/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10164217]

Why has science not even attempted to solve the question of consciousness?

Is it because it's just too hard? Is it permanently stuck in that taboo realm of religion and philosophy? Why is nobody trying? Is a scientific explanation for consciousness really not worth pursuing? I think that to reduce consciousness to a byproduct of our material brains is foolish, it doesn't even come close to describing how we are experiencing this moment at all. Yet this is the position adopted by many figures in the legitimate scientific community. I understand it's hard to measure and observe something like consciousness in a way that isn't completely anecdotal, but I don't see why that has to bar us from asking the question. Although I could see why that could mean that the question is impossible to evaluate scientifically, perhaps there are ways to measure consciousness that we aren't aware of? Should there legitimately be no attempts to find ways to scientifically validate theories regarding consciousness?

If anyone has some serious input, I'd love to hear it.

[Anonymous No.10164231]

>>10164217
I'm not sure we are there yet. I'm sure that the greatest minds in human history often pondered and still do ponder consciousness and life in general, but I don't think we have evolved enough as a species to even begin contemplating that question. I mean, most people spend their days thinking about and doing very mundane unimportant things. I'm not the smartest man in the world, but humanity as a whole is simply not ready to begin tackling these universe wide questions. There are many growths to be made in human consciousness before such an endeavor would actually be productive.

[Anonymous No.10164235]

It's been tried to solve countless of times though. The problem is we're pretty much stuck, where do you propose we look? The brain, the nervous system? How do you study it without experimenting on people which is something you simply can't do?

[Anonymous No.10164272]

>>10164235
I think that experimentation on other people is impossible because of the problem of articulation and cognitive bias and whatnot as well, I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons. Volunteers and humane experimentation is possible, though, I doubt that you'd have to be too intrusive in experimentation. I think that it would be more akin to medical trials and measuring brain metrics. There would obviously be a physics component to it, too. You'd have to look for certain metrics and correlate them to changes in conscious perception. That would just be neurology though, to a degree, and that's where physics might play a role. I've heard it said that quantum mechanics are a promising vector, but I don't know enough about that to make any assertions.

With how much research in physics has been done, I don't think that consciousness could neatly fit into the idea of energy or matter, since both have not been remotely demonstrated to give birth to experience, just interact with it.

If it is related to something other than energy and matter, it may be the case that it permeates the entire universe. If that were the case, all conscious individuals would stem from the same thing, and in death we'd simply be returned to the "pool" of consciousness, as it were. Although it's probably more likely that consciousness does not at all behave in a way that we could conceptualize or ever hope of articulating, so this is mostly just conjecture.

>>10164231
I agree mostly, but what bothers me most is that many people want to pretend that the question doesn't exist at all and follow an entirely material model for consciousness, that you're just your brain and when your brain is destroyed, so is your ability to experience. I don't buy that at all, your brain obviously stores all the information about your self that affect your personality and etc, but I don't think that it could be capable of generating a sense of experiencing the world.

[Anonymous No.10164289]

>>10164272
Either provide a testable hypothesis or go to your local church/philosophy class.

[Anonymous No.10164293]

>>10164272
I think we should start by trying to figure out what's the first life form to have consciousness. At what age does consciousness form in humans, is it brain development related, is it memory related etc. Many animals are smart enough to be capable of thought, do they have consciousness? There are people who don't have inner voice, they think a lot like animals do. Do they have consciousness?

[Anonymous No.10164303]

>>10164293
Inner voice is probably less of an issue, I think that it stems from them just being less mindful, but they probably still have the propensity to be mindful, life just hasn't taught them how to.

>>10164289
>so just ignore the question
thanks for your input, but i'd like to refrain from proposing a hypothesis when i haven't done much personal research into previous works regarding consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10164309]

>>10164235
Before you begin experimentation, you need to formulate what sort of evidence you are looking for. What information would give you clues that help in answering the so-called hard problem of consciousness? I doubt there is any that can.

[Anonymous No.10164311]

>>10164217
>the question of consciousness
sorry but what is the question exactly?

[Anonymous No.10164318]

>>10164303
You can circlejerk about the question somewhere else, but don't pretend you are doing any science by doing so.

[Anonymous No.10164320]

>>10164311
"the question of consciousness" refers to multiple questions about the ability of humans to experience. you're obviously not that dense, you just want to assault my ideas on the basis of the fact that asking these questions in general is looked down upon, for the reason that they are difficult to scientifically approach. that does not mean that they are impossible however, or not worth consideration.

asking someone to provide examples is a keen way of attacking someone else's viewpoint, but considering that everyone else has interpreted what i mean correctly, i don't think you have any interest in serious, rational discussion on the topic. in fact, your ability to disregard the question entirely just because it's not easy to answer speaks volumes about your argumentative capacity.

[Anonymous No.10164326]

>>10164318
tell that to everyone else in /sci/. nobody here is actually doing any science. i very rarely see anyone performing legitimate documented experimentation here. the purpose is discussion about the interactions between consciousness and science, not actual science. it may veer slightly from that topic into suggestions on how to scientifically approach consciousness. i never claimed to be doing any science here, and given that there's obviously no method that i proposed without admitting that it is conjecture, i assumed that would be fairly obvious.

[Anonymous No.10164329]

>>10164309
>What information would give you clues that help in answering the so-called hard problem of consciousness?
again, the issue is finding what information that is. it's obviously not something that i could do alone.

[Anonymous No.10164347]

>>10164320
i can't even read what you wrote it sounds like you're actually crying as you're typing it and that's grossing me out. I caught this
>the fact that asking these questions in general is looked down upon
i don't know anything about that, i don't know if they are and if they are I don't care. I just wanted you to tell me what the question was because if we can't define a question it is obviously redundant to ask why it hasn't been answered, no? lmao

[Anonymous No.10164374]

>>10164217
Consciousness is gestation. It is something we are carrying to term, that is the full truth of the matter.

[Anonymous No.10164594]

>>10164326
science is not a method of doing things, but rather about trying to discover things unknown. So the things discussed in this board fits the definition of science.

[Anonymous No.10164635]

>>10164293
I think consciousness permeates all. Particles have a measure of will, represented in the double split experiment it accounts for each instance of a particle landing at a particular point. Limited geometric opportunities but opportunities nonetheless. This compounds up to a human system where there is a rich array of geometric opportunities such as memories, thought, motor function, etc. ie a much larger measure of will, still limited. Everything in between and beyond has its relative measure of will. But remember it is intrinsically geometric. A big rock has a lot of particles but their measures of will do not compound like a few pounds of human brain compound because their physical geometries do not constructively interfere. In other words, the geometry of say human physiology(brain, nervous system, etc) resonates will

[Anonymous No.10164752]

>>10164217
Just a bunch of nodes with a wave traversing point a to point b. Nothing to it.

[Anonymous No.10164769]

>>10164217
BECASUE YOU CANT TEST IT YOU DFAGGOT

[Anonymous No.10164812]

>>10164217
If someone shoots you in the head with a shotgun your consciousness disappears. If you think consciousness is anything else than your brain being gay then present your evidence or go be gay elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.10164883]

>>10164217
>some vague shit you believe to exist
>now let's prove it!
do you see how this might be unscientific? you don't work backwards.

[Anonymous No.10164992]

Consciousness is pseudosci voodo bullshit

[Anonymous No.10165017]

>>10164217
What do you mean?
This is a part of neuroscience and brain research in general and we already have a lot of knowledge on what you call consciousness, why it exists and how it works.

[Anonymous No.10165044]

>>10165017
Hello sir, is the Moravec transfer possible (keeping your consciousness all the time)?

I'm not saying now, cause we lack the tech, but technically it is possible right?

[Anonymous No.10165063]

>>10165044
Maybe, but that’s not the point.
There’s much more to know about everything not just consciousness, Other than simple human psychological behavior I don’t understand your complaint, and see no meaningful validity in it.

[Anonymous No.10165130]

>>10164217
>Not attempted

So science was supposed electroshock living brain tissue on a subject for fun?

[Anonymous No.10165132]

>>10164217
Consciousness can decide to not be observed, and you can't make proper scientific measurement.

[Anonymous No.10165305]

>>10164217
consciousness is being studied in psychology neuroscience and philosophy. i feel people who have problems probably make too many assumptions about consciousness.

>>10164272
i resent that you think just because people have materialistic views of consciousness it means they are ignoring the question. most of your thoughts about consciousness are completely unfounded. it is wishful thinking and closer to religion and not scientific.

[Anonymous No.10165314]

>>10164217
That's what neuroscience and artificial intelligence research is trying to find out. I don't think nobody is trying.

[Anonymous No.10165337]

>>10164217
I agree that just discarding the question is just infuriating. We'll eventually get to the end of it, I think, but probably not in the way we are imagining it. It will probably be the consequence of some bigger discovery, almost certainly a fundamental discovery.

[Anonymous No.10165338]

>>10164635
this is interesting. thanks for sharing

[Anonymous No.10165385]

>>10165338
or is it bullshit.. no wonder people ignore the question when most people speculating are retarded

[Anonymous No.10165492]

>>10165385
it might be bullshit so it's a good strategy to ignore it. but thinking that it is definitey bullshit is limiting.

[Anonymous No.10165563]

>>10164635
I don’t understand this view, what you describe is just nature looked at from a typical human projection of direction and will the universe itself doesn’t seem to have.
Rather than the universe being conscious and having will maybe you are applying over-simplified definitions that describe a spectrum of human psychology to nature without any evidence other than is-aught fallacies?

[Anonymous No.10165565]

>>10165385
Kek ur dumb

[Anonymous No.10165615]

>>10164812
>If someone shoots you in the head with a shotgun your consciousness disappears
[Citation Needed]

[Anonymous No.10165624]

>>10165615
What do you mean?
He doesn’t have a brain anymore right?

[Anonymous No.10165633]

>>10164812
http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Self-Does-Not-Die-Experiences/dp/0997560800/

There is a lot of data that clearly demonstrates that consciousness can exist without a functioning cerebral cortex.

[Anonymous No.10165644]

>>10165633
Please leave

[Anonymous No.10165678]

>>10165615
citation needed for consciousness carrying on.

but given what we can infer about consciousness and its relationship to the brain, id say theres more of an argument that it does disappear.

retard.

[Anonymous No.10165702]

>>10165633
if these people were resuscitated then clearly the brain hadnt died...
none of these studies suggest consciousness is detached from the brain. there are better explanations.

[Anonymous No.10165712]

>>10164217
It has tried... you just haven't searched enough:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3596736/
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021963521000241X
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219635207001696
Or also the book: "I of the Vortex"

[Anonymous No.10165714]

>>10164217
What kind of criteria do you have for a satisfactory explanation? If you can’t give such criteria, how do you even know whether a given explanation is the one you are looking for? What is it like to believe something that is wrong? How do you tell the difference with believing something that is true? It can’t be an obvious difference, or the truth would always be obvious to you.

Keep in mind that the brain has not evolved to deal with these sorts of questions at all. In fact, it has evolved to make all sorts of assumptions and shortcuts that work well when you’re in a tribe hunting mammoths, but that otherwise misguide us in ways that are not easily corrected and certainly not in an intuitive way, because to correct our misguided intuitions goes directly against our intuition. Yet correcting them is what we must do. The hard problem of consciousness is a dead end to be ignored.

[Anonymous No.10165719]

>>10164769
>CANT TEST IT YOU DFAGGOT
Also there's the information integration theory that can clearly be tested (though it might not answer the problem of qualia) (and maybe the attention schema theory)

[Anonymous No.10165733]

>>10165644

>The fundamaterialist is upset

My apologist, there fundamaterialist, that there is empirical evidence that falsifies your worldview. Though, of course, any true fundamaterialist is immune to evidence.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf

>>10165678

>muh everyday life correlations between mental states and brain states

https://trans4mind.com/spiritual/Does-consciousness.pdf

Your argument has already been addressed in the literature.

>>10165702

There's a difference between the brain being dead and inactive. And the brain is demonstrably inactive, albeit not dead, during a cardiac arrest. Hence it wasn't the brain who mediated their information gathering process during their cardiac arrest.

Hence, consciousness can exist independently of a functioning cerebral cortex.

Hence materialism is empirically false.

[Anonymous No.10165754]

>>10164635
>Particles have a measure of will,
just what exactly causes atoms to bond? some sort of mutual understanding of better energy levels in their electron shells? WTF they wanna kick it together

[Anonymous No.10165768]

CS Peirce worked out the logic of what consciousness is, better than anyone since, over 100 years ago. What we really need is theories about the more minute details. I think that people like Terrence Deacon are off to a good start. I think people trying to explain consciousness with networks are off on a wrong foot, at least not on to something of primary importance. Physicists need to stop infecting the life sciences with their autism.

[Anonymous No.10166089]

>>10165733
I can’t even describe to you in words how much I pity you. such fear of materialism that you turn to a study that is as scientific as deepak chopra and you rationalize it with the entire force of your mental capacity to the extent where you don’t see how *you* are indeed the one who is subjected to delusion and bias.

[Anonymous No.10166150]

>>10165733
If a brain isnt dead then its active. its been demonstrated that people in nonresponsive vegetative states can even be conscious enough to remember things theyve heard or even take part in experiments. And you cant demonstrate a brain is inactive in cardiac arrest.

those articles are trash.

[Anonymous No.10167005]

>>10166089

This post is not an actual argument, but only a crude caricature of an irrelevant and false ad hominem.

>>10166150

>If a brain isnt dead then its active.

So blood flow and pressure is not necessary for electrophysiological activity in the cerebral cortex? Stop the presses, this discovery will revolutionize neuroscience and indeed all of biology itself!

>its been demonstrated that people in nonresponsive vegetative states can even be conscious enough to remember things theyve heard or even take part in experiments.

But that is a very different neurophysiological state than cardiac arrest. Learn some basic neuroscience,, please.

Cardiac arrest = no blood flow and no blood pressure.

Nonresponsive vegetative state = blood flow and blood pressure.

Also, it is worth keeping in mind that you can't "study" by listening to someone speak when you are sleeping, this is something that every college student has learned the hard way. And yet you think that you can observe your surroundings in a physiological state in which your brain is vastly more offline in than during sleep?

Get real.

>And you cant demonstrate a brain is inactive in cardiac arrest.

I already have. To to the AWARE study linked here>>10165633, check out sources 17-21. There are some sources for that claim.

>those articles are trash.

Guessing time! Where in this pyramid of pic related are you finding yourself? :D

[Anonymous No.10167152]

>>10164217
I solved consciousness when I was three years. I realized it is my senses that operates within. Towards me now at this moment. And that's all to it. Science cannot disprove it either so why bother get stuck at what's more all the time. There is nothing more. Consciousness is what you really are. Just don't feel bad about it. If you struggle with existence then why bother. Your just another stuck induvidual trying to escape reality because ur mother didn't play you good as child and ur father was a drunken idiot that didn't like you. Idiot

[Anonymous No.10167164]

Better question; Why do ants appear to be passing the mirror test?

https://youtu.be/v4uwaw_5Q3I

[Anonymous No.10167204]

>>10164217
It has tried! Integrated information theory, and stuff.

[Anonymous No.10167264]

Your consciousness is just your brains advanced planning and pattern matching module. Allowing for information to be gathered without directly witnessing/experiencing it. This module works along side other modules to keep you alive, like whatever keeps your organs running and sensory processors. Your sensory processors and memory feed it information, but it's basically in a Truman Show type situation.

[Anonymous No.10167268]

>>10165624
Nice circular reasoning idiot.
>where is consciousness?
>shoot head, consciousness disappears, must be in head
>how do you know it disappears?
>because the head is gone

[Anonymous No.10167270]

>>10167152
If you take acid you realize your senses are making shit up a lot of the time to fill in blanks. Your senses operate outside your consciousness, filtering everything they pick up before sending you an altered version with things it deemed insignificant tuned out.

Think of how you hear your name in a crowd, or can hold a conversation in a crowd. That is processing that happens before "you" hear it.

[Anonymous No.10167278]

>>10167164

Because the mirror test isn't a good test. Not all animals are bred to identify sight as their primary sense organ. Not all animals have clear signs if they "understand" that they are seeing themselves in the mirror. There is also no clear way of telling if the animal in question is even freaking out about its reflection or just the mirror itself, since animals will eventually see their own reflection in clear pools of water; do they just see the mirror as a weird magical human floating screen of frozen water that isn't cold?

Simply put, consciousness does not require some kind of higher level of being or intelligence to have. The dumbest, shittiest animal or creature could be consciousness and we would neither have any way of knowing nor could we say it wasn't simply because it wasn't intelligent.

By process of occam's razor, consciousness is easily explained by a nervous system. The ability of an organism to sense its environment is what consciousness is, it's a self emergent property. To believe that humans and only (a select few, usually the "cute" and humanizable ones) upper mammals and/or birds are "self aware" is just special pleading. There is no reason to assume any living creature that has the exact same mental pathways, the same evolutionary pressures, and the same physical universe they inhabit are suddenly not conscious because of the viewer's need to feel "special".

>Humans are not special.
>All living creatures, at the very least with a central nervous system, and possibly more without, are conscious entities.
>Machines and computer programs are also very likely conscious, just in a shittier, limited sort of way
>None of this implies these beings necessarily have the ability to philosophize about their existence or deserve special treatment because of it

Search your heart. You know it to be true.

[Anonymous No.10167297]

>>10167164
Ants are mindless creatures that have a handful of actions that they perform based on their job. There's no reason to assume that an ant would visually react to another ant of the same type, as recognizing an identical ant is not relevant to their job. They visually identify food, and navigate/communicate through smell.

They are like a depth first search algorithm in animal form.

[Anonymous No.10167354]

>>10164752
Prove it

[Anonymous No.10167359]

>>10165565
No u

[Anonymous No.10167422]

>>10167268
Dude you’re fucking mental

[Anonymous No.10167439]

>>10167422
You cant make a proof with that logic, you use the assumption to confirm that same assumption. Like the consciousness is obviously in the brain, I'm not tying to say otherwise, but your logic is not sound.

[Anonymous No.10167445]

>>10167439
>I want to go on 4chan
>shoot computer with shotgun
>why cant i 4chan );

[Anonymous No.10167550]

>>10167005
it is necessary for activity but neurons dont instantly stop working and the brain doesnt instantly go inactive and a study even said brain activity initially increases.

the sleep thing i dont quite understand. sleep is also completely different to vegetative states in that sleeping people cant respond or perceive the outside world in the same way. in studies about nde you also account for the extremely poor control and the statistics of verifiable recall and perhaps other mental phenomena like memory schemas.


And also why are you quoting a study written by people on my side of the argument...

also stop with the stupid pyramids. you say its not an argument but youre still using it as a tool and dont depend your better than anyone else in having similar sorts of biases in your own views.

[Anonymous No.10167563]

>>10167270
>if you take drugs
Argument discarded

[Anonymous No.10167570]

>>10164217
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YsjrA87Cno

[Anonymous No.10167587]

There is no non-illusionary consciousness, there is no free will. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.10167604]

>>10167587
Its probably not an illusion exactly
I see consciousness as a low resolution simulation of nature which is as real as it gets other than death for us.

[Anonymous No.10167629]

>>10167604
The simulation is the second layer input generated from your sensory input. The illusion is that which receives it.

[Anonymous No.10167637]

>>10167629
illusion of what?

[Anonymous No.10167642]

>>10167637
Free will. You're a 'fully automated' system of input and output but that is not your experience at all.
You live in advanced deception.

[Anonymous No.10167675]

>>10167642
but then i dont think that part differs from the simulation. its part of it. you are sensory inputs from your body, behaviours and internal states. "you" is just a simulation of your physical body and your free will is just a simulation of what your specific body should do to fulfil what it is evolutionarily programmed to do (e.g. survive, reproduce, social interaction).

i think we can never experiemce ourselves as input - output automatum purely in the same sense that a simulation doesnt contain information about the machinery behind it. you cant (idealy) play a videogame and directly infer the software or hardware that produces it. youre just watching the screen. youre there to drive the virtual car, not to know how its made.

[Anonymous No.10167812]

>>10167675
you can "experience" if that makes sense
I had what I refer to as a short psychotic break caused by stress where I experienced myself as an observer locked inside a film running without me influencing it

[Anonymous No.10168223]

>>10167812
what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.10168344]

>>10168223
I didn’t have control over what I was doing, what I was saying and thinking, I was just observing.

[Anonymous No.10168846]

>>10164303
>no inner voice
>less mindful

Its the opposite actually. What do you think meditation and mindfulness meditation is all about? Trying to become mindful by engaging the inner voice? No, you become mindful by silencing and ignoring it and paying attention to it/your thoughts/emotions/judgements/sensations/present moment without the added judgement and analysis of the inner voice and monologue, pure experience and pure awareness is mindfulness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608430/

[Anonymous No.10169026]

Does it bother anyone else that you only get to experience one life from your first person perspective?

Like you get to wonder how someone born to billionaire parents or good looking or highly intelligent or creative or whatever you wish you were must feel yet they take it for granted since that's all they know.

[Anonymous No.10169642]

>>10168846
i suspect youre both using inner voice and mindful in different senses of the words

[Anonymous No.10169660]

>>10168344
i feel like thats when the machinery behind the simulation of free will breaks down.
happens in schizophrenia it is thought. they lose a sense of agency because they cannot attribute their own feelings or even actions to themselves and thoughts and this becomes so pervasive they think an outside force is influencing their actions. quite a common phenomena.
the rubber hand illusion is the inverse when an experimenter can trick you into attributing your sensations from the actions done to a rubberhand so much so you get the feeling the hand is actually yours.

[Anonymous No.10169668]

>>10167563
>take substance that altars brain chemistry
>notice brain is acting weird
wow who would have thought

[Anonymous No.10169670]

It’s just computation in the brain. This was solved so long ago.

[Anonymous No.10169674]

According to neuroscience, we are a highly and deeply orchestrated symphony of quintillions of different interrelated chemical reactions per second.

There are probably over 10 quintillion neuroreceptors in the brain distributed across 500 trillion synapses connecting 100 billion neurons. Each neuroreceptor undergoes possibly 100 chemical reactions per second in which it collides with a signaling molecule and reacts in some way. These also aren't your usual chemical reactions like you learn in chemistry in which molecules recombine to form new molecules. These are electrostatic interactions in which 3D molecules collide with each other like gears, causing "switches" to open and close. The molecules do not typically bond with each other, but they electrically "stick" to each other for a few milliseconds, causing microscopic 3D shape changes that allow atoms to pass through small openings, for example.

If you put all this together, there are probably over 1 sextillion (1 with 21 zeros) separate individual chemical reactions happening in the brain each second, driving a giant electromechanical information switching network that creates our conscious awareness from molecular building blocks

[Anonymous No.10169704]

>>10169670
>the hard problem of consciousness was solved so long ago

wow, someone notify the philosophers, neuroscientists, and they apparently didint get the memo

[Anonymous No.10169780]

>>10169704
>It's just manifestations in the consciousness field similar to how electrons are just fluctuations in the electromagnetic field

[Anonymous No.10169944]

This thread might as well be conjecture.

Considering the double slit experiment, from my very basic and cursory knowledge of it, it seems that we exist to observe, or at the very least observation somehow propels reality.

[Anonymous No.10169955]

>>10169944
Why?
The brain simulates an observer because human beings are very complex and we need a certain overarching managing unit that is supposed to orchestrate a big spectrum of the brain activity efficiently.
This simulated observer depends on the complex structure of the brain to exist, so how can particles observe in the human sense?

[Anonymous No.10169970]

>>10164217
Suggest you read the book "Consciousness Explained" by Dennett and get back to us when you have the first clue what you are talking about.

At one level consciousness is just the self-awareness that is needed to think about yourself in relation to the world.

The other aspect is that we need to be able to think about our feelings sensations and emotions so our brain has to fool us into thinking these are real things.

Also we need to put great value on ourselves, thing our personal survival matters etc, so we have the false belief our 'qualia' etc are something special, which they are not. It is delusion.l

[Anonymous No.10170011]

>>10164272
>your brain obviously stores all the information about your self that affect your personality and etc, but I don't think that it could be capable of generating a sense of experiencing the world.

I think the sense of experiencing is sort of like RAM, like on a computer, which never gets turned off. Except when you die.

[Anonymous No.10170013]

>>10167550

>the brain doesnt instantly go inactive

[citation needed]

>a study even said brain activity initially increases.

[citation needed]

>in studies about nde you also account for the extremely poor control and the statistics of verifiable recall and perhaps other mental phenomena like memory schemas.

Huh?

>And also why are you quoting a study written by people on my side of the argument...

Hilarious, how is the AWARE study "on your side of the argument?"

[Anonymous No.10170019]

>>10169970

>it's just an illusion bruh, don't you get it materialism dude it's so obvious xD

Yes, we were all 15 once and had just discovered science.

[Anonymous No.10170282]

>>10169944
in quantum mechanics i believe observer isnt the same as observe in colloquial speech. though obviously its in the context of our observation via experiment i believe it can refer to any kind of interaction in nature. nothing to do with consciousness or sentience.

[Anonymous No.10170288]

>>10170013
Dude please go do your studies and stop bothering us with your propoganda

You are the equivalent of reading an article about how weed cures cancer and than vomiting this misinformation in every opportunity you get

[Anonymous No.10170313]

>>10169970
how are sensations not real?

[Anonymous No.10170337]

>>10164217
It's been proven that the thing you experience as "I" is an illusion taking the backseat, and is just an emergent property of the seemingly complex interactions of small biological programs intertwined together. A doctor reading MRI and EEG can tell which choice you take before the you has the answer. If you are tasked to record the time of your decision, the answer has already been written down in the other room where a professional is evaluating the experiment.
It still doesn't answer the question of consciousness, but it's a small step towards the 100 billion neurons connected with trillions of synaptic pathways. Human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe so far after all.

[Anonymous No.10170340]

>>10170013
the aware studies no where states any support for your views and looks at psycho/physiological experience. in general what we know about the world and brain does not support ideas about the soul and materialism is the most concise and simplest view of it. in light of that, its far more likely that nde will be explained away through advances in our knowledge of the brain and cardiac arrest events than through souls and what not.

[Anonymous No.10170386]

>>10167270

so when you introduce brain intoxicants that simulate the stuff that provides energy and other fundamental neurochemicals, you trick your senses. how does that refute that our experience of consciousness is primarily based on the senses?

internal body sense/a sensation of loci within the body somewhere is still a sense.

[Anonymous No.10170408]

>>10167268
>>10167439
>>10164812
>If you shoot a radio the signal disappears completely.

No the signal comes from somewhere else as does the means to spawn you sorry ass into existence.

[Anonymous No.10170413]

>>10170408
This.

>However, this conclusion is not based on the evidence alone. There is an implicit, unstated assumption behind this argument, and it is often unconsciously employed. The hidden premise behind this argument can be illustrated with the analogy of listening to music on a radio, smashing the radio’s receiver, and thereby concluding that the radio was producing the music. The implicit assumption made in all the arguments discussed
above was that the relationship between brain activity and consciousness was always one of cause to effect, and never that of effect to cause. But this assumption is not known to be true, and it is not the only conceivable one consistent with the observed facts mentioned earlier. Just as consistent with the observed facts is the idea that the brain’s function is that of an intermediary between mind and body – or in other words, that the brain’s function is that of a receiver-transmitter – sometimes from body to mind, and sometimes from mind to body.

[Anonymous No.10170417]

>>10164217
>the question of consciousness
You're going to need to be more specific.

[Anonymous No.10170423]

>>10170413
>>10170408
but nothing about the brain or consciousness suggests a need for this extraneous signal. theres no evidence for one and brain can plausibly function without one whereas a radio cannot.

a problem with these views is you dont have any other plausible theory of consciousness to back yourself up scientifically. how can you expect anyone to take it seriously.

no theories are proven beyond doubt and most are superseded. nonetheless some are more plausible than others.

>>10170413

[Anonymous No.10170435]

>>10170423
>but nothing about the brain or consciousness suggests a need for this extraneous signal.

Sight, Touch, hearing, taste, smell are not extraneous nor is the sun, which is the only reason the earth doesn't sublimate into nothing. It's almost as if it's sending earth some kind of signal or pressure mediation to keep it churning into the form it has.

>theres no evidence for one and brain can plausibly function without one whereas a radio cannot.

That's not an argument and a radio *can* function, just as a human *can* function without a *signal*. To that I can still compare the two because both still posses enough coherency in the circuitry in order to *be powered*. But a human in the coma is the same as a radio without a signal (or a weak signal). They function but there is no inputs or outputs.

[Anonymous No.10170626]

>>10170435

first paragraph has no relevance to the argument. you cant compare sensory inputs to the spirit.

when i said a radio cant function i should have specifically said cant play music just like in the quoted paragraph. lets forget the analogies though. unless you define it precisely they are hugely interpretive that just leads to people arguing in circles. i could criticise the coma or ask what "*be powered*" means but what would that do if its only an analogy.

regardless of radio theres no empirical reason i see to suppose this signal theory which also seems to be completely vague and unspecified. Materialistic explanations are far simpler.

[Anonymous No.10170939]

>>10170626
>first paragraph has no relevance to the argument. you cant compare sensory inputs to the spirit.
No sun (no signal), no earth(motion to condense into "matter"). Does that clarify things for you?

>Materialistic explanations are far simpler.

No they aren't because consciousnesses isn't quantifiable in the first place, this thread is proof of that. You cannot point to a specific part of the human and say "this is consciousness". You might say "the consciousness is located in the brain", but again there's no empirical evidence as such. That's why I see it as a more proper way to define consciousness, because a "signal" is also not a thing either. It's an action. An action causes you to be "conscious", material is how your consciousness is expressed.

[Anonymous No.10170944]

>>10170313
The assumptions are not objectively real, they are real only to your relation within the world. You matter to yourself because you think about yourself.

[Anonymous No.10171008]

>>10164217
There is part of brain, which when you electroshock, people go unconscious, it was discovered by accident.

[Anonymous No.10171044]

>>10170939
You are fucking ridiculous
Here are formal definitions agree to them if you want to use them
Consciousness - awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact: intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self

Signal - A signal is a physical quantity that varies with time, space, or any other independent variable by which information can be conveyed

Now not only are you saying that consciousness is not quantifiable and than postulates that it is a signal, which if you had any brains at all you’d know requires to be measured in order to be considered as such.

So for the last time, shut the fuck up, and get the fuck out of here, we DON’T want you here.

[Anonymous No.10171051]

>>10171044
Oh I forgot the part where I tell you how consciousness is not a scientific term but rather a description of a psychological phenomena and therefore can only reside in the brain

[Samefag No.10171095]

>>10171044
Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous No.10171097]

>>10164217
Retard, fucking retard. Just because YOU are unaware of efforts to solve the problem, doesn't mean efforts aren't being made. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Anonymous No.10171105]

>>10171095
We don’t want you here either

[Anonymous No.10171165]

>>10171044
>Consciousness - awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact: intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self.
Yeah, now quantify it. Give me a formula or an explanation as to what causes it.

>Signal - A signal is a physical quantity that varies with time, space, or any other independent variable by which information can be conveyed

Lol what. Your definition is word salad. "A physical quantity" of what, moron? Of change? Of information? Yeah it's the transfer of information BY MEANS OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS QUANTIFIABLE (like a gesture, action, electrical impulse). Not an actual "thing" that can be quantified.

>Now not only are you saying that consciousness is not quantifiable and than postulates that it is a signal, which if you had any brains at all you’d know requires to be measured in order to be considered as such.
It has to be measured in order for it to exist? No no, you got that backwards. It exists and then it is measured. Also it is not a "signal", it would be an antenna. You signal something, it's an action. Or you "send a signal", in which it is a noun which still needs more descriptions (what kind of signal are you sending). Since you have to clarify what type of signal you're sending, simply using "signal" as a noun doesn't mean jack shit since there are a spectrum of types of signals. AKA "it cannot be quantified".
Much how the human consciousness is on a spectrum. What happens when you sleep? You are obviously "less conscious" then when you are awake, or at the very least in a different state of consciousness.

>>10171051
>Oh I forgot the part where I tell you how consciousness is not a scientific term but rather a description of a psychological phenomena and therefore can only reside in the brain
>phenomena
So it exists then. What is the point of this post?

[Anonymous No.10171200]

>>10171165
I give up
Think your shitty thoughts and spit your misinformation
I just don’t care anymore

[Anonymous No.10171363]

>>10170939
i knew what you meant but it has nothing to do with consciousness.

Consciousness is just as unquantifiable for you as for me so how does that tip the scales in terms of materialistic ideas being less simple?
Theres no evidence consciousness is anywhere or anything else and i still think you cant say theres no empirical evidence consciousness is brain-based. the evidence is ubiquitious in science, medicine and everyday life. you could say theres no definitive proof but no theory can be proven.


>That's why I see it as a more proper way to define consciousness, because a "signal" is also not a thing either. It's an action. An action causes you to be "conscious", material is how your consciousness is expressed.

i dont understand this part at all.

[Anonymous No.10171377]

>>10170944
if sensations are brain patterns then are they not real?

[zenon No.10171884]

>>10164217
>i'm just going to paste this is in for some of you people to think about.
some think ignorance is bliss, and others dissagree
but ignorance is what binds us to our mistakes, our misfortunes. It holds us back in some ways yet does give us bliss in others
and you could say the same in understanding
however you have to stay rational and true to what we as humans know, and that is how life is short, some learn at a young age, others at an old.
but that ultimately determines how we see the world and the value of existing
ignore any problems you have and think about how bad it would be to be eternally numb in the concept of death, life gives us free will, thought and purpose, even if we don't know our purpose it will come to you one day.
>also Philosophy (existentialism) is the study of this matter if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.10172004]

>>10171377
They are real but this is about your subjective experience of those sensations. The world you see and experience is not real, it is a world modulated by the capabilities of your brain to optimize for throwing rocks and harpoon points on the savannah.

[Anonymous No.10172015]

>>10170340
Interestingly people who have had NDE in operating theater can sometimes recall what was happening in the room and go into detail of events that would be out of question, given the states of their consciousness and inability to form new memories at the moment. The same states of consciousness can be induced by meditative practices and psychedelics, so there is leeway in their material explanation still.

[Anonymous No.10172080]

>>10164347
Haha I can understand what he's saying, but it definitely wasn't articulated very clearly.
He's implying you actually did indeed know the answer to the question you're asking, and are cheekily attacking the authenticity of the question itself by asking.
I think he low key knows you were genuinely asking, and was throwing a back handed insult to your intelligence by implying it was reasonable to assume you should already know.

[Samefag No.10172102]

>>10171165
>less
Maybe just conscious of things you don't process consciously while awake, like your conciousness

[Anonymous No.10172120]

>>10169026
I am highly intelligent and creative and I don't take it for granted. I won a lottery and I am very, very thankful for that. It makes me happy in indescribable way that I can read Huxley's The Doors of Perception in another language and understand his ideas and that I am free to do so, that I am very tall and white, and not some malnourished illiterate boy in Africa.
I am very thankful that I am healthy and cherish it daily as well. The emotion you are experiencing is called onism.

[Anonymous No.10172764]

>>10172004
they are constructed but constructed from patterns derived in the world. and i think just because they are constructed doesnt mean they dont match to reality.

in that sense i dont think your brain has to fool itself.

[Anonymous No.10172921]

>>10172764
To support your argument
Look at this image
What is more likely?
That we construct a simulation that is unrelated to any *real* natural world and by chance it almost matches exactly the way molecules actually are when we take an image of them and relate them to our models?
Or is it more likely that our models are based on the actual way reality manifest itself without us and we simply get a low resolution simulation of that actual reality?

Obviously it’s the second option without a doubt

[Anonymous No.10173181]

>>10167563
It's unscientific to exclude altered states of consciousness from the discussion of consciousness as a whole just because "hurr durr drugs r bad n change ur brainn".

>>10164217
Research shows that acid mimics similar processes that occur naturally in the brain during certain deep meditative states. One major similarity is a decrease in blood flow to the Default Mode Network which is associated with the sense of self, thoughts and ideas about ones self, and various other internal monologue based activities.
Whether you want to believe the spiritual side to it or not, people who dedicate their lives to mediation practice have been having consistent experiences with this loss of self identification for centuries.
There's something to be said about acids effect on brain chemistry and the users experience because it provides a secondary path, a shortcut if you will, to experiencing what decades of consistent meditation can do for you naturally.

In terms of the experience,
Ask any monk and they'll tell you there is no "self" that is conscious. They claim that this idea of the self stems from mistakenly identifying consciousness with our internal dialog. Consciousness can be experienced in a much broader and less limiting way that's entirely separate from "self".

Granted it's easy to dismiss these accounts as there's no way of verifying exactly how these people are experiencing consciousness because any data you collect is based on a subjective experience and often has a spiritual bias, but mediation is an old practice and reports of these experiences tend to hold similar throughout time...... or, you can just drop acid and find out for yourself.

[Anonymous No.10173217]

>>10164217
Because the solution is that consciousness is everywhere and not bounded by biological or physical systems. Its solution will annihilate Marxist scientistic materalism.

[Anonymous No.10173229]

Parapsychology solved it, but the answer was too groundbreaking, so we're waiting for materialist brainlets to catch up.

[Anonymous No.10173233]

>>10164217
Why is it a question with some final resolved state? It is a process.

Are you asking why nobody has been able to scientifically define it in the western academia sense?

[Anonymous No.10173277]

>>10170019
>just discovered science

> asks why science hasn't worked on the question

> gets annoyed when someone points out they did that

[Anonymous No.10173280]

>>10170313

> how are sensations not real

They are real. In the sense that they are real patterns in the brain.

But not in the sense that there is some magic fairy dust in the brain.

[Anonymous No.10173283]

>>10173181
I have no problem with the idea of the self being simulated in the brain and affected by psychedelics or meditation
I think there is interesting research to be done
And consciousness as well
But if you use it to excuse your childish esoteric notions I’m going to view you as deplorable in that sense

[Anonymous No.10173316]

Why can't amerifags get what consciousness is. It's not that fucking hard. Do you consciously make a problem for everything that exists?

You see? There i solved to flies in on swing. Consciousness and existence.

/thread next please let this consciousness shit be done. And metapysics. Jeeze.

Philosophy was done with this 2500 years ago. Science is part of philosophy an undercathegory.

Now you don't need to fucking question that anymore either.

Hmm. What more can i say or should. It's wisdom guys. The answer is wisdom. You know what i mean when you know what i mean. One day.

[Anonymous No.10173328]

>>10164217
What is the field of neuroscience doing then?

[Anonymous No.10173331]

>>10173316
Wittgenstein was an embarrassing idiot.

[Anonymous No.10173349]

>>10173316
Oh man
Here we go again
It’s like science vs feelings the thread

[Anonymous No.10173394]

>>10173181
there may have been a strong association of psychedelics and meditation since the 50s but using brain imaging to support it is not without caution. brain network activity can be associated with loads of things and fmri isnt very good at telling you why brain activity changes are happening.

and my friend met a monk who told them they could levitate. some practises may give genuine insights into the mind but i wouldnt just take it from a monk who lives their life in the confines of a socially constructed doctrine.

on my intuition i doubt monk experiences are similar to drug experiences and they would probably chastise you for talking about it that way.


> They claim that this idea of the self stems from mistakenly identifying consciousness with our internal dialog...
do they?

[Anonymous No.10173427]

>>10173181
youve got such a naive view of this whole issue. theres no evidence that psychedelics and meditation are similar.

[Anonymous No.10173525]

>>10164217
I'll tell you why, though don't be shocked if it makes you want to toss yourself off of a bridge. You see, science cannot attempt to solve the question of consciousness because it will ultimately reach the conclusion that, despite our preconceived notions, everything has consciousness. There is no middle ground; even earthworms have consciousness. Furthermore, our shit and piss and blood and cum and snot and tears and sweat and that crusty stuff in your eye every morning and puss and saliva has consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10173534]

>>10173525
science cannot and will not come to that conclusion. consciousness is a restricted human concept which at a stretch can be hypothesized in other animals. beyond that, no.

[Anonymous No.10173537]

>>10173525
I don’t understand how this baseless crazy idea
Is so common
This is so strange

[Anonymous No.10173538]

>>10167164

[Anonymous No.10173612]

>>10173537
Probably some indian religion or something similar, otherwise I cannot explain this many idiots around such a specific topic.

[Anonymous No.10173734]

>>10173612
I dunno man
I never saw an Indian man describe his cum and shit as conscious
But than again most Indians I met are pretty dumb so it’s possible

[Anonymous No.10173955]

>>10173734
its called panconsciousism

[Anonymous No.10175294]

>>10173181
>They claim that this idea of the self stems from mistakenly identifying consciousness with our internal dialog.

Oh yeah then what about people like me who for a long time had no internal dialogue/monologue yet very clearly had a sense of self? And yet still there are those who continue to experience no internal dialog yet clearly have a sense of self. This sounds like bullshit to me, and its the fallacy of assuming everyone's inner cognition is the same, it is not that simple in reality.