/sci/ - Science & Math

When super AI happens, it will tell us that we weren't really conscious at all

>>12442791
W-what????? Muh based science men where actually firm believers of the metaphysical?????
NOOOOOOO

>>12442854
Exact opposite of the point of the thread but ok

>>12442791
Consciousness has always been a fundamental and It will forever remain the ultimate fundamental.

>>12442791
I just started reading Waking Up by Sam Harris and he talked about consciousness in people who had their corpus collosum severed (split-brain stuff). When asked what they wanted to do professionally, the left brain would write out "draftsman" while the right brain would point at cards to indicate "race car driver". His thought was that it seemed like there are two separate consciousness in the same brain, but when linked by the corpus collosum it was still a singular conscious experience.

Perhaps an artificial corpus collosum connection two brains would result in a unified experience. After all, it's just chunks of neurons connected to each other.

>>12443865
That stuff is cool but that's not what I'm talking about. Universal Consciousness is basically the idea that there is one consciousness in the universe and all of our consciousnesses are simply aspects of it. One way I hear it explained sometimes is that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, but rather the brain is more like a receiver or antenna attuned to the universal consciousness. Some would go even further and say that consciousness is fundamentally all there is, and that matter and everything else are "imagined" or otherwise emergent from consciousness.

Yeah it sounds like /x/ shit, and for most of the people who believe it, it seems to be because they "experienced it directly," either as a result of meditation or psychedelics. But since I first learnt about this by reading The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell by Aldous Huxley like 10 years ago, I keep coming across this idea again and again, and a lot of intelligent and influential people believe/have believed it. I'm really intrigued by it and I don't think it should be dismissed as just some druggie bullshit or whatever.

What I'm curious about is whether we can ever use science to come up with more insight regarding this kind of thing. I don't know how we could ever apply the scientific method to it directly but maybe there are experiments that could be done that could help support/refute it.

>>12444028
open individualism is real

>>12444028
My thought on the split-brain stuff is that the discrete-ness of my own consciousness is not what it seems. Consciousness seems to be something that emerges when enough neurons (physical matter) get together. When the brain is split in two, there seem to be two consciousness, maybe even more that are hidden from view. Maybe when the brain isn't split, these two or more consciousnesses are all in there.

This is the hand wavy, mystical /x/ part of my thought: consciousness is like a field permeating through all of the universe, and certain physical things (neurons) create the conscious effect. Something loosely like electrons are waves in this universal electromagnetic field.

But the whole point of his book is to meditate, observe what your consciousness is, and find the true nature of consciousness. I think that is where people like the Buddha see the Universal Consciousness that you're talking about. Harris giving this split-brain perspective is a bit of a neuroscience approach to understanding what consciousness is, and what we know is that it's not what we think it is, and maybe one day we'll know (scientifically) its true nature.

>>12444028
>>12444175
My postings really seem retarded after I post them...

To your point about using the scientific method with this, our own consciousness is really the only thing we can ever know to actually exist right? "I think therefore I am", brain in a jar, stuff like that. Couldn't observing our consciousness be a scientific exploration of the matter? I guess others can't verify what you say about your own consciousness, but that's psychology no?

Play the drums. Keep a steady beat. Add an off beat thing to the tempo. Bam, consciousness.

>>12444263
No, the second post was good and I see what you were getting at now. I think what you're saying here is pretty much consistent with the ideas I've read about Universal Consciousness and is pretty much what I suspect to be the case though admittedly what the fuck do I know.

>Couldn't observing our consciousness be a scientific exploration of the matter?
How so? I was thinking in the strict sense of "application of the scientific method" but I think Culadasa in The Mind Illuminated basically argues what you're saying here, that exploration of our own minds (through meditation) is scientifically valid and essential if we ever want to understand the mind (iirc, it's been a while since I read it).

>>12442844
Based

>>12442791
I've offered you numerous models to explain it. Why don't you listen and build on them? Are you afraid of something? Still?

>>12443865
Wasn't there a recent study that says that split-brain did not lead to a split in consciousness, and the general consensus was that at least attention remained unified?

>>12442791
Have you ever considered we aren't conciousness? That we are, in fact, just millions/billions/trillions of reactions a second?

>>12444843
>we are, in fact, just millions/billions/trillions of reactions a second
Sure, but why should that preclude consciousness?

>>12442791
>non biologists commenting on something biological

>>12444028
As someone who's directly experienced this phenomenon, I can say that I have no legitimate, scientific reason to believe it to be true, but I do anyways. Its more so of a 'waking up from the matrix' personal faith based epiphany for me. I recognize the quackery of saying that I am God (god as in the universe, a single conscious entity that permeates all living people), yet after firsthand experience its impossible for me not to believe it. I also acknowledge it totally could be and probably isnt true, and that our human brains are just inclined to experience these types of experiences, as we all have very similar brain chemistry.

>>12447229
>after firsthand experience its impossible for me not to believe it. I also acknowledge it totally could be and probably isnt true, and that our human brains are just inclined to experience these types of experiences, as we all have very similar brain chemistry
I've been curious about this for a while. We start out with viewpoint "X" (reality is material floating in space, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain) and, after people have these experiences, they hold viewpoint "Y" (I am God, universal consciousness, etc.). And it seems people always hold viewpoint Y very closely.
But it seems to me that if the experience can show you that your entire worldview can be wrong, then it should be equally valid that Y is incorrect and X is correct, or that they're both wrong and Z is correct, etc. So I'm really curious about why people hold belief Y so strongly.
>our human brains are just inclined to experience these types of experiences, as we all have very similar brain chemistry.
I wonder if it's just something about our brains that are just inclined to believe these experiences once we have them? Is it something about the powerfulness of the experience? It reminds me a little of the Good Friday Experiment where participants had life-changing spiritual religious experiences facilitated by psilocybin.
But I haven't had this experience myself so maybe I'm talking completely out of my ass.

Also, are you glad that you had this experience? Would you recommend seeking it out? Are there any downsides, like for example, do you find it alienating to have such a wildly different worldview from the vast majority of people?

There's only one consciousness in the entire universe, and it is mine.

>>12444028
panpsyism is too high IQ for this place and it is a provable fact. Most people are too stupid to understand it however though nothing about it is particularly complex imo. The only explanation is that they are blocked from by the source itself as it is not their time to know. It is the kali yuga and they couldn't be destructive fucktards if they could all figure out the truth. They are just ants in the ant farm, they have a purpose to serve before they can earn their way out of the matrix to higher levels

>>12444028
Here is the science and wherever "you heard people talking about it" learned it from here anyway

https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

you will understand it or you won't, it is a filter apparently against brainlets

Convince me that Open Individualism is true.

>>12448253
Didn't you read this guy's >>12448147 article? It's cold hard proof, and if you didn't understand it, you're a brainlet. Duh

>>12448321
>esotericawakening.com

lol ok schizo

>>12447698
Wrong retard, I am the one true consciousness

Well, you have two main lines to follow each with two different main endpoints.
>Believes in consciousness but it doesn't exist
Following this line will lead to a never-ending search. Humans will forever look for more, breaking into new dimensions in its search.
>Doesn't believe and doesn't exist
Humanity, or possibly any mix of ayylmaos and man, will always believe the universe is an as-is purchase. They'll advance far understanding it but never think to leave their bubble
>Believes and does exist
We will find ourselves in a world beyond our understanding, as we break through and finally touch something the universe would have hidden from us, we will ascend past humanity to become something more. That or be destroyed by it. Win, win, if you ask me.
>Doesn't believe and does exist
By far the most depressing outcome as humanity will forever search for another answer that was lost to human thought. Their belief in nothing greater than themselves leads to them never finding the last answer they need to solidify their place in the universe.

No. You need philosophy. There is an enormous body of literature on supervenience, physicalism, mind-body dualism, epiphenomenalism, etc

>>12442791
There's lots of things that would strongly point to it. Look up the metabolism before genes theory, it's fascinating how lifelike molecules and chemical reactions can be.
>>12442854
Missing the point, brainlet.

>>12447956
>le toroid
opinion discarded

>>12442791
1
opinion.
2
objectively wrong.
3
confirmed to have never said that. and wrong.
4
also fucking wrong.

>>12442791
>Universal Consciousness
consciousness does not exist.

>>12442844
>When
If.

>>12442791
If I ever win a nobel (or some other big prize) I'm going to make sure someone quotes me as saying "poo poo pee pee"

>>12442844
What is reality without a conscious mind to observe it?

>>12450566
Identical to reality we observe now.

>>12450566
Sorry buddy, but your mind has minimal to no effect at all to the objective universe.

>>12442844
Well YOU aren't really are you?

>>12451059
Never claimed that I were.

>>12442791
>Can science, or will science ever be able to, support or refute the idea of a Universal Consciousness
bitch we can't predict the weather in 5 days and you want us to answer question like this?