/sci/ - Science & Math

define "consciousness"

brb getting snacks

>Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics
go to /r/philosophy instead

>>9459701
self-awareness

>>9459730
>self-awareness
That's not a scientific notion.

>>9459694
Roger Penrose thinks it does.
He's in the minority, but his ideas are taken seriously because he's f***ing brilliant.

If I could answer the 2nd part of your question, I'd be at the Patent Office right now instead of on /sci/. So would anybody else.

>>9459747
>because he's f***ing brilliant.
cringe

>>9459694
everything involves quantum mechanics you dumb cunt, obviously something as complex as "consciousness" won't find any benefit in describing it with quantum mechanics.

There's nothing that even vaguely suggests you need quantum effects for consciousness. It's an emergent effect of having a complex interconnected brain that can influence its own behavior.

>>9459694
>how would you approach creating a consciousness purely with logic gates?
You don't. It's not possible to make signs out of any combination of binary relationships. You need a ternary relationship.

Everything involves being conscious, when will you people learn.

>guy: dudes im conscious

Doesn't cut it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence although any evidence would be a nice start at least.
Consciousness is a mystical/new age concept outside mainstream science since it's not falsifiable.

>>9459730
Define self-awareness
>>9459792
You don't have conscious control of your legs when you walk. Neither are you entirely conscious of how exactly you are moving your arm and hand joints when replying to this post
https://youtu.be/wPiLLplofYw

>>9459804
Pinch yourself to find out if you are awake, that's half consciousness right there. Look in a mirror and see if you can tell which image is you. And that's awareness, Bam those are the only two conditions for consciousness awake and aware.

But it's only an experiment you can do for yourself, you can't prove someone else's consciousness with this method.

>>9459822

And what if the realization that you're not real would cause insanity so your brain tricks you into thinking it's not a machine?

>>9459839
What the fuck are you trying to say?
Being a machine or not is irrelevant.
You're one of those cunts who put consciousness on a metaphysical pedestal, aren't you?

>>9459819
You miss my point entirely. A universe without consciousness is a world without observation. Intelligent processes could still occur but they would be presented to nothing (a complete experience vacuum) and, therefore, would be meaningless to even think about.

>>9459890
This is the old "if a tree falls in the forest when there's no one there..." argument.
It makes a "thud" and ruffles the leaves of nearby trees.
This degenerates into a discussion over what "sound" is; vibration in air or sensation in brain.
As Einstein put it, "Do you really believe the Moon is not there where no one is looking at it?"

>>9459749
who cares what you feel?

>>9459924
I’m not an idealist but consciousness has to reconciled with its surrounding environment. I’m don’t believe it will be helpful to work under the assumption that it doesn’t exist (even as a thought experiment designed to spur new theories).

>>9459747
>>9459694
>How would you approach creating consiousness purely with logic gates?


I think they all mapped out the visual cortex.

And regarding the quantum nature of consiousness; this video may be related
https://youtu.be/DJsJIVXkrGQ

https://youtu.be/ADiql3FG5is

Consciousness must involve quantum effects, simply because of the fact that we live in a world governed by quantum effects. Everything is quantum, so why would consciousness be the exception?

>>9459694
Keep adding logic gates and firing them randomly over infinite time until you reach a pattern that exhibits consciousness.

>>9459890
I think all you muh consciousness spergs are a bunch of retards putting the cart before the horse. Self awareness is probably exactly what it says on the tin - a brain using its current state as an input and analyzing that as well. Then, since it is aware of the fact that it is processing information it gets stuck in infinitely recursive logic loops trying to "understand existence" and "prove qualia".

It's meaningless to talk about anything in non-physical terms.

>>9460005
That still doesn't explain it.

>>9460049
Explain what, exactly? You've construed the question ass backwards is the problem. Consider proving that someone else's brain is conscious rather than focusing on yourself.

>>9459859
>>one of those cunts
your consciousness is approaching 1 billion
>>9460005
what about gravitational potential energy? its kinda empty space/difference, intangible - yet very real and useful to know, so there is in fact meaning in that which does not physically exist. what if mind/intelligence is also immaterial, yet very real, however illusory?
>>it gets stuck in infinitely recursive logic loops trying to "understand existence" and "prove qualia"
what happens if you would like to stop doing so?
>>9460049
see image; it relates to efficacy, and freewill - which can be expressed as a maximisation of future potential (amongst many other factors)

>>9459694

Jesus Christ you fucking pseuds

Just READ the shit out there that people have written. This is an old question and people WAY smarter than you have done work on it.

If you want to give an original idea, first do some background research and just read some fucking books

>>9460247
maybe you could help by providing some links for people instead of moaning

>>9460247
you had the opportunity to potentially decrease the entropy in the universe, not this time. stay demon

>mfw my IQ is higher than everyone in this thread combined

>>9459694
Any classical program is already conscious. Neural networks probably aren't.

>>9459747
He's a mathematician.

>>9460504
>Any classical program
what the fuck is a "classical program"
u just makin shit up nigga

>>9459804
>not falsifiable
Wrong.

>>9460518
The usual algorithmic shit like your web browser.

>>9459694
Create a program with a random task in unlimited time. Every 30 minutes it must analyze all the data it processed and describe what it has already done and what is expected to happen in the next week.It includes describing previous descriptions and checking if expectations were fulfilled. It must diagnosis why expectations weren't fulfilled, if that is the case.

>>9459694
Quantum electrodynamics are effecting the electrons in your brain cells.There's not enough information to say if the brain takes advantage of it in some way.

The same effects occur in every piece of electronic equipment, but we intentionally design things so they don't have an impact. Nobody wants a logic gate that's randomly wrong sometimes. One of reason we set CPU speeds the way we do is because the electrons moving through a circuit are probabilistic. You need to wait until the number that have been pushed into a semiconductor only has a one in a septillion chance of not being enough; otherwise things get random.

>>9459992
>Consciousness must involve classical physics, simply because of the fact that we live in a world governed by classical physics. Everything is classical physics, so why would consciousness be an exception ?

>>9461512
I get that you are trying to be clever, but what you've said is really nonsensical.

>>9459768
It's not a matter of "needing" quantum effects. Quantum effects occur at the scales where the mechanisms that produce consciousness occur, so clearly they're going to have an influence. Quantum mechanics is a description of ALL reality and denying it functions in biological systems is flat out wrong.

>>9459804
All knowledge flows from "I think, therefore I am". If you deny that starting point you deny all science. That people are conscious beings with free will is an axiom that all scientific inquiry hinges on.

Quantum consciousness deniers... you are claiming that consciousness is the one exception. You are dualists without realizing it.

>>9461512
...and it does. I think you're conflating the idea that our mathematical models of classical and quantum physics cannot reconcile with the idea that reality is literally split into two realms that cannot interact, which is retarded.

>>9459694
>Does consciousness involve quantum mechanics
only in a indirect way through field to field interactions. the brain produces magnetic field through electrical activity. there may be random subatomic particles that get diverted from their original flight path thanks to magnetic fields in the brain slightly

most of conscious thought is neurons linked together with electrical impulses running though them. it was proven you can make simplified robots with no programing using transistors linked together with electricity running through them. they can even learn to do things like crawl to charging stations or into light so solar panels can charge them on their own. though not just any random combinations work. the scientist that found he could do this admitted he based it off of insect nervous systems which technically arent considered as having a brain

how does this work? the electrical potential of neurons works the same way for transistors as from a technical standpoint they are the same thing. your cpu's in computers are just clusters of transistors but those are running in a digital for not analog. code for digital is at its bases level on or off aka 1 or 0.

analog signals based of the electrical potential of neurons are a float between 0 and something like 0.000000075 ish mhz.

the chemical component which many play up would relay signals to slow and just acts as a switch to turn off some path ways or open them up for electricity. it connects one part of the neural network to another with chemical receptors.the chemical component doesnt actually dictate what is going on with the electricity in neurons.

memories seem to be a chemical imprint in the connection between some clusters. this seems to adjust the current running through the brain and some how the current reaching different points in the brain makes a single complex concept like a house and knowing what it is.

>>9461547
>free will

who knows m8

>>9460480
>mfw my IQ is higher than this guy's IQ and I was a paranoid schizophrenic who literally starved myself to death to keep people from poisoning me through my food
Wow, it's almost like being smart isn't a vaccine against being wrong.
Hmm... really makes you think.

>>9461550
>Quantum consciousness deniers... you are claiming that consciousness is the one exception
No, there are many such "exceptions." Why do you think classical physics still gets used all the time? If anything, the cases where quantum effects matter are the exceptions, not the other way around.

>>9459701
/thread

>>9462506
>being this ill

>>9461554
>the idea that reality is literally split into two realms that cannot interact
Not him, but it's not that quantum effects and phenomena better described by classical physics don't "interact," it's that quantum effects don't *matter* outside of specific conditions that much of the everyday world we deal with doesn't have. You could describe anything with quantum physics if you wanted to, but it would be retarded to describe the motion of planets with it because the impact of quantum effects there is completely negligible. It would be like trying to predict the results of a Baseball game on the basis of molecular structure. Technically you could reduce what's going on to that level, but there are emergent patterns which become way more relevant and eclipse the smaller scale details once you move past certain scales / conditions.

>>9462537
Just pointing out that "a smart person believes this" isn't a very great argument. If anything the most intelligent among us exist at an especially dangerous precipice where they're most vulnerable to ridiculously bad ideas since extreme intelligence generally comes with low latent inhibition. That's why "down to Earth" is an expression. These people are not "down to Earth," they're as far from Earth as you can get, which can result both in groundbreaking brilliant ideas and in completely psychotic terrible ideas.

>>9462510
There are no exceptions to quantum physics.

Sometimes we use classical physics because either the math is too hard with quantum physics, or we don't understand quantum physics well enough to explain a certain phenomenon.

The universe is not dualistic. There isn't a "quantum scale" and a "classical scale". Everything is quantum. Classical physics is just a heuristic that usually works.

>mfw brainlets try to deny quantum consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

>>9461547
descartes brianlet detected. read some kant.

Everyone should read this book before they post anything about consciousness.

>>9462805
>Sometimes we use classical physics because either the math is too hard with quantum physics, or we don't understand quantum physics well enough to explain a certain phenomenon.
No, you don't understand this topic at all.
In classical contexts the results that would be predicted by classical physics are identical with the results that would be predicted by quantum physics. The impact of phenomena not already covered by classical physics are negligible in those contexts.
>The universe is not dualistic.
This has nothing to do with dualism. The way non-quantum physical systems behave isn't in conflict with quantum physics, it's emergent from it. Influences exist that are relevant at one scale and negligible at another, that's all. Just because a gentle breeze can knock over a sand castle doesn't mean you need to factor in the force of gentle breezes when constructing an actual house. This isn't dualism, it's the very straightforward concept that not all factors have a non-negligible impact at all scales / circumstances.

>>9462951
>Consciousness as a Quantum Dynamic Effect
>Quantum Spin Formalism on Consciousness
>The "Quantum Underground": Where Life and Consciousness Originate
>Consciousness in the Universe — An Updated Review of the "Orch OR" Theory
It's quantum flapdoodle trash trying to pass itself off as neutral overview of different explanations.

>>9463061
>non-quantum physical systems
name one such system

>>9462951
I read the first 15 pages of this book and I can confidently say it's utter trash

>>9463061
You are so woefully confused. You are talking about models. Classical physics is just a model that happens to make accurate predictions in most, but not all cases.

It has predictive power but not explanatory power.

>>9459890
>observation
Popsci please stay on >>>/facebook/

>>9459694
>creating a consciousness purely with logic gates?
You remind me of those tards that say things like "love is just a chemical redaction" after learning about water molecules.
Go ahead and explain how even a single protein works, _then_ we'll discuss reduction of consciousness to an algorithm...

>>9459819
"Decerebrate"?????
Jesus, how horrifying.

>>9459839
>realization that you're not real
Cogito Ergo Sum,
If you can realize anything, you're real.

>>9463354
Yeah linear filters are much better.

>>9459924
>This degenerates into a discussion over what "sound" is;
You're not smoking good enough weed.
The whole point of "if a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it" is that there are, by definition, certain unknowable things.
We take it for granted that the tree makes a sound, but given the parameters, we can never know in an absolute sense.
And THAT'S the whole point.

>>9463354
>"consciousness" might be the result of completely biochemical reactions but I say it's supr speshul majik and that changes everything
Fucking brainlet subhuman.

>>9463369
>If you can realize anything, you're real.
Sounds like you're jumping to conclussions. "Thinking" is fundamentally the same process as any other physical interaction in nature.

>>9463378
You miss my point entirely.
Saying "it's just chemicals" is a handy chant for the OCD tards among us, but the truth is chemistry is often so incredibly complex, it's a miracle people aren't more mysteriously complex and deep.
You can't hand-wave away a phenomenon because "it's all just protons, neutrons and electrons, I learned this shit in 9th grade".

>>9463392
>"Thinking" is fundamentally the same process as any other physical interaction in nature.
So.... writing a poem is no more complex or involved than a meteor falling to Earth?

The point is: if you can think, then you exist.

>>9463393
>chemistry is often so incredibly complex, it's a miracle people aren't more mysteriously complex and deep
This changes absolutely nothing. The complexity of a system doesn't change or "mystify" it.
>You can't hand-wave away a phenomenon
Says you. Where's your proof it's anything more.

>>9463396
>So.... writing a poem is no more complex or involved than a meteor falling to Earth?
Yes. How are they fundamentally different?
>The point is: if you can think, then you exist.
That's a statement. How do you derive one from the other? What stops you from being "not real"

>>9463403
Because something needs to be doing the thinking...

The idea of being "not real" is trivial and semantic

>>9463410
You're not doing the thinking. It's your brain, "you" then become aware of it and think it's you doing the thinking.

>>9463410
>Because something needs to be doing the thinking...
There are 0 arguments in this sentence. Could you enlighten me how you differentiate the "thinking" of the brain from the rest of nature, outside worthless philosophical wankery.

>>9463403
>Yes. How are they fundamentally different?
A meteor doens't have an emotional need to trivialize humanity.

>>9463417
>You're not doing the thinking. It's your brain,
What am I, if not "my" brain?????

>>9459714
Consciousness is a product of biological processes so I'm pretty sure it's /sci/ related even if it brings out >muh dualism and >muh hard problem knuckleheads

>>9463423
there's no "i"

>>9463423
>A meteor doens't have an emotional need to trivialize humanity.
You should probably move to facebook or /his/. Anyways, the double-digit IQ layer of abstraction you slap on reality doesn't change a thing.

>>9463437
Nice argument.
Still waiting to hear why I'm not my brain.

>>9463417
But regardless of that "you" something is existing. Some kind of structured reality..

>>9463421
Im not arguing for you im just arguing that 1st person experience is a valid empiricism.

>>9463441
You arent your brain because consciousness doesnt encompass all perceptible phenomena. Because you cant observe the inner workings of the brain also.. even with effortful thonking, thoughts arise from nowhere. You clearly arent your brain but emerge from aspects of its function.

>>9459741
Why not?

>>9463473
I'm not my testicles either, except in the sense that they are a part of me.

Since my brain is the part of me thaqt does ths thinking, you can't say "You're not doing the thinking. It's your brain," any more than you can say "you're not peeing on my leg, it's your dick".

>>9463465
>Some kind of structured reality.
what do you mean by that?

>>9463493
"you can't say "You're not doing the thinking. It's your brain"
what part of you're not doing the thinking. It's your brain don't you understand? the thinking happens before you're aware of it, you're not doing it

>>9463271
Quantum physics in itself doesn't have "explanatory power" either, that's why there are multiple differing *interpretations* attempting to explain it.
>>9463265
>name one such system
Most everything that isn't 100 nanometers or smaller, or very low temperature.
And don't turn this into a semantics argument, I was very clear that this isn't "non-quantum" as in quantum scale phenomena don't exist, it's "non-quantum" as in quantum effects become negligible at the classical limit.

>>9463495
Just that something is happening. Phenomena with structure.

>>9463493
You cant say its a part of you if youre not aware of it. If its not part of the self aware phenomenal you. If you have no sensory connection to it. Your analogy is dodgy. You can say its your brain not you because your brain does alot more than building the coniitive structure of you which is not the same as the individual parts of the brain. The leg analogy is bad. What about cutting off finger nails.

>>9463493
Yes the brain is the part that does the thinking but only part of ur brain does it.

Being blind because of damage to the visual cortex is an example of why youre not your brain. Brain damage that doesnt affect your concept of "you" or your conscious perception. Outside of the fact you have no access to visual stuff.

>>9463505
>the thinking happens before you're aware of it
This isn't true. You think about something which collapses the quantum state and creates a history of you retrieving the relevant information from the neuronal structures in your brain.

>>9463560
Citation niglet.

>>9463493
we all agree you're a dick anon

>>9463481
>Why not?
Self-awareness can not be studied using the scientific method.

>>9463939
Its been studied for the last 20 years in neuroscience so gtfo...

>btfo
>why cant you do it.. why cant you set your monkey free.

>>9459694
This is the most Reddit question I've ever heard

>>9464220
And youre a 4chan fag. Wooptydoo some wallstreet or london banker earning 300k is lookin at this saying " reddit defence
... still a beta faggot".

>>9459694
>how would you approach creating a consciousness purely with logic gates?
I would use lots of them. Like a whole lot. Also logarithms.

>>9459701

Number.

> 3.14159265359

Found a pattern.........eazy as pie.

>>9464265
Your a fag. Brain works like linear filters using normalization. Proven.

>>9464273
I have no comeback. I think you got me.

>>9464283
Its nt an insult. Wd u act like that if, as a phd to some stalwart like ben bradlee or karl friston? Wd u act like a pussy or get to fuckin work? An interesting person wd retaliate. Youre no bradlee no friston no hughes.

>>9464283
Bradlee wd tell u ure a freak under a stone and reiterate his case. You hide. U wdnt sie for free press wd u. Pussy.

>>9464309
Im sorry im a fag.

>>9464309
Im sorry im a fag

>>9464283
I said im sorry

>>9464319
F

>>9459694
I think it only proves that information is real.

>>9464301
>>9464309
>>9464311
>>9464314
>>9464319
I accept your apology.

bump

>>9460219
But all that is hogwash, human brains don't make decisions that way. There is nothing conscious about decision making. It all depends on which firing synapse chain stimulates the brainstem the hardest.

>>9459773
>implying ternary logic can't be simulated on binary logic and even in fact turing machines
KYS normie

>>9463473
You're conflating 'you' with consciousness. Do you stop being you when you go to sleep? Where do you go?

Can you separate consciousness from the unobservable inner workings of the brain? No. You are your brain.

>>9467121
there's no 'you'

>>9467125
there's me not being someone else

>>9467088
They aren't genuine triadic relations if they can be reduced to relationships of lower adicity.

>>9467125
Are you sure?

>>9467125
You are correct as Bruce Lee said the word "i" does not exist. In reference to the ego being a construct of your intellect.

The only you which exists is the soul, and the soul is a signal fed from the collective under God.

>>9467625
Fuck religion but the primary difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is whether there is an existing self beyond the here and now brain. Buddhism says no, Hinduism says yeah.

>>9467133
>there's me not being someone else
Go take babby's first acid trip already, it's [current year], ego death isn't a new phenomenon.

>>9459694
Root of 1 is -1 too. KYS.

>>9459694
>Does consciousness involve quantum mechanics
No.
>and if not, how would you approach creating a consciousness purely with logic gates?
Combination of lots of gates and feedback loops i guess. If anyone knew the answer to this we would have strong AI by now wouldnt we?

Your thread is dildos.

>>9467705
>Fuck religion
edge

>>9467891
>If anyone knew the answer to this we would have strong AI by now wouldnt we?
No. Understanding something isn't the same as being able to produce your own version of it. The Yellowstone volcano isn't particularly mysterious for example but it's way beyond the scope of our resources / abilities to do much of anything to stop it from erupting.

>>9467953
Thats the stupidest analogy ive ever heard. Your problem is an issue of scale and execution, not technology. If someone knew how to make consiousness using logic gates, i defy you to mention one reason why we wouldnt have a consious machine by now, or at the very least detailed instructions on how to build one. That shit would get you a nobel prize easily.

>>9459890
Nibba get with it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>>9468399
>Your problem is an issue of scale and execution
So is creating an artificial human mind.
A transistor has three legs (connections).
A neuron can have more like 10,000 connections.
100 billion neurons, 100 trillion synapses.
So yes, simulating that would definitely be "an issue of scale and execution."
Now there's no reason why you necessarily would go the course of simulating a biological brain to accomplish simulating a comparable degree of intelligence / cognitive abilities. And in fact there's good reason not to since it's almost certainly the case that a massive amount of a biological brain's network is redundant. But if you wanted to definitely reproduce what a biological brain does then the obvious solution is to reproduce all of its structure and activity, and doing that is currently beyond the scope of what anyone has the resources to accomplish.

>>9459730
by this definition, most of this board doesn't have consciousness

>>9468700
Again im going to refer you to the
>detailed instructions on how to build one
Its not just an issue of scale, but one of fundamental understanding.

>>9468774
>Its not just an issue of scale, but one of fundamental understanding.
It can be either one depending on the route you take. My guess is it'll take less time for an alternative build not based on the human brain to accomplish what gets considered a sentient machine than it will take for a 100% faithful artificial reproduction of the entire human brain down to every single microscopic detail.
>detailed instructions on how to build one
A single neuron can be fully simulated already and a single small network of neurons can be fully simulated already. Do that but repeat for 100 billion simulated neurons with 100 trillion synapses. If you want more detail than that you can look at all the details that went into the existing simulations of a single neuron or the existing simulations of a single small network of neurons.

>>9459694
The problem with (((science))) is that you can only use what (((they))) know to explain, so explaining with just mechanics is naive.
Here in the 3D reality, we see a dot as just that: a dot, but contains pages of information based on the diameter by perspective of higher dimensions. By defining consciousness as the awareness via senses and mentality: we are only able to experience 3D consciousness thus lack 4D, 5D, 6D... while also not knowing if our consciousness is influenced by those higher realms. With that said, you will need to be at the infinite dimension to understand the absoluteness of symbols in order to make a logical gates of consciousness.

>>9459694
I guess you can't even begin to postulate what conciousness is without making assumptions. The question is where do we start?

>/sci/ unironically questions the existence of consciousness while experiencing the whole process.

>>9468793
>thinking a single neuron works like a transistor
>thinking that the clouds of neurotransmitters floating around have nothing to do with consiousness
Brains are a lot more complex than 1s and 0s. The neurotransmitters are like an analogue signal on top of the firing of synapses. Its definitely more of an understanding problem than a scale one. We could simulate as many transistors as necessary on one of our massive supercomputers, even if the number was in the trillions of trillions you could just slow the clock speed of your simulated brain, so scale is not the issue. The issue is that we dont know how, period.

>>9459749
It's not cringy to call someone smart...

Why is this thread still fucking going? Since when did scientists LARP this hard?

No, your brain does not use any processes on the quantum scale. It doesn't even use electricity. It uses the flow of chemical reactions and ions only.

>>9469362
So you are saying that electrons don't exist in the human brain?

Still waiting for someone to reply here in this thread with a mature, adult response.

>>9459694
I guess technically but QM is not really a good model to describe it.

Basically here's how it kinda does. Quantum mechanics describes electrons' behavior. Electron behavior determines chemical bonding, to include the different types of chemical interactions among the neurons in your brain. So your neurochemistry is defined by the types of molecular and coordinate bonding between various co-factors acting on proteins, cell membranes, and effectively anything else you can talk about in biochemistry. These interactions are in turn defined by the electronics within the respective molecules and coordinate chemicals. Those electronics are modeled using quantum mechanics. At any rate you're better off using statistical mechanics as a tool to quantitatively explain the chemical systems that are at play in that world. Generally though, electronic modeling isn't as valuable as strictly quantitative analysis of the chemicals at play or modeling the interactions of complete molecules.

As far as what consciousness is, you're basically playing with fire here.

bump

>>9459749
How to tell when an anon is a redditfag
>cringe

I think consciousness boils down to complex information processing. This to some extent involves sensory organs, but.. I think some degree of consciousness exists in everything (not to the point where a table is thinking about things, but the table can certainly store information about its past & present conditions, it just can't act).
But yeah, it's bound to involve QM. The brain is ridiculous. QM modulates proteins binding to receptors & the conformational changes involved; that's an easy connection. It all adds up to something hideously complicated.

>>9469433
Mixed neuroscience and computer science background here, very interested in consciousness.

While quantum theories of consciousness have been proposed (see Richard Feynman), there is no evidence for quantum effects in the human brain. I do not understand quantum physics sufficiently, but apparently the physical properties of the brain as an environment makes quantum effects unlikely to occur.

The currently best theory for consciousness is Integrated Information Theory (IIT) by Giulio Tonini. According to the theory, a system of logic gates could indeed be conscious, provided that the gates are connected in the right way. I can very much recommend reading the latest paper ("From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0") if you are interested, the examples used to illustrate the theory actually use logic gates.

>>9471076
Interesting, I'll have to give it a read. This lecture is pretty interesting and works at neural mechanisms from a statistical mechanics point of view. Specifically he shows that as these systems increase in size they approach a critical point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ74VtNffbY&index=4&list=PLoxv42WBtfCAY8icy7uChz_kpBXpWoMwk

>>9469362
>No, your brain does not use any processes on the quantum scale
It's governed by relatively small molecules which definitely are influenced by quantum effects.

Quantum mechanics does not have anything to do with consciousness. To suggest as such would be to imply that things only behave when you are looking at them. If your electron randomly tunnels away from you there has to be a reason why, not just "muh uncertainty principle".

>>9469449
>Quantum mechanics describes electrons' behavior
Anon, would you go so far as to say that it influences it? Do you know of the photosynthesis experiment which shows a quantum level interaction with the electrons released? If a similar effect were to be shown in animal neurology then it could begin to open up science-based (or at least QM-based) exploration of consciousness questions beyond the brain-as-computer model.

>>9469449
>Quantum mechanics describes electrons' behavior.
Wrong. It describes the behavior of all matter.

>>9459694
The influence of quantum mechanics on conciousness is neglectable. Conciousness arise from the complexity of the neutal network.
But on a more philosophical perspective, one can argue that free will boils down to uncertainty principle>>9472364

>>9459694
>does consciousness involve quantum mechanics?
Everything involves quantum mechanics.

Let's do some simple dimensional analysis.

A neuron firing is an electrochamical process, and most of the processes in chemistry happen at an energy scale of 10-100 eV. It's known that a typical human neuron fires about 200 times a second.

So roughly speaking, the neuron action is of the order of magnitude 0.05eVs. Compare that with the quantity that arises to describe quantum mechanical effects: [math]\hbar[/math], which has a value of roughly 6.6x10^{-16}eVs

So the neuron action is approximately [math]10^{14}\hbar[/math].

I'd say based on that alone, quantum mechanical effects are not important for understanding consciousness, if indeed it is something that can be totally described by neuroscience. That's not to say that it's not important in the chemistry or physics involved in these processes, but just that when compared to classical electromagnetism and classical chemistry, it's not that important.

bump

>>9459694

Consciousness doesn't exist so it's a non-problem.

>>9474421

Ok now make it all a wave function and then rule out quantum phenomena

>>9459694
Logia Construct:
Need:
Imbalance 1 need 0.
You have now summerised life and death.
Now place things between life and death.
11 need 0
In 1 place need. If need then need want.
Want Need Want Need.
In 111 need want love.
If need then want love.
If love then want need
If need want then love
Etc etc
Then need want love need want love need want love. Etc.

Now randomize.
Create an ever complicating algorithm for the three or more processes.
Give it a sensor.
True randomosity can only arise from unstable quantum effects. Uncertainty from a microcosmic effect that can only play within the rules of a given set construct. Spontanuity.
This is the heart of a "true" AI.
One way is to use a radioactive core. The newest approach will be to use quantum spectrometry.
Then of course there is sensing photons to create a semblance of "random" as the robot progresses and absorbs information... But people are insistant that the "soul" comes from within... So why not imbue it as such.

>>9459694
Literally everything is inseparable from consciousness since all exists inside it. Quantum mechanics obviously involves it.

>>9471076
>quantum theories of consciousness have been proposed (see Richard Feynman)
Did you mean Roger Penrose?
I don't think Feynman ever got mixed up in that trash.

>>9476367
>Literally everything is inseparable from consciousness since all exists inside it.
So what about those billions of years before consciousness emerged when reality was just unconscious matter? Are you claiming none of that really happened? And if you are, where did conscious organisms come from in the first place if not through the physical route?

>implying the brain is what creates consciousness
>implying the brain isn't just another product of consciousness
When will you materialikeks learn?

>>9476374
Hello, where did conscious organisms come from in the first place then please?

>>9476388
No such thing as conscious organisms. There is only one consciousness and everything exists within it.

>>9476393
Including the things that come from the void.

>>9476393
>>9476395
What's the point of brains then? If everything's just consciousness to begin with why is there a complicated organ heavily associated with conscious experience in everyone's head? Doesn't seem plausible to me, though I get that you're trying to avoid dualism which is admirable. I think all signs point to the opposite non-dualism approach being correct though, where everything's physical and consciousness doesn't really exist at all except as the negative space of implied existence shaped by our behavior around the concept of "it."

>>9476410
>What's the point of brains then?
What is the point of existence itself? Why should there be a "point" at all? A "point" or "reason" is a human concept, and is yet another product of consciousness. You can't get "behind" consciousness, as any possible explanation is a product of it. You can only elaborate metaphors to attempt to explain experience but they're just that, metaphors.

>>9476426
No, you can't McDik's your way out of this one, brains make no sense at all if you believe everything was consciousness to begin with.
Billions of people, all with the same very complicated organ in their head which alters their reported state of consciousness reliably when exposed to chemicals or physical trauma.
That's not a fucking coincidence, you need to account for it or drop your shit theory.

>>9476435
Then you die and your electrons/atoms disperse into the soil and air. You become one with this rock. This rock becomes one with the sun. The sun becomes a well for gravity. Cools. Disperses again. This system becomes one with the cold and electromagnetically attracts even the dark and black together again and we take it back. Wrapped in night. Back to 0. Then one again. Whole. 10101010. The system breathes. The sound continues. Music.

>>9476435
You're assuming "people" aren't just another product of consciousness too.
The people in your dreams can have a brain too, and can also alter their state of consciousness. Does that make them conscious?

>>9476453
Still not seeing an explanation for brains under your theory there. You have no need for very complicated consciousness associated organs if everything's consciousness to begin with, that's a fatal flaw with your theory.
You know what does explain how brains emerged? Physical reality existing and intelligence being an eventual adaptation rather than an already present from the beginning state.

>>9461554
No, what I'm saying is we don't understand physics enough to use it to explain consciousness.

>>9476461
>You're assuming "people" aren't just another product of consciousness too.
No, I didn't assume that.
>The people in your dreams can have a brain too, and can also alter their state of consciousness. Does that make them conscious?
People in dreams having brains raises the same problem for your theory as people in waking reality having brains, which is: why do brains exist? Why are they so widespread and universally associated with reported conscious experience? Why does something so complicated need to exist that underlies reported conscious experience when consciousness is allegedly just what everything is to begin with? That's like the ocean needing to create billions of elaborate water fountains that are themselves made out of water. It's a massive problem for this theory, I don't think there's any way to salvage it. The best you can do is try to say "b-but we don't know anything so it could be possible," which is the weakest of all arguments you could choose from since it can be used as an excuse to justify literally any position you want.

>>9476466
Have you ever started a new game in an already finished video game...
Just for fun?

>>9476494
OK, let's follow that analogy.
Brains are a new game to create new consciousness in an already existing state of all-pervasive consciousness.
Because... why? Did the consciousness that everything secretly exists as a part of come from a brain itself? It didn't? OK, then what is the point of brains for these new instances of consciousness?
You just have to face it, this idea makes no sense and basically requires you to believe billions of instances of a super-complicated organ that react very reliably to chemicals and physical trauma in ways that produce altered states of *consciousness* are somehow all the work of a massive conspiracy to mislead you.
Either that or, hey, maybe physical reality is an actual thing and altered states of consciousness are reported when taking drugs happen because conscious behavior is produced by that same convoluted information processing organ that's in everyone's head. Really makes you think...

>>9476522
To see it from every single perspective.
A dice with so many faces to roll with. Why not? The idea makes sense to the artist. This is the sad truth. We are but colors on a canvas. However... Sometimes art comes alive. Sometimes it even haunts you. So here comes a little "show" I've been brewing. This world lacks "magic" anymore. Time to give it all back. Funny thing about physical trauma. We can all relate to it in some ways. Yet it only takes a tea spoon of it to understand what a bucket tastes like. If you are smart.

>>9476550
>To see it from every single perspective.
No, I'm not asking why do multiple different conscious people appear to exist.
I'm telling you your theory has no explanation for brains.
Totally different objection. Brains are way too complicated, widespread, and reliably associated in their activity with reported conscious experience to make any sense in a reality where consciousness was already the state of things from the beginning.

>>9476555
You give a man the most complex tool in the world. Say. The internet and he ends up opening a million tabs. Why?

>>9476582
Brains aren't web browser tabs, just give up, you cannot justify this.

consciousness is our perception of the contradiction of order
try to prove me wrong

>>9476874
Not coherent enough of a statement to be considered either right or wrong, try again.

bbump