yes i saw the other thread but it's shit

[Anonymous No.6542603]

what is the best scientific explanation for consciousness?

[Anonymous No.6542606]

Magic.

[Anonymous No.6542612]

>>6542603
Rectum? Damn near killed 'im.

[Anonymous No.6542674]

>>6542603
Please do not waste kstew pics on shit threads. Thank you!

[Anonymous No.6542774]

>>6542674
OP just wanted attention. And what better way is there to get attention than posting pics of Hollywoods top qt?

[Anonymous No.6542777]

>>6542603
Every thread with this topic is shit. The only thing people do in them is shitpost. It's like encouraged.

[Anonymous No.6542780]

>>6542777
Maybe we could use the thread to post our waifus.

[Anonymous No.6542782]

>>6542603
I have no idea but I think the idea of consciousness coming from quantum mechanics is really cool.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind

[Anonymous No.6542794]

>>6542782
>consciousness coming from quantum mechanics

>being this popsci summerfag

>2014

[Anonymous No.6542801]

>>6542794
Sorry. I just think its a cool idea. And the fact that Roger Penrose believes it is kinda dope.

Like I said I have no idea where consciousness comes from.

And I still got college exams mang it aint summer yet.

[Anonymous No.6542817]

>>6542801
Okay, but it's a bit like saying that consciousness comes from atoms, when your meat brain is specifically evolved to do the thinking it does, not the atoms it is made of.

[Anonymous No.6542842]

>>6542780
Might as well try to salvage it.

[Anonymous No.6542856]

Personal thoughts:

1. Consciousness is a gradient, not a binary state. Hence: "human>bonobo>rat>...>tree>?rock" rather than "human=bonobo=1, tree=rock=0"

2. Given (1.), the scientific approach is to determine observable phenomena which can order various instances of consciousness. The best thing we have towards these ends is a Turing Test. The problem here is that consciousness need not communicate or make itself known, meaning science is almost useless.

3. Consciousness emerges as a result of certain physical structures, which give rise to consciousness regardless of the materials involved (it's the structure, not the material that's important).

4. There are quite probably certain "locks/blocks/blind-spots" which prevent conscious beings from fully grasping the mechanisms of their own consciousness. It may be possible to prove these exist/describe how they exist in certain (simplified) cases.

5. True A.I. is not decades around the corner, but probably either centuries away from being discovered or impossible.

6. If humans will ever grasp the mysteries of the mind in some kind of totality, it will result in a paradigm shift comparable to the development of secularism/atheism in post-Enlightenment Europe. I suspect it will be a rejection of hard materialism and a reassertion of certain non-scientific phenomena (experiences which cannot be described in words and what not).

[Anonymous No.6542859]

>>6542794

Right, because you know more about quantum mechanics than Roger Penrose and understand the brain better than Stuart Hameroff.

[Anonymous No.6542893]

>>6542856

>Consciousness is a gradient, not a binary state. Hence: "human>bonobo>rat>...>tree>?rock" rather than "human=bonobo=1, tree=rock=0"


What if I found a way to sew, like, 50 human brains together and have them work as one? Could I make something even more self-aware than a regular human?

Also, do smarter people have a greater degree of consciousness than stupid people?

[Anonymous No.6542895]

>>6542859

Observable phenomena for intelligent sub atomic particles is where?

[Anonymous No.6542919]

>>6542893

>What if I found a way to sew, like, 50 human brains together and have them work as one? Could I make something even more self-aware than a regular human?

I don't think it's possible to network seperate forms of consciousness.

The problem is that the point of self reference for each is different, and there's no way to reconcile competing points of self reference which are encoded into each memory!

I consider this whole "self reference point" to be crucial in studying consciousness. Consciousness is, to me, a kind of ever-unfolding personal narrative. Even the most subtle observations are deeply rooted in a sense of "I" (the tree is to the left of me, the light is bright to me etc.).

[Anonymous No.6542926]

Prove consciousness exists outside of yourself.

Consciousness is a survival instinct.

[Anonymous No.6542930]

>>6542895
I haven't read up on it but even just reading the wiki thats not the point of the theory at all. Like thatv question you just asked is completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6542932]

>>6542893

Actually, while I've pondered this before (thoughts are >>6542919), for some reason I'm feeling much less confident in this explanation today.

I'm wondering why you shouldn't be able to crearte "non-linear" self-reference narratives.

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.6542936]

>>6542926

>Consciousness is a survival instinct.

This explanation is... wanting.

[Anonymous No.6542941]

>>6542936
Can't reproduce in the physical world if your body doesn't work, after all.

Trees don't have a conscious because no animal would attack a tree; it wastes time and energy.

[Anonymous No.6543102]

>>6542774
I just get upset when my purest waifu is associated with anything besides the best topics.

[Anonymous No.6543113]

This is my local waifu.
>>6543102
>purest waifu
:3

[Anonymous No.6543131]

>>6543113
>local waifu
Oh I daren't upload such pics.

[Anonymous No.6544092]

ITT:

[Anonymous No.6544107]

>>6542603
>what is the best scientific explanation for consciousness?

All right, I see this thread everyday.
I've read it, like I read it every time.
Maybe I'm just stupid, you all seem to understand what you are passionately raging about or wearily poopooing, could one of you please explain?

What is it that needs an explanation here?
We aren't asking "what is the best scientific explanation for how the brain receives data from light?" We aren't asking "how can I power my boat without outputting a waste product into the water?"
We aren't asking "how" anything?

What are we asking?
Seriously. Someone please explain what this is and why it belongs here?

[Anonymous No.6544183]

>>6542859
>Sir Professor Penrose understanding physics

[Anonymous No.6544190]

>>6542856
>Everything but #5
Pretty much my view on consciousness exactly.

[Anonymous No.6544191]

>>6544107
Philosophy students who think they are clever/intelligent/superior troll /sci/ with things that are not observable, provable or falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.6544231]

>>6544191
>philosophy students
>unable to state problem/conundrum/hypothesis/question
>unaware of definition of natural philosophy

Do you have a low opinion of students/education in general, or are you one of those "scientist" whose vocabulary is so limited that they confuse philosophy with sophistry?

What are they trying to question? What is the thing demanding an explanation? Or did you intend to imply that every one in the thread is so high that they seriously are sitting around saying "why are dogs," "what is blue," etc..

[Anonymous No.6544254]

This thread, every time. Consciousness is simply the culmination of the processing power of our chemical computer receiving analogue inputs from our sensory receptors. Higher thought processes are simply electrons moving and chemical reactions.

[Anonymous No.6544260]

Why do people treat consciousness like some kind of new age religion? Why is it coupled with immortality and the "singularity?"

[Anonymous No.6544304]

>>6542603
Well, your thread is shit too.

[Anonymous No.6544358]

>>6544231
Consciousness. It is not provable outside of yourself.

All consciousness discussions are philosophical crap. It belongs with "feels" threads.

[Anonymous No.6544392]

>>6544260
Why do people treat energy like some kind of new age religion? Why is it coupled with immortality and the "singularity?"

[Anonymous No.6544495]

>>6544392
Why do people treat waifus like some kind of new age religion? Why is it coupled with oculus rift and the "singularity"?

[Anonymous No.6544510]

>>6544358
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Is this an attempt to answer the question, or to demonstrate the verbal shortcomings complained about?

[Anonymous No.6544521]

>>6544495
Why do people treat matter like some kind of new age religion? Why is it coupled with onaholi and the Mapimi "zone?"

[Anonymous No.6544858]

>>6542603
When is scientifically right?

Where was that stooped and mealy-colored old man I used to call Poppa when the merry-go-round broke down, according to science?

How is the explanation for trump at Munich?

[Anonymous No.6544868]

What is the best tasting operating system?

[Anonymous No.6544874]

>>6542603
what is the best scientific explanation for bunt-cake?

[Anonymous No.6544880]

>>6544510
>A BLOO BLOO BLOO WHY YOU HAET MUHY SHITTY ATTEMPTS AT BEING CLEVER USING TEH PHILOSOPHY I MISUNDERSTAND? YOU CAN'T SPAEK! YOU DUM!
...says the worthless retarded philosophy gimp that is blinded by his own pretentiousness.

[Anonymous No.6544891]

>>6544231
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

Sophistry IS, in fact, philosophy..

[Anonymous No.6545009]

>>6544880
>>6544891
Are you the same bright star who keeps filling up threads with insults, arguing such unique points like "if Ben Franklin was a natural philosopher than he was obviously a superstitious idiot because philosophy means Harry Potter," and googling for random papers containing your keywords without bothering to read them before citing them? If you are, I have nothing to say to you.

[Anonymous No.6545029]

>>6545009
No, but I've seen them and I'm fucking tired of gibbering off-topic philoshit threads bringing cancer to /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6545990]

>>6545029
So, you feel the correct response to anyone asking them to actually state their question is to make several "replies" to the question that are nothing but insulting malaproptic leetspeak?

I find it incredible, that rather than letting threads die when their proponents are unable to articulate their supposed subject, you fill them non-sequiturs and nonsense because you hate cancer.
That boarders on parody.

[Anonymous No.6545991]

Cogito ergo sum.
/thread

[Anonymous No.6546186]

>>6544891
>Sophistry IS, in fact, philosophy..
Um, no.
Just no.
It is the exact opposite. They are literally antonyms.
Sophistry is the "misuse of the tools of science and philosophy to be illogical or deceptive, to claim scientific authority but speak untruths."

The article you mention makes that very clear.

>Sophists do not offer true knowledge, but only an opinion of things. Plato describes them “...an insincere kind of conceited mimicry"...Where a Sophist was a person who makes his living through deception, a philosopher was a lover of wisdom who sought truth.
>In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are used derogatorily. A sophism is a false argument intended to mislead. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.

You are one of those people who keeps coming here and saying crap like "just a theory," aren't you?

[Anonymous No.6546189]

>>6542777
>It's like encouraged
>like
Maybe you should stop shitposting

[Anonymous No.6546219]

>>6545990
My response to My Little Pony threads on /sci/ is that they need to go to >>>/mlp/

My response to philoshit is it needs to fuck off to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6546220]

>>6546186
>Um, no.
>Just no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

WAAAAA! IMMA LIVE IN DENIAL!

That is you.

[Anonymous No.6546225]

>>6546186
>just a theory

Actually, that is people like you. Full of themselves, nihilistic, 1 yearof shitty philosophy class and smarter than the world.

A spiteful existence only satisfied by thinking you are entitled to being correct no matter what.

You are an asshole, and I have to remind people like you that objectively observable phenomena is needed before you can construct a conjecture.

The point of everything I just said is to say this: We can only observe our own consciousness. We cannot objectively observe another persons consciousness, and there is no observable phenomena that links consciousness to atoms or quantum mechanics, to bring things back on topic from the rude derail I originally replied to.

[Anonymous No.6546234]

>>6546219
Maybe you should have done that instead of being vulgar and off topic.
I swear, you are the one starting these threads and the moment someone asks you to state your point or ask your question intelligently or clearly you start yelling "troll" and "this whole thread is shit." Then you either start three more threads on the topic, or your incoherent illiterate posts filled with improbably ignorant solecisms drive them to do so.
Just leave it alone or go to /b/ or at least don't actually lower the functional intelligence of all of us in a thread you already think is moronic.
Have some self-respect, even if you hate everyone around you.

I have given up any hope of finding out wtf OP wanted to actually ask, or if they were just repeating a sentence fragment, like a parrot. It's past my bed-time, good night, good-luck.

[Anonymous No.6546240]

>>6546234
I was not vulgar at all, or off-topic. Maybe you're thinking of the anonymous ITT?

Consciousness is not scientific or objectively observable.

You cannot change that.

[Anonymous No.6546246]

>>6546225
>A spiteful existence only satisfied by thinking you are entitled to being correct no matter what.
No, I think I'm entitled to be correct, when I am in fact correct. No more, or less.
It pisses me off when people spread their ignorance. Correctness is not entitled to be recognized. But stop sending people to damn articles you haven't even tried to read.
>You are an asshole
No shit, Sherlock.
> and I have to remind people like you that objectively observable phenomena is needed before you can construct a conjecture.
I have a compulsion to stop people making the world dumber and I'm an asshole, we both have accepted that. Why do you have to remind people of the fucking scientific method and how is deliberately misquoting such an obviously objectively observable phenomenon as a webpage doing that?

>The point of everything I just said is to say this:
It sounded like your point was to spread lies and then get really fucking rude when people correct you.

>objectively observable phenomena is needed before you can construct a conjecture....
>We can only observe our own consciousness. >We cannot objectively observe another persons consciousness, and there is no observable phenomena that links consciousness to atoms or quantum mechanics
Ergo, science has nothing to say about consciousness! At least until something is objectively measurable. Now that is the smartest and most relevant thing anyone has said in this entire thread!
It sounded like someone mentioned some people who disagree about the quantum stuff earlier, but they never explained why they thought that and "microtubules" or what would require a quantum explanation in human behavior is outa my field, so now I need to go paw through a whole shitload of crap about cosmic background radiation to see if it's bullshit or not.

[Anonymous No.6546249]

>>6546246
So you waste time trying to defend your opinion of a topic that does not even belong on this board.

This is why philosophy belongs on /x/.

[Anonymous No.6546259]

>>6546240
>Maybe you're thinking of the anonymous ITT?
Nope! >>6544092 is an accurate illustration, I can't argue.
>consciousness is not scientific or objectively observable.
>You cannot change that.
I agree. Wholeheartedly, that until something is objective and measurable it isn't a topic for science.
I enthusiastically agree with and support the statement "the existence or nature of the awareness of self is subjective and non-self evident, therefore not a subject for science at this time."
Should we be telling the OP>>6542603
>what is the best scientific explanation for consciousness?
Science has nothing to say about your inner life

[Anonymous No.6546269]

>>6546249
>So you waste time trying to defend your opinion of a topic that does not even belong on this board.

I waste my time defending what does belong on this board and correcting what, in my option doesn't.
I am very very sick of Anons just making up "facts" to support their random bullshit.
>This is why philosophy belongs on /x/.
What belongs on what board isn't my call.
I'm going to assume you have no fucking clue what philosophy is and aren't just trying to piss me off and shit down the neck hole of this entire board.

I completely fail to see how saying a point of yours was on topic and smart is tacit agreement with either the conclusion you draw from it or the idea that I shouldn't correct people when they insist on spreading falsifiable falsehoods and ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6546328]

>>6546269
You're the one trying to shithammer the philosophical concept of consciousness into /sci/. Every time you have this SIMPLE point explained to you and why consciousness is not scientific, you turn into a morally entitled asshole that uses his philosophical self-entitlement to force other people to obey your opinion of what you think philosophically belongs here.

You are worse than aether. He at least occasionally recognizes that he might be shitposting in the wrong place.

You are the cancer.

[Anonymous No.6547117]

>>6546328
>You're the one trying to shithammer the philosophical concept of consciousness into /sci/.
No, I am the one insisting on fucking adherence to accuracy rigor and logic.
>Every time you have this SIMPLE point explained to you
You mean the point that we agree on, science pertains to measurable phenomenon, or the one you keep actually trying to defend that you are excused from rigor, logic or the proper use of words?
>you turn into a morally entitled asshole
There is no transformation you, uncomprehending moron. Yes, I feel morally entitled to point out when people on /sci/ make specious arguments, misuse words, ignore logic, insist on fallacies and fucking cite things they refuse or are unable to read.
Of course I'm an asshole. Anti-science morons rule /sci/ unchecked, anyone sane would act like an asshole-I'm the asshole who insists on an adherence to verifiable fact.
>your opinion of what you think philosophically belongs here
Science, logic, math. Verifiable truth.
And are you trying to make a clever pun?
Tell me you are just engaging in wordplay, not making an argument.
>You are worse than aether.
That was completly unnecessary.

Everything you say about anyone is a more apt description of yourself.
This thread is just me yelling "stop with the ignoratio elenchi, lies and shitposting" and one or more trolls claiming the privilege of ignoring the scientific rigor due to their ability to describe it.

It is obvious why you insist on maligning philosophy, you fail at logic, concentration and scholarship and insist on perpetuating the sort of solecism that makes rational discourse and science impossible.
You respond to requests to state your claim or support it with either malaproptic accusations that the other party is a troll, changing the subject or a level of willful and deliberate ignorance unseen outside of morning "newstalk" and, consequently, this thread is further from an actual scientific discussion than if it had descended into waifu posting.

[Anonymous No.6547679]

Isn't consciousness explained by quantum mechanics?

[Anonymous No.6547682]

>this could've been a KStew thread

[Anonymous No.6548046]

>>6542603
we are basically just incredibly complex computers. transistors able to carry signals in multiple directions at once and the ability to code in AGTC instead of binary

[Anonymous No.6548085]

>>6548046
Our genetic code and any sort of "language" our brains use are two different things.

[Anonymous No.6548294]

>>6547679
>Isn't consciousness explained by quantum mechanics?
How so?
>>6548046
>>6548085
>Our genetic code and any sort of "language" our brains use are two different things
To be fair, Anon didn't mention brains. What they mean by transistors isn't clear, but still...
There are actually many people who believe we are, at our most basic, incredibly complex chemical computers whose read only memory is encoded in deoxyribonucleic acid. We have other processing languages higher in the hierarchy, but they descend from an ameno acid underlying grammar.
The fact that you are running Windows doesn't mean that you aren't running DOS.

[Anonymous No.6548303]

>>6547682
>this could've been a KStew thread
>>/tv/44815118

[Anonymous No.6548304]

>>6546328
Why are you so insecure? You obviously don't know the first thing about philosophy

[Anonymous No.6549546]

>>6547679
>Isn't consciousness explained by quantum mechanics?
What is this?
I understand Neuropsychopharmacology and Psychology I had to take Intro to Physics and some undergrad crap back in the day. Bleeding edge cosmology is beyond me but I should be able to follow the general idea, can anyone explain this to me?

[Anonymous No.6549749]

what is the best scientific explanation for why kstew is so perfect?

[Anonymous No.6549771]

>>6549749
evolution

[Anonymous No.6549773]

>>6549749
makeup, marketing

[Anonymous No.6549776]

>>6549749
built in a lab after extensive polling to determine precise attributes most universally appealing

[Anonymous No.6549779]

>>6549749
Isn't kstewness explained by quantum mechanics?

[Anonymous No.6549780]

>>6549773
she looks perfect without make up, the make up ruined her beauty

[Anonymous No.6549782]

>>6549749
She hardly never smiles or show any emotion unless it's implicit in the script, so she has tits but behaves like a guy.

My dream is to see a flick staring her and kenau reeves. it be all like: -_- -_-
I know some of you think I'm being sarcastic, I'm not, I would find this genuinely awesome.

[Anonymous No.6549784]

>>6549779
No, her beauty is classical.

[Anonymous No.6549839]

>>6549784
That accounts for her appeal under specific conditions but fails to adequately describe her universality.

[Anonymous No.6549854]

loops
a shitton of loops calculating highest probabilities

I think consciousness is actually just a 'side effect' of the brains

[Anonymous No.6550055]

>>6549854
Stop. It's a Kstew thread now.

[Anonymous No.6550123]

>>6550055
Please see: >>6542674 Thank you for your cooperation<span class="math">![/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.6550139]

>>6550123
Where should I then post my Kristen pictures? I'm banned on /tv/.

[Anonymous No.6550279]

>>6550139
A good thread.

[Anonymous No.6550530]

>>6542603
The expression of countless of billions of needs every cell that composes the human body organism acquires to fullfil its function. Its primary expression is the animal instinct, the sofistication of the instincts and drives in the human evolution led to the formation of consciousness. So it is not magic, nor soul, just a way the body manages its necessities, the key to the understanding of life isn't in the consciousness but it in that one primeval cell that formed from "nothing".

[Anonymous No.6550536]

>>6550055
not science.

[Anonymous No.6550555]

>>6549854
>loops
What kind of loops? I'm having trouble googling this theory, could you tell me more?
>a shitton of loops calculating highest probabilities
I'm still not getting it, is this a geometric loop, a process loop like in Java, a big abacus made of froot loops, endlessly calculating probability?
>I think consciousness is actually just a 'side effect' of the brains
Are you suggesting that it is just something that we perceive, but doesn't have any thing to do with matter, numbers or transmittable inarguable truths so is, as Hume said, "just sophistry?"
Did you mean it was unintended or non-primary operation of the brain's?
>>6550055
It can be two things.
>>6550139
Here, apparently.

[Anonymous No.6550564]

Consciousness isn't a scientific problem or question.

We will NEVER find a scientific answer or explanation for our experience.

[Anonymous No.6551026]

>>6550564
It isn't even a non-scientific problem or question.
It is a subject. It is described by a noun.
It is like asking if there will ever be a complete scientific explanation for dog.

[Anonymous No.6552505]

>>6542859
Most of hypotheses based on orchestrated objective reduction proved to be false, but then again, those are two very esteemed guys, so I guess they can't be wrong.

[Anonymous No.6552510]

>>6544190
So what makes you believe rocks feel things?

[Anonymous No.6552512]

>>6550055
Eugh. that bitch is so damn vile
>stoma music

[Anonymous No.6552520]

It's hilarious how you people cry "lmao! not science!" and "go back to /x/" just because you don't understand shit. As a bunch of people already pointed out there is an actual scientific theory (Orch-OR) put out by a respected physicist that deals with conspicuousness. It may be wrong and it probably is, but still it shows that the whole thing might be approached scientifically. But no, /sci/ is too high and mighty to deal with that, /sci/ is for helping highschoolers do their math homework.

[Anonymous No.6552544]

>>6542774
>And what better way is there to get attention than posting pics of Hollywoods top qt?
>A tired, spoiled, slutty, jewish, under-acting brat is "Hollywood's top qt"
lol, no.

[Anonymous No.6552549]

>>6552544
Most popular posts ITT
>>6549749
>>6550055
#rekt

[Anonymous No.6552679]

>>6552544
>>A tired, spoiled, slutty, jewish, under-acting brat is "Hollywood's top qt"
>>>/tv/ for your opinions, we deal in facts on /sci/ and kstew is objectively attractive.

[Anonymous No.6552722]

>>6552679
>objectively attractive.
In comparison to what? A squirrel?
>inb4 "squirrels are attractive"

[Anonymous No.6553229]

>>6552722
In comparison to the amount of money you make for your looks.

[Anonymous No.6553269]

>>6542603
>>6549749
>>6549773
>>6550055
>>6552679
>>6553229
who is this man?

[Anonymous No.6553275]

>>6553269
It's Kristen, she's easily the brightest star in the heavens currently.

[Anonymous No.6553287]

>>6553229
She doesn't make money for her looks.

She makes money by fucking on the casting couch like a champ.

To be honest, without the makeup, she is a 7 out of 10 at best.

[Anonymous No.6553289]

>>6549546
Check out the book Physics in Mind, and Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind

[Anonymous No.6553291]

>>6553275
She lights up my life 24/7.

[Anonymous No.6553298]

>>6553229

She doesn't make money for her looks.

She makes money by fucking on the casting couch like a champ.

To be honest, without the makeup, she is a 7 out of 10 at best. Disposable Jewhore league.

[Anonymous No.6553302]

>>6553287
>>6553298
>2014
>hating on Cannes festival attendees
What the fuck did you attend this year?

[Anonymous No.6553328]

>>6553302
>Cannes

>The festival thing for movies people throw away

>herpderp attendance of shit festivals is magnificent and maek u impotawant.

>being this Jewthink

Since you ask, the coronation of the new Galactic emperor. Jews and their slaves are not allowed to know about it

[Anonymous No.6553350]

>>6553328
Yeah yeah. You're waifu a shit, whoever she is.

[Anonymous No.6553369]

We've evolved to the point where we can think rationally, or about anything in general.

[Anonymous No.6553373]

>>6553350
>ur wifu

>thinks this is about the girl he likes

>it's about his so-called "objective shitpinion"

>being this /jp/ = Jewtarded

You have shit desires, bra.

You are objectively speaking for yourself and no-one else.

[Anonymous No.6553375]

>>6553302

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79DlZh-LIFk

Fantastic acting.

[Anonymous No.6553380]

>>6553375
>...for a cocksucker

Your opinion is observed.