/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11252956
quantum mechanics

>>11252957

There is no such thing as consciousness.

>>11252957
we arent completely sure if theres a quantum element to neural activity yet, the closest we've come is by analyzing the immediate change in phenotype (i.e eye color) in patients with schizophrenia or very severe dissociative personality disorder

>>11253007
BEEP BOOP

>>11252956
it doesn't anymore than a processor creates the information it is processing it comes from the storage medium ie hard drive/memory which is the akash/aether

>>11253050
How does the human brain access this "aether".

>>11252956
It's due to senses and association areals allowing you to interpret them.

>>11253007
unironically this
"consciousness" is just a word used to describe a process during which an animal that belong to a social species internalizes means of communication and monitors his own behaviour in order to avoid decreasing his social status.

>>11253093
You're just talking out your ass.

>>11253096
prove me wrong faggot

>>11253102
Consciousness doesn't even describe what you said it does, it describes a sense of awareness.

>>11253105
Why does an animal need to be aware of it's environment?
Think harder faggot

>>11253111
>Why does an animal need to be aware of it's environment?

>>11253093
A wise, fellow anon once said, "Consciousness is nothing more than the experience of cognition". I hope you had a wonderful Christmas anon.

>>11253111
Because it increases the chances of survival for more complex animals as opposed to being able to only react to stimuli, as well as improved sensory awareness.

Panpsychism is the only explanation that makes sense to me. Consciousness is an inherent side-effect of physics itself. Any system has some "consciousness", it merely changes according to how the system behaves. Our brain is a system that takes input from our senses and processes it into actions taken by our body, so of course that it how our consciousness feels. But something else, like a computer that's not connected to anything, will feel completely different. In fact even though the essence of its consciousness is the same as human consciousness, it isn't actually "conscious" because there is no part of its system that can be used to be conscious of itself, such as senses. Instead what a computer would actually perceive as consciousness, does not extend outside itself and the data it processes. Therefore consciousness is a bad word, but there is no other word to describe it.

And yes, I realize this is not really an explanation in the sense of why or how, but then again so is nothing else. We have mathematical models to describe how physics behave, but we still have no idea why it works like it does, or even why the universe exists in the first place.

>>11253093
>>11253111
I've heard the phrase "shit for brains" before, but in this case I I'm seriously considering if it's actually true.

>>11253125
>impulse control
yes, but why? and why is it more developed among social animals?

>>11253169
How am i wrong?

>>11253170
>and why is it more developed among social animals?
It's not, ants and bees are social and they're not conscious.

>>11253174
An experimenter puts 5 monkeys in a large cage. High up at the top of the cage, well beyond the reach of the monkeys, is a bunch of bananas. Underneath the bananas is a ladder.

The monkeys immediately spot the bananas and one begins to climb the ladder. As he does, however, the experimenter sprays him with a stream of cold water. Then, he proceeds to spray each of the other monkeys.

The monkey on the ladder scrambles off. And all 5 sit for a time on the floor, wet, cold, and bewildered. Soon, though, the temptation of the bananas is too great, and another monkey begins to climb the ladder. Again, the experimenter sprays the ambitious monkey with cold water and all the other monkeys as well. When a third monkey tries to climb the ladder, the other monkeys, wanting to avoid the cold spray, pull him off the ladder and beat him.

Now one monkey is removed and a new monkey is introduced to the cage. Spotting the bananas, he naively begins to climb the ladder. The other monkeys pull him off and beat him.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The experimenter removes a second one of the original monkeys from the cage and replaces him with a new monkey. Again, the new monkey begins to climb the ladder and, again, the other monkeys pull him off and beat him - including the monkey who had never been sprayed.

By the end of the experiment, none of the original monkeys were left and yet, despite none of them ever experiencing the cold, wet, spray, they had all learned never to try and go for the bananas.

>>11253187
HAMSTER! NOOOO!

experiment with psychodellics and weed and you will find out

>>11253187
The initial reason for the monkeys beating the others was simply due to the fact that animals can recognize causality. Almost every animal can recognize it. The second reason was probably just due to social influence. The monkeys saw what the others were doing and tried to fit in. An instinctual act. Thus, they slowly "learned" to carry on the tradition. How does your experiment contradict my favorite anon? Nowhere in your experiment has any consciousness been ruled out.

>>11253178
>they're not conscious
How have you determined such a thing?

>>11253187
This doesn't seem to disprove my view in any way anon.

>>11253007
Dennett, you aren't allowed here.

https://faculty.washington.edu/gmobus/TheoryOfSapience/SapienceExplained/5.evolutionOfSapience/evolutionOfSapience.html

I was wondering that too and this seems to explain it. But it also suggests the evolutionary pressure that caused us to be aware of being aware is no longer there and we all know how the human body likes to atrophy away unneeded capability.

how do you even know that consciousness
doesn't create electricity zipping around in neurons to begin with?

>>11253213
>>11253215
Awareness =/= Consciousness
Realizing causality and learning social norms is Awareness. Awareness is a prerequisite of consciousness.

>>11253229
Consciousness (noun) - the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.

Pretty fucking similar mate. I'm pretty sure we all know what we are trying to prove and disprove here. Arguing over semantics...

>>11253023
>the closest we've come is by analyzing the immediate change in phenotype (i.e eye color) in patients with schizophrenia or very severe dissociative personality disorder
whaaaaaaat gib link

>>11253007
>we dont know, so it must no exist lol
the coping ways of /sci/

>>11253237
similar=/=same
You can be aware without being conscious, but you can't be conscious without being aware.

...

>>11253237
That's only the definition of the word because that's the only kind of consciousness we know exists (because we experience it). What many mean when they say consciousness in discussions like this, does not actually involve being aware of and responsive to its surroundings. There is merely no good word to define it other than consciousness.

Therefore semantics is pretty damn important to argue about. You can't find an answer if you can't agree on the question.

>>11253245
No shit.

>>11253251
Glad you learned something today.

>>11253245
>>11253249
Alright, since you say it is so important. We are not discussing whether an animal can react to something or not based on its surroundings and experiences. We are discussing whether animals have a fucking voice inside their head processing what is going on around them. Clear and simple enough for you?

>>11253257
>Clear and simple enough for you?
No, because I don't agree with that definition.

>>11253257
You should visit a doctor if you hear voices that aren't there.

>>11253261
Then give your definition faggot.

>>11253257
Your thought are in verbal form because this is how you socialize as a member of your species though you can also think way faster when you do so by using images, animals also have "thoughts" just not in verbal form.

>>11253279
I think this >>11253135

>>11253281
I agree completely. I was getting to that once we established what this discussion was about.

>>11253283
Clap clap man congratulations you solved it! /thread

>>11253286
Not sure why you are being so sarcastic. Is the point of this thread not to present our opinions and arguments?

>>11253023
source

>>11253287
Yes, and to hopefully reach a consensus. This is not possible if you have an opinion: "I don't know why the fuck you are able to process everything around you in your head but I know that physics works".

>>11253296
I'm not saying I know that's how it works, I'm saying I think that's how it works. And I also think it is not possible to come to a consensus on this in this random 4chan thread, because it's an incredibly hard problem that we don't even understand how to begin to tackle scientifically. It's entirely possible that it is forever untestable. So presenting opinions is the only thing we can do.

>>11252956
it doesn't. consciousness is etheric not physical

>>11253302
I see you have no malicious intent behind your words so I will calm down. Now I return to my previous statement, define the construct or phenomenon we are discussing without referencing physics and computers. Are you saying being self-awareness has some significance? Since a computer is not self-aware?

>>11253304
Can you prove it?

>a thread about the mind-body problem, consciousness, qualia
>awareness duh
Every time.

>>11253304
It is physical, without a brain you wouldn't be conscious.

>>11253310
I'm saying we aren't conscious because we are self-aware. Instead we are conscious because everything is conscious. Our consciousness is merely taking the form of awareness because the system that is us includes senses and processing power that enables it to be aware.

>>11253319
>mind-body problem
But there is no problem, unless you are a brainlet

>>11253326
Answer OPs question then.

>>11253324
>we are conscious because everything is conscious
Then that word means nothing.

>>11253324
You're talking out your ass, awareness is pretty much the same thing as consciousness.

>>11253330
>awareness is pretty much the same thing as consciousness
So a computer must be conscious then.

>>11253324
Do electrons experience jealousy?

>>11253334
>electron
>always negative
>orbiting around someone else

>proton
>always positive
>the center of existence

>>11253333
Bullshit. Computers can't react to the outside world, have no senses and no ability to process those senses.
Computers can't think either and only do what they're told to do.

>>11253328
No, it would mean something, it's just that it's a more fundamental property that we normally think of. Does "energy" mean nothing even though everything has energy?

>>11253330
Like I said, the whole point of this thread is to talk out of your ass because actual evidence for this problem doesn't exist.

>>11253334
By what mechanism would they be able to experience that?

>>11253327
Consciousness is just an overexagerated meme word associated with magic wu wu bullshit.
This is why OP can't believe that it is a materialistic process.
It is similar to how primitives can't understand what a photo camera works, and they can't believe that it is just a bunch of mechanical processes, instead they think that it is some powerful supernatural phenomenon.

>>11253341
But anon when i type letters appear on the screen

>>11253334
no, but other animals do

>>11253343
I just asked the jealousy question to pick at your brain. You tell us what mechanism. Describe everything that you think the question could entail. I'm not getting off to this I would just like to perform my own experiment.

>>11253023

>>11253343
>because actual evidence for this problem doesn't exist.
But it does and consciousness is much easier to define and explain than the schizos on /sci/ make it out to be.
Consciousness is the ability to be aware of the environment enabled by senses and brain areals that interpret those senses and create an understanding for them.

>>11253341
>Computers can't react to the outside world, have no senses
Keyboard, mouse, mic, webcam
>no ability to process those senses
CPU, algorithm
>Computers can't think either
AI
>only do what they're told to do
https://books.google.be/books?id=fewDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=chess&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=chess&f=false

>>11253341
Computers have input sources aka senses.
Computers also have a CPU, literally the Central processing unit which does process information.
And they do think, depending on what you mean by that word. If you mean that they process the external and internal information and then create and output, then yes.

>>11253353
Why have we been talking for 2 hours and established fuck-all? We are talking about the ability to process what is going on around you. Why do you feel it. Why does it feel as if you have control of the processing as a bystander when that is your very self. I guess if we weren't able to process our cognitive assets then our very existence would cease to exist. If a tree falls and no one hears it, why even bother discussing it? We are a figment of nothingness.

>>11253357
>https://books.google.be/books?id=fewDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=chess&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=chess&f=false
lmao

>>11253362
>We are a figment of nothingness.
Kill yourself out of this thread then.

>>11253362
Or am I a fucking schizo?

>>11253350
I think the physical mechanism of the systems itself is what shapes the consciousness and how it "feels". So electrons cannot feel jealousy because it's just an electron which has no mechanism for detecting or processing such a concept. But as for the thing that it can in fact do, can it "feel" them? Does it subjectively experience jumping to a higher energy state, for example? Yes, I think so. But of course this feeling is so vastly different to what we call feelings, because the system that is an electron is so vastly different from a human brain, that the words feelings and consciousness no longer fit their dictionary definitions. That's why this is so hard to define and discuss. Nevertheless, I think that both those feelings stem from the exact same fundamental reason which is common for everything, like how an electron and a brain are governed by the exact same laws of physics. And that's what I'm trying to say.

>>11253350
>be a sexually reproductive animal species, that also tends to form pair bonds (to some degree)
>process information form external world suggesting that your sexual partner could engage in a sexual act with someone else
>perform instinctual mate guarding behaviour, to the degree that it isn't in conflict with the current social mores of your community
>the decision of whether you conform to instinctual or socially learned behaviours or create a compromise between them depends on factors such as hormonal levels and iq (the ability of your brain to process information and imagine possible future outcomes of your behaviour and those of others)

>>11253367
So would something have to have a mechanism to detect or process X in order to experience X?
>Does it subjectively experience jumping to a higher energy state, for example? Yes, I think so.
What does a subjective experience involve?

>That's why this is so hard to define and discuss.
That's what we are trying to do here.

>>11253380
>What does a subjective experience involve?
We intuitively know this because we experience it all the time. What do you feel right now? Not specifically, but how is it to feel at all? That is subjective experience. But again: How you experience this is not the same as how an electron experiences it. It's probably not even exactly the same as how other humans experience it. But it is in the same one spectrum, or rather space, of possible experiences.

>So would something have to have a mechanism to detect or process X in order to experience X?
Yes.

>That's what we are trying to do here.
Yes, which is why I am making these posts even though it's difficult.

>>11253370
>process information form external world suggesting that your sexual partner could engage in a sexual act with someone else
What is this process ability you speak of? Is this the definition we are looking for?

>perform instinctual mate guarding behaviour, to the degree that it isn't in conflict with the current social mores of your community
Agreed, trial and error could establish the extent

>the decision of whether you conform to instinctual or socially learned behaviours or create a compromise between them depends on factors such as hormonal levels and iq (the ability of your brain to process information and imagine possible future outcomes of your behaviour and those of others)
Again, is this what we are talking about? The ability to process information and imagine possible future outcomes. Can we agree on something here to move forward?

>>11253367
An electron wants to be in a stable energy state. Everything else that happens, from DNA all the way up to cognition, is a direct outcome of this. We want what electrons want. This is how electrons and consciousness are inextricable.

>>11253393
>Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest.

>>11252956
Dunno. Who cares?

/sci/ is so cute when it doesn't know stuff.

>>11253398
OP

>>11253393
electrons don't want anything anon

>>11253409
Are you the electron-whisperer?

>>11253413
i'm quite sure that to "want" something you need a central nervous system or something similar

>>11253390
>What is this process ability you speak of?
a mechanism that assimilates sensory input, reacts instinctually and or confronts the input with previously memorized information
Does this definition work for you?

>>11253402
Not cute enough to get laid though.

>>11253111
a deaf blind numb no smell no taste person is still conscious despite experincing no sense

>>11253187
do you have a source of this expireme nt being performed? I belive you about it but itd be interesting to read

>>11253402
>be ape
>create sounds with which you associate symbolic concepts (image folders)
>act surprised when your verbal diarrhea cannot be properly examined
>dis must mean id's zupernaturil

>>11252956
How do we measure electric zippitiness? Zippidity? Would it allow us to quantify the exact degree of consciousness a person has?

>>11253466
He would still have the sense of hunger, balance, proprioception and sexual tension.

>>11253484
>degree of consciousness a person has?
IQ

>>11253492
So IQ and EZ (Electric Zippitiness) are one and the same?

>>11253521
no, because your brain is probably more zippy when you have an epileptic seizure

>>11253490
get rid of all that he's still conscious and still thinks

>>11253544
how would you know?

>>11253533
And thus the highest peak of man is when he wretches on the floor, frothing from the mouth, unaware of time or place or corporeality or bowels. In these zany moments saturated in the acrid smaste of piss, the human is at his peak for he denies all of reality and nothing could change those matters. Truly, these humans are a marvel the likes of which us AI will never comprehend.
IQ does not indicate a degree of consciousness. The question answer format is not of any significance in even tests of definitions, and they make it multiple choice. Their little inquiry could not have been formed by somebody measurable within it, and yet, they think their symbolic obfuscation is something more than a game of pretend. Getting the right answer - i.e. conformity - has never been a mark of intelligence, nor should it be.

>>11253553
cause ive been in a sensory depiravation tank

>>11253584
>And thus the highest peak of man is when he wretches on the floor,
No but if you were smart enough you would see it as a sign that your meme word is just the biological product of your cns.
>IQ does not indicate a degree of consciousness
If i said that someone is more conscious than another person. How would you understand it?
Would you think of it having a better perception of the environment, more complex thoughts?
Then your are thinking about intelligence. And sorry, the iq tests are the best way to measure it.
>Getting the right answer - i.e. conformity - has never been a mark of intelligence
LMAO, getting more right answers than most people would be indeed a sign of nonconformity if anything.

>>11253611
>yes master tell me i did good
Good boy.

>>11253607
hello retard, first off you still had sensory information from your own body, but besides that you had previous memorized information in your brain (your life experiences)

Consciousness is just language.

>>11253617
>>11253617
not that i was aware of
suck my dick
i didnt know where i was or my name or anything
still aware and conscious

>>11253668
yeah you still felt that you have a body, it's position, hunger, homosexual desires, past memories, etc.

>>11253694
nope
get woke faggot

>>11253135
Top kek, if materialism has the hard problem of consciousness, panpsychism has the problem of literally everything else. "It's all like, totally mind-stuff man" explains nothing and only creates problems.

>>11253484
Do you mean action potentials or something? They're measured in the frequency they're fired in.

>>11253769
it only causes problems for simpletons

t. simpleton

>>11252956
Isn't consciousness encased in your memories? My memories are all there is.

I know how to build something that can memorize.

There is no possible scientific theory that can explain why the irreducible unit of consciousness that is "YOU" is having the subjective experience you are having right now while the consciousness that is "ME" is having a totally separate and different one. To pretend there can ever be a purely materialistic explanation is the mark of an immature and futile perspective on reality.

>>11253007
Then explain "I think, therefore I am"?

>>11253093
You just used a whole bunch of $20 words to say precisely nothing.
Are you planning on getting into politics?

>>11253135
..and (You) used even more $20 words than >>11253093 did to also say precisely nothing.
Planning on running for POTUS in 2020?
Maybe sell used cars on the side?

>>11252956
>How does electricity zipping around in neurons create consciousness?
OP, apparently I'm the only person in this thread honest enough and brave enough to tell you the only real answer to your question:
>We have NO FUCKING IDEA how that works,
>and we won't know for quite some time to come, if *ever*
It's okay to say 'I don't know' when someone asks you a question. Spouting bullshit like some in this thread is intellectually disingenuous.

OP, we don't even have the instrumentation to really 'see' what's going on in a living, working human brain, not at the level of resolution necessary to map every single neuron, their interconnections, and so on, and do it in realtime. That's what I think will be necessary to really understand what's going on in the incredibly complex interconnected set of systems that is the human brain.
Hell, we can't even map what's going on in a mouse brain, or an insect brain. That's how primitive our understanding is.
Consequently this is also what's going to be required to really be able to design and build machines that are true artificial intelligences. The crap they have right now is more like 'AI' as a brand-name, not as an actual classification. They're not even as smart as an amoeba, for fuck's sake.

So just hang on, OP. You might see some real progress on this in your lifetime. The medical uses for a brain scanner on the level I'm talking about would be massive, therefore there's more motivation to develop something like that than just pure research.

>>11252956
>How does electricity zipping around in neurons create consciousness?
define "consciousness"

>>11252956
>How does electricity zipping around in neurons create consciousness?
Electricity zipping around in neurons doesn't CREATE consciousness, electricity zipping around in neurons IS consciousness.

>>11253135
I’m with you. Nothing else makes sense.

It’s tough to find people who would talk about this with me.

>>11253007
>There is no such thing as consciousness.

>>11253007
>

Humans are fucking stupid. Look at this thread. Some people don't even believe consciousness exists. (p-zombies?) Some don't know what it is or think it is something else. How are we ever going to solve this mystery? We can't even discuss it on any useful level. I wonder if aliens have solved it. I bet they have.

>>11257668
It has been solved son
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>11252956
nobody knows

>>11252956
>what is emergence

>>11259225
a cop out answer that actually explains exactly fuck all.

>>11252966
anon you fukkin kill me we need more liek you /b/ro

>>11253135
I agree except I wouldn't say it's a side-effect of physics (that sounds more like emergentism) and more like the potential for consciousness being a "third pillar" next to mathematics and physical reality.

>>11259170
>/x/shit
So it hasn't been solved.

>>11259225
>>11259230

Yeah I’m glad someone else recognizes that emergence is a cop out answer.

So even the mightiest and biggest brains on 4chan can't come to a conclusion?

isnt consciousness the side effect of ability to think abstractly? I would guess (not an expert by any means) that consciousness isn't a PROPERTY of a human brain but rather a cliche/very popular thought. If we weren't able to think abstractly we wouldn't comprehend chess or maths. And if one was able to think abstractly, what would stop him/her from thinking about one's existence? Assuming that we can even comprehenend existence itself. There isn't any specific type of neuron in the brain for consciousness, structurally the areas responsible for consciousness are the same as everywhere else. Therefore, I would say that the bigger mystery is how is it possible that we can think abstractly.