/sci/ - Science & Math

Why would it? Consciousness isn't at all necessary for survival, or even for building complex societies

>consciousness trannies are getting dumber with each thread they make

>>15114080

If you’ve ever trained your dog to run across the dog walk in agility or had your lap claimed by a dog far too large to qualify as a lap dog, you’ve probably wondered if dogs struggle with body awareness. But scientists consider body awareness to be a building block of self-awareness. An organism needs to understand how their body moves through the world before they can develop a sense of self. So, the scientists wanted to know if dogs possess that fundamental cognitive ability.

They adapted a “body as obstacle” test that was first conducted with human infants then later with elephants. The task was simple – the dogs had to pass a toy to their owner. The toy was sitting on a mat and so were the dogs. The tricky part was that sometimes the toy was attached to the mat, so the dogs’ own bodies prevented them from lifting the toy high enough to hand it over. To pass the test, the dogs had to get off the mat first to free the toy from their weight then deliver the toy (with the mat attached) to their owner.

If dogs have body awareness, they will step off the mat. If they stay on the mat and continue to try to lift the toy or simply give up, they don’t understand their own contribution to the problem. It seems simple, but although elephants pass a similar test, human infants who are younger than 18-24 months of age don’t. The experiment showed that dogs were moving to solve the “body as obstacle” problem and therefore dogs have at least body-awareness.

>>15114080

No. Consciousness as a category of thing is fundamental. Our particular kind of consciousness did evolve through evolutionary processes on the universal consciousness that we are embedded in.

>>15114080
>Is consciousness a consequence of evolution?
Yeah, even animals can get smarter with the right evolutionary processes.
Check out the Subway dogs of Moscow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_dogs_in_Moscow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxJf2L2B5fY

>>15114862
Some dogs are better than some humans.

>>15114080
>consciousness
Are you an empiricist or not? Reflect on the lessons of nominalism, that's just a magical world, consciousness does not exist. Move on, materialistic monism secured.

>>15114080
>consciousness
Are you an empiricist or not? Reflect on the lessons of nominalism, that's just a magical word, consciousness does not exist. Move on, materialistic monism secured.

>>15114196
>human infants who are younger than 18-24 months of age don’t.
Which races of human did they test it on?

>>15114080
Your dog does have consciousness, he just lacks language abilities.

>>15115042
Sounds like the same, honestly.

>>15115042
No, dogs can quite clearly understand and respond to language, they just lack the fine vocalization abilities to duplicate it.

>>15115042
Meanwhile you have language abilities but lack consciousness.

>>15114080
How do you feed an unconscious dog are you shoving purina up its ass cia prison style or something?

Free will is just saying the brain is a black box (it isn't)
CIA (barf) solved the problem of consciousness with the gateway documents. Consciousness can be fully explained as a consequence of physical laws and properties

>>15115692
But animals have unwritten rules just like the british law. Maybe even plants do but we can't know because they don't move often.

>>15115692
Free will is applied quantum mechanics.

>>15115692
Just save yourself the effort and stamp the word "NPC" on your forehead.

>>15115726
>t. never studied quantum mechanics

>>15115748
Why are you projecting?

>>15115753
I can't help it. I was born a midwit and I have no free will. Try to be more understanding!

>>15114278
But some animals are aware of themselves though

>>15115760
Not him but you see nonsentient to me. Did you actually read what he wrote?

>>15115745
>No arguments
I accept your concession

>>15115721
>But animals have unwritten rules
Instincts? Encoded by the brain? Yea, duh

>>15115726
Everything is applied sub-everything, this is a trivial comment

>>15115766
>I accept your concession
I accept your lack of sentience.

>>15115776
Inability to form a logical argument is a lack of sentience anon. I'll await proof of your sentience (I won't get it, you're an NPC projecting his NPC status because his feefees got hurt). Give a rigorous definition of free will that doesn't amount to

>there's secret brain magic we'll never understand

>>15115778
An argument against what? Your irrational and obsessive chanting? Maybe try to define what you mean by "free will" and then make an argument for your cult dogma first.

>>15114080
By consciousness you mean the ability to examine one's self. And yes, that is utility for the creatures that think.

>>15115812
>By consciousness you mean the ability to examine one's self.
I doubt that's what he means, since it requires no consciousness, but go ahead and tell him exactly what he meant. lol

>>15115815
Then you have no empirical definition of consciousness.

>>15115830
Why do I need one?

>>15115836
Evolution is defined as a testable premise. If you cannot exert your word on the world, neither cares about you.

>>15115809
>Maybe try to define what you mean by "free will"
I'm saying there is no solid meaning for it, you retard. ESL much? When people say the words "free will" in context it always refers to some notion that our motivations and thoughts come magically from the ether - they do not - hence this definition is invalid. Our brains are physical objects and our behaviour can be reduced to neuron interactions. This does not take anything away from our agency either. Consciousness can not be explained by a simple atomic model however, so I invoked the gateway process documents as an example of a solid attempt to explain it via physical and testable phenomena.

>>15115856
>Evolution is defined as a testable premise
So? You're only undermining your own take here.

>>15115859
>there is no solid meaning
Then what are you attempting to refute?

>some notion that our motivations and thoughts come magically from the ether
Show me who claims that.

>>15115869
>Then what are you attempting to refute?
When talking about consciousness, the topic of this thread, free will is often invoked as an ancillary concept.

>Show me who claims that.
>free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe
https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will

>>15115865
Wrong. Consciousness must be testable to be consequential, I gave its testable definition. If you do not believe consciousness has to be testable, then your ideas are by definition, nothing.

>>15115875
>capacity to make decisions independently of the state of the universe
I stand corrected. The retard who wrote that article apparently shares his single brain cell with you.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/free-will
>the ability to choose how to act
>the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God

That's more reasonable.

>>15115880
>Consciousness must be testable to be consequential
Let's suppose so. Why does it exist, then? Evolution certainly shouldn't care.

>>15115887
Then we are back at square one. If consciousness is the ability to examine the self, then it follows that the mind can pick upon the ills it sees. With consciousness comes redressing and health.

>>15115895
>If consciousness is the ability to examine the self
It isn't.

>>15115898
It is unanimously described as an awareness. Complete my sentence: an awareness of what?

>>15115883
>the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God
is quite literally the same as
>the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe
and definition 1 was tautological. My stance still stands correct

>>15115903
I don't care what the voices in your head describe it as. A program can examine its own state. That doesn't make it conscious.

>>15115907
> quite literally the same
Wrong.

>My stance still stands correct
Because your stance is based on your retarded definition. I guess if you find anyone who actually agrees with it and still believes in your version of free will, you can prove them wrong. lol

>>15115920
>A program can examine its own state. That doesn't make it conscious.
Oh dear, in 2023.

>>15115922
>Wrong.
It isn't. "independently of any prior event or state of the universe" covers fate and God.

>Because your stance is based on your retarded definition.
I have not defined free will, I have pointed out the community definition (both the one I linked AND the one you linked) is internally incoherent and thus, not useful for the discussion of consciousness.

>>15115935
>X covers Y therefore X is Y
Painfully stupid. Either way, "fate and God" are (probably intentionally) ambiguous.

>I have pointed out the community definition
I ammend my statement: your stance is based on a retarded "community definition". I guess if you find anyone who actually agrees with it and still believes in your version of free will, you can prove them wrong. lol

>>15114862
Russia truly is a cursed cunt

>>15115942
>I guess if you find anyone who actually agrees with it and still believes in your version of free will
Bruh I linked one of the major encyclopedias, just take the L god damn. It is explicitly NOT my "version of free will" it's yours. You even said so ESL-kun

>X covers Y therefore X is Y
Here's a lesson ESL-kun. If X covers Y, X is a superset of Y. "fate and God" however ambiguous they may be are covered by the scope of "any prior event or state of the universe" which is equally if not more so ambigious. I hope these spoonfeeds have been helpful, and hope you're doing okay in whatever third world country you are posting from.

>>15115964
>It is explicitly NOT my "version of free will"
Doesn't make any difference to the meaning of that sentence.

>If X covers Y, X is a superset of Y.
Yes, you mouth-breathing imbecile. Therefore your claim about X is much stronger than the claim about Y.

>>15115932
>a computer can examine itself but not without external orders
Are you saying that consciousness doesn't involve free will?
Is a computer code just a primitive version of the genetic code of a person?

>>15115932
Sorry about your profound mental illness.

>>15114080
>zipper in chest
That guy must be pretty brave/sick to wear a dead bear as a suit

What is it with Kastrup niggers repeating the same drivel then when proven wrong they're like 'MENTAL ILLNESS MENTAL ILLNESS NONSENTIENT' over and over

>>15116366
>mental illness intensifies
Kastwho? What are you sperging out about? Computers aren't conscious and you're mentally ill.

>>15116452
uhhuh. you are mentally ill, take your meds

>>15116557
He's right. Computers rely on binary logic, they're not a sufficiently complex quantum system as Roger Penrose describes, so they cannot have a value of consciousness beyond their bare silicon

>>15116574
I didn't say anything about any of this here >>15116366 so I think calling you schizophrenic sticks

>>15116589
>spergs out about imaginary boogeymen
>thinks everyone who shits on him is the same poster
>thinks programs magically gain consciousness if they read their own state
Mental illness.

Consciousness is only slightly less of an illusion than free will and the self are. Quit listening to those useless made up concepts from that hobo Chalmers.

>>15116820
>I'm an NPC
Ok.

>>15114144
NPC identified.
My chemotaxis tells me to avoid you and to stay upwind.

>>15114080
Why did I evolve to be this person, as opposed to some other person?

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

>>15114080
It's a consequence of language.

>>15115021
Am I the only one seeing a happy merchant in that image?

>>15116800
>thinking i believe any of that shit

mentally ill