[ 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: 12 KB, 480x360, hq2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15904462 No.15904462 [Reply] [Original]

Has any neuroscientist ever tried to tackle the hard problem of consciousness?

>> No.15904464

>>15904462
What hard problem?

>> No.15904469

>>15904464
Qualia and free will

>> No.15904470

>>15904462
Yes. His name is Sam Harris and he's an idiot who is a prime example of why you can't go from STEM straight into philosophy. Namely, he tries to solve the 'is-ought' problem (which is to say that it is extremely difficult to extract moral statements from objective statements, like for example knowing how to build a nuclear bomb tells you nothing about how you OUGHT to use it) by claiming all ought statements (thus all moral statements) are religious in nature and thus because God doesn't exist then neither do ought statements and thus there is no is-ought problem (remember my example of the nuke and think of how stupid he now sounds).
So unfortunately, no luck so far.

>> No.15904478

>>15904469
Both debunked

>> No.15904513

>>15904462
Simple, and any other answer is a hard cope. It's a machine of chemistry. We're robots.

>> No.15904528

>>15904513
This. Any personality you have is a result of stimuli from your external senses. Want to go outside for a walk? Electric pulses did that. Want to eat a hot dog with mustard and ketchup on it? Electric pulses did that. Don't feel like doing much of anything at all? Electric pulses (or lack thereof) did that, too.

>> No.15904529

>>15904462
Yeah, all neuroscientists, lol

>> No.15904568

>>15904513
How does a robot experience qualia?

>> No.15904645

>>15904470
If true, then his defense of his own Trump Derangement Syndrome debunks that solution and we again see theory annihilated by praxis (as it always is, in matters of pure philosophy).

>> No.15904705

>>15904462
kurwa

>> No.15904713

>>15904462
Hofstadter who is a scholar of cognitive science and physics wrote "I am a strange loop" to show how consciousness works and talked about the sense of "I" everyone has. Personally I think some of the analogies were useless and that he used some inductive reasoning. But overall he made a good point.
>In the end, we are self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference

>> No.15904728

>>15904462
>A. there are sensory impressions of brains, nerves and neurons
>B. there are thoughts about brains, nerves and neurons
>C. thoughts and sensory impressions relate / point / refer to eachother
>D. if sensory impressions of brains, nerves and neurons change, for example: visible damage, rewiring, EMG
>E. then thoughts and other sensory impressions change
>F. restate A: there are changing and interrelating thoughts and sensory impressions of brains, nerves and neurons
>G. statements A through F don't answer the question who or what is having thoughts and sensory impressions, because any answer is a thought and / or sensory impression
>H. Therefore who or what is having thoughts and sensory impressions must be outside thoughts and sensory impressions
>I. Any statement to the contrary of H is an appeal to a perspective outside thoughts and sensory impressions
Good luck refuting this argument you subhuman physicalists faggots.

>> No.15904736

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehaene%E2%80%93Changeux_model

>> No.15904759

>>15904478
>>15904513
>>15904513
low IQ. must be either jewish, indian, or asian.

>> No.15904796

>>15904462
I love my wife, Eve

>> No.15905488

>>15904478
what were the claims that were debunked?

>> No.15905504

tranny thread

>> No.15905505

>>15904759
Not him but I'm white and just found out I'm low IQ the other day. Feeling extreme despair.

>> No.15905717

>>15905504
Trannies are either materialist ("gender is just genitalia, I chop them off, I become a woman") or idealist ("gender is an arbitrary social construct, I define myself as a woman"). The only non-tranny stance is dualism.

>> No.15905719

>>15904469
ah ye, they tackled it and concluded both are fucking retarded.

>> No.15906837

>>15904728
That's an unnecessarily convoluted argument.

>> No.15906839

what about it is a PROBLEM? can anyone answer that
why has it been put in that category? whats the production line for!

>> No.15907957

>>15906839
The problem is how does the mental and the physical interact?

>> No.15907985

>>15907957
By realizing that 'mental' is a poor approximation of our misunderstanding about the brain. There's no mental category anymore than there is a god. It's an unnecessary language that gets us in useless self refential tail spins.

>> No.15907987

>>15904462
Behold how my new and improved argument remains unchallenged:
>A. There are thoughts and sensory impressions
>B. If A is observed, then the observer can be (1) equal to A, (2) seperate from A and (3) both equal to / seperate from A in different categories until any of these conceptions are verified or falsified
>C. Verification and / or falsification of any B123 is contradictory to other B123
>D. Therefore superposition

Hey painting red with blue Anon come out and play because our last discussion was interrupted and hijacked by a schizo.

>> No.15907989

>>15907987
Can you prove that there are indeed thoughts or sensory impressions instead of appearances of them? Can you even define them and their properties independent of something more fundamental?

>> No.15907997
File: 163 KB, 1280x720, 1701872210425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15907997

>>15907985
Knowing the physical depends on sensory input and is hence prone to illusions and misconceptions. For example looking at the sun in the sky might give you the impression that the sun is much smaller than earth - after all you see the whole sun but you never saw the whole earth. It is then the a priori mathematical framework of physics - developed purely mentally by Newton at first - which corrects this misconception by allowing us to estimate the size of the sun.
No a posteriori, inductive, empirical knowledge can ever reach the same degree of certainty that can be gained a priori by purely deductive inference. Mathematical truth alone already shows the superiority of the mental over the physical.

>> No.15908003

>>15907997
Lol humans have been relying on the sun to rise via inductive reasoning for millenia. We don't need to know it is bigger than the earth to use it for agriculture. Language games always lead to more confusion vs traditional induction which has always served our very most basic needs.

>> No.15908009

>>15908003
>Lol humans have been relying on the sun to rise via inductive reasoning for millenia.
Humans have also relied on their consciousness for millennia to grant them truthful insight, morality, experience and free will. There is no need to play language games by fallaciously denying the importance of the mental.

>> No.15908021

>>15905719
Then they lost

Protip even if we didn't had it we call evolve it

>> No.15908023

>>15907989
Yes and no because almost any description / use of language is relative horizontally and vertically. There is a chair. Any further description is relative like shape, color, use. Beyond that I'm overwhelmed by agnosticism because shape, color and use can be more fundamental ideas or these ideas can be on the same level as all the other thoughts and sensory impressions. I have no way to discern that.

There's a strange-loop / self-referential thing going on here: logic and reason tries to justify its own existence. Anyway there is something that we consider axiomatic. That something is an endless recursion of appearances or the thing itself. I have know way of knowing. I'm afraid that's who I am: existence that exists by justifying its own existence. That is schizo territory and maybe I'm just regurgitating philosophers. I'm not convinced that this is the bottom. I think a few centuries in the future humans will have a higher understanding I can't conceive yet. I want it now.

>> No.15908026

>>15908023
Then exemplify

How would it looks like

>> No.15908039

>>15908026
>How would it looks like
This statement is an expression of agnosticism, a zen koan and a joke. The statement simultaneously does and does not have horizontal and vertical reference. The statement is also both meaningful and nonsense. The statement is a statement in reference to an observer who considers it a statement that does or does not make sense.

I'm starting to think that I'm an npc for writing this. Are you telling me: just look at your nonsense? Ping-ting comes for fire?

>> No.15908102

>>15908009
You are the one who said math was the only path to truth which suggests extreme hubris since humans have lived most of their lives without using any math.

>> No.15908152

>>15908023
You could define thoughts as the symbolic association btn reality and perception. They don't exist in some metaphysical sense. But then again, we find something more fundamental than thoughts, animal instincts. You can't wish them away like you can thoughts. When you realize that idealization of thought leads to some paradoxes you can stop assigning the same importance to them that you ascribe to physical objects.

>> No.15908202

>>15908152
>reality and perception
Those words are confusing because I have no way of discerning what ther relationship is. That problem is caused by thought I agree.
>more fundamental than thoughts, animal instincts.
I agree if we eliminate the abstraction: we must sleep, eat and drink no matter what. Am I missing something?

>>15908009
>>15908102
There is something to be learned from the discussion between these Anons that seems trivial but is more profound: human development relies on the see-sawing of thinking and sensing. There seems to be a need to run off in either direction because where we are is never satisfying and then we are pushed or pulled back. That is another example of being caught in a negative feedback loop we might not even be aware of. It's like our biological system is playing us all like a violin yet we insist that we are a free willing being.

>> No.15908214
File: 234 KB, 640x719, 1701885534453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15908214

>>15908202
>the see-sawing of thinking and sensing
almost as if reality is a self-configuring self-processing language

>> No.15908234

>>15908202
Reality is what is immediately apparent to everyone else including animals. Things like heat, sand, water, etc. Perception is how you react to that. Animals react immediately with no time for thought, humans can symbolize that link and store it for further manipulation. They can go on tailspins idealizing the link, making somewhat unnecessary deductions about it, connecting it to another link in time and space and eventually arrive at a paradox when they try to suggest for instance that the only thing that exists is that link without realizing that the link is just a product of a unique material design that developed in order to stay alive for a little longer.

>> No.15908279

>>15908214
Thanks for coining the term. I'll read into it.

>>15908234
The post above disputes that. To put your post in my own terms, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you: the brain simulates and we conflate that simulation with reality. There are several problems with that.

It seems to me that you are trying to take a third person perspective that is yet another simulation in the reality that you're trying to objectively / independently describe. You are not entitled to a third person perspective. Only someone outside reality has that privilege. The most objective a scientist can be is mathematics and consensus between subjects.

In reality there are simulations that determine what happens in reality. Reality is shaping itself through these imaginations. The imagined hierarchy of what's more or less real is determined by what appearances contribute to survival. If you were a ghost pokemon eating dreams then human food would be less real to you.

>> No.15908289

>>15908279
Addendum: of course that's me trying to take a third person perspective I'm not entitled to either because that's the nature of thought.

>> No.15908296

>>15908039
Good

So you wanted a non sequential thought, is silly but at least is something

>> No.15908298

>>15908279
No that's not what i'm saying. What you are attempting to do is posit that some objective reality exists which is another idealistic thought trap deduction that assumes things ontologically exists outside our direct observation. I'm saying what you see right now is as real as things will ever get. There's no need to assume anything other than that. Anything else will lead to a self referential contradiction.

>> No.15908305

>>15908289
And its not third person. Its a consensus argument. We all agree that some aspects of what we directly observe is real by how we react to those observations.

>> No.15908334

>>15908296
I did realize that everything can be seen as a koan and a mirror. Suddenly I realized that I'm in a dialogue with myself whenever I interact with something which is profoundly silly like talking to a tree. I see a tree, I name it a tree, I begin to philosophize and then I suddenly thought: the tree is doing nothing at all and yet I'm projecting all these thoughts onto it like I do with humans. As if the tree was silently making fun of me. It's just being a tree without needing my approval.

I get this sense sometimes that reality is a snickering zebra. It comes to people and asks: am I a white horse with black stripes or vice versa? And then it sits back and laughs at all the philosophers and scientists. But we can't just tell the zebra to get lost. We want to understand. Or are we trying to cultivate a scientific genius through zen buddhism?

>>15908298
I'm struggling to get this. Are you saying that the utility of thought is not only in a trivial sense but in a profound sense tied to what we observe right here right now? I can't put that in the context of waiting for the bus. That requires tremendous faith in our imagination or else we wouldn't do it, right?

>> No.15908745

>>15908298
>direct observation
Okay I see now what you're getting at. We need to start from sensory impressions and not add anything unnecessary. There are particular shapes and colors that are unlike any other: people. To deal with these objects I need to consider them as subjects: I must give them a quality that can not be measured.

>> No.15908789

>>15904462
We need a /phi

>> No.15908847

>>15904464
This is the neuroscientist way

>> No.15908849

>>15904462
Neuroscientists like Churchland can’t help but say retarded shit about consciousness.

>> No.15908901

>>15904462
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_consciousness
>this topic again
yawn

>> No.15908907

>>15904462
Has a philosopher ever tried to tackle the hard problem of consciousness?

>> No.15908908

>>15908907
nah mainly they throw out their backs moving the goalposts