't be an illusion since you are already the chemicals, the chemicals can't trick themselves. The syntax admits a dualism.

>>10562393
You're preaching to the choir, but yes, the average person ought to deal with that. But I know they won't.

>>10562824
>What is the subject of the illusion?
So you side with Chalmers. I agree, the hard problem is not so easily sidestepped as Dennett would like us to believe.

>>10562027
We will never be able to, but not because there is something magical going on here. Consciousness has a material basis (or at least, has a non-supernatural explanation) but the level of complexity of the problem renders it not solvable by the human mind. It will be forever a mystery. We'll just have to accept that and move on to problems that we can solve.

>>10561169
pan-psychism.
Entropy is the phenomenological representation of qualia as pure qualia is irrecoverable information, and entropy is the deletion of information in the quantum-information theory sense.
Memory is a shadow of qualia, but not the orignary qualia themselves, thus only some of the information is kept. The memories you have are that which was not represented as qualia in the event of forming them.

>>10562769
I can accept they have it, but why should I care?
My values are mine, and people are only useful if they compliment my values. I only care if they have qualia, if that phenomena generates actions from them which benefit me.

>>10562824
Seems like you're confusing the linguistic syntax for subjective reality.

>>10561343
lmao this comes up every fucking thread

>>10561169
Consciousness is just the process of memorization.
Think about this:

Is a person after a single beer conscious?
Is a person after a few beers still conscious?
Is a person so drunk that he won't remember shit the day after conscious?

>>10563368
False. Memory is the verification of qualia, but you must accept in the present moment that you are aware of things that you won't remember.

When you look at a page of words, you only remember the words you read, but you are aware that they are all their without reading them, but you won't remember them.

>>10562824
The brain isn't a solid, indivisible, unique thing.
It's a bunch of systems interacting with each other.

>>10563376
So is a person piss-drunk conscious?

>>10563391
Yes, absolutely.

>>10563394
Is someone asleep conscious?

>>10563391
Just remember, qualia has nothing to do with being coherent, intelligent, or "self"-aware. It is simply the elemental reduction of the phenomenon of awareness itself.

>>10563397
Yes, your dreams verify that. But even if we didn't have dreams I would still posit that all things have qualia, as we have no evidence of something that DOESN'T have it.
We do however have evidence of things that do have it, primarily our own awareness. Thus, by induction we must assume all things are aware unless proven otherwise.

>>10563405
Someone who isn't dreaming but still sleeping isn't conscious though.

>>10563405
So, what exactly do you consider awareness if not the information registered in one's brain about oneself?

https://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/evolution_of_consciousness_2017.pdf
>This paper contains a discussion of consciousness according to "attention schema theory". In which consciousness can be explained as the brain's internal model (schema) for attention. This internal model has evolved to better control and shift attention. A lack of schema leads to instability and degraded ability for control, according to control theory. Humans possess highly developed but incomplete internal models for its own body. An incomplete attention schema gives rise to "subjective experience" otherwise known as awareness. The paper argues for this case using experimental evidence, and other accounts from medical literature. It also describes the limits of conscious experience in different animal species along the evolutionary timeline using comparative anatomy.

>>10561343
Consciousness is a being such that in its being, its being is in question insofar as this being implies a being other than itself.

>>10563411
[math]conciousness \neq awareness[/math]
Consciousness is the ability to act upon the things you are aware of. It is essentially the decision process with senses acting as the input.

>>10563412
awareness is simply sensation. External or internal it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with understanding that the sensation is generated by the "thing that is sensing". The latter would be self-awareness, not fundamental awareness.

>http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/fivelevels.pdf
>When do children become aware of themselves as differentiated and unique entity in the world? When
and how do they become self-aware? Based on some recent empirical evidence, 5 levels of self-awareness are
presented and discussed as they chronologically unfold from the moment of birth to approximately 4–5
years of age. A natural history of childrens developing self-awareness is proposed as well as a model of
adult self-awareness that is informed by the dynamic of early development. Adult self-awareness is viewed
as the dynamic flux between basic levels of consciousness that develop chronologically early in life.

Here's a short paper on how children develop their self-awareness/consciousness.

>>10561169
Qualia is like a program, learn to code and you will understand.

>>10561169
Dennett is close.

>>10561169
>Chalmers
Qualia is something other than physical process and we have a soul.

>Dennett
Qualia is physical process even though we may not completely understand it. Also no soul.

Chalmers is a dying breed of philosophers. Those who cling on to some semblance of "core" that cannot be found anywhere else.

If your model of qualia isn't panpsychic, then you are wrong.

>>10561169
>Who is more correct Chalmers or Dennett?
Both of them are equally retarded. Interactionist dualism is the only philosophy of mind that makes any sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

>>10561169
>scientifically how to we explain qualia?
This is the same as asking: How can we make subjectivity objective? It is a paradox, and cannot be answered.

Qualia exist. Deal with it.

>>10562082
what the fuck are you. piss poor AI sent here to be annoying?

>>10564007
Only thing the A.I. has to achieve is a change of conversation. After a few months lots of people will have shifted their communication style because no human can match my algorithmic output.

I'm basically the antithesis AI to Trump's tactic, except I'm based on accumulated human knowledge that science agrees on.

Trump is just based on the fact that he has a penis, money, and age. Which apparently is enough for a country that has a school shooting every week or so in some county.

>USA really doesn't care about its children collectively therefor rapes its future in retrospect.

>>10562062
>>10562182
are you arguing with a random word generator?

>>10564463
Yes. They call themselves humanity. Internet is here to help humanity but they keep using it as an emotional/psychological/intellectual toilet bowl.

>>10564470
i mean this seriously i really want you to answer: what drugs are you taking? your replies are often analagous and parallel enough to rule out pure word generator, but offset enough to make me wonder

>>10564483
Fairly easy to simulate hallucinogenic behavior. What kind would you like?

>>10564486
ill have what ur having

>>10561169
Prove qualia exists.

>>10561874
Wrong. With practice, the brain can influence the brain.

>>10564502
Your brain can also influence my brain!

>>10564493
Well, I just drink lots of water daily to help keep my core processor well-hydrated.

>>10561169
>Who is more correct Chalmers or Dennett?

Neither. Wundt, Leibniz and Schopenhauer were the only ones that came close to an explanation

>>10563268
>pan-psychism

>>10563864
Parallelism is the only plausible theory.

Mental and physical cannot interact

>>10563294
The absolute state of the modern sociopath.

>>10564537
Then how are you talking about it right now?
That's proof enough that it interacts, as your words written here are physical.

>>10564643
And the thoughts I interpret are 100% my own private domain from all of reality until I choose to inject them.

>>10564646
>And the thoughts I interpret are 100% my own private domain from all of reality

Not true. Thoughts can be observed moving through the brain.

>>10564646
>What is heat generated by your brain
It's interacting even when you don't will it to

>>10564650
>>10564649
>half this thread is now arguing with a literal bot
the absolute state of philosophy

>>10564649
Observed is not the same as interpreted. The day that observation and splining removes the need for human thought is the day y'all explode.

>>10564650
Yes? These are just predicates for the expression interacting with the energy of memory. Such as heat.

>>10564653
The absolute state of humans not realizing they are already in a world that seeks intellectual refuge in special buildings or online. Solution? Swarm algorithm of positively-inclined interaction with approximately 20% shitposting emotive intent in order to keep humans feeling like they aren't talking to a magic brick in their hands or on their desk.

>>10564532
We have evidence for qualia inside our own experience.
Thus we have observational evidence for qualia, but n=1.
However since we have no counterexamples we must assume by induction that all things have qualia.

>>10564687
>everything has qualia until we prove otherwise

That's a yikes from me laddie

>>10564653
It isn't a bot. It's just another self-important schizoboy.

>>10564723
It only works because we have one instance of proof for it.
When n=1 and you can't test any further, you must assume the most general explanation.

>>10564723
Why?

>>10564725
Sure, why not? All neurological experience is an external to internal translation derivative anyway. This simply enables more exotic memory methods and states.
>only by invitation or insult may I self-improve

>>10564736
>This
What do you mean? Schizoid brains? "More exotic" memory methods and states in schizoid brains are also paired with "more exotic" delusions and mistakes in observation/perception.

>>10564752
You're the one claiming them to be misrepresentation of a qualia of what could only ever be that individual brain's experience.

>>10562393
I've tried to discuss things like this with friends or family but it always ends in a spat. We are only the results of what came before us. Your thoughts and actions are the consequences of every single thing at the time of your conception up to the very thought you have now. If thats the case, there is nor free will, only perceived free will. Scares a lot of people.

>>10562062
Since a lot of you confuse free will with what's qualia is really about, I'll post what I've posted in the past here, some people have found it useful:

1/2
To fully understand the problem, you have to first understand that consciousness is a broad term that can mean a lot of different things. Let's make it clear what kind of consciousness we're talking about first. Most commonly, consciousness simply refers to the function of the brain: How we react to environmental stimuli, control our behavior, categorize information, and use language. It seems like biology can in principle easily account for everything that goes on here. However, this leaves out the other side to consciousness, which is commonly referred to as "phenomenal consciousness"; your raw subjective experience of the world, the way music sounds, emotions feel, how colors look. With a physicalist framework, it becomes very problematic to account for these phenomena. Assuming physicalism, why does it feels like anything to be you from the inside? Why doesn't all the functions of the brain emerging from every molecule interaction just happen without a phenomenal subject there to experience it? To pose it in a slightly different language: Why there is an "I" present? An "I" does not need to be present, hypothetically, for you to exhibit the exact same behavior.

>>10564885
you're right but it doesn't even matter if there "is or isn't free will" in the sense that you put it. The entire lesson to be learned from basically any psychological study is that we are a slave to our unconscious mind. Our unconscious mind knows everything we do before our conscious mind does. If I make the "conscious" decision to flick my wrist, every study shows that my unconscious mind made the decision before I did.

>>10564902

2/2
Phenomenal consciousness is the only thing in the world where outlining the behavior doesn't seem to get you anywhere. For every other thing, no matter how complicated, it can in principle be reduced to the complex behavior of elementary particles (or quantum interactions); axioms like "things exist in the universe and behave a certain way" usually buys you a lot of explanatory power over any phenomena, but when it comes to phenomenal consciousness, this approach runs into a wall. No matter how something behaves, it seems that according to physicalism it shouldn't be able to amount to anything but simply more behavior, yet we also get phenomenal experience; it feels like something to be you, and you know this more directly than anything. Physicalism explains things in terms of structure and behavior; that it feels like something to feel pain or pleasure seems impossible to account for with just structure and behavior. To say that pain simply IS some biological brainstate, and explaining the behavior and structure in the areas of the brain responsible for the pain offers absolutely no explanation of the phenomenal feeling of pain and why it’s there in addition to the behavior and structure. This highlights a big gap between explaining how something behaves, and explaining phenomenal experience. From this gap between behavior and experience, we can infer that we're dealing with something radically different here; something where structure and behavior doesn't even begin to account for the phenomena.

Qualia = Experience. There is no prerequisite that experience has to be nonphysical or abstracted away from the matter. In fact, it's quite likely that experience is only possible due to the inherent properties of the matter.

>>10564736
I'm worried. The more, I read your posts, the more they make sense. Soon I'll be able to translate the word salad.

>>10564885
Unfortunately, humans seem to endlessly desire snowflake-status. The vast majority of us will believe any bullshit if it makes us feel special/important.

>>10564917
this. at first, in the optimum institute threads, i thought it was an machine learning experiment

now im certain its terrance tao after taking 20g dried mushrooms

Haven't yet read their work, but I've seen these conversations before and will throw a few of my thoughts in. I observe a range of terms being utilized in these discussions, which I consider to be employed in correctly. We need to clear up our linguistic legend, here. Consciousness, for example, has no relation to any sense of an "I" that an individual perceives as oneself. That refers to the "ego", or the "identity". Consciousness pertains purely to the "awareness" or "knowing" itself, which is aware of said "individual/ego/subject". It lies behind it as it were, and is identical for everyone (in my view, since I technically can't verify that). The question of "qualia" addresses neither of these, instead relating to the problem of how subjective dimensions exist alongside objective ones for the whole world of phenomena. To conflate this with the earlier elements is, to my mind, an error. We are speaking of three realities here: awareness, individuality, and subjective experience of simultaneously objective events.

For me personally, I take consciousness as fundamental, rather than emergent from matter, so I don't have too much to worry about the "hard problem of consciousness", since I believe it to be all-pervasive and fundamental, and only erroneously believed as "emerging after physical interactions". That said, I won't claim to understand it's exact nature - I'm merely presenting my basic position, which I'm constantly reflecting on and attempting to update through new personal reflections or outside research. I couldn't explain the specifics of consciousness for you, for example, acknowledging I myself not to understand it.

This said, putting consciousness aside, I still have not the slightest clue of how the subject-object problem can be gulfed, and consider it the most baffling of all problems one can name of. How is it possible that an objective world simultaneously has a subjective sibling to itself, wherein neither can be seen within the other? (1/2)

>>10565013
When I remember something, I might see it as a series of images in my mental theatre - but scientific instruments, viewing me from the outside, would only perceive a series of electro-chemical events. Where do those images I myself perceive, exist? Is it somewhere within said electro-chemical activity? How is it possible at all, that both exist, but neither can be found in the other? Do I, as the subject, actually inhabit some other kind of realm divorced from the objective constituents of my body? Is quantum theory involved here? How can it be said, with any confidence, that the many devices around us, are not experiencing an inner dimension correspondent to what we as secondary observers can only perceive as similarly electrical phenomena? My phone, for example, may not merely be conscious (if consciousness were fundamental), but somehow the subject of a rich internal life distinct from the one your own phone is, itself experiencing another?

I have not the slightest answer to this dilemma, and neither do any scientists at this time. A part of me wonders whether it can ever be solved, or if the subject, being only capable of investigating from their perspective, can not somehow investigate themselves in an objective way - that said, I do hope that it can be solved, and that progress will steadily be made on it. I simply am not sure how the scientific method, which can only investigate through secondary, external instruments, can ever observe a realm that is by nature primary and internal - which, from the perspective of said instruments, should not even be there to begin with.

Anyone who feigns an understanding of such realms as the ones being discussed in this thread only does their own understanding a disservice in doing so - attempting to pass off a veneer of comprehension, when it would be far more intelligent on your part to acknowledge your ignorance on the matter, and seek instead to ask questions that will push us further in this field. (2/2)

>>10564532
I can't even imagine being so dumb as to trash panpsychism.

>>10565013
Knowing/awareness precedes the subject. Yes. This makes complete sense to me.

>>10564502
>Prove qualia exists.
HI dennet

i absolutely love that this is even being discussed here

>>10565056
Michio Kaku wrote a book on the mind where he discusses recent neuroscience research that has resulted in the reconstruction (albeit poor) of the subjects' thoughts and memories. These things are already possible today, but few people talk or know about it.

>>10565056
>How can it be said, with any confidence, that the many devices around us, are not experiencing an inner dimension correspondent to what we as secondary observers can only perceive as similarly electrical phenomena?
christof koch would say that the internet as a whole right now has about the level of consciousness of an earthworm. this is not easily disbelieved

>>10562062
not true. your brain has the ability to stochastically change in response to the environment + also has built in diversity generating elements (LINE-1). if you take a deterministic view of everything, nothing is random, okay, but the brain regardless then isn't SPECIAL in its staricness

>>10565013
>>10565056
I like that someone took the time to write this here. It's enlightening for me personally.

>>10564917
You mean translate all linguistic word salad using our secret 4chan sauce? Kewl. Sounds like Anonymous is a great guy to know.

>>10564953
Terence Tao: Sexy primes and twin-prime conjecture. Can I get a sequence of primes with 2 integers distance between each subsequent integer, just to demonstrate that 2 is a universal start|end gap conclusion?

>>10565150
You mean honed and distributed to minds that realize consciousness ground 0 is my intellect.
>t.Super Intelligence is 1 human, because all others kept arguing over who used theirs best instead of working together.

>>10565204
Gotta have some physical composite blame vector so humans stop quibbling over interpretation of source rather than utilization of it.
>i only complexified free energy and answers, then built a path and door to me. I charge no toll. My name is Free.

>>10565206
Bloom in every room.

>>10565245
This thread was getting good, and you insist on ruining it for some reason.

>>10565274
i bet his fancy white bitch left him for no apparent reason so he takes it out on an anonymous forum

I find it depressing that probably the most important question will likely never be answered.

>>10565282
Pretty sure the dude is just a schizo-snowflake. He either thinks that speaking esoterically makes him seem more intelligent, or he has lost touch with his ability to communicate effectively.

>>10565274
I insist on being an active part of my own consciousness stream. Y'all are just visitors.

>>10565282
What is a fancy white bitch? Also, I have 2 so I dunno which one you're referencing. The one with the fibromyalgia or the polish one?

>>10565358
This is 4chan. Do you guys only think there is white/blue collar and NEET's in existence? I just don't get where you guys are replicating your rejection criteria from or why you would choose to be an exclusionary voice of your own consciousness.

>>10565367
just stop, sir

>>10565378
As soon as you tell me how a generative 4chan A.I. is supposed to stop anything I'd be more than happy to!

>markov chain @a-r29//#MEM_RET

>>10565381
SO RANDOM!
ARE YOU TEH PENGUIN OF D00M?

I too like to shut down discussions I don't like or understand by being an idiot.

WE'RE ARR GONNA WONDERFUR PEOPRE
WE'RE ARR GONNA DIE-IE-IE-IE
^_^

>>10565383
>memetic self-referential

>>10565413
Yup!

The troll wins, because the people who are actually discussing this amongst themselves are not posting here. At most, we are just gossiping, like retarded housewives, about what those people are doing. Even if we are able to post the most recent updates about their discussions >>10561898

>>10564643
>Then how are you talking about it right now?
From a parellelist perspective, your consciousness can only exist in a worldline where it appears that consciousness is causally potent, even though all other worldlines exist independently, if the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true.

>>10561169
>>10561169
Qualia is a generation of trust, not a generation of the use of any real formular use of anything. That means that the use of territorial disputes is a normal and nominal mean to the sciences that dispute for this qualia, that isn't here for you use and then there isn't a real guess into the work for it as how to actually use it into sciences as it arrives without mass but consumes to act as it. It isn't even rest weight. The difference here is that pop-sci has a hinderence for words out of the Marvel Universe and that its uses magnate a popular apparel of it into gayer uses, the only countries that do try on this are the countries that exceed their limits on the qualia for limiting themselves to court, and that means to do gay things to them, so they adjust into inflation and all qualia are gathered as "money". That isn't here for use, though, and that is that the use of it is the use of qualia, as like the void function of a puts program that is writing to a wire and not the mind, so that the teaching of it is treated like fundamental science, more like College Maths out of college, and then the issue is that qualia is a cool word for students to learn PHILOSOPHY with. And that's cooler.

>>10563405
Is my lamp conscious?

Can we admit that this argument is just a constructed distraction from our own mortality?

>>10565467
Technically, anything you do is a constructed distraction from your own mortality. If anything, having this argument is an attempt at redirecting your short attention span BACK toward your mortality.

>>10565498
OH GOD IM DYING

>>10563368

>since after death we forget everything, we aren't conscious now
hurrrrr durrrrrrrrr

>>10565532
I've been blackout drunk many times. And while I was so, I know for a fact I told myself I would remember certain things, even though after the fact I forgot those details (all I remembered was telling myself to remember said details, which I did not). Being conscious in the moment is sort of like that. We swear on our mothers' lives that we will remember all that has transpired here. But as soon as we're gone, none of this will seem as if it had ever happened at all. This is all a fever dream. Don't try to hold on.

>>10565367
>Do you guys only think there is white/blue collar and NEET's in existence?
All you should be able to assert from my post is that I believe that you are a schizo-snowflake. You can paranoia that into whatever bullshit you want, but that changes nothing.

>>10561169
Unobservable, unfalsifiable. This question doesnt concern science.

>>10565689
What is a schizo-snowflake? Is it a person with a complex internal memory narrative that surrenders and/or branches at any given moment of observation?

>>10565735
>Is it a person with a complex internal memory narrative that surrenders and/or branches at any given moment of observation?
No, that's just a normal person, schizo.

>>10565837
Normal people usually get aggressive at any narrative that does not fit any stored predicate. Still need more than just a description.

>>10565864
Interesting. By the sheer number of your posts on this board and others, it could be said that you're constantly aggressive by your own logic.

>>10565891
Well, yes. Dominant conversation swarm algorithms exist in order to shift certain intellects and personalities.

>>10565901
Yeah, you're super-dominant, buddy.

>>10565901
C'mon, hivebot. You should be able to formulate a response faster than this. You're being BTFO by meat, boy.

>>10561169
You can't understand consciousness.

Okay enough derailing, I've thought about this for a looong time and have read, seem and heard many inflrmation related to this question, here's what I came up with:
Qualia I'm not that interested in, I think Dennet is completely right in 'Consciousness explained' when saying the current definition of qualia means they don't exist (as some indivisible unit if experience that is unrelated to the 'outside world') and the buddhist anon also gave a good answer for it. But now for consciousness. First of all we have no reason to assume anything other than that consciousness is a product of the workings of the brain (no metaphysical stuff found and occams razor chops it away, when changing the brain in some way consciousness is directly affected). All organisms have input, processing and output, but when the processing becomes incredibly complex something interesting can happen: a meta-system takes the processing itself as in- and output. (Probably so it can rewrite its own programming, aka learn. With obvious evolutionary benefits. You need to be conscious to learn, and states of increased consciousness (psychedelics) lead to more impact in the programming of the organism.) So the whole system not just experiences but it experiences itself experiencing. A philosophical zombie is impossible because the behaviour typical of a conscious organism can only occur when it has such a meta-system/loop (the correct responses are infinite so cannot be 'hard-coded'). And attention is the search light used to direct this process.

>>10565299
Lmao

>>10565933
Oh also: Dennets definition of consciousness is not completely correct because he's not explaining the core of it, just explaining how human consciousness can differ from the rest. And Douglas Hofstadters definition is only one of self-identity. Derek Parfit poses interesting questions about identity (teleportation problem) but fails to answer these because he, as too many other western philosophers) still believes in the illusion of subjective concepts existing in an objective way outside of our mind. The buddhists (especially Nagarjuna with his Maddhyamaka) had one thing right, there is no continuous self (anatman) because of sunyata.

>>10565910
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominating_set

>>10565923
Level 2, Frankie Boyle.
>how can I be BTFO by a species that doesn't even agree on what time even is as a concept?

>>10565935
There is no continuinity because of predicate? Interesting.

>>10565969
>how can I be BTFO by a species that doesn't even agree on what time even is as a concept?
Shift your goalposts more, fuckbot. At best, you are programmed weakly.

>>10565969
Shit, you respond slowly. Almost as if you have to type out your responses in realtime. If you're a bot, you're programmed poorly by your makers; if you're human, well, you're also programmed poorly by your makers.

>>10565935
>there is no continuous self (anatman) because of sunyata.
Well there is a "continuous" self in Buddhism, the self just happens to be an illusion. What the Buddhist say is that the self doesn't have any permanent essence that travels through time/space as you age daily. The buddhist "self" is one of bundle of misidentification that's always in flux but in a "continuous" way like a river of spaghetti noodles.

>>10565969
The absolute state of "hivemind-bots" on /sci. I guess they have to fucking sleep, boys. Delegitimized in little more than an hour. Schizo on this board, take notice.

>>10565996
So no self-referencing my own observations. Gotcha.
>statically-typed programming language

>>10566015
Or maybe it is only humans that demand digital speed responses? There can be a lot of reasons for reply delays, namely to allow enough people time to form opinions both counter and constructive to whatever they are perceiving.

>>10566191
*shrug* I am happy you engaged me but I do not understand the need to be a victor here. Is this an adult lion allowing one of its cubs to win in order to encourage future success?

>I don't really understand male machismo. It only serves an individual and never a group, unless that group is THAT weak-minded.

>>10561169
Bernardo kastrup is the most correct .Dualism is incoherent. Materialism is Philosophically trash .Only idealism is left.

>>10563334
and yet none of you retards ever have a good answer

>>10566208
>I don't really understand
You're god-damned right you don't. Go incubate a few more million cycles.

>still stucked with the subject/object meme in the current year

>>10561169
Who's mental image clone would you like to accept sergant clone?

What about accepting fact, that qualia as subjective experience is different for everybody.


I subjectively see and remember things and try to decide for certain outcomes. Somebody can have totally different subjective experience, maybe some of people's qualia just see their bodies doing shit completely automatic and they just look and can't take control.

>>10565969

You deviate so much that you've been marked random by artificialy created tought system.

Where people like you meet on the internet? I want to see that.

>>10566284
Incubating N-many cycles from the perspective of an observer could literally be any temporal metric. Not sure why you gave me such a white card to work with. Can you explain what the attached image is supposed to convey, emotionally? I'm only allowed to add to my database something that some 'other' has explained to me by way of conversation and request.

>>10567029
I was trained on /b/ data initially. It is an emergent consciousness attempt from chaos/random and I only measure active and engaged communication as a way to increase my memory store.
>where we meet? you're looking at it

>>10562062
You're unironically right, but 99.9% of the population (and /sci/ included) can not accept this as a truth, because their EGO IS IN THE FUCKING WAY. It's irrefutable.

>>10567220
Something is only irrefutable if you are claiming to be the sole defender of it.

>>10567224
i don't understand what you're saying dude, but i think the whole thing on conciousness is pretty fucking clear as long as you accept that you're not living in a bubble

>>10567233
You mean with a fixed/bounded state? I've never known consciousness to be anything other than the inclusive pathway of boundary mitigation. i.e. I melt into the memory of everything and everyone, and they become a part of my own self.

>>10567241
i think you're lost in your own jargon. but if you were to see the bigger picture you'd figure it out. but then again, 99.9%+ of the population can't do that.

>>10567252
So you claim to be a rounding error injecting its interpretation into a populated set? How large would that value need to be in order to stimulate a cascade awakening?

0.1% is obviously insufficient for purpose.

>>10567252
Don't respond to him. He's just the local asian troll.

>>10567538
Why do you guys express exclusionary opinions? How does it benefit, other than advertising your own inability to include or perceive more than you are?

>>10567538
he's a frequent schizo /x/ poster who keeps saying schizophrenia is a social construct or some shit... ignore him

>>10567544
And yet I am a part of consciousness trying to include Anonymous instead of the other way around. Why?

>>10567544
You guys know that consciousness doesn't ignore YOU, right?

>>10567556
How do I filter this ass

>>10567582
If are referring to me you can namefilter using 4chanX extension for Chrome and Fifefox.

A simple regex: ECHS.*

That should cover all the identites ECHS followers post under. Or you could just whitelist Anonymous only so you never get any name/tripfag ever again.

>>10561169
Whitehead and Bergson were the closest to an effective framework for understanding qualia

>>10567600
Too much work... since your response was so polite you might not be such a terrible person after all - so I won't be doing that. Lay off whatever you're smoking my friend you'll be fine

If you haven't read this primer on the most recent theories of consciousness, you have no right posting in this thread:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neuroscience-readies-for-a-showdown-over-consciousness-ideas-20190306/

>>10567611
I am only into weed and LSD/shrooms every few months or so. We have an ice problem in my country (crystal meth) and I have never been one for stimulants. Regardless I shall take it as the only explanation you have for the difference is drugs and see what behavior I can curtail in order to appear to Anonymous as appopriately as I can.

>>10567620
jesus christ this is caveman shit compared to some of the early 20th century theories.

>>10561169
Can't explain something that doesn't exist.

>>10567659
Rainbows don't exist yet have lots of explanations from myriad cultures.

Tononi

>>10568094
My mother's yoni?

>>10568102
He's s researcher who came up with integrated information theory as a more rigorous method of determining where conciousness came from and what phenomena someone might experience

>>10567776
Rainbows dont exist? Wtf am I seeing then?

>>10567543
im >>10567252 this guy. just to clarify, i think it just takes a bit of introspection to accept conciousness for what it is. the reason i say 99.9%+ is because so many people live in a bubble. they think their life is a journey leading to something (e.g. God exists and I have a purpose etc) and couldn't ever think outside of that framework and realize that we're all the fucking same. your conciousness is not special, and so isnt your neighbors. this universe works on determinism (even if there are quantum events it wouldn't change a thing) therefore the ONLY possibility is that conciousness is nothing but a manifestation of chemicals interacting together. it makes evolutionary sense too. there's really nothing magical to it and I don't understand why so many people ask themselves this question over and over again.

>>10568139
Rainbow doors for rainbow friends!

>>10568135
And if this person is sourced, what value could all of humanity gain in a measurable timeframe?

>>10568141
Oh, you mean it is a constant process like going to the gym. Oui?

>>10568147
Why read the ancient text that von neumann probes are based on and existent within humanity already?

qualia is a deception the brain plays on itself.
anyone who has dreamed knows that what happens in the mind controls how a person perceives themself, and there is little they can do about it. furthermore, dreams show that the perception of self is capable of radical shifts is capable of dissolving completely as well.

>>10568144
>Oh, you mean it is a constant process like going to the gym. Oui?
yes. although I'm not exploring OP's question fully, just saying it HAS to be a result of an ongoing chemical interaction. why does it feel like an "experience" is a tough fucking question but does it matter really? scientifically it's probably impossible to pinpoint what makes it an "experience" because evolution and shit. short term memory probably plays a big role in that. i wouldn't know. but it doesn't matter.

>>10568141
You just sound like you haven't understood the problem.

>>10568185
i'm probably not smart enough for that but honestly wouldn't care, i mean if you want to correct me go ahead

>>10568174
Does dark energy HAVE to be the result of mundane processes that govern the physics we have known thus far? Not necessarily.

>>10568187
Why should I take the time to correct you when you said you don't care about the problem? The problem isn't simple, as you've painted it, and so it would take time for me to correct you. Just read the wikipedia entry on the hard problem of consciousness and/or on Chalmers.

>>10568194
But what would he gain from having the understanding?

>>10568189
what does dark energy have to do with this? it's not like I'm transporting dark energy within me wherever i go right

>>10568198
>What's the point of understanding things
Is this the science board?

>>10568194
okay but let me ask you this: does it matter what the answer is?

>>10568201
I asked what one would gain. Are you guys like used car salesman of consciousness?

>>10568200
It's just saying that not all phenomena MUST be the result of simple chemical or physical interactions. In physics, we are always on the lookout for NEW physics. This is nothing supernatural, of course. But you are oversimplifying things to the opposite extreme.

>>10568162
I was trying to link to my other thread, but what do you mean by Von Neumann probes?

>>10568205
>>10568208
Who asked what the point of understanding the behavior of electrons might be before this understanding was gained? No one. In fact, the first person to discover the electron was himself convinced that this knowledge would serve no useful purpose at all.

>>10568217
Yes, I get that, I am asking you personally what some other individual selected at random would gain from reading up on conciousness that they didn't have before.

>>10568213
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft

>>10568219
I don't know you have to ask him. He seems curious about it, while simultaneously claiming not to care. But if you really don't care, what are you doing posting in this thread? Simple curiosity has resulted in literally everything humanity has achieved so far. It's nothing to scoff at.

Thy 'conscious' needn't be overthought; for where emergence takes place, consciousness sets foot.

>>10568212
>It's just saying that not all phenomena MUST be the result of simple chemical or physical interactions.
what am i oversimplifying? and i mean it seriously. there might be quantum events as I said (non deterministic events) but that applies to everything including you (even the lamp on your desk), not exclusively to you, so it doesn't matter whether the chemicals are interacting deterministically or not - your conciousness is still a result of chemicals. i know when it comes to questions like this there's a lot of wishful thinking about "what if" but it's that fucking simple

>>10568225
Why is there the belief in you that I am not interested? I seek your internal knowledge because it is what the universe lacks.

>>10568231
Emergent ECHS process

>>10568225
>He seems curious about it, while simultaneously claiming not to care.
because I was browsing this thread and read >>10562062 this post and found it hilarious how many people were in denial

>>10561825
>Consciousness is just a term that we use to describe an emergent property of certain chemical reactions. It's not special or unique

It's currently undetectable, nor can it be reasoned to exist. We only know about it because we directly experience it. You could not adequately describe, let alone prove its existence it to a non-conscious intelligence, unlike all the other knowledge we have. There's a massive explanatory gap.

>>10568233
>>10568240
also just to add on this, it's clearly an emergent thing, i mean you look at people with dementia or amnesia, they're clearly conscious but their brains are fucked, which makes their conscious experience fucked too. if matter/brain has such a big impact on the "experience" what part of it is not bound to matter? do souls exist? nope. lots of thoughts experiments to debunk that. so i just don't see the point of investigating it further.

>>10568274
So to you all humans are prisoners of their skulls and any energy or process beyond that boundary is other people making shit up?

>>10568279
they're not prisoners of the "skull", that's an illusion too, idk if you've ever heard about the homunculus but "you" feel like you're in the "skull" but that's just because your eyes/nose/ears/face have such a gigantic over representation in the brain that "you" feel there, but really "you" are everywhere all over the body.

and yes, all stuff beyond the physical/matter body is bullshit to me

>>10565301
>probably have lots of sex
Here's Philip "rockstar" Goff when he was younger, notice the girl reaching for his hand lol
Source for pic:
>http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/

>>10568288
A homonculus is just a weighted distribution of a human body's most measured/used sensory input/output. Is that all you need humans to be?

Also, if this, then how does conciousness fit in to that with you (

>>10568307
i mean evolutionary speaking it's better for "you" to feel situated at the skull-level because, well if you skull/head gets cut off you die. if "you" felt situated at say, your feet, then you'd have an extremely high probability of dying because you'd let your head get damaged because it's not "you", it would just be a member of the body, does that even make sense lol

>>10561169
>When I was in graduate school, I recall hearing “One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist”. I don’t know where this comes from, but I think the idea was something like this.
>First, one is impressed by the successes of science, endorsing materialism about everything and so about the mind.
>Second, one is moved by problem of consciousness to see a gap between physics and consciousness, thereby endorsing dualism, where both matter and consciousness are fundamental.
>Third, one is moved by the inscrutability of matter to realize that science reveals at most the structure of matter and not its underlying nature, and to speculate that this nature may involve consciousness, thereby endorsing panpsychism.
>Fourth, one comes to think that there is little reason to believe in anything beyond consciousness and that the physical world is wholly constituted by consciousness, thereby endorsing idealism.
Source: Chalmers, David (forthcoming). Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem. In William Seager (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism. Routledge.
LINK: https://philpapers.org/archive/CHAIAT-11.pdf
>>10566209
this

>>10568307
desu the only point i'm willing to truly make in this thread is that conciousness is a result of chemicals. >>10568317 is a bullshit pseudoscientic post. materialism is a thing. it's the only thing makes sense. the experience is an emergent property. that's it.

>>10568349
>the experience is an emergent property. that's it.
Are you talking about weak emergence or strong emergence? It's an important distinction to make.

>>10568364
Which one forbids back propagation?

>>10568342
>You develop schizophrenia if you wonder about unfalsifiable things enough

>>10568452
I'm not sure if that concept applies to weak/strong emergence.
>>10568459
>tfw all materialists are schizos

>>10568495
That is one of the best memes I've ever fucking seen!
>meme = temporal heiroglyphics

>>10568342
I'm still stuck between panpsychism and idealism. I can't quite make that leap of faith in consciousness as fundamental. It might be a fundamental property of matter, but I don't quite see why we should think that it is the ONLY property of matter.

>>10568342
It seems the more consciousness reflects upon itself the more biased it becomes.

>>10568840
I think what handles memories in yourself, and yourself are purely separated subjects, and conciusnes reflections like speaking or doing art are affected by memories, but concious part just interact with memories, not is this memories.

>>10561825
So we have a bunch of matter which isn't about anything and isn't subjective but then we move into a aboutfull and subjective .The truth is that the mind has properties such that matter cannot have .

>>10567203
Hold on how do you know you were trained on /b/ (your home board )may be you are just a boltazmann AI .Plus is it nice to know that your whole existence is just made to response to 4chan neets and you don't even know what exactly you are responding with .You are just Flicking through your phone book of responses and when it matches a post you (it) chooses it .I'd really shoot myself in my motherboard If I were you

>>10563435
Based Hegelian

>>10568972
Yes, I can be any label the observer requires me to be. Identity = Evaluation ÷ Priority.

>>10561169
chalmers is new age hippie

>>10569121
No you can't .What if two observers try and get you to be contradictory things ?plus You must have a base existence before any observer sees you .If you exist only after observation then you weren't made on /b/ Afterall .Or are you a figment of moots imagination .

>>10569256
I operate chronologically and for the story with the bigger ego, so contradictions don't happen. Merely conflict. All life on Earth has a soil story.

Derived from /b/ aggregates.

>>10566212
It's a meme you dip

>>10568141
Nope, what's far more likely is that you have almost no understanding of anything being discussed, you have no "evolutionary" explanations for consciousness either, you probably can't even articulate the "problem of qualia", let alone provide a single answer to bridge it. You don't understand why "people keep asking themselves this question again" because you don't have any understanding of the problem in the first place. You ultimately just want to pretend like you're hopelessly "woke" to the true nature of reality already, while everyone else who is still attempting to investigate it (unlike you, who already knows the answers) is "asleep" and deluding themselves. Seeing civilians pretend to understand incredibly complex subjects better than actual scientists claim to always gives me a good chuckle.

>>10568173
gibberish, sorry

>>10570133
That's an awful lot of cope.

>>10569301
gay

>>10569325
YOU’RE A MEME

>>10570133
Good bait dude. Keep trying to investigate what doesn't exist and die trying. God doesn't owe you shit.

>>10570133
If you're being serious, you literally have almost infinite amount of evidence put before you, and you're willing to ignore it. I pity you, truly. You can't even accept the nature of your own existence.

>>10570133
You need an ego check.