/sci/ - Science & Math

brain = consciousness

fucking dualist piece of shit

>>3686358
No, your brain is the hardware. Your consciousness is part of the software. Different things, homofag.

>>3686358
\thread

>>3686374

>software
>he doesnt realize even software is made of stuff

>what dualist morons think

>>3686387
What are you trying to say?

>>3686402
durrrrrrrrrrrrr

easily dumbest, worst tripfag ever

>>3686358

you can see and observe a brain, you can't see an observe consciousness

anesthesiologist don't even know if you are actually conscious or unconscious

next?

>>3686406
Excuse me? Yes, software relies on physical changes in the hardware to exist, but it's a whole different thing, you fucking retard.

>>3686402

the programs running in your PC are a the summatory of physical processes of electrons going from one way to another and sending signals to your pc screen etc

The way I see it, people (As in, dualists) think consciousness is something 'more' that can't be explained through materialistic means because our brain categorizes real-life objects and their abstract representations as two different things, when the divide doesn't really exist, it's just in our minds.

The other end (The idea that the brain is a computer) is flawed. The brain is not a computer, the brain is the brain.

consciousness is what makes /sci/ rage hard because its something so important yet science can't detect it

there is no test to see if someone is conscious or unconscious

the computer analogy isn't even that accurate since consciousness is much more mysterious than software...

but it would be similar to someone trying to analyze your World of Warcraft character by looking at your cpu and motherboard...

sure there is some dependency involved, yet the two are ontologically vastly different

yeah, the brain is a brain, is not software-hardware bullshit this people talk about

>>3686421
We are biological machines. Our brain is a complex biological machine.

>>3686418
Which is completely beside the point. Unless you want to say that everything is physical and that there are no non-physical, in which case, 0/10

Consciousness is non local. See remote viewing.

>>3686421
What does a computer do?
Computer shit and put its results somewhere.
Does the brain do anything but that?

>>3686418

no one is saying consciousness isn't dependent on physical processes...

this isn't a dualist problem. The problem is we don't have access to consciousness itself regardless of its physical structure...

im a materialist and i can admit this

why are you still retarded?

>>3686430

Uh huh.

yes, we are machines made of organic macromolecules and some inorganic too,matter in one word, we are no made of ghost stuff lol

>>3686436

why do you insult me?

consciousness is an emergent physical phenomena

consciousness is dependent on the brain

we have no access to consciousness itself
we can't observe it
we can't test to see if you are conscious or unconscious


the problem of consciousness exists if you are materialist or dualist.

>>3686453

>implying being dualist is scientific and not supersticious

>>3686435

The analogy of computation can be extended to anything. If Silicon gates compute, then synapses compute, and then you end up like Ray Kurzweil saying the atoms in a rock compute (Due to thermal noise). You could say all machines that move things are computers. Or, that all machines are computers, and they are simply computing random noise.

The brain is the hardware while our consciousness is the software.

We should be able to reverse engineer it some day.
>mfw science

>>3686358
prove it you fuck
consciousness = skin, claerly because i feel it if it gets poked

>>3686457
No dear, you see, to computate something is to perform a series of calculations upon something. Calculations imply intent.
*The more you know

if all matter has a location
then where's consciousness located
> checkmate materialists

Phenomenology is the start.

>>3686421

Requesting videos of monkeys playing vidya.

>>3686478
Where are your subjective perspectives, materialists?

Think of your brain as being the car and the soul as being the driver.

>>3686457
You certainly could - what of it?
That just shows that consciousness isn't an immaterial aspect of these objects either.

>>3686500
ohboyherewego.jpg

>>3686500

>Think of your brain as being the car and the soul as being the driver.

That necessitates interaction between the supernatural and the natural, which violates non overlapping magisteria and obligates the claimant to demonstrating the existence of souls via empirical means.

It won't. Science will eventually completely analyse the brain and come up with a satisfactory model for it that explains all observable phenomena with no need for a vague concept such as consciousness. Then, the concept will fall to the realm of faillosophy and religion.

>>3686533
The supernatural cannot be observed through natural means. Such is the subtlety of God.

>>3686533
> magisteria
wat

>>3686533
Ok.

http://www.ghostvideos.ws/

http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/

http://www.ghostsofamerica.com/

http://www.near-death.com/

http://www.nderf.org/NDERF_NDEs.htm

>>3686533
>believing in NOMA

ISHYGDDT

>>3686500

How does an overused dualistic metaphor do anything for this discussion?

This thread has a terminal case of THE GAY.
/out

>>3686547
0/100

>>>/b/
>>>/x/

Why can't you be conscious if you don't have a brain?

>>3686558
Your vagina has a severe case of THE SAND FILLED.

Materialist status ITT:

Told [ ]
No Country For Told Men [X]

>>3686564
Oh I'm sorry did I make you MAD?

>>3686575
No, I'm just pointing out how sand-filled your vagina is.

>>3686561
>I don't want to believe in something science can't yet explain so it must be bullshit

>>3686583
>ghost
>not bullshit
Choose one.

>>3686588
Spirits are real.

>>3686547
From one of the links:

"There was no sound whatsoever. I saw what appeared to be a castle in the distance. It looked like it was made of white, light pink and powered blue sand. There was a draw bridge connected to this castle. I saw Jesus and John the Baptist walking down the bridge reading a scroll, deep into conversation with each other. ( at 4 years old I may have known who Jesus was by a picture in our house, but not John the Baptist) I tried to wave Jesus down while running through the clouds. He did not look up at me at all. He waved his hand in my direction as if to say "Not yet, you are not suppose to be here" I suddenly opened my eyes and I was back in bed.

Game over. Atheism disproven. Christians win.

/threead

>>3686595
0/1000

>>3686591
They sure are.
In your mind.
Like Popeye.

>Teabag
>Not an utter moronic moron.

In Russia, consciousness is conscious of you

>>3686605
Their not inside my mind, that would mean I'm posessed and am controlled by them. They are real, in the world.

I like it how I've been everything, from retard, to troll, to EK, to troll, to moron.

>>3686588
My grandmother saw a ghost in hospital once and before you say, "it was the painkillers or whatever", she saw the same thing other people have reported without prior knowledge to the sighting. This is evidence enough for me to believe in ghosts.

>>3686615
>implying there isn't a scientific explanation for that

Dualism is the ultimate cheap cop-out. "HURR I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS HAPPENED SO GOD DID IT!

>>3686620
Beings from other realms =/= God

>>3686478

conciousness is located within your skull as brain stuff

>>3686620
I'd like to hear how science could explain it. Oh and who mentioned God you cunt?

>>3686629

god is basically a ghost

>>3686614
No no, they are only real in your mind.
You are a deluded cretin.

>>3686615
And that is why /sci/ is so easy to troll: impossible to say if this one is trolling or not.

>>3686583
That is how the Null Hypothesis works.

>>3686579
Hey everybody! TEACUP IS MAD! LOL

>>3686636
lolno, ghosts can't supposeldy create shit out of nowhere and go back in time and fight the devil and impregnate women by looking at them

>>3686638
I've had a personal encounter with a spirit, and /x/ even theorised that I could still live with it. Don't tell me it's not real. It was the scariest moment of my whole fucking life.

>>3686655
Please provide concrete evidence before you continue. Personal convictions are meaningless.

Do you really believe the millions of people around the world who have seen ghosts have some kind of mental disorder?

>>3686664
Human intuition is not a mental disorder. It is imperfect however.

>>3686661
Tell me, have you ever, say, been to Pluto yourself? Have you ever picked up a telescope and looked at it?
What is that that you say? No, you haven't? Then the sources you use to justify your beliefs that Pluto exists are based on what others have told you/shown you, no?

>>3686670
Pictures count for a lot.

>>3686676
I see, and tell me, do you know what Photoshop is?
What matters here is whether or not all your sources to justify your belief that Pluto does exist are secondary.

Teacup is on his way to scientific skepticism ?

leave /sci/ and masturbate to ghosts, we want knowledge here not fantasies

>>3686664

>Do you really believe the millions of people around the world who have seen ghosts have some kind of mental disorder?

Heck there are billions of people that are mentally deviated.
It certainly is possible that they have.

>>3686686
Tell me, what do you consider sufficient evidence in regards to a claim someone else is trying to convince you of?

Science is so like the church! Disturbs its flimsy edifice and endure waves of defenders!

>>3686664
lol, normal people see things that aren't there all the time

>>3686719
Nah, that's just /sci/.

>>3686704
I must either be able to recreate the phenomenon or the information must be provided by someone I trust. If you'd simply said that you don't trust me, it would be fine, but trying to say that something can't be valid because it was told to you by someone else is just moronic.

>>3686727
But you admired that all you had was a personal experience. I don't trust you for one, and two, I wouldn't trust myself with such an experience unless there was more to it than that.

And say I accept that you did have this experience. That doesn't meant that your explanation of it is valid. There could be numerous causes for that experience.

Science states that there are many dimensions outside of our 3 so why does it not make sense not to theorise there could be life in these dimensions.

>>3686741
Well then, since I don't usually try to photograph spirits just because, when I'm not even sure if they'll appear, the only thing I have to justify my claims is my personal experience. Since that won't do for you, it's moot to discuss this any more.

it is simple

prove that what you saw was something real and not your own imagination

if you can't I won't believe you

>>3686753
>provide proof
>still don't believe

>>3686753
Read the post above yours.

>>3686750
You'll find that it won't do for anyone with a desire for a critical investigation into reality. If you can acquire evidence, I'd love to see it.

>>3686763

I won't believe personal experiences, that's a fallacy, just because you say something it doesn't mean it is neccesarely true

>>3686750

>>3686766
Oh, be sure that if I acquire evidence, it WILL be plastered all over /sci/.

>>3686770
Read the conversation that me and the other Anon had.

>>3686771
1) What are you trying to say here?
2) You're doing a scrapbook? Cool.

>>3686781
I think Nature might also be interested if you hard hard evidence that overturned a significant chunk of physics.

Also, I too have encountered spirits. I have a very clear memory of one. A memory, that, after checking with the other people who were there and looking at the physical evidence, I must have created myself.

Teacup you are batshit insane.

And hilarious, never stop posting.

anyone hear of connectomes?
there was a ted talk about
too lazy to post link though

>>3686817

Yes, this doesn't mean we'll understand consciousness anymore than we did before the project.

Also, lol @ the retards posting about non local consciousness.

>>3686805
I AM NOT
BATSHIT INSANE

So I'll post my refined theory of how consciousness works.
Basically, a change in environment will be picked up by one of your senses. The stimulus will be transformed into an electrical impulse. This electrical impulse will be distributed around the brain, running through a network of neurons placed because of this stimulus.
Now, what does this mean?
It means this stimulus, may (even because of one little recognizable pattern) cause a set of electrical branches go off at the same time, or in a sequential branching.
Anyway, these branches are the reason why we are able to form thoughts, it's the one reaction that leads to the other, in a very structural way (determinism) to find a fitting reaction to what we've been stimulated by.

Once this has happened, a state of relaxation will be felt, this being caused by the recharge your pathway has to endure. (Reaching the resting potential is an active process)

This also makes sense if you take into account the hierarchy the impulse must go through.
Thoughts are nothing but the triggered neurons, firing away, triggering other neurons.
How a certain thought can be sustained, is also explicable using the fields of anatomy and physiology.

What do you guys think? I think it makes sense to some extent.

>>3686839
YES
YOU ARE

Teacup, you are the most intelligent out of the three personalities, please overcome your disorder and see a neuroscientist.

>>3686839

>>3686852

Hey genius: That's not consciousness. That's just, like, thinking.

>>3686579
HEY TICTAC!! OR SHOULD I SAY EK?

The reason consciousness cannot be scientifically detected is because it can't be scientifically defined. Because it's a spectrum. A virus is less conscious than an earthworm, less conscious than a mammal, less conscious than a human. In after human uniqueness fallacies

>>3686865
Are you sure that's the answer you want to go with? Aren't those two the same thing?

>>3686874

Are YOU sure?

The word "consciousness" tends to mean different things in different contexts depending on who's saying it. That's part of the reason that threads on the subject tend to become totally confused unless which definition or aspect of the term is of interest is explicitly pointed out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

>>3686873
>The reason consciousness cannot be scientifically detected is because it can't be scientifically defined.

that's part of the problem, I don't even know what the fuck I mean when I say consciousness

You're a biologically based robot.
/thread

this thread has shaken my faith in science and empiricism

>My response to the posts in this thread and reliable evidence to justify ones claims

The human condition traps us between the two options: infinite and finite.

We cannot accept things with an end. If I say there is this biggest number ever, you will rebel and find the next one. If I say you die and then it's nothing, you rebel. If I say the universe came out of nothing or is heading towards nothing, it sounds absolutely impossible.

At the same time, the thought that infinite possibilities are real, beyond space and time, beyond imagination and sensoral response, we rebel just as well. The part turns out to be bigger than the whole, the ending is the middle of the beggining, anything can happen and will happen and is happening is a frightening thought.

So, we create models, simple models that are there just to hold this burden. "My dad knows it all, I'm just a child". "Humans don't know stuff, only God knows his plans for the universe". "I cannot feel the universe, so I'll try and understand it rationally". Abstractions, states of mind, that's all.

>on topic
On any level involving whole brains: free will exists.
On any level below whole brains: free will is n/a.
Why?
Because WE ARE OUR BRAINS!!!
If you go below the level of the self, you can't expect concepts that only emerge with the self to apply.
It's like saying "evolution doesn't exist (on a biological level) because when you look at the level of DNA it's just chemistry". Of course the concept of evolution doesn't apply to individual atoms in DNA, it only emerges at a higher level of complexity.

>>3686882
I feel like there is a difference between actively "thinking" and merely acting on stimuli, conditioned or not.
We have the ability to look around us and start a series of impulses that allows an evaluation of the environment. We are able stand still at what is happening, where other animals, don't do this. They only react accordingly. Maybe I'm just blowing too high off the tower with humans, but our gyrencephaly is able to work on a higher and more complicated level than other animals on this planet. I do think it's "just thinking" we do, but in such a way, we have the ability to be aware in the process, whatever that may mean.

Maybe there's another explanation that involves looped neurons firing back at the brain instead of the efferent neurons
Or better yet, a magical area in the brain completely devoted to consciousness which has been completely oblivious for the neuroscientists.

To answer OP's question, I think the problem lies with the quantitative measurement and tracking of certain cicruits. With billions of neurons in the brain, it will be really hard to focus down on one particular thought. But technology is rising fast, hope may surely come with it.

>>3686891

>faith in science
>faith

I'm surrounded by idiots

>>3686929
>disregard this, I'm an avatar tripcunt

>>3686947
Existentially, I imagine where ever you go, particularly when you're alone, you're surrounded.

>can't escape your own mind.

>>3686891

>this thread has shaken my faith in science and empiricism

Science itself is the ultimate form of faith, episteme.
Your post is just, incoherent.

not trying to thread hijack but how is 0.9999999 equal to 1?

>>3686932

So how are you defining "consciousness" here? Because it's still not clear.

Just, being aware of our own thought-processes as they occur? I don't think that in particular is the issue.

Consciousness as subjective experience, or qualia, is the thing that we are not able to empirically detect and so is probably what the Op is talking about.

>>3686979
Ah, the Other Minds problem. We'll never be able to experience someone else's first person knowledge.

>>3686979
How is it not clear?
We are stimulated, it's interpreted by the brain, it is acted upon.
The whole process of interpretation in the brain is what makes us able to "see the red car" and to trigger memories related to "red" or "car".

Turing test

>>3686997

No argument, that's how thoughts work. One perception or recognition triggers others through memory and so we get a big web of association.

But I don't know what this has to do with consciousness.

>>3686986

Yes, I cannot prove through my own direct experience that you are not in fact a philosophical zombie.

I can determine that it's pretty damn likely that you're not, but it's interesting even so.

>>3687013
Well, being aware of ones self, surroundings and whatnot..
How is that so different of thinking?
You see yourself in water/mirror;
Hey, that's me
Why, how, blabla.. we are curious creatures.. we want to know every story behind what we are able to perceive. Maybe we are able to it on this level because our brains are that much more complicated. Don't forget, animals also have a sense of curiosity; if you trigger the attention of your cat for example, then move behind a wall so it won't see you, it will want to know where you've gone.. wanting to (needing to) know what has happened.

>>3687030
I find it hilarious that I'm interacting with people behind a screen, typing on a keyboard just like me, when it just doesn't seem to be like this.
Only words appear on the screen I keep refreshing.. This world has truly become the epitome of curiosity.

>>3687039

>Well, being aware of ones self, surroundings and whatnot.. How is that so different of thinking?

Bare qualia is different from the branching thought-processes that occur as a result.

You look out the window. There is the bare conscious experience of seeing. Based on what comes into view, you perceive various things which fuel the associative process of thought.

>>3686887
Robots don't think, feel, or express emotions.

/thread

>>3687070
They will when our robotics technology becomes advanced enough. That is, if we want them to.

>>3687076
That doesn't mean expressing/feeling emotions to the degree humans feel them.

>>3687061
Okay, now I'm confused at what you're trying to say here..
Are you trying to find the answer to why we see? I know this question is really stupid, but it's the only thing I can extract from your reply. I mean, it's not like we have to ask the question why we see what we see and why we know what we see?
Because that the answer would still be neurons firing.
You can only start seeing after light has hit the eye. From then on it's pure impulse racing.

>>3686997

>We are stimulated, it's interpreted by the brain, it is acted upon.

Not the one you replied to, but you have to be more precise than that.
There are at least three levels at which impulses/data can be processed (Instinctual,Intuitive and Conscious).
Not to mention that at each of those levels, you also have Linguistical/Mathematical/Visual/Aural/Kinesthetical/Communicational etc.

Seriously your definition can be applied to fuckall.

>>3687091

I'm not trying to find the answer to anything in particular, actually, I'm probing your mind to get you to refine your terminology.

>>3687112
Oh lordy, so my definition, my grossly overly simplified conceptual definition, is not correct?
I know that it's all devided on what type of stimulus, association and reaction is needed. It doesn't change anything dude.
You fry your hand to the stove, you pull it away
You're being asked what's 1+1, you say 2
You want to know what shape the thing with 4 rectangular angles is, you ask your mom

>>3687137

>It doesn't change anything dude.

Thats correct.
Your definition indeed wont have any effect on Science nor Scientific Community.
Oh and its hilarious how you just trivialized my contention while in the process remained an intellectually inflexible idiot who wouldnt even try to provide a more precise definition of his own concept.

>>3687137

>It doesn't change anything dude.

Thats correct.
Your definition indeed wont have any effect on Science nor Scientific Community.
Oh and its hilarious how you just trivialized and mocked my constructive contention while in the process remained an intellectually inflexible idiot who wouldnt even try to provide a more precise definition of his own concept even when provided new data on a golden plate.

I find it interesting on how people want to claim what they are saying is right.

The only reasonable thing to do with a question like OP is to either tell people why they are wrong, or come up with possible ideas of what 'could' be the answer (but not saying it 'is' the answer).

I'm also not sure why ghosts got involved, but anyone that believes in ghosts isn't thinking rationally. It is much more likely that your brain is making you think you saw (heard, felt, whatever) something even though there was actually nothing there.
Don't come at me with that bullshit that if your brain thinks you saw it than it is real. That is extremely irrelevant.

>>3687195

>I find it interesting on how people want to claim what they are saying is right.

So you are some kind of psychological masochist that doesnt want what he says to be right?
Regardless you are one sick puppy.

>>3686402
software physically exists as aligned atoms on a hard drive platter.

>>3687183
>>3687173
Please, don't be sarcastic.
First off, I'm not trying to have any effect on science or the scientific community with this, it's pure speculation.
If you can't handle a civilised discussion about what could be possible, then sorry, I'll go.
Have a good night.

>>3686444
until you have any evidence otherwise, I suggest you shut up

>>3687221
>that doesnt want what he says to be right?

Well I think most people want some things they say to be wrong. For example, if you say there is no heaven, don't you want to be wrong even though you think it is right.

But, I don't think that's what you were trying to get across.
>saying is right.
>right
If I say I am 100% sure of something, and it turns out the other way, I am wrong. If I say I think it is more likely that it is one way, but don't rule out the other option, no matter how it turns out, I was not proven wrong. If I say I think it is more likely one way, but don't rule out the other option, and it turns out my assumption was correct, than I was right.

With that said, who cares if you are right or wrong. Don't you just want to know the correct answer whichever it may be?

>>3687231

In case your still here, your problem is that you weren't giving anyone any new information, you were giving old information packaged badly with muddled terminology. It shows that you don't know much about what you're talking about.

>>3686664

I doubt it's actually millions, but even then, probably.

The vast majority of the human race is irrational a lot of the time and their perception is fallible. Most of us are deficient in some manner.

>>3686891

Good, you shouldn't have had that in the first place. Science doesn't operate on faith.

>>3687286

Despite i dissent with your notion of "Person proven wrong" i do assent with this:

>Don't you just want to know the correct answer whichever it may be?

Which is why i resent most of the debates, because debaters arent concerned with the truth but only with with their agendas.

>>3687326
>Science doesn't operate on faith

Yes it does.

>>3687326

>Science doesn't operate on faith.

Most hilarious comment by far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

>>3687338
faith = axiom

>>3687338
>>3687355

If you're going to whine about your untenable position and play semantics, find me a method that neither requires axioms nor involves a unjustifiable leap of faith.

>>3687363

>Prove me wrong

No.

>>3687355

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

>>Science doesn't operate on faith.

Seriously you are an idiot.

>>3687363
1=1

consciousness doesnt real

>>3687355
There is a difference between having CONFIDENCE in something and having FAITH in something, and that difference is more that just mere semantics.q

>>3687363

>If you're going to whine about your untenable position and play semantics, find me a method that neither requires axioms nor involves a unjustifiable leap of faith.

So much Red Herring.
Face it, you were just moronic with your proposition that Science doesnt operate of faith.

>>3687398
faith = axiom

Your confidence is what comes after this, not before.

>>3687398

>There is a difference between having CONFIDENCE in something and having FAITH in something, and that difference is more that just mere semantics

>Tries to Straw-Man with semantics

>Faith is trust, hope and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept or entity

You are pathetic.

>>3687392

>consciousness doesnt real

U cannot into English too?

>>3687409
faith
>Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
axiom
>A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true: "the axiom that supply equals demand".

Faith is saying, something is 100% true without any chance of anything else.

Axiom is saying, if we 'assume' (assume meaning not knowing for certain) this is true (but not saying it is 100% guaranteed to be true).

>mfw people say consciousness is an emergent system
proof it faggots

>>3687479

It is the most coherent explanation thus far. Why don't you prove otherwise? It would be a great leap in scientific progress if you could falsify that.

>>3686352
thanks for the picture, bro, somehow it made me girlfriend want to fuck
(idontevenknowbutidgaf)

>came to here different people's views on consciousness
>errybody gettin' mad
>gonna need some popcorn

Proceed.

>>3689210
well, poop

>came to hear

>>3689210
>here