How do we actually experience things? How do you go from "neuron" to complex thought?

[Anonymous No.14727236]

I have no experience in biology other than one class in high school.
My understanding is: there are countless neurons in the brain. A neurons receives signals that may stimulate it, and it may fire, sending a signal to other neurons connected to it. The network of connections between neurons is very complex. Brain imaging has allowed scientists to understand which parts of the brain may be responsible for certain responses and activities.

That's all well and good, but I still don't have a grasp on how it all comes together - how do I have this experience of consciousness? How do I have memories? How can I imagine things?

I want to know the intermediate knowledge between "neurons exist" and "consciousness". As an analogy, it's like I want to know how my computer works but I only have been taught how a transistor relay works. What goes on in the middle?

[Anonymous No.14727239]

[Anonymous No.14727288]

>>14727236
The hard problem of consciousness is entirely in the realm of metaphysics and it's unlikely we'll ever have a verifiable answer. As for memory, the hippocampus catalogues the structures of neurons fired during specific experiences, and imagination is something like a crude simulation of arbitrary scenarios that draws on one's memories (likely originally intended to satisfy more primitive desires).

[Anonymous No.14727290]

>>14727236

Imagine not being an idealist. Quantum mechanics has disproven materialism.

[Anonymous No.14727292]

>>14727288
Soon, the memory transfer technology will sufficiently refined. Then.

[Anonymous No.14727427]

>>14727236
>I have no experience in biology other than one class in high school.
Make a neuro net and program it to play games.
>b-b-b- I do not understand
Neither do people making neuro nets ! *terminator music intensifies*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIkBYwdkuTk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OHn5ZF4Uo

>consciousness
consciousness literally is nonsense idiot philosophers made up same for qualia etc.

[Anonymous No.14727431]

Idk anon. Maybe computers right now have a primitive form of consciousness and we don't know? Maybe our thoughts are just the abstraction of information processing? Of course our brains are very different then a computers but they both do similar tasks, process information output shit.

[Anonymous No.14727463]

>As an analogy, it's like I want to know how my computer works but I only have been taught how a transistor relay works. What goes on in the middle?
That's literally how the computer works. You would think a computer is complicated but it's nothing but very simple operations. The reason why we can have things like Photoshop and video games is because it performs those operations at a mind boggling speed.
https://youtu.be/lNuPy-r1GuQ

[Anonymous No.14727464]

We'll eventually have an answer when we begin growing brains in vats and subjecting them to virtual reality. Or rather, on a smaller scale metacognition will eventually be "discovered" (I prefer the term "routed") as we begin growing neurons and synapses in the lab and developing treatments for brain illnesses based off them. If we can make a biological neuron network that can solve math equations, it is probable that we'd have discovered how humans think.

We'll at least be able to replicate the necessary conditions for cognition when we figure out how to manufacture life from abiotic materials, as the natural conclusion of such experiments would be making jellyfish and brain/spine creatures in jars for study. From there we'll have a relatively good print of how the nervous system, including cognition, came to form since life itself began. Simultaneously, a better understanding of memory and sensory input would permit us to download information into certain parts of the brain - even just simple information like motor skills or facial recognition. We could then use both to derive a full map of the human brain's development, which would allow us to determine where cognition begins.

From there, we can work our knowledge into new medical treatments as, by this point, we could theoretically completely rebuild a human brain with memories if we are able to manipulate the synapses correctly into thinking it's experiencing real life. Then we can do some brain transplants on dead people and compare the results. Obviously we'd want our first brain transplants to use their own memories, but the real cross-check is if we could put someone's brain into a different body. We could also verify results by intentionally creating subhumans, at different levels of cognitive development, and testing their abilities.

And with this knowledge we'd eliminate childhood, dementia, probably aging too. Humans would be able to live much longer and understand much more.

[Anonymous No.14727481]

>>14727463
Yes, but there are intermediate levels of abstraction. Transistors come together to make logic gates, and those can make registers, control structures, and ALUs, which can be further put together into a processor. If you wanted to build a computer, you would have to understand these levels of abstraction.

[Anonymous No.14727818]

Consciousness as you experience it is an illusion. You are not that much different from a computer. That being said, so far, no computers have been invented which even closely rival the human brain in it's distilled complexity of billions of years of evolution. (yes, billions)

Now, there is a philosophical distinction to make at this realization. If there is nothing fundamentally different about the human brain compared to the rest of our environment, does that mean we are not actually conscious? I think most would incorrectly assume this case, ascribing us as "complex automatons", and nothing more.

But I think that might be false, at a certain level of processing, and memory handling, processes should be said to reach a level of processing which is qualitatively different from the previous. Similar to how states of matter exist: solid, liquid, gaseous, plasma. These states of matter depend on the matter at hand, and it's temperature. You could liken the temperature to the complexity of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14727820]

>>14727818 (cont.)
Most things in the universe are solid, and arguably not conscious at all. But note that even a thunderstorm has enough complexity that you may begin to argue otherwise. (But this is an entirely different point aside from this argument) Simple animals, insects, bacteria, all could be said to be in the liquid state of consciousness, having reached a high enough temperature for complex patterns to arise. Note that I would ascribe this state of being to both ants and viruses alike, despite them being very different organism alltogether, one being arguably not an organism at all. Higher animals, which include ourselves certainly reach a new state of consciousness, which might be called gaseous, perhaps which can be distinguished by the ability of self-reflection and pondering, rather than reaction and instinct.

Now the point of comparing it to states of matter does not imply that there must be a state of consciousness beyond gaseous, for consciousness. But it also does not imply that there isn't many more states of consciousness beyond those four in matter. It only makes the point that a seemingly quantitative different can create qualitatively different effects in nature.

[Anonymous No.14727837]

>>14727236
Conciousness isn't computational

https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-6127/

[Anonymous No.14727847]

>>14727236
The intermediate steps between neuron and consciousness are structure and complexity. Given enough time any self-replicating organism with self-agency will develop consciousness as a way to achieve optimal survival by storing valuable information while avoiding local maxima to allow for more sophistication down the line.

[Anonymous No.14727857]

>>14727818
>>14727820
Astute analogy anon. Let's reach plasma consciousness together
>seemingly quantitative different can create qualitatively different effects in nature
I'd subscribe to this idea as well. Incremental changes in degrees has to potential to incur fundamental shifts in the nature of the system given enough time. Chances are this is what happened for consciousness. Birds are conscious just as us but their brain is tiny so mechanistically their consciousness-field is reduced compared to ours.

[Anonymous No.14727865]

>>14727236
/sci/ doesn't know anything basic neuroscience, let alone the philosophy of consciousness. You're gonna get one retarded take after the other.

[Anonymous No.14727879]

>>14727236
>I still don't have a grasp on how it all comes together
No one does.

>how do I have this experience of consciousness? How do I have memories? How can I imagine things?
No one knows. Seriously. You'd think they'd at least know how memories work, but memory formation and retreival are unsolved problems.

>As an analogy, it's like I want to know how my computer works but I only have been taught how a transistor relay works. What goes on in the middle?
That's a lovely analogy. Here's an attempt by neuroscientists to reverse-engineer the fetch-execute cycle of a simple microprocessor using the same methodology that should supposedly be powerful enough to decipher the brain:
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268
Spoiler: they couldn't. Any neuroscience-based explanation of consciousness is either wild speculation, outright pseudoscience, or vacuous babble with lots of terminology and little substance.

One way or another, you're not the only one baffled by the gap between neurons and consciousness and it's most likely impossible to bridge scientifically: even if someone came up with a fully detailed hypothesis of consciousness, there would be no way to test it short of using it to reproduce consciousness in an artificial system, but if they did that, how could they prove that the artificial system is actually conscious?

[Anonymous No.14727888]

>>14727236
Good question anon
Solve it and claim your nobel prize

[Anonymous No.14728077]

>>14727236
When you get a lot of shit together, sometimes you get something else. Its just how universe works.

You get a lot of of dust and gas together, you get a star. You get a lot pixels together, you get an image. You get a lot of water together, you get waves etc.

I know that answer won't satisfy you anon but it really is that simple.

[Anonymous No.14728079]

>>14728077
>When you get a lot of shit together, sometimes you get something else. Its just how universe works.
Show me a single instance of that.

>You get a lot of of dust and gas together, you get a star.
Stars are nor decomposable into dust and gas.

>You get a lot pixels together, you get an image.
Images are not decomposable into pixels.

>You get a lot of water together, you get waves etc.
Water is not decomposable into waves.

[Anonymous No.14728674]

>>14728079
>Stars are not decomposable into dust and gas
Why not? If you pulled out little bits of the star and let them cool on their own, you would get something like dust and gas.

>Images are not decomposable into pixels.
Aren't they? If you zoom in, you can see each pixel. In fact, the image is stored/described using pixels.

>Water is not decomposable into waves.
I think you had this the wrong way around. If you were trying to prove that the emergent thing is not decomposable into its components, you should have said "Waves are not decomposable into water". And that would be false.

[Anonymous No.14728688]

>>14728674
>the image is stored/described using pixels.
No, it isn't. All of your retarded points make exactly the same mistake so I'll let you ponder why you're blatantly wrong in this case, and then you can draw the appropriate conclusion for the rest.

[Anonymous No.14728697]

Its all an illusion anyway. We are not in base reality. Why would you care. If a character in a video game dies is that because his body breaks down or because its in the code? See its pointless

[Anonymous No.14728717]

>>14727236
Consciousness uses psychokinesis to control the neurons.
It's the only theory that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.14728739]

>>14728688
I have seriously considered your point, but I don't get it. How is the image not made of pixels? Are you saying that the true "image" is made of photons? Are you referring to image compression?

[Anonymous No.14728772]

>>14728739
How about I give you 786432 colorful squares and you go put them back together into a picture, since you insist the picture can be decomposed into colorful squares. But that's more of a minor gripe. You could decompose a digital representation of an image into a set of coordinate + color tuples, but that's not the same as decomposing the visual comprehension of what the data is coding for. You can't comprehend the image by examining the pixels.

[Anonymous No.14728789]

>>14727236
The closest thing we have to an answer for you is some recent papers on reconstructing images seen by dissected eyeballs based on their attached neurons. This is a bit easier to achieve since images are objective and can be measured, and the optical nerve system is less complex than things like thought or memory.

[Anonymous No.14728798]

>>14727236
The neuron itself its an abstraction. To find the true building block, and perfectly equate the transistor on the left, you must go SMALLER. Look at the amino acids that make up the neuron for a bigger clue. It's all in the molecules.

[Anonymous No.14728816]

Neurons basically do not exist, its a theory invented by liberals and the far left. We actually have this viscous superconducting fluid, which basically has a consciousness of its own. This is why when we dream, we experience the dream while the fluid generates the dream

[Anonymous No.14728913]

>>14727236
>I still don't have a grasp on how it all comes together - how do I have this experience of consciousness? How do I have memories? How can I imagine things?
Noone knows. In my opinion there is something distinctly unphysical about consciousness

[Anonymous No.14728922]

>>14728913
>there is something distinctly unphysical about consciousness
Do you mean that it exist outside the physical or that it doesn't exist entirely?

[Anonymous No.14728954]

>>14728772
>You can't comprehend the image by examining the pixels.
YES you can ! Did you know about this thing named ZOOMING !?

[Anonymous No.14728960]

>>14728954
You really are mentally retarded and I'm not sure how to dumb things down further for you. Zoom in enough and you will no longer comprehend the image.

[Anonymous No.14728965]

>>14728922
>Do you mean that it exist outside the physical or that it doesn't exist entirely?
I can't pin it down exactly but you can't probe consciousness, you can't devise an experiment to measure something about it

[Anonymous No.14729053]

recursive feedback loops

[Anonymous No.14729066]

>>14727236
same way you go from neural net to a neural net that can drive a car. give it lots of inputs and outputs, and tie some of the outputs to some of the inputs for extra effect

[Anonymous No.14729096]

>>14729066
>and tie some of the outputs to some of the inputs for extra effect
what's this called again

[Anonymous No.14729107]

>>14729096
Delusion.

[Anonymous No.14729319]

Serious question. Why don't we have a good definition of consciousness yet? Or a good way of describing what it feels like to see color? Is that because it can't be described by language? If that's the case, then doesn't that sort of imply that it isn't mathematical? Or do we just not have the vocabulary to describe it yet? I am leaning towards the former because you can describe pretty much anything basic enough to a 5 year old. And I bet if we could travel back in time 3000 years using the language of the people back then, we could describe physical phenomena like lightning or how the body works (not that they'd believe us), but again we fail to describe consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14729332]

>>14727236
>countless
Stopped right there, go educate yourself on the basics and we can continue

[Anonymous No.14729383]

>>14729319
It's because intelligence and therefore consciousness exists on a spectrum.

[Anonymous No.14729566]

Before I riddle you this tell me, how do you think, do octopuses have conciseness?

[Anonymous No.14729630]

>>14727236
The brain has various functions that are compartmentalized. There's a brain part that functions as a way to self-locate within the 3D space. Its capable of discerning the location of any part of your body without looking. There's a brain part that functions as a means to create "self" of phenomenas so they are given "forms", whether its the body, the chain, the society, united states, currency, house, planets, your neighbor, etc. Basically it functions as a means to give phenomenas structures. There's a brain part that also functions as means to break apart those structures down to various causes and conditions. There's a brain part that also works as means to "picture" things from our mind. There's a brain part that functions as a means to gauge distances between phenomenas. Between people, between relations, between objects, between time, etc

These aren't hypothesis, but actual experimentally/medically diagnosed and understood functions of the brain. Humans are born with various conditions such that some parts come damaged, sometimes humans become damaged throughout life and we come to know the functions of the brain part thats been damaged as such.

We're closing in on what consciousness is, the "hard" part of it.

[Anonymous No.14729645]

>>14729319
Because we're only beginning to study consciousness. If we go back 100 years, everyone would say you can't study consciousness as science. Now we're learning with neuroscience, with phenomenology, with neurophenomenology, with linguistics, with computer scientists, etc in understanding aspects of consciousness in a more robust ways in a multi-disciplinary way.

Consciousness isn't just limited to biology, its expansive, so other fields with more developed understanding can add their expertise in guiding us towards a right model of consciousness. At the very basic, we are learning how brains are functioning to create the mind and it functions. The traditional dualistic notions of consciousness embroiled by religious/theistic elements are coming apart. Traditional materialistic scientists are coming along with trying to understand consciousness as well, rather than just ignoring it all together and claiming we don't have consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14729776]

>>14727236
consciousness is outside the reach of any and all observations one can ever make in the external world. No objective knowledge relating to consciousness can ever be known, questions relating to consciousness are not even meaningful. consciousness can not even be shown to objectively exist at all. The only knowledge you can ever have of consciousness is subjective.

[Anonymous No.14729808]

>>14729319
>Why don't we have a good definition of consciousness yet?
Because if you think about it, the only things that can be properly defined with words are abstractions. Words that refer to direct experience, or to primitive constructs of human thought, essentially work on the basis of "you know what I mean"; sometimes you'll see them loosely defined using other words of the same sort, but it forms a closed network of interdependent concepts that lead you in circles. This is unavoidable, otherwise any definition would lead to an infinite regression. Consciousness proper will never be defined, and anything that is properly defined is not consciousness itself but something tangential.

[Anonymous No.14729818]

>>14729319
>Why don't we have a good definition of consciousness yet?
Because if you think about it, the only words that can be properly defined using other words are abstractions. Words that refer to direct experience, or to primitive constructs of human thought, essentially work on the basis of "you know what I mean" -- people pick them up implicitly based on the context; sometimes you'll see them loosely defined using other equally elusive words, but it forms a closed network of interdependent concepts that lead you in circles. This is unavoidable; otherwise any definition would lead to an infinite regression. "Consciousness" is first and foremost a reference to the experience of being, and thus will never be properly defined.

[Anonymous No.14729823]

>>14729645
>If we go back 100 years, everyone would say you can't study consciousness as science
That's still as true as it was 100 years ago. Neuroscience doesn't study consciousness per se and the pseudointellectual pretense that it does quickly falls apart as soon as you dig into it.

[Anonymous No.14729840]

>>14729823
Neuroscience alone doesn't have consciousness answer because they're merely studying the brains functions. They don't know what framework would lead towards at the end of the tunnel, once they learn all the brain functions. As stated >>14729630, brain science has come a long way in taking apart the mysteriousness of consciousness, but its still got a long way ahead as well. There's no agreed upon "theory of everything" as it pertains to consciousness yet.

[Anonymous No.14729854]

>>14729840
>brain science has come a long way in taking apart the mysteriousness of consciousness, but its still got a long way ahead as well
It's got a very long way ahead in figuring out basic cognitive functions. It has nothing worthwhile to say about consciousness so far, and if it ever does, it will only be in terms of how influencing the brain influences conscious experience. It could never provide a testable explanation for why there is any conscious experience in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14729861]

>>14729854
We good parts of the basics down. There's numerous amounts of studies done to show the basic underlying functions of a conscious mind. Its not complete yet.

[Anonymous No.14729865]

>>14729861
Neuroscience has literally nothing to say about consciousness. Call me back when they figure out how memory formation and retrieval works, or how learning works, or why we dream, or... anything, really. Actually, call me back when cutting-edge neuroscience methodology is advanced enough to figure out a simple manmade microprocessor.
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268
What a joke.

[Anonymous No.14729880]

>>14729865
Ignorance doesn't make might.

[Anonymous No.14729883]

>>14729880
The only ignorance here is yours, you poorly educated pop-soi consumer. Everything I said is accurate.

[Anonymous No.14729989]

looked at op image
i know this thread is totally shit
i will not be reading any of the posts

[Anonymous No.14729994]

>>14728697
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.14729999]

>>14729865
i know you are full of shit just on the basis that - i dont know a lot about the others but i did research a lot about sleep and dreams, its surprising how much we already know but this is just not popular and not common knowledge. So if you can claim a bullshit like - we know little about science of dreams - you are probably bullshitting about other stuff

like when anons attack ADHD but they strategically avoid saying anything about micro traumas to the prefrontal cortex or the experiments with fruit flies and their genes or the very history of the issue and how they figured out whats going on - or the fact that normies get a completely different reaction to the meds than ADHD folk, who just get sedated, not stimulated

[Anonymous No.14730006]

>>14727236
>how do I have this experience of consciousness? How do I have memories? How can I imagine things?
It becomes clear when you realize these are the wrong/meaningless questions. All there exists are correlations between physical events. The idea that there is a "you" who is "experiencing" is a mistake.

[Anonymous No.14730019]

>>14727236
>>14727236
The current metaphysical paradigm that science has "formed",
>and I say formed loosely because it's people who interpret science in their own worldview, but I digress.
Is physicalism. And that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that occurs from layers of emerging complexity in organic life.
We don't know what the mechanism is, nor if it would even be transmutable to computers.
Consider Gödel's incompleteness theorum. A computer's foundation is mathematics. Therefore, the machine can never truly understand all unprovable truths. The more the machine tries to complete it's "understanding" of consciousness, the more inconsistencies emerge in it's understanding.
Compare that with humans. We have an "intuition" that allows us to understand and unproven truth. Because our foundationalism is something beyond the scope of mathematics.
In essence, we don't know. Consciousness could even be something that is not physical at all, and precedes epistemology altogether.
But that's an unfalsifiable claim and I'm going to stop there.

[Anonymous No.14730020]

>>14727236
The parsing and response of input signals is consciousness. A camera sees its picture the same way we do. AI is already about as conscious as an insect or an Epsilon from Brave New World. But there's actually a major deficit in our theories to make them more "conscious" like an animal, let alone do things like develop new theories of their own or write stories with proper plots. We haven't begun to describe what exactly creativity is.

[Anonymous No.14730107]

>>14728772
I'm the original guy you were replying to. >>14728954
is someone else. Thanks, I think I finally get your point now. There is something special about the 'emergent' thing that is distinct from the collection of its components.

[Anonymous No.14730119]

>>14727427
>Make a neuro net and program it to play games.
So you're saying even pseudo-consciousness needs an intelligent designer? Good luck programming a neuro net to be able to program itself for any kind of task though which is what consciousness more closely resembles (a neuro net is just a search algorithm, it is not intelligent in any way)

[Anonymous No.14730196]

>>14727290
Don't tell that to material-tards. They'll blow up. It's literally impossible for them to fathom anything other than a purely materialistic world ... even though their own consciousness disproves it.
Go figure.

[Anonymous No.14730203]

>>14727818
>Consciousness as you experience it is an illusion.
We could discuss continuous personal identity being an illusion. But how can experience itself be an illusion when illusions have to be a content of experience? That doesn't make sense and sounds like an empty deepity.

[SaintPhil !!WR64rc6MUeY No.14730239]

>>14727236
> what r the intermediate steps
it exists and it even has a name
Theseus' Brain
and Theseus' Neuron
There is a SUPER SUPER SUPER simple answer to this question as well, if you can ASK the question, I will answer it

[SaintPhil !!WR64rc6MUeY No.14730244]

>>14727290
Go hang some quantum crystals up you hippie

[SaintPhil !!WR64rc6MUeY No.14730247]

>>14727464
we already have synthetic embryos
entirely synthetic from 0
you don't need to think of the most ethereal and intangible creature you can as if somehow that would make it easier
a carrot synth would be harder to grow than a gorilla synth or a jelliest of jellyfish
> but no i was referring to their retardation
yeah protardation is not that special either

[Anonymous No.14730264]

>>14727481
Have you tried creating logic gates with neurons? I've tried but I can't stop thinking in terms of 1s and 0s.

[Anonymous No.14730356]

>>14727236
The universal rule of biology is that the form defines the function. Their are predetermined logical conclusions that a collection of neurons have before they even begin operating. Exclusions of possible conclusions via this method sets each part of the brain to form a specific role and thus we have parts of the brain.

The only issue with this is that the overall function of the brain is not localized but i would say that is set on by an assumption that the ideas and commonly accepted ideas of "logic" and "dreaming" are far more general then what we consider and that what is specific to the brain is extremely specific and most of the universe is based on general definitions and not specific ideas/concepts such as "learning" or "mathematics"

[Anonymous No.14730359]

>>14727236
God exists

[Anonymous No.14730446]

>>14727236
an intel i9 (or comparable) processor contains something like 6 billion transistors
a human brain contains more than 80 billion neurons
come back in maybe 20-30 years

[Anonymous No.14730452]

>>14730446
can't we reduce overall speed in favor of more cores? How many 200~ Hz cores can we have on an average server cpu die?

[Anonymous No.14730616]

>>14729999
If they know so much about sleep and dreams, why do we sleep and why do we dream? They barely know anything. They artificially inflate their knowledge the same way you could have "a lot of knowledge" about a microprocessor you don't understand by droning on and on about how electricity flows through some circuit, or how the voltage chances here or there when this or that happens. Once again you are invited to read this and see how you've been memed:

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268

[Anonymous No.14730644]

>>14727236
short answer is .... nobody knows for sure ... my guess is its that it's an intractable problem either because we are cognitively closed to comprehending such information or due to the problem actually being a feature of an irreducible mystery that we'll forever encroach upon but never reach ... either way enjoy the ride

[Anonymous No.14730735]

>>14728772
>but that's not the same as decomposing the visual comprehension of what the data is coding for.
a picture of your mom fucking a dog is still meets the definition of porn, even if all humans and dogs are dead and the only audience capable of viewing the image are space aliens

[Anonymous No.14730738]

>>14730735
Thanks for the psychotically incongruent (You), GPT.

[Anonymous No.14730739]

Read godel escher bach

[Anonymous No.14730745]

>>14730739
>read a pop-soi book by a midwit NPC who started writing because he got filtered by math

[Anonymous No.14730749]

>>14728079
>Show me a single instance of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

>Stars are nor decomposable into dust and gas.
>Images are not decomposable into pixels.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.14730752]

>>14730749
Sorry about your mental illness but thanks for the (You).

[Anonymous No.14730754]

>>14728960
So? The image is comprised of pixels regardless. You're not actually saying anything meaningful. If you zoom into a tree you can't see the forest, but it's still made of trees.

[Anonymous No.14730757]

>>14730752
Not an argument, thanks for admitting you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.14730758]

>>14730754
See >>14730752

[Anonymous No.14730773]

>>14730758
See >>14730757

[Anonymous No.14730775]

>>14730754
he's psueding
>individual nuerons do not form conciousness, but if i use different wording to intentionally obfuscate, i can look important in front of nobodies on a best korean cabbage fermenting irc channel

[Anonymous No.14730779]

>>14730775
>oversocialized bots patting each other on the back to soothe their asshurt

[Anonymous No.14730787]

>>14730758
>FORESTS AREN'T MADE OF TREES BECAUSE... BECAUSE I SAID SO REEEEEEEEEE
And you call others mentally ill...

[Anonymous No.14730797]

>>14730787
Who are you quoting? You seem to be having a psychotic episode again.

[Anonymous No.14730820]

>>14730797
>Stars are nor decomposable into dust and gas.
>Images are not decomposable into pixels.
>>If you zoom into a tree you can't see the forest, but it's still made of trees.
>See >>14730752
You're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.14730834]

>>14730820
So whom were you quoting? Why aren't you taking your meds?

[Anonymous No.14730881]

>>14727236
>I have no experience in biology other than one class in high school.

[Anonymous No.14731000]

living things have a soul

[Anonymous No.14731466]

>>14730834
>So whom were you quoting?
Where did I write any quotation marks?

You're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.14731473]

>>14731000
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14731518]

>>14731000 (check)
>>14731466 (check)
>Where did I write any quotation marks?

>

[Anonymous No.14731705]

Here's another question to consider.
Supposing that there's these billions of discrete neurons, and they are just acting on input/output in some pseudo-circuit, how are "we" observing it all?
Are we just hive-minds of neurons? 1200 cubic centimeters of squishy electrochemical parts that somehow becomes one entity?

[Anonymous No.14731724]

>>14731705
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14731761]

>>14731518
That's not a quotation mark, schizo.

[Anonymous No.14732567]

>>14731761
>So whom were you quoting?
>That's not a quotation mark, schizo.

>

[Anonymous No.14732593]

I don't believe there will ever be a "brain upload" in the sense that the consciousness/self will transfer. You could copy over the state of the brain, but it would only in effect generate a clone of the original person, not maintain their consciousness
in trying to think of ways to circumvent this, I think of the brain as a dynamical system where the consciousness develops as a function of the state of the brain and its previous states. In this, the neurons are robust in that if one dies, the surrounding neurons are resilient and redundant enough that they can propagate the state to new "virgin" neurons to replace the dead ones

with that being the case, it makes me wonder how a ship of theseus neuronal replacement might work
if we could create a fully artificial analog to the neuron, implant one in the brain, and over time have the artificial neurons replace the biological ones, given that the living neurons would propagate the state to the artificial ones, would this be sufficient to ensure the maintenance of the consciousness of the brain being replaced?

[Anonymous No.14732857]

>>14732567
See >>14731761

[Anonymous No.14733105]

>>14729053
thanks for the input mr. hofstadter

[Anonymous No.14734423]

>>14732593
Assuming what these neuroscientists say is true..., I suppose you would have continuous consciousness in that case.

[Anonymous No.14734449]

>>14732593
Just saw this
https://news.mit.edu/2022/analog-deep-learning-ai-computing-0728
"Once you have an analog processor, you will no longer be training networks everyone else is working on. You will be training networks with unprecedented complexities that no one else can afford to, and therefore vastly outperform them all."

[Anonymous No.14734760]

>>14727818
>Consciousness as you experience it is an illusion. You are not that much different from a computer.
holy shit dude you just solved the hard problem of consciousness

[Anonymous No.14735390]

>>14727290
Can you please tell me the difference between a substance fundamentally being mental Vs. physical ?
As naturalist/physicalist I don't understand idealism, it seem we got a lot of common ground. In that we believe there fundamentally only is 1 kind of "stuff".
What does it mean for that stuff to be mental?

[Anonymous No.14735558]

>>14734760
>consciousness is an illusion
>qualia doesn't exist
>you don't really feel pain or pleasure, you just think you do
>there are no mental events, you are only imagining them!
This whole argument is so useless. So what? Of course consciousness only exists in our minds. And brains are made of matter, yes. But we are matter that can apprehend itself. That, in my opinion, is consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14735621]

>>14735558
It is evolutionarily beneficial to have a strong concept of self, for the sake of self-preservation. This is why we have such a vivid experience of a separate consciousness, as aside from our reflexive responses, as aside from our subconscious thoughts, as aside from our environment. You feel that something quite unique is going on, but really, it's quite similar to if/else clauses, which at a certain point reach a complexity that actually creates a different quality from the previous level of complexity. (What I was talking about when saying that quantitative changes can cause qualitative changes)

Try some trascendental meditiation, hear (I don't recommend drugs) some stories about what LSD and Psilocybin does to your preception of reality, and consider the idea that perhaps your sense of self isn't quite much more than a very persistent illusion.

[Anonymous No.14735631]

>>14735621
Not him, but people who have egodeath during a trip or Buddhists killing their ego aren't non-sentient. I don't think anyone in this thread has even given an actual answer, just give opinions disguised as facts. Consciousness is a spook, nobody knows what it is. Consciousness isn't the ego or the "you."

[Anonymous No.14735638]

>>14732593
This is really at the heart of the object/process distinction and its gets us out of a lot of paradoxes. We become confused when we speak of brains and recurrence, simulation and what that means, cloning, transporting, all of that. If we treated each consciousness more like a process in space over time and less like an object, it would all make more sense.

[Anonymous No.14736059]

>>14735638
desu I think a lot of paradoxes could be eliminated, and a lot of misunderstandings could be cleared up, if more people just understood/learned about the notion of a dynamical system

[Anonymous No.14736121]

>>14727236
No one has any fucking idea.

We have pretty decent knowledge about the brain does certain things, for example, how the stimulation of photo receptors is processed into vision, or how patterns of neuronal activation initiate movement.

How first person experience emerges from neurons is a total mystery.

There are lots of hypotheses but no dominant ones. Many posit a "global workspace," where many areas of the brain feed information together. There is a hypothesis that first person experience emerged as part of a "theory of mind," system that allows us to simulate what other people are experiencing so as to better interact with them, but this is really not well grounded.

The synchronization that causes brainwaves is another proposed causal mechanism.

The exact how of non-experiencing things generating experience is a complete mystery. This is why you have cognitive scientists arguing for shit like dualism, panpsychism, or dualism, because it's a bit mind boggling that we can subject brains to such intense scrutiny, and like a magician it still pulls consciousness out of nowhere. This is why you get eliminitivism and people claiming consciousness doesn't exist, that qualia aren't real. If we had some sort of a lead, beyond the realization that the brain and its interaction with the body and the enviornment, somehow generates consciousness, we wouldn't need such wild suppositions.

[Anonymous No.14736253]

>>14736121
Yes we do, in fact people with knowledge and common sense have known a long time. It's called this thing: a brain. There's no spooky thing behind it, your brain uses senses to perceive reality. That's all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.14736523]

>>14727288
>and imagination is something like a crude simulation of arbitrary scenarios that draws on one's memories (likely originally intended to satisfy more primitive desires).
bretty dry way of articulating god's will desu

[Anonymous No.14736529]

>>14735390
your questions will take centuries if not millenia to answer, if they can be answered at all. or maybe the jews/freemasons already have as many answers as we are capable of understanding for now.

[Anonymous No.14736747]

>>14727290
What? Explain pls

[Anonymous No.14736801]

>>14735621
the "separate" part is a dissociation from parts of the mind that process vital and mechanics that a social ape using a complex language can't acknowledge too much.
both for the sake of sanity and credibility: you have to believe you are not the most vicious ape if you want to partake in a social mythos,
the evolutionary event described as the original sin maybe.

[Anonymous No.14736803]

>>14736801
*vital and taboo mechanics

[Anonymous No.14737328]

>>14736529
Them what's even the difference between naturalism and idealism, if you got no clue it means for stuff to fundamentally be mental?

[Anonymous No.14738694]

>>14727879
Good post

[Anonymous No.14738707]

>>14729818
Self referential paradox

[Anonymous No.14739019]

>>14727236
The answer is actually quite simple, but you wouldn't believe it. The only conscious being here is me. Everyone else is just a meat computer, such that there is no practical difference between you and the thing I use to type this post on. My consciousness transcends the corporeal plane. All those years of human culture, evolution and achievements were made just to please and satisfy me.

[Anonymous No.14739031]

>>14737328
i just dont think there's any way to figure it out. too many components between the neurons and the transmitters/hormones and the electricity. it's just too delicate of a system to understand. trying to understand it fucks with it too much to the point of incoherence or something

[Anonymous No.14739035]

>>14727818
Usually, the people that spout the moronic "illusion" line are the same people interpreting into other people's definition of "consciousness" things they don't even include, like selfhood.

No, nigger. My consciousness is not an illusion. It's like saying "13" is a bucket of apples. Complete malappropriation.
But I don't define consciousness as including things like "the I" that is speaking, or self-awareness, or how humans perceive certain objects. It's just pure experience.

[Anonymous No.14741207]

>>14739035
>My consciousness is not an illusion
That's just what an illusion would say!

[Anonymous No.14741542]

>>14735390
Mental substance doesn't exist without mind thinking about it, physical substance does. Fundamental substance doesn't exist, therefore mental substance doesn't exist, therefore only physical substance exists.

[Anonymous No.14741543]

>>14741542
fix: fundamental mind

[brain !LUr9isZgQk No.14743567]

Consciousness is a property which emerges from dynamic neural interactions. It is important to note that it is not a 'series' of only 'reactions' and 'pulses'. Neural interactions are more than just action potentials and neurotransmission. Most of neural computation is done post-synaptically, so even before action potentials are elicited. They happen in vast parallel as well.

[Anonymous No.14744439]

>>14727427
>consciousness literally is nonsense idiot philosophers made up same for qualia etc.

[Anonymous No.14744521]

>>14727236
human brains do not store information as discrete mathematical data, i.e. bits or qubits but rather as a mesh of experiences
https://futurism.com/the-byte/brain-cells-play-pong
actual wetware human processors are the biggest proof of this
in addition to transmiting electrical signals, human neurons also communicate through a complicated exchange of hormones

[Anonymous No.14744534]

>>14732593
human neurons are a bit different than other cells in that they dont really have a limited lifespan and can survive outside the body. you keep the exact neurons that you had since you were born and new neurons grow around that. By the time you reach 25~ those are the same neurons you're going to have until the end of your lifespan. Out of the 171 billion cells, you only get aorund 3000 each year after you become an adult.
presumbly, a ship of theseus replacement would be able to work as long as the neuron connection and hormone data is somehow kept during the procedure

[Anonymous No.14745911]

>>14744521
>in addition to transmiting electrical signals, human neurons also communicate through a complicated exchange of hormones
cool... what hormones? any sexy hormones like oxytocin? is it like neural sex? lmao

[Anonymous No.14745976]

>>14741542
>x
This is such a dumb and weak argument. Please name a "physical substance" or explain how can physical substance can exist independent of a mind that can conceive it or abstract it. Do you realize that what we call "physical" are abstractions we've of our senses? Do you know that our senses are limited? (in the sense that we have ended up being able to see what's necessary for us to survive). The problem here is that for any "physical substance" to exist and achieve definition it requires of mentality.

[Anonymous No.14746000]

>>14743567
This doesn't really solve the hard problem of consciousness, in fact it doesn't even explain anything, it's an empty appeal to complexity. The most coherent worldview is considering consciousness as fundamental and neurons, our brains, etc, as image of processes within consciousness, abstracted and codified by our own senses. With this worldview the hard problem literally disappears, and you also reconcile with a bunch of intuitions humans had about the nature of things very early on in religions and philosohpy, like the Vedas, a bunch of pre-Socratic philosophers, and even NDEs, past lives, remote viewing, and other phenomena widely research and with a weight that can't be ignored.

[Anonymous No.14746005]

>>14746000
Things just emerge, chud. Nuff said. Emergence solves the hard problem of having to explain anything. :^)

[Anonymous No.14746069]

>>14746000
What do you mean by considering consciousness as fundamental? Do you mean dualism?

[Anonymous No.14746080]

>>14746069
He literally told you what he means but you're a bot trying to shoehorn his reply into a familiar template so that you could start up the relevant dialogue tree.

[Anonymous No.14746209]

>>14746080
Okay, I'm retarded then. Where? WHERE did he say what it means? If he wants me to agree, I need to know what he means.
>The most coherent worldview is considering consciousness as fundamental and neurons, our brains, etc, as image of processes within consciousness, abstracted and codified by our own senses.
is vague as fuck

[Anonymous No.14746221]

>>14746209
At the very least you should be able to figure out he's not a dualist from the line you quoted.

[Anonymous No.14746228]

>>14746221
Okay, I kind of see that now. What made me think of dualism was the "reconcile with... Vedas... past lives, remote viewing".

[Anonymous No.14746448]

>>14744439
hes right you know, conciousness in itself cannot exist without a now, which also doesnt exist, only the past or the future, the past is stored in memory while the future still hasnt been perceived by memory. To say that conciousness without memory exists is to say that a square with no edges exists.

Then again, you can say that the recalling of memory is conciousness, except it isnt, when you recall memory you dont actually conciously experience it, it is only received as a brain signal, just like your fleeting "experiences".

[Anonymous No.14746455]

>>14746448
>the present doesn't exist
>only the past or the future
>the past is stored in memory
And where is the memory stored? In the future?

[Anonymous No.14746508]

>>14746448
and when it's received, that's not the present? FAGGOT!
>>14746455