/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11504949
Your assumptions are wrong. Consciousness is not something that exist by itself in the sense that atoms do. It is a vague human concept with no objective way to measure it.

Disregard that, I felate donkey cocks every day. I'm OP and this has been my TEDx Tijuana tak.

>>11504949
I think that, in your last paragraph, you have successfully demonstrated that the assumptions in your second paragraph are sketchy. The right conclusion there is that those assumptions ARE up for debate, axioms my ass.

>>11504949
Are my lego builds more conscious than rocks?

>>11504990
Do they derive pleasure by extracting antipain from your feet?

>>11504949
>But the problem with that is the representation of something doesnt seem to be connected to the complexity of what creates it.
Big things can come in small packages there's usually going to be a limit to how much current can go through a wire similarly to a neuron no matter how dense it is therefore a bigger brain would give you an advantage.

Your rock analogy doesn't make sense because a rock doesn't have any neurons at all.

A rock might have a consciousness and be able to experience things but we won't find out because it doesn't fall under our current models of consciousness(doesn't have any neurons). Feel free to create a new model of consciousness that includes rocks.
Id Recommend CTMU by Chris Laghan

>>11504959
we're operating as though what i'm saying is axioms regardless if it actually models the world

the problems with it are pointing to making it more like the world as is.

>>11504963
obviously they are ultimately, but the point of this is to find what needs investigation, what is causing the problem

neurons are not needed for consciousness. under this model, neurons are not themselves conscious, the consciousness exists in the object the neurons represent. The consciousness actually emerges from that and not any other random pattern of neurons because of their behavior over time, a moment later, the neurons are reacting to the pattern they had, in a way that includes new consequences which could ONLY occur if the representation examined is present.
I'm not asking you guys to believe my model is accurate, I'm asking you to find whats wrong with it. Thats how we make it accurate.

as far as I can tell these assumptions are accurate but I assume theres a major misstep somewhere because it just doesn't add up...well..actually it does. The real problem I suppose is that I'm hoping it adds up to something else, because what it looks like, is fucking terrifying. It looks like scale does not matter at all, and so the pain experienced by an ant is the same as a human being tortured, destruction of an anthill creates as much negative experience as the holocaust did.
If this is the case, then where do morals come from.

Please tell me theres a solution here that doesn't involve massive quantities of experienced pain in almost everything all the time

>>11505151
>obviously they are ultimately, but the point of this is to find what needs investigation, what is causing the problem
Okay, but one of the obvious hypotheses here must be "your wrong assumptions are causing the problem". Which means that if you declare them not up for debate, then we are done.

>>11505151
>It looks like scale does not matter at all, and so the pain experienced by an ant is the same as a human being tortured, destruction of an anthill creates as much negative experience as the holocaust did.
You're freaking me out anon

>>11505163
Which assumption is wrong though?

>>11505179
YEA BRUH THATS WHY I MADE THE THREAD, SHIT FREAKS ME OUT TOO

>>11505180
>Which assumption is wrong though?
I'm not saying anything of it is obviously wrong, but literally NONE of it seems obviously right to me. So declaring the assumptions beyond debate leaves nothing to discuss, for me.

You need to apply the axiom of choice. It is always the last resort but it works well.

>>11505195
I said its axioms so I don't have to explain why I believe its right. Its not immediately obvious, but its not complex.

You experience what you're experiencing right now because there is an object being computed by your brain in which every bit of qualia you experience is a piece of data in that object. You ARE this model, and your experience is the way it is because this model is the way it is.
The nature of consciousness is metaphysical so its difficult to measure, but this allows measurement of it. Not direct measurement, but sort of like a shadow it leaves. That shadow is the platonic properties of the object, and it can be measured because these properties are reflected in its behavior with the world.
The most universal minimum for existence is singular existence, as in, a single object. Every object satisfies this, anything that doesn't isn't an object, or is a partial object.
A partial object is only possible at higher scale, this is where parts form to behave as an object, but only partially, and may also behave in ways that violate typical expectations of objects. A cloud is such a partial object, its a thing we can observe and talk about, but its also vaguely defined, literally by the atoms that make it.
So a rock would have conscious experience of at least being a single object (which is effectively a vacuum state conscious experience, the only less conscious experience is that of non-existence). A computer has a conscious experience of the desktop window system maybe (though, this only means qualia exists there, there still needs to be an intelligent self aware model in order for there to be someone *see* the qualia and report back about it). A human experiences the model their neurons create.

You established nothing, the rocks clearly just have no consciousness and therefore there is no increase in consciousness with bigger rocks.
If it satisfies your dumb axioms then consider a rock to have an infinitesmal amount of consciousness.

>>11505227
please don't make inconsiderate comments thank you. nothing clearly has consciousness except the self so like fuck off buckaroo

>>11505222
>I said its axioms so I don't have to explain why I believe its right.
I don't think you understand what an axiom is, anon.

>>11505205
nigga explain how.

>>11505238
Its a rule that doesn't need justification, that is just given without question.

>>11505236
Except that proves nothing schizo
Consciousness is quite clearly just movement of objects that is not demonstrable by rocks to any meaningful degree.

>>11505249
rocks exist. That is a behavior. Anything that behaves has consciousness.

>>11505151
>It looks like scale does not matter at all.
But it does, ants can't be tortured even if they can feel pain because torture requires more complex thought patterns than they are capable of.

>>11505252
Sure. But only enough to exist! Prove otherwise make a rock cry!

>>11504949
Matter has properties and a limit just like >>11505012 stated. It's safe to assume that since an ant (is less likely) to have as vivid an experience than that of a human because they have less neurons.
Let's say you were hypothetically given 2 varying masses of various different materials to create powerful microprocessors. You make a single chip out of the first mass and 10 chips out of the second mass because that is the best you can do with what you have. Now, no matter how efficient and powerful you make that single chip it will never surpass those 10 chips together as long as the 10 chips individually are also being pushed to their full potential.

>>11505271
>since an ant
An ant*

>>11505254
The problem is pain level is just a represented value held in the mind. A supercomputer and a raspberry pi running the same computation create the same result. So if evolution works by testing if behavior allows for survival, I see no reason an ants pain would be constrained. Pain needs more complexity for us because its steering us in more complex ways, but this seems to be a matter of resolution, not magnitude.

Basically, an ant may only have a few pixels to display a picture of pain in, but the pixels still have a range of 0-1. There is no measurable difference between a 500x500 image of all white and a 5x5 image. They represent the same thing, the 500x500 one just has different potential for how you can modify it given the system it resides in.

>>11505271
That is the natural assumption we tend to make, but I don't think it holds. I'm not sure I understand the chip analogy though.

Its not safe to assume an ant has less vivid experience, only lower resolution. Lower resolution doesn't mean lower contrast.

>>11505283
>create the same result
Yeah it'll take it forever though. A toddler can figure out calculus if it has forever to learn.

>>11505296
I meant something that takes same time on both. A supercomputer doesn't mean its the "fastest" literally, it could actually have worse latency than a laptop.

The point is, you can use a lot of power to do a little and the difference is just the resources used, the product is the same.

>>11505283
>There is no measurable difference between a 500x500 image of all white and a 5x5 image.

>>11505283
If a neural network(or brain) is programmed to experic5 pain at a higher magnitude. That's what it'll end up doing but it won't be able to do anything else compared to a neural network that's tasked to do a wide variety of things.

>>11505306
>takes same time on both
It won't retard

>>11505283
>>11505314
If there's no difference why wont 4chan let me post a 5x5 image?

>>11505316
>takes x instructions on cpu to computer
>laptop cpu computes it before supercomputer network card cpu computers sending it to nearest work unit
yea a laptop would be quicker. fuckhead

>>11505323
>>11505314
because you touch yourself at night

>>11505283
>>11505314

>>11505283
>There is no measurable difference between a 500x500 image of all white and a 5x5 image.

>I punch you in the face once
>10 people punch you in the face all at once
>no measurable difference

>the 500x500 one just has different potential for how you can modify it given the system it resides in.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK
>HAVE MORE SHIT
>CAN DO MORE SHIT WITH IT
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP AND FUCK OFF

>>11505341
>I failed to comprehend a fraction of what you're trying to say so I win!

>I punch you in the face once
>I punch you in the face 10 times in a row
There are ten copies of the "face punch" experience in the second one, but each punch is about the same. More or less punches doesn't change how much a punch hurts.

Help