/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9760255
>consciousness
its a made up idea
if you cant prove you have it, or prove something else has it, it belongs in the category of bullshit with unicorns, gods, and leprechauns.

>>9760255
Wrong abstraction layer.

>>9760265
You are non-conscious.

>>9760272
Could you explain?

>>9760325
I can point to a useful metaphor. Think about calculators. You can build a calculator with electronics, with gears, or even in minecraft. This doesn't change the theory of calculators.

>>9760325
Could you shut the fuck up?

>>9760265
t. Philosophical Zombie

>>9760332
But we don't have any theory of consciousness, so I don't the see the point of the analogy.

>>9760344
See >>9760333

>>9760332
You seem to be implying that the level of abstraction is too low. Thats where you are wrong. It's too high.

>>9760358
We could try that one more time.

>>9760376
>Wrong abstraction layer.

Layers... implying an ordered hierarchy.

We could try that one more time.

>>9760380
See >>9760333

>>9760386
See >>>>9760333

>>9760255
Reality is idealist. The physical brain is just a projection created by your non-physical consciousness. All problems are therefore resolved.

No one has really figured out consciousness yet.

Has anyone read the latest papers on Integrated Information Theory? I can't get through them.

>>9760389
Stop talking to yourself on an anonymous forum
>>9760386

When the brain begins to react to its outputs more than raw sensory data

>>9760255
You'd find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx0SsffdMBw

>>9760506
Wow, this was probably the most valuable video that I have watched all year. Do you have more information on the subject?

>>9760398
This, anyone who's still a materialist is a brainlet.

we still dont know how quantum stuff affects consiousness or brain stuff.

though theres talk that sense of smell is due to quantum vibrations.

>>9760506
Haha, Poincare advanced a belief that coincides with this theory.

>>9760255
>qualia
well there's your problem.

I am not a long-time lurker of /sci/, and I have not been especially distinguished in my STEM studies, but I wanted to drop in this thread with my two cents.

I'm just going to flatly fucking state that consciousness transcends the physical brain. I know the brainlets on here will disagree; I think that they have their head up their ass.

Research near death experiences. There is a published literature on the topic, and while it does not lend itself to quantitative analysis, there are solid reasons for believing in a spiritual world - and its not just NDEs.

And yes, I am religious.

>>9760883
fuck me. stupid spacing. I told you that I am a lurker and am not used to posting.

I suspect, somewhere between this post:
>>9760265
And this post:
>>9760883
Lies the truth.

Denying that you have experience at all is something even a philosophical zombie wouldn't do. Just because it's unempirical does not mean it doesn't exist. Imagination may not be real, but you nonetheless possess it. Science, by its own admission, doesn't cover everything, and that includes many fundamental aspects of both ourselves and the universe around us.

At the same time, blaming it all on quantum woo and saying consciousness is a non-localized experience, when we can clearly alter your consciousness by altering your body, and even read your mind to various degrees in a myriad of ways, rather than taking the most obvious mundane explanation for NDE/OBE's and the like, is just wishful thinking.

Somewhere in between those two extremes lie various reasonable explanations, but I really don't think we're at the point where we could rest on any one of them.

>>9760255
what keeps those transmitters aligned? are they connected by some strings? pls respond

>>9760883
>I'm just going to flatly fucking state that consciousness transcends the physical brain
>Research near death experiences

Come on, friend. You could at least build your fantasies on some philosophical justification rather than the hallcuinations of people who are oxygen starved or bleeding out.

>>9760255
You see how the image in the GIF has that "shaking" effect at certain parts. That's consciousness you're seeing.

You're welcome anon.

I do agree that ORCH-OR doesn't quite explain the existence of experience completely. However, it -does- get us closer to it. It is important to note that, if the existence of experience is explained completely materially, then dualism is definitely false.

>>9760255
bump

>>9760255
Who cares?
If we cannot exploit the concept, just [INSERT IDEOLOGY HERE] and move on.

>>9761231
Probability, prove me wrong.

>>9762819
The potential for exploitation here is greater than anything previously discovered.

>>9762844
How exactly?

>>9760255
Or is consciousness an intrinsic part of the universe that life learned to harness

>>9760255

There is no such thing as truth. There are only rules, people who follow the rules, people who make the rules, and people who break the rules.

>>9763116
Found the lawyer

>>9760398
based

>>9760255
>consciousness
Its a meme laypeople and Freudian psychologists by into.

>>9760398
/thread

>>9760255
You can't create consciousness from unconscious things. If you believe everything meaningful about an atom or a force can be described with physics then you believe everything meaningful can be reduced to language. This is blatantly false as you cannot describe feeling in it's entirety with language, all you can do is associate a feeling with a symbol but the association is not capturing the essence of feeling. What this ultimately means is that the basis of reality is consciousness and NOT unconscious material.

>>9760265
>proof
A linguistic thing, language can't capture all meaning. You wrongly assume proofs can describe everything.

>>9760255
According to a book I'm reading right now, reality is a hologram and it explains both the material world at the quantum level and conscienceness. Have not read it yet but that's the claim it makes. I'm about 10 pages in a recognize about half of the names from when I listened to coast to coast back when I did night shifts.

>>9760255
In which area is my reaction image folder created?

>>9760398
fuck off back to >>>/x/

>>9760265

>>9760255
You'd be better to ask at what point memory is created, since consciousness is just stacked memories

>>9760358
>You seem to be implying that the level of abstraction is too low. Thats where you are wrong. It's too high.

>>9760821
Elaborate.

>>9760255
>At what point in the gif is consciousness created?
At conception.

>>9760255
holy shit OP i loled

>>9760883
I think you're right. Remote viewing needs an explanation. Dowsing for water needs an explanation. I'm sure I'll get a not science reply but my point still stands.

>>9760883
/sci/ doesn't refute that qualia are subjective and therefore separate to the physical world and cannot be fully explored by objective fields like science. That said it is nothing to do with near death experience or spiritualism, it's just some emergent property of a different universal sort than we have any current conception.

>>9764101
*now you could propose that unknown dimension that is the subjective could contain things like gods and souls but you have no evidence for that, religious texts are of no worth and nor are people's rare experiences

>>9760255
define "consciousness"

>>9764110
A consciousness would be a collection of qualia linked to one subjective.

>>9764114
qualia is subjective, using objective things like a brain to explain it will hardly lead anywhere

>>9763411
It's not just stacked memories, it's way more than that...

>The law of the transformation of quantity into quality has an extremely wide range of applications, from the smallest particles of matter at the subatomic level to the largest phenomena known to man. It can be seen in all kinds of manifestations, and at many levels. Yet this very important law has yet to receive the recognition which it deserves. This dialectical law forces itself to our attention at every turn. The transformation of quantity into quality was already known to the Megaran Greeks, who used it to demonstrate certain paradoxes, sometimes in the form of jokes. For example, the "bald head" and the "heap of grain"—does one hair less mean a bald head, or one grain of corn a heap? The answer is no. Nor one more? The answer is still no. The question is then repeated until there is a heap of corn and a bald head. We are faced with the contradiction that the individual small changes, which are powerless to effect a qualitative change, at a certain point do exactly that: quantity changes into quality.

>>9764120
I agree that objective descriptions hit a hard wall at some point but we know for certain that qualia derive from the brain so exploring it will be useful.

>>9760265
tips fedora.

>YOU CANT POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I KNOW

>ITS IMPOSSSIBBBBBRRRRUUUUUUUU

Qualia is subjective because of objective physical differences between everyone. There is no inconsistencies between physicals and subjectivity of Qualia.

As a hydroquinone, gentisic acid is readily oxidised and is used as an antioxidant excipient in some pharmaceutical preparations.
In the laboratory, it is used as a sample matrix in matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) mass spectrometry,[7] and has been shown to conveniently detect peptides incorporating the boronic acid moiety by MALDI.

This means we are conscious.

>>9764133
You totally misunderstand what people mean by saying qualia are subjective.

>>9760255
Watch this video, it's 40 minutes of what is happening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx0SsffdMBw

>>9760506
Amazing, this is it.

>>9764506
not that guy but to be clear "quantum consciousness" is just roger penrose's way to reconcile his earlier idea that consciousness isn't algorithmic aka there's something special about the human brain so it cant be recreated on a conventional turing machine

while im personally on his side, this entire idea is still just conjecture unless i missed out on something big

>>9764513
I don't know who's right or wrong but the video is interesting.

>>9764517
I don't know if you're smart or stupid but you're certainly a cuck.

>>9764732
why do u bulli

>>9764513
you didn't miss out on something, what's lacking, consciousness being "illusionary" (as some windbags who are confused by words put it) or not, is the fact that a natural property of this universe is missing to solve the problem.
Claiming it's illusionary actually only amplifies the problem, now it's a statistical game of interpreting what's giving rise to illusions, after som analysis it ends up with the entire universe illusioning consciousness -- what a great explanation (not) hence the real problem is, why are professional philosophers so amateurish? Why are they allowed pipe their bags on youtube? It's as if there's a natural force to dumb down any thoughts about the mind.

>>9764513
Quantum consciousness does have a far fetched point.
You know NNs needs exact backpropagation algorithms over multiple layers with huge amount of iterations to learn a single thing.
The brain does not do this when it learns.
I wonder if you have to be conscious to learn...

>>9764868

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Romans, chapter 1

>>9764125
That's a quirk on language than any objective observation of reality
Where do all these brainlets who believe language is prescriptive of reality come from? Language is descriptive, and those descriptions can be flawed, hence those "paradox"

>>9764513
Have you seen the work by Bandyopadhyay showing the quanum coherence of microtubules? You can see some more about it here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm