/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9704458
Its the sole purpose of the universe.

>>9704466
do you think consciousness is a property of matter in general? i realize that there's no way to scientifically test this but still fun to think about.

star maker is a fun book that sort of touches on this topic https://www.amazon.com/Star-Maker-Olaf-Stapledon/dp/0486466833

>>9704458
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

>>9704469
I do, so did famous physicists like Max Planck. He was really out there though and suggested that the universe was produced via a matrix of consciousness. Today he probably would've called it a field. Similar to the higgs.

>>9704476
tldr?

>>9704469
I think it could be. There is plenty of physical science to back up the theory that consciousness may be a property of LIFE, and life is matter. We need to keep looking! Watch a bunch of cells gang up and attack an invader. Do you think they are consciously co-coordinating? Do you think trees in a forest communicate when the forest is invaded by invasive beetles? Because somehow, all of the trees in the forest "know" when an invasion is occurring.

>>9704486
Epiphenomenalism is bullshit, consciousness has an effect on the physical world, and philosophical zombies probably don't exist.

>>9704458
In my opinion, it's a complex evolutionary trait, biologically measurable(ish) by the existence of a big memory capacity in the brain and complex emotional responses to stimuli, which get expressed as self-image recognition (mirror's test) and
some behaviours which are not essential to reproduction or survival (playfulness, masturbation, sex just for fun, homosexuality) present on some animals like gorillas, lions, cats, dolphins, etc.

Yes, in my opinion these animals do have a conscious subjectively experience where they recognize their own existence and all, just like us, but not as complex as ours, obviously.

>>9704507
Subjective*

>>9704466
The universe has no known purpose, new age cunt.

>>9704458

Its a biological evolutionary trait to let matter reach higher state of energy. Consciousness allows more consistent resource acquisition.

life is a product of entropy.

>>9704458
>why does the subjective experience of consciousness exist?
because [math]1.57\neq1.62[/math]

>>9704507
There’s no evidence whatsoever that all vertebrates are not conscious. Kill yourself.

>>9704507
>reproduction or survival
Nah dude Im finna stop you right there. This makes zero sense against the back drop of abiogenesis. Why would inanimate matter, animate just so it could fuck and struggle not to die.

>>9704466
fpbp

>>9704555
that's like saying why does 3 result from adding 1 to 2

if life wasn't like this, you wouldn't be here discussing about it

>>9704521
I speak in my opinion and my own definition of consciousness. If you don't agree with it, go ahead and propose your own, faggot.

>>9704555
Life came from dead shit, you fuck. That's a fact because you are here right now. So unless you believe in the simulation meme or a higher being who created us or any inconsistent unfalsifiable bullshit, i don't see how abiogenesis isn't obvious.

>>9704584
Nah my dude, its a vastly different concept and system. The fucking and not dying is just the surface phenomenon, theres all sorts of crazy ass shit going on within the cells, 90% of which we have no real concept of whats going on, and until we do the sexual reproduction meme is just a platitude as far as Im concerned. Evolution happens, no doubt, but theres too many unknowns to say for sure thats its natural selection driving it.

>>9704589
>>inconsistent unfalsifiable bullshit

>Implying this isnt the whole of cosmology right now

>>9704593
Either life came from dead minerals and random shit happening or life was always there. Or we're living in a simulation and none of this shit even matters. Actually, no, nevermind, if this were a simulation, the higher beings overseeing the simulation must have come from somewhere as well.

>>9704555
trips post assumes linear time

>>9704602
>no, nevermind, if this were a simulation, the higher beings overseeing the simulation must have come from somewhere as well.
Thats rather egoistic thinking. What if theyre the true firsts that self generated. Why must it absolutely, without a doubt be us.

>>9704614
Not saying we're the superior beings. Juat saying that our overlords must also have an origin, if ours was them creating us.

>the true firsts that self generated
Elaborate. How can something generate itself?

>>9704458
Because it's just a linguistic confusion. See Wittgenstein on private language and Dennett on quining qualia; there is nothing (1) ineffable (2) intrinsic (3) private (4) directly or immediately apprehensible that exists, and if there is then it is your burden of proof to show this. Protip: you will not be able to show that something defined as above exists.

>>9704555
is there any non religious argument against exterminating all life?
you can't regret not existing so not allowing any new life seems like the most ethical thing to do

>>9704633
What do you call this? Utilitarian nihlism? The greatest good for the greatest amount of people is not existing so that we feel no pain? Sick edgy opinion, the door is that way, the rest of us enjoy living.

>>9704622
>>the true firsts that self generated
>Elaborate. How can something generate itself?
This is the presumed theory on the origins of the universe by the scientific community.

So no it doesnt follow that

>the higher beings overseeing the simulation must have come from somewhere as well.

>>9704633
I'm not sure about the whole asymmetry between existence and nonexistence meme; you equally can't enjoy not existing and if it were true that not existing is somehow better than existing, why don't you do the rational thing and kill yourself? (Of course this argument assumes that not killing yourself is self evidently rational which is not the case)

>>9704641
b-but i enjoy living, nice argument retard

>>9704654
how could living be better than not existing at all? if that were the case we should make birth control illegal and start force impregnating women
okay maybe not lol but i just dont see how the feeling of „happiness“ makes life worth existing you only care about being happy because you are alive so whats the point

>>9704713
Living *could* be better than not living... or it could not. We can't predict the future, so parents can just make a personal choice whether they want the responsibility of raising a child or not - you can justify having a child and you can justify not having one. I don't think the feeling of happiness makes life worth living (on its own) either; I'm not a hedonist. I think there are other things which are valuable/important in their own right, however, which is why I go on living. Happiness is nice, too, though.

>>9704774
>Living *could* be better than not living... or it could not. We can't predict the future
I dont care how happy someone is, not existing just can't be worse than living

>I think there are other things which are valuable/important in their own right,
like what?

>>9704629
Can you summarize the argument?

t. brainlet

>>9704822
>>Living *could* be better than not living... or it could not. We can't predict the future
>I dont care how happy someone is, not existing just can't be worse than living
You will not exist forever when you die, so this really isnt an either or question. If you wish you can speed up the process considerably via self termination. You will not feel a shotgun blast to the head.

>>9704648
>This is the presumed theory on the origins of the universe by the scientific community
Anyone who thinks that everything suddenly exploded from literally nowhere doesn't understand Big Bang Theory. BBT only states that everything was at one point condensed under extreme pressure and because of this it exploded. What was going on before the BB? It's like asking what happened before the beginning of time, the question makes no sense. We still don't know anything about where was all this matter before the Big Bang. Only what happened after and how.

>>9704915
>What was going on before the BB? It's like asking what happened before the beginning of time, the question makes no sense.
The question makes perfect sense, and its a logical question based on there being a definitive beginning. This is simply the platitude these cock sniffing larpers give to dodge an extremely pertinent question.

>>9704633
Humans need to exist for at least another century so that we can ascend to becoming posthumans.

>>9704891
yes kys is the same as never being born gj

>>9704952
ah i see now

>>9704998
>yes kys is the same as never being born gj
Verily, if non existence is by default the better state to be in, why dost thou feel such a primal, basal fear of it.

You quasi-intellectual edge lord fucking faggot.

>>9705005
i say that never existing cant be worse than living
once you're born it's hard to kys there are people you care about who would be sad, maybe you enjoy life and are happy
but my point is no one would regret not being born so why bother creating new life in the hope it enjoys living

>>9704713
Because you CAN feel happy, good, and meaningful, if you try...

>>9705119
Because being happy adds to the joy of the world.

Give a shit, nigga.

>>9705144
>>9705148
im not depressive i just dont see any non selfish non religious argument for keeping life going

>>9705170
You're in possession of whats called an opinion, boy. It is not a truth.

>>9704494
>Watch a bunch of cells gang up and attack an invader. Do you think they are consciously co-coordinating?

no

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

>>9705177
>movement of an organism in response to a chemical stimulus
does breathing count as this? you can't consciously stop breathing or you will die. but you will run if your room starts filling up with smoke, or fall into the water and panic and "breath in" water and drown.

>>9704519
you didn’t answer shit

>>9704851
>dude nothing means anything lmao
witty was a joke desu

>>9704633
it’s called being older than 14 desu