/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11189684
high iq = consciousness

>>11189684
u have no consciousness

>>11189684
something something an effect of our brain chemistry and how the neurons are organized on average ending up self aware, something something we don't know exactly what yet, something something wait till we scan every neuron in the "average" human brain and simulate one in a few decades to see if it acts like a human

>>11189689
wow that's actually a very smart answer

>wait till we scan every neuron in the "average" human brain and simulate one in a few decades to see if it acts like a human

yep. if copying a brain's architecture results in an actual being that's indistinguishable from the original, there's no soul. if a human being cannot be copied, we have souls. we'll see.

>>11189684
Something that does not exist. Self does not exist. We do not exist. Everything is a nonexistent illusion.

>>11189684
retards everywhere; look up open individualism

>>11189727
An illusion to what?

>>11189684
It's a series of tubes

>>11189684
A MISERABLE PILE OF IQ POINTS

>>11189684
A neural system advanced enough to enable a sense of self.

>>11189684
We don't know.

If someone says they know, they're a fucking fool.

If someone says it doesn't exist, they're also a fucking fool.

Assumptions made on insufficient evidence are stupid, and we don't have sufficient evidence. It's a subject that needs further study, and we currently lack any good means of studying it.

>>11189684
A loosely defined "I know it when I see it" level of purposefully complex information gathering, processing, and outputting.

>>11190810
Wrong. Consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

>>11190930

>>11190932
were you less conscious when you were a child and presumably stupider? do you need intelligence in order to feel pain - which can be one of the most intense inner experiences there are? a lot of abstract mathematical calculations are thought to require a high intelligence from humans - yet machines today can do them easily, which nobody thinks as conscious.

>>11189684
some shit in a brain firing around causing shit to happen in the brain by interacting with the environment and then this shit in the brain hits a spot were it maanges to store said information and then the shit keep looping around until its gone,

so basically the only reason a brain is consious is because the shit in the brain loops through a memory bank making it possible for you to decide and reflet new enviromental d ata with the stored shit in your databank

>>11190993
So you're just talking out your ass.

>>11189684
Consciousness = the state of being aware.

In my own way of modeling how consciousness work, I believe we have multiple consciousness. Each sensory organs(eyes/nose/mouth/etc) that's attached to our brain spawns a new consciousness from the brain. At the foundation(the brain), we have general consciousness(awareness of sensory consciousness ). We can take away consciousness by damaging our sensory organs(ie blind/lose sight consciousness). This also applies to the brain in general, as we can hit the brain hard enough and you'd lose the whole functioning consciousness.

There's nothing special going on in the brain other than some signal/data processing and management of the environment.

>>11189684
No one knows. Everything here is just speculation

>>11191123
My hypothesis is that a brain becomes conscious when it can enter an infinite loop of metacognition, metametacognition, and metametameta cognition, and so on. You can think about thinking, then you can think about thinking about thinking, then you can think about thinking about thinking about thinking, etc. When the number of layers of metacognition accelerates, it approaches an asymptote of infinite layers where it blasts off into consciousness

>>11189689
I predict once we have scanned every neuron we'll still not know where the consciousness comes into play, and we'll be more confused than ever.

It may be somewhat related to quantum entanglement.

>>11189727
I love this answer, every time. It's so fucking brilliant./sarcasm
>What the fuck why are you torturing me you sick freak no no no not my eyes
>Don't worry about it, self is just an illusion *wink*

>>11189684
The only thing there is, all else is illusion

>>11189684
Consciousness is a process of experiential evolution; we perceive and interact with the world entirely using evolutionary architecture. The elements of variation -> selection -> reproduction are mirrored by question -> choice -> action. The flexibility of human language allows for this process to modify itself using its own elements; this activity is metacognition or "learning how to learn."

What is present in our immediate perception of change is presently questionable; all sense-data (including sensing of one's own ideas) is the result of an active request for information or query. The process of choice is that of satisfying a query according to criterion generated by meta-queries that ask what the satisfying criterion of the base query are.

This evolutionary dynamic is emergent from the nature of change itself, which finds its mathematical expression in calculus (the mathematical study of change) as integration and differentiation as inverse operations of the same process. This also corresponds to two fundamental reference frames of change-perception: instantaneous and cumulative.

Questionability involves sensitivity to near-present change; the "re-discovery" of the world as a new event of experience, and so is the activity of conscious differentiation. Choice involves causal efficacy and cumulative change over time (understanding) and different events to create a determined action, and is the process of integration. Every discovery is in the sense the un-doing of an understanding, and every understanding is an un-doing of a discovery that is brought into comprehensibility.

What follows from this is that "free will" has little to do with choice. Free will is better described as self-creativity and is one's ability to question themselves and their world so as to expand their field of potentiality. It is not found in any particular choice, but one's ability to grow, change, and learn over time.

>>11191081
>Consciousness = the state of being aware.
Not how I would define it. I'd say it's the state of experiencing. You don't have to be aware of anything to still experience something.

>I believe we have multiple consciousness.
I've thought of it in this way as well.

>>11191130
There is closure at the fourth level of meta:
http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/2976/1/Heather_Process%20Categories.pdf

TL;DR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8

>>11190942
>were you less conscious when you were a child and presumably stupider?
yes
> do you need intelligence in order to feel pain
yes

>>11189695
i think if neurons are build by evolution it is more soul based

it also would likely be more dominant to be natural every time

in other words ai would have lots of mental disorders and tourrettes likely until further development much later

it is an illusion, we think we are alive but it is the just learned reactions realized through evolution and past experience. Think of it as biological computer program, we recieve input through senses and then evaluate output/reaction through memory and animal instinct. It is not a result of a soul or some high form of life force, but an evolutionary trait of being able to seamlessly evaluate and react to your environment.

>>11191484
ive seen your "soul" shit all over here lately, just leave.

Explain to me what the hard problem of consciousness is, if there is such a "problem"

>>11190803
This.

>>11191512
Same reason it is difficult to describe sight to a blind person

>>11191512
>Moreover, we must confess that perception, and what depends on it, is inexplicable in terms of mechanical reasons, that is, through shapes and motions. If we imagine that there is a machine whose structure makes it think, sense, and have perceptions, we could conceive it enlarged, keeping the same proportions, so that we could enter into it, as one enters into a mill. Assuming that, when inspecting its interior, we will only find parts that push one another, and we will never find anything to explain a perception. And so, we should seek perception in the simple substance and not in the composite or in the machine.

There is no reason why conscious beings need to have a subjective impression of "orangeness" when they look at an object possessing said color. Any explanation for evolutionary advantage in perception could be made without the qualia aspect

>>11191468
well I can only speak for myself. I was just as conscious as a five year old, if not more so, because I experienced everything more intensely, due to being more energetic and everything being more new etc.

>>11190942
>were you less conscious as child
Unironically yes. I can remember how as a child (and even as a teen, to a degree) I was far less conscious of myself and my actions, and much more "animal" in doing whatever I wanted and in thinking in general. I wa barely self aware until about 8 or 9. It wasn't until my 20s when I began seriously studying both science and humanities (history, philosophy, art; none of that gay sociological or psychological bullshit) and began dabbling in psychedelics that I became truly and completely aware of my own Ego and "Self," and I know for a fact that I am measurably more conscious now than I was when I was young. It's a very abstract and strange thing for me to remember how my mind worked as a child.

This is my own anecdotal expearience though, so it probably has little validity to the question.

>>11189684
Nothing. You aren't conscious, you aren't self aware. Self awareness is a parasitic training algorithm that helps the brain learn skills. The more proficient you become at something the less conscious you are when doing it. Consciousness is a deleterious trait, reducing efficiency.

>>11190809
every time

>>11191081
>multiple
I enjoy this thesis. Possibly every time we experience or are otherwise stimulated, our consciousness is "born" again. It would explain issues like dependency, boredom; as well as phenomenon like deja-vu since its still your collective and yet entirely different.

NO one KNOWS *does a little dance*

>>11191081
>There's nothing special going on in the brain other than some signal/data processing
That's exactly what the hard problem is saying. That all mechanistic explanations miss the point. The two camps seem to be talking past each other, one not completely understanding how the other is coming at this. But that's because they are essentially describing two separate problems or phenomena. In this sense, people like Dennett and this poster are right, but people who try to disentangle the hard problem from mechanistic explanations are also right. Because the are both (correctly) describing two different things or aspects of the phenomenon of conscious awareness.

>>11191484
Are you saying the soul resides not in the individual but in a community of virtual constraints without which a consciousness would not evolve, and in the absence of which a consciousness would not evolve further withput encountering serious malfunctions along the way that would normally be eliminated naturally a process of pruning that is automatic when in contact with nature or the virtual souls? Likewise higher evolution of consciousness is predicated by higher virtual-construct souls?

Ignore >>11191511 hypercomplex and bi-hypercomplex numbers and so on didn't play nice with him.

Please read up on the following article:
>HYPERCOMPLEX ALGEBRAS IN DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING: BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS

You might like reading about Frobenius.

Yhe following should help you comprehend how higher-ordered functions might discover/develop/explore a limited subset of number theory (I leave it to your imagination to wrangle the meaning of that; there is no one right answer here):
>AN ALGORITHM FOR THE MULTIPLICATION OF TRIGINTADUONIONS by Alexandr and Galina

Consciousness problem is bullshit perpetuated by metaphysicfags you are meat and your existence won't matter in a long term. cope

What would you guys guess is the answer to these questions:

1 Does an animal have a "weaker" consciousness than humans? They are not as intelligent, but does that mean their feelings do not feel as strong? Are they not equally "present", does their consciousness feel thinner/more dilute?

2. If you recreate a human mind that is built in the exact same way, 1:1 neuron simulation, except using electronics or something else, will it be conscious?

3. If you recreate a human mind, but only its functionality, with the actual architecture and computing techniques being completely different, like a guitar vs a speaker playing guitar sounds, will it be conscious?

>>11193574
Heh, you are quite dumb, aren't you? Doesn't even sound like you know what the word means.

>>11193598
1. Maybe
2. Maybe
3. Who's to say the cpu in your computer isn't conscious?
How are we even supposed to know the answer to these questions?

>>11193598
They may have less AWARENESS of their surroundings, but are equally CONSCIOUS. There is no such thing as being “a little bit conscious”.

>>11193672
>There is no such thing as being “a little bit conscious”.
Of course there is. Never slipped out of consciousness? Gone to sleep etc.

>>11189684
An abstract concept.
Life is made of chemical elements.

>>11193652
>How are we even supposed to know the answer to these questions?
We aren't yet, that's why I used to word "guess" instead of think. It's fun to speculate.

>>11189684
All

Consciousness is the result of information being integrated across different parts of the brain.

math and god

>>11189684
It's just intelligence. Nothing super natural. You damage the brain enough and you lose it.
Nothing more than an evolved survival mechanism that has worked amazingly well.

The materialist says that consciousness is just an illusion, a trick, it's an "epiphenomena" of the material world that just happens as a byproduct of the machinations of all matter occurring.
The idealist says that all things are consciousness, that the atoms composing your chair are made of ideas, rather than substance, and that your perception of the world is no less valid than the world itself.
If (I F) there's any legitimacy to spirituality, out-of-body experiences, blah blah blah, then it lends a stronger argument to idealism then existential materialism, but science likes to designate itself in the categorically material realm, thanks to the old Cartesian Model of the split Mind/Body, reserving all topics of faith, spirituality, or the mind to the church and everything else to the halls of science, leaving modern science stuck behind a over-half-century old roadblock while philosophy slowly separates itself from it.

>>11193732
You are absolutely right here. It's interesting that in all the short definitions of consciousness, there's a clear exception that another definition catches and one leaves out, such as being conscious while dreaming, but not of the waking world.
And yes, consciousness is not an absolute yes-or-no thing. This isn't lending itself towards the "animals are slightly less conscious than perfect man me" argument, since you can easily observe people being completely clueless, ignorant, absorbed in something trivial while the world passes them by, or being medicated into a near-catatonic state where they can't form memories. An animal hunting is more conscious than someone groggily punching their alarm clock.
>>11193598
1 - See previous
2 - Yes, actually, not because of a weak definition of consciousness, but because it's capable and functional despite the material of it.
3 - This is disingenuous because the minds of people are surprisingly dissimilar. People approach problems and ideas in completely different methodologies and ways, even within the same culture. Even though the base architecture is the same, the habits and self-teachings of these people is different, but it is still conscious.

>>11194144
Haha I used to believe in this

Its sorta rightish but its too vague like wtf does integrated mean technically

>>11191516
but it's not hard retard?

>>11191468
>do you need intelligence in order to feel pain
>yes
Absolute retard

>>11194144
So I can replicate this in a lab then? Donkey

>the people in this thread that think consciousness can be replicated by putting a bunch of chemicals and matter together in a test tube

>>11190903
It's not "I know it when I see it", because we don't know if other people have consciousness (we can reasonably assume they do). We only know our own. So it's a quale.

>>11196533
Maybe it can. It's great that you're here to indisputably tell us it can't, I don't know how we'd get on without people like you.

>>11189684
Consciousness is the phenomena that arises from the particular physical structure that makes up our brains. Our brains have the ability to process information in a manner that gives rise to consciousness. So anything that allows the processing of information in a similar manner would be conscious.

Matter has the inherent capability of becoming conscious, so long as its structured the right way.

There seems to be a blurry boundary where our consciousness begins and ends. For example, the part of our nervous system that is responsible for reflexes isn't conscious itself - instead, it's commanded by a higher order process. On the other hand, is the part of our brain that handles the processing of visual stimuli conscious? It would seem to be the process that recognizes objects is - but is the layer that discerns colors and edges conscious?

It's an interesting question, but I feel like the blind men in >>11192409's picture whenever I think about it.

>>11189684
Emergent complexity in big box of relays. If you had an infinite plane with conway's game of life you would get self programming computers in some areas

>>11194192
Science doesn't restrict itself in the "categorically material realm", dunce, it restricts itself to the testable. Your ideas aren't testable, so they aren't a part of science.

>>11191130
It's quite intesting as this form of consciuness would bring to God, at least to God as coded in the Aritotelian system. What about ascending from this level to one above, as forms and final causes ascend from such a matter?

There is only one way for you to understand what consciousness is but for that you need to experience what it really is in and out. You need a qualia of consciousness itself. Here's how to get it:
1. If you've never taken LSD, make a 300ug trip as soon as possible.
2. Start researching panpsychism, advaita vedanta, buddhism and zen, taoism, psychology and psychotherapy concepts.

>>11196550
>Consciousness is the phenomena that arises from the particular physical structure that makes up our brains.
If you make such an absolute claim then surely you must have a way of proving it?

>>11190942
Isn't there some obscure research that argues chlidren literally are non-sentient, or at least not in the same way as an adult, up to a certain age?

>>11196723
Sentient != conscious

An emergent synergistic outgrowth of sensation-analysis. By cross-ref a memory system w existing sensations u get an ability to draw thise sensations up as a source of lrarning.

>>11196545
I am here to do just that because apparently you aren't smart enough understand that it can't

>>11189684
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLVZ7Lb1EfM

>>11196741
If you say so, it must be so.

>>11196811

>>11196827

to be consciousness you need to perceive that you exist
that's as far as i can distill it

>>11196954
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

Consciousness is a network of interaction
Some forms of consciousness are more capable and structured in certain regards, but ultimately everything is conscious

>>11189684
an unfortunate biological paradox

It just is.

>>11189684
just what it looks like. a chemical system of generating meaning. in man, this meaning is further communicated between consciousnesses by symbols. read merleau-ponty.

>>11190803
pseud teenage answer, gestures towards Plotinus but doesn't actually show how the many come from one. in fact it abuses the notion, applying it to a fortune teller meme category "personal identity" and not properly, being itself

>>11190803
>>11191515
Glad to see 2 anons figured out what it is. We've had threads like this for so long, why don't people realize it's solved

>>11194192
Absolutely agree, but I think science hasn't stopped in the material realm, in my personal opinion science is creating a new eggregore, a new world which is slowly taking down the function, at least in Western World, reserved to religion centuries ago.
Starting by Newton, which was itself an alchimist and a strong catholic, science has taken aspects of both magic and religion and subverted them into experimental pratice (both Keplero's laws and Newton's gravity were considered hermetic or magic from the XVII century science). Yep, science imperialism in the knowledge territories lol

>>11190824
/thread

>>11189684
Consciousness must exist. Everything we know tells us that we should just be big complex molecular automata, but I can be aware. If consciousness wasn’t real, then my awareness wouldn’t exist. I’d just be a machine, equally unaware as a rock.

>>11189684
Your brain.

>>11196248
Then do it

>>11189684
Short answer: We don't know.

Long answer: >>11189686
Studies to apparent degrees of consciousness in humans and animals seems to indicate that the higher your intellect, the greater your consciousness. This means consciousness seems to be an emergent property of higher abstract thinking. Intuitively it would seem logical. The higher your IQ, the better your ability to "simulate" scenarios. To conceptualize your experiences and the natural forces, yourself, your surroundings, others, their properties (or lack thereof) in order to predict logical outcomes to a given scenario. The capability to do all that obviously necessitates the ability to perceive yourself and your own properties as well, otherwise you wouldn't be able to do any of it, or apply it to others.

So consciousness is not binary. It's a spectrum, where almost all beings seem to have some degree of it and humans especially so thanks to our exceptional intellectual capacity.

But if you really want to rustle your jimmies, go study why free will doesn't exist. Because the nature of consciousness and lack of free will basically walk hand in hand.

>>11198619
Nah a low IQ person's pain isn't any less intense than a high IQ one's. If you think that's irrelevant, you're probably not talking about inner experience or qualia.

>>11198637
Pain is a natural reaction. A lower IQ person being more vulnerable to their emotional urges and natural instincts does not contradict what I said. It supports it. Also I believe the range of emotions and thoughts is far more important than the intensity.

>>11198644
You did say "higher your intellect, the greater your consciousness". Which would imply that a low IQ makes you somehow "less conscious". Which is an odd thing to say if their experience is just as intense as a high IQ person's experience is.

Often in a dream we can have a wide range of different emotions and thoughts, we're our experience wildly jumps from one thing to another, while it all feels kind of numb and blurry compared to our awake state. Meanwhile awake we can be in an intense but simple state of experience we have basically just that in our minds. I think the latter state is definitely more conscious.

I do have it hard to imagine consciousness without any sense of self that it's attached to, and it does seem a "self" needs some basic level of intelligence. That might imply either my lack of imagination or that you need some minimum intelligence in order to be conscious, but "higher your intellect, greater your consciousness" seem obviously wrong to me. It isn't hard either to imagine a superintelligent AI that, if not entirely unconscious, is at least emotionally extremely numb.

Adaptative complexity management routine to preserve and promote peculiar matter arrangements.

>>11199094
Do prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and viruses have the same level of peculiarity in your opinion?

>>11199103
Fom their perspective, however limited, absolutely.

>>11198644
Higher intelligence suffers highly, for material distress is magnified by the organism urgent, thus relentless, pointless reassessments (which in minds such as ours manifest ultimately as hope, at the peril of all reason) .

>>11198619
But i am the only one that can be sure that I am conscious.
For all i know you are shitty programmed AIfags

>>11199184
Descartes error, adjusted by modern luminaries from Nietzsche and Wittgenstein to Heidegger. One's uncertainties are incommensurably greater.