[ 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: 97 KB, 600x433, Choose-Your-Reality-Artwork-Contact-by-Ira-Ratry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7060884 No.7060884 [Reply] [Original]

What exactly is conscious? Can it be created in a lab with chemicals only?

>> No.7060905

>>7060884
No one is certain. If you can recreate a human brain in that lab, then probably. Consciousness is a weird frontier.

>> No.7060917

>>7060884
I don't think we will ever know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Even if we unravel neuroscience completely we can't tell the difference between a philosophical zombie and a sapient being.

>> No.7060947

>>7060884
Consciousness is a product of self-awareness. Humans develop consciousness when the brain has developed enough to allow the abstract notion of "I am me" to compute. It's the reason you stared at yourself in the mirror as a kid, touching your face and realizing that "you" are somewhere inside this body. It could be created with artificial intelligence by granting the machine that initial notion of self-awareness as well as faculties necessary to make the machine realize what it "is".

>> No.7060953

>>7060884
So has there ever been a person born with a brain without a conscious?

>> No.7060956

>>7060953
Ferals.

>> No.7060970

>>7060884
>What exactly is conscious?
A composite of various functions and elements. It's like a well working Nation.

And the problem with this debate is that people try to pin down a Conscion. An atomic unit of consciousness. Which is like trying to define Nationium, the element that nations are made off.

So we get a never ending shitposting debate that takes the entire wrong approach to the problem.

>> No.7060986

>>7060953
There are mental diseases where people can't comprehend they're a unique organism from others

>> No.7060987

>>7060953
isolated humans who grow up without social interaction. though they usually die.

>> No.7060994
File: 152 KB, 377x372, muhmaths.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7060994

Perceptronium bro

>> No.7061004

>>7060970
Geographers actually have a strong definition of what constitutes a nation

>> No.7061006

>>7060884
>What exactly is conscious? Can it be created in a lab with chemicals only?
It's a new state of matter.

>> No.7061026

>>7061004
>Geographers actually have a strong definition of what constitutes a nation
Yeah, they're made of Borders; Bo.

>> No.7061045

It's the information shift during the collapse of a quantum mechanical wave function.

>> No.7061052

>>7060953
Yes, his name is Daniel Dennett.

>> No.7061059

>>7061052
Dennett denies qualia and not consciousness

>> No.7061060

>>7061059
He denies consciousness by calling it an illusion. Did you not read his book?

>> No.7061066 [DELETED] 

Why do people constantly mix up the words "conscious" (as a noun) and "consciousness"? They're different, and this mix up only further ambiguates the already sloppy discussion of this sort of topic.

>> No.7061071

>>7061066
At least he didn't write "conscience".

>> No.7061083

>>7061060
He's responding to the people who claim consciousness is mystical and requires us to invoke dualism or something similar. The whole "consciousness requires dualism" gig is a result of illusions, not consciousness itself.

>> No.7061096

>>7061083
Well too bad that's the only thing he can respond to. Dualism has been outdated for approximately 2 centuries now, so there's no intellectual merit anymore in repeating the standard arguments against it.

>> No.7061104

>>7061096
You might want to double check your statistics. There is still a big proportion of the population that considers dualism and folk psychology valid, even many academics.

>> No.7061113

>>7061096
>Dualism has been outdated for approximately 2 centuries now
That's why everyone on /sci/ believes in it?

>> No.7061137

>>7061113
>>7061104
I don't know a single person who denies that consciousness is caused by the brain.

>> No.7061150

>>7061137
There are a lot of people who claim that that consciousness includes elements that are completely private, inaccessible, incommunicable, and un-investigatable by science. These are the same people who take the other folk beliefs they have about the workings of the brain as unquestionable fact.

>> No.7061154

Try reading "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-cameral mind"

>> No.7061160

>>7061150
Qualia are investigable by science. Try again, philosotard.

>> No.7061184

>>7061160
Really? Then where are the qualia scientists? What are the university departments of qualia? Where are the qualia grants? What are the unambiguous and testable hypotheses for qualia? Where are the qualia measuring devices? What lab is conducting the qualia experiments? Where is the experimental data? What the are qualia theories with unique and falsifiable predictions?

The truth is that none of these exist. Blind trust in common sense ideas about the mind isn't part of how real science is practiced.

>> No.7061192

>>7061184
Psychophysics is the single most rigorous and well-respected field in all of psychology - so much so that it's unambiguously a science.

>> No.7061196

>>7061184
They absolutely do exist - the field is known as psychophysics, investigating the exact correspondence between physical stimulus and the resulting sensation. (For instance, how does the eye process light into color sensations?)

>> No.7061206

>>7061184
We call it neuroscience. Welcome to the 21st century, philosotard. Contrary to your metaphysical beliefs the brain is a physical organ and subject to scientific inquiry

>> No.7061212

>>7061192
>>7061196
Psychophysics studies the behavioral output of an organism and its significance in relationship to various theories of brain physiology. It remains testable and avoids invoking any naive philosophical beliefs about the existence of "qualia"

>> No.7061213

>>7061206
Remember: Just because you're correct does not mean you're not still shitposting.

>> No.7061217

>>7061206
Your straw man post didn't answer any of my questions.

>> No.7061236

>>7061217
It did.

Whatcha gonna do about it? Have 20 posts "No, it didn't" vs "Yes, it did" and then you take your antidepressants and go to sleep? Sure, I'm feeling generous today, so I'll take my time to give you the attention.

>> No.7061247

>>7060884
You're creating consciousness with chemicals only right now.

>> No.7061262
File: 110 KB, 1000x750, Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7061262

>>7061236
"Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system."

That doesn't mandate the existence of any folk psychological concepts like qualia.

Also is having a civil conversation really that hard? Your assumptions about me are borderline delusional.

>> No.7061273

>>7061262
Here's one of the world's leading neuroscientists explaining it to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWmTJALe1w

Cry my a river, fucktard.

>> No.7061291

>>7061273
Someone's philosophical reflections are irrelevant to their scientific career. Many good scientists have bizarre, sometimes contradictory beliefs to their science.

>Cry my a river, fucktard.
Why so aggressive? Got something to hide?

>> No.7061298

>>7061236
Why on Earth do you have feelings this strong about qualia? I don't even get this angry about philosophical concepts that I have strong political opinions on.

They're just an abstract philosophical concept, dude. It's not worth getting this mad over.

>> No.7061304

>>7060884

It's not a useful question.

The bottom line is that your consciousness is all you have ever known and can ever know, and anything beyond it is inconceivable. Whether someone or some thing else is really conscious (and not a "philosophical zombie" equivalent to the characters you meet in a dream) is absolutely unknowable.

You could assume that anything that behaves like you is conscious. We're wired to automatically do that, and what rational alternative is there anyway?

Behaviour is the only thing we can objectively study, and we know enough about the brain to know if it's conscious.

When (or perhaps if) non-biological machines reach and surpass human-level intelligence, I think we will naturally ascribe consciousness to them. Doubting it will have little more force than asking the same of other humans. Since there is and can never be an answer, it's a useless question.

>> No.7061309

Yall motherfuckers need to read some shit about emergence, systems science and stuff.

Ignorant fucks.

>> No.7061313

>>7061304
>your consciousness
Consciousness does not = soul

>> No.7061314

>>7061298
I don't care much about qualia. I'm just making fun of someone who is so pathetic to take a contrarian stance for the sole purpose of wasting time arguing on the internet.

>> No.7061319

>>7061291
He's talking about science, not about beliefs. Do you fail to understand simple English?

>> No.7061341

>>7061319
He describes some higher order theory of consciousness variant that emotionally appeals to him. Philosophical belief and not science. Science shows that his intuitions are illusions.

>> No.7061369

>>7061313

I did not mean to imply anything of the sort. The concept of a 'soul' is superstitious nonsense.

"You" - not to imply an inherently existent self / soul - are a construct of consciousness comprised of your present perceptual reality, memories, imagination, etc. Nothing is directly knowable beyond that, and consciousness is the one thing that must be directly experienced to be known.

The best we can do is ascribe consciousness to beings exhibiting behaviours similar to our own, and perhaps drop the term 'consciousness' from scientific discourse entirely.

>> No.7061379

>>7061341
He describes a scientific theory free of any subjective bias.

>> No.7061404

>>7061379
His theomorphic philosophical theory is completely immune to any and all empirical investigation.

>> No.7061418

>>7061404
Your inability to understand it doesn't invalidate a scientific theory.

>> No.7061432

>>7061418
Where are the falsifiable predictions? What replicable scientific experiments were done to infer this theory?

>> No.7061437

>>7061432
You do not have the educational background to understand this.

>> No.7061441

>>7061437
>Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png

>> No.7061442

>>7061418
I wish it does when it comes down to intense argument.

>> No.7061444
File: 76 KB, 382x462, Pseudoscience.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7061444

>>7060917
Don't start with this "hard problem of consciousness" crap. David Chalmers needs to stop smoking whatever the fuck he has been smoking and stop spewing his bullshit. Too many people have become delirious about things like qualia and philosophical zombies. Consciousness is NOT something distinct from the physical or material. It IS the result of atoms, molecules, forces, cells, etc. But the brain is extremely complex, and just because scientists do not yet have a full understanding of it, doesn't mean some fraud like Chalmers can invent his pseudoscientific, semi-mystical bullshit to fill in the gaps. He is not a scientist, he is a guy who sits in an armchair and spews nonsense in order to fool academia and the public into thinking he is smart, when actually his head isn't even screwed on correctly. No wonder many scientists don't like philosophers. It is an absolute joke - a pseudoscience peddler is holding two professorships and is the Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the ANU. The only good thing you can say about him is that at least he is not as bad as Deepak Chopra.

Consciousness is one of the results of 100 billion neurons, with 100 trillion connections, which are also connected to shitloads of sensory cells in the body, as well as a bunch of neurotransmitters and hormones mixed in. The details are pretty fucking complex, so although we have learned some, there will be new things discovered for many millennia to come. But nowhere is consciousness "non-physical". Chalmers can suck my balls.

>> No.7061447

>>7061444
That's a lot of connections and a lot of neurons. Are there more neurons and connections than atoms in the universe?

>> No.7061457

>>7061444
The hard problem is a question of science. Of course consciousness is caused physically and neuroscience has to find the mechanisms.

>> No.7061506

>>7061457
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
"Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained"."

Sounds like he is claiming consciousness is non-physical to me.

>> No.7061589

>>7061444
you described how a brain functions. Conciousness is an entire different ball game. I believe the hints are in DNA. but even then, up to GOD.

>> No.7061629

>>7061444
Fucking right I'm sick of Chalmers bullshit as well.

>> No.7062012

>>7060917
Here is an easy way to tell if a "problem" is actually a problem: Does solving it actually lead to the creation of practical technology?