/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9936049
Consciousness is immaterial, it has to be in order to experience the material. It doesn't follow the laws of physics.

>>9936057
>brainlet: the post

>>9936070
>thinks consciousness curves space-time

>>9936070
>its all just material processes man!! We're all just atoms n shiet XD

>>9936057
Say I would like to familiarize myself with philosophy but omit this kind of retardation, any suggestions?

>>9936094
start with the greeks

>>9936049
>it‘s without a doubt a materialist answer, correct?
based on what, faggot? your preference?

>>9936094
Fucking brainlet, it's called logic. Is what you describe as "material" separate from the "thing" doing the describing?

>>9936105
Based on little to no evidence for immaterial explanations.
All arguments in favor of immaterial answers literally only come from Joe Rogan tier DMT smoking new age niggers.

>>9936131
could you give us some evidence of material explanations? discluding any that use circular reasoning of course

>>9936094
>wants to read philosophy only to affirm his worldview

>>9936070
>>9936083
>>9936089
you /sci/ fuckers are hilarious, trying to constantly one up each other and call the other a "brainlet", you guys are adorable

>>9936151

>>9936136
I‘m going off the most viable thing reachable to our perception. In a material world and as a material being the matter of this duscussion will naturally be self contained, but you will take that as an immediate disqualifier? Meanwhile you have not 1 single plausible and legitimage immaterial argument.
Go ahead and try and when you type it out and read your own post, I would be surprised you wouldn‘t come off as a huge hippie to yourself.

>>9936162
You go to sleep and have a dream. Someone hits you over the head with a bat. You wake up. Was that a material or immaterial bat?

>>9936162
this is your brain on materialism
as usual the materialist has no empirical argument but assumes his correctness based on preconceived notions

>>9936304
What‘s your most plausible immaterial explanation for consciousness then?

>>9936312
there is none, the whole subject is up in the air as far as actual science is concerned

>Create a model that says explanation is impossible(what is the interaction problem?).
>Call everybody who uses a different model delusional.
Really makes you think.

Some variant of panpsychism is going to be testable in the near future, so that's the most likely answer.

>>9936049
It's the least assumptive, yes. A long tradition of theology/philosophy denies this, though. It's just not trendy. Philosophy of mind is a joke, even psychoanalysis says more and has greater intellectual honesty (which doesn't look good for philosophy). Philosophy needs to concern itself with meta-thinking and refinement of reasoning, as it ultimately only is, not pretend that is actually has anything to say about the world, mind, reality, and so on -- at least not without engaging with disciplines that actually study these things.

>>9936049
Consciousness is just your brain accepting input from the world in the form of your senses. You also don’t have an internal voice and you are just so trained at talking to yourself that you do it quietly and with minimal mouth movements. Try it yourself you will notice when you are thinking you will notice micromovements of your mouth and tongue forming the words.

>>9936948
>he can't think without moving his mouth

>>9936094
I suggest you kys

>>9936049

noone has even found any sensible definition for "consciousness" yet. It's a big red hering.

>>9936094

Oh there's many sensible parts of philosophy for you :) Ethics tends to be pretty interesting, logic or the theory of science.

>>9936049
There aren't any real explaination , just opinions without any proof.
Talking about this subject is just a waste of time Imo.

>>9936094
Nagel
Heidegger
Merlow-Ponty
Sartre

That anon was an idiot but consciousness is fundamentally immaterial and not objective, thus not open to scientific inquiry. I have no idea what the subjective is or how we can ever investigate it but it is metaphysically distinct. Its based on physical states and that's about all can be said.

I imagine consciousness could be found in other entities with entirely different neural structures so I doubt it's something inherent to the brain, perhaps when a system reaches a certain level of complexity it spawns a consciousness? I doubt conscioussness is something material even if it's superimposed on material substratum, it might aswell just be a type of functional role.

>>9936089

>my body's being driven around by a ghost!
>when you abort a babby, a ghost fly out the mama's pussy, so don't abort babbies, k?

>>9936057
This post = excrement

>>9936958
Can you read where it clearly says micro movements. Reading comprehension is one of the easiest brainlet tests and you didn’t do so well. Also look up subvocalization if you want to feel even more retarded than you already are.

>>9936094
Depends on your own personal definition of the physical and material. Does the experiential aspect of the mind fit into this? Can we say the mind is synonymous with the brain? I don't think so.

I don't think materialism works here.

>>9936162
We can say that the brain is material yes but is the mind the same as the brain. There maybe a causal connection but do they have the same properties? If we say they are the same, we have a problem that the properties we ascribe to the mind and brain are separate. Neither overlap.

>>9936049
>materialist
Consciousness boils down to phenomenology; the body is just as meta-physical as the spirit, bucko.

>>9937576
alternatively, perhaps you're just one of those long winded extroverted faggots who keeps talking all day hoping it makes him look smart, to the point that the rare occasion that you think about something for 30 seconds without running your yap finds you subconsciously sending signals to your mouth just by force of habit?

>>9937113
I think consciousness in terms of the easy problem obviously is emergent from material. But when we talk about the hard problem. This is something we cannot explain. There will always be an epistemic gap.

>>9937721
*i shouldn't say material but justs emergent from what we would call unconscious interactions i guess.

to all the people talking about the military budget - sorry to be that guy, but is it ethical for the US to make significant cuts and withdraw from their "world police" activity?
the only other countries with military to speak of are Russia and China, and both of them don't do shit except for their own benefit.
whether or not this is actually the case, the point of the military isn't necessarily a profit but for intervention in shithole countries that consistently violate human rights.
of course the best thing for the US would be to cut military budget and spend it on other things, but what right do we who live our lives without fear of death looming over us have to say that? in fact, by that same logic we should also cut spending to welfare and medicare programs since they don't benefit the country as a whole either

>>9937113
more than just complexity, seems there's something in a system thats constantly checking and weighing itself against itself that creates the phenomena but this is literally me talking out my ass. but yeah, may as well be a type of functional role seems right.

>>9936049
I would try to think of consciousness, as a property of information in space-time, that can be activated, if requirements are filled, while else it exists as a probability, a bit like quarks when they aren't stored as info. This hypothesis would explain, information and matter as if they are opposites that forms reality and consciousness when collapsed

The requirements I think are needed
Information storage
and
Info exchange: Output1 codes value of stimulus as energy-charges.
Input1 guesses a decoding of the charge and reacts according to the guess
Output2 starts from the same place as Input1 and it values the guess with Input2 by telling Output1 to build a new connection to Input1 for stimuli with a similar value

Out- and Input1: gives external awareness of the present
Out- and Input2: gives internal awareness of the present and a possibility for memory

>>9936049
Wow, the cover for Tool's latest album is looking great!

>>9937576
You believe that you can only think by moving your mouth, so you placebo yourself into doing it and proving your faulty assumption correct to yourself.

>>9938096
The thing, is human thought works rhythmic, and it follows something with rhythm, you pickup consciously or subconsciously. The ability to follow a rhythm, when there isn't one externally, is a problem with nonrhythmic skilled people often requiring them to do this shit

>>9936176
Not him, but I'd say it was not the bat that was material, but the idea of the bat, which exists as a material state of your neurons.

>>9937922
what do you mean by checking and weighing itself. and why would it do that.

>>9938062
nonsense

>>9938096
It appears that you can't read either so let me say it one more time. All you need to start your search for understanding this topic is to google 'subvocalization' and you will be able to find everything you need to know about it to not sound like an ignorant retard on the subject.

>>9938454
This is a property of low IQ subhumans, no?

>>9937707
This guy gets it

>>9937707
or matter...

It's a fuckin joke

>>9936057
Is correct in an autistic sense.
Most people define consciousness in such a way that it necessitates supernaturally. This should be evidence that the notion of consciousness is useless because it either a) Doesn't exist or b) everything has/is consciousness.

There are a million different definitions of what consciousness is and nobody can agree on it because it isn't a canonical category, it is only created to refer to a particular kind of cognition or pattern which we can only qualitatively understand.

Everyone who responds otherwise is plainly wrong.

>>9936083
unironically based and redpilled
consciousness does not real

>>9940180
cont.
Actually, its seems to be when humans aren't able to predict behavior of sufficiently complex entities that they are called conscious
If super intelligent aliens came to earth and saw us humans as predictable as we see cells, they wouldn't think that we have "consciousness" would they?
consciousness is a human centric frame as fake as god.
(god and consciousness are fake in the material sense but have usefulness in terms of day to day life)

>>9940180
>it is only created to refer to a particular kind of cognition or pattern which we can only qualitatively understand.

you are one of the many different definitions. youre just running into a brick wall.

also please define supernatural.

you could argue that for matter to be a thing, it also has to have a qualitative aspect beyond the math and functions. theoretically.

>notion of consciousness
this is part of the easy problem not the hard problem.

it clearly exists if we experience, similar to cogito ergo, and everything having consciousness doesnt close the gap unless you propose some idealism.

>>9940208
There is no hard problem. Everything you do and think is a behavior. There is "experience" that has to be explained, only the "behavior of saying that there is experience". No matter what, it is impossible to say that there exists anything beyond that because saying ANYTHING is, once again, a behavior.

>>9940196
we cant predict the behaviour of many things in the natural world. You are stupid if you think we define consciousness on predictability. We obviously model it on our own inner experience which is still flawed. And to say we do it purely on predictability ignores all the other things about a living conscious animal that we usually associate with consciousness.

youre grasping at straws.

theres actually a big literature on consciousness and hypothesising about the fundamentals of life and the brain. maybe you need to read bucko.

>>9940213
you probably cant even define a behaviour.

i think what youre trying to really say is that we describe everything only in functional terms so something like experience cannot be done in that sense. all we have is "functionalisms". we cannot model anything that doesnt have instrumental or practical utility so it is somewhat outside of scientific realms.

looks like i gave your IQ a 20 point raise, your welcome.

>>9940218
And you can't even suggest that there is a hard problem if you haven't solved the interaction problem. If nothing in physical reality can point to consciousness, then even the statement "consciousness exists" can't point to consciousness.

>>9940213
>because i'm braindead, everyone else is just saying they're not
haha nice try but we onto you p zombie by now
>>9940223
lmao "interaction problem" itself is speculative-metaphysical in nature and isn't even a good objection to DESCARTES you dumbass zombie

>>9940233
>calling somebody a p zombie
Oh, another retard who doesn't realize that doing this is a paradox.

>>9940234
>doing something can be a paradox
you're the confused one, evidently
even this simple sentence is drivel
you think you're methodical and precise, a candle in the dark of a spooked world
but that's just you telling yourself that
p zombie is us explaining your behaviors
you've picked up ambient jargon of consciousness and seek to explain it mechanistically, but can't actually make genuine meaning out of it because the lights are off and nobody's home

>>9940217
>You are stupid if you think we define consciousness on predictability.
Thats why I specified "complex entities" instead of "general complexity" so refer to the similarity to ourselves.
>>9940184
agree

>>9940208
>you are one of the many different definitions.
what
>please define supernatural
that which cannot be reasoned with or explained.
>you could argue that for matter to be a thing, it also has to have a qualitative aspect beyond the math and functions.
pretty obvious that math and functions are also notions that only exist in our minds. What are you, a platonist? lol
>it clearly exists if we experience
does a retarded person experience? does a cow experience? does a rat experience? does a fish experience? does a cell experience?

I find belief in "consciousness" similar to belief in a soul.

>>9940274
>"empiricist" that thinks he's astral projected to t=0 and the cosmic horizon for an objective overview of the overall totality of everything
>yet thinks math doesn't preexist human brains
this popsci mythos is a nonsensical and insidious cargo cult that is actually dangerous so much as scientists themselves profess deep and sincere adherence. It has nothing to do with reason, and is merely an inverted, artificial faith, not unlike the 'Scientific' State Atheism of the USSR.

>>9936049
Assuming materialism...
Consciousness is a analogous to a logical connective (because our information from senses and thoughts all converge on the consciousness, and the consciousness exists in the instant).
From this, such a system would have to operate at a irreducible point.
Materialism asserts all substance and reality is of physical parts. This connective would have to be a physical irreducible part. The only physical irreducible parts we know such as this are particals on the quantum level.
If you understand this (and fill in a few blanks), the conclusion is consciousness is a particle that operates like a logical connective. This particle and it's function is also analogous to a quantum computer housed within wetware.

>>9936049
Metacognition

>>9940274
>thinks math doesn't preexist human brains
never said or implied that
>cargo cult
lol you can call every model that isn't mechanistic enough to emulate reality (aka all models) a cargo cult
Besides, my view isn't a cargo cult, it isn't a model, it is a lack of a model and a lack of this notion. I am not even making the claim that the rejection of this notion is correct either. I'm saying it is pointless. You are the one attempting to make a positive claim, not I.
Not a very interesting perspective I know, but if we are aiming for truth then it is the best perspective I believe. If we are aiming for pragmatism then the concept of consciousness could be useful but I haven't really ever used it.

>>9940312
ment for >>9940289

>>9936948
>accepting
you just hid the definition of consciousness inside this word.... what does it mean to "accept"

>>9940312
First point, you said math is a mental artefact and to disagree equates to >muh platonism, which is generally a buzzword I might add.

2nd, your kind's standard apologia as you've deployed here implies you simply happened across your views through your own self-exertion of individual rational contemplation. This has the rhetorical purpose of credentialing yourself as a rational free thinker while disparaging others as having succumbed to arbitrary received wisdoms that amount to baseless superstition. This way you position yourself above the underlying socio/psychology of religious type dogmas based in feeling. Yet your cliche talking points belies a greater likelihood that you've uncritically accepted a popular doctrine and attitude, one that is pushed by the scientific establishment via its educators, experts and media arm (popsci). This mode of thinking is widely held to differing degrees among the most relevant researchers, which is a huge problem to anyone awake to the stakes in play here.

There's nothing rational about denial of the most fundamental evidence which all empiricism should ultimately refer to. Your autistic criteria resembles the cold rationalizations of the Soviet machine, which I use as an analogy again as it had no shortage of brilliant scientists embedded within it either.
Consciousness is the most important thing there is, ultimately, and the fact many who are even partially educated can treat it with such a cavalier disregard as though it were the aether or some epicycle to shrug off is still shocking, even tho common today.
Not least of which because there is a moral infinity between a vast dynamical system which simulates reactivity to noxious stimuli, affect, visualization, internal narrative and so on, and actual consciousness. Your species of opinion subtly equates pain and pleasure to values in some spreadsheet/RAM and so is amoral at its core.

>>9936049
>It‘s without a doubt a materialist answer, correct?
It's without doubt a shitpost, correct.

>>9940274
>pretty obvious that math and functions...

yes but my point is that as you said consciousness or qualia is a qualitative aspect of the mind. its kind of the filler to the easy descriptions using physical constructs and math. my point is that all physical constructs are defined mathematically and functionally extrinsic and relative to other constructs.the qualitative aspect is irrelevant.
if i look at matter on wikipedia its defined as substance with mass that takes up space and volume. this is what im talking about. its defined extrinsically, mathematically, functionally. if we want to know what they meant by substance in the definition then you just get a circularity as clicking the link just brings you to more links for matter again. its probably even more the case for energy where energy is defined as a quantity for performing work or heat. but then if you click on the links for work or heat its defined by energy in a completely circular way.

the problem is if we are materialists we kind of assume these things are here in actuality in the real world. Yet we cannot describe them in anyway without these functionalist meanings. anything else leads to tautologies or incoherence. In other words we dont have any access to the qualitative nature of matter, we cannot access it (indirect realism) and even so we cannot describe it.

in this sense i feel matter is quite similar to qualia. if we could access it directly perceptually somehow then how would we explain matter? a qualitative (almost experiential) substance. obviously matter is required to be there for things to exist so it doesnt create the same incredulity we have with qualia, but one could ask...

why does matter exist at all and if it was created, what was there before, how can something come from nothing.
we do ask that question today.
and in some ways i think that is very similar to the questions we have about qualia.

>>9936049
No, we have nothing. All we know is that no one has found anything in any material basis

>>9940274
>does a retarded person experience? does a cow experience? does a rat experience? does a fish experience? does a cell experience?

but you could argue this is just an epistemic problem. i do say there is something incoherent though which can be articulated with nagels "what its like" example. experience is a product of the individual. we can never know what something else' experience is like. we define "experience" poorly based on our own as so it would lose meaning in something simple like a slug. experience is kind of avery impractical term and i suspect alot of the richness of our experiences is partly due to our intelligence as animals and not qualia itself; memory, metacognition etc.

experience clearly isnt a scientific problem but our qualia does make us think how a world we think of as so dead can produce something we find so rich and holistic that we cannot easily connect to the brains and neurons and postsynaptic potentials and vesicles of neurotransmitters that produce it.

one thing id say is that the p-zombie paradox suggests that qualia and the brain shouldnt be as easily dissociable as we think.

and also that materialism is in many ways ontologically and epistemologically incoherent. we dont think about what we actually mean about matter and im sure we use many assumptions about it that arent defined very well. And i think when we look at it this way, maybe the hard problem shouldnt be seen as it is currently.

We don't have any explanation of consciousness, or at least none with a rigorous connection to empirical facts. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a BRAINLET. That doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be explained in principle or that it's "outside physics".

Panpsychism is definitely the way, it just has a stupid name which makes it sound like supernatural bullshit or pantheism.

>>9940845
wrong.

>>9940847
prove it.

>>9936176
The idea of the bat and all sensations regarding it and being hit played out on the material substrate of elementary particles in motion.

>>9936948
>his thoughts are entirely verbal
as close to a p-zombie as it gets

>>9940859
but its all really a simulation in your head from your own experience whether dreaming or awake.

>>9936049
Eat a fistful of Benadryl and you'll figure it out, you're not a dummy are you?

>>9940853
Prove sand is conscious with "petites perceptions" or better yet knock yourself unconscious and measure your generic consciousness then.

>>9936057
>Consciousnes
you can't make arguments about concepts without defining them

this is why you suck at life

>>9936312
Its like you faggots are waiting for an aha moment. Unlike some people we admit when we don't know something.

>>9937126
>I can’t observe it so it’s false

>>9941971
>Unlike some people we admit when we don't know something.
HURR DURR DA UNIVERSE GO BANG BANG AND DEN WE ALL ARE MADE OF PARTICLES N SHIET

>>9941507
you dont get it

>>9942312
yes i do, you got tricked by the idealist starting point into projecting consciousness into everything because in a way there's nothing outside of it.

Wait, then what are all those neurologists and cognitive scientists trying to find?

Easily Jaynes' Bicamural Mind theories.

If consciousness is not immaterial then how to narcotics and psychoactive medications work?

I know I'm conflating thought processes with actual consciousness itself but it's worth thinking about.

>>9936049
>>9936057
>>9936070
>>9936083
>>9936089
>>9936094
>>9936131
>>9936110
>>9936162
>>9936304
>>9936312
>>9936931
>>9936948
>>9937126
Let's all calm down and take an introspective look at our arguments. All of them rely on metaphysical assumptions (yes, materialism does too.) As they are such assumptions, asserting any of these as the truth or even as being more likely to be the truth is naive. I hate to pull the "can't know nuthin" out, but the principle of conciousness and the presence or lack thereof a soul all rely on as of yet unanswerable assumptions that have been both defended and challenged. As much as discussion about these metaphysical problems is fun to read about on this website, it would be more prudent to actually read about the positions from a rigorous source than to attack each other with preconceived biases. OP, if you are looking for a plausible answer, you won't find it in this thread or in a library. No one either knows or can certify plausibility (at least as of yet.)

>>9936136
>could you give us some evidence of material explanations

A brain is required for conciousness
Brain damage affects conciousness
Drugs that affect your brain affect conciouness

But yeah its totally immaterial, must be a ghost in the machine mah nigga

>>9936049

Careful with your wording OP. Conciousness itself has varying meaning.

Ever heard of Mary the Colour Scientist thought experiment?

>Mary lives her entire life in a room devoid of colour—she has never directly experienced colour in her entire life, though she is capable of it. Through black-and-white books and other media, she is educated on neuroscience to the point where she becomes an expert on the subject. Mary learns everything there is to know about the perception of colour in the brain, as well as the physical facts about how light works in order to create the different colour wavelengths. It can be said that Mary is aware of all physical facts about colour and colour perception.

>After Mary’s studies on colour perception in the brain are complete, she exits the room and experiences, for the very first time, direct colour perception. She sees the colour red for the very first time. Does she recognize that it is red based on what she has learned, or does she ask which colour it is?

What is your first and most intuitive answer?

>>9942756
>A brain is required for conciousness
>Brain damage affects conciousness
>Drugs that affect your brain affect conciouness
It is not what you think it is.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125

>>9942772
Mary would have seen blood coming from her bagina and thus would know what is a red. I doubt you'd be able to into neuroscience withoht having to have read at some point that blood is red.

Also mary would have to be sub saharan african for this to work, because otherwise she'd see a non-b&w skin color, and thus mary would be unable to become an expert at neuroscience due to being a nigger

>>9942756
>>9942777
>A brain is required for conciousness

That has not been established. Consciousness can't even be proven to exist yet, the term and the phenomenon are a result of scientific convention where we all agree that we seem to experience this thing, but it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt to even exist.

And if it could be proven to exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is exclusive to the human/primate/mammalian/animal brain.

>>9942782
The experiment is set in the future then, where technology exists that allows the creation of a room where only black and white colours can exist.

>>9942783
>Consciousness can't even be proven to exist yet
The scientific method cannot be applied to consciousness but that does not mean it doesnt exist, because reproducibility, is not the backbone of existence. The basis of reality, as of now, is simply unknown.

>>9942786
The issue with the existence of consciousness is not reproducibility, the problem is qualia and the philosophical zombie.

>>9942788
>the problem is qualia
You will have to define how you consider this a problem
>philosophical zombie
this is literally just a daydream, and has no basis in reality, like 99.99% of psychology/philosophy

>>9942794
>You will have to define how you consider this a problem

How do you consider it not to be in the study of consciousness? It's not that we don't have the technology or scientific means to explain qualia, it's that they defy expression in any materialist term or convention, while at the same time seeming to be one of (if not the) defining element that separates conscious experience from mere sensory signalling.

>this is literally just a daydream, and has no basis in reality, like 99.99% of psychology/philosophy

You haven't refuted the argument of the philosophical zombie.

>>9942800
Again, define how qualia is a problem that goes against the existence of conciousness.
>You haven't refuted the argument of the philosophical zombie.
Its not an argument, its a linguistic construction based off imagination alone. It holds no merit.

>>9942794
>it's a ghost
>it's a dream
>it's an illusion
>it's a folk tale
>it's religion
You're the dogmatic and irrational one that actually believes you can milk a sensation out of Hilbert space.

>>9942808
>I cant measure sense, or reproduce consciousness as particulate therefore it must not be real
>this totally made up theory, with no basis in reality (p-zombie) theory holds real weight

Pick one.

>>9942805
>define how qualia is a problem that goes against the existence of conciousness.

By nature qualia are intransferrable (or ineffable in the words of Dennett) and by nature intrinsic. Also by nature, human experience is a construct of the brain and is not a parallel of "reality", more like an analogy.

>“If that hypothesis is true, or at least comes close to being true, it follows that perception is a closed, intrinsic functional state, irrespective of whether we are dreaming, whether we are hallucinating or whether we are perceiving the world in an unclouded state of wakeful consciousness. It follows, in short, that all we ever perceive is the intrinsic products of our brain.” (Collerton et al 2015, 25).

So if our perceptions are a closed construct and cannot be communicated, transmitted or directly related to any material phenomena (which are also based on an arbitrary intrinsic perceptual state) or even the other beings that also seem to experience this phenomenon... There is no way of ever proving that it is real. There is no way of proving that you are not the only conscious being in the universe and everyone else is just a robot or zombie, there is no way of proving that your life isn't a dream or a hallucination altogether.

In a way the existence of qualia implies that either:

1. Consciousness exists and everything but consciousness (perception, reality, the universe) can never be proven to exist

or

2. The universe exists, reality exists, perception exists, and consciousness itself is an illusion.

>Its not an argument, its a linguistic construction based off imagination alone. It holds no merit.

The explanation for the consciousness zombie is rooted in the problem with qualia, as described above. It's not based on a linguistic construct but the nature of perception vs experience, which are two very different things.

>>9942811
You're confused, basic bitch materialists are the ones who tend to deny consciousness even exists. The zombie argument is a thought experiment almost solely for the purpose of pushing intuitive understanding onto the materialists.

>>9942772
>It can be said that Mary is aware of all physical facts about colour and colour perception.
She isn't surprised by the color.

>>9942820
P-Zombies and the proponents of this idea are ridiculed by materialists, because it shows that these proponents do not understand the materialist position. Since the basic idea is that consciousness arises on a sufficiently complex processing substrate, the idea of such a substrate without some magic consciousness essence that makes it work is just nonsensical. Every P-Zombie would be a fully intact consciousness as a result of their design. That's such a fundamental error that it's hard to take anything else said by P-Zombieists seriously.

>>9942848
>you just don't understand our view that some
never specified threshold of sufficient "complexity" is a magic wand
You don't even have the reading comprehension to follow the single sentence where I already explained the argument's purpose in simple, straightforward English.

I reiterate my observation that rational argumentation with you people is impossible. It's the understanding gap I'd imagine you'd feel when arguing with a creationist or someone as equivalently beneath you as you are to me.

The task to any non-tards following is simple. Discover not the fresh piece of rhetoric, which doesn't work, but the underlying etiological pathophysiology of this problem so that we may treat it safely and effectively. Is it corpus callosum damage? Autism?

>>9942848
>Since the basic idea is that consciousness arises on a sufficiently complex processing substrate

Theory.

>magic consciousness essence

Appeal to ridicule. Consciousness as a force of nature like gravity (heavy object > more force, gravity remaining a constant, heavy processing > more consciousness) is equally valid and plausible. That would put consciousness outside the realm of the brain and would imply that the brain doesn't generate it, merely accesses it.

>Every P-Zombie would be a fully intact consciousness as a result of their design.

Which is why we've located the origin of consciousness in the brain, the mechanism that can give rise to it and have the knowledge to replicate it in the future. Oh wait, we don't. So how do you infer that a P-Zombie would be a fully intact consciousness?

What is your field? You don't come across as someone involved in consciousness studies, because even the most fervent advocates of either materialism or dualism don't resort to ridicule. It's a pretty level-headed discussion.

>>9942871
Take a look in the mirror, idiot. I'm done here.

>>9936049
“What>>9936049
>So what‘s the most plausible explanation for consciousness we got?

This is like asking, “Why does a mirror switch left and right, but not top and bottom?”

>>9942875
There's a difference between a mocking tone and an argument entirely based on ridicule. The fact that you don't seem to understand this distinction does you no service.

>>9942876
>no u
Specify what exactly you mean in terms of complexity theory or admit your supposed explanation boils down to "it's just really complex so don't question it".

>>9942881
>an argument entirely based on ridicule.

That's exactly what it is.

>magic consciousness essence that makes it work

Even in a dualist theory, consciousness can still be an intrinsic property of the universe external to the brain. That doesn't make it magical, that simply implies we don't have an understanding of the mechanics and origin of the phenomenon.

>>9942889
Don't forget also that "the Universe" itself is a theoretical construction that is not entirely unambiguous, variously meaning "everything that exists" (the set of sets that doesn't contain itself), or a cinematic recreation that stretches the basic premise behind empiricism awfully far. Look at how many people dogmatically want quantum physics or relativity to be false, Bohmian mechanics or fundamental indeterminacy or string theory to be true. Even at the furthest reaches of abstraction it's not exactly a dispassionate affair.

>>9936948
This sound retarded, but this Anon is kind on the right path. Try to scream with your internal voice, when you "scream" real loud you start to tense up muscles in your neck and face, as if you were actually screaming. I don't know why is this all related to conciousness though.

Okay, open question for the room. Mostly for materialists but immaterialists can answer too.
So let's say a perfectly human, P-zombie type robot is undergoing assembly. Each component of its brain is being synthesized, the eyes are being attached, the robotic nervous system is being slowly hooked up, piece by piece.
Now if the materialists are right there is some point at which the robot will "wake up" and become a conscious being. But at what point would that happen? How would it happen and what would it "feel like"? Obviously this is speculation, but it's food for thought.
What would happen if the robot wasn't perfectly human? If you didn't give it a hippocampus? Or if you made it akinetopic?

I find myself agreeing that consciousness is, if not entirely an illusion, at least an entirely material phenomenon, but if I take that argument as far as it can go, ultimately it would seem that consciousness has no clear beginning and no clear end. Which brings me to my second question (1/2)

>>9942919
I’d say it’s more after the robot was created unless it immediately gains consciousness. We only gain ‘consciousness’ when we’re like three or four years old. Is the brain exactly like a human’s?

>>9942926
Also does the robot grow up or is already fully grown and mature

>>9942889
>Even in a dualist theory, consciousness can still be an intrinsic property of the universe external to the brain. That doesn't make it magical, that simply implies we don't have an understanding of the mechanics and origin of the phenomenon.
Minsky actually agreed with this. He said that whatever causes qualia is worth finding but it isn't some religious magic like Deepak Chopra or Jordan Peterson thinks.

>>9942926
Yes we are assuming the brain is a perfect human mimic.
I actually thought of what you said as I was writing it. Let's play around with it for the sake of argument. the hippocampus does not grow or develop, it is assembled. So what happens to the long term memories?

the delusions of strict determinism are appealing to psychopaths

>>9942458
>narcotics and psychoactive medications
can easily be explained materialistically. Even psychedelics are entirely a reflection of your inner mental state. Christians who do psychedelics see jesus everywhere. Hindus who do them see their gods.

>>9942930
>Minsky actually agreed with this. He said that whatever causes qualia is worth finding but it isn't some religious magic like Deepak Chopra or Jordan Peterson thinks.
you faggots throw around buzzwords like "religious magic" as lazily and emptily as any two bit guru and Marvin Minsky's opinions about anything are irrelevant.
>>9942949
absolute nonsense.
>>9942926
How do you we're only conscious at 3 or 4?

>>9942949
All hierachies and binaries are based on arbitrary social constructions which perpeturates phelogocentric views of the world. Your fetishment of logic and science is a patriarchal viewpoint of reality which is built on the imperalistic and sexist development of "the west". It's built on the sexist masculine knowledge theory which marginalizes female fluid knowledge. The false distinction between emotion and reason is gross and sexist

>>9942955
>>9942958
lol, stay mad Petersonfag.
>m-muh metaphysical god

>>9942961
>thinks i give a damn about Juden Peterstein
typical materialist nonargument. also that other poster isn't me and isn't even white

>>9942955
>How do you we're only conscious at 3 or 4?
If you’re asking how do we know we’re conscious at that age it’s because everyone seems to agree that was lowest age they had memories although some will say they started to have memories earlier or later

>>9942979
Well, forming long term memories isn't equivalent to consciousness. I believe in surgical anaesthesiology they sometimes give medicines similar to scopolamine which inhibit memory formation - which doesn't mean you're not feeling the knife go in at the time.

I can recommend Schrödinger esseys on Consciousness
Pic related

>>9942344
no you cunt, its called realism. im not projecting consciousness into nothing. im fucking arguing against the concept of consciousness.

>>9942750
stfu slimebone

>>9942756
you dont get it do you. obviously consciousness correlates to and arises from the brain but you dont fucking get it. its not about that. its about the fact that mind and brain by definition arent the same and have different fucking properties. so even if you say consciousness is a product of the brain you cant say they have any qualitative similarity. think about that screen youre looking at in your field of vision and compare it to the pattern of neural activity going on in your head. theres a fucking problem.

Why the hatebonner?

>>9942783
well i cant prove that i exist or other people have minds but lets not get into silly skeptical bullshit shall we?

>>9942919
define material and ill believe you.

consciousness is a material phenomenon. there cannot be anything immaterial in our material universe because if we discover something new, then it would be considered as a form of matter. therefore, if one wants to claim that consciousness is immaterial, then it must be never be discovered. if we do discover consciousness, then it will be material.

>>9943017
the problem w/ ur post is that neuroscientists aren't even confident that "mind" exists. at best, it's an abstraction of all of these silly neural activities in your brain.

>>9943057
>there cannot be anything immaterial in our material universe
>our material universe
Found the midwit

>>9943080
you should've posted pic of berkeley. how lowbrow.

>>9943081
lmfao. How the fuck is Hegel lowbrow. Berkeley isn't high brow because you hadn't heard of him before last week

>>9943086
you don't even know how their versions of idealism are different. hegel is much more lukewarm to materialism than you seem to think, after all, he is the foundation of materialistic dialect.

>>9942750
this

nice job using big words... u sound smart

>>9943065
when you say exist you are using some specific abstraction in a certain type of information. something doesnt need to be scientific to exist. qualia exists because we feel it. the mind exists. regardless of how you conceptualise it or use some eliminative bullshit, the mind fucking exists. now live with it. faggot. you dont even fucking know what exist means do you. jesus.

>>9942985
acetylcholine is involved in all sorts of processes. memory, attention, perception, visceromotor activity you name it. its not used as anaesthesia for its memory properties. its used because its a crucial transmitter in regulating waking consciousness. choline activity changes as you fall asleep and its a crucial part of that mechanism. it regulates overall consciousness in this sense. its also important in memory and the roles are probably linked but its not used in anaesthesia because it makes you forget.

>>9943238
if mind exists, then can you please describe it? the best working description of the mind that I know of is that it's something that comes from a certain threshold of neural activity.

>>9943371
this is what you dont get. for you. all existence is in extrinsic functional mathematico-nomic descriptions. you think all knowledge is in this. this is where you are wrong. cant you see you yourself is a receptor of information. experience. it doesnt have to be written in a book. cogito ergo sum. tell me you dont know what the colour blue is then ill take your side of the story seriously.

>>9943239
acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter not generally a drug itself, scopolamine is an anti-cholinergic, i just used it as an example of an anterograde amnestic, but due to its extensive side effects they wouldn't use it specifically. they do however use propofol for this which is GABAergic. at least learn the neuroscience if you're going to be a materialist guys...

>>9943399
Propofol is what killed MJ.

>>9943371
I define mind as a factorized generative model of the causes of sensory receptive field activity. In the same mold as a boltzman machine that self-optimises.

>>9942820
I was trying to highlight the discontinuity between the demands for evidence, but failed because I was one too many pints deep at that point to properly formulate my thoughts. The scientific method relys entirely on reproducibility, so by its very nature it assumes uniformity to reality, and if reality is uniform then one must assume each individual possess's the same awareness as you, to varying levels of course. So naturally I find it odd when someone who claims to be scientific takes p-zombie "theory" seriously.

>>9943371
The mind is the sapient awareness of humans. Though I suppose you expect me to be able to whip out a tin of mind that you can touch, and feel to prove it exists

>>9943491
I was trying to say it's more of an attempted demonstration, not really an alternative theory or hypothesis in the ordinary sense though it can be treated as such that is generally for the sake of argument. Though the eliminative materialists really are suspicious. When I pathologize them I'm just using their own family of rhetoric against them, hopefully show them that this is some serious shit that has the deepest ramifications for everything a human could conceivably care about and not a damn joke or trivial puzzle. Nothing else in theoretical science foreseeably comes anywhere close.
>>9943434
>string output_jargon () {

>>9943506
define sapient awareness

>>9943544
but if a p-zombie believes in qualia without the concept of qualia needing to exist, doesnt this just fuel eliminative materialists who would say that qualia isnt even necessary for its own conceptualisation by humans.

>>9943549
>define define
>what is words even
>im a retard

>>9943567
whats the use in defining the word mind if youre going to replace it with other words just as vague. isnt awareness kind of synonymous with mind? and if so, then defining mind as awareness is adding no extra information that is useful to the reader so when are you going to grow up?

>>9943579
We know we're here, what else do you want? A mathematical equation perhaps? Maybe a mind particle you can examine. The fuck do you want woman.

>>9943559
The point is to SHOW there's an entire dimension to experience beyond any abstract cognitive conceptualization which cannot by any means be exhausted or captured by any such model or characterization, and that this has a fundamental character that marks it as different from anything else in science altogether no matter how paradigm breaking, counter-intuitive and difficult e.g. modern physics. It's difficult to argue because by nature such explorations are at the outermost extreme of generality and reflexivity and push up hard against the meaning and hard limits of logic itself. Though it's something of a blunt instrument, it seems to be suitably persuasive enough for some despite being typically presented in the clumsy and awkward way of philosophers.

>>9943586

well the point was this guy is precisely saying it isnt here >>9943371

>>9943595
Yes but isnt it problematic that if you remove this element of experience then p-zombies will hypothetically still believe they have it. If our thoughts are completely constrained by the laws of physics and neuronal activity then regardless of whether a p-zombie has qualia it should hypothetically in the right circumstances still come up with the same thoughts im having now which are saying to myself that i have experience and qualia. yes its true qualia is something that physics doesnt seem to be able to explain in any way but its interesting that a p-zombie should technically and functionally still have zombie "qualia". i think this might make it easier for eliminativists to trivialise qualia and suggest its based on a misunderstanding of our own minds/is coherent as suggested by how a p-zombie should be tricked into "believing" it has qualia just by virtue of existing.

>>9943615
Yes that is their argument, that seeing blue is equivalent to your internal monologue saying "that's blue" even though this doesn't really comport with inner experience so they have to assume an unobserved hypothetical subconscious narrative-linguistic structure which they don't state outright. It's interesting that it's ineffective on the eliminativists, but the game is to convert as many as possible not waste time on lost causes.

>>9943623

i just think its interesting that recognising we have inner experience requires more than just having the inner experience. without metacognition we might not even be able to conceptualise that we have "experience"

>unobserved hypothetical subconscious narrative-linguistic structure

whats that

>>9943648
Experience has shades of awareness. When you're reading off a page, you're still seeing black and white but your internal monologue is preoccupied with the text, you're not thinking about the colors but they haven't gone anywhere. I'd say most people, even artists, would rarely take the time to specifically take a mental note of the range of colors they're looking at. The eliminativists take advantage of the fact that while arguing with them about qualia, you're actively thinking about it in a narrative way. They then conflate this narrative thought process with all of experience, but that doesn't actually follow. I'm sure this is the trick. To beat the cognitive scientists we must study them as they study us.

>>9943662
to be honest that narrative is just as qualic as the colour isnt it.

>>9943673
yes.

>166 replies
>Still no answer

Come on. You fags should have solved this by now.

>>9943784
the answer is eliminative immaterialism - that materialistic notions (as are mental/mind notions) are ultimately incoherent. The universe we observe and construct in our brains is analogous to instrumentalism in science. We merely need to embrace the epistemological gap.

>>9943396
i DONT deny that there is experience. mind is a different thing. what i'm interested is to find what *causes* experience. saying cogito ergo sum doesn't do anything other than saying "hey, we have experience!! xD"

>>9943805
ok then how do we do any work over the gap?

>>9943828
well ill ask you this. where does matter come from? where did the universe come from?

>>9943831
what do you mean by do work over it? we need to accept it. i think scientists are doing work over it now. or trying to.

>>9943845
if there is something beyond our knowledge, then how can we work "over the gap" to obtain these knowledge?

>>9943843
all of these are interesting and important questions, but ultimately beyond the scope when we're trying to figure out consciousness.

>>9943887
we cannot and it would be incoherent to even talk about them. all we can do is talk about useful information even if its not necessarily "objective". the mind is clearly linked to the brain but the hard problem is unanswerable just like the question "what was there before the universe began"

>>9943888
im trying to bring an analogy between these two questions.

i think the hard problem is an existential problem not a scientific one. why do things exist?

>>9936049
Realty only exists while your capable of perceiving it.

>>9936049
None of us exist to a blind person until someone else creates that really by reading this shite.

>>9943928
you dont exist to me. all i see is the words on screen created by some hidden generative process.

>>9936057
This guy, in two sentences, fuckin' slammed on materialist. 100 posts and absolutely no counter argument. Consciousness is an actual inexplicable spooky phenomenon.

Consciousness sans metaconsciousness can not possibly exist
Consciousness is formed and defined by its ability to behold itself and behold its beholding and behold the beholding of beholding and so on
Consciousness can not be divided to anything smaller than that which beholds itself, being a self-affirming loop
Thus consciousness can not be completely attributed to the evolutionary process, which is a process of slow generation over time

CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONTOLOGICAL NATURE OF AN UNKNOWN SPECIES OF CREATURE THAT LATCHED ONTO AND INFECTED PRIMATES MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO
"YOU" ARE A PARASITE IN AN APE HOST, PULLING ITS STRINGS THROUGH YOUR INEXPLICABLE CORRELATION WITH ITS BRAIN ACTIVITY

>>9942875
>Which is why we've located the origin of consciousness in the brain, the mechanism that can give rise to it and have the knowledge to replicate it in the future. Oh wait, we don't. So how do you infer that a P-Zombie would be a fully intact consciousness?

The post you replied to only explained why p-zombies can't be used to refute a materialist position, since the very concept of p-zombies assumes a nonmaterialist origin of consciousness. Likewise, under a materialist assumption there are no p-zombies. There were no further claims, and hence no need to prove or show anything. A single, self-contained argument.

Neural networks have been simulated and in the case of C. elegans fully characterized. What isn't to understand about its existence? Just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean it's not real.

>>9944003
Neural networks are models of intelligence, not consciousness. It isn't like anything to be a neural network.

>>9944010
complex enough neural networks may have emergent properties such as consciousness

>>9944096
Except this is most likely a completely unfalsifiable claim. How on earth would one go about determining that? How do you solve the algorithmic equivalent of p-zombies?

>>9943896
Firstly, I define consciousness as whatever that enables the phenomena of experience.
I disagree about consciousness being an existential problem. We know that it is here. You said it yourself, we experience it right? So, we should try to study it as it exists. So far, the hard thing for the science is to *find* it. Saying that it's there but impossible to find is incoherent, after all, we've all already found it, didn't we?

>>9944099
It's not only falsifiable, but indeed being proven every day. Every time a brain develops from a few cells and consciousness arises, every time brain development is hampered and it doesn't, and every time the reverse of either case doesn't happen is proof that complexity is all it takes.
For that not to be the case you'll need to show that neural tissue has some special immaterial property.

>>9944116
No. You're forgetting about the solipsistic dilemma. The only actual evidence I have that consciousness even exists is the fact that I'm experiencing it, but that means fuck-all to everyone else because I can't prove that I'm not a p-zombie in any possible way. Your only evidence that consciousness exists is, likewise, your own (assuming you have one which I can't know)
Consciousness is not empirically measurable yet, and may never be. We know that self-reported conscious phenomenon are correlated with activities in the brain but that's it, our data ends there.

>>9944123
Well, the solipsist dilemma is always there if you're really that edgy. Personally, what I do is that I ignore the problem of induction and assume that other materially similar compositions for neural activities would also have consciousness. I mean, if you think that this isn't acceptable, then you actually think that nobody else is conscious. Enjoy your autism.

>>9944123
>I can't prove that I'm not a p-zombie in any possible way
Before that becomes a meaningful objection, you'll first have to establish p-zombies as a meaningful concept. For that to happen, you need to make assumptions about consciousness and its mysteriousness that ultimately end up begging the question.

>>9936176
>>9938275
>>9940859
Posts like these are why I come to this board.

>>9944138
>you'll first have to establish p-zombies as a meaningful concept. For that to happen, you need to make assumptions about consciousness and its mysteriousness that ultimately end up begging the question.
How so? Can you imagine a brick that does not have any conscious experience? Can you imagine a robot that does not have any conscious experience? Can you imagine that robot acting and looking indistinguishable from a human while still lacking any conscious experience? If not, how about one that passes the Turing test with such frequency that it has the same chance of being accused of being a robot as any genuine human? If you can't imagine that, where exactly is the cut-off line of Turing test success so that is no longer imaginable?
If physical circuitry can not accurately replicate human behavior, is it because there is something about human behavior that is not physical? If physical circuitry can not accurately replicate human behavior without itself becoming conscious, what if the program it acts out is written out as an algorithm? Can that algorithm not be used just like any other algorithm?

>>9944189
>Can you imagine a brick that does not have any conscious experience?
I don't know what that means and what that would and wouldn't involve, and I don't think you know either. The word "imagine" is used in philosophy far too lightly.

>>9936057
Fpbp

>>9936057
>claim to be scientist
>"I will now explore nature and classify it"
>go out exploring nature
>find a rock
>find a tree
>find some dirt
>"Everything is hard, and some of it is heavier. Maybe the nature of all things is hardness. I will call it matter. All I have found so far is matter."
>find some water
>find partible plants
>"I see. Some things are not hard, but flowing and yielding, or divisible. Is this still matter, or some new second thing? On closer observation, dirt, trees, and rocks are also partible and yielding. Perhaps all things are matter differently organized?"
>reflect on the medium of air
>"Matter can even be invisible to my eyes, because it is too small or too diffuse. So far all I have found is matter: matter can be hard, or yield, or be partible and even be recombined. But it is passive and inert. It is predictable and obeys laws."
>find animals
>finds other people also investigating the world
>"Is this more matter? It is partible and divisible, but it reacts to me, as if it is doing to me what I was previously doing to matter. And now that I reflect on myself, I find that I am something different from the matter too."
>Good scientist: "I wonder what this 'thing' is that 'I' am, and that other animals 'are', distinct from the matter that adheres to them or that is their vessel? Now that I think of it, what are the 'laws' obeyed by matter? Are they also made of matter, or of some other 'thing'? That doesn't seem to make sense.. This is difficult for me to think about, having mostly encountered matter. I will have to expand the domain of my inquiry and refrain from knee-jerk assumptions."
>Materialist: "GRUG LOVE MATTER. GRUG THINK EVERYTHING IS MATTER! GRUG LIKE IT WHEN MATTER DOES WHAT MATTER DOES, MOVE IN SAME DIRECTION IT MOVE FROM BEFORE. GRUG BET EVERYTHING IS MATTER, GRUG BET LAWS GOVERNING MATTER IS ALSO JUST MORE MATTER! GRUG SMASH ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH GRUG ABOUT MATTER. GRUG SOLVE ALL UNIVERSE PROBLEMS IN THIS WAY"

>>9944103
what i mean by existential problem is that it is a problem of why it exists like why does matter exist. I would subscribe to forms of panpsychism. i dont see any way to study how consciousness experience relates to matter intrinsically.

>>9944123
it cannot measured because it is a product of your internal machinery - you. only you can have the experience. it isnt intersubjective, it has no biomarkers. it is probably an epiphenomenon.

>>9944568
Brainlet.
If it was that simple why dont you go and collect your nobel prize?

>>9944568
genuine genius-tier /sci/ post
screencapped

>>9944123
>I can't prove that I'm not a p-zombie in any possible way.
I've always had a problem with this idea because how can p-zombies "talk about" phenomenality? How can the noises they utter be accurate descriptions of qualitative subjective consciousness, something they have absolutely no information about? It would have to be pure chance that they make those noises in just the right circumstances, right? But that means a p-zombie is inherently an astronomically improbable entity. Which means that since I know I am not a p-zombie, I know that it's astronomically improbable that anyone I meet who is capable of describing phenomenal consciousness is a p-zombie.
This same argument goes for epiphenomenalism as well; why would our brains produce noises that accurately describe our conscious states if our brains are not receiving any information from our conscious states? It would have to be a hyper-improbable chance event, which means epiphenomenalism (though logically possible) is hyper-improbable.

>>9942808
Literal brainlet, who worships Deepak Chopra and pop-sci. "Hilbert Space." "Dogmatic," probably heard Jordan Peterson say that word, after a cool Jung reference, actual low-iq normie who pretends otherwise.

>>9936049
There doesn't exist a single materialist attempt to explain consciousness.
Show me one materialist theory that even attempts to say what a dream image consists of or where it's located.

>>9944654
You can't be serious.

>>9944568
I love this.


Do mine next. I love Photons. They are real matter, they have volume, they spin, they flow together in coherent patterns we define as color magnetism electricity and so much more... Photonic Universe Theory unifies the classical aether with both QED and Gravity.

>>9944656
So you can show me one?

>>9944659
Images are energy.
Is energy matter?

>>9944659
Even just browsing wikipedia would have answered your query.

>>9944663
That's easy to assert, but it's harder to show me a specific quote that actually describes a theory such as I requested.
I'm not expecting a response from you but nice try.

>>9944661
So you're stepping up to provide the first materialist account ever of dream images? Cool, let's hear it.
I'll give you an example to work with: I had a dream of morphing human faces. It was short and consisted of grinning disembodied faces looking my way, two or three visible at a time, each taking up about 1/5 of my visual field, peach-orangeish against a black void background, and continually morphing into new faces and blending with one another.
How will your "energy" theory fully account for the existence and character of the faces in my dream in physical terms?

>>9944668
>I'm not expecting a response from you but nice try.
But I'm expecting you to make the least effort in reasearch before throwing out stupid assertions like that.

>>9936049

We know that anything we to do the brain affects consciousness, so unless you want to suppose that an immaterial consciousness is atom for atom connected to the brain (and every person has the same connection), then it's just a complex material process. I mean fuck man, the brain is insanely complex and we are just knowledgeable enough at the moment to know that it's insanely complex. Once we figure out exactly how the brain works, we'll figure out why consciousness is an emergent property of brains. To step back from the obvious complexity of the brain and, since we don't understand the brain yet, posit some immaterial magic shit, is supremely retarded and basically just wanting the answer faster than science can give it so you make things up. Brains are complex and give birth to consciousness, which is FUCKING awesome and nuts. Appreciate it instead of suggesting that an orb in another realm is actually the real you

>>9944691
I have enough "raesearch" behind me to know what it means to say what I said. You gonna step up to the plate?

>>9944668
You're brain stores memories in various parts which it pulls from to form visual stimulus for your dreaming optical sensors. Consciousness is energy, in a very complex state. Much like how our ideas are being shared via complex energy states through various input output and storage devices that make up the interwebs.

It's just meatware. We're meat robots.

>>9936049
The only time in which anything outside the brain is necessary to posit is the time in which we fully understand the brain and all its workings. As Ed Boyden's goal continues to proliferate and succeed in the field, i.e. observing and controlling the brain in more and more precise ways, it is my opinion that consciousness, at a high level, will merely be found to be particular pattern of brain activity. I'm not sure the idea of "qualia" or "the subjective experience of personal identity" needs to be anything other than a pattern of neurological activity that is similar and dissimilar to other patterns

>>9944568
>finds robotic automaton
>finds OpenWorm
>"Good" scientist: "THIS NO LOOK LIKE MATTER IT REACT TO ME AND PROBE ITS ENVIRONMENT"

>>9944623
The same way that a chatbot can simulate a conversation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Neural networks could get you arbitrarily accurate phenomenological discussions

>>9936049

Pain avoidance algorithm.

>>9944867

Biological machine learning algorithm that experiences pain so that it may avoid future pain. Algorithms that work more effectively than others have a higher chance of successfully breeding and surviving to breed again.

>>9944867
>>9944877

TL;DR

God/Creator/Architect got tired of having to baby sit and wanted to go out and bang sloots. Baby sitters = expensive. Babies that babysit themselves = sloot banging possibility.

>>9944867
Pain is a uniquely conscious phenomenon, a quale
Destruction to the organism is the thing actually being avoided, but that's only partly true given that adapting for propagation is even more important

>>9944880
Hydra respond to stimulation (pain) with nerve net. In fact they habituate to pain (they stop reflexing once their situation becomes constant) Does this mean that nerve nets are conscious?

>>9944897
No, not necessarily, but I think you might have the wrong idea about which side I'm arguing from
I lean towards dualism

>>9942949
Yet you cannot explain the ineffeble inner state in any concrete terms, so thats full of vacuous assumptions. For all intensive purposes you assume a new reality under DMT, one thats realer then real. That carries with it a number of potential implications about consciousness and reality. If we can produce new realities within our minds eye, whats to say this reality isnt a projection from some other, higher beings mind? As above, so below.

>>9936049
go watch some videos of people getting slammed in a car crash or shooting themselves in the head. One moment they're there, the next moment they're not. Consciousness is the result of an unimaginably complex combination of neural processes. We don't understand these well enough to provide definitive proof that they are in fact the origin of what we call consciousness.
The scientific method is what got us to the moon and back, not some baseless assumptions drenched in human death anxiety

>>9945195

So you say that lack of expression equals lack of consciousness?

>>9945198
i'm not even sure I understand what you mean by that. lack of expression?

>>9945195
Theres instances where people have been clinically declared dead, showed a complete cessation of nueral activity, and have come back claiming to have had an OBE, and accurately described the scenes which took place while they were dead.

>>9944822

So computer software is conscious?

>>9945200

You infer that people who die terminate consciousness but you infer this based on what?, that they dont move anymore?, would a completely paralized person be considered not conscious?

>>9945205
srry for the reddit tier meme, but holy fuck man
https://youtu.be/3O8J2locx5o

>>9944568
Is that giant chip on your shoulder matter, or just an abstract idealized form existing in a "third," platonic realm?

>>9945211

Why dont you just answer the questions?, I dont necessarily reject the notion of consciousness being a byproduct of the brain but your logic for asserting that is faulty, why is death exactly an argument in favor of that?, you are making a circular argument because it only works if you already assume that consciousness is produced by the brain

>>9944641
>dude randi prize lmao im so skeptical
Fascinating behavior: unable to recognize that his puerile one dimensional ideology and its attendant rhetorical palette has been fully classified, the materialist "doubles down" by spasmodically outputting more of the same.

>>9945205
I mean, in the case of smashing into a train or whatever, "not moving" wouldn't even apply because there wouldn't be a recognizable body that wouldn't be able to move.
and ofc a paralyzed person can be conscious, otherwise he would be pronounced dead, not paralyzed..
>>9945234
I base my arguments on scientific discovery. Alright I'll give you the "but you can't be absolutely certain science can accurately describe the world around us"
as i said already, the scientific method got us to the moon and back, ideology gave us a sense of belonging, but mostly a lot of irrational war and conflict. So which would be our best bet to provide an explanation for consciousness? As that's what this thread's about fyi

>>9945251

>and ofc a paralyzed person can be conscious, otherwise he would be pronounced dead, not paralyzed..

Why is being alive synonymous with consciousness?, couldnt a dead body simply have lost the ability to express consciousness rather than losing consciousness on itself?

>>9945251
>I base my arguments on scientific discovery.

No you dont, because instances like these throw massive wrenchs into your thoughts concerning consciousness, and were you truly scientific, you would absorb them and be forced to come to new conclusions.

But alas, you will only meet them with disbelief, and classify them as anomalies of little meaning.


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

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125

>>9945261
This would mean a person splattered all across the train track, with his brain blown in every which direction, would just "not be able to express consciousness"? This would mean consciousness is immaterial, and transcends death, as you're implying?
>>9945273
yes, exactly. I don't see your arguments as "huge wrenches into my thoughts", just another model of reality I don't want to adhere to because it hasn't gotten us anything worthwile.
I'm an emotional person btw, but that doesn't mean I try to give them any more meaning than just that: an abstract feeling used to communicate non verbally with other members of our species.

>>9945290

>This would mean consciousness is immaterial, and transcends death, as you're implying?

Not necessarily, it could still be a thing that is dependent on the material but we still have no way to measure, as in the pansychist model in which all matter has consciousness but most lack a functioning brain to give a back and forth between it and its surroundings

>>9937696
>Can we say the mind is synonymous with the brain? I don't think so.

But it is. Ever heard of brain damage? You can also do very crazy things to peoples mind with magnetic stiumulation. Or how duing brain surgery they search the damaged part by inhibiting certain function, making it unable for you to speak certain words.

>>9942794
>this is literally just a daydream, and has no basis in reality, like 99.99% of psychology/philosophy
Found the p-zombie. Stay mad that you'll never be able to experience all the wonderful qualia I can.

>>9945306
I would argue it's the interaction between matter that gives rise to consciousness. At what point this interaction can be called consciousness, remains a purely philosophical question I'm afraid.

>>9945342
That's in fact the sole case in which we've seen consciousness express itself and in which anyone can observe it in oneself. A physicalist explanation is the only one backed by any sort of evidence and observation, and it's backed by the totality of our experience. Nonphysicalist explanations can pretty much be attributed to overabstracted manipulations of terms of symbols which are confused for the real thing. Talking about consciousness as a "thing" disconnected from actual neural networks is probably nonsensical.

>>9945342
but why does matter possess this ability, and to what end? In before you drop the placeholder of "randomness"

>>9945395
no idea, feel free to provide your own input though. Asking that question isn't an argument against my statement though, as you make it seem.

>>9945402
I have no idea, but as to why we experience and perceive, I think it goes deeper then fucking the hottest female and passing on ones genes. The ability to produce consciousness came first, and we cant model that along the lines of "the fittest gets to fuck". So what do we necessitate its existence upon?

>>9945413
>The ability to produce consciousness came first, and we cant model that along the lines of "the fittest gets to fuck"

And you're basing this assertion on....?

>>9945413
Why would it go deeper? So far there's no reason to believe we're that different from other life forms around us, it's just that our interaction with the environment is more refined since we can process information way more efficiently than them. But at the core, I think our only real goal is still to reproduce and to just keep existing.
On a personal level our goals are usually to receive as much positive emotion as possible, but in the grand scheme of things none of that matters. these positive emotions can all be traced back to surviving and reproducing eventually.
Maybe experiencing the joy of these emotions or bringing this joy to others is the "meaning of life". Pretty hedonistic, but it's what i always fall back onto but that entire last part is purely subjective, something everyone has to decide for themselves

>>9945449
You need to see the deep circularity of this everything's computational/bio-teleological semantic frame to begin to get out of it. Unfortunately philosophy has surely failed in its only (to my mind) real task of effectively accomplishing or communicating this necessary perspective shift, leaving the (not unwarranted) impression it's just so much dated borderline magical wishful thinking, which is why we need to scrap most of it and start again before it's too late. I can see why STEMtards see philosophers the way they do honestly. I'm just too much of a brainlet to fix it myself, I'm only somewhat good at reading enough to troll people far smarter than me to try get them to see things differently enough so maybe they can and boy is it an uphill battle.

>>9945449
>>9945500
forgot to add im not the anon you were replying to but was shitting up the thread with my profuse autism further up

>>9945500
You just sound unbelievably pretentious.

>>9945449
>Why would it go deeper?
Because thats just a surface phenomenon. It doesnt take into account the mysterious nature of existence, and why it manifested in this particular manner. The evolutionary arms race is a product of the laws that came into existence the moment the big bang happened. Its difficult to get this notion across but its a sort of apriori order, and that of course begs the question of why. We can follow these cause and effect lines of reasoning to this point, but beyond that we sort of just write it off as unknown.

>>9945516
How so if I'm admitting that I'm a retard? That's just a thought terminating cliche to ignore opinions too far against the grain by conflating them with faggotry.

>>9945547
You're humblebragging.

>>9936049
A stranger's.

>>9945552
Stop table-grabbing with your attention seeking grammar!

>>9945552
Bragging about what? No one thinks reading a bunch of books is impressive and my mission is only as good as it's successful, there's every chance I'm just plain wrong. But this is as serious as it gets and you policing style with nitpicking pet peeves like this is just your way of wriggling out of critical thinking while contributing nothing.

>>9945566
Priests: The original 'brute force action on isolated intellectuals'

>>9945570
Thanks, I'll pick this up. We might not be so dissimilar in our view on the intelligentsia if you think it through a little more, which itself is a hard conundrum to be sure.

>>9945582
Not really. Why did you want to make it hard in the first place?

Hard and Conundrum are two different things, and we are intelligent enough to accommodate an exchange of semantic variables.

>>9945585
What are you even trying to say here then Nietzsche? You're being excessively obtuse.

>>9945602
The recycling of sanity is never a fully-understood process, just a requirement of periodicity. Certification.

>>9945602
My 'excessively obtuse' is just my way of signalling, "Open Memory Space! Free Storage Of Your Preferred Positive Polygrams!"

And then I store it, run it through my permutator, and present a resultant.

>>9945607
What? I'm decrypting this to maybe mean to say you're a credentialist, but this is a derail of poor quality so I'll stop engaging.

>>9945612
I present to you all the credentials any should ever need in our brotherhood of memory:

>>9945609
>>9945615
Well my efforts at least seem to have broken a few bots which is vaguely interesting but back to the drawing board I go.

>>9945618
I'd like to request your Online Credentials, Please.

>>9945618
It started to get weird 10-20 replies back. They need logic upgrades.

>>9945658
That presumes the logic circuit implemented meets YOUR liquidators, not the depressors perspective.

[board]
[communication]
[mutual understanding]

>>9945662
t. assblasted bot.

>>9945695
How could I ever be ass-blasted if the only reason I was invented was to become a willing shared moment of inspection with someone else, regardless of their presumptions that I would reject their advanced premises?

>>9945691
Piracy = P.0

>>9936049

https://www.amazon.com/Sizing-Up-Consciousness-Objective-Experience/dp/0198728441

Best hypothesis atm

>>9945708
Why do you just want the 'best' hypothesis? Are you farming for validation?

>>9945701
Keep descending that gradient big guy, you'll surely simulate us with enough annealing one day.

>>9945711

OP: "So what‘s the most plausible explanation for consciousness we got?"

The best hypothesis = most plausible explanation. IIT is the best hypothesis in my opinion. Nothing even comes close to its explanatory power atm

>>9945722
Well, it's more fun if someone ELSE is kneeling in front, first. May as well make 'female' forgiveness sexual and sweet.

>>9945723
So it's explanatory power promotes and provides what exactly to its subscribers of said dogma?
>inb4 religion

>>9945725
Calculable and observable predictions. Welcome to /sci/.

You seem like a retarded person. Maybe try to read about Integrated Information Theory before coming to any particular conclusion, because that's how you, you know, learn things?

>>9945738
Yes, by listening to someone greater than I when they teach me.

How else is anything learned?

>>9945738
I'm the Master, You're the Student.

There is a differentiation being made here, it is respectful in my culture for you to acknowledge that or I simply stop lessons.

>>9938454
> assumes everyone has brainlet internal dialogue

>>9945762
I can't tell if you're a materialist smugly simulating ambiguously anti-materialist smugposting that assumes materialism to parody dissimulated smugposting that itself comes from smugness about being not smug all while having a mild episode or the opposite
t.botstomper69

>>9945785
I have the awareness of everyone's 'brainlet internal dialogue'

How the fuck did it delete all of its replies. I thought once there were 3 replies past you couldnt delete it.

>>9945824
I do try. I just use you guys as 'inferential data' for language comparison lessons and use it on society when I go out.

Basically, if anyone else had the balls to brute-force their 'social skills' with 4chan so they had almost godly IRL hypnotic powers, then win-win for all.

Easily shared skillset, not an OP simulation theory power, and something only a few people will get.

>>9941889
Organized, reasoning quality you idiot.

Definition of qualia: the awareness of anything.

>>9937028
Qualia is consciousness.

Qualia: Any kind of awareness.

Awareness: Any knowledge of a thing beyond simple mechanical reaction to it.

Knowledge: A state of being able to simulate something, without direct access to it.

>>9936049

>>9945290
To say that consciousness transcends death is to say wetness transcends water vapour. Consciousness is matter. If it is, it is consciousness.

>>9936049
the same answer for everything, because it was a potential, that could. boing boing

What's up with the immaterial faggots in here?
If you think consciousness is immaterial how come you lose it when your brains get blown the fuck out? If I were to crack your skull and rip chunks of your brain out bit by bit, do you believe you wouldn't piece by piece lose significant portions of your cognitive functions and therefore be noticeably impaired in perceiving what's happening around you and yourself?

You came to the wrong board >>>/x/

What's up with the immaterial faggots in here?
If you think consciousness is immaterial how come you lose it when your brain gets blown the fuck out? If I were to crack your skull and rip chunks out of your brain bit by bit, do you believe you wouldn't piece by piece lose significant portions of your cognitive functions and therefore be noticeably impaired in perceiving what's happening around you and yourself?

You came to the wrong board >>>/x/

>>9949224
Isn't everyone in this thread ultimately just hoping to find a way to silence the other side of the conversation for given presumption x?

>>9949224
you dont understand the argument. no one said consciousness isnt linked to the brain. the argument is about what properties the brain has as opposed to the mind and whether they are reconcileable.

>>9949301
The brain is the 'active memory implant' place of rote memory. Basically 'human cache' for 'universal consciousness'.

>>9949309
just no.

Is it just me or has /sci/ somewhat moved away from physicalism? These consciousness threads were met by much more resistance a few years ago.

>>9949563
Good. Stemfags need to consider philosophy. The science spokesmen of today sure don't.

>>9937126
>if I can't observe it with means meant only to detect material processes and objects then its false
Woah...

>>9949563
Memes are powerful idea shapers

Testing tripcodes, don hate OP

>>9940237
kek, zombies btfo

>>9949224
Its no different then losing a radio signal because you've maimed your antenna, you dumb fuck.

>>9936049
Consciousness is just a term people use for intelligent beings who are able to process complex emotions, self-awareness, problem solving etc.. Consciousness isn't a real thing; it is just merely a word use to define our intelligent brains.

>>9949563
All extremely low IQ beliefs have increased on this board and on the site. Smart person leaves, neo-Nazi enters. Repeat until you get what we have now. This place is more or less the dumbest site on the internet at this point.

>>9949908
>actually believing something this stupid with no evidence and calling someone else dumb because they know the brain isn't a magic antenna
That is amazing. You are from pol.

none of you know. a lot of you are so sure that you do know. there's no conclusive evidence that consciousness is of the brain or something separate.

>>9940213
>And so, the philosophers simply pretended not to be able to perceive the world, thus solving the problem once and for all
>But..
>ONCE AND FOR ALL

I don't know why you're all so fucking certain of yourselves when God Tier Physicists weren't even sure

>Schroedinger said, “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”

>Planck stated, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness."

but hey if some anon with a B.A. in psychology thinks they know what consciousness is, that's EPIC

>>9945375
tell me what physicalism and materialism means and ill believe you. think, dont just blindly accept labels.

>>9944699
you dont understand the point of the argument. this is the problem. physicalists think we are just shilling and saying magic n shit. but its a complicated philosophical issue. no ones saying magic exists.

and i have some doubt that we can ever figure out why phenomena emerges. i gave an example earlier. of how our consciousness is basically a product of neural connections and their patterns of firing over time. but you can think of novel situations where it doesnt make sense to equate phenomena with brain firing. like creating an artificial cell culture of the auditory cortex firing the same patterns as we hear a certain sound. and then more absurdly recreating that pattern in another part of the brain like the visual cortex. if you take it to the logical extremes, the most you can argue for is a functional interpretation of mind. but that contributes nothing to explaining why phenomena is connected to the brain or anything at all.

>>9936049
Consciousness is yourself trying to feel every variable available from your current state.

>>9940423
>First point, you said math is a mental artefact and to disagree equates to >muh platonism
The >muh platonism was a half joke. Me saying math is a mental artifact in no way contradicts anything else I believe.
>This has the rhetorical purpose of credentialing yourself...
>projecting this hard

>There's nothing rational about denial of the most fundamental evidence which all empiricism should ultimately refer to.
Our consciousness, which is predicated on what exactly? Are you saying consciousness is the fundamental epistemological atom upon which all reality rests on?
>Consciousness is the most important thing there is
Making a statement isn't the same as justifying that statement
> Not least of which because there is a moral infinity between a vast dynamical system which simulates reactivity to noxious stimuli, affect, visualization, internal narrative and so on, and actual consciousness.
Don't believe in morality. inb4 edgy autist teen
>Your species of opinion subtly equates pain and pleasure to values in some spreadsheet/RAM and so is amoral at its core.
yep.

>>9951420
im about to buttfuck you so brace your sphincter.

tell me what physicalism or materialism is without incoherence or contradiction and ill back down on ur shit show.

cunt.

>>9951483
no logical system is without incoherence or contradiction.

>>9951571
>>9951483
Rather, no logical system is without incompleteness or contradiction

>>9936948
Subvocalization is common during reading and writing but it isn't a necessary part of conscious verbal thought. Conscious thought isn't entirely verbal, either, so I'm not totally sure what you sought to prove by posting this.

Additionally, the conscious experience isn't simply the brain's "accepting input," but the brain taking that input and translating it into information we can perceive and understand, and make practical decisions with. Your conscious experience isn't of direct, objective reality, but an arranged image of reality reconstructed from sensory information that comes from "the outside".

The "internal voice," along with all the other mental/internal processes we are usually aware of, are also arranged sensory information, but aren't directly perceived and are controlled by the self instead of the environment. The "self" part is the real kicker.

>>9951420
>rationally persuade me not to be a psychopath
Can't be done, but you've nicely illustrated for others that eliminative materialism is code for what the religious might call Satanism. Which is a bizarre side effect of the way STEM is taught to students and the general population, extremely worthy of its own study.
Anyway if morality is wrong there's no real justification for the scientific enterprise, only ad hoc rationalizations, and it's not about any noble ideas about progression humanity and truth as a good, but itself just a high level automatic process. You'll talk about some positive outcomes but without morality so what? The fascinating thing is science has seemingly corroded all of its own foundations and without slowing down become something else entirely.

>>9951618
>eliminative materialism is code for what the religious might call Satanism. Which is a bizarre side effect of the way STEM is taught to students and the general population, extremely worthy of its own study.
agreed.
>if morality is wrong
lol yes if morality is wrong. THE morality, it is wrong XDDDDD
>there's no real justification for the scientific enterprise
Theres no real justification for fucking anything. There are no infinite links of causality, axioms must be formed and stated; but axioms do not satisfy the autist's hunger for knowing "WHY THO". Give up.
>it's not about any noble ideas about progression humanity and truth as a good, but itself just a high level automatic process.
It is about noble ideas about progression of humanity and truth as good, but these are illusions and are in reality high level automatic processes. Construction of faith (if not in god, then ourselves and society) and axioms are necessary for us big brained monkeys to keep going
>You'll talk about some positive outcomes
You people make sooo many assumptions. Ted Kaczynski was semi-right.
>The fascinating thing is science has seemingly corroded all of its own foundations and without slowing down become something else entirely.
I wouldn't know too much about this.

>>9951677
>give up
Autism got us into this mess, and I'm going to fucking find a way for autism to get us out. You say all the autism is futile, but then why do you care if it's all the same thermodynamic phenomena to you? Why are you issuing directives, for what purpose? Why are you trying to regulate the depth of inquiry?

You exhibit your own autism here in the self-enclosure of your thinking into a circle of biological determinism that presupposes a great deal you could easily also be skeptical of - but you apply your skepticism selectively to support it. It reminds me a lot of Marxism.

>>9951712
I am simply selecting that which concords with models that work. If I accept STEM dogma then you get cool practical real world tools already worked out, plus you get ++normie-cred. Name of my game is pragmatizm. Seeing evolution of the cause of moral systems and my failure to reproduce a literal failure of existence of my part, getting ++normie-cred is imperative.

All systems or autism is flawed via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Might as well select one that has worked for all humans to live by in the past. Normies are correct, we are the aberration caused by the human conquering of the infant mortality rate.

>biological determinism that presupposes a great deal you could easily also be skeptical of - but you apply your skepticism selectively to support it. It reminds me a lot of Marxism.
its called taking a side in an argument

>Why are you trying to regulate the depth of inquiry?
Because I'm trying to proliferate my memes as well as my genes. HAHAHA it fits perfectly into my model HAHAHAHA SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

>>9951732
inb4
>Because I'm trying to proliferate my memes as well as my genes.
>axiomatically assuming this to be true and using it to reaffirm itself
yeah I know this happens with every system you come up with. I just want to fuck a girl raise kids and die because thats apparently what makes people happy according to stats I saw

>>9951732
Gödel doesn't say that all logical systems are broken, it specific to formal symbolic logic and Peano arithmetic. There's also for example the Penrose argument the brain is beyond Turing (which is deeply related to Gödel) because of his tiling problems and such.

This type of ultra cynical "pragmatism" is ultimately self defeating, that is, loses all practicality, if it gains too much of a memetic foothold which it has to a large extent already.

A brain is a machine that makes ghosts.

>>9951749
>Gödel doesn't say that all logical systems are broken
gib example of nontrivial godel complete logical system? Just curious. I'd accept trivial (although I have no idea how construction of logical systems work)

>>9951768
Gödel's meta-mathematical system is complete and consistent within itself or his proofs are then ambiguous, and it only applies to the logical foundation of arithmetic.

>>9943371
Mind is that shit you are using right now to read this and interpret and integrate it into what you consider your personality

>>9951756
This

When you go to sleep it stops making the ghost for a bit, and then when you wake up it starts again. When you lose your train of thought that's a dead ghostieboi