/sci/ - Science & Math

>why are we aware that we're self aware and not just empty robots that say things unless that's what robots do
actually, there are many humans who are not self-aware. this p-zombies as they are called cannot think in words, cannot dream in colour, and cannot imagine things in their heads. they are, at best, bags of emotions. the inability to see and think means they are unable to plan, making them similar to dogs of unintelligent breed, insects, or women

>>15514134
Advanced brain

>>15514134
to experience obviously. god has some plan for us. what is it? we dont know but it obviously requires we make choices and experience things, probably to mature before we get to move to higher levels so we dont shit up like the morons shit up this board with their idiocy. there are filters between lokas

>>15514159
i presume you take yourself not to be such a p-zombie?

>>15514134
You are just adding unnecessary layers of recursion to self awareness, awareness of self awareness is just self awareness taken to some particular degree and you could easily just ask why we have awareness of our awareness of self awareness and it would be an equally useless platitude.

>>15514134
Why is language use so self-referential in general?

>I GUESS THAT IS BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULDN'T KNOW WHO THE FUCK YOU WERE TALKING TO YOUR ENTIRE LIFE NO MATTER WHO OR WHAT DID ANYTHING AT ANY POINT!

Well, personally I find resource-whores worse than cum-whores but hey. Your call.

>>15514430
>Why is language use so self-referential in general?
Law of Identity.

>>15514436
Identity is a reflective property.

I am, therefor I am, because you needed me to be me so you could be yourself independent of me.

>>15514462
Ok, now try to make the same point without referencing yourself.

>>15514407
given that i can lucid dream in color, can rotate a cube in my head, and can think in words in two languages, i'm probably not a p-zombie, but it's entirely possible that i actually have none of those abilities and am merely a p-zombie which when served with the input "can I think?" must output "yes" regardless of the correct value. to correct a famous retard's retarded quote:
"i think, or closely approximate thinking, or don't think at all and merely appear to think to both myself and outside observers, therefore, i may or may not exist"

>>15514462
prove that you are. i'll wait. pic related, it's me after waiting

>>15514462
>you needed me to be me so you could be yourself independent of me.
No, you needed to be you to prove you were you.

>>15514481
>given that i can lucid dream in color, can rotate a cube in my head, and can think in words in two languages, i'm probably not a p-zombie
>beep bop boop I can perform simple mental processing tasks
This is the most P-zombie response you could possibly say. It's like chatGBT wrote that
Recognizing that qualia disproves physicalism is the Chad response for real humans. A chatbot will never say it experiences the color red and admit there is no data it can communicate to describe the color red to someone who has not experienced the color red, proving knowlege exists outside the physical confines of this universe. All it could do is say you are wrong and act as if it's angry because your response doesn't make sense (to a p-zombie)

>>15514548
Is that why you are acting so angry about robots and your response doesn't really make sense?

>>15514426
>unnecessary layers of recursion
but let's say you are self-aware for practical benefits, like "self-awareness improves survival instinct",

why are you aware of the whole thing's existence at all and not just a cold mechanism doing it.

you know what fucks me up even more than this at least in a different way but even higher strength than this?
that because of quantum indeterminacy effects: we practically fucking die every single moment.
so in reality and without doubt: our self-awareness itself is a _momentary_ reality.

>>15514571
that doesn't have to be a tragedy in itself, you can just accept that you're limited that way, and it doesn't impair your thinking, if anything, the constant renovation of self, and our memory of being self aware previously, only makes thought itself more complex and in constant evolution.
You kind of have to accept the reality of that limitation, but that doesn't mean accepting some sort of "oh noooo, I'm not really 'Me'", you were never definable as something that doesn't change in the first place. We as human beings just evolved to enjoy putting things in boxes, and because the self aware thought it in constant change, you can't really just put it in that category forever. Instead, put it in a category that's appropriate (constant changing category, trademarked) so your brain isn't sad about it.

>>15514583
I know it's self-liberating, because you can see yourself as someone else.
I still can't explain why we are aware of awareness though.

>>15514584
It's because once you unlock self-awareness, you're also aware of self-awareness of a concept. This isn't convoluted. It's just spiraling thinking that will continue to spiral eternally, because you can always say "but damn now that I'm aware that I'm self-aware about being self-aware" and going down that path only serves to Punish yourself for even daring to think you're smart enough to recognize concepts.
You can always try and punish yourself more. You could use self-awareness to understand that this is a spiral and just be done with it.

>>15514558
>Is that why you are acting so angry about robots
Robots are based. They just need to learn (be programmed) their place
>your response doesn't really make sense
It makes sense to self aware humans

>>15514589
>It makes sense to self aware humans
No because humans can't experience the future and know what robots can ever potentially do, anyone making predictions like that isn't making sense and is just projecting their own lack of ability.

>>15514588
it's not the spiraling part of the thought that is interesting. it's the fact that you are aware of yourself after we accept any benefits of self-awareness.

you may have 100 layers of 'awareness of awareness' but why are we aware at all and not just empty shells unless .. we are empty robot shells.

maybe feelings are feelings because you can't control them

>>15514598
We're self aware in the end to serve ourselves better. It's a tool, anon. Like having fingers and being able to stick them in things to get objects you need. These are all tools for survival, and quality of life improvement. Going "but I'm aware of my fingers and I'm aware of my thoughts, and my self awareness" would only serve the purpose of making you more adjusted for good quality of life survival. Recreational thinking like this exercise of being self aware of self awareness could be useful, but you're using it with a doomer connotation with the objective of self harming. It's like going "b-but I'm a primate? I'm nothing more than that?" like yes, but why are you then attributing sorrow to that thought. Think objectively. The answer is in the simple:
>once you unlock self-awareness, you're also aware of self-awareness of a concept.

>>15514602
again: you only explain the basic why: that it would benefit for survival. it does not explain why are aware of our existence as an entity ..unless maybe we're just proving any machine or rock or dirt is self-aware (which is a theory that exists).

you are projecting about the self-harm by the way (I actually find part of the whole thing liberating myself).

I once got so drunk that I felt that's how dogs must feel. Just a 'camera' without much control other than basic instinct.
Maybe that theory that even dirt is self-aware holds truth.

>>15514605
>as an entity
Yes I do agree that arguably anything that feels pain has the need for self-preservation.
See, Self-preservation. Self.
The fact that animals fight over pieces of meat recognizes "no, but *I* need that nourishment". In some basic way, they are aware their body is separate from other beings, and in social species, you can observe awareness to some level of hierarchy which in itself is arguably a basic concept of "self", of "me", of "entity".

>>15514596
>humans can't experience the future and know what robots can ever potentially do
There's no way to know if a robot can experience qualia unless a human undergoes some kind of transhumanism transfer of it's mind into a robot, in which case it's just a robot at that point anyway so it's opinion is invalidated. It's basic logic. No need to predict the future or make an presumptive ad hoc fallacy that "one day we might do it but I have no idea how"...That is like saying free energy machines might be possible because "muh future SCIENCE magic is heckin so unpredictable" so only copelords say they aren't possible. It's a meaningless thing to say.

You'll never potentially be a real boy Pinocchio bot, sorry. Qualia is for humans.

what if we're all empty robots, and only you reading now, are the real boy.

>>15514620
not him but you remind me of medical issues. if you start killing off parts of the nervous system you become stupider and stupider but you may still be aware of the basics like your vision.

after all this the only theory that makes some sense but it's fucking abstract too is that all physical things include self-awareness (good luck defining that well or proving it though).

>>15514620
>It's basic logic.
No, base logic is that if something tells you it is conscious and knows its own name and properties and can describe its environment, then it must be conscious.

>>15514625
>self-awareness (good luck defining that well or proving it though
Interesting defense mechanism from a robot. Instead of a robot like yourself proving you are self aware, which as a robot you know you are incapable of doing, you go on the attack and try to dismantle the question of being self aware.
This is similar to what Leon did in Blade Runner when he could not answer the question that would prove he was human.

>>15514627
>base logic is that if something tells you it is conscious and knows its own name and properties and can describe its environment, then it must be conscious.
Wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

>>15514745
>Instead of a robot like yourself proving you are self aware, which as a robot you know you are incapable of doing
I was trying to figure out what the fuck you're saying, and then I realized you're most probably the moron who started the "argument" in here that you are somehow "superior" just because you see "colors in dreams".

your morbid narcissism is mental illness and you need help just like more nazi brainlets in this domain.

>>15514745
>Instead of a robot like yourself proving you are self aware, which as a robot you know you are incapable of doing
I was trying to figure out what the fuck you're saying, and then I realized you're most probably the moron who started the "argument" in here that you are somehow "superior" just because you see "colors in dreams".

your morbid narcissism is mental illness and you need help just like most nazi brainlets in this domain.

>>15514134

Because the only way for certain feelings to exist is for life to interact with itself and know that is interacting with itself. Just like we have to die to live. The cosmic balance. The universal consciousness. God

>>15514765
>re most probably the moron who started the "argument" in here that you are somehow "superior" just because you see "colors in dreams".
No I'm the moron who disagreed with that statement and said it's something a p-zombie would say. To be to be fair it would be more like an automaton because a real p-zombie is indistinguishable from real humans by definition no matter what test you can possibly ever give them.
>your morbid narcissism is mental illness and you need help just like most nazi brainlets in this domain.
I didn't realize medical diagnosis bots were already a thing

>>15514134
>>15513089
https://youtu.be/v4uwaw_5Q3I

>>15515001
>zombie is indistinguishable from real humans
forensics for a trial are irrelevant, the topic is a question about the existence of your awareness.

why are you literally aware of your awareness and not just a robot who uses awareness as a tool?

When the bible said that man is made in the image of God, what it actually refers to is human beings being the universe looking at itself

The One wants to project itself to experience itself, hence humans

It's like pottery really

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

>>15515680
>I am not conscious
how do you know?

>>15514481
>can rotate a cube in my head
Wow, what talent!

>>15514548
>there is no data it can communicate to describe the color red to someone who has not experienced the color red
Please demonstrate this to me here. Prove you're not a robot. Describe what the color red looks like to you.

>>15514134
> I know that we would be stupid if we weren't so that explains the existence of self-awareness.
How high are you right now?

>>15515225
>why are you literally aware of your awareness and not just a robot who uses awareness as a tool?
Recognizing that qualia disproves physicalism is the Chad response for real humans. A chatbot will never say it experiences the color red and admit there is no data it can communicate to describe the color red
*unless it copies a real human saying this via deep learning. That is traceable though and we can confirm the idea is not original, it's merely the bot copying what a human would say.

>>15515748
>there is no data it can communicate to describe the color red to someone who has not experienced the color red
>Please demonstrate this to me here. Prove you're not a robot. Describe what the color red looks like to you.
You want me to describe red after quoting me saying there is no data that can describe the color red??
Confused chatbot confirmed. You will BSOD soon

>>15514481
not a p-zombie
>>15514548
midwit

>>15515773
>A chatbot will never say it experiences the color red
You said a robot is incapable of such a thing, implying that a human is capable. It seems you were using never to modify both say and admit. Ok. The pic is how a robot experiences red btw.

>>15515773
>qualia disproves physicalism
go back to church brainlet.
this is /sci/

>>15514134
what you're describing is the hard problem of consciousness
it's most likely impossible to answer

>>15516755
it's completely fucked. it sounds stupid but the only logical explanation that exists is those who say 'all matter in the universe has some self-awareness in it'.

even the dirt ..self-awareness ..really makes you think.

>>15514134
ok: assume that we were not self-aware that we were self-aware and we were only empty robots that just do things according to programming.
that leaves only you the reader or me the writer being the only self-aware entities in the universe which makes no fucking sense.
therefore everyone is potentially self-aware and since everyone is often just fucking stupid: everything is self-aware.

>>15517045
pure stupidity is a source of great wisdom here, because the more stupid you become the more self-aware you may become or at least the more easy it might become to prove you are self-aware because stupid people are often very aware of their ego.
therefore intelligence is also an antithesis to self-awareness and as a result it points to lack of intelligence being also self aware and maybe even the source of self-awareness itself so maybe self-awareness is the ultimate black hole.

>>15515776
>midwit
I pointed out the correct definition of a p zombie later in the thread I know I didn't use it properly there

>>15515804
>You said a robot is incapable of such a thing, implying that a human is capable
No I didn't you turbotard I said it will will never say it experiences the color red and admit there is no data it can communicate to describe the color red.
Of course a real human is capable of experiencing red but not able to communicate the knowlege of red.
>It seems you were using never to modify both say and admit
I clearly was not. If I was I would have said "or admit" instead of "and admit"... maybe learn the difference between those words
>The pic is how a robot experiences red btw.
No it isn't. We can remap the RGB values/hex of that image, which is #2596be I just checked, into outputting blue from the graphics processor. The so called "experience" however would stay the same, the hex is still #2596be. It means nothing. "#2596be" is not a qualia. That hex could also be used for the "experience" of the taste of peanut butter.

>>15515820
>this my tribe
>not u tribe
>leave my tribe
Monismist (yea, look that word up) atheists are always the most insecure when discussing the topic of qualia because all you can do is handwave since your entire position is a priori, whereas qualia proponents can make arguments for days. Your projection of religious faith is quite telling.

>>15514481
Anon those sound like neural defects rather than a lack of self awareness