/sci/ - Science & Math

There's no physics to describe the phenomenon of consciousness. This is not evidence of consciousness' non-existence, but an indication that our physics is incomplete. There's probably a whole new branch of mathematics waiting to be discovered that will help us understand this problem, but until some genius comes along and puts the pieces together, we're as in the dark as classical astronomers on the orbit of Mercury.

>>6500972
>how does physical phenomena translate into consciousness
We have no answer on what consciousness is, but we know that physical phenomena inside the brain has something to do with it.
Therefore, why not define "consciousness" as the series of physical phenomena within the brain

Problem solved

>>6501035
The issue then just becomes that it is not at all clear how to relate those objective phenomena *specifically* to the detailed sub-properties of "that thing we profess to actually experience in ourselves".

>>6501035
That's the "what", but not the "how".

>>6501041
>>6501042
to be sincere, I don't see a problem with that at all

There is a representation of what I'm seeing in my brain, I don't think that there's something viewing this image, but rather that the image is viewing itself. I think we have to accept that consciousness arises automatically once sophisticated and meaningful information is being processed.

>>6501048
You don't see how a definition is different from a functional account?

>We all know that combustion is a physical phenomenon that occurs inside of cars, so why not just define combustion as the series of physical phenomena within a car?

>>6501057
something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

>>6501057
>but rather that the image is viewing itself
That's not very rigorous. Did you read the cover of "I'm a Strange Loop" and decide "recursion, okay, let's go with that"?

>>6501048
Many philosophers and physicists consider the underlying problem to be one of relating the time "parameter" present in physical law, to that thing that can be said to "lapse" in our experience. We don't consider space to "lapse", and we now don't even have much grounds to insist that time does either (spacetime, Minkowski, lack of simulaneity, etc.). Time seems to just be some arbitrary co-ordinate, as far as physics is concerned; but our experience seems to insist that it is different.

Essentially, the 'arrow of time' problem. Why do we *experience* time going in some direction, rather than "experience" the entire structure simultaneously and symmetrically, since nothing in the maths suggests that anything beyond a block, symmetric account.

Of interest: http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Nikolic_FQXi_time.pdf

(Hrovje Nikolic is a peer-review published theoretical physicist)

Everything that ever was was within consciousness, nothing external to consciousness is ever experienced directly/has objective reality, those are only simulated within consciousness. So the question is rather how does consciousness give rise to the material game platform.

Consciousness is the perfect topic for /sci/ to argue over endlessly and result in no resolution at the end.

I'm convinced it will require nothing less than the Theory of Everything to solve this shit.

>>6500972
>ITT we solve the hard problem of consciousness

>no one in the entire history of humanity has ever figured out how consciousness works
>suddenly someone makes a thread on an anonymous japanese cartoon image board and solves it

top kek

>>6501057
If consciousness is defined as something which occurs when sufficiently much information is being processed; that is entirely dependent on being able to define "the processing of information" without reference to consiousness (i.e. the thing which we were attempting to explain in the first place).

>>6501066
no I didn't
it might not be very rigorous but it's only a crude intuition. Something along the lines of "experiencing itself" being a property of information. "consciousness is the feeling of information being processed" - don't remember who said that.

>>6501076
What makes you think it is hard to define "the processing of information" without referencing consciousness? Computers process information and I don't see any consciousness in that assertion.

>>6501085
Explain to me how to quantitatively state that a computer processes more information than, say, a chunk of rock (with just as many electrons whizzing around inside, and complicated internal oscillations); without reference to a conscious mind *evaluating* that the computer's information is "more useful", or somesuch.

>ITT: much consciousness, muh anthropocentrism - humans are speshull so consciousness must be a real "thing" rather than a label humans made up to refer to something they do not understand.

There is no reason to think of consciousness in these magical terms. Consciousness is a bullshit umbrella term and you may just as well be talking about the "hard problem of soul". The only hard problem are people covering their bullshit metaphysical beliefs under guise of legitimate scientific problems.

TL;DR..... Consciousness is cog sci version of Intelligent Design.

>>6501090
Good call, I'll think about that over my dinner.

>>6501091
you seem to have it all figured out, please explain qualia to me

>>6501091
>it doesn't fit into my understanding and i can't explain it so it mustn't exist!

>>6501092
I suspect that it will be very difficult if not impossible to avoid the fact that all the matter and physical whatsits in the universe are all undergoing continuous complicated interactions with each other, and that nothing in the underlying physical theory dictating this operation privileges certain interactions to constitute "information processing" over others. So I therefore suspect that a different route to solving the problem would be needed.

>>6500972
>ITT we solve the hard problem of consciousness

Got hubris?

Look cletus, we can't even QUANTIFY "consciousness"; how the flying fuck do you think you're going to "solve" anything regarding it?

Go back to youtube and do your circlejerk with the ancient aliens and free energy dimwits.

>>6501103
>genuine scientific curiosity about what 'that thing we experience but can't coherently relate to physical law' is
>ancient aliens dimwits
Is it not possible for you to say "We don't know." without also insulting the person who asked?

>>6501108
>Is it not possible for you to say "We don't know." without also insulting the person who asked?

Only if the person warrants it.

But I have no fucking time for morons who spout gibberish, and I owe them no respect.

Now GTFO of my face.

>>6501091
Experiencing things is in itself consciousness not only control over it, you can project an image through electric signals into a bunch of electrically excitable cells but experiencing an image can't be explained in term of any physical law or force involved in that process. Experiencing things/Consciousness is the only objective reality you ever had, all external input your body ever felt was not experienced directly as it was, but rather simulated within your consciousness.

>>6501123
Christ, you're so far out in lala land that deepak chopra would tell you to go get some help.

I'm out of here.

>>6501123
and "experience" has to be something special? That "cascade" you talk about continues into the other brain regions and creates what you refer to as "experience". There is no magic, no hidden dimensions, only your unwillingness to understand brain as a deterministic machine that it is.

There is a God.

/thread

>>6501144

What does any of this have to do with God?

>>6501149
why not? it takes the same mindset. Spirit humping hippies are right there with "muh bible" zombies. Consciousness people may not start argument at God, but that is what they're selling...

>2014
>still can't get over the fact that there is no soul or God.

>>6501149
What does god have to do with anything?

>>6501154
>still can't get over the fact that there is no soul or God.

[citation needed]

>>6501162
I would cite but am not sure if there are any science books in your library.

>>6501154
>I can't entertain any explanations for consciousness outside of Newtonian mechanics because it might give some political points to Christians
This is literally anti-science.

>>6501168

No, please do anon. I would like to see your so called proof.

>oh wait, you have nothing

can you even prove that anyone but yourself has consciousness?

>>6501174
science is about forming testable conjectures and then testing them or their implications. These people want their shit accepted because "muh opinion".

Opinions aren't worth shit to science, regardless of what your grade school teacher told you.

Science is not and never has been about accepting bullshit explanations to satisfy some group's sense of entitlement to recognition.

>>6501139
Explain how experience arises from deterministic processes. We can't explain precisely how life arises from physical processes but we have an idea, life is a direct manifestation of particles interacting in a certain way with each other, a self-sustaining clump of molecules that takes in molecules from the environment, breaks them to get energy, and releases the products. A mammal is extremely complex but in principle we could explain how it works simply from interactions between particles.

Now how would you even start explaining how experience arises? You assume that the physical processes we know about are all there is, and so you conclude that experience must be a consequence of these processes, but you have no idea how to even start explaining how it is a consequence.

>>6501201
>Opinions aren't worth shit to science
Every interpretation is an opinion. Science is based on assumptions and interpretations. Easy with those edges, let me direct you to this thread >>6497101

>>6501201
I wish I knew why you gave this particular response to that post.

>>6501202
>neural networks - how do they work?

you just want to think there's a mystery. Go home Scoobie Doo and pick up a book on neuroscience.

"I am a neuroscientist and so 99% of the time I behave like a materialist, acknowledging that the mind is real but fully dependent on the brain. But we don't actually know this. We really don't. We assume our sense of will is a causal result of the neurochemical processes in our brain, but this is a leap of faith. Perhaps the brain is something like a complex radio receiver that integrates consciousness signals that float around in some form. Perhaps one part of visual cortex is important for decoding the bandwidth that contains motion consciousness and another part of the brain is critical to decoding the bandwith that contains our will. So damage to brain regions may alter our ability to express certain kinds of conscious experience rather than being the causal source of consciousness itself. " "I don't actually believe the radio metaphor of the brain, but I think something like it could account for all of our findings. Its unfalsifiable which is a big no-no in science. But so is the materialist view- it's also unfalsifiable" (Lieberman, 2012).

Since we are playing at the level of abstract substances...It can still be the case that there is a kind of internal mental life of matter, or that it coalesces itself into certain material forms, or any number of other scenarios, because these abstract, substance-based answers/questions simply don't have the sort of connection to empirical matters that their proponents would like to believe. I reference my friend Manolito's article for more information.

So like Lieberman is suggesting, don't make an "either" out of two arbitrarily picked options.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness serves as a potential paradigm shift in the sciences. The enormity of this question cannot be overstated.

>>6501205
opinion != testable opinion

>>x

"I am a neuroscientist and so 99% of the time I behave like a materialist, acknowledging that the mind is real but fully dependent on the brain. But we don't actually know this. We really don't. We assume our sense of will is a causal result of the neurochemical processes in our brain, but this is a leap of faith. Perhaps the brain is something like a complex radio receiver that integrates consciousness signals that float around in some form. Perhaps one part of visual cortex is important for decoding the bandwidth that contains motion consciousness and another part of the brain is critical to decoding the bandwith that contains our will. So damage to brain regions may alter our ability to express certain kinds of conscious experience rather than being the causal source of consciousness itself. " "I don't actually believe the radio metaphor of the brain, but I think something like it could account for all of our findings. Its unfalsifiable which is a big no-no in science. But so is the materialist view- it's also unfalsifiable" (Lieberman, 2012).

Since we are playing at the level of abstract substances...It can still be the case that there is a kind of internal mental life of matter, or that it coalesces itself into certain material forms, or any number of other scenarios, because these abstract, substance-based answers/questions simply don't have the sort of connection to empirical matters that their proponents would like to believe.

So like Lieberman is suggesting, don't make an "either" out of two arbitrarily picked options.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness serves as a potential paradigm shift in the sciences. The enormity of this question cannot be overstated.

>>6501075
I know right, it's almost like this is a board to discuss scientific topics!

>>6501208
>neural networks - how do they work?
Explain how experience can arise from neural networks

>you just want to think there's a mystery.
No, I just don't claim to have answers I don't have

>Go home Scoobie Doo and pick up a book on neuroscience
Explain how neuroscience explains how experience arises

>>6501213
>opinion != testable opinion
Surely you can test the different interpretations of quantum mechanics

>>6501213
There is absolutely nothing testable about consciousness right now. Nothing. Nil. Zilch. Zip.

>>6501217
This is a retarded quote.

>So far all of the processes of our brain can be linked to physical structures in the brain but this one process MIGHT BE THE RESULT OF MAGIC CONSCIOUS WAVES AND THE BRAIN IS JUST AN ANTENNAE EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE LITERALLY NO EVIDENCE THIS IS THE CASE

>>6501226
Like this anon >>6501217 said you can't test the materialist view either. You assume we are perceiving an independent reality but you can't test it

>>6501226
>There is absolutely nothing testable about consciousness right now. Nothing. Nil. Zilch. Zip.

We know one thing:

It is dependent on proper brain activity for its existence.

However, being dependent on x for its existence does not mean it is the causal source of its existence. The question is better rephrased as: how does consciousness relate to the brain? It's the age-old mind-body problem.

Saying consciousness has a strict identity with brain activity is dishonest and stupid. Saying it supervenes on brain activity is a bit more honest, but it does not answer much. As you can tell, I just have a problem with reductionists and not physicalists as a whole (e.g., non-reductive physicalists make many compelling cases).

>>6501230
You are the retarded one in this thread. You don't understand what the problem is about, stop talking before you make yourself look even more stupid

>>6501230

Assuming consciousness has a strict identity with brain processes is very stupid too, dude.

The question is unsolvable at this point.

Christof Koch (an eminent Neuroscientist and friend of Francis Crick) argues for a nuanced panpsychist reductionist viewpoint, similar to Denis Diderot, in his new book. Diderot made specific arguments regarding the issue of alive and dead matter, and ultimately comes to a position where everything is alive in some sense, but its stronger, more overt emotional and intellectual capabilities can only come to the fore in specific structural interplay between "atoms" of matter - basically a nuanced panpsychist-materialist position.

I think this is a difficulty (not an issue) with empirical research in general.

We can discuss what x phenomena depends on for its existence (i.e., contingency) with relative ease. However, what is the causal force precipitating x phenomena (i.e., delineate all of requirements - sufficiency) we have a bigger issue. It's kind of why figuring out what gravity is, is such a difficult issue because for all we know, gravity may be composite.

Personally, I think the interplay between contingency and sufficiency makes more sense than necessity vs. sufficiency. Necessity denotes a kinda of strictness (kinda like bijective mapping).

We know what consciousness is contingent on. We however do not know what is sufficient for inducing it. This is why Chomsky says figuring out the question in its entirety will take forever.

Anyways, I think it's an interesting question but not very practical. Even if you figure out the Hard Problem of Consiousness, from a practical view, the health of the brain and proper activity of it is more important. Thus, it makes sense to view the brain as the causal source of consciousness in a provisional, practical way, but when one contemplates the deeper meanings of life, it does not make sense to stick to this oversimplification.

This is ultimately why hypotheses are operationalized.

This means science's function is not to produce metaphysical conjectures, but rather, to help gather experimental data for the sake of devising models that can help cogently & accurately predict phenomena. Thus, it makes sense for hypotheses to be falsifiable and replicable, hence why science is not fit for deriving metaphysical or ontological conclusions.

In a sense, humans will forever be cursed because they ask for certainty in such matters... I am sad to inform you it will never be given, but you can be practical and place more meaning in life on stuff like eating an orange, walking, and playing with cats.

>>6501277
>I am sad to inform you it will never be given
citation needed

As Justin Bieber once said, never say never. Science as we do it doesn't seem to be able to answer such questions, so maybe we need to look at it in a completely different way. Using something else than logic. Maybe a million years from now our descendants will say "haha look at these ancient fags stuck with their logic and their scientific method, no wonder they couldn't understand consciousness". If our conventional science cannot answer everything we should try out different things, that may seem unreasonable now but that may turn out to be the key.

IT's easy to explain when you look at a less complicated system than the brain as a whole.

For example one of the simplest neuronal loops can be examined in anemones.
Basically if you touch an anemone's flower, then the receptors on the surface send an action potential to the main body and which causes the main body to send an action potential back to the flower to retract.

But if you continue touching the anemone without moving much, then eventually this continuous action potential will start activating a different neuron which ends up inhibiting the nerve which causes the anemone flower to withdraw.
And so the anemone "stops noticing" or "stops feeling" the stimuli of the hand and resurfaces.

This is almost exactly the same thing that happens when we smell something for a long time then stop "consciously feeling" the smell.

Once you realise that your "sense" or "perception" of a particular smell is just a simple system with only a few neurons, it's easy to imagine how a system of thousnads and thousands of neurons can lead to the rest of our "experience" or "feeling".

I don't really see how this can be considered a problem at all. It's a very vague, woolly emotional appeal rather than a well-posed scientific inquiry.

>>6501090
Because the rock is also aware, in its own rocklike experience of "consciousness" as a human has an upright talking ape type of "consciousness". A rock may or may not be able to feel happy, sad, etc, but it would be vastly different. A planet probably feels deeply complex emotion, same for a galaxy.


TLDR: look up quantum animism. Consciousness or Soul is interlinked with your free will, or finity, the limit of your current viewpoint. Free will can also be defined as the amount of choices on your list of actions for any given situation.

>>6501322
The difference is the anemone probably doesn't feel anything, or if it does you don't explain how. You explain cause and consequence, how touching an anemone's flower causes it to retract, not if or how it feels anything at all.

Like the anemone we react automatically to stimuli. The difference is we feel something.

>>6501327
Also, yes, brain as a tap in the Huxleyan sense or as radio antennae is relevant here, much more likely than it being an "emergent property" (a materialist's favorite buzzword). It's probably more intrinsically linked to the fractal nature of reality and evolutionary cladistics and such, though not exactly sure how.

>>6501343
How do you know the anemone isn't feeling anything ?

>>6501327
>>6501347
Please shut up and go back to 420chan

>>6501358

Please shut up and tip your fedora more

>>6501358
>>6501361
Haha anyways get back to trying to disprove novel ideas.

>>6501343
the anemone "feels" the hand touching it the exact same way we "feel" a smell.

We're both constantly exposed to the source of stimuli.

Both our receptors generate action potentials in response to the stimuli.

But the "feeling" goes away when the inhibiting neuron comes into affect from continuous exposure (acclimitisation , desensitisation, whatever you want to call it).

There is nothing special or qualitatively about human perception or "feeling".

Thinking so is just narcissistic and unintelligent.

the way we feel things from our receptor organs is the same way that all vertebrates feel things, which is just a more complicated version of how invertebrates feel things.

We have lots of neurons so we can set up more complicated feelings, whereas an anemone has very few nerves/neurones so can only set up basic feelings.
But we still use the exact sameset up an anemone does for some of our simple sub-functions, like smell.

I don't understand why people act like this is a big deal.

>>6501355
I don't, but as I said you don't explain how it feels anything if it does at all. Are you assuming that every particle or molecule has an intrinsic feeling?

>>6501097
I was thinking maybe we could define some sort of "information entropy", which would make sense seeing as the entropy (or nonsensicality) of information only increases when it's processed by a random system.

Or we could simply say that a rock may be just as conscious as a human, but that its consciousness doesn't make sense to us. The consciousness of a rock hasn't evolved to perceive its surroundings and make judgements about it, for example.
That would be some form of pantheism, where you could state that our consciousness evolved so as to make sense for us as organisms.

The integrated information theory also offers an interesting perspective, it posits that besides a huge amount of information, some sort of integration of that information is also needed. I don't think it's very hard to see that the integration of information is much higher in a brain than in a rock.

>>6501408
>There is nothing special or qualitatively about human perception or "feeling"
>Thinking so is just narcissistic and unintelligent
At no point did I claim only humans were capable of feeling or perception, probably many animals do and even a few of them are self-aware.

>I don't understand why people act like this is a big deal.
Because you don't understand. There is a difference between reacting to something according to the laws of physics and experiencing (feeling, perceiving) something. An applied pressure generates an electrical signal which releases molecules that react with other molecules, leading to the contraction of a macroscopic chain of molecules that we perceive as a flower retracting, that's a process explainable according to the laws of physics. Now that in the process the anemone feels anything at all, that is not readily explained by the laws of physics.

We can't tell whether the anemone feels anything, maybe it does maybe it doesn't, but if it doesn't it isn't clear at all how an increase in complexity can give rise to feeling and perception, and if it does it isn't clear at all how it does.

>>6501418
>pantheism
panpsychism, I mean

>>6501361
>>6501394
No really:
http://420chan.org/
You're already shitposting on one website, stop spreading it.
>a rock is conscious
>planets feel complex emotions
>try to disprove my novel ideas

>>6501426
I haven't heard a single theory of consciousness from anyone that wouldn't go in the /x/ pile quite honestly.

>>6501426
It's may not be aware in the same way a human is, maybe more akin to a plant, but think aboot soil, it almost feels alive (even though it's made od decaying organic materials) if you've ever done that kind of work.

>>6501426

Science is about having an open mind and possibilities. You're just another underaged edgy militant atheist.

Read something on Phenomenology, phaggots.

>>6501422
The reason for assuming the anemone "feels" something is because because people have studied these loops in some detail and found essentially the same structure exists in humans.

We "feel" or "experience" a smell when we're introduced to a kind of molecule stimulates our refractory receptors then we stop "feeling" the smell after a sustained period of exposure to that level of stimuli.

we stop "feeling" the sensation after the inhibitory neuron becomes active.
So we can say that "feeling" is just an action potential in a certain context.

Since essentially the exact same system exists in anemones, the logical thing to conclude is that they feel too.

Once you see how one kind of feeling is a direct consequence of a simple system of nerves nad enurons it's very easy to imagine how amuch more complicated system can produce the other range of effects we experience.

>>6501435
An anemone is no different than a mechanical system where I pull a lever and a hatch opens. The hatch-lever system isn't feeling anything. The "sense" of touch has no further MEANING for the anemone, it's just a trigger. The exact reason why we feel a smell lies not in the few neurons that detect the smell, but in the billions upon billions of neurons around it that somehow process the smell and form a qualium.

>>6501442
what does phenomenology tell us about the hard problem of consciousness?

>>6501443
>So we can say that "feeling" is just an action potential in a certain context.
no, the feeling is CAUSED BY the action potential

>>6501443
>The reason for assuming the anemone "feels" something is because because people have studied these loops in some detail and found essentially the same structure exists in humans.
>Since essentially the exact same system exists in anemones, the logical thing to conclude is that they feel too.

So you assume that anemones feel, but at no point do you explain what process causes it to feel. How interactions between particles give rise to feeling.

>Once you see how one kind of feeling is a direct consequence of a simple system of nerves and neurons
You still haven't explained anything. If you will you observe that when certain patterns are present the subject feels something, but you don't explain why it feels anything.

I don't know how to explain it to you differently, you seem to think that it is perfectly natural that things feel, while this is not something that seems to be explainable by the laws of physics.

Sure we feel something when a certain molecule stimulates a certain receptor, the question is, how does that stimulation causes a feeling

>>6501440
this

>>6501456
>>6501446
the " feeling" is just the action potential being present in a certain context.

>>6501477
exactly, and that context is where consciousness emerges from

>misconstruing consciousness as something apart from simply the brain and its structure vivifying the fundamental recursive property of nature

>>6501482
certain context is short hand for "certain neurones being activated/inhibited by other neurones or receptor actin potentials"

>>6501483
if consciousness is "simply the brain", why are you there, sitting in your chair with a head full of qualia?

>>6501494
what

>>6501491
== the rest of the brain

>>6501477
Feeling is not just a definition, it is something we experience. You can't say "we feel when the action potential is present so the feeling is the action potential being present". Like the other anon said a feeling is caused by the action potential being present. You fail to see something here if you cannot comprehend this. Our brain interprets electrical signals, it does not interpret light or sound or molecules directly. Your brain interpret electrical signals, and then depending on the value of these signals and where they go in your brain you experience either the color red, a high pitched noise, a rotten smell, happiness, anger, ...

>>6501497
what?
saying "consciousness is the brain" says nothing about how our singular experience arises, that's exactly the point of the hard problem

>>6500972

There is no consciousness.
Face it, humans are not all Dr.Manhattans, we don't see the atom level of the universe. We are animals and the product of centuries of genetic mutations and anomalies. These anomalies are determined by our needs for survival. Humans at some point needed a questioning and intelligent mindset to do whatever tasks and thus they evolved accordingly.

This consciousness you shitpost about is another part of your brute human nature. You boast about consciousness because you think it makes you look smart, and you know smart people 'get pussy' and have better chances of reproduction. We do not have 'higher level' intelligence, my proof is that you haven't processed why you post on 4chan, and neither have I. We are humans, what we perceive is not what we observe, but it's just what we perceive. What opinion we formulate on what we perceive is based on what we learned from the past.

Do not take my word, for it is only what you observe, not what you perceive.

>>6501500
>singular
>implying you are any different from a rock or the rest of spacetime besides being more capable of observation and reflection

>>6501499
we experience the action potential as well. whether the action potential has the significance of meaning 'red' or 'hurt' to you just depends on the conext of the action potential and neuron its in.

When you're dealing with a very complicated system it's easy to make appeals like "but how could that possibly be" but when thinking about simpler systems and models it's much more manageable.

>>6501506
You do not understand the hard problem of consciousness.

>There is no consciousness.
How do you call the fact you are aware of something? Or are you saying you aren't aware? You don't exist?

>what we perceive is not what we observe
lolwut, what we perceive is precisely what we observe, there is no distinction.

>>6501509
That would be panpsychism, which is IMO a valid response to the hard problem. See my other posts ITT.

>>6501510
>but when thinking about simpler systems and models it's much more manageable.
You have not explained how sensory perception arises in simpler systems.

>whether the action potential has the significance of meaning 'red' or 'hurt' to you just depends on the conext of the action potential and neuron its in.
Why do we sense 'red' or 'pain' at all? What is the link between "action potential in some context" and 'red' or 'pain'? You do not explain the process. What is it you can't understand?

>>6501509
also, singular meaning nothing more than the first-person view

>>6501527
>What is it you can't understand?
consciousnes
heh heh

>>6501529
I like the use of the word singular but I don't believe you are using it in the context of monism or a cosmological singularity

>>6501527
well in the case of smell/anemone desensitisation, the feeling must be the action potential in the nerve after the one that has been inhibited, because when the inhibitory neuron is not actie, the feeling is there , but when the inhibitory neuron is active, the feeling is not present.

the context basically means the configuration and state of activation of the rest of the network.
Pain has a pretty obvious evolutionary incentive.
red is just a designation of a certain stimuli made by our visual processor.

Obviously if we somehow broke all synapses and neural connections in the brain and then reconnected everything at random then the same physical stimulus would just produce nonsense. infact we'd be reduced to just noise. So the context of how neurons are connected and how activated/inhibited they are is everything.

>>6501568
>well in the case of smell/anemone desensitisation, the feeling must be the action potential in the nerve after the one that has been inhibited, because when the inhibitory neuron is not actie, the feeling is there , but when the inhibitory neuron is active, the feeling is not present.
In an anemone, there is no feeling present at all. Never. Can you really not understand the neurological differences between an anemone and a human?

>>6501574
How can you be sure the anemone isn't felling anything ?

>>6501579
I can't, just like I can't be sure there is no god, but that doesn't make it any less absurd.

>>6501574
you don't have good reason to say that.

The structure of their feeling->desensitisation loop is the same structure as our smelling->desensitisation loop.

>>6501582
>I can't prove my argument but if you don't feel the same way then that is absurd

Nice one fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions

>>6501568
You assume the anemone feels, and like I already explained if it does feel you do not explain how the context of connected neurons and their activation/inhibition gives rise to feelings, even if you can somehow prove that a certain feeling is always associated to a certain context. Then if your assumption is wrong and the anemone does not feel, you do not explain how an increase in complexity gives rise to feelings.

>>6501586
I already told you/him to think about the neurological differnece between anemones and humans. I also said that the feeling of a smell is caused by a simple impulse, but that the impulse itself is not the feeling. I've also pointed out how, since the feeling is the action potential being present in a context, it is the context that causes the feeling/consciousness, not the action potential. If he/you continues to ignore this and proceeds to spout bullshit like "you can 't be sure that these 5 neurons in an anemone aren't feeling" I can do no more than to say how absurd that is.

>>6501594
>I also said that the feeling of a smell is caused by a simple impulse, but that the impulse itself is not the feeling
Why ?

>>6501041
I don;t think self-profession is a good source, seeing that many people across cultures have had very different views of their 'internal world'

>>6501618
because humans have billions of neurons that react to the impulse, so it's much more likely that the feeling is in those billions of neurons as opposed to in the 5 neurons that start the whole thing

>>6501624
No, I meant why the impulse is not the feeling ?

>>6501627
because the feeling is in the billions of other neurons humans have, like I just explained
why do you persist that the feeling is the impulse?

>>6501624
>>6501628
You still don't explain why the feeling is not in the impulse, you just assume that it is in the other billions of neurons, as if you had anything to compare with to justify that assumption.

But if you want you can try answering more challenging questions, like you know the very point of this thread >>6501591

>>6501628
What is the feeling exactly ?

>>6501640
I've given multiple reasons to believe the feeling is somewhere else than in the impulse. You, on the other hand, haven't explained why the feeling should be in the impulse.

>>6501656
I don't know man.

>>6501687
>I've given multiple reasons to believe the feeling is somewhere else than in the impulse
I may be blind but I didn't see that in any of your posts.

>>6501692
It makes much more sense for a feeling to be caused by billions of neurons instead of just a few neurons, especially when taking into account all the neurological research that has been done. Why do you believe consciousness is in some tiny sensor, as opposed to in the brain?

>>6501702
>Why do you believe consciousness is in some tiny sensor, as opposed to in the brain?
We don't even know what consciousness is, so why do you believe that it only arise when billions of neurons are presents ?

>>6501716
because we know humans have consciousness, have no reason to assume non-animal systems have consciousness, humans have a brain with billions of neurons, and correlates between those neurons and human consciousness have been found

is the only reason you think an anemone has consciousness because "we don't even know what it is so an anemone might as well have it"?

>>6501723
>non-animal
meaning non-human or similar

>>6501723
>and correlates between those neurons and human consciousness have been found
Well post a link to these evidences then

>>6501732
that's basically half of all neuroscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

Anybody who knows anything about either subject (neuroscience or consciousness) agrees that it has something to do with the large amount of neurons in our brain. It's just common sense, really.

Now before asking more questions, please explain why I should take your conscious anemone seriously.

>>6501752
>Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness,
From your own link.

>>6501440
>Science is about having an open mind and possibilities.
I agree, and since you've already assumed I'm an underaged (sic) edgy militant atheist, allow me to quote Dawkins:
"'By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out"
It's absolutely useless to make wild claims based on nothing else than feeling.
There's nothing scientific in respecting someone's opinion that rocks are conscious.

>>6501785
yes, but that's besides the point
the point is that there are certain neural things that correspond to certain consciousness things, e.g. you distort the neural thing, and something about the consciousness changes

now explain to me how a network of 5 neurons can feel something, please

>>6501791
Dawkins is a hard atheist, that should tell you enough

>>6501801
You haven't explained how a network of billions of neurons can feel something. Who gives a fuck if you can associate the feeling with the impulse or with the neural context, the point remains you do not explain how the impulse or the neural context gives rise to feeling. Basically you have realized how your 'solution' to the hard problem of consciousness is flawed, but instead of admitting it you will argue about whether the feeling can be associated to the impulse or to the neural context. Maybe the feeling is linked to the neural context, I haven't seen a proof for it but okay let's assume that is the case. Now are you done, or are you still going to argue that the hard problem of consciousness is not a problem at all?

If consciousness is an illusion, how can we trust that any of our observations are genuine?

Our consciousness seems to be the ONLY truth we can know for sure, even if we can't prove it to others.

>>6503455
>Dawkins is a hard atheist, that should tell you enough

BULLSHIT. Dawkins is agnostic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

>>6503478
He says he's a 6.9 on a scale of 7, basically he believes God is extremely unlikely, but no absolute/objective criteria can be used to evaluate the probability of god's existence, so his position is bullshit.

>>6503465
Not the guy you're arguing, but the whole problem arises because you assume impulse=/=feeling. Why do you take this as a given?

>>6500972
information

>>6503486
Agnostic = closet Deist.

>>6504260
Agnostic = someone who doesn't bother making unfalsifiable, untestable claims about unfalsifiable, untestable hypotheses

Conciousness belongs in the bin with gods and souls. No, we will never be able to prove that conciousness does not exist, but neither will we be able to prove that it does. Just like with religion, the most reasonable thing to conclude is that the widespread belief in the existance of this phenomenon is the byproduct of the manner in which our brains work. Whether deterministic or probabilistic, we are machines which process large amounts of data and then form conclusions about this data and res4pond. There is nothing except this going on. Your belief in conciousness is just an artifact of your brain's architecture.

Now of course we can never prove that anything outside of our (delusional, hallucinatory) perception exists. We have no way to prove that science and math are anything more that the passing nonsense-logic of a dream. So while we may all go on our merry ways thinking that we are God, one with the universe and endowed with an immortal soul and conciousness, we'd better at least pretend for the sake of this dream that we are nothing but machines.

>>6501069
>Essentially, the 'arrow of time' problem. Why do we *experience* time going in some direction, rather than "experience" the entire structure simultaneously and symmetrically


Because of the processing limitation of the universe.

>>6504335
machines? anon how do we know that that we arent just ones and zeroes? giveherthedick.jpg

>>6504335
posts like this make me wonder if autistic people are actually conscious or not.

>>6501506
i dont know if i have processed exactly why i post to 4chen but i know why i come here. if is for the boobies.

>>6504346
What are the trademarks of conscious organisms versus unconscious organisms? It seems like the main issue conversations like this have is that everyone is using consciousness as an umbrella term for all of the weird shit brains do.

>>6504351
It was a joke I tacitly acknowledged his efforts by actually agreeing with him in an ironically insulting way. Of course he shouldn't get angry about it because he is not conscious to feel anger so i am not worried about upsetting his feelings.

>>6504351
Consciousness is the experience of qualitative experiences.

>>6500972

The hard problem of consciousness is necessarily unsolvable because consciousness absolutely precedes language. You would have to work out a theory of (hard) consciousness through some language, natural or formal.

It cannot be done. Philosophers of mind, AI researchers, and honest cognitive scientists have accepted this for at least 4 decades now. It's why hard AI is a completely desolate field of study and instead AI researchers choose to work on things like insect flight patterns and natural language processors.

The physical universe at the level of the least common denominator can be sufficiently formalised/mathematised. Consciousness cannot. Move on.

>>6503486
The difference between 6.9 and 7 is the difference between a negative and positive atheist. If you put god in the same category as elves and unicorns, you're an atheist.

>>6505058
>If you put god in the same category as elves and unicorns, you're an atheist.
You'd also be philosophically illiterate, barely able to conceptualize god beyond the physical man who lives in the clouds.

>>6505111
Ooh, a deepity.

>>6505113
>thought terminating buzzword

>>6505114
>have nothing to say so lets make this green

>>6505172
>thinks a buzzword alone deserves more than a fully green response

>>6505176
>still nothing to say

>>6500972
The first step is to _define_ what we're even talking about.

AFAIK nobody has ever even come up with an adequate definition.
At best any definition would only serve as a communication device. For example, you described consciousness in the OP and all I can think is "ya I know what you're talking about"
but it's still not rigorously defined.

Define it, and you'll probably be able to figure out what causes it with comparative ease.

>>6501085
The most powerful computers in the world cannot process information at the rate of the human brain. A computer is really just a network of connections, the more connections the more powerful the computer will be. The human brain is like a computer, but instead of a few thousand fixed connections, the human brain has millions if not billions of connections.

>>6501456
The stimulation is the feeling

>>6505434
This right here is exactly what I meant when i said >>6505275

All the words we want to use to attempt defining "consciousness" already have definitions that can be explained in scientific terms.

i.e. the guy I quoted doesn't have in mind the same thing you >>6501456
do when you say "feeling"

he's thinking of the actual scientific definition, whereas you are thinking of some other concept which is still undefined.

The concept you have in mind is likely very concrete, and so is consciousness, yet putting them in words, or giving a rigorous definition is something else altogether.

I know this sounds like a trivial point, but I don't think it is at all. WHY can't we define it? There's probably a very deep reason to that, and I think trying to answer that question is the best place to start

What do you guys think about this?

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/5e7ed624986d

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

>>6505575

Pure sensationalist tripe.

>hurrr we conceived of this new way of thinking that solves the problem of consciousness!!
>except for the fact that it's fundamentally flawed
>must mean we gots moar SCIENCE!!! to do xDDDDDD

i have no citation or evidence, but i guess consciousness comes from information itself.

>>6505575

If consciousness is a different state of matter in a literal and not simply figurative (since figurative would render the entire argument moot), why is a brain something which exists as a solid state object?

If the theory has any literal truth to it, that would imply that the brain should be some new type of state of matter, but it's not.

>>6505619
I'm not saying he's right or wrong

but you're making an assumption that consciousness doesn't exist outside of localized self-aware entities. It might sound crazy, but the truth is we don't know that. For all we know your keyboard might even have some minute trace of consciousness.

This is where the idea comes from that 'complexity' alone is the key to making a self-aware entity.
Again, not saying this is right, just that that's the point of saying consciousness is a property of matter, which is most certainly a viable possibility.

>>6505601

>We can't get funding for our research

>say it does something from science fiction

>oh my god look at all this funding and our Io9 article is the top on /r/futurology!

Lying for science is the new norm. Kids who were told a whole bunch of bullshit by hippie scientists are now wasting assloads of money and are causing a new generation of kids to see science as a wish granting machine that is ticking off science fiction's laundry list.

The singularity happened. Humanity has peaked. Look at how desperate people are. They can't even live long enough to earn a Nobel.

>Lying for science is the new norm.

>>6503465
You're missing the point completely, I'm only explaining why I find it more likely that consciousness is caused by billions of neurons than that it is caused by 5 neurons.

Also, what 'solution' are you talking about? The only thing that comes close is some panpsychist/emergentist idea which is my view on the hard problem, but can hardly count as a solution.

>>6503465
My point is not to explain HOW a network can feel something, but that it is more likely that a huge network is feeling, as oppposed to a very small one.

>>6504335
>but neither will we be able to prove that it does
Everybody has first-hand evidence that consciousness exists.

Also, your reducing consciousness to data processing by machines doesn't mean that consciousness doesn't exist.

>>6505736

It seems like consciousness is just the sorting algorithm for memories. I decide to use this memory in this instance, and i survive because of it.

Consciousness sounds like an evolved phenomena used to aid survival. Nothing more.

>>6505602
This is also my intuition, however if consciousness is a property of (certain types, certain amounts of) information there's not really a way to prove anything about it.

>>6505739

No you're confusing where the possibility of consciousness in the first place comes from with consciousness itself.

Society is also an evolved phenomenon used to aid survival. So is religion. So is language. So is mathematics. So is practically everything with an explicit and intrinsic forward direction involved with it. None of these things however can be reduced to the their evolutionary raisons d'être. At least not completely.

>>6505739
>consciousness is just X
>consciousness is Y, nothing more
You add literally nothing to the discussion. Of course consciousness is just some thing that does stuff, but that doesn't bring us closer to a solution of the hard problem.

>>6505744
Can you define "hard problem"?

>>6505757

Stop being so ignorant.


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

>>6505736
>Everybody has first-hand evidence that consciousness exists.
>Everybody
How do you know?

>>6505757
How do qualia arise?

>>6505759
I have no reason to believe I'm special.

>>6505759

Why would you even stoop to that level of semantical nitpicking.

He's saying that anybody who claims to be conscious would therefore have first-hand evidence of the existence of their purported consciousness. If they don't actually have consciousness then it wouldn't matter in the first place. That's a different argument though.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

>>6505759
>>6505765
This is something that blows my mind

We are talking about the experience of consciousness right now.

Is the fact that we can talk about it, a result of being conscious? This would imply that consciousness can actually leave a mark on the physical world (i.e. might even be testable one day?)

Or is the fact that I'm talking about being conscious in no way whatsoever related to the fact that I actually am conscious, and I my physical brain just somehow decided to start talking about it, despite having no actual knowledge of that fact.

The former seems more likely to me. In other words, it seems the phenomena of consciousness could be an actual internal observation. Something tangible

>>6505773

I don't follow. It seems you've been brainwashed to believe the deterministic materialistic reductive stance on consciousness was somehow the default?


The common sense intuitive stance is that consciousness is exactly what it seems to be. Not sure if that translates to your idea of an 'actual internal observation'.. whatever you meant by that.

Imagine we finally constructed a device that lets you see another person's qualia. You and your friend both put on their helmets, some cables are plugged in etc and suddenly you see the world through his eyes and with his consciousness. Or at least you believe so. You see that his blue really looks like your red. Whenever he sees an object which you knew to be blue, you see red in his consciousness. But then you play around with the consciousness viewing machine. You switch two plugs. The machine still works but now the result is different. Suddenly when you see through his consciousness, it appears that his blue is your green. Now every (in your consciousness) blue object is (in his concsiousness) green. Now which position of the cables was the right one? Which allows you to see how he TRULY saw the world with his qualia?

This is how hard the hard problem of consciousness is.

>>6505364
Trillions actually.

>>6506698
no it's something different
and way harder

>>6505773
A machine can be pre-programmed to declare "I have qualia!" but that doesn't mean it has it.

Shit's complex, yo.

>>6506726
There should be a way to have a machine understand things on a deeper level, and let it find out if it has qualia on its own.

>>6506727

This has been confirmed as a necessary logical impossibility. You cannot prompt awareness, let alone self awareness into existence artificially, mechanistically. It's an a priori violation of not only the laws of physics, but of logic as well.

>>6506730
>You cannot prompt awareness, let alone self awareness into existence artificially
>Citation needed.

Counter-evidence: the universe and us.

>>6506733

Do you not understand what the word artificially means?

>citation needed
>implying it's not classified

If you're actually interested in knowing, though, acquire a post grad level education in logic, philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and theoretical physics, and drop a throwaway email.

>>6506735
Not the anon you're talking to but having a degree in those areas would tell you not to make such a bold statement so certainly.

>Source: someone who has exactly what you're blabbing on about.

>>6505773
Isn't human consciousness a complex organisation of brain cells provided by the inevitable outcome of our evolution?

>>6506738

It would tell me to not make such a bold statement so certainly if in the case that I was speaking to a cohesive audience within which whatever I said would maintain its transmissive fidelity.

The science&mathematics board on 4chan is not that type of audience.

I don't think you 'have' what I'm blabbing about because it's not degrees which I'm blabbing about.

>>6506741

Inevitability in this sense is wholly relative. Yes it is inevitable. Does that prescribe when over the course of the lifespan of the universe itself these properties will begin to emerge? Absolutely not. Does it even prescribe whether or not they will emerge within the lifetime of a given universe? Absolutely not. They are only inevitable with respect to an infinite amount of time (which is itself an oxymoron).

>>6506745
My point, which I think you agree with, is evolving to consciousness requires a very complex and time consuming process and all the right conditions. Put all this together and you can achieve consciousness.

>>6506744
>>6506735
Sorry mate I ended my quote one word short. I was supposed to include ", mechanistically." as well.

Are you implying that the universe doesn't/hasn't formed self awareness mechanistically?

>>6506758
follow-up to

>drop a throwaway email.
Would you be okay with a jabber account? Not sure if it has email support but it's a chat client protocol for sure..

>>6506756
>Put all this together and you can achieve consciousness.

This doesn't explain how consciousness happened.

>>6506758

It is that position which I find untenable. Consciousness did not emerge mechanistically. Just because the universe is fundamentally deterministic does not mean all things within it are as well. Only a cross section, namely, the laws of physics and logic alike, are deterministic.

An indeterministic system existing within a deterministic system does not detract from the reality of the former, in fact, the former existing apart from the containment of the latter is incoherent.

Consciousness is not something which can be deliberately replicated. There is the logical proof but there also exists the linguistic evidence in which natural languages can never be said to have been replicated deliberately. This is not a ploy upon some trivial semantic dealing with the term 'natural', rather, it is an embedded and necessary aspect of the way in which language modifies itself in its descent through time (the process precisely responsible for all significant meaning in language) which necessarily cannot be replicated via ergativity.

Artificial Intelligence (in the sense of hard AI) is an oxymoron.


>>6506764

I can't do with Jabber, no. It's potentially compromising. If you wish to converse then email will have to do.

>>6506775
Interesting. Potentially compromising how?
Thought the encryption was G.

Anyhow care to point me to a free uncompromising email provider?

>>6506778

Well unless you feel your identity is at stake I wouldn't have assumed you required it.

Gmail works fine. I can see to it that whatever discussion we do have is secure.

>>6506783
Well you know I was going to have to make a new email anyway.. Also somewhat an effort to mock by implying that I, a totally unimportant nobody has just as much need for/use of secure communications as yourself heh.

I hope you're not too offended at any rate.

This thread is true philosophy.
Endless useless ranting with no basis in reality whatsoever.

>>6506698

Holy fucking shit, what kind of pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo philosophical nonsens pleb shit is this? Please, fucking kill yourself.

>>6506730
are you retarded?

>>6506821

Science vs. Philosophy: An autist's perspective

>>6506821
Philosophy is more rigorous than science. Science uses sufficient proof conditions, empirical evidence. Philosophy uses necessary proof conditions, logical, mathematical, an theoretical proofs.

What does your ignorant ass have to say to that?

>>6506821
Philosophy of science (by philosopher Karl Popper) vs the philosophy of epistemological skepticism

Congratulations. You've just compared two different philosophies that have nothing to do with each other!

>>6501069
Why do we *experience* time going in some direction, rather than "experience" the entire structure simultaneously and symmetrically

Because that's how reality works. We're physical processes like any other; no physical process is affected by all time simultaneously.

As to why time seems to take time to pass? Who knows, I suppose.

>>6501456
The stimulation causes a feeling by interacting with the brain.

The brain is a biological computer running a program; a highly complex, self-modifying, self referencing program.

I fail to see how we can't explain consciousness as a physical process via looking at the human brain.

>>6506834
I'd say that is because we're embedded in time ourselves. Can't think of a better way to put it right now.

>>6501582
Damnit. Look. You seem to be caught up on the concept of feeling.

Human brains are self-referential. They have subroutines analysing their own thought patterns. Take that away, along with a bunch of computing power, certain partitions linked to musculatures and sensory organs and processing, say, speech, and you have a system about on the level of that of an anemone.

'Feeling', or consciousness, as this thread likes to put it, isn't a boolean. It's a gradient based to a large extent on how complex the self-referential parts of a mental system are. Think about how much simpler, how much more animalistic you would be, if you never noticed what you were thinking.

>>6506850
What's your point?

>>6504340
There's a lot of shit in the matrix, man, lags like hell

>>6505111
I disagree. People are perfectly able to think deeply about nonphysical, mysterious, potentially self-contradictory beings... That they don't think actually exist.

That said, all the best to you. I hope your life goes the way you want it to.

c:

>>6506730
Idiot.

>>6506860
Logic is only as good as its axioms. Garbage in, garbage out.

>>6506857
Explain a self-copntradictoryu being. I'm sure with enough biological detail one could easily loophole it into more than possible distance.

This may be a little off topic op. But I feel that we are just a body being piloted by our subconscious mind. For example.

We dream every night. Whether we are able to remember it or not, we were at one point in a nonexistent dream realm which is made up of our experiences, memories, hopes and so on.
This "dream realm" isn't 'real' in any sense but it IS real to us. Say you have a nightmare. You wake up from the nightmare and your physical body has an increased heart rate, sweating, and you feel scared. Even though it was 'real' your body still felt like it was since your subconscious mind was feeling this.

And honestly I feel like that is heaven and hell as we put it.when we die we are just unconscious and dreaming. If we are ignorant to this never ending dream, then it is in control, being hell, or a never ending nightmare. But if we are aware to this dream, we are in control and can do anything our heart desires, or heaven.

Idk I feel I am rambling

>>6506927
what does logic have to do with anything?

>>6507000

>subconscious
>DREAMS ARE REAL

You aren't dreaming, you're retarded.

>>6507038
That what I'm saying.. Dreams are real and real life is fake in a way.

Nice try trolling though

It's just an idea anyway

We are aware because we are a part of god,
really.

>>6501074
>I'm convinced it will require nothing less than the Theory of Everything to solve this shit.

Thomas Campbell has such a Theory of Everything. You should check it out.

>>6510282

I've read his three volumes. In terms of charlatans I'd say Christopher Langan's CTMU is far superior.

>>6510285
What exactly makes him a "charlatan" mind asking?

>>6510289

In terms of both it's in the way they present their information, which is of course half the work.

>>6510309
I thought you said he was a "charlatan"

What exactly did he present that is spreading disinformation and lies to the public.

>>6510315

Charlatan is more an ad hominem upon the character of his work, as it were.

Though to be precise, he's spreading disinformation and lies to the public at least in the sense that he's purporting a theory of everything which is not actually a theory of everything. Hence comes into question the intellectual character of his work. It has the act of hubris intrinsically embedded into it.

If you have an opinion, keep it to yourself, don't publish a trilogy of books about it (and the fact that he did that links to his actual character; it's quite obvious that he's at least in part doing it to make money off of unsuspecting 'new-agers' who will eat anything up given it has an iota of credential (he is (was) a nuclear physicist, after all) and was written specifically for a lay audience. That's exactly what he did. If he was serious about his opinion, serious enough to warrant expressing it, he would have done so via peer review, perhaps modularly (2102 pages.. yikes)). All in all, anybody attempting to go against the grain really just wasn't cut out for the grain in the first place. Only ignorant or deluded people will buy into it.

>>6510321
So in other words

>It's against my belief system so i'll call it bullshit.

Heh, the exact types he's been talking about in the books.

>>6510332

Uh... no? Did you not read my post or something?

>>6501144

How can god be concious then? What does he solve?

>>6510336
I did, it basicly resumes to "Meh, it's probably bullshit because i don't believe it" you brought zero substantial data to refute any of his research.

>>6501327

Read that as quantum autism and immidiately thought about /sci/

>>6510342

Except that's absolutely not what I said. It's pretty obvious you just didn't understand what I was saying.

>>6500972

>certain molecules in the brain such as dopamine is linked to feelings of pleasure

>2014 still thinks dopamine is responsible for pleasure.

>>6510353
>If you have an opinion, keep it to yourself, don't publish a trilogy of books about it

>Only ignorant or deluded people will buy into it.

Not to mention the fact that your innitial claim was that he was a "charlatan"

If you don't like the format, that's a whole new thing, but he barely figures as a charlatan when he has factual data behind it.

>>6501506
>There is no consciousness.
>Doesn't understand it
>Says it doesn't exist
idiot

>>6510361

Neither of those passages you greentexted translate even remotely into
>Meh, it's probably bullshit because i don't believe it

He is a charlatan not because of the information he presents, but the way in which he presents it. It's not the format, it's the conceptual and ordinal presentation of his ideas.

>>6510381
A charlatan is a person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge. A fraud.

Starting with his personal life wasn't a good move in starting the first chapter of the first book, but the information presented was needed as a basis for what you were about to continue to read, and in no the information is making him a charlatan since it has scientific backing.

>Not because of the information he presents, but the way in which he presents it.

Let's say i agree, but he's far from being a charlatan, in the direct sense of the word, far from it.

>>6510399

It doesn't matter if it has a scientific backing. A scientist going to a class of kindergarteners to lecture them about cosmic background radiation is a charlatan. In the inverse sense so is Mr. Campbell.

In order to express information you have to present it properly and appropriately. That responsibility is on you and it is a fairly big, if unspoken one. He's a charlatan not because of the content, but because of the context.

>>6510405
So you don't understand the non-physical experiences and data he presents so he's a chartalan?

make it easy for yourself and try experiencing them yourself, that would help

>>6510439


> He's a charlatan not because of the content
> He's a charlatan not because of the content
> He's a charlatan not because of the content

> but because of the context

Come on. You're making yourself look really stupid.

>>6510452
And the context is that he's talking about a greater reality based on consciousness to people unfamiliar with the greater reality, and that because the people are unfamiliar with the experiences, he is a charlatan. To which i replied you should try experiencing it yourself to gain a better understanding of what he's saying

>>6510472

>and that because the people are unfamiliar with the experiences, he is a charlatan
>> He's a charlatan not because of the content
>and that because the people are unfamiliar with the experiences, he is a charlatan
>> He's a charlatan not because of the content
>and that because the people are unfamiliar with the experiences, he is a charlatan
>> He's a charlatan not because of the content
>and that because the people are unfamiliar with the experiences, he is a charlatan
>> He's a charlatan not because of the content

> but because of the context

We can literally go all day.

>>6510476
I just said what the context was comming from what you thought the context was, can you not read anon.

>>6510486

And I'm telling you that's not what I mean by context. Read some Wittgenstein.

>>6510487
If i were you i'd drop the philosophy and instead learn to write a sentence without sounding pretentious

>>6510497

Because directing you to a source of information is totally pretentious.

A good, pretentious, rule of thumb, though, would be to not read anybody like Campbell until you've exhausted the philosophical canon. A lot of the things he said have been written about more formally/profoundly hundreds of years before he was even born.

>>6510504
>not read anybody like Campbell until you've exhausted the philosophical canon

Not sure if serious or just pseudo-intellectual


>A lot of the things he said have been written about more formally/profoundly hundreds of years before he was even born.

The difference being that he actually has data to back him up and it's not random rambling.

>>6510510

And what exactly is 'pseudo-intellectual' about that? If anything it's exactly the opposite.


>and it's not random rambling

Are you seriously trying to call reputed philosophy 'random ramblings'?

Look kid, Campbell is a wannabe. There's a reason why his work is not mainstream. I know you just exited secondary school so you don't know much about philosophy or physics or much of anything for that matter, but rest assured there is absolutely no reason to but this hack on any kind of pedestal.

>>6510517
>Are you seriously trying to call reputed philosophy 'random ramblings'?

Philosophy is not factual science.


>Look kid

And stopped right there. It's been fun talking, come back when you'll grow out of your pseudo-intellectual phase and get interested in real science.

>ITT

So what does this Campbell actually write?

>>6510549
A Theory Of Everything

>>6510553
What's his theory?

>>6510535

Science is a subset of philosophy you shitty little troll.

>>6510556
tl;dr The greater reality is made out of consciousness, and we as humans only experience the smaller reality, which we dub the "objective" reality by filtering experiences from the larger reality using our human senses

>>6510561
Sounds stupid. What does it even mean for something to be made out of consciousness?

>>6510546

There's more truth to this line of reasoning than you would first belief though. As absurd as it may seem. The reason why is because philosophers have a keen sense of inefficiency. In terms of a sheerly naturalistic reduction of good and bad, badness is that which is inefficient, superfluous, 'sad', etc.

So the experience of philosophical sadness is actually somewhat of a viable indication of incorrectness. In other words, that which makes a philosopher 'sad' is that which is, at its core, incorrect. So the guideline of
> ¬P(x(=doesn't bode well at a visceral level)) --> ¬¬P ( |- •*•P )
is tautologically true.

>>6510564
>What does it even mean for something to be made out of consciousness?

For example the physical universe is made out of physical matter, molecules, atoms, particles and such. The greater non-physical reality is nothing but consciousness in pure form floating around in a vacuum.

>>6510561

So basically he's just a tired refurbishment of Hegel for the sake of peddling pop philosophy to the new-ager demographic.. for the sake of capitalisation... and probably because he's mildly schizophrenic and therefore seeks validation as to his sanity/identity (obtaining it by acquiring a crowd following).


>Yawn-tier.

>>6510572
Not really. Maybe im just doing a shitty job at explaining, you can watch his brief presentation of the book to get you familiar with the general concepts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akgCb85PG-A&list=PLCE5EA05F1F683940&index=2

>>6510567
This doesn't really sound like a theory of everything, more like adding an unnecessary layer to the system. What does Campbell say to justify this?

>>6510576

I've already seen that. Years ago. I've read the trilogy, as I said before. Nothing he says is new. He's literally just ignorant of the fact that what he's saying is already a very well known position in philosophy.

Except he does know that, he's just trying to make some money.

>yfw you realise you're literally this naïve to buy into his rubbish

>>6510586
who said i buy into anything? It's an interesting theory.

>>6510586
>what he's saying is already a very well known position in philosophy.

Then why haven't we been able to explain both the physical and non-physical up until his theory?

check and mate.

>>6510583

This is why Langan is in every way the superior hack. You see, he actually maintains a reasonable amount of logical rigour in his demonstration as to why the consciousness-antecedent model is the most theoretically parsimonious. Campbell, on the other hand, purports a whole bunch of shite upon a precarious set of scientific correlations and pulls the 'hurr I wadz a nucular fisisist' card. Not to mention he's likely actually a latent schizophrenic. Langan is just autistic and socially inept (most geniuses were, be very incredulous of those who ostensibly aren't).

I recommend having a look at Langan's self-published paper concerning the foundations of the CTMU, that is, of course, if parsing through ultra-dense hack philosophy is your cup of tea (though in my own personal appraisal of his work, it's not nearly as meaningless as everyone (who hasn't read it or bothered understanding what they've read) claims it to be. He does have coherent ideas, as well as Campbell, but, as I stated before, it's not the content which makes them hacks, but the context)


>>6510594

>up until his theory

o i am lel'in

Listen scrub, if his theory was actually of any greater import, it would have been accepted by the scientific community at large. It's not. His theory does not ultimately succeed in what he (and yourself) thinks/says it does.

>>6510583

btw here's the link

>http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

>>6510605
He's a creationist. Says it all really.

>>6510604
>if his theory was actually of any greater import, it would have been accepted by the scientific community at large


>Its not true in science that if you have a better idea everybody will immediatly rush over to your desk and lift you in the air, it doesnt work like that, any field is filled with politics, inertia, full of too busy people who dont have the time for somebody who think they know more than you do.

-Thomas Campbell

>>6510607

He's not a creationist, he vouches for a very philosophical type of intelligent design. They are vastly different.

>>6510609
>They say „build a better mouse trap and the world will be the path to your door” is not the case anymore, maybe one time, in a small community that would’ve been true, but its not true anymore. You can build a better mouse trap, and nobody will care. If you cant market it, thats actually more important that building it, a big company will see it, you’re gone, they’ll take that idea.

-Thomas Campbell

>>6510609

And that is EXACTLY what I mean when I talk about context.

He is a hack precisely and necessarily because he is passive to these politics, rather than dominant over them. Rather than taking control of them and using them to his own advantage, to propel himself further upward, he just gets raped by them, helplessly, like an infant who's eyes have not even opened yet.

That is what I mean by context. That is why he is a hack.

>>6510611
>Its not just „Well, just demonstrate it, be done with it, everybody would agree with you” No, i get that alot from people too „Why dont you just demonstrate how it works and everybody will see it”, it doesnt work that way, if Princeton physicists cant stand up and get accepted by the community, is anybody else going to stand up and the community will go „Oh wow! Thank you for showing us that! Now we understand!”? It doesnt work that way, its not just „Do a demonstration and everyone will know” It just doesnt work that way.

-Thomas Campbell

>>6510610
>Langan accepts the theory of evolution, but believes it could not be responsible for the specified complexity of the biodiversity we see today. He believes on various levels intelligence is responsible for the evolution of life, the ultimate level being "GOD" or the Global Operator Definor

>>6510616

>id juss dusent wook dat waeeee
>blsssss beleeb meeeeee
>bllllsssssssssss

No Thomas. Fuck you.

>>6510616
>If scientists went to ParaLabs, actually study what they did, saw their protocals, saw their error analysis, they would have to agree. If they were scientists, they would have to say „Yup, this is exactly as you say” but they dont, all they do is look at it and say „That doesnt make any sense, you must have some errors” blow it off, and be done with it, because it conflicts with their beliefs.

>>6510616
>Scientific belief isnt any different than religious belief. If it conflicts with your belief, you’re busy, you blow it off, because the probability is that it just isn’t true.

-Thomas Campbell

>>6510617

You just proved my point. He's not a creationist. He believes in intelligent design. A very sophisticated type of intelligent design.

I'm not saying it's not ultimately bullshit, but give the man some credit. This is not Ken Hamburger we're talking about here.

>>6510613
>raped by them, helplessly, like an infant who's eyes have not even opened yet.
lol'd

>>6510613
I'm not a diehard campbell fan like this anon posting quotes, but IIRC he said he's not an academic physicist, so he can't go there and just make his case.

>>6510622
Alright, but intelligent design is just as silly. No matter how "sophisticated". What's sophisticated about his views?

>>6510621
>Breakthroughs only come from the fringe. Breakthroughs never come from the center. That's not the center's purpose. The center's purpose is stability and infrastructure, not creative thinking. Creative thinking always comes out of the fringe.

-Thomas Campbell

>>6510621
He's just saying that because he's butthurt that nobody likes his theory. Also, there's never been a single paradigm shift in religion.

>>6510621

>Here lies (hue) Thomas Campbell
>The single man who never understood that half of all philosophy every written has spoken to the effect that half of the philosophical battle is being able to mutually articulate your understanding unto others such that your truth can be represented into their impression in a one-to-one correspondence

Oh but he just forgot about that after the NDE huh.

>>6510626

Well question why you find it silly until you have undeniable and necessary (logically necessary) proof that it is.

Again I'm not a proponent of intelligent design. Not at the moment. I've read Langan's ideas on it, as well as some others and I will admit it's not nearly as easy to dismiss as most of us would think (hope).

The problem is, it is very sophisticated, but that conceptual sophistication also lends to conceptual 'clouding' and 'fogginess', so it's very difficult to ultimately parse. Stimulating nonetheless, though. If the scientific spirit is that which is imbued in you then you should not fear it. Just go read up on it and if you find it doesn't check out then that's that. But you may be surprised (given you actually adequately entertain it).

>>6510630

>Also, there's never been a single paradigm shift in religion

You're joking, right?

Wait don't answer that. I don't even want to know how many fedoras you own.

>>6510630
>>6510631
>When i first published the books, the first thing i did was take about 50 books and send them around to people who seem to be in the field, anyone who was kind of a "big gun" if you will, i sent 50 of these books for free to said people and it didn't produce anything.So then i decided you don't start at the top and work your way down, you start at the bottom and work your way up

-Thomas Campbell

>>6510636

I should be more specific, when I said 'fogginess' I meant particularly that the ideas themselves within the system get asymmetrically 'bloated' in a way in which their action, reaction, and interaction becomes more or less unaccountably

>>6510637
Yea sure give me the fedora bullshit. Very clever. I'm only saying that while science is generally skeptical towards strange new ideas, ultimately if they turn out to be true they're accepted. Since every religion is still about some god who created everything, such a process does obviously not take place.

>>6510646

Or the language is simply different. You clearly are somebody who takes religion over-literally.

>but people who believe in it take it literally!

because what they tell you is necessarily what they actually (perhaps unbeknownst to themselves) experience.

I smell autism.

>>6510641


Words of a true salesman.

>and that's all he is.

>>6510652
I'm only saying religion is always concerned with some god. How is that overly literal?
>Or the language is simply different.
I'd say this about religion rather than science.
>I smell autism.
Probably your upper lip. :^)

>>6510653
>Butthurt that he can't master an OBE

>lol fukkin science

top kek

>>6510655

Because by definition God is not supposed to be the type of thing which can be understood quantitatively (finitely) so saying 'always concerned with some God' is tautological. It's logically equivalent to the proposition 'always concerned with some everything'.

Think of God as an anti-thing. The not-other as Nicolaus Cusanus said.

>>6504982
it has already been done, it's called binary.

>>6510661
That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. If you don't see the difference between god and some everything there's something wrong with you. Nice attempt at sounding philosophicy though.

>>6510665

There precisely is no difference. In fact in logic that's exactly how God is defined.

Also that definition of God came largely before religion really started to take hold. It was in fact the philosophical work of the scholastics and ancient greeks before them who codified the logicality of God which prompted religious acceleration/ideology, not vice versa. Religious apologetics largely preceded the actual religion we know today.

>>6510665
Man, reading all your posts ITT

>>6510676
what's that supposed to mean lol

>>6510673
It that's true then there's no point in defining god at all. It's like the god Einstein believed in.

>>6510702

>then there's no point in defining god at all

Or your understanding of what it means is just narrow-minded.

You think God must be some actual, completely literal, physical thing in order to be real or meaningful or meaningfully real or really meaningful. This is not so. God is transcendental. God is tautological, sure, but transcendental tautology is precisely significant.

>>6510708
>You think God must be some actual, completely literal, physical thing in order to be real or meaningful or meaningfully real or really meaningful.
No, I don't think that at all. Of course god is transcendental. What does that say about my original point though? Not very much.

Reminded me of Determinism

>consciousness
>physical
>molecules

A particle's path is already predetermined.
Before it reaches a certain place in this space and time, you know it will pass by it. It's physics and maths...

We're made of particles, therefore we have a predestined fate.

Basically all we are, is just a cluster of particles interacting with each other.

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

TL;DR

>>6510784
But the deterministic properties of these particles are not entirely understood, therefore are not proven. There could be an inherent indeterminability to them, or at least any number of factors influencing them from outside our accepted plain of causality. and in fact that is likely to be the case.

>>6510832
>and in fact that is likely to be the case
Any evidence that points in that direction?

>>6510838
I just mean that clearly our linear understanding of causality should be very open to restructuring given that the big bang is a causal paradox, and particle's behavior is seemingly irrational, and since there is evidence of the idea that observation itself is a determining factor of particles' behavior. It seems like clinging to the idea of the universe being a linear progression of cause to effect is hindering out conception of what it actually is.

Hey sci, are there ever points in your life where everything just clicks and so many things make sense. Like something just turbo charged your brain.

It's happened to me a couple of times. usually during stressful situations.

What do you think this is?

How can we turbocharge our brains to feel like that all the time?

>>6510845
I toy with the idea that drinking ayhuasca and then getting struck by lightning would have something like that effect. I base that hypothesis on relatively nothining though.

I haven't read everything in this thread. Sue me if someone said this before.

Consciousness is literally the provider for evidence (sensory input) in scientific theory testing, because without awereness and consciousness, there would be nothing (at least it would not be perceived). Our entire reasoning is based on abstractions of these sensory inputs.

So wouldn't an explanation for consciousness have to come from outside of consciousness? Wouldn't we have to perceive that explanation without actually perceiving it?

>>6510856
It would seem that obvious, but people insist that somehow something seemingly outside our understood realm of causality as consciousness must be explained away right now by what little data we have on it, that way we can close ourselves off to any further questioning of our scientific dogmas. We're cutting short the infinite in our pursuit of finitude.

>>6500972
>>6500972
This is why the brain doesn't create consciousness, it's more like a receiver of it.

>>6510631
>being able to mutually articulate your understanding unto others such that your truth can be represented into their impression in a one-to-one correspondence

That is not possible. Sadly, unless you are the same person as the person trying to communicate, you will never understand his proposition in the exact way he intended it to be understood.

That's just not possible. Although granted that you probably can get pretty close.

>>6510895

I'm sorry, I am a retard. Didn't even finish reading your sentence. I'm overworked and full of coffee.

>>6500972

>interactions between particles give rise to feelings of sadness and happiness

I don't know much on the subject but by the pic. I assume it's implied that that belongs to the Phenomenal consciousness as oppose to the Functional consciousness.
Not the perceptions of sound, colour, smell, heat etc. but the feelings/emotions of happiness, sadness, love, fear, etc. Those belong in that area of consciousness...

...but aren't those just survival mechanisms? When you fear someone or you're startled by something you get a kick of chemicals (e.g. adrenaline) in your brain so that you can respond better to the situation?
Don't you fall in love with a suitable partner so that your genes can be moved on successfully? Likewise, don't you feel an urge to protect your loved ones (especially your children) when in fact all you're doing is protecting you're genetic information?

Perhaps that type of consciousness is just a more elaborate version of the Functional consciousness.
Perhaps being aware of you're existence, or thinking so, enhances your chances of survival.

I doesn't answer the question in anyway whatsoever. It doesn't even address the "hard problem" trying to be solved. And by knowledge on the area is that of jackshit, but I still thought it was a valid contribution to the thread which could be further developed into something more appropriate...sorry if I wasted your time, I was feeling inspired.

>>6510957

That is not what is meant by that. The representational universe, your perception, is what is meant. Not the things itself, but their representation in your mind (which is all you have): How do we get from firing neurons to something as unique and abstract as perception and consciousness itself?

You could say that or that are is responsible for that kind of thinking, but you can actually not describe how it produces the effect of consciousness (or the illusion thereof).

>>6501091
Just because it doesn't agree with your world view or makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't worth investigating or talking about, nor does it negate the efforts of people trying to learn more about it you insufferable, narcissistic, insipid cunt.

>>6505773
Well it would follow from self awareness, as soon as a species has reached the point it is self aware then it can make these leaps.
What I wonder about is what the selection pressure was on our ancestors that made them so intelligent.
If we look at the other great apes, they seem to be able to use tools, so I am pretty sure our ancestors were of a similar intelligence - my common sense however tells me there is a huge difference between using tools and creating rockets to send people to the moon.
If that is an illusion and it is not that much of a leap, maybe introspection of a conscious being analysing its own consciousness or even the act of being conscious isn't that complicated, meaning it may not "leave a mark on the physical world".