/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9315015
take your incoherent drug-fueled rants to >>>/b/

conciousness is the output of a function trying to determine what's "now" and whats next

the only wavy thing about consciousness is the methods people use to describe it.

>>9315019
spotted the brainlet

>>9315025
yeah simple to say, it's obviously much more than that though, consciousness isn't always linear

>>9315015
>let's mix a bunch of unrelated scientific-sounding buzzwords together and see what sticks

>>9315063
>spotted the brainlet
If that rant is not drug-fueled then you should go see a doctor

Can someone explain to me what the consensus on consciousness is? I know that it's up for debate, but what do we know for sure?

>>9315067
>>9315069
What is there not to understand in my post? I was just looking for opinions on how consciousness fits into reality as we know it. String theory is currently the best model of reality, it basically states at the lowest level everything is a wave/frequency/vibration, and everything is either energy or matter/dark matter etc. I'm asking if you anons think conciousness is also a property of energy/matter/waves or is it a separate kind of force altogether.

Personally I think it is a separate phenomena and that our brains interact with it, like some kind of radio

>>9315070
We have no idea what it is. It a very abstract and philosophical concept

>>9315015
shut the fuck up idiot
>>>/x/

>>9315080
kek I thought this board was intelligent

>>9315063
>consciousness isn't always linear
P L E A S E
Explain

For the life of me please i beg of you

>>9315015
>Is consciousness some kind force or property that the brain receives and interacts with?
No. It's just material and mechanics like everything else, that's a pretty big fucking leap to think there is some random physical exception (that you have not even the slightest indication of) to a particular species, in an unimaginatively large universe.

>>9315015
Consciousness has nothing to do with string theory in the way that bananas have nothing to do with string theory. If your eyes don't widen as you think about how bananas are a product of string theory, then you shouldn't for consciousness.

>What do you anons think consciousness really is? What are thoughts? I can 'feel' thoughts like they are some kind of object in my head but it's so weird.
Talk to /lit/. This is a humanities question. Consciousness is not a field that the brain taps in to.

Will we ever understand consciousness? I really want to know the truth.

>>9315097
For one thing time isn't linear. It's kind of a meme but you have to take psychedelics to understand the ways consciousness can be warped. Chemicals enter your brain and your entire perception of reality is distorted.

>>9315101
I didn't say it wasn't material and mechanics I suggested it is a mechanic outside of what's currently understood. It's not an exception in the same way quantum physics was not an exception to model of reality prior to it's discovery.

>>9315103
A banana has everything to do with string theory. What is a banana? How did the banana get here? A banana collection of particles. What are the particles? Waves.
>talk to /lit/
This is a topic that intersects science and philosophy

>>9315115
>A banana has everything to do with string theory. What is a banana?
Then why did you make your post about consciousness and not about bananas? You can't just slap the weirdest theory around onto consciousness, a fundamental question of human existence, and expect a reasonable answer.

Let's all use a lot of words we don't know the meaning of.

>>9315123
>Then why did you make your post about consciousness and not about bananas?
because we know what bananas are, we don't know what consciousness is. I like to get peoples opinions

>>9315130
It's apparent from this thread I know more than any of you will ever hope to know

>>9315136
>It's apparent from this thread I know more than any of you will ever hope to know
Then post your string theory publications. If life goes well for me, I'll publish some eventually. If you know more than I ever hope to, golly goodness you better have some dope af papers published.

>>9315140
I know the basics of string theory, but that's not what I'm concerned with. I only mentioned it because it's the most comprehensive model of reality we have. I don't need to know the finer details. I'm concerned with the nature of consciousness and how it fits into the model of everything essentially being vibrations.

Actually if I'm wrong on that point I'd like to know, maybe my understanding of it is wrong.

>>9315148
Look, I'm sorry for being a dick. That's on me. It sounds like you're legitimately curious and not just stoned out of your mind.

Let's talk about models. The atomic model (protons, neutrons, electrons) is fantastic for chemistry. Everything works and life is a breeze. However, if you look too hard at the protons you begin to get problems.
So we make a new model that explains what the protons are made of, and everything is good. Then a bunch of people get agitated and we come up with the string theory model. All well and good.

Given this, if you wanted to do chemistry would you use the atomic model, the model with quarks and shit, or string theory? Clearly you'd use the atomic model because to do (most) chemistry you don't need to know jack about what's going on inside the protons. If the atomic model being "wrong" bothers you, remember that every model we have ever had, ever is just as "wrong." All models have ranges of validity when you can sensibly apply them. Most of the models we're familiar with are pretty useful. They're like tools.

The reason you're getting so much flak in this thread is that you're trying to apply a very big thing (consciousness), to a very small-scale model (string theory). Describing consciousness in the context of string theory would be like trying to build a building using only tweezers. Tweezers are very useful, but not for something like construction. This is the same reason that chemists don't talk (very much) about quarks. Sure they exist, but for what they're doing it doesn't matter whether they exist at all. In order to mix Hydrogen and Oxygen to make water, you don't need to know about quarks.

In this same way, trying to explain consciousness with string theory is pointless. Just like it's pointless for a chemist to keep track of every quark and virtual particle in their test tube. For the chemist, the atomic model works perfectly fine. To explain consciousness, you probably don't even need something that small.

>>9315166
Ah I see. I've been overthinking this stuff. I can't stop thinking about it admittedly. How everything in reality relates to each other. But consciousness seems to not quite fit with everything else, or at least it seems that way to me.

Like particles vibrate, they create matter and energy, which interact and create a universe, the universe reacts with itself and here we are. But then somehow consciousness or a sense of experience arises out of all that. We're not just robots acting and reacting mindlessly (or perhaps we are). Anyway I haven't had much sleep which is why this all seems like a drug induced rant as one anon said

>>9315074
>String theory is currently the best model for reality
how?

>>9315063
>it's obviously
Oh is it now.

>>9315115
I wish more research was allowed about psychedelics and their effects. I don't believe Joe Rogan tier shit, but their effect is interesting from a purely physiological perspective

>>9315166
Dubs of truth