/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5906588
>There is no consciousness when we sleep

>>5906591
it's true man
you might consider dreaming to be consciousness, but let's be real. you don't really experience the dream when you are asleep. you experience the memory of the dream when you wake up.

>>5906588

I dream when I am asleep.

Please keep your dualism and spiritualism talk to >>>/x/

>>5906588
>all this pseudo-intellectualism

OP here

I came here because I want to expect what I will experience when I die. I find this is scientifically relevant.

>>5906606
Why don't you try it on your own? Kill yourself and see what happens.

>>5906598

What part of talking to the dead are you interested in?

>>5906610
Go away, /x/tard.

>>5906609
Why are you so unfriendly?

>>5906611
Hello, how are you today ?
Have you slept well ?

>>5906612
Why do you post /x/ bullshit on /sci/?

>>5906611

You brought the subject of spiritualism up, so clearly you are the one who wanted to talk about it. I don't comprehend 95% of the subject matter on /x/. It's like they have their own private little language.

>>5906613
>Hello, how are you today ?
I am enlightened by my intelligence.

>>5906615
>You brought the subject of spiritualism up

I didn't. OP did and it does not belong on /sci/.

>>5906618

OP was talking about the difference between being asleep and being dead. He did not mention talking to the dead. You brought that up.

OP here
Fuck this board. Came here to talk about the science behind what humans experience after death.

All I got was 2-3 fags complaining about me being on the wrong board. Fuck you, I don't wanna go ask a bunch of "spooky skeleton" retards about an actual scientific concept.

None of what my topic was about included paranormal or supernatural concepts.

>>5906619
The differences between being dead and being asleep are trivial an well known to everyone who took a 4th grade biology class. They don't have anything to do with OP's dualism bullshit.

>>5906616
Please, forgive them, it's not their fault if they don't understand, just the effect of past causes, so, even if it's difficult, be comprehensive.

>>5906620
>None of what my topic was about included paranormal or supernatural concepts.

Sure, that's why you had to mention dualism bullshit twice in yoiur OP.

0/10, fail troll is fail.

What answer do you want, OP? That's the one which you'll be satisfied with. Nobody can answer this.

>>5906622
Are you dumb? He wasn't asking for the literal biological differences of sleeping and death. He was asking what the difference was in perception. As in, how would a human being determine whether he was dead or sleeping? What is the difference?

>>5906620
>dualism
>an actual scientific concept.

>>5906628
I never mentioned this "dualism". No clue what you're talking about.

>>5906627
>He wasn't asking for the literal biological differences of sleeping and death. He was asking what the difference was in perception

Perception is a biological process. He wasn't asking about perception though but about dualism garbage.

>>5906627
The difference in perception come from literal biological differences between being asleep and being dead.

>>5906630
>I never mentioned this "dualism"
>OP mentions "consciousness" twice

0/10

>>5906622

I would argue that Platonism is a form of Dualism, and many scientists are Platonist. So you are clearly wrong.

>>5906620
>this nigga +1

the debate between the two quasi-science fags who have popped over from /b/ for 5 mins to get some self gratification is a poor attempt at being semi intelligent

>>5906638
This is a science board, not a pseudo-philosophy board.

>>5906640

you are not qualified to judge what is good philosophy. please stick to whatever practical science you may have some training in.

>>5906646
You are not qualified to post on /sci/. Please stick to your unfalsifiable and utterly pointless philosophy bullshit -- on >>>/lit/

>>5906648
Don't fucking send him to us. He isn't citing literature from the existing debate. Send him to /x/.

Your brain is not working. You are dead. You experience nothing. Get over it. Stop believing in magic.

>>5906648

Look, you have value judgments.
Doesn't this cause you cognitive dissonance?

>>5906650
>>5906648
>>5906646
this is funny let me get the popcorn

>>5906653
This board is dedicated to science and math. Both are objectively defined and it requires no value judgements to figure out that unfalsifiable philosophy bullshit does not belong here.

>>5906654

it's funny until someone loses an eye
or the thread 404's

>>5906656

>are objectively defined

'pointless' is a value judgement
it is not objectively defined
it is about your feels

>>5906588
Then what is lucid dreaming, anon ?

>>5906659
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pointless

>>5906661
Anti-scientific pseudoscience bullshit that belongs on >>>/x/

>There is no consciousness when we sleep.
false
>There is no consciousness when we are dead
true
>Would being dead and sleeping produce similar experiences?
no
>Is dying just.. going to sleep and never waking up?
no
/thread

also, >>>/x/

>>5906662

Value judgment. Just own up to it. The headaches will stop.

From /x/:
I've always been fascinated by the idea that the internet may in fact be awake. Many people claim that the structure of the world wide network, with computers, cables, information being sent back and forth, is very much like the human brain. I have no idea whether this is true or not, I don't know a lot about the human brain but the idea was still interesting.

It interested a friend of mine too, not a irl friend so to speak but a friend over the internet. Although his interest was almost to the point of obsession. he noticed that if you generate a list of random words, then have it translated between english and various different languages back and forth, the end result was always something to say the least. (We started doing it with two simple sites, il post later their addresses)


Al

>>5906674

nobody's going to /x/

>>5906641
It's just a troll that pop up on every thread that mention "consciousness"
So, even thought he fuck all those thread, the most you can do is trying to get some fun of it, knowing it's a troll.

>>5906687
Every thread mentioning the word "consciousness" is an obvious troll. There are still people who think they're funny for posting /x/ content on /sci/.

>>5906689
Ho yeah of course, my bad.
But they could also be idiots.

>>5906689

Roger Penrose is a massive troll.

>>5906687

Which is unfortunate. Ditto for the "beginning of the unvierse" trolls. These are very hard and ridiculously interesting subjects if people could ever calm the fuck down. You should be complaining on how it's done to death, not that it's always a troll.

I would agree with you OP. What was it like before you were born? you don't remember do you. that's because there was no memory because the mass of memory cells of your brain did not exist. when these die i assume it will be a similar phenomenon.

>>5906676
Read: "A Suicide Note" by mitchell heisman
He has some interesting theories about how technology is God
That technology will merge with existing life creating the supernatural

>>5906712

Sounds kind of like Frank Tipler's stuff.

ITT: We summon the consciousness guy

>>5906595
>you don't really experience the dream when you are asleep
do u even lucid dream

>>5906725
Please keep /x/ out of /sci/.

>>5906640
i live this picture

>>5906730
>implying lucid dreaming is paranormal
lucid dreaming is real. wake up pleb

>>5906676
lawl classic /x/.

Does he not understand how automated language translators work? Does he not understand confirmation bias?

I love the idea of the internet somehow becoming an aware hyperstructure, but I'm going to need some damn good evidence, not random noise.

Someday /sci/ will learn to ignore consciousness troll.

Someday.

Deep Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest (DHCA) is a surgical technique that involves cooling the body of the patient and stopping blood circulation. It is used in cardiac surgery to allow operation on the aortic arch and in neurosurgery to repair some brain aneurysms. The body can not live for more than 7 minutes without blood circulating.
The procedure requires keeping the patient in a state of hibernation at 12 - 18 degrees Celsius with no breathing, heartbeat, or brain activity for up to one hour. Blood is drained from the body to eliminate blood pressure. The patient is considered clinically dead during the operation.

>mfw when the majority of /sci/ would have you believe that after this kind of surgery you're dead and a new person lives on afterwards.

>mfw /sci/ has a deep routed belief in a soul.

Consciousness is an illusion created by what appears to be continuity of experience. Consciousness starts and stops all the time, and you only think you continue because you remember someone who went to sleep in the bed you woke up in.

>>5906773
This. Most people cant' see this because the idea is too much of a threat to their ego.

>>5906773

Please explain what that has to do with talking to the dead.

>>5906773

If consciousness is an illusion, who is being fooled?

>>5906784

The perceiving subject?

>>5906773
WHAT is an illusion? What are the contents of the illusion?

>>5906786
How is it perceiving? What perceptory organs are involved?

>>5906786

How can a perceiving subject be fooled if it is not aware and illusion, indeed, if it is not conscious?

>>5906631
No, jesus you idiot. Leave.

>>5906787
>What perceptory organs are involved?
The pineal gland, duh.

Just because you're fluoridated to the gills and can't think critically doesn't mean you're not consciouss.

>What are the contents of the illusion?
The concept of self-awareness.

>>5906631
Perception is, yes, but no cognitive perception occurs when we're asleep. Have you ever been aware of the fact that you're asleep, provided you're not lucid dreaming?

>>5906787
.
what organs are involved in reconstructing false memories?

>>5906792
>The pineal gland, duh.
The pineal gland is not a perceptory organ.

>doesn't mean you're not consciouss.
I do not understand what that word means. Can you please define it in terms of observable effects?

>The concept of self-awareness.
What does that mean? How is it scientifically testable?

>>5906795
>I do not understand what that word means.

Then be quiet.

>>5906732

lucid dreaming is real, however, the claims about communicating with other people who are lucid dreaming, clairvoyance, etc., are a lot of bullshit. The groups that really get all dreamy about lucid dreaming are prone to believe a connection with astral projection, psychic phenomena, and a bunch of other bullshit. The claims, of course, are completely untestable, and a lot of these people are on the credulous side to begin with. They can't imagine why some narcissistic story-teller would lie to them about dreamy excursions to the Nth dimension.

>>5906791
Are you denying that perception is a physical process? Did you fail primary school?

>>5906794
False memories are not a perception but corrupted data stored in the brain.

>>5906796
No, the burden of proof is on you. You are parading around this science board, spamming /x/ bullshit everywhere and when we call you out on your anti-scientific nonsense, all you do is posting ad hominems and fallacies.

>>5906795
>The pineal gland is not a perceptory organ.
Yes it is. Destruction of the pineal gland, through poisoning with fluoridation or the radioactive elements in the air, is a critical and verifiable factor in the loss of conscious thought.

>What does that mean? How is it scientifically testable?
You observe that some individuals experience a phenomenon they call "self awareness". You interview them to obtain a representative description of the phenomenon as they experience it. You then create a questionnaire which assess the presence of this phenomenon in other individuals.

You randomly sample the population and administer the survey to your subjects. You test for the presence of this phenomenon.

>>5906799
>lucid dreaming is real

No, it is not. It is untestable spiritualism hogwash.

>>5906800
>False memories are not a perception but corrupted data stored in the brain.

no. that is not how memory works

>>5906805

Very few of us are special ed teachers. We cannot help you with your autism.

>>5906808

lucid dreaming is talking to the dead?

>>5906803
>You observe that some individuals experience a phenomenon they call "self awareness".
How do I observe this? What are the observable effects? How can I tell apart a normal human like myself from a human who has "self-awareness"?

>>5906807
Memory is information stored in the brain. The brain is like a computer.

Something cannot perceive an illusion if the thing doing the perceiving is not itself conscious of it.

How can consciousness be an illusion if nothing is conscious of it?

>>5906809
This is a science board. Science requires testability.

>>5906810
Go back to >>>/x/

>>5906811
>How do I observe this? What are the observable effects? How can I tell apart a normal human like myself from a human who has "self-awareness"?
You need to read more carefully. The survey does not itself test the existence or factors of consciousness, merely the belief in the individuals that they possess it.

>>5906818
Science is not about beliefs, science is about factual observations.

>>5906819
And the issue at hand is a factual observation of the presence of a belief.

>>5906821

What is doing the believing that somehow is not conscious that it believes it?

...that is, if consciousness truly is an illusion.

>>5906816

you go back to /x/

you keep talking about spiritualism. no one else uses that word but you.

>>5906821
Science is objective. We don't care what /x/tards believe. Just because they say ghosts are real, that doesn't mean ghosts do actually exist.

>>5906823
I am adequately labeling your nonsense. You are talking about spiritualism and it does not belong here.

>>5906808
Aside from the fact it's an empirically established fact

>>5906827

spiritualism is all about talking to the dead

that is what spiritualist do

>>5906824
Science is a method. We can apply the scientific method to many questions.

"Do people believe in consciousness" is a perfectly valid question for science to attempt to answer.

>>5906813
"Illusion" was a poor choice of words. A better phrase would be "incorrect conclusion of a decision making process".

>>5906800
>Are you denying that perception is a physical process? Did you fail primary school?

I called you an idiot because you somehow managed to associate the question with perception, when it doesn't have anything to do with at all. The presence of perception matters, not that it's a biological process. What kind of shit useless point is that?

God I hate using this site. I should go back to reddit. No wait, I won't find you there!

>>5906830
You failed to name the observable effects.

>>5906831
Cool story. We don't care. Back to >>>/x/

>>5906833
"Do people believe" is not a scientific question. Science vs religion threads are not allowed.

>>5906835
>managed to associate the question with perception, when it doesn't have anything to do with at all
So you admit that the question was never scientific and was solely about dualism hogwash? So you admit being an off-topic shitposter and a wannabe troll? I hope you get banned.

>>5906833
>"Illusion" was a poor choice of words. A better phrase would be "incorrect conclusion of a decision making process".

Illusion and being incorrect are similar enough for the question to be valid. I mean, what is aware of this "incorrect conclusion"? If it is aware, then how can it be aware if it is not conscious?

>>5906841
>Cool story. We don't care. Back to >>>/x/

you go back to /x/ you are the only one who talks about spiritualism

are you Haitian?

>>5906841
>"Do people believe" is not a scientific question.
"Scientific questions" are questions which can be answered through a methodological process. There are no restrictions on content, subject matter, or means to a scientific question.

Just because it's not a question you want to ask doesn't mean it's not a valid scientific question.

If you're going to troll, at least get your facts straight.

>>5906835
>I should go back to reddit

We won't miss you.

>>5906841
>So you admit that the question was never scientific and was solely about dualism hogwash? So you admit being an off-topic shitposter and a wannabe troll? I hope you get banned.

It was scientific. Are you saying that reduced consciousness does not follow sleep? If so, you are fully worthy of my description of you.

Perception and consciousness are unrelated. Perception still occurs while we sleep--that's why we're able to wake up when we hear noise. But we aren't conscious.

>>5906844
Our own incorrectly aware consciousness are aware of the incorrect conclusions in other people.

>>5906843
Unlike you I am here to talk about science and math.

>>5906845
It is a pointless question. "Do people believe in irrational nonsense?" Of course some of them do. We don't need science to figure this out.

>>5906847
>Perception and consciousness are unrelated.
Indeed. Perception is a physical process and scientifically observable, "consciousness" is dualist garbage and dismissed after application of Hitchens' razor.

>>5906849

How can you be aware of something that you aren't conscious of?

>>5906850
>Indeed. Perception is a physical process and scientifically observable, "consciousness" is dualist garbage and dismissed after application of Hitchens' razor.

So there is no cognitive difference between sleep and wake?

>>5906850

>Unlike you I am here to talk about science and math.

By bringing up talking to the dead?

How is that science?

>>5906850
"Pointlessness" has nothing to do with science. Plenty of scientific activities are pointless. We don't REALLY need to understand how the universe formed in the early microseconds of the Big Bang, but we're doing it anyway. We don't REALLY need to know how gravity really works, but we're still trying to pin it down.

>We don't need science to figure this out.
Assuming your common knowledge assumptions are correct without testing them is about as unscientific as you can possibly be.

You might as well be dancing for rain right now.

>>5906851
You're not aware. There is no awareness.

>>5906858

Asserted without evidence.
Dismissed.

>>5906857
>We don't REALLY need to know how gravity really works, but we're still trying to pin it down.
Not the guy you replied to, but that's stupid. Really, really stupid.

>>5906858

Are you aware?

>>5906865
No.

>>5906853
Sleep and awake are defined physiologically. This has nothing to do with your silly dualist beliefs.

>>5906854
You are the only one keeps talking about this /x/ crap.

>>5906857
There's a difference between finding explanations for gravity and stating obvious truisms.

>>5906865

I know I am. And I promise I am not a really sophisticated Bot.

>>5906866

How do you know you are not aware if you are not aware of it?

Gaize.

Gaize can you stop.

Gaize.

>>>/x/

Stop shitting up this fucking board.

Gaise.

Srrsly.

>>>/x/

Argue over there.

>>5906867
>There's a difference between finding explanations for gravity and stating obvious truisms.
No, there isn't. Making assumptions without verifying their truth is unscientific. Please get off the science board until you understand this basic fact regarding scientific methodology.

>>5906867
>You are the only one keeps talking about this /x/ crap.

No. I am just explaining to you what the word spiritualism means. You can stop using it, you know.

>>5906868
Where's your evidence?

>>5906869
It is the default assumption after application of Hitchens' razor.

>>5906870

Request denied.

What about lucid dreams?

>>5906873

I can answer questions like 'If John is in Seattle, where are his feet?"

>>5906873
>It is the default assumption after application of Hitchens' razor.

How can you know if you're not aware of it?

>>5906869
When I say that consciousness is an illusion I do not mean that "no such thing as consciousness exists", I mean that "what we refer to as consciousness is different than what we assume it is".

>>5906879

what about lucid dreams?

>>5906871
>No, there isn't.
Then why don't you explain gravity?

>Making assumptions without verifying their truth is unscientific
Observations are not assumptions.

>>5906872
Please learn how to use a dictionary.

>>5906877
Hitchens' razor.

>>5906880
Go back to >>>/x/

>>5906879
What are the contenst of that "illusion"? Stupid statements like "bnpasbhfphb is an illusion" are meaningless.

>>5906883
Observations without evidence are, indeed, assumptions. You have performed no data gathering beyond your own speculation. You are making unscientific assumptions and behaving in an embarassingly unscientific manner. Please leave the science board.

>>5906867
>Sleep and awake are defined physiologically. This has nothing to do with your silly dualist beliefs.
Answer the question. Do you think that there is no cognitive difference between sleep and wake?

>>5906885
>Observations without evidence are, indeed, assumptions.

You do not understand what an observation is. Observations are the only kind of evidence.

>>5906887
Cognitive differences are in fact physiological differences. This thread never was about physiological differences and thus also not about cognitive differences. Cognitive skills, e.g. IQ, are physiological and have nothing to do with your dualism drivel.

>>5906888
Then why are you making statements without any evidence? Your observations aren't even observations, they're just things you decided are true. That's not science.

It's obvious that you don't understand science. You shouldn't be on the science board.

>>5906889
Please learn the scientific method.

>>5906890
Consciousness is most likely physiological, so let's assume it is. If following sleep is an apparent lack of consciousness, what difference is there between being dead and sleeping?

>>5906884
Consciousness is a collection of patterned responses, both instinctive and learned, based on your memories of previous actions. What you think of as free thought are actually predictable patterns of decision-making based on the initial conditions found in your stored experiences.

We think we're conscious because we have memories of experiencing the decision-making process in action and the resulting actions we took, but the process was deterministic. We think that others are conscious for the same reasons.

The "illusion" is that we aren't the product of relatively standard biological machinery making decisions based on given input.

>>5906897
>a collection of patterned responses, both instinctive and learned
No, that's behaviour and it has nothing to do with dualism. Behaviour is scientifically explicable.

>We think we're conscious
We don't. Only dualists do.

>>5906879

Consciousness has many different definitions given by many people, this is true. And it can make it difficult to talk about.

Consciousness is about as tight a tautology as things can get. It is something that represents itself. For instance, what chain of events physical or otherwise, ever lead to the actual experience of "blue." Not 'just' the wavelength of light, mind you, but the blueness of blue. Notice we can never make an argument on paper or an equation that can describe the raw experience of blueness, because it is a description of itself. There will never be an explanation or description of blueness that will not itself be blue!

Subjectivity is the same thing. It is the fact that you experience anything at all. You can never describe exactly what it is like for you to experience experience, because pure subjectiveness is an explanation of itself.

How can this be achieved in the brain, nobody knows EXACTLY, but one way or another, we know it's going to be a loop, or loops, recursiveness. Feedback. If a system can represent its own states, that is, a state of its states, then it affirms the realness of its own states. And therefore is.

The individual percepts of experience exist for a short time in awareness and then go (whether it be good feelings, bad feelings, colors, sights. sounds, reactions, ect), but the fact that you experience anything at all. The aspect of your mind that affirms the realness of its own states, and that's all it ever is, and THAT is you. It couldn't possibly be any more subjective, and therefore couldn't possibly be any more you. To deny its existence, is to simultaneously confirm it.

>>5906901
Please address >>5906895

>>5906905
Address what? He didn't explain what he's talking about. "Abnauibphadf is most likely physiological" is a meaningless statement as long you don't say what "abnauibphadf" means in terms of observable effects.

>>5906910
Replace consciousness with cognitive differences. Now, address >>5906895.

>>5906910
You do realize you must proclaim that, when you fall asleep, you stay awake the whole time?

>>5906917
I told you that cognitive differences are physiological and have nothing to do with a soul/consciousness. Stop trying to force your /x/ spiritualism vocabulary on /sci/.

>>5906920
That's a nonsensical contradiction.

>>5906921
I never said cognitive differences were anything else than physiological.

You can't deny that, when you fall asleep, a stark difference in cognition occurs. That is what is referred to as unconsciousness. Don't complicate it by saying it's dualist, just take my definition at face-value.

From the observer's (the parts of the brain that do not belong to the unconscious) standpoint, he ceases to exist. Since he definitely ceases to exist in death, what is the difference?

>>5906926
>hurr durr look at me repeating the overdone equivocation troll

Do you think you're funny or something? "Unconscious" is a physiologically defined state and has nothing to do with a soul/consciousness.

>>5906931
Ah, gotta love when the opponent dodges all my arguments. That means he's lost.

>>5906926

You may want to consider what >>5906931 is saying. Consciousness has to be rather strictly defined, if you're going to talk about it. People will sometimes refer to consciousness as merely being awake. But what all the philosophers, mystics, and scientists are trying to understand is how a particular chain of events can lead to experience anything at all.

>>5906936
>arguments
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Repeated assertions of already debunked falsehoods are not "arguments".

>>5906937
You're right, and that's why I very strictly defined unconsciuosness. Unconsciousness is an acceptable term for what happens when we fall asleep, so I don't see why that's not appropriate.

>>5906944
Already-debunked falsehoods? There being a stark difference in cognition when we fall asleep is a falsehood?

>>5906945
As already explained, "unconscious" has nothing to do with a soul/consciousness. Your equivocation troll has been pointed out. Think of something new.

>>5906948
Nobody is talking about cognition ITT.

>>5906950
>As already explained, "unconscious" has nothing to do with a soul/consciousness. Your equivocation troll has been pointed out. Think of something new.
Where did I mention a soul? And yes, unconsciousness has everything to do with that. It's the state we're in when we're not unconscious.

>Nobody is talking about cognition ITT.
I just defined unconsciousness as the stark difference in cognition that occurs when we sleep to avoid ambiguity.

>>5906945

It IS an acceptable term, but it has to be differentiated from what everybody thinks you're talking about when you discuss the nature of consciousness. If you don't, you'll be arguing all day with people and never communicate anything. Discussing consciousness is fucking frustrating in this regard. Which is probably why /sci/ resents it so much. People associate it with everything, and it's the magic ingredient every quack weaves into his interpretation of the world...... that and maybe the creation of the universe.

>>5906962
I'm not a dualist, if that solves anything. I don't believe consciousness exists outside of the body. But I do believe it exists.

>>5906955
Why do you talk about things unrelated to the thread?

>>5906964
>But I do believe it exists.
/sci/ is about science, not about beliefs.