/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4993377]

Dear /sci/,

I am quite sure that this has already been discussed here, but why not give it another go:

My brain is made of matter which can be simulated by machines. So, I start replacing parts of my brain with chips. After some time I complete the swapping and now my entire brain is an actual computer.

Is my consciousness still inside? Do I still exist? Sure from the outside everything seems the same - but do I still feel stuff, or am I gone? If I am not in there, at what point did I disappear?

Let's assume that while doing this, I made another, identical computer. Why is my consciousness in the first one (if it is there) but not in the second one? What is consciousness?

[Anonymous No.4993381]

Oh, also this: the parts of the brain - I reassembled them and kept them alive with machines. Is my consciousness there? If it's not, why is it not?

[Anonymous No.4993391]

Your brain IS just a computer. It literally is no different. Its merely more complex than current man made computers, so it appears mystical to dumb people.

Consciousness is a whole other issue. Its never really been proven that Consciousness is even a real thing. There is no way to measure it. The only way to interpret it is through people describing it... but an advanced computer algorithm could do the same thing to output its processing.

It is likely that consciousness is not real, but merely a way of describing certain behaviors.

[Anonymous No.4993396]

>>4993391

Take this then: You are sitting right now, browsing 4chan.

If you are dead, you are not browsing 4chan, you do not exist anymore.

So, which of these occur when the above explained procedure is done? Or will it be something third all together, that we can't even assume yet?

[Anonymous No.4993405]

So long as you are still functioning, then you are indeed alive and still exist. If your brain still processes the information the same way, then nothing has changed. If it operates differently, then you may not be considered the same person.

At the end of the day humanity etc is just a concept.. like everything is a concept. Its a bunch of words used to describe an idea. Is an animal any less alive than a human, if they have a much simpler brain?

I believe consciousness is merely a descriptor for self awareness.

/Keep in mind that no one really knows the answer to this stuff, it is still one of the greatest mysteries of the universe

[Anonymous No.4993419]

MEDanon here.
You do not know how machines work, you do not know how brains work, you do not know what consciousness is.

Let's babby start.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Neuron_Hand-tuned.svg/400px-Neuron_Hand-tun
ed.svg.png
this is a neuron. you are using them to look at the picture, to understand the picture, to think about the picture and to feel the weight of your butt on that shitty chair. unlike computers they can grow, repair, create new physical connections etc, however they do not have resistors or transistors. in fact, it's a mess. the animals that had a way to somewhat control and use the brain in a functional and goal based way survived and reproduced, this way was pretty much a combination of physical shape organization and hormonal (emotions) control. the ones that had a sense (i'd rather not use the word illusion since teenagers browse /sci/ and kind of jump to conclusions when reading these kind of words) of self, survived. the sense of self is not a soul, it's not magic and it's not (teenage alert) "real". a quick reminder that we are biological machines is not enough to comprehend how it could affect a computer. supposing it's a perfect copy of a brain that can create and interconnect and use pumps to control neuropeptides, then yes, you couldn't tell the difference. in fact, it would still be "you". your brain was very different last year, however you did not notice this, the old you is dead, in a sense that it has changed, but there wasn't a consciousness or soul swap. it doesn't work that way, and cosciousness is a word that should only be used to make fun of art and filosophy majors.

jk you'll live forever and join your family in the afterlife :3!

[Anonymous No.4993423]

>>4993391

THIS

we are meat computers, complicated monkeys.

When you copy a computer program to another computer and delete the original do you think the original program still exists?

Anyway, i think if this continues it will be mostly over the meaning of certain words. Not really illuminating :/.

[Milena !W1MmioNU0A No.4993430]

>>4993419
Your life must be boring and hate filled.
You will make for an awful doctor, I have no idea how you passed your interviews with all dat cynicism.

[Anonymous No.4993447]

There being no consciousness assumes that you could not have awareness as a rock or without being an organic "animal" process, and that their must be a certain level of specific complexity in the organisation of you in order for you to be aware. The problem with this is the same as the problem with testing any sort of conscious awareness. You can only verify your own, and thus have no actual proof that we or anything else actually HAS consciousness or NOT.

[Anonymous No.4993448]

>>4993430
you're projecting on me son. :3c
also, OP think about how newborn twins are literally the same entity, the existence of one's concept of self/soul/consciousness does not interfere or interact with the other's in any way

[Anonymous No.4993449]

>>4993447
reported

[Anonymous No.4993464]

I didn't read the rest of the replies, but for what it's worth this is my opinion:

you are still there, nothing has changed. you are a computer. the only reason people think they are special is because the word "computer" implies microsoft and apple. the universe is processes, and computers perform processes.

[Anonymous No.4993476]

>>4993419
>>4993419
You are a gigantic faggot and I hope you die.

[Anonymous No.4993490]

From a scientific point of view there is no "consciousness". The term is meaningless in science, since it is neither testable or observable. Discussion of a purely metaphysical construct can be done on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.4993492]

How does the universe become sentient? Brains coalesce within it.
How do "you" emerge from the brain? That is a question likely answered by a fundamental aspect of physical reality. It has to do with recursion, but what the fuck is recursion doing in the universe?

[Anonymous No.4993494]

>>4993490
>consciousness is not observable
I don't get why you say this when you yourself are conscious, capable of introspection; observing your own consciousness.

[Anonymous No.4993507]

>>4993494
Can you please back that claim up with evidence? Can you show that any person is "aware"? Spoiler: No, you can't. Hence the concept of "consciousness" is not scientific.

[OP No.4993513]

>>4993419

For someone who is only a purely mechanical sense of self, you seem rather angsty. It's interesting how it's almost always the people from medicine and biology that are the most ardent dogmatists.

I'll skip your ad hominems, since I'm used to dogmatics accusing people of being religious (lel) just for asking stuff. Because science is totally not about asking questions.

Theoretically, there is no reason why we couldn't make a machine that completely resembles the brain. Sure, we can't do it now, but it doesn't make it impossible. Therefore, I don't see the problem in that. How me suggesting that gives me a status of 'not knowing how this works, not knowing how that work' is beyond me. Just because most of our machines are big and made of metal doesn't mean that the ending of the word machine ends there.

Concerning why this interests me - seeing how the development of AI is something that I hope to work on in a couple of years, it does hold meaning to me to know when the programs that I made have reached 'the sense of self'.

[Anonymous No.4993511]

Consciousness can be seen as a continuum of thought, some when you copy your brain in a machine it will have the same consciousness as you during the first second, then it will split, like for example it will think that he's artificial and you will think you're natural.

So, even through your brain is identical to the machine, the consciousness of the machine will be different of your consciousness.

lol I'm drunk.

[Anonymous No.4993518]

>>4993511
Go back to >>>/x/
You are talking incoherent nonsense with no scientific basis.

[Anonymous No.4993519]

>>4993507

It is the year 1650. Can you prove that pieces of matter can interact with each other over distance? No. Therefore that is not scientific.

[Anonymous No.4993523]

>How does the universe become sentient?

It did not 'become', it always was.

[Anonymous No.4993530]

>>4993523
It never was. "Sentience" is not testable and thus meaningless metaphysics. Occam's razor tells us to not believe in such things.

[Anonymous No.4993527]

>>4993519
Faulty analogy is faulty.

There is a difference between a scientific hypothesis that we can't yet test because of technological limitations and a metaphysical concept that can logically never be tested.

[Anonymous No.4993536]

>>4993527

>that can logically never be tested.

>implying philosophy of science doesn't evolve over time

It was once thought that the 'normal' space and time were the only ways for the space and time to exist. They (Kant, for example) literally said that anything other cannot be imagined.

Then slam, non-euclidian geometry and time dilatation.

[Anonymous No.4993540]

>>4993507
We must have this argument every day now.
I won't say I'm aware because I could just be a computer programmed to say that I am.
But that's aside the point.
Are you alive?

[Anonymous No.4993539]

>>4993530

Punch yourself in the balls and then contemplate on the non-existence of sentience.

[Anonymous No.4993550]

>>4993507
>>4993518
Is there anyone else but this guy who gives a flying fuck if this thread is pseudoscientific?

[Anonymous No.4993549]

>>4993536
How is this even supposed to be an argument? Scientific theories can change over time. Cool story, Captain Obvious. This doesn't change the fact that untestable metaphysics garbage is not scientific.

>>4993539
When I punch myself in the balls, a cascade of neurological feedbacks will make me stop punching myself in the balls. This feedback loop makes sense in the evolutionary context. Everything explained physically. No fucking magic. If we built a robot, we would design him to not damage himself. Simple, isn't it?

>>4993540
I am not the one bringing up this unscientific shit everyday.
To answer your question: In the biological sense I am alive. I am composed of cells, my body has a metabolism, can move, has grown over time and responds to outer stimuli.

[Anonymous No.4993551]

>>4993511
you cant use a word in its own definition, and you are confusing conscious awareness, and organisms ability to detect and trouble shoot with your self.

[Anonymous No.4993555]

>>4993550
Pseudoscience is not science. If you want to discuss pseudoscience, do it on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.4993564]

>>4993555
I said anyone else but you, faggot.

>>4993549
>I am alive
Well there we fucking go. Guess what you just did? You referred to yourself! The defining concept behind sentience!

[Anonymous No.4993573]

>>4993564
>I said anyone else but you, faggot.
Why? So you could derail by accusations of samefagging?

>The defining concept behind sentience!
Bullshit. I referred to "myself" as an object in space-time. When I speak of a rock or a table, it doesn't make these objects "sentient" either.

[Anonymous No.4993585]

>>4993564
>>4993564
>>4993564
>>4993564
>>4993564
>>4993564
>>4993564
>>4993564

Dude, you CAN'T beat an nihilism on his own field.

[Anonymous No.4993586]

>>4993549

>How is this even supposed to be an argument? Scientific theories can change over time. Cool story, Captain Obvious. This doesn't change the fact that untestable metaphysics garbage is not scientific.

How is 'hey man, straight lines are not really straight at all' not 'metaphysical garbage' to the people at the beginning of the modern era?

[None !tX/x/X/y/. No.4993595]

Firsly, no, you as an individual no longer exist in the same sense that if you were to clone yourself, and then killed the clone, that clone would still be dead, it does not exist through you.

Secondly, refer to the above.

[Anonymous No.4993592]

>>4993585

Remind me why we are even answering to their posts. They do not really exist (aside from the body), therefore we don't have any moral obligations to hear their opinions, because they are automatons!

[Anonymous No.4993593]

>>4993573
You're trying so very hard to not admit that you said "I am". Admirable job.

[Anonymous No.4993598]

>>4993585
You have no idea what nihilism means. Don't confuse nihilism with eliminative materialism.

>>4993586
It wasn't. It was a mathematical model within a scientific hypothesis and has been tested. Other than your metaphysical garbage that remains untestable.

>>4993593
I am not trying hard to do anything. My physical brain responds to stimuli. That's all. There is no magical soul.

[Anonymous No.4993605]

>>4993598

>It wasn't. It was a mathematical model within a scientific hypothesis and has been tested. Other than your metaphysical garbage that remains untestable.

It is the year 2200 and humans have discovered a new particle - the consciousness-carrying particle. Suddenly it becomes testable.

Seriously, just because we do not know that something doesn't exist now doesn't mean that we won't find it later. Do you even white swan/black swan? Sure, it's pointless to talk about currently non-observable stuff when it's not relevant, but seeing how self awareness becomes relevant with neurology and computer science, you will see more talk about it.

[Anonymous No.4993607]

>>4993598
>implying I want to argue for the existence of a magical soul
You're good at pissing people off.

The reason I said you were trying very hard is because that reply of yours made zero sense.

[Anonymous No.4993613]

>>4993598
>my physical brain
There's the sentience again

[Anonymous No.4993618]

>>4993605
In order to find such a "consiousness particle" we would have to know of any observable effects of a "consciuosness". These do not exist. "Consciousness" is untestable because it has no effects. You might as well search for the invisible and physically non-interacting rape demon in your closet.

>>4993607
If my reply made no sense to you, then you should brush up your reading skills.

>>4993613
Are you implying the brain isn't physical? Or a "non-sentient" being had to deny its physicality?

[Anonymous No.4993625]

The truth is that you become a different person at every instance. Continuity of personity is an illusion caused by the rare stability and balance we live in here on Earth, this little bubble of warmth and goodness in the middle of the cold, volatile and hellish state surrounding us.

Also, consciousness is just an experience, a feeling. Right now there is no spirit sitting at your computer, it is just an animal acting according to its genetic code and having the resultant feeling of being conscious.

[Anonymous No.4993638]

>>4993377

Tell me how you would go about "replacing" parts of your brain with chips? The moment you remove a part, it's gone. You can't just "add" something to the brain.


>Is my consciousness still inside? Do I still exist?

Implying your "consciouness" is anything else than an illusion generated by your brain.


Also, everytime this topic comes up, which is basically everyday, I get the feeling that people, despite having a tremendous lack of knowledge on the field, don't even go as far as reading the wikipedia article on the subject to inform themselves...

[Anonymous No.4993657]

>>4993638
>You can't just "add" something to the brain.
What the fuck am I reading.
Because yes, the brain is a constant & static organ, with absolutely no additions to itself over one's life.
Because yes, nature is able to differentiate between "natural" circuitry and artificial circuitry.

[Anonymous No.4993664]

>>4993657

On that note, integration would be hard. Electrochemical signals are hard to distinguish, then you face biological rejection and incompatibility of, parts breaking, materials transfer, poisoning, etc.

[Anonymous No.4993667]

>>4993625
But the animal feels, and is aware of itself feeling feels, yes?

[Anonymous No.4993673]

>>4993667
No, it is not. "Awareness" is not testable and means nothing.

[Anonymous No.4993669]

>>4993657

Prove me wrong, faggot. Tell me where and how you would integrate something to the brain and what functions the new addition would serve, etc.

[Anonymous No.4993691]

>>4993638
>>4993669

We are speaking theoretically here. 'Hurr durr we can't split an atom, therefore we shall not speak of it'. Technology will come.

Implying neural implants aren't being researched on as we speak.

[Anonymous No.4993694]

>>4993664
Those are hardly insurmountable problems. We learn to distinguish signals. The latter ones are precisely the same problems faced with early blood transfusion, organ transplants, and fake hips.

>>4993669
>show what you said was fucking stupid
>SHOW ME HOW YOU'D DO IT THEN FAGGOT
This is laughably simple if you even attempted to conjure up some examples for yourself.

An easy example would be to implant a single LED on a man's forehead, and attempt to wire it so he can consciously activate it. We have, by definition, added LED circuitry to the brain.
A basic and obvious example is that we would exactly replicate an area of the brain, remove that natural area, and implant the artificial replica in its place.

[Anonymous No.4993695]

>My brain is made of matter which can be simulated by machines.
Yeah, but a simulation is just a representation which doesn't replace the original, simulated thing. So if u simulate a bunch of people walking on the street in a computer, guess what?! THEY aren't REALLY walking inside the computer. Get it?

>So, I start replacing parts of my brain with chips.
If you are handicapped by some accident and u replace a part of the brain with a chip it might work using electrical pulses to compensate for the lack of a certain damaged area. However, if you replace critical parts of the brain, like the hypothalamus, no chip is going to really compensate for the lack of it. So, without that you wouldn't survive, and thus have no consciousness.

>After some time I complete the swapping and now my entire brain is an actual computer.
Read what I wrote above. It doesnt' work like that.

[Anonymous No.4993709]

>>4993669
you really need to explain why you think the brain isn't modifiable
i'm interested, unless you're just trolling

[Anonymous No.4993704]

>>4993695

This is if we use the current technology. That is not the point of the argument. For the sake of the argument we might have access to the technology of the distant future - that is not the relevant part of the argument.

[Anonymous No.4993712]

>>4993691
Oh fine, you pick that way out. You know, some day, we will have the technology to transform ourselves into fairies, complete with pixie dust and magic wand! And what a wonderful world that will be!


also, show me a link to research on "neural implants" that you are so sure of...

[Anonymous No.4993725]

>>4993712

First off: this is a 'method' that has been used in, for example, theoretical physics. People would propose the so-called 'ideal' experiments: experiments that would be way too expensive or out of their time to try out for real. But they would be able to discuss the implications of it.

But even that aside, it is ridiculous how you fail to realize what is the point here - it is not if we can or cannot do that, but the implications of that being done.

Technology is NOT relevant in this discussion.

[Anonymous No.4993741]

>>4993694
Your LED example only manipulates OUTPUT. Consciousness is the ability to form metarepresentations of the representations you get from perception (actual input).
Also, people are not simply able to just "activate" a part of their brain at will. So your LED example sucks.

>exactly replicate a part of the brain
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! no...

>>4993709
I think the brain isn't modifiable because it basically is just a complex input calculator. The brain takes perception from your sensory systems (representation of the real world) and abstracts them to metarepresentations. You can't add new perceptual fields. The brain isn't "wired" that way.

[Anonymous No.4993744]

>>4993741

This faggotry is unbelievable. You are basically claiming that humans will never, not even after millions and millions of years of technological advances, be able to replicate parts of brain. Far out man.

[Anonymous No.4993748]

>>4993725

Then what the flying fuck are you doing on a SCIENCE board? Fuck off to /b/ or some other populus of likewise unknowing individuals to circlejerk the what-ifs and could-nots....

[Anonymous No.4993752]

>>4993744

I delightfully refer you to my earlier comment on fairy-technology. Since that seems to be the only world you are interested in.

[Anonymous No.4993762]

>>4993741
Your argument essentially boils down to, "We can't do it now, shit's impossible!" The brain, as material object that operates through scientifically discernible principles, can be deciphered and manipulated.

What you describe are examples of complex circuitry. I provided examples of very simple circuitry that don't meet the standards of the complexity you describe. It's hardly an impossibility to to come to understand how to wire complex circuits, like the brain, that meet the criteria you lay out. Metarepresentations are the product of material circuitry.

>You can't add new perceptual fields.
The brain isn't an eternal object. New perceptual fields have been added to more primordial brains throughout the evolution of life, in a more subtle and Gradual fashion. The abruptness and deliberateness of additions by men does not make such additions any less valid.

[Anonymous No.4993763]

>>4993748

Did you skip the part where I mention how it is used in actual science? Apparently you are part of the experimental scum. Try simply doing experiments without discussing theory and see where it gets you.
Since when were technical limitations a barrier to anything? Those discussion from physics that I mentioned included, for example, particle accelerators and atom-splitting. That 'fairy' technology was, wait for it, available just 20-30 years after that.

[Outsder !tX/x/X/y/. No.4993768]

>>4993748
>science.

You keep using that word, i dont think you know what it means.

[Anonymous No.4993770]

>>4993762

Well, YOUR argument essentially boils down to: On a long enough time line, we will be able to do EVERYTHING through science! Because, and that's your only "evidence", in past generations some people have also said that other things were impossible.

[Anonymous No.4993771]

>>4993768
Neither do you.

[Anonymous No.4993775]

>>4993770
Except not. I speak only in terms of the nature of material circuitry, brain or otherwise.

[Outsder !tX/x/X/y/. No.4993777]

>>4993770
Well i hope you're not implying that we're still at their level. Speculation is one thing, but genuine possibility is another. Technology is advancing at a rate much faster than ever could have been anticipated. Our understanding of these types of phenomenon and physical principles is only just starting to blossom.

Is it impossible at this point in time? Yes. Does that mean it will always remain so? Who knows, its foolish to claim with certainty either possibility.

[Anonymous No.4993778]

>>4993777
What an empty post. Lots of words, but no content. Stop regurgitating teenager pop sci crap.

[Anonymous No.4993781]

>>4993763

Great, thought experiments basically go like that: I have a direction where I want to go or a point I want to make and now I'll just keep on adding premisses until I end up where I want. Better knowledge and limitations left completely aside.

Well that's GREAT science! Keep up the good work!


>>4993768
It's not science if you just go ahead and speculate some batshit retarded crap out of nowhere and argue "WELL SOME DAY WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT!"

[Anonymous No.4993786]

>>4993618
>brush up on your reading skills
>misreads "sentience" for "sentence"

[Anonymous No.4993785]

To the guy posting the Batman villain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

Now go suck a bag of dicks.

[Outsder !tX/x/X/y/. No.4993788]

>>4993778
I hope you're aware that im aware you're the same anon troll from previous conversations. How i know that is irrelevant.

Cookies are an interesting thing.

>>4993781
Neither is it science if you ignore a hypothesis under the presumption its impossible. You're doing the same thing they're doing.

[Anonymous No.4993791]

>>4993785

I'm well aware of thought experiments being part of science. I just don't think it's a good way to go about gathering knowledge about the world. The mind is biased in so many ways.

[Anonymous No.4993789]

>>4993781

For the hundredth time - we are discussing the nature of matter and 'consciousness', not human technology. Technology is IRRELEVANT. You are the only one who is talking about it here, because that is not a part of the topic.

[Anonymous No.4993792]

>>4993786
Full retard? You are the one who misread it.

[Anonymous No.4993797]

>>4993788
In no way I am trolling. If you are too retarded to undestand science, then it's your problem. Underageb& shitposter do not belong here, especially when they refuse to accept scientific corrections.

[Outsder !tX/x/X/y/. No.4993798]

>>4993791
>The mind is biased in so many ways.
Then stop asserting absolute fact, fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.4993800]

>>4993789

What is there to discuss then? If you say "if I replace A with a functional identical B will there be any difference?"

Hmmmmmmmm, tough question indeed, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.4993801]

>>4993798
Stop using insults.

[Anonymous No.4993803]

>>4993800

Then leave. The other posters seem to have found reasons to discuss it, while you, on the other hand, began arguing about something unrelated.

[Anonymous No.4993807]

>>4993803

I began talking about the only thing there is to talk about regarding the subject.
Why start a thread about a tautology?

[Anonymous No.4993816]

>>4993807

There are people in the thread who do not consider it a simple tautology, and guess what, they want to talk about it.

[Anonymous No.4993819]

>>4993816

ORLY? And where are those people?
The only discussion going on, is the one I intiated.

[Anonymous No.4993822]

>>4993819

Probably because you blocked everything. Look at the posts before you started your argument. Now since it has died, I'm leaving, I seriously don't have time for this anymore. As if I haven't wasted enough time here already.

[Anonymous No.4993830]

>>4993822

And finally the retarded thread dies. Thank you!

[Anonymous No.4993839]

>>4993830

>implies that thought experiments aren't a legit part of science
>then switches to claiming that he was only talking of it because people weren't talking about the main topic
>people were talking about the main topic
>claims victory because every other person had it with his nonsense and left

Son please.

[Anonymous No.4993867]

>>4993830
it isn't "retarded" to ask a question
way to kill what could have been a potentially insightful thread, faggot.

[Anonymous No.4993921]

>>4993669
>Prove me wrong, faggot. Tell me where and how you would integrate something to the brain and what functions the new addition would serve, etc

Its already been done, you fucking retard.

Proof:

http://www.switched.com/2010/04/19/silk-printed-circuits-dissolve-into-your-brain-improve-neural-r/

[Anonymous No.4994032]

>>4993573
But if the rock speaks for him/her self, is it sentient or not?

You are playing word games. Nothing but a "scientific" troll.
You just admitted that science evolves, but at the same time you said it doesn't by using concepts such as "metaphysical" and "religious" and "magic".

700 years ago, electricity would've been seen as "magic", "metaphysics" and shit.

You can not deny what you don't know. You can not deny the future. Oh wait! TIME DOESN'T EXIST DOES IT?

You are sending everyone to /x/, you yourself should go to /b/.

[Anonymous No.4994039]

>>4994032
You cannot deny the future just as I cannot prove what I say will happen or not

[Anonymous No.4994041]

>>4994032
Other than you I can distinguish between science and magic. If you fail to do so, I'd suggest you go to school and take a science class. Because you seem quite uneducated in the matter of science.

[Anonymous No.4994056]

>>4994041
Keep the show for the kids, good sir.

You are the first one that brought "magic", "religion", and "metaphysics" to the discussion, in order to put them as an argument to prove that you just don't know it such hypothesis will work or not. Nobody can see the future, but the fact that you can't see it makes you deny everything.

You are taking science as a religion. You are being religious, taking science as something ready for consumption, as a product, the same thing religious people take their texts and deny everything else.

[Anonymous No.4994060]

>>4994056
continuing that statement:

You, sir, are defending the scientific method but never using it, demanding proves for everything.

I now demand to see your Ph.D in something science/related.

[Anonymous No.4994110]

>>4993430
he's probably an anesthesiologists, those guys are depressing as fuck... I've met around 5 anesthesiologists, all of them are pretty anti-social, or socially inept, or arrogant~, but they were all chill..

[Anonymous No.4994221]

There is no evidence that the brain causes consciousness. Self consciousness yes, because we can see this property in a discreet number of higher mammals with brains similar to ours and trace it to specific neural feedback mechanisms. However, consciousness, the simple fact of subjective experience, is something different. There is no circuit in the brain making consciousness nor is there some little screen in the brain where images are projected. Rather it appears that subjective experience is a far more fundamental correlative of operations in the brain. The simplest explanation, is that consciousness, rather than being an illusion or some neural function we have yet to discover, is merely the result of being a specific pattern of matter in the universe. In other words consciousness is the result of you being your brain. When I look at your brain i see an icky mass of glial tissue because I am not your brain, but you are your brain and the result of being it is that subjective experience we call consciousness. Of course I could also look at my own icky objective brain (yuck), but the difference is that were I to apply an electrode to it, I would have a subjective experience.

Considering consciousness on this fundamental level there seems no reason it can not be experienced by a machine version of yourself or any suitably complicated machine or animal. In fact, since subjective awareness is not the result of any specific neural process, the simplest assumption, would be that it is a ground property of all matter. Unfortunately, since (as others have mentioned) subjectivity falls outside the realm of empirical analysis all one really has to go on here is self observation, intuition and good ole Occam's Razor.

[Anonymous No.4994249]

>implying the stargate project only had negative results.

[Anonymous No.4994283]

>>4994221
>it is a ground property of all matter
Why only matter? Isn't there things even more elementary?

[Anonymous No.4994312]

>>4994221

>In fact, since subjective awareness is not the result of any specific neural process, the simplest assumption, would be that it is a ground property of all matter.

This is an interesting thought. I hope that we will learn more of this in the future, because it promises a whole new level to things.

[Anonymous No.4994328]

Consciousness is something that is forged from logic and reasoning by the human mind. It is basically what the mind uses to explain anything and everything. So, if a computer could explain anything and everything, then it would be conscious.

What I am implying here, is that consciousness isn't something that is unique to one person, like a person's abilities. So in theory, you would still exist, but your existential "YOU" would not exist.

[Anonymous No.4994371]

>>4993423

There's a lot more to this debate than the meanings of words, and I think that'll become increasingly clear as technology advances. Someday we'll have to decide what the value of making digital copies of our brains/consciousness is, how we treat mental clones, whether it's more important to preserve the brain itself or the processes of the brain, and possibly whether we can safely teleport Star-Trek style.

[Anonymous No.4994379]

>>4993377

Considering how long this debate has been going on, I think at some point we might just have to accept that it is what it is.

Evolution has basically installed a series of blinders in the system we call consciousness to prevent us from ever seeing the full picture or understanding our place in the universe, not just on an instinctive level but even on the highest intellectual level as we have became intellectual creatures, because seeing ourselves for what we are would dull our sense of self, the sense of immediacy that comes with consciousness as we know it, and therefore our all-important (from an evolutionary standpoint) selfishness and sense of self-preservation.

[Anonymous No.4994388]

>>4994379

(cont.) What's most important about consciousness from an evolutionary standpoint is the presence of a ME/I in every individual. I am hungry. That lion is chasing ME. If we completely understood consciousness, we'd be seeing ourselves from the outside. If that's the case, we wouldn't be so worried about the lion. You, the lion, the rocks, the trees, all matter and energy, in the great cosmic cycle. Everyone with the ability to see the world that way got eaten a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.4994506]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

[Anonymous No.4994542]

ctrl f
didnt found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

[Anonymous No.4994603]

>>4993377

I know I'm late got the debate, and it's probably been brought up already, but I have to.

> 2012
> Consciousness
> mfw