[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 243 KB, 640x360, David Chalmers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10218239 No.10218239 [Reply] [Original]

Would a mathematical theory of consciousness be the greatest scientific discovery of all time?

>> No.10218252

>Would a mathematical theory of consciousness be the greatest scientific discovery of all time?
define "consciousness"

>> No.10218256

Did Chalmers always look like Quicksilver?

>> No.10218260

>>10218239
building a machine with a conscious would be

>> No.10218272

>>10218252
Define 'define "consciousness"'

>> No.10218277

>>10218272
To give a definition of consciousness.

>> No.10218296

>>10218239
No one except the discoverers and maybe a handful of people would give the slightest of fugs.

>> No.10218298

There is a machine with consciousness and it’s you in that space suit you call a body.

>> No.10218300

Got a BA in math and philosophy. The answer is no. Philosophy will never do anything that anyone cares about and math is a meme

>> No.10218302

Consciousness, just like Bohr's atom model or other scientific theories are just incomplete descriptions of experienced (sometimes indirect through measurements) phenomenons. They help us making statements and making helpful predictions. Their incompleteness is not a fatal flaw. One has simply to acknowledge it's boundaries. Such as Bohr's Model is actually really crude, but helpful for a good portion of phenomenons.
I argue that "consciousness" is just a model as well. It's no (absolute) "truth", since it's hard to prove or disprove it's fundamental existence without starting to use questionable metaphysical arguments. Still, it helps explaining phenomenons like "I can choose between things" and "I experience the world".
I'm convinced that describing consciousness mathematically is "easy", but only at first glance. If we could have a complete map of the brain + the body including electrical properties etc., we could simulate consciousness. But there are so many atoms in just one person, that the sheer mass of data would murder this way of doing stuff.
In my opinion, no, a mathematical theory of consciousness would not be the greatest scientific discovery. We would try to discover a reality we projected by trying to understand some questions with very few data and experiences. Instead, one should look for answers to proper questions: What is the process of choosing? What is the cause for our world view, which is a subset of what our sensors (eyes, ears etc.) deliver to our brain, to be the way it is and not differently? Those questions are much more fruitful and "satisfying to answer" than a "theory of consciousness", because even after this wall of text nobody can really say: dafuq is consciousness in the first place?

>> No.10218447

>>10218302
So I'm just gonna tack you under 'no'
Next time just do like this guy >>10218300

>> No.10218471

>>10218302
good post

>> No.10218472

>>10218302
So you seek further terminology in hopes THAT will lead to the definitive answer?

>> No.10218678

>implying objectivity can ever give an account of subjectivity

>> No.10218982

>>10218239
Chris Langan's already got it with the ctmu.

>> No.10218998

>>10218239
It can't be because it is wholly beyond the scientific
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Eternal_return

>> No.10219004

>>10218302
We can already "simulate" consciousness. Fuck your girlfriend while she is off birth control and you can generate a new consciousness. It will not help you to understand its nature.

>> No.10219015

>>10218239
only if it's understandable for human beings, which it likely isn't given how many variables will probably be involved

>> No.10219023

>>10219015
This. It's the same as with AI. The AI we already have now is already not comprehensible to human beings.

>> No.10219229

>>10218277
define definition

>> No.10219536

>>10218239

No.

Analogy:
Turing Machine - Occam's razor is applicable, has few and simple rules. Can be written in mathematical expressions. Can compute everything.
Operating System - Occam's razor is not applicable, complicated as fuck. Cannot be written in mathematical expressions. Linux for example, has 30 million lines of code (LOC).

Universe - Occam's razor is applicable, has few and simple laws/axioms. Can be written in mathematical expressions. Can compute everything.
Consciousness - Occam's razor is not applicable, complicated as fuck. Cannot be written in mathematical expressions. We don't even know how many millions of LOC it would take to simulate a human brain.

>> No.10219550

>>10219536
I mean you can't create a mathematical theory of consciousness in the first place.

>> No.10220594
File: 55 KB, 1280x720, giulio tononi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10220594

>>10219550
>blocks your path

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

>> No.10220635

Can you derive consciousness from E8 lattice?

>> No.10221010

>>10220594
everyone, stop, collaborate and listen

CoNEctOmE SpeCiFic HaRmOnIC WaVeS

https://opentheory.net/2018/06/seed-ontologies/

there, I said it

>> No.10222602

>>10221010
IIT is obviously on the right track.

>> No.10223933
File: 90 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10223933

>>10218256
Only since cutting his hair.

>> No.10223948

>>10219004
Maybe it would though anon