/sci/ - Science & Math

yes you are

does a retard know he is retarded?

You are a brain, and so am I.

>>4749783
>implying you know how your brain works
>implying anyone can fully comprehend the workings of their brain

you're right, retards like you don't realise they are retards

Creationists 1
Atheists 0

'You' is simply the output of the semi black box that is your brain. Also, you're not thinking about this from an evolutionary perspective. When would comprehensive instinctive knowledge about how our brain works help us survive and propagate? Never, and it could be argued that this would be a detriment to the propagation of the gene, meaning if it did develop, it would be killed off.

>>4749783
yes, many do

Read a few paragraphs about the human nervous system, it'll do you good OP. Try to build a syllogism from I am a brain to I am conscious of my circuitry. Then we'll have a discussion.

>>4749794
>semi black box
Explain further

>>4749794
Something has to know how it works so that it may function

what happens if for a millisecond all of your atomic bonds separate, and the next millisecond all the atomic bonds get back together just the way they were

Are you, the one that you are right now, still you? or is it something that is like you, thinks the same you was just thinking, and its virtually you, but not really you?

Thats what scares me like shit about 'teleportation' of matter, if ever possible.

>>4749796
'Semi black box' Something we don't understand yet.
Also, duh. I was pointing out that even if we could understand it instinctively (Which we can't) it probably wouldn't happen. I should have made that clearer.

>>4749798
This.

if you transplant your brain to another body will the body gain his old(now dead) consciousness or will it be yours?

Try to build a syllogism from I am a brain to I am conscious of my circuitry. If you can't do this, then your OP makes no sense, and isn't worth discussing over.

Self awareness is a tiny portion of the brain, and the circuits involved in "I think therefore I am" are marginally tied to some of the other circuits. For example, your brain is doing hundreds of thousands of calculations so you could move your fingers across the keyboard. The flexing of certain muscles, proper and precise rotation of joints, but you are not aware of each of these mechanisms, partly due to the fact that it would be overwhelming. Imagine you ancestor is running from a tiger in Africa and he instead of thinking of where to run his mind is full of "flex right quadricep 30%, dilate coronary blood vessels, increase outflow of sympathetic neurohormones from adrenal cortex ....etc". These processes occur and are managed by circuits in the brain but they do not reflect upon the circuits responsible for self awareness, so in a sense you will never be able to be truly aware of them. It is how the brain evolved because it was naturally selected for.

>>4749827
This question was directed toward OP.

>>4749809
Your brain is changing its synapses -its connections between neurons, constantly. By your logic, you just died. Or at least the you that you were 1 second ago, because the connections are slightly different now. Everytime you learn something or have an epiphany about something you are not the same person. You are dieing all the time.

>>4749776
>Am I my brain

Yes

>How come I don't innately know how I function

That question makes no fucking sense at all. Does a computer know how a computer functions? Does a toaster know how a toaster functions? Does an electron know how an electron functions?

The problem is your childish notion of "know" and "I". You are throwing around words that have no meaning in the context you talk about. You might as well just be spouting random gibberish.

Fuck off and stop be so god-damm childish! Grow the fuck up!

>>4749776
>Am I my brain?
Insufficient detail to answer the question. What exactly do you mean? Can you phrase it in terms of a unambiguous falsifiable prediction?

>If so, how come I don't innately know how I function?
(Paraphrasing Dennett) it was a great insight of Turing to realize that a calculator does not need to understand basic arithmetic to do basic arithmetic. It's almost the same realization of Darwin that "in order to make a perfect and beautiful machine, it is not requisite to know how to make it." (quoting Robert Beverley MacKenzi, out of context). You do not need to know how your brain works to work. Evolution has seen to that.

> >inb4 'you' are an illusion
>Even if that's true and I'm merely a deterministic cog and my brain is just running its course - it should still know how itself functions, should it not?
You are using "illusion" to be synonymous with "deterministic". That seems to be very far from evident.

If you have the time, a long presentation from Dan Dennett that may change your mind.
(Argument that free will and determinalism are compatible) Daniel Dennett lecture on "Free Will" (Edinburgh University)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E

Brain pretends it is something else. Oh well, enjoy your life with the rest of your deluded friends.

>>4749867
Not OP here, but Dennett is full of shit. The worst of the, "horsemen". Just another bullshit, "professional philosopher" playing word games. There is only one future on the macro level, and it is inevitable. There is only one future on the macro level. On the video, which I watched a few times astounded that this guy might think he was saying things profound, the word inevitable is not a deterministic word, it should be avoided in discussions trying to clarify things surrounding determinism.

>>4749895
"There is only one future on the macro level, and it is inevitable" whoops, reedit to "there is only one future on the macro level". Time to sleep...

>>4749895
Meh, politely disagreed. <3 Dennett.

>>4749776
>Does a computer know how a computer functions

OP here,

This is by far the dumbest thing I've read. Is a computer conscious for christ sake?

>>4750020
Define conscious.

Personally I don't believe anyone other than myself is conscious, care to prove otherwise?

>>4750025
That's fine. Can a computer open up programs of its own accord?

You're just being either:
1. silly
2. a troll
3. arguing for the sake of arguing

>>4750031
Can you do anything of your own accord? All you do is respond to outside stimuli mediated by your brain.

>>4749776
Hmm, well it definitely wasn't 'outside stimuli' that compelled me to make this thread.

It was a series of contemplative thoughts, however.

I know what argument you're trying to pull, although you haven't explained it well.

But to say we have 'no choice' at all would by ignorant. We do have 'some choice' over the limited options we are given. I'm not saying we have entire free-will, but we are given some limited choice.
Computers have no choice, no thought, no contemplation. Everything it does is at my whim.

It doesn't realise it is even 'functioning'. I realise that I'm 'functioning'.

>>4749796

>Something has to know how it works so that it may function

No, it does not. You're making the same mistake as the Greek philosophers. They got too fond of their suppositions and started using them before they were verified, developed or even tested.

Unless you're to tell me that function refers to something's ability to regulate its own behavior rather than react and reproduce to maintain homeostasis and genetic line? Then the simple answer is that most people *don't* function optimally, because they don't know how they work. A casual glance at... any aspect of human culture, really, will demonstrate this.

>>4750076
>Unless you're to tell me that function refers to something's ability to regulate its own behavior rather than react and reproduce to maintain homeostasis and genetic line? Then the simple answer is that most people *don't* function optimally, because they don't know how they work

I am to tell you that. I would like a link for you're answer to that.

Don't believe it for a second

>>4750089

Completely unrelated anon here.

>I am to tell you that

What is this supposed to mean?

>>4750091
>Unless you're to tell me that...
>I am to tell you that

>>4750089
People don't control how they function. It's all subconscious behaviour. The brain regulates its heart-beat, all to your unawareness.

And the body does work damn well for what we throw at it

>>4750089

This is philosophy! We don't provide links, make connections to physical concepts or produce useful dialogue! Bloody newbie...

Anyway, here's what I mean. People regulate their behavior because they seek a positive outcome. But if they aren't aware of how their emotions and desires are regulated, then they usually mis-attribute their desires or emotions to something else entirely, like the situation they are in, rather than their reaction to it.

Most people don't understand how they function on a fundamental level, and from this misunderstanding comes most of the dysfunction you can see in the world, through pettiness, hatreds, fears and other unpleasantness.

>>4750099
>we herpde derpde shit from our asses and talk shit all day
yep, thats philosophy.

The brain is a black box. Sensory Input comes in, thought/motor output comes out. You don't get to see the underlying algorithms at work because that would be completely unnecessary.

>>4750131
>algorithms in the brain
>mfw someone wrote the algorithms
>mfw this proves god is real

>>4750211

>What is a natural emergent phenomena that is very complex and is wrongly personified and attributed to a human-like consciousness

I know you're trolling, though.

>>4749776
so i built this computer right
and i programmed it to emulate itself
and it runs in real-time and tracks all previous states

learn to computation

I forgot the exact quotation...paraphrasing:
If our brain was simple enough for us to understand it, we'd be too stupid to understand it.

You are just a small collection of nodes in the neural network who's in charge of making mundane and stupid decisions like what to eat for breakfast and when to browse 4chan.

>>4750574
The input is based on how much of a loser you're feeling like today and stuff like that.

>>4750092
in this thread, Turing test.

>>4749776
>If so, how come I don't innately know how I function?
>Implying things innately know how they function
Are you straight up retarded?

>>4750052
Up till now, I didn't know people this stupid are capable of speaking complete sentences.I learned something from you today.

>>4749796
>Something has to know how it works so that it may function

My fork does not know that it is a fork. Therefore, it is not possible for it to be a functioning fork.