/sci/ - Science & Math

what's the problem?

>>3972010
fuck off namefag

The problem of qualia is, I think, more fundamental. Once you explain qualia, consciousness (which is actually just the feeling of being conscious) will eventually follow.

>>3972012
fuck you, anonfag

if you want pseudoscience bullshit, consciousness is probably the development of sensation to more complex routines which we consider consciousness

>>3972014
I've always overlapped the two definitions, my bad.
What do you think of the qualia?
Bennet=> there is no real problem
Dyson=> there is a more fundamental level of reality
Others=> ???

>>3972021
???
I think this is something close to Bennet's position, I don't think it explains much.

Also, I'm not sure I get it, you are saying the hp is pseudoscience?

>qualia

I didn't think anyone still believed in this.

It's only a problem if you assume materialism.

>>3972036
It's a definition, there isn't much to believe.
Qualia= subjective conscious experiences.
What do you mean?

>>3972030
I'm saying my remark is pseudoscience because this is just my relatively uneducated opinion on the matter. I do not know who Bennett is or what he thinks.

My rationale being that as the structure of consciousness can be observed as a composite of other structures, it is as a result at best a pattern and nothing more. For unexpected "conscious" behavior to occur a steady flow of random variables must be in contact with the structure- the means of which being through senses and stimuli. Sense is raw input, it is not surprising then that this input when corroborated with other sources could form a sense of self.

But seriously, I'm just making a handful assumptions and don't know a damn thing about Bennet

>>3972055
the hard problem of consciousness is:
how and why we have subjective conscious experiences.

Dennet (I always mispell him) believes othat there is no real problem and when we'll have understood what consciousness is, we'll realize the hp is unreal.

Which, in my humble opinion, is the philosophical equivalent of a chess player who leaves during the most important match of his life saying "this game is stupid".

Only my uneducated opinion, mind you.

>>3972081

>Which, in my humble opinion, is the philosophical equivalent of a chess player who leaves during the most important match of his life saying "this game is stupid".

Poor analogy considering the context of a chess game, and the fact that Dennett is an authority in the field.

Qualia is just an easier and shorter way to spell "conscious experience" or something along those lines.

I take the position that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter.

Penrose et al sort of agrees, and in a roundabout way thinks that the route to understanding this is proving that one of the functions of our brain is to focus this universal property to individual localities, and also reduce the probabilities of a wavefunction collapse into a deliberate action.

He says (my interpretation) our brains operate as a focusing lens for consciousness and elevate quantum level events into the macro, enabling physical control of otherwise random events, hence free will (I could be overstating his position here but I think that's what he's driving at.)

>>3972095
I should have written a chess champion.
My impression, which is that of a layman, mind you, stays.
The problem of the qualia seems to be a qualitative ones, I don't think his position makes much sense.
More than willing to be proven wrong though.

Plus, authorithy or not, we are not closer to understand the HP than we were in the 90s.

>>3972081
>the hard problem of consciousness is:
>how and why we have subjective conscious experiences.

More precisely, the hard problem is how it can be explained in the context of a materialist perspective. If you start with spiritism, or idealism, there's no problem at all. Or dualism, even.

>>3972095
He's a crappy authority. He, and many other materialists, routinely dismiss the HPoC as if it has been solved. The analogy ought to be of a chess master claiming to have won before play begins.

>>3972100
I used to think Penrose and Hameroff were just deluded, but their position, for absurd as it sounds "clicks" more to me than Bennet's. Not that I buy the Orchard yet, mind you.

>>3972000
I think it's an invented problem that doesn't matter which bothers the religious. I also think that as commonly talked about, it's not scientific problem either.

>>Dennett is an authority in the field.
>>Implying anyone understands shit about the nature of consciousness more than anyone else
>>mfw

>>3972117
>it's not a scientific problem

That's a rational position to take, even if many disagree, but Penrose (for instance) thinks that the scientific method will work in this instance, and further, he says that GUT will be achieved when we understand the HP on a mechanical basis.

>>3972117
Good trolling, 7/10

Consciousness is more than a feeling, you need an observer to feel.

>>3972135
I use my hands

>>3972134
You know, I'm curious about a thing.
It's 3 in the morning here so don't ask me to formulate it better, but what if the scientific method was not appicable in this case? If there was an area of knowledge forever impossible to verify?

Jeff Hawkins: On Intelligence, as a philosophy/cog sci double major the engineering perspective of feed-forward stochastic machine states (i.e. the engineering model to go along side memory prediction framework) is the best explanation I've heard yet.

>>3972152
If you restrict your understanding to what you can explain with a particular set of principles, then you won't be able to explain anything that can't be explained with those principles. If you believe that there is nothing your principles cannot explain, then you'll be effectively blind to the reality of such things (>>3972117 and others who essentially say that consciousness is an illusion).

"Consciousness"
Cannot be described in mathematical terms.
Therefore there can be no science done on the subject.

Also, consciousness is a product of biology which is not a hard science.

The question is outside the scope of this subforum.

>>3972152
Good queston, historical even, and puts us smack into the philosophy of science department, not my strong suit.

I do know that strong arguments ( by really smart guys) have been made that we cannot know some things

>>3972081

what's the story behind your pics? reconstructions based on fossils?

>>3972163
>Cannot be described in mathematical terms.

that's where Penrose disagrees with you

This thread has been so far more productive and civil than I thought possible (I have very low standards).

>>3972163
>"Consciousness" Cannot be described in mathematical terms.
>outside the scope of this subforum.

half the battle (well OK a significant part, is defining our terms

You say it's biological, others say it's mechanically built in (emergent) that's pretty sciencey on the level of nuclear chain reactions, I should think

>>3972174
I'm not sure.
I think they are collages made with pieces of varios animals.

Which incidentally is what people thought platypus to be, the first times stuffed exemplars were brought back in england. Unrelated, but interesting.

That was the last one, I'm now starting to post rings inspired to the seven deadly sins.

>>3972196
undersea volcanic tubules

>>3972205
I'm... confused.

>>3972194
>defining terms to do maths

Newton had to invent the calculus to explain his crazy theories

>>3972163
>Cannot be described in mathematical terms.

If I had been around a few decades longer it would have been!

Damn you jesus, damn you for dragging me here. All just because I bombed a couple of japs.

>>3972209
deep sea heat vents (tubules)

>>3972213
Is math invented or discovered Von?
What's your take?

consciousness is to the mind as cheesecake is to a cheescake factory,
there does that answer your question?

>>3972224
Death: Down in the deepest kingdoms of the sea, where there is no light, there lives a type of creature with no brain and no eyes and no mouth. It does nothing but live and put forth petals of perfect crimson where none are there to see. It is nothing but a tiny yes in the night. And yet... And yet... It has enemies who bear it a vicious, unbending malice, who wish not only for its tiny life to be over but also that it had never existed. Are you with me so far?
Susan: "Well, yes, but-"
Death: Good. Now, imagine what they think of humanity.

Somewhat related.

>>3972233
place that manufactures cheesecake= cheesecake factory
place that manufactures consciousness= brain

But herp a fucking derp. In a cheesecake factory we can go and see the cakes coming off the conveyor, even follow the conveyor and watch how the cake is assembles

In the brain, so far, no such luck

>>3972163
Go die.

>>3972213

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Computer_and_the_Brain

Miss you bunches Professor ;_;

>>3972114
thats caled liking the sound of something
its not often conductive to reasoning

>>3972245
Fuck this shit, let's cure alzheimer and invent immortality before Pratchett kicks the bucket.

>>3972196
>>3972209
>>3972232
>>3972245

So the first one is Greed, which sins do the others represent (Filenames don't say).

>>3972261
nah brah, s'called intuition, which is cognition opaque to analysis due to complexity or abstraction.

>>3972263
<Pratchett
Holy shit almost forgot

And yes, Discworld and all the other worlds and all the wonderful iPods shortwave radios and cities in the sky and cure for polio and and and shit we need to science because just answering a question with ??? doesn't cut it.

We need to DREAM BIG

and win one for the Gipper

I think the first is greed, the second lust, the third envy, and the fourth pride.

>>3972261
I dind't mean I like it more, I meant that it makes more sense - Bennet's hypothesys seems to miss the target, but I admit it's one third logic, two thirds intuition.
>>3972263
I think anger, lust and sloth.
This one should be envy.
>>3972270
What a coincidence, I just started reading some stuff from Edward deBono about intuiton.

I thinkl the experience part of the problem is more important than the consciouseness part.

One simple solution I can think of is to imagine a drum, beating the center of the drum or the sides affects the drum differently, beating in a different rhythm ptroduces different results, no matter how large the drum. If experience is just a "drum" things seem to work out.

>>3972232
invented or discovered? math is what I did to your mother last night SUCKAH

>>3972280
Nope. Greed, anger, lust, sloth.

>>3972270
as I said,
heuristics are mot conductive to reasoning

>>3972292
I don't get it, but it's pretty late so I'm in dumb state.
Could you elaborate.

Oh, and here is pride.

>>3972288
O, beware, my lord, of jealousy;
It is the green-ey'd monster, which doth mock
The meat it feeds on. That cuckold lives in bliss,
Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger:
But O, what damnèd minutes tells he o'er
Who dotes, yet doubts, suspects, yet strongly loves!

>>3972312

Against pride even the gods labor in vain ~ some old Greek guy

yet

‎"Rise like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number
Shake to earth your chains like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you
Ye are many - they are few."

Percy Bysshe Shelley
captcha + tighous soul

>>3972325

this thread

Gluttony, gentlemen.

Thanks for your time.

Just a bunch of new age taufag, golden ratio, ftl, time travel bullshit. Worst than astrology. And now fortified with 7 sin goodness.

>>3972304
Put simpley experience amounts to being able to "feel"
differences.
For this to happen there needs to be enough experiencium to process the amount of different feelings we get and some mechanism to turn experiencium into feelium.
If you imagine yourself as a binary algorithm or as having a small drum in your head or as a light bulb being turned off and on again by your brain you begin to see how experience could happen due to a complicated process being reduced to a simple phenomenon.

>>3972346
Yes, you are rather special that way

>>3972353
> consciousness a result of algorithms

Marvin Minsky (whom I hold to be profoundly stupid) disagrees

>>3972346
>>Implying the hard problem of consciousness ins't considered one of the most important questions in the world.

>>3972369
It's not a hard problem. It's a stupid problem. Magical thinkers think it's hard.

>>3972379
> It's a stupid problem.

THIS

>>3972365
Could you elaborate?

Also, do you think the Gödellian arguments refute a computational model of the mind?

Since the rings are over, plastic bones.

>>3972353
this theory is easily falsified though,
if there is some objective difference between experiences such that sight and hearing are distinguishable outside of the brains experiencing aparatus by anything other than degrees of a shared quality

>>3972379
>can't explain a phenomenon
>IT MUST BE MAGIC

this question has been tackled by smart people throughout history as a valid question. it's not a stupid question.

however, we don't have the right tools to answer it and have much worthwhile (answerable) things to study at the present

>>3972387
>>3972379
Awesome! Could you two geniuses solve it for us?
It would be the first nobel for anonymous.

Evolutionarily beneficial. An complex organism that can receive information from it's surroundings is more adaptable than a mindless chemical reaction. (not to imply that brains are more than that, when it comes down to it)

How exactly qualia arises from matter is certainly something we don't understand yet. But that doesn't mean it can't, and it's already easily seen how the two are causally linked.

That it's an adaptation that we just don't fully understand is more down to earth and likely in my mind than the various fantastical assertions that are out there.

>>3972391
G merely refutes consistency along with completeness. I have yet to meet a consciousness that is consustent.

>>3972391
Learn the capabilties of single cells in your body. Now multiply that by a few 100 trillion. So much is happening, the conscious part of the brain, the part that interacts with the outside world is the stupidest part of the equation. I had a dream, I had a feeling, what does it mean? That is how stupid consciousness is.

>>3972410
I already did: >>3972043

Stop assuming materialism, problem is fucking solved.

>>3972394
which I'm really hoping for in retrospect
because if this turns out to be right it probably makes all algorithms have feelings, thus proving pantheism.

(I donna wanna find god ;_;)

>>3972434
That's a stupid fucking solution that introduces more problems than it solves.

Fuck off, you durr.

>>3972398
Einstein said "“You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it."
Maybe it's simply impossible for our mind to understand itself. Just a stray thought.

>>3972413

>>That it's an adaptation that we just don't fully understand is more down to earth and likely in my mind than the various fantastical assertions that are out there.

I doubt anyone here doubts consciousness is a product of evolution - but this has haardly anyhting to do with the matter at hand.

>>3972443
If your assumptions completely and utterly fail to explain the most basic and ubiquitous facet of reality that everyone everywhere experiences, then maybe - just maybe - you should stop being a fucking retard and quit clinging to bullshit assumptions.

It only introduces more problems because you've been nuthugging some stupid theory for the last ten thousand years.

>>3972162
>(>>3972117 and others who essentially say that consciousness is an illusion
I say no such thing. I merely note that dualism offers no falsifiable predictions, and as such it's more or less a worthless idea.

>>3972448
we understand plenty of more comlex things, its why we invented simplifications
also Einstein was a douche to his kids

>>3972448
That's been bought up a lot. Still, you never know if something is truly unsolvable until you can show that it's unsolvable. Thus, people are still trying to "explain" it, even though the question is so vague. Due to how unorganized it is (similar to how Feynman responded to the question "why do magnets work"), I do agree that it's stupid.

It's much better to research around the topic than try to pierce it directly. There is a lot of research going on currently with how the brain operates. One day we'll probably have a good mathematical framework for the brain and how it generates consciousness. Until then, we only have a faint signal, but don't know what we're truly looking for.

>>3972460
>I say no such thing.

Thus the use of the term "others".

>I merely note that dualism offers no falsifiable predictions, and as such it's more or less a worthless idea.

Dualism is not a method of investigation. Holy fuck.

>>3972459
>10000
barely going on 200 no thanks to you
and explaing everything including conciousness albeit in way that makes everybody feel unimportant

mostly because they are

Is it possible for there to be a sort of "zombie human," which acts exactly like a normal human does - takes his or her hand away from hot things, yells "ouch!" when poked, laughs, cries, etc., but doesn't "feel" anything? That is, he or she receives information, and the brain processes it, but he or she simply acts on that information without "feeling" anything. He or she does not feel pain, but does act in response to the information from nerves just like any other person.

I guess you would probably say the answer is no. But then, does a single-celled organism feel? What about an ant? Where's the line between feeling and not-feeling? If it's a gradient, a progressive change, that must mean that single-celled organisms do feel, to some extent. And then, what about computer programs? Do they feel, or just react to information? Is there something intrinsically different about biological matter that makes it able to "feel"?

I cannot understand this. I do not understand how atoms ontop of atoms can produce phenomenae such as qualia. I understand how computers can arise, but I do not understand how qualia can.

>>3972468
I really cannot think of anyhting more complex than the human brain. I'm not exxagerating, it's the most biological structure in existence to my knowledge.
Also, someone's moral character does not influence the value of his deductions.

Bones are over, Chtulu time.

>>3972481
>and explaing everything including conciousness

not even slightly. Oh look, this thread was created just for idiots like you.

>>3972460
>dualism

not the same guy, I say consciousness is a PROPERTY of matter, like spin and flavor

no dualism over here, thanks

>>3972493
Property dualism is still dualism, in comparison to materialism.

>>3972490
A society of billions made up of these brains

>>3972490
>I really cannot think of anyhting more complex than the human brain.

How about the biosphere, which contains billions of those human brains as well as lots of other things?

>>3972501
one guy up there said 'pantheism'

I say so what? pantheism would be fine with me if we removed the 'theism' from that word and said consciousness is a property of matter. As all matter is describable in terms of certain properties, likewise is the quantity of consciousness describable. We just lack a complete definition of it at this time.

inb4darkmatterherpaderp

>>3972485
Christ, I had the same thought once even before reading the philosophical zombie thing.

It creeped me out to no end.

>>3972492
>algorithm
there a slight explenation
you can go moon over a sigil now

>>3972522
>algorithm
Hard problem of consciousness. Not solved by algorithms. Subjective =/= object.

>>3972525
why?

>>3972525
Ce n'est pas une pipe

>>3972517
The more important point being that the current formulation of everything in terms of monist materialism cannot work. Whether the name of the next thing is dualism or property dualism or panpsychism (neo-animism) doesn't really matter.

>>3972531
see>>3972534
thanks, that guy

>>3972513
>>3972511
This is stupid.
We cannot predict the behaviour of a single electron but we can predict through newtonian laws what a billion of them will do.
The brain is the most complex structure we know of, there is no dancing around the issue.

>>3972539
The universe is more complex yet.

Is it possible that we'll find a way to explain consciousness but not the qualia?

>>3972539
we just did, you just don't like it

Not to interrupt the circlejerk going on here, but I would just like to take this moment to point out that to some, consciousness is indeed, a hard problem

Carry on

>>3972537
I thought that proved MY point...

>>3972548
>>3972545
Samefag, could you go troll somewhere else?
Please?

>>3972556
Seriously?

>>3972547
>find a way to explain anything coherently

sure, just not in this thread, tonight

thinking is hurd
consciousness is hurder

>>3972562
A. Not samefag, there is in fact more than one person in the world who doesn't agree with you
B. The universe is more complex than a brain. Hell a human BODY is more complex than a brain because it contains a brain plus other stuff.

>>3972547
Hodstaftersson or whatever his name is has his strange loop theory, which describes a mechanism for generating consciousness that does not necessarily describe qualia,

>>3972571
>body contains brain

Hmm. Historically, the seat of consciousness has only recently (within modern recorded history) been located in the brain. In particular, passages from the Greek story of Odysseus have the protagonists locating their "center of being" variously as being in their solar plexus, their stomach and their livers.

So, yes, the body is indeed complex and the center of consciousness seems to inhabit parts of the body at different historical epochs.

Just saying.

Well, OP here.

Good night and thanks to everyone who didn't try to turn this in a edgy teen atheism vs theism debate, who didn't came here to troll.

>>3972596
you're welcome, and thanks for the tentacles

>>3972571
last time I checked we don't understand the universe yet, samefag.

>>3972587
Yes, and as I recall the Egyptians had it at the heart. What I wonder is, if you took all the major sensory organs in the head and spread them over the body, where you you feel "you" were?

>>3972587
>So, yes, the body is indeed complex and the center of consciousness seems to inhabit parts of the body at different historical epochs.
Um... no?

And source that claim on the Odyssey, not that it matters because even if it were true your conclusion is bogus.

>>3972612
They believed THOUGHT occurred in the heart.

That's completely different from what you retarded fuckheads are going on about.

>>3972613
Actually, I seem to remember chinese thought the stomach was the seat of thought and sosme other culture thought it was the hearth.

Not sure of who thought the brain was meant to cool off the blood.

>>3972606
I bet you think you have a point, don't you.

>>3972620
No, what is happening here is the implication that the brain is the seat of consciousness. the ancients disagree.

science sees processes going on in the head and assumes that must be where "we" are.

This is a classic case of conflating correlation with causation.

These threads are hard to follow, for one reason among many, that there are several definitions of "consciousness" going around.

>>3972644
8/10
truly a thing of beauty

>>3972625
Aristotle.

>>3972644
whatevs

>>3972649
ooh - an 8/10, thanks

I shall archive this thread and treasure it always

>>3972629
Samefag, let me put it this way: the brain is the most complex structure per cubic cm we know of.

Happy now?

>>3972665
>Samefag

You should try not to stick to unfounded beliefs. This is /sci/ after all.

>the brain is the most complex structure per cubic cm we know of.

Seems like a silly and arbitrary demarcation. The biosphere isn't less complex just because it contains large regions of lesser complexity. Averaging that shit out is just rhetoric.

Complexity has different meanings. An intricate pattern can be complex but functionless.

>>3972687
>An intricate pattern can be complex but functionless.

But how do you determine that something is functionless? For that matter, how do you determine that something is functionful?

From metaphysics to teleology.

>>3972679
the fact one keeps answering for both may not be a certain proof, but it's worth something samey.

I tell you what, you win. Give yourself a medal, you deserve it

>>3972695
Watch a Transformers movie. Complex but meaningless.

>>3972697
>Give yourself a medal, you deserve it

A medal for something so easy is not worth much.

>>3972716
>>is not worth much
neither do you, if you need to pretend to be two people to make your point.

>>3972735
Joke is overplayed now.

If you're not joking, then your stupidity is overplayed now.

>>3972739

Good.
Now have your doppleganger pat your back for this clever comeback.

>>3972746
>>3972739
>>3972735
>>3972716

It will never stop surprising me how otherwise smart people act like total cunts over the internet.
I think this would be worht of study.

what OP believes

>>3972756
Been done.

>>3972758
Is this a freewill thing?
It has little to do with what OP asked.

>>3972772

and what the hell has it to do with free will

>>3972764
Oh yeah, I had forgotten the GIFT.
Let's hope it doesn't rub off to real life or we'll be facing a generation of rotten cunts.

>>3972785
I remember seeing a pic like that in a discussion about the "ghost insde the machine".

>>3972756
Surprisingly enough, I agree.
I apologize to you all, denizens of the internet.

I'm the non same fag by the way.