/sci/ - Science & Math

>feels great man

My parents 1 years ago are still apes

but to answer your question.. we share consciousness with every living organism, and the more progressed the animal is, the more advanced its consciousness.

but the real thing about any mind is that it is shaped by experience. so if you were born into any simulation, your personality and thought process would change depending on the world.

so unless we live in a simulation, this mind of mine was the product of natural processes in its formation, and my experiences/decisions shaped my 'personality'.

>>4430717
>every living organism
I don't think so. We have more in common with the process of evolution than we do with an individual bacteriophage, when it comes to consciousness.

>>4430730

in that case, the creature acts on instinct.. the parts are reacting to instructions. I would classify this, along with single-celled organisms as consciousness. call it the problem with language if you will, but I would not deny those organisms the term 'thinking'. the difference being they, unlike us, cannot 'learn'.

>why am i the product of human parents
>not apes 200,000 years ago

Perhaps the fact that that I'm here; not 200,000 years ago is a good started. "Why" questions are retarded; they presuppose design.

Ah yes, why does anything exist at all.

Personally, I wonder what the exact process that produces qualia is.

>>4430760

because the initial state is existance. there never was 'nothing'.. only a 'nothing' that is unstable enough to produce the big bang.

>>4430640

What consciousness?

So far in my life and studies I haven't seen a single piece of convincing evidence, relating to a single coherent, consistent definition of the concept, that such a thing exists.

When you give me one, I'll tell you what lead it to be the way that it is.

>>4430795

only a consciousness, albeit a primitive one, could make such a pathetic post.

there is your proof.

>>4430806

> Still hasn't defined consciousness yet uses it in argument.
I'd like to see proof that "consciousness" (whatever that means) is necessary for investigation.
> Also ad-hominem

>>4430816

Consciousness
> • The state or condition of being conscious.

Conscious
> • Aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

So, the 'proof' is in our awareness of existing at this very moment. Alternatively, another proof is that only a primate consciousness could make such a pathetic post.

the same ones that prevent me from bangin' wynoda rider every day of the week.

>>4430640
WHOA DUDE THAT'S PRETTY DEEP DUDE
YOU BLOW MY MIND
YOU ARE THE GREATEST MIND OF OUR TIME

>>4430717
>>4430717

>>4430832

> Aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

By your definition my iPhone is self-conscious:

1. It self-identifies with IP address, MAC address, product serial-number and iTunes name.
2. It has sensory perception: a microphone, a camera, a touchscreen, internal gyroscopes as vastibular system, GPS for spacial recognition, and WiFi and Bluetooth electro-magnetic communication capabilities.
3. It runs background processes, whose output is accessible to the working memory, allowing it to incorporate and assimilate it into it's calculations and monitoring modules.
4. It stores information and data previously acquired on its memory, and can communicate it to other devices, whose comm. language it shares.

- Thanks, imma treat my iPhone better in the future, seeing how it's sentient and all.

But of course this is a ridiculous statement, that my handheld is self-aware; just as (by your definition) it's ridiculous to declare humans as self-aware.

mfw you're captivated by the romantic vagueness of the pre-neuroscience era.

>>4430816
Cogito ergo sum. Are you like ten years old?

>>4430874

You haven't read Descartes' argument so I will forgive you for being captured by it's romantic appeal. And I know you haven't read it, because you would have known it's not
> Cogito ergo sum
but
> Cogito, sum

Descartes automatically identifies self-doubt with consciousness, without defining consciousness at all (since it was a popular notion then, as now).

>>4430889
He never once used the word consciousness. You're confusing consciousness with existence, but
>it's
You can't speak English, so I'll forgive you.

>>4430897

No, he's taking self-doubt - which he identifies with consciousness as a hidden (and intuitive) assumption - to clear the doubt off self-existence.

Also my level of English, as a third language, has nothing to do with my argument - which still stands.

Bearded sky man.

>>4430753
>>4430753

>Perhaps the fact that that I'm here; not 200,000 years ago is a good started.

That's not an answer lol. That's like saying "why does the earth rotate around the sun" ... BECAUSE IT DOES.

Thanks Einstein

>"Why" questions are retarded; they presuppose design.

Some things are designed. Spider-webs are designed, microchips are designed. Nests are designed.

Why questions apply to all sorts of phenomena, why do planets orbit a sun? Why does gravity pull not push? Why does e=mc^2 (oh too hard, lets not think about it lol)...

Why do black ppl have sickle cell more than whites? Why did species X become extinct? Why do birds fly in flocks? Why is the sky blue? etc

I don't believe my consciousness is separate from my body, because I believe my mind and body consist of the same "substance" in the general sense.

That is, your question seems to necessitate a mind-body dualism model and basically to necessitate a non-materialist view of the universe that seems out of place with modern science.

>>4431627

>, your question seems to necessitate a mind-body dualism model and basically to necessitate a non-materialist view

Not at all.

Why did your physical body appear in this world in this century? Why not in the future or the past...

Why not as a black kid in Africa?
Why not exactly your body-brain-structure but without "you" being conscious in it, with some other person being conscious as it.

Why is there a certain material structure that gives rise to your consciousness?

>>4431627


There are billions of brain structures that give rise to people (consciousness).

Why does one exist that gives rise to you? You don't feel out of any other body but your own...

Why is there even a material formula that creates you in this universe at this particular time?

What is the probability that you should exist at all...

There have been billions of unique brains in history, why does one exist that brings YOU into this world?

>What factors caused your consciousness to be the product of human parents, and not say ape parents 200,000 years ago?

It wouldn't be my consciousness then would it? If "I" was born 200,000 years ago "I" wouldn't be me. The things that made me me wouldn't be there so "I" would be someone else.

I don't believe there's anything mystical about consciousness its like an operating system. Why isn't my operating system installed on a computer in china, because if it wasn't on my computer it wouldn't have the programs I installed so it wouldn't be my operating system any more.

>>4431721

>If "I" was born 200,000 years ago "I" wouldn't be me.

the thing that makes you is your brain

your brain structure could appear in any time, and why not multiple versions in the same time era?

just because you travel a distance over a time doesn't mean you lose your consciousness and someone else is produced...space and time are irrelevant and so are the experiences you see

what matters is the structure of your brain that allows you to have experiences in a certain space at a certain time

why not?

>>4431721

>The things that made me me wouldn't be there so "I" would be someone else.

So if I travel to japan next year, I won't have my consciousness I will be someone else entirely?

lol...the thing that makes you "you" is your brain

>>4431721

except your brain could've been formed 200,000 years ago as a caveman, nothing prevents this

>>4431753
>Can't read.
200,000 years ago you wouldn't have your parents, your home , your fiends, your family, cultural influences, school.... And further more your life would be different, the things that happened to me wouldn't happen then. All these things shape a person so changing them would change the person.

>>4431756
>>4431756

but it wasn't.

the specific and unique particles that make up your brain are in the here and now.

if we consider all the possible permutations of the unique particles that make up our universe, the chance that your brain was ever formed or ever will be formed again is so incredibly astronomically low that we can just say 0%

>>4431749
>>4431756

So your saying changing a persons entire life wouldn't affect who they are.

>>4431775

>your home , your fiends, your family, cultural influences, school.

none of those things give rise to your consciousness

they influence your personality and memories and habits, but not your consciousness

you clearly have 0 understanding of the subject.

Obviously you would have different memories and speak a different language and have a different life, but it would still be YOU having those different experiences

just because you change your clothes and culture and memories doesn't mean your consciousness ceases.

>>4431776


the particles are irrelevant they don't give rise to your consciousness, you are reducing too far

consciousness is formed at the cellular level the specific particles don't matter at all

if consciousness is a function or property of the brain, what matters is the cells/tissue that give rise to it, the arrangement of the brain, not the particles underneath

you get new particles and cells every 7-10 years or so, the unique cells don't matter neither do the particles

what matters is the structure they form together,

its not about having specific particle X and cells Y,Z
its the structure they come to form

>>4431788
You've just defined conciousness as some intangible property.
> it would still be YOU having those different experiences
There is no experiment you could ever perform which would prove this. Seriously this is nothing more than conjecture.

If you're going to reply i'll be back in half an hour.

>>4431781

>So your saying changing a persons entire life wouldn't affect who they are.

The question is about WHO they are, it is about consciousness, the aspect of the brain that allows you to experience reality and be aware of WHO you are

its a more basic question than what you are thinking of

Obviously you will be aware of different memories, a different personality and a different world.

But it will still be "YOU" in a very simple and fundamental sense. You will be able to feel pain, you will be able to suffer still.

Obviously you'll have different clothes and a different name, but those are irrelevant, the point is you will exist in a certain time and you will be able to experience reality

>>4431796

>There is no experiment you could ever perform which would prove this

Consciousness has to do with being aware of reality and the self and having subjective experiences.

You will be aware of a different reality, and your "self" will be different. But if the brain structure exists that gives rise to your consciousness, then you will exist to experience the world and you will have a different personality and memories etc...

There is a difference between self-consciousness, and consciousness.

The fact that you continue through time to accumulate memories is a result of consciousness

If every new piece of information you acquired created a new you, there would be no continuity

Is conciousness the same as the soul?

My consciousness would no more be my consciousness if it occurred in a different time/place than a glass swan reduced to sand and then reformed into another glass swan of identical dimensions would be the same glass swan.

>>4431796

Heres the experiment.
Imagine it.

Someone will torture you brutally.
He deletes all your previous memories and resets all the influences you had that shaped your desires and values.

Are you saying you won't feel the pain when he tortures you? Will erasing your memories and values make the experience anymore tolerable?

No you moron.

>>4431833

So when you move 2 feet to the left you are a completely different person with a new consciousness.

>>4431840

How do you figure that? Have I been rendered and then recreated at the molecular level?

>>4431848

yes, all the atoms that made you have a different location in space and time, namely 2 feet to the left

they've also changed through time
they are different

if this difference is too subtle for you to imagine, then think about aging over a period of 20 years, the cells and atoms that created you are totally gone, changed, literally the cells that make your body are new

yet you are still you,
what matters isn't the cells, it is the structure they form, as long as that structure is formed, it doesn't matter which cells make it, they could be metallic, organic, or whatever

>>4431861


explain baby neuroscience to 15 year old retards on /sci/

>i seriously hope you guys don't do this, clearly the person you are replying to is a moron and 99% of this thread doesn't know the difference between consciousness and memories

>>4431861

So are you incapable of differentiating the different philosophical problems inherent to the Ship of Theseus Paradox versus the example of actually rendering something down and then reforming it?

Because I would think that the continuity of shape, such as in one's body being replaced cell by cell over time but being an active system until death, would make the distinction obvious.

Now, of course leaving it as simplistic as that would leave the problem of "if you died but were revived before organ damage, are you a new consciousness", but then again it does not require a huge leap of thought to simply assume that a temporary but reversible pause in an active system does not necessarily completely reset the system.

But this whole conservation-chain is just from a single simplistic example used to attack the metaphysical idea of consciousness being independent of existence.

I exist here, I possess a consciousness, this is my consciousness. A human 1,000 years again composed of the same matter as me could no more have my consciousness than I can be considered the same as all the other creatures and inorganic materials that the matter I am composed of came from.

I am a configuration that while I possess biological life has consciousness. I am a separate iteration. A completely identical organism made from my matter would not have my consciousness as human consciousness, at least, is not completely dependent on the position of matter in the brain.

Now, a sapient species whose thoughts and state of being are completely dependent on the physical structure of their brains, that could be an interesting problem.

>>4431889

Furthermore from the first post on this entire conversation is completely irrational and unscientific. The whole conceit we are talking about is magic, it's not real.

I'm sure it serves a useful purpose for various fields of study to refer to a consciousness, but treating it as a thing, as a thing rather than a state, while useful for discussing certain qualities of it, does not make it possessing all of the qualities of a thing.

Consciousness is not something that is passed down by the universe. You cannot rationally talk about the same consciousness existing in another organism because consciousness is, in that area, a state not an object.

What you are referring to a soul and your question is one for a drum circle.

The semantics of consciousness often requiring being discussed as an object in order to be studied does not provide an evidence of the qualities you are attributing to it.

>>4431889
>>4431889


so baby you, when you were 2 months old, was a totally different being with a different consciousness

?

he had a different brain and different particles making it

>>4431837
That's a different experiment. The person from both my definition (the sum of both biological and environmental upbringing) and the other definition (same conciousness) is still the same person. It wouldn't prove anything.

>>4431921

So you think that?

Because I didn't say that, you said that.

I in fact deliberately said that the Ship of Theseus problem was completely separate as there was a continuity of the system.

And let's not get abstract here - self-awareness in a human being is part of our biological existence, and that aspect of our biological existence is not wiped when our cells are replaced through the natural cycle of such occurrences; and it is not necessarily wiped when a person is temporarily dead, if they are revived in time. That is the way the system works.

>>4431947

So while it might be an interesting separate problem to consider the Ship of Theseus, replaced piece by piece is it the same ship when it has none of the original parts, considering that human consciousness is dependent on our biological processes, attaching some mystical significance to a particular bit of matter or a particular cell is ridiculous.

I think, and I am aware I think. These are the result of various chemical and electrical processes in my body. This a system that functions in a certain way and has certain properties, such as not being interrupted when cells are replaced and being able to be stopped and then revived if certain conditions are right, and so forth.

>>4431943


it proves that consciousness is the most fundamental aspect of "being the same person"

everything else is secondary, the memories and personality you have, are about as important as the clothes you wear

>>4431802
>Obviously you will be aware of different memories, a different personality and a different world.

>But it will still be "YOU" in a very simple and fundamental sense. You will be able to feel pain, you will be able to suffer still.

But how would that still be me, it's a completely different person. The only attributes of conciousness you've given is the ability to feel pain and have experiences but how do you know that isn't just the operating system. Why does that have to be unique to you and how would it be different for others? What about these base qualities would make me different from someone else, or everyone else?

>>4431957
And how does it prove that?

>>4431947

ya because what matters is the structure the cells form, not the particular cells themselves, their uniqueness is irrelevant

if a perfect clone was made with the same brain structure as you, then as a materialist you would have to say that the clone has your consciousness, and your consciousness would be in two separate bodies

if you disagree, then you think there is some magical property to the brain that makes you unique....that can't be physically replicated and isn't physically caused by the brain

if structure is what gives rise to your consciousness, then there is nothing stopping the universe from creating your specific brain structure in a human 200,000 years ago

you would feel out of that body, and you would create new memories/experiences out of that body, etc....

no way around it, deal with it

>>4431966

>But how would that still be me, it's a completely different person

refer to >>4431861

it is your awareness in that body, when you were a baby without any memories or experiences, you still experienced the world, and felt it, and were aware

memories and personality are transient and secondary properties of who you are

the only thing that really makes you "YOU" is your awareness--the ability to experience the world

>>4431968

because you can remove all those secondary properties and still experience the world

If I wiped all your memories and habits and bullshit things you think are important, and then I punched you in the face, you would still feel it.

If I removed your consciousness, and replaced it with someone elses, but kept all your memories and values, and then I punched you in the face, you wouldn't feel it.

>>4431991

>If I wiped all your memories and habits and bullshit things you think are important, and then I punched you in the face, you would still feel it.

>If I removed your consciousness, and replaced it with someone elses, but kept all your memories and values, and then I punched you in the face, you wouldn't feel it.


It's kind of pathetic how this has to be explained to /sci/ because most 15 year olds can't differentiate between what a Memory is and what Consciousness is...

/sci/ worst board ever

>>4431982
>the only thing that really makes you "YOU" is your awareness--the ability to experience the world
so what makes my conciousness mine, what makes it different from someone else's

>>4431991
>If I removed your consciousness, and replaced it with someone elses, but kept all your memories and values, and then I punched you in the face, you wouldn't feel it.

So you're saying there is a system file in my brain without which i can no longer feel or experience.
Do you have any proof of this? I don't see the jump from the thought experiment to this assertion.

>>4431974

An iteration of the same exact design is still a separate object. Nice try though.

Also, though I get that you are just using a simplified statement and you could be more specific to solve this problem in your statement, human consciousness is - as I pointed out earlier - not solely dependent on the structures in the brain. Human thought, the mind, the operation of the brain that is, is more complicated than just the placement of the cells. Previous electrical impulses and previous chemical impulses all combine to give a continuity of consciousness.

>>4432015

Now theoretically you could create a copy of me with everything in the same shape as if it had been used and abused with the same electrical impulses and chemicals as myself, but physically speaking that is a reproduction.

And if you took all of my matter, and disintegrated it, and then made that recreation - the condition of the cells would still be, while identical, deliberately recreated in that form rather than having been worn down to that condition the way my life worn them into that condition.

And even if you used all of my matter to make a copy of me and put it through the exact same occurrences, doesn't matter - it is not my consciousness, because the specific matter doesn't matter, as we've already pointed out. I have a continuity of consciousness even as my body's material composition changes, so that means you are attaching a mystical significance to my matter and to the arrangement of my matter.

>>4431991
This is the worst fucking thing I have ever read in my fucking life.

God dammit, /sci/.

>>4432018


Considering a separate iteration of a design to be a separate object is not mystical or a solely mental construct. In the same way time is a human construct but things possess an existence and that existence has a series of events, a duration, part of what makes my consciousness my consciousness is the sheer fact that it is occurring in this object. The same occurrence in another identical object does not make it the same object.

Simply put your statement is false. In the physical universe, even if we consider objects to not be as solid as they appear - we're all mostly empty space - that doesn't change that one arrangement of matter and energy is a separate object. And even if you want to take the semantic tack that the fact that everything is always exchanging matter and energy with everything else, doesn't mean that two identical configurations in the same system are the same thing. Two identical pimples on your ass wouldn't be the same pimple, it is just ridiculous to think of them as being a unified object - and your statement is equally ridiculousness. The fact that it is more complicated and thus not as easily dissected to show how wrong you are doesn't change the fact that it is just as wrong and for the same reasons.

I think the best way to sum up your logical fallacy is with the time example I used. The fact that time is a human concept does not mean that things do not exist and that chains of events do not happen separate from the human arrangement of such things. Yet by your logical fallacy, if we applied it to time, you would have just "proven" that because time itself is a human concept, all events actually happen at once; which they physically do not.

>>4432043

Existence, that is, is not a mystical concept. Things exist, even if a better way of understanding the universe would be to say we're all just tendrils of the same soup of matter and energy, constantly exchanging matter and energy with everything around us, that doesn't change the fact that even if just as objects in the way a pimple on your ass is a separate object from you we exist.

Things exist in the physical universe, completely separate from human concepts, and two completely identical things of the same matter existing in two different places at once have separate existences and thus are not the same thing.

>>4432055

Obviously particles that exist in two-places at once have a single existence - which is probably the best way to explain just why OP is wrong in his preconceptions.

My consciousness existing in another being would not have been my consciousness, because this being that I actually am would not have experienced those thoughts - not have experienced any of the experiences, memories, or other things of that consciousness. Which means I would not have undergone the existence of that consciousness. Which means it was a separate consciousness as it was part of a separate existence.

>>4432078


The only way a model of my consciousness in two separate iterations is a single consciousness in two iterations and not two separate consciousnesses is if both iterations share the same existence - if the consciousness in one iteration has a continuity with the consciousness in the other. And I don't consider two separate iterations running in parallel - responding in the exact same way when presented with the exact same things, but separately and not linked in any way - to share a continuity.

The fact that I'm having to invent terminology, many of which are probably used as terms for completely different concepts, in order to explain the concepts your question has gotten me thinking about - the fact that I am not educated in this area and am not using the common lexicon used for these sorts of discussions - does not change the fact that I've presented a fault in your logic or that is that I've presented a reasonable problem to your model.

All I can do is thank you for getting me to think about things I've never thought about before.