/sci/ - Science & Math

It goes with the matter or is radiated away in the IR spectrum.

>>5561803
could this energy be still conscious or be in another form on consciousness?

>>5561804
No, that would be a nonsensical /x/ fantasy. In the process of decomposition molecules are dissolved and broken down. Chemical energy is converted into other forms of energy.

>>5561804
Are photons conscious? Are molecular bonds conscious? Is the binding energy of a nucleus conscious?

>>5561808
Why would the world produce a conscious entity like ourselves in order to just destroy it in a blink of an eye. You would think it would carry some benefit or a preclude to the next higher form of it self. example (bad example sorry) Caterpillar molts into a butterfly.

>>5561827
>Why would the world produce a conscious entity

It doesn't. There is no such thing as a soul / consciousness. It has no evidence and is not testable.

>>5561832
where do we go from here

>>5561827

You act as if the universe intentionally created "concious" entities such as ourselfs, and then intentionally destroys them.

The world didn't create anything, life formed and evolution happened. Evolution is not heading towards "the next higher form."

You should probably refrain from using the term consciousness on
/sci/. You will just receive close minded retorts about how we aren't concious, and there is no self. Even though its farely obvious we do have the ability to be consciously aware of our feelings and actions, as opposed to something like a fly.

This is due to the magnificent recursive compartments in our brain, and our enlarged pre-frontal cortex.

>>5561880
>Even though its farely obvious

Where's your evidence, /x/tard? Name one observable effect of a soul / consciousness.

>>5561884
When you die, some weight of your body is lost, ergo your soul is escaping your body. Where it goes from there we don't know yet

>>5561880
I saw somewhere (science related reading) that brain is not the only 'brainlike' thing we have in our body. For example: memory is a function which works not only in our brain, but also limbs and even cells. In fact, the article I read suggested that DNA may have some VERY important aspects of ourselves written on it. An example of this book was the worm's complete regeneration when cut in a half.

>>5561884

Lol. I'm not going to start this inane argument with you. To many times have I done this on /sci/.

I'm not an /x/tard, I haven't even visited the board once.

Your ignorance and biased shows when you automatically equate the term "consciousness" to a soul.

I do not believe we have consciousness or a soul. But I do believe its farely obvious that we have the capability to be concious of our feelings.

When your mad, do you know your mad? Then your concious of it. That is all I mean by conciousness.

There is a difference between concious intent, and non-concious intent.

This ability to be aware of our emotions and actions is an observable effect of consciousness. This phenomena, like I said, originates because we have many, many recursive compartments in our brain using implementing feedback loops with each other compartment. And, again, our enlarged prefontal cortex. Nothing magical.

Stop being so butthurt over the term.

>>5561884
There is a research about consciousness by Dr.Stuart Hameroff which has a very interesting theory. I don't know if it was finally debunked or if it's still around. Proven? Nope, at least yet.

>>5561902

implementing feedback loops**

Gotta fix before them dare grammar nazis have a field day.

>>5561902
>But I do believe its farely obvious

Science is about facts, not beliefs.

>>5561911

And its a farely common fact that you are capable of being aware of your emotions. Hurl derp.

>>5561884

You use words wrong. You need to shut the hell up.

>>5561912
>its a farely common fact

Where's your evidence? How is this metaphysical nonsense testable? How does it prove your earlier claims?

>>5561911
Certainly, but let's not deny the power of intuition and speculation. It can make us bump into some interesting facts.

>>5561916

Lol. So you've never once been aware of your emotions?

>Hur dur, I've never known that I'm sad, or mad. I've never had any direct intent in any of my actions.

/sci/ is so obnoxious on this topic.

>>5561917
Where did I use a word incorrectly? I didn't.

>>5561924
What does physically available knowledge have to do a metaphysical awareness? Nothing.

>>5561926

Again, your ignorance is showing in that you equate metaphysical awareness to the term consciousness.

Offcourse, some people use the term consciousness to mean metaphysical awareness, but I am not. Most serious discussion on conciousness doesn't use it in that way either. You've simply always skewed the word to mean the metaphysical BS used in so much popsci today.

Do you believe humans are capable of being self aware of there emotions and actions?

>>5561916
Dictionary entry here:
Consciousness: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself.

Our chain of brain processes is aware of the concept of the processes itself. That makes us aware and therefore conscious. True that we may not do as many conscious decisions as we think we do, but here they are. Your brain system chooses according to certain parameters which are used to define it...which can change anytime your brain system feels like it.

Should you go to /lit/ and complain about the dictionary there? I think so

>>5561800
Well, I think when someone is approaching death, by lets say natural causes of old age, they will perceive time moving infinite slower as their brain shutdown.

Thus, the point of view of the dying patient is a lot like how an outside observer will never see matter crossing the event horizon of a black hole. The light from the matter becomes trapped by the effects of the black hole. This is possible what happens to our memories when we die. In that, we will just freeze and will never experience our actual death.

This is just an idea based on our elastic perception of subjective time.

It will probably not be the same case for a sudden death.

can you really say we are made of energy ? doesnt sound right to me

>>5561931
>>5561933
>self-aware

Not a scientific concept. Not testable. Not needed in any explanation. Please read a real science book and stop bringing up outdated and irrelevant dualist nonsense on /sci/.

>>5561935

Theres no reason to draw from the effects of a black hole to the effects of death in the brain.

Your memories will not live on when you are dead. If you just freeze, that is the same as experiencing death. In that, you will never experience death, you will simply cease to be.

If energy, mass, space and time are quantized, why isn't gravity?

>>5561937

Lol and it always comes to this. Some /sci/tard calling self awareness untestable.

Its not needed in any explanation, you are correct. However, we are capable of self awareness.
Next time that you experience an intense emotion, and are aware that you are experiencing an intense emotion, you are being self aware.

Stay pleb.

>>5561937
>refutes dictionary.
>science uses the term consciousness.
>There are still many hypotheses about it but holds into the one he most believes in.
Oh, you.
If finally we discover that consciousness is in the brain, I have bad news for you.

>>5561944
As a purely biological being I won't experience any kind of metaphysical magic. Why do you troll so hard that you even deny the laws of physics?

>>5561945
Science avoids /x/ tier spiritualism. Good luck hunting invisible ghosts or whatever silly crap you believe in.

>>5561948

Concious awareness is a purely biological phenomena. Like I said.

You simply keep associating it with metaphysical consciousness. Which it is not. Self awareness doesn't deny the laws of physics?

Godtier pleb here.

You experience self awareness everyday, you just have your head so far in the ground that you can't even admit it.

>>5561948
Proof that consciousness doesn't exist?
I have shown you the concept of awareness of the self, which even as an illusion it becomes real. I have told you to read Dr.Hameroff's research and I have told you that scientific books use the concept consciousness without shame or fear.

Well, and your evidence is...?

>>5561941
>Theres no reason to draw from the effects of a black hole to the effects of death in the brain.
> If you just freeze, that is the same as experiencing death. In that, you will never experience death, you will simply cease to be.

Let me explain this another way

An outside observer will see light suspended for infinity (or once the black hole dies out and/or the observer dies) outside the event horizon. Thus, information can exist in indefinite state(or for an extremely long time aka Hawking Radiation.)

In conclusion, you clearly never experienced the extremes of the mind where the perception of time is heavily distorted.

I am not saying there is a afterlife or we are 100% Conscious after death, I am just stating that information can outlast for a very long time

>>5561948
troll detected

>>5561956
>>5561935
dude mind blown

>>5561952
Biological phenomena stay physical and don't produce metaphysical magic. I do not experience your spiritual magic hogwash and there is no reason to believe that it happens. It has no testable effects at all.

>>5561955
>shifting the burden of proof
You made a claim of existence, so it's up to you to provide the evidence. "Prove that my invisible non-interacting ghost doesn't exist" is not a valid argument.

>>5561964
Now you're just being obtuse on purpose.

>>5561964
stawman argument are we derr

>>5561968
>>5561969
No arguments? I guess that means I flawlessly convinced you. How about you be thankful? I hope you learned something.

>>5561964

>no reason to believe that we are capable of being aware of our emotions

God your ignorant.

Self awareness arises from completely physical processeses in our brain. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Real scientists understand this. Edgy highschool students obviously do not.

How does self awareness equate to spiritual hogwosh?

And is that all you can contribute to the conversation? Instead of posting asinine retorts why don't you post something meaningful to the conversation? Like a source?

O wait, because you have none.

The pleb is strong in this one.

>>5561973
Yes, you totally have me convinced that you're retarded.

>>5561964
1: who told you that consciousness is not physical and created by the whole brain? Is there a proof you have a brain?
2: Hameroff's theories are yet to be proven or debunked, but that does not mean they are false. Again: google them and read them.
3. http://www.. scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=consciousness-does-not-reside-here
Do not read it, it's not necessary, just search for the word consciousness on it. This is just an example like any other.
I'm not just telling you that you are wrong, I'm telling you that you may be greatly misinterpreting the definition.

>>5561985
Also. Happiness, sadness, hope. Just think about any concept you can't point at and say: this!
OMG U NOOB
captcha: pathetic gednanc

>>5561977
Show me one physically testable effect of your spiritual "awareness" nonsense.

>>5561980
>baseless insults
How about you go back to >>>/v/?

>>5561985
The brain is a physical organ. There is no proof that it creates any non-physical nonsense. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The phenomenon you're talking about has absolutely no physically testable or observable effects and is therefore meaningless and non-existent.

>>5561999

http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/5559487

You are the same troll. And I will paste this thread every time you show up.

In this thread you can see how to identify these persons.

>>5562003
You are a blind frog inside a pit.
If you are so sure of yourself then stop arguing with /sci/ and make a friggin' religion. If science is still investigating consciousness it means that it still doesn't know about it 100%.
You would make a nice creationist. Have you thought about it?

>>5562015
Nothing wrong with that thread.

>>5562026
>/x/ spiritualist
>accuses science of being a religion
my sides

Science requires objectively verifiable evidence. If your invisible demon bullshit lacks any kind of evidence, it cannot be subject of science and there's no reason to believe in it. Take your childish fantasies somewhere else. We want to discuss science and math on this board.

>>5562033
>We want to discuss science and math on this board.
Remember: report, hide (filter) and move; nothing else, nothing more.

The energy we have is also matter. When we move/do shit its an instant conversion of matter to energy.

Not exactly but you should get my point.

>>5562033
> teaches him about normal concepts we use daily so is labelled as /x/ spiritualist.
-Love, freedom.
-He is using abstract concepts! Burn the witch!
Also you ignore my explanations and choose a part of what I say without even debunking anything.
Also this. 5561956
Also motherfucking this
http://www.. resourcesinmovement.com/images/Articles/Hameroff.pdf
what I provided: plenty
what you provided: nothing
Any other conscious person who has some relevant information? I would like to speak with someone who is not a troll and learn a bit about science now I'm at it.

>>5562033

The self awareness, or concious ability, of humans is being studied by science. You wouldn't know this because you haven't read any studies on them.

I agree with >>5562026.
You would make an excellent creationist. You vehemently deny what is perfectly capable of being studied by science, while spouting out childish retorts such as:

> "self awareness is invisible demon bullshit"

>"I've never been self aware in my life, take your spiritual invisible ghosts to /x/

Ah man, to be 15 again.

>>5562062
>>5562064
Do you have any idea how science works? Clearly you don't. Magical /x/ beliefs are not science. Science requires objectively verifiable and evidence and testable hypotheses. Your nonsense cannot be tested or observed and isn't needed for any explanation. Thus it cannot be science. I'm not telling you what to believe. If you want to believe in unobservable phenomena without evidence, then do it. But please do it on >>>/x/ and don't call it science because clearly it isn't.

>>5562073
hyphotheses being tested right now.
science is not magic biatch.
you can not deny something which is being researched right now. Hameroff's theory seems pretty solid and some scientists agree/disagree with it but they are all scientists.

Interesting fact: there was a guy who discovered that the microbes of dead people remain in the hands of the doctor and are seriously harmful for women during childbirth. He was sent to a mental institution because 'he thought invisible beings killed 'woman'
Last example I give you. If this doesn't ring your bell then you should ring your toaster during shower

>>5562095
Hameroff is a fucking crackpot. His quantum mysticism is pseudoscience of the worst kind. He was involved in making the "documentary" titled "what the bleep do we know", a collection of weirdest spiritualism, mysticism, religion and conspiracy garbage. If you take such lunatic delusions serious, you are wrong on /sci/. >>>/x/

>>5561800
The brain named itself and studies itself, Would this mean that it is self-aware/conscious ?

>>5561889

For the dude who said when you die your body loses a certain amount of mass which you called a "soul" would this unexplained loss of mass be related instead to the weight of the actual thoughts that the brain was producing while it was alive and stopped producing when it died?

Is it theoretically possible in trillions of years that all the particles that made up my body reconnect and I'm "reborn" again somewhere else in the universe?

>>5561889
When you die, your muscles relax, including your bladder, lungs, and rectal sphincter. You basically fart, exhale, and piss the mass away. There's no scientific evidence for a soul, no matter what Fox news and your Bible study group tells you.

>>>/x/

>>5561937

So basically, something is non-sense until you come to a point when it can be the only answer.

Wow 10/10 you will finish all science you fucking retard.

>>5562290

No.

>>5562591
Something that cannot be observed or measured certainly is nonsense.

>>5562290
this may answer your question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GCf29FPM4k&feature=player_embedded

>>5562707
>implying self- awarness is not defined by the use of the mirror tests.

>implying that is not measuring or observing it.

>>5564531
The mirror test consists of observing animals' behaviour infront of a mirror. It doens't allow for metaphysical conclusions.