/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14742508]

For folks who think we basically understand how consciousness works, what is the mechanism that creates subjective first person experience?

I have yet to find an explanation of this despite reading a lot on the topic and doing my undergrad degree in neuroscience. There are always appeals to the tremendous complexity of the brain, but how is it exactly that complexity is supposed to generate first person perspective?

To be sure, information theoretic approaches and neuroscience explain pretty well how vision can be processed, how behaviors that mimic self-awareness could arise, etc. These theories normally center on a global workspace for consciousness and a "theory of mind center," that evolved to increase our social aptitude, which simulates what it is like to have other experiences. However, none of this gets at home first person perspective actually arises.

Complexity itself is notoriously nebulously defined. In Tegmark's book, he posits that consciousness arises as a function of complexity and information content (he also slides in some panpsychism without much comment). But then information appears to be defined nebulously as semantic meaning, which is begging the question.

3,000 kilos of hydrogen gas in a vat exhibits complexity. Gas laws are emergent phenomena resulting from countless relationships between molecules, which are constantly sharing information with each other. Arguably, gasses are less complex because they are too networked. Information content wise, mapping the phase space of a large volume gas takes up more information than mapping the phase space of a human brain. So if complexity and information content alone cause consciousness, galaxies should be conscious.

[Anonymous No.14742526]

>>14742508
If first person perspective emerges from complexity, there should be a theory of how this happens. Right now it seems akin to God of the gaps explanations, where the inability to model anything that complex allows people to stick an answer there.

My own thoughts are that a concept of similarity needs to be included in our definition of complexity (Bohm had some good stuff on this). Brains are different from volumes of gas because the signals in their channels are less synonymous. Difference is necessary to generate meaning (Hegel, Boehme) and in a brain you have a higher number of differences that make a difference.

But this means redefining information to some degree. How does a brain contain more information than a large volume of gas whose phase space takes more information to encode? Do we need to flip to nebulous semantic definitions?

I feel like pansemiosis/It From Bit theories need to either embrace hard emergence, which cuts against their grounding in physics, or find a way to redefine information. Perhaps the redefinition requires putting the concept into Pierce's semiotic triad and using the "difference that makes a difference," definition within the context of each triad.

[Anonymous No.14742539]

>>14742508
>For folks who think we basically understand how consciousness works
You mean these folks? (pic related)

[Anonymous No.14742569]

Consciousness is immaterial, it's not mechanistic. You will never understand it because you're using a fork to drink the sea. You're too stupid, too naïve, and most importantly, too arrogant for true knowledge.

[Anonymous No.14742575]

>>14742569
Cringe. Controlled opposition.

[Anonymous No.14742584]

>>14742508
If you really want a more philosophical answer to this question you can read into the mindless existential drivel that is Descartes. Might not get you much further though.

[Anonymous No.14742596]

Should I just take the idealism pill? Pic related sort of convinced me.

[Anonymous No.14742598]

>>14742508
There are FOUR
FOUR
existing threads about the nature of consciousness
BTFO

[Anonymous No.14742609]

>>14742596
>Should I just take the idealism pill?
No because it's even more hilariously braindead than physicalism. Western philosophy in general is laughable.

[Anonymous No.14742620]

For dummies the main goal is sex and money
For smarties it's mental masturbation
The main goal is to feel good
>How can I replicate consciousness?
Make a machine that can feel good or bad

[Anonymous No.14742768]

>>14742508
>what is the mechanism that creates subjective first person experience
They don't have one. They just appeal to the brain doing this or that and then some how the experience gets beamed into the consciousness of the observer.

[Anonymous No.14742782]

>>14742526
>If first person perspective emerges from complexity, there should be a theory of how this happens.
Where does it emerge? In a neuron? Are you saying that the individual neurons each have a consciousness? Do they have a separate experience each? How do these consciousness get presented in a unified way to the observer?

[Anonymous No.14742845]

>>14742508
>light enter eye
>eye send signal
>signal buzz brain
>haha 4chan

[Anonymous No.14742864]

>>14742526
>I feel like pansemiosis/It From Bit theories need to either embrace hard emergence, which cuts against their grounding in physics, or find a way to redefine information
The key is information. This is true. So if shannon type info is can be interpreted as quantifying the level of "surprise" of a particular outcome, then where does the surprise lay? Does info only occur in consciousnesses? I also wonder if it comes down to quantifiable and qualifiable information. The physical world is quantifiable information appearing in a consciousness and these more or less 'objective' mental objects (objective in the sense that more than one observer can observe and measure them in there subjective data streams) quantifiable in terms of momentum, velocity, weight, angular momentum etc, which are able to inspire
subjective qualitative consciousness, form a kind of dual aspect informational/idealist monism. A subjective kind of info and a more or less objective kind of information. Eddington came close to this conclusion.

[Anonymous No.14742899]

you dont even know what consciousness is.

If you knew what it was you were talking about, it wouldn't seem so mysterious. It would seems completely natural.

[Anonymous No.14742946]

The fundamental error is the assumption that consciousness supervenes upon matter. In reality consciousness and matter creatively interact. A conscious observer collapses a wave function. The collapse of the wave function provides novel information to the conscious observer. This is one of many examples of telic recursion. It's how reality comes into existence via an SCSPL. All of this is explained implicitly in Chris Langan's CTMU.

[Anonymous No.14743108]

>>14742569
>hur dur your arrogant
you think you know what consciousness is? so let me get this straight out of every smart human in history YOUR the one you got it?

you realize we completely reinvent our idea of physics like every 100 years right? you dont know jack shit, none of us do.

[Anonymous No.14743128]

>>14743108
People just don't seem that complicated in general.
They buy iphones and sneakers to get laid and buy doggy coins cause they think it's funny. But suit yourselves if you want to make it complicated.

[Anonymous No.14743274]

>>14743128
Group behavior like trends are nowhere as complex as individual behavior

[bodhi No.14743296]

[Anonymous No.14743309]

>>14742620
Is there a meaningful difference between a being that feels good and bad in the way we do and between a machine that emulates such feelings and tries to do what makes it feel "good" and avoids feeling "bad"?

[Anonymous No.14743312]

>>14742946

[Anonymous No.14743319]

>>14742508
>the mechanism
In the beginning the organisms just reacted to touch.
At some point a brain was needed to anticipate what a nearby smell meant.
In time, the brain got more complicated and at some point its predictions included its own state when solving what to do next.
Consciousness is this non-stop deja vu.

[Anonymous No.14743338]

>>14743309
Well a machine doesn't know when to feel good or to feel bad. It doesn't know what a group is, it doesn't know what sex is, it doesn't know what money is, it doesn't have curiosity, it doesn't have pride...
So you have to tell the machine what feels good and what feels bad and then have it come to conclusions based on that.

[Anonymous No.14743580]

>>14742508
"Consciousness" is a process in which our senses streams information to our brain. Every sensory event is a conscious event, at the moment of cognition. There's no "at first there was input, then I cognized that input", its always "input-cognition", never separate, hence consciousness are sensory bound, and can even happen without brains as we see in many other animals. Ants for example are very simple conscious creatures that can pass the mirror tests and can detect whether a color in painted on their forehead or not and not confuse the mirror for another ant. Its not smell factor either, painting it on the backside of their head where they can't see the color will make them ignore it completely. So even ants have a "first person" consciousness with regards to their physical senses.
You're probably thinking, "thats not exactly what consciousness is though." Which is right. The part I described is the instantaneous consciousness that which pertains to direct senses. We have another type of consciousness, that which we can cognize from the mind and be conscious of all the other physical senses, we can manipulate them, run simulation, recall memories, etc. That's the deeper consciousness of the brain itself. There's consciousness process of the base of physical sensors and consciousness process of the brain. The difference in function lies in location of neurons. This is one reason why your hand can move faster than your brain can sense pain/heat if a finger touches a hot stove, localized neurons are conscious at the nearest hub. Similar to how octopus's hands sensors are conscious of everything around it due to thick neurons running through their entire arms/body.
So the "first person" subjective experience is the secondary processing center which takes the input of the other senses, primarily eyes and maps out a self locating element when the information is run through the brain.

[Anonymous No.14743602]

>>14742526
Right.

Saying something is emergent doesn't explicitly mean you're saying nothing useful... saying nothing useful means you're saying nothing useful.

Science is very good at explaining and verifying precisely how things work. It hasn't explained consciousness yet (and may never, who knows). Consciousness MAYbe outside the bounds of science, somehow. However even if it is, that doesn't mean you're allowed to claim anything you like as an explanation... The best course of action is to take what we know about how things works (i.e. what we know from physics, chemistry, biology etc...) and say that, at the moment, it seems most likely that consciousness can emerge from those principles, because we know those principles are at work and we've searched hard for other ones to no avail (and probably would have seen concrete hints of them by now if they were really there, working at this macroscopic level).

If you want to describe consciousness then use rigorous experiments to "confirm" or prove wrong your ideas about it, don't simply say "because science hasn't answered it yet, it therefore allows me to use whatever philosophical nonsense i want to analyse and describe it". If you don't like the word science, then don't call it science... just make sure you have a way to confirm what you're actually describing is what's actually there.

[Anonymous No.14743607]

>>14743580
Cont.

So there's 2 types of consciousness process. 1) primary/fast acting physical sensory consciousness 2) secondary long term/planning/simulation/navigation/etc consciousness within the brain

Again, these are all physical either on the localized physical sensory part or partitioned in parts of brain to produce secondary functions. Our brain has physical functions like how events are perceived in time as a causal mechanism, functions like how it can locate all parts of the body in space-time, how it can create entities/structures to all phenomenas by sub-bracketing the conceptual structure from others, functions like how each conscious event can be seen as either close or far, or how each conscious event can be seen as threat or friendly, etc.
Damaging part of the brain in certain areas can destroy the capability of a person to feel personal space, rational discourses, motivations, fear, etc.

Simple functions control complex chain of decisions that we attribute as a complex conscious being.

[Anonymous No.14743631]

Well think of a lab rat thats put on a maze.
The maze is not scary in itself. But the human is and the fact that the humsn put the rat in the maze makes it scary. So the rat tries to get out the maze and at the end of it it finds some cheese, which is the reward. After a few times the lab rat is no longer scared and just goes through the maze to find the cheese.
In order for the rat to learn, it had to know that the human is a predator, an animal bigger than it and it had to know the cheese was a reward, food and it had to know how to navigate the maze via trial and error.
Right now ai has the navigation via trial an error, which is nice, but it doesnt have the fear and it doesnt have the reward.

[Anonymous No.14743634]

>>14743607
More importantly, they run independently such that we have NPCs that shut off their brain consciousness and let the physical sensory consciousness act out.

[Anonymous No.14743654]

>>14743607
>>14743602
Case in point, this says absolutely nothing about what causes first person perspective to emerge.

I feel like so much of the literature is pretending to address this question, and then answering completely different questions about how the brain does X or Y.

[Anonymous No.14743664]

>>14743654
How do you define first person perspective? The livestream we see?

Thats just physical sensory consciousness streaming streaming.

>what about the concept of images/movement/feeling/etc
Those are concept formed by the brain consciousness which creates structure to concepts, gives the concept causal properties, gives it frames to identify it from others, etc.

[Anonymous No.14743670]

>>14742620
>consciousness is an emergent mechanism to further pleasure

[Anonymous No.14743687]

>>14743654
Biology/chemistry alone will never have the answer to consciousness, just because of the simple fact that no matter how complex chemical reactions you have, it should never be able to make a subjective experience.

I would bet money that consciousness has more to do with some kind of new fundamental force we haven't discovered or time itself, rather than in the complexity of our chemistry.

[Anonymous No.14743688]

>>14743670
Well i dont know. A pig rolling in mud might feel happier than a person that owns a yatch. the person who bought the yatch is more concious than the pig, but the pig rolls in the mud and the person bought the yatch cause it felt good.

[Anonymous No.14743699]

>>14743687
If we're going into physics, I'll be the opposite guy and say we have too much "stuff" that confuses that we have created. So consciousness is one of those stuff that we've created. So if anything, its not that there will be a new force, but rather we'll find a way to cut off the unnecessary fat.

[Anonymous No.14743733]

>>14743699
Well the way theyre going about it is not right though.
A chatbot shouldnt predict what a user will say and churn out a response. the chatbot should learn the language and feel according to the language. The feel can be one smoll variable.

[Anonymous No.14743760]

>>14742508
"Explain" basically just means "reduce to a smaller set of primitives". We would need something like:

1. A "periodic table" of qualia and rules for how those are all layered to produce your overall conscious experience.
2. A bunch of physical laws describing how certain physical events map onto/produce/generate those qualia.

I'm not talking about "when this bunch of synapses fires in the human brain, you experience this emotion", I'm talking about something at the level of like, "when an electron shifts orbit, it produces an experience of the color red", or something. Obviously it wouldn't be that simple, but my point is (1) and (2) would be part of the laws of physics, on the same level as the fundamental forces or relativity. So you wouldn't expect them to be expressed in terms of concepts like lobes and neurons, but in terms of concepts like electrons and Higgs fields.

[Anonymous No.14743814]

Every day i read about the neuroscience of conciousness, oh the amygdala this the prefrontal cortex that...
What about say linguists and psychologists?

[Anonymous No.14744145]

>>14742508
Our brain evolved a compiler to process the language of electrochemical interactions.

First hand experience arises from using that compiler to construct neural programs that can then code better compilers that are more optimized than the original.

This processes of compiling a better compiler, occurs as a human ages. We do not come out of the womb with a good enough interpreter of our electrochemical interactions to construct linguistic chains that can be understood by the compiler itself.

Once the compiler complexity reaches that stage we can then begin to use those electrochemical interaction codes to write a pseudo code that can be understood by the compiler and control our bodies at the macro level.
>inner thought

This is pretty much identical to how we think Artificial Intelligence will eclipse human intelligence.
Being able to write it's own new code optimizations, and edit it's own compiler/interpreter.

If this isn't enough to justify the idea of first person experience to you, I don't know what will.

It's just an optimization program.
>berry taste good
>find more berry
>how can i find more berry <- self query
>optimize for how to find more berry
>this berry always in bush
>find more bush
>how find more bush? <- self query
>optimize for how to find more bush
etc...

Base thoughts from the lowest level compiler/interpreter lead into the self querying thoughts, which then create action or further optimization for additional self-query.

The first person experience is the ability to question those self queries and analyze the database of previous optimizations to decide whether any particular query is the correct query to optimize for.
Sometimes it is not.
When we decide to use those query optimizations that are bad, that is where darwinian evolution begins to shape and feedback this optimization.

Humans that generated bad queries for optimization died out.

[Anonymous No.14744166]

Whenever you ask something like this, people are bound to tell you about how the brain processes information.
I actually agree with the materialist explanation for that one. Artificial neural nets have shown us that far simpler systems than the one in our brain can do some pretty impressive things. In that regard, I can accept consciousness as emergent.

I'm unsatisfied with extending that explanation to qualia. Why do I actually see the color yellow? Assume some artificial human which is perfectly advanced to act just like one. Looks just like a human, talks just like a human, even appears to have realistic emotions. Think Blade Runner. The only difference is it's all sillicon. Is it really conscious like us? Does it **really** see the color yellow like I do? Why?

[Anonymous No.14744174]

>>14744166
Adding picture of a woman so I get replies

[Anonymous No.14744178]

>>14744174
Show tits

[Anonymous No.14744245]

>>14742508
if we accept autopoiesis, or a living systems capability to maintain itself, subjective first person experience seems to be a byproduct of our biological unity (body)'s operation.

>>14742526
with respect to peirce, my understanding is that signs are arbitrary because we identify an object and assign it its unique signifier.

lets say "information is real light": we can then differentiate between natural light (as it presents itself in reality), as opposed to artificial light, which would be the representation of real light as some kind of data form. complexity does not seem to be the issue; our interpretation of information as true or false representation will depend on how effectively we interpret real light from the environment. by attaching the material basis for information to light, i intend to suggest that physical forms are just part of light's phase space, otherwise i'd like to know what i am fundamentally misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.14744296]

>>14744178
You set me up for this

[Anonymous No.14744423]

>>14742609
>No because it's even more hilariously braindead than physicalism. Western philosophy in general is laughable.
I agree. It has never produced any practical result. Just mindless discussions. Sentences that sound insightful (because they lead to complex stories) but are fundamentally complete bullshit. It's like a fanfic, or the plot of a movie or a video game. You can talk for hours about it, you can write a book, or 2, or 5. But it's all complete bullshit.

Harry Potter doesn't exist IRL. Kant's categories are bullshit. Philosophers have the brain of a retarded child.

[Anonymous No.14744432]

>>14743274
it's the opposite
>>14743128

[Anonymous No.14744436]

>>14744423
I think philosophers can contribute to AI and by that I mean linguists in particular. I was thinking about how the word fuck can have multiple meanings depending on how you use it in phrase. But maybe that's just curse words.

[Anonymous No.14744449]

>>14744436
words have multiple meanings depending on how you use them? is that your idea?

[Anonymous No.14744454]

>>14744449
>I was thinking about how the word fuck can have multiple meanings depending on how you use it
>words have multiple meanings depending on how you use them? is that your idea?
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.14744456]

>>14744449
Well linguistics encompasses a lot of things. There's even computational linguistics.

[Anonymous No.14744503]

>>14742508
>For folks who think we basically understand how consciousness works, what is the mechanism that creates subjective first person experience?
Relativity.
>I have yet to find an explanation of this despite reading a lot on the topic and doing my undergrad degree in neuroscience.
Learn to code to understand how software works.

[Anonymous No.14744517]

Never mind. This is pretty good lol.

[Anonymous No.14744528]

>>14742508
You're asking questions that unfortunately academia boomers want to sweep under the bed.
It's like spacetime, we don't even know what it "is" other than some space that fits some mathematical models and seems to posses certain fields. And if you start asking questions you'll be told that's metaphysics and not science.
But the boomers don't understand that a lot of younger people aren't afraid of asking questions, we don't blindly follow the dogma, and in the past philosophy and science went hand in hand.
I think we may see a lot of interesting developments in the philosophy of spacetime, consciousness and other things like that once the boomers are gone in the next 20-50 years

[Anonymous No.14744537]

>>14744145
I think this is good as an explanation of how the brain works but i don't think it addresses what OP is talking about at all (consciousness, self awareness, self perception)
You just very simply described how the brain could evolve

[transcension.systems No.14744547]

Advanced and complex information processing of hyperdimensional nature?

[Anonymous No.14744568]

>>14744537
My implication is that the electrochemical reward and punishment system that was tweaked by Darwinian evolution was best optimized by providing "first person experience" to us.

All it is, is a filter and translation system for feelings and emotions that we only interpreted electrochemically before.
The higher order "conscious mind" is a more efficient optimizer of states, that lead to favorable emotional states. sic electrochemical states that are more favorable

We can decide when to leave our shelter because of danger, and can weigh whether having sex is more beneficial than looking for food. (Obviously as a whole, we fail the sex/food decision from an intelligence and morality level, but we succeed at picking sex from an evolutionary standpoint.)

First person you is a constant wildcard mechanism who's top priority is survival of the body.

Consciousness as we currently know it, is just a specific level of interpretation and optimization.

There may actually be states of consciousness and self-awareness that supersede our current human first person consciousness.

That doesn't necessarily imply greater intelligence, but it would probably be a strong indicator. We publicly have no basis for how we could test this.

Blue Eisenhower November

[Anonymous No.14744584]

>>14744568
Okay but at least you will agree that your idea is purely philosophical in nature, no?
I don't know if you're right or wrong but your post reads as if a philosopher not a scientist had wrote it.
I'm not against the idea of philosophy and science working together by the way, I'm just saying

[Anonymous No.14744909]

>>14744454
do you actually think that's a novel idea? you STEMshits are so delusional and stupid.
Why don't you just publish papers or work at you job and shut the fuck up? Remove your vocal cords, you useless, stupid human being. And SHUT UP! Silence

>>14744456
What's your point? Are you the same moron?

[Anonymous No.14744945]

>>14742508
the only answer that makes sense is that there's something fundamental about awareness. lately, i've been thinking that all information generates sensation, but it's only certain structures of information that generates self-awareness, i can't imagine it working any other way.

[Anonymous No.14745432]

>>14742508
All this stuff about taking some vague concept of "complexity" and "information" and then trying to tack "consciousness" onto it in an almost panpsychistic way is hugely misguided. It's like looking at the brain, saying "yup, that's complicated" and concluding that complicatedness is the basis of consciousness.

>To be sure, information theoretic approaches and neuroscience explain pretty well how vision can be processed, how behaviors that mimic self-awareness could arise, etc. These theories normally center on a global workspace for consciousness and a "theory of mind center," that evolved to increase our social aptitude, which simulates what it is like to have other experiences.
This is the answer. If we know from neuroscience that there is a process in the brain which models the world, itself, itself in the world, its sensory inputs and action outputs, etc.. then that's the answer to our question. We can give a pretty solid account of all the processes that result in someone saying "I see a blue object before me", and this is the answer to the question of "blue qualia". The difficult part is not answering the question, but getting them to formulate the question in a coherent way such that they can't go "but you haven't *really* explained it" at every answer.

[Anonymous No.14745444]

>>14744166
>Why do I actually see the color yellow?
Why do you require an explanation beyond the neurological explanation of colour vision and subjective awareness? Before we can hope to answer your question we have to know what the question is.

[Anonymous No.14745542]

>>14742508
Consciousness is the prima materia. Read Elemental Elementalism if you ever really want to understand it.

[Anonymous No.14745546]

>>14744423
>I agree. It has never produced any practical result. Just mindless discussions. Sentences that sound insightful (because they lead to complex stories) but are fundamentally complete bullshit.
Ironically, they are responsible for your putrid and worthless worldview.

[Anonymous No.14745689]

>>>14744423(You)
>>14745546

>Ironically, they are responsible for your putrid and worthless worldview.

HAhahahaha, you are a stupid, stupid fucking goy. Wrong, brainlet. Simply wrong! Try again, retard.

[Anonymous No.14745702]

[Anonymous No.14745982]

>>14745702
>implying you can't do phenomenology within functionalism

[Anonymous No.14745987]

>>14745982
You can't by definition. Why are you such a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.14746020]

>>14745542
>"prima materia"
>being this narcissistic
>"I'm a trivial mammal, an animal little different than an ant, thus the universe itself perfectly mirrors the most flawed aspect of my animal form."

Consciousness is just a cancer. It was a desperation attempt to save the meaningless horse-toothed monkey species from extinction. They couldn't survive in Africa without adapting somehow, they had little natural suitability, little ability to compete, and this is why they had to develop intelligence.

>be human, empirically negligible meatbag
>just a catalyst of entropy
>just sugar fire
>no different than any other consumer animal
>"I' masturbate my ego to my own consciousness, thus God must be just like me"
>"I masturbate my ego to my own consciousness, thus all aspects of the universe must be just like me"

>be cross-dressing child raping clown
>"I'm a cross-dressing child raping clown, thus God must be just like me."
>"I'm a cross-dressing child raping clown, thus all aspects of the universe must be just like me."

The tragedy that you narcissists don't understand is that your "Everything is just like humans because we're humans and we're narcissists." equally as much justifies the argument that "Cross-dressing child raping clownhood is the prima materia."

Do you honestly believe that? That every aspect of the universe is created from the "raw magical primal energy of cross-dressing child raping clowns?" That if you had the technology, you could peer into the prima materia of a rock, that inside of it, it is pure cross-dressing child raping clowns?

>None of this is science
>It's the same argument as "God looks just like me, he is a person, 100% exactly like humans."
>you just replaced God with the material world

[Anonymous No.14746022]

>>14746020
That's a really long and obfuscated way to say "I am mentally ill".

[Anonymous No.14746060]

>>14745542
>be consciousness
>minimized in all conscious life due to frequent faults
>purely a necessary evil
>incredibly predisposed to dysfunction
>be humans
>cancer-tier consciousness from lack of innate survival ability of species
>profound psychological, intellectual, and instinctive dysfunction within the species
>species is collapsing due to consciousness induced impotence and self-induced illnesses
>be dysfunctional, dysgenic species on the brink of death
>"The universe is just like our most flawed aspect"

On your best days, you're sugar fire, you're chemically no different than a meat car. You serve the same purpose as fire. You just exist to catalyze entropy. That's it. If the universe was "conscious", it would suffer from profound levels of self-destruction due to the capacity of consciousness to deviate from the natural optimum. If the consciousness does not deviate from the natural optimum, it has no free will since all of its actions are predetermined in accordance with the natural optimum, and at this point, it cannot be considered conscious, whatever "consciousness" exists is entirely powerless in that it cannot deviate from the natural optimum.

Since at this point, without any influence upon the system due to the inability to deviate, there is no reason for this consciousness to exist, there is no justification that would force this consciousness to arise, and in that situation, were anything unnecessarily conscious, this would be like a cancer, something that just sucks away energy without producing anything.

The only things which would develop consciousness are the things that outright need consciousness as a necessary evil like complicated biological entities. They need a way to organize, process, and react to a large amount of environmental stimulus and produce the reaction which most benefits the indefinite survival of the organism.

[Anonymous No.14746071]

>>14746060
>>14746022

[Anonymous No.14746089]

>>14746022
>That's a really long and obfuscated way to say "I am mentally ill".

You're a meatbag, you're little different than a car. Your fuel is sugar. Animal life only exists because it catalyzes entropy by reducing the potential energy of the glucose produced by plants in a more efficient manner than fire. You're fucking sugar fire. That's it. This is the science.

>"magic human-like conscious universe where horse-toothed ant-like meatbags riddled with faults are 'the cornerstone of the universe'"

Do you honestly think you're "magical and God"? That just disregards all of the science we understand and asserts the same 6,000 year old religious delusion that "Man was created in God's image". That's it. That's every single conscious universe argument. It's the same desperate coping mechanism to deal with the pain and stress of your empirical meaningless, triviality, and the fact that you're little different than any other fucking animal on this planet.

>is God just like a rat?
>a pig?
>a tortoise?
>a rabbit?
>a fish?
>no?

Odd, because you're literally just a different flavor of rat. That's it. You're a different flavor of morganucodontids. You exist for the same reason society has people who do different jobs. That's it. You're not anything significant. Your species is empirically meaningless, and your "conscious universe" argument is no more valid than "cross-dressing child rapist clown universe". It's entirely a coping mechanism with nothing but baseless narcissism to "justify" the claims. You're not the "prima materia" you're just a fucking cancer. Grow up.

[Anonymous No.14746092]

>>14746089
You make an interesting point but consider the following: >>14746022

[Anonymous No.14746095]

>>14746089
I agree with you sort of. Not entirely but I get what you're saying.
I'm not the anon you're replying to I just thought I'd chime in.

[Anonymous No.14746100]

>>14746089
I just wanted to say your post is very intelligent.
Don't mind the trolls and keep spreading truth. Many of us here support you.

[Anonymous No.14746103]

>>14746020
>>14746060
>>14746089
based realist. meatbags will cope. we support your effort

[Anonymous No.14746108]

>>14746103
That's not being realistic. That's being philosophically nihilistic. There's nothing scientific about assuming things you can't prove

[Anonymous No.14746109]

>>14746095
>>14746100
>>14746103

[Anonymous No.14746128]

>>14746071
>"matter is concious"
>niggers are conscious
>is matter a nigger?

You're trying to tell me that universal law is governed by niggerdom? That the fabric that binds the universe together is the same fabric which produces things like niggers, transgenders, criminals, child rapists, and other degenerates? Really?

Consciousness provides nothing but the capacity to deviate from the optimum. There is no free will in perfection, thus no need for consciousness. The universe upholds its laws perfectly, and the presence of perfection alone indicates a complete absence of consciousness.

I know arguing with delusional narcissistic people never works, whether they are transgenders, niggers, or "God is just like me" types

>"God is just like me"
>"The universe is just like me"

What, so the universe is a massive fucking faggot? The universe shitposts and does nothing? The universe exists in a state of dysfunctional delusion completely detached from any capacity to process and understand evidence?

>be delusional narcissistic conscious universe
>spit on all other conscious entities
>condemn them
>prohibit their existence
>censor any references to them
>manipulate all evidence into propaganda to defame them
>reduce all other conscious life to meaningless triviality
>assert own consciousness as superior, condemn all other consciousness as false consciousness

If the universe were conscious, you would know it, because you would have to suffer through endless shitposts about how great the universe is, you would have to hear it complain about how it wants free shit, you would have to hear about how much it hates inferior faux consciousnesses, it would want your attention and approval 24/7, it would demand special treatment, it would try to bend all rules in its favor, it would disregard law in favor of self-service, it would abuse and exploit others for personal gain, and it would call you every name it could to build its fragile ego.

[Anonymous No.14746138]

>>14746128
>You're trying to tell me that universal law is governed by niggerdom?
I'm just trying to tell you to take your meds. Not reading the rest of your post, by the way so prepare to do some more of this >>14746109 to save face. lol

[Anonymous No.14746153]

>>14746108
>There's nothing scientific about assuming things you can't prove

What sort of fucking nonsense is this? In a "conscious universe" thread? There is endless evidence for my arguments.

> you're sugar fire
>you're chemically no different than a meat car
> You serve the same purpose as fire.

All of these are 100% facts. Ironically, there is zero evidence for any sort of consciousness existing outside of complex biological life. When you condemn my arguments, yet support conscious universe arguments, you're saying "There's no science in assuming the falsehood of things you cannot disprove" Despite numerous logical proofs that heavily suggest that consciousness is confined entirely to complex biological organisms, that's not even important.

The sole argument in favor of conscious universe remains "There's no science in assuming the falsehood of things you cannot disprove", since there has been absolutely 0 evidence beyond the fantasies of humans.

There is no evidence for an infinite amount of things. We cannot disprove an infinite amount of things. Do we act as if these infinite amount of things are true because we cannot prove them? No. We only act based upon what we can prove, the population of what we cannot disprove is only consequential if we can prove it in the first place.

>"There's no science in assuming the falsehood of things you cannot disprove"
>look at this quote

"The fabric of the universe, the prima materia, is composed entirely of pure cross-dressing child-rapist clown energy, which cannot be detected by anyone, because it is impossible to cross-dress and rape enough children while dressed up like a clown to get the 100% super conscious and human-like universe to trust you enough to expose itself to you."

This argument has the exact same "evidence" to back it up as conscious universe arguments, so is it true? Find some hard evidence or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14746167]

>>14745444
Let's say there's a man who is completely colorblind. He can't see any color at all, just monochrome black-and-white. But we want to teach him which objects are certain colors and which aren't.

We give him a special video camera for him to look through. He can select "red", "green", or "blue" filters, and the camera will only let that color through. In the red filter mode, a red apple appears very bright, but a blue marble appears very dark.
With some training, he is able to use the camera to tell the color of any object. He even gets very good at pinpointing intermediate shades, by cycling through all three filters. He is just as good at telling color as any other person.

But I think you wouldn't say he sees color quite like we do. It's an intimate experience in our heads. The same goes for tastes and smells. If you built a robot with a million particle sensors and a huge lookup table, that could tell you what any smell was, would it actually smell those cookies?

[Anonymous No.14746177]

>>14746100
>Many of us here support you

It's tragic that cancer has metastasized so severely over the internet. These people are so incorrigible and unplesant that I find little reason to try and help humanity. The top 10% of society is just abandoning these people, simply because the internet reveals to them who truly benefits from the work of the greater men. When you truly see who it is you are actually attempting to benefit, you lose any and all interest you had in helping them. The only people who would still want to "help" these cancerous people are comparably cancerous criminals and sociopaths simply seeking to exploit them for profit.

The future is bleak, because these people truly are a cancer upon anyone's motivation to work hard and benefit the human race. Such beasts deserve neither pity nor sympathy, to assist them is no different than providing charity to criminals. Unfortunately, when exposed to the everyman, I cannot justify his existence and find no reason to try and help him perpetuate it.

This has made me into a bitter and hateful person, and seldom do I write empirical arguments anymore, of late, I'm just cooking up well poison because I can only hope that some text-crawler finds it, feeds it to one of the AI driven text-generators they use for the botnets on these websites, and they start promoting even greater degrees of suicidal degeneracy and subhumanism than already plague the West.

[Anonymous No.14746178]

>>14746167
>We give him a special video camera for him to look through. He can select "red", "green", or "blue" filters, and the camera will only let that color through. In the red filter mode, a red apple appears very bright, but a blue marble appears very dark.
>With some training, he is able to use the camera to tell the color of any object. He even gets very good at pinpointing intermediate shades, by cycling through all three filters. He is just as good at telling color as any other person.
Neurologically, this is clearly different than what happens in people with normal colour vision. Different parts of the brain process the data, it's memorized in different ways etc. This explains, purely through neurology, why it would be a different experience for this man.

[Anonymous No.14746182]

>>14746167
At no point did you actually answer his question.

[Anonymous No.14746183]

>>14746178
At no point did you actually try to engage with the idea he was trying to get across. These threads are literally just GPTs arguing GPTs.

[Anonymous No.14746200]

>>14746183
I am engaging directly with what he is saying instead of guessing which well-known thought experiment he's getting at and then giving the well-known functionalist reply, which would be novel to exactly noone.

[Anonymous No.14746205]

>>14746200
>I am engaging directly with what he is saying
No, you're not. I don't think you're capable of even comprehending what he's saying, though, given your position.

[Anonymous No.14746211]

>>14746205
fuck off bodhi

[Anonymous No.14746217]

>>14746211
>bodhi
Take your meds...?

[Anonymous No.14746229]

>>14746100
>Don't mind the trolls and keep spreading truth.

It's just so hard to do this. It's just so discompelling to work, to bother, to care, when I am forced to witness the dregs of humanity running a mobocracy of incessant shitposting online, drowning out all reason, indoctrinating children into this subhuman level of 128-character phoneposter niggertongue banter bullshit. It's just fucking disgusting to witness this shit come to dominate the internet. This is what happens when you let poor people and colored people on the internet. If humans were wise, they would heed these words, but unfortunately, advice most needed is least heeded.

"These people are so incorrigible and unpleasant that I find little reason to try and help humanity. The top 10% of society is just abandoning these people, simply because the internet reveals to them who truly benefits from the work of the greater men. When you truly see who it is you are actually attempting to benefit, you lose any and all interest you had in helping them. "

Ta ta. I've had enough of the tragedy that is the human race for today.

[Anonymous No.14746245]

>>14746183
They need to put the fucking GPTs on 2k character minimum because this fucking 128-character phoneposter niggertongue bullshit needs to fucking end. There needs to be nothing but aggressive condemnation of anyone who speaks that godforsaken language.Just 2k characters of scathing rebuke instantly for any motherfucker with the gall to speak in the language which drags civilization back into the mudpits of Africa.

[Anonymous No.14746256]

>>14746229
>>14746245
Maybe you can contribute some content to the conversation instead of whining that people won't give your walls of text enough attention.

[Anonymous No.14746266]

This whole thread is just people shouting the same tired arguments at each other. And it seems like someone posts a new "consciousness" thread every day.

Next time someone posts one of these threads, they have to instantly be BTFOd. For the good of our sanity.

[Anonymous No.14746592]

>>14742946
>A conscious observer collapses a wave function.

[Anonymous No.14746597]

>>14746266
>it seems like someone posts a new "consciousness" thread every day.
3-4 threads every day, actually. Part of the AGI psyop. Bots create these threads to disseminate certain NPC dogmas about consciousness in fake debates against "dualist" strawmemes.

[Anonymous No.14746626]

>>14742946
>conscious observer
>collapse of wave function
Two yikes being combined together.

BIG YIKES

[Anonymous No.14746667]

>>14746020
>>14746060
>>14746089
>>14746128
This is really it, right here. The rest is just fighting over some romantic definition of conscious life that is just as artificial and meaningless as Nascar. We can pump our deductive ability until will get a warmer, friendlier answer, but there won't be one.

Also, who wrote the "Sugar Fire" piece?

https://youtu.be/YtYzy7qWTMI

[Anonymous No.14746789]

>>14746128
>sugar fire
simply ebin...

[Anonymous No.14746792]

>>14746667
>pump
fuck off you stupid faggot
go pump a homo's cock

[Anonymous No.14746884]

it's your soul bro

[Anonymous No.14747034]

>>14743687
Midwit take

[Anonymous No.14747203]

>>14744584
I don't see it as much of a logic jump from functional brain translating electrochemical inputs and outputs, to first person experience with the ability to catalog and edit the internal database of those same outputs.
Each iteration of generational change optimizes for that eventual output.

We can see some gradient of self awareness and consciousness in the animal kingdom on this planet.

From mindless plants and insects, to chimpanzees, dolphins, octopi, and ultimately humans.

We won the optimization game, by evolving the most advanced hypervisor.
The sense of self, and recognizing the differences between ourselves and the environment around us.

[Anonymous No.14747208]

>>14747203
>We can see some gradient of self awareness and consciousness in the animal kingdom on this planet.
Can we, now? Can we "see" their self-awareness? Do you see how what you are saying would be unconvincing to the person you are talking to for exactly the same reason he was skeptical to begin with?

[Anonymous No.14747405]

>>14747208
I'm talking relative intelligence comparisons.

Some animals recognize themselves in mirrors. Others do not.

Some animals display complex problem solving capability. Others do not.

Etc...

[Anonymous No.14747530]

Goddam everything is so spread apart in the brain. I thought we had cpu n shitz, nope. Gyrus this gyrus that fucking specializing in language, vision, etc. How we go from detecting lines in parts of our vision to recognition takes hundreds of billions of neurons.

It's the realization that AI will never be human, and that our brains are so vulnerable - we're one stroke away from being disabled.

[Anonymous No.14747555]

I believe it has to with a feedback loop. State a could produce state b. Add in higher ordered thinking of what state a is (emotions, access to memories) and ability to abstract causality and eventually the loop is tight enough to produce conciousness. Flow state is replacing the object of causality from self to external.

[Anonymous No.14748961]

>>14742508
>Be number cell
>have number
>change number in response to other cell
>other cell has letter
>cell sends me letter, I change number to match different letters
>Me and cell are 2 of fuck knows how many
>We do this til can no longer talk

[Anonymous No.14748963]

>>14747405
You sure are pretty dense.