>my face when an otherwise intelligent, materialistic person still clings to the concept of a 'soul' by citing 'quantum mind theory'

File: 56 KB, 380x288, sadface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 09:58:31 2010 No.1778882 [Reply] [Original]

>my face when an otherwise intelligent, materialistic person still clings to the concept of a 'soul' by citing 'quantum mind theory'

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:02:31 2010 No.1778895 Certainly the mind is more than just a bunch of neurons?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:11:31 2010 No.1778919 >>1778895 Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:11:31 2010 No.1778923 >>1778895 No, no it isn't. The mind is a product of our self awareness and inability to perceive the physical activity within our brain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:25:31 2010 No.1778964 >>1778919 >>1778923 It 'feels like something' to be a human. It doesn't feel like something to be a light switch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:27:31 2010 No.1778968 >>1778964 >Implying a lightswitch has neurons and a sense of being self-aware.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:32:31 2010 No.1778988

>>1778968

Fallacy, the complexity doesn't matter. Consider the "Chinese Room"

>Assume you do not speak Chinese and imagine yourself in a room with two slits, a book, and some scratch paper. Someone slides you some Chinese characters through the first slit, you follow the instructions in the book, write what it says on the scratch paper, and slide the resulting sheet out the second slit. To people on the outside world, it appears the room speaks Chinese—they slide Chinese statements in one slit and get valid responses in return—yet you do not understand a word of Chinese.

If the instructions in the book were elaborate enough, the Chinese person would think he is talking to another, real Chinese person. Is the room concious then? Or the books? Conciousness is only a property of the human brain, inexplicable by classical laws.

Captain Cock Magnet Mon Sep 20 10:35:31 2010 No.1778999

>>1778988

It is a property of the human brain and is subject to "classical laws". We do not even have a drop of omnipotence, the human brain is brain, it does not contain an essence of impossible power. So strong to defy scientific law.

Escape your illusion and touch realism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:40:31 2010 No.1779012 >>1778999 Connect 400 billion transistors, RAM, and an EEPROM chip. Do you have consciousness? No. Consciousness certainly doesn't just arise from complexity.

Captain Cock Magnet Mon Sep 20 10:43:31 2010 No.1779020

>>1779012
>>1779012

I think we agree? What?

You were saying that the conscious mind cannot be explained through current scientific method, that it is some sort of mysterious enigma that we have no data upon. You are wrong.

That was what I was touching on. I thought you were defending the existence of free will? That the "sense of being" separates us from the material world?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:44:31 2010 No.1779022 >>1778988 >>1778999 >>1779012 consciousness is what an algorithm feels like when it runs a functionally transparent self-model.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:44:31 2010 No.1779024 >>1779020 I thought you were implying that consciousness merely arises from complexity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:45:31 2010 No.1779026 If there is no soul, who wrote the Bible?

>>	Captain Cock Magnet Mon Sep 20 10:47:31 2010 No.1779029 >>1779024 >>1779024 >>1779024 Oh no, I was merely stating that there is no essence within us that causes free will and how the existence of free will would defy how science explains the known universe.

No way Lazy Dog !wvAYL/zaDg Mon Sep 20 10:47:43 2010 No.1779032 [DELETED]

>>1778988
you've just requested we point out a physical item of the [chinese room's] mind within the chinese room
>Is the room concious then?
Well now I ask you to do the same, what in our brain is actually conscious? Are the Neurons conscious? Or the flow of electricity?
>Conciousness is only a property of the human brain, inexplicable by classical laws.
Maybe the consciousness of the room is just as "inexplicable by classical laws"
Check and mate.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:49:31 2010 No.1779040

>>1779032
>Well now I ask you to do the same, what in our brain is actually conscious? Are the Neurons conscious? Or the flow of electricity?

Neither, and that is exactly what I'm getting at. No matter how complex a system you create, it will never have 'feelings' in the way that I am right now 'feeling' that I'm a conscious human typing out his thoughts.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:49:31 2010 No.1779041
File: 58 KB, 496x447, diabeetus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Conscientiousness is not our hardware it is our software, we are spontaneous patterns of perspectives of a 5 dimensional space. We have the ability to understand chain of events and understand branches of possibilities. Simply that. And we are fucked up on drugs all the time. (neurotransmitters)

No way Lazy Dog !wvAYL/zaDg Mon Sep 20 10:56:43 2010 No.1779066 [DELETED]

>>1779040
let me get this stright.
You believe people are conscious, and (maybe animals as well) that other objects are not, and cannot (become conscious).
Do you believe other people are conscious?
Minerals, when collected from consumption form what is your brain, it is clear you need this for your mind to operate...
This either proves that elements can be ordered to form a consciousness OR you are religious and believe something transcendant gives us our consciousness when we are born?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:57:31 2010 No.1779070 >intelligent >materialistic pick one

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:59:31 2010 No.1779082 >>1779041 Software can never be conscious. Anything that software can do, you can duplicate with a pencil and paper. If you write out the results from a complex enough equation, do you believe that the pencil and paper are becoming conscious?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 10:59:31 2010 No.1779084 File: 20 KB, 313x450, bill gates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1779070

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:02:31 2010 No.1779097 >>1779082 of course. from "outside", the universe is exactly that, a static self-generated expression of the bulk.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:08:31 2010 No.1779116

>>1779012

That's a stupid example.

It's not just "complexity", it's the fact that the brain is an adaptive neural network that makes the difference. Consciousness is by it's nature in a state of change. Experience itself has a tangible effect on the mind, and the fact that the mind tandemly changes with experience creates thoughts. The 400 Billion transistors, or switches, in your example would just be a complex system of reflexes. It has no mind because it's just a big rube goldberg machine, nothing ever changes the state it's in and and the switches are isolated from each other.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:09:31 2010 No.1779125 >>1779082 Tough shit son, but everything you are can be replicated with enough pencil, paper, and time. Consciousness is an illusion, particular to the human brain. Your brain is a computational device, no matter what spin you try to put on it.

>>	!wvAYL/zaDg Mon Sep 20 11:16:31 2010 No.1779144 Alright I has a question, did a mod actively delete my posts or was it auto deleted when I tried to post a "banned URL" (wish they had a list of these somewhere [obvious]).

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:18:31 2010 No.1779151 >>1779144 Sorry what?

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:25:31 2010 No.1779166

>>1779125
Exactly. If you believe that consciousness is mere computation, you have to believe that consciousness is an illusion... which is of course asinine. Something has to be conscious in the first place to be fooled by an illusional. Consciousness is not computational. If I worked out the supposed alogorithms of the brain with pencil and paper, the paper wouldn't be under the illusion that it was conscious.

>>1779116
I build adaptive neural networks in software as part of my living. Trust me, they are no more conscious than your pocket calculator.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:26:31 2010 No.1779172 >>1779166 >Consciousness is not computational. What the hell is it then? It's either that, or something metaphysical. And since metaphysics isn't real...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:27:31 2010 No.1779176 >>1779166 Proof right here that you can be a software engineer working on neural nets and still be an idiot

!wvAYL/zaDg Mon Sep 20 11:27:31 2010 No.1779177

>>1779144
Ahh nvm, I got a "banned for posting a banned URL" message. Just checked. Other posts in other boards deleted too. Must be auto.
As I was saying: The brain is obviously comprised of elements, and hence we can create consciousness from minerals our selves.
Unless you believe there is a component to our mind that transcends reality.
So either you believe we can create synthetic minds, or you believe in something that you argue in its very nature has no proof of existence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:27:31 2010 No.1779179 >>1779116 Adaptivity is not a requirement for anything computable. If it is computable via adaptivity, it is computable without it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:28:31 2010 No.1779183 >>1779172 If it's not computational, then metaphysical is real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:29:31 2010 No.1779187 >>1779183 So you believe that there is something non-physical about the human brain? Hahaha.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:30:31 2010 No.1779190 >>1779177 that logic is so full of fail, I don't even know where to begin.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:31:31 2010 No.1779194 >>1779187 no, the brain is by definition physical. you might be retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:31:31 2010 No.1779196 >>1779183 >>1779166 You are the kind of despicable person who will argue against human rights for conscious machines when the time comes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:32:31 2010 No.1779197 >>1779196 >RIGHTS FOR CALCULATORS HURRR DRRR

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:33:31 2010 No.1779202 >>1779197 >it's not made of squishy stuff it must b dumm!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:33:31 2010 No.1779203 >>1779196 You're the kind of moron who will try to break into our server room and try to destroy our servers to free the enslaved artificial neural networks we have data mining.

>>	!wvAYL/zaDg Mon Sep 20 11:34:31 2010 No.1779205 >>1779190 start after the first line then.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:35:31 2010 No.1779210

>>1779197

Too bad you are a calculator too. When you catch a flying ball, the unconscious part of your brain does trigonometry on the fly. Your "consciousness" is just the bunch of the strongest signals at any moment. You aren't aware of this because, you know, your brain didn't EVOLVE that way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:35:31 2010 No.1779212 >>1779196 And against rights for uploads, too. Mfw accelerando.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:37:31 2010 No.1779220

>>1779082
>Software can never be conscious. Anything that software can do, you can duplicate with a pencil and paper. If you write out the results from a complex enough equation, do you believe that the pencil and paper are becoming conscious?
no, but the equation itself is. as long as someone is constantly inputting the data into equation, and acting on the outputs accordingly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:37:31 2010 No.1779222 Back on topic, I think the next idea that'll get clung to once the quantum shit is cleared up is micro time-travelling particles in the brain; 4d recursion etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:38:31 2010 No.1779229 Mr. Strong AI Is Impossible Software Engineer, what exactly is it about the brain that is impossible to emulate?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:42:31 2010 No.1779240 >>1779220 >The equation itself is. so if you work out the equations with pencils and paper, and keep updating it with new inputs and calculating the numbers, you think the equation experiences all this and is conscious?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:43:31 2010 No.1779246 >>1779240 Yep. Mainly because, as I said before, consciousness is an illusion. Are you religious? What makes you think the brain is not simply an information processing device?

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:44:31 2010 No.1779252

>>1779229
In neurology it is an unsolved problem... why any process should lead to subjective consciousness. "Neural networks" only sounds like a solution if you don't understand them, because then its mysterious. The only solutions that is at all plausible to me is dualism. Or rather there are two possibilities. 1) Their are properties of the physical world beyond our understanding that allow for consciousness, or 2) our consciousness requires non-physical components.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:46:31 2010 No.1779254 >>1779246 because I experience consciousness, and there is nothing about computation that should imply consciousness. Believing otherwise is magical thinking. It is assigning causality to something without due thought to a mechanism for causality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:46:31 2010 No.1779257 I gotta work though. You kids enjoy your thread.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:47:31 2010 No.1779259

>>1779252

Those options are absolutely contrived an unnecessary. Why not just apply Ockam's razor and deal with it? Daniel Dennett is great at explaining this. If you feel like it, read this intro. I'm not going to argue any more.

>Consciousness Explained (published 1991) is a book by the American philosopher Daniel Dennett which offers an account of how consciousness arises from interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.

>The book puts forward a "multiple drafts" model of consciousness, suggesting that there is no single central place (a "Cartesian Theater") where conscious experience occurs; instead there are "various events of content-fixation occurring in various places at various times in the brain". The brain consists of a "bundle of semi-independent agencies"; when "content-fixation" takes place in one of these, its effects may propagate so that it leads to the utterance of one of the sentences that make up the story in which the central character is one's "self". Dennett's view of consciousness is that it is the apparently serial account for the brain's underlying parallelism.

>One of the book's more controversial claims is that qualia do not (and cannot) exist. Dennett's main argument is that the various properties attributed to qualia by philosophers—qualia are supposed to be incorrigible, ineffable, private, directly accessible and so on—are incompatible, so the notion of qualia is incoherent. The non-existence of qualia would mean that there is no hard problem of consciousness, and "philosophical zombies", which are supposed to act human in every way while somehow lacking qualia, cannot exist. So, as Dennett wryly notes, he is committed to the belief that we are all zombies—adding that his remark is very much open to misinterpretation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:48:31 2010 No.1779267 >>1779252 >unsolved problem ...does not imply unsolvable problem. that's creationist talk.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:49:31 2010 No.1779274 >>1779267 The man's obviously religious. Even though he's supposed to be a grown adult with an advanced degree. He's a lost cause.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:50:31 2010 No.1779276 >>1779259 >One of the book's more controversial claims is that qualia do not (and cannot) exist. HAHAHAHAHAHA This is the idiocy that passes for philosophy these days? Seriously, this is full retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:51:31 2010 No.1779278 >>1779276 No, this is where philosophy becomes actually scientific, instead of moronic metaphysical babble. Grow up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:51:31 2010 No.1779279 >>1779267 Fine, solve the problem, and then you'll have an argument against dualism. Until someone does, it's the only theory that comes close to completeness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:52:31 2010 No.1779283 >>1779278 pretending that inconvenient entities don't exist is not scientific. that dude needs to grow up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:54:31 2010 No.1779290 >>1779283 A qualia is hardly an entity, it's an idea, barely a hypothesis. And "that dude" is one of the most well-known and well-respected contemporary philosophers. Yet it's obvious you've never heard of him. Who needs to grow up again?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:55:31 2010 No.1779293 >>1779279 Good theories are not necessarily complete. Complete theories are not necessarily good. What you're looking for is a religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:56:31 2010 No.1779295 >>1779279 >dualism it's not a theory, not even hypothesis, as it's an unfalsifiable concept. when did this thread became invaded by godfags?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 11:58:31 2010 No.1779308 >>1779295 When someone asserted that we are special snowflakes rather than lumps of meat and metal and water.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:00:31 2010 No.1779312 >>1779295 its a philosophical theory; not a scientific one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:01:31 2010 No.1779314 >>1779293 No, it's called having philosophy. It's called being curious about reality rather than dismissing it, or being scared of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:03:31 2010 No.1779317 >>1779314 Wait, you choose to believe in a soul, and you are calling us materialists SCARED? Jesus mother fucking Christ, this is so fucking rich with irony.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:03:31 2010 No.1779318 >>1779290 Anyone who respects him gets no respect from me. Qualia is an experience, not an idea.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:03:31 2010 No.1779320 >>1779318 Good. Now go home.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:04:31 2010 No.1779324 >>1779317 Yes, of course you're scared. You're hiding behind an oversimplified materialist worldview because you're scared of questions that don't have easy answers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:05:31 2010 No.1779326 File: 17 KB, 255x352, Laughing_Elf_Man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1779324

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:11:31 2010 No.1779346 Is conciousness just another evolutionary stage for survival ir is it more complex than we think? I don't know shit about neuroscience but does science have conciousness completely covered and explained?

>>	CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 Mon Sep 20 12:16:31 2010 No.1779361 >>1779346 Not completely, but we're getting there. http://pissaro.soc.huji.ac.il/~leon/mivnim/pdfs/lamme.pdf

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:17:31 2010 No.1779364

Philosophers defending the existence of qualia is like priests defending the existence of god.

What point is there claiming "it exists but can't be proved?"

Some people feel the presence of god.
And some(or the same) can't live without explaining perfectly ordinary things that can well be explained by biochemistry and life sciences as something mysterious supernatural.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:18:31 2010 No.1779367

>>1779346
In neuroscience the question of why any neurological process should lead to actual conscious experience or qualia is called "the hard problem". In other words, we have no fucking clue. All we can do is identify the neural conditions which are prerequisites for consciousness.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:21:31 2010 No.1779373

>>1779364
WTF are you talking about? Qualia is the one thing in the universe that CAN be proved. Every speck of physical reality could be an illusion. The only thing I know for sure that exists is my experience. The proof of qualia is stronger therefore than the proof of any physical thing whatsoever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:25:31 2010 No.1779381 >>1779373 Then prove that say, "redness" is not a phenomenon resulting purely from cone pigments and brain processing.

>>	CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 Mon Sep 20 12:26:31 2010 No.1779383 >>1779373 Not the guy you're replying to but introspection does not qualify as scientific evidence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:30:31 2010 No.1779398 >>1779383 You are correct -- no scientific evidence can ever be known for certain. The only thing that can be known for certain is that you are experiencing what you are experiencing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:31:31 2010 No.1779403 >>1779381 Why do you suppose I can prove that? All I know is that I can experience redness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:31:31 2010 No.1779404 >>1779070 9/10 Nice try

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:41:31 2010 No.1779433

>>1779012
Transistors aren't complicated... well they are but they come out to 0 or 1. No grey area.

Anyway, quantum mind theory is very flaky. You get dominant quantum effects on a scale of 10^-15 m, but cells are at, what 10^-3 m? And use chemical clouds to communicate? So 10^-6 m is the scale?

The mind might have quantum effects, but they won't be continuous, I'm kinda sure. So it can't rely on something so iffy to be continuous.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:53:31 2010 No.1779463

oh god, this thread

>"that dude" is one of the most well-known and well-respected contemporary philosophers. Yet it's obvious you've never heard of him. Who needs to grow up again?

Daniel Dennett is a joke. Amateur philosophers who like him for personal reasons have to use ad hominem, because all his arguments are shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:55:31 2010 No.1779467 Well what about lucid dreaming and astral projection?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 12:57:31 2010 No.1779473 Hiding this thread. You Deepak Chopra motherfuckers make me rage. >>1779463

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:03:31 2010 No.1779483 >>1779463 lol Dennett is the only worthwile philosopher, mainly because he's 100% materialistic. I'm not even sure that can be classified as a philosopher. Guess what? Philosophy is just as fucking useless as theology. Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:03:31 2010 No.1779484 >>1779467 What about completely imaginary made up shit?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:03:31 2010 No.1779486 >>1779463 >ad hominem, because all his arguments are shit. Sums up your post quite well, congratulation on making a recursively self-describing arugment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:06:31 2010 No.1779489 >>1779486 >>1779484 >>1779483 You myopic idiots still can't explain the beauty of a sunset, out of body experiences, the feeling of love, telepathy, etc.... There is so much you know nothing about.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:06:31 2010 No.1779490

>>1779433
Huh. So it's around 10^-9 m for interatomic bonds...

Supposing we have our communication cloud at a super low density, we get 10^-6 neurotransmitters per m^3 or 10^-7 nt/m^3, we could get more quantum effects, but less communication between cells.

Maybe that's what sleep does? Less stuff zooming around => Lowered consciousness => more Quantum maaaagix => good ideas?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:07:31 2010 No.1779493 >>1779490 Uh what? Why would you get "more good ideas" while asleep? What the fuck?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:09:31 2010 No.1779498 >>1779463 Why are you even on a science board?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:22:31 2010 No.1779530 File: 77 KB, 1000x795, propagation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1779433 What's that you say?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:22:31 2010 No.1779532 File: 28 KB, 424x616, EWAN-MCGREGOR-GEORGE-CLOONEY-MEN-WHO-STARE-AT-GOATS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1779483 >imma butthurt teenage materialist and philosophy is dumb so the best philosophers are the ones who can't do it at all. >mfw

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:38:31 2010 No.1779562 >>1779176 >engineer >idiot >truism

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:40:31 2010 No.1779566 >>1779493 I've always solved stuff after sleeping a bunch. And it fits in with sleep is "mind defrag" time. Of course, mind = computer analogy is already trouble so... this is vague. >>1779530 THE WIGGLE OF THOUGHT!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:47:31 2010 No.1779583 >>1779176 thread should have ended here computer science retards know nothing about biology and the characteristics of conscious life

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:47:31 2010 No.1779584

>>1779166
Bullshit, I doubt your neural networks have 100 Billion nodes, and right now you're only able to mime adaptivity by creating variable parameters.

Though you're so dogmatic about this that even if you somehow created a consciousness you'd either ignore it or deny it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:49:31 2010 No.1779587 File: 648 KB, 640x674, my-brain-is-full-of-fuck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1779489 >the beauty of a sunset >telepathy >mein Gesicht

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:51:31 2010 No.1779593 File: 20 KB, 559x568, 1261256398838.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >my face when autists on /sci/ think people are even capable of being completely rational

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:54:31 2010 No.1779596 >>1779584 This is the kind of moronic thinking you have to revert to. That a NN with 100 billion nodes is fundamentally different than a NN with 100 nodes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:55:31 2010 No.1779599 >>1779583 >implying biologists know something about consciousness. just shut the fuck up already.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:57:31 2010 No.1779608 >>1779596 Are you implying that if you obliterate 90% of the brain mass of person, he will remain the same? Give it up brosef.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 13:59:31 2010 No.1779612
File: 32 KB, 400x400, 1283639057958.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1779599

>implying biologists know something about consciousness
>biologists
>biology
>consciousness
>biological process

computer science III artards who think they know about a completely biological process up in this bizzotch

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:00:31 2010 No.1779616 ITT: code monkeys telling both biologists and philosophers that they know better than both respective fields

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:00:31 2010 No.1779617 >>1779489 0/100

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:02:31 2010 No.1779622 >>1779608 No, if you destroy part of a NN, it will behave differently than before you destroyed it. Are you a moron?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:03:31 2010 No.1779627 >>1779616 >implying there are biologists or philosophers ITT.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:03:31 2010 No.1779628 >>1779622 Fine. There are people born with only 10% the normal brain mass. They die, unable to maintain even a vegetative state. Thus, 10% of a brain is fundamentally different from 100% of a brain when it comes to consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:04:31 2010 No.1779629 >>1779612 >implying biologists know something about consciousness

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:04:31 2010 No.1779630 This thread is straying lets bring it back to a point. What we are arguing here is the cause of consciousness, illusion or otherwise. Are our thoughts decided by quantum superposition or mystical presence, or predetermined biological programming?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:04:31 2010 No.1779632 >>1779628 do you know how retarded your logic is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:05:31 2010 No.1779635 >>1779629 hey engineers / computer experts, i hear they're accepting applications to become a fellow at the Discovery Institute

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:05:31 2010 No.1779636 >>1779630 Chemical transactions between neurons at about 200 times a second. /thread

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:05:31 2010 No.1779637

>>1779596

No, the moronic idea here is that you can't see that the human mind IS fundamentally the same as your 100 node network, just inconceivably more complex.

I don't believe an ant or fruit fly has a "Consciousness" per se, they're just biological machines, but their brains are still exponentially more complex than anything you've done.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:07:31 2010 No.1779642

>>1779632

You stated that a 10 million node NN is fundamentally the same as a 100 billion one.

I demonstrated that 10 million synapses can not have consciousness, while a hundred trillion can.

If all you can do is call me retarded, you have lost the debate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:09:31 2010 No.1779648 >>1779596 Here's a question for you. If consciousness is distinct from the brain, how is it we can remove a part of the brain (while keeping most bodily functions intact) and eliminate both a person's consciousness and self-awareness?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:12:31 2010 No.1779661 I know that my mind is more than my brain, it just feels that way to me and you can't take that away from me

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:12:31 2010 No.1779663

>>1779642
No you didn't. You only demonstrated that a human being will die if they only have 10 million. You neither demonstrated that 10 million nodes cannot have consciousness, nor that 100 billion nodes can. You only demonstrated that you are, in fact, retarded.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:12:31 2010 No.1779664

>>1779636
And what decides the path of these neurons. It is not a question of if they are there or not it is what method controls their path. It is my understanding that the cerebral cortex is unmyelinated so that the path of the neurons are random. I think string theory and multiverse could describe this because it would allow all possible paths to happen randomly within the parameters of your neurotransmitters. You tend to think certain thoughts when you are happy and other thoughts when you are sad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:14:31 2010 No.1779672 >>1779637 If that's true, then a 100 node NN is conscious, just less so then a more complex NN. A 100 node NN is clearly not conscious. Therefore your statement is NOT true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:16:31 2010 No.1779682 >>1779648 There are neural prerequisites for consciousness to be manifested within the brain. For example, recurrent processing across nodes. There is no known minimum number of nodes nor complexity.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:17:31 2010 No.1779685

>>1779661

you're still wrong. the same as a religious fanatic.

>>1779664
>You tend to think certain thoughts when you are happy and other thoughts when you are sad.

why would this even imply more than 3 dimensions? you don't seem to be scientifically literate.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:19:31 2010 No.1779695

>>1779685
>you're still wrong. the same as a religious fanatic.
For him to have an intuitive believe that is not contravened by evidence is actually a rational process. For you to insist that his belief is wrong, also in the absence of evidence, is actually closer to religious fanaticism.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:19:31 2010 No.1779696

>>1779630

All I know is that I experience consciousness, and it's not something that anyone knows how to provably reproduce or test for.

If consciousness results from computation then that must be an additional physical law.

I definitely think there's something we don't understand about consciousness. Perhaps it is something 'non-physical' or existing in a dimension we are not aware of. We do need to approach the problem scientifically though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:20:31 2010 No.1779699 File: 93 KB, 443x562, 1279921851255.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] At what point in the history of evolution did this non-physical quantum brain evolve? What were the steps in that evolutionary process?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:22:31 2010 No.1779704 >>1779699 YOU CAN'T KNOW MAAAAAN IT'S LIKE, WAY OOOUUUT MAAAN

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:23:31 2010 No.1779712 >>1779699 Thank you, thank you. /thread I sometimes feel that we scientist are a minority here on /sci/...

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:25:31 2010 No.1779720

>>1779696
I speculate that consciousness is a byproduct of the "theory of mind" and the evolution of language. In order to institute complex communication with another being you must understand how they will perceive the things you say. You also have to compress enormous amounts of raw data into a few syllables.

In order to make sense of the world in simple terms, you have to not only understand how that other person thinks, but how they think you think. In other words, you need to have a concept of yourself.

That concept is consciousness. It's an accidental byproduct of the communication revolution in social evolution.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:27:31 2010 No.1779725 >>1779699 It's impossible to know which life forms have a form of consciousness. We can obviously tell which life forms have brains, if that's what you're looking for.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:30:31 2010 No.1779729 >>1779725 That's not what he's asking. He's asking what gradual set of mutations would lead to a brain that operates outside Newtonian physics.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:31:31 2010 No.1779733

>>1779685

Here to defend myself. I am saying with my reference to multiverse that each possible thought is experienced in a separate reality thus making a true random exist. And the emotions and experiences are a filter. You are not going to think that Boiling water is friendly if you have burned yourself in the past. Nor will you think happy thoughts when you are angry. Randomness with a blend of causality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:32:31 2010 No.1779734 >>1779729 I'm pretty sure brains follow quantum physics, not newton's physics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 14:55:31 2010 No.1779817 >>1779699 >implying that if you don't know how something >evolved, it cannot exist

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:03:31 2010 No.1779852

>>1779672

Are you just being obstinate now?

It is not the innate nature of neural networks to be concious, they are simply the only viable way to achieve it.

Obviously the point I was getting at is that consciousness is a set of tandem complex abilities, e.g. the ability of perception, a sense of self, a pliable schema, ect. each of which requires millions of times more complexity than your 100 node network. That's why just removing a portion of the neurons in a person's brain also removes their consciousness, they no longer have the raw ability to produce the complexities of a consciousness.

Again, It is not the innate nature of neural networks to be concious, they are simply the only viable way to achieve it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:04:31 2010 No.1779853 >>1779734 that's been disproved for about a decade...at least, brains use no more quantum physics than any other electrochemical reaction. Penrose is an asshat.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:06:31 2010 No.1779859 >>1779853 and... every electrochemical interaction uses 100% quantum mechanics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:07:31 2010 No.1779865 >>1779859 exactly. there's no magical probability wave to collapse.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:07:31 2010 No.1779867 >>1779852 What is this wizardry? what is the NN configuration for a sense of self? You apparently have no idea what a NN does.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:10:31 2010 No.1779879 >>1779865 I have no idea what you mean by this... that the schrodinger wave doesn't exist or that it is non-magical or that it doesn't collapse.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:15:31 2010 No.1779900 File: 48 KB, 905x720, 1251763186171.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1779867

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:17:31 2010 No.1779906 >>1779879 That there is nothing special with the human brain, the quantum mechanics work the same way in there as anywhere else. This means that you cannot point to QM for explaining stuff that seems to happen only in the brain, such as consciousness.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:21:31 2010 No.1779926

Why is this even being debated? It is the broad, BROAD scientific consensus that there is nothing otherworldly or metaphysical about conciousness. Everybody agrees that it's the emergent property of the vast network of neurons.

Where did all the mysticfags ITT come from?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:23:31 2010 No.1779931 >>1779926 Derp. Emergent properties are by definition irreducible. If you're going to give an argument for reductionism at least do it right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:24:31 2010 No.1779933 >>1779931 >Derp How ironing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:25:31 2010 No.1779935 >>1779933 Yes, now please focus on the argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:27:31 2010 No.1779937 >>1779906 nor can you point to neural networks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:27:31 2010 No.1779941 >>1779935 There is no argument. If you think consciousness is non physical, you are wrong. note: i don't care about your reply

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:29:31 2010 No.1779944

>>1779926
There is no such scientific consensus, as it is not even a scientific statement. It is a scientific BASIS to find a strictly neurological basis for consciousness, but the a means for the jump from neurological process to subjective conscious experience, or the so called "hard problem", is so far completely elusive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:29:31 2010 No.1779951 >>1779941 If there is no argument, why are you arguing. Also, you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:30:31 2010 No.1779953 >>1779941 >note: i don't care about your reply Which makes you a fucking retard. >If you think consciousness is non physical, you are wrong. I don't. I don't think it's an emergent property either. If you do you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:32:31 2010 No.1779959 >>1779944 see: >>1779361 >http://pissaro.soc.huji.ac.il/~leon/mivnim/pdfs/lamme.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:34:31 2010 No.1779964 >>1779944 *BASIS = ENDEAVOR >>1779959 I've read that paper and it backs up what I said 100%.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:37:31 2010 No.1779983

Consciousness is created from the ability of our brains to analyse it's own process of reasoning. It arrived in our species because of the complex social relations that evolved in groups.

You need to be able to remember and assess quite a lot of things about your own situation and the situation of others to make use of a complex social tool like a promise or debt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:39:31 2010 No.1779989 >>1779070 >>1779070 >>1779070 >>1779070 This guy ended the thread. People should have stopped posting.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:39:31 2010 No.1779991

>>1779964
>the so called "hard problem", is so far completely elusive.
from the article:
>Why would recurrent processing give rise to conscious experience? This so-called ‘hard problem’ is difficult to answer at this point. However, looking at the neural and molecular mechanisms that sustain recurrent processing, such as the activation of NMDAtype receptors, combined with theoretical notions about the importance of recurrent processing might open up venues towards a deeper understanding of consciousness.

It's difficult to answer at present but not elusive or <span class="math">impossible[/spoiler] to answer. Anyway, that article is from 2006. I'm sure advances have been made since then.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:46:31 2010 No.1780005

>>1779991
>It's difficult to answer at present but not elusive
That's what elusive fucking means.
>Anyway, that article is from 2006. I'm sure advances have been made since then.
Well.. I guess you posted the wrong fucking paper, since obviously the answer is in another paper... I'm sure there's a more recent that backs up what you were saying rather than what I was saying... let's see, where did I put those papers...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:48:31 2010 No.1780013 >>1779991 >It's difficult to answer at present but not elusive or impossible to answer It's under the heading "Outstanding Questions"... that means "un-fucking-answered".

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:48:31 2010 No.1780014 I can't wait till I can have a conscious toaster.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:49:31 2010 No.1780017 >>1780014 You can't prove that you don't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:49:31 2010 No.1780019 File: 33 KB, 262x273, 1284585186686.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: christfags who desperately want to believe that they aren't just apes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 15:52:31 2010 No.1780028 >>1780019 ITT People who want to understand consciousness vs people who /think/ they know what it is and how it comes about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 16:25:31 2010 No.1780126 File: 39 KB, 500x388, barney-running-constestants-roll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1779704

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 16:28:31 2010 No.1780135 >>1780028 you nailed it

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 16:39:31 2010 No.1780174 >>1779229 Love.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 16:42:31 2010 No.1780187 >>1780019 >implying humans evolved from apes More like we share a common ancestry with apes. We didn't evolve from them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 16:45:31 2010 No.1780202 >>1780187 we are apes you fucking maroon where in my post did i say anywhere that we evolved from them?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 16:48:31 2010 No.1780215 File: 170 KB, 322x475, origin-of-the-species.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1780187 >implying that humans aren't apes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 16:48:31 2010 No.1780216 >>1780187 technically, it would be, "we didn't evolve from apes; we are apes". But even scientists usually use "apes" to mean non-human apes, so you can ignore me.

Anonymous Mon Sep 20 16:49:31 2010 No.1780219
File: 28 KB, 299x480, pantera.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/

I am more than my physical body...

Some people (theist or athiest) dont really want to know about their own consciouness and it is them who have the most hostility toward those who can not live without seeking it.
Those who do not have knowledge can fall under the misconception that the axis of theism or athiesm is somehow at teh crux of this battle, the battle to know truth.

pic is of the gravestone of Pantera.. biological father of Ieshoua of Nazareth

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 17:00:31 2010 No.1780247 File: 120 KB, 259x322, 1284002577211.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1780219 >teh crux of this battle >teh crux >teh

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 17:03:31 2010 No.1780261 ITT: the pituitary gland bullshit all over again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 17:18:31 2010 No.1780310 I dare all of you to give me one example of something the human brain does, or one aspect of consciousness, that cannot be explained without resorting to metaphysical sixth dimension crap. Can't do that, can you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 20 17:24:31 2010 No.1780339 >>1780310 What you experience (consciousness in general) cannot currently be explained. How does that make you feel? huh, huh, huh?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math