/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15585352]

What is the earliest onset of conciousness in a person?

[Anonymous No.15585432]

>>15585352
I have memories from before I was 2, but not from before I was 1. So I would say somewhere after 1 year old.

[Cult of Passion No.15585441]

>>15585352
Conception.

[Anonymous No.15585448]

>>15585352
My first memory is sitting in my mother's lap in the car looking up at the automatic car wash brushes on the windshield. I must have been under a year old. I think it was either so fascinating or terrifying that the image stuck with me.

[Anonymous No.15585476]

>>15585352
intuitively I'd say when you are born there's no conscience as there's not much info which would help with having the consciousness effect.
once you start mapping reality and have a collection of sensory information I suppose at some point "it happens". but I'm talking out of my ass and I have no idea about the subject.
would someone who grew for say 30 years with basically no sensory input, have consciousness? if we could turn on all senses at once, would he suddenly be like "whoa dude, this is nuts!" or would it more likely have a schizotic meltdown?

[Anonymous No.15585479]

>>15585352

You're assuming it emerges, which is a failed worldview as evidenced by the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15585482]

>>15585352
Define Consciousness.

[Cult of Passion No.15585486]

>>15585479
>Hard Problem of Consciousness
Only midwits cant figure this out.
>>15585321
Youre confusing your "lived experience" with existence. Whether youre aware of it or not is irrelevent, youre trapped in some frontal lobe perspective where youre unaware of even your own body's perception of reality like some anti-schizo normie.

[Anonymous No.15585515]

>>15585479
>You're assuming it emerges,
it clearly emerges from matter.

[Anonymous No.15585529]

>>15585515
You shouldn't make claims without evidence, it makes you look ignorant.

[Anonymous No.15585531]

>>15585529
He posted a frog which means he's pretending to be retarded on purpose to get attention.

[Anonymous No.15585580]

>>15585529
>>15585531
you sound like a bunch of schizo faggots.
there is no scientific evidence of any counsciousness without matter supporting it. even if not directly from exactly matter, seems to be needed in the mix.
since you never ever scientifically observed a consciousness without matter, you now look like complete and utter retards.
we start from here, and sure, go ahead, try and see if you can disprove this. would be wild if you could, I'm all for it. but stop acting retarded.

[Anonymous No.15585599]

and before I hear any of you motherfuckers whining about your soul seeing the operating table from above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

[Anonymous No.15585638]

>>15585580
>there is no scientific evidence of any counsciousness without matter supporting it.

There is no scientific evidence for consciousness emerging from matter:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Science has only shown correlations between what appears as a brain and our inner experience. Correlations between brain states and conscious experiences is all that exists. Not a single scientist can tell you why that neural activity is a conscious experience. They can't even explain something as mundane as the taste of salt.

[Anonymous No.15585649]

>>15585580
Yeah this is some extreme metaphysics here.

[Anonymous No.15585651]

>>15585638
>There is no scientific evidence for consciousness emerging from matter:
somehow, despite observation, they conveniently weigh the same in your mind.
you could be right, but you are most likely wrong.
I mean do explain consciousness without matter support. fuck it, explain consciousness without information. no sensory input, zero. not even inner biological ones, to whatever part deals with consciousness. this shit needs information, there's also no instance of completely blank consciousness. that would be a what...a rock.
how would you model consciousness, here on earth? how exactly would it perceive the world. doesn't it need sensory input? I mean I'm interested if you genuinely think as a scientist that is what is most probable, or are you really wishing for that to be true so it validates all your other bullshit stories you keep telling yourself you actually are?

[Cult of Passion No.15585659]

>>15585638
>There is no scientific evidence for consciousness emerging from matter
You are retarded.
>>15585638
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Midwit pseudo-logic trap.
>There is no scientific evidence for consciousness emerging from matter
Utter retardation.
Youre wanting to hold the "keys of the unknown" as a power play while forcing everyone else to be ignorant as you to keep those keys for yourself.

Read more STEM, get the fuck out of Psychology and Theoretical Cognition.

[Anonymous No.15585692]

>>15585352
Probably when brain activity first begins in the womb, or 6-8 weeks into a pregnancy.
It's hard to imagine it beginning anywhere else. Unless you have some ulterior motive for believing otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15585699]

>>15585352
I remember being inside my mothers womb

[Anonymous No.15585701]

>>15585651

>somehow, despite observation, they conveniently weigh the same in your mind.

what does that mean?

>you could be right, but you are most likely wrong.

The Hard Problem is well known. No one has been able to explain even a single conscious experience. 0 progress. It's a brute fact. I've yet to tell you my own opinion about what consciousness is, but aside from this, the reality is that materialism, physicalism, and science have nothing to say.

>I mean do explain consciousness without matter support. fuck it, explain consciousness without information. no sensory input, zero. not even inner biological ones, to whatever part deals with consciousness. this shit needs information,

My intuition is that consciousness is fundamental, and thus needs no emergent explanation; just as matter is taken as fundamental without explanation, this view is that consciousness is fundamental without explanation.

It's not a radical, crazy, woo-woo idea. I'm just sticking to the only directly known fact of nature in the face of all other ideas saying nothing about my awareness. I think Analytic Idealism in particular is a far better worldview than Materialism or Physicalism.

[Anonymous No.15585705]

>>15585692
Yep. Converse is also true, if my neurons stop firing I'm dead (in this body at least).

[Anonymous No.15585734]

>>15585701
>My intuition is that consciousness is fundamental, and thus needs no emergent explanation; just as matter is taken as fundamental without explanation, this view is that consciousness is fundamental without explanation.
yes but seems fundamental to what? to rocks? to concepts?
seems like a virtual side-effect of brain activity.

[Anonymous No.15585760]

>>15585734
Fundamental. full stop. It is the only category of thing there is.

[Anonymous No.15585774]

>>15585760
>listen, it just is, okay?
well yes but where is it particularly found?

[Anonymous No.15585782]

>>15585774
You seem unable to understand the concepts being presented here.

[Anonymous No.15585795]

>>15585782
>one of the minimum constituents without which a thing or a system would not be what it is
looking back the universe was just fine without consciousness. seems to be an effect of certain matter arrangements. if we arrange matter in some particular ways we get "counsciousness"

[Anonymous No.15585803]

>>15585352
the earliest memory I have is that of trying to squeeze my arms out of swaddling, of course memory is unreliable and it might just be something my parents told me about something I did, but the feeling of being wrapped up and shimmying my arms out from the first person is very clear in my mind

my other earliest memory, which is even clearer, is when I think I reached consciousness at about 4 years old, when I hopped off the family foam couch, it was much taller than me. Then I looked around, and walked to the kitchen

[Anonymous No.15585809]

>>15585441
nope

[Cult of Passion No.15585821]

>>15585809
Haha I dont street addicts how the universe works haha, your species is degenerate and disgusting haha.

https://youtu.be/mPcEjZ3__E0

Your species is struggling to comprehend consciousness haha theyre fucking retarded.

[Cult of Passion No.15585833]

>>15585821
>I dont ask* street addicts
Humans are retarded and morally bankrupt shitbags.

[Anonymous No.15585850]

>>15585795
You just keep repeating the point in contention; this worldview has lead to 0 (yes, 0) progress in explaining conscious in terms of matter.

Here is a question for you to understand how bad of a situation you're in:

pick any conscious experience you want. Then give me the precise neural activity that must be your chosen conscious experience, and could not be any other possible consciousness experience.

If you can do the above, you have successfully explained a single conscious experience.

[Anonymous No.15585863]

>>15585515
>it clearly emerges from matter.
No, because NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. So matter is just an idea within the mind and not the other way around.

And NDEs are more real than this world, in every way. NDErs report expanded intelligence. One NDEr said that the greatest supergenius who ever lived, with the help of the greatest supercomputer of all time, would be immeasurably dwarfed by the intelligence she had access to while in the light, so much so that it would be closer and fairer to compare the intelligence of Einstein to that of an ant. Literally and seriously. And as another NDEr described their cognition during their life review:

>"I looked up, and saw four translucent screens begin to appear - and form a kind of gigantic, cubed box all around me. It was through this method that I was shown my life review. Without ever having to turn my head, I panoramically saw my past, present, future - and there was even a screen behind me that displayed a tremendous amount of scientific data, numbers, symbols and universal codes. I was in complete amazement because (as all of this was occurring) I realized I understood absolutely everything I was seeing - even in the most microscopic detail! There seemed to be no limit to the thoughts I was able to think or the ideas I was able to absorb. In this space, what we tend to think of as a limited comprehension or single-mindedness here on Earth, becomes truly infinite and limitless here! I kept thinking over and over how true it is what they say: that when we go back home - we all really are of one mind!"

From here: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

Another way NDEs are more real is how one NDEr said that he saw more than 80 new primary colors in the NDE world, compared to the 3 primary colors we have here.

From here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

[Anonymous No.15585868]

>>15585352
Every living thing is conscious. So as soon as you gain life, you are conscious. Only inanimate objects are unconscious. You are conscious even as a sperm cell. Just not at the same complexity as you are when you are a full human. The complexity of your consciousness increases, but ontologically, it's the same consciousness from when you first became alive in your father's testicles during spermatogenesis.

[Anonymous No.15585877]

>>15585850
>You just keep repeating the point in contention; this worldview has lead to 0 (yes, 0) progress in explaining conscious in terms of matter.
yet. you somehow imply we reached tech abilities to look into the brain and decoded all activity and mapped what everything does and there's no correlation.
you don't get to call it out, you get to wait for science to tell you how it happens.
what do you think is the link between the brain and consciousness. think there is any link? is it a coincidence that the brain thinks about consciousness? there's brains with no consciousness, but there's no consciousness without a brain. yet to measure one.

[Anonymous No.15585892]

>>15585863
can you see how the concept itself is not to be taken at face values? there's serious conflict of interest.
>I seriously hope I still get to experience after I die, so fuck it, it's all or nothing, has to be true
this is a scientist with an altered mind, who won't see the truth for what it is, because it will be rejected, because it doesn't match expectations.
you can hope for the whole bullshit, but you will be statistically overshadowed by scientists with a mind trained to see truth, not only that which fits with the rest of your bullshit.
NDE means hallucinations designed by your brain, with real or false information. we don't know what their brain considered it's worth showing them to keep them living and fucking.

[Anonymous No.15585900]

>>15585892 (me)
NDE seem to be quite impactful. they all kinda share this trait. any recorded cases for
>yeah so all of a sudden I was having this boring experience, in my basement, watching some boring ass show for like 2 hours.
nope, they all have some sort of "meaning", the kind that keeps you happy and content and increases your chances of making more kids, and telling them this story your brain told you.
if soins categorically proves there's fuck all after you die, half of you depressed motherfuckers would off yourselves.
NDE does not under any circumstance imply any kind of truth. evolution does not care about truth, cares about what works or not, which is very different from truth.

[Anonymous No.15585905]

>>15585868
>Every living thing is conscious
Almost no species are self-aware at all. Even higher animals are not sapient, with very few exceptions.

[Anonymous No.15585915]

No one is replying to the namefag
As
It
Should
Be

[Anonymous No.15585926]

>>15585900 (me)
>evolution does not care about truth, cares about what works or not, which is very different from truth.
kinda like the goberment/politicans

[Anonymous No.15585927]

>>15585877
>yet. you somehow imply we reached tech abilities to look into the brain and decoded all activity and mapped what everything does and there's no correlation.
>you don't get to call it out, you get to wait for science to tell you how it happens.
>what do you think is the link between the brain and consciousness. think there is any link? is it a coincidence that the brain thinks about consciousness? there's brains with no consciousness, but there's no consciousness without a brain. yet to measure one.

Making 0 progress is a clear sign something is wrong with your worldview. I'm not exaggerating about the 0. There is not a single damn aspect of conscious perceptions a neuroscientist can explain. That's damning. We made more progress in flight when we threw a stone into the air for the 1st time.

>you somehow imply we reached tech abilities to look into the brain and decoded all activity and mapped what everything does and there's no correlation.
you don't get to call it out, you get to wait for science to tell you how it happens.

Even if you decode, map, every aspect of the material brain, there is nothing there for you to understand the feeling a stomach ache, the taste of salt, the smell of sulfur. Conscious experiences have nothing to do with material arrangements; all we have is correlations.

[Anonymous No.15585945]

>>15585877
nta, but even if you can prove that the brain is deterministic (Which I believe it is), you can't prove that it is algorithmic (Which I believe it is not). Hence, free will still exists in a deterministic system. Hence, consciousness emerges not from the deterministic physical system of the brain, but from whatever grants us free will. What that is, we are unsure.

[Anonymous No.15585950]

>>15585927
>Making 0 progress is a clear sign something is wrong with your worldview.
what you are saying would maybe have some meaning in the far future where we fully investigated the brain. there's so much telling shit that is yet to be done. conveniently closing doors is a sign of bad science.
not acounting for how bizarelly specialized your brain is in tricking you regarding what is as objective truth is frightening. it's like "watching someone cross the street with a blindfold" frightening. the chances of REALLY discovering what is are way lower if you indulge in the brain's mirages. your brain is very good at fooling you, he's as much as your friend as your average politician. your brain is hustling you big time, constantly, and you think he's your best friend.
>>15585945
>free will
picrel

[Anonymous No.15585975]

>>15585950

I think 100 years is enough time to explain a single conscious expereince. I'm not asking for much here.

An ape has understood more in flight by throwing a stone then we have understood consciousness staring at neural correlates.

[Anonymous No.15585988]

free will is human folklore. the best thing that fits that as scientific definitions is I think dementia.
if you randomly bang your head on the wall when you go get a glass of water that's a solid argument for exercising your free will. you had no reason yet you did it.
if your free will is conditioned, is it really free will? or is it more of a small illusory playground which allows for extra functions?
your free will is the equivalent of freedom. it allows for different behavior which has useful effect but you know you are not actually free. it kinda ends but you don't like thinking about that.

[Anonymous No.15585997]

>>15585975
>I think 100 years is enough time to explain a single conscious expereince.
no shit. Earth years? why those in particular? why not 200 years? is this derived from numerology? astrology?

[Anonymous No.15586012]

>>15585868
If you got shot in the head and in some sort of coma. Or a stroke. Your consciousness would be reduced

[Anonymous No.15586026]

>>15585988
Ye's coffee table analogy was spot on and Kimmel kinda spit in his face. Cowards use coffee tables to protect themselves. They think women and children are human shields.

Getting high is a way of being free. Imagine 99 % of everything is survival just like an animal.

[Anonymous No.15586054]

yet to happen

[Anonymous No.15586061]

>>15585352
>>15585352
Bout three fiddy i believe

[Anonymous No.15586066]

>>15586026
>Ye likes to talk about himself
>Ye would definitely use him as an example
>says some deep random shit
>getting high
>is in constant survival in animal filled world
waddup Ye