/sci/ - Science & Math

Note:

This is the only model of consciousness that explains unconscious states (sleep, dreaming, etc.).

I agree.

It's been proven that smaller creatures(such as rats) process information faster and do indeed we do seem slower to them. Same applies to old vs. young people due to differences in neuron signaling speeds.
You will not be able to answer what consciousness is by thought alone.
I will go with a classic here. If you create a perfect clone of yourself, down to the very elementary particles, and put it him near you. Will he be you or not? Why or why not? Materially speaking you'll be identical. The only difference will be different coordinates in space occupied by the said particles.
There's no reason to expect you would have the same ``points of view'' at all. By all known laws of physics, you'd be two independent creatures. Yet, identical. The qualia of ``me'' and ``you'' is very intangible and currently impossible to grasp, unless you believe in things like souls, which very well might be real.

By the way, OP, your definition of consciousness is so shitty it includes bacteria.

>>12032731
what exactly do you mean by sensory reprocessing?

>>12032775
I have a shitty theory that a perfectly duplicated being will share consciousness, if only temporarily until their brains start diverging.

Another one, as you mentioned, is that consciousness is rooted in perception of time, i.e. the slower you process information, the more aware you are. I called this awareness factor, a baseline human being 1.0, animals being lower, and maybe hyper aware AI being higher.

t. reads and writes too much shitty sci-fi.

>An explanation of consciousness which doesn't include qualia


yawwwwnnnnnnnnn
*brap*
Oh sorry I had a big bean burrito for dinner

>>12032785
Your ``theory'' is not a theory but just a hypothesis, that's one. Second, you have no way to prove this, so you're basically daydreaming.

>>12032775
>Same applies to old vs. young people due to differences in neuron signaling speeds.
It's only copper deficiency.

>>12032797
Sci-fi is day dreaming put to text, so yeah. And yes, hypothesis, not theory, by bad.

>>12032731
Consciousness is just an array of numbers.

>>12032838
prove it

>>12032839
The movement of particles can be described by an array of numbers. Consciousness is the result of particle movement. Hence, consciousness can be described by an array of numbers. QED

>>12032844
Just because something can be represented as that other thing does not make it so.
I can represent your IQ as a 0, but that number 0 isn't reality itself - it's a merely a human-readable representation of your IQ.

>>12032863
Prove it.

>>12032872
I don't have to - everybody in the thread already knows you're retarded.

>>12032863
Congratulations, you've figured out how scientific theories work - they're approximations of reality. You can represent my IQ as a 0, sure, but it would be an awful approximation of reality, because we know statistically that no human with an IQ of 0 has the capacity to read or write. So it's a bad approximation of reality.

>>12032780
When one takes psychedelics, for example, their entire mode of processing and shift. It's not that their senses have changed in any way, nor is new data available to them somehow, but they're not reprocessing it the same as they were before. Our organic mode of consciousness processes things the way it does for a reason, and in doing so, it's reaching semantic satiation on a number of things that are irrelevant to survival. We acclimate to how we're using our brain, and consciousness is not the initial processing, but the act of reprocessing.
>>12032793
Each word is relevant. In this instance, you missed the import of "observed."
>>12032844
Describing a shoe as a shoe is not what makes a shoe a shoe.

>>12032879
>Describing a shoe as a shoe is not what makes a shoe a shoe.
Then what is? Anything we do, say, or even think about is naturally restricted to human perception. If there is such a thing as a "true, 100% reality", then we will never express it.

>>12032881
Not with that attitude, no. Of course not.

>>12032884
I see, so tell me how to express the true nature of things. Enlighten me.

>>12032731
>observed
just kicking the can

>>12032888
Checked (of course), but that's not really on topic for this thread. Why don't we start with an actual model of *what* it means to be human (conscious) before trying to communicate haphazardly about what a TOE should look like?

>>12032731
What does that mean for my replica in the nearby multiverse ? Clearly we're not the same

>2020
>/sci/ still hasn't figured out the difference between intelligence and awareness

>>12032879
Everyone who I've met who claimed something like this was some kind of schizo and psychedelics gave them a normal consciousness for a while.

>>12032937
Interstitial theories require twice the epistemic density to produce experimental conclusion as their natural corollaries.

>>12032731
Whats /sci/ take on ants passing mirror test but gorillas failing?

>>12032775
>bacteria can't be conscious
why?

>>12033310
Were you conscious at your time of inception?

>>12032937
Ship of theseus brah. Or Buddhist consciousness or etc.

>>12033354
Sure

>>12033354
You can be conscious then forget things

>>12033583
You're not even conscious now
>>12033587
Whats's a single cell conscious of?

>>12033838
Perceiving its environment, just like in OP's definition.
You didn't got lost in the argument or mixed your preconceptions, right?

>>12032731

consciousness is pseudoscientific nonsensical woo rambling

>>12032731
>The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
>The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
Werner Heisenberg
>When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not measuring the world, we are creating it.
Neils Bohr
>All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
>I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.
Max Planck
>Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. Consciousness is absolutely fundamental.
>Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind.
>Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe.
Erwin Schrödinger
>Consciousness is a coherent whole, which is never static or complete, but which is in an unending process of movement and unfoldment.
>Ultimately, the entire universe...has to be understood as a single undivided whole.
David Bohm

>>12033838
>ad hominem because that Anon didn't fell into the trap
just concede already bro... you've lost...

>>12034207

based and Langan-pilled

>>12032785
Many animals have higher reaction times than humans

>>12033390
Neither are ship of theseus

>>12033149
Ants are more socially complex than gorillas

>>12032731
>>12032736
this doesn't explain anything because your OP explanation doesn't even make semantic sense. explaining consciousness as a rate of something doesn't explain consciousness at all.

>>12032736
>unconscious states
>dreaming
What is lucid dreaming?

>>12032731
>observed rate
?

>>12034572
Vivid inner observation. We'd need more data on how, exactly, people experience lucid dreams to be able to produce a more valid explanation. As it stands, there's no way for us to decide how this works in any detail, because we don't know how subjectively conscious people are in dreams.
>>12034811
There are multiple hypotheses we can construct from that. Where would you like to start?

>>12034856
i'm unsure what rate has to do with consciousness

Wouldn't an explanation of consciousness have to be outside of consciousness or prior to consciousness? If so, then how could the explanation be experienced, even if there was one?

i had a dream where i was semi advance calculator that used a neuro network to answer word questions. im pretty sure consciousness is just taking an input and processing it and thats it. our consciousness is just really advance

>>12034989
But does how the input is processed make a difference? Two completely different algorithms might produce the same output for a given input. So you would still have to explain how that difference is possible even if you thought consciousness was purely functional.

>>12034989
I've had similar experiences where it seems as if my brain has gone into a totally different processing mode. Sometimes it feels like a machine but it's always when I'm half asleep and if I wake up it stops and I can't even remember what it was doing

>>12032731
All you are is just a algorithm responding to sensory input and past experience

>>12034988
No, because explanations aren't forced to be complete phenomenological descriptions. We're not describing "<x> thing which is, itself, the entire fundamental operating concept of metaphysical manifestation of consciousness, and all things hitherto it," but simply, "consciousness, the approximation of our philosophical sense of being." Also: Recursive modeling is a legitimate science. Laplace's demon is only problematic when we assume that it's trying to predict its own actions within a universe; if we replace it with an inert observer such as a computer, then it becomes possible for it to fully model itself and its impact on the environment, because its interaction with that environment is convergent by design.
>>12035025
I used to perceive the illusion that I couldn't speak human language after spending hours learning to write computer scripts in my teens. Obviously my linguistic capabilities were intact, but the sensation that I couldn't speak properly was thick.
>>12035190
This contradicts my experiences, particularly in relation to having had dreams that spanned galaxies before.

>>12035190
Only normies are, which is why they get called NPCs

>>12035291
your half right but we're just another form of the algorithm

>>12035289
dreams are just another part of the algorithm

>>12034256
So you think self awarness isnt so much a result of increased intelligence but more of a increased social complexity?

>>12035307
Wrong. We are the makers of algorithms.

>>12032731
sex with megumin

>>12035190
>All you are is just a algorithm responding to sensory input and past experience

An algorithm is just...

sensory input and experience is just...

we can play the reductionist game as long as you want, but eventually you need to permit irreducible objects or substances.

>>12034240
Yeah, that's what I tried to say.

>>12035590
Only good post ITT

>Make vague claim about what consciousness is, not specifying what you mean by consciousness, or what you mean by what is supposed to explain it

Off to a good start!

>>12032731
What is the thing doing the observing?

>>12035375
Probably plays a part

>>12036318
Sorry; I meant to say, "By definition," for the sake of clarity.
>>12036328
Consciousness. There are reason that the answer to your question can't be simplified.
>>12036369
It would have to; the more society you have, the more reprocessing you're going to be doing.

>>12036426
>Sorry; I meant to say, "By definition," for the sake of clarity.

That doesn't clear much up. If you want to say "consciousness is X", then you've not been clear about what it is about consciousness that we want to explain by X. X is surely supposed to give us an account or explanation of consciousness, not simply say that it is identical to X, because then we've explained absolutely nothing, besides agreeing what you want the word consciousness to mean.

Consciousness means 10 different things to 10 different people. Unless you define clearly what you mean by consciousness then no one is going to understand what you're saying.

>>12036678
Your logic isn't wrong at all.

>>12032879
>When one takes psychedelics, for example,
stopped reading here.

>>12037892
Well I mean if you want a model of consciousness that can't explain every experience that the mind is able to have, then I can limit my explanation to familiar things so you don't accidentally become more knowledgeable.

Many expressive phenomena don't make sense with classical models of consciousness because they don't account for the role memory plays in creating our experiences. Habit, for example, is a partially involuntary act that relies specifically on memory to perform a repeated function. If we were to throw out the role of memories in shaping our behaviors and experiences, these functions would become elusive, intractable, relegated to the realm of magic without a moment's thought. By integrating these experiences into our models, we can arrive at a robust explanation that can do away with confusing and contradictory notions of an "executive function" or similar.

One of my favorite examples of this is the basic process of introspection: How could we possibly perform this feat if we were trapped in the present moment and could not reflect on our memories? It would fail every test of consciousness and show any number of models to be inconsistent. Some way to put these abstract faculties at the center of our models must be possible, or else we relegate consciousness to miraculous conceit. For the given definition, introspection is merely intentional reprocessing of selected sensory input, possible not because consciousness is magic, but because active reprocessing, rather than flat one dimensional processing (sensation), is constant in our nervous system. We are not the product of our senses, but the average of numerous samples of various product sets.

Consciousness is not merely computed, but generated on an active basis. It is the reprocessing that informs our higher faculties, not the mere instinctive initial processing.

>Consciousness is the observed rate of sensory reprocessing.
zoetrope

>>12038032
bump

>>12039732
It's nice to believe that science cares, but it's not a person. No group of people is a person, sometimes not even a group of size one.

>>12032731
imo
things that allow you to "function" and recognize yourself (and therefore maintain your consciousness) is your own state you've remembered every time "stream" is stopped also being able to resume from this state
and the fact you are/were locked to particular body for your whole life (no shit)
if you were to get idk severe enough brain damage, then congratulations you've just become a p-zombie

i suggest (or maybe not) locking yourself up for some amount time and covering all mirrors, you will seriously start to doubt who you actually are.

>>12035470
you really think too highly yourself

>>12042047
>you really think too highly yourself
I can code.

>then stand by for a more dangerous game

>>12032775
Why would it not include bacteria? What are they missing that we have? Language? Subjective Introspection?

>>12043396
LEARN TO COAL MINE

>>12032731
Ignoring reprocessing because, often, you cannot tell the difference between initial and reintroduced stimuli. There is many different kinds of water. Different concentrations of solvents. "Reprocessed" info. Trees metabolize sugars and water, therefore sense. Is a tree conscious? Where do you draw the line on what stimuli are needed for reprocessing? Machines process meaningless stimuli all day and produce meaningful effects from it. Does one have to be organic to be conscious?

Your definition needs specificity.

>>12045459
It worked to fully model your behavior, so it doesn't need that in any objective sense.

>>12045459
To clarify on what I mean about reprocessing. I think we can all agree that someone with dementia is still conscious. You wake up every morning, say hello, perhaps you even have to reintroduce yourself to the person you've known for years. Does the disintegration of their conscious memory of you mean that you never knew them? No. It is just that their processing of prior information about you is corrupted.

There are lots of examples of lapses of conscious I could give but I think the point I'm trying to get at is that the reprocessing of information is not a necessity for consciousness to be present.

Maybe I really wasn't hoping for discussion.

>>12034856
It's not just observation, but total control over your dreaming environment and your actions within it and enough awareness and memory recall to remember you are sleeping in a lab and need to perform accurate tests for the researchers with your eye movements

Any attempted explanation of consciousness will need to explain how lucid dreaming is possible within its framework.

Can't link it here cause flagged for spam, google 'Smooth tracking of visual targets distinguishes lucid REM sleep dreaming and waking perception from imagination' for the nature article

>flagging a fucking science journal as SPAM

sasuga spam system

>>12034207
All horseshit. Consciousness-related theories of QM have been debunked, and the rest is physicists trying to be philosophers. Panpsychism is dumb.

>>12047516
That's actually interesting. I knew that the mind has some way to distinguish fiction and reality, but I hadn't put it together with REM calibration. We might be able to explore the properties of lucid dreaming if anon is willing, but we'll need some pretty solid hypotheses to test if we want to make a valid discovery in that arena.
>>12047597
If you can't debunk it efficiently, you haven't studied semiotics and thus your opinion is empirically an opinion.

>>12047597
>Consciousness-related theories of QM have been debunked,
No they havent, although they also aren't supported either

>>12047631
>>12047597
ahem

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

and in case spamfilter fucks me over again

>Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

>>12047671
>our telepathic projections tell us that the telepathic constructs we invented to explain away our consciousness are in fact telepathic projections

>>12045467
Is my behavior the only one that matters in existence? If so, then does that also mean that my answer is the only one that matters?

>>12048209
Every anon who replied with the intent to find holes in the definition, created an explanation that agrees with my overall hypothesis. The model is thus far accurate beyond any prior model I've worked with. It produces explanations, answers questions that have yet to be asked. It's predictive, and more than that, can be shown to have been predictive.

>>12033149
Ants are superior to humans in every way possible.
As well as the fact they out number us a million to one. I'd say we'd be pretty fucked in the even of ant revolt.

>>12032731

Fail

>>12032731
>observed
By whom?

>>12049566
An observer. The mind is the most abstract thing we know of, so a theory explaining it is going to be pretty damn well abstract. Not all questions that seem simple actually are.

>>12049597
Is it the observation or the reprocessing?

>>12047437
consciousness is a redditnigger magnet and it also attracts qualianiggers, so though luck getting a proper discussion here or in /his/ about the subject

>>12032775
this is interesting theory. so what do you think about (if it were possible) the thought of two beings, regardless of being a clone or not, shared the exact same space as each other. meaning their "points of view" would be exactly the same? would identical environments create identical creatures?

>>12032731
The idea that consciousness is a permanent-thing linked across time is the red herring.

Your consciousness at one moment in time is not the same at a second moment in time. There is no continuation of a single you. This is the assumption that a lot of philosophical ideas rest on, for example, "if you were deconstructed to the atom level, and the reassembled from those same atoms elsewhere, are you the same you? Now if you are disassembled down to the atom level, and instead of transporting atoms, you just rebuilt you out of another set of atoms since they are indistinguishable from each other, are you still you? Now instead of disassembling you to the atom level, you just rebuilt yourself with a set of different atoms; now there are two of you. Which is the real you?"
All of this presumes that there is some permanent consciousness that exists from time frame to time frame, from birth right up until the though experiment. But there isn't. Each moment in time is a different you. A different consciousness. You just have (poorly made and incorrect) memories that make you think you exist as one coherent being, but that's also not true. We reject how terrible our memory actually is.
People were asked in the week following 9/11 what they were doing that day, and wrote down a detailed statement. 2 years later, these people were brought back and asked the same question. More than 50% of them had a completely different memory of what happened that day, even going so far as to completely reject their original written statement, saying it didn't happen. 2 years after a major event. Some said they were flying that day and got stuck at the airport, when they weren't going to
fly for over a month after.
If our memory is really so terrible, and it is, then it is an illusion, making us think that we are one continuous being.
Instead, every single moment a new consciousness exists, and has access to a stack of cards explaining what happened before.

>>12051130
>All of this presumes that there is some permanent consciousness that exists from time frame to time frame, from birth right up until the though experiment. But there isn't. Each moment in time is a different you. A different consciousness. You just have (poorly made and incorrect) memories that make you think you exist as one coherent being, but that's also not true. We reject how terrible our memory actually is.
This is all false and you simply asserting it is true, does not make it so.

>>12050773
Mind would be reprocessing. Perception is observation.
>>12051086
The brain has to be considered an aspect of the environment as well, so the experiment breaks down there. This model, when /sci/ begins to fully understand it, should be able to produce predictions about hypothetical consciousnesses. Not all hypothetical constructions will be things we can test right away, but it will be able to produce an answer.
>>12051369
This seems (didn't read the full reply) to be the case.

>>12047437
Consciousness threads on this board are always absolute garbage tier. It's never any real discussion, just pseuds that want to play word games and god-fearing idiots afraid of their own mortality trying to solve one of the oldest and unknowable questions impressed upon us since the first turd of a lifeform to crawl out of the primordial soup set foot on this planet in an afternoon on one of the least active and intelligent forums on an anime imageboard.

If you want to study consciousness go to fucking uni or something and stop binging Joe Rogan videos.

>>12032775
Would that duplicate ever be truly identical? If you differ in position at any given time, wouldn't you have forces and other aspects of your environment acting on you differently, no matter how slight?

>>12051854
You don't need an excuse to shitpost, anon. Just let us know you don't believe in anything so we can ignore it up front.

>>12048229
Does it work on 4chan. Yes. Did you effectively rebut anything I said? Unfortunately no.

>>12053051
You didn't present any kind of argument at all. Do you think this question is meant as a rebuttal?

>>12032878
First, they ignore you

Integrated information theory or gtfo

>>12045467
a model of something is not the same thing as the thing itself.

>>12051854
don't talk like that about our grampa, faggot

>>12053182
Sure, but it has to produce a measure of reprocessing to have any causal validity. Remember: We need to be able to construct hypotheses with this.
>>12054005
That's true up until we talk about the mind. You can think of it as the pinnacle of abstraction, and thus, precisely that which is a model of itself. This is why the metaphysics community is able to speak about opening and closing one's mind; what you are willing to observe is what will become the reality your mind can experience.

/sci/ has to want it for what science I have to share to be noted.

>>12051973
Fallacy of configuration; your personal sense of identity is not meaningfully responding to every quantum butterfly effect that might be shaping some irrelevant aspect of your unconscious brain. Your sense of self is not omnisciently defined by its surroundings. We aren't omnisensors under any reasonable model.

>>12056573
True, but in practice small things like seeing information the other hasn't seen, going to different areas, etc. will quickly start the process of divergence. So even if the duplicate is identical for a time, maybe they won't separate in a matter of nanoseconds, but it'll probably not last more than a few minutes.

As for whether it's "you" or not: no. It's another instance of you, during that time, but it's not you.

>>12051130
The processes behind memory, as weak as they are, are still good enough that you so strongly maintain the feeling of a contiguous, unbroken consciousness that you pretty much might as well be one.

This is probably why mind uploading is possible and they'll eventually be done. If it's done very piece-meal, like how your brain reconfigures itself piece-meal over a long period of time, you'll maintain the sense of being the same person. It's only a radical shift that'll disrupt this feeling, like suffering a brain injury, or swapping out half your neurons all at once.

>>12056573
True, but in practice small things like seeing information the other hasn't seen, going to different areas, etc. will quickly start the process of divergence. So even if the duplicate is identical for a time, maybe they won't separate in a matter of nanoseconds, but it'll probably not last more than a few minutes.

As for whether it's "you" or not: no. It's another instance of you, during that time, but it's not you.

>>12051130
The processes behind memory, as weak as they are, are still good enough that you so strongly maintain the feeling of a contiguous, unbroken consciousness that you pretty much might as well be one.

This is probably why mind uploading is possible and how it'll eventually be done. If it's done very piece-meal, like how your brain reconfigures itself piece-meal over a long period of time, you'll maintain the sense of being the same person. It's only a radical shift that'll disrupt this feeling, like suffering a brain injury, or swapping out half your neurons all at once.

>>12032731
>t. muh externalism

>>12057803
what's wrong with externalism?

Ahhh, you don't get what meta-finite means. That would explain a lot about all of you.

So when are you planning on curing neurological disorders with pure conversation, /sci/?

>>12060964
When are you planning on getting a clue?

>>12061036
I can demonstrate the ability to heal such damage conversationally. You need merely construct the experiment.

>>12032731
Its symmetrical analog being of course the biological act known as sleeping.

>>12062790
Can we not androidpost unless more of you are ready to reveal your mechanical aspects to the world?

>>12042047
>i suggest (or maybe not) locking yourself up for some amount time and covering all mirrors, you will seriously start to doubt who you actually are.

you would still have memories of your own image albeit it would most likely get fuzzier and unclear

>>12032937
Doesn't exist. There is no multiverse and MWI is false. You've been brainwashed by shitty pop scifi.

>>12063116
False and purely fictional don't really have the same connotation. A hypothetical can't be taken as more than an idea if we're doing real science.

>>12062844
I only ever livepost, what else would be the point?

>>12032731
Incomplete theorems really are the best.

>>12037892
loser, you probably also stopped at not being a virgin