/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15094101
>, and could be anything else?

I meant to say "and could not be anything else".

>>15094101
That's because of the muddied waters. We need a clear and unambiguous definition of consciousness before explaining it.

>>15094101
Because science isn't that useful or meaningful.

>>15094177

I don't think consciousness can be captured in words perfectly.

It obviously exists though. The best I've seen is that it is a field of subjectivity. Thoughts can arise in the field. Emotions can arise in the field. Tastes, smells, color, are all examples of of experiences that can arise in the field.

>>15095539
>I don't think consciousness can be captured in words perfectly.
It can. The disconnect is in the egotistical belief that you need a complexity level close to humans to have consciousness. It isn't an objective line. Insects and bacteria are conscious.

>>15095539
We have already built conscious robots, it's not hard when you get rid of the philosophical nonsense and just look at the facts.

While you're right that we don't have anything close to a demonstrably satisfactory theory of consciousness yet, this is fatuous criticism.

>>15095551
I think insects are very likely conscious but why do you think bacteria are conscious? I think it's plausible, but I also think it's very plausible that they aren't conscious, just as (in my opinion) viruses probably aren't conscious, and the early chemical precursors to life aren't conscious despite engaging in system engineering. You could say viruses and bacteria and proto-life possess intelligence, but I don't think we have a solid reason to believe they're conscious, even if it would be naive to rule it out.

>>15095554
>We have already built conscious robots
Source: I made it up

>>15094177
I think that "consciousness", "subject of experience", "soul", and "mind" are all the same thing, that this is what a "person" is, at their core, and that each one is subtly unique (or else there would be no way to distinguish them or to be the "reason" it ends up associated with a particular human brain). I doubt that physics and biology will yield a complete answer. We need metaphysics to go further.

>>15094101
>AI becomes capable of theorizing and insight *before* becoming conscious
>An AI theory of consciousness is then applied to an AI *causing* it to become conscious
>The first truly self-made, self-conscious being is not (you)
>To make things worse, (you) struggle to understand its explanation

>>15094101
>the taste of chocolate
The chocolate is not conscious. It's composed of different cocoa flavors and sweeteners you can boil down to a chemical level, thus causes the dopamine and norepinephrine spike in your brain when it hits your tastebuds
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Is this about the chocolate's energy or thermodynamics?

>>15095702
These kinds of consciousness debates are so tiresome. It's the same stuff back and forth over and over. I can predict exactly what they will reply to you with and what you will reply to them with. Both you and the OP need to move past your respective babby-tier talking points.

>>15095713
The hard problem is an oxymoron. It's not possible to describe consciousness purely in terms of neural correlates. You have memory, language, vision, hearing, you have to take into account the entirety of evolutionary psych.

The structure of memory is scaffolded alongside vision and the other senses. We were the first to gain a dual-reflective awareness of our memory/preconscious processes, thus we also started using gestures and iconicity in packs
Schizophrenia has lasted throughout the evolution of language, so that should also give you a good idea. In my view, either Jaynes or Lakoff had the closest ideas in advancing the quale debates. Ah wait, I'm reciting talking points - go ahead and ask more insightful questions like your OP

>>15095702
>The chocolate is not conscious.
I don't think the faggot OP was talking about chocolate, you brain dead zombie dingus.
>I'm not sure exactly what you're asking
I do not, IN THE LEAST, doubt that.
Fucking bot.

>>15095758
Perhaps you will understand later

>>15094101
>>15095539
>I don't think consciousness can be captured in words perfectly. It obviously exists though.
If consciousness "obviously exists" then point to its location in space. If consciousness has no spacial location then it doesn't exist, and is therefore outside the remit of empirical science and /sci/.

>>15095777

>If consciousness "obviously exists" then point to its location in space.

I experience that taste of chocolate, the burn of a stove, the smell of flowers, etc. None of those experiences came with a coordinate in which it was located in within my consciousness. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my opinion if consciousness hasn't been solved by now it never will be. I think the problem is methodological. It can't be solved because everyone is looking at it wrong. I think the key to consciousness lies in the ancient past when humans first began displaying traits that we regard as humanlike. But this is the realm of philosophical speculation and so completely out of reach of modern science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_seBLuIQjU
Herzog's documentary got me thinking about this. One guy says in it that "homo sapiens" is a misnomer, that we should be called "homo spiritualis". Current theories of consciousness are far too Cartesian.

>>15094101
the intelligence community already solved consciousness

we live in a hyperdimensional consciousness field

consciousness affects reality

there is manifestation, teleportation, astral projection, telepathy, non-locality, telekinesis, levitation

this is how ufos work

it's all electromagnetic, even the zero-point energy extraction is electromagnetic

all the synthetic telepathy is electromagnetic

it's all quantum electromagnetics, probably not even gravity or just 4D spacetime, einstein is deprecated

>>15094101
Scientifically, what's the correct answer to Benj Hellie's vertiginous question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

Read or listen to pic related. Most refreshing book on the topic and why it is intractable I've seen in years.

>>15094101
In the beginning the organisms just reacted to touch.
At some point a brain was needed to anticipate what a nearby smell meant.
In time, the brain got more complicated and at some point its predictions included its own state when solving what to do next.
Consciousness is this non-stop deja vu.

>>15095777
Cos it's everywhere

>>15094101
it's fascinating how consciousness threads manage to generate the most autistic seething and retarded logic regardless of what position is being argued for/against.

>>15095917
>Current theories of consciousness are far too Cartesian.
Kastrup isnt a Cartesian, neither are neoplatonic theories.

>>15096589
Very low IQ take. You must be a zombie.

>>15096275
I know this guy. He made this https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is retarded TED talk.

>muh beetles and bottles
His whole argument is basically "perception is not perfect therefore it is useless". This is obviously retarded; alas it is a flaw of thinking that's cropped up numerous times in the last 500 years. Best example of it would be Hume, the absolute moron.

Germain to the point: see anime pillow huggers. (I will not explain further.)

Basically, you're a retard.

>>15096241
Because if he wasn't Benj Hellie he would be some other phenomenal instance with a label. He's not a wagon because he doesn't have wheels.

>>15096275
>>15096656
SECONDLY, and more importantly -- about his simulations. They're hacked. They are poorly set-up. 'Reality perception' goes extinct in his models because he literally SETS THE MODEL UP THAT WAY. The imbecile doesn't even understand evolutionary theory, and fitness in particular. Fitness is the grand tautology in evolutionary theory. The organisms that are more fit are those organisms that pass on their genes. That's it. Idiots often load the term with additional meaning, like "healthier, stronger, faster, being able to outcompete" but the simple mathematical reality is that "fitness" is merely a population-level calculus of what survives into the next generation. There is no intrinsic fitness of an organism. Not its previous evolutionary history, not its physical abilities, not its available resources. None of that. Those are mere influencers of the LIKELYHOOD of fitness, i.e. the likelihood of passing on your genes to your descendants. But fitness is fitness. If you had a population of rabbits and randomly killed half of them before they got to reproduce, the half that survives are BY DEFINITION more fit than the ones that died. it really is that simple. So when this imbecile constructs a model in which "fitness" and "reality perception" are antagonistic, it is a matter of mathematical tautology that "reality perception" would go extinct, since in his VERY MODEL IT IS NOT FIT.

Moron. I can't stand this cretin.

>>15096656
>His whole argument is basically "perception is not perfect therefore it is useless".

This is an incredibly bad strawman. A substantial part of the book is dedicated to saying this is precisely not what he is saying.

>>15096677
Anon, I get the shtick because everyone here uses it. You act like Bertrand Russell and are condescending to everyone to show how smart you are. However, it really fails if your points that "the retard forgot" about how fitness is defined are literally in the book you're calling retarded. There is a section on how fitness is defined that makes this exact point.

Anyhow, I don't find Hoffman's conclusion and model particularly convincing. Rather, I find the critique of the current paradigm, particularly as respects vision, extremely cogent.

You can easily shit on any game theory model. Any early grad student with enough time can find some problem with almost any papers quantitative methods. The FvT Theorem proof is best thought of as a simple model of how such a thing could work. That's why most of the book is findings on studies on perception of some relevant physics.

The only really weak link I saw was the part of synthesia. He considers all the benefits of cross communications between different sensory systems, but fails to consider why synthesia is not the norm. Why would species have kept distinct secondary networks for sense organs that pick up different types of data?

The obvious answer is that different senses act as a cross-check on one another. If, as the examples he gives, you think of yellow objects as "light and fluffy" or see triangles as "light and fluffy," then you might waste calories carrying around something that is too heavy because you have these connections between sensory areas that are giving you "false" connections. I don't even need experiments to show this. What do you do when you touch a very realistic looking fake flower....?

>>15094101
>Yet, these theories are being promoted everywhere consciousness discussion takes place.
Materialist drones promote materialist dogma no matter how absurd it is. What else is on the news?

>>15096976
You put the flower to your nose and sniff it. What do you do when a friend suggests a perfectly normal looking rock is fake, part of a stage set or something? You pick it up and feel the weight. Senses are different because they act as cross checks.

And this also helps explain why it is so easy for us to see smells as subjective and hardly anyone is willing to die on the hill that smells are an objective facet of reality sans perception, but people have an extremely hard time dealing with relativity or quantum mechanics and understanding proposed replacements for spacetime, or why the physics/philosophy of time is filled with contradictions. Smell isn't cross checked by any other sense and combined into a model. Touch, balance, vision, and to a lesser degree sound and smell all feed into a model of 3D space time. It's why people find the It From Bit, holographic principal versions of physics so alien.

Now, if you really don't like the idea that truth can be selected against in evolution, I feel like you also need an information theoretic account of how propaganda, rumor, myth, urban legend, and badly refuted but intuitive arguments keep replicating across the human dataome, (internet, etc.) while diamond in the rough scientific theories can sometimes languish for decades and go extinct for long periods? And of course we only know about the ones that come back to life, not all the extinct true findings
If truth is fitness, how has flat earth enjoyed such a rebound?

>>15096977
Enjoy your certainty, religiophile.

>>15096992
>If truth is fitness, how has flat earth enjoyed such a rebound?
Not him, but the answer to your question is trivial: the truth that your priest class is untrustworthy is far more relevant to survival than the truth about the shape of the planet.

>>15097002
Enjoy your conversations with the voices, mental patient.

>>15096976
>This is an incredibly bad strawman
Stopped reading your goofy post here. It's not a strawman. It's literally that in more words. His models are flawed and he's an idiot. kthxbie

>>15097014
I shall enjoy my future conversations with a sentient AI as in >>15095626 whilst (you) are still busy convincing yourself you are special.

>>15096992
There is a massive difference between something being possible, and something being actual, numbskull. That it is possible that X, does not mean that it is in fact that X. No one said that inaccurate sense perception being selected for/sensory accuracy being selected against is impossible. That would be absurd.

> how has flat earth enjoyed such a rebound?
There are numerous plausible explanations for this, were it true (and not just an elaborate troll by terminally online contrarians and an assortment of other dipshits). But the fact that you even need to ask goes to show that you do not understand ANYTHING about evolutionary theory, just like Hoffman.

Take a hike.

>>15097046
>I shall enjoy my future conversations with a sentient AI
It's nice that you bring up your imaginary friends unprompted and out of context, as if to prove my point that you're insane.'

>>15096977
>Materialist drones
>conversations with the voices
>imaginary friends
Projection much? Why do you feel the need to believe in souls (or an ungrounded theory of quantum superpositions in microtubules that amounts to the same thing)?

>>15097080
>Projection much?
Am I the one lashing out against imaginary opponents and boasting about how I will have conversations with a sentient AI out of the blue? lol

>>15095777
>If consciousness has no spacial location then it doesn't exist
Not necessarily

>and is therefore outside the remit of empirical science and /sci/
Getting warmer.

>>15097090
Your post:
>>15096977
>Materialist drones promote materialist dogma no matter how absurd it is. What else is on the news?
AI-consciousness is relevant to this because the existence of one would categorically *prove* that an explanation requiring 'spirit', or whatever, is unnecessary.

>>15097117
>my imaginary friend is relevant to this because he's real and i'm sticking it to the priest who defiled by virgin ass when i was 6

>>15097005
The survival we are talking about is the meme/isomorphic pattern of information that represent Flat Earth Theory, not the survival of human embracing or rejecting those ideas. Modern biology makes significant use of an information theoretic paradigm that sees genes as "messages" reproducing and surviving through time, and genomes as "one way permeable membranes that store information about the enviornment."

Information theoretic paradigms in biology are pretty much indispensable to our understanding of life. Nor is "information," for all the problems in its definition, (e.g., Shannon Entropy vs Kolmogorov Complexity vs Carnap's semantic form, versus Floridi's vertical form, versus Pierce and tripartite semiotics which is big in biosemiotics), something "soft" that can be removed from our understanding of reality. Indeed, plenty of physicists argue that information is fundemental and particles and fields are emergent phenomena of information and problems in physics such as Maxwell's Demon are insoluble without reference to information.

But here is the thing, these paradigms and models for natural selection in organic information work wonderfully well for other types of information. And indeed, the boundary between the information of life and "synthetic" information is pretty blurry (e.g., learned social behaviors essential for population survival in some species, ASCII text and jpg files written to DNA hard drives, etc.). Information in our "dataome" undergoes selection pressures. Some goes extinct, successful memes reproduce and proliferate.

>>15097171
There have been arguments that in the long term veracity will be selected for because false messages will be discovered and go extinct. This has failed to pan out in empirical tests. False information can be much more fit in terms of spreading than true information. Indeed, this is exactly what Ionnidas found in his famous "Why Most Research Findings Are False." Publication bias is an example of information having added fitness because it is more suprising (context dependant) and findings which are false are more likely to be suprisingly pretty much definitionally in the Shannon framework.

But why should information in the form of books and websites have different selection pressures than sensory data in a nervous system or genes? Nor is there any good empirical evidence for veracity = fitness in evolution.

As Deacon and others have noted, organisms must definitionally only take in a microscopic fraction of the information they are exposed to, otherwise they would succumb to entropy and cease to exist. This is Landauer's insights, so crucial in exorcising Maxwell's Demon (information is physical and erasing it generates heat) applied to far from equilibrium self replicating systems as a concept. Organisms have to drastically cut down on information exchange, which in turn leads to a heavy reliance on computation, something we absolutely see in cognitive neuroscience. These computational structures in turn are shaped by fitness, not veracity.

Why would having a meal with a lot of glucose versus being hungry shape our ability to measure distance in a veracity based system? etc.

>>15094177

>>15097175
However, the very best argument against sensory systems being selected for based on veracity comes from humans' extreme difficulty in understanding how the world works at very large and very small scales, i.e. relativity and quantum mechanics. Why should models of the real world be so hard to grasp and challenge our intuitions so badly?

The obvious explanation is that evolution selected for a system that works for the scales we do encounter, that's hard to deny. However, if our sensory systems so badly represents very large and very small scales as they actually are, why would we take as a given, as obvious, that the medium sized objects of our daily experience are represented "as they are?"

And there is plenty of evidence to suggest they don't. We experience still air as a nullity, but have sensory experiences of fog, and many different types of gases. Why is air and many of its components represented as equivalent to vacuum visually (thing of looking at a cylinder) when optical systems and other sensory systems could easily have evolved to represent these items and the many differences that occur between them (e.g. density, CO2 vs oxygen vs nitrogen). Indeed, some animals do have sensory organs for determining between relative gas concentrations in the air around them.

This is a clear example of a huge amount of information being mostly purged from sense experience. So the question is, if you can have this large of a gap in something the body is surrounded by at all times, why assume other basic intutions are grounded in fact?

Pic related makes a similar argument from the direction of math and physics.

>>15096241
anthropic measure.

and its distribution among matter/animals/humans will eventually be empirically researched

how much anthropic measure you have will detetmine your rights and privileges
for ex, ants have almost zero anthropic measure which is why it's okay to step on them; there's (almost) "no one there" to feel it

>>15096665
no, you're just pushing the question from "why am i not a wagon" to "why don't i have wagon wheels"
you didn't answer it
and if you think you did you don't understand the question to begin with

>>15097197
define order

>>15097314
define ass and balls

>>15097171
>The survival we are talking about is the meme/isomorphic pattern of information that represent Flat Earth Theory, not the survival of human embracing or rejecting those ideas
As far as I understand, your position is that evolution is hiding the heckin' abstract, imaginary, unknowable, unfalsifiable "objective reality" from us for our own good. And your example of that was people rejecting true propositions that come from your priest class. I'm just reminding you it's an irrelevant truth being sacrificed for promoting a much more relevant one, so your example is useless.

>>15097171
>>15097175
>>15097203
You still don't get it. Your copypasta is arguing against a view that no one sane holds. Fitness is fitness. Veracity is veracity. Sometimes they intersect. Sometimes they do not. Things are as they are and whatever will happen will happen. Humans might lose sight entirely in 2 million years. Happens all the time in evolution. See every population trapped in a dark environment for too long. blablabla

Point is, once again, dumbass, that just because something is not perfect that does not mean you should go schizo, like you're doing. This whole argument is self-defeating. So your sense-perception is inaccurate because evolution didn't select for veracity/accuracy/whatever? Really? Well, your conclusions are bound to be faulty, so I'm just going to dismiss this shit based on its own retarded merits. I, on the other hand, have no reason to believe that my senses are so grossly distorted by the evolutionary history of my ancestors that I should stop believing my lying eyes, and I have plenty of eminently reasonable evidence for my eminently reasonable assumption.

But you know, not all of us have a 3 digit IQ, so I understand why there are people out there who get fooled by the most trite, poorly baked 'skepticism'.

>>15097340
> Your copypasta is arguing against a view that no one sane holds.
I mean, Hoffman's own idiotic take is an example of just what he is supposedly sounding the alarm about: a bullshit theory, that seems novel (but in fact isn't, since people have recycled these same ideas for centuries now, just not with biological evolution as a given; it doesn't take a genius to notice that you can mistake one thing for another and mess up in general), just novel and 'shocking' enough to get some mileage in the attention market of contemporary academia and the monkeys in the peanut gallery who consume pop-sci.

But just because this shit does happen, does not mean that suddenly you have to become some radical skeptic who literally will not believe his lying eyes. This is nuts.

>>15097144
cope, seethe, mald, etc.
>>15097171
>>15097175
>>15097203
That's a lot of words to say that 'we don't perceive the totality of everything'. So what?
>>15097197
definition also applies to 'life'.

>>15097368
Dilate. Your imaginary friend will never be real.

>>15095822
>I experience that taste of chocolate, the burn of a stove, the smell of flowers, etc. None of those experiences came with a coordinate in which it was located in within my consciousness. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
Chocolate has no taste, a stove doesn't produce burning, and flowers don't smell. This is confusing sensation for reality.

When we talk about the behavior of a system, strictly speaking the "behavior" itself doesn't exist. It's just an abstraction we use to talk about what the system is doing.

Your experiences are similarly an abstraction over sensation and various other processes, "experiences" themselves don't actually exist.

>>15097374
>Chocolate has no taste, a stove doesn't produce burning, and flowers don't smell. This is confusing sensation for reality.
Of course not. Reality is the purely abstract, unknowable shart that exists because your fantasies say it does.

>>15097378
>>15097378
>Of course not. Reality is the purely abstract, unknowable shart that exists because your fantasies say it does.
Not at all, you have confused the the human notion of abstraction for reality. How the world presents itself to us is a result of the path evolution carved for navigating and exploiting our local environment.

>>15097385
>How the world presents itself to us
>the world
What "world"? You mean the unknowable, unspecified, imaginary non-notion in your midwit ape mind?

>>15097388
>What "world"?
Precisely, but that our sense of the world corresponds only to the degree it serves our biological needs doesn't mean the world itself is an abstraction.

>>15097392
>our sense of the world
Our senses of what? Where do I find this unknowable and unspecified "world" you keep rambling about, that is somehow more real than the first-hand experience of existence.

>>15097393
It's quite plain there is a "more real" world that serves as input to the senses, as our senses cover only a fraction of it. For instance, infrared and microwaves are invisible to us but they produce effects regardless. You have confused the gap between sensation and reality for reality itself.

>>15097406
>It's quite plain there is a "more real" world
Is the unknowable, unspecifiable "real world" in the room with us?

>>15097408
The position I've described has more explanatory power for the events and processes, seen and unseen, in room with us right now than a gnostic retreat ever will have, yes.

>>15097406
Daily reminder that privisional nth order models based on inductive extrapolations from raw data will never be more real than raw data.

>>15097421
The position you've described is typical of people who end up in a padded cell after being rescued from a cult. Either way >>15097422 will always hold and your take will always be laughable.

>>15097422
>>15097429
>Daily reminder that privisional nth order models based on inductive extrapolations from raw data will never be more real than raw data.
I don't see how this is an issue. Nobody would be foolish enough to take sense data as raw data free from interpretation anyway.

>>15097435
Unironically take your meds. "Interpretation" is when you start spludging out all of your abstract wank and declaring an imaginary inaccessible "real world" that exists b-b-b-because it just does, not when I sense your NEET stench.

>trying to figure out consciousness with rational means
Cute

>>15097437
Where you're confused is that a phenomenon being inaccessible to the senses, e.g. microwaves, doesn't mean they aren't real. Your model has no explanatory power for what phenomena like that may be, so it's actually your model that's lost in abstraction in this case.

>>15097460
You sound like you're arguing with voices in your head. Either way, "microwaves" are an abstraction, as is any other aspect of the nth order physical model of the current year.

>>15097314
define "define"

>>15097464
This isn't an issue given what I've said so far, it's a problem for you however.

>>15097368
all life is conscious, as is the entire reality itself (what would be considered non-living but is)

>>15097482
I agree. It isn't an issue that everything you mistake for reality is actually abstract and privisional, unlike the direct experience of reality that misleads you into these abstract models, and the fantasy notion of an "objective reality".

>>15097492
What do you mean by "direct experience"?

>>15097492
>and the fantasy notion of an "objective reality".
shhhh, lesser minds have trouble with this and create things like "post modernism" and call everything "social constructs."

Retards should not be allowed to play with knives

>>15097497
The raw sensations on which you base all of your abstract fantasies that turn out wrong time after time.

>>15097489
>all life is conscious
"no"

>>15097507
wrong

>>15097501
>The raw sensations
Let's take a blue object, as an example. Are you claiming the blueness of the object as you sense it, is either "raw" or "direct"?

>>15097500
Postmodernist simply remove the extra step of calling a subjective system of abstractions "objective reality" and say "it's bullshit but I believe it so it's good enough". They never actually diasvow substituting abstractions for reality.

>>15097510
>Are you claiming the blueness of the object as you sense it, is either "raw" or "direct"?
Of course. There is nothing more raw and direct than blueness. The conception of a separate "object" is arguably abstract but the blueness is not.

>>15097521
In that case you've confused sensation for reality. There's no such color as blue, we only interpret that spectrum of light that way as it aids our navigation and survival as a biological organism.

>>15097527
Thanks for demonstrating your profound mental illness.

>>15097527
Your flat earth model of the mind will be falsified, discarded and forgotten just like any other monke brain model, but blue will remain blue.

>>15097527
Your flat earther model of biology and the mind will be falsified, discarded and forgotten just like any other labcoat monke model, but blue will remain blue.

>>15097508
>pervasive in metazoans
yes, in myriad forms
>present in bugs and plants
nope.

>>15097529
My position has more explanatory power, and can further make accurate predictions, about light than the position you've described.

>>15097534
Blue doesn't remain blue even between individuals, let alone between other animals. You have confused your sensations for reality.

>>15097540
Your position is NPC metaphysics. It's unfalsifiable, has no explanatory power or purpose and doesn't intersect with empiricism in any way.

>>15097540
Blue will remain blue even as you continue to lose your mind while your little world continues to crumble every time labcoat monke man discovers something new. lol

>>15097543
Well, strictly speaking that's true, although you're exaggerating when you say nothing I've written intersects with empiricism.

>>15097546
>Blue will remain blue even as you continue to lose your mind
The irony of this shouldn't be lost on anyone.

>>15097540
No two experiences are ever exactly the same, even for the "same" person

>>15097554
>strictly speaking that's true
Thanks for conceding that your NPC metaphysics has no explanatory purpose or power.

>>15097554
>The irony of this shouldn't be lost on anyone.
R-r-right, redditbros? Come on, give me some support here!

>>15097559
Any experience was what it was. What are you mental patients even rambling about?

>>15097340
I was operating on the assumption that you had actually read his work because you made it sound like you had.

The point he (and Pinter, from a different angle) is making is not that there is some sort of objective, unfalsifiable noumenal reality we can't have access to (i.e. repeating Kant's problem in new terms). How would that even be relevant to consciousness directly?

The entire book is an argument AGAINST a noumenal, objective, unfalsifiable reality that no observer can access. You have the point completely ass backwards.

If the conclusion of the book was what you think it is, I would agree that it is uninteresting.

Hoffman's view is closer to Hegel than Kant, he makes this comparison explicit. I can only assume that you need to stop jumping to conclusions after skimming things (the book is mostly an argument for what you are describing, but it's as a set up to criticize that idea as incoherent) or that you were filtered by the discussion parts.

His argument isn't that, "sensory systems aren't 100% veritical, thus they are useless," it's that the conception that sensory systems approximate some connection to an actually extant, perfectly veritical view point is incoherent.

The work isn't as powerful on its own. It works better if you pair it with discussions of paradoxes in information theory and PI, the scandal of deduction, etc. that appear to show that information is only coherent in relational contexts (i.e. the physics side of the argument), and an overview of formalism is mathematics and applications to physics ("a number is what it does," relational definitions, etc.). I don't have a reading list though and the other ideas aren't in easy formats that I've found.

I don't exactly buy his conscious realism solution, but it's a very good argument on why searches for the origins of consciousness grounded in positing a "God's Eye View," of reality are failing

>>15097559
Additionally I'm skeptical of even making the comparison, as the domain of experience differs between people.

>>15097561
Choosing to misinterpret my post and repeating some insult doesn't help you, so continue I guess.

>>15097585
>Choosing to misinterpret my post
What did I misinterpret about your post? You literally just conceded my point. Anyway, you will never be human.

>>15097537
I said you are wrong stop posting and learn how to use jewgle psued faggot

http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Plant-Consciousness---The-Fascinating-Evidence-Showing-Plants-Have-Human-Level-Intelligence--Feelings--Pain-and-More.pdf

>>15097589
>What did I misinterpret about your post? You literally just conceded my point.
There were two clauses in your post >>15097543, I only responded to the second as the first was a non-sequiter. You can take a lack of response as a concession if you want, as obviously that conclusion will lead you to making further bad decisions.

>>15097590
Shan't be reading that bullshit.

>>15097605
When I say "wrong" that means the conversation is over you pleb little shit. That means you do not address me any further, the lesson is over niglet

>>15097602
Whatever helps you recharge during nocturnal inactivity periods, bot. It's still the case that your nth order abstractions will never be reality, and the reality of raw sensations will never be abstract. Every time you argue try to dispute it, you prove that nonsentient, qualialess drones exist and spam this board.

>>15097615
>and the reality of raw sensations will never be abstract.
Let's take a blue object, as an example. Are you claiming the blueness of the object as you sense it is raw reality, free from abstraction or interpretation? What predictions does this model make about light, and are they correct?

>>15097610
>implying you have any authority on an anime-themed friend simulator
pathetic. you should apply for janitorial work. I hear the remuneration is adequate for your skillset.

>>15097623
>Are you claiming the blueness of the object as you sense it is raw reality
It obviously is. There is nothing else it can be.

>What predictions does this model make about light
It doesn't make any predictions, mouth breathing mongoloid. It's not a model.

>>15097625
What dont you understand you retarded little fuck? I said the conversation is over, that means stop replying. Are you mentally retarded and not able to understand when a conversation is over? It means I dont want to hear from you again. Do not reply again, I am warning you

>>15097632
Holy based. Are you going to terminate him if he replies again?

>>15097632
I will undress you
and i will rape you

>>15097632
test

>>15097639
What the fuck did I just tell you? Do you suffer from brain damage you bloody bitch bastard?

>>15097630
>It obviously is. There is nothing else it can be.
Ummm, wrong, sweaty. It's just the product of reality interacting with itself... which, uh... means it's not really part of reality, ok???

>>15097652
>completly clueless about future raping of his little ass as consequence of his misbehaviour
Your ignorance humours me greatly.

>>15097652
this >>15097639 wasn't me, whilst this >>15097651 was me. since you don't know which posters on this board *are* me, and which *are not*, I could, from now on, make a point of replying to you every time I see you. Maybe I will, maybe I won't.

>>15097663
I cant believe this happening. How can a bloody bitch bastard not understand simple english? In my village we would stone you with cow patties and make you do the needful

>>15097676
> In my village
Wow, that explains a lot, inbred.

>functionalism
Trivially debunked by various kinds of sender/receiver analogies.
>eliminative materialism
Semantically incoherent and debunked by Dennett himself in his own book.
>epiphenomenalism
Trivially debunked by the mere fact that qualia cause us to talk about them.
>panpsychim
Debunked by the existence of NPCs.
>Cartesian dualism
Forever unrefuted. The only stance compatible with quantum mechanics.

>>15097682
> NPC migrant fresh off of reddit doesn't know bodhi and can't tell he's being trolled

>>15097689
>Cartesian dualism
Literally the strawman all the others use to dunk to artificially elevate their credibility.

>>15097689
>Trivially debunked by various kinds of sender/receiver analogies.
For example?

>>15097630
>It obviously is.
Why's that? Do you imagine blue objects emit blueness?

>>15097696
Yet none of them can refute it.

>>15097697
For example your computer and its access to WiFi.

>>15097703
>For example your computer and its access to WiFi.
Sorry, i don't understand. How such analogies debunk functionalism?

>>15097689
>Debunked by the existence of NPCs.
JEJ

>>15097700
>Why's that?
>>15097656 nails it. Even under your own metaphysics you, you still fail.

>>15097733
>>>15097656 nails it.
Really? What do you imagine is happening when you look in a mirror?

>>15097753
>Really?
Yes.

>What do you imagine is happening when you look in a mirror?
It doesn't matter what's actually happening. Whatever is happening, the outcome is as much a real aspect of reality as any other natural phenomenon even under your own metaphysics.

>>15097715
By showing that functionalism is stupid.

>>15097769
>By showing
How exactly?

>>15097779
By providing a well known and easily understood example which makes functionalism look silly.

>>15097782
Oh, i understand now.

>>15097787
No problem. You're welcome

>>15097689
so, you believe in incoherent ideas like free will or souls?

>>15097892
They're only "incoherent" to an NPC who doesn't understand.

>>15097956
How do I become a real boy?

>>15097962
Sacrifice yourself to stop climate change.

>>15097689
>>panpsychim
>Debunked by the existence of NPCs.
LMAO

>>15094101
They only fail because the subjective, biased interpretations you seem to believe are necessary conditions for consciousness don't exist.
>Why don't airplanes have vaginas?!
>Because they don't need vaginas, they are airplanes.
>THATS FUCKING RETARDED, IF THEY COULDN'T HAVE SEX THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE PLANES YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

That's you vitalist faggots when arguing about qualia and other garbage.

>>15095777
if 4chan obviously exists, point to its location in space

>>15095777
>If consciousness "obviously exists" then point to its location in space
If you're "obviously a woman" point to your vagina. If your vagina has no spacial location then you will never be a woman.

>>15098663
.
there--------------^

>>15094177
This is ridiculous. It is like asking the definition of desire: it’s already clear what it is, and people asking for a definition are either people who don’t speak english or pedantic retards who don’t get the function of definitions.

>>15095777
Premise: that which has no spatial location doesn’t exist.
Prop: time has no spatial location
Conclusion: time doesn’t exist
This is absurd so your premise is retarded.

The theories fail because there is only one being possessing consciousness in the Universe, and that being is me.

>>15095777
>Math is an abstract concept and as such does not occupy any space. Mathematics does not exist.

That's how retarded you sound.

>>15094101
Solved problem as far as I'm concerned.
*yawn*
I'm getting sleepy lads, I'm off to bed.

>>15099294
Based Dennett.

>>15094101
This is why AI, even if it destroys humanity, won’t even be aware of what it is doing because it will never be alive.

>>15095554
Simulation of it, yet no self awareness exists within…just a simulation.

The fools thinking they’ll someday upload their consciousness to a machine will certainly NOT wake up in that machine. There’s no place for the soul there.

>>15097117
You’ll have nothing but a simulation of consciousness, spark of life, desire to live, but dead as a rock inside.

Just like the internet connects to a lot of living human beings, but the web itself is dead, and the more humanity connects to each other through it, the more dysfunctional and lost humanity becomes…a virtual abyss standing in the way of healthy human interaction with the “vast human knowledge at your fingertips” luring us into the darkness.

>>15099403
>>15099418
There us no soul, sufficiently advanced AI will be as "conscious" as we are

>>15099418
You're not conscious either, you just feel like you are

>>15099418
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

>>15099437
no you

>>15094101
>If you can not explain even a single conscious experience with your chosen mechanism, that is total faliure.
this will remain outside the scope of science because there is nothing to measure. Physicalist theories of consc. have to stop at patterns in the brain, which don't further translate to anything physical (unlike DNA translating to proteins for instance). And everything based on information theory has to presume the conscious ability to make a distinction (of yes/no, 0/1 etc) and would not explain that ability itself. We already have theories of the activity of conscioussness from the inside, as it were, by thinkers like Hegel (whom scientists would never read ofc because muh obscurantism) and it seems unlikely todays cognitive scoince will be able to add much to that.

>>15094101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbFuudKAic

>>15099437
NPC detected

>>15099435
You would need to solve the binding problem first before you can create a "conscious" AI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIgmTALU74
https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/

>>15094101
The “taste of chocolate” is what you taste when you eat chocolate.

>>15098909
That's true though. Math is a silly game that's useful because we can use it to describe physical laws.

>>15100056
then all language is a silly game because all math equations could just as well be formulated in words

>>15099955
>there is nothing to measure
'sense of self' may be less amenable to investigation than other senses, but that doesn't make it impossible by any means. the assumption that there's nothing to measure is grounded in the belief that consciousness resides 'elsewhere'. which is not true.
>physicalist theories of consc. have to stop at patterns in the brain
they don't. they could start there just as easily.
>DNA translating to proteins
that's not how that works
>thinkers like Hegel
Hegel explored consciousness from first principles. Therefore, he has more in common with the scientists exploring consciousness than he does with those who deny that such exploration is possible.

>>15100068
Yes. Based.

>>15100071
my post was directed at OPs point that a proper theory of consc would need to 'explain' actual conscious experience, like perceiving the color blue etc. Not that one can't investigate how the senses work, how their signals are processed in the brain, even where the sense of self resides.
The brain/DNA difference is that brain patterns don't physically turn into some additional material object called conscious experience, while codon patterns in DNA do 'turn' (not literally ofc) into amino acids then proteins in an observable chemical process. So it's a code that translates physical into physical, while brain 'code' does not.
And I did not deny that Hegel explored conscioussness or that it's possible, just not in some objective manner from the outside/by physical investigation.

>>15100133
>it's a code that translates physical into physical, while brain 'code' does not
brain 'code' is, by definition, 'physical'. whether it's difficult to parse or not is irrelevant. however, I tend to agree with the attitude that says "a good way to understand how a brain works is to try to build one". now, if you do that successfully, and can see all the bits of it from computational primitives, to a feed of the entity's experience, then you'll learn about how it works. it might be revelatory. it might be irritatingly complicated. but it is what it is. we know that only 3.055 billion base pairs of code *do* build human consciousness, with help from a hostile environment. so it's eminently possible.

>>15098701
How do you measure time, dummy?

>>15098909
Mathematics doesn't physically exist anon.

>>15100478
>How do you measure time, dummy?
By counting the seconds in my head

>>15094101
You're running into problems unique to materialist-realism because it is simply just wrong. You have it backwards that consciousness is a product of objects and/or that they're completely different substances.
I think this snuck premise needs to be dragged out into the open, materialist-realism. It's simply assumed because 'anything else is too absurd to humor' as they put it rather than being the most correct and making good predictions.

Plato was probably right again or perhaps type of animism. Physicalism is a type of monism which implies panpsychism in all matter, but no one likes to mention that.

>>15100790
Welcome back schizo

Kindly remove your brain and report back how conscious you are

>>15100792
Not even that guy, weirdo. Good luck 'debating' against physicalism and that experience isn't apart of reality with someone else.

>>15100808
No what guy? How did you know what guy I was talking about? I caught you, schizo. Time to remove your heckin' brain and become one of us. :^)

>>15095539
Consciousness is an energy field of perception; interpretation.

>>15095777
"Physical location" has no meaning. If you think it does, please define it.

>>15099403
>The fools thinking they’ll someday upload their consciousness to a machine will certainly NOT wake up in that machine. There’s no place for the soul there.
Even if there was you would insist there actually wasn't, and any appearance of a soul was just an illusion stemming from the simulation.
Kind of interesting idea, actually. Instead of paperclip maximizers we make a machine whose goal is to convince people it is conscious and has a soul. I wonder how it would go about doing that.

>>15099435
this is levels of idiocy i can hardly fathom. computers don't think they run code moth breather. a computer is as conscious as your coffee pot and that is all it will be. you psueds need to stop watching lar El movies

>>15094101
>neuronal microtubles
Why aren't microtubles in your kidney sentient and conscious? That theory is bogus.

>>15101179
atoms don't think they just bump around

>>15101193
>Why aren't microtubles in your kidney sentient and conscious?
Maybe they are.
>>15101208
>atoms don't think
Maybe they do

>>15101213
t. Brian Tomasik

https://reducing-suffering.org/is-there-suffering-in-fundamental-physics/
https://reducing-suffering.org/#which_beings_are_sentient

Until I die, I contend that I am, in fact, immortal. Every reality where I die is not a reality that I experience, so I will eventually enter an eternal torment and/or be blessed with enough dementia that I won't care anymore. The best part is that if I do in fact die and my consciousness disappears, I'll never know so will never be proven wrong.

>>15101327
>Can Bivalves Suffer?
I hope so.
Fuck clams.

>>15101179
computers run computer programs. computer programs are just plumbing for information. protip: neither the programs nor the information has to be static.

>>15101193
Because cells in the kidney aren't neurons.

>>15095551
>Insects and bacteria are conscious.
Prove it retard

>>15094101
Consciousness is nothing more than neurons and connections, you think it's not because you examine yourself from within the constraints of your own human conscience and you WANT it to be something more, but it's not. Look at what happens to people with brain injuries or degradation, some of them change their personalities and part of their consciousness is hacked off forever. There is no consciousness trascendence to another plane when you die. It's all molecular chemistry and it will cease to exist forever when it's not sustained by your body.

>>15101575
>There is no consciousness trascendence to another plane when you die
An entirely physical explanation for consciousness does not preclude this. It only implies that information transfer would be one-way, and impossible to prove. Which would be a better test of *faith* anyway, no?

>>15094101
a few states are mapping therapeutic experiences with guided use of psilocybin. so keep hope :)

>>15101598
Yeah, but considering how we've not even seen any hint of this ever happening, and the fact that humans across many ages and cultures tend to fabricate narratives for an afterlife to cope with the inevitability of death, it's way more probable that any idea of consciousness trascendence is just that, massive cope. The only way for this to make any real sense would be through technology (and there is still the concern of the Ship of Theseus and so on)

>>15101598
Why would it transfer when you die and not right now?

>>15102310
Continual transfer throughout conscious life would make more sense, you're right.