/sci/ - Science & Math

Its you, fucking manlet

>>7462049
Came here to post this.

>>7462049
I feel like I should have anticipated this

>>7462039

There isn't a clear dividing line between "just mechanistic" and "real cognition," so you're not going to get a non-wishy washy answer, unless you choose some arbitrary definition of "cognition."

>>7462039
I just imagined sitting in her bedroom with this grill "just talking" while her parents are downstairs and I got a boner

this is before we find her DVD collection and pick out a good one to recline on the bed to and move closer as the movie goes on, halfway through it gets dark out and she flicks off the light, we are only illuminated by the images on the screen, her parents go to bed, she says I can stay as long as I like, she has some wine downstairs we can sneak some glasses of....

>>7462039
>Lifeform
So you're talking about a....?

You're Way out of your League Cognition Tier
>Four Fundamental Forces
>Lying
>Womb Thought

You Probably Shouldn't be Having Sex Here Edginess Tier
>Car Tires
>Water
>Roots

"Get the fucking Meatloaf its Burning" "omg you're so bad at life Jim" Tier
>Holographic Trading Cards
>Plants
>Teenagers like OP

>>7462054
Yeah I'm looking at it more and it seems to be that way. At least I understand now what happened developmentally, thanks to this:
http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explosion.php

The branch that became sponges does have some genes involved in other animal families' nervous systems (synapses and junk) but that's all, the branch that would become mammals and cognition-capable aquatic life has a common ancestor. Jellyfish (Cnidaria) do too, but branching off early, they developed their early versions of nervous systems differently. What's interesting is that they developed analogously to comb jellies, which (as can be seen) are pretty distantly related, branching off at the same time as sponges.

But the important part is that tardigrada IS part of that overarching synapse/neuron-capable group that became mammals/marine life/etc.

>>7462072
>>7462073
wt

>>7462039
google some more, they do have a brain and a nervous system
I don't know what kind of cognition it would have, other than some programmed responses to stimuli

>>7462039
Actually OP, I think your answer might be slime mold
Here's the down low
>Single Celled
>When food is scarce they group together and do the following: Build up and up and up as high as they can muster and the fall over, this is how they spread
>But here's the kicker: They won't fall on any areas already populated by their fellow species
This imo is the most extreme form of single celled cognition ever properly demonstrated in anywhere in nature, short of those early buggers who were sorting themselves out via natural selection etc

>and I assume some of these sorts of things are just "mechanistic,"

Kinda. Many are eutelic so the amount of cells/function/position is hardcoded in the dna, and they only have a few hundred to a few thousand nerve cells, I would imagine that their behavioural patterns are hardcoded in a same way(they dont learn, don't adapt except trough evolution).
I wouldnt call that cognition.

consciousness arises when a physical object begins choosing how to react to its environment in order to maintain homeostasis.

awareness develops once specialized organs for retaining impressions and calculating how to survive with them emerge.

sentience emerges when ones organ of awareness becomes complex and powerful enough to be aware that it is aware that it is aware that it is aware that it is aware that it is aware, and at this point, free will has arisen.

once sentience is achieved it is possible to think about thinking and think better by so doing, and the rate at which consciousness evolves to increase its understanding and control of the environment becomes exponential. ego is born, as a proxy self that the self can control and shape. choice becomes more complex and results less clear, capacity for joy and misery are drastically multiplied. continuing, a 'soul' develops from the ego as it becomes more aware of itself... the ego/soul finally becomes as real as the physical body itself, and this is the bleeding edge of 'consciousness' in the universe today.

i think that this explains clearly how the 'soul' is a virtualized organ that develops in evolution like any other organ.

>>7462266
>i think that this explains clearly how the 'soul' is a virtualized organ that develops in evolution like any other organ.

Sounds plausible. Can you recommend me any literature on that?

>>7462288

naw. i've just read a fuckton from many different genres. all of carl jung and crowley and austin osman spare and JK Huysman and oscar wilde and stephen king and freud and nietzche and ayn rand and spinoza and the bible and new age shit and conspiracy theory and lunatics and history and occult and mythology and self help and seduction and social or political matriculations and biology and neurology and i've done lots of interesting drugs and experienced trauma and torture and human hatred and love and conflict and i've wandered the nation and spent far too much time reading and thinking.

and so this is just what i've come to think.

>>7462296

also, i strongly suspect that life began with crystalline abiogenesis. crystals are a halfway step between chemical mixtures and life, in that they store data, and perform natural selection as the structural forms that break discontinue and the ones that are strong continue to grow. crystals exhibit several characteristic traits that the first RNA strands would have had to become involved in, in order to begin replicating itself.

i also think that the first lifeforms were single celled plants, and that either plant and animal life arose pretty much at the same time or plant life came first and animal life followed after, it might have even began as another act of abiogenesis that happened as well as the plant abiogenesis, but i doubt that.

if you look at crystals, you see an ordered repetition of chemical and mineral compounds. if you look at plants, a tree for instance, you see an ordered sequence and repetition of ordered sequenced repetitive chemical and mineral structures.

and so it was that it occured to me that a tree is just to crystals what crystals are to chemicals and minerals. animals are similar but more complex and asymmetrical in that the systems that sustain them are more varied and specialized. plants have random structure but they're roughly algorithmic and the material of the plant itself varies very little across its whole structure.

this website that i found after looking for information on crystals being a stepping stone between inanimate matter and animate matter has some interesting ideas. i was, apparently, not the first to think of this.

>>7462266
Free will doesn't exist though

>>7462452
don't

>>7462317
god is a crystal

>this will be remembered as the finding of the 21st century

>>7462466
?

>>7462478
slap yourself in the face then say it had to happen that way

LOL

>>7462039
None besides humans faggot. What does cognition matter if there's no intelligence? Like talking to a god damn stove.

>>7462039

All biological systems are cognitive because they all process diverse inputs into a singular behavioral output. Plants, fungi, bacteria. They all process environmental information by integrating that information in a uniquely adaptive phenotype (chemical and genetic response).

Consciousness is a totally different story. The Q value which allows us to predict whether an anesthesia patient is actually conscious based on neural feedback is essentially a measure of isolation and integration in an information system. Most biological systems have Q values far below the waking human brain. Most mammals and birds can be assumed to have consciousness because the design elements which promote integration in our neocortex are there in a lesser degree in theirs. Other possibilities are cephalopods, mychorrizal networks, and of course, eventually, AI. Structures like the internet are a tempting possibility but they have very low integration and isolation despite the massive amounts of information. Most of the structure of the net comes from outside input (users and bots) and not internalized feedback loops.

>>7462452

if free will doesn't exist, then you did not reason your way to that conclusion - it was inevitable. which means, according to you, that you don't know if it's right or wrong beyond the apparent inevitability of you saying its right.

its a self defeating preposition. its an idea that came about as some perfidious types wished to ignore the fact that the connections of logic and reason do not occur on their own, and that one must choose to think and apply ones mind to the process of understanding life and nature. if you don't make an active effort - if you don't exercise your VOLITION - no such connections will occur.

that being said, i >>7462317 forgot to mention the website with more information on crystalline abiogenesis.

http://originoflife.net/crystals/

Copying is the essence of living systems. Indeed, life can be defined as that which persists via copying. The search for the origin of life thus focuses naturally on prebiotically plausible systems that are capable of copying.

http://originoflife.net/error_correction/
There is really only one known example of an error correction mechanism which occurs in nature outside of biology.

That is the error correction process that is associated with crystal growth.

Crystals self-assemble into huge, highly ordered structures from large numbers of disordered components with a fantastic level of accuracy.

Modern organisms use sophisticated enzymes to detect and correct errors.

However the complexity of these enzymes needs a highly reliable inheritance mechanism, just to be capable of specifing the information needed to create them.

>>7462039
>What is the smallest/least complicated lifeform that scientists believe has any form of cognition?
Ants pass the mirror test which is pretty cool.

>>7462039
niggers

>>7462039
Jennifer Lawrence

>>7462266
>homeostasis.
only a few people on earth have learn this

>>7462809>>7462039

abigail spencer if fare more appropriate

>What is the smallest/least complicated lifeform that scientists believe has any form of cognition?

This seems to be the smallest life form with cognition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikiki

This insect below however, though just a tiny bit bigger than Kikiki gives you a understanding of what kind of real estate the brain/nervous system is being utilized at this level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphragma_mymaripenne

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/11/30/how-fairy-wasps-cope-with-being-smaller-than-amoebas/

But since there's no pics of their brain this is the next best thing to utilize for your imagination. Since they're both in the wasp family (but parasitic) their brains most likely look like paper wasp's but much smaller and without the ability to change their class/formation.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091014144738.htm

>>7462469
look up
>amplituhedron
and the
>feynman diagrams.....

>>7462039
>and I assume some of these sorts of things are just "mechanistic," like they have sense receptors and responses (in the way a plant grows toward light)
then they are like all other animals (including humans), just less complex

>>7462266
this

>>7462703
The act of reasoning will happen but its boumd to the information and emotions that the individual has so the outcome can be predicted, that is putting in very loose terms if you want to go into more detail you could say that we are just chemicals coming in contact with physics which are deterministic

>>7463479
consciousness is not a physical process. it occurs in relation to a physical process, but it is a virtual abstraction. furthermore, it is a process of infinite regression, because it acts on itself and alters the means by which it acts on itself. you'll never be able to make a perfect model of any individuals mind. you can predict obvious generalities with a reasonable degree of accuracy, but not through physics or chemistry, only through a personal, conscious interpretation of signs of their consciousness.

we've learned enough scientifically in the 21st century to understand that our brief hopes for a universe we could pin down to exact meter was never meant to be. not only have physics been shown to be fundamentally probabilistic by every single advance in our knowledge for the last 40 years, but as we learn more about neuropharmacology we have only found more mystery in the mind.

for example, testosterone levels will affect your aggression and constitution, but, also, by deciding consciously to act aggressively and with vigor, we can raise our testosterone. if we think about this (through a decision to think about it, which will not happen without that virtual, non-physical alteration of your conscious interpretation of information and course of action).

in short, we've discovered that the chemical interactions within your body are the EFFECTS of thought, and not the cause.

the universe and reality is much, much, much larger then the extent of our scientific certainty.

>>7462114
Actually OP I think your answer might be a tree
Here's the down low
>Single seed
>When food is scarce it does the following: Build up and up as high as they can muster and then grow flowers. This is how they spread.
>But here's the kicker: leaves won't grow in any areas already taken up by other leaves

>>7462114
>>But here's the kicker: They won't fall on any areas already populated by their fellow species
In all seriousness, this is just due to chemical reactions causing them to repel each other. The same thing happens in ants: if one dies, it releases a hormone that notifies other ants that there is danger there. This doesn't mean that ants are cognitive, it means they release the same stimuli they interact with.

>>7462921
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikiki

>So small it's composite eyes looks like a bunch of balls on it's face rather than a mosaic dome like pic related.

I guess there's a limit to how small this king of eye can get.

>>7462039
I don't think there's a threshold/clear boundary, I think it's more of a sliding scale, you know?

>>7462039
this is actually a fucking good question i love ytou

this is the shit i think about on the bus

>>7462921
>>7463599
>tinkerbella nana
There is no way this is the name of a scientific genus. Is there no organization stopping people from naming whatever they discover however they want?
>mfw a biologist from /sci/ discovers a new genus and names it fluttershygddt nignog
Fuck this gay earth

>>7463645

oh shut the fuck up

"waaaah, some obscure species a dude discovered was given a whimsical name"

>>7463645
>>7463666
lol
I agree it could've been in better taste, but don't let it keep you up at night mate. No offense/sarcasm.

>>7463645

> There is no way this is the name of a scientific genus. Is there no organization stopping people from naming whatever they discover however they want?
>mfw a biologist from /sci/ discovers a new genus and names it fluttershygddt nignog

Obligatory post,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog

http://otd.harvard.edu/explore-innovation/technologies/robotnikinin-small-molecule-inhibitor-of-sonic-hedgehog-shh-signaling-in-hu/

It has already started, you can not stop it, embrace it anon and submit.

>>7463569
How do you know that consciousness is a virtual abstraction that is not grounded in the physical world? Also mist of the discoveries that physics has shown to seem "random" or unpredictable are usually at atomic level which somehow becomes stable or deterministic at the macro level that we live in.
What I'm trying to say is that you would have to live outside every physic law to have free will and even then your own needs will dictate your actions

>>7463645
I'm split between agreeing with you and not. Using Latin is a good way to keep science serious but we don't want things getting too stuffy plus if you discover something surely you should have naming rights.

>>7463757

To think is an act of choice.Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question “to be or not to be” is the question “to think or not to think.” there is no other living creature on earth that has the 'choice' to do what follows for its survival or not. they exist to the extent of their instinct, and if it is sufficient they live and if not they die.

humans on the other hand are alone in that the functions of survival must be chosen, and we're fully capable of, in fact almost as often as not, fail to choose to thrive. often people find their own destruction because they chose not to do what it is that is necessary for a human to survive, that is, think.

it might be easier to understand in the context of the fact that ONLY humans have free will, and that it was an evolutionary adaption that made us the apex predator, and also made 60% of us miserable with shitty lives... the fact is that unlike a dog, a human can know what is his own best interest and fail to choose to do that.

Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—and he has to perform it by choice.

>>7463852
Thinking is a mechanical process. Why do you think we can make a computer which you are typing on right now? Does this computer have free will? No. It responds to inputs that the universe gives it. We are functionally identical to most computers. Even the way we do decision making is close to binary. We do propagate action potential or don't propagate AP. Then we use temporal and spatial summation to discern which binary choice to use. I can go on and on but the entire field of neuroscience is literally looking at the mechanisms of thought. You are talking about consciousness and awareness, we have found pretty much every human behavior at some point in another species of animal. Albeit in most cases to a lesser extent. Animals can recognize themselves and understand loss and interpersonal connections simply because they have similar brain structures. Hell bees work with flag manifolds just to tell where the food is.

>>7463852
>>7462039

Cognition is just a term, same as conscisousness, and we understand both of them rather poorly. Basically they're words we've assigned to arbitrary points on a supposedly nonlinear graph we use to describe increasing levels of intellect and ability to reason.

The problem is, that we are exactly as mechanical any insect, just much, MUCH more complex.

The human mind is a product of genetics and nurture. Your hardware, the neurological structure of your brain, was crafted by genetics and various biological and chemical agents it has been exposed to. Your software was coded by every experience you've ever been through. Your "choices" right now, are nothing but the sum total of past events completely before and outside of your own control.

In essence as well as practice, our perceived consciousness is nothing but a result of our intellect. We have the capability to "experience" our reactions as they happen, but have no more control over them than we do over the dozens of subconscious thoughts that pop into our minds and direct our actions each day.

Harris explains it well, IIRC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g