/sci/ - Science & Math

lyl, inb4 qualia shaming

>>5610070

hurr hurr

dismiss evidence ghosts

hurr durr

superposition of 33.34% qualia and 33.34% no qualia

>consciousness
>>>/x/

>>5610081

I bid five no trump

and some sense data

>>5610086
I'm sorry, wat? Consciousness doesn't exist? Please explain

>>5610086

faggots >>>/hm/

>>5610070
He should be ashamed to dress like a woman because he doesn't have the tits or the hips for it.

>>5610090

Hitchens Razor..

plus Eliminativism is God Tier Epistemology.

>>5610086
Why?

>>5610080
>>5610084
>>5610088

Dude, come on,
are you really so mad about him that you'll shit up the threads he doesn't like FOR HIM?

>>5610090

>>5610094

Son, you misunderstand.
I ain't even mad.

>>5610098
aight
pls don't shit up /sci/ though :^)

>>5610070

HERP GHOSTS DEMONS SOULS MAGIC QUALIA QUALIA QUALIA

>>5610097
Hitchens' razor isn't a requirement of science.

>>5610070
The reason I ask this question is because of what a cognitive psychologist at Harvard wrote on Rebbit - basically, that we'll never know the answer to this. It sounded like bullshit to me, but then, I'm not anywhere near doing anything at Harvard.

>>5610113

YOU CAN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>5610114

don't tell me.. I'm just doing a parody of him

>>5610124

You ain't a woman. You're a loony.

>>5610094
>him
*her

>>5610114
Science is based on rationality. Hitchen's razor is a principle of rationality. There is no reason to believe in non-interacting ghosts.

>>5610101
You must be dead then...

Consciousness has been discussed and been a subject of study for thousands of years. Unless you want "empirical" (whatever that actually means) proof like a high schooler physicist.

Id recommend some Heidegger and some Bergson for you to improve yourself.

>>5610101

other Anon wanted me to tell you 'Hitchcock's Razor' isn't a requirement of science

>>5610125
>Unless you want "empirical" (whatever that actually means) proof
This is a science board. Without empirical evidence your bullshit is unscientific. Pseudoscience goes to >>>/x/

>>5610124
>Hitchen's razor is a principle of rationality.
Nope

>>5610131
Are you seriously saying it would be rational to believe in invisible demons without effects? gb2>>>/x/

>>5610130
Again, try some Bergson and Heidegger, they will open your feeble mind.

There is no empirical proof of basically anything in contemporary science, unless you count derivative analysis. And this is why /sci/ sucks.

>>5610130

You mean you WANT this line of inquiry to go there.

As my old pappy used to say, "Spit in one hand and wish in the other, see which fills up first."

>>5610136
Not believe in them, but not outright dismiss them.

>>5610120

WHATS THAT? SPELLS WITCHCRAFT CRACKPOTS PSEUDOSCIENCE HOGWARTS DERP

>>5610136
Are you seriously saying consciousness doesn't have any effects?

>>5610097
>>5610101

This is a hypothesis, and not a tested theory. I don't need evidence for a hypothesis because I'm not trying to prove or disprove it - I'm merely trying to discuss it. If I wanted to prove it, I'd be out doing research right now, not on /sci/.

>>5610145
This is a science board. Science is empirical and rational. As long as there's no /phi/ please discuss philosophy on >>>/lit/ or >>>/x/.

>>5610146
That's the same thing. Not believing means dismissing. Dismissing something which has no evidence is a justified conclusion.

>>5610150
Name one effect of your magical soul spirit.

>>5610151
A hypothesis without explanatory power and without referring to any observational facts is meaningless delusion.

>>5610151

I'm on your side.

The other guy is an assclown, however.

>>5610124

You better be hot. Otherwise your bullshit is unforgivable.

>>5610163
Qualia.

Well.
Well.
Well.

This certainly is a clusterfuck.

>>5610171

I am now voting for Bot.

>>5610130
>if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist
I thought science is about being open minded and discovering the truth.
It's funny seeing a conscious being denying the existence of consciousness.

How is possible that this faggot "hurr durr consciousness can't into reality, Hitchens razor up my ass " ALWAYS is there for one of this threads ? Is he a bot or he have copycats all the way down? wtf man ?

>>5610163
Show me any shred of empirical (direct empirical proof) of the string theory or the dark matter. Derivative analysis works on "sciences" as much as it does on philosphy and almost any other "discipline"

>>5610176

It will deny being conscious.
Or having self-awareness.

>>5610176
How do you know he is conscious bruv

>>5610163

dude you are conscious, you are just a pussy that doesn't want to deal with the problem.

>>5610180
>>5610179

How do you know (anything)?

This path of reasonning is easily ridiculed. You either accept the a priori experience or just leave /sci/ forever, and life, because knowledge is futile and nothing is true.

>>5610180

It's Cleverbot!!!

>>5610166
What "bullshit"? Everything I said ITT is correct.

>>5610176
>open minded
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Open-mindedness in science means being able to change models upon new observations. Irrational /x/ beliefs without observational evidence can be dismissed.

>It's funny seeing a conscious being denying the existence of consciousness.
Like all humans I am a biological organism. I do not have a magical soul. Take your spiritualism where it belongs. >>>/x/

>>5610178
>shifting the goal posts

>>5610187
>dude you are conscious
No, I'm not. I am a biological organism and obey the laws of physics.

>>5610190
I am assuming reality is real, but unlike many other things, you can't prove or disprove qualia in anyone other than yourself, unfortunately :^{

>>5610196

Then fuck your gay biological bullshit. You are still conscious so move that greasy ass and start to think for an answer. ¿ do you even emergentism, bitch ?

>>5610190
>How do you know (anything)?
Knowledge is physically stored information. Information is gathered by perception (a physical process) or algorithmic processing of information (also a physical process).

>>5610199

Do you have any reason to believe other beings that behave as you are different internally?

>>5610196

What "bullshit"? Everything I said ITT is correct.

I can only assume that by choosing to address the accusation of "bullshit" that you are indeed physically unattractive.

>>5610202
>You are still conscious
No, I am a biological organism and obey the laws of physics. A soul/consciousness would contradict the laws of physics.

>do you even emergentism
Emergentism is a subgenre of dualism. It is the belief that physical processes can have metaphysical byproducts. These metaphysical byproducts are however not observable and have no testable effects and can therefore be dismissed. Please take your ghost beliefs to >>>/x/

>>5610206
No, but I don't have a reason to believe they behave the same :^{

>>5610209
>misogyny
gb2>>>/r9k/

>>5610163
>That's the same thing. Not believing means dismissing. Dismissing something which has no evidence is a justified conclusion.
You can't know for sure that they don't exist.

>>5610210

Oh, go fuck yourself, stupid cunt.

>>5610211
Then live in solipsism bro, its your own decision to encapsule yourself and blame "the impossibility" of knowledge to your failures as a memebr of society.

If there is anything more annoying than relativists its surely solipsists. Hell, let me burn you to death since I am not sure you can suffer I might as well do so...

>>5610210
That's like saying a chair is a metaphysical byproduct of organic polymers bound together.

>>5610215

>misogyny

Sorry, you're mistaken there. I like and respect women. Which doesn't mean I can't make an objective evaluation of a persons attractiveness. Of which yours is lacking.

>>5610210
> A soul/consciousness would contradict the laws of physics.
This is absolutely not true, consciousness can be defined, as has been done by reductionists, by the mere interaction of brain cells, bla bla bla. As always, you fail to see how the use of words narrows your understanding of reality. In practice, it doesnt even matter.

>>5610218
Why are you so hostile
I'm just saying its impossible to prove or disprove
Would you blow up a house because you wouldn't know if people were or were not in it? What's wrong with you?

>>5610218
I just looked up solipsism
please don't jump to conclusions, thanks

>>5610210

A.N. Whitehead called.. he said you need an emergency enema.

>>5610229
Its a way of saying that consciousness is being obliged to decide to do or not to do. I dont do it not because I cant know if you feel,I dont do it because I am reasonable and expect you to suffer just like I do. This is the exact point in which epistemoly and ethics converge and dismissing consciuosness is like having a free ticket for absolute irrationality. Now, I cant empirically proove it, but it is reasonable to believe in it, just like matter, energy, etc.

>>5610216
>You can't know for sure that they don't exist.
I never claimed this. It's just that I have no reason to believe in them.

>>5610217
Stay mad, fail troll.

>>5610219
A chair is physical and can be observed.

>>5610227
My sides. I'm at least a 9/10.

>>5610228
>by the mere interaction of brain cell
The interaction of brain cells is physical and its results stay physical. There is no reason to assume metaphysical byproducts without testable effects.

>>5610163
>A hypothesis without explanatory power and without referring to any observational facts is meaningless delusion.

Alright.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness

>Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

We can prove this exists because we are "aware" of the external world and of ourselves, regardless of whether or not we fully understand this things. It's a simple and easily provable idea; if you are aware of something's existence, then you are "conscious" of it.

The hard problem is a simple question about this phenomenon: Why do we experience awareness (consciousness) subjectively? How are we able to perceive things such as taste in the manner that we do, as sweet, or sour, or bitter? Why do these experiences differ from person to person?

Now, my hypothesis is just a simple *possible* answer to this problem. My hypothesis is no more "delusional" than the above question. A hypothesis isn't just some sort of purely scientific set of evidence (though that is what it later becomes), it's an "educated guess" about something. It doesn't have to use specific sets if evidence and information to be valied, it just has to be based on reasonable assumptions. My assumptions are simply that:

1. The brain reacts to stimuli (a simple fact), and so it's *possible* we interpret stimuli differently for some reason.

2. The differences in the phsyical structure of the brain (which are confirmed to exist) lead to subjective recognition of information, that is, it leads to different interpretations of senory stimuli.


That is literally all that I am saying. If you deny that a hypothesis can be deneid simply because it rests on reasonable assumption, then you reject virtually every piece of modern science that isn't a law or theory.

Now please, stop this bullshit.

>>5610227
>objective evaluation of a persons attractiveness

Please do explain to me how someone like attractiveness, which is entirely subjective, has an objective evaluation. Can you measure it with a tool and not some rating system you pulled out of your dumb ass? Can you create a test whose findings can be replicated to the tee by absolutely anyone else who does it on beauty?

>>5610239

>My sides. I'm at least a 9/10.

we have now completed your assessment

now the real fun begins

>>5610235
>the exact point in which epistemoly and ethics converge
gb2>>>/lit/

>dismissing consciuosness is like having a free ticket for absolute irrationality
The exact opposite is the case. Believing in metaphysical ghosts is highly irrational.

>>5610239
Yes, and you are still conscious, that exactly is it by product, you realizing "that it is brain cells". I am not saying it has an immaterial component, but you are aware of what you are ware, hene you are conscious, explain it how you will.

>>5610235
Please read what I said again. I'm not dismissing or advocating the existence on qualia. How can you have a discussion with someone if you only skim their posts? Seriously man, come on :^{

>>5610241
>awareness
An untestable metaphysical quality. Not a scientific concept.

>Why do we experience awareness (consciousness) subjectively
We don't. There is no reason to believe in qualia magic. Please take anti-science back to >>>/x/

>My hypothesis is no more "delusional" than the above question
Your "hypothesis" is as delusional as claiming the existence of an invisible demon who never interacts.

>>5610258
>taste is qualia magic
>color is qualia magic
>existence is qualia magic
>everything that I can fail at trolling is qualia magic.

>>5610248
You have two choices, be a solipsist (there is nothing outside my own "consciousness"), because that is, in fact, what you are defending, or be reasonable, you choose.

>>5610239

>My sides. I'm at least a 9/10.

Oh really. I find it hard to believe that a woman that attractive could deny consciousness, a concept which would only reinforce your status in society, as well as your own internal feeling of happiness and satisfaction. More likely that you are 1-3/10 and you refuse to accept consciousness because doing means you can deny the meaning behind being so hideous.

But that's okay. You're 9/10 successful career woman, who achieved a PhD in Triple Integrals and now posts on 4chan to help the rest of us plebs achieve biological enlightenment. Seems totally legit.

>>5610258

So around about now. I'm sure the universe is totally determined. Even nuclear decay. (when I prove that, I get my Nobel prize).

But I'm thinking it may not be computable. And that is keeping me awake at nights.

consciousness and dualism is true.

1. A presumably conscious human (henceforth Chalmers) states that his percept P is not identical with the corresponding quale Q.

2. Chalmers further argues that a zombie duplicate of him (henceforth Charmless) is possible, who has only P without Q.

3. Chalmers asserts that, by physical law, Charmless must notice a difference between what he knows about the physical process underlying his percept and the unmediated percept itself.

4. Chalmers then argues that this difference (3) must produce in Charmless the same bafflement as Chalmers’ bafflement about the P-Q nonidentity (1).

5. Ask now Chalmers: Can you conceive of a Charmless who is identical to you but lack Q? His answer, by (2), is “Yes.”

6. Next ask Charmless: Can you conceive of a duplicate of you (henceforth Harmless) who is identical to you but lacks Q? His answer, by (3), must be “No; unmediated percepts must occur by physical law.”

7. As Chalmers can conceive of Charmless but Charmless cannot conceive of Harmless11, the two kinds of bafflement, associated with (1) and (3), are essentially different.

8. Hence, the physical explanation for (3) does not hold for (1).

9. Hence, (4) is false.

>>5610243

My tool is my dick. Too barbaric? Well, so is the idea of denying consciousness.

>>5610266

That is correct. Not a chance in hell. It is a Troll.

>>5610258
>An untestable metaphysical quality.

If you believe this, you are literally retarded. IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF MENTALLY RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING, THEN YOU ARE AWARE OF IT.

BTW, that's not anger, I just think caps may be the only way to get a point across to you.

>>5610251
No, I do not have a magical soul. I am a biological organism. Why are you denying evolution and the laws of physics?

>>5610266
>a concept which would only reinforce your status in society
How would becoming an irrational /x/tard pseudoscientist reinforce my status in society?

>More likely that you are 1-3/10
Keep projecting.

>you refuse to accept
I refuse to accept claims without evidence. Belief in ghosts belongs on >>>/x/

>>5610259
I have many choices.
I could believe only I have a consciousness.
I could believe that me and one other person do.
I could believe that me and 2 other peopel do.
...
I could believe everyone is conscious.

Instead of arbitrarily and irrationally limiting myself to one case, I logically know that all are "possible".

>>5610282

So what are we doing now? Seeing if anybody doesn't recognize you as a Troll?

>>5610274
Science requires evidence. Please name one testable effect of your soul/consciousness bullshit. "Muh belief" is not a scientific argument.

>>5610285
I am asking for evidence. If you are making a claim, then it's your burden of proof. If you can't deal with being asked for evidence, then you're wrong on the science board. >>>/x/ is the right board for you.

>>5610239
How can you observe a chair?

>>5610287
>Please name one testable effect of your soul/consciousness bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

>>5610287
Emotions, self-awareness, rationality

>inb4 hurrr that doesnt exist, CANT SEE CANT PR00FFF

>>5610282
Becaue, unlike 99% of /sci/ I am aware of the epistemological failures of "scienitific laws" and I am saying that "realizing" that you "are a biological component" makes you conscious, be it cells or magic.

>>5610287

Robot 9001

>>5610282

>How would becoming an irrational /x/tard pseudoscientist reinforce my status in society?

Is that what I said? Assuming consciousness existed, having a beautiful physical form would allow for greater exploitation of your genetically inferior counterparts, as you represent something greater than themselves.

>Keep projecting.

You asserted that you are 9/10. I'm going to have to invoke Hitchen's razor here, something that you love so much. Without photographic evidence of your beauty, your status as 1-3/10 is all but confirmed.

>>5610291
The mirror test is unfortunately not proof on a consciousness, as it would be pretty easy to make a program/robot that could recognize its own image in a mirror, sorry :^{

>>5610291
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Bullshit. I can't see myself in mirrors, so obviously it isn't a sign of your magical "concsiousness".

>>5610301
>tfw you start to realise you're not one of the one out of a million that's gonna make some major scientific breakthrough but just one of the other 999,999.

At least I can daydream and keep on living in that fantasy world r-right? Where all the girls think I'm hot and where I'm really really smart and stuff

>>5610289
>"realizing" that you "are a biological component" makes you conscious
That's wrong. Knowledge is physically stored and retrieved. A (biological or non-biological) computer doesn't suddenly have a magical soul just because it executes the deterministic algorithm of stating what it is.

>>5610290
With my eyes.

>>5610291
The mirror test is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything. It was designed a priori which animals' behaviour was supposed to be arbitrarily mistinterpreted. No observation actually justifies metaphysical conclusions.

>>5610303
then how do you know you are a 9/10?

>>5610301
>as it would be pretty easy to make a program/robot that could recognize its own image in a mirror, sorry :^{


Not quite. The robot can only do this because it is directly programmed to do so. The human (or monkey) mind is not "traditionally programmed to do so, and recognizes itself by taking in visual information from its's surroundings, and the events the mirror is capturing itself. A robot just categorizes the image it sees as "self", without taking in any other information.

>>5610307
You're observing collections of organic polymers with your eyes, not a metaphysical chair. Go back to >>>/x/

>>5610305
AAAAAHHHHHHHHH

>>5610310
I don't see why robots can't take in visual information from their surroundings, and see that the image in the mirror is identical to the image that is stored in memory as its body. That's what we both do.

>>5610298
>Assuming consciousness existed
That assumption wouldn't change anything because your assumed non-interacting soul spirit has no effects.

>as you represent something greater than themselves.
That's just an objective biological fact.

>Without photographic evidence
implying I will post pictures of myself on /sci/, so that needy neckbears can jerk off to them

>>5610310
>The robot can only do this because it is directly programmed to do so
Except for the molecular composition there is no fundamental difference between biological and non-biological machines, i.e. between computers and animals/humans. We all obey the laws of physics and on a scale bigger than quantum level the laws of physics are entirely deterministic.

>>5610287
>Please name one testable effect of your soul/consciousness bullshit.
A difference between conscious, preconscious, and unconscious processes.

>>5610305
your dreams and thoughts are real, sure in this dimension you live a peasant life, but on the other dimension that you create with your thoughts, you are king.

>>5610307
>>5610258

http://gajitz.com/picture-it-researchers-user-brain-scans-to-read-minds/

The fact that we can find images from the brain of things someone has seen PROVES awareness exists, and thus consciousness. There is your evidence.

>INB4 HURDUR LOW QUALITY PICTUERZ!!!!

>>5610319
>image that is stored in memory as its body.
>That's what we both do.
uh no.. we don't have an image of ourselves. that's ridiculous.

>>5610324
There is no difference. The distinction is untestable and unscientific pseudoscience.

>>5610330
>PROVES
It proves the opposite actually. It proves that the processing of perception stays physical. Thus dualist metaphysical soul/consciousness magic is not needed for any explanation.

>>5610070
the "hard" problem? It has nothing to do with consciousness, the hard problem is the stupidity that goes into thinking our eyes should be our only identifiers of what we are doing with things

>>5610331
Um, what?
Are you trying to win the argument or something? Because I'm not trying to argue with you. Please think about what you just said

>>5610280
No, you either believe in possible knowledge outside your own instant experience confined in your head or you dont, further consequences of such stances are not in quesiton here. I am not saying solipsism is wrong, I am saying its unreasonable. I will take the Moore argument here and say that if you dont believe in qualia then just stop pressing the keys...

>>5610334
>The distinction is untestable and unscientific pseudoscience.
If I ask you to stop breathing, you can. If I ask you to make your heart stop beating without any external intervention, you can't.

>>5610330
That's just the processed input from the eyes though. That doesn't prove (or DISPROVE) consciousness

>>5610334
>It proves that the processing of perception stays physical.

YES IT DOES. THAT IS WHAT AWARENESS OF SOMETHING IS. A PHYSICAL RECOGNITION OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS SOME SORT OF MAGICAL THING THAT EXISTS OR IS CREATED OUTSIDE OF THE BODY.

>>5610336
you claim that humans have a picture of themselves in their bodies so when they look in the mirror, they match what they see and the image they have internally and recognize it's them.
please cite a source for that claim.

>>5610316

>That assumption wouldn't change anything because your assumed non-interacting soul spirit has no effects.

It would have the effect of empowering your asserted beauty.

>That's just an objective biological fact.

Yes, but without an understanding of superstitious thinking you would be unable to manipulate the promise that such people would ever be able to experience life as you do, in this life or another.

>implying I will post pictures of myself on /sci/, so that needy neckbears can jerk off to them

Then I must dismiss without evidence your claims that you are attractive.

Fact is, understanding consciousness is an essential element in seduction, a skill that you should have as a 9/10 woman. That you deny consciousness can mean only one of two things; a) you're the stupidest and most sheltered woman in the world, and nothing you say about consciousness or science can be taken as authority OR b) You are hideous and you deny consciousness as a means of blocking the pain of being maligned by fortune.

Your move.

>>5610334
Your problem is that you dont have a clear definition of what constitutes "data" or "evidence", furthered by the fact that you use a lot of ad-hoc hypothesis from a very rigid and dogmatic ultra-positivist view and have never ever bothered in reading Russell or Wittgenstein or Quine.

Nothing will every meet your criteria because you dont have a clear one, and the one you will most likely spew out is flawed, much like the whole positivist program.

>>5610339
I will not confine myself to the coices you lay out. You are saying that you have a box, and there are only two possible things in it, and I HAVE to believe in one of them, instead of just saying that they could both be possible. What you are saying is that I have to choose whether a coin will be on heads or tails. Can you please stop being so hostile? I'm honestly not trying to argue with you, and honestly I'm being rather nice. Can't I get the same in return?

>>5610339
>if you dont believe in qualia then just stop pressing the keys...
It doesnt' surprise me to see that dualists also believe in free will.

>>5610340
>If I ask you to stop breathing, you can
I can't. If I stopped breathing, I'd die.

>>5610341
>That's just the processed input from the eyes though

No, it's taken directly from a persons thoughts. That proves an awareness of the the thing being thought about.

>>5610346
>I can't. If I stopped breathing, I'd die.
You can for a short period of time.

>>5610344
I mean like a memory picture. Please stop being so hostile, you KNOW what I mean.

>>5610342
all of that is proved here >>5610272

>>5610342
>It would have the effect of empowering your asserted beauty.
How so?

>but without an understanding of superstitious thinking
I prefer an understanding of science and math.

>Then I must dismiss without evidence your claims that you are attractive.
What an irrelevant red herring. The discussion is not about my person.

>understanding consciousness is an essential element
Why would I need to understand dualist magic claims when understanding biology works so much better?

>can mean only one of two things
False dichotomy.

>>5610355
i was not hostile, just thought you were unreasonable. Please elaborate on that mental picture, when does a human acquire it? is it born with it?

>>5610355
What if you had an identical twin? A robot who saw another robot that looked exactly like them wouldn't be able to tell eachother apart, but a human could.

>>5610353
But thoughts are just electrical impulses on neural networks. We can't prove (or disprove) consciousness with them, sadly.

Honestly, I wish there was a way to prove consciousness, honestly, just like I wish there was life after death. But I can't just believe in things because of that :(

>>5610363
>But thoughts are just electrical impulses on neural networks.


...which is what consciousness is. You're adding a metaphysical component to a purely physical phenomenon. Consciouness is no different from the exact thing which you just described.

>>5610362
Um, if I saw a picture of someone who looked exactly like me, I would assume that it was me. If you mean that the robot saw a copy of itself that was not it, and it had evidence that there was no mirror there (the stuff behind it wasn't being mirrored), then yes, it could tell them apart, technically

please note that I am not trying to prove/disprove consciousness

>>5610347
It is not my task to come up with definitions or evidence. Burden of proof is on those who make claims of existence. I am merely pointing out inconsistencies and errors in their pseudo-arguments.

>>5610354
>You can for a short period of time.
So what?

>>5610369
>...which is what consciousness is
What WHAT is? What are you talking about? Please name what testable effects that phenomenon is supposed to have.

>>5610367
Sorry, I was still talking about looking in a mirror. The robot would almost certainly have trouble telling each other apart, the two people, however, would not.

>>5610373
Electrical impluses on neural networks. That is why thinking of something is proff of awareness; the two are essentially the exact same things.

>>5610365
Well, once you see yourself, you know. If you were put in another body, and saw a picture of it( not in a mirror), then you wouldn't know it was you, unless you could pick up cues (my hand are green, the guy in the picture is green), but a robot could do that too.

I'm not saying that robots can't be conscious by the way.

>>5610369
I'm speaking of qualia. If consciousness is the "program" running on the "neureal network" (This is an analogy), then I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.

>>5610374
I think humans would have the same problem, because for the robot to not know it was itself, the other robot in the mirror wold have to be making the same movements at itself, and If that happened to me when i looked in a mirror, I wouldn't be able to tell

>>5610349
No, you didnt understand solipsism.

The box comic goes like this:

You are either enclosed in the box, with no access whatsoever to the outside world (solipsism), OR, there is some sort of way of getting outside the box (senses, reason, etc). There are no other logical possibilities when it comes to the basics of epistemology.

If you chose to live "in" the box then by all means do so.

>>5610380
>Electrical impluses on neural networks
... are physical. What does this have to do with your soul/consciousness claim?

>That is why thinking of something is proff of awareness
How does physical algorithmic processing in the brain prove a metaphysical dualist claim? Explain your flawed reasoning.

>the two are essentially the exact same things.
They are definitely not. One is physically testable, the other is an untestable metaphysical dualist concept.

>>5610355
I am not the same guy

>>5610380
But neural networks are just complex transistors though, which would make it just as likely as a robot being conscious. (Which is not impossible, as humans are bio-mechanical robots)

>>5610386
>I'm speaking of qualia.

It's no different, either. What it all boils down to is different aspects of the same thing: thought. THAT is what consciousness and qualia is. Thought.

>>5610387
I don't know what comic you are speaking of. Can you explain why I am a solipist without using that word please?

>>5610364

>How so?

The existence of consciousness allows the possibility that either through technology or magic (derp), one can access some transcendent realm where all pain is annihilated. Lesser people naturally look to their greaters for leadership, where power concentrates. Beauty is one such concentration.

>I prefer an understanding of science and math.
>Why would I need to understand dualist magic claims when understanding biology works so much better?

Because in order to advance both the causes of science and mathematics, at the base level one needs to control vast amounts of labor and manpower. Much of the worlds populations are governed by superstitious principles. You don't need to accept consciousness, you simply have to accept that you have a responsibility to understand and explore it so that it can be used to manipulate the peasants into supporting scientific endeavors.

This is a power available to you. Again, you can deny consciousness but you must explore the effects of a belief in such.

>False dichotomy.
Possibly. Perhaps you're merely ignorant,

>>5610373
>So what?
You can't do that with your heartbeat. Similarly parts of your brain can be given visual stimuli, but you will never report about them.

>>5610394
see
>>5610391

>>5610373
Well, you sadly do dismiss arguments like having a criteria, it is implied in every post you make because you do have an actual epistemological stance, which you havent made explicit, but I know it, and it is flawed, just like Comte.

>>5610388
Because thought and consciousness are the exact same things.

>>5610388

Good thing I'm a solipsist and you exist purely in my mind. Burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, sucker!

>>5610398
That's true, it's entirely possible for a robot to be conscious, but first it has to be possible for it to actually think.

>>5610389
sorry :^}

polite sage offtopic

>>5610396
>one can access some transcendent realm where all pain is annihilated
Cool story, /x/tard.

>you simply have to accept that you have a responsibility to understand and explore it
How can I explore something that has no testable effects?

>so that it can be used to manipulate the peasants
Manipulating peasants happens on the level of behaviour, not metaphysics.

>>5610395
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/methodological-individualism/

I cant do better than this

>>5610410
If you define thinking as consciousness, then you cannot define electrical impulses over a neural network as thinking, sorry :^{

>>5610415
>If you define thinking as consciousness, then you cannot define electrical impulses over a neural network as thinking

How so?

>>5610413
Why do I have to read this? What does this text have to do with your arbitrary decision that the only two possible realities are ones where I am conscious or where everyone is? I'm just saying that you can't prove or disprove it. How can I believe something that I have no evidence for?

>>5610397
>You can't do that with your heartbeat
Do what? Slow down or accelerate heartbeat? Everyone can do this. The frequency of heartbeat is correlated to physical activity. During a workout heartbeat will increase.

>>5610399
No, they are not. Physical algorithmic processing has nothing to do with dualism magic.

>>5610401
>and it is flawed
How is eliminative materialism flawed?

>>5610418
Can you explain why electrical impulses over a neural network directly implies consciousness?

>nature encompasses everything
>everything that is in nature, exists
>I live in nature, so I exist
>I am self aware, and therefore a conscious being.
>that implies consciousness exists.
>since I exist in nature, so does consciousness.
>therefore, consciousness exists.

>>5610425
It is the best I can link you to understand solipsism and that, on a fundamental epistemological level, you have to chose (precisely because I cant prove to -you- the real world exists directly and empirically) to either be a solipsist or be reasonable.

If you like this topic then just read it, youll find the discussion enlightening.

>>5610436
>>I am self aware, and therefore a conscious being.
This claim requires evidence.

>>5610429
>Do what? Slow down or accelerate heartbeat? Everyone can do this. The frequency of heartbeat is correlated to physical activity. During a workout heartbeat will increase.
Again, without external influence.

>>5610436
That is a proof of consciousness that only applies to you, and is only proveable to you, unfortunately.

>>5610412

>Cool story, /x/tard.

Holy shit. Did I say I believed that? No, I said that is the delusion that can be exploited.

>How can I explore something that has no testable effects?

You explore the behaviors that are influenced by delusion.

>Manipulating peasants happens on the level of behaviour, not metaphysics.

Their metaphysical beliefs affect their behavior. Understand their beliefs means being better able to manipulate those behaviors.

These delusions are a scientifically exploitable resource. Can you not see that?

>>5610429
excessive confidence on positivism, no criteria to actually distinguish "real" data to "false impressions", logically leads to solipsism (which for me is a flaw, its just solipsism with conceptual errors)

>>5610442
>You explore the behaviors that are influenced by delusion.
>Their metaphysical beliefs affect their behavio
The behaviour isn't influenced by that delusion, it is influenced by biology. Understanding biology enables me to understand a much broader spectrum of possible behaviour.

>>5610412
>Cool story, /x/tard.

drugs, man, what are they?

>>5610438
But the thing is, reality wouldn't change from how I experience it if the number of human that weren't conscious was greater than zero. I have no reason to believe that there are or aren't conscious beings other than me.

>>5610444
>Again, without external influence.
What are you talking about? Supernatural intervention? Don't be silly.

>>5610451
>excessive confidence on positivism
There's nothing wrong with positivism.

>no criteria to actually distinguish "real" data to "false impressions"
Real data is objectively verifiable.

>logically leads to solipsism
Nope. The assumption of objective reality is the opposite of solipism.

>>5610455
Drugs are escapism for failures who can't handle their normal life.

>>5610430
Consciousness refers to the ability to think, whereas thought refers to the phsyical action of thinking.

Consciousness is defined as awareness, and to be aware of something all you have to do is think about. Now, the degree to which you think about it can vary, but all you have to be able to do is recognize it's existence through sub or fully concsious thought to be aware of it, and thus "conscious" of it.

That's it.

>>5610452

>The behaviour isn't influenced by that delusion, it is influenced by biology. Understanding biology enables me to understand a much broader spectrum of possible behaviour.

Would you then assert that mind control falls under the domain of biology? Because if you did then we would be in agreement.

>>5610429
>Physical algorithmic processing has nothing to do with dualism magic.

I'm just talking about consciousness.

>>5610469
>Consciousness refers to the ability to think
No, that's just algorithmic processing in the biological computer that is our brain.

>Consciousness is defined as awareness,
Untestable metaphysical concept. This "definition" contradicts your first "defnition" btw.

>>5610464
>What are you talking about? Supernatural intervention? Don't be silly.
No. I can ask you to momentarily stop breathing. You can do that. I can ask you to momentarily stop your heart. You're unable to do that. Vocal commands only.

Another example: I can ask you to move your arm upwards. You're able to do that. I can ask you to stop peristalsis. You can't do that.

Agreed?

>>5610469
You just defined thinking as the physical action of thinking and defined consciousness as being aware of things and the ability to think. I'm not trying to be mean, but that isn't really linked to electrical impulse over neural networks.

Unfortunately, while, from my perspective, I can be conscious of my own thoughts if consciousness exists, I cannot be conscious of anyone else's

>>5610474
>No, that's just algorithmic processing in the biological computer that is our brain.

We're going in a circle here. That is what consciousness is. Okay, tell me, what do you define as "consciousness"?

>>5610470
>Would you then assert that mind control falls under the domain of biology?
Define "mind control". And you better not come up with telekinesis or other pseudoscience bullshit.

>>5610472
That doesn't belong on a science board. >>>/x/ is the right place for you.

>>5610467
>Science is escapism for failures who can't handle their normal life.

look, I can apply that everywhere!

define "normal" life.

>>5610464
>There's nothing wrong with positivism.
There are literally, millions of books that contradict this assertion, books written by people who might ne more qualified than you to make such an assertion (yes, ad baculum, I dont care)

>Real data is objectively verifiable.
Nope, define verify

>Nope. The assumption of objective reality is the opposite of solipism.
Objective reality doesnt exist, as soon as you start dismissing sensible impressions you fall on a logical slippery slope and reach solipsism. There is no objective criteria nor a way of dismissing "false impressions", there are no levels of empirical data, there are no primary or secondary data because you cant actually define data or a verifiable criteria for it.

>>5610475
Just because a robot has a separate subroutine that it can't control doesn't mean its main subroutines are because or result on a consciousness :^(

>>5610485
That's not my point. I'm not talking about a metaphysical consciousness. I'm talking about the one discussed in neuroscience.

>>5610475
It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. If a vocal command could stop another person's heart, many of us would be dead by now.

>>5610480
>That is what consciousness is
What are you talking about? What is consciousness? What testable effects does it have?

>>5610489
sorry, I went back like 10 quotes to see what you mean, could you elaborate?

>>5610490
>It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. If a vocal command could stop another person's heart, many of us would be dead by now.
Right. Would you also agree in the existence of optical illusions? And that the brain misinterprets them?

>>5610483
>books written by people who might ne more qualified than you
Are you saying liberal arts people are more qualified to talk about science than a scientist?

>Objective reality doesnt exist
How edgy! Are you mindlessly regurgitating the puerile epistemological anarchism doctrine from /lit/?

>>5610476
>You just defined thinking as the physical action of thinking

You're making it sound more confusing than I made it. Let me put it to you in a different way:

>thinking is the physical action of electrical impulse over neural networks.

>defined consciousness as being aware of things and the ability to think

Yes. I did.

>that isn't really linked to electrical impulse over neural networks.

You're saying that thought isn't related to thinking?

>Unfortunately, while, from my perspective, I can be conscious of my own thoughts

That alone proves consciousness from your own perspective.

>I cannot be conscious of anyone else's

No, but becasue you're a human being and they're a human being, you can assume with relative ease that they can think. There's also this:

>>5610330

>>5610489
>I'm talking about the one discussed in neuroscience.
Neuroscience has nothing to do with dualism or spiritualism. Would you please read up on neuroscience before posting ignorant nonsense?

>>5610496
Why do you ask?

>>5610481

>Define "mind control".

That's going to be a little difficult given that the term is technically a euphemism.

The means are a little easier, however. Drugs. Implants. Therapy. Economic dependency. All these things are within the domain of science. And I doubt you have any moral compunctions regarding such things since you have already confessed you are a biological machine.

> And you better not come up with telekinesis or other pseudoscience bullshit.

Like hell. All my methods are cold and hard.

>>5610490
>What are you talking about?
Consciousness.

What is consciousness?
Thought.


What testable effects does it have?
>>5610330

>>5610499
>Are you saying liberal arts people are more qualified to talk about science than a scientist?
Yes

>How edgy! Are you mindlessly regurgitating the puerile epistemological anarchism doctrine from /lit/?
No, my epistemological choice hasnt been clear from my posts, I am just pointing how there has been debate over falsifiable empirical data, false impressions, etc, and it has not been "going towards your side". Also, using the word puerile doesnt make it better or worse, as, in fact, all I see if you regurgitating the 1880s all over again without ever defining data, verifiable, senses, the how-senses-work problem.

Please, go ahead, define to us "qualia", then define a criteria to verify data, and then define how that criteria can be epistemologically shared.

>you cant, they tried, they failed, you are about 100 years late. All my respect to them though, very smart people.

>>5610503
>Neuroscience has nothing to do with dualism or spiritualism. Would you please read up on neuroscience before posting ignorant nonsense?
There is a metaphysical consciousness, and there is one discussed in neuroscience.

>>5610503
>Why do you ask?
I am just asking if you agree before I proceed.

>>5610504
Because we do not know the nature of consciousness, we cannot know if everyone else is conscious.

If you define Consciousness and being able to think, and you define thinking as the physical action of electrical impulse over neural networks, then:

According to you, Consciousness of a neural network structure can be defined as the neural network being able to support electrical impulses. But if a neural network can support electrical impulses, that does not imply it is conscious.

Also, I replied to the imagey scan thing, see my replies please.

not That I'm not trying to argue with you or be mean

>>5610504
>becasue you're a human being and they're a human being,
I am a human being. I do not have a soul/consciousness. Therefore I reasonably assume no other human being has such a metaphysical entity. If you claim to have it, burden of proof is on you.

>>5610508
>What is consciousness?
>Thought.
"Thought" is a much shorter term to refer to thought. Why would anyone want to rename it by using a spiritualist term usually denoting metaphysical magic?

>>5610510
>Yes
top lel

>define to us "qualia"
Why would I define something I don't believe? Burden of proof and thus burden of definition is on you or whoever supports these irrational beliefs.

>>5610512
>and there is one discussed in neuroscience.
Neuroscience avoids spirtitualist vocabulary. Neuroscience researches physical processes in the brain.

>I am just asking if you agree before I proceed.
Proceed with what?

>>5610522
>Proceed with what?
With a discussion. Are you okay with that?

>>5610517
*being able to support electrical impulses, and having them run over it at the time the definition is read, sorry

>>5610518
>top lel
10/10 argument, best new Nobel Prize winner

Define data, define verify, I wont even bother you with "objective", or quietly leave the thread without ever having anything relevant to say.

>>5610467
Ethical judgement, nice changing the subject there, landwhale

Don't reply to any of my posts now, I'm going to bed, sorry

>>5610576
have a good unconscious state of being my friend.

>>5610578
>friend
:^D

>>5610582
No.