[ 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: 202 KB, 739x900, feels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4892929 No.4892929 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw the causal connection of neural firing and subjective sensation will always be a mystery

>> No.4892943
File: 434 KB, 463x470, aboutTime.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4892943

>>4892929

>> No.4892946

>always
do not speak in such terms. mankind or its descendants if they survive the next 10,000 years may possibly be so incredibly advanced as to unlock said mysteries. their highest technologies appear to you as magic.

>> No.4892949

>>4892943
i liked that response

>> No.4892958

>>4892946

but what will be the point of that? I will probably be dead in 10,000 years

>> No.4892966

>>4892958

>What's the point if I won't benefit from it?

Congratulations, you've just entirely missed the point of science.

>> No.4892982

>>4892966

living in denial are we?

scientists are altruists now? heheheh no. they seek power, money, fame, knowledge and understanding above all

the good of society is an excuse, take away their money and funding and show me how many scientists would be doing their shit for "fun" as a "hobby" like 1 out of 100,000...and that 1 guy is autistic.

>> No.4892991

>>4892982
the good of society is an excuse, take away their money and funding and show me how many politicians would be doing their shit for "fun" as a "hobby" like 1 out of 100,000... and that 1 guy is autistic.
the good of society is an excuse, take away their money and funding and show me how many janitors would be doing their shit for "fun" as a "hobby" like 1 out of 100,000... and that 1 guy is autistic.
>>4892982
the good of society is an excuse, take away their money and funding and show me how many engineers would be doing their shit for "fun" as a "hobby" like 1 out of 100,000... and that 1 guy is autistic.
>>4892982
the good of society is an excuse, take away their money and funding and show me how many YOU would be doing their shit for "fun" as a "hobby" like 1 out of 100,000... and that 1 guy is autistic.

>> No.4893045

>>4892991

indeed, it applies to all forms of tedious labor.

it even applies to some artists, but I can find thousands of artists who seriously practice their crafts for fun and for others to enjoy for free.

you can't find this with "job skills" like science and janitorial work, that are only here to serve as wage labor

>> No.4893050

>tfw it won't
>tfw people independently reporting the same sensation for some neural firing indicates that those are connected
>tfw you can do this for progressively more precise patterns of neural firing
>tfw if do it exactly you have a cause reliably causing an effect
>tfw that's all there is to causality

>> No.4893056

>>4893050

>tfw the neurons fire but some people don't experience those sensations

>tfw different neurons fire for different people
>tfw your models become incoherent
>tfw even if you trace the causal path perfectly you still have no way to leap from matter firing to person A experiences sensation B

>tfw you can't quantify consciousness

>> No.4893058

>>4893056


>tfw our scientists and philosophers can't even imagine what an answer to this question would look like

hehehe, 10,000 years is probably about right

>> No.4893066

>>4893045
People who do research in pure science are making less money than they otherwise could. Take away funding and you don't have any equipment, and need to find a job.

>> No.4893067

>>4893056
>tfw when your model seems incoherent because it's not complex enough yet
>tfw it won't be complete until you can understand what firing causes what sensation
>tfw some cause reliably causing some effect is all there is to causality
>tfw matter firing -> subjective experience only seems more magical than object is pushed by force -> object moves because it's about your consciousness
>tfw qualia are just an epistemic limitation

>> No.4893073

>>4893067

>>tfw qualia are just an epistemic limitation

>tfw you deny experience itself because its too hard to model
>tfw you deny qualitative difference between colors, sound and feelings

>tfw science's limitations blind you to the world you actually observe with your senses

>> No.4893076

>>4893073
>tfw I don't
>tfw I know there are some things that are real but that I can not know about
>tfw the qualia of others is one of those things

>> No.4893079

>>4893067

>>tfw matter firing -> subjective experience

>matter firing -> babby is born
>matter firing -> baby dies

how profound, except you aren't saying anything

>> No.4893085

>>4893079
see
>>4893050
>tfw you can do this for progressively more precise patterns of neural firing
>tfw if do it exactly you have a cause reliably causing an effect

>> No.4893096

>>4893085

>>tfw if do it exactly you have a cause reliably causing an effect

maybe for instances of matter causing material phenomena everyone can observe

but there is a divergence in this case, the matter is "causing" an unobservable effect that is completely private and only detectable by the subject

so there is always this gap you must bridge, somehow...

and the gap of explaining what the experience itself is, what is the effect? it's hard to describe what the sensation of red itself is, or the sensation of pain itself is...

>> No.4893098

>>4893096
>but there is a divergence in this case, the matter is "causing" an unobservable effect that is completely private and only detectable by the subject
see

>tfw people independently reporting the same sensation for some neural firing indicates that those are connected

>and the gap of explaining what the experience itself is, what is the effect? it's hard to describe what the sensation of red itself is, or the sensation of pain itself is...
see
>tfw qualia are just an epistemic limitation

>> No.4893103

its very possible that there is no way to model this particular phenomena

at least not by humans, maybe some higher alien beings can model it and explain it

but so far humans aren't doing anything relevant to explain it, nothing in neuroscience is even beginning to make sense of it, we can't even define our terms (consciousness, experience, subjective, qualia, etc)

in all other cases we could at least define what we mean, even if vaguely (space, matter, light, energy)...

how do we define consciousness or subjective experience? can't be done by humans.

>> No.4893108

>>4893103
>tfw people independently reporting the same sensation for some neural firing indicates that those are connected

>> No.4893138

>>4893108


they report the same word, who knows what that sensation is like and how it compares to others

>> No.4893139

>>4893108

that might not actually happen, we already know brains map different functions differently, everyone's neural map is a bit different--its unique--like their immune system--

no reason to suppose every neuron fires the same in everyone, in fact its most certainly not the case

>tfw /sci/ can't into babby neuroscience

>> No.4893147

>>4893138
>tfw qualia are just an epistemic limitation

>>4893139
>tfw you can do this for progressively more precise patterns of neural firing
>tfw if do it exactly you have a cause reliably causing an effect

This is so easy.

>> No.4893150

>>4893147

>tfw if..
>if
>so easy

yep its easy to make up "what ifs"

>> No.4893161

>>4893150
>tfw op said it could never be done
>tfw I showed how to do it theoretically
>tfw you complain I can't do it in practice
>tfw by that criteria we will never understand anything about the universe because we don't understand it perfectly right now

>> No.4893190

>>4893161
>>4893161

>I showed how to do it theoretically

Where? All I saw was an appeal to magical complexity.

>matter fires (magically complex) -> subjective experience

OP agrees its possible in theory, perhaps aliens might do it, but we won't not in practice. We can't even define what we mean by consciousness or subjective experience.

You have no actual theory, we already know matter has something to do with it, "sufficiently complex causal path" isn't an answer

you need an explanation for what consciousness IS
and you need a model linking matter to it

then you can worry about the A,B,C chain of cause and effect...the chain of cause and effect is childs play, the problem is we dunno wtf we're talkin about

>> No.4893196

>OP agrees its possible in theory
>tfw the causal connection of neural firing and subjective sensation will always be a mystery

>"sufficiently complex causal path" isn't an answer
It is when someone claims no causal path can ever explain a phenomenon.

>> No.4893200

>>4893161


theres no comparison of this type of explanation in any part of science

there has never been an explanation that goes from material causes to subjective experience (subjective effects)

it's always been material causes to objective material effects.

There will be a point in the chain of causality that has to somehow bridge the divide between subject and object, matter and experience...

and it won't just be an explanation of neuron number 1000 firing at neuron number 10001...no matter how complex you make the process it won't matter

>> No.4893209

>>4893196

a causal path of matter can't explain a subjective effect.

1 domino pushing another domino over doesn't explain a subjective experience. Adding an infinite amount of dominoes does nothing to further the explanation. Infinite complexity would still be insufficient.

you need some very abstract models to bridge the gap between matter and experience, matter and consciousness-- you can't even imagine what those models are in theory, no one can, our scientists can't, our philosophers can't.

Why? because it's been 2000 years and they still dont know what 'consciousness' is.

They use the word and dunno how to explain it. :)

:)

>> No.4893215

>>4893200
>it's always been material causes to objective material effects.
>tfw people independently reporting the same sensation for some neural firing indicates that those are connected

>There will be a point in the chain of causality that has to somehow bridge the divide between subject and object, matter and experience.
>tfw qualia are just an epistemic limitation

>> No.4893216

>>4893209
>tfw matter firing -> subjective experience only seems more magical than object is pushed by force -> object moves because it's about your consciousness

>> No.4893231

>>4893216

because everyone has access to material objects and how they move can be verified by peers.

no one has access to my experience but me.
its impossible to observe my experiences as they exist to me.

thus, the endeavor to explain consciousness scientifically is precisely unscientific since no one has objective access to the information, you have to take "my word for it"


>>tfw people independently reporting the same sensation for some neural firing

even if they do, that wouldn't be science, that's akin to behaviorism in psychology which was pretty useless

and we already know that different brains have different neural maps, entirely unique.

so your idea might work in another possible universe, but not this one, human brains are wired differently at the neural level

>> No.4893239

>>4893215

>>tfw people independently reporting the same sensation for some neural firing indicates that those are connected

wow how simple-minded are you?

What if 50% of the population is a zombie and simply act as if they are conscious, act as if they are experiencing pain and pleasure, but there is no one home doing any experiencing?

Of course they're going to report "ouch" when you hurt them.

But where is the science to show you that they actually feel pain, they actually are conscious, there is someone actually home?

And what about when we want to understand unconscious aspects of the mind, things shape our experiences but aren't apparent to us? You're gonna ask them to report? lol

how scientific of you!

>> No.4893244

>>4893216

so your theory boils down to, if a scientist wants to figure out if someone is conscious, feeling pain, feeling pleasure, hearing a sound, they have to ask them and trust them.

lmfao.

>> No.4893250

>>4893231
>its impossible to observe my experiences as they exist to me.
>tfw qualia are just an epistemic limitation

>even if they do, that wouldn't be science
Ok, if you want to limit science that way then science is just a special case of inference and then inference is what leads to knowledge. If you do limit science that way then it excludes for example history too and you can make proper inferences about historical events. With much less certainty than repeatable events but you still can. I'd rather just see it all as one system.

>and we already know that different brains have different neural maps, entirely unique.
>"sufficiently complex causal path"

>> No.4893253

>>4893250

>>"sufficiently complex causal path"

I don't see how this resolves the problem that every brain has unique neural wiring.

>>tfw qualia are just an epistemic limitation

yes its a huge epistemic limitation for science to overcome, an impossible one at that.


>tfw so your theory boils down to, if a scientist wants to figure out if someone is conscious, feeling pain, feeling pleasure, hearing a sound, they have to ask them and trust them.

>> No.4893257

>>4893239
>What if 50% of the population is a zombie
Other minds are assumed of course.

>But where is the science to show you that they actually feel pain, they actually are conscious, there is someone actually home?
>tfw qualia are just an epistemic limitation

>>4893239
>unconscious aspects of the mind
>subjective sensation
>unconscious
>sensation

>>4893244
>tfw people independently reporting the same sensation for some neural firing indicates that those are connected

>> No.4893261

>>4893257

>Other minds are assumed of course.

that isn't science.

the whole point of this theory building is to get science to detect other minds, model them, explain them objectively.

all you are doing is saying "look at his brain." now ask him what he feels lol...

this is behaviorism, it didn't work in the 1930s in psych. It won't work in the future for creating a scientific model of conscoiusness

>> No.4893263

>>4893257

if you have to ask the patient anything and trust him, you aren't doing real neurology, not real science, you're doing shit psych.

next.

>> No.4893265

>>4892929
It's the environment, stupid. Your brain reacts to something, you don't live in a perfect vacuum. And the environment also put pressure on what type of organism made of what type of cells would be selected to react in particular ways (such as fear).

Stop mystifying things which can be understood, but are outside your ken.

>> No.4893270

>>4893253
>I don't see how this resolves the problem that every brain has unique neural wiring.
Because it's sufficiently complex to account for the unique wiring. I don't care how complex, how abstract or how many levels it has to consider. When we can map brain states to reported subjective experiences we have a causal path. When we follow that up and can do it perfectly we know everything there is to know about that causal path.

>yes its a huge epistemic limitation for science to overcome, an impossible one at that.
Like so many other things. There is still an objective phenomenon connected to it though and that's what people independently report.

>> No.4893271

What you need is a machine that can view the minds of other beings.

It might work for visual or auditory experiences, but not tactile ones.

The problem of course is the classic one. How do you get the machine to detect the experiences perfectly, without interfering and modifying them?

How do you get it to view the experience from the same point of view of the subject? Very difficult.

Until then we aren't doing science, we're doing shit-tier psych experiments.

Then you can map neurons properly.

>> No.4893275

>>4893261
>detect other minds, model them, explain them objectively.
You don't even know they exist.

>>4893263
You don't have to trust any of them dummy. That's why it must be independent.

>> No.4893277

>>4893270

>When we follow that up and can do it perfectly we know everything there is to know about that causal path.

You need a tool to verify the experience objectively.

Which is a contradiction of terms. Since subjective experiences are by definition not objective.

but a machine that can view dreams for example...might work

but still how do you know the machine is viewing the subjects dreams without modifying them?

the whole heisenberg shit would happen

>> No.4893280

>>4893275
>You don't have to trust any of them dummy. That's why it must be independent.

you mean you take an average consensus? 100 ppl reported pain, 1 reported pleasure, through away the outlier, take the average?

>You don't even know they exist.

that's not my problem, that's sciences problem

>> No.4893283

>>4893277
>You need a tool to verify the experience objectively.
You don't. This is on the same level as questions like whether and external world exists or if there are natural laws.

The objective phenomenon is the reported experiences. Do you know that following this logic people have been able to communicate with patients who are conscious but can't move their bodies?

>> No.4893287

>>4893275


you still don't get it.

there can't be a causal pathway using your example.

all you will do is associate a bunch of brain activity with some reported experience.

but that isn't an explanation of how the brain state gives rise to consciousness and to experience.

all you will know is that neurons XYZ are associated with that experience.

get it? i don't care about that. that isn't the big mystery.


the mystery is the "how"

the "how" will be WAYYYYYYYYY deeper than a bunch of neurons firing. it might have to go to the quantum biology level, who knows

>> No.4893291

>>4893283

>The objective phenomenon is the reported experiences.

That isn't science. That is a survey, that is shit-tier psych level stuff.

It doesn't explain how consciousness arises. It doesn't let us detect if someone in a coma is conscious, is experiencing anything, etc...

It doesn't do shit. We already ask people what they feel and can make crude brain images and associate them with those feelings---what you are talking about is absolutely worthless.

>> No.4893293
File: 13 KB, 288x344, Black man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4893293

>>4893291
>We already ask people what they feel and can make crude brain images and associate them with those feelings---what you are talking about is absolutely worthless.

serves you right for arguing with a retard on /sci/

>> No.4893300

no activity in the brain has been associated with consciousness yet

we don't even know what to look for, there is nothing to report

when a being appears unconscious you can't ask him if he really is or isn't

>> No.4893301

>>4893280
>you mean you take an average consensus? 100 ppl reported pain, 1 reported pleasure, through away the outlier, take the average?
That's indication that either the one is lying or you need a more complex model to account for him.

Better yet, communicate information to them through the induced experiences. That way they can only pretend not to know it when they do, they can't pretend to know it when they don't.

>> No.4893302
File: 27 KB, 409x409, 1324183078964.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4893302

>tfw consciousness will never be explained because it's a metaphysical concept pointing to a totally inaccessible phenomena

feels real good

>> No.4893317

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp3LEGcHsPo

educate yourself.

every brain is unique. everyone maps experiences differently, we already know this. it's about as unique as an immune system, privately tailored for the individual.
it isn't just in the brain it goes all the way down to the CNS.

we don't know what we mean by consciousness and how to separate self-consciousness from consciousness itself (the two are different). there is no way to detect it objectively or scientifically.

neurons are involved but they don't explain the how.

>> No.4893326

>>4893287
>all you will do is associate a bunch of brain activity with some reported experience.
Yes. Follow those through to perfection and you have causality.

>but that isn't an explanation of how the brain state gives rise to consciousness and to experience.
You have a causal explanation. What else do you want?

>the "how" will be WAYYYYYYYYY deeper than a bunch of neurons firing. it might have to go to the quantum biology level, who knows
If the model can't explain all of it yet then it isn't complete yet. When it's complete it can explain all of it. It doesn't matter how deep down you have to go.

>>4893291
>That is a survey
Sure. That's how they used the same logic to communicate with locked in patients.

>> No.4893331

>>4893317
Then the model needs to be more complex. Same for the immune system.

>> No.4893334

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp3LEGcHsPo&6m25s

qualia is real.
see his chart?

qualia.

hes the leading neurobiologist in the universe.

>> No.4893337

>>4893331


the complexity tends towards infinity.

if you can't verify their statements, your model is doomed.
good luck.

>> No.4893363
File: 233 KB, 500x275, doctor_feel.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4893363

Could someone explain OPs pic?

>> No.4893369

>>4893363

It's some lyrics from a song, the guy is thom yorke, vocalist of Muse

>> No.4893372

>>4893369
>>4893369

> vocalist of Muse

vocalist of radiohead

>> No.4893373

>>4893372
>Aspie cannot into humour

>> No.4893378

>>4893373

THAT WAS NOT FUNNY

although they do look similar hahahahah

>> No.4893381

>tfw I assdevestated all the qualiatards
>tfw I solved neuroscience
feels good man

>> No.4893382

>>4893378
they look nothing like each other. it's just early in muse's career they were accused of imitating radiohead.

>> No.4893391

Go away, IQ fundie.

>> No.4894190

>>4893381

>devastated qualitards

did you watch the video? one of the best neuroscientists in the world uses qualia in his models and admits they have explanatory importance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp3LEGcHsPo&6m25s