/sci/ - Science & Math

your penis

your mother told me

>>4790719
Prove anything is conscious.

\thread

dharma

>>4790727

I am. And so are you, assuming solipsism is false.

>>4790727

sure.
But, what's your criteria for proof? and how do you define consciousness?

Answer these two questions and I might be able to educate you.

>>4790750
I don't define "consciousness", op does. I think it is a fucking meaningless idea. Direct your questions to OP.

A midget

>>4790749
You assume the idea is true, therefore the idea is true?
Tautology much?

LMFAO. You have proved nothing what-so-fucking-ever.
Try again.

>>4790764

tautologies are the only things that can be true.

everything else is inference and thus unknowable.

>>4790757

so when you ask for proof of it, you don't know what it is or what proof would entail?

so you don't know what your demanding, then there is nothing to answer.

>>4790757

>consciousness is too hard to quantify
>I'll just deny it exists lol
>I'm now unconscious

a head with hydrocephalus in a jar

>>4790767
I demand that op has some sort of consistent logical system. This is a demand in itself, regardless of op shitty definitions.

OP needs to define what he/she want to prove is a quantitative manner. "Consciousness" is an ambigious meaningless term, it needs further clarification if op is gonna ask any questions about it.

This thread inspired me to make a comic ;)

>>4790757
I like you, eminem guy

Your posts are always sound and logical, and you seem to know physics too

>>4790771
>consciousness is too hard to quantify

implying anyone ever implied that

>>4790784
Thanks!

>>4790782

everyone knows what consciousness refers to
It's the most important phenomena in the universe since it structures our experience and understanding of the universe. Its the most primal phenomena.

its that period between when you wake up and before you fall into a dreamless sleep.

its the subjective perception of experiences, experiences of all types including pain, pleasure, thoughts and memories.

>>4790792
And now please in scientifically measurable and quantifiable terms.

>>4790792
>everyone knows what consciousness refers to

Well is it obvious you fucking don't!

You post alot of unscientifc garbage, then ask scientific questions about it? WTF are you fucking high? GTFO FAGGOT!

>>4790792
It is obvious by your posts that you aren't conscious. You are just a malfunctioning sex machine.

Get back to sucking dick.

\thread

>>4790719
OP is not a conscious entity. You are not real.

>>4790803
>>4790815
>>4790820
>dat mad dualism samefag retard

There is no magic in consciousness, it's all the brain. Fuck off to /x/.

>>4790822
So why doesn't OP define it that way then?
/sci/ has no problem if OP can come up with a scientific definition. OP fails to do this though, in favor of meaningless bullshit.

>mfw Consciousness makes autists rage

>hurr durr I cant put number on it, it dont exist real

>>4790719
1) Define what you mean by conscious OP (in a scientific manner)

2) PROFFFFITY!!!

>>4790822

there is no evidence that the brain causes consciousness

don't confuse memories, thoughts, habits, preferences, lucidity, with consciousness....

>its the subjective perception of experiences, experiences of all types including pain, pleasure, thoughts and memories.

consciousness is the awareness of any thing.

>>4790837
>mfw I cam on your mom face
>mfw I have to show you what rage actually looks like

Any questions?

>>4790719
Your answer depends on how you define consciousness.
DEFINE IT FAGGOT!

>>4790846
>hurr durr define define

You philosophyfags make me sick. Go back to /lit/.

>>4790837
>>4790837
>mfw my joker is better then yours

>>4790842
>>4790846

its already been defined over 9000 times in this thread.
>its the subjective perception of experiences, experiences of all types including pain, pleasure, thoughts and memories.

consciousness is the awareness of any thing.

Are you aware of anything? Then you are conscious. That awareness itself is consciousness.

I AM ONE, BIG, WALKING CHEMICAL REACTION

A BUZZING HIVE OF CELL SYNAPSES, AND NASCENT SELF-PERCEPTION

ISN'T IT DISDAINFUL AND CURIOUS

THAT BOTH OF US THINK WE KNOW EVERYTHING?

>2012
>Science still has nothing relevant to say about Consciousness
>the most important phenomena in the universe

>>4790854
deep and edgy

>>4790851
>replacing one ill-defined word by another one

You might want to explain now what awareness is.

>>4790866
>movies
>good

What are you? A normalfag? Movies are for retards. A scientist doesn't waste his time with this shit.

>>4790859
Babbys clearly never seen good movies

>>4790851
Okay, you define "consciousness" as "awareness".

Now define "awareness".

Are you "aware"? Is a man in coma "aware"?
A man sleeping? A dog? A tree? A bug? A dead cat?
A particle? A bottle of water?

You need a good scientific definition of awareness in order to answer questions about awareness. Also, how do you know something is "aware", what is your burden of proof?

Are you "aware"? Why should I believe you are "aware"? What procedure do I use to determine this? For all I know you could be a internet "bot". Is an internet "bot" aware?

(replace the word aware with consciousness, and you will see your shitty substitution of words hasn't helped)

>>4790876
Fuck off, IQ fundie.

Something is conscious if it has experience. If "what is it like to be X?" has an answer, then X is conscious.

>whats the smallest possible conscious object/entity?
>how do you know?
I don't know. I know that I am conscious right now, but my attributations of consciousness to others, or even to my past and future selves, are ultimately just reasonable conjectures based on observable similarities between us. I have no way to test whether you are conscious, nor can you test whether I am conscious. The only thing we can do is study the brain better, thus learning more about what things are similar to us and thus might have consciousness. But it will still ultimately be conjecture.

>>4790866
>Stealth
>"good" movie

I'm sorry, I was distracted by that amazing pair of tits in the OP.

What were we talking about?

>>4790864

>hurr durr please define every word you use explicitly

theres a point where all definitions break down because all words do is point to things, they aren' the thing itself

you can ask what the definition of energy or "truth" is, and eventually you won't get an answer if you ask deep enough

we can't define "pain" or "pleasure" explicitly, we rely on the fact that other people know these things through experience and implicit references

by continually asking for deeper definition you are just trying to avoid the discussion.

if you dont know what it means to be aware of something by now then the word "define" is probably meaningless to you too

>>4790885
So you want to do "science" without defining anything? Well fuck.

>>4790822
>that feel when property dualist
>that feel when the mental is not causally reducible
come at me brah

>>4790877
>>4790877
>implying I am IQ-Fundie

WTF?
If OP wants an actual discussion, or answer he needs to explain what he means by "awareness". It has different meanings to different people, and no concrete scientific meaning. Same shit with consciousness.

If OP can't even explain what he is trying to ask, then HE SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING ASKING IT!

>>4790876

I gave a satisfactory explanation of consciousness. It is the subjective perception of phenomena. It is awareness of any thing, it is awareness itself.

By its nature it isn't open to scientific investigation. We don't really know if people feel pain or pleasure either.

:)

Are we going to deny the existence of pain now, because pain is totally impossible to observe scientifically?

>by scientific I mean via third person observation, the only person who knows there is pain IS THE SUBJECT HIMSELF

brain scans mean absolutely nothing, they are only correlations and inferences.

All definitions are just words defining other words lol...

its all synonyms in order to help the person understand what is being referred to

we all know what the word consciousness refers to, just like we know what the words "itch" or "bitter" refer to

Science can't help us with consciousness :(
Its impossible to observe in others.

>>4790882
By your definition a crayon is conscious.

FAIL!

>>4790893
>>4790894
>>4790896
The retardation. It hurts. Seriously read up on neuroscience. And while you're at it you might want to read Dawkins as well so you stop believing in magic.

>>4790896

John Searle makes sense.
Good choice.

>>4790908

>By your definition a crayon is conscious.

How do you figure that? A crayon has a particular point of view and experience of the world? Crayons can feel pain and pleasure?

It makes sense to "there is something like being a Bat" but not a crayon...


>>4790911

>read dawkins

Dawkins on Consciousness is about as illuminating as he is on Physics, which is to say, not at all.

Read John Searle, Edelman, or VS Ramachandran if you want some info on Consciousness and how reducible it is

Searle is the #1 guy probably

>>4790894
>>4790894
>goes to /sci/ to ask about conscious
>says it isn't open to scientific investigation

GTFO THEN! Wtf IS WRONG WITH YOU?

>>4790896
>dualism

GET
THE
FUCK
OUT

>ITT: autists get mad because Consciousness is too mysterious for science

>>4790896
yeah, actually Searle's Biological naturalism is even better imo
/sci/ why do you insist on the dogmatic empiricism that was thrown away by the end of the 18th century

>>4790934
The world isn't complicated at all. Deal with it, religitard. We have science and science explains everything. No need for magic.

>>4790929

>wahhh the world is more complicated than I want it to be

>>4790908
You think crayons have inner experience? You think it makes sense to ask what the world is like from the perspective of a crayon? Not that we can disprove this, of course, but you have no reason to think so. Most people would conjecture a crayon is not conscious because there is no information encoded in the crayon that could form the basis of an experience like yours or mine, whereas humans have brains that process information in sophisticated ways. If a crayon has consciousness, it would have to be very something very different and alien to us.

>>4790936

>science explains everything

oh, whats the leading theory about what Consciousness is and how it emerges?

I can't recall the name of that one....let me know when you figure it out

science doesn't even know what gravity is, what matter/energy are. etc

>>4790940
Consciousness IS your brain.

>>4790936
oh the irony

Conscious?

Not OP's last date
> Better life through chemistry

>>4790944
0/10
No one is that retarded.

>>4790920
>A crayon has a particular point of view and experience of the world

Yep, according to your shitty/incomplete definitions.
Everything has an "experience with the world", right?
And everything has a "point of view", right?

Unless you wanna further elaborate on what you mean by these shitty terms?

ITT: buttmad religionfags try to deny how neuroscience has disproved their magical soul bullshit

>>4790945

>Consciousness IS your brain.

That's like saying:
MEMORIES ARE YOUR BRAIN.
ALZHEIMERS IS YOUR BRAIN
PAIN & PLEASURE ARE YOUR BRAIN

EVOLUTION IS THE EARTH

lol, please be more vague and wrong

>>4790953

you dont know what it means to experience something as opposed to not experiencing it?

what it means to experience pain versus not-experiencing pain?

why are you speaking english if you don't understand basic words like "experience"

>>4790945
Clearly a brain is not a consciousness, no matter well i observe the brain i do not observe consciousness, no matter how much i were to study in depth even one aspect of consciousness eg pain, would not tell me anything about the inner experience on pain, how it felt

>>4790882
"What is it like to be a crayon?"

It is ok i guess. You aren't alive, and you kinda just wait around. Then you get all used up, and you become part of drawings.

\thread

>>4790951
I'm not at all religious, but why don't you show me where neuroscience demonstrates what consciousness is and how it comes about.

>>4790966

fuck, this is true

ITT: Summer

>>4790960
The crayon experiences position, time, temperature, movement (if it is moved), and degradation (just to name a few). I can directly observe that that these things are experienced by the crayon, in the same way I can observe you feeling pain.

What is the difference between the way the crayon experiences shit and the way you do? There is no difference from my observational end. Do you see why you need better definitions?

>>4790920
>"there is something like being a Bat" but not a crayon...

NOPE

OP is a troll for posting this in /sci/ but damn philosophy of the mind is an intresting topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%27s_room

moot needs to get a /phil/ board up right away

>>4790975

organic portals walk among us?

>>4790975
this is because there are features of the mental like privacy and quality, intentionality and whatnot that resist empirical reduction, we deduce that a crayon doesn't have consciousness (generally) because it fails mills analogical argument (namely that if something has stimulus X then output Z, and i have Stimulus X, mental state Y then output Z, i can infer that that something too has mental state Y. Of course this, like all analogies, is kinda flawed)

whereas something like a bat does have 'similar' responses to pain stimuli etc

>>4790975

>I can directly observe that that these things are experienced by the crayon, in the same way I can observe you feeling pain.

You can't observe someone feeling pain.

You observe their behavior and INFER they feel pain based on similarities between your behavior and theirs, etc.

There is nothing you can INFER about the crayon's internal experience lol...unless you are a crayon and know what to look for?

>>4790975
Now you're the one playing word games. "Experience" does not mean the same thing as "undergoes" (at least not how I'm using it). If your leg is under anesthesia, and I stab you in it, then you undergo the stabbing, but you don't experience it.

We can't define everything because words can only be defined with other words. At some point you just have to show an example. And that ends up being the problem with consciousness -- not the lack of knowing what it means, but the fact that we each only have direct access to our own experience.

quality --> qualia*

Literally no one has a good answer to this. The fact of the matter is we are wildly and overwhelmingly ignorant about nearly everything when it comes to phenomenal consciousness, what it is, and how it is realized. The explanatory gap is as wide as ever.

>>4790994
Wow, now you have alot of definitions, but they are very very very very incomplete. And they all assume "humans" to be of some special preference, so much so, that we now just look for shit that seems "human". So we are basically just looking for shit that has human traits. LMFAO. There are a tons of things with human traits, that aren't human, and it becomes another mindlessly stupid slipperly slope of no practical importance. It is just naming shit for the sake of naming shit.

Mills argument is laughable at best, and complete shit at worst. But I assume you know that. It is so fucking shamelessly ego-centric it is pathetic.

>>4790998
>>4790998
I observe your reaction by the shitty look on your face. I observe the crayons reaction by the little chunks of crayon coming off.

You really need to define you shit better, or just admit you can't, in which case any discussion on the topic is pointless

>>4791001
>word games

Define your terms then faggot!

>>4791019

>I observe your reaction by the shitty look on your face. I

Ya but you missed the point.
You observe a physical reaction, me pulling my hand from a flame.

But you don't observe my experience of pain, you don't experience what I experience.

dictionary.com

might help you, since you don't understand simple words like awareness and experience

good luck

>>4791013
ya man the whole overhang of Cartesian dualism is just annoying baggage, I like the application of Wittgenstein private language argument to the matter, pretty much just dispensing with the private and working from the public backward almost.Tho I don't think he was a behaviorist... What a guy

That's not a question for science.

>>4791025


what does it mean to 'dispense with the private'?

>>4791027
to reject the idea that descartes had that the only thing we can know for sure are the private inner experiences of out own mind. That basis makes a very hard to bridge gap between our minds and other peeps and a lot of Cartesian ideas of mind sort of lean toward the batshit philosophy of solipsism (which is a problem if your trying to come up with a consistent theory of mind).

>>4791026
Fuck off IQ fundie

>>4791027
Wittgenstein reject the idea of "I Think Therefore I am" as the only indubitable proposition

>>4791001
>consciousness -- not the lack of knowing what it means

Nope. That is the exact problem. Consciousness is such a vague term, that it is meaningless for any sort of general scientific or pseudo-scientific inquiry.

Sure, you may "know" what you mean by consciousness, but that definition may change slightly (or greatly) from person to person, or study to study. Hence, for any real inquiry, you will need to first present a very very specific definition.

People cannot/haven't be able to agree on a definition throughout all of history, and it is the minor differences in the definitions that drastically change the outcomes of any sort of study.

Same shit with "love". Everyone has a vague idea knows what "love" is, but universal definitions don't exists, and varied definitions exists.

>>4791031

but strictly speaking those are the only things you can really know, your own experiences and internal states

I can't know what someone else is feeling or thinking, I can only guess/infer based on various assumptions I have

I can't be sure of most things in life, but I can be sure of pain and pleasure when I feel them

But of course this kind of skepticism is just a luxury, its not practical to use it when doing science, otherwise science would be impossible because all it does is make guesses/inferences based on induction which is always a fallacy

>>4791023
>>4791023
>>4791023
Exactly, OBSERVATIONALLY THERE IS NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!

I think you are missing the point here. I observe your reaction, I infer something. I observe the crayons reaction, I infer something.

So, it is totally up to me , WHAT THE FUCK I WANT TO INFER, RIGHT?

Hence, you need better definitions, because I can infer (according to your shit) that the crayon is aware!

>>4791043
>strictly speaking those are the only things you can really know, your own experiences and internal states

Silly philosophers making crazy assumptions.
Tell me, why do you assume this?

>>4791051
>>4791042
\thread

>>4791043
well actually that's not a completely agreed upon truth, Behaviourists for instance believe that all ideas about mental states can be translated into descriptions of behaviour without any loss of meaning, so to know that other people are minded (eg. feeling pain), i would only have to observe them displaying behaviour (eg. shouting and swearing or w/e) the connection between the mind and body there is a necessary one, not contingent upon anything.
ofcourse there are problems with it, there are problems with any theory which is trying to establish a unified description of human consciousness, just like there are problems with trying to unify QM and GR, science and philosophy are two halves of the same coin, and in both- the further we push into them, quite apart from the more avenues that are closed/solved, the more questions arise.

>>4791064

Because subjective experience is all I have access to.

I don't have access to the underlying causes, I can only make inferences about them.

So if I stub my toe on a desk, and I feel pain, I can be sure I'm feeling pain (by definition) but I can't be sure that I actually hit a desk or if I actually have a toe (could be phantom limb syndrome).

Strictly speaking means in the strictest logical sense. This is true, but its a luxury scientists can't afford to have, otherwise they couldn't conduct any science.

Science is always fallacious, it always commits the fallacy of induction.

A purely logical being who was only concerned about truth couldn't be a scientist. It takes faith[induction] and guess work to do science.

>>4791051
>OBSERVATIONALLY THERE IS NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!
Does not mean that there isn't a difference.

>>4791062
>2012
>philosophy

Philosophy hasn't been a useful disciple for fucking thousands of years. When are you all just going to give it up?

The only reason it is still around is because some scientists, mathematicans, and acedemics enjoy the novelty.

i luv fat cak in anus :)

how explain? ;o

>>4791073

Science is just applied philosophy.

The only good scientists were the ones heavily steeped in philosophy, Newton, Einstein, Schrondinger, Oppenheimer.

The modern scientists are just engineers or tradesmen. They raise no interesting implications and can't question their basic assumptions.

Philosophers still structured science even in the 20th century, they gave it the criteria of Falsifiability, a criteria appealed to in most research methods. It takes philosophers to create the scientific method...and its still being developed.

i.e
Karl Popper, scientist, but philosopher primarily.

The question of Consciousness is still being defined and structured by Philosophers. Scientists still don't know what they are doing ;]

>>4791071
>subjective experience is all I have access to

But, how do you know this?
This too is an assumption, no? Unless this is the way you define "subjective experience".

Or maybe you are using "faith" as well? Certainly, you cannot know that subjective experience is all I have access to (unless that is the definition), so you are taking it off induction?

>>4791073
calm down man, it would seem that philosophy has always endured as the purest of academic pursuits, and many philosophers like dan dennett and Searl are/were great populizers of science and often integrate scientific ideas into the their thesis. The fact of the matter is that there exist areas of study which resist empirical reduction and so must be examined some other way, this is philosophy. Philosophy still exists because there still remain aspects of the human experience which we do not have all the answers to. just like science

>>4791078
it is being simpliticus maximus

you are le homosex

>>4791086
ah!!

magnificent

>>4791087
That is exactly what experience means. Now the "subjective" part, that's an assumption -- I don't know 100% that solipsism is false.

guys

i lav to put cak in pussi

how explain?

>>4791099
it is simpliticares maximilliares

you are le heterosex

>mfw OP's girl is a friend of a friend

I don't know if I should do anything.

>>4791087
>>4791087

>How do you know this?

Its basically true by definition but we have to be specific. For example, Pain. Feeling a sensation is the sensation, and being aware of it.

Wondering what caused it, where it is, why it happened, those questions require induction to figure out.

Your vision of the sun is one thing, you can be sure you are seeing the appearance of a sun. But whether an object similar to its appearance is causing it is another issue. An issue we have to make inferences about.

I.e the whole brain-in vats argument, or simulated universes, hallucinations, applies to all perceptions etc...


>Certainly, you cannot know that subjective experience is all I have access to (unless that is the definition), so you are taking it off induction?

I assume you are like me and other people and are also restricted to what you can know by virtue of being a human.

But you might be an unconscious Zombie who has access to nothing. Or you might be a demi-God who has multiple consciousnesses...I dunno

>>4791104
I thought that about a girl once. So I asked her about the picture. She agreed that it looked just like her, but said it wasn't her.

I believe her too cause, it was taken in australia, and people don't normally lie about never having gone to australia.

>>4791101
ah!!!

maknifiscent

>>4791109

I found a site where she had posted pics of herself before, so I didn't think it was necessary to inquire, since she's pulling the slut card as it is.

>>4791078
>>4791086
>>4791088
>>4791099
>>4791101
>>4791111

guys i have confession..

these posts... they are all being me

>>4791107
>I know other people are minded because a benevolent god would not allow me to be deceived...
>your move sci

Consciousness is alertness, awareness, 'awake'

>>4791118
How shocking! I would never have guessed.

>>4791117

improve your reading comprehension

>>4791122
yes thanks you... my disguises are being very good hard to see if you know what i am meaning...

but i am having the badness from ruining good debat with master disguise yes.. so i reveal

>>4791117
Won't work. /sci/ may rage over Pokemon, but we rage much harder over philosophy of mind.

>How do you know this?

Its basically true by definition but we have to be specific. For example, Pain. Feeling a sensation is the sensation, and being aware of it.

Wondering what caused it, where it is, why it happened, those questions require induction to figure out.

Your vision of the sun is one thing, you can be sure you are seeing the appearance of a sun. But whether an object similar to its appearance is causing it is another issue. An issue we have to make inferences about.

I.e the whole brain-in vats argument, or simulated universes, hallucinations, applies to all perceptions etc...


>Certainly, you cannot know that subjective experience is all I have access to (unless that is the definition), so you are taking it off induction?

I assume you are like me and other people and are also restricted to what you can know by virtue of being a human.

But you might be an unconscious Zombie who has access to nothing. Or you might be a demi-God who has multiple consciousnesses...I dunno

>>4791118
i have a confession too...

I am cheating on your mom with your sister. You are going to be a uncle!

>>4791139
ahhhaaaa yes good good... you see i was being having ejaculation inside sister pussi at earlier time because very horny yes... but now that you are being defiling pussi as well even if is being pregnant my guilt being unproven yes?? ahhhhaa thanks you greatly friend

you are having round on town with me tonight

>>4791137
>>4791137
It seems like you are using a whole lot of induction there.

>demi-God who has multiple consciousnesses

YOU CAUGHT ME!

>>4791142

>>4791142
BORAT?

>>4791137
>philosopher assumes a shit-ton of things using induction, yet doesn't consider it induction

You use just as much induction as scientists, if not more.

>>4791154

>You use just as much induction as scientists, if not more.


Tu quoque Fallacy ^

> implying logic is logical, and more generally, that rationality is rational

> implying madness isn't as coherent as cold mechanical reasoning articulation in the grand scheme of the universe

> implying God doesn't play dice with His cock

everything is as 'conscious' as everything else. That's what's great. 'Consciousness' actually means nothing, and theres no difference between humans, ants, cells, molecules or stones.
Everything is the same, everything is one. Cba to explain but it's p obvious to anyone who tries to analyze the definition of consciousness.

>>4791257

why would you assume inanimate objects are conscious?

i assume people are conscious because of the similar physiology they share with me and their behavior

strictly speaking we can't know if they are conscious, but its a safe guess

>>4791261
you will find the answer once you analyze the definition of consciousness.
I'll give you some questions that can help you thinking about it:
Is a robot that perfectly simulates a human be conscious?
can a perfectly deterministic machine be considered conscious?
What are the alternatives if not a deterministic machine?
If something happens randomly is it conscious? (eg. a car breaking at a random moment)

The final answer is, what's the difference between a living thing and a machine? and between a machine and a bunch of molecules?

I don't want to force my answers on you. Maybe you'll come up wth different answers.
Also, please ignore me cause i'm tired and should go to sleep

>whats the smallest possible conscious object/entity?

that's easy!

>>4791273

none of those questions matter

the real question what is the smallest possible brain / neural configuration / central nervous system / etc.... that is able to produce a conscious being

this is a neuroscience question that assumes we have a legit standard for detecting consciousness.

what is the size of a virtual object?

if we have virtual beings that are conscious, would they have some sort of "size" ?

>>4791280
no. you don't understand.
the thing is once you really understand those question you understand that every entity can be considered 'conscious' ( i hate that word ).
Machines can only be either deterministic or probabilistic. No third option. And in both cases they are controlled by 'rules', the rules of physics.
I'm arguing that an electron avoiding another electron is as much a conscious mechanism as a man avoiding an obstacle to survive. In the second case the system is MUCH MUCH MUCH more complex, but it's just a concatenations of the laws that rule a single electron, only applied to many more electrons (and other particles). Whether you believe the universe is deterministic or probabilistic (as modern quantum physics seems to suggest) is completely irrelevant cause the same rules and 'instincts' govern the electron as much as they govern a human brain or a computer. They're just more complex machines, it's just a bigger scale.

Ps: thinking in "entities" is a slippery slope. what are the boundaries of a human being? what's inside and what's outside? Is our magnetic field part of us? then can we considered to occupy the entire universe? is what we eat part of us? (it sure becomes part of us). Are the objects we hold in our hands part of us?
Everything is one, and everything is 'conscious' or rather 'unconscious'. It's just a huge deterministic (or probabilistic) machine.

That's why to me your question makes no sense. But of course, if you come up with a personal definition of consciousness, then we can try to define the smallest possible entity that can be "conscious"

This is the first thread I've ever read on this board.. and what I got out of it is that crayons feel pain. Im going back to /pol/.....

>>4791301 Youre a fucking idiot and have no idea how physics work. Electrons dont proactively dodge other protons. That would require higher functioning (a brain). You dont see the lotion running away because im going to jack off with it, do you? The electrons move because all matter moves at a microscopic level and because of differing electrical charges. Its just like gravity, no rhyme or reason behind it, its just how the world works. Eat a dick and educate yourself.

>>4791301

>I'm arguing that an electron avoiding another electron is as much a conscious mechanism as a man avoiding an obstacle to survive.

What makes you think this?

So a corpse is just as conscious as a living person, in your opinion? What is this based on.

>>4790849
No definitions = philosophy
Definitions = Science

>>4791301


>Ps: thinking in "entities" is a slippery slope. what are the boundaries of a human being?

Humans are bound by their experiences of the world, they can't go beyond experience.

Only subjective experiences are real, everything else is inference

>HURR DURR I CAN'T UNDERSTAND CONSCIOUSNESS THEREFORE EVERYTHING IS CONSCIOUS LOL OK YA

>YA THATS THE TICKET HUEHUEHUE

>>4791301 Continued: And in order to assign any sense of reality to our consciousness, our brain has conveniently provided us with the ability to distinguish differing items. Imagine what a mess it would be if we perceived everything as one, as you imply. There would be no order and no way to function. You have to apply a human understanding to the concept, or it becomes flawed and quite frankly pointless your theory is, as illustrated in this post.

>>4791328 A functioning, living brain or some other way to perceive the outside world. Its clearly obvious what I meant, youre splitting hairs now.

>>4791325
>>4791325
oh god your stupidity has no limits, but i understand, you're only human.
> Electrons dont proactively dodge other protons
define proactively faggot.
FUCKING DEFINE PROACTIVELY YOU FUCKING FAGGOT.
Electrons WANT to go towards protons, they LIKE places with high potentials. Those verbs can be applied to an electron as much as they can be applied to you. You WANT to fuck girls, you LIKE to eat, but that's not because you 'choose' to. You're a fucking deterministic bunch of molecules inevitably acting according to the laws of the universe as much as an electron does. You're not smarter, you're just bigger.

>no rhyme or reason behind it, its just how the world works
you can say the exact same thing about humans

>>4791329
define define. Nothing can be defined. dictionaries are empty infinitely self referential books. You're always gonna need postulates and they are based on intuition. That's true, all science is just based on 'feelings' never hard definitions. Science is just emotion. A bunch of people trying to justify their primitive emotions, because when you remove all the logic castle, the foundation is just instinctive, subjective feelings and nothing more

Panpsychism is a fucking joke.
Get the fuck out.

>>4791329
This.

To better understand this, we gotta know what we're talking about. Otherwise, it's just us talking about what we wish reality to be like.

>>4791344 Continued (2): Further reinforcing my point, drugs affect the body physically, which in turn affects the conciousness. A good example is marijuana. The only place for the THC molecule to bind to is in the brain (physical), and from this a person would get high, an altered form of conciousness. More evidence that conciousness raises from the brain.

>>4791339
of course one can put some borders and define entities, it makes things easier.
I was just trying to spur some thought about the boundaries of a 'conscious' entity. You start out as a bunch of cells, then they build other cells with materials from the outside, then your cells keep dying, while other are being constructed from materials you ingest. then you build tools and use them. Are those tools part of you? They can be considered part of you if you want to. Your bones are just useful tools built by your cells, when a human builds a computer he's arguably extending its conscious self as much as when his original cells were starting to form his nervous system. So yes, if you want to, the internet can be considered part of your nervous system, highways and cities are part of you.
Sounds strange? not stranger than a whole human body may sound to a prokaryote entity.
You can consider yourself as formed by many conscious entities, or as just part of a bigger 'conscious' entity. how you define the boundaries of the entity is completely arbitrary

>>4791352 Sure is summer in here. You took it literally when your teacher said subatomic particles "want" to be together or apart. Not sure if trolling or just retarded.

>>4791328
>So a corpse is just as conscious as a living person, in your opinion? What is this based on.
to respond to that. yes, absolutely.
we never start to 'live' and never 'die', those, just like consciousness, are words that mean nothing to a logical entity. We're just a bunch of molecules changing in arrangement and following the laws of physics.

>>4791375
oh god. SWITCH the whole fucking argument.
the point is not that electrons are 'alive' or 'want' things, the point is that we, humans, aren't. I was trying to use that absurd example to show you how absurd concepts like 'want' 'like' or 'feel' are. We act just like the simplest particles. We only WANT to avoid high potentials, and go towards other particles with mass or an opposite charge. We are just a machine, of course you're tricked into thinking you 'want' and 'like' and it's hard to escape the boundaries of your brain, but you're just a deterministic (or probabilistic) machine. The idea of you 'wanting' something is as ridiculous as an electron 'wanting' something or a car. It's all the same

>>4791374 Oh sweet jesus. Did you have any experiences, emotions, feelings, or memories from when you were a sperm cell in your dads nuts? How about if you were in a coma? Someone in a coma perceives nothing and reacts to no external stimuli. They are alive, but there is no brain function. They are essentially a physically alive rock. Because of the absence of brain waves, combined with the loss of memory and thought, we can assume that the brain is the reason for conciousness. Theres nothing magical about it. The body is a complex machine that somehow made us self aware over billions of years. Youre assigning some sort of mystical quality to it that simply isnt there. Lay off the LSD, dude.

>>4791395 Then explain why we have the ability to form thoughts. If it is because we are a machine, then our psyche/consciousness must be a part of that machine too, hence proving what I have said right. Particles and non living objects simply do not have the tools to acquire conciousness. It is because we are a much more complex machine that we are able to do so.

>>4791406
>The body is a complex machine that somehow made us self aware over billions of years. Youre assigning some sort of mystical quality to it that simply isnt there.
dude that's exactly my argument. I'm not assigning any 'mystical quality' (physics) to anything. Maybe you are, subconsciously. Try to reread my paragraphs.

>Did you have any experiences, emotions, feelings, or memories from when you were a sperm cell in your dads nuts?
what's a "feeling"? god you human centric people are oblivious. A car has a sad feeling when it's running out of fuel and the red light goes on. Define feelings.
Memories? Yes, I arguably had memories when i was a sperm cell in my dads nuts. I was storing them in books all over the world. Books i would later read to recall the memories of humanity. I can arbitrarily consider books as much part of me as my memory brain cells are.

>reacts to no external stimuli
try to throw a 1000kg cube at them and you'll see how they react. Their bodies gets all deformed and shit and they start bleeding. Is that not a reaction? What's a reaction? If i press his arm it moves because of the electric field generated by the atoms on the surface of my skin interacting with the ones on his skin. Is that not a reaction to external stimuli?
you're keeping using words you are not trying to define

Can someone define consciousness to me? Whenever I hear the word consciousness, I usually hear it being applied to ourselves as a whole. But we're made of individual organisms so are these organisms conscious as well or it the aggregate actions of many organisms that leads to consciousness? This shit hurts my brain.

>>4791440 "A car has a sad feeling when its running out of fuel and the red light goes on" Confirmed for retard. By the way, all of your points have been as stupid as this. Not even going to waste my time on this one anymore..

>>4791423
i'm just playing on vague definitions, it's all about definitions.
>Then explain why we have the ability to form thoughts
thoughts? what is a thought? a single atom can contain all the knowledge you want if you measure its position with an extremely high precision. You could express its position is a long binary number and its movements would change that number, that information. Is that not a thought? what is a thought? I think the simplest 'thoughts' can be formulated by an electron. it's just a matter of definitions.
(i'm just fucking with you, i know what you mean, but you should think about these concepts if you really want to attack the definitions of consciousness, thoughts, feelings, life)

The only way to know if something is conscious is if it can tell you somehow.

>A car has a sad feeling when it's running out of fuel and the red light goes on.
you better be trolling or there is something wrong in your head

>>4791444 The body is just a machine used to interpret the environment. Information is sensed and taken in by way of the 5 senses and processed in the brain. The brain is a highly advanced biological computer, and from it's complexities and various parts working together we get concious thought. Just the brain processes. The body keeps the brain alive.

>>4791450
you only confirm you stupidity by not understanding those jokes. I don't think you're stupid, but you don't seem to be really putting an effort into thinking about what i'm saying.

yes, a red light can be a 'feeling' being shown, it just depends on your definition.
What's happiness in humans? The release of serotonin, endorphin, a certain pattern of electrical activity in a certain area of the brain arbitrarily defined as hypothalamus? We can produce cars that replicate those if you want. If you think it shows the 'feeling' better than the red light turning on. It's the exact same fucking thing, and defining feeling by the hormones and nervous patterns of the human brain is quite limiting to the many other ways 'consciousness' could manifest itself.

>>4791458
it's a signaling system just as legitimate as those used by your nervous system, you heartless human D: Cars have a heart too! (we call it engine though)

>>4791467 Quick off topic question. Youre a furry, arent you?

>>4791481
lol no. I hate furries. I'm going to sleep now cause it's 5.30 am.
Anyway I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't consider everything as 'conscious' or 'alive'; to speak in "normalfag" terms I consider everything as NON conscious and NON alive. (those terms are never defined and mean nothing though).

>>4791467 The damn light has no meaning until something with a conciousness places a meaning to it! The only reason why the light makes us feel that way is because we assigned that concept to it. Youre easily the most stupid and determined person Ive ever talked to. Stop making yourself look like an ass and stop posting.

>>4791466
Oh, shit! This guy figured it out! There's no reason to debate on it anymore. Some guy on 4chan figured it out.

>>4791494 Just sharing my thoughts. This article shares more insight about it. Just read the first block. http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/analytic/Place1949.html

>>4791493
>has no meaning until something with a conciousness places a meaning to it
bhuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahua
xD xD xD
excuse me but you sound like a rather primitive human.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: you are not the center of the universe, I REPEAT, you are not the center of the universe

now imagine this world, were cars are self sufficient (they can extract oil and drive themselves a la google car), when a car sees another car's red light on she runs to give her some of her oil and keep her alive (yes cars are females). Now these cars go on another planet (earth) and see some disgusting, viscid biological machines. They are all paraplegic and before being destroyed an electrical pattern is triggered in their CPU that causes them to emit a liquid from their light sensors (tears). Stupid car #2340 says:
> that liquid has no meaning until something with a conciousness (a car) places a meaning to it
now i hope you see how the argument can be flipped and it's extremely biased by the fact that you're using human 'consciousness' as the unit and measure of everything.

>>4791519 .......wat?

>>4791529
sorry, my english is bad and it's 6 am.
tl;dr: cars using red lights to express sadness could be mocking humans for using tears, and deem that as meaningless.
Bottom line is, both are deterministic machines where triggers lead to certain actions.
I'm actually going to bed now, too much 4chan

>>4791519
Gentleman this is what a retard looks like

>>4791547
I agree that they are machines, but where you are missing the point is where the information comes from. Yes, the light would make someone sad, but the light is not sad just it exists. A shaped piece of metal and glass that emits photons is not sad or happy. It just is. However, it can trigger a thought, idea, or emotion in a concious individual based on what the being interprets it as.

Please sticky this important Summer thread.

>>4791684
I stickied all over OP's picture.

>>4790781
YOU WIN
I MAD