/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6685855
No one knows for sure.

>>6685855
That's the Holy Grail, man. If somebody figured out a rigorous answer to that they would win all the prizes forever.

>>6685855
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

It seems to have something to do with information loops.

>>6685860
>information loops
I like that answer

How do you know it even does?

⇒How does the brain produce subjective conscious experience?

by generating sequences of informational relations

How does the all produce a turd

>>6686055
>panpsychism with ad hoc oversimplified model to fit some anesthesia experiments with extremely limited sample size
>no mechanistic effort to explain what's actually going on in the brain
>implying the spider I just squished on my wall had some consciousness
>>>/x/

>>6686063
Panpsychism is the natural consequence of quantum entanglement.

we all live different lifes, experiencing diferent things that shape our subjective personalities

>>6686069
Science doesn't want your substance dualism quantum mysticism quackery.

>>6686118
You don't tell science what she wants. I talked to science yesterday and she told me she likes my theory.

>>6686123
>I talked to science
And how did you do this? With your crazy soul bullshit? >>>/x/

>>6686131
>denying facts
>>>/pol/

>>6685855
Does brain lose any physical energy when producing subjective conscious expirience?

>>6686063
lel, look at this dualist getting mad because science rigorously explains his qualia

>>6686167

Science clumsily describes qualia
Qualia explains science precisely

Qualia 1
Science 0

>>6686172 Well, it is about this. having conscious mind itself refers to something else. That have to be doing something in the lines of substant dualism. Mainly because in any level of materialism there is not consciuos "particle". Even if we have very complicated networks of electrons or other similar kind proteinconnections, any of these particles themselves or the systems they form suddenly pop-out consciuos mind. We can simulate them with AI, maybe even pretty well, but still they are not real consciuos beings.

Before answering that we would have to find evidence proving that subjective conscious experience exists.

>>6685855
To expound on this idea a bit, how does the human brain run so efficiently without making a sound. Think about how much more powerful the human brain is than standard computers. Computers are noisy as fuck and not to mention heat output. I believe the reasoning is because the computer is operating through use of electrons firing back and forth between connections. The human brain is able to process so much faster and efficiently due to the fact that information is being transported via quantum mechanics.. Perhaps one day quantum mechanics will reveal the answer to OPs question.


>did I do good /sci/?

>>6686212
no, we can just assume it, like in mathematics

>>6686212
And before doing that we first have to prove that reality is really real. Welcome to philosophy.

>>6686212

Are people really this retarded or are you just joking?

How would you even be able to perceive evidence in the first place if you didn't subjectively experience it? Subjective conscious experience is literally the only thing we can be certain of.

>>6686252
No, we can prove subjective conscious experience exists without proving that reality is real, and then deduce that reality is real from that proof

>>6686221
>did I do good /sci/?
If your intention was to troll, yes, it's great, please start a new thread with your post as the OP.

>>6685855
>How does the brain produce subjective conscious experience?
This is an extremely simplified model of how qualia may work.

Let's say that you see a man with a knife covered in blood at midnight. Your eye feeds input to your visual cortex. From there, the patterns in the information are used to recognize the objects you see. Some object may be directly associated with emotional experience. So they can directly influence your current emotional state. Then you piece together all the elements in the scene and try to come out with possible future outcomes. You feed this information to the center for emotional experience. It comes out with some output, either negative or positive and that is what determines your behavior.

All nodes are accompanied with their own memory and processing power.

In this example you'd feel fear and be compelled to run away or to reason or to neutralize the person with the knife. That said, it just follows that your emotional response is not everything that drives your behavior. There is more to this picture, but I didn't include it for simplicity's sake.

>>6686356
Why would I fear a man with a bloody knife? If he already killed someone, it is statistically unlikely he will kill a second person. Do you have any idea how low is the probability of a man killing two people with the same knife?

>>6686356
>model of how qualia
You can't model qualia because it's a philosophical bullshit term.

>>6686364
Of course he can. Stay mad, dualist.

>>6686364
What they call qualia is a physical process. Physical processes can be explained in one way or another.
The thing is modern day philosophers think it's something unique to them, but in reality it's not. That's why people can feel compassion. Even if the structure for the nodes may vary and not be exactly the same for everyone. You can know how they feel and that it's similar to how you felt in similar conditions.

>>6686356
>meaningless stream of psychobabble nonsense
Does this make you feel profound? Your retarded garbage doesn't explain anything and a child, given an intro to psychology textbook, could point out its vapid flaws. Why do you come to /sci/ to pull such a pseudo-intellectual vacuum?

>>6686398
Was it 2deep4u, kid? Take a science class and come back when you understand what he said.

>>6686362
>Be walking on a dark, lonely street
>See a man with a bloody knife
>Activate your statistics module
>"Wait, let me see that a bit"
>See it's bloody
>Sudden relief
>"Oh man, should have told me earlier"
>Guy stabs you
>With your dying breath mutter "I won't be able... to shitpost... ever again..."

>>6686221
You do realize that neural activity is the movement of electric charges along neurons, right?

You're trolling, yes?

>>6686362
Update your priors: the man has already killed someone with a knife, and I'd expect the ratio of multiple stabbings to a single stabbing to be greater than the ratio of single stabbings to no stabbings.

Use more of the available data: the killer is not hiding the weapon from you. Any psychological model which would make them hide it is out, and that seriously increases the probability that they intend to remove your ability to tell others (simplest way: stabby stabby).

>>6686356
>>6686362
>>6686448
>>6686507

>consider this

>>6686267

because it's not empirical evidence, it's subjective evidence. I can prove I am conscious, I can't prove you are conscious. Read up on the other minds problem.

>>6686448

>>6686055
The 1970's called.

They want their symbol manipulation back.

>>6686221
Computers are only noisy because of fan cooling systems. The brain is wet and doesn't need a cooling system.

>>6686723
>subjective evidence

You mean anecdotal evidence?

>>6686252
If you go too far surely language will be the limit of expressing your points?
What exactly do you define as 'real'

səbˈdʒɛktJv/
adjective
adjective: subjective

1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms: personal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, impressionistic;
biased, prejudiced, bigoted, idiosyncratic, irrational;
informal gut, gut reaction
"standards can be judged on quantitative data rather than on subjective opinion"

But how would it produce anything else?

əbˈdʒɛktJv/
adjective
adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, non-partisan, disinterested, non-discriminatory, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical

Is this actually better?

>>6686221
No, you did a terrible job of trolling. I see way too many people make this premise for their arguments supporting the existence of a soul/oversoul/etc.There is no specific detail about the brain itself that denotes some ability to function 'via quantum mechanics', and if there were, then why couldn't other organs within our body do the same? Isn't the brain just another organ? Does this also mean that our human-specific consciousness is more unique those of other organism? E.g. is there is something more physiologically profound about the nervous systems of homo sapiens than there is for the nervous systems of other animals?

>>6686063
Of course it did, otherwise it wouldn't have been awake

If it was a machine it would be deterministic?

It's funny because that's what religious people tend to believe too

ˈseJpJənt/
adjective
adjective: sapient

1.
formal
wise, or attempting to appear wise.
"members of the female quarter were more sapient but no less savage than the others"
(chiefly in science fiction) intelligent.
"sapient life forms"
2.
relating to the human species ( Homo sapiens ).
"our sapient ancestors of 40,000 years ago"

noun
noun: sapient; plural noun: sapients

1.
a human of the species Homo sapiens.

Probably should be redefined as
The capacity for wisdom....

>>6685855
Consciousness is a property of the universe that arises under every exchange of information. Something becomes self conscious when it self exchanges information internally in a partially isolated function.

Undeniable fact - the universe is capable of consciousness when things are arranged in the right way.

I don't know what it means, but I've always thought that's interesting.

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day" (Thomas Jefferson).

"without an informed and free press there cannot be an enlightened people" - google definitions

>>6686131
I talked to science once, it took about 4 tabs of lsd though.

It does it through the phenomenology of spirit. Unfortunately this is impossible to conceptualize on a concrete foundation. One must make numerous ontological assumptions to build a foundation for the belief to manifest itself. However no matter what the context is (be it science, religion, or philosophy) the result seems to always be the same. It is your transcendent nature that produces subjective experience. The part of you that is unknowable in every sense of the word, because the idea of perfect observation of a phenomena is not untrue, but it is unobtainable.

>>6687345
>The part of you that is unknowable in every sense of the word, because the idea of perfect observation of a phenomena is not untrue, but it is unobtainable.
Then how do you know it's there, you babbling mongoloid?

Read Heidegger.

>>6687370
>>/lit/

If I clone myself perfectly, then kill myself, did I really die?

If I did, haven't I also died many times in my past? None of my cells are the same as they were when I was 2 years old, just copies. So then, at some point, I died when all those cells replaced themselves.


I've decided I really don't care about this problem. The brain is just a machine and consciousness isn't even real, it's just an illusion, so to speak.

by no means an expert on neurology
but an interesting thought on a fundamental difference between the human brain and super computers is the fact that the human brain has no order in its execution, while the computer is bound by its CPU to doing one "command" at a time.

>>6687418
If computational "Backups" which store your mental state to a high degree of accuracy were created during your lifetime, would you use it?

I mean, I would. But I'm the kind of cocky asshole who thinks the world is better with me in it.

>>6686723

"adjective: empirical

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Subjective conscious experience is observation itself. Like I said, the fact that we do experience is the only thing we can be certain of. To say we need "to prove" that there is even such a thing as subjective experience (which is the problem I was addressing) is incredibly stupid.

I think people are also confused about the terms subjective and objective. There is ontological objectivity/subjectivity and epistemological objectivity/subjectivity. Ontological phenomena are those that exist, and there are phenomena that exist objectively (e.g. mountains) and phenomena that "exist" subjectively (e.g. thoughts, emotions, etc). Epistemological objectivity/subjectivity is about truth claims. Truth claims that are not mind-independent (such as "this cake tastes good) are epistemologically subjective. Those that are mind-independent (e.g. The earth revolves around the sun) are epistemologically objective.

The significance of this is that while we must take an epistemologically objective viewpoint to do rational inquiry, that doesn't mean that ontologically objective phenomena are the only ones worth investigating. There are truths to be known about our ontologically subjective phenomena, and as long as we take an epistemologically objective viewpoint in observing them we can theoretically learn these truths.

>>6687538

To clarify, we can learn that, for example, people like the taste of cake (epistemologically objective statement). This is different to positing that "cake tastes good", which is an epistemologically subjective claim and therefore tells us nothing about ontologically objective reality.

>>6687407
>halfway through a thread called "How does the brain produce subjective conscious experience"
>you're just now telling him to >>>/lit/