/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5751751]

Hi /sci/
Where does consciousness exist in the brain? What is your favorite theory? If identified, do you think there will come a point where it could be transferred?

[Anonymous No.5751755]

What do you mean? What are its observable effects?

[Anonymous No.5751760]

>>5751755
Sure, that, but I mean more hypothetically- does it exist as a chemical reaction in the brain, or is it just something our brain fools us into thinking exists as some kind of organizational tool of other higher thinking functions?

[Anonymous No.5751764]

Consciousness *is* the brain, you nut.
You can't transfer the mind because that would involve measuring every quantum state that composes your meat-computer at one instant in time. Sounds a little dangerous.

[Anonymous No.5751765]

>>5751760
Does WHAT exist? As long as you don't name its observable effects we cannot understand what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.5751767]

>>5751764
Your first sentence doesn't make sense. Why would you rename the brain by using spiritualist vocabulary? It's much easier and commonly accepted to call it by its name "brain".

[Anonymous No.5751773]

>>5751767
Well how else do I get across to OP?
Go take a walk.

[Anonymous No.5751779]

>>5751773
Get what across? OP is a 0/10 troll who thinks it's funny to post /x/ shit on /sci/. As if we didn't have 20 of these threads every fucking day.

[Anonymous No.5751780]

>>5751767
So the entire brain is consciousness? I get what you're saying, I don't want to equate the idea of consciousness with "soul" I mean self awareness.

[Anonymous No.5751785]

>>5751780
The brain is just the brain, a physical organ. It does neither require nor imply any kind of metaphysical or spiritual entities/phenomena. I asked you to name testable effects. You failed or refused to do so. Please keep that nonsense in >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5751787]

>>5751779
>>5751785
You are the worst cancer on Earth, deluded tryhard.

[Anonymous No.5751788]

>>5751786
Your question is unscientific. Dualism is unscientific. Please learn the scientific method and keep untestable nonsense claims on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5751786]

>>5751779
Not a troll, just a highschool dropout who's trying to understand the concept of self from a scientific standpoint.

[Anonymous No.5751789]

I like this hypothesis:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5395/1846.full

[Anonymous No.5751797]

>>5751785
I defined it as self awareness. I was not aware that the concept of consciousness was a purely spiritual one, I apparently just don't have the right word for it. What I mean is the "you" filter that all stimuli goes through.

[Anonymous No.5751794]

>>5751780
Unless we can start pulling bits of brain matter out of your head and still have you have a sense of "I", yeah.

[Anonymous No.5751795]

>>5751787
>infantile insults

[Anonymous No.5751799]

>>5751797
What do you mean? What are the observable effects of an "awareness"?

[Anonymous No.5751807]

Sage Boy is

O U T O F C O N T R O L

Look out!

[Anonymous No.5751813]

>>5751807

[Anonymous No.5751817]

The brain is material but the mind is not.

[Anonymous No.5751818]

>>5751814
What does that mean? How can it be observed? Can you show it to me?

[Anonymous No.5751814]

>>5751799
The individuals interpretation of combination of cognitive and emotional stimuli.

[Anonymous No.5751826]

>>5751817
>dualism
Plz.

[Anonymous No.5751833]

>>5751789
Also, something interesting if you're more concerned with conscious presence:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3254200/

[Anonymous No.5751838]

>>5751818
If I see an object, I not only see that object as its physical form, but also as how it relates to me- I know, I'm doing a shitty job of explaining this.

[Crane No.5751839]

>>5751751

Consciousness is the ability to form meta-representations. It allows us to see ourselves as a distinct agent in an environment.

I don't see it being localized in any special brain region.

[Anonymous No.5751842]

>>5751838
Awesome! Thanks.

[Anonymous No.5751845]

>>5751839
What are you talking about? How can this be observed or tested? Sounds like empty metaphysical drivel.

[Anonymous No.5751847]

>>5751845
>Sounds like

[Anonymous No.5751850]

>>5751845
It is a combination of emotional and cognitive response, is what think he's saying. Being that both of those can be tested, I don't see how it is metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.5751854]

>>5751850
Emotional and cognitive responses are biologically explicable. What does this have to do with the claim of a magical non-interacting soul/consciousness?

[Crane No.5751856]

>>5751845

A fruit fly sees an apple. The light emitted by the apple leads to an representation of the apple in the nervous system of the fly.

Higher evolved creatures, like humans, can go one step further and take this representation and mentally create an abstraction of it, a meta-representation, which can be manipulated, altered, combined with other ideas, etc.

This is the foundation of cognition and the processes known as "consciousness" and "self-awareness".

[Anonymous No.5751863]

Can soulless people collapse the wave function?

[Anonymous No.5751861]

>>5751856
This is simple algorithmic processing in the brain and has nothing to do with metaphysical or spiritual phenomena. The brain is a biological computer. No magic is needed to explain its purely physical functions. Please keep spiritualist nonsense to >>>/x/

[OP No.5751862]

I thought the words "consciousness" and "sentience" were interchangeable.

[Anonymous No.5751870]

>>5751862
They are and they both don't belong on a science board. Dualism and spiritualism belong on >>>/x/. Science deals with testable and observable phenomena.

[Anonymous No.5751871]

>>5751863
Sure, because all you need is a photon.

[OP No.5751887]

Sentience can be tested, though.

"Sentience quotient” (SQ), is the relationship between the estimated information processing rate (measured in bits per second) of each individual processing unit, the weight or size of a single unit, and the total number of processing units.

[Crane No.5751885]

>>5751861
Where did I talk about metaphysical or spiritual phenoma?
Just because you believe consciousness to be something metaphysical doesn't mean it is.

Neuroscience and psychology actually accept the concept of consciousness. You would've known all that if you had taken 3 minutes on google or wikipedia instead of spouting the same mindless /sci/-slurs over and over again.

Aside from that, I'm a supporter of the brain as a biological computer. I don't see any contradiction with this paradigm and my definition of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.5751892]

>>5751885
You are using spiritualist vocabulary for the sole purpose of using spiritualist vocabulary. It isn't needed. It has no explanatory power, adds nothing of information and has no testable or observable effects. Science has its own terminology and your childish drivel won't change science or the scientific method.

>>5751887
That's nonsense.

[OP No.5751901]

>>5751892
No, that's Robert Freitas.

So you consider self awareness psuedoscience?

[Anonymous No.5751904]

>>5751901
Untestable nonsense claims without evidence and without explanatory power are pseudoscience and incompatible with the scientific method.

[Crane No.5751908]

>>5751892

Consciousness being part of spiritualist vocabulary does not mean that it can't also be part of scientific vocabulary. Ever heard of homonyms? They may use the same word, but in different contexts and different connotations.
It tires me, always having to explain simple semantics.

[Anonymous No.5751912]

>>5751892
To anyone who is confused, this is Sage Boy.
Sage Boy always acts like this.
When cornered, Sage Boy flatly asserts without evidence that what you just said "is nonsense" or that "you're being silly."

Rumor has it that Sage Boy has a crush on a dead man.

[Anonymous No.5751914]

>>5751908
It is not part of scientific terminology. It does not refer to any meaningful scientifically observable concept.

[Anonymous No.5751919]

>>5751912
Well, at least Sage Boy brings me joy, for some reason, I laugh at the comments he makes and the responses from other anons.

[Anonymous No.5751921]

>>5751892
lel, I missed your retardedness. Good to see you are still doing this shit.

[OP No.5751924]

>>5751904
So the sense of individual doesn't exist and is nontestable.

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

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1975-26584-001

http://elearn.jku.at/wiki/images/f/fd/Joinson00.pdf

http://www.robertlanza.com/files/SCIENCE_Self-Awareness_in_the_Pigeon.pdf

[Anonymous No.5751925]

>>5751912
I am not a boy and unlike you I do not make baseless assertions. I explained everything I said. Please learn the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.5751927]

Prefrontal cortex. It can't be transfered.

[Anonymous No.5751929]

>>5751925
Stay golden, Sage Boy.

[Anonymous No.5751930]

>>5751924
Nice pseudoscience you got there. Those are very good examples of how results of neuroscience get abused by /x/tards who are jumping to unjustified conclusions not backed up by the observational data.

[Crane No.5751931]

>>5751914

Google.Scholar on "consciousness":
About 2.220.000 Results (0,06 Sec.)

Try again. You have reached a point were you might just want to change your view of the topic instead of finding more and more ways to justify your initial belief. Don't be afraid to learn, my friend.

[Anonymous No.5751936]

>>5751931
>pseudoscience publications and publications refuting pseudoscience

Try google scholar "ghost". About 1,030,000 results (0.04 sec).

[OP No.5751939]

>>5751925
There was no explanation other than "lalala i cant hear you you're stupid everything I didn't think of myself is metaphysical"


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=self-awareness-with-a-simple-brain

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1997_08_18_usnewsworldreport.html

http://news.yale.edu/2009/06/15/brain-energy-use-key-understanding-consciousness-yale-researchers-find

What sources do you find credible?

[Anonymous No.5751942]

>>5751939
>What sources do you find credible?
Nothing source is credible for Sage Boy.

[Anonymous No.5751947]

Dudes, are you still replying to consciousness guy?

Never change, /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5751949]

>>5751942
>Nothing
No*
Sorry, brain fart.

[Anonymous No.5751950]

>>5751939
The source does not matter as long as the actual article is pseudoscience. Deal with it. Science does not waste its time with spiritualism.

[Anonymous No.5751959]

>>5751952
How can there be research if it has no testable or observable effects? Do you think science researched non-interacting ghosts? Please learn the scientific method. Science requires observational evidence.

[Crane No.5751952]

>>5751936

Which does not change the fact that there is research on consciousness. Why won't you believe people who are actually experts in the relevant fields?

[OP No.5751965]

>>5751950
I'm curious as to your definition of science.
Also, if reputable places posted psuedoscientific articles, they would no longer be reputable.

Your arguments seem awfully religious.

[Anonymous No.5751968]

>>5751965
Science means application of the scientific method. If journals allow publication of metaphysics and spiritualism, they cannot be taken serious.

[Anonymous No.5751970]

>>5751968

[Crane No.5751972]

>>5751959

I'm very much aware of the scientific method. But there are also limits to it. Qualia cannot be tested with the scientific method. But still no one would doubt that there it exists.

[Anonymous No.5751978]

>>5751972
Can you show me a qualia? No? Into the trash it goes. And back to >>>/x/ you go.

[OP No.5751977]

The articles posted all involve the results of tests based on the scientific method. Serious question, if Harvard, Yale, or Scientific American articles cannot be taken seriously, what sources do you suggest?

[Anonymous No.5751989]

>>5751977
The conclusions are not justified by the data. That's pseudoscience. No empirical data justifies metaphysical or spiritual conclusions.

[Crane No.5751997]

>>5751978

Psychophysics tried to quantify qualia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law

[OP No.5751998]

>>5751978
The scientific method-

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

So, what part of the scientific method did

>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/488029a.html

fail to follow?

[Anonymous No.5751999]

>>5751978
time for some popcorn, it's just started to get good

[Anonymous No.5752006]

>>5751997
Your link does not support your nonsensical claim.

>>5751998
He jumps to unjustified conclusions. His garbage is not testable

[OP No.5752016]

>>5752006

"Christof Koch is chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, Washington, and professor of biology and engineering at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California."

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=Christof+Koch&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en


Yep. You know more than he does.

[Anonymous No.5752019]

>>5752006
Incredible, good show, Sage Boy.

[Anonymous No.5752023]

>>5752016
His reputation does not protect him from criticism. Just because he is a professor, he is not allowed to start publishing pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.5752027]

My personal favourite theory is the one that states the consciousness to exist in the 4th or 5th dimension. The brain does not know the consciousness exists there, as there are no senses based in that dimension, but those who reach enlightenment have made their consciousnesses aware of the dimension in which they exist, possibly via detecting the forces exerted through that dimension alone.

[OP No.5752029]

>>5752023
I did not claim that his reputation protects him from criticism. So, criticize him. Be more specific than "His garbage is not testable."

[Crane No.5752030]

>>5752006

The just-noticable-difference threshold was estimated by subjective responses. How is this not qualia-related?

Also, back to the initial topic: Consciousness is a term used in neuroscience and psychology. Its use in spiritualism is of no importance or interest to these disciplines.

Maybe this will give you some more insight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaVoiXbaVZU

[Anonymous No.5752033]

>>5752029
>Be more specific than "His garbage is not testable."
There is no need to be more precise. His garbage is not testable. Period. Non-interacting spirits without physical effects have no place in science.

>>5752030
>qualia
Please show me a qualia. How can it be observed?

>is a term used in neuroscience and psychology
It isn't. Science avoids spiritualist vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.5752037]

>>5752027
My favourite is that consciousness in quantum magic that we can't test right now because U CANT EVEN NO NUTHIN.

[Crane No.5752041]

>>5752033

I am a psychologist, if you didn't already know by now. I think I might have a slightly better understanding of what my field of research is about than you. And as I have said several times before. It is not a spiritualist word.

[Anonymous No.5752042]

>>5752033
>How can it be observed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_character_of_experience

[Anonymous No.5752048]

>>5752041
Appealing to your own authority doesn't make you more credible. As a "psychologist" you should know that. What you said is still objectively wrong. You cannot argue against facts.

>>5752042
I have to repeat my question. How can it be observed? Your link does not answer the question.

[Anonymous No.5752055]

>>5752048
+ 78 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click here to view.

Geez, SB, nice record.

[Crane No.5752063]

>>5752048

How am I wrong in saying that consciousness is a topic that is researched by psychology and neuroscience?

[Anonymous No.5752061]

>>5752048
Sage Boy, do you observe anything?

>yfw you realize a really smart AI might act like Sage Boy because it doesn't walk around in the real world and have eyes and ears and experience things at all

[Anonymous No.5752069]

>>5752055
Wow, could you be more new? Fuck off, summerfag.

[Anonymous No.5752072]

>>5752063
Science can only research observable phenomena. Something without observable effects cannot be subject of science. I already explained this. Please stop trolling.

[Crane No.5752079]

>>5752072

>Please stop trolling.

Aaaaand I'm out. Anyone still interested in the topic is encouraged to watch the interview I posted here: >>5752030

[Anonymous No.5752080]

>>5752048
You don't have any experience?

[Anonymous No.5752084]

>>5752080
He doesn't. I asked him this before.

[Anonymous No.5752082]

mfw

>>5752072

[Anonymous No.5752085]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAcqWd4X50g

[Anonymous No.5752087]

>>5752084
He doesn't have any right to assume everyone else doesn't.

[Anonymous No.5752090]

>>5752079
>Aaaaand I'm out.
Great. We won't miss your pseudoscience trolling.

>>5752080
What does that mean? If you mean perception, then yes. If you mean qualia magic, then no.

>>5752087
Hitchens' razor.

[Anonymous No.5752089]

>>5752087
I told him that too and he answered that we're all the same as him.

[Anonymous No.5752093]

ITT: Sage Boy is an advanced trolling AI developed by a master troll programmer, and it's running on an IBM supercomputer

[Anonymous No.5752102]

>>5752089
He's committing an inductive fallacy.

>>5752090
> If you mean perception, then yes.
What's perception?

>Hitchens' razor.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." doesn't really tell you what evidence is. You also appear to be committing a category mistake. Software does not have physical and chemical attributes, yet somehow you used it to type this.

[Anonymous No.5752111]

>>5752102
>Software does not have physical and chemical attributes, yet somehow you used it to type this.

>billNyeButThatsWrongYouRetard.jpg

[Anonymous No.5752112]

>>5752102
>inductive fallacy.
No, just Hitchens' razor. Without evidence there's no reason to believe in baseless claims.

>What's perception?
Visual, auditory, olfactory etc. Whatever a human can perceive.

>doesn't really tell you what evidence is
We all know what evidence means.

>Software does not have physical and chemical attributes
Yes, it does. Software is physically encoded on storage devices.

[Anonymous No.5752117]

Hitchen's razor is asserted without evidence.

[Anonymous No.5752118]

>>5752112
Riddle me this: How do you not get bored during the time you sleep, if your brain doesn't enter a "less conscious" state?

[Anonymous No.5752119]

>>5752118
The question makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.5752121]

>>5752112
>Without evidence there's no reason to believe in baseless claims.
Anecdotal evidence is a form of evidence too.

>Visual, auditory, olfactory etc.
Those are senses, yes. It doesn't tell me what perception is.

>Whatever a human can perceive
You're defining perception using the word perception?

>We all know what evidence means.
I don't, feel free to tell me.

>Software is physically encoded on storage devices.
A textbox isn't physical, it's an abstract concept that nevertheless still exists.

[Anonymous No.5752126]

>>5752121
>Anecdotal evidence is a form of evidence too.
no

>Those are senses, yes. It doesn't tell me what perception is.
Perception is the physical mechanism of senses.

>You're defining perception using the word perception?
I don't define anything. You know what perception means.

>I don't, feel free to tell me.
How about you take a science class?

>A textbox isn't physical, it's an abstract concept that nevertheless still exists.
It is observable.

[Anonymous No.5752127]

>>5752119
How long you sleep a night? Probably more than 6 hours. That's a long time of doing nothing. How do you manage to not get bored?

[Anonymous No.5752132]

>>5752126
>no
Why not?

>Perception is the physical mechanism of senses.
What physical mechanism?

>I don't define anything. You know what perception means.
I don't. Tell me please.

>How about you take a science class?
I've taken many. They don't at all discuss epistemological topics.

>It is observable.
What are its observable effects?

[Anonymous No.5752135]

>>5752126
>A textbox isn't physical, it's an abstract concept that nevertheless still exists.

A textbox is a series of lightwaves which are picked up and arranged and processed by your eyes.

Is energy non-physical now?

[Anonymous No.5752137]

>>5752135
>A textbox is a series of lightwaves which are picked up and arranged and processed by your eyes.
Those are lightwaves and can be explained without magic. How do they prove the existence of a magical "textbox"?

[Anonymous No.5752147]

>>5752137
Electronic pulses or visual stimuli.

Pick your choice.

[Anonymous No.5752148]

>>5752127
4 or 5 hours. Who cares?

>>5752132
>Why not?
Because evidence needs to be objectively verifiable.

>What physical mechanism?
lrn2biology

>I don't. Tell me please.
lrn2biology

>I've taken many. They don't at all discuss epistemological topics.
Look up what the scientific method is.

>What are its observable effects?
It can be perceived visually. See >>5752135

[Anonymous No.5752157]

>>5752148
>4 or 5 hours. Who cares?
Nice job avoiding the main part of the question. How do you manage to lay still for 4 hours, in the same spot, without getting bored?

[Anonymous No.5752160]

>>5752148
>4 or 5 hours. Who cares?
Just go to bed, Sage Boy.

[Anonymous No.5752163]

>>5752157
Your question makes no sense. What does "bored" mean?

[Anonymous No.5752167]

>>5752163
Oh, that's great. I expected you to reply with "that's a strawman!" or "red herring!"

You do not know what boredom is? You've never been bored? Are you some kind of mutant?

[Anonymous No.5752171]

>>5752147
>Electronic pulses or visual stimuli
Those are both completely physical phenomena and have nothing to do with a textbox.

>>5752148
>Because evidence needs to be objectively verifiable.
Says who?

>lrn2biology
>lrn2biology
Please explain it to me.

>Look up what the scientific method is.
I know what it is. Scientific evidence isn't the only kind of evidence, and the scientific method isn't the only set of methodological rules used by scientists. Scientism tells us nothing about what measurement is.

>It can be perceived visually.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake..

[Anonymous No.5752173]

>>5752167
>Are you some kind of mutant?

Except for my high intelligence and my high attractiveness I'm pretty normal.

[Anonymous No.5752176]

>>5752173
>Except for my high intelligence and my high attractiveness

[Anonymous No.5752177]

>>5752173
Holy shit I lol'd.

[Anonymous No.5752181]

>>5752173
That is not something an attractive nor normal person would say.

[Anonymous No.5752182]

>>5752171
>Says who?
science

>Please explain it to me.
Do your homework alone.

>Scientific evidence isn't the only kind of evidence
/sci/ is a science and math board. On /sci/ scientific evidence and mathematical proofs are the only accepted kind of evidence.

>the scientific method isn't the only set of methodological rules used by scientists
Yes, it is.

[Anonymous No.5752184]

>>5752171
>Those are both completely physical phenomena and have nothing to do with a textbox.

So you're saying that the complex chemical functions that make up you nor the energy transference that occurs throughout your body have nothing to do with your own physicality?

[Anonymous No.5752190]

>>5752182
>science
Where?

>Do your homework alone.
It's not homework, rather an honest, simple question. Are you avoiding it because you don't know the answer?

>/sci/ is a science and math board. On /sci/ scientific evidence and mathematical proofs are the only accepted kind of evidence.
Okay. What's scientific evidence?

>Yes, it is.
Prove it.

>>5752184
>So you're saying that the complex chemical functions that make up you nor the energy transference that occurs throughout your body have nothing to do with your own physicality?
No, you're misunderstanding my argument. I think you should just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake..

[Anonymous No.5752203]

>>5752190
>No, you're misunderstanding my argument. I think you should just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake..

No, I'm not. You have asserted, for the purpose of metaphor and simile, that a text-box is non-physical. That's incorrect. You have been shown multiple times that that's incorrect. I suggest you rephrase your argument in a way that doesn't contain incorrect statements.

[Anonymous No.5752200]

>>5752190
>Where?
In the scientific method.

>It's not homework, rather an honest, simple question.
I am not here to give you a lecture on things you should have learned in high school.

>Okay. What's scientific evidence?
You should know that. Lurk more.

>Prove it.
The proof is left as an exercise to the reader.

[Anonymous No.5752215]

>>5752200
>In the scientific method.
Where in the scientific method? Where did Hitchen ever claim to limit evidence in the way you're describing?

>I am not here to give you a lecture on things you should have learned in high school.
>You should know that. Lurk more.
I'm not here to listen to you invent clever ways of avoiding the question.

>The proof is left as an exercise to the reader.
You can't shift the burden of proof.

>>5752203
>for the purpose of metaphor and simile
I don't think you know what those words mean.

>That's incorrect.
Why?

>You have been shown multiple times that that's incorrect.
Where? You haven't shown anything.

>I suggest you rephrase your argument in a way that doesn't contain incorrect statements
Nothing I've said is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.5752221]

>>5752215
>Where did Hitchen ever claim to limit evidence in the way you're describing?
Hitchens doesn't limit evidence, he dismisses bullshit claims which have no evidence at all.

>I'm not here to listen to you invent clever ways of avoiding the question.
Cool story. You're free to leave. We won't miss you.

>You can't shift the burden of proof.
I can shift the burden of proof pretty hard.

[Anonymous No.5752226]

>>5752221
>Hitchens doesn't limit evidence, he dismisses bullshit claims which have no evidence at all.
You're misunderstanding me. Evidence in the way you describe isn't the only form of evidence.

>Cool story. You're free to leave. We won't miss you.
Who is "we"?

>I can shift the burden of proof pretty hard.
So you enjoy appealing to ignorance?

[Anonymous No.5752227]

>Nothing I've said is incorrect.
>a textbox is an abstract idea
>software isn't physical

>Why? [is that incorrect]

And for something like the third time I will explain elementary computer science and how pulses of different electronic frequencies comprise everything that you are seeing on screen now.

[Anonymous No.5752229]

>>5752226
>Evidence in the way you describe isn't the only form of evidence.
In science only objectively observable evidence is acceptable.

>Who is "we"?
/sci/

>So you enjoy appealing to ignorance?
no

[Anonymous No.5752236]

>>5752227
>I will explain elementary computer science
You're not explaining elementary computer science at all. You're spouting pure gibberish.

>how pulses of different electronic frequencies comprise everything that you are seeing on screen now
Those are physical entities and not a magical textbox.

>>5752229
>In science only objectively observable evidence is acceptable.
What's objectively observable evidence? How do you know that Hitchen was referring to only this when he said "evidence"?

>/sci/
You speak for an entire board on 4chan? Are you moot?

>no
So why do you do it?

[Anonymous No.5752237]

>>5752229
/sci/ here. Quit fooling yourself.

[Anonymous No.5752245]

>>5752236
Hitchen should obviously be Hitchens.

[Anonymous No.5752248]

>>5752236
>You're spouting pure gibberish.

You're the one who can't understand how GUI's are made and you're telling me I'm spouting pure gibberish.

A text box is not the thing on screen for the last fucking time, it is, and only is, the specific pulse variations occurring in the circuitry.

[Anonymous No.5752252]

>>5752236
>What's objectively observable evidence?
lrn2science

>How do you know that Hitchen was referring to only this when he said "evidence"?
Because Hitchens was a scientist.

>You speak for an entire board on 4chan?
This is a science board and I'm explaining science to you.

>So why do you do it?
I don't.

[Anonymous No.5752255]

>>5752252

Wouldn't thought be a metaphysical concept based on your argument?

[Anonymous No.5752257]

>>5751751
>mailto:heaven

/b/-tard confired

>>>/out/

[Anonymous No.5752258]

>>5752255
"Thought" is a name for the algorithmic processing that takes place in the brain.

[Anonymous No.5752263]

>>5752258
But you can't quantify thought, evidence of thought is just as subjective as sentience, and it isn't observable; what is the difference between the two?

[Anonymous No.5752268]

>>5752263
The algorithmic processing can be observed in a brain scan.

[Anonymous No.5752269]

>>5752252
>lrn2science
What's measurement?

>Because Hitchens was a scientist.
That's not a sufficient criterion. Hitchens is an educated individual, he wouldn't confuse evidence with scientific evidence.

>This is a science board and I'm explaining science to you.
You haven't explained anything.

>I don't.
You did in >>5752200.

[Anonymous No.5752264]

>>5752252
>lrn2science
What's measurement?

>Because Hitchens was a scientist.
That's not a sufficient criteria. Hitchens is an educated individual, he wouldn't confuse evidence with scientific evidence.

>This is a science board and I'm explaining science to you.
You haven't explained anything.

>I don't.
You did in >>5752200.

[Anonymous No.5752275]

>>5752269
>What's measurement?
lrn2science

>he wouldn't confuse evidence with scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence and mathematical proofs are the only acceptable kind of evidence.

>You did in
no

[Anonymous No.5752280]

>>5752275
>lrn2science
Please explain. I want to learn.

>Scientific evidence and mathematical proofs are the only acceptable kind of evidence.
Please prove that this applies to Hitchens. I also can't really know what you mean, as you haven't given me a clear definition of scientific evidence.

>no
Yes.
>The proof is left as an exercise to the reader.

[Anonymous No.5752282]

>>5752268
http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/06/anesthesia-study-opens-window-into-consciousness/

"As the different brain regions go off-line, a slow wave of electrical activity, which operates at a much-slower frequency than during wakefulness, starts to oscillate. “It’s slow, and it develops right at the point where the person loses consciousness,” says Purdon. “It’s much larger, an order of magnitude larger, than if you look at the same rhythm when someone is awake.”

These wave patterns restrict neuron activity so that cells can only fire for short periods of time. “[The new wave pattern] silenc[es the neurons] and only allow[s] them to be activated for brief periodic intervals,” Purdon says, “It’s not so much that the brain is per se, ‘shut off.’ It’s in some pattern that is incompatible with consciousness.”

The incompatibility essentially prevents different parts of the brain from communicating with each other, much like people speaking different languages have trouble conversing with one another. Although specific regions can show short periods of coherent firing patterns similar to those that govern normal waking states, the new oscillation pattern keeps them out of synch with each other so they can’t connect or share information."

[Anonymous No.5752457]

This thread is the definition of autism.
I guess that's why I bumped it!

[Anonymous No.5752467]

Consciousness is likely produced by a combination of a Global Workspace operating in the cortical regions as well as recurrent cortico-thalamic resonance circuits.

[Anonymous No.5752469]

>>5751751
>Where does time keeping reside in a clock?
>Where does printing reside in a printer?
>Where does driving reside within a car?

[Anonymous No.5752473]

>>5752469

>where do voices reside in a radio

[Anonymous No.5752476]

where does sage reside within a boy?

[Anonymous No.5752477]

>>5752469
Where does it!? I am dying to know!

[Anonymous No.5752613]

>Where does consciousness exist in the brain?
In the brain lol.

>What is your favorite theory?
None lol.

>If identified, do you think there will come a point where it could be transferred?
No, lol.

[Anonymous No.5752619]

>>5752176
>infantile cartoon

[Anonymous No.5752628]

>>5752619
It's an image reaction, sage boy.

[Anonymous No.5752654]

I imagine in the next decade or so we will create an AI that is self-aware, and we will find the answer in the code. That answer will likely be consciousness is an illusion of free will created by the brain to give us a sense of "self" to use as a frame of reference when making decisions.

[Anonymous No.5752665]

>>5752127
how do you know you aren't bored.
you ever notice how being bored often leads to sleeping?

as for OP, the only thing I've really read on consiousness would be from Daniel Dennett.

I think consiousness is more a synergistic product of various functions of the brain.

its the gestalt function of the brain.

[Anonymous No.5752678]

Is it summer already?

[Anonymous No.5752697]

>>5752678
It's only starting.