/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16015247

You are a free will. A soul attached to a body by God.

Read Duns Scotus metaphysics

>>16015247
there is no solution because there is no problem
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iOrzsxvc2pJd/

>>16015247

There is nothing to solve because there is no valid question. Consciousness is a particular level of, and is caused by, brain activity. It's a measure of the world based on sensory input, memory, and processing of the two, among other things.

Don't be surprised to not find answers when your questions are stupid.

Consciousness is funda-mentally different from matter. Any attempt to explain consciousness in terms of the laws of physical matter is a categorical error, like forcing a reductive description of gravity in terms of electromagnetism. Consciousness first needs to be explored in its own, and then we can investigate the (probably quantum mechanical) interaction between consciousness and matter. But unfortunately ackadummics have been conditioned to exhibit a violent and irrational kneejerk reaction whenever someone mentions dualism.

>>16015310
Why dualism? Either the universe has all the necessary ingredients for consciousness or it doesn't. Clearly there is no reason to posit some exotic non-universal substance that does not have any physical characteristics other than being the source of consciousness. Moreover, science is based on inductive principles of reasoning. Posit some axioms and then see if the consequences of those axioms agree with data and observations. There is no inductive theory of consciousness because there is no way to reduce conscious experience to a finite set of axioms and their logical consequences. Whatever makes consciousness possible must be physical but the interactions are so complicated that it is unlikely to be reducible to a simple computational model like most other theories in science and philosophy.

Anyway, it's a giant time sink and anyone who has spent time on the problem reaches the same conclusion. Subjective experience can not be reduced to a logical and symbolic description that can then be validated empirically with computational models.

>>16015310
Materialism is the crux of modern thought and anything that tries to go outside of that box is shot down as a pseudoscience. On some level multiverse theory is metaphysical with a materialist wrapping on it.

>>16015247
Consciousness is a hard question, primarily because it is hard to define in a way everyone will agree. When I define consciousness, I’m usually trying to pin down that spark that humans have which animals lack. What is that thing in the human brain that makes people able to rise far above the apes and computers? In what ways are we superior? And can those things be measured?
Among things we can measure, speech and hyper-complex social relationships seem to be our key metrics, but these don’t seem to really capture the human spark very well.
I therefore prefer to lean on humanity’s ability to identify what is good. Humans have a far more complex ability to define and identify “good” than any other animal or computer. By corollary, we can also know what is “bad” with an equal richness. Indeed, computers need to have every good thing defined to them in advance, which is why their moral conclusions often seem mechanical. Animals come closer, but even they fail the test of the Gom Jabbar.
Thus, that is the real meaning of consciousness. It is the ability of the mind to rise above the mind and reach a transcendental plane of thinking. A realm where good and evil are real and real enough for us to experience them. It’s not very measurable, but it is far more useful.

>>16015331
You should read more and post less.

>>16015334
And you should know I don’t care what you think.

>>16015310
>ackadummics have been conditioned to exhibit a violent and irrational kneejerk reaction whenever someone mentions dualism.

Academics spurn it because it's malarkey dressed up as ontologically meritable in the face of modern knowledge by the intelligent but poorly educated or disingenuous.

Try to understand the outcome of the "Maxwell's demon" thought experiment.
It follows from thermodynamics that there can be no such thing as the "immaterial".

>>16015343
Well then, do you consider the ability of Maxwell’s demon to understand and have will to separate molecules to be material?

>>16015338
I didn't ask but thanks for sharing that you are proud of your ignorance

>>16015263
> Consciousness is a particular level of, and is caused by, brain activity
Undemonstrated, no why, no how. Not an answer.

>>16015320
>Whatever makes consciousness possible must be physical
Did your holy text of Redditor atheism tell you that?

>>16015331
Dumbest attempt to make a smart post I've seen in ten hours.

>>16015343
>It follows from thermodynamics that there can be no such thing as the "immaterial".
No it doesn't LMAO

>>16015343
Pseud.
Go measure it then.
Im not married to dualism but every argument about it beeing measureable was either „its not real dont ask question“ or „itll be measureable in the future!!“
I think the main issue beeing that people claim that anything including non quantififiable attributes is instantly dualism.
And from that go to „since dualism is a priori wrong, there also cannot be attributes that cannot be quantified“

>>16015532
I’m sure everyone wants to make sure you think they’re smart. A pity we can’t ask you first.

>>16015359
Then you can keep your useless mouth shut. Think of it as a challenge.

>>16015247
>consciousness
>problem
Mom /sci/ is being full of retarded threads again

>>16015247
If it weren't one thing we don't understand it would be another. You'll always find that one problem

>>16015263
>npc gibbersih

>>16015652
Seems like you should take your own advice so as to not appear like a retarded hypocrite but I still didn't ask so at this point you are basically harassing me

>>16015915
>YoU aRe BaSiCaLlY HaRaSsInG mE
Oh no! Please keep yourself from crying. I’m so sorry. I didn’t realize you were so fragile. Don’t do it anon! I cannot handle your tears.

>>16015263
yes this is all nice but what are qualia? i can feel them. how do they emerge? (can you feel things?)

>>16015249
So are the contents of our consciousness representative of external objective reality? Or they just delusions all the way down?

>>16015343
Thermodynamix doesn't apply at the quantum level anymore when energy is not a conserved quantity.

>>16015331
>What is that thing in the human brain that makes people able to rise far above the apes and computers?
Absolutely not the hard problem at all.

>>16015530
Filtered by basic neuroscience

>>16015700
braindead

>>16016098
define qualia in some way that isn't already defined as emotion or experience reflective of material causes.

Qualia is a semantic issue, not a scientific one

>>16015310

>Consciousness is funda-mentally different from matter

How do you come to this conclusion without gaslighting yourself into believing it? A bold statement that is based on nothing and is impossible to prove or deny. Ultimately just a language game.

>>16016098
I have never felt or experienced a qualia. I've experienced the redness of a sunset, the taste of coffee, the smell of roses, but these are all public objects in the world, not private qualia in my mind!

>>16016257
>>16016311
Okay anons, but where does subjective experience originate from? Instead to e.g. a mechanical response to input stimuli. You agree that subjective experience exists, right?

>>16015247
>Why can't we solve consciousness?
Can't explain the projector with the projections.

>>16017597
Projections are reflections. Ergo concordantly vis-à-vis: deboonked.

>>16017629
You can "Ergo concordantly vis-à-vis" the film, not the projector. Good try.

>>16017638
Do you really want to argue that the mask / act says nothing about the true face / actor?

>>16017646
Awwwwwww

>>16017647
Bucky ball

>>16017646
The "mask" is merely just another film filter in a series of film filters.
It says nothing about the "thing" at the beginning of the chain that sees up everything.

>>16017675
>It says nothing
Yes it does in numerous ways. Following your own logic you've already attributed qualities to the thing like comparing it to a projector.

>>16017699
>comparing it to a projector
We all try to model the real thing with something else that's close; it doesn't mean they are exactly alike.
If you notice the picture, the eyes and the mask are not the same thing.

>>16017722
Now we're back to the age old thingness of a thing / chairness of a chair / what makes a chair a chair. Yes any description is inadequate because language and logic are comparitive / fail to capture the nature of things.

Now suppose we play Donkey Kong Country. DK is clueless about humans and the human world but he can still deduce that the will driving him has a speedrunner or completionist mentality and that the world is antagonistic. Likewise it says something about the hyperdimensional space alien simulators that they simulate a world where it's possible to print shapes and colors on soft materials that some creatures find attractive such that biochemistry interacts with an abstraction these creatures call anime and waifu.

>>16017756
The Bucky ball is divine grade.

>>16017757
That makes as much sense as an orthodox christian saying that we can't know God: either nonsense or books full of complex theology.

>>16017756
DK and the human player are all film filters in a series of filters. The only difference is which is closer to the Source.
Placing the Source at the very end of all filters and attempt to explain it as just another product of the distorations of the filters cannot be done.
Place the Source at the very beginning and state it is what illuminate and observes all distorations is the only holistic answer.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

>>16018057

>>16017756
Ship of Theseus is what you are looking for

>>16015531
I use logic, reason, and observation. Really basic stuff

>>16019007
Sailing with the most attractive young virgin female sacrifices is nice and all if you know that you can defeat the Minotaur and save them all but other than that it's not convincing of anything. We can dedicate a whole seperate thread about what it means to be a pattern. A materialist will interpret that differently from a platonist.

>>16015320
You are assuming two things:
1. The universe is all that exists
2. There is no process by which information can be exchanged with objects outside the universe

We have not proved the former and we have no evidence for or against the latter. Until we prove that the universe is all that exists, dualism is not invalidated.

>>16019414
>there may be a process by which information can be exchanged with objects outside the universe
>we have no evidence against this
This is Carl Sagan's invisible dragon in his garage.

bump

We are humans. Consciousness is motion in the nervous system. It's that simple. People who interpret consciousness as some static container instead of a process are fucking retarded.

>>16020493
>Consciousness is motion in the nervous system.
>People who interpret consciousness
Surely you meant to say that some nervous system motions pretend to be something else than nervous system motions. Why is it so hard for you to stay consistent for even a few sentences? Your motion is wonkey.

>>16020521
>I am consciousness.
Get help.

>>16020526
Then what are ''people who interpret consciousness''?

>>16020553
That's what we are. People interpreting what 'consciousness' means. I think I might be getting at the misunderstanding here. You probably didn't read the second half of my sentence about interpreting consciousness.

>>16020579
Where in this post
>>16020521
do I claim that consciousness is a static container? If consciousness = process than ''people who interpret consciousness'' = that process interpreting itself unless you claim that people are something else than that process. You don't want to claim that so I'm pointing out how fucking retarded your choice of wording is.

Is consciousness supernatural since we don't have access for measuring subjective experience?

>>16015247
We have already solved it, but the materialists do not like the answer. But NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."

So we are eternal spirits having a simulation or a video game experience.

>>16020871
The only NDE study I know of recorded only one case where the subject gave an accurate and detailed description of what was going on around him while he was in a coma, leaving the question unanswered.

What are your sources?

>>16020814
Depends on who you ask. Some believe its supernatural. Some believe its supermundane and there's no consciousness at any level. Some believe the consciousness is just physical process and subjective experience is just a rationalization/narrative machine.

>>16015247
Because science is intentionally blind to it. There is tons of people who experience and report on strange experiences of consciousness. Rather than study any of these people or reports science demands that random plebs prove their 'esp' through various nonsensical and arbitrary litmus tests which don't really measure anything about the phenomena themselves.
Also there is the fact that science completely ignores any subjective phenomena of the mind, and has not endeavored in any way to develop the capabilities for having these phenomena in people so that they can study them in a measured environment.
In the end random people scattered around the population are already teleporting to alien dimensions and talking to spiritual and non human entities, and are basically hundreds if not thousands of years ahead of the society memes about such things. In some ways, the extreme level of successes that they have had and reported sound so fantastical that nobody takes any of them seriously.
I already made 'first contact', I've already gone to Mars, and beyond. If everyone knew how easy this stuff was, why would we rely on institutions to direct our awareness or thoughts about the subject, rather than doing them ourselves.
Its your life, consciousness and life are two sides of a biotechnological paradigm. The most advanced computer in the world is a human brain. The body can manipulate and create proteins and psychoactive chemicals from its own thoughts. If you don't learn how to use it to its fullest extent you won't make any progress, simply waiting for someone else to 'prove it' on your behalf, unless you plan on waiting hundreds if not thousands of years.

>>16020619
People are not consciousness. Fucking retard.
>I am what I see.
Literal tard.

>>16020889
>Some believe its supermundane and there's no consciousness at any level. Some believe the consciousness is just physical process and subjective experience is just a rationalization/narrative machine.

imagine believing you are being told you, the perceiver, do not exist and believing it while having to exist in order to do that
kek

conciousness is fundamental

>>16015247
I don't know what the answer is. Best I can do is think of how each position might answer the, "what are we," question.

Substance Dualist: We are a mental substance, essentially a soul, that is connected with a physical body that interacts with us and we interact with it.
Property Dualist: We are a mental, non-physcial, property that strongly emerges from a specific combination/process/interaction of our physical brain.
Mind-Brain Identity Physicalist: We are our physical body and our consciousness exists but is not emergent. Our mental states are identical to our brain states. The brain does not produce the mind, it is the mind.
Functionalist Physicalist: We are the product of various physical functional relations in our brains.
Idealist: We are mental beings that exist in a world of ideas. There are no physical things, only ideas that seem physical to our mind.
Panpsychist: We are a larger consciousness that has been produced by the combination of little pieces of physical matter that each have their own bit of consciousness or protoconsciousness.
Illusionist Physicalist: We are our physical body and people are mistaken about consciousness, it exists but not in the way most people think.
Mysterian Physicalist: We are our physical body, but we can never know how our brains make consciousness because we are too unintelligent to figure it out.

This is my crappy attempt at giving the gist of each position.

>>16021574
The perceiver is an artifact after we decide to discern about the state of the matter. Whether you're a competitive athelete or an artist in the zone, the moment you go into the zone, the perceiver is gone. When they slow slow down their brain and think things more thoroughly, then you being to see a narrative about how "i began sweating, my palms were greasy, I felt all nervous" etc etc. For the normal everyday lives, our brain just naturally dosage of analysis wherever the attention is. input event data -> physical sensations felt -> merger of the two -> post event rationalization -> separation of the sensory data + sensation + addition of the reference body for coordinate system -> useful narrative about "I did this, I felt this, I am the perceiver".

>>16021574
Also to continue >>16021671, consciousness to me isn't "the perceiver" thats just a small part. Consciousness is all core mental activities and functions, including but not limited to perception, discernment, chains of thoughts, concept formation, etc. The perceiver is a byproduct/an artifact of discernment function

>>16021671
>>16021680
NTA so if I'm reading you right, you think consciousness is weakly emergent- entirely reducible down to the most fundamental particles and forces? I think when you use the word "perceiver" you mean our self-consciousness, if so, I agree that it is a part of consciousness. I'm just wondering you separate "the perceiver" from our perceptions, correct? Because I think even if you ignore the perceiver, a physicalist still has great issues in trying to account for phenomenal consciousness.

Ultimately, I think it is commonly believed that the physicalist must be able to explain how first-person, private, phenomenal states can be accounted for by physics. If not, our idea of what the physical is should be adjusted to account for it or physicalism should be discounted.

>>16021705
I'm just saying there's no actual perceiver, on looker, homunculus, soul, the real time self, etc etc etc. Whatever people want to call it. The notion of perceiver is purely a narrative/rationalization device similar to what you may find in office forms. The moment you fill in your name/age/birthday/sex/etc on the piece of paper, doesn't give rise to a magical homunculi of the office form.

Second, this isn't a physicalist approach its a general approach. Physics models is fundamental today in navigating the life, but there's a still a chasm to cross to navigate the conscious landscape. I'm still for the primacy of consciousness, not primacy of the perceiver. I dont buy consciousness as an extra dimension space for the extra dimension perceiver to reside in/interact with. I dont buy the notion of perceiver as anything but as an artifact of the part of the consciousness/brain that tries to make sense of things.
The problem of explaining the first-person isn't just a physicalist thing either, its a problem of the consciousness itself. I get that there's many that believe physicalists v consciousness is the only problem. But I'm saying the real problem is consciousness (realist/soulist/religiuos/etc) vs consciousness (fictionalist/functionalist/etc).

>>16017534
The objective experience is akin to music in digital format. Its pure, unaltered, and precise. What you consider your own subjective experience is playing the same song on something like vinyl. It has some cracks, pops, altering the pure form to *some* extent. While technically it's unique to you, it's only because of the fact your brain is *slightly* different to that of others. You might also attach other feelings to it based on your experiences, but it will more or less be the same as everyone else's

>>16021728
Why is there a sound experience at all? Couldn't the brain just register the incoming sensory data without there being an actual first-person perception of the music? Like if I speak into the mic of my PC the computer isn't really "hearing" me, but does hear in the sense of registering the incoming data.

>>16021742
>Couldn't the brain just register the incoming sensory data without there being an actual first-person perception of the music?
NTA, but let me tell you how our we discerns sound.

Sound(X) -> ears (Z) -> front brain (process A) -> back brain (B) -> front brain (C) -> sound being heard (D).

A -> B -> C

All in proper (simplistic) sequences. If we disrupt B->C signals with special anesthesia, there's no cognition of sound. But we know the brain recognizes it under MRI.

In the case of a computer, speakers/ram/hdd might store sound data, but there's no real recognition of it, unless you get the software to do function loop of the real time sound and analyze the sound back end, the result to viewer.

>>16021751
And also, the A->B->C just a simplified form of how the brain works.each one takes ~40-70 ms latency in processing time.

>>16021751
I appreciate the response, but my point is more to get at why there is the "cognition of sound" or "recognition." It's that first-person phenomenal aspect that isn't easily accounted for. Essentially, what I'm getting at is the concept of the P-zombie. Why can't the physical system do it's immensely complex front brain, back brain, front brain analysis without the phenomenal sound? To help illustrate, imagine a complex android that gets the sensory input, processes the data, and responds to it all while not actually hearing so much as a peep. There doesn't seem to be a good explanation for why our brains don't behave like that- why we aren't just bio-androids that process and respond to data without the sensory phenomena paired with it.

I'd like to keep the discussion going but I'm going to bed, so if the thread is still up when I awake I'll get back to you.

>>16021762
>while not actually hearing
The notion of "hearing" rests upon recognition/discernment of the sound from the data by separating the initial data. So by all nominal accords, the android would have heard it and recognized it. By all means, it would satisfy the "phenomenological experience" that people talk about. They might be hesitant to give away their special rights and might be hesitant to give androids those special rights that they believe hold. When in reality, the phenomenological experience is just discernment of data. The very act of discernment/picking and choosing creates the blobs of "phenomena" for which we can use to discuss about the particular subject. There is no subjective experience theatre but the discernment.

>>16021504
>I am what I see
>Literal tard
No u because like the other Anon is saying: the ''I'' as an idea is a product of discernment. That still leaves disputed who / what is consciousness if there is such a who / what at all. Perhaps you're suggesting: it is the thought of a brain that is (un)identifying itself with this and that.

The problem with the mystical ''pure awareness'' approach is that it can never know because to know is to be in body and mind instead of pure awareness so you literally can't say anything about it and probably LARP your whole life as a transcended being until death proves otherwise but you'll never know because you will be gone forever.

>>16021766
NTA. Doesn't make sense because self-driving cars continuously receive, discern and act upon visual data yet we don't assume those cars to ''see''.

>>16021786
1) we hold ourselves special and dont want to give our privilege away or diminish our own specialness
2) people want to make a vague claim on something else happening that they cannot really argue but want to believe something else is happening as an aux arg for 1)
3) they dont understand what they're seeing and cannot comprehend or even talk about it proper

>>16021788
I agree but that's not a compelling argument to default to the assumption that discernment = qualia.

>>16021797
I dont think qualia even exist properly, I think the landscape of qualia is just confusion from not understanding the core mechanics at work. Dont get me wrong, phenomenology is a great tool to understand consciousness but thats still operating on the observer assumption bias. The qualia is the flawed/natural result of such assumption.

>>16015263
>"There is nothing to solve because there is no valid question."
>proceeds to answer the question

>>16021801
That's still defaulting to the premise / brute fact that some things unlike most other things have a property for mechanical reasons yet to be discovered. The question is what these mechanical reasons are and why believers of the science are convinced that these mechanics are not so foreign to our current scientific understanding that they might as well be called magic not unlike the shock and awe that current technology is to our ancestors.

>>16021718
>>16021801
>>16021769
>>16021718

that you are the perceiver is the only thing you can be sure of
how can you trust other stuff over it?

you cannot lie to yourself about not being real, because being self aware is self evident; if you were not you would not be able to tell yourself anything

>>16021831
>t. Descartes

>>16021831
Yeah sure, thats the common/natural framework. Which is okay to have and useful as a starter, but if you look deeper into how your frame of reference is created, then thats the part we're talking about. I'm not saying there's no your perceiver narrative. Just that its just a narrative/useful fiction to navigate the world. Particularly, its a narrative created by a primitive consciousness function. The one that discerns/analyzes any of the data fed to it.

All we're doing is taking perceptual events and breaking it down into constituent parts and then framing/orienting/narrating the data with relevance to the body by injecting in a reference of a body (aka the observer/self). Not sure how you see this a "lie to yourself". I'm just starting what is likely the probable mechanics behind the notion of our observerness.
If you really want to hang on to the notion of observerness as some special entity thing, you should refer to your discernment function. Althought it would laugh at your feeble attempt.

>>16021845
You might be the evil genius trying to deceive Descartes and as a skeptic he does not need to have any framework. A better criticism is that a skeptic can't live without discerning one framework as more valuable than another framework.

>>16021868
I'm not saying Descarte to abandon his claim, but rather to only think of it as a useful fiction to understand the world. I'm not saying there's a world behind the framework, afterall that would be impossible (prob). Our lived experience aka the narrative framework is likely the only means to our existence, however fictional it maybe, atleast until someone formulates another way forward. Buts its important to understand the limits of the current framework and not just assume an infallible, uncritical, etc. The myth of the given is a strong one that people cannot realistically escape from, but its still a myth.

>>16021873
No one disputes that ''I'' is a narrative framework so you don't need to beat that dead horse. When the narrative framework stops there's still an existence left to be explained by the narrative framework when it starts again. That existence without narrative framework can still be called ''I'' even though that's disputed by framing that existence as a network process without a center. Some claim that frame of existence as a network process without a center is but an observation by an observer that is not the narrative framework but a thing that is behind everything. Such an observer can not be observed. It's a different Observer from whatever we think ourselves to be. "It'' observes us. We are the observed.

The /x/ schizos who visit this board probably had this experience of being observed and not in the CIA way. It's completely unfathomable to people who only rely on logic and reason.

>>16021873
>Our lived experience aka the narrative framework is likely the only means to our existence, however fictional it maybe,

>>16021894

how can you consider subjective experience fiction but take the tools and their measurements of the world, which obviously rely on it, as true?

you are the perceived and the perceiver

>>16021933
When it comes to claims of subjective experience as a thing, an observer as a thing, that's just a narrative device that added to when we talk about our physical self reference being relevant. It's not present when were actively actually just living. And by "just living" I don't mean subjective experience/observing, I mean just doing the normal stuff. When you drive, you just drive. When you eat, you just eat. When you talk above the notions about consciousness, it's just talking about consciousness. When when you ask about the "subjective experience" when doing that, there really is none, forcing me to reflecting on it, I'll just add the "oh yeah, I remember. I was thinking real hard. My fingers felt real numb. The cold outside in the morning was was getting me. Oh yeah that's what my subjective experience is". That's just a narrative fiction added on. It's useful for conversation but there's no subjective experience behind anything.

>>16021969

so you don't have a subjective experience? is that what you're saying?

>>16022153
We dont have a subjective experience. We have the brain function that compares things.

>>16022172

you might not but i do and it is tautological

>>16022176
Okay

>>16022176
Am curious what do an ai who don't compare things sounds like?

>>16022177

would it be correct to say you are philosophical zombie?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

>>16021933
>how can you consider etc.
I'm the Anon you responded to. This post:
>>16021969
is from another Anon. I don't consider subjective experience to be fiction. I'm saying that the word ''I'' has no clear reference other than a narrative but unlike the other Anon I don't think that explains away subjective experience.

>>16021766
NTA and appreciating the explanations. But you get the question some anons are asking? All sensory functions in the human brain could function without the subjective experience of hearing. Sound waves can be registered and electron signals get coded and decoded so that the brain has all necessary information for subsequent actions and reactions. Why the subjective experience? Why is it I that have the sensory feeling and not a system that processes sensory data and can also have a very complex rationalization that might seen non-deterministic without having subjective feelings connected to all the information?

>>16022211
We've been over this already:
>>16021786
>>16021788
>>16021797
>>16021801
>>16021816
It keeps boiling down to repeating the same explanations that some of us find unsatisfactory / insufficient.

>>16022211
As argued by others above subjective experience is a remnant of the reflective/discernment mechanism of the brain. It only appears when there's a need to reflect upon an event to analyze where we're situated in regards to the events that has taken place.

A robot may do the same thing. If you have a AI and ask it what it was doing yesterday, it would give you a subjective experience. "I was having a conversation with another anon about the nature of consciousness", should the AI have a memory of the AI had done and can retrieve those data. Who's to deny that the AI doesn't have a "subjective experience" aka reflective analysis of with reference model of itself being added?

>>16022232
Further, it doesn't have to be asked by another. There could just be an internal reflective mechanism to locate itself in the event loop to get a self modeled picture of the world. Our brain does something similar in fact as well. It received input data, reflects upon it, create a new data model with our self reference model as a result. And that self reference model may include our feelings at the time(happy/neutral/sad/anger), our bias of past experiences, etc. These could anchor onto the self reference model to create a more lively/animated/robust form of "subjective experience"

>>16022211
Sound waves are electron signals traveling between atoms. There is no 'sound', its all electricity. Some people's minds seem to tap into the electronic field of matter surrounding their bodies, rather than simply working within the field contained within the skull. There is capacitive coupling between these two fields. Many 'smart' people are thinking too much to quiet their minds to the point where they would sense the field surrounding them. Basically if you make the field inside your brain completely still, then any ripples of energy from outside the skull capacitively couple with the field inside the brain and the brain accepts this information as if its part of a larger mind.

>>16022211
>Why is it I that have the sensory feeling and not...?
Looking to me like just acceptance part is the key. If you accept that subjective experience only comes reflective mind (>>16022232) and then computers that can reflect on their actions and claim "I was doing this, this and that and I experienced such, such and such", it would satisfy the definition of subjective experience, ala reflective narration.

If you believe there's something else missing, you're free to open a new case and argue for such/such function that human does but machine doesn't.

>>16022256
It seems that the discussion in the thread has been switching between two different topics that are similar but not quite the same. One is phenomenal consciousness, the other is self-consciousness. This whole business on reflection, "the perceiver," and our conscious narrative seem more in line with the idea of self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is certainly a part of consciousness but not the whole story. Just as phenomenal experiences are a part of consciousness but not the whole story. You can still have phenomenal experiences without the reflection of, "Oh, I'm having experiences right now." When I'm listening to music I'm not thinking for the vast majority of the time, "I'm listening to music right now." Despite not having that reflection I'm still hearing phenomenal sounds.

I think phenomenal consciousness is the usual go-to for discussions on the nature of consciousness because it best gets at the issue of what the ontology of consciousness really is because our understanding of physics, our most fundamental science, gives absolutely zero indication that subjectivity exists in any sense. It is a purely third-person discipline of particles, forces, gravity, fields etc. How is first-person phenomenal experience suppose to derive from that? Knowledge in physics is also public whereas phenomenal knowledge is private. If I'm asleep and having dreams of trees and you examine my brain, all you'll see are neurons firing and if you take a deeper look you can explain it in terms of particles moving around. Despite doing that you won't see the trees that I am experiencing. Why is that? Why does a clump of neurons create a subjectivity and why can't you experience what I experience when you examine my brain?

>>16022232
>>16022238
>>16022244
>>16022256
This is not seeing the forest for the trees. The fundamental disagreement is this: to see red versus what it's like to see red. Materialists believe that ''what it's like'' = process of the brain that reflects on other processes of the brain such has seeing. Others believe ''what it's like'' to be more mysterious.

>>16022290
https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-re-creates-what-people-see-reading-their-brain-scans

>>16022297
I'm not even arguing from a materialist pov btw. I wouldnt consider myself one. Dont get me wrong, physics works great. However i dont buy a monist or even a separate spiritual dualist world. I just leave the notion of a matter as a high suspect all together. Particularly as the whole world is a matter of subject to the conscious phenomena. Without proper understanding of consciousness its impossible to talk about what the state of the world might be as such. Thats why the default assumptions about the fundamentalness of the existence/role/function of the observer is of great important. When you remove that as just an extra trick, you get a more naturalistic/mechanistic consciousness thats more simple/clean/efficient to work with and doesn't leave room for any mystery gap that can insert in anything and break everything at any given time/reason.

>>16022302
So the AI has been trained on correlating brain states with images people have been shown and then creates an image using that correlated data. The thing is, no one denies that there is a correlation between brain states and mental states, so this doesn't actually solve the issue.

>>16022311
>If I'm asleep and having dreams of trees and you examine my brain, all you'll see are neurons firing and if you take a deeper look you can explain it in terms of particles moving around. Despite doing that you won't see the trees that I am experiencing
Well AI can now show the dreams and now others can see your dreams as well. Thats your phenomenal consciousness on display. Or atleast inference derived from neurons firing in the brain that the computer analyzed and recreated. For which the computer displays as various pictures, but the eyes of the observers sees those dream images.

You maybe arguing that even if someone else sees what I dream, they cant experience your subjective experience of seeing the dream. To which I'd go back to the reflective/narrative "self-consciousness". So the whole phenomenological consciousness or atleast the contents of it may just be, inferences that act up similarly in various human brains depending on how neurons are firing and in which sequences. There may not really be any ontological reality to it.

>>16022310
>Without proper understanding of consciousness its impossible to talk about what the state of the world might be as such.
Yet much of the science and technology produced by that poorly understood phenomenon commonly called consciousness is considered to be valid and reliable so there is trust that consciousness will also explain itself in a valid and reliable manner. It's a bit awkward isn't it? That a brain is consulting itself and other brains to explain its own function...

I get wanting to get rid of mythology but we already have mathematics for that.

>>16022297
>Others believe ''what it's like'' to be more mysterious.
Mysterious is not the right word but it leads to the right direction. E.g. colour perception is the textbook example. You can measure wavelengths and infer every physical property of light, but not the mental image you get of a certain colour. You cannot even articulate which impression a certain colour does to you or tell others of your mental image. You could in theory measure the brain state you have and might even transfer that to another person such that he experiences it. But you don't have access to your mental state.

>>16022320
The way that would work for the AI would be if you took a bunch of data from my brain as I was looking at trees (or imagining them) and then looked at my brain while I was dreaming. The AI would then recognize from the similarity of the data of when I was looking at trees to then say I am dreaming of trees. But like I said before, no one denies a correlation between brain states and mental states, so this doesn't solve the phenomenal issue.

>So the whole phenomenological consciousness or atleast the contents of it may just be, inferences that act up similarly in various human brains depending on how neurons are firing and in which sequences. There may not really be any ontological reality to it.
It seems like there is some confusion here. You seem to agree that these "inferences" are real but at the same time don't have ontological existence. But ontology simply refers to what exists.

>>16022333
>Its a bit awkward
Yep. Thats why much of the information is flawed all around. The best we can do is to try to distill foundations as much as possible without breaking. Reductionism imo is of great too to find truth. Reduce everything until something breaks. Then re-examine and then further reduce. Then try to build up a system from that reductionist view upward for a cleaner complete picture.

No one understands the human soul but the patterns you're familiar with are omnigeneration.

>>16015247
>Why can't we solve consciousness?
"Solving" something scientifically means modelling and reproducing something.
To reproduce something you first have to be able to observe said thing and measure how it changes in relation to everything else.
This is the key point and why we can't "solve" consciousness. We can't solve it because consciousness is what observes everything else and nothing observes consciousness and thus it cannot be measured against something else.
We can solve and reproduce intelligence because it can be observed and measured.
With consciousness, you can't even empirically prove something else other than yourself is conscious much less solving it with models and reproduction.

>>16015247
What's there to solve? We know the basics of consciousness, it's just neurons and their connections providing sensory. It's quite easy to fathom how consciousness developed evolutionally. Things such as self-consciousness etc. can easily explained as well, somewhere we learned to think abstractly through some mutation and that granted a huge evolutionary advantage. Obviously a creature which is self-aware, can reason and think better will survive better than a basic monke.

I truly hope that it's not as simple as this and there's more to life and "consciousness" than there seem to be, but I'm just coping.

>>16015310
>consciousness and matter.

False equivalence

"""Matter""" is nothing but frozen "light", or electromagnetic radiaton oscillating between the explicate and the nonphysical at very fucking tiny frequencies (several times tinier than the gamma spectrum)

Refer to Wheeler's self-observing cycle here, it's like that but on a truly universal scale; It all takes place everywhere at once, for eternity

>>16019414
>We have not proved the former and we have no evidence for or against the latter. Until we prove that the universe is all that exists, dualism is not invalidated.
All you see are shadows on a wall. The ultimate source of physical reality is inaccessible to the human brain.

>>16022871
As it appear

>>16015310
1) Consciousness is such that we process info. Matter is a product of consciousness after we process some info.

2) there's 2 dualism here at play. One is substance-spirit dualism. Another is external-subjective dualism. First substance-spirit dualism distinction is unclear so can't say for certain of that dualism is even right give matter as seen/felt/understood/become coherent only in light of consciousness. Absence of consciousness, matter may not warrant any coherency/existence. So imo rules out substance dualism.