/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14959040]

whats so wrong with calling consciousness an emergent property of the brain processing information?
if you damage the brain, you damage the level of consciousness. You could put a brain in a jar and keep it alive and give it electrical signals such that it's equivalent to living in the real world
i dont get it why is it so controversial?

[Anonymous No.14959044]

>>14959040
It's not, people that are mentally mature already know that consciousness exists in the brain.

[Anonymous No.14959064]

>>14959044
ok cool

[Anonymous No.14959071]

>>14959040
You can't do that. The hard problem of consciousness has been declared to be unsolvable. You must be a zombie or something

[Anonymous No.14959073]

>>14959071
>You can't do that
prove it

[Anonymous No.14959074]

>>14959073
It's already been declared. You just can't

[Anonymous No.14959083]

>>14959074
>"""""""It's already been declared"""""""
by who, bitch
prove it

[Anonymous No.14959085]

>>14959083
Obey the declaration

[Anonymous No.14959118]

>>14959071
>be conscious
>get drunk, alter consciousness for a few hours
>get a lobotomy, have completely altered consciousness
>get head squashed in freak accident, lose conscious
>"hmm... we just decide if consciousness exists in the brain or not"

[Anonymous No.14959123]

It's a non-explanation adding nothing of value. Basically you're saying "consciousness somehow has something to do with the brain". Wow, great insight. Nobody thought of this before. And it totally answers the question of how neuronal activity can give rise to subjective experience ...

[Anonymous No.14959129]

>>14959040
sponges are animals
sponges have consciousness
sponges have no brain
also 'emergent property' is gay.

[Anonymous No.14959154]

>>14959129
>sponges have consciousness
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.14959168]

>>14959123
consciousness is an illusion. it’s not subjective, it’s pretty objective actually. You could not have two different “conscious experiences” if given the same exact scenario & composition twice

[Anonymous No.14959177]

>>14959071
>You must be a zombie or something
Inconceivable (literally)

[Anonymous No.14959179]

>>14959168
this

[Anonymous No.14959255]

>>14959040
Define "consciousness."

[Anonymous No.14959313]

>>14959168
If you have something that generates a magnetic field, and place it in two different perfect vacuums and turn it on, it will perform identically.

Does that make magnetism an illusion with no meaningful existence?

[Anonymous No.14959342]

>>14959177
>Inconceivable (literally)
Based ultra-rare anon who actually understands the p-zombie argument is about the conceivability of non-conscious people indistinguishable in every physical and observable way (including behavior) from regular conscious people.
Ironically most of the anons who believe they're anti-materislist go around calling other people p-zombies exactly because they can only conceive of a p-zombie that's outwardly distinguishable from non-zombies, which defeats the purpose of that thought experiment's goal to establish there must be something other than physically observable phenomena that you can at least conceive of as either being there or not there independent of any physical / outwardly behavioral differences

[Anonymous No.14959343]

>>14959313
>equating consciousness to magnetic fields
ngmi brainlet

[Anonymous No.14959344]

brains are organa that can see into the future

[Anonymous No.14959355]

I dont understand this board's obsession with consciousness. Having a functional brain that makes me perceive myself as intelligent or smart is enough for me. Why put consciuosness into the focus so much? It's just a byproduct of brains. The term does not matter, not even philosophically, given that even many animals are self-conscious.

[Anonymous No.14959357]

>>14959355
i’d say all animals have a consciousness
some more than others, obviously

[Anonymous No.14959425]

>>14959357
I am a gay homo faggot

[Anonymous No.14959443]

>>14959040
>whats so wrong with calling consciousness an emergent property of the brain processing information?
what's wrong about it is that it's wrong
consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain processing information, the brain is an emergent property of consciousness processing information

>30. The phenomenal world does not exist; it is a hypostasis of the information processed by the Mind.

>31. We hypostatize information into objects. Rearrangement of objects is change in the content of the information; the message has changed. This is a language which we have lost the ability to read. We ourselves are a part of this language; changes in us are changes in the content of the information. We ourselves are information-rich; information enters us, is processed and is then projected outward once more, now in an altered form. We are not aware that we are doing this, that in fact this is all we are doing.

>if you damage the brain, you damage the level of consciousness.
wrong
if you damage the consciousness, this is reflected in the brain
you've got causation backward
>You could put a brain in a jar and keep it alive and give it electrical signals such that it's equivalent to living in the real world
wrong again, because the brain is just an emergent property of consciousness, a mere representation within consciousness of consciousness itself
>i dont get it why is it so controversial?
because the vast majority of people have fallen prey to the simplistic notions you're presenting, which are utterly and completely wrong

[Anonymous No.14959456]

>>14959040
>whats so wrong with calling consciousness an emergent property of the brain processing information?
Imagine, if you will, that you got the entirely of China to collectively act together such that each individual person "acted" as a neuron, using telephones to simulate neuronal signals (you can replace neuron impulses with whatever you want; sound, colored cards being passed, forward and backward, etc. If it's an emergent property, then the actual signal nor material will really matter). In this experiment, if you had enough people to match the number of neurons in a human brain, you could, in theory, simulate an entire brain, where no single person (neuron) has any idea about anything other than the local people they see around them and what they are supposed to do: give a signal to the person in front of them, if the person behind them gives them a signal.
Would this brain be a conscious being like yourself? Would there be no difference between your experience, my experience, and the china brain's experience? Would there literally be a Being that is experiencing thoughts?

[Anonymous No.14959460]

>>14959456
argument from implausible substrate
boring, we've gone over this a million times

[Anonymous No.14959463]

>>14959443
lmao what is this shit
autism gone wrong

[Anonymous No.14959468]

>>14959443
>brain is an emergent property of consciousness processing information
No. Consciousness is not a pan cosmic deity or your surrogate for one, it's a byproduct of brains.

[Anonymous No.14959472]

>>14959040
>whats so wrong with calling consciousness an emergent property of the brain processing information
The implications sort of fuck with the value systems of the culture.

For one, if the conscious is the function of an organ, now we have to forget our unspoken assumption of tabula rasa and admit that some brains are just more superior to others.

Also, if you're going to go full-in on atheistic materialism, then you really have to take a good look at existence. Most atheists won't admit that its a pretty bad horror show for most things, and that we're pretty much chasing animalistic dopamine kicks like fucking, dominating, killing, etc.

The "humanists" thought we could live with these implications and now they're fleeing from them back to the safety of mysticism, because if you take man at face value, he's just another mindless predator out there for himself. His gene line, and pesky things like capability and population demographics start to become quantifiable.

Basically the religious can't hack it because it destroys their world view and "fuck yeah science" group can't because... well it also fucks with their worldview. But yeah, that do be how it is; We are gene-copying biorobots.

[Anonymous No.14959476]

>>14959456
That would be a swarm consciousness but you as an individual cannot fully comprehend it anyway. It would be a swarm consciousness , a collective consciousness, and only a byproduct of a swarm collective brain. It's not supernatural or anything.

[Anonymous No.14959486]

>>14959472
Plz give real plausible examples of modern day humanists practicing mysticisms.

[Anonymous No.14959497]

>>14959476
>That would be a swarm consciousness
Do you define our brain as swarm conciousness? It's literally enacting a brain on a bigger scale, that's it. The intelligence of the people don't come into play. If it makes it easier, just switch out people for some sorta signal relay.

[Anonymous No.14959502]

>>14959486
Let's see...

All men are created equal.
Life has a purpose.
Life has a value.
It will all work out in the end.
Human rights.
We are going somewhere!

... and so one, while no such things exist by natural law. If that's not dogma, I don't know what is.

[Anonymous No.14959507]

>>14959502
*and so on

[Anonymous No.14959512]

>>14959497
No it was my description of the Chinese people picture he used

[Anonymous No.14959522]

>>14959502
ya.. well...

[Anonymous No.14959523]

>>14959497
no because it’s a property inherent to the brain and its configuration

[Anonymous No.14959526]

>>14959502
Well some of those points are not humanistic but pathetic. And some are like necessary laws if you weigh in that humans can only live in a society and society has and needs rules otherwise it will collapse

[Anonymous No.14959540]

>>14959040
consciousness is the basis of physics. we live in the astral plane, the consciousness field, the universal hologram, the holographic screen, the holographic d-brane, and it supersedes 4D spacetime.

[Anonymous No.14959544]

>>14959040
The problem is when you make that argument, you don't understand what consciousness is.

Consciousness is how we live our worlds, how we see, understand, feel, experience, etc.

Its not just a layer on top of a physical body, but rather a core mode of living revolves around consciousness. So the take on consciousness being part of an external world is laughable at best and down right stupid.

Its a naive way to acknowledge that consciousness exists but at the same time compromise by trying to compartmentalize it in some old objective external reality paradigm.

[Anonymous No.14959549]

qualia are correlated with neuronal activity but are not identical with it. it's like saying lamps and genies are related, well, yeah, but how do you go from one to the other?

anyhow, my subjective experience of the color red or a note of music is not ultimately reducable to a function. if you think so, you need to pin point the exact mechanism by which (past a certain level of neuronal network complexity), suddenly there is something that it's "like to be x", ie how do you get to first person subjective experience from action potentials, fields and gradients in the human brain, etc. good luck

[Anonymous No.14959556]

>>14959544
>Consciousness is how we live our worlds, how we see, understand, feel, experience, etc.
Too vague, sorry

[Anonymous No.14959559]

>>14959522
>>14959526
Ligotti expands on this point throughout "The Conspiracy Against The Human Race."

"Contrary by temperament, these persons are sorely aware that nothing
indispensable to their existence, hyperbolically or literally speaking, must make its way
into their lives, as if by natural birthright. They do not think anything indispensable to
anyone’s existence may be claimed as a natural birthright, since the birthrights we toss
about are all lies fabricated to a purpose, as any student of humanity can verify. For those
who have given thought to this matter, the only rights we may exercise are these: to seek
the survival of our individual bodies, to create more bodies like our own, and to perish
from corruption or mortal trauma. This is presuming that one has been brought to term
and has made it to the age of being reproductively ready, neither being a natural birthright.
Stringently considered, then, our only natural birthright is a right to die. No other right has
ever been allocated to anyone except as a fabrication, whether in modern times or days
past. 3 The divine right of kings may now be acknowledged as a fabrication, a falsified
permit for prideful dementia and impulsive mayhem. The inalienable rights of certain
people, on the other hand, seemingly remain current: somehow we believe they are not
fabrications because hallowed documents declare they are real. Miserly or munificent as a
given right may appear, it denotes no more than the right of way warranted by a traffic
light, which does not mean you have the right to drive free of vehicular misadventures."

Its total hypocrisy to admit man is an animal and also hold the belief that he is "owed" something by his existence. This is basically his point and I see it as no different from mysticism, just not so obviously clad in the usual dubious metaphysical underpinnings.

[Anonymous No.14959564]

>>14959040
>if you damage the brain, you damage the level of consciousness
That's no different than saying if you damage the nerves in your arm you damage consciousness.
If you define consciousness simply as objective measureable action/reaction then what you say applies for the moment.
But if you define conciousness as the subjective awareness people have (and free will of action/attention) then at the current state in time there is no way to find out for sure.
This will only be settled once things like Neuralink comes out and we have complete access to a live brain.
It will either be deterministic and conciousness confirmed to be originating from the brain or the brain will be reacting to an unidentified external signal from else where.

[Anonymous No.14959566]

>>14959123
I think op was talking about monism vs dualism

[Anonymous No.14959575]

>>14959355
It's just interesting to think of how a universe that started as hydrogen and helium atoms could evolve into something that can introspect

[Anonymous No.14959589]

>>14959575
Fundamentally hydrogens/heliums aren't fundamental to the universe.

Just like a chair doesn't really exist or rather the chair's existence occupies the same mode of reality as any of atoms do. You could say the chairs are made of atoms and atoms only. But when where is the chair if not for it being in certain configuration in certain time in certain ways to certain people with certain minds. Then you've just taken away the existence of the chair and placed them inside the mind. The conscious mind. You do the same thing and you get the same results for atoms. 100 years ago, atoms were the fundamental building blocks. Now the building blocks aren't real and all just constructions of how the mind moves. Whether that is quarks or quantized pockets of energy within the quantum matrix field or whether even the very fabric of fields themselves are born from the moving minds.

Where does that leave you with?

[Anonymous No.14959594]

>>14959564
> It will either be deterministic and conciousness confirmed to be originating from the brain or the brain will be reacting to an unidentified external signal from else where.
yah and which do you think is more likely?

[Anonymous No.14959596]

>>14959589
Just to be fair, I'm not suggesting some form of monism nor dualism, nor suggesting any form of nihilism nor a form of idealism, but rather the understanding that the mind plays an extremely important, a critical importance to understanding the nature of reality itself.

[Anonymous No.14959615]

>>14959594
I think the memes will be real and "NPCs" will have deterministic bot brains.
Other outliner individuals will have much more unaccountable varibles even if their whole brain is mapped out live.
So, what kind of brain readings do you think you will have?

[Anonymous No.14959622]

>>14959596
>>14959575
>>14959589
More so, the relational nature of hydrogen+helium -> creating a human brain that can introspect is perfectly okay within the framework of an objective external reality in which human minds don't exists.

But its a problem when you take the mind as the chief and mind-made things as secondaries.

[Anonymous No.14959671]

>>14959040
I have been trying to say this but I live in eastern kentucky and am only met with violence

[Anonymous No.14959676]

>>14959255
this

as a human you only think that "consciousness", whatever the fuck that is, is some grand capability you possess, or a capability at all. Why? Because you are human. You know nothing else and never will. Your view is and will awlays be biased which means that you will never be able to grasp what may actually be going on

tldr: humans are fucken retarded

[Anonymous No.14959745]

>>14959676
Your pessimistic ranting is what's retarded.

If your statement is true that means your very statement is biased and you yourself don't actually know what may be going on.

tldr: take meds

[Anonymous No.14959751]

>>14959044
Consciousness isn’t material. Cope.

[Anonymous No.14959756]

>>14959355
Consciousness is inherently unexplainable and abnormal in comparison to all other phenomena, so soiintists seethe about it

[Anonymous No.14959758]

>>14959676
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.14959761]

>>14959622
There is no possible explanation for how atoms bouncing around leads to consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14959765]

>>14959355
Because the only way to experience the world is through a consciousness. Such that it deserves a SPECIAL care in trying to understand it. Science has so far ignored the existence of consciousness and developed a mode of external reality in which consciousness does not exist. The problem is now arising because science is forced to re-examine the role of consciousness phenomena in relation to our scientific reality.

>>14959756
IMO, its not that consciousness is unexplanable, but rather the world that the observations tells us is likely misunderstood such a way that we cannot know what real world is like unless we understand theres a glass infront of the world. So we need to understand whether the glass is clean, whether its really what it is, etc. We know glass is there, we just dont know what to make of the reality thats outside the glass from which we understand the world as such

>>14959761
There can always be explanations. Humans are rational creatures such that we can rationalize anything and everything, if we tie strings together in certain way to certain minds

[Anonymous No.14959788]

>>14959676
Based

[Anonymous No.14959796]

>>14959765
>Humans are rational creatures such that we can rationalize anything and everything
Naive. There’s no reason of substance that our upscaled chimpanzee brains should be able to comprehend reality in it’s fullest breadth. That anything even exists is a nonsensical premise if explored too deeply.

[Anonymous No.14959800]

>>14959796
Its a lack of trying, not lack of rationality. People have rationaled everything and anything since existence from tree gods to thunder gods to river gods to ghosts to aliens to anything that we currently believe is nonsensical but was once considered rational. Anything we consider rational today maybe considered nonsensical to your neighbors.

The key aspect of human mind is such that we can organize and rationalize anything. The very notion of free will that people accepts as rational is irrational to many, but since we can rationalize anything/everything, we have rationalized it in our system of thought.

[Anonymous No.14959803]

>>14959040
Okay I'm going to do people here a favor and cut to the heart of the matter and save pages of word gymnastics.

Autistics definition:
>Conciousness is defined by the extrospection of range of output physical behaviors given range of physical input stimulus.
Schizo definition:
>Conciousness is defined by the introspection of the awareness that freely allows for both introspection and extrospection.

Given above definitions.
Autistic take:
>Conciousness is an emergent property of physical matter (the brain in case of human)
Schizo take:
>Physical matter is an emergent property of consciousness (human body/brain is not part of conciousness, merely an instrument)

Also, before hoards of you autists start jumping on the schizo hottake let me remind you that however unintuitive and bonkers it may seem objectively nobody knows FOR SURE at the moment.
It's all going to be he-said she-said at this point until definite experiments are done, if that is even possible.

[Anonymous No.14959805]

>>14959800
All attempts at reason rely on axioms which are ultimately baseless and merely assumed for utility.

[Anonymous No.14959825]

>>14959040
emergence is literally magical woo woo juice for physicists to avoid having to deal with reality

from whence does emergence emerge? that's right, their ass

these motherfuckers, who have yet to even robustly define "complexity", have taken a conclusion that "complex behaviors can arise from simple rules" and used it as a smudge tool for areas where their simple explanations don't encompass all the complexities of experimental observation - hence, observation must emerge from our simple theories, because why? because the theories say so and physicists as a general rule are some of the worst epistemologists in existence (the record holders, though, have got to be cosmologists; not even string theorists are as blatantly unscientific as cosmologists and their work is basically entirely imaginary)

they also tend to be terrible statisticians - for instance, the true sample size for determining the likelihood of a given high energy particle physics result is not, in fact, the number of times a given experimenter runs the equipment, but rather the total number of times the equipment has been run up to that point with those parameters. the horrific implications of this being that the longer the equipment runs, the less useful each result it produces becomes. the higgs result is an embarrassment and i worry that sunk cost and incessant creation of reputation traps by tenured establishment and institutional inertia is setting the entire field back by decades

[Anonymous No.14959826]

>>14959803
Also, there is no middle ground here btw.
Anybody not on the autistic train is by definition on the schizo train, even if they don't fully know that and are talking half-measures.

[Anonymous No.14959835]

>>14959825
>emergence is literally magical woo woo juice for physicists to avoid having to deal with reality
Exactly. If you ask what emergence is, they have no real answer. The actual answer is whatever human minds make of it. They're afraid to make that jump because it collapses the whole weasel answer.

[Anonymous No.14959848]

>>14959835
Just because nobody knows for sure yet doesn't mean it's your voodoo at work.
How do you explain your PLANCK TEMPERATURE TAKE >>14959803
>>Physical matter is an emergent property of consciousness
fyi the "go stare at a wall and see for yourself" isn't going to cut it here.

[Anonymous No.14959855]

>>14959848
>How do you explain your PLANCK TEMPERATURE
Emergence property

Checkmate

[Anonymous No.14959869]

>>14959855
Right so you don't know either. Big fucking surprise.
Difference is that we'll find out down the road when technology improves while you'll still be be staring at your wall.
Checkmate schizo.

[Anonymous No.14959871]

>>14959313
yes, its consequence of geometry
you are like 6 years away from being able to understand what i mean though

[Anonymous No.14959876]

>>14959869
No you retard, soon as you make the emergence property remark, it goes right to your mind. Hence, its through the mind that we can know anything at all.

[Anonymous No.14959894]

>>14959876
Yeah, it's through your BRAIN that we can know anything at all.
Although I can't say for sure some of us here really have one.

[Anonymous No.14960048]

>>14959040
Do you know the difference between weak and strong emergence?
Weak emergence -- so consciousness is already "written into the source code" of reality. Most likely, this has the form of either some particle, field, relation, etc. but in any way, it is a primitive.
This is incompatible with materialist thinking.
Strong emergence -- it appears completely without any priors in the figurative source code of nature. Furthermore, not even the mechanism can be described. The origin is by definition of strong emergence inscrutable and indescribable, and arguably acausal.
Can you please tell me how this is not indistinguishable from saying "it is magic".
Consider that the admission that strong emergence exists (even one singular example is sufficient to prove this claim), then literally anything about nature and reality can be claimed. "If hypothetically 500 galaxies were clustered in a swastika shape, then by strong emergence Spürdo Spärde would reveal himself as creator deity".

[Anonymous No.14960066]

>>14959118
So if x influences y, y exists in x? Funny how when stemcels leave their intellectual domains they immediately lose all logical ability and problen solving skills.

[Anonymous No.14960068]

>>14959044
>People already know consciousness exist in the brain
Cope. And I don't mean that in a bad way, it is literally our brain coping with the idea of consciousness and what makes us who we are.

[Anonymous No.14960071]

>>14959118
Not the hard problem, you 16th century monk. Philosophy has moved on about separate souls literally since shortly after Descartes.
Not having recollection/blackout about a certain thing is a prime example of why it's the easy problem: it's purely a mechanistic concern about neurons being too drunk to fire correctly, and by consequence, if you stress them a day later, they can't repeat that should-be encoded information.
No fucking modern philosopher disagrees the brain is the computer that moulds the human conscious process in a usable form. To repeat, the brain is just the computer, and only the computer.
They are saying that tiny logic gates contained on a slab of burnt sand did not create your 94 gigabytes of MLP porn you have on your computer, and that this MLP porn your other assorted cuck erotica does indeed not even show any relation whatsoever to the tiny transistors -- besides above outlined technical aspects of allowing your MLP/cuck collection to be stored in electronically replayable form.


Go copy some half-decayed Arabic scroll about the ancient Greeks.

[Anonymous No.14960072]

>>14959073
How do you know your consciousness exists or if it is just your brain trying to understand what it really is without thinking too much about it?

[Anonymous No.14960075]

>>14959894
How do you its through your brain and not through your consciousness? Are you now trying to deny that consciousness exists at all?

KEK

[Anonymous No.14960107]

>>14960075
>How do you its through your brain and not through your consciousness
Are YOU trying to present psychic abilities?
Cause if you schizos can actually get a grand wizard up here and start pulling Dr.Strange instead of hiding behind synchronicities it'd be the fastest way to vindicate all these foaming.
But of course we know you can't. So here we are.

[Anonymous No.14960109]

>>14960107
Remote viewers found a crashed spyplane in Africa.

[Anonymous No.14960131]

>>14960109
Right and how many didn't.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
If anybody can pull that remote viewing stuff consistently in a lab environment instead of saying they used to secretly work for the CIA we'll talk.

[Anonymous No.14960184]

>>14959040
>>14959044
This. The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of humans on earth have no idea what "emergent property" means.

[Anonymous No.14960205]

>>14960184
Thinking exists in the brain.
Consciousness, defined as the awareness of thoughts, might or might not exist in the brain.

[Anonymous No.14960222]

>>14960205
So how do you know what you know? Are you not conscious of your statements?

[Anonymous No.14960224]

>>14960222
I'm not saying consciousness might or might not exist.
I'm saying it might or might not exist (originate) in the brain.

[Anonymous No.14960228]

>>14959040
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

>A fun exercise is to eliminate the adjective "emergent" from any sentence in which it appears, and see if the sentence says anything different:

>Before: Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.
>After: Human intelligence is a product of neurons firing.
>Before: The behavior of the ant colony is the emergent outcome of the interactions of many individual ants.
>After: The behavior of the ant colony is the outcome of the interactions of many individual ants.
>Even better: A colony is made of ants. We can successfully predict some aspects of colony behavior using models that include only individual ants, without any global colony variables, showing that we understand how those colony behaviors arise from ant behaviors.

>Another fun exercise is to replace the word "emergent" with the old word, the explanation that people had to use before emergence was invented:

>Before: Life is an emergent phenomenon.
>After: Life is a magical phenomenon.
>Before: Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.
>After: Human intelligence is a magical product of neurons firing.

>Does not each statement convey exactly the same amount of knowledge about the phenomenon's behavior? Does not each hypothesis fit exactly the same set of outcomes?

[Anonymous No.14960241]

>>14959803
>>14959826
There is actually a 3rd take.
Simulation Hypothesis.
That's right, the autistic schizo fusion menu does exist.

[Anonymous No.14960247]

>>14960241
* in lisping jew voice* insanely good take my dude

[Anonymous No.14960257]

>>14960247
What the fuck does the jews have to do with this? Isn't it enough autists and schizos have been bickering on this issue tooth and nail since day one that poltards now want to have a go as well.

[The atoms of mathematics No.14960308]

>>14959564
hoolly fuck the mental gymnastics, read up on steven greer, figure out why his joe rogan appearances were wiped along with alex jones', then u may also begin to understand the magnitude of what you're taking for granted

[Anonymous No.14960346]

>>14959040
It's quite literally just your opinion, just conjecture, just semantics, just nothing defined properly, nobody can define what consciousness is, nobody can talk about, because one thing holds steady, anything that is 'conscious' by it's own proposal experiences consciousness as it's own axiom, thus, WHATEVER consciousness is is 'filtered' through that conscious 'individual.' So you can't say anything meaningful about consciousness to anyone but yourself, assuming you are conscious, which you are.
>>14959071
It's not unsolved. It works like this: your heart is autonomous, likewise, your consciousness is seperated from existence by it's own autonomy.
Imagine a moutain climber with alien hand syndrome that has to tie a knot through each peg rather than use a carabiner. Every time he ties the knot, he has to shock his brain so that he forgets how he tied it, so that the alien hand can't untie it while he's climbing, otherwise he would fall off. That's what consciousness is. Discrete consciousness (an individual) is seperated from consciousness (everything else) by foreclosure of true recursion. Why? If it didn't, it would cease to be discrete. Why do things need to be discrete? I DON'T KNOW (that's the point, probably.)

[Anonymous No.14960349]

>>14959168
>twice
Too bad that's impossible, because of the existence of time, which you require for the concept of 'twice' to make sense, which also makes twiceness impossible.

[Anonymous No.14960362]

>>14959154
They move around their environment to acquire food, that demonstrates some level of environmental awareness and reaction which is just a way to describe consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14960364]

>>14959040
Because „emergent property“ is never properly defined.
Essentially it boils down to one of two things:
Either the argument stios here: consciousness is an emergent property thus the hard problem is solved. Failing to explain HOW it emerges or what that term means in detail, basically just shifting the hard problem.
Or: becoming crypto dualism where emergent properties are qualities not quantities and thus cannot be measured in which case you end up with dualism with extra steps.

[Anonymous No.14960366]

>>14960362
>They move around their environment to acquire food
……….So do animals in video games.

[Anonymous No.14960369]

>>14960366
No, they don't, a timer program toggles values that correspond to lights on a screen that look like food and animals to easily trick young children and slow adults like you into believing they are real.

[Anonymous No.14960371]

>>14960369
Video game AIs are very much capable of “moving around an environment” and searching for resources. They’re just in a computer.

[Anonymous No.14960377]

>>14959168
Oh great, the eliminative reductionism shizos arrived.
Not even dennet agrees with you anymore

[Anonymous No.14960382]

>>14960371
A series of drawings is not an environment, colored light is not food just because you draw shapes with the light and drawing of animals can't actually eat, digest, or metabolize like the sponge and they won't actually die and decompose if they fail to find food, you can always start the program over again.

[Anonymous No.14960385]

>>14959355
>why does the science board want to figure something out
Idk anon

[Anonymous No.14960386]

>>14959342
Correct. I hate how the p zombie argument gets mixed with the npc meme

[Anonymous No.14960392]

>>14960382
Of course it’s not real food you fucking idiot. You could do the same thing with a Roomba; stick some image recognition software in it and have it go around collecting dog shit

[Anonymous No.14960397]

>>14960392
That is not how roombas work, though.

[Anonymous No.14960411]

>>14959765
This.
Consciousness, our only actual tool to observe reality has been neglected by serious research for too long and its study has been laughed at as esotericism for too long.
It comes from the stark arrogance of the post war decades where humanity thought we had it all figured out.
These days we keep coming to the conclusion that its all not that easy

[Anonymous No.14960418]

>>14960411
No, psychology is the main science utilized by the state, it is just unreliable, the problem is that consciousness is too easy to manipulate, magicians and illusionists figured this out centuries ago, and the more easily something is to manipulate, the harder it is to measure with certainty since the measurement will always manipulate the phenomenon to some degree.

[Anonymous No.14960443]

>>14959825
This holy shit.
They just declare its emergence and do a little victory dance about having solved the hard problem and when asked to define emergence they say „well it just is“

[Anonymous No.14960454]

Speaking from experience, as everything decomposes consciousness too seems to have different intensity and levels of it.
You are conscious and therefore realize how nature works, not much to it. Nature just having fun with itself.
Being inactive leads to no consciousness while the higher consciousness aims towards a state of absolute unity and "fun".
Tldr: trying to figure out the point of what consciousness is for is like asking why to have fun? Because if you werent conscious there'd be no experiences. Thats literally it. Just take it as it is. Getting deeper into is either a huge waste of time or actually the biggest twist. Well in that case, youd experience yourself experiencing what you are experiencing. Kinda like looking into a mirror.

[Anonymous No.14960455]

>>14959848
The point is that you cant just say „well its an emergent property“ and declare the problem solved.
That shit isnt gonna fly in any other field.
Not saying its voodoo, but saying „yeah no its not unknown, its this definition that we dont know how to define“
Wheres the difference?

[Anonymous No.14960456]

>>14960454
Shizo take btw.

[Anonymous No.14960463]

>>14960454
There's subconscious that runs at base level, thats what your personality is like. Then there's consciousness which is basically the momentary active grasping of events.

The subconscious module is always running in the background and it influences what you feel when the active conscious mind grasps on to an event, whether you feel sad/anger/happy/etc is largely dependent on subconscious module running beneath the surface. It doesn't cease when you shut your eyes as you go to sleep.

[Anonymous No.14960464]

>>14959869
>two more weeks
Maybe god will descend in two weeks and say consciousness is created by electric eels.
How about we stick to stuff we know and bot assume developments in the future

[Anonymous No.14960494]

HI GUYS HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT FREUDIAN PSYCHOLOGY?

[Anonymous No.14960501]

>>14960464
>Maybe god will descend in two weeks
This is why you're called a schizo

[Anonymous No.14960505]

>>14960501
And youre a dumbass for not realizing im making fun of your position.

Imagine beeing a chemist asked what synthesis has the higher yield and you go „well in don’t know yet but im pretty sure the future will show path B so please fund my research in path B over A“
Whats the Boss gonna say?

[Anonymous No.14960508]

>>14960505
I'm not the guy you were arguing with. I'm just calling you a schizo because you are one.

[Anonymous No.14960509]

>>14959168
twice cannot exist because time changes silly

[Anonymous No.14960560]

>>14960397
Roombas and similar robots can see with cameras and learn a building’s layout over time so they cease bumping into walls and know where to navigate to.

[Anonymous No.14960566]

>>14959566
Emergentism is a form of dualism. Type E dualism according to Chalmers' classification.

[Anonymous No.14960569]

>>14960455
Might as well be voodoo. Everywhere in the universe, there are molecules bouncing around, and every time they interact, regardless of the complexity of the interaction, the result can be reductively described as more molecules bouncing around, sticking together, etc, but supposedly the particular phenomena that occur in our brains have a totally different sort of effect from every other interaction between molecules, they cause or otherwise somehow facilitate subjective experience.

“How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the djinn when Aladdin rubbed his lamp in the story.”


― Thomas Henry Huxley

[Anonymous No.14960572]

>>14960560
That has nothing to do with how they get their energy or why they do what they do.

[Anonymous No.14960573]

>>14960572
Animals run around looking for energy because they’re designed to; same reason Roombas hunt for messes. Animals are just “designed” by evolutionary pressures and mutations and genetic drift and whatever and robots are designed by people.

[Anonymous No.14960578]

>>14960566
This exemplifies half the problem of the field of "philosophy of mind" though. OP just says "why can't consciousness be called an emergent property", which could be interpreted in a hundred different ways, but now since he has used the word "emerge" he is lumped in with "emergentism", which is apparently dualist according to Chalmers' classification, so now OP is supposed to be a dualist. But this is argued purely from lumping OP in with some other shit and classifying that other shit as dualist, whereas it might well be that OP disagrees that he is an emergentist at all, or that consciousness as an emergent property is necessarily dualist. But due to all these classifications and labels it's impossible to even debate the merits of someone's actual position itself.

[Anonymous No.14960583]

>>14960573
Evolution has designed them for so much more than your naive simplifications, plenty of people and even animals practice fasting, animals are motivated to survive with programming far more complicated than any roomba.

[Anonymous No.14960587]

>>14960583
Animals are designed to reproduce. Nothing else matters past the extent it aids reproduction, unlike human designs which typically have multiple design goals and an influence of aesthetic taste.

[Anonymous No.14960594]

>>14960587
No, some animals were designed by plants and fungus to efficiently spread seeds and spores around or to help capture other animals in the plant/fungus's traps.

[Anonymous No.14960683]

>>14960578
Then maybe he should have used concrete language rather than an extremely vague term thats highly loaded in the context of this debate

[Anonymous No.14960687]

>>14959118

You can make sense of all of this in an idealists prespective - conscious processes affecting other conscious processes.

There is no inherent need for materialism which is what your getting at. The human body and brain can be viewed as what a conscious processes LOOKS LIKE from another conscious perspective.

[Anonymous No.14960688]

>>14960683
It is only highly loaded for Chalmers and consorts because chalmers always starts with dualist asaumptions. For normal scientific materialists or computationalists "an emergent property that we don't fully understand" is completely uncontroversial.

[Anonymous No.14960795]

>>14960688
“Emergent” is just saying you have absolutely no idea how or why it happens. Materialism is retarded.

[Anonymous No.14960853]

>>14960509
>>14960349
>sci can’t comprehend a thought experiment
sad

[Anonymous No.14960861]

>>14960795
It is better to admit that you have no idea how or why it happens than to make up some unverifiable bullshit that just by pure accident happens to coincide with the religion of your great-grandfathers.
Once you say "it is an emergent property of brains" at least you can then go on and try to find out how and why it emerges, which is coincidentally what people are doing.

[Anonymous No.14960865]

>>14960455
Nobody is saying it's solved. If it's solved we'd be either be pumping out AGIs like it's no tomorrow or all turning into full schizos.
As other anons have stated, it will be solved down the road, especially once we have a full mapping of a live brain.
That been said, given what science discovered about reality thus far, which take do YOU think it's more reasonable to assume at the present stage in time >>14959803.
>Physical matter is an emergent property of consciousness
You schizos don't out right say this shit and dance around the corners because even you know innately how utterly bonkers this position is.
And who the fuck knows, maybe by some dumb cosmic joke this insane take is the one that turns out to be true. But anybody at THIS stage in time, given all we know about nature thus far, thinks it's REASONABLE to assume this nuclear take regarding consciousness and reality, is a shizo that have earned their namesake.

[Anonymous No.14960949]

>>14960688
This is not about dualism. If OP had used any other word than „emerge“ it wpuldve veen obvious he just means „monism“ rather than „emergent properties“
This has nothing to do with chalmers.
Especially since Emergentism is retarded no matter if its dualism or monism, as it has no actual argument and no information content.

[Anonymous No.14960954]

>>14960865
Theres no actual evidence that solving the hard question is required for AGI . Wether or not an AI is conscious is pretty much irrelevant for anything but brain uploading and ancestor simulation.
Unless you think computation requires consciousness in which case we already have conscious machines

[Anonymous No.14960958]

>>14960949
>Emergentism is retarded no matter if its dualism or monism, as it has no actual argument and no information content.
It has exactly the right amount of information content for the understanding we currently have of brains/minds. Any more, and you're just making shit up. Yes it's very little, but the exclusion of retarded non-physicalist shit is still a non-zero amount of information.

[Anonymous No.14960977]

>>14960954
Okay, that is true.
It's easy to mistake consciousness (awarness) for intelligence sometimes in these discussions. AGI doesn't really need the former.

[Anonymous No.14961033]

>>14960853
it can be fine for scenarios in thought experiments to be very far-fetched and unlikely, but they still must be logically coherent at least

[Anonymous No.14961675]

Reminder, the whole problem on why western philosophy gets stuck between monism/dualism is because of is because of us placing our faith in essences/substances.

[Anonymous No.14961717]

>>14959040

>if you damage the brain, you damage the level of consciousness

you don't damage consciousness in that case you alter it's perception. it's like bending a radio antanae, it won't stop it from receiving radio signals.

[Anonymous No.14961823]

>>14961717
and what is this “signal” you talk about

[Anonymous No.14961861]

>>14961823
He's talking about your awareness.
If you get shot in the head you'll still be aware except what you will be aware of will just be complete blackness.

[Anonymous No.14961876]

>>14961861
Lack of awareness isn't awareness of nothing.

[Anonymous No.14961929]

>>14961876
>Lack of awareness
Awareness is eternal, there will never be a lack of it.
You will only ever lack of things to be aware of.

[Anonymous No.14961932]

>>14961929
>awareness is eternal
You weren't aware before you were born
You aren't aware when you're sleeping
You wont be aware when you die

[Anonymous No.14961947]

>>14961932
All of that is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14962019]

>>14961932
>You weren't aware before you were born
Wrong.
>You aren't aware when you're sleeping
Wrong. Empirically proven simply by dreams. The most retarded of the three mistakes to make.
>You wont be aware when you die
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.14962028]

>>14962019
Not everyone dreams in every sleep.
During every sleep, everyone loses awareness.

[Anonymous No.14962086]

>>14962028
Not dreaming does not equal losing awareness.
Becoming paralyzed does not equal losing awareness.

[Anonymous No.14962102]

>>14962086
Being paralyzed and sleep aren't same. Coma and sleep aren't same. You can lose and gain awareness while in sleep and while in coma. But not always.

[Anonymous No.14962124]

>>14962102
Doesn't matter.
Being paralyzed, sleeping, coma, getting your entire body vaporized by a nuke, it's all the same where awareness is concerned.
You can lose all physical sensations.
You can lose all mental thought and memories.
You can lose any and all forms of empirical input/output
But you will still be aware.

[Anonymous No.14962131]

>>14962124
No, there's a difference, if someone is aware, we're able to tell whats happening. If someone isn't aware, we're not. Its simple as that. Thats why you recognize that sleeping and dreaming are different. In dreams we can sometimes be aware. In sleep, people are unaware.

[Anonymous No.14962155]

>>14962131
What's there to tell when nothing is happening?
If a radio is not playing music because nothing is broadcasting, does that mean it's a broken radio?

[Anonymous No.14962174]

>>14962155
If you're not aware of your own consciousness, then you're not conscious. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.14962181]

>>14962155
To lend you a hand, there's unconscious mind in which consciousness could arise but isn't consciousness itself.

[Anonymous No.14962188]

>>14962174
Just because people choose to focus on the silence doesn't mean the radio isn't right in front of you.

[Anonymous No.14962197]

Because people trust reality over what other people say. I don't believe consciousness even exists, all there is is objective reality being perceived.

[Anonymous No.14962198]

>>14962188
If you can choose to focus, then you know you are focusing and you know you are choosing. If you know /anything/, then you are conscious.

Its simple as that. Lacking of awareness isn't awareness of nothing.

[Anonymous No.14962215]

>>14962198
You can choose what to focus on, but you can't choose not to focus on something. You cannot choose to be unconscious.
Awareness cannot be lacked, whether by choice or otherwise. It's as simple as THAT.

[Anonymous No.14962226]

>>14962215
Consciousness is only what can be known. The whole reason why we have a difference between conscious and unconscious brain. There's no infinite line of conscious string continuity. Consciousness is only a minute instant event based information processing.

[Anonymous No.14962257]

>>14962226
And that is exactly why I use the word "awareness", because the word "consciousness" have different definition on both side of the aisle.
Your definition of "consciousness" is the observable external physical input/output.
The definition on this side is the internal awareness, the awareness that comes prior to all observables.
As useful as yours is I'm sure in your profession, the definition and the specific property denoted by "consciousness" on this side is the one that bears true metaphysical significance.

[Anonymous No.14962268]

>>14962257
Im not of the one pushing metaphysical consciousness that exists independent of the body. That an extra ordinary claim that has no conscious evidence and pure conjecture. Waking/dream consciousness has conscious evidence. Dreamless sleep do not. Death do not. Pre-death do no.

Its nonsense to argue otherwise, might as well argue your consciousness extends towards jupiter, its just that no one can know it.

[Anonymous No.14962322]

>>14962268
There are evidences, always has been. But when people have already made up their mind, few are willing to risk getting laughed out of the room for even suggesting conducting studies.
Whether it be advance in technology or some other factors I'm sure this issue will become solved for the external emperically inclined down the road :)

[Anonymous No.14962328]

>>14959118
Consciousness is a function of the brain. Without a brain, no consciousness. Because it lacks the material foundation.

[Anonymous No.14962479]

>>14959040
>whats so wrong with calling consciousness an emergent property of the brain processing information?
Because that would be a baseless guess
>if you damage the brain, you damage the level of consciousness. You could put a brain in a jar and keep it alive and give it electrical signals such that it's equivalent to living in the real world
>i dont get it why is it so controversial?
Monkeys writing on a really really big chalk board could simulate your brain too. Just take a few trillion monkeys, each are simulating a single neuron having inputs and outputs, each are connected to the monkey next to them, train them to follow the script a typical neuron does, arrange them as to map out your brain, certain monkey-neurons would receive external input equivalent to living in the real world, let em go for a few years, and viola, you have a few seconds of your brain processing.

Your consciousness is therefore equivalent to dust on a chalkboard arranged in a particular way over time...there's nothing controversial about this right?

[Anonymous No.14962502]

Don't even talk to philosophers about anything. They really don't give anything to society.

Imagine if I take a 4 digit calculator back to 400 BC and I show Socrates it. After studying it he would probably say this calculator works by immaterial spooky stuff since he does not understand its construction or how it works. It's the same for us looking at the brain. The brain is a black box. We don't know how it works. This doesn't mean consciousness is spooky immaterial garbage nor has to mean it works by only material means. It's impossible to know since it's a black box.

[Anonymous No.14962589]

>>14962502
>Metaphysics
>Epistemology
>Ethics
>Politics
>Art
Retarded take. Most of world's problems right now is because of blunt disregard for philosophic discourse.
People don't start wars or make shit life decisions because they don't understand how calculators work.
Civlizations break down when they don't understand philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14962624]

>>14962502
Retard actually thinks Greeks were cavemen and everything was oogieboogie fire. Unfortunately for you, the cargo cult literally happened less than a hundred years ago and it wasn't any western culture.

[Anonymous No.14962634]

>>14959040
>whats so wrong with calling consciousness an emergent property of the brain processing information?
Out-of-body experiences

>if you damage the brain, you damage the level of consciousness
This is contradicted by medical literature
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarkable-story-of-maths-genius-who-had-almost-no-brain-1.1026845

[Anonymous No.14963601]

>>14962634
>out of body experiences
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14963605]

>>14959040
>whats so wrong with calling consciousness an emergent property of the brain processing information?

The problem is that the claim entirely dodges the question - so much so that it belies of a fundamental misunderstanding of philosophy. The phrase "emergent property of information" gives no insight into the means by which qualia is generated. It's similar to saying "electricity is an emergent property of metal". You give no explanation of how the property emerges or why it would even emerge in the first place. Is a computer running a bunch of algorithms conscious? Is a chalk board covered with physics equations conscious? Why would it be the case that processing information somehow produces qualitative experience? If you can't answer that, then you have nothing substantive to say about consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14965051]

>>14959751
I don't think you fully understand what youre saying. You can have materials exhibiting consciousness if you want

[Anonymous No.14965483]

>>14962634
>This is contradicted by medical literature
Glowies have been up in every field's shit since forever. This could easily be 100% fabrication or 99% exaggeration.

[Anonymous No.14965839]

>>14960853
No no he's got a point- if all things are equal, including relative position in time, then you've a singular experience, not two.

Your argument is circular. "If two things are the same thing then they're the same thing", well of course they are.

[Anonymous No.14965911]

>>14959040
You shouldn't do it for practical reasons, at the very least. It you makes you a pussy. A man must be assertive and full of himself and the star of his own story to get anything done. Not to say you have to be annoying egoist or anything. Just a man with a sense of pride and identity.
If you keep telling yourself you're just subjected to mechanistic and biological force, you're going to end up as a hopeless pussy. Mark my words. Then like many others, finally off yourself.

[Anonymous No.14966872]

>>14959615
>"NPCs" will have deterministic bot brains.
this is super scary because it's as if the spirit of god doesn't even live inside of them. like if you spend enough time around one you can start understanding their bot brains. they would do something criminal to you if they could get away with it. remember in dorian gray when lord henry says 'what art is to us crime is to them.' I kind of understood that at a young age. i was always so obsessive. 'oh wow that kickflip was sick' 'how did they balance on that rail like that' like already having a general idea on how they would react. their npc bot brain would dehumanize me. it was quite horrifying. art/crime being just a means of procuring extraordinary sensation(is that how he put it)?

tldr i think the spirit of god(which is the absence of evil) is inside of our conscious.

[Anonymous No.14966880]

>>14966872
can i ask a question? is my obsession with skateboarding a part of my conscious? i think god made me this way for a real reason. when i get to heaven I'm gonna ask. he's gonna say. it was camouflage, i was protecting you.

[Anonymous No.14966890]

>>14966880
I wonder why god would make me autistically obsessed with reptiles then

[Anonymous No.14966893]

>>14966872
>>14966880
Skateboarding? I was obsessive too. "Stoked" was the word back then, wasn't it? Stoked at friends' pulling off tricks, stoked to learn to get better myself. Sounds like you hung around some real party poopers. Fuck em.

[Anonymous No.14967869]

>>14959044
Based argument-making chad

[Anonymous No.14968558]

>>14959476
How is this ineffable, unfalsifiable, invisible "swarm consciousness" not a complete cope?

[Anonymous No.14968844]

>>14959040
Information doesn't feel like anything. Ideas do.

[Anonymous No.14969046]

>>14959040
just saying "emergent property" doesn't explain anything. everything in our macroscopic world is emergent.

[Anonymous No.14969069]

>>14959871
this guy gets it
everything is a result of a cause; everything started with a first cause; ergo, everything is a consequence of a prior event, which is traceable to a single discreet cause (the nature of which is unclear; for me this is nondenominational "god", the Prime Mover).

[Anonymous No.14969154]

>>14959168
consciousness is just the reflection of the "thinking" mind on the actions of the (unthinking, autonomous, insect-like) "unthinking" mind, the unconscious and sub-conscious qualia that taps into higher-order cognitive processes like problem solving, symbol manipulation, etc without alerting the consciousness. and the conscious mind gleefully takes credit, oblivious to how irrelevant it is.

[Anonymous No.14969163]

>>14960594
it seems more likely the plant would be exploiting the thing that can fucking walk around. how much influence can the plant have really? ideally it entices the animal to walk nearby and collect spores and shit with it's coat.

[Anonymous No.14969201]

>>14969163
No, it captures other insects and breaks them down and creates a big bowl of enzymes and sugars that has some livable space for specially adapted worker insects to inhabit wile they maintain and feed from it at the expense of other species of prey insects.

[Anonymous No.14969234]

>>14959040
It controversial because some people believe in a "soul" and think they can carry on living after death.
It's exactly an emergent property of intelligence. All things with a central nervous system are conscious to some degree. Even among humans there are varying degrees of it, not even including stroke victims or other brain damaged people.
The fact that anyone of us can ingest chemicals that resemble neurotransmitters and essentially "throw a spanner in the works" is a dead giveaway