[ 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: 69 KB, 500x375, retardation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5578988 No.5578988[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I hypothesise that Consciousness cannot exist.

Help me prove it so that we can make a copypasta picture to shut all these assholes up once and forever.

>> No.5578993

>>5578988

step one: define. we need to cover all viable definitions of consciousness.

>> No.5578994

You must first define what you mean by consciousness or else the thread is pointless.

>> No.5579055

In a lot of research they define consciousness as awareness. These studies robustly show that there are differences in the processing of conscious and unconscious stimuli.
Your hypothesis is wrong for most definitions of consciousness imo, especially the definitions used in research settings.

>> No.5579061

>>5579055
Pseudoscientists define one untestable nonsense concept by another untestable nonsense concept? Cool story. Go back to >>>/x/

>> No.5579072

>>5578988
Consciousness is memory.

>> No.5579078

>>5578993

The process of an organism being aware of an external object. That is the only definition.

>> No.5579104

>>5579072
No. Memory is physically stored and has nothing to do with metaphysical soul magic. There is no fundmental difference between data being stored biologically or data being stored on a hard drive.

>>5579078
No, that's perception, a physical process.

>> No.5579108

>>5579078

consciousness is being aware

aware is being conscious of something

it's circular logic

>> No.5579114

>>5579108
and untestable

>> No.5579146

>untestable

4chan is an experiment

>> No.5579162

>Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious

>subjectivity, awareness, sentience, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

awareness=consciousness
consciousness=awareness
1=1

what do you call that when you get a result of 1=1 when you want to solve for something?

>> No.5579164 [DELETED] 

>>5579162

1 = 2
2 = 1
therefore 1=1

fuck yeah, I proved 1 = 2

>> No.5579168

>>5579162
Refer to >>5579061

>> No.5579171

>>5579162
[consciousness is] for pt 2.

ability to perceive -> achievable, basically any generic sensor and a storage device. a camera has the ability to perceive.
ability to feel -> perception: see above
ability to feel -> emotion
ability of subjective perception -> possible: a film camera perceives colors correctly, but a machine reading that film would see a subjective interpretation thereof.

(as a side note while researching: jesus christ fuck philosophy is so full of shit and disorganized and basically a gigantic pile of poop that makes me wanna cry)

>> No.5579179

>>5579168

well yeah but I think there's a term for that, because it can happen in mathematics too.


>lol implying sci ever does math.

>>5579164

x*2=x*3
x*2/x=x*3/x
2=3

ya man dats how it works.

>> No.5579183

>>5579179
>well yeah but I think there's a term for that

The term is "fallacy".

>> No.5579184

>>5579171
wakefulness= a state of consciousness in which an individual is conscious

WHAT THE FUCK

executive control of the mind= ability to reprogram oneself => that is certainly within the scope of a machine

>> No.5579185

>>5579184
>incoherent pseudoscience babble

You didn't even manage to type one complete sentence.

>> No.5579186

>>5579183

there are fifty different kinds of fallacy, which one? lol.

>> No.5579188

>>5579186
circular reasoning

>> No.5579190

>>5579171

now to tackle emotion...
>subjective conscious experience

since subjective experiences are possible...

>> No.5579192

>>5579190
They are not. They have no evidence and are not testable.

>> No.5579216

>>5579192
why? all experiences are subjective, no?

if "experiences" are defined as "the acquisition of data through stimuli"

although we're back in the conscious self continuity..

>> No.5579224

>>5578988
Does anything abstract exist? Do maths "exist"? Do ideas exist? So does consciousness, which is the biological support for minds to create abstractions.

>> No.5579231

>>5579216
Bullshit. Perception is a physical act of measurement.

>> No.5579243

>>5579104
I have an idea. Let's expand upon this.

Consciousness is an organism's ability to be aware of an external object, process it, and make a deliberate reaction.

>> No.5579249

it's like autism central in here

>> No.5579255

>>5579231

yes but measurement is the acquisition of data, is it not?


to recap:
CONSCIOUSNESS:
-SUBJECTIVITY
--ability to interpret and preprocess data based on individuality
---individuality: plasticity of consciousness
-AWARENESS
--consciousness
--ability to perceive
--ability to feel
-SENTIENCE
--ability to sense
---ability to acquire data from without the system
----self-diagnostics about state of system
---ability to acquire data from within the system
----see perception
-FEELING
--ability to perceive
--ability to perceive emotions
---states of mind
----differend modes of opperation and subjectivity depending on situation
-WAKEFULNESS
--immediate ability access consciousness
-SENSE OF SELF
--ability to identify self
-EXECUTIVE CONTROL OVER MIND
--ability to reprogram and shape self.

>> No.5579256

>>5579249

we just want retards like you to go away forever by working on a cure for your retardation with the help of a concept called logic

>> No.5579266

>>5579256

logic is just a psychological framework

>> No.5579273

>>5579243
Oh wow, now we got free will in here. Do you also believe in ghosts?

>>5579255
>SUBJECTIVITY
Doesn't exist. Biological measuring devices obey the laws of physics, which are objective.

>-AWARENESS
Untestable and nothing but a synonym of the nonsense you're trying to define. Circular reasoning.

>SENTIENCE
Again untestable dualism / spiritualism bullshit.

>FEELING
Is an act of perception, i.e. physical measurement. Doesn't require metaphysical or spiritual hogwash because it can be explained biologically.

>WAKEFULNESS
The state of being awake is physiologically defined and doesn't prove dualist claims.

>SENSE OF SELF
No such thing exists. The ability to recognize the own body requires nothing but the processing of physical perception.

>EXECUTIVE CONTROL OVER MIND
Again circular and untestable spiritualism crap.

>> No.5579288

>>5579273

You have convinced me that YOU at least are a mindless automaton.

I will therefore continue this argument with my toaster.

>> No.5579297

>>5579273
>Doesn't exist. Biological measuring devices obey the laws of physics, which are objective.
But not every biological 'measuring device' ends up with the same measurement, since not every 'biological measuring device' is the same. That's subjectivity.

>The state of being awake is physiologically defined and doesn't prove dualist claims.
We use wakefulnesses as synonym for consciousness sometimes. As in, wakefulness is the opposite of a state of unconsciousness (when physically unable to respond or perceive due to e.g. coma, or simply being asleep).

>No such thing exists. The ability to recognize the own body requires nothing but the processing of physical perception.
You're contradicting yourself here. First you say that a sense of self doesn't exist, and right afterwards proceed with saying that it doesn't require anything else but 'processing of physical perception'.

>> No.5579319

>>5579297

I think that guy may be Chris Chan.

>> No.5579330

>>5579319
lol, why?

>> No.5579341

>>5579288
You admit your defeat? Good. Now please stop promoting ignorance.

>>5579297
>That's subjectivity.
Nope. The difference are objectively explicable.

>We use wakefulnesses as synonym for consciousness sometimes.
No, we don't. Being awake is a physiological state and has nothing to do with a metaphysical or spiritual soul.

>You're contradicting yourself here.
I'm not. You claim the existence of a spirtiual "sense of self". As I explained there is no "sense of self". Recognizing your own body is merely processing of a physical measurement and there's no need to resort to dualist explanations when we can explain it biologically.

>>5579319
Never heard that name.

>> No.5579376

>>5579341
>Nope. The difference are objectively explicable.
Theoretically they are, practically not so much due to chaos.

>No, we don't.
Yeah, we do. How else would you call unconsciousness due to something like being hit by a car? 'Loosing consciousness' is what we call it.

>Recognizing your own body
That's what I'm calling sense of self. Nothing spiritual or dualistic about that.

>> No.5579382

>>5578988
Oh boy this again
>define "consciousness"
>lolnope
>later starts using consciousness=soul

>> No.5579384

>>5579376
>Theoretically they are, practically not so much due to chaos.
And how does this prove dualism? It doesn't. Your argument from ignorance is retarded.

>How else would you call unconsciousness due to something like being hit by a car?
"Unconscious" is a physiologically defined state and has nothing to do with a magical soul / consciousness. Try harder, equivocation troll.

>That's what I'm calling sense of self.
Then it has nothing to do with your soul / consciousness claims.

>> No.5579393

>>5579384
Logically then, consciousness should be any state which is not unconsciousness.
Since unconsciousness is defined we can use it to define it's negation.

>> No.5579401

>>5579384
>unconsciousness
>nothing to do with consciousness
you just went full retard

>> No.5579408

>>5579401
Fuck off with your old and overused equivocation troll.

>> No.5579417

>>5579408
It's not an equivocation troll. Like the poster above me pointed out, the definition of unconsciousness enables defining the logical negation. Which would be consciousness.

>> No.5579429

>>5579408

Funny you should accuse someone else of 'equivocation' .. You do it constantly.

>> No.5579439

>>5579417
By that flawed troll reasoning the word "under" implies the existence of a "der".

>> No.5579440

>>5579393
>>5579417
I think we have him trapped.

>> No.5579441

>>5579439
No, because 'der' would not be its logical negation. Do you even know what a negation is?

>> No.5579443

>>5579440
Unlikely. He is immune to logic. If he feels trapped he will just ignore your arguments and go back to ad hominem attacks.

>> No.5579446

>>5579440
No. If you respond at all, even if you "win", he wins.

And /sci/ loses, as a troll thread repeatedly gets bumped by you, and he can claim, rightly, that that is your fault.

>> No.5579450

>>5579443
>>5579446
I know we're feeling the troll, but I see it as an exercise in making a sound argument. That, I think we've succeeded at.

>> No.5579451

>>5579450
>feeling
feeding

>> No.5579453

>>5579441
You are the one who doesn't know what a logical negation is. I just told you why removing "un" does not always make sense.

>> No.5579460

>>5579453
>I just told you why removing "un" does not always make sense.
I know, because removing "un" is not the same as finding the logical negation.

So yeah, you're grasping at straws. It was fun before but this is getting ridiculous. You're not even trying anymore. Anyway, as pointed out, I'm bumping a troll thread. You have a good day now, and next time try a little harder to at least make your arguments coherent.

>> No.5579467

>>5579460
Way to admit your defeat. I knew you couldn't argue against logic and facts, troll.

>> No.5579505

>>5579467
I'm not admitting defeat, I'm calling out poor troll. I even gave an argument before I did.