/sci/ - Science & Math

What is consciousness if not the operation of the intellect? I think you're making a distinction that doesn't exist.

>>5843858
There is a difference between the existence of a machine and its operation. For example, a motor is a material thing, and its operation is the change in its material configuration. In the intellect, there is a similar distinction. There is the material aspect of the intellect, namely, the brain. However, there is also the operation of the intellect, which is to think. This is done through electrochemical processes. The intellect as a substance and its operation are two different things, but this is all good so far and can all be accounted for in terms of a material worldview.

The trouble is, where does consciousness enter into the picture? It's no surprise from a material view that we should be able to perceive with our senses and make decisions and act based on what we know. But why are we conscious of what we sense and what we think? Computers have similar abilities from a material perspective. They can receive input (sensory perception) and process data (intellect). From a material point of view, it doesn't seem that there is anything fundamentally different between the human mind and a computer. But human beings are still conscious of their thoughts. Why, then, are human beings conscious of things and computers not. I can't think of any reason why computers shouldn't be conscious too. And why stop there? Maybe rocks are also conscious! This is what I was saying about animism.

It seems that the only rational views are either that everything is conscious or that there is something about the human intellect that cannot be described in purely material terms.

>>5843905
>it doesn't seem that there is anything fundamentally different between the human mind and a computer.

Of course there is. Brains function very differently than computers.

I see no reason to doubt that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of material processes.

>>5843908
I really don't see how consciousness "emerging" answers the question. It's not really a question of how consciousness arises, but what it is, and I don't think it can be fully answered by anything material.

>>5843908
>emergent

Cool zero-content buzzword you got there. Why don't you just call it "magic"?

Well, here I go!

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html

The brain uses its own feedback.

>>5844297
>>5844092
lesswrong nutjobs, please get off /sci/

>. From a material point of view, it doesn't seem that there is anything fundamentally different between the human mind and a computer.

Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. There's an entire field of science called Neurology. There's also an entire field of science called "Computer Engineering".

I'm just going to call you an armchair faggot who thinks he can throw around some pithy metaphors without exploring the entirety of a world of facts that might actually explain the object of his investigations.

"But you're being anti-int-"

No, shut up you fucking dumb bitch. You are sitting on your fucking dildo chair telling MATTER WHAT IT CAN OR CANNOT DO!.

Account for what? From a scientific point of view a "phenomenon" without observable effects does not exist.

>>5845065
>ad hominem

>>>/b/

Consciousness is an illusion. What appears to be consciousness is actually a complex set of responses, some conditioned, some innate, that arise from our memories of past events and experiences.

>>5845074
anon made no actual argument, he just insulted the other anon.

insults aren't ad hominems

>>5845077
>insults aren't ad hominems

Yes, they are. They are addressing the poster instead of the argument.

>>5845080
No, they're not. An ad hominem is the specific use of an insult instead of an argument, not any use of an insult.

If I say "You're wrong because you're an idiot", that's an ad hominem. If I say "You're wrong, and by the way you're an idiot", that is not an ad hominem.

>>5845074
>>ad hominem

No what I did was fucking insult you while pretty much summarizing your idiotic flaws.

The basis of my argument wasn't "you're a dumb bitch". It was just a necessary whipping for such an idiotic position.

>>5845083
>An ad hominem is the specific use of an insult instead of an argument
Exactly. That's what the poster did. He posted an insult instead of an argument.

>>5845084
>The basis of my argument
What argument? You didn't present any argument. Your post consisted solely of puerile insults and illiterate ramblings.

>>5845089
No, it's not what he did. All he did was insult you. He didn't make any claims regarding your arguments.

>>5845069
Hitchens, as I'm sure you are well aware, is speaking about God, not consciousness. Consciousness is directly observable because observation belongs to consciousness. It can be rightly described as self-evident.

>>5845095
>All he did was insult you.
Exactly. That's an ad hominem. As you pointed out, an ad hominem is the use of insults instead of an argument.

>>5845099
I'm being trolled, aren't I.

Go back and read my posts. A simple insult is not an ad hominem. If I say right now, "You're a moronic asshat" (and I mean that sincerely), that's not an ad hominem. That's just a plain-jane insult.

>>5845074
>>5845089
ur an asshet

>>5845098
Please name its observable effects. And no, the process of observation (i.e. purely physical measurement) does not require or imply any metaphysical intervention.

>>5845089
>What argument? You didn't present any argument. Your post consisted solely of puerile insults and illiterate ramblings.

"HURR I'M GOING TO ARMCHAIR PHILOSOPHIZE ABOUT THE NATURE OF A COMPLEX PHENOMENA AND THEN DECLARE A CONCLUSION BECAUSE FUCK MY FACE"

"BTW THERE'S NO MATERIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMPUTERS AND BRAINS"

"Well there's a field called Neuroscience and a field called Computer Engineering which I'm implying would disabuse you of such puerile notions but I'd rather emphasize how much of an idiot you are to give you negative feedback to your armchair phiLOLsophizing"

"Also it's not a smart idea to comment on phenomena without exploring the world of facts ascertained about said phenomena as opposed to relying on vague metaphors. Also you sit on a chair of dildos."

I'd rather insult you than give respect to a certain abuse of the intellect that postures itself as something more than the worst example of investigation into any phenomena.

>>5845073

Nope. The 'illusion' of consciousness IS consciousness. That's what we are talking about it. Now explain EXACTLY how it arises or hush.

>>5845103
>I'M GOING TO ARMCHAIR PHILOSOPHIZE
Please don't do this on /sci/. /sci/ is a science and math board.

>THE NATURE OF A COMPLEX PHENOMENA
What phenomenon? What are its observable effects?

>THERE'S NO MATERIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMPUTERS AND BRAINS
Brains work on the basis of biochemistry, computers are mostly inorganic. However both are equal in being purely physical information processing devices.

>Well there's a field called Neuroscience and a field called Computer Engineering
Maybe you should educate yourself in those fields. You seem to be ignorant of both of them.

>exploring the world of facts ascertained about said phenomena
I repeatedly asked you to present the "facts".

>>5843850

I don't know if this is a troll post, but whatever.

This is an issue that's taken seriously by philosophy, neuroscience (trying to understand how the brain works), and artificial intelligence (trying to understand how the brain works to design different brains).

/sci/ has Godel Escher Bach as recommended reading. It deals primarily with this topic. It is a good first read to get you interested in the idea. Keep in mind, not everything in that book is canon (some of the ideas are fiercely debated from both sides), but it will give you an idea where some people come from when arguing about this kind of stuff. He also shoots down a lot of the 20th century arguments that some faggots still use to try to justify what are not some pretty naive viewpoints, so overall you'll avoid a couple good pitfalls.

A book this anon is going through at the moment is Good and Real by Drescher. It's recent (2006) and written by a computer scientists but takes on topics from physics and philosophy (mainly ethics). The premise is that the world is understood to be a static 4-manifold through relativity, so how to we reconcile this with our observation of our own consciousness. I've read about half and it is VERY good.

>>5845106
You defined ad hominem as the use of an insult instead of an argument. If you're insulting me without presenting an argument, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy.

>>5845113
What "illusion"? What organ is perceiving this "illusion"?

>>5845116
This is just getting sadder and sadder. You know what, Anon? I'm starting to feel bad about this. Picking on the handicapped kid just isn't very satisfying. Instead, I'm going to brighten up your life a little. I'm going to be that one shining ray of light in your bleak existence.

I will let you have the last word.

So come on, let me have it. Make it count. I'll gladly take it if it means you'll experience the sweet taste of victory for once in your life, and you can go to bed knowing you achieved something.

>>5844297
>Cool zero-content buzzword you got there.

Do you need a dictionary?

>>5845119
Do you have any scientific sources or is all your knowledge derived from low tier pop sci and pseudo-philosophy books for children?

>>5845126
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, kid. Next time please educate yourself before spouting ignorant garbage.

>>5845129
No, do you?

>>5845113
>Now explain EXACTLY how it arises

Can you not see that that is a ridiculous demand?

>>5845134

No, do you?

>>5845136
No, I don't.

>>5845120
>What "illusion"? What organ is perceiving this "illusion"?


Pretending you don't now what we're talking about is pointless. Go do that by yourself.

>>5845134
>No, do you?

Then how come you think "emergent" is "zero content?"

>>5845104
The observable effect, is that I have an image in my mind of what I am observing!

>purely physical measurement

This is the problem. We are projecting materialistic assumptions onto something which, if it is something not material, would not have anything purely physical to measure. Anything immaterial (if such a thing exists) is excluded -by definition- from this worldview. But this is not based on any deductive reasoning. It's only an assumption based on that what we perceive through our senses are material things. But our consciousness of what we perceive is not something we would attribute to any of these other material things. Unless, I want to believe that the jar of peanut butter next to me is conscious, I need to, at the least, acknowledge that there is something about human consciousness that does not belong to matter in general.

>>5845139
I do in fact not know what you're talking about. I am not familiar with the details of your dualist beliefs. If however you want to talk on /sci/, I'm asking you to name the scientifically observable effects of your claims.

>>5845140
Because it adds no information. Omit it and nothing is lost.

>>5845113
The question is not really so much how it arises, but, as your rightly observe, what is consciousness.

>>5845142

No you're not.
You're playing an idiot game.
Go watch the John Searle video again.

>>5845148
I do not play games. Games are anti-intellectual. I am here to discuss science and math. Would you please answer my question? I asked you to name the observable effects.

>>5845146

But that's completely wrong. Do you really not know what the word means?

>>5845142
lol you faggot, we get it, you want to sound intelligent and important and so you go to a forum like this and find some other jizzbag like you who just writes the same shit over and over again to have a debate so that someone can finally listen and hear your point of view because everybody who comes across you isn't interested. You're not smart, you're not interesting, you're an unemployed dullard who uses 4chan to get the attention he doesnt get at home.

>>5843850
>>5845119
>>5845130

anon said he had a thought. He has not explained his scientific background. Those are two books written to a decently competent layperson that discuss these topics.

I don't see why you should be offended. If you believe those books are too easy to read then I would appreciate any recommendations on the topic that are more mature. Both of the books are popular science because of their audience, however I think GEB is at least widely regarded by the scientific community as a whole (I'm met quite a few academics that consider it's points valid).

If you have any scientific papers that are immediately readable, please do contribute.

>>5845120
>If you're insulting me without presenting an argument, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy.
No, that's not what an ad hominem is. You are misinformed as to the definition of an ad hominem.

An ad hominem is attempting to use an insult AS an argument, not about not making any argument at all.

If I insult you, that's not an ad hominem. If I make a claim and then use the insult as evidence for a claim, that IS an ad hominem.

>this thread

Can anyone provide any kind of evidence, or even just an argument that isn't an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, that consciousness is not simply an activity of material things?

>>5845152
The word is a synonym for "we have no idea how it works but instead of admitting our ignorance we pretentiously use a buzzword because we are underaged pseudo-intellectuals".

>>5845153
Are you projecting?

>>5845155
>You are misinformed as to the definition of an ad hominem.
I was merely using the definition anon posted ITT.

>>5845157
Material things stay material. Everything they and their interactions produce has to have observable effects. Without specifying the observable effects we still don't know what you're even asking.

>>5845157

no

>>5845159
That was a pretty good read of my life situation from one post of mine, have you considered a career in psychology? I'm interested in your credentials.

If I were a lesser man, I'd question why you are so angry, and why you're projecting all these traits onto me, but that seems like it'd be a waste of time. All you'd do is posture yourself as being higher and mightier, and make more wild implications based on a rudimentary understanding of the idea of self.

The truth is: I've worked hard all day, and sometimes I like to unwind by bullying insecure teens online. Doing it anonymously on a place that is full-to-the-brim with social rejects just WAITING to snap is fun.

>>5845159
>The word is a synonym for "we have no idea how it works but instead of admitting our ignorance we pretentiously use a buzzword because we are underaged pseudo-intellectuals".
brainwashed lesswrong nutcase detected

abandon all attempts to reason with this individual, because the only thing you're going to get in return is angsy teenage venting about how college is a scam and you can get a phd on the internet

>>5845169
>brainwashed lesswrong nutcase detected
What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
0/10

>>5845159
>I was merely using the definition anon posted ITT.
You misinterpreted the definition that was posted. The anon who contributed that definition included examples along with it that directly contradict the interpretation you seem to have inferred.

My tentative conclusion is that your misinterpretation was purposeful, but I can't say for sure.

>>5845103
>Well there's a field called Neuroscience and a field called Computer Engineering

All I meant in my post was that computers and brains from an exterior perspective without regards to the details of their innerworkings (which I acknowledged) do the same sort of thing. My point wasn't that they are the same thing, but that there is obviously something very different about the human mind. My question is what is it about the brain that allows consciousness to reside in it but not in something like a computer or a rock. Then the next question is what is consciousness?

>>5845173
>being this mad
so you flunked out of your freshman year, right?

>>5845181
>responding to pasta for 30 minutes
>calling others 'mad'
grampaahhhh~

>>5845164
>have you considered a career in psychology?
I have.

>I'd question why you are so angry
I am legitimately angry because anti-intellectuals like you are shitting up the science and math board with unscientific drivel.

>based on a rudimentary understanding of the idea of self.
This is a science and math board. If you want to talk about spiritualism, please go to >>>/x/

>I've worked hard all day
Masturbating in your mother's basement does not count as "hard work".

>I like to unwind by bullying insecure teens online
Watch out, badass over here.

>a place that is full-to-the-brim with social rejects just WAITING to snap is fun.
You must be mistaken. The board you're looking for is >>>/pol/. /sci/ is a place for civil discussion of high level science and math topics.

>>5845159
>The word is a synonym for "we have no idea how it works but instead of admitting our ignorance we pretentiously use a buzzword because we are underaged pseudo-intellectuals".

No it isn't, dumbass. It doesn't mean we don't understand how it works. It means complex behavior, "more than the sum of its parts," that arises out of basic interactions. The classic example is something like an ant colony, which acts with far more apparent intelligence than any individual ant possesses. Another example is the efficiency of free markets.

>>5845169
>ad hominem

>>5845179
There is no magical soul residing in the brain. If you disagree, it's your burden of proof. Please name its observable effects and show us the evidence. So far all behaviour can be explained perfectly fine by neuroscience without resorting to metaphysical magic.

>>5845190
>DA FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT

>>5845157
>Can anyone provide any kind of evidence, or even just an argument that isn't an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, that consciousness is not simply an activity of material things?

Can someone answer this?

>>5845190
My point still stands. Even with your definition it adds nothing of value in the first post mentioning it ITT. "Abniufgaihb is not explicable by the sum of its parts" is a meaningless sentence as long as its subject is not defined in terms of observable effects.

>>5845194
Please specify what exactly you're asking. The question "Is abnuidpabiedhpae simply an activity of material things?" does not make any sense. Please explain what you're talking about. Incoherent gibberish does not allow for a scientific answer.

>>5845198

the answer is no, so there you go

>>5845213
The answer to what question?

>>5845213
>>5845215

meant >>5845194

I understand consciousness to be "the subjective experience that arises from the entirety of brain acitivity related to self-awareness".

I dread, what might now follow...

>>5845198

Wait, which troll are you? The one who says immaterial souls must be real, or the one who claims he isn't conscious?

>>5845219
What does that mean in terms of scientifically observable effects?

>>5845222
I am not any kind of "troll". I am merely a scientifically educated person. That's why I know that the scientific method requires observation. A "phenomenon" without observable effects does not exist. Now would you please either come up with observable effects or go back to >>>/x/ where such anti-scientific nonsense belongs?

>>5845219
>qualia trolling

Seriously? I lost the last bit of respect I had for you, Crane.

>>5845223

That certain brain regions show different patterns of activity when unconscious. That there are neuroanatomic differences between species that have different levels of self-recognition and/or awareness abilities.
Although I admit that these are merely indicators.

>>5845235
What does the physiological notion of "unconscious" have to do with your metaphysical qualia claims? Absolutely nothing. You are a low tier equivocation troll.

>>5845235
Can you show me a qualia in the brain? Go ahead and do it. I can't wait to see the evidence.

>>5845179
>My question is what is it about the brain that allows consciousness to reside in it but not in something like a computer or a rock.

It's physical properties, clearly. That's like asking why can I play Minecraft on my computer but not on my sandwich? There must be some extra, non-material property of computers that set them apart from sandwiches!

>what is consiousness

I guess I would describe it as subjective experience of thought.

>>5845238
>>5845243
>>5845234

Off course consciousness is linked to qualia. Both can't be communicated to others and both stem from the cognitive ability to form mental represenations of the environment and/or oneself.
That's neuroscience's current grasp of the concept.

That's all it is. A concept. Like "ideas". Or "creativity". Concepts don't have real-world expressions. But everyone (except for sci-trolls) would still say they "exist".

I am in no way making any supernatural claims here so I don't quite understand where all the hostility is coming from.

>>5845253
>It's physical properties
What physical properties give rise to metaphysical phenomena without observable effects? None. You have been replying to a retard troll AND your answer was equally retarded. As long as there is no observation, nothing needs to be explained.

>I guess I would describe it as subjective experience of thought.
What does that mean? What are its observable or testable effects? Please keep the dualism drivel in >>>/x/

>>5845256
>Both can't be communicated to others
>I am in no way making any supernatural claims
huehuehue

You are claiming the existence of unobservable metaphysical phenomena that can't even be talked about. How low are you gonna go, you fucking fail troll? Go back to >>>/x/

>>5845256
>hurr durr magic is real lol

0/10, fuck off

>>5845263
>>5845266

Since you obviously don't even bother to actually read my posts and instead just keep on spamming your trollflames I see no reason to reamin in this thread.

Consider it your victory, if that helps you with your self-esteem. I know I won't.

>>5845275
>/x/tard gets proven wrong
>rage quits while yelling "troll"

Cool story. We won't miss you. Please don't come back until you got some education.

>>5845275
i read your post and responded appropriately. The claim of a non-interacting magical qualia entity taking control over your brain is simply idiotic. It contradicts the laws of science and is ridiculously stupid /x/ nonsense.