/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5334279]

Thoughts on this book /sci/?

[Anonymous No.5334379]

I don't have any about the book, but if that's the Roger Penrose from Oxford, I LOVE his views on the Big Bang. He basically says that the universe is cyclic, with successive big bangs, WITHOUT big crunches. When the universe is old, wide, cold enough, finally matters turns into light. No matter, just light. There is no scale anymore, and space loose its meaning. There is no more absolute energy, and matter starts to emerge again, as if it was super energetic again, which you can it is ! Bam, new big bang ! Sorry about the unrelated post but I wanted to share this awesome idea.

[Anonymous No.5334393]

>"Penrose presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. "

It's shit.

[Anonymous No.5334438]

>>5334279

post-googling, 8/10 would read. link to pdf?

[Anonymous No.5334454]

Never read it.
>Roger Penrose
It's shit.

[Anonymous No.5334484]

seems interesting, I enjoyed reading road to reality, might read this in my free time.

[Anonymous No.5334504]

huurrr the brain is quantum magic durrr. im famous so im right. pic related it's rogor pensore

[Anonymous No.5334508]

>>5334379
Rogor Pensore knows a lot about science and totally has a spiritual take on it. This book will take you deep into the realms of consciousness and has totally benefited my life. Rogor Pensore teaches about the field that exists inside and all around us. I love his views on the universe, they make a lot of sense. Be prepared to discover a new reality within your own mind. A must-read for anyone willing to take a journey within

[Anonymous No.5334525]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
FUCK ROGER PENROSE

[Anonymous No.5334547]

"It's literally 100% absolutely impossible that Penrose is right. The brain absolutely has to be a computer, because the analogy of the brain as a computer makes sense and is therefore correct. No need to look at his actual arguments, I'll just stick to my comforting worldview. Also, I enjoy sexual intercourse with children under the age of ten." -- Most people in this thread.

How 'bout you read the book before critiquing.

[Anonymous No.5334548]

[Anonymous No.5334558]

>>5334547
>How 'bout you read the book before critiquing.
wow, wow, wow..
>Implying anyone reads in this board
>Implying anyone in this thread wouldn't get lost reading sophisticated books

[Anonymous No.5334565]

[Anonymous No.5334567]

>>5334558
>lul i trole u XD

[Anonymous No.5334575]

Fucking retarded made up shit. Hurrr, I don't like the fact that my brain is not a special snowflake! I know! I'll make up some unfalsifiable shit about microtubules!

[Anonymous No.5334583]

>>5334575
actually the microtubule part *is* falsifiable, and subsequently has been disproved.

[Anonymous No.5334587]

> 2011
> not publishing infinitely many papers to http://www.1729.com/consciousness/math-journal.html

[Anonymous No.5334591]

>>5334575
the only thing that is fucking retarded is you

[Anonymous No.5334589]

>>5334583
Fair enough, although the entire premise is unfalsifiable (that the brain is "non-algorithmic") because you can always say to a certain computer based brain "Oh, yeah? Prove that it's really thinking!!"

[Anonymous No.5334593]

>>5334591
Are you a christian?

[Anonymous No.5334595]

Also penrose made a monumentally dumb argument based on Gödel's theorems which Alan Turing demolished over 50 years ago, and which has been demolished by a professor of mathematical logic at Stanford (going to go look for the paper now)

[Anonymous No.5334597]

Fuck, I want to sit on that man's nose so bad.

[Anonymous No.5334598]

math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/penrose.pdf

[Anonymous No.5334607]

>>5334595
you don't really have to be Alan Turing or a standford profession to see how full of bullshit his book is.

[Anonymous No.5334621]

>>5334593
no, are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.5334714]

>>5334621
why would he be? most people believe in this shit because of things like that

[Anonymous No.5334729]

>>5334279
> minds are magic: the book

[Anonymous No.5334784]

ITT : Highschoolers completely denounce this book because they think they are smarter than Sir Roger Penrose, OM, FRS, because the book has the word 'mind' in the title.

[Anonymous No.5334810]

>>5334784
actually people are denouncing it because it's completely wrong

[Anonymous No.5334841]

[Anonymous No.5334849]

>>5334784
> appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.5334853]

Higher-Order Theory checking in

[Anonymous No.5334861]

>>5334853
some like it HOT

[Anonymous No.5334866]

>>5334853
epiphenomenalism ftw

[Anonymous No.5334867]

>>5334853
Isn't it funny how the only scientific stance (eliminative materialism) is not included in that pic? Well done, /x/ troll.

[Anonymous No.5334869]

>>5334866
Ephiphenomenalism is a form of dualism. Please take that nonsense to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5334870]

>>5334867
HOT is scientific ..

[Anonymous No.5334876]

>>5334870
Nope. It's philosophical babble without basis in reality. The only scientific stance is to not believe in shit that has no evidence. That means dismissing a soul / consciousness.

[Anonymous No.5334880]

>>5334784
> implying I can't reasonably dismiss Aristotle's principles of motion without reading his works, despite me "not being as smart" as him.

Science is not a cult of intelligence. You do not earn 'credibility points' by working in one field, which you can then spend in a different field. Judge the theory by its own merits, not the merits of those who propose it.

In the case of quantum brains, the hypothesis does not explain any existing phenomena, requires unique and complex mechanisms, has been moderately falsified by all existing experiments (i.e. no quantum neurons have ever been reported in neurology), and will continue to become ever more testable.

This makes the hypothesis unlikely, but worthy to keep in mind. Writing a book about an unlikely theory is regular old pop-sci profiteering, which Penrose is hardly alone in doing. However, through his popularity and perceived authority, he misleads laymen, and with them, politicians and eventually grant commissioners and the public discourse. Because of this, Penrose is either a deluded fool or a selfish asshole.

[Anonymous No.5334887]

>>5334876
that's not correct, see here http://lesswrong.com/lw/7j0/human_consciousness_as_a_tractable_scientific/ (in particular the linked paper)

[Anonymous No.5334890]

>>5334876
>implying that HOT, functionalism, identity theory, cognitivism, behaviorism, and epiphenomalism necessitate a soul/consciousness

>>5334861
Aww fuck yeh

>>5334887
>lesswrong
Aww fuck yeh

[Anonymous No.5334895]

>>5334893
>lesswrong
>edgy reddit teenager blogs
10/10, I lol'ed

[Anonymous No.5334893]

>>5334887
This is not an academic source. Don't link me to edgy reddit teenager blogs. It only makes you look retarded.

[Anonymous No.5334899]

>>5334890
Epiphenomenalism states exactly that this soul / consciousness exists as an epiphenomenon, i.e. a non-interacting and unobservable entity. Tell me how this isn't dualism.

>>5334895
Are you gonna post evidence or are you just gonna continue your immature shitposting?

[Anonymous No.5334898]

>>5334893
>sigh
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lau-Rosenthal-Empirical-support-for-higher-
order-theories-of-conscious-awareness.pdf

[Anonymous No.5334901]

>>5334898
dem references...

[Anonymous No.5334902]

>>5334899
see
>>5334898

[Anonymous No.5334909]

>>5334899
Really? I thought that it was about complex physical processes. Point taken. However, please see the rest of the list I provided. I have set to see how HOT or behaviorism support the idea of a soul.

[Anonymous No.5334912]

>>5334898
>commonsenseatheism.com

Now this is shitposting! I asked you for an academic source and you came up with an even edgier reddit teenager blog. Do you even know what science is? Don't waste my time with pseudo-intellectual drivel by high schoolers who think they know everything about science after watching Neil Tyson and who failed their quadratic equations class, you infantile cretin.

[Anonymous No.5334919]

>>5334899
>an epiphenomenon, i.e. a non-interacting and unobservable entity
Nnnnnno. That is not what 'epiphenomenon' means, even to people who think it's a meaningful term.

[Anonymous No.5334924]

>>5334909
HOT as described by the picture is only a philosophical concept working with arbitrary definitions of "thought" (something which has no definite meaning in the scientific context). Behaviourism is the only non-dualist ideology in the picture. It is pointless though, because behaviour is already called behaviour and there's no need to rename it by using spiritualist terminology. Behaviour can be perfectly explained by neurochemistry.

>>5334919
This is exactly what epiphenomenon means. Look it up in a dictionary. An epiphenomenon by definition is something which has no effects. Ergo it is non-interacting and not observable. Give me one reason to believe in this bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5334925]

>>5334899
I don't think you know what the word "epiphenomenon" means.

[Anonymous No.5334928]

>>5334912
>A pdf of a paper by Hakwan Lau and David Rosenthal of Columbia University, hosted on an atheism website? Hey, guise, here's an idea: Let's just go pseudo ad hominem on the url and not even pay any attention to the paper! Genius idea, guise!
http://www.summer12.isc.uqam.ca/page/docs/readings/Lau-Hakwan/Lau-Rosenthal-Empirical-support-for-hi
gher-order-theories-of-conscious-awareness.pdf
Better link for you, faggot?

[Anonymous No.5334930]

>>5334925
Refer to >>5334924

Here's a dictionary for people who can't into google:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epiphenomenon
>a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it; specifically : a secondary mental phenomenon that is caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon but has no causal influence itself
>but has no causal influence itself
>but has no causal influence itself

[Anonymous No.5334933]

>>5334924
>Look it up in a dictionary.
I did. That wasn't its definition, and it wasn't implied by its definition.

>Give me one reason to believe in this bullshit.
Why the fuck should I? It's your bullshit, not mine.

[Anonymous No.5334940]

>>5334928
Oh look, a purely philosophical paper published under the guise of psychology. Cool pseudoscience you have there. It's people like these authors who give psychology (the study of human behaviour) a bad reputation.

>>5334933
Clearly you are illiterate then. I even posted a dictionary reference for you in >>5334930 because I expected you to be too incomptent to google it.

[Anonymous No.5334942]

>>5334930
> hey guise I just drew out ulam's spiral and look at the primes
> I guess spirals cause primes

[Anonymous No.5334946]

>>5334942
What does this have to do with the discussion? Are you sure you're posting in the right thread? Prime numbers sure are interesting, but this ITT is not a math thread.

[Anonymous No.5334950]

>>5334930
>epiphenomenon
Has no causal influence _on the original phenomenon_, you utter fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.5334957]

>>5334912
reddit doesn't own atheism.

[Anonymous No.5334963]

>>5334950
In this case we're discussing here it has no obervable effects at all.

>>5334957
Reddit owns the edgy "new atheism".

[Anonymous No.5334965]

>>5334279
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.5334979]

>>5334880
/thread

[Anonymous No.5335000]

>CTRL+F "lesswrong"
>3 results
My, what a surprise.

[Anonymous No.5335008]

>>5335000
> muh hip club

[Anonymous No.5335011]

>>5335000
> calling something after it happened
wow what a bigshot

[Anonymous No.5335012]

>>5335011
>posting hitler

so edgy

[Anonymous No.5335019]

>>5335011
I wasn't calling anything. Sorry for hurting your delicate feelings by associating your favorite bullshit philosophy site with bullshit science.

[Anonymous No.5335021]

>>5334950
In this case it has no observable effects at all.

[Anonymous No.5335024]

>>5335019
> >CTRL+F "lesswrong"
> >3 results
> My, what a surprise.

Looks like you were calling that someone would mention lesswrong to me.

[Anonymous No.5335029]

>This thread

[Anonymous No.5335032]

>>5334946
> what does this have to do with the discussion
It reveals you don't understand what an epiphenomenon is.

[Anonymous No.5335033]

>>5335032
I posted a dictionary reference that proves how I used the word correctly.

[Anonymous No.5335040]

>>5335024
As I said in that post you just quoted, all I meant to do was to insult lesswrong by pointing out how it always comes up in threads about bullshit science.

[Anonymous No.5335043]

>>5335040
It's funny, because the only mentions of lesswrong were about how they are against the book in the OP ...

[Anonymous No.5335047]

>>5335040
Does it really surprise you? Threads about bullshit pseudoscience and edgy pseudo-philosophy attract uneducated children. Why are you even arguing with this guy? He's most likely underaged and for sure he doesn't know shit about science. Those people are not open to rationality. All you can do is making fun of them.

[Anonymous No.5335058]

>>5335047
I just used it to link to a published scientific paper that show a particular theory of conciousness makes new predictions which were shown accurate in experimental testing. The site itself is not relevant.

[Anonymous No.5335061]

>>5335043
And how does that make them less retarded? If someone counters "2+2=3" by saying "2+2=6", he isn't less of a retard.

[Anonymous No.5335070]

>>5335058
>scientific paper

Hahaha, 1/10. Your philosophy publication is pretty much the opposite of scientific.

[Anonymous No.5335071]

>>5335058
It's a bullshit site and you used it to link bullshit. Do you even science?

[Anonymous No.5335073]

>>5335058
>soul / consciousness nonsense
>experimental testing

[Anonymous No.5335075]

>>5335070
>>5335071
I guess you guys are just trolling but I might as well say it for people reading the thread.

Did you just not read the link or are you actually saying that http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/ isn't a real scientific journal?

[Anonymous No.5335078]

>>5335073
consciousness isn't nonsense or outside of scientific investigation, despite what mystics (like you) want to believe. Nothing was said about souls (because they're obviously a fairytale).

[Anonymous No.5335079]

>>5335075
No trolling in here. If you link to /x/ pseudoscience, you will get called out. Period.

[Anonymous No.5335082]

>>5335033
Actually it proves you can't understand definitions, either.

Let me spell it out for you.

The problem dualists have is positing a causal force which is essentially uncaused, but can somehow cause, and can somehow have causal flows in both directions, though it is not necessary. This kind of logical conundrum is really embarrassing.

Physicalist types reject the mental world having independent existence and in some way identify mental phenomena with physical phenomena (exactly how they do this varies from physicalist to physicalist). In such a view mental events just are physical events, and have just the same kind of causal powers in both directions.

To the epiphenomenalist, dualists make the mistake of having two causes for events: the physical world, which does obey causality, and the mental world, which influences the physical world.

To the epiphenomenalist, the physicalists make a different mistake. In associating physical states with mental states they suggest that there are mental laws which are identical to physical laws. But no such mental laws are forthcoming, and actual research shows there are several physical events which occur prior to their associated mental events (e.g. pulling a body part away from a source of pain), which serve to undermine this kind of identity.

The epiphenomenalist makes neither mistake. If we explain the operation of a pump in terms of its mechanisms, it is explained; there isn't all the causal relationships in the parts *and* the "pumping" cause. The "pumping cause" drops out of the picture as irrelevant. But the "pumping" is not identical with anything, either. It is only a pump insofar as it is part of a whole causal chain. Any part of this chain can be removed and it stops "pumping" but we're no more correct in identifying the water with "the pumping cause" than we are in identifying this pipe, or pipes, or motor, etc.

[Anonymous No.5335084]

>>5335079
are you actually saying that http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/ isn't a real scientific journal?

are you calling the publication from that journal /x/ pseudoscience?

why? (I think it'll be hard for you to come up with a different reason that "bawww because I don't like the conclusion")

[Anonymous No.5335086]

>>5335075
A journal that allows publications of pure unscientific philosophy can't be taken seriously as a science journal.

>>5335078
Consciousness is a synonym for the soul, i.e. an unobservable and untestable phenomenon that /x/tards believe to reside in our head. You have no evidence for that shit and it isn't needed for any explanation. Please go away.

[Anonymous No.5335088]

He references this book. Interesting stuff.

[Anonymous No.5335093]

>>5335084
>science journal
>publishing pseudoscience about magical souls

Choose exactly one. If that publication was an april fools joke, then please say so.

[Anonymous No.5335094]

ITT: People claim Emperor's New Mind is shit because it doesn't use the computational approach to cognition.

It's like the last 20 years of research didn't happen to these plebians.

DO YOU EVEN DYNAMICAL APPROACH? MIND AS MOTION? EMBEDDEDNESS PROBLEM?

Learn some before you spout off motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.5335099]

>>5334279
>>>/lit/

Plebeians, why don't you go back where you belong?

[Anonymous No.5335100]

>>5335086
>>5335093
lol. you guys are morons.

the journal is legit and so is the paper, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5335101]

>>5335082
>argumentum verbosium

By posting a wall of text you won't change the fact that epiphenomenalists believe in the existence of a non-interaction and unobservable phenomenon. This is dualism and unscientific.

[Anonymous No.5335102]

>>5335100
>soul and dualism nonsense
>legit

Choose one and go back to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5335104]

>>5335082
This leaves only the "emergent physicalism" position which, frankly, is epiphenomenalism for self-flagellating denialists. They recognize that leaving a disembodied cause (dualism) floating around is dumb, and they recognize that identifying mental phenomena with physical phenomena is troublesome, but they're unwilling to face up to what these entail.

Consciousness is Wittgenstein's beetle.

[Anonymous No.5335105]

>>5335102
nothing about souls or dualism is mentioned, you are a moron.

[Anonymous No.5335106]

>>5335101
*non-interacting

[Anonymous No.5335112]

>>5335105
>hurr durr I use synonyms to make my pseudoscience look like legitimate research

>>5335104
This is the science board, not a philosophy board. Post evidence or GTFO.

[Anonymous No.5335118]

>>5335105
You are believing in an untestable entity without evidence and you say it resides in our brain. I don't care about the irrelevant semantical differences you want to make. Conceptually this is a "soul" and you are promoting dualism. Take it to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5335116]

>>5335112
nothing about souls or dualism is mentioned directly or via synonyms, you are a moron.

[Anonymous No.5335119]

>>5335101
> if I keep asserting it it will be true eventually right guys
No, that's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.5335121]

>>5335116
>If I call my magical soul beliefs "consciousness", people will totally buy it.

Keep telling that to yourself, /x/tard.

[Anonymous No.5335124]

>>5335119
Please show me one scientifically verifiable piece of evidence for your proposed magical soul ghost. I dare you.

[Anonymous No.5335128]

>>5335124
> describe the position without soul-ghosts
> tell me about your soul-ghost

[Anonymous No.5335129]

>>5335118
> You are believing in an untestable entity without evidence

the paper I linked presents the results of doing an experimental test for a theory of consciousness, you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.5335135]

>>5335128
Let me summarize: You are saying that there are people who are possessed by an invisible demon. You say that people who are possessed by this demon do behave exactly like the ones who are not possessed by it and there is absolutetely no way to test whether a person is possessed by it or not.

Will you please apply Occam's razor and dismiss this stupid /x/ shit?

[Anonymous No.5335136]

>>5335129
>hurr durr asking people about their beliefs is totally valid scientific evidence

Do you even science, moron? By this retard reasoning every shitty /x/ belief suddenly became true.

[Anonymous No.5335140]

>>5335136
> asking people about their beliefs is totally valid scientific evidence
sounds like someone hasn't read the paper, you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.5335141]

>>5335135
> You are saying that there are people who are possessed by an invisible demon.
I remember saying that such properties drop out of the picture as irrelevant, that disembodied causes are nonsense, and that identifying such properties with physical properties or events makes no sense. Perhaps you are just responding to the wrong person?

[Anonymous No.5335163]

>>5335140
I did. There is no science in it. Take spiritualism to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5335171]

>>5335141
Then you agree there is no "consciousness"?

[Anonymous No.5335175]

>>5335163
> mfw cell trends in cognitive science isn't a scientific journal

[Anonymous No.5335185]

>>5335171
I would not agree with that. I don't know how to talk about something in an ontological sense which has no explanatory power and can't be identified with anything. That is, I don't know what ontological status epiphenomena have.

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/oldsite/pom/pom_behaviourism_wittgenstein.htm

[Anonymous No.5335190]

>>5335185
>philosophyonline

What part of "science and math" don't you understand? This is /sci/, not /lit/.

[Anonymous No.5335194]

>>5335190
Nice try.

[Anonymous No.5335224]

>>5334589
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.5335232]

>>5335224
I'm not the poster you're replying to and I didn't read the thread. What you just did is the most immature and puerile form of shitposting. Please leave this board and don't come back until you grew up.

[Anonymous No.5335247]

>2012
>not knowing about the consciousness/qualia scientism troll

[Anonymous No.5335393]

friends don't let friends think about quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.5335610]

This is some shameful shit

[Anonymous No.5335957]

I'm glad we could come to a conclusion.

[Anonymous No.5336012]

>>5335957
what's the conclusion?

[Anonymous No.5336053]

>>5336012
Probably >>5335610. (Consensus for this statement hinges on the ambiguity of 'this', of course.)

[Anonymous No.5336055]

>>5336012
OP is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.5336163]

>>5336053
>>5336055
I think the conclusion is people have a hard time talking about quantum mechanics and sharing their opinion, as always.

[The Mediator !okUiFPMmuE No.5336176]

I hate to interject, but there seems to be a rampant confusion about the words "consciousness" and "soul".

soul
/sōl/
Noun
1) The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
2) A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.
Synonyms: spirit, mind, psyche, heart, ghost

con·scious·ness
/ˈkänCHəsnəs/
Noun
1) The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
2) The awareness or perception of something by a person.
Synonyms: awareness, sense, mind, knowledge, conscience

By saying that "soul" and "consciousness" mean the same thing and are both fake, you are not only saying that there is no spiritual, undetectable element to humans (a completely reasonable claim), you are saying that humans are not any more aware of our surroundings than, say, a rock. That is irrevocably false. Rocks do not have organs. Rocks do not move. Rocks cannot communicate with us. People can do all of these things. However, don't think that makes us special; just the opposite. It has been proposed (see the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness) that all life from apes to octopi are equally conscious.

Furthermore, the consciousness of something can be tested through the mirror test (pic related). So far, all great apes, bottlenose dolphins, orcas, elephants, and magpies have passed this test. Souls may be nonexistent, but consciousness (by no means a synonym) is most definitely real and testable.

Thank you.

The Mediator

[Anonymous No.5336195]

Is anyone else here interested in starting up another science/math imageboard with actual moderation?

[Anonymous No.5336218]

>>5336176
>mirror test

Bullshit. The behaviour infront of a mirror doesn't allow any arbitrary interpretation of how is would hurr durr prove a metaphysical "awareness". Pic related, it's a clay pot passing the mirror test.

[Carl No.5336233]

>>5336195
Yes, if you make me a moderator.

[Anonymous No.5336239]

>>5336218
You don't know what a mirror test is, do you?

Furthermore, it is not proof of any metaphysical concept. It is proof that something is aware of / can perceive its environment.

[Anonymous No.5336242]

>>5336233
THIS. CARL 4 MOD 2012!!!1!

[Anonymous No.5336256]

>>5336239
Please do explain, then.

[Anonymous No.5336253]

>>5336239
Take that pseudoscience shit to >>>/x/. There is no such thing as "awareness". It is untestable nonsense without basis in reality. The mirror test lets us observe how objects behave infront of a mirror. That's all it does. Any arbitrary spiritual interpretation of this observed behaviour is unscientific and utter crap.

[Anonymous No.5336261]

>>5336253
There is no ... [sigh]

[Anonymous No.5336267]

>>5336261
How is rationality "sigh"? It's not "sigh", it's /sci/. This is the science and math board. We work with evidence and testable predictions here, not with edgy pseudo-philosophy. If your only argument is "hurr u hav 2 beleive", then you can fuck off to >>>/x/.

[Anonymous No.5336270]

>>5336253
This is not pseudoscience. Are you saying that humans are not capable of having knowledge?
>lern 2 definition

[Anonymous No.5336274]

>>5336267
>rationality
>no idea what that means
Go back to reddit

[Anonymous No.5336278]

>>5336270
Knowledge is testable by taking a test on that knowledge. Your spiritual "awareness" shit is not testable and is not knowledge. You are twisting semantics to a maximum just to force your /x/ beliefs on this board. Don't you have anything better to do than trolling a science forum?

>>5336274
Never been there.

[Anonymous No.5336282]

>>5336267
edg·y
/ˈejē/
Adjective
Tense, nervous, or irritable: "he became edgy and defensive".
(of a musical performance or a piece of writing) Having an intense or sharp quality.
Synonyms
nervous - sharp - jumpy

[Anonymous No.5336287]

>>5336282

[Anonymous No.5336291]

>>5336278
awareness
1) having knowledge of

[Anonymous No.5336297]

>>5336291
Knowledge is knowledge. No need to rename it. "Awareness" always implies a spiritual component aka qualia. Not science.

[Anonymous No.5336306]

>>5336297
>"Awareness" always implies a spiritual component
citation needed

[Anonymous No.5336309]

>>5336291
Fixed:

a·ware
/əˈwe(ə)r/
Adjective
Having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact: "most people are aware of the dangers of sunbathing".
Concerned and well-informed about a particular situation or development: "a politically aware electorate".
Synonyms
conscious - cognizant - informed - sensible - ware

>>5336297
>"Awareness" always implies a spiritual component aka qualia.
>always implies
>implies
10/10, you got me
>pic related

[Anonymous No.5336318]

>>5336297
>facts is facts and u can't argues with them cuz they is facts!

[Anonymous No.5336331]

The Lord Steven Christ explains this very well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0-1DUM3Mm0

[Anonymous No.5336389]

>>5336331
what the fuck am i watching

[Anonymous No.5336417]

There are levels of awareness, or consciousness. The mirror test is a good example, some species recognise themselves, others do not. Other tests have demonstrated that some species are aware of family and lineage. This is a fact.

Have you people even heard of complex theory, or how its known in pop culture, chaos theory? There can be more information in a system than the sum of its parts, this information can be in a multi-level structure. Another thing arises from this basic idea, emurgence. Consciousness isn't an on off thing but an emergent property of complex systems.

I'm not saying that I agree with Roger Penrose (though I like the idea of a quantum brain) but his premise may be correct. Quantum systems can have more information than their parts, qubits. Thinking of Tue brain as a super position of many states may be wrong but it may be a useful analogy for what is really happening.

I await your deluge of angry retorts.

[Anonymous No.5336422]

>>5336417
>Quantum systems can have more information than their parts
no they don't

[Anonymous No.5336425]

>>5336417
If you weren't a garbage spouting pop sci redditor and if you actually read up on the topic, you'd know that the mirror test does not test what you think it tests. All we can observe is an animal's behaviour infront of the mirror. In no way this implies any metaphysical "awareness". Arbitrary interpretations are baseless and unscientific.

[Anonymous No.5336433]

>>5336425
The mirror test is a measure of self-awareness by definition

[Anonymous No.5336442]

>>5336433
There is no such thing as "self-awareness". This is untestable and unobservable hogwash.

>by definition
Very funny. The mirror test does not test what you think it tests. It is only observation of an animal's behaviour infront of a mirror. Nothing more. No spiritualism. No metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.5336444]

>>5336442
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/m/mirror_test.htm

The mirror test is a measure of self-awareness developed by Gordon Gallup Jr in 1970.

[Anonymous No.5336452]

>>5336417
>multi-level structure
>emergent property of complex systems
Mmmkay ...

>Quantum systems can have more information than their parts
OH GOD NO

>>5336425
Thing is, its eerily consistent among adult members of a species. Furthermore, (this doesn't really count for it, but still worth noting, for me) the exact animals I have previously thought were most likely to be intelligent- eg, dolphin, ape, elephant- passed. It counts for something.

[Anonymous No.5336456]

Anton Zeilinger and many others have shown how you can use 3 particles to make 4 bits of information. He is the worlds leading quantum entanglement experimenter. Plus this is the basis for pursuing quantum computing

[Anonymous No.5336459]

>>5336444
It was designed for pseudoscientific purposes and it is still pseudoscience. Your point being what? Do you also believe in clairvoyance and scrying?

[Anonymous No.5336467]

>>5336452
>its eerily consistent among adult members of a species

They behave consistently, yes. How does this prove metaphysical phenomena? Spoiler: It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.5336483]

>>5336467
NOBODY BELIEVES IN ANY METAPHYSICAL PHENOMENA YOUR "IMPLICATIONS" ARE WRONG. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

[Anonymous No.5336488]

>>5336417
Okay, so mirror test, you put a mirror on both sides of the animal, is this animal now thinking in 4 d if it is self aware?
Also, a quantum state kinda infers that parts are an irrelivant feature...

[Anonymous No.5336494]

>>5336459
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/43/4/522/
Cited by 2418

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/32/2/313/
Cited by 121

http://www.robertlanza.com/files/SCIENCE_Self-Awareness_in_the_Pigeon<span class="math">[/spoiler].<span class="math">[/spoiler]p<span class="math">[/spoiler]df
Cited by 138

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajp.1350020302/abstract
Cited by 376

http://www.tlu<span class="math">.[/spoiler]ee/~kpata/uusmeedia/awalevels<span class="math">[/spoiler].p<span class="math">[/spoiler]d<span class="math">[/spoiler]f
Cited by 69

All of these are pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.5336498]

>>5336456
linkme up please? I want to read about this

[Anonymous No.5336499]

>>5336488
... but that's not the mirror test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

[Anonymous No.5336501]

>>5336483
You believe in a magical "awareness". Tell me how this isn't metaphysical dualism crap.

>>5336494
Oh no, pseudoscience gets cited! Cba to look into it in depth now, but either it gets cited by other pseudoscientists or it gets cited by scientists who thoroughly disprove it.

[Anonymous No.5336508]

And actually the mirror test can be related to bself awareness do to the species recognizing that they could be outside themselves to some degree
Check.

[Anonymous No.5336512]

>>5336501
>cited by scientists who thoroughly disprove it
Do you have any publications as examples for this?

[Anonymous No.5336517]

>>5336508
>arbitrary non-sequitur interpretation without basis in reality

[Anonymous No.5336556]

Anton Zeilinger and many others have shown how you can use 3 particles to make 4 bits of information. He is the worlds leading quantum entanglement experimenter. Plus this is the basis for pursuing quantum computing

[Anonymous No.5336559]

>>5336517
Under that test that's what they're describing self awareness as, I don't see what the problem is here

[Anonymous No.5336569]

I'm on my phone so I hope I have the right paper: prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i2/e020502

You can also just look at the Wikipedia of GHZ states. The experiments are performed on quantum entangled photons and looking at their polarization.

[Anonymous No.5336581]

>>5336556
linkme up please? I want to read about this

[Anonymous No.5336586]

>>5336559
It's arbitrary. Do you see the picture of the clay pot passing the mirror test I posted earlier ITT? I could say "hurr as you can see the clay pot's behaviour clearly shows it's self-aware". That's how arbitrary the mirror test (or to be precise: its interpretation) is.

[Anonymous No.5336594]

>>5336586
Were just a bunch of twittling molecules, so is it, what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.5336598]

>>5336586
It didn't pass the mirror test, and the definition isn't arbitrary

[Anonymous No.5336602]

>>5336594
The problem is that some retards want to say we're more than just physics and chemistry. They baselessly claim the existence of a magical soul which has no evidence at all. This is not science and belongs on >>>/x/.

>>5336598
>arbitrary
>again

[Anonymous No.5336606]

>>5336602
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRVGA9zxXzk

How is this arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.5336608]

>>5336598
If I was an /x/ troll like you, I could easily say "It did pass the mirror test. Prove me wrong." Fortunately I am more civilized and more mature than you, so I will refrain from such inane trolling.

[Anonymous No.5336609]

>>5336602
>The problem is that some retards want to say we're more than just physics and chemistry
Joining the argument at this point, I don't think we are any more than physics and chemistry.

I think of "consciousness" or "self-awareness" as being some property of sufficiently complex biological control systems.

[Anonymous No.5336613]

>>5336606
So these people put a bird infront of a mirror. And this proves what? Absolutely nothing. The bird sees the mirror and reacts. So what? How does this prove qualia nonsense? It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.5336614]

>>5334393
>>"Penrose presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. "

This is legit and most neurologists who understand brain morphology agree

[Anonymous No.5336616]

>>5336609
There is no point in coming up with pseudo-explanations as long as the phenomena you want to explain are not even proven to exist. "Hurr the non-interacting demon is totally an emergent phenomenon of physical matter durr." Back to >>>/x/ please.

[Anonymous No.5336619]

>>5336613
It proves that the bird has mirror neurons. Mirror neurons reflect qualia back into the brain to keep them private.

[Anonymous No.5336622]

Poster falied a mirror test by failing to recognize the structures of other people looking for a conflict, not being aware & provocative >>5336608

To the reeducation camps with him

[Anonymous No.5336628]

>>5334454
>>roger penrose
>>it's shit

I can agree with this. Also, hurr durr quantum consciousness microtubules.

Never let physicists do biology.

Also relevant SMBC, Penrose is near the end of the physicist lifecycle.

[Anonymous No.5336625]

>>5336614
That's because you don't know what a computer is. You've never coded so much as a Hello World in your life. You think of it as a magical box that serves you internets.

[Anonymous No.5336631]

>>5336613
Im not talking about qualia. It shows that the birds have self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.5336637]

>>5336628
>not mathematician

[Anonymous No.5336744]

actually, more physicists should be involved in biology and more biologists should be involved in physics. They're not unrelated fields and they can learn from each other. An example is the recent discovery on how smell works, its not due to chemistry as almost everyone thought, but due to atomic vibrations, quantum harmonic vibrations.

[Anonymous No.5336815]

>>5334279

Just started reading this book and I love it. It's already getting me to think....

Could it be possible to create AI that has the capacity to question its own existence like humans do? If it did, would it consider its human creators to be its "gods"

Also have humans always had this ability or is it a relatively recent development in our species?

[Anonymous No.5336860]

>mfw I was the original "/x/ troll"
>mfw this thread is still alive
>mfw the same guy thinks he's still ranting at me
lol

[Anonymous No.5336865]

oh look more escapist bullshit on /sci/

[Anonymous No.5337703]

>>5336619
lulz

>>5336631
1. No, it doesn't.
2. That's just a synonym.

[Anonymous No.5338194]

WHY!?!