/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11387623
>PhD: zero
opinion discarded.

>>11387623
>Will we ever come to understand consciousness in scientific language?
define "consciousness"

>>11387623
Yes. We are brains. Brains have electrical signals and neurons. Neurons work by reading DNA. Neurons can change to learn via re-encoding the DNA within the neuron. Through the metabolism of neurons we experience consciousness (sometimes at least). For a supposed super genius he does get stuck in the 'spirituality' illogical loophole.

>>11387625
In other words, you dont care about the arguments, just about social systems. If someone fits into the social system, they are right, if they dont, they are wrong.

>>11387633
>>11387633
Figured this out by the time I was 12, nice to be smarter than the smartest man

>>11387633
>Through the metabolism of neurons we experience consciousness

But this experiencing of consciousness is what needs to be explained. Just saying that it happens doesn't get us very far. The very question is about what it means to experience something in the first place, what it means to BE a subject.

Consciousness is the abstract place comprising everything that you mentally experience. It's just a "place", in the sense that the contents of the consciousness are merely what your multiple unconscious subminds project unto into, such as sense-percepts of the five senses, thoughts and emotions. The purpose of consciousness is to enable your multiple unconscious subminds to share what they process and find relevant. For instance, first a sound is processed (as just frequency, pitch etc) by the unconscious, then if it's a sound that this unconscious submind deem as relevant, it projects the sense-percept of the sound unto consciousness, then other subminds can process this sense-percept and project their outputs unto consciousness if it's deemed as important. Only one submind can project its contents on consciousness at a given time, but all of these subminds are always working, that's why your attention can jump to memories, ideas and feelings completely unrelated. Your inner dialogue is the product of a specific submind that creates abstract concepts such as "I" which makes things more simple - but as you can see, there's no real "I".

>>11387700
Detailed read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

We learn by either branching a web of dendrites or recoding the DNA in nuclei of neurons to later be read by transcription. Both of these mechanisms allow the brain to realize itself by putting to memory in the DNA recordings of our five senses and/or inner thoughts.

>>11387704
This also explains how you can drive unconsciously (every unconsciouss submind is always working and processing information and using reflexes/automatic responses when you are awake).

>>11387707
One could thusly argue that the 'spirit' of a human being is the DNA.

>>11387704
Furthermore, each submind has its own memory and "programs" (automatic responses to stimuli). This is why it's easier to memorize something when you give it more meaning (ie mnemonic techniques that transforms simple text into stories or songs - you're in fact storing the information in the memory of multiple subminds like the visual or the auditory unconscious subminds).

When you are in doubt of something, it's because your unconscious subminds are in conflict. If you pay close attention, first the conflict is solved as if by magic, then you have an "aha" moment and decide that you want to order a salad instead of a desert. This "aha" moment preceding the inner dialogue saying "I want a salad", that's the compromise that your multiple unconscious subminds have agreed upon.

There are also moments when no submind is projecting anything in consciousness, this characterizes dullness. When you are sleeping, none of the subminds is projecting anything unto consciousness, thus it's the extreme case of dullness. When you are very alert, that's because there are very few moments without any projections unto conciseness.

>>11387726
But evidently, just because you are sleeping, it doesn't mean that the subminds have stoped working, they are just not projecting things unto consciousness. Dreams are the result of these unconscious subminds working while you are sleeping. This also explains why sometimes you can solve problems while sleeping, like the people that dream with solutions of programming/math problems. It's the same phenomenon as when you let go of a problem and go for a walk to clear your head, bu then you suddenly have an "aha" moment with an insight about the problem that you were trying to solve - the unconscious continued working on it, and then project the insight unto consciousness because it was deemed as important.

>>11387707
I'm not talking about self-consciousness in the sense of having a concept of self, I'm talking about being able to experience qualia, the pure feeling of pain or pleasure. You can't explain that with the behavior or neurons.

>>11387707
I'm not talking about self-consciousness in the sense of having a concept of self, I'm talking about being able to experience qualia, the pure feeling of pain or pleasure. You can't explain that with the behavior of neurons.

>>11387623
"consciousness" (defined as a self-referential awareness) is impossible: it implies an equalization of a part of the brain (that creating the concept of "self") with the brain itself. The brain cannot think itself, just as the ruler cannot measure itself.

>>11387795
>I'm talking about being able to experience qualia, the pure feeling of pain or pleasure.
They say schizophrenia has a positive correlation with IQ scores!

>>11387657
No it's more about not spending time on every single theory written by cranks with inferiority complex you find on vixra. Instead spend your time studying established knowledge from previous generations (that's the PhD route).

I'm not the same anon and I don't discard people simply because of PhD but I can see how that's a rational strategy. In order to gain knowledge, you first have to trust the experts in academia, and study what they know, if they don't give a shit about something such as CTMU or flat earth theory or raspberry multiverse, it's rational to listen to them. There is not a single case of revolution in math or physics that was started by someone who don't understand the established framework. Einstein learned from Kant, Mach, Duhem, Poincaré, Schlick, and others, who does this dude cite for his theory? lol

>>11387623
Already solved by Skinner and Jaynes.

>>11387657
not that you need a PhD to have a voice, but I'll be damned if a PhD is "just" a social system. It certainly earns you some level of authority, it doesn't have to be absolute but it's absolutely there

>>11387623
I read some of this dude's metaphysics work once. Having read a lot of philosophy, it was utterly redundant with shit people have said hundreds of years ago. It was naive schizo bullshit dressed up in all these made up compound words that offer an illusion of novelty. As is often the case, people who are very good at a certain thing - such as math - are prone to think they have an advanced understanding on everything.

Also, if you rush to appeal to brain processes being adequately explained as a response to the hard problem of consciousness then you haven't even made it as far as understanding what the problem was.

See Leibniz's windmill analogy

>>11388421
give us a quick outline

>>11387633
>what is consciousness
>lol easy. neurons. we r brains
you think you're smart but you're actually dumb

>>11387623
not really sure. the black box that exists between the reductionism explaining gas particles and the statistical modeling explaining wing lift exists in a lot of places, to use physical language. adding every reductionist interaction might get you there, but I don't think humans work that way. Like I'd bet we can create a convincing AI before we come up with a good model for our own consciousnesses because computers can fill in the black box from the bottom up.

>>11387623
>consciousness
>qualia
>T4 bacteriophage
>corona virus
>circumcision
>nofap
>scientifically speaking
>what is the evolutionary purpose of
>IQ
>races
>simulation

Nah, can't be the brain. Too much empty space between neurons. Trust me.

Consciousness is the ability to perceive the environment and stimuli through senses and various receptors and to process them with associative areas of the brain.
It's all physical and you're a retarded schizo tranny if you disagree with me.
Kill all drug users and philosophy fags.

>>11389376
Good thing that's not the kind of consciousness we're trying to explain then. You'd have to be intellectually bankrupt to not spend the extra 10 seconds to realize that maybe a problem that has been debated for centuries and still has people puzzled, isn't simply about how the brain manages to functionally operate.

But I expected nothing less from some /pol/ retard screaming about trannies.

>>11387700
anon, let me help you. Physicalists can't explain consciousness, (the hard problem, look it up). Here is the explanation:
-Idealism
-Open Individualism
You can read Berkeley's thoughts on idealism, they come pretty close to the correct answer. Berkeley relies on god to get his argument across though. This isn't necessary, if you look in open individualism you see why.

>>11389343
>don't talk about things that make me feel uncomfortable!

>>11389343
>DMT
>Ego Death
>Open Individualism
>Living in a Simulation
>Why something rather than nothing- why this
>Edge of the universe
>Multiverse String Theory
>ThEoReTiCal PhYSiCs
>Nonexistence/afterlife
>We don't really exist
>Metaphysics
>CoLoNizIng SpAce
>Muh Aliens

>>11391281
No, don't talk about dumb ass shit that's been discussed 10000 times, acting like you have some new, groundbreaking information about these trivial dumbass topics that only normies care about.