[ 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: 82 KB, 360x278, my brain is full of fuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4588154 No.4588154 [Reply] [Original]

Your consciousness is merely a series of thoughts, all collected within a single place.

>> No.4588155

>Implying I have a conscience

>> No.4588156

>Your thoughts are just electricity impulses

>> No.4588159

> the love you feel for a women is nothing but a chemical reaction

>> No.4588161

>>4588155
Heavily implied, not assured.

It should have been safe for you to assume that my post was directed only at those who have a consciousness.

It's like when you think that hot chick is waving at you, but it's actually the guy behind you.

>> No.4588164

>>4588159
Everything is a chemical reaction.

And to be fair, I'm pretty convinced that "love" is probably one of the complicated ones of all. I mean that in both literal and figurative senses.

>> No.4588167

>>4588164
>One of the most
fix'd

>> No.4588169

>That feel when we are a way for the Universe to drink RedBull

>> No.4588174

Qualia arising from the motion of atoms and electrons is pretty damn cool.

>> No.4588205

Let's discuss ontology for a moment

I have a random number generator. My objective is to find the "perfect number" through the use of this program.

Can I assume, given enough time, that the program will create the "perfect number"? If so, can I say that the "perfect number" exists within the capacity of this machine?

>> No.4588224

I'm the smartest human in the world and i disagree with this. Why? I cannot accept that I'm the best at my trade simply because of chemical reactions happening in the inner workings of my mind.

>> No.4588232

>>4588205
I don't see why not.

>> No.4588233

>>4588224
>I am the best at my trade
And your proof is where?

>>4588205
Please provide a more rigorous definition of "perfect number."

>> No.4588237

>>4588233
I only commented in here because of my disagreement with the original poster. I don't need to provide any proof of anything, you simple minded humans aren't worth my time.

>> No.4588238

now here come the mac 10

>> No.4588241

>>4588205
How will a random number generator help you find the perfect number? What is a perfect number, even?

>> No.4588245

>>4588237
>I don't need to provide any proof of anything, you simple minded humans aren't worth my time.
OP here.

You're here, and I'm aware of you. I was worth your time enough for you to make your presence known to me.

The simple fact that I am both aware of and recognize your existence is proof enough for me that you are not perfect, as your lie reveals your imperfect nature.

>> No.4588256

>>4588154
feelings are not necessarily thoughts, if you assume so, then you need to better define thoughts in which case your definition would probably be inconsistent with common knowledge and your proof would only be a proof by semantic definitions.

The entirety of your consciousness can not be expressed with thoughts alone, so there must be something embedded in consciousness that transcends mere thought alone, whether it be electrical, chemical expression, or something deeper that can be defined within the confines of quantum mechanics or something else yet to be discovered.

>> No.4588278

>>4588154

um, okay, so?

>> No.4588323

>>4588245
Lie =/= imperfection
>defining perfection


I hope I'm playing this right.

>> No.4588342

>merely

huehuehue

>> No.4588365

>>4588323
A lie is inherently a statement of falsehood. It's not just a statement of possibility, but a statement of how things "aren't".

A perfect system would not succumb to imperfection, and an imperfect system cannot build upon itself to be perfect.

The fact that you recognize the difference between fact and fiction means you are familiar with the imperfections in this world. The fact that you are aware of them alone discredits your claims of perfection.

>> No.4588364

What is this post even about? Does it question if consciousness is indeed a phenomenon of emergence coming from the interconnected chemical and electrical workings of a few trillion synapses - IE brains in operation. Or does it question how that process gave rise to the perception of 'you' ?

>> No.4588371

I provide this cut/paste trivia fact to put some perspective as to the complexity of the underlying system being discussed, when Op uses the word "merely" to describe it's output.

"A typical, healthy one houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies."

>> No.4588718

oh goodness... this thread is really bad.

Every post sucks except
>>4588169
>>4588371