[ 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: 33 KB, 300x280, mfwsad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970164 No.2970164 [Reply] [Original]

>you'll never know why you were born in this time period, as a human

>you probably don't even understand this problem

>> No.2970174

If I wasnt born as a human, in this time period, I wouldnt be me. It was impossible for any other variation to happen.

>> No.2970180

>>2970174

>if i didn't have this haircut i wouldn't be me, i wouldn't exist

>> No.2970183

>>2970180

Yeah but, how about, if I was a frog would I still be me?

No.

>> No.2970186

>>2970183

you would be a frog.
frogs are conscious. there is some consciousness in a frog.

you don't see through a frogs eyes. you happen to see through a humans eyes.

you dont know why you were born a human, and not a frog.

>> No.2970187

>>2970180

>human minds are generated by hair

>> No.2970192
File: 24 KB, 418x499, 1271292284888.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970192

I was born in to this time period as a human because the stars aligned in such a way that the Fates determined it should be so. I am here to serve the will of the Gods. Hail Zeus.

wtf is this thread about?

>> No.2970197

why do I see through the eyes of a human, and not a frog (master species)

>> No.2970199

>>2970192
apparently, OP believes conciousness is some supernatural entity that posseses our flesh, and for some unknown reason it chose to posses our bodies at this time period and at our specific species.

>> No.2970204

>why do I see through the eyes of a human, and not a frog (master species)

Impossible. No human can know such a thing. It depends on the initial conditions of the universe, etc.

>> No.2970228

>>2970199
>>2970199

No. Even if it is a necessity of each body, he can still ask why? It's a legitimate question.

Why do I feel the world and experience it through this body, and not another? Why should I have been born to my parents and not some others?

I don't see anything supernatural about this...

If people were mindless it would be no problem, but each person has a unique experience of life--why do they have that particular experience?

What is it like to be a frog? There's something like it...right now there are people experiencing life as frogs...why aren't you one of them?

>> No.2970232

>>2970199
Ah, I see. I generally don't assume that people on /sci/ are believing in a soul, or a soul-like entity. If they don't, this post is like pointing to a rock and asking why it is a rock, which doesn't make much sense. If they do, I guess this post makes sense.

OP, can you explain your view on this problem so we can know why we're ignorant and probably don't even understand this problem?

>> No.2970234

Why? Why is a request for information, so who exactly are you asking?

>> No.2970241

>>2970164
>Implying I could be anything but what I am.

>> No.2970242

>>2970228
Why do you assume there's a reason? That's a silly thing to do.

>> No.2970239

>>2970228
I don't think frogs are conciouss.
but okay, let's say for the sake of science that they are.
now, as the guy above me said, that if I were to be someone different, I wouldn't be me, however the way I percieve the world would still be percieved by that other person, so technically, it is me.

>> No.2970246

>>2970228
If there doesn't need to be anything supernatural about it, then here is the self-evident answer.

We are a collection of molecules assembled according to genetic rules. The matter that has become you experiences things through your consciousness because consciousness is a result of the matter that has been assembled according to your DNA. You don't experience things through another person's eyes because you aren't the matter that makes up that person.

It's like asking why one chair is different from another chair. Why, when one person sits on one chair, does the other chair not experience the weight on it? It's pretty obvious, I think.

>> No.2970253

>souls don't exist. You don't understand materialism

also I love the frog pic do you know where its from? I do...Its a pool cleaning service in the DC area

>> No.2970260

OP, your next life is of an oppressed Nigerian born female who gets ass-raped every day from 3 to 35, then dies from 25 tsetse flies

>> No.2970261

>>2970232
>If they don't, this post is like pointing to a rock and asking why it is a rock, which doesn't make much sense. If they do, I guess this post makes sense.

It's not a good analogy. A rock has no mind.

It doesn't make sense to ask "what is it like to be a rock?" Rocks have no internal experience of the world, no point of view...etc

But it makes sense to ask "what is it like to be a frog?"..we can vaguely imagine what it would be like...sort of.

Because of this possibility, I think it makes sense to ask, what conditions would be necessary to make this real? Well, we would need different skin, different brains, different nervous systems etc...or perhaps just a program that alters consciousness along with some drugs and a simulation program--who knows...

The point is, there is something "like" being a frog.

In theory, I don't think this needs to appeal to souls or magic...it can be purely materialistic.

I don't see any contradiction with asking, "why were you born as a human and not a frog"...it seems blatantly unanswerable, but I don't think it's incoherent.

>> No.2970264

>>2970261
>.it seems blatantly unanswerable,

thats why ppl get mad when you ask it, cuz their brains just fart and they go durrr

>> No.2970266

>>2970164
>you probably don't even understand this problem
It isn't one.

>> No.2970273

We can't answer this because we don't know how consciousness functions, why it arises as it does.

This is the type of question we might be able to approach in 400 years...right now it just goes over people's heads...

>> No.2970280

>>2970273
>We can't answer this because we don't know how consciousness functions
Knowing how consciousness functions would most likely still not answer OP's question.

>> No.2970287
File: 70 KB, 387x386, carl_sagan.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970287

We're here to help humanity bro.

>> No.2970288

there's something like being a poor african
and there's something like being a middle-class white kid

why were you lucky and not born a poor african?

why was I born in this world, at this time?

the universe structures your body, your body gives rise to your mind...why this particular body, this mind, at this time?

This isn't a question if you think you are a unique snowflake with a soul---then you would say DURR CUZ I WOULDN"T BE ME

but that's wrong you fucken moron--unless you're religious and unscientific...then id allow that answer

but i dont think sci is

>> No.2970294
File: 23 KB, 344x450, wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970294

>>2970261

READ THIS MAN NOW LEARN THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE

>> No.2970297

>why were you not born a poor african?

Cuz luck?

[stupid response your question is too hard fuck you]

>> No.2970301

cuz u fucken gey fax--dem be science

>> No.2970303

>>2970287
Fuck humanity. How about I just be a manipulative sociopath, found an evil megacorporation, transfer my consciousness to a quantum supercomputer and then exterminate humanity with a swarm of nanomachines before proceeding to take control over all the matter and energy in the universe.

>> No.2970308

>>2970288
Again, why do you assume there's a reason? Why do you think there is a 'why' to be asked? That's kind of silly.

>> No.2970312

>>2970261
It is a good analogy, because the mind is simply a electro-chemical process, and not something mystical that lies outside of the same physical laws that govern a rock. The matter in a rock reacts to outside stimuli (such as light, heat, water, etc) the same way brain matter reacts to stimuli in creating conscious experience.

A rock at your feet is not the mountains in the distance for the same reason you are not another person.

>> No.2970323

It makes sense, it's just impossible because causality is infinitely complex.

It's like asking why this bunch of matter is arranged in this formation and not that formation...well that matter has a history, and it went through a particular chain of events that structured it as such.

In the case of a human with a mind, it's not much different, a bunch of matter came together and a became structured in a particular way--this way could be seen as an equation--lets say a wave-function for Anon.

Each anon has their own wave function. When matter assumes formation X, then Kunta Kinte the poor african is born. When matter assumes formation Y, then Tom Cruise is formed...

does this mean that each person has some sort of formula and exists platonically in some other realm? no...people are like elements in the periodic table, when the right matter creates the right structure, then You appear.

now, the question is, why do you have that particular structure? Well, why does Hydrogen have it's particular structure? Dunno

>> No.2970327

>>2970323
stop--this
it's--fucking--re--tard--ed

>> No.2970325

>>2970312
are you 12? you sound really dumb.

>> No.2970330

>>2970325
are you fat? you sound really gay.

>> No.2970331

i was born to repreduce

>> No.2970333

>>2970323

brilliant. but doesn't actually answer the question

>> No.2970335

>>2970312

>comparing inanimate object to a conscious being with experiences

fullretard.exe

>> No.2970338

Why do you see through your eyes and not your friends eyes?

>> No.2970348

because this time period kicks ass and is awesome

>> No.2970350

>>2970335
The analogy is perfectly adequate for what it's trying to convey. The fact that a person is conscious and a rock isn't doesn't change that their "being" is incidental, and that the search for a definitive reason regarding the "Why" is completely unwarranted.

>> No.2970355

Why is pondering less productive than research?

>> No.2970364

>>2970323

infinites do not exist in reality. it is just a linguistic trick

>> No.2970371

>>2970350

but there is an answer to the why for a rock, we know it is a rock because specific minerals came together and formed it, the causes of which can be traced through time

a rock is a particular formation of matter, it's easily identifiable and it's structure is observable via 3rd person--so we can experiment on it

the problem with people is consciousness itself, it's structure isn't identifiable like a rocks, it's history can't be traced through time, although we correlate it to the brain--consciousness itself remains mysterious, it isn't 3rd person observable..we can't measure it as such.

we can answer the question "why is a diamond not a ruby" because we know their particular structures and formation patterns---

we can't answer why is "this consciousness not that consciousness" because we can't identify consciousness, we can't structure it, we don't know how the brain makes it...etc

stop pretending to be retarded, and if you are serious about your analogy then i'll just assume you are 12 and have no imagination and no formal education.

>> No.2970369

What is a time period to us anyway? We only exist in the current moment, thoughts (that's us) are fleeting and we're not even who we were yesterday.

>> No.2970373

>>2970364

>infintes don't exist in reality

but then you dont know that, because you are just a human and have no access to reality, only your own interpretation of it...so fuck off

>> No.2970377

>>2970325
It's alright if you don't understand it. Most humans throughout history have not had the scientific knowledge to grasp the comparison.

>>2970335
>Thinks consciousness is something special, that separates us from "inanimate" objects.
Guess what? There's nothing special about life. The same way most tribes thought their people were "The People of God,"; the same way most people once thought the Earth was the center of the universe; the way most people once thought the world was built for humanity... it's a very human trait to think that we are special. If you believe in the supernatural, maybe there is. If you want to take this from a materialistic point of view - we can fully analyze man as a grouping of matter that is reacting according to the physical laws of the universe. The mind and consciousness - it's just an electro-chemical process governed by the same physical laws that govern all inanimate matter. And the matter in us also exists in inanimate form. Just as there are moving, reacting chemicals and matter formations that we do not consider alive, so to does our matter simply react by predictable means, and the same means as inanimate objects. I'm sorry if you can't accept that; however, unless you believe the mystical soul sets us apart from other matter, you have to see that scientific inquiry has brought our knowledge to this point. "Consciousness" isn't anything really special and magical, and "being alive" doesn't really mean anything.

>> No.2970383

>>2970377

>straw men everywhere
>long rant that is 100% irrelevant

>> No.2970388

>>2970377

refer to >>2970371

For a swift refutation/clarification

>> No.2970390

>>2970371
>but there is an answer to the why for a rock, we know it is a rock because specific minerals came together and formed it, the causes of which can be traced through time

Just as the matter that makes up a human body came together and formed you through understood processes that can be traced through time

>consciousness itself remains mysterious, it isn't 3rd person observable..we can't measure it as such.

Study some neuroscience before you go around calling people 12. Particular types of thoughts are being related to electrical patterns and chemical patterns in the brain, which can be observed. This science is still young, and we're not yet to a point where we can say, "The scan says John loves Mary," but there is clear evidence that thoughts are physical processes that can be observed, and we are getting more and more detailed in the predictive and observable nature of this research everyday.

>we can't answer why is "this consciousness not that consciousness"

Yes we can. As per above, we can say that a particular grouping of matter (a brain) is constructed in a particular type of network that is producing these particular electro-chemical signals in reaction to this stimuli, which is why this "person" is experiencing this, and not what another grouping of matter in another configuration is experiencing.

>> No.2970391

>>2970377
>"being alive" doesn't really mean anything.

another fullretard.jpg

>> No.2970393

there is no 'why' to it, only a 'how'

>> No.2970394

>>2970371
>but there is an answer to the why for a rock, we know it is a rock because specific minerals came together and formed it, the causes of which can be traced through time
That answers the "How", but not the "Why". The question "Why am I me?" is just as (scientifically) unanswerable as the question "Why is this rock this rock?".

>we can answer the question "why is a diamond not a ruby" because we know their particular structures and formation patterns---
That's merely pointing out the material distinction between two things, but in no way an answer to any "why"s.

>stop pretending to be retarded, and if you are serious about your analogy then i'll just assume you are 12 and have no imagination and no formal education.
You're saying this as if jumping to baseless conclusions about me personally would be any different from all the other nonscientific bullshit you've been spewing so far. I already took it as a given that you'd consider everyone who disagrees with you to be lacking in maturity and education, anyway. No need to emphasize on that.

>> No.2970398

>stop pretending to be retarded, and if you are serious about your analogy then i'll just assume you are 12 and have no imagination and no formal education.

Well, it probably is true that everyone who disagrees with you, or who's arguments you are not informed enough to understand, is probably retarded. I do suggest you do some research on the recent developments in the neuroscience field, so that you can know what consciousness is and why it is self-evident why one person is one person and does not experience another person's experiences.

Since I am 12, I have a short attention span and am getting bored of explaining this to you. Good luck.

>> No.2970396

OP IS MASTER TROLL.

>> No.2970406

>>2970390
>Particular types of thoughts are being related to electrical patterns and chemical patterns in the brain, which can be observed.

1. thoughts aren't consciousness, they are observed by it

2. neuroscience is a baby, it's findings are mostly irrelevant

3. there has been no mapping of consciousness to the brain, it hasn't been located, no pattern correlates to it, no specific structure gives rise to it, all they have found was that is "non-localized" even that could be wrong...essentially they no 0.

4. they have no coherent theories of consciousness no definition of it, they dont know what to look for

5. they have no machine that can scan for consciousness...no MRI, no nothing...it is 100% undetectable...

so stop talking about neuroscience. they are literally caveman mode when it comes to "consciousness"...they can talk about memories and thoughts...but those are very different things

>> No.2970413

>>2970398

fullretard.jpg

>>2970394

trolled out of 10.

>>2970390

dun goofed

>>2970377

fullretard 2.0

>> No.2970416

>>2970406
>but those are very different things
No, they're elements of consciousness.

>> No.2970417
File: 124 KB, 283x360, 1276642675963.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970417

wow, usually you gotta bring religion into /sci/ to get this level of troll, but OP just upped the game.

props to you OP

>> No.2970418

>>2970413
Sure is /b/ in here.

>> No.2970430

>>2970416
>they are elements of consciousness

they are things you are conscious of.
But they are different enough to warrant distinction...

>> No.2970431

I love how OP attacks straw-man arguments as though he understands logical fallacies... and then replies to them all with Ad Hominem attacks about being 12 or retarded.

I'm not sure about >>2970417, but if he is then he's one of the best trolls I've seen on /sci/.

>> No.2970437

>>2970416

confirmed for 12 year old.
probably things there's no difference between awareness and self-awareness

>> No.2970439

>>2970406
>1. thoughts aren't consciousness, they are observed by it

>Hi there, Science! I hereby declare consciousness to be undetectable by you, based solely on my own private definition of what consciousness actually is! "Special Pleading"? Never heard of it.

>> No.2970447

>>2970437
Kinda like how you think there's no difference between things and thinks.

Anyway, thoughts and memories *are* elements of what we experience as consciousness. I'm not interested in your personal, self-serving definition of the term. I was talking in the context of real science.

>> No.2970460

>>2970439
consciousness so far is undetectable by science, they have no instrument to detect it

there are unconscious and conscious thoughts...

there are different categories of thoughts...just like different categories of stimulus

consciousness is aware of stimulus, is aware of memories, is aware of thoughts--and sometimes it isn't and unconscious stimulus and thoughts influence the mind...etc

consciousness itself isn't a thought, thoughts come and go..consciousness is the ability to be aware of feelings, thoughts, memories, wakefullness, dreams..etc.

you are level 1 at this stuff, i can tell

>> No.2970475
File: 17 KB, 240x154, SadTroll.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970475

>> No.2970480

neuroscience is basically in the alchemy phase now

>> No.2970496

>>2970439
>>1. thoughts aren't consciousness, they are observed by it

ya that's actually true, there is a difference, it is important.

just like there is a difference between verbal and visual thoughts-- and a difference between awareness and self-awareness

you might be too dense to understand these nuances...you are 12 after all

>Science! I hereby declare consciousness to be undetectable by you

that is a problem many scientists are facing...not just in reality but also theoretically--it might have a measurement problem--like the uncertainty principle

>> No.2970500

>>2970496
>that is a problem many scientists are facing...not just in reality but also theoretically--it might have a measurement problem--like the uncertainty principle

ya they'll realize this soon enough.
it's the inherent division between a 1st person ontology and a 3rd person ontology...

>> No.2970514

The mystification of consciousness is what the intellectually lazy resort to when they realize that science has indeed rendered most of their romantic beliefs and philosophies obsolete.

>> No.2970527

The answer is in quantum mechanics. Close-minded pseudo-scientists are just too ignorant (and too 12) to accept this reality.

>> No.2970531

>>2970514

>when asked about the implications quantum physics could have on the study of consciousness Leonard Susskind *Phd physicist @ MIT* said it was much too mysterious for him, he finds it hard to even talk about

when string theorists say consciousness is too mysterious to talk about...well...go figure

>> No.2970557

>>2970531
That's kind of a non sequitur, isn't it? I mean, a theoretical physicist not passing judgment on a field that's outside of his own area of expertise doesn't really demonstrate anything in the context of this argument. Things might have been different if Susskind were a theoretical physicist *and* a neuroscientist, but he isn't.

>> No.2970564

>>2970557

You would have a point if he said he was unqualified to talk about it, or that he isn't up to date on current research--but he didn't say that--he said it's one of those things that is so mysterious he can't talk about it coherently....

would a physicist say this about something else outside his expertise? like antibiotics? or history? no...because those things aren't inherently bizarre...

nice try though, but you're still 12.

>> No.2970592
File: 34 KB, 300x400, zoidberg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970592

>>2970564
So a physicist says something outside of his expertise is so mysterious that it can't be talked about... and we must except this because he implied that all people can't? I'm a linguist, and I can theorize about what can and can't be done with medicine by anyone, but that doesn't make my opinion more relevant than a medical doctors, does it?

Yes, I'm 12 and retarded, get over it and make a legitimate point.

>> No.2970604

>>2970564
>You would have a point if he said he was unqualified to talk about it, or that he isn't up to date on current research--but he didn't say that--he said it's one of those things that is so mysterious he can't talk about it coherently....
And his *personal* assessment of what consciousness is and isn't is not an argument for anything, because it's not a proper representation of actual neuroscientific research. It's just his own, personal opinion, kinda like how it's your opinion that everyone who disagrees with you in this thread is the same "12 year old" person.

>would a physicist say this about something else outside his expertise?
Of course. You can find accredited experts in almost any field who say utterly retarded shit about pretty much anything. Some are so mystified by (what they perceive to be) order and beauty in nature that they conclude it all to be intelligently designed, since it's OBVIOUSLY all too fucking complex and mysterious for it to have scientifically explainable causes. Just look at the pro-creationism petitions that include the names of numerous accredited scientists, or read up on people like Rupert Sheldrake and Jeffrey Long, who have no problem at all propagating all kinds of consciousness-related nonsense outside their own areas of expertise.

But to make this clear, I am in no way lumping in Susskind with those delusional cranks. I'm just saying that your claim has no basis in reality.

>> No.2970611
File: 2 KB, 213x165, huehue.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970611

>>2970303
>exterminate humanity with a swarm of nanomachines
/sci/ has a game plan

>> No.2970634

>>2970371
You're messing up with the idea of qualias, stop it. Read some Daniel Dennett shit

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm

>> No.2970682
File: 39 KB, 450x454, JohnSearle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970682

>>2970500
Someone has been reading Searle, kudos.

What is most likely to happen, in my opinion, is that the next major revolution in science is going to be the 'consciousness' revolution when we basically are forced to redefine everything under the realization that the subjectivity of 1st person experience is at the core of every kind of 'understanding' we think we've acquired.

The fact that we have also have a reflexive experience of an external world and can engage in intentionality and speech acts will also be very important. If anything we'll realize that we have to model everything we think about (be it subatomic particles, corporations, genes, etc) as having some limited form of at least intentionality if not consciousness proper.

>> No.2970684

>>2970682
Keep dreaming /x/-fag.

>> No.2970701
File: 86 KB, 377x463, 1299459694804.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970701

>>2970684
I don't see how you can take that to be /x/-related. Dennett is alread a proponent of the so-called 'intentional stance' which has been useful since The Selfish Gene, and they're hardly engaging in hokey metaphysics.

>> No.2970702

>>2970701
I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to your speculation that science will demonstrate scientific relativism, and that science will prove all things are conscious to some degree. That is /x/ material.

>> No.2970731

>>2970702
Sorry, I'll be clearer. Everything we understand is already consciousness-mediated, that isn't a discovery or a postulate it's a 1st person empirical fact.

So when we talk about science and our communal 3rd person reality we're talking about our conscious conceptions of these matters. Everything we say, do, think, or feel is mediated through our consciousness. Properly incorporating this into the way we go about investigation is explicitly what I'm considering. Special Relativity and QM already have elements of this observer-relativity involved.

As to what I meant by modeling objects with consciousness, I really meant this as a simple feature of how we go about abstracting or cogitating our external reality. Attributing something like a full-blown analog of consciousness is certainly /x/-material, but intentionality is not out of the question, since we already have crude conceptions of particles engaging in interactions with one another which it isn't unreasonable to speak of as involving a kind of limited information about surroundings.

It's just a manner of speaking, honestly, but one which I think has quite a bit of merit.