/sci/ - Science & Math

First you must establish the existence of a non-physical universe.

>>2033881
What leads you to believe that consciousness isn't simply restricted to the physical universe?

What leads you to believe that consciousness is simply restricted by the flying spaghetti monster.

herp derp derp I can play the game too.

>>2033889
The laws of physics.

Consciousness is a biological thing, like seeing and walking.

Without a physical organism in a physical environment there is no need for it.

Consciousness is a set of processes taking place in an organism, without an organism it isn't possible.

>>2033896
>>2033896

From the simple to the complex, dude, first we see the land, then we check for inhabitants.

>>2033910
How do you know that?

How do you know electrons and protons aren't conscious and that "life" isn't just composed of a massive assortment of them beyond reaching a point where they can self-organize it into suitable structures? How do you know the forces that bring them into the universe from nothingness aren't conscious?

consciousness is derived from the interactions between the neuron cells in your brain, as your brain is limited by the physical universe-so your consciousness will be as well.

Take my positronic brain for example, it is what limits my consciousness, yes-it can be improved, but still the positronic brain is what you could call the 'representative' reality.

>>2033929
Because by the terms man set forth for the word consciousness they don't apply.

>>2033903

Hawking's Razor.

>>2033929

How do you know that the universe isn't just particles in a unicorn fart?

How do you know my toaster isnt conscious? How do you know its using the magnetic filed to communicate with him hoping I'll feed it with a different voltage?

HOW

DO


YOU

KNOW, SCIENTISTS?

>>2033889
No, first you must establish the existence of a physical universe.

>>2033903
What do the laws of physics have to do with consciousness.

>>2033910
No that's just silly.

>>2033929
I know because I understand the pressures that produce consciousness, as well as the mechanisms beneath it.

Electrons and protons are not themselves subject to the pressures you are, nor are they individually as complex as you are.

You're asking how we know an iron-oxide molecule isn't itself a car.

They say there's no stupid questions...but...

>>2033952
That actually sounds more reasonable an answer then religion.

>>2033896
>>2033952
>>2033956
Typical atheist who has to resort to condescension and blatant troll baiting when he knows intuitively that his god, SCIENCE, cannot produce an answer.

>>2033967
>I know because I understand the pressures that produce consciousness, as well as the mechanisms beneath it.
Really? I know a couple thousand neurologist who would like to speak with you.

>>2033968
>>2033978

>>2033978
I could answer, but I doubt you'd understand. so I won't waste my time trying to change a leopards spots.

>>2033968
>>2033952
Same person.

>>2033980
They seek details, they already know the big picture.

Consciousness doesn't exist for it's own sake, it addresses a biological need. Neurologists and biologists in general are overwhelmingly atheists, because we know there is no need for an incorporeal consciousness, and no mechanism for one.

>>2033991
Nah bro

What leads you to believe that a old man farted the universe and made a woman out of a rib?

>>2033989
Ah, more condescension. The last refuge of the weak-minded.

Apparently you're lost in it as its all you can do. By that point, I'm sure there's nothing of any significance you could have told me anyways.

>>2034000
And that the earth is 6000 years old and carbon dating is a universally agreed upon lie to make your church look stoopeed

>>2034004
There you go, go to your happy place, the big mean smart guys can't touch you there.

>>2033996
Apparently you've never heard of the pineal gland or the correlation between the effects of DMT injection in humans.

Times science has been wrong: COUNTLESS.

Times religion has been wrong: NEVER.

>>2034015
What specific effects are you thinking of?

>>2033996
>They seek details, they already know the big picture.
Yes, the detail they lack is the link between the neurological processes and consciousness.

>Consciousness doesn't exist for it's own sake, it addresses a biological need.
There is no biological need for consciousness. All biology needs is responses to stimuli. You can do that without consciousness. In fact, if we didn't experience consciousness ourselves, we would never ever imagine that biological entities experience it just by watching their behavior. All behavior can be explained without it.

>Neurologists and biologists in general are overwhelmingly atheists, because we know there is no need for an incorporeal consciousness, and no mechanism for one.
LOL, they could all be zoroastrians for all I care. What does that have to do with science or consciousness? There is no known incorporeal mechanism for consciousness, but neither is their a corporeal one, nor a reason to think there should be one.

The cool kids of God are throwing up big words like consciousness and universe to sound smart?

Man, I liked the 'evolution is false because there are still monkeys' ones better.

scientific evidence

>>2034032
Cool... maybe I'll become a namefag, and call myself "the cool kids of god".

This conversation is pointless and everyone in this thread knows it.

>>2034029
Separation from the physical body by the conscious self and interaction with metaphysical beings.

>>2034030
You have a fallacy of sets there.

I said consciousness addresses a biological need, I didn't say it was the only tool that does so.

All organisms address common needs, some organisms employ consciousness, all consciousness addresses biological needs.

Consciousness if properly defined is less than a suite of functions found to some extent in all organisms. To say we haven't found the connection to cognition, sensing and memory is to imply that consciousness isnt just cognition, sensing and memory.

It is less than those things, and so many think it's somehow more.

>>2034060
Do you mean hallucination?

It's a fairly well documented occurance, without evidence for separation or metaphysical anything as far as I know.

Link me a journal that says otherwise and I'll be happy to debate it.

>>2033978
>>2034004

It happened again guys. Why do you insist on being trolled by these motherfuckers?

>>2034064
What biological need does consciousness address?

>>2034098
If this is trolling it's pretty pathetic trolling

>Obviously stupid statement
>Succinct rebuttal from multiple people
>Continued stupid statements
>No one cares

>LOL I TROLL YOU

>>2034112
What are the needs of life?

>To say we haven't found the connection to cognition, sensing and memory is to imply that consciousness isnt just cognition, sensing and memory.

What arranges those things without fail, to function as they do in every brain?


>>2034075
>hallucination

What kind of hallucinogen produces the same experience within so many various subjects to give them the incentive to make up illusions of past loved ones and people they don't know?

>>2034139
what is life?

>>2034064
>To say we haven't found the connection to cognition, sensing and memory is to imply that consciousness isnt just cognition, sensing and memory.

What arranges those things without fail, to function as they do in every brain?


>>2034075
>hallucination

What kind of hallucinogen produces the same experience within so many various subjects to give them the incentive to make up illusions of past loved ones and people they don't know?

>>2034144
Life is that thing described by its needs.

>>2034151
>without fail

If you think the brain never fails when dealing with senses, cognition, or memory then you should really interact with people more often.

>>2034064
>Consciousness if properly defined is less than a suite of functions found to some extent in all organisms.
The functional definition of consciousness is hardly a proper one. Like I said, the functions don't imply consciousness, and the consciousness is experienced apart from the functions. Consciousness is fundamentally about the subjective experience of it.

>>2034142
>What kind of hallucinogen produces the same experience within so many various subjects to give them the incentive to make up illusions of past loved ones and people they don't know?


hallucinations do that

>>2034173
Doesn't death have needs?

>>2034075
There is documented evidence for people observing actual events non-locally in these "hallucinations".

>>2034192
>the consciousness is experienced apart from the functions.

That is a lie sir. A big fat stupid one.

Or perhaps an experiment. We'll cut your eyes out and you can tell me what you see...

>>2034200
Name one that hasn't been dis-proven ad nauseum.

>>2034200
Please link to said evidence...

Peer reviewed, repeated and published.

>>2034195
No

>>2034225
Then life doesn't have needs.

"What leads you to believe that consciousness is simply restricted to the physical universe?"

General anesthesia, which is basically a controlled coma. Inject some chemicals in a body and you no longer have "consciousness" in that body.

>>2033881
>What leads you to believe that consciousness is simply restricted to the physical universe?

History?

Science has been pretty good at finding physical explanations for things that were once given other explanations. For instance, people use to think that lightning was the manifestation of the anger of the Gods.

Betting against Physicalism has never payed in the past.

>>2034210
I don't understand you materialists. If you want to say that there is no immaterial soul, then the only conclusion you can rationally come to is that there is no such thing as consciousness.

You have no material proof that consciousness exists, and you look like a fool arguing on both platforms.

>>2034221
If you want it in a peer-reviewed journal, I can't link to it, because it's not free. But I can tell you the name of the journal, and books and websites that have links to particular studies in the journal. It's called the journal for near-death studies.

>>2034235
If death doesn't have needs...
Then life doesn't have needs.

Non sequitur based on equivocation and perhaps false dichotomy.

You are an retard. That is your goal though, is it not?

>>2034246
That's fine, I likely have access and if not I can read the abstract.

>>2034240
How do you know lightning isn't a manifestation of the anger of the gods. Why would charges separate out onto clouds if the gods' anger was not polarizing the general electric field.

>>2034246
>peer journal
>not free

You're doing it wrong.

This thread is silly, I can't tell the people with the troll posts from the people with the mock posts. which just goes to show how silly the troll posts are.

>>2034246
Oh, damn.

The Journal for near-death studies?

lol, nm

>>2034252
my goal is to make you realize something that you don't want to.

>>2034240
Yes, because lightning is a phenomena that science understands perfectly right?

>>2034288

You got it

>>2034281

dunning-kruger in full effect.

>>2034305
You sound bitter.

i'll admit, I'm not a friendly person. And there can be a lot of negativity associated with admitting you don't know.

>>2034300
Lol, keep telling yourself that. For all that science understands about lightning it could be coming from Zeus or Thor.

>>2034288

Yeah, science has electric phenomena in atmosphere 100% covered.

>>2034305
in fact, that's what's so great about "common" sense. Anyone can verify simple truths so long as they use their own senses, and not someone else's "word."

By that I mean, I may have sounded like I was pushing my views on you. Its not true. It IS true that I am arrogant about knowing something that some people on /sci/ seem oblivious to, but don't let that stop you from realizing something.

>>2034332
More like 0.1%.

>>2033930
That's an unsupported conjecture. And under scrutiny it makes no sense. Why should moving charges give you subjective awareness?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2upDm-xFqMo
/thread

>>2034337

Anyone can go online and successfully pretend to be stupider than they are, no one can go online and successfully pretend to be smarter than they are.

This means when you post something stupid, you are either dishonest and intelligent, or honest and stupid.

I don't really care if you're dishonest or just stupid, I can't tell the difference.

>>2034373
Blah, blah, blah, I don't believe in it so it doesn't exist.

Typical English man presuming presumptions,

>>2034414
use a tripcode, and name yourself Thomas

>>2033943
It's Occam's razor...

>>2034437

I'm depressed by how long it took someone to point that out.

what does "nonphysical" even mean?
srsly Ive got no idea what the definition of this could be.

>>2034448

Something which is not physical. Duh?

>>2034448
For most people it means thoughts or feelings.

>>2034451
thats not a definition

>>2034456
so consciousness is nonphysical by definition.
yet it is nothing supernatural.

>>2034460
definitions are useful for communication, but they aren't useful for understanding.

When you touch something, it feels a certain way. When you think something, it feels a certain way. Which one is physical? Both? Neither?

>>2034471
supernatural, consciousness, physical...

All of these things... what do they mean?

If something is defined as supernatural, it just means we don't understand nature.

that feeling when you wont probably find an answer during your lifetime and all you can do is wait until you die and find out.

it's going to be big.

>>2034473
>definitions are useful for communication, but they aren't useful for understanding.
thats the point.
how does it serve our understanding when we say consciousness is nonphysical because the definition of nonmaterial is "everything but consciousness "
it doesnt add any new information=it doesnt make sense

>>2034460

Apparently there isn't a specific definition for nonphysical but that the suffix denotes that the word applies to anything that the word physical does not apply to. The definition of physical is as follows:
a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
2
a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey> b : of or relating to material things
3
a : of or relating to the body <physical abuse> b (1) : concerned or preoccupied with the body and its needs : carnal <physical appetites> (2) : sexual <a physical love affair> <physical attraction>

This was taken from the Merriam-Webster definition of physical.

>>2034480
There is no rule that says that everyone has to come to the same conclusions you do.

>>2034483

I meant to say prefix rather than suffix.

>>2033881
the universe

\thread

>>2034493
>Implying that you have complete knowledge of the universe.

There's no God.
There's no "metaphysical" bullshit.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So either stop asking stupid questions or show proof for your claims.

What leads you to believe that consciousness is *not* restricted to the physical universe?

>>2034525
>>2033896

Your post is redundant. I bet you don't feel as clever now.

>>2034525
Well, a computer is really just a complicated machine. In other words, it is about as aware as a clock. Yet, I have full confidence that a computer could be programmed to mimic a human being. But it would not be aware.

>>2034522
>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No they don't Carl. They just require evidence. Period.

>>2034540
O rly?

>>2034540
The human brain is much more complex than a computer. People need to stop using that analogy.

>>2034544
I want to call it extraordinary. Problem?

>>2034550
The human brain is a super-advanced computer.
Nothing more.

>>2034534

the only response given to the first reply didn't give a reason for consciouness to not be restricted to the physical universe. So restating an earlier point that was ignored is valid, in the hope of getting a proper response.

>>2034545
your mother is a whore

>>2034570
That's false. Was may be true, but i don't know enough about her sex lif-...
Oooooooh.

>>2034540

computers are restricted to the physical universe. How does a computer mimicing consciousness give any credence to consciousness existing outside the physical universe?

>>2034579
Because he BELIEVES!

I should report this thread for being a religion thread in disguise.

>>2034585

it's not a very good disguise

>>2034579
It just means that no amount of complex movement "gives" something awareness.

The question you should be asking is, "Does the word consciousness have any meaning?"

>>2034579
Computers & brains alike are restricted to physical laws.

Tractors anyone?

A complex computer can have awareness.
Do you guys know nothing about robotics?

>>2034591
The word "consciousness" has many meanings - yours is probably false.

Archaeologists use the word "taphonomy" incorrectly all the time, there's no reason I can think of to stop you from misusing and misunderstanding a much less well defined word.

>>2034594

so you're saying that you believe that consciousness is *not* restricted to the physical universe, because consciousness has no meaning?

>>2034591
yes

>>2034585
>religion thread in disguise.

Has God's hand on OP image.

>>2034616

the 2 repsonses were the wrong way around

>>2033881

Show me one think that isnt in the physical universe.

Nothing is outside the physical univsere. YOU ARE A DUMBFUCK!

Who ever said they believed that?
It is definitely a possibility, but it is also just as likely that it is not...

However, whatever lies "beyond the physical universe" will eventually (once described by science) become apart of what we call physical.

>>2034616
It's not debatable.
Everything in the universe must, and indeed does follow the laws of physics.
Consciousness is hard to define.
For me, it is the perception of reality & the ability to recognize one's existence. We have senses to show us this reality & we have reasoning to think about our existence and mortality. It's all in the brain.

>>2034616
If I had the time to clean out your brain, you would be able to see that
IF the physical world is real, THEN consciousness does not exist.
IF consciousness exists, THEN the physical world isn't real.

So, take your pick, but it makes no sense to believe in consciousness AND a physical reality.

>>2034642
a priori assumption that consciousness isn't physical.

can you demonstate that it isn't? There's much evidence that it is, though I expect you're completely unfamiliar with that evidence.... Being a idiot and all.

>>2034642

>Clean out your brain
>Clean out
>Wash
>Wash your brain
>Brain washing

>>2034655
> a priori assumption that consciousness isn't physical.

again whats the definition of physical/nonphysical?

>>2034625
Dark matter/energy.

>>2034655
a priori assumption that the physical world is real. No proof for that.

>>2034642

The same stupid thing can be said about emotions, they aren't physical so they must not exist??

Are you just trying to build up an idiotic strawman argument so you can post with a different tripcode stating how wrong the purely materialistic view of the physical universe is, and therefore god must have dun it.

>>2034670
You're right, the same thing could be said of emotions... So, pick your poison. Emotions are not observable. Facial expressions, sounds, movements, are observable.

if consciousness isnt physical then explain comatose/vegetal people after haing their brain damaged in accidents....

>>2034676
Please die, please die, please die...

>>2034680
Where's your God now?

>>2034676
>Emotions are not observable
FMRI would like to have a word with you

>>2034676

you're right, the physical world isn't real. and seeing as all this isn't real it must be your imagination. Isn't it a bit sad that your own imagination thinks your a cunt ad that you should commit suicide.

And just to be clear, You're a cunt and you should commit suicide.

If this is not real, and it's just your imagination, then you're a self hating emo twat.

>>2034683
Please die, please die, please die...

>>2034684
You're under the misconception that emotions exist.

What are observed in an fMRI, I can't say, but I assume it is things like activity.

>>2033889
This

>>2034691
You're going to have to be more specific.

>>2034703
establish the existence of a physical universe outside of your senses.

>>2034712
Please die, please die, please die...

>>2034689
I MAD?

emotions are physicial

you damage your brain, you cant produce emotions anymore.

direct correlation proving physical nature of the products of the brain.

>>2034702
I see your name around here a lot. Where you watching Cosmos last night, and what your name faggot312?Cause he was spouting some crazy bs last night too. If so I would like to have a word with you.

>>2034720
I see your name around here everywhere.

>>2034729

This dumb fucker last night was spouting shit about he is energy acting on matter, how evolution isn't real, some spiritual shit, claimed Carl Sagan was a spiritual person and just a bunch of other people. Homeboy is 20 and would not answer a single question about if he went to college or even finished high school. Nigger is dumb.

>>2034242
>>2034670

hahahaha

well at least you didn't switch trip codes.

ITT: butthurt teenagers that have never even heard of the concepts of non-dualist, idealism, and/or monism

>>2034779

>>ITT: butthurt teenagers that have never even heard of the concepts of non-dualist, idealism, and/or monism

I have. They're vague, hand-wavey ways to get around aguments against dualism while simultaneously making a baseless assertion to the effect that consciousness is immaterial, because you need it to be, because you don't want to die.

There's a reason the most mainstream expression of monism is still found in theosophy and eastern religions. To say that "all is one" sounds pleasant and ostensibly profound, but there's no substance to the statement. It's manufactured profundity. A meme discovered to compel morons, which has been exploited throughout the ages as a result, as can be seen by it's prevalence in "mystery cults" for the past thousand years.

Moreover, the notion that consciousness must be some immaterial force is simply Vitalism as applied to neurobiology.

Vitalism being the platonic philosophy that the functions of the body (down to the function of individual cells, when they were discovered) cannot be explained by mere biochemistry, even a single cell must have some animating "life force". It was the basis for humorism and a number of other false starts in medicine, and it's the basis for modern cognitive dualism/monism.

>>2034804

if you think over 9000 books of ancient teachings, roughly 2000 years before Christ... are "hand wavy" than you obviously are too biased to even read about those eastern philosophies you speak of.

Most likely you just wiki Googled the key words and that was your first knee jerk reaction.

but, of course, has been corrupted and sold to the gullible masses... but the actions of later cults are not indicative of the the original teachings.

>>2034816

Vitalism is a distinctly western mode of thought... that cannot get past the dualistic concept.

the only thing that monism states about what that "oneness" is 'Brahman'

>>2034836
Go to /x/, and never return.

>>2034836

Ancient teachings are the best. You can tell because they're ancient, and they knew all sorts of shit back then that we don't know now.

For example, earthquakes are from an angry God, nit this plate tectonics crap people think now a days.

>>2034872
>>2034866

Don't be silly. You obviously do not understand idealism if you think I'm saying 'herp aderp goddidit'.

It is a response the OP question.

>>2034885
Go to /x/, and never return. With OP.
Happy?

>>2034872

typical butthurt rebel-against-christian-parents-crybaby-arrogence.

>>2034901

i'll be happy to drop it. OP makes a good question, tho. We have not determined what consciousness really is, why and how it came about, and why and how we seem to be the only creatures on earth that are conscious of the fact that we are conscious (self-aware).

if you are not aware, due to ignorance or basement dwelling butthurt teen, this is one of the hugest questions facing science /sci nowadays.

>>2034942
Google the question. Then:
Go to /x/, and never return.

>>2034872
We know a lot more about the material world than the ancients, but for that we've traded a lot of knowledge about the spiritual world.

>>2034952
Do you have any idea what its like there?

At least on /sci/, when I'm crazy, I get a unanimous explanation of why my beliefs conflict with an accepted worldview.

If I go on /x/ and spout my crazy theories, people disagree with me, WITH THEIR OWN CRAZY THEORIES! At least here I'm special.

(I know you weren't addressing me...)

>>2034952

I suppose you would tell this guy http://www.closertotruth.com/

to go to /x/ ?

what is consciousness is a serious scientific question. do you have anything to contribute to the conversation instead of 'google it and never come back'?

>>2035006
I plant a pencil in your head. Consciousness altered. Or death, which would be a good thing.
Or if you want a response: we don't quite get it, let the neurophysicists work.
If that answer don't satisfie you, go to /x/ and never return.

>>2034942
>hugest

>>2035024

the answer "i don't know" is acceptable.

same answer for OP's question.

>>2035034
>hugest

after a couple beers, i dont give a damn trying to impress strangers on the interweb wif correct spelling or grammar

>>2035024
Clouds blot out the sun and it starts raining and gets cold: consciousness alters. A tornado forms... possibly death. Is your consciousness in the atmosphere?

>>2035043
>to inebriated to spell
>to inebriated to do anything

this explains it all. you're obviously to drunk to see rationality.

>>2035061
>to drunk
>to

rationality: ad hominem attacks =/= rational

i may be somewhat drunk; what's your excuse for being stoopid?

>>2035045
best post in this thread.

>>2035079
lol, talk about ad hominems. Now you're drunk AND a hypocrite.

Your overall stupidity is just the cherry on top.

>>2033881
A lack of evidence to the contrary.
The Human brain is an empirical entity, to satisfy the senses, a consistent response to consistent actuation must be applied.

>>2034836

>>if you think over 9000 books of ancient teachings, roughly 2000 years before Christ... are "hand wavy" than you obviously are too biased to even read about those eastern philosophies you speak of.

Argumentum ad populum. They were written in a comparatively ignorant time. They may contain a great deal of wisdom but those who wrote them had no genuine means of knowing about reality other than their senses. As a result most read like carefully reasoned, thoughtful guesses at the nature of reality which at the time they simply hadn't the tools to genuinely understand.

>>2033881
Show me any evidence of the non-physical, before we even think about consciousness in the non-physical.

>>2035223
thred is ded

>>2035217
granted Argumentum ad populum to an extent.

>They were written in a comparatively ignorant time. They may contain a great deal of wisdom but those who wrote them had no genuine means of knowing about reality other than their senses.
>and we don't? do you mean scientific measurements of our surrounds, yes? Those still require a consciousness to observe and compare data.
>As a result most read like carefully reasoned, thoughtful guesses at the nature of reality which at the time they simply hadn't the tools to genuinely understand.
>genuinely understand. that sounds open-ended and a blunt statement. care to expand? do i need to remind you that many, many scientific hypothesis began as thoughtful guesses...

but OP's question is: is consciousness limited to only materialism?

The answer, of course, is "we don't know". However, there is not much evidence (empirical) that shows it is possible. But lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.
There are many cases of correlation evidence to support the idea. but correlation does not imply causation.

>>2033881
Because consciousness is created by our laws of physics.
What makes you think consciousness is the greatest thing ever?

>>2035361
Put in physics, receive cognition and meta-cognition.

>>2034942
>We have not determined what consciousness really is,

Sensing, memory, cognition and environment producing awareness including self awareness.

>why and how it came about,

It evolved a bit at a time to deal with environmental pressures on living organisms.

>and why and how we seem to be the only creatures on earth that are conscious of the fact that we are conscious (self-aware).

Self awareness is documented in many mammals and birds. No further explanation required.

>if you are not aware, due to ignorance or basement dwelling butthurt teen, this is one of the hugest questions facing science /sci nowadays.

No, I've read that shit before. You're just repeating a popular lie. You should know better.

>>2035441

i give up. i am nao an atheist

>>2035493
atheist=biologist

I haven't made a biologist of you yet.

atheism will take care.
it's inevitable.

>176 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

C'mon guys, just sage this shit.

I just dropped in
To see what condition my sage was in