[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 842 KB, 1125x2436, 1701111744153328.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15893493 No.15893493 [Reply] [Original]

If consciousness can't be explained in terms of known physical laws then why don't we just treat it as separate phenomenon with its own laws? First explain consciousness on its own and then try to unify it with the other laws. Just like nobody tries to explain gravity in terms of the weak or strong force. Gravity and quantum have been described separately and only later we began to unify them as quantum gravity. Same should be done with consciousness.

>> No.15893495

>>15893493
Its too much like a god where people who claim to experience it can't even agree on a definition.

>> No.15893506

>>15893493
Consciousness is a sufficient number of neural computations, is that really that difficult? Wether there is a higher or lower dimensional relations driving the physics of those computations is the real question but consciousness is well defined and this is the 20 millionth thread wut is consciousness iamretarded when we already defined this shit idk 60 years ago and you probably believe psychology is real

>> No.15893511

>>15893493
Fuck off with your consciousness of the gaps argument

>> No.15893553

>>15893493
in order to explain consciousness, we first need to explain why we believe there is anything to explain.

>> No.15893563

>>15893493

that would be substance dualism lol....already been deboonked. Idealism won.

>>15893506

No it's not as there's evidence of consciousness existing apart from the body. Quantum experiments prove consciousness is fundamental to reality. This is the ultimate NPC filter, not even kidding. Anyone who goes to uni and still believes in materialism is 100% a midwit.

>> No.15893567

>>15893563
>maybe if I say enough science babble that I don't understand, I can argue that MAGIC IS REAL
Worthless retard.

>> No.15893568

>>15893563
>Quantum experiments prove consciousness is fundamental to reality.
Please don't tell me this is (You) misunderstanding what the observer effect is.

>> No.15893575

>>15893563
which experiments are those?

>> No.15893595

>computer software follows its own laws
>nobody complains about this
>suggest consciousness is phenomenal and follows its own laws
>hard materialists reee

>> No.15893639
File: 216 KB, 612x445, istockphoto-183297849-612x612.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15893639

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

>> No.15893710

>>15893563
>substance dualism
>deboonked
Choose only one. Substance dualism is the only theory that remains eternally undeboonked.

>> No.15893736

why do we feel like consciousness is something that has to be/can explained but a quantum field isn't

>> No.15893739

>>15893736
Because people have been trying to explain our general state of experience since we first gained metacognition, and there have been so many bad explanations that moronic materialists have decided that it's better that it doesn't exist at all. The ultimate "stop asking questions".

>> No.15893744

>>15893493
The thing is. People will debate and disagree as long the phenomena is not explained by ontological framework they subscribe too.
This is real problem of consciousness.
There is more "i want to be right" then "i want the truth" attitude in it.

>> No.15893749

>>15893493
>December 1, 2023
Based time traveler

>> No.15893750

>>15893744
Very big insight.
If you're coming at it from a religious perspective, you often end up ignoring many of the ways that our mind/soul is linked to the body.

But at the same time, if you're coming at it from a "I'm going to show how wrong those fundies are" perspective, then you frequently end up making non-points about things that everyone already knows about and have factored into a common sense theory of consciousness. Like saying "oh, so you eat when you are hungry? Well, you must not have free will then. :^)" is beyond retarded. Of course people know about things like instincts and basic physical drives. Those don't disprove free will or consciousness at all.

>> No.15893772

>If consciousness can't be explained in terms of known physical laws
Let's forget the word consciousness for a second because it invokes so much bias. Look and see that math, science and language are developing networks of relationships: everything refers to everything else. That leads to the question: what is the foundational logic from where these networks arise? We don't need to give that foundation a name like brain, soul or God. What we want is to develop our metacognition.

>> No.15893845

>>15893493
>If consciousness can't be explained in terms of known physical laws
Consciousness ‐is- a physical law

>> No.15893847

>>15893845
But not a known one. Consciousness is not accounted for in the standard model.

>> No.15893855
File: 609 KB, 1354x2056, materialismisnotscience.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15893855

materialism is not science, it is a religion

>> No.15893870

>>15893847
All matter interactions themselves are consciousness and as a larger collective form a more complex consciousness

>> No.15893893

>>15893870
This kind of micropanpsychism cannot account for the fact that consciousness can neither be divided nor copied. Neither can it explain the existence of NPCs. I'm less worried here about rocks or water being conscious. That's at least theoretically conceivable. But the average materialist is guaranteed to have no consciousness whatsoever - which according to your micropanpsychism seems impossible without introducing further assumptions.

>> No.15893901

>>15893893
You can neither prove nor disprove anyone or anything having some degree of consciousness apart from yourself, making it a meaningless debate

>> No.15893913

>>15893893
>consciousness can neither be divided nor copied
Why not?

>> No.15893933

>>15893901
NTA but I can. For example: if I see Mario repeatedly driving his kart into a wall then I'm almost certain that Mario is not played by a human actor. The fact that the idea of npc's exists proves that there must be a principle that can discern to what degree people differ in how they relate. Part of that principle is the degree of independence which is also a quality of how biology defines life. NPC's act less independent and are therefore less alive.

>> No.15893934

>>15893901
I can say without a doubt that people like >>15893506 have no consciousness.

>> No.15893938

>>15893913
Probably has something to do with the no-cloning theorem from quantum computation.

>> No.15893980

>>15893933
Less conscious =/= no consciousness, you fail to understand that everything in reality has some form of consciousness, whether it's primitive or advanced it's ultimately the same thing

>> No.15894097

>>15893980
Anon are you saying rock has qualitative experience?

>> No.15894142

>>15893980
>primitive or advanced
There is no such spectrum for qualia. All qualia are primitive. I see red - I experience red. On the level of information that's exactly one bit. No complexity at all.

>> No.15894150

>>15894142
NTA but he ment to say that all beings (conplex or not) have consciousness.
Not that qualia is primitive or advanced

>> No.15894162

>>15893493
Consciousness has been explained for thousands of years in a mechanistic way. The modern understanding of conscious systems stems from that root.

The problem is people who like to believe in superstitious belief systems at the core. People who claim they're not religious or atheists or rationalists have adopted a non sensical religious notion of consciousness/soul that they're no better than their religious cousins.

>> No.15894167

>>15893563
Not just idealism but an undefined form of idealism won the debate ~2500 years ago.

>> No.15894170

>>15893563
>No it's not as there's evidence of consciousness existing apart from the body. Quantum experiments prove consciousness is fundamental to reality. This is the ultimate NPC filter, not even kidding. Anyone who goes to uni and still believes in materialism is 100% a midwit.
Midwits will seethe because they don't understand the teletransportation paradox and its implications for consciousness.

>> No.15894189

>>15894097
Yes, dependa on what you mean by "qualitative", every interaction between something is an "experience", for things to interact there has to be a reaction, that reaction is consciousness, albeit more primitive from a human point of view, without mechanisms to retain memory and do more advanced logic there probably isn't a way for a rock to identify itself as a living being, but the basis is there

>> No.15894197

>>15893493
Well, Anon, that's easy. All of the following: physical, physical laws, consciousness- are vaguely defined.

>> No.15894201

>>15893980
I've read picrel from >>15893855 and I lol'd because I do like that way of reasoning but I'm going to question it anyway. Granted there's a foundation of logic and reason from where plants develop. It is not necessarily true that humans and plants have the same foundation therefore the products of these foundations can be of a different quality. It may be that there is another foundation beneath the plant foundation and human foundation that is binding which explains that various life forms have many but not all properties in common.

>> No.15894206

>>15894189
I see where you are comming from and i was holding that exact view my self few months ago. The problem is that we need to reserve word "experience" for beings that are complex (namely living beings). The reason is that it encaptualates specific process that goess on when a certain system (such as human body) interacts with its enviorment.
Iow. it implys that a being has nervous system in short.
The rock as you pointed out trully has no memory and visual system as you said. And thus it cant be said that rock has experience.
While it seems as purely "word" thing, it trully is worthy to reconsider using this word while stating the premiss you stated.
Again, i see where you come from and i agree with you on it but my advice would be to keep word experience in realm of animal kingdom.
The word i finde neutral and good in regards to what we tallk about is "acted upon". It does not state in what way it was acted upon (trough visual system) but still contains the momentum of interaction.

>> No.15894270

>>15894206
If you only limit the property of movement to automobiles you will forever ask how a tiger can move, not realizing that the basis for both is the exact same, everything in the universe is interconnected and it's these connections which form a higher quality of experience, but the basis for everything is the exact same, your experience is just more of the same thing that happens with literally everything else, two atoms touch, something happens between them right? What is it? You can say that their forces attract/repel eachother, but what happens between these forces? How is this reaction expressed? That is the basis of consciousness, shrimple as that.

>> No.15894300

Consider that all communication is interaction but not all interaction is communication.

>> No.15894336

>>15893855
idealism is not science, it is a religion

>> No.15895554

>>15894270
Anon i am sorry but that is just extremely wrong. You cant apply that analogy to human and a rock.
As i said i agree to interactionistic view, i am proponent of it my self. But you canot use words as you wish to your likings.
Experience neceserely requires nerves and a brain. It is as such a special kind of interaction limited to animal kingdom.

>> No.15895581
File: 47 KB, 387x420, 1673467828331382.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15895581

>>15895554
>Experience neceserely requires nerves and a brain. It is as such a special kind of interaction limited to animal kingdom.
Because.....you said so? You're looking at this from an egotistical point of view and applying a bias based on the preconceived notion that you are somehow more special than anything else.

>> No.15895634

>>15895581
No because that is a fact anon.
Knowing that "sense experience" requires nerves is not egoistical standpoint that we humans are special but rather a common knowledge.
There is no "how it is to be a rock" because to feel as something you need nervous system..
You are trying to tell me rock can feel pain yet rock has no mechanism for registering interaction that leads to it crackig. How is that going above your head?

>> No.15895674

>>15893506
>Consciousness is just the result of complex neurology
>so how does that work?
>IT JUST DOES, OK CHUD!

>> No.15895699

>>15893506
>a sufficient number of neural computations
a non-answer that doesn't explain the 'why is anyone home' question

>> No.15895937
File: 10 KB, 320x240, 1669507188265638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15895937

>>15895634
> "sense experience" requires nerves
*citation needed
>You are trying to tell me rock can feel pain yet rock has no mechanism for registering interaction that leads to it crackig. How is that going above your head?
No you fucking retard, you're conflating higher order consciousness with lower order consciousness

>> No.15895956

>>15895937
What is the difference between higher and lower order consciousness?

>> No.15895964
File: 1.10 MB, 720x576, 1656568849557.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15895964

>>15895956
Higher order consciousness is a composite of lower order consciousness, a cell is not just the nucleus, it needs all the organelles to function, your consciousness is not a singular experience, it's millions of interactions working in synchrony, each of these interactions has to communicate with the other to transfer information, this is the lower order consciousness, of course an atom doesn't "feel" like you do, because your feeling is a compound experience made up of those simple experiences, that's why I said consciousness is a law of physics, there is nothing to further divide consciousness into, it's just a law of nature that things behave and interact this way, it's like asking why an electron is an intangible spinning point source of charge, it's just how reality behaves, there is no further answer because that's the final limit, you're entering a territory of nonphysical logic which can't be explored by anything made by that logic, because it has no form to measure or interact with, it just is.

>> No.15895987

>>15895964
>ACTUALLY atoms don't exist, they're just millions of different subatomic particle interactions
This is how you sound.

>> No.15895989

>>15895581
>>15895634
Read this again
>>15894201
>>15894300
If plants and humans are shadows of Platonic ideas then some of these ideas may have consciousness as a property and others may not which is represented by shadows like nervous system and communication versus no nervous system and interaction. There's no justification why all ideas must be consciouss ideas nor is there justification why consciousness is an exclusive property.

All you're doing is trying to dump the burden of proof on eachother like in the picrel. Please consider a more productive step in the debate.

>> No.15896001

>>15895987
No he doesn't. He says there obviously is a car even though a car is a network of parts. What he's saying is that we can't get to where the idea of a car comes from because that's the ground of everything there is.

>> No.15896015

>>15893493
Consciousness stems from pattern recognition. It's as simple as that.

What's more complex is that physical monism only outsources the problem of consciousness to the universe itself. By its own mechanisms it is observing itself. Meaning if we are to take a completely physical approach to the problem even pointing out the actual process of consciousness solves nothing because we cannot peek outside the system which hosts consciousness. Therefore the only other direction to go is inwards, individually.

People need to stop forcibly separating science, spiritualism, and philosophy. And they need to stop assuming what each of those are.

Most people ITT are completely retarded. The only person making a point is the anon saying we cannot look outside the system.

>> No.15896033

>>15895987
No dumbass I'm saying that the answer to "what" consciousness is is an expression of matter interactios as dictated by the most basic laws of reality, the problem with the hard problem is that it demands to know why consciousness is that thing, which is fundamentally impossible to answer to satisfactorily because the answer is formless, immeasurable, not interactible, it is a fundamental rule which dictates behaviour, that behaviour is consciousness, lower order interactions for simple singular things and higher order interaction for complex things, your consciousness, simply put, is nothing but an illusion, a funny little play your atoms put together for themselves to keep them entertained.
>>15895989
The fundamental mistake in your argument is that you define consciousness as "what I experience" when it is just "experience" aka you're applying a human bias to your argument.

>> No.15896081

>>15895964
Did you intend to say the following with your gif?
>The idea of supervenience might be introduced via an example due to David Lewis of a dot-matrix picture:
>A dot-matrix picture has global properties -- it is symmetrical, it is cluttered, and whatnot -- and yet all there is to the picture is dots and non-dots at each point of the matrix. The global properties are nothing but patterns in the dots. They supervene: no two pictures could differ in their global properties without differing, somewhere, in whether there is or there isn't a dot (1986, p. 14).

>> No.15896091

>>15895634
You're a zealot pushing dogma. You can't describe the logical steps that lead to your conclusion because there are no such steps.
>nerves are needed to experience because experience needs nerves

>> No.15896099

>>15896033
>"what I experience" when it is just "experience"
I don't see a justification for prioritizing one or the other. Consider your gif again: either the gif is a quality that embodies all its patterns, like a computer screen, a screen is all there is, or there is a thing that is watching the screen, which is spooky as hell because its almost like looking for something and finding that it is staring right back at you. This may seem like complete lunacy but I'm trying my hardest to be as rational as I can I'm not schizo or using drugs or anything.

>> No.15896105

>>15895964
How much lower order consciousness is required to experience qualia? Does a simple single bit sensor who recognizes the color red already experience red? If not, then what is required additionally? Why do some humans have qualia and others (eliminativists for example) don't?

>> No.15896136

>>15895937
No, you are just making shit up so you can have your pan-garbage theory go trough.

>> No.15896141

>>15896091
No, you just cant accept the fact that if i take your eyes out that you will not experience vision anymore.

>> No.15896144

>>15895964
You are seriously saying that this >>15895937 requires citation and then spure the load of shit you just spured in quoted comment...
My God

>> No.15896172

>>15895937
This is what you are doing:
Experience is interaction,
Everything interacts,
Everything is consciousness.
Its just that some are higer order and some lower.

Your logic is faulty. Because there is interaction where there is unconciousness as well. So by your logic, everything is both consciouss and unconsciouss at the same fucking time because you cant get it in your head that experience is type of interaction related to animal kingdom.

You are taking consciousness, phenomena that we relate to a brain and you are transfering it out of its proper field of application and patching it to all fields without a reasson to do so. You are missusing the language and confusing yourself.

>> No.15896191

>>15896141
NTA but people die if they are killed in The Matrix. Not my ontology though. Suppose that the brain we observe is the model of The Brain: then The Brain will end together with the brain. Our experience is then like a health bar or maybe a mana bar. But you see: The Brain lives in The World unlike our experience: the brain living in the world. The Brain in The World has the quality of consciousness so maybe there are other things in The World that have that quality as well.

Now we're running in circles but I can see the problem: the experience of The Brain diminishing with damage to the brain may indicate that the way things in The World represent themselves are indicative of their quality.

>> No.15896195

>>15896191
I dont even know what to say to this.
But i cant belive that people belive they can have perception without nervous system that sends sense datum to the brain.
ON A FUCKING SCIENCE BOARD

>> No.15896204

>>15896141
Now you're being wilfully dishonest to protect your delusions instead of considering alternatives. No clue how to think about any subject.

>> No.15896209

>>15896204
Go open cognitive psychology textbook imstead of pretending to be something you are not.

>> No.15896220

>>15896195
Why would sending data around cause it to be experienced? Are you actually retarded enough to think this pathetic appeal to authority makes you the reasonable one in this interaction? You really don't understand anything about science or inquiry on any level?
>>15896209
Cognitive psychology doesn't deal with qualia or the hard problem. What do you believe confusing these subjects accomplishes?

>> No.15896225

>>15896220
I am glad you wrote this comment. Now i can go to sleep in peace knowing that its not that you are confused but rather just ignorant.

>> No.15896237

>>15896195
>people belive they can have perception without nervous system
Nobody is saying that. Look you are describing a nervous system, input, the brain, the eyes, how they relate to what we see and so on, correct? Now put that in abstract terms: you are comparing this, that, the other, such and so to see how everything relates to eachother. So now you have a bunch of relationships. You see a virus, you think Y = X2, you measure, you verify / falsify, you use logic and reason to do all that. Now who or what is the thing that is using / directing math, science and language? Where does logic and reason come from? What is the logic and reason for your logic and reason?

>> No.15896241
File: 1.66 MB, 1080x1822, Screenshot_20231125_153029_Firefox.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15896241

>>15893495
God is Jesus
billion plus people agree

>> No.15896242

>>15893493
This is what philosophy did

You people called it pseuds and proceed to make inferations who leaded nowhere

>> No.15896258

>>15896237
>What is the logic and reason for your logic and reason?
IT IS ME YOU FOOLS. I AM THE LOGIC AND REASON THAT USES LOGIC AND REASON.

But now I sound like mr. I am the science Fauci.

>> No.15896276

>>15896237
Are you high?

>> No.15896299

>>15896276
Are you only going to make clever remarks or are you going to put in the effort to think things through?

>> No.15896309
File: 66 KB, 750x1025, DFF00C12-2AF5-4AF7-AEDB-0D787F454C1A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15896309

>>15893506
What being 14 years old does to someone

>> No.15896328

>>15896299
Clever remarks from now on. I wasted enough energy.

>> No.15896345

>>15896099
The gif is just what I imagine (physical) reality ultimately boils down to, it's just an unified buzz of energy, a primordial soup of consciousness, without order, yet alive, it is only once things fall into their place can the universe open its eyes, taste its food, breathe its air, know what it is like to die. We are all the same thing, anon, there is nothing that makes you "you", I could've been you, you could've been me, and we both could've been snails sluggishly dragging their asses across the bottom of the sea, it's all an endless cycle of destruction and reformation, the ride never ends.
>>15896105
>qualia
Define qualia
>>15896172
>Your logic is faulty. Because there is interaction where there is unconciousness as well
But there isn't, just varying degrees of consciousness, things have to be conscious and aware of eachother to know that they exist and to interact, this already denotes that consciousness is a basic truth of reality, how would iron know to bind to oxygen if it did not know what it was binding with, how could an electron exist if the universe did not know it was there, for something to exist there has to be information of its existence, and for information to exist it needs something to exist in and something to process its existence, you think of consciousness as something unique to yourself, not realizing that it is simply a qualitative property of reality.

>> No.15896365

>>15896328
Lmao you guys remind me of Krishnamurti and his guests yelling at eachother. That frustration is very much a feature not a bug of seeking to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ifsMysembjg

>> No.15896384

>>15896225
What is this? Why even post? What's wrong with your brain? You can't even begin to try to formulate your ideas that are supposedly so obviously true that nobody should ever dare challenge their holiness?
Can you point us to a general direction where cognitive psychology answers anything related to the hard problem? You mentioned it as if it has all the answers then sperg when you're asked to explain yourself, as if you really have no clue what you're talking about or how do even begin to think or communicate about any subject.

>> No.15896387

>>15896258
What the fuck are you talking about you mindless subhuman faggot?

>> No.15896400

>>15896387
I'm talking about that which is prior to experience you unevolved homo erectus!

>> No.15896409

>>15896384
The hard problem is why if it's conciousness why it doesn't stands up gets out of the house gets a wife and a job...

>> No.15896451

>>15896409
No that has already been solved. A perfect ordered society of conformists is a stagnant, non-adaptive and eventually dead society. There need to be deviants who do seemingly useless work for innovation to be possible.

>> No.15896490

It was literally explained by global workspace theory decades ago and then expanded into global neuronal workspace.