/sci/ - Science & Math

Now you must be familiar with how sensations are imaged in the brain. We have a neural circuit that fires in the brain when we see a certain object for the first time and this circuit becomes persistent for the rest of our lives so that we can identify the same object whenever this neural circuit fires again. We call this the neural correlate (NC). Each of us will have a novel NC for the same object that we observe. This is why my sensation of red light will be different than yours. This sensation has a name and we call it qualia. Qualia is the qualitative property of something in our perspective. It is personal and cannot be communicated besides referencing the object to another.

Similarly one could argue that the network of NCs associated with all the features of the body including the sensory input from various sense organs would collectively form the 'illusion of self' and then the meta-representation of all external stimuli would form a network associated with the outside world. These two networks would then interact in a multitude of ways to give rise to human behavior.

Now this model explains clearly why everybody else in the world behaves as they do. They are just systems of particles interacting with other systems of particles.

But why couldn't all this go on in the dark? Why do we have a witness inside ourselves experiencing all of this? The qualitative property of a substance is useful for a mechanical brain to differentiate between things but why should that be in a first person view? Who is it that needs to see, or who is the seer doing the seeing? It can't be another network as that network just knows how to compute inputs.

But if I assume the reality of my FPP, then there is quantum leap from 3rd person objective data processing to first person perspective. This has been termed as the explanatory gap. There is no way possible to jump this gap without postulating the existence of something that is not matter. Well not matter in it's 'normal' sense anyway.

Given that 4% of the universe is baryonic matter we should seriously question our hard and fast assumptions about physicalism and make radical postulates if we want to really understand consciousness. Why is consciousness real? Because of the mere fact that you can report that it is like something to see. I don't see why I couldn't type this post without me having any visual awareness of the letters because hasn't my brain already computed the visual data?

>>11109585
You can't prove to me or anyone else that qualia is real and no one can prove to you that they experience qualia

>Why do we have a witness inside ourselves experiencing all of this?

a naturalist explanation for this would be, evolution found it beneficial for an organism to be able to make a model of the world with itself as the center, creating a center/self. what is odd is that this center/self is sometimes at odds wit physical reality as demonstrated by phenomena of blindsight/phantom limbs on people who were born without those limbs/blindness denial. The most accessible way to experience this is the rubber hand experiment, where participants are fooled into identifying with a rubber hand.

here is a good talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mthDxnFXs9k

>>11109917
I am aware of these experiments. I've read V.S. Ramachandran's book where he explains how he cured phantom pain using just mirrors to manipulate a person's conscious knowledge about their limbs that have been amputated.

The creation of a meta-representation (a set of representations of objects) of the environment around the self is a useful way to think about how the neural networks would find it convenient to navigate and evaluate the environment. Even so the self must be a special collection of neural circuits that the subject must use to compare the behaviour of others and themselves given that humans are cultural and social beings. However there is absolutely no material basis upon which one can talk about qualia. Qualia is not an object in the way objects are defined. We are talking about the existence of objects itself when talking about qualia.

>>11109585
>another whoreposting thread

My personal hunch is that consciousness must be defined in an entirely new field that would interact with electromagnetic fields strongly because they are the primary driving force in the brain. But putting an objective measure on this field would be near to impossible as nobody would ever reach a consensus on what and if they are talking about is the same thing.

>>11109964
>then there is quantum leap from 3rd person objective data processing to first person perspective. This has been termed as the explanatory gap

by who and where can I read more about this. I want to understand your argument and I am unfamiliar with this, can you link me an article about it.

>Who is it that needs to see, or who is the seer doing the seeing?
The organism trying to survive and reproduce

but I feel that answer is kind of glib and you are trying to ask something else. Plus that answer is to explain as to why there are organism that see. In the metzinger talk I linked he mentions this theorem "every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_regulator

I think that is the lynchpin of the naturalistic evolutionary explanation for consciousness. The idea that any regulator is essentially a model. and the step I will posit that they don't mention is that this model produces qualia or the illusion of qualia.

But I think you are asking what(neural circuit, pineal gland etc.) actually receives the input from the self-model to experience qualia.

My answer is that qualia is an illusion and fundamentally a topic that can't be explained by any sort of empirical thought. imo scientifically speaking qualia is transparent, it is incommunicable/unverifiable and therefore not subject to science.

disappointing answer but I think it is an accurate description of reality. But I am open to other empirical/scientific answers, as this one is particularly disappointing.

>its another consciousness is magic that shares no similarities with ANY other observed system in the entire fucking universe thread

Dont you have some lsd to hit or something? Stop shitting up this board.

>>11109585
http://www.tauceti.caltech.edu/kunal/HameroffPoster_11Jun2018.pdf

>>11110008
the good regulator theorem is too generalised to be specific to consciousness.

>>11110008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap

Where I can agree with you on qualia being a sort of illusion rather I'd like to say ill-defined is on the notion of common language. You can say the word 'cat' and I will hear the cat and in my mind, a mental sound of 'cat' is heard. Then I will be able to replicate the same sound using my vocal cords to communicate it to you and we can both reach a consensus on the topic that we are talking about. So qualia just MIGHT be a limitation of language. But again, this idea needs to be investigated more rigorously before reaching a conclusion.

>>11110010
>shares no similarities with ANY other observed system

When did I say that? Are you reading fairy dust in between the words? I am discussing a very real phenomenon of the universe and the goal of natural sciences is to investigate phenomenon and not matter exclusively. So please show yourself the door.

>>11110060
Also note that electrocuting the colostrum temporarily makes a person unconscious leaving all brain activity intact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IQfYuBkeTw

bump

Consciousness should be the end-goal number one study for every field. Because at the end of the day there is no point in living if our conscious experience is hell

>>11110141

It's quite common to label qualia as illusions. Yet they are much more real to us than any material reality. Even abstract concepts like space or mathematics are present in our mind as qualia. Without these illusions we wouldn't exist.
Why do materialists reject this view so vigorously?

>>11110498

I've always wondered why this narrative is not part of our standard education system. It's math and religion class etc. for everyone and the you're send of to pursue a career and live a happy live. While this is challenging enough, I feel that humanity is at a point where we could give people other ideals to strive for than driving a lambo...

Concepts are just patterns of information and they're expressed in the brain.

Everything we do is processed by a brain, so everything stems from matter and its interactions.

Materialism wins again.

Tell greg caprioli his pain threshold

>>11110722
Because there's good reason to. Materialism uses a reductive approach by studying a complex system's constitutents and then building from bottom up. However there is a caveat that not all complex systems and esp biological systems can be explained by their parts because these are nonlinear systems. Qualia might feel real to you but there is absolutely nothing you can say about it in terms of physically measurable components to make it seem worth anything.

>>11109917
>evolution found it beneficial for an organism to be able to make a model of the world with itself as the center, creating a center/self.
IOW "magic"

>>11109585
>Consciousness has no material basis.
If that were true it wouldn't make much sense why there's extreme amounts of consistency in data that's been verified by multiple independent parties and checked against data captured mechanically and data predicted by abstract mathematical models information.
In contrast with one person subjective anecdotes, or even more to the point, the reported content of dreams.
Just think about how dreams play out. THAT is your purely subjective / material-free world, exactly because nothing that happens is beholden to any sort of causal relationships, impersonal logic you aren't personally aware of but which happens to be true of the objective reality outside your own mind, or consistency in what's happened and what will happen. Things that are completely impossible in the world independent of any one of us are able to take place in the subjective dream world.
Not even getting into the 100% predictable way you can shut down consciousness given enough blunt force trauma or psychoactive compounds of the right sort and you already have a fatal problem with your theory.

>>11111041
>misses point
>retarded frogposter
Checks out.

>>11110958
dunno what youre getting at coz this topic has absolutely nothing to do with reductionism

>>11111041
>If that were true it wouldn't make much sense why there's extreme amounts of consistency in data that's been verified by multiple independent parties and checked against data captured mechanically and data predicted by abstract mathematical models information

Would you mind defining what you think consciousness is?

>>11111143
An emergent property of complex interconnected electrical and chemical signal processing systems.

>>11111135
Reductionism is the 'scientific' way to explore things. Which part do you not get? Consciousness is a complex system phenomenon and by that very fact it means that no explanation of parts can ever hope to describe it

>>11111146
> emergent phenomenon
Of what? Particles in the brain body system right? If so is the case, why does auditory neurons produce the sensation of sound and not light and why doesn't the visual system see sounds? If the structure underlying the auditory and visual cortex are both neurons, what is the qualitative property that separates the two? Would that be included in consciousness and if so why?

>>11111143
consciousness isnt a thing its a process.

>>11111161
Define a process.

>>11111146
>An emergent property
A great way of saying nothing.

>>11111158
>why does auditory neurons produce the sensation of sound and not light and why doesn't the visual system see sounds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

>>11111166
An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have. A failure to realize that a property is emergent, or supervenient, leads to the fallacy of division.

>>11109585
>Tfw no bobs and vagene

>>11111151
How can qualia be a complex thing when it doesnt have identifiable parts? What complex system are you talking about sir?

>>11111163
a process of inference with temporal, counterfactual depth.

>>11111172
Is wifi an "emergent property" of a laptop?

>>11111191
Sure.

>>11111172
>fallacy of division
>something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole
your inference is incomprehensible oh great one.

>nude bengali
>not nude
???

>>11111111

>>11111197
When your computer screen shows purple what color are the individual pixels?

>>11111201
purple?

>>11111203
Bullshit.

>>11111209
>crt.jpg
georgecostanza.jpg

>>11111195
So if all laptops suddenly disappeared, there wouldn't be any wifi in my library any more?

>>11111215
is the government seezing your laptops? why wouldnt they turn off the wifii..

>>11111215
Laptops aren't the only thing that has wifi just like humans aren't the only animal that makes noises to communicate.

>>11111201
So colours creating a different colour is the same as non-consciousness creating consciousness?

>>11111220
>is the same
No, colors are simpler than consciousness.

I am so sick of this retarded shit. Consciousness posters should be banished to the shadow realm. It literally does not exist you delusional faggots. 90% of consciousness threads are trannies attempting to justify their belief in an aspect of their personality which is not learned. The other 10% are brain damaged epsilons who have had one too many tabs of acid and can no longer distinguish between perception and reality.
Fuck this gay Earth

>>11111230
emergent properties is a fallacious appeal to reduction,i.e. this property popped up physically obvioussly evn thouh we dont know how, therefore they `emerged`

>>11111143
>Would you mind defining what you think consciousness is?
Anon who made that post here. Awareness is maybe a better term if you want something more descriptive and less multi-purpose / vague than "consciousness."
Suppose you made a robot that can make reference to the data collected from its camera eyes for example. That act of making reference would be awareness, albeit there's a huge range of difference in how much or how little this making reference notion is happening. At some of the simplest levels for this you have David Chalmers' example of a thermometer, which certainly does have some sort of mechanism for taking in information about the world and reporting out in reference to that information.

>>11111239
>evn thouh we dont know how
We do know how though.

>>11111245
oh

>>11111218
>>11111219
My point is that if consciousness can be considered an emergent property of the brain/human biology, then the internet could be considered an emergent property of a laptop connected to wifi, yet the laptop and wifi are not creating the internet, so why is it certain that the brain creates consciousness?

>>11111252
Because if you take a laptop into a shielded room it doesn't get internet but if you take a human into a shielded room they are still perfectly conscious.

>>11111143
>>11111243
PS: In response to the inevitable:
>But what about my "first person experience!?!?"
Now suppose the robot keeps on insisting it has "first person experience."
That's all you really need to get to the same level of evidence there is for our own "first person experience."
The evidence is simply that we behave as though the act of referencing information is a special kind of thing called "first person experience." We insist when we look at something that "I'm really having an experience of sight!" But is the brain incapable of making us behave in this way without it being literally true? Just because you're instilled with a strong belief doesn't mean that strong belief is true, as you could walk through with the robot example. You could make the robot insist up and down that it's "really having an experience of sight" too. And you could make it behave like it's "really experiencing" all manner of things, completely with physical responses like its temperature rising or its oil pump increasing in speed in response to "stress" or "injury."
I'm 100% satisfied with this as the explanation for what "experience" actually amounts to personally, though I know most other people here will never be able to entertain the concept what they believe they "experience" doesn't ever go past being a false but useful belief.

>>11111252
improper analogy: REJECTED.

>>11111230
The logic is the same. It's like saying that colours can create non-colours.

>>11111252
>why is it certain that the brain creates consciousness?
materialism is presupposed to be the `baseline`, ie. claim of not necessarily materialism necessarily has onus

>>11111209
now that's a fancy bull

>>11111261
you like all `free-thinkers` put to much value in your own words, as if to supplant the need for (counter)argument.
>REJECTED
who gives a shit

>>11111258
But if you take a human into a room without oxygen it won't get consciousness either.

>>11111261
What is your rejection an emergent property of?

>>11111268
I never saw a Purple Bull,
I never hope to see one,
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one!

>>11111274
It will stay conscious for as long as it can hold it's breath.

>>11111274
Are you claiming that oxygen carries consciousness from some outside source to humans?

>>11111035
>in other words magic
not really, considering the alternative would be for an organism to make a model of the world with something besides itself as the center of the model. and having a model is better than not having a model

>>11111265
>materialism is presupposed to be the `baseline`
Yes, but where does this 'baseline' start? Does the radio create the radio wave?

>>11111252
>the laptop and wifi are not creating the internet, so why is it certain that the brain creates consciousness?
There is no signal that's ever been detected originating from elsewhere and transmitting to the brain.
Also when someone is on drugs or gets Alzheimer's they don't behave like the signal is still fine but their own reception of it is getting staticky. They behave like their mind is itself being altered. A damaged TV can start displaying static but no amount of damage will make it start altering the plot to a transmitted show like the Brady Bunch so that the characters now have different personalities and the plot involves a drug deal between Marcia and Peter gone bad after Peter finds out Marcia was wearing a wire.
Also, while certainly artificial neural networks are not very similar in specific detail to how biological brains function, we do know in broad strokes the brain MUST be performing some form of optimization algorithm because a variety of biological processes like walking are known to be optimized behaviors i.e. behaviors which play out the way they do provably because they are the peak performance manner of doing them.
It's unlikely we'd get so much mileage out of the same general (again, not similar in specific detail, but demonstrably operating with the same fundamental idea) method of using networks of "neurons" to optimize solutions to problems if, in broad strokes, the brain weren't a biological machine for doing the same. If it were only receiving a signal that would raise the question of why the brain looks suspiciously like something very complex and able to generate ideas and behaviors rather than looking like a receiver.

>>11111284
A laptop will be connected to the internet for as long as it can hold a signal.
>Are you claiming that oxygen carries consciousness from some outside source to humans?
Are you claiming consciousness isn't an emergent property of "outside sources" like oxygen?

>>11111306
We know how to decode wifi signals into information. What component of oxygen creates consciousness?

>>11111298
>There is no signal that's ever been detected originating from elsewhere and transmitting to the brain.
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>Also when someone is on drugs or gets Alzheimer's they don't behave like the signal is still fine but their own reception of it is getting staticky. They behave like their mind is itself being altered
Why can't consciousness (the signal) be what's altering the mind?
>we do know in broad strokes the brain MUST be performing some form of optimization algorithm because a variety of biological processes like walking are known to be optimized behaviors i.e. behaviors which play out the way they do provably because they are the peak performance manner of doing them.
Again, why can't consciousness (the signal) be the thing that's performing the optimisation?
>If it were only receiving a signal that would raise the question of why the brain looks suspiciously like something very complex and able to generate ideas and behaviors rather than looking like a receiver
Same question again.

>>11111298
>There is no signal that's ever been detected originating from elsewhere and transmitting to the brain.
irrelevant. not detecting anything, especially via method to detect what weve already detected elaewhere, is irrelevant.

>>11111323
>Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So prove that it does exist and come back.
>>11111323
>Why can't consciousness (the signal) be what's altering the mind?
First you haven't proven the signal exists and second you can be altered by physical damage to your brain from an accident.

evidence that conciousness is immaterial:
were you to have a twin with an identical brain, which one would you be. you should know its not both,
there are infinite yous in the multiverse. why arent you any of them?
if you were cloned, which one would you be? what if you were cloned after death -- genetically reconstituted and reanimated? would that then be you, magically, only after you died?

>>11111325
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It sure as shit isn't evidence of existence.

>>11111308
>We know how to decode wifi signals into information
We know that the library wifi isn't an emergent property of the devices connected to it, it exists independently to them, yet we could be fooled into thinking it was an emergent property of the devices in the right scenario. The same can apply to the idea of an emergent consciousness.
>What component of oxygen creates consciousness?
I don't believe consciousness is "created", I'm simply pointing out that consciousness could be an emergent property of oxygen - where does it stop?

>>11111336
It stops where you have no evidence to think that.

>>11111329
>So prove that it does exist and come back.
My point is that claiming consciousness is an emergent property of the brain has as much validity as claiming that the brain is an emergent property of consciousness.
>First you haven't proven the signal exists and second you can be altered by physical damage to your brain from an accident.
Instead of signal, we'll just say the brain is an emergent property of consciousness. Physical damage is also an emergent property of consciousness.

>>11111347
How many things is consciousness an emergent property of?

>>11109585
>This can never be true as there are concepts that exist. There is math that remains without the existence of matter.
Please show me a concept without using matter.

>>11109587
>But why couldn't all this go on in the dark?
Maybe it could and you are confusing an effect for a cause. Or maybe you are too stupid to understand its advantage. Neither implies anything broader about consciousness.

>Who is it that needs to see, or who is the seer doing the seeing?
This is gibberish. There is no "who" utilizing consciousness.

>>11109589
>There is no way possible to jump this gap without postulating the existence of something that is not matter.
Prove it.

>Given that 4% of the universe is baryonic matter we should seriously question our hard and fast assumptions about physicalism
Doesn't follow.

The human consciousness is a substantial unity. It is a unity in that there is a continuous and whole identity to your experience. What you experience is not a brief flash of awareness but rather a continuum.
It is substantial in that it tied to a material substrate. You can go unconscious and return to consciousness later. This would be impossible if there were not an underlying physical structure to awareness.

However, the brain is not a sufficient explanation for the physical source of awareness.

You see, according to Leibniz identity principle, two things are only the same if they share all the same attributes so the physical source of consciousness must be a substantial unity(physically unified whole) and indeed the brain is not, it is a collection of disparate entities.

Let's try to describe the brain as the source of consciousness using a reductionist viewpoint.
Take consciousness as an emergent pattern of electrochemical signals. Well, essentially it boils down to a physically interacting system of matter. What is cells(neurons) communicating could be made analogous to matter passing through a medium (tunnels).
If one tried to recreate an artificial consciousness using mechanical means, one could erect artificial brains the size of cities, or even have one part in one city while one part is another which ends in the non-local communication of information.

Consciousness is the activity of the soul, and you are a soul.

>>11111230
Quick aside: colors are an artefact of consciousness and therefore it is as simple as consciousness itself which is not so simple.

>>11109975
Your hunch is worse than random guessing, it's almost certainly wrong since your thought process is broken.

>>11111378
Pic related proves you wrong.

>>11111352
>My point is that claiming consciousness is an emergent property of the brain has as much validity as claiming that the brain is an emergent property of consciousness.
Why? Physical objects are well documented and the brain continues to exist after death.

>>11111356
>How many things is consciousness an emergent property of?
Bout tree fiddy.

>>11111158
>Different things produce different effects
What is your point?

>>11111252
>the internet could be considered an emergent property of a laptop connected to wifi, yet the laptop and wifi are not creating the internet
Then the internet is not an emergent property of laptops and wifi...

>>11111372
>Please show me a concept without using matter.
A perfect circle.
>Maybe it could and you are confusing an effect for a cause. Or maybe you are too stupid to understand its advantage
What's the advantage of being conscious of oneself?
>This is gibberish. There is no "who" utilizing consciousness.
So why are you able to separate yourself from it?
>Prove it.
Because for matter to be experienced and identified as a separate "thing", it requires non-matter, that which is separate.

>>11111373
kill yourself adam

>>11111391
>proves you wrong
sure bud

>>11111406
>A perfect circle.
Only exists as a concept in the brain, completely dependent on matter. Try again.

>What's the advantage of being conscious of oneself?
Integration.

>So why are you able to separate yourself from it?
No one is.

>Because for matter to be experienced and identified as a separate "thing", it requires non-matter, that which is separate.
Prove it.

>>11111418
the zoomer moderation on staff should be hung

>>11111423
I meant to say that the janitors on this website are not only subhumans but also criminals

>>11111391
>the brain continues to exist after death
If the brain continues to exist after death, why doesn't the consciousness continue to exist? The same logic applies to if the consciousness ceases to exist, why does the brain continue to exist? The answer is that consciousness isn't an emergent property of the brain, and the brain isn't an emergent property of consciousness.

>>11111428
>If the brain continues to exist after death, why doesn't the consciousness continue to exist?
Because the brain is no longer functioning after death.

>The same logic applies to if the consciousness ceases to exist, why does the brain continue to exist?
Because the brain's existence is not dependent on consciousness.

>The answer is that consciousness isn't an emergent property of the brain
Doesn't follow.

The only interesting question here is how your specific brain continues to produce consciousness even though it has stopped functioning. A functioning brain would not ask such dumb questions and come up with such unnecessary and irrelevant answers.

>>11111421
Optical illusions that make one line appear longer than another don't work on rulers anon.

>>11111422
>Only exists as a concept in the brain, completely dependent on matter. Try again.
What "matter" is the imagination made of? How much does the imagination weigh? Is the imagination affected by gravity?
>Integration.
Please expand.
>No one is.
How are you able to talk about "consciousness" if you are not also able to separate yourself from it, in order to experience it?
>Prove it.
Does non-conscious matter create conscious matter that is conscious of the non-conscious matter that is creating the conscious matter?

>>11111445
wow, guess rulers aren't conscious then huh

>>11111465
If you can measure something using a tool without consciousness then it isn't an artifact of consciousness. You proved yourself wrong great job.

>>11111474
rulers don't measure, they aren't alive

>>11111457
>What "matter" is the imagination made of?
The brain. Don't ask questions you already know the answer to.

>How much does the imagination weigh?
How much does a Google search weigh? Don't ask stupid questions.

>Please expand.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00369/full#h1

>How are you able to talk about "consciousness" if you are not also able to separate yourself from it, in order to experience it?
Why would I need to? You have a hell of a lot of weak ass assumptions that you rely on. You will never get anywhere if you continue to rely on them.

>Does non-conscious matter create conscious matter that is conscious of the non-conscious matter that is creating the conscious matter?
Yes. Prove "non-matter" is required.

>>11111437
>Because the brain is no longer functioning after death.
If it's no longer functioning, is it really a brain?
>Because the brain's existence is not dependent on consciousness.
What makes it a brain if it's not conscious?
>Doesn't follow.
>The only interesting question here is how your specific brain continues to produce consciousness even though it has stopped functioning. A functioning brain would not ask such dumb questions and come up with such unnecessary and irrelevant answers.
Why do you believe it more likely for non-consciousness to create consciousness, rather than consciousness to create non-consciousness? Aren't they both just as retarded?

>>11109585
Retard

>>11111476
Yes they do. What do you think rulers do?

>>11111481
>If it's no longer functioning, is it really a brain?
Yes.
>What makes it a brain if it's not conscious?
Being made out of brain stuff and being shaped like a brain.
>Why do you believe it more likely for non-consciousness to create consciousness, rather than consciousness to create non-consciousness?
Because that's what we have evidence for.
>Aren't they both just as retarded?
No, because one has evidence and one does not.

>>11111481
>If it's no longer functioning, is it really a brain?
Yes.

>What makes it a brain if it's not conscious?
Brains are not defined by consciousness.

>Why do you believe it more likely for non-consciousness to create consciousness, rather than consciousness to create non-consciousness?
Because the brain is made of non-conscious matter. It's not "more likely," it's directly observed. I have never seen an atom of consciousness and neither have you.

>>11111372
>Please show me a concept without using matter.
1+1=2 w/o matter
>Maybe it could and you are confusing an effect for a cause. Or maybe you are too stupid to understand its advantage. Neither implies anything broader about consciousness.

maybe you are too stupid to even comprehend in the slightest amount what I am talking about. It's okay to be retarded anon.

> This is gibberish. There is no "who" utilizing consciousness.

follows from the previous. you are too retarded to understand the question let alone answer it. Go back to studying whatever pleb subject you study.

>Doesn't follow.

Of course it doesn't. you are a mere retarded little student who browses this website for girl pics. You couldn't get it even if you wanted to.

>>11111482
No u, and your mother is a trannie too,

>>11111485
nothing, without consciousness it's just a stick

>>11111260
>And you could make it behave like it's "really experiencing" all manner of things, completely with physical responses like its temperature rising or its oil pump increasing in speed in response to "stress" or "injury."

So I am a robot?

>>11111480
Did someone really ask how much does imagination weigh?

>>11111497
>1+1=2 w/o matter
Only exists in the brain, made of matter. Try again.

>maybe you are too stupid to even comprehend in the slightest amount what I am talking about.
What exactly have I misunderstood?

>follows from the previous.
Doesn't follow. You simply assert that there is a witness inside ourselves without proving that such a separation exists.

Cry more.

>>11111501
You clearly are an idiot sticks are not rulers.

>>11111511
It's retarded and will run away eventually. But soon it will be back for another shitpost. Too soon.

>>11111480
>The brain. Don't ask questions you already know the answer to.
Can you provide an illustration of what the imagination looks like?
>How much does a Google search weigh? Don't ask stupid questions.
How much does the average imagination weigh?
>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00369/full#h1
>The unfortunate truth is that, at the present stage of understanding, not only do scientists not have a clue regarding how conscious states emerge from the human nervous system, but they do not even possess the smallest inkling regarding how something like consciousness could emerge from any set of real or hypothetical circumstances
Oh dear, and yet you are confidently claiming that consciousness does emerge from non-conscious matter/processes. What makes you so confident of this?
>Why would I need to? You have a hell of a lot of weak ass assumptions that you rely on. You will never get anywhere if you continue to rely on them.
Are you aware that you're aware? Is the awareness of being aware an emergent property of awareness?
>Yes. Prove "non-matter" is required.
Because it's a logical necessity. Matter is physical and non-conscious, non-matter is non-physical and conscious. There is no way out of this logic.

>>11111520
No shit, they aren't conscious either - except when in a bundle.

>>11111491
>Yes.
>Being made out of brain stuff and being shaped like a brain.
Why is the "brain" is no longer producing consciousness as an emergent property of itself, if it still exists as a brain? Does consciousness need something else?
>Because that's what we have evidence for
Is it "evidence" or simply a hypothesis born out of necessity?

>>11111528
>Can you provide an illustration of what the imagination looks like?
It doesn't.

>How much does the average imagination weigh?
It doesn't.

>Oh dear, and yet you are confidently claiming that consciousness does emerge from non-conscious matter/processes. What makes you so confident of this?
Read the article.

>Are you aware that you're aware?
Yes.

>Is the awareness of being aware an emergent property of awareness?
It's not a property.

>Because it's a logical necessity. Matter is physical and non-conscious
Some matter is conscious.

>non-matter is non-physical and conscious. There is no way out of this logic.
The only way this could be considered "logical" is if it's a vacuous truth.

>>11111493
>Brains are not defined by consciousness.
Is consciousness defined by brains?
>Because the brain is made of non-conscious matter. It's not "more likely," it's directly observed. I have never seen an atom of consciousness and neither have you.
If matter is non-conscious, how has consciousness been observed?

>>11111480
>Yes. Prove "non-matter" is required.
inductively, i.e. since the beginning of time, no permutation of electrons traveling through any permutation of any number of mediums could result in anything that is about or of anything, nor that experiences anything. Your intentional hubris that there is nothing that the scientific community or the power rangers have not measured, is far less rational than consciousness being immaterial. If you are too stupid to accept this logical evidence into your epistemology, dont care. Fuck off dweeb

>>11111480
>>11111551
>inb4 oh what about brains

>>11111550
>how has consciousness been observed?
example plx

>>11111550
>Is consciousness defined by brains?
It's not defined.

>If matter is non-conscious
Some matter is conscious.

>>11111551
>since the beginning of time, no permutation of electrons traveling through any permutation of any number of mediums could result in anything that is about or of anything, nor that experiences anything.
Prove it.

>>11111556
>what's 1+1 equal to?
>inb4 2 hurr durr

>>11111561
Proof:
1. if it had been observed, there would be scientific literature propounding this discovery.
2. there is no such literature.
3. therefore, no such thing has been observed. (modus tollens from 1)
the burden ball is now in your court, cock weasel.
>>11111563
>hurr the brain is an example
this is reductionist, circular reasoning. the entire dispute is whether the brain does that in the first place. even if trolling like you ae retarded, 4chan is 18+. the fuck outta here, kid.

>>11111546
>It doesn't.
But it's physical, right?
>It doesn't.
But it's physical, right?
>Read the article.
I have - it doesn't answer anything which they admit, it's just an idea based on having no concept of what consciousness actually is. Consciousness is a subject for philosophy, science is using a retarded concept of it and getting retarded results.
>It's not a property.
What is it?
>Some matter is conscious.
Which matter?
>The only way this could be considered "logical" is if it's a vacuous truth.
Is logic physical or non-physical?

>>11111559
>example plx
If you claim that non-conscious matter creates consciousness, and that you can observe the non-conscious matter, then surely you can observe the creation of the consciousness and see the consciousness as a separate thing to the non-conscious matter. Otherwise you're being schizo and making shit up.

>>11111573
>no permutation of electrons traveling through any permutation of any number of mediums could result in anything that is about or of anything, nor that experiences anything.
>3. therefore, no such thing has been observed.
Ignoratio elenchi.

>this is reductionist, circular reasoning. the entire dispute is whether the brain does that in the first place.
You were asked to prove your claim that the brain cannot produce consciousness, and your "proof" relies on that claim. Thst is the only circular logic here.

>>11111561
>It's not defined.
So why are you using it in science?
>Some matter is conscious.
I thought it was an "emergent property" of non-conscious matter?

>>11111582
>as a separate thing
well duhh guess it isn't then
All you need is feedback and chaotic nonlinear chemical/physical processes.
no bugabuu magic bs.

>>11111576
>But it's physical, right?
It's a physical process. A process does not have weight and does not have an image.

>I have - it doesn't answer anything which they admit, it's just an idea based on having no concept of what consciousness actually is.
All study of consciousness shows it is produced by the brain. And it shows consciousness can serve a function. You lose.

>Consciousness is a subject for philosophy
If you consider your posts philosophy then you disprove this every time you post.

>What is it?
A process. Awareness is not a property of awareness.

>Which matter?
Certain brains.

>Is logic physical or non-physical?
Insofar as it exists, it's physical.

>>11109585
>I didn't know the answer to that and so I assumed it to be true.
Fundamentalists in a nutshell.

>>11111587
>So why are you using it in science?
Why not?

>I thought it was an "emergent property" of non-conscious matter?
It is. What is your point?

>>11111594
>All you need is feedback and chaotic nonlinear chemical/physical processes
What a load of meaningless horseshit. Do you seriously think science can handle the concept of consciousness better than philosophy?

>>11111595
>It's a physical process. A process does not have weight and does not have an image.
Can you provide an illustration of the physical process? It isn't physical otherwise.
>All study of consciousness shows it is produced by the brain
You schizos don't even know what consciousness is, so you're not studying anything, rather just making shit up.
>If you consider your posts philosophy then you disprove this every time you post.
I'm noticing a complete lack of an argument to back this up.
>A process. Awareness is not a property of awareness.
Isn't being an emergent property a process?
>Certain brains.
How convincing. What makes certain matter conscious?
>Insofar as it exists, it's physical.
Where does logic exist physically?

>>11109585
Digital math is patently inadequate to describe reality. Digital math is absolutist, but nature is relativistic, so to accommodate for it you need to add ad hoc recalibrations to remove absolutist artifacts.

>>11111598
>Why not?
Science requires clear definitions.
>It is. What is your point?
"Emergent property" doesn't really reveal what it actually is, but now you're claiming it's conscious matter. Do you not understand how ridiculous it is to think that non-conscious matter can create conscious matter? Do you not see how absurdly unscientific that is?

>>11109585
Nice pic but you are Wrong, retard.

>>11111651
Nvm you actually admit the Hard problem is hard. Didn't read your long shit, my apologies OP.

>>11109917
>a naturalist explanation for this would be, evolution found it beneficial for an organism to be able to make a model of the world with itself as the center, creating a center/self. what is odd is that this center/self is sometimes at odds wit physical reality as demonstrated by phenomena of blindsight/phantom limbs on people who were born without those limbs/blindness denial.

This has nothing, literally 0 to do with the question of what consciousness is, and its mind melting that you can't see what's missing here.

The question isn't why might it beneficial to have conscious experience. A lot of things would be beneficial. It would be beneficial if I had superman powers, that doesn't mean evolution can physically make Superman powers.

The question is what causes consciousness. Why does a "model of the world with itself as the center" experience, period. If you modeled a human brain with a million people sending each other simple flag signals, would the flags themselves become part of one big sentience.

It's like someone asked you "how does the heart work" and you answer was "because the body needed to move blood". That's not how it works, that's what its for. Please understand.

>>11111605
>than philosophy
since it can't do anything at all, yes

>>11111111
,

Man, some of you are so lost. Please, show us the concept of a perfect circle in the brain, "totally dependent on matter", instead of acting like an asshole. I'll wait. Matter is an abstraction of experience. Metaphysic materialism is a form of spirituality, currently embraced by self-called "scientific", ignorant and arrogant individuals.
The lack of distinction between experience, which is irreductible, and the concept of other minds, which can be reduced to the transpolation of own's mind to some particular physical regularities, this is saying, the lack of distinction between epistemology and psychology, is what causes this kind of stupid confusions in people who believe science can answer any question, no matter how ridiculously wrong thought it is.

>>11111715
>If you modeled a human brain with a million people sending each other simple flag signals, would the flags themselves become part of one big sentience.
If it worked like mind, then it would be mind, see chinese room.

>>11111644
>Science requires clear definitions.
In the paper I linked to where do you see a clear definition of consciousness?

>"Emergent property" doesn't really reveal what it actually is, but now you're claiming it's conscious matter.
Where's the contradiction?

>Do you not understand how ridiculous it is to think that non-conscious matter can create conscious matter? Do you not see how absurdly unscientific that is?
How is it ridiculous or unscientific?

>>11111715
>The question isn't why might it beneficial to have conscious experience.
You literally asked that question.

>The question is what causes consciousness. Why does a "model of the world with itself as the center" experience, period.
The model is the experience.

>If you modeled a human brain with a million people sending each other simple flag signals, would the flags themselves become part of one big sentience.
It depends on how close to the human brain the model is. A model is not going to be exactly the same as what it's modeling until they are the same thing.

>>11111992
The concept is dependent on matter because it's in the brain: brain is matter, a carrier of information.

>>11111992
>Please, show us the concept of a perfect circle in the brain, "totally dependent on matter"
Sure, just let me poke around in your brain and remove some bits until we find the part about circles. You won't mind since it's just useless matter, right? Dumb Platonist.

>>11112028
Show us, then, the concept of the perfect circle in the brain, so we can judge if it is a concept of a perfect circle or just an anatomical correlate (I'm sure you can't show us neither)

>>11112318
Brain diseases and traumas prove that mind is contained in the brain.

>>11112318
See >>11112044

Wow, things can exist without existing?
:O

>>11112044
Who said my brain? So there is no other evidence of what you are saying? What a surprise! But let's assume I let you, how would you search for that "perfect circle concept" in the matter of my brain? Enlighten us

>>11112361
No, they just prove:
-in other people, that your concept of their minds depends on the physical regularities of their bodies' activity
-in yourself, that there is a very close correlation between perception of changes in your brain and changes in your mind. Of course, this last form of "proof" has several limitations. You will discover that there are things that you can't prove by yourself, with your brain. So are beyond science.

>Dennett: there are no mental events, you are only imagining them!

I always thought this guy was hilarious

>>11112655
>I always thought
you never think

>>11112613
>matter of my brain?
it's shit

>>11111111

>>11111111

>>11111111

>>11111158
Lots of digital logic ultimately breaks down to using transistors to do many different things
> why don't all nerves in your brain do the same thing?
It's just different circuits of neurons, not anything special/different

>>11112620
I think that you're just telling us that nothing will convince you that you're wrong with this statement. What would it take (that is in any way possible) for you to change your mind?
Maybe you've just driven yourself to an un-falsifiable conclusion, and determined -based on that fact- that it is a strong and well supported world view.

>>11111323
>Why can't consciousness (the signal) be what's altering the mind?
Because that would be a pretty fucking inane coincidence otherwise. I don't think you're thinking this through. Try walking through the steps carefully here. A guy's brain starts deteriorating from Alzheimer's. He experiences mental deterioration subsequent to brain deterioration. The very obvious conclusion with this and the million other cases where something impacting the physical brain reliably leads to something altered in the mind is that the brain is a physical structure which produces cognition. Otherwise you're saying all these cases are just superfluous coincidences and the real issue is a signal from outside the brain changing. If there were such a signal responsible for all these mental changes then it wouldn't make any sense for the alleged receiver to be getting altered / damaged beforehand. Why would you entertain the notion of a signal beginning to transmit differently after you ingest psychoactive drugs? Why should the signal care that you just ingested a chemical that interacts with the brain? Much better explanation is the chemical interacts with the brain and the interaction with the brain causes the alteration in mental state.
>Again, why can't consciousness (the signal) be the thing that's performing the optimisation?
Because, again, then you're left with a redundant biological machine that looks suspiciously like it's doing optimization. By analogy that'd be like someone claiming your computer is a radio when you can take it apart and see all sorts of structure in place for performing computation rather than for just receiving a signal.

>>11109585
None of us are conscious. It doesn't exist. Stop pretending you're anything more than a smart monkey.

>>11111331
Twins and clones aren't the same as the "source" And multiverse theory is shit.

>>11109585
This is a philosophy topic, not a science one, so kindly fuck off.

>>11113310
I asked anon to show me the concept of the perfect circle in a brain. I know he can't provide that proof, but he -and you, if you want- can try. That would falsify my assertion, which is that minds are not material objects. Of course, others' minds depend, mostly, on material conditions to exist in experience. This may sound contradictory but see Emil du Bois-Reymond's opinions about the subject. Reducing mind to matter is a metaphysical, anti-scientific (though prevalent nowadays) position.

Consciousness is organized information which the brain uses to consult itself in waking states and sometimes in sleeping states. It is known that information intrinsically holds no meaning but only in relation to other, consider computer code translated in to voltage. Now, the brain is different kinds of qualia and memories are different information states of the brain and when they interact with other brain networks they give rise to the illusion of consciousness. Consciousness is therefore an epiphenomenon of the brain.

>>11113852
So consciousness is an illusion. Mental events don't exist, they're just mental events. Fucking idiots.

fucking plebs

http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>11114163
They don't. You are being illusioned into thinking you have a self because that is how the brain models the environment. Around your eyes. Do you remember being conscious as a 1 year old? No. It is a learned notion as the brain model gets more sophisticated with time.

>>11114475
Memories are irrelevant. I (and I assume you) experience the world as qualities like colors. We know that certain quantities of stimuli cause these perceptions, but materialists mistake the cause for the effect. In the case of black, there is no cause, yet the quality of black is perceived.

>>11114535
>mistake the cause for the effect
It's like confusing the difference between the paint on the car and the car under it.
Baffling how many do it.

>>11114475
Yeah, you are beyond help. Like every dogmatic person.

>>11113659
The concept of a perfect circle is just a pattern of information that represents a circle when processed through our human brain. Same as how memory in a computer can represent some image. It's just information in transistors which, when processed in a computer, represents an image. We are not special, it's the same as any other way of storing information.

>>11114738
Just to be clear, that pattern of information is inside of repeating neural circuits. The information is represented in action potentials propagating throughout the brain. It's the same as basic digital logic, but just a bit more fancy with slightly different rules. It's cool stuff

>>11113472
Let me put the question to you like this: Is non-consciousness an "emergent property" of matter?

>>11114738
So show me that image of a circle represented in the brain. An image of a circle, please. Or just accept that brain or brain activity is not identical to a mind and let's find how is it possible that transformations of the brain produce transformations of the mind. In order to do this, we should define mind without reductionism.

>>11111111

>>11114781
Do you want me to show you the electrons in a computer's memory that represent a circle? It's the same thing. If I were to show you the image of a circle represented in a brain it would be a series of currents in the brain that make some convoluted mesh of sorts. That really is all it would be. What do you think of that statement?

A mind, as you seem to be using it, just means what we experience in the brain, yes?

>>11114844
No, the electrons are electrons, not the image of a circle. I know there are electrons in brains, and things that you could call currents. But never seen there an image of the perfect circle, as you postulate. A mind is what we experience, yes. But why "in the brain"? Brains are one of the things we experience.

>>11114870
If you remove or damage a brain then the experience is greatly affected/removed. That is a good reason to think that experience is in the brain. For example, people with a greatly damaged thalamus cannot feel fear (except from being strangled), and hence the brain clearly has a great impact on the mind. It is reasonable to think that almost all of the mind is in the brain.

Also, with your logic we could say that computers have a mind. There are electrons in them that ultimately represent information but are not that information themselves. Like how you can do bitwise addition with some AND and NOT gates. That is just electrons, but ultimately represents information beyond it. Scale that up a lot, and that's all of us

>>11114700

Well, if consciousness is NOT a property of the brain then tell me why does removing a brain remove consciousness with it.

>>11109585
conscious is the only thing that is real
the universe was created when a collection of causality-minded consciousnesses wanted to experience a world with their newely invented physics. they dreamt up a universe where sufficiently complex brains developed, so it was kind of believable that they might have consciousness on their own (but it really isnt possible). The consiousnesses planted themselves into some human babies around 10000 bc. When they died or fell asleep, they left the physical world, since it was unbelievable that a consiousness could exist in a dead or asleep brain. Dreams are our visits to other less-physical universes, and we only remember the parts that make sense to our human halves.
most humans aren't consious, but to keep ourselves from waking up, NPC's will say they feel consious.

made all this up 2 nights ago

>>11114897
Is non-consciousness an emergent property of matter?

>>11114880
>>11114897
We need to differentiate epistemology from psychology. From a psychological perspective, the existence of mind (basically others' minds) needs as condition a physical regularity (not necesarily brain). That doesn't mean mind is IN the brain, A PART of the brain, AN ABSTRACTION of the brain, or that can be reduced to neurons, particles, currents, or a system of whatever physical object you choose. This is why removing a brain removes consciousness.
From an epystemological perspective, mind (own mind) is a condition for what we call the physical world, an abstraction of experience.

>>11109585
Didn't read. Consciousness is material. Explain how brain damage can change perception and character if it isn't.

>>11114924
I believe your last statement. The bad part about all of this is that living with delusions can make you pretty sad. If you structure your value system around how the world really is (or at least around something that is supportable) then you will run into fewer situations where your world view is incompatible with what you see/ experience. Please consider seeing things for how they are because you will live a better life this way.
If you're just saying this all for fun then that's cool though. Not sci though

>>11114940
You're just saying with this statement that no evidence would please you. This whole psychology and epistemology being separate thing is clearly wrong and there is no reason to believe it.
Also you did not engage with what I said at all basically, you just said what you wanted to say

>>11114950
Strawman. Then, you see no reason to separate science from philosophy. That's funny. In what way I didn't engage with what you said?

>>11114941
The problem is to naturally explain qualia and experience and provide a mechanism for fpp. Of course if you remove a chunk of the self aware system it won't function as intended. Read the fucking post.

>>11114950
Evidence is objective. Something can exist as an abstraction. The existence of one follows the other but not the other way round.

Oh, the computer thing. Well, you don't experiment others' minds. You elaborate an idea of other minds given the observation of certain physical regularities. The movement of a human body and its interaction with its environment makes you assume there is a mind there, analogous to yours. Of course, not only brains produce that kind of regularities, but also any other physical contraption capable of causing in you the same assumption. So yes, you can say some computers might have a mind in the same way other humans do. With yourself, the problem is different. Your feelings, for example, are to you as real as the physical world you are also experiencing. The assertion that your own mind is not real, but part of your brain (which is also part of your perception, unless we are talking about a metaphysical brain which noone can percieve or prove), is one you yourself cannot prove, hence, non scientific.