/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6252175
>dat pic
sage
go fuck yourself!

Read Dennett. There is no hard problem of consciousness.

>>6252187
What's OP's image? It looks kinda like EK.

>>6252187
What's wrong with the pic? I saved it from /s/ where someone posted nudes of these two women too. What a pity, /sci/ is SFW.

>>6252188
This is a science board, not a philosophy board. Kindly fuck off to /x/. The scientific question of how subjective experience arises is not invalidated by toddler sophistry.

>>6252192
except that you have no idea what EK looks like because she never actually posted any pics herself, only some fucking retards posted pics pretending it was EK when they had NO FUCKING CLUE wtf she even looked like because they were trollcunts.
k?

>>6252193
nudes of these 2 dont even exist and they aint on /s/ so you're a fucking liar, you fucktard!

>>6252188
But there is. I know I have subjective experience and it requires a scientific explanation.

>>6252198
I can assure you the nudes exist. I saved them a month ago from /s/, when I felt lesbian.

>>6252199
>I see ghosts and magical leprechauns therefore they must exist!

>>6252202
you're a chick??
anyway i know for a fact you're trolling
if nudes exist, then post them. i fucking dare you. and i aint even worried coz theres no chance you could ever have got nudes

>>6252204
Good for you. If you want to discuss your ghosts and leprechauns, go to /x/.

>>6252204
>implying leprechauns don't exist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9kA6dbaer4

Subjective experience is just a different (internal) perspective on neurological phenomena.

Oh wait, that's not the answer you want.
Here's a better answer for you: It's all magic and souls, man.

sage

>>6252211
>anyway i know for a fact you're trolling
Why would you say that? I have the fucking pictures on my computer.

>if nudes exist, then post them.
I can't do that. /sci/ is safe for work.

>and i aint even worried
Why would you be worried about nudes of some random women you don't even know?

>>6252215
>Subjective experience is just a different (internal) perspective on neurological phenomena.

What the fuck is an "internal perspective"? Sounds like pseudoscience bullshit. Please define the term and substantiate your claim with empirical scientific evidence. If you can't do that, I'll have to assume you're just another teenager talking out of his uneducated ass.

>consciousness
>>>/x/

>>6252219
>there is just no way a machine can have access to information about its own internal state

You're right, bro. You would need, like, ancient aliens and god and souls and stuff.

>>6252216
well obviously i aint worried. but if you aint lying, then post the nudes.
failure to do so within 10 minutes will automatically default to you being a lying bastard
k?

>>6252216
>>6252226
and obviously no1 cares about /sci/. being SFW, so you could post them and then immediately delete them. if you had them. which you dont. so all this is irrelevant.

>>6252224
We are talking about subjective experience, not about information of internal status. Your reply is very rude and immature. Please leave.

>>6252216
That poster is trying to trap you into a ban.

However, a well-known loophole for sharing NSFW images on SFW boards is to upload them to an offsite image host (imgur.com for example) and link them. This is within the rules.

Also I want to see those nudes.

>>6252226
>>6252232
Why do you care so much? There are millions of better looking women whose nudes you can find for free on the internet.

>>6252212
You don't understand analogies? Why is an inept dumbfuck who can't into abstraction like you on a science and math board?

>>6252235
>Also I want to see those nudes.
he's a troll, the nudes of those 2 dont exist
also, why the fuck would you even care about seeing nudes of random chicks??
theres nudes of literally thousands of random chicks on the internet. in fact, you could probably even google 'naked chicks' with safesearch turned 'off' and you'd instantly find them. so just do that, who cares about these 2 specifically?? wtf??

>>6252237
i dont care. i posted >>6252244

>>6252230
I see... Well, here's a place where you will find all the information you need, my friend:
>>>/x/

no need to thank me :)

>>6252239
Your analogy was wrong and retarded.

>>6252211
guys can be lesbians too

>>6252244
>>6252250
>dat backpedaling

What's wrong with you? One could almost believe you are one of the girls in the pic.

>>6252251
erm, no they cant. lesbians are specifically girl>girl

>>6252247
All unobservable nonsense belongs on /x/.

>>6252245
I was asking for a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon. Nothing paranormal here.

>>6252251
No, they can't. Fuck off with your mental illness.

>>6252188
Fuck off. Wishful thinking and cognitive dissonance don't belong in science.

what the fuck is with all this linking to /x/

is /sci/ this butt-flustered about being confronted by humanity's lack of understanding on the most fundamental aspect of the human condition?

>>6252259
>>6252258
That's sexist, you better chekt yourself before you rekt yourself.

>>6252253
well im obviously not. the odds of that would be like 1 in a billion because some random chick you post aint gonna be someone who actually posts on /sci/
but anyway, that aint backpeddling. i just dont believe you have the nudes. so why dont you just admit you were lying, and then we can move past this?
because i know if you had them then you'd post them. but you clearly dont.; and you havent posted them or linked them in any way, so im clearly right.
just drop it

>>6252215
Well duh. The question is by what mechanism a physical phenomenon could have a perspective.

>>6252267
lesbians?

>>6252259
>I was asking for a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon.

Yes, yes, of course! I know the board is titled "Paranormal", but these nice people will be very glad to help you anyway. Trust me. :)

Humans are biological machines and obey the laws of physics. Magical souls are not needed to explain anything.

>>6252272
neural feedback?

>>6252271
If you keep being an annoying little shit, I won't post the pics. You're almost as bad as the fags who flood threads with "sauce???!!!!!" or "moar!!!!" Learn to be polite if you have a request.

>>6252270
9gag called. They want their stale old maymay back.

>>6252278
I want to discuss science and not creepy stories about skeletons and aliens.

>>6252193
>>6252260
Consciousness has the unique ability to convince itself it is special. 'Subjectivity' arises from the objective; consciousness is just another arrangement of atoms.

It is you doing the wishful thinking; you are unwilling to accept that you are a heap of trivial atoms and wish to bestow yourself with this notion of qualia. YOU can fuck off to /x/.

>>6252281
I'm glad I asked for a scientific explanation as opposed to a magical soul explanation.

>>6252284
Can you write a complete sentence?

>>6252281
Your post don't explain subjective experience. Please shitpost elsewhere.

>>6252290
if you had the pics (which you dont) then i wouldnt give a fuck about you posting them anyway so EAT A DICK!
and im gonna go now, but im just gonna assume you aint got them. so i'll tag this thread, and i'll be back in a few hours, and when i return when you have delivered FUCKING NOTHING like i assumed, and so fuck you
;D

>>6252297
>Can you write a complete sentence?
no

>>6252295
Who let the toddler in? Isn't it past bed time for you? We want a scientific explanation of subjective experience. Your post doesn't do that. The pseudo-intellectual sophistry of a 5 year old does not answer scientific questoins. Please come back when you know how the scientific method works.

>>6252295
> Consciousness has the unique ability to convince itself it is special.
> Consciousness is just another arrangement of atoms
Since consciousness don't occur in stones or trees or water or metals or basic carbon compounds or minerals or gasses or anything else, I'd say it's pretty special. And unique arrangement is what OP adresses to.

>>6252297
>scientific explanation
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>6252298
I did include an explanation in that post. Please get your /x/ shit and lack of reading comprehension off of the science board.

>>6252309
> I will shitpost relentlessly with absolutely no context.
alrighty then

>>6252310
>implying consciousness occurs at all
Can you please show me the evidence or take it to /x/?

>>6252295
>uninformative post
>baseless opinion
Choose two. Opinion discarded.

>>6252300
We won't miss you.

Btw if anyone else is interested in the pics, let me know.

>>6252312
>posts scientific facts
>gets accused of shitposting

>>6252313
You have neural activity in your alive brain, and you are self-aware. If you weren't you wouldn't be typing a response.

>>6252323
Neuronal acticity does neither require nor imply metaphysical phenomena. Typing a response is a purely deterministic biological process. Please keep your spirituality garbage on /x/.

>>6252323
I do not possess any spiritualistic qualities and none are required for physical and observable behavior. Can you please get some science education and stop trolling this board with /x/ drivel?

>>6252281
Then why do you sound like a religious nut?

>>6252326
> metaphysical phenomena
I'm talking about subjectivity, not metaphysics
> spiritualistic qualities
It seems you can't make a single argument without putting words in opponents mouth like an 8 year old. So just let me know when you learn how to form arguments.

>>6252310
>consciousness
Please define this word precisely.

>>6252302
>Who let the toddler in? Isn't it past bed time for you?

Well, I can take solace in the fact that however unscientific my argument is, it will never be as pitiful and worthless as this level of childish name-calling.

>We want a scientific explanation of subjective experience. Your post doesn't do that.

My argument, in a sense, couldn't be more scientific. Once you accept that subjectivity does not merely arise from the physical, but IS the physical itself, you will realise that there is no hard problem to speak of.

I am proposing that subjectivity is due to the physical (that is, explainable by means of physical science); you are proposing that subjectivity is constituted by some ethereal element which is out of science's grasp. You are a wishful thinker.

Here are some papers (read: *scientific* papers) for you to mull over while you desperately repeat to yourself "muh quallia, muh qualia".

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.1625.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0209047.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9505023v2.pdf

>>6252284
Uh, I program ANN's with neural feedback for a living. I'm pretty sure they don't have subjective experience. More to the point, why would they? What would be special about any kind of of algorithm, that would give it subjective experience? It's a hokey idea. There's no getting around the fact that it is a hokey idea, including pointing out that all available explanations are also hokey.

>>6252328
Basic principles of rationality that required for proper scientific inquiry are the opposite of religion. Keep "scientism" philosofaggotry on /lit/.

>>6252332
Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

Now please tell us how you're not self-aware at all, so we can have a good laugh at you.

>>6252295
So, you're saying you are not conscious? I can believe that. It could be that not all people with brains are conscious, as you cannot necessarily tell from behavior. I know that I am, because I experience it. Others report experiencing it as well. It's clear that you don't believe it exists because you don't experience it. But for the rest of us, it is a question that begs to be answered, how the capacity to experience arises.

>>6252175
>I don't want to lose my faith in science
Then don't.

All faith is anyway is an arbitrary decision to be illogical, so as long as you're wasting your time by having faith in _anything_ you might as well have faith science if that's what you want

>>6252309
Please leave /sci/. You are an absolute shitposter, angrily reposting angsty atheist memes out of context without understanding them. You have no future in science.

>>6252333
>My argument, in a sense, couldn't be more scientific
What argument? "Hurr durr here is my opinion, now believe it" is not an argument at all and is highly unscientific.

>I am proposing that subjectivity is due to the physical
Post a mechanism and the supporting scientific evidence.

>you are proposing that subjectivity is constituted by some ethereal element
Where did I ever do that? I never did, you cognitively impaired piece of shit. Stop projecting and learn to read. I am asking for a scientific explanation of subjective experience. So far you provided none. Your posts are foolish and belligerent and they add nothing of value to the discussion.

>Here are some papers
Quantum philosophy crackpottery? Seriously? This is /x/ shit at its best.

>>6252310
Well, we don't know that consciousness doesn't occur in stones or trees or water, etc. Some people assume this based on the conjecture that consciousness is an artifact of brains. However more rigorous exploration of consciousness is involved these days in analyzing plant behavior in terms of consciousness. We'll never be able to measure subjective experiences though, and without brains, if other things experience consciousness, they have no way to report those experiences to us.

>>6252340
Not testable, not science.

>>6252340
Sounds like a pretty circular definition to me.

Anyway, here are some papers:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5395/1846.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298966/

>>6252346
I have a very bright future in science. My IQ is > 170.

>>6252360
>cannot know nuffin
Back to /lit/, philosotard.

>>6252337
You've shown no signs of rationality, scepticism or science-mindedness. You're just repeating crap you've learned to believe in. You show no curiousity about what you are, or what you experience. You'd rather discard evidence than try to understand it. You don't belong here.

>>6252358
So according to this fag. Consciousness can't be explored with science. Fortunately, some scientists disagree, and are doing research into consciousness, to the degree it is possible. There are of course limits. But I think we should use the tools of science to whatever degree we can. But if your previous "faith" was that science could answer any question, it can't.

>What argument? "Hurr durr here is my opinion, now believe it" is not an argument at all and is highly unscientific.
>Post a mechanism and the supporting scientific evidence.

I provided you with papers, submitted to a respected archive by experienced scientists, that do just this. You have done far less.

>I am asking for a scientific explanation of subjective experience.
You are simply ignorant. You keep asking for this, and when explanations are provided, you stick your fingers in your ears and summarily dismiss convincing works ("Quantum philosophy crackpottery? Seriously?"). You are simply unready to discuss matters like an adult. It's a shame, really.

>>6252360
> we don't know that consciousness doesn't occur in stones or trees or water
We do. Consciousness is brain-spesific. How doctors indicate if someone is conscious depends on the persons neural activity and being self-aware. If he has brain activity but he's not self aware, then he's in a vegetative state, which means there is a clear definition that medical experts use to define consciousess.

>>6252368
>I have a very bright future in science. My IQ is > 170.
muh IQ

>>6252372
I am asking for evidence. You did post none. Instead you only reply by shitposting.

>>6252376

>>6252352

>>6252368
> I know things with absolutely no evidence
your friends called you back --->/x/

>>6252376
>I provided you with papers

These papers are quantum mysticism pseudoscience. There is no way you're being serious here. Stop joking around.

>>6252377
We don't know that consciousness is brain-specific. Doctors determine if someone is conscious by if they report being conscious, and what neural activity correlates with reports of consciousness in humans. But this is all specific to things that have brains. It is not a basis for saying that things without brains do not have consciousness, only that for things that do have brains, consciousness is very interconnected with their brains.

>>6252377
Neuronal activity has nothing to do with metaphysical phenomena without observable effects. Stop spreading misinformation.

>>6252380
As long as there is no evidence, there is nothing that needs to be researched. Science does not deal with non-interacting spirits.

>>6252368
>I have a very bright future in science. My IQ is > 170.
There are things much more important than IQ in being successful in science, particularly curiosity and an inclination towards critical thought. You seem to lack both.

>>6252281
>>6252309

>>6252334
The guy was asking about perspective, not subjective experience. If your automaton processes and uses information about itself, then it has an internal perspective.
Unless you have another definition of "perspective"?

>These papers are quantum mysticism pseudoscience.

If we are willing to dismiss entire fields of hard science as mysticism then you are simply an intellectual child. You are no different to those who deny natural selection or heliocentricism.

>>6252397
I'm very curious and critical. That's why I'm asking you for evidence of your /x/ claims. Where is the evidence?

>>6252281
>Christopher Hitchens
How euphoric are you feeling today?

>>6252175
You should probably take this thread to /lit/ they're more well versed in philosophy and will for the most part stay on topic, everyone here is autistic.

>>6252389
How can a rock be self-aware if it doesn't have any senses or instruments that can interpret inputs ? We know this because we know exactly what a rock is made of.
>>6252390
Ignoring this total autistic shitposter here.

>>6252281
>le atheism face

>>6252399
>Unless you have another definition of "perspective"?
You haven't yet posted yours.

>>6252401
I am not interested in philosophy. I want a scientific explanation.

>>6252402
Quantum mysticism is not a field of science. Obviously you don't now enough about quantum mechanics to know the difference.

>>6252395
>>6252400

>>6252309
>hurr derp atoms didn't exist until we saw them!
fuck off you autistic turing machine

>>6252333
>Once you accept that subjectivity does not merely arise from the physical, but IS the physical itself, you will realise that there is no hard problem to speak of.

Are you proposing that subjectivity is inherent in matter, and thus all things share in some level of consciousness? I do believe this is one solution to the hard problem. It doesn't mean it's not a hard problem though, and it is not a testable solution, so far as we can figure out how to test things so far.

This thread is overflowing with fedoras

>>6252410
>Quantum mysticism is not a field of science.

It is quantum physics. It is posted in the 'Quantum Physics' section of arXiv. If you're going to disagree with the leading scientists of today, don't expect anyone to take you seriously

>>6252402
>"Physicalism vs. Quantum Mechanics" = hard science
Please, fuck off back to your homeopath and get some more remedies.

>>6252337
Look I found your theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICRt2-plVSE

>>6252404
>has no counter-arguments
>resorts to infantile name calling
I knew you couldn't argue against facts and logic. Better luck next time, kid.

>>6252413
False analogy. Atoms have physical effects.

>>6252410
>If your automaton processes and uses information about something, then it has a perspective on that thing
Here's the definition.

>>6252380
He's right though

>>6252340
>Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.
This is _still_ ill-defined. We have robots that can sense their environment and collect data, as such they are entities with information about things around them. Does that make them 'aware' or not? Your definition alone without bringing in anything further does not allow us to answer that question.

I don't think anyone is saying that consciousness will never be testable, but as of now it is not.

>some scientists disagree, and are doing research into consciousness
They can't possibly. Whatever they think they are doing is maybe a step toward eventually researching consciousness, but they are not doing it right now.
There is currently not a single thing in this universe that we can label as a sign of consciousness. You should let that sink in for a while. There is no set of observations you can ever possibly make with our current knowledge that will allow you to determine if something is conscious, and the reason for that is most likely just because we haven't defined it yet.
You can't research something that you can't even define.

>>6252418
Atomism makes no predictions and has no testable effects! Better bring it back to /x/!

>>6252420
You don't know shit about QM. What you linked was utter crackpottery, philosophical musings at best. No science is to be found in these baseless speculations.

>>6252421
It is infinitely more scientific than"muh qualia muh qualia im a special snowflake i do too have a spirit ur just a fedora wearing atheist >>/x/>>/x/"

>>6252195
Oh good, the EK white knights still come to this board. You guys are among the most bizarre on 4chan. White-knighting for an annoying pseudo-intellectual transvestite.

Anyway, who's OP's pic, then?

>>6252424
Under that definition your previous claim has become meaningless.

>>6252429
Fuck off, shitposter.

>>6252431
I was asking for a scientific explanation. Please post one or GTFO. I want neither quantum mysticism crackpottery nor dualist magic. I want science.

>>6252430
Even philosophical musings -- which these papers are not -- are infinitely more substantial than baselessly asserting that subjectivity is something unexplained by science. The onus is on you to back up this claim (inb4 lol fedora waring atheistttt!).

>>6252333
>Says there's no "Hard Problem"
>Posts a link to a paper entitled "The Hard Problem"

>>6252410
You wont get one and your not going to get an answer anytime soon from anyone. Not much is known on the nature of consciousness its the hard problem of neuroscience right now. The best thing you'll get is analytically reasoning to a philosophical problem. Also read Daniel Dennent's views on this subject matter he's a philosopher but probably understands more math and science than anyone on /sci/.

>>6252436
>l can't even see my own mind, so it must not be there!

>>6252436
>Under that definition your previous claim has become meaningless.
What? Are you retarded?

>I was asking for a scientific explanation
How about you start by reading those two papers:
>>6252362
and then you keep searching for more papers?

>>6252424
By that definition you believe that ever computer program is conscious. I don't know whether to send you to /x/ or /tv/.

>>6252437
>Even philosophical musings -- which these papers are not
Right, these pseudoscience papers are even too retarded to qualify as philosophy.

>are infinitely more substantial than baselessly asserting that subjectivity is something unexplained by science.
To this day it remains unexplained. If you disagree, you are free to post the explanation and the data supporting it. The Nobel prize is waiting for you.

>>6252438
Ignore him. He's clearly underaged.

>>6252439
>Also read Daniel Dennent's views
Dennett is a puerile sophist. I am not interested in reading philosogarbage. I want science.

>but probably understands more math and science than anyone on /sci/.
My lels are in orbit.

>>6252442
Who are you quoting? The wrong post?

>>6252444
>What? Are you retarded?
No, my IQ is very high.

>How about you start by reading those two papers:
They don't address the hard problem.

>>6252437
>are infinitely more substantial than baselessly asserting that subjectivity is something unexplained by science.
0 = 1000000000*0. Therefore, 0 > 0. Checkmate, atheists

>>6252449
Dennett is a puerile sophist. I am not interested in reading philosogarbage. I want science.

I'm done. I'll see you all tomorrow.

>>6252453
go to bed, mike

>>6252445
>defining "perspective"
>moron claims I was talking about "consciousness"

Back to >>>/b/ please.

>>6252454
Goodbye, dumbfuck. We won't miss you and your toxic ignorance.

>>6252455
That's not my name.

Look at my fedora! Science must explain everything. Even though all scientific theories are just approximations right now I must WORSHIP them like a religion. I am so fucking euphoric right now! Science must explain everything. Look at these hot anime pictures I'm masturbating to! And it does. My IQ is over 500! Humans already understand everything about the universe and everything is observable. My popsci book collection is bigger than yours! Literally, like everything. I've never studied science academically before but Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins sure have taught me just as much if not more!

>>6252193
>toddler sophistry.

>>6252460
>have high IQ
>respond "that's not my name" to anon

>>6252458
Wrong, asshat. You either said, or posted in response to this:
>Subjective experience is just a different (internal) perspective on neurological phenomena.
Meaning you implied that all computer programs have subjective experience. Thinking isn't your strong suit. Maybe... >>>/fit/

this thread is why /sci/ is shit

fuck it all to hell

>dismisses quantum mechanics
>"muh qualia muh qualia"
>calls others ignorant

>>6252466
Seriously. /sci/ has always had its share of shit, but now it is totally shit. We used to have good discussions on consciousness sometimes. You people suck. Maybe I'll try again in 2015.

>>6252469
Mysticism isn't quantum mechanics. You don't know shit about QM. Back to >>>/x/

>>6252465
>you implied that all computer programs have subjective experience
Nope. Unless you believe all perspectives are of the same nature or complexity? If that is the case, I recommend that you go back to >>>/sp/

>>6252474
Don't you dare insulting /sp/. You nerd are just jelly of our alpha bro culture.

sauce on the pic pls??

>>6252480
boku no pico

all these board redirects are getting really fr*cking epic!

>>6252175
This was actually a good topic that turned into one of the worst threads I've ever seen on /sci/

>>6252518
They sure are, friend. :^)

>>>/s4s/

>>6252527
lmao!!

>>6252529
kek :^D

>>6252434
I just woke my neighbors up with my laughter.

>>6252434
>Anyway, who's OP's pic, then?
Some ugly fatty.

>chemistry and phil double major
>OP post
>"this should be good."
>butchered quantum mechanics
>atheists
>no phenomenology
> "phil and science are non-compatible"
>mfw

>>6252175
>those women
Yuck.
To answer your question: We barely understand the brain and have less understanding of the mind. No nerd rapture for you.

The answer is simple. Matter is consciousness, the more complex matter is arranged, the more conscious the object becomes. Life is complex matter and consciousness is complex life. Very, very simple.

>>6252472
Times like these make me miss the hitchens razor guy. What happened to him?

Laplace's Demon.

Do we have free will?

>>6252822

"Free will" as the subject of inquiry in this board is the misuse of common usage which approximates to "You're responsible for your actions" as a motivator for the internal creation of a disciplinary and evaluative system within one's grasp.

>>6252463

Relativity of wrong, etc. Scientific explanations are just WAY better tools to investigate a state of affairs than relying on recursive examination of particular units of grammar in a particular family of languages.

Not to mention it's kind of disingenuous to say "Well we have this vast variety in systems of mechanics that have been better explained by progressive tools and investigations BUT somehow the system of mechanics regarding the origins of our consciousness are eternally exempt from this and must be kept caged in some stupid mystademagoguery CUZ."

>bu-bu-but we can't explain everything or even a significant portion at this particular time in history

So fucking what. Don't be a child and expect that you're living in some easy tail of history where "EVERYTHING IS EXPLAINED" so you can satisfy some adolescent desire to dominate the entire world of facts as opposed to realizing how much of an infancy our body of knowledge is.

>>6252313
You have subjective experience, you idiot.

>>6252175
>hard problem of consciousness

>>>/lit/

>>6252195
EK, is that you?

>>6252955
Whatever happened to EK?

All of our perceptions are based on the mechanical input of objective stimuli into the brain. Subjective interpretations of reality, that is pertaining to the detective powers of the entity within the system, include: Colour, temperature, spatial awareness, time, emotion, musicality, creativity and mathematics.
Math is subjective in the way it is applied to objects and abstract concepts. Objectively, math exists because the entire universe, or the whole, symbolizes the number 1. It is from the number 1 that we can then derive all other numbers as well as addition, multiplication and the mathematical functions.
Time. While it is certain that nature is telling us something very profound about what time is, our perception of time is subjective. In fact, the reason we view time moving from past, to present, to future is entirely because of evolution. The nature of entropy within the universe shows a tendency to increase as space stretches out, acted on by forces from future and distant states. Organisms have had to adapt in order to collect energy from more readily available states, so that they can expend this energy and survive future states. A prime example is our ability to avoid danger by predicting the future. Our perception of time is a matter of practicality. Should we have lived in a world where time moved backwards we would have starved. Indeed it follows that we are in fact traveling backwards but our perception is that time passes in a forwards direction out of necessity.

tl;dr never base your understanding of the universe primarily on what you will learn at college, or on popular science. Think for yourself because the answers are actually out there.

>>6252988
We're moving backwards but time appears to flow forwards? Is that what you're saying?

>>6253002
The forces that act on matter to produce space-time freely flow both forwards and backwards. Look at Feynman diagrams. The arrows are interchangeable. Our perception of time is an evolutionary byproduct.

>>6253005
omg somebody's actually being smart for once
let's ignore him and start a new thread about the same topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9tH3AnYyAI8#t=6503

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9tH3AnYyAI8#t=6503

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9tH3AnYyAI8#t=6503

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9tH3AnYyAI8#t=6503

In the distant future, when the hard problem has long been solved, archeologists will stumble upon this thread and it will be used as an example of how clueless we were on the subject and how it divided us.

>>6253035
They'll be laughing that some wishful-thinking theistic idiots ITT actually believe it exists.

>>6253035
JESUS CHRIST YOU'RE AN IDIOT
>>6252988
This is the answer. Consciousness is underlined by the same process that drives chemical reactions between atoms. Just look at simple organisms. They behave as if they have intelligence. Plants move towards the sun to gather energy, ants act as a hive to overcome nearly any obstacle. Bacteria gather resources and can reproduce successfully in almost any environment. Humans have heightened sensory mechanics and higher brain functioning. The principle is the SAME. To consider otherwise is to believe in RELIGION. Religious feelings are, unironically, an evolutionary architect to encourage tribal behaviour and sense of being and has been shown to be related to the excitation of the temporal lobes. Science has given us evidence but it's up to you to fucking understand it.

HURR DURR. EVEYRONE LOOK AT ME!!!!

I@M A RETARD!!!!!!!!!!

>>6253038
Watch the YT video posted. Daniel explains perfectly the problem with the morons in this thread; they're not willing to accept that there is no problem. They want to believe that consciousness is something special, something with meaning, something transcendental. They'll regard the brutal truth as quackery and unscientific, just as the religious dismiss the brutal truth as nonsense conjured by fedora-wearing euphoric neckbeards. It's a self-defense mechanism to protect their feelings; the very purpose of religion. Pitiful, really.

OP, You should read Daniel Dennet's "Consciousness explained (away)".


lolololol hurpadurp!

>>6253041
I dislike watching pop sci videos on topics that should be easy to understand in the first place.

The problem with consciousness is when people mistake it with processes of the imagination. You will see by learning more about science that consciousness has advanced through varying degrees throughout evolution and humans have more extended functions (more so than other animals) one of which is the capacity for a simulating and analytical imagination. Imagine the first organism to acquire the ability to navigate with a cognitive spatial map. More neurones and increased connectivity and plasticity increases the capacity to map objects in space and time..... So I dont know what your difficulty is....

Good comment

>>6253041
He doesn't explain anything at all. He outright denies the problem and his only arguments for this position are ad hominems and ad nauseams. He is to neuroscience what creationists are to biology.

>>6253041
>hurr durr u are not conscious and if u disagree ur a dualist theist

He sure convinced me with all those kindergarten rhetorics...

>>6253021
>omg somebody's actually being smart for once

Why? Because he posted babby's first Feynman diagrams? Wow, physics 101 is surely impressive!

>>6253041
>to protect their feelings
>their feelings
do you realize the irony?

>>6252175

God exists you atheist neckbeard.

>>6253122
because he explains consciousness in terms of modern scientific principles that nobody can refute.

>>6252281
>>6252281
>yfw
>Buddhism was right all along

The mind is what Brain does.

Computer "compute"

Can someone please explain how someone can convince themselves that they don't have subjective experience?

>>6254014
Can someone please explain why someone would bump an 8 hour old shitposting thread with a shitpost, if that someone isn't a shitposter?

>>6254014
Their brain is lying to them.

>>6254014
That's easy. Some people will believe anything necessary to avoid having to think.

>>6253038
Explaining behavior isn't the problem. If we didn't have conscious subjective experience, there would be no difficulty in explaining human behavior via the mechanisms you mention. The problem is we do. To deny it is to be intellectually dishonest for the sake of a dogma that can't explain it.

You're kidding right?

>>6252175
You tell me.

>>6254109
I am serious.

>>6254062
This is an unsolved problem in clinical psychology.

Why must we use the term 'subjective experience?' It implies dumb shit such as asserting that two people seeing the same wavelength of visible light will see a different color because we cant know they dont. Thats clearly not the subject here.

>>6261008
That's exactly the subject here. The "hard problem" aims at finding scientific certainty about the origin and mechanism of subjective experience. Subjective experience exists and is yet to be explained.

The one on the left is more attractive than the one on the right.

>>6252295
How does subjectivity arise from objectivity?

>>6252415

what to do when you get told 101:
[ ]call him a newfag
[ ]call him a troll
[ ]reply with a reaction pic
[ ]tell him to go back to /b/
[ ]call him underage
[X]say he has a fedora

>>6252175
>my faith in science
Science is not about faith.
Science is about data and theory.
No faith is involved, or desirable.

As scientists, shouldn't you people experiment for yourselfs and draw upon those conclusions?

Seems what both the athiest and christfags are doing are being philosophags, whih as any true /sci/entist would know, is pure degeneracy.

I would tell you guys that you can find out by doing astral projection, but you won't. You will resort to non-scientific methods of conclusion and personal attacks beacuse it doesn't fit your world view.

I know,
>back to /x/

>>6252198
....ek?

>>6252987
ded

>>6254014
This
>>6268271

>>6267618
Then stop making statements of faith.

>>6252175
Don't you have anything better to do than idle navel-gazing? What the fuck does this even matter? There are many productive things you could be doing but you're wasting your time on this?

>>6252202
OP if you're still here can you upload nudes to imgur and post link?

>>6268736
OP's a fucking liar you gullible little twat. you'll be waiting a looooooong timke for those pics.

>>6270403
How do you know?

>>6270403
Does "a looooooong timke" include infinite times or only finite times?

>>6271529
just call it a hunch. by all means, feel free to wait for OP. im happy to wait with ya ;)

>>6272674
only finite times, and half of the infinite times.

>>6268271
How would astral projection help? Telepathy is the thing which would disprove subjective experience and erase the hard problem of consciousness.

It's also easier.

>>6273134
Is telepathy even possible?

>>6252175
Welcome to the world of philosophy.

>>6252267
You pretty much got it spot on.

>>6252281
Hitchens is not a scientist, you ignorant twat. You're taking your arguments from a non-scientist and applying them in a scientific context. What a waste.

>>6252175
By your own words, your belief in science, your faith, is misplaced. Faith and belief are religious terms. Separate your religion from science, and you'll experience far less cognitive dissonance.

>>6252434
ek she lives in our minds the great influecne of sci she was good poster but everyone hate on her and now we have IQ TROLL SOO MUCH BETTER HAHAHA no ek time was better and i miss ek harriet all it was better now i dont understand sci it confuses me i just want to understand sci

>>6274701
Without you /sci/ would have never become as shitty as it is today. You were among the most ardent enemies of /sci/. Congratulations, you succeeded. /sci/ is kill.

>>6274714
no you do not understand when ek was posting she makes people get mad sure BUT it stimualtes conversation and all the other people making good post sbut now you send ek away and all goes downhill because you cannot accept ek so now? now iq troll threads philosphy 24/7 and for what? is sci quality better? no sci uqality is not better ic ant understand nanytihng now and i don ot like it so stop trying to blame everyone else its only the haters fault

>>6274720
Exactly. It's your fault, not EK's. EK was fun. You weren't.

>>6274721
how is it my fault i never did anything bad i dont make iq threads you mean person

>>6274725
IQ threads are the chemo against the cancer you brought to this board.

>>6252368
>IQ > 170

I guarantee that it isn't

>>6274728
give one example i dare you because i know you cant

>>6274734
Once there was a time you came here because you were interested in science and math. You might not remember that time, after years of shitposting turned your brain into mush. Clearly you don't enjoy /sci/ anymore. What are you still doing here?

>>6274740
dont answer my question with a question
give 1 example of my post being bad

>>6274749
Today is not the day for silly trolling. You know exacly what you did. You might be mentally ill very much but you're not that severely deranged that you couldn't reflect your own behaviour anymore.

>>6274728
>IQ threads are the chemo against the cancer
Go away, troll.

>>6274761
im waiting

>>6274799
Keep waiting as long as you want. You sure have a lot of time on your hands and "waiting" would be more productive than shitposting.

How do you know consciousness exists though?
I certainly believe I am aware of my existence, although this might be a subconsciously generated misconception.

>>6252175
It's the level of complexity of information in your brain.

>>6276783
How do you measure the complexity of information?

>>6268271
How do you Astral Project? I can only Lucid dream. If I get it working right I'll do some tests and if its real I'll get on the news and do magick.

>>6277239
Not him but holy crap. Fucking neurons and electricity and brain waves holy crap can you think for yourself? How do you measure how wet a table is?

>>6277239
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory#Definition_of_consciousness

>>6277320
How do magnets work?

>>6277332
ICP pls.

>>6277353

This is so fucking annoying, I saw this girl's pic on her dating profile earlier today, but I can't find her page again.

>>6277568
What dating site?

>>6252328
>Then why do you sound like a religious nut?

The truth is the inverse. Actually, religious nuts practice sounding reasonable and sane. The net effect is a religious nut that doesn't seem nutty because he is controlling his emotions like an actor, like Tom Cruise.

The athiest is an enthusiast who has no doctrine to push. He is arguing because he is passionate. Typically this comes across variously as excited, overbearing, emotional, or whatever.

In other words, psychos rule our world because the thick mass of sheep we call a population (1/2 crazy at the very least) tend toward simplistic scenarios. The most simple is, they form a "subjective" impression of the speaker and then use that impression to evaluate the speaker's claims.

The result is a litany of world leaders who are demonstrably psychotic, manipulative, and/or dispassionate corporate servants.

riza nreciag

>>6278380
I feel enlightened after reading your post.

>>6277568
who? the girl in OP's pic?
which one, left or right?

>>6278380
time to take your aripiprazole

>>6278369
>>6279394

PoF, I was browsing the girls from Dublin, Ireland. I actually can't remember if it was the profile of the left or right girl.

>>6279584
Link to the page please?

>>6252175
Rule one, there is no such thing as faith in science. Science is the understanding of the mechanisms of our universe, and as such is a self correcting process.
Never use science and faith, or science and believe in the same sentence, because they have nothing to do with each other.
Yes, I'm anal retentive about this type of stuff. =3=

>>6252256
Lol......no, just no.
That's like saying the Multiverse Theory, or Quantum Mechanics belongs in /x/. A lot of it (if not all) is unobservable, and sounds almost like nonsense in hindsight :V
Just stahp.

>>6252281
That Hitchens quote is an appeal to ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Kthnx.

>>6252310
Unique? Not really, consciousness is just derived from the state of being conscious .-.
All living things (obviously) have some level of conscious, even though it isn't apparent in things such as plants, they do still feel pain and react to it (which follows that there is some level of consciousness, just very very low).

Fuck, another goddam pseudoscience thread giving me a headache...../sci/ y u fail me tonight :/

>>6280393
>Science is the understanding of the mechanisms of our universe, and as such is a self correcting process.

No, science is a tool for solving problems. And the faith is that the universe works so that repeating a controlled process yields the same result. So far there is no reason to doubt this, but there is no way to prove it either. It is faith.

>>6252438
XD XD XD

>>6274493
Yes. You just kind of sit focusing for 10-ish minutes and you should get a brief crossover with the target's sensory inputs.

But even if it's real, it doesn't matter because we have no ideas on what enables this yet. All we know is that the common view of subjective experience gives rise to impossible questions, so it's wrong.

>>6280393
>All living things (obviously) have some level of conscious

Animism is the most primitive precursor of religion.

>>6281686
[citation needed]

>>6252175
Yeah because I mean science has explained everything, how come it hasn't explained this

>>6252175
>hard problem of consciousness
Which is what?

>>6283984
It is the problem that many people don't know how to use google.

>discuss consciousness on /sci/
>muh lack of explanation
therefore science has no answer to why we exist

autists -1
christians over 9000

Subjective experience doesn't even exist, OP.

4chan doesn't even exist, OP :(

It was nice to read some of EK's posts again. I miss old /sci/.
>making fun of EK
>getting EK mad at harriet
good times

>>6252333
>My argument, in a sense, couldn't be more scientific. Once you accept that subjectivity does not merely arise from the physical, but IS the physical itself, you will realise that there is no hard problem to speak of.

So the question goes from how does consciousness rise from the physical to how does the physical become consciousness.

Maybe you made one tip toe to the answer but most of the problem is still there.

So you are saying consciousness is some how different from the collection of physical activity? Why does this physical activity have to "become" consciousness. You just want to believe consciousness is different from this physical activity. Which is totally absurd. We call the collection of physical activity "consciousness" but that doesn't make it somehow different from the physical.

itt classical positivists struggle with the observer paradox

keep struggling, classical positivists

We can find the mechanism by which subjective experience arises from neuronal acitivity.

>>6288207
Subjective experience happens and it requires a scientific explanation.

>>6290060
>Subjective experience happens
[citation needed]

>>6290062
You don't need a citation to know that you're conscious.

1/2

The Hard Problem of Consciousness is, in my opinion, the reason there is no fundamental unifying theory of neuroscience. It may also be that there never will be.

But fear not, OP. That's OK, your faith* in science need not be shaken. There is no science to support the claim that everything can be known, or that everything is knowable. Nor is there any science that says the scientific program can produce a sufficient explanation of all that is experienced (or all that isn't). Unfortunately, that's all philosophy, which both /sci/entists and scientists seem to be very bad at.

So far as I am concerned, The Hard Problem of Consciousness doesn't even really do away with physicalism (or "materialism" for the plebs). I'm still a physicalist and I think the hard problem of consciousness is a legitimate problem. In my humble opinion, the problem is one of language... it may just be that the complexities of language(s) that is necessary to develop a civilized community (which is required to do nearly all science, ever, in history), is insufficient to solve The Hard Problem of Consciousness. It may even be worse than that: it could be that said language(s) makes it impossible to solve The Problem.

>>6291723
2/2
Look at General Relativity as a reasonable parallel. "Time" being relative is a difficult concept to grasp at first... most people will go their whole lives without grasping it. But the language they use solves the problems that they face on a day to day basis ("When should I arrive at work?" "8 am, tomorrow morning" "My time, your time, or the office's time?" -- this is a problem that's impossible to solve using a relativistic concept of time, but it's very easy to solve with a newtonian concept of time). You may argue that the example begs the question... but that's kind of the point, the question "When should I arrive at work?" is a necessary question, regardless of the science, because we run our day to day lives in newtonian time, and to change that would a) be pointless despite being more accurate, b) complicate things to an extreme as to be impractical, and impossible for most people. Society (including science, scientific research, data collection, etc...) carries on precisely because we _haven't_ trained our brains to think relativisticly.

Having made my case and hopefully opened your mind to approach The Problem from a different perspective... read "The Extended Mind" by David Chalmers and Andy Clark. Why this hasn't been a paradigm shifting paper in the study of The Philosophy of Mind, Psychology, and Neuroscience is beyond me. It treats The Problem in an entirely different way.

>>6291727
I don't think you understand what GR is about.

>>6291641
>I am conscious
No relationship with subjective experience.

>>6293623
Consciousness implies subjective experience.

>>6295511
[citation needed]

It implies I score high on the Glasgow Coma Scale.

>>6295523
Consciousness is more than responsiveness.

<span class="math">\def \qualia {\qualia} \qualia[/spoiler]

I really wish I could've found this thread when it was new. Or maybe when I was 17 and wrote pages and pages about this

As a baby we were unconscious, then we gained conscious control over what we needed to to survive/what society fostered.
You put an eagle in a 10x10 room its whole life, you can forget about that excellent vision.

How about if we were flying in the sky our whole lives, do you think our vision would be the same as it is now?

>>6252463
anything can be explained, just not in a way we understand

>>6298497
what does visual acuity have to do with being conscious? babies still have sight before they gain consciousness at around the age of 2-3, and they still process information

>>6252175

its an inflective sensory loop, OP

consider that most life processes are not monitored much less regulated by "conscious self", and even some processes that seem regulated are only monitored: "Why am I even calling this woman?"

good luck with that 'there is only free will' bullshit

>>6252204
Subjective experience doesn't imply the content of the experience is real, only that the experience is real.

U dum

>>6298517
They are sentient, can feel hunger, pain, etc. therefore they have some limited consciousness.

>>6298561
no. animals can feel pain and hunger too and babies aren't sentient pre game ~2 or so

pain, hunger etc emotions are the most primitive stuff

>>6298579
*pre age

>>6298517
I'm more attacking the easy problems with a trancendental stance than answering the hard problem tbh

>>6298579
Animals are sentient and have some limited consciousness ya dingus.

>>6298579
Studies show pigeons have the sentience of a 3 year old, and I'm sure pigeons aren't the smartest animal in the kingdom

>>6298652
>pigeons aren't the smartest animal in the kingdom
DON'T YOU DARE !

>>6252175

>faith in science

well there's your problem right there

>>6298652
crovids are though

>>6298652
> sentience of a 3 year old
sentience doesn't work like that yo

>>6298669
>the state or quality of being sentient; awareness
>>self recognition

>>6252780
what's your iq dude?
implying it actually means something

>>6298639
That's what you want to believe. It's not a scientific fact and it's not testable.

>>6298776
it is
you put a red dot on your head and stare at the animal, and if it looks at you with a 'wtf are you doing?' expression then it is probably conscious

>>6300085
lel

>>6252204

but you need subjective experience to establish the reality of anything and everything. So if subjective experience isn't real, what is?

>>6252219

we need scientific evidence to define terms? Do you know what internal means? Is anything not sceintific "pseudoscience bullshit" to you?

>>6298776

can you find me a scientist who doesn't consider animals to be conscious?

>>6304692
Scientists don't touch metaphysical questions.

>>6252780
This.

>>6304703

That''s not a metaphysical question, and you're wrong about that anyway

bumb

>>6298663
/thread

>subjective experience arises from neuronal activity

Yes this is not actually the hard thing,

in less than 50-100 years it will have solved itself

we will have the computational power to model the brain in its entirety. and voila consciousness will reveal itself.

what will really bake your noodle is:
Causality is simply correlation.
You cannot prove one thing follows another.
1+1=2 is a correlational observation. not causal.
Combining 2 hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom gives water...this is a correlational not causal demonstration. and relationship.

The entire laws of physics and all of science and all of your experience of external reality is cor relational. flimsy. Tomorrow they may all be different.

Welcome to the desert of the real.

>>6252175
>I don't want to lose my faith in science. Please tell me we can find the mechanism by which subjective experience arises from neuronal acitivity.


>Science
>Studying anything subjective

You just went full retard OP

>your faces when the brain is a quantum computer
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

Y'all niggers need to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalism_and_externalism

Science doesn't have an answer for everything, considering it's limited to our senses and our concepts of reality produced by the brain.

experience is not subjective

>>6307454

>experience is not subjective

wut

experience is the most subjective thing there is

>>6307459
not when we have accounted for all of its physical processes it isn't

water into wine looks like magic until you find out the crafty jew has robinsons concentrate under his desk

>>6307462
I'm not sure you understand what experience means.

>>6307361
>u kent no nuffin

>>6307484
he's right though.

>>6307484
muffin reward, you're the first

who the fuck always bumps up this shit thread??!??!?!!?!??!

fuck you.

>>6307602
not me