/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4990209]

Explain consciousness with science. Where is your Einstein now!?

[Anonymous No.4990240]

>no responses
>Christians:1
>Science fags:0

[Anonymous No.4990250]

>>4990240
>Science can't explain it right now
>Therefore, science can never explain it
>God is real!

[Anonymous No.4990255]

>>4990209
It's a computer program running on physical hardware that feels super special because we are that program.

[Anonymous No.4990260]

>>4990209

I can, but I won't.
0/10

[Anonymous No.4990280]

>>4990209
Prove that you would understand the explanation first. Why should I waste time on lost causes?

[Anonymous No.4990292]

Somebody has an explanation for consciousness? That is a new one on me. I guess you are implying that Christianity has an explanation? But don't the Buddhist and countless others also have explanations?

I actually think that the Buddhist notion that experience is primary and the objective universe is an illusion is actually a better starting point for explaining consciousness than Science will ever be able to provide. Christianity does not even begin to touch on the subject!

[Outsider !tX/x/X/y/. No.4990301]

Instincts that have become complex enough to force interaction between themselves.

[Clerisy !!fWu3P8Hg5G3 No.4990320]

read godel escher bach

[Anonymous No.4990324]

>>4990292

Just because you can't think of an answer doesn't mean other people are doing exactly that.

I already explained it so many times on this shitty board. Can't be bothered to waste my time yet another time.

[Anonymous No.4990331]

>>4990209

[Anonymous No.4990397]

Conciousness is neither discreet nor continuous.

/thread

[Anonymous No.4990786]

>>4990397

Yes it is.

[Anonymous No.4990826]

>>4990324
not op, do you have a copypasta for me I'm rather curious to your answer

[Doll of Wood No.4990837]

>>4990320
is that a power trio prog rock group?

[Anonymous No.4990926]

>>4990826

It goes something along the lines of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaVoiXbaVZU

[Anonymous No.4992453]

mfw

[Anonymous No.4992474]

>>4992453

Needlessly long, didn't explain shit.

[Anonymous No.4992709]

>>4992474
Just like that Suze Orman Money Class special that airs on pbs during their pledge drive days.

[Anonymous No.4992746]

consciousness is an emergent phenomena of sufficiently complex neural ganglia

there

[Anonymous No.4992760]

magnets

[Anonymous No.4992761]

I found this book gave a really good explanation for it using just science, economics, and neuroscience along with a lot of experiments and models. At the end, I actually felt it was pretty common sense, and the best part is that the first thing it did was throw out dualism.

[Anonymous No.4992763]

This + Penrose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

The problem isn't that science doesn't have an explanation for consciousness, rather it's that it has lots of them.

[Anonymous No.4992769]

>>4992763
>quantum consciousness
pseudoscience

gtfo

[Anonymous No.4992774]

>>4992769

qubit is only used for storage.

Besides, the only reason people are so against quantum principles in consciousness is because they're idiots tho think quantum interactions = lolrandumXD. Interactions at the quantum level are not random, they are probabilistic, which is exactly what one relies on in game theory with the nash equilibrium.

[Anonymous No.4992784]

>>4992774
>the only reason people are so against quantum principles in consciousness is Occam's razor

ftfy

[Anonymous No.4992788]

>>4992774
>Interactions at the quantum level are not random, they are probabilistic, which is exactly what one relies on in game theory with the nash equilibrium.
You are mixing two entirely different concepts here.

You cannot create a stable compound system of such a size. A buckyball can barely withstand decoherence, nonetheless an object the size of the brain.

[Anonymous No.4992795]

>>4992784
No. It takes femtoseconds for such a large scale system at ambient temperatures to decohere from interaction with the environment.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009

The brain is a classical system. Anyone who states otherwise either has yet to take QM, or is a partial crackpot like Penrose.

[Anonymous No.4992799]

>>4992788

This is true, though in the Orch OR model, it's not actually used probabilistically. A structure of cubits works together to protect create stability and is then only used for storage.

>>4992784

People create a hypothesis and run experiments against it. You aren't of course suggesting dualism as an alternative, are you?

[Anonymous No.4992802]

>>4992795

watch the video, it provides several explanations for why decoherence and other shit doesn't happen in the orch or model. I've seen it posted in several /sci/ threads.

[Anonymous No.4992803]

fuck i hate it when physicists attempt biology.

[None !tX/x/X/y/. No.4992816]

>>4992803
Its tragic in its own way.

[Anonymous No.4992824]

135 iq here

You think there's this "consciousness in your head" and "reality out of your head" but this is blatantly wrong.
The consciousness in your head IS reality. Consciousness IS the universe.
Universe as a 3D space is an illusion to survive Earth. Perspective problem.
Also you experience (sub)consciousness everywhere simultaneously but don't know it because what you "know" is just a bunch of neuron networks in your head.
You know nothing. "Knowing" means nothing. "To be" means nothing.

[Anonymous No.4992884]

Consciousness doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.4992914]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdXkQpP67PM&feature=b-vrec

start with a white room, fill it with whatever you want.
eventually you'll create the universe and become another infinite loop to be uploaded into the reality engine.

[Anonymous No.4993042]

>>4992795

Why does quantum mechanics not look like this more often.

[Anonymous No.4993076]

>Explain non-existing nonsense with science.

We cannot scientifically explain something that has no evidence and no observable effects.

Fuck off back to >>>/x/

[None !!w5CHYddUvhS No.4993606]

>>4990209
>Explain consciousness

What's that?