Article of the Decade

[Anonymous No.11314470]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/

Do not despair /sci/entists. There remains a great many things yet to be discovered. But when they are, they will be conscripted into the realm of the scientific, just as has been done since time immemorial.

[Anonymous No.11314477]

philosophy and metaphysics isn't science

[Anonymous No.11314486]

>>11314470
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/
define "consciousness"

[Anonymous No.11314488]

>>11314470
This is really obvious.

[Anonymous No.11314514]

Define "consciousness".

[Anonymous No.11314520]

>define consciousness
this is what we are trying to do
and succeeding

[Anonymous No.11314542]

>>11314470
Daniel Dennett asked a simple but interesting question in regards to panpsychism: What's the difference between an electron that's conscious and an electron that isn't? If adding consciousness to the description of matter doesn't add anything to our understanding of its behavior, what value does it have to regard matter as conscious? I think the hard problem of consciousness is the great open problem in our understanding of the nature, but panpsychism seems to be an arbitrary attempt to reconcile the existence of consciousness with our materialist worldview.

[Anonymous No.11314546]

>>11314542
Electrons aren't conscious. Daniel is a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11314560]

>>11314520
Definitions are arbitrary. You don't "try" to define something, you just do it. You can't test if a definition is correct, because that's not how definitions work.

[Anonymous No.11314562]

consciousness is memory, no metaphysics needed.

[Anonymous No.11314579]

>>11314562
Wow. You just solved a thousands year old problem in 2 seconds on an image board.

[Anonymous No.11314586]

>>11314542
The non-problem of consciousness is self-refuting. Ideas do not come from nothing; something sparks their creation. The existence of a hidden quality would not be able to spark the idea of hidden qualities, therefore any claims of hidden qualities are baseless.

[Anonymous No.11314588]

>>11314579
philosophy problems aren't real probelms.

[Anonymous No.11314612]

The fact that so many anons disregard the fundamental discrepancy between the existence of consciousness and our materialist
(or physicalist) descriptionn of nature leads me to believe they don't know what consciousness is because they are actual NPCs. They actually say things like "consciousness is just neurons firing", which is exactly what a robot with no subjective inner experience would say.

[Anonymous No.11314615]

>>11314612
Your subjective inner experience is just neurons firing.

[Anonymous No.11314625]

>>11314612
Define "consciousness".

[Anonymous No.11314628]

>>11314612
imagine thinking your
>everybody who denies consciousness is magic is a zombie
take is original

[Anonymous No.11314629]

>>11314615
Lmao point confirmed. I know you're an NPC and you've never experienced this, but the perception of the color red is quite different from neurons firing.

[Anonymous No.11314630]

>>11314629
Proof?

[Anonymous No.11314633]

>>11314630
As a non-NPC, when I see the color red, I don't see neurons firing. What I see is indescribable, I can't describe it to an NPC, but it is not neurons firing.

[Anonymous No.11314640]

>>11314633
Are you claiming that manipulating your neurons would not affect your perception?

[Anonymous No.11314644]

>>11314640
I'm not. The neurons firing give rise to conscious perception, but the neurons firing are not the perceptions themselves.

[Anonymous No.11314650]

>>11314644
Why not?

[Anonymous No.11314661]

>>11314650
Because I don't see neurons firing when I see the color red.

[Anonymous No.11314674]

>>11314661
Human communication limits are not evidence of qualia.

[Anonymous No.11314682]

>>11314674
Agreed. Only subjective experience is evidence of qualia, so I can't debate the nature of qualia with an NPC who lacks subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.11314690]

>>11314682
Clearly subjective experience is a negative quality if all it does is make you waste your time on asserting its existence.

[Anonymous No.11314699]

>>11314661
But your neurons are firing and it could be seen if you had an EEG.
Why would you see neurons firing when the point of the organs is to take in and translate external stimulus?
Not being aware of the individual states of every node of a complex system while looking at the outputs does not mean that system has some sort metaphysical component.

[Anonymous No.11314701]

>>11314674
asking for evidence of qualia is good evidence you should avoid thinking too hard about philosophy

[Anonymous No.11314709]

>>11314699
Can you describe the output of the system in physical terms?

[Anonymous No.11314723]

>>11314699
I'm not claiming neurons aren't firing or that neurons don't give rise to conscious experience. I'm claiming that neurons firing is not conscious experience itself. It's a simple truism that should be self-evident to anyone who is conscious, but it's like pulling teeth trying to get materialists to admit it.

[Anonymous No.11314728]

>>11314709
A sense of spacial awareness and color.

>>11314723
>I'm claiming that neurons firing is not conscious experience itself.
Depends on how many neurons are firing.

[Anonymous No.11314739]

>>11314470
Consciousness isn't a big deal, but /x/trannies make one out of it

[Anonymous No.11314753]

>>11314728
Can you describe color in physical terms?
(hint: the perception of color is not a mathematical or qualitative description of EM waves)

[Anonymous No.11314786]

>>11314753
>Can you describe color in physical terms?
The state that the visual portion of the brain is in when the eyes are exposed to the proper wavelength of light

[Anonymous No.11314819]

>>11314786
So when you look at an apple, you see "The state that the visual portion of the brain is in when the eyes are exposed to the proper wavelength of light"?

[Anonymous No.11314829]

>>11314819
Yes because it reflects those wavelengths.

[Anonymous No.11314832]

>>11314819
Looking at an apple causes the brain to form the state mentioned above yes.

[Anonymous No.11314837]

>>11314829
Wow. That's pretty amazing. You should become a neuroscientist with your ability to introspect the state of your own brain. I genuinely hope you publish some papers on your findings from that.

[Anonymous No.11314844]

>>11314837
It's almost like you can't imagine the color red without being exposed to it.

[Anonymous No.11314850]

>>11314837
Thanks for btfoing these stupid metamaterialist motherfuckers. People like you will bring about the rebirth of science.

[Anonymous No.11314859]

>>11314844
No, that's just x-tier woo.

[Anonymous No.11314860]

>>11314850
>stupid metamaterialist
I'm a pure materialist not a metamaterialist but you're too stupid to know the difference.

[Anonymous No.11314861]

>>11314860
Maybe you are too stupid to aknowledge the identity

[Anonymous No.11314864]

>>11314859
Anon...I

[Anonymous No.11316534]

>>11314786
Is the state of seeing red through the eyes and seeing red in a dream the same state?

[Anonymous No.11317299]

>>11314612
Isn't this like saying that those who experience transcranial magnetic stimulation to create the subjective experience of god getting self-righteous about their induced state and assuming that their subjective experience trumps the actual truth that just a particular piece of their brain is being electromagnetically stimulated in a particular way? The evidence held up being "you don't understand because god doesn't love you, I personally experienced this so I know it to be true".
Our subjective experiences don't matter, you can't say "feels the same subjectively ergo it's real" and expect to have actually made an objectively relevant statement.

[Anonymous No.11317333]

>>11316534
Depends what you mean by same state.

[Anonymous No.11317362]

>>11314633
>What I see is indescribable,
Anon, haven't you considered you inhability to describe reality as something far more easily explained as simply being retarded? Either that or you have an inherent quality that no one else seems able to prove therefore I would take Ockham's razor here.

[Anonymous No.11317366]

>>11314629
>muh qualia

[Anonymous No.11317398]

>>11317362
Ok, you try and describe the subjective perception of the color red.

[Anonymous No.11317416]

>>11317398
Brainlet confusion between wavelength and color incoming

[Anonymous No.11317524]

>>11317416
it's not confusion, take two objective digital observers of the colour red, you sample it in observer x and want to transfer the information that represents the sample to observer y. The way you do that is to describe the experience, the way you do that in this particular instance is wavelength of the electromagnetic wave in question. The only reason this isn't obvious for humans is because we don't have the level of granularity necessary to quantify our experience of a given phenomenon to the complete extent that we do in an objectively defined third party observer with a set of particular specifications.
If we did, then we'd just be repeating the aforementioned experiment.
There is no reason to believe qualia and the uniqueness of the soul and all of that associated nonsensical woo are anything other than cope.

[Anonymous No.11317638]

>>11317398
Red is the color of sanguinity.

[Anonymous No.11317762]

>>11317524
>woo
No one has invoked any woo, or any explanation at all. I'm not saying there is a God or soul or anything. All I'm saying is that our materialist description of nature is insufficient in accounting for the existence of consciousness and its content.

[Anonymous No.11317835]

>>11317638
>red is red
You can't describe red without referring to some instance of the subjective experience of red. You could say "red is hot" because hot things like fire tend to be red, but red itself is not actually hot. Red is like an atom of experience, it can't be broken down into smaller parts, and it can't be described in terms of matter and energy interacting in space and time like phenomena in the objective world.

[Anonymous No.11317841]

>>11317524
>There is no reason to believe qualia and the uniqueness of the soul and all of that associated nonsensical woo are anything other than cope.

Okay then, what is it like to be a bat? Or a penguin? How can you describe that in objective terms when it's an entirely subjective experience?

[Anonymous No.11317896]

>>11314615

You can avoid the very question that sparks the panpsychism idea, but I'm going to throw it at you.

Why does a bunch of neurons firing give rise to a subjective experience at all? Any answer you give me is just as outlandish as panpsychism.

I'm going to take a leap and presume you cling onto the idea of emergence. The experience just emerges out of the neuron to neuron connections. If you answer with that, my question still is unanswered, what exactly are the mechanisms that cause unfeeling matter to experience.

[Anonymous No.11317907]

>>11317835
The idea that redness is something itself instead of relations to other things which are red is erroneous.

[Anonymous No.11318087]

>>11317841
What's it like to be a photosensitive rock? Why should it be any different? Life forms are just extremely complicated machines for which we don't have the precise specifications necessary to quantify the data of their sensory experience perfectly. If we did we could examine and transmit it just as easily as we can examine and transmit the data representing the sensory experience of artificial agents which we have created ourselves and thus do have specification s of sufficient granularity to allow for that ability. In the case of extremely simple borderline entities like simple light responsive scum or crystals or whatever, the phenomenon in question is once again simple enough that we can perfectly quantify it down to describable transmittable data.

[Anonymous No.11318095]

>>11314470
The article is nothing, it's just a "dude lmao what if like the universe was made of consciousness".
Without being able to test the idea there no reason to get your dick in a twist.

[Anonymous No.11318135]

>>11317907
It actually isn't erroneous. Even from the most compromised position, it would be a ratio of whatever signal responses may be going to the brain at some time.
Did you know that the the color of red will change if you keep staring at it for long enough, but you probably think the wavelength is changing colors. Fucking brainlet.
Do you even know what an offset is, or doping, or tuning?
How about another direction, why the fuck are the primary colors not linked to ratios of wavelengths?

[Anonymous No.11318195]

>>11317524
>Presents confusion
>"It's not confusion REEEEE"
Start with the Greeks

[Anonymous No.11318269]

>>11318195
Leave your degenerate sexual fantasies out of this.

[Anonymous No.11318290]

>>11314470
I like the idea of consciousness as some kind of fundamental property of the cosmos, but not in the panpsychicism sense where "consciousness as a property of matter" where even fundamental particles have some form of "experience", no I think there's a hard limit between consciousness and matter.

[Anonymous No.11318296]

>>11318290
Based and Descartespilled

[Anonymous No.11318315]

>>11318296
Yeah but the thing is if its something that cannot be "detected, observed, measured" then the scientific, objective evidence for its existence is nil. But then it could somehow be able to interact with matter without being detected, breaking all known physical laws as even neutrinos can be detected.

Still, until neuroscience has pinpointed the exact neural correlates of consciousness and solved the hard problem then there's no reason that possibility can't be true too, however unlikely

[Anonymous No.11318320]

>>11318315
there is no such thing as science. It doesn't exist as a unitary discipline.What you're referring to is called being "objective" and "empirical"

[Anonymous No.11318347]

>>11318320
Yeah good point. And I guess I'm willing to accept the possibility that there may be forces in this cosmos that are neither objective nor empirically verifiable and consciousness may be one of them

[Anonymous No.11318354]

>>11318315
Science, at the core, isn't about truth. One thing can come along at any moment and ruin whatever paradigm, but at the same time, make it more complete and refined. Take the example of the additional organ discovered in the body, the interstitium. These sorts of discoveries are the point of science. Scientific inquiry has no basis outside of cause and effect - assumed causes, reliably assumed causes and apparent effects. It is an implicate structure and its truthiness is not anywhere near an objective even when there are organizations which advocate for it.

[Anonymous No.11318372]

>>11314629
Its already possible to decode neuron activity into digitial images, so we already know for fact that colors and shapes in your head are just neurons firing in certain way

[Anonymous No.11318380]

>it's another "philosophers shitting out word salad" episode
what a surprise

[Anonymous No.11318392]

>>11318135
I never said anything about wavelengths. All I said was that red is given meaning by the relations to other objects, and perhaps a bit of instincts.

[Anonymous No.11318511]

>>11318380
>can't understand basic epistemology
>"word salad lel"
>continues to live in ignorance

[Anonymous No.11318516]

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

[Anonymous No.11318521]

>>11314470
>scientificamerican

get the fuck out with your pop sci bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11318537]

>>11318372
Take a good hard look at pic related. Does that look like neurons firing? There are neurons firing in your brain which produce the perception you see, but the neurons firing are not the perception itself. The two couldn't be more different.

[Anonymous No.11318541]

>>11317896
Consciousness is just a psychosis brought on by self-reflective thinking.

[Anonymous No.11318544]

>>11318537
>but the neurons firing are not the perception itself.
The "perception itself" does not exist, it can't be separated from neurons firing. Try again.

[Anonymous No.11318566]

>>11318544
Your perceptions are more real than objective reality. You can make a good case that objective reality doesn't exist, but you can't claim that your direct subjective experience doesn't exist. Your entire worldview is ass backward. God, ignorance of philosophy is worse than ignorance of science.

[Anonymous No.11318589]

>>11318566
>Your perceptions are more real than objective reality.
Why? Because you say so? This is the science board.

>You can make a good case that objective reality doesn't exist, but you can't claim that your direct subjective experience doesn't exist.
I'm saying it does exist, your neurons are actually firing. What I'm not saying exists is your magic "perception itself."

>Your entire worldview is ass backward.
Projection based on nothing.

>God, ignorance of philosophy is worse than ignorance of science.
Denial of your favorite philosophical flavor is not ignorance of philosophy. You are confusing knowledge of philosophy with proof that philosophy represents something real. If you had that, it wouldn't just be philosophy, it would be science.

[Anonymous No.11318594]

Perhaps consciousness emerges through the parallelism of the universe. When one thinks of atoms or neurons, one typically imagines their processes in a linear fashion, when they actually concurrently operate. Perhaps this inaccurate thinking disallows understanding of consciousness.

I know brains transmit brainwaves, but is the brain affected in any way by the receiving of brainwaves or anything similar?

[Anonymous No.11318633]

>>11318589
Not him, but you really seem stupid.
>This is the science board.
Yeah, exactly.
>I'm saying it does exist, your neurons are actually firing. What I'm not saying exists is your magic "perception itself."
You can't seem to acknowledge that "neurons firing" IS A PERCEPTION OF YOURS, IDIOT. Your sacred matter cannot be, for you, more than just an abstraction of your perceptions.
YES, YOUR WORLDVIEW IS BACKWARDS.
Perception or experience is primary with respect to matter.
Science is not at war with philosophy but grounded in it. If you need proof of philosophy being something real you don't understand what philosophy (and science) means

[Anonymous No.11318642]

>>11318589
All empirical evidence of objective reality comes through subjective experience. We have no direct experience with objective reality. Subjective experience is primary. Objective reality is an abstraction based in subjective experience. This isn't just my particular flavor of philosophy. It's an irrefutable fact.

Where do you get this idea that philosophy is somehow at odds with science? The two are both equally valid methods of inquiry into the world. Historically, it wasn't until very recently that science and philosophy were even considered distinct disciplines.

[Anonymous No.11318650]

>>11318633
>You can't seem to acknowledge that "neurons firing" IS A PERCEPTION OF YOURS, IDIOT.
Where did I say anything to the contrary? It's a non sequitur.

>Your sacred matter cannot be, for you, more than just an abstraction of your perceptions.
An "abstraction of your perceptions" describes any model, so what?

>Perception or experience is primary with respect to matter.
No, it's the other way around.

>Science is not at war with philosophy but grounded in it.
I never said science was at war with philosophy. They aren't in conflict unless you are claiming your philosophy represents something real without scientific evidence. Which is what you or whoever >>11318566 is did.

>>11318642
>All empirical evidence of objective reality comes through subjective experience. We have no direct experience with objective reality. Subjective experience is primary.
Doesn't follow. The former would be true regardless of whether matter or subjective experience is primary.

>Where do you get this idea that philosophy is somehow at odds with science?
Where did you get that idea from what I said? I think it's pretty clear they are not at odds when one is concerned with correlations with reality while the other is not. It's like saying science is at odds with math. They aren't trying to do the same thing, so they aren't in conflict.

It's funny how you both completely failed to understand what I've said. Maybe you need to work on your philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11318688]

>>11318594
>by the receiving of brainwaves or anything similar?

This is something like that analogy of thinking of the brain as a receiver for the "ethereal, undetectable signal" of consciousness that still somehow interacts with and generates subjective conscious experience in the brain, my question with this theory is at what point does the metaphysical cross into the physical, when and where does the signal become detected by what part of the brain to initiate conscious experience? There's no way to isolate parts of the brain this way and acquire definitive neural correlates of consciousness because everything is so interconnected.

If going with this line of thinking then it would be less complicated to say that the material/physical world lies within the meta-physical which is why consciousness can be a pervasive, invisible yet interacting within the physical, much in the same way that some theories of gravity (I think M-theory) have it acting across multiple dimensions explaining its weakness in the third dimension. in the same sense perhaps consciousness is weaker and more confined in the third/physical dimension too or something like that.

[Anonymous No.11318691]

>>11318688
>pervasive

I meant permeating

[Anonymous No.11318713]

>>11317896
>what exactly are the mechanisms that cause unfeeling matter to experience
The arrangement of the matter itself causes it to experience.

[Anonymous No.11318725]

>>11318290
It's very small experience that's almost impercievable, the same way that perhaps like in theory, even electrons and quarks have some amount of mass and thus, some amount of gravity, but we don't see its effects until it's some massive thing.

I just know I think it's great as the basis for science fiction stuff.

[Anonymous No.11318730]

>>11318725
>I just know I think it's great as the basis for science fiction stuff.

Yeah, AI comes to mind right away

[Anonymous No.11319687]

>>11318650
>Doesn't follow. The former would be true regardless of whether matter or subjective experience is primary.
And this is metaphysical materialism. A normie assuming a truth that he cannot experience. The matter behind the mind (which he cannot percieve in any way and never has) causes experience. It's just a religion without God.
>they are not at odds when one is concerned with correlations with reality while the other is not.
You should start with the Greeks.

>>11318688
>>11318713
>>11318725
Nice bullshit. Funny you can't see how retarded this ideas seem to someone actually educated.

[Anonymous No.11319825]

>>11319687
Hardly metaphysical. Matter is a fundamental part of many models that make successful predictions. Consciousness is not. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.11320135]

>>11319825
But its not the "matter" that makes the predictions, its the math. Physics is actually quite apathetic to the intrinsic nature of the universe. It just describes relations between observables but doesnt help us give any deeper definition to what those observables are.

[Anonymous No.11320216]

>>11320135
>But its not the "matter" that makes the predictions, its the math.
Bullshit, it's the models, including matter, which make the predictions. An atom is not "math."

[Anonymous No.11320606]

>>11319825
Yes, matter as an abstraction of experience (CONSCIOUSNESS), not matter as a fucking noumenon.
The Greeks, man

[Anonymous No.11320684]

>>11320606
No, the model doesn't include matter as an abstraction but as a reality. You're confusing the model for what the model represents.

[Anonymous No.11320746]

>>11320684
>redirecting to
>>11320606

[Anonymous No.11320833]

>>11320216
Yeah but nothing about the model tells you what an atom is. Just how it behaves. Its ambivalent to the underlying nature of it all.

[Anonymous No.11320841]

>>11320216
To add, theres no way you could use physics models to distinguish whether we are living a mental or physical world or whatever.

[Anonymous No.11320882]

>>11320833
>Yeah but nothing about the model tells you what an atom is.
The only thing we can know about the atom is what empirically verified models say about the atom. Speculating beyond that is pointless. Maybe atoms are magic as well as conscious.

[Anonymous No.11320884]

>>11320841
You can, it's called Occam's razor. Physical models are necessary, mental models are not.

[Anonymous No.11321036]

>>11320884
But what if having a mental world solves the hard problem of consciousness e.g. panpsychism. Isnt that favoured by Occams Razor?

>>11320882
It does leave open the question of panpsychism though.

[Anonymous No.11321057]

>>11321036
>Isnt that favoured by Occams Razor?
No. You would need to explain the mechanism of panpsychism.

>It does leave open the question
It also leaves open my polar bear theory where each atom is pushed around by a tiny white bear. Just because you can think up an explanation does not make it valid.

[Anonymous No.11321114]

>>11321057
But the explanation isnt random, panpsychism is the natural remedy to the hard problem of consciousness and doesnt need a mechanism because literally mental stuff replaces matter. the laws of physics just apply to mental atuff now.

[Anonymous No.11321188]

>>11318372
>Its already possible to decode neuron activity into digitial images, so we already know for fact that colors and shapes in your head are just neurons firing in certain way
Fine. As you say, you can represent what a person is seeing (albeit crudely anyway) on a computer screen. This has been done in a lab. But when you see this representation of what the other person sees, you are still not EXPERIENCING that image the same way they are. You are having your own experience of the image which is completely different from the other person's experience of the image. You cannot in fact experience what they are experiencing. Ever. The whole question revolves around the "thing" doing the experiencing. But of course, you will tell me that that "thing" is just an illusion.

https://iai.tv/articles/the-mysterious-disappearance-of-consciousness-auid-1296
>The Mysterious Disappearance of Consciousness
>What makes materialists deny the undeniable?
>what makes the consciousness of an intelligent human being deny its own existence
>What kind of conscious inner dialogue do people engage in so as to convince themselves that they have no conscious inner dialogue?

[Anonymous No.11321198]

>>11321057
>need to explain the mechanism
That's really the journey, isn't it? The typical path of scientific discovery usually follows in people observing a phenomenon, being curious about it, and then finding out why it happens the way that it does, in that order. This is no different.

[Anonymous No.11321218]

>>11320833
>underlying nature
The underlying nature of everything is simply processes, not "things". That's why everyone is so hopelessly confused, and why particle wave duality is similarly confusing. (For the record, it is better and simpler just to think of everything in terms of waves, and mostly shelve the idea of "particles".) An atom IS better thought of as a process or set of relations between various other connected phenomena. If you know all the properties and behaviors of the atom, you already know all there is to know about it. Things-in-themselves are not really "objects" but "events".

[Anonymous No.11321228]

so according to panpsychism, is the earth more conscious than me? is the sun more conscious than the earth? is sun's consciousness separate from earth's?
why would a bunch of particles being very close (a human) generate more consciousness that that same amount of particles being spread apart (for example air or any imaginary gas composed of the same particles that make a human)?
doesn't that mean that according to panpsychism, consciousness is not only dependent on matter but more on the arrangement of that matter in space?

[Anonymous No.11321234]

>>11321114
Polar bears are the natural remedy.

>>11321198
This is science not literature Ideas only matter if you can test and prove their accuracy.

[Anonymous No.11321238]

>>11321234
But what is an idea?

[Anonymous No.11321239]

>>11321228
It's that last thing you said. It's the level to which the arrangement of the matter is able to integrate information. That's why the most prominent and most scientifically-grounded panpsychism-adjacent theory is Integrated Information Theory.

[Anonymous No.11321243]

>>11321239
>It's the level to which the arrangement of the matter is able to integrate information
so is my hard drive more conscious than me? it can definitely store more information

[Anonymous No.11321244]

>>11321238
A formulated thought or opinion.

[Anonymous No.11321247]

>>11321244
So a non-physical object

[Anonymous No.11321249]

>>11321234
Yes. And I was saying we're at a very early stage in cracking this problem. We're in the stage where theories are being put forward. Then we will test them in various ways, probably over the course of centuries. It's not fair to say "all these theories are bad" out of hand, before they've ever even had the chance to be vetted over (probably a very long) period of time. These are literally our first baby steps in this area.

[Anonymous No.11321251]

>>11321243
storage=/=integration
you need to read on it to understand the lingo

[Anonymous No.11321253]

>>11321251
so what is the definition of integration of information?

[Anonymous No.11321262]

>>11321247
>So a non-physical object
Not physical in the colloquial sense. All Ideas are stored as bits in computers or in clusters of neurons in the human brain.

>>11321243
You must have quite a large hard drive. Do you work for the NSA?

[Anonymous No.11321266]

>>11321262
Again and again, the materialist confusion..

[Anonymous No.11321268]

>>11321266
So where do you think your ideas are?

[Anonymous No.11321285]

>>11321268
My man, location is not a property of psychological objects

[Anonymous No.11321290]

>>11321285
Then psychological objects don't exist.

[Anonymous No.11321293]

>>11321290
LOL

[Anonymous No.11321385]

>>11321218
But even processes must have something that is to be in itself... Physical models dont provide that. If we can describe a process via multiple different models then its clearly not getting to the thing in itself and if there is an objective reality then there must be a single thing in itself that is this universe, not in the superficiality of mathemtical models that do no more than relate phenomenal observation.

[Anonymous No.11321425]

>>11314612
if we did have some kind of subhuman underclass mixed into society, that's the kind of dumb thing one of them might say

[Anonymous No.11321430]

>>11321385
>But even processes must have something that is to be in itself.
That's the whole revolution in thinking about the world that is going on as we speak. The idea that things precede and are more fundamental than processes is actively being thrown out the window altogether.
>https://aeon.co/ideas/which-is-more-fundamental-processes-or-things
The answer is a resounding "processes". The very idea of things-in-themselves as objects rather than events is increasingly seen as antiquated. It was just something that we long struggled with because it felt intuitively true. But now we know that it is not. And this is coming from the philosophy side, not the science side, which has already been saying this for some time.

[Anonymous No.11321443]

>>11314562
This. It’s such an obvious answer but people still feel the need to debate it endlessly.

[Anonymous No.11321454]

>>11314470
>scientificamerican
>american
>retarded article
Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous No.11321662]

>>11314562
I had this idea before. That it's the moment of memory formation, essentially. But even in this, we are _experiencing_ the moment of memory formation. And there still needs to be something doing the experiencing. A memory itself, or the moment of it being formed by itself does not seem like it could be this something. There is still something more to this.

[Anonymous No.11321686]

>>11321662
>There is still something more to this.
Yeah a complex system of inputs outputs and storage with hundreds of trillions of connections.

[Anonymous No.11322111]

>>11321430
Implying processes are not objects

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.11322119]

>>11314470
There was never a conciousness. There is no conciousness

[Anonymous No.11322145]

>>11314470
>Article of the Decade
There is an anon here bodhi mantra who wrote and article 100 times better than that he actually gives the science to prove it and some of the implications of the science.

[Anonymous No.11322150]

>>11314612
This reality is 85% NPC anon, provable stat

[Anonymous No.11323427]

>>11314477
>metaphysics isn't science
While the object of study in science usually isn't metaphysical (it sometimes is), i.e. it usually is physical, the act of finding scientific results and the results themselves often have facets of the metaphysical. Some scientific results are entirely metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.11323601]

>>11323427
No scientifc result is metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.11323671]

>>11323601
lmao

[Anonymous No.11323699]

>>11323601
Why not? What about general relativity? Or quantum physics? These theories are mathematical models, which clearly has metaphysical facets, and seem to map pretty well onto physical reality.

[Anonymous No.11323707]

>>11314612
You're not conscious and neither am I, even if you have an "inner diologue" doesnt mean you experience qualia. I can't prove I think, therefore I dont

[Anonymous No.11323714]

Consciousness is an evolutionary dead end.

[Anonymous No.11323734]

Here's something that might at least partially placate those complaining the study of consciousness isn't scientific enough at present:
https://academic.oup.com/nc
Never mind that many top neuroscientists do study it seriously and rigorously. You can argue about how successful they have been so far in terms of findings, but you can't say it's all just philosophy and little more.

[Anonymous No.11323750]

>>11323714
This would seem to be the crux of the matter. Everything about the brain is explainable without the existence of consciousness. This is why anyone who comes at it with an empirical approach is always tempted it explain it away as an evolutionary spandrel or unnecessary side-effect, write it off as an illusion or straight up pretend it simply just doesn't exist (even though it's patently obvious that it does).

[Anonymous No.11323752]

>>11323707
>even if you have an "inner diologue" doesnt mean you experience qualia.
Do you need to experience qualia to be conscious?
>I can't prove I think, therefore I don't
Lmao! :D Can someone translate this to latin in the style of the famous proposition by Descartes?

[Anonymous No.11323755]

>>11323752
I think that's bait. "Experience of qualia" is the very definition of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11323758]

>>11323755
Oh!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11323760]

>>11323699
Math and science are different in fundamental ways that you seem to be eliding over. Science does not produce metaphysical results.

[Anonymous No.11323782]

>>11323760
>Math and science are different in fundamental ways that you seem to be sliding over.
Please stop me from sliding. Or rather, slide me back and deep into these issues. I cannot do it myself. Can't you see? I will thank you dearly.

[Anonymous No.11323789]

I AM SOOOO SLIPPERY

I AM SLIPPING AWAY

HELP ME PLEASE

[Anonymous No.11323805]

>>11323782
Elide verb

elided; eliding

transitive verb
1a : to suppress or alter (something, such as a vowel or syllable) by elision
b : to strike out (something, such as a written word)
2a : to leave out of consideration : omit
b : curtail, abridge

[Anonymous No.11323806]

>>11314486
>define "consciousness"
it's a spectrum

[Anonymous No.11323834]

>>11314542
this reads like it was generated in one of those fake scientific paper algorithms. What the hell.

[Anonymous No.11323854]

>>11323805
I take this as another indication that I need help to stop sliding. Please. I am so slippery.

[Anonymous No.11324170]

>>11323734
https://blog.oup.com/2020/01/does-consciousness-have-a-function/
>contents of consciousness are the results of active reconstruction of the reality
This directly addresses the Hard Problem, and then at the end sidesteps it anyway. Imagination is not consciousness. It's imagination.

[Anonymous No.11324311]

>>11314477
>philosophy isn't science
Easiest way to spot a pseud

[Anonymous No.11324322]

>>11324311
>philosophy is science
Easiest way to spot a pseud.

[Anonymous No.11324367]

>>11324322
>he doesn't know that many of history's foremost mathematicians were also philosophers.

Not only a pseud, but also a brainlet. I guess you have never heard of Descartes, Pascal, Frege or Poincare. Sucks that they didn't get the memo that they weren't true scientists after all.

[Anonymous No.11324409]

>>11314486
You cannot define it untill you study it

[Anonymous No.11324427]

>>11324367
Leonardo da vinci was a painter I guess that means STEAM is valid.

[Anonymous No.11324983]

>>11324367
>>he doesn't know that many of history's foremost mathematicians were also philosophers.
Many of them were Catholics so I goes Catholicism is a science.

I doubt you have any knowledge of philosophy if your basic logic is this bad.

[Anonymous No.11324992]

>>11314470

[Anonymous No.11326012]

>>11314514
Define what it means to define something.

[Anonymous No.11326022]

>>11324311
You read philosophy for entertainment. That shit can be harmful in high doses. Just look at the /lit/ "philosophers". They are so disconnected from reality, it's not even funny,

[Anonymous No.11326146]

>>11326022
>That shit can be harmful in high doses.
This.

[Anonymous No.11326241]

>>11314470
Are you serious this is the article of the decade? That shit could be stated my my drunken uncle who read Stephen hawking and Neil Degrasse pop sci books in his lunch time at work

[Anonymous No.11326334]

>>11314864
I see 1 and I'm skeptical to believe anyone else can see any of the other numbers, how can you just see shit in your mind it doesn't even make sense. Learning about this when I'm in my 30's is kind of annoying others have had this huge advantage over me the whole time.

[Anonymous No.11326352]

>>11326334
It's actually very hard to study for the obvious reason that you can't directly compare experiences from one individual to another. but as far as I know it is real and has noticeable real world affects.

I can imagine an object and am able to rotate it in 3D space but it doesn't intrude into my vision like this image implies. It feels like even though it has a color and I can perceive a physicality to it it exists in a completely separate space not within the 180 or so degrees of my current vision like a literal third eye or something.

I've talked to my father who because of an aneurysm lost half his vision in one eye and it's not like he feels there is a gap or black space, it just isn't there. The brain is a complicated weird machine.

[Anonymous No.11326354]

>>11314470
What the fuck happened to scientific american? 40+ years ago they were teaching normies how to make mass spectrometers with their mothers' darning needles, now this?

[Anonymous No.11326360]

>>11326354
I feel like this post is false but am not old enough to verify.

[Anonymous No.11326456]

>>11326360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIKhUizkXxA
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-amateur-scientist-1970-07/
~2M/Z resolution

[Anonymous No.11326662]

>>11326334
Wow. I had no idea there were people that don't have imaginations. But I guess it kind of makes sense. As I kid, I remember wishing than when I play back a song I've heard in my mind, that it would sound as loud and clear as it does through my headphones. Years later, anything I 'listen' to in my 'mind's ear' sounds much closer to clarity you get when actually listening to music. There's still a difference, but it's MUCH better and therefore much more enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.11326706]

>>11314470
This doesn't even solve the problem they claim exists. (i. e. where consciousness comes from). If all the electrons and quarks in the universe have consciousness, then every particle in my body would have its own separate consciousness and would be completely separate from whatever consciousness goes on in the brain. They wouldn't suddenly combine into a superconscious being.

[Anonymous No.11326719]

>>11326706
This is why consciousness is a gradient. It's why a mouse is less conscious, and a worm less conscious still. This gradient doesn't stop at worms, though. That's the whole point.

[Anonymous No.11326758]

>>11326719
Why this process even allowed by the laws of nature?

[Anonymous No.11326775]

>>11326758
That's what we don't know and are trying to find out. Panpsych is just one idea of many (although one increasingly being embraced by neuroscientists). Any of you claiming that all of this is just humanities leaking into science needs to first familiarize themselves with these ideas, which are coming largely from scientific areas of study. And even if it were the case that non-scientific fields are encroaching on this important question, it could only be because the hard sciences are failing to crack it.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neuroscience-readies-for-a-showdown-over-consciousness-ideas-20190306/

[Anonymous No.11327081]

ITT seething brainlets afraid to stare into the abyss

[Anonymous No.11328264]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11329013]

>>11326775
It's not embraced by any neuroscientists, and it comes from nothing scientific. Peddle your bullshit elsewhere >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11329046]

>>11329013
Kindly read that entire article before spouting nonsense and shitposting thank you

[Anonymous No.11329145]

>>11326775
>Panpsych is just one idea of many (although one increasingly being embraced by neuroscientists).
I read the entire article and you are an idiot. One philosopher calling your idea panpsychism doesn't make you believe in panpsychism.

[Anonymous No.11329149]

>>11314470
still believing that gravity holds everything together disqualifies you from learning anything new.
And consciousness is a Birkeland current through the body

[Anonymous No.11329159]

>>11329046
I don't read popsci trash. Apparently you're a liar in addition to a retard >>11329046
Peddle your bullshit elsewhere >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11329433]

/sci/ will never explain consciousness or why I saw my own future in my dreams.

[Anonymous No.11329438]

>>11329433
>/sci/ will never explain consciousness
Science will.

>why I saw my own future in my dreams.
You didn't, it's called deja vu, retard.

[Anonymous No.11329447]

>>11329438
No it won't because science is profane consciousness is spiritual. And yes I did I know I did.

[Anonymous No.11329460]

>>11329447
Nice delusions. It's a shame you have nothing to back them up.

[Anonymous No.11329465]

>>11329460
Hahahaha its fun being a dog for modern world is it? Piss off.

[Anonymous No.11329478]

The replies here are too fucking obvious and show how debased our current age is.
>in the earliest days of science the philosopher, the doctor, the engineer and scientist are all brothers seeking to understand reality in its totality
>later the philosophers, the holy men and the alchemists all drive forward in mathematics and chemistry and physics to better understand God's creation
>unto the height of the industrial revolution the most prominent scientists are well versed in theology and philosophy, knowing for a fact that a complete understanding of the physical universe dictates that one must understand its subjective aspects
>in the modern age true understanding is considered archaic and barbaric, and all aspects of reality must be forced into a mechanistic framework even as further research continues to confirm its inadequacy in providing total knowledge
How pitiful

[Anonymous No.11329484]

>>11329465
Ah right because you're so special and original.

[Anonymous No.11329487]

>>11329484
Everyone is special.

[Anonymous No.11329491]

>>11329487
You are indeed "special"

[Anonymous No.11329493]

>>11329478
You're not even practicing philosophy, you're just a pathetic apologist for irrational and long debunked dead memes.

[Anonymous No.11329506]

>>11329159
Quanta magazine is not popsci trash. You can't post here if you don't know what Quanta magazine is.

[Anonymous No.11329521]

>>11329506
>Quanta magazine is not popsci trash.
Then why does it publish popsci trash articles like the one you posted?

[Anonymous No.11329575]

>>11329493
>lmao le ebin rationality
Look everybody, the creature that can only experience things subjectively is using subjectively useful thought paradigms to make subjectively useful tools to measure reality in a way that's subjectively correct to it! Point and laugh!

[Anonymous No.11329632]

>>11329478
Do you understand what "predictive power" is? It's the thing that separates theories from stoner thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11329664]

>>11329632
>bro check it out! You know that objective reality I presume exists by using subjective experiences to experience? Well I totally used my mind that can only operate subjectively to come up with a model that subjectively makes sense to me and subjectively predicts things in the objective reality that I only subjectively presume exists!

[Anonymous No.11329688]

>>11329521
You've never read a single article from it, including that one.

[Anonymous No.11329729]

>>11321686
>a complex system of inputs outputs and storage with hundreds of trillions of connections
How is this different from any large system?

[Anonymous No.11330811]

>>11314514
The awareness of the thoughts of oneself.

[Anonymous No.11330864]

There could be an universal observer field, that deals with sensations and consciousness alike. Perhaps the field emits qualia when interactions of certain complexity occur. The question is how our brain catches this data.

[Anonymous No.11330870]

>>11314562
But what are qualia?

[Anonymous No.11330873]

>>11314562
Also memories are just qualia of different flavors and sensations just self generated.

[Anonymous No.11330879]

>>11323752
Conciousness is the qualia of information.

[Anonymous No.11330887]

>>11314786
What about dreams and the mind's eye?

[Anonymous No.11330900]

>>11329729
It isn't.

>>11330887
Dreams have a feedback loop that activates many of the systems you use while awake. I don't know specifically if the pathways are identical but the visual system is active even if your eyes are closed.

[Anonymous No.11330949]

>>11329632
Mathematics confirmed just stoner thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11330958]

You know how our field of vision can be reduced by closing our other eye? Logically, if you stretched out your eyes, your field of vision expands. Well what if you had eyes all around your head? 360° vision baby!

[Anonymous No.11331073]

>>11330949
>mathematics don't have predictive power
??????????????????

[Anonymous No.11331738]

>>11326662
Something similar, as a kid I used to wish we had a machine that would generate movies from books. Whenever I read anything, I would practice visualizing everything about the book. Now, its a pretty nice experience reading. As long as I am engrossed in the story, I get to see the story in my minds eye. I also used to pretend to play my gameboy in my minds eye. I would see how far I could imagine the entirety of pokemon red in my head. It was pretty fun when I was bored, which I was a lot as a kid.

[Anonymous No.11331753]

WITNESS THE WITNESS

[Anonymous No.11332200]

>>11314562
probably memory and an intermediate part of the brain that allows for logical manipulation of memory for practical use, much like a CPU and regular memory in a computer. but i'm probably being a little too presumptuous and niave with that statement

[Anonymous No.11333649]

>>11326352
You dont need to lose an eye, just closing one already tells your brain to turn that monitor off. Because it was just there ita easier to imagine black there but really look and theres nothing at all but blindness the same as you have in every other part of the body

[Anonymous No.11333655]

>>11326706
They do, but their consciousness leads them to behave the way they do. These behaviors add up to larger systems also conscious, and eventually to a function in the brain that recognizes its existence

Consciousness is existence

[Anonymous No.11333657]

>>11314477
>philosophy and metaphysics isn't science

No

[Anonymous No.11333660]

>>11324311
Top kek and absolutely based

[Anonymous No.11333666]

>>11326012
To be or not to be