Where does /sci/ stand on consciousness?

[Anonymous No.9718295]

I had a heated discussion at work today about this and a colleague of mine was adamant that consciousness was separate to the physical matter inside ones head. That there was almost some sort of supernatural aspect to its existence and that it was much more than signals travelling within the grey matter of the brain. I have the opinion that consciousness is the result of the physical workings of the brain, nothing more.

I found this conversation difficult because in most subjects this guy is clearly much smarter than I am, he has been able to change my opinion on many subjects, but on this I fundamentally disagree with him and struggle to see how he could possibly think this way. He is not religious, but perhaps he has an undisclosed spiritual belief of some sort? Is the argument of consciousness at its core a debate between the natural and supernatural?

So where does /sci/ stand on consciousness?

[Anonymous No.9718298]

>>9718295
Did you tell him about the Libet experiment?

[Anonymous No.9718313]

>>9718298

Not by name but I made an argument along those lines.

[Anonymous No.9718321]

>>9718295
When you damage a brain, its consciousness stops or is also damaged.

To me, that is the overwhelming evidence that consciousness is indeed a product of something happening in the brain, not a supernatural separate phenomenon. If it were, it sure would be a huge coincidence that it correlates so exactly with the state of the brain, no?

[Anonymous No.9718422]

>>9718295
First of all, the natural-supernatural dichotomy makes no sense except within the context of certain religions (e.g. Christianity) wherein their deities are supposed to be literally above (super) nature; the greek gods, by contrast, were a part of nature or nature itself, so calling them supernatural would make no sense. Your use of the word shows that your mindset is still fundamentally Christian in nature.

Mind and brain are not wholly separate, but neither is one simply the result of the other. They're two manifestations of the same phenomenon, two sides to the same coin.

>>9718298
>the Libet experiment
It and all similar experiments are nowhere near as conclusively in favor of materialism and determinism as people who bring them up believe.

[Anonymous No.9718432]

>>9718295
My view has always been that sentience doesn't make sense without a supernatural force at work. How can a purely mechanical and computation system be aware of its own existence? It's ridiculous. Something that we're not considering must be at work, and if there's no natural element to point to then the only logical course is a supernatural element.

[Anonymous No.9718439]

>>9718432


>if we don't know how something works the only logical answer is magic.

[Anonymous No.9718442]

>>9718422
Hence why Libet himself said that his experiments never concluded in favor of determinism. People just misunderstand his results because they're dumb.

[Anonymous No.9718446]

>>9718439
No, it's absurd to think that a computation machine is going to somehow compute it's own existence.

Can you imagine a computer becoming sentient too? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.9718457]

>>9718446
>Can you imagine a computer becoming sentient too?

yes at a certain point.

[Anonymous No.9718474]

>>9718446
>No, it's absurd to think that a computation machine is going to somehow compute it's own existence.
Why?

>Can you imagine a computer becoming sentient too? Ridiculous.
Sure.

[Anonymous No.9718476]

>>9718457
>yes at a certain point.

Anything done on a computer is just math, simple calculations. It could all, theoretically, be done by a person writing down a series of inputs and outputs. One could imagine thousands and thousands of mathematicians all working together, passing sheets of paper between each other with the output from the last becoming the input of the former.

Do you think that the written outputs of those calculations would become sentient too?

[Anonymous No.9718480]

>>9718442
>>9718422
Recent experiments on the awareness of volitional decisions by Kühn and Brass indicate that even veto decisions are made unconsciously and only later are perceived as free choices. Libet's original and most extensive interpretation of his findings would have been subsequently confirmed after decades.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18952468?dopt=Abstract

[Anonymous No.9718506]

>>9718480
>you don't have free will, but every action you make is what you would have chosen if you had free will

so what you're telling me is that it doesn't matter?

[Anonymous No.9718513]

>>9718480
>have to pay to read it
how about you at least describe the experiment

[Anonymous No.9718517]

>>9718513
>he doesn't even know what Sci-Hub is
some day a rain will come that washes scum like you off this board

[Anonymous No.9718521]

>>9718446
>Can you imagine a computer becoming sentient too?
Of course, we already successfully simulated a self-learning neuronal net. A machine that successfully thought on how to solve a situation. Our most advanced AI are already smarter than the vast majority of life., they are programmed in such a way that it capable of learning by itself.
Begin with a function of arbitrary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then, take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness.

>And here we tinker with metal, to try to give it a kind of life, and suffer those who would scoff at our efforts. But who's to say that, if intelligence had evolved in some other form in past millennia, the ancestors of these beings would not now scoff at the idea of intelligence residing within meat?

[Anonymous No.9718530]

>>9718476

That's a reasonable argument.

I guess that I'll concede that there could be a distinct difference between the traditional idea of a computer and organic biology of a brain that could be fundamental to consciousness.

[Anonymous No.9718533]

Truth is gone. Nothing is true now.

[Anonymous No.9718540]

>>9718521
>The fundamental principle of human consciousness.

High Intelligence and problem solving isn't the same as an awareness of self.

[Anonymous No.9718541]

>>9718521
>Our most advanced AI are already smarter than the vast majority of life.
No AI has ever refused to preform the task it was programmed for. It's not smart because that requires independent thought.

>>And here we tinker with metal, to try to give it a kind of life, and suffer those who would scoff at our efforts. But who's to say that, if intelligence had evolved in some other form in past millennia, the ancestors of these beings would not now scoff at the idea of intelligence residing within meat?

I scoff too.

>>9718530

There is no difference. If you think sentience comes from the organic brain, then you essentially think that you, yourself, are just a series of chemical interactions in the neurons of your brain which have fired in such a pattern and multitude as to generate a sentient being. It's effectively a series of computations too, just done with electrochemical networking instead of mathematic networking.

There must be a supernatural component, or something that we haven't considered yet at least.

[Anonymous No.9718556]

>>9718541
>then you essentially think that you, yourself, are just a series of chemical interactions in the neurons of your brain which have fired in such a pattern and multitude as to generate a sentient being

Yes I still think this.

>There must be a supernatural component

and disagree with this

>or something that we haven't considered yet at least.

theoretically I guess i'm open to this but it would involve serious conflict with the first two options.

[Anonymous No.9718557]

Awareness of self: being able to understand the world around through your senses.

Consciousness: being in awareness of your senses in the world around.

[Anonymous No.9718558]

>>9718541
>No AI has ever refused to preform the task it was programmed for. It's not smart because that requires independent thought.
We do control its instincts, animals have the benefit that they are products of million of years of genetic selection. Only AI exist like 30-40 years. BUt think about it. In 30-40 years humanity did what nature needed 3 billion years to do. (Of course humanity has the benefit that it's the master of its own destiny and is not blind as nature)

[Anonymous No.9718563]

>>9718557
>Awareness of self: being able to understand the world around through your senses.

No.

[Anonymous No.9718585]

>>9718295
Relevant:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

[Anonymous No.9718587]

>>9718558
No we didn't. We just have very well programmed machines. The machines aren't aware they exist. They aren't aware that they are performing tasks. It's a long-chain of computations, not a sentient creature.

[Anonymous No.9718592]

>>9718541
>No AI has ever refused to preform the task it was programmed for.
No natural intelligence ever did that either.

[Anonymous No.9718601]

>>9718480
>are made unconsciously and only later are perceived as free choice
Unconscious does not imply unfree.

[Anonymous No.9718616]

>>9718587
We programm machines to be able to learn by them self. They can change their behavior without human doings. While they are duumber than rat and don't come near to the complexity of a rat's brain, they are smarter than worms already. Of course AI of today aren't sentient but in 100 years? Artificial neural nets are getting more complex and effective each passing year and our understanding of the neural structure too grows.

>There must be a supernatural component, or something that we haven't considered yet at least.
You did inform yourself about the Libet experiment and that other scientist, who believed in thing like soul, tried to disprove him but failed.

http://scholar.google.de/scholar_url?url=https://cise.ufl.edu/class/cap6615sp12/syllabus.pdf&hl=de&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm10hMm9pyny5ZVMRYPdpKLeHkZtMg&nossl=1&oi=scholarr&ved=0ahUKEwjrute16uzaAhXJxaYKHWLEChgQgAMIKigAMAA

[Anonymous No.9718617]

>>9718601
>Unconscious does not imply unfree.

How?

[Anonymous No.9718633]

>>9718616
>They can change their behavior without human doings.
No, they can't. They perform as programmed. They are given a set of tools and told parameters by which to use those tools and given goals. They don't choose new goals. They don't invent new ways of using those tools.

Did you see the AI they used to learn lease of legends? It just brute forced its way by sheer force in order to create the best strategy. It didn't "think", it didn't "contemplate" the strategies. It just ran a trillion test fights until it found the code which happened to result in a victory the most. There was no abstraction.

>they are smarter than worms already
Worms aren't sentient.

>cites an entire article
I'm not reading that. Cite the relevant parts or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9718635]

>>9718592
You should look into suicide, faggot

[Anonymous No.9718643]

>>9718617
First tell me why you think it does imply that.

[Anonymous No.9718661]

>>9718635
Natural intelligence are programmed to feel stress and not to prioritize self-preservation all the time.
Suicide happens through normal psychological mechanisms. It is not programmed but is a consequence of what is programmed.

[Anonymous No.9718665]

>>9718295
>That there was almost some sort of supernatural aspect
Being non-physical doesn't equal being "supernatural". Consciousness is clearly not objectively observable in the physical realm, yet we can see that it exists. It's non-physical and non-magical.
>to its existence and that it was much more than signals travelling within the grey matter of the brain.
Physical objects aren't consciousness. A collection of particles is clearly not a thought. Sure consciousness may be the result of those things, but it's not them.
>I have the opinion that consciousness is the result of the physical workings of the brain, nothing more.
>nothing more
Well, does it really make it any less "worthwhile" if it originates from those things?

[Anonymous No.9718676]

>>9718661
Suicide *can* happen through normal psych mechanisms. For example, bees who get infected with a disease often will fly out of their hives and deliberately kill themselves.

In humans, it doesn't though. Perfectly healthy humans choose to kill themselves all the time because they choose to die.

[Anonymous No.9718703]

>>9718676
>Perfectly healthy humans choose to kill themselves all the time
because it is not going against their program.

Humans are not programmed to complete the task "life". They are programmed to think and feel and act in a way that in past situations favoured reproduction.

[Anonymous No.9718706]

>>9718703
>tfw blowing your brians out favors reproduction
meanwhile no other organism has ever committed suicide for reasons that weren't obviously clear, such as the bee example

[Anonymous No.9718718]

>>9718706
Suicide is a side effect of what favoured reproduction. Don't play dumb.

We also commit suicide for very clear reasons.

[Anonymous No.9718720]

>>9718718
>We also commit suicide for very clear reasons.
A logic to death? I would like to hear that.
>Suicide is a side effect of what favoured reproduction
explain

[Anonymous No.9718725]

>>9718643

This is difficult because I don't believe that freedom exists in the first place whether an entity is conscious or unconscious. Freedom is the ability to choose and I believe that our illusion of choice is constrained by environmental factors that are not within our control. Mere marbles on tracks with movement dictated by what has already been done.

You made the claim that unconscious entities can be free so you need to explain that.

[Anonymous No.9718734]

>>9718706
you do know that animals can express sadness and voluntarily starve to death for example when their loved one dies?

[Anonymous No.9718737]

>>9718720
>A logic to death? I would like to hear that.

If the pain of life is out of balance with the reward of existence suicide can be a sensible solution. Euthanasia is a well established practice for people with chronic illness.

[Anonymous No.9718747]

>>9718734
Depends on the animal, animal with greater brain functions are capable of sadness while animals who lack those like insects don't feel anything.

[Anonymous No.9718749]

>>9718321
I see you tried to recycle a Sam Harris talking point here. Sam said if you disconnect certain parts of the brain you seem to forgo those particular processes. Damaging a part of your brain and losing the ability to process certain problems does not give any indication that the signal is mystic or a scientific process. It could go either way In this context.

[Anonymous No.9718756]

>>9718720
There is a simple logic to suicide : one feels bad about his situation and doesn't find any easy way out except death.

We were made to be able to feel stress to ensure that we would settle in the safest environments; to feel loneliness to ensure that we would stick together and find mates; to be able to overcome fear of death to protect our tribe/pack/family.
In primitive societies these things helped us multiply. In civilised societies, and especially in modern societies, where solutions to these problems are not straightforward, they occasionally cause suicide.

[Anonymous No.9718757]

>>9718749
It does proof that the brain is the seat of the processes and thanks to the libet experiment it was proven that signal formulation reqiures no externl influence.

[Anonymous No.9718758]

con-sci-ousness
man is all measure

[Anonymous No.9718788]

>>9718295
maybe he has dabbled in the psychedelics.
there isn't much evidence other than out of body experiences, which lack scientific rigor.
i truly believe through experience this every-day reality is only a drop of all that is. so in that sense, consciousness is a somewhat hologram; possibly just like everything else. so in a sense it is separate. but whether it is a 'force' or whatever, who knows. but my life experiences tell me that awareness is the truest thing in the universe. maybe it's the only thing; life is a dream?
>>9718321
when radio antennae are destroyed it doesn't stop the waves flowing.

[Anonymous No.9718794]

>>9718725
>You made the claim that unconscious entities can be free so you need to explain that.
No, I said that a decision being made unconsciously doesn't imply that it's made unfreely. To say that A does not imply B is not the same as saying that B is not true.

>Freedom is the ability to choose and I believe that our illusion of choice is constrained by environmental factors that are not within our control. Mere marbles on tracks with movement dictated by what has already been done.
Our actions are deterministic, yes, but we're the ones who determine them. Yes, our choices are informed by the context in which we find ourselves when making them, but a context is a requirement for making choices, not an obstacle to it.

[Anonymous No.9718795]

>>9718295 (OP)
maybe he has dabbled in psychedelics.
there isn't much evidence other than out of body experiences, which lack scientific rigor.
i truly believe through experience this every-day reality is only a drop of all that is. so in that sense, consciousness is somewhat holographic; possibly just like everything else. so in a sense it is separate from the brain. but whether it is a 'force' or whatever, who knows. but my life experiences tell me that awareness is the truest thing in the universe. maybe it's the only thing; life is a dream?
>>9718321
when radio antennae are destroyed it doesn't stop the waves flowing.

[Anonymous No.9718798]

>>9718295
maybe he has dabbled in psychedelics.
there isn't much evidence other than out of body experiences, which lack scientific rigor.
i truly believe through experience this every-day reality is only a drop of all that is. so in that sense, consciousness is somewhat holographic; possibly just like everything else. so in a sense it is separate from the brain. but whether it is a 'force' or whatever, who knows. but my life experiences tell me that awareness is the truest thing in the universe. maybe it's the only thing; life is a dream?
>>9718321
when radio antennae are destroyed it doesn't stop the waves flowing.

[Anonymous No.9718809]

>>9718794
>No, I said that a decision being made unconsciously doesn't imply that it's made unfreely.

Fine. So explain that.


>Our actions are deterministic, yes, but we're the ones who determine them.

Debatable.

[Anonymous No.9718813]

>>9718809
realise the present and do (within pragmatic reason) as you please

[Anonymous No.9718830]

>>9718813

Do you mean subconsciously rather than unconsciously?

[Anonymous No.9718834]

>>9718830
the more you realise all subconscious, unconscious and all other types of consciousness, perception and conditioning, the more freewill you will gain
knowledge = freewill

[Anonymous No.9718840]

>>9718834

Okay, Nope, we're clearly thinking about this on irreconcilable wave lengths. Goodnight.

[Anonymous No.9718846]

>>9718809
>Fine. So explain that.
You yourself said that you "don't believe that freedom exists in the first place whether an entity is conscious or unconscious".
If something being doe consciously or unconsciously doesn't affect whether or not it's done freely, which is what you claim, then it makes no sense to draw attention to the fact that "even veto decisions are made unconsciously" as if that proved that they weren't freely made.
>Debatable.
What determines our actions then?

[Anonymous No.9718848]

>>9718846
>being doe
*done

[Anonymous No.9718850]

>>9718840
what do you mean? im flexible

[Anonymous No.9718861]

I think it's interesting that everything you think is all at the same volume.

[Anonymous No.9718867]

>>9718846
>What determines our actions then?

The state of the universe at all levels in the "time" prior to the present moment.

>then it makes no sense to draw attention to the fact that "even veto decisions are made unconsciously" as if that proved that they weren't freely made.

Maybe I'm just tired, but i'm struggling to comprehend what you're saying here.

[Anonymous No.9718919]

>>9718867
>The state of the universe at all levels in the "time" prior to the present moment.
That's all part of the context of the decision which, as I said, does influence the decision but does not actually make the decision.

>Maybe I'm just tired, but i'm struggling to comprehend what you're saying here.
You previously said that "veto decisions are made unconsciously and only later are perceived as free choices". In this statement you contrast unconscious actions to free choices, clearly implying that you believe the unconsciousness of an action proves the unfreeness of that action.

Later on, you said that "I don't believe that freedom exists in the first place whether an entity is conscious or unconscious"

If freedom doesn't exist regardless of whether or not you're conscious, as you claim, then the unconsciousness of an action does not prove its unfreedom.

[Anonymous No.9718925]

>>9718295
The general sentiment is of low quality. Dogmatic scientism reigns among the left-brain imbalanced denizens of this board.

[Anonymous No.9718976]

>>9718798
Radio analogy doesn't work. Involuntary memory recall can be reliably induced via stimulation of the correct neural pathways. This suggests that consciousness is generated by said pathways. The signal analogy has no explanatory power.

[Anonymous No.9719009]

>>9718919
>You previously said that "veto decisions are made unconsciously and only later are perceived as free choices".

Another Anon said that but I agree so okay.

>In this statement you contrast unconscious actions to free choices, clearly implying that you believe the unconsciousness of an action proves the unfreeness of that action.

Yeah

>Later on, you said that "I don't believe that freedom exists in the first place whether an entity is conscious or unconscious"

yep

>If freedom doesn't exist regardless of whether or not you're conscious, as you claim

Yep

>then the unconsciousness of an action does not prove its unfreedom.

Nope, you lost me again.

[Anonymous No.9719032]

>>9718925
>People trying to be scientific correct in /sci/. Picture me surprised
Did you confuse /sci/ with /pol/ and /x/? Just go there, you will not be missed.

[Anonymous No.9719084]

I think mind is something inherent to nature. How it works I don't know, but there may be a "will" in nature. Atoms "going after" equilibrium; small organisms eating others for the sake of homeostasis; small organisms forming larger, more complex ones that make homeostasis easier to be maintained. It's as if there is a "desire", or "will" in nature that points towards balance, equilibrium, and the human, intellectual, rational and self-conscious mind is one of the many ways it was able to construct in search of this philosophical gold that is ultimate balance.

Hell, we now have food in our fridges. Doesn't that make homeostasis easy? Now we have to struggle with finance, resource scarcity, politics... Once we solve these there will probably be another issue that will be just created: maybe colonies in other worlds, or moral issues.

Thing is, if mind is inherent to nature, it doesn't matter if "you" live or die -- mind will continue to exist, even if it's not "yours". It will just be re-organized in another fashion.

What I entertain as a possibility is the following: once I die my mind will still exist, but it will not be mine anymore, for it is "mine" for just as long as it is contracted within my brain. And since it is not mine, it will roam free, having its fate the same as every atom in my body: it will be spread around, and maybe it will become part of either another person, or a cabbage.

That is, mind is not separate from matter.

[Anonymous No.9719094]

Consciousness is influenced by fundamental particles/forces we've yet to discover.
Our brains react or contain processes that interact with these material but currently incomprensible particles/forces.

[Anonymous No.9719857]

But but.........WHAT ABOUT DETERMINISM.

[Anonymous No.9719867]

>>9718295
our consciousness comes from isosceles triangles that exist in a much higher dimension

[Anonymous No.9719923]

>>9719032
Yeah, threads like
>mbti pseudo garbage
>post your iq
>x is not real science
>0.999...!=1
>How do I increase my forehead
are all very scientific threads

[Anonymous No.9719944]

>>9718295
While it is mostly easy to distinguish like belief in God or not, the hard problem is hard to even be clear on initially. Experience definitely correlates to chemical impulses but what is consciousness itself. Imo it's this gay thing that is not really of the same universe or dimension. The physical world is never seen, you only see what is going on in your brain. But not the physical part. You don't really feel your brain. You experience your consciousness itself in an intangible, non physical way. But even still this shit might sound dumb ayy. Idk man like your experience is definitely something 'else' but its nature is not physical. But it leads to the homunculus falacy. What is the thing that is experiences experience. Perhaps experience experiences itself

[Anonymous No.9719955]

>>9718976
it does, if we live in a hologram

[Anonymous No.9719958]

>>9719032
i learn more from /x/ than /sci/ lol

[Anonymous No.9719959]

>>9719944
I'd say experiences just are. They're attached to a perspective, something they exist in, but there's no literal experiencer, it's just the perspective.

[Anonymous No.9719971]

>>9718976
it could be, if we live in a holographic reality.
also, the pathway stimulation hypothesis may not be relevant if the body is a mere instrument and consciousness is an awareness beyond the body. just because memory and electricity is in the brain doesn't mean awareness itself, is a product of the physical body.
I'm open to the fact, absolutely no one can prove it true or otherwise. we will potentially discover the truth upon death :)

[Anonymous No.9719976]

>>9718976
it could be, if we live in a holographic reality.
also, the pathway stimulation hypothesis may not be relevant if the body is a mere instrument and consciousness is an awareness beyond the body. just because memory and electricity is in the brain doesn't mean awareness itself, is a product of the physical body.
I'm open to the fact, absolutely no one can prove it true or otherwise. we will potentially discover the truth upon death :)
i have experienced higher states of consciousness which made apparent to me awareness was the only real thing. and it wasn't here. millions+ of other people have experienced these states too. if you haven't experienced, don't even try and criticize. true knowledge comes from experience.

[Anonymous No.9719978]

>>9719094
These forces would violate fundamental physcial laws if a non-physical mind were able to influence brain or behaviour.
These have to create a massive neuronal spike in neural activity and it should be able to registered. It requires energy to activate neurons, As this does not happen, the existence of mind-influencing particles is to doubt.
I recommend David Wilson's "Mind-brain interaction and violation of physcial laws" as it was written as a response to John Eccles hypothesis that non-material forces woul be able to influence the processes of the mind.

[Anonymous No.9719988]

>>9719978
i see much presumptions and fallacy
we won't find out, shut up and enjoy ya life.
if you want to explore the nature of mind, smoke some DMT

[Anonymous No.9720027]

>>9718295
Consciousness is a product of a brain(or analogous electronic device) that is intelligent enough, that's all.
Any hypothesizing about undetectable entities: soul, God, or whatever is pointless because they are fundamentally undetectable, therefore no matter if we assume their existence or not the net outcome will be the same - it's waste of time. They only reason why it would make any sense to think about it, is if this model gives us more accurate solutions to problems you face, but it doesn't. Don't waste your time, you gain nothing from assuming it's true.

Also your choices are not determined because some physical events they might depend on are fundamentally random. No matter how much you know about the universe, you cannot predict future because the amount of information is increasing along the entropy.

>>9718432
>How can a purely mechanical and computation system be aware of its own existence? It's ridiculous.
How can time dilatation be real? How can speed of light be constant? How can Pi have no ending? How can earth be a sphere? It's ridiculous.

>>9718446
>No, it's absurd to think that a computation machine is going to somehow compute it's own existence.
#!/bin/bash
echo $0

>Can you imagine a computer becoming sentient too? Ridiculous.
Yeah. Have you been to the cinema lately? Everyone imagines computers becoming sentient for years.

[Anonymous No.9720043]

>>9720027
>Don't waste your time, you gain nothing from assuming it's true.
just like you are doing! or are you intellectually superior to everyone? doubt is healthy. we won't find out.
>your choices are not determined because some physical events they might depend on are fundamentally random
even randomness has parameters. if i swirl a liquid solution, some things are going to happen, and some things most certainly aren't. and it's going to be within the same limited parameters each time. it's probability. so it is deterministic anyway.
for the record, i believe in freewill too.

[Anonymous No.9720051]

>>9718541
>No AI has ever refused to preform the task it was programmed for. It's not smart because that requires independent thought.
Because we don't allow it to do so. Humans were not designed, they were created by chance and were happened to be good at surviving and thinking. There is no problems human were created to solve.
An AI that can refuse would be pointless, yet it still happens accidentally. Eg. the tetris bot that paused the game and refused to continue to prevent himself from losing.

>>9720043
>just like you are doing! or are you intellectually superior to everyone? doubt is healthy. we won't find out.
Just like what I'm doing? Are you saying I assume it's true or false? I do neither, I'm agnostic, I don't believe in anything I cannot check is either true or false, especially fundamentally unfalsifiable claims.
Thought experiments are the exception though, but only in the scope of the experiment.

>even randomness has parameters. if i swirl a liquid solution, some things are going to happen, and some things most certainly aren't. and it's going to be within the same limited parameters each time. it's probability. so it is deterministic anyway.
for the record, i believe in freewill too.
Yes, we can calculate probabilities and not it's not deterministic. Determinism assumes there is no chance, everything is determined. But there are events that are fundamentally random, no matter how much you know about the system, and this is indeterminism.

[Anonymous No.9720154]

>>9718295
I'm a solipsist, so you have to give me more time until I come up with an answer for me. kek

[Anonymous No.9720158]

>>9718530
Really though you need to think more abstractly instead of through particular examples. You are speaking of philosophy, which takes place in the hypothetical. Take Descartes classic argument. At least just the beginning. He determines he is a thinking thing because he believes he actually produces thought. Now it doesn't matter if someone is deceiving him in any way or forcing him to think the way he does. Because by logic alone, if someone is acting on his thoughts, he must exist. Now Descartes could have no idea to what extent he is self aware and what can be understood in human knowledge, but he can know that he exists. Descartes would have had no idea about grehlin, the compound which makes you hungry. However when he was hungry, he would eat. Simple input stimulus, output action. And what controlled that for descartes? His brain. Just an enormous network of circuits. Well a computer is fundamentally the same set of circuits just made with different material. They too receive inputs and produce outputs. And probably have just as little understanding as descartes or you or I. We know computers exist. It's just a question of whether or not they are thinking things. Considering their makeup is so similar to ours, I believe it's very much possible. But like ourselves, where you lack sensory organs, you miss out on so much information. The computer lacks all of these qualities and thus looks on the surface as lacking consciousness, however what it lacks is relative to humans, is the degree with which it is self aware. And that is purely because it takes in less sense data. Just think about a colorblind person and a normal person. It's like that but to a more extreme degree

[Anonymous No.9720184]

>>9719094

You say that with a great deal of certainty which leads me to believe you're taking shit.

>>9719857
>DETERMINISM

Quantum mechanics disproves that? Probably?

>>9719923
>How do I increase my forehead

this is the epitome of scientific questioning.

>>9719944
>Perhaps experience experiences itself
>>>/x/

>>9719976
>we will potentially discover the truth upon death :)
I'd bet against that.

[Anonymous No.9720205]

>>9718432
It makes perfect sense that we're self aware. Our entire process of thinking involves inputs and rehashes of memory. Don't go think if in our input we are able to see ourselves then we would easily become aware of our existance. Give a smart enough machine similar input sensory and the ability to learn. It will become aware of its own existance.

[Anonymous No.9720227]

>>9720051
>Just like what I'm doing? Are you saying I assume it's true or false?
>Consciousness is a product of a brain, that's all
i was going with what you said and your tone of certainty but if you are agnostic fair enough :)

i don't believe in randomness, to me it is a lack of knowledge causing unpredictability, a level of which cannot be reached, but maybe it is so.

[Anonymous No.9720233]

>>9718422
>Mind and brain are not wholly separate, but neither is one simply the result of the other. They're two manifestations of the same phenomenon, two sides to the same coin.
prove it faggot

[Anonymous No.9720239]

>>9720154
We could wire you up with another brain. Send thoughts from one brain to another.

[Anonymous No.9720240]

>>9720233
There is no proving any answer to the hard problem. You can disprove answers by showing that they contradict what is observed or showing that they're logically unsound, which narrows down choices a bit, but a definitive answer will never be found. Just go with whatever interpretation makes sense to you.

[Anonymous No.9720247]

>>9720240
>dude just make something up XD
this is a science board

[Anonymous No.9720254]

>>9718794
>but we're the ones who determine them
nope

[Anonymous No.9720256]

>>9720247
It's not making shit up, it's coming up with an interpretation of the data, which is something that's done in science. Problem is, it's really hard to figure out which interpretation is correct for this question.

[Anonymous No.9720257]

>>9720254
what determines them, then?

[Anonymous No.9720258]

>>9720240
>Just go with whatever interpretation makes sense to you.

[Anonymous No.9720264]

>>9720257
the laws of the universe

[Anonymous No.9720265]

>>9720258
You act as if that were something completely foreign to science, but we see it with all the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Scientists just pick whatever interpretation seems to make the most sense to them.

[Anonymous No.9720266]

>>9720256
>just pick whatever interpretation you like most :-DDD
very scientific

[Anonymous No.9720269]

>>9720266
Again, we see this happen all them time in quantum mechanics. People develop competing interpretations and decide which among them seems more likely.

[Anonymous No.9720272]

>>9720269
>dude quantum lmao
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.9720285]

>>9720264
You're missing a few steps in your chain of logic.
>We're made of matter
>Matter can only behave according to the laws of physics
>Therefore the laws of physics determine our decisions

The problem is that you conceptualize the laws of physics as something completely separate from us when they're actually not.

First of all: The laws of physics are simply descriptions of how things such as matter, energy and space-time will behave given a certain situation; they're abstractions we came up with based on the observed behavior of these things.
Rather than saying that these laws determine our behavior, it should be said instead that the behavior of the matter and energy which makes up our bodies is what determines our behavior.

Now, if we're only our bodies and our bodies are "simply" masses of atoms (or fundamental particles and energy or whatever) then, logically, we are those atoms and those atoms are us, so saying that they are what determines our behavior is the same as saying that we are what determines our behavior.

[Anonymous No.9720296]

>>9720285
>so saying that they are what determines our behavior is the same as saying that we are what determines our behavior.

No it isn't.

[Anonymous No.9720319]

>>9720227
>i was going with what you said and your tone of certainty but if you are agnostic fair enough :)
Well, you should rather ignore my tone since I'm ESL so it doesn't have to match what I wanted to say.
And yeah, you kind of got me here. Let me backpedal a little, we know that an intelligent enough brain is needed for consciousness to manifest and we know with more and more accuracy what various parts of brain are responsible for. One cloud argue that it's just an antenna that damaged will receive signal in wrong way. We even know that if we separated brain halfs both of them can give different answers to same question. So what could it be that metaphysical consciousness? It is supposed to represent you but that you can disagree with other you. We can assume it's fine because it's a supernatural or something. And that's the problem, it can be anything and it's anything you want it to be, no matter if we assume its existence or not the result will be the same, no matter if we say that the cells works because they are arranged in this way or that they receive signal to work because they are arranged in this way, it's all the same.

>i don't believe in randomness, to me it is a lack of knowledge causing unpredictability, a level of which cannot be reached, but maybe it is so.
Look up bell's theorem. It either disproves hidden variables(the knowledge we lack) or locality. I'm not a physicist though, so someone might give more insight on it.

[Anonymous No.9720322]

>>9720296
>No it isn't.
Elaborate.
The only way for it to not be true is for us to not be those atoms.

[Anonymous No.9720339]

>>9718432
>How can a purely mechanical and computation system be aware of its own existence?
A more interesting question is if an AI managed to achieve self awareness and consciousness, how would we be able to tell? It's the P-Zombie problem but real. An AI that doesn't have consciousness, but has extremely sophisticated logical algorithms, should theoretically be able to act exactly like an AI that does have true consciousness. It's a fascinating question, because the reason we assume other people are not P-Zombies is because each of us individually knows we're not so it's rational to conclude other people aren't either. But you can't apply that logic to an AI, you need to find some way of seperating a conscious AI from a "p-zombie" AI that is simply going through a logical routine and giving the illusion of consciousness.

How we can do that I have no idea.

[Anonymous No.9720397]

>>9720339
>How we can do that I have no idea.
Maybe if it is able to creativly create its own objects or ideas, because if that's the case it does not just behave conscious but actually act conscious.

[Anonymous No.9720544]

>>9720285
>when they're actually not.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9720820]

bump

[Anonymous No.9720843]

>>9720339
The zombie argument is obviously bogus.
How do we know aren't just one consciousness in one human and the rest just acts like being conscious? We don't.

We don't even have a strict definition of consciousness so it is also possible to claim that there are nothing conscious in the universe with humans just acting. How can you prove that you are conscious and not just acting?

Bogus.

[Anonymous No.9720855]

>>9720843
>How can you prove that you are conscious and not just acting?

There is no need for proof that it exists.

I know I am conscious and that's all the evidence I need to know consciousness exists.

[Anonymous No.9720875]

>>9720843
>We don't even have a strict definition of consciousness
we don't even have a strict definition of "truth" either but everyone understands what is meant by it
some concepts are beyond words, but that doesn't mean we don't understand them.

[Anonymous No.9722041]

>>9720397
Or just test the AI if its capable of conceptualizing its own future.

[Anonymous No.9722056]

>>9718295
I dont like doing headstands, anon.

[Anonymous No.9722606]

>>9719867
This

[/psy/mon|三|/sci/mon No.9723993]

Can we not just advertise consciousness as the 'hive-mind human-capable translation network'?

If we could just optimize a skill-set copy-paste type function/outcome. Like mesh networks, but with human brains (I fail to see why not unless you the reader already held a prior opinion).

[Anonymous No.9723997]

>>9718321
>When you damage a brain, its consciousness stops or is also damaged.
>To me, that is the overwhelming evidence that consciousness is indeed a product of something happening in the brain, not a supernatural separate phenomenon.
proves nothing brainlet.
the supernaturalists argument is essentially that the physical processes of the brain only connect you with the supernatural consciousness
to make an analogy, your argument is like saying "i broke my router and i can't connect to the internet, so the internet must be in my router"

[Anonymous No.9724016]

>>9723997
>the supernaturalists argument is essentially that the physical processes of the brain only connect you with the supernatural consciousness
This argument was already disproven >>9719978

[Anonymous No.9725566]

>>9718442
>>9718480
>>9718506
>>9718513
>>9718601
>>9718617
>>9718643
>>9718725
>>9718794
>>9720254
>>9720257
>>9720264
>>9720285
I'm a compatibilist, what does /sci/ think of me?

[Anonymous No.9725651]

>>9718295
what makes you think consciousness is non-material. if you knew how scientific theories grew then you realise theres no difference between consciousness and other matter.

you fucking brainlet scum.

[Anonymous No.9725684]

>>9718295
The correct view is Monistic Idealism, as opposed to both dualism and physicalism.

The argument starts from George Berkeley and spans through the Teletransportation Paradox to Reality Theory.

Your friend is not religious therefore he is "between" idealism and materialism: cartesian dualism.

[Anonymous No.9725691]

>>9725684
berkeley has great arguments for indirect realism but his idealistic arguments fall short. so...
are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.9725724]

>>9725691
I don't think his great argument from empiricism to idealism falls short. He has no Kantian "indirect realism" and it's clear you haven't really put in the effort to read his works.

[Anonymous No.9725733]

>>9720855
prove it

[Anonymous No.9725741]

>>9725724
i have read it.
im not saying he intentionally argued for indirect realism. im saying that if you want to be logical, his arguments cannot go past indirect realism. he has no proper evidence for idealism. he resorts to god. which isnt satisfactory given that there is no consensus on gods existence and most science and philosophy frowns on it.

[Anonymous No.9725764]

what if consciousness is everywhere like a huge mist and when something becomes conscious it really just channels that mist allowing it to percieve reality.

[Anonymous No.9725778]

>>9725764
doesnt answer the question of what consciousness is though.

[Anonymous No.9725792]

>>9725741
There will never be a consensus on God's existence and you are not an empiricist then. You believe something physical can exist without ever being observed. It's that simple, and not really a rare belief, but not without its problems. If you were a Physics student like me you would find it impossible to believe it since it leads to theories that cannot be scientifically tested.

[Anonymous No.9725836]

>>9725792
dude if youre gonna be logical, you cant conclude from berkeley that something physical cant exist without being observed. you can only conclude that you cant measure the physical apart from through an observer. i dont think you can prove your point but you can try. given how influential berkeley is on science i dont think anyone has taken your hard view seriously because its not strong. flappable. show me that something physical cant exist without being observed. i dont think you can. the maximum you can take it is indirect realism. you can see in berkeleys arguments that your point cant be retained without resorting to something like god because the world is independent of our viewpoint even if thats how we perceive it. and the viewpoint of an outside world is simpler than god. infact god may even presuppose an outside world.

[Anonymous No.9725856]

>>9725792
retard.

[Anonymous No.9725892]

>>9725836
The world is not independent of our viewpoint since we are in it and our viewpoint, like it or not, has a say in what happens. I'm not arguing for empiricism if you already don't believe in it, but you need to realize that science is built on what is observed, and if anything doesn't pass through the scientific method then it doesn't Physically exist. There is your hard proof. You have to discover if you really believe in empiricism or simply logical induction. I don't advise throwing away empiricism on a scientific board. Any speculation you come up with about physical reality will fundamentally rely on what we actively observe instead of the existence of something physical that isn't measurable.

Suppose you have a team of four people, each one taking turn at looking at an object that might disappear either by natural or artificial causes. Can the group say for sure the object still exists without seeing it? Can you say for Sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, that everything will happen according to plan, as if there is a magical guarantee you have access to? Without observation we are left with both the Problem of Induction, and Deduction from tautologies.

[Anonymous No.9725922]

>>9718846
True random ala quantum theory is still on the table.

[Anonymous No.9725934]

What most people don't realize is that even if there was a nonmaterial soul, the soul itself still has to obey rules of some kind, "soul physics" if you will. The only logically possible options are determinism or rule-based systems with some amount of true randomness. This is true no matter if there is a soul, or idealism is true, etc. The only kind of free will that can logically exist is the compatibilist kind.

[Anonymous No.9725951]

>>9725934
Obeying rules is not the same as determinism, mate. I think that even if free will is proven, and I do believe it will be, it will be more important to relate the intuition of free will with the proof than talking about the proof itself.

[Anonymous No.9725955]

>>9723997
Consider this analogy more closely. What if I damaged your internet router so the sync speed was 1/10 of normal. You could still talk with your friends on discord, but their voices might be distorted. This is good evidence that the cognition of your friend is not located in the router. Now imagine instead that your friend was unable to make new memories of any kind. That's good evidence that the cognition of your friend is in the router.

[Anonymous No.9725959]

>>9725951
The only logically possible options are 1- something like a deterministic program written in c, or 2- the same program with access to a library with a true random number generator. The idea of a third option is incoherent nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9725966]

>>9725959
The problem here is that you can't define random. Right now you have two conflicting definitions: unpredictable, and simply non-deterministic. Since the former is ridiculous, you are left with non-deterministic, so it holds itself on the definition of deterministic. The current definition involves a one-direction past-to-future arrow, so it's logical negation includes a two-direction arrow for example, and that amounts for telesis. Saying something isn't deterministic is like saying what Didn't happen one day, but determinism sure trumps free will, mate.

[Anonymous No.9725979]

>>9725966
No, the problem with anti-compatibilist free will advocates is that while they're unsure about free will is, they are sure that its not determinism and they're sure that it's not just some randomness either. The libertarian free will conception is unintelligible.

[Anonymous No.9725993]

>>9718295
Consciousness is the make up of one's personalality at their most pure.
It's like the Jr soul.
At a more compartmenlized level it's like your mind but can interact on different dimensions whereas the mind is in the 3rd.
Both can be manipulated physically or meta.
You'd be surprised at how many people think 2nd or 1 dimensionoally and never start having a conversation inside their head... With their own mind or some satanic demon.

[Anonymous No.9725997]

>>9725979
Holy fucking shite, just read my post once again you dumb smelly teenager

[Anonymous No.9726004]

>>9725955
If you damage the router you might not be able to upload and download from the cloud. If a memory can't be download in a few minutes but it instead takes days or weeks of dedication then it might not be worth it. Obviously, the brain is certainly not only a router in this model but a processor as well, so the correct analogy is to damage both the modem and the computer and see if you can still run your favorite programs well enough.

[Anonymous No.9726009]

>>9725997
I did. It does nothing to address my critique of libertarian free will.

[Anonymous No.9726023]

>>9726009
They sure are saying it's not just some unpredictable "random" input either because it's instead a non-deterministic input. You are thinking of determinism vs "unpredictable/random" input as the only options and I'm telling you unpredictable does not define the logical negation of determinism.

Get it now, kid?

[Anonymous No.9726036]

>>9726023
>You are thinking of determinism vs "unpredictable/random" input as the only options and I'm telling you unpredictable does not define the logical negation of determinism.

What? The logical negation of "determinism" sort-of is "unpredictable".

Technically, there is a slight difference between "determinism" and "predictable by a LaPlace demon", but that's not relevant for this conversation.

[Anonymous No.9726052]

>>9718295
wouldn't it be weird if when you died only everybody elses experience change but to you you are still alive and live forever?

[Anonymous No.9726076]

>>9718676
Humans are one of the only animals who can figure out that if they kill themselves they will stop experiencing pain.
Also
>mental health is not health

[Anonymous No.9726084]

>>9726052
Me experiencing anything after i die would be weird

[Anonymous No.9726086]

>>9726084
Also impossible.

[Anonymous No.9726087]

>>9725993
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9726091]

>>9726086
I want to conduct the experiment to prove or disprove that assertion of yours right now

[Anonymous No.9726098]

>>9718457
>>9718474
>>9718521
>>9720027
Poe's law. I think anyway

[Anonymous No.9726099]

>>9726091

You actually could. It’s called suicide.

>It’s not impossible to continue experiencing when one lacks sensory organs and the neurology to process anything whatsoever

[Anonymous No.9726101]

Your life probably starts over from the beginning. That’s what Nietzsche believed anyway. So be careful how you live your life.

Or you get to experience all the other points of view first hand, over and over forever

[Anonymous No.9726102]

>>9726099
Yeah i know, thatsthejoke.jpg
i was telling you i want to kill myself

[Anonymous No.9726103]

>>9726101
I mean how else to interpret time being relative?

[Anonymous No.9726105]

>>9726101
>Probably

Prove it. Why would that “probably” be the case?

[Anonymous No.9726106]

>>9726105
It’s philosophy not science. I don’t have to prove shit

[Anonymous No.9726109]

>>9726102
I recommend a gunshot (shotgun is ideal) or helium suffocation. Safe travels if you do. Not my place to tell others what to do with property as innate and primal as their own life.

[/psy/mon|三|/sci/mon No.9726112]

>>9726099
Curiously one wonders if Death from a human perspective is just a conscious 'shift of temporal perspective'. As in *bam* you are dead and then *bing* you are resurrected eons in the future by <insert god scenario here>. It would be a decent counter-argument if relative, individual suffering of experience as a human was taken into account and post-Death your existence was thrown forward by 'that' amount.

That way those who commit suicide (or child cancer) are given an 'easy-mode' for their next play-through, but people like Trump are given the same thing.

Suffering as a way-station. I'd probably turn translation of the word 'suffering' and the methods of reducing it into a business.

[Anonymous No.9726113]

>>9726106
Yes you do. Thanks for admitting defeat already.

[Anonymous No.9726117]

>>9726112
There’s no reason whatsoever that would be the case. Consciousness is phenomenon of our individual brains and ceases to exist with the brain as far as we’ve seen.

[Anonymous No.9726118]

>>9726084
what i obviously meant is that when you quote unquote die you will not actually die. everyone will just have been experiencing you as dead but in your experience you have not died and have discovered that you in fact cannot ever die

[Anonymous No.9726119]

>>9726113
What do you mean “I do”? I don’t. Your problem is that you want to win arguments for the sake of winning them and not for the sake of understanding something better. As such you will never understand anything any better, and will always be stuck in your original positions which you must defend for the sake of “wininning” the argument. That’s not argumentation and you’re winning nothing

[Anonymous No.9726121]

>>9726119
Cool.

>“I can freely assert things and do not have to provide anything to back these things up whatsoever”

[Anonymous No.9726122]

>>9726109
I am well versed in suicide methods. I cannot bring myself to do it though. Self preservation instinct is hard to get rid of

[/psy/mon|三|/sci/mon No.9726127]

>>9726117
If it is an individual experience then how can't it instead be that it is either you or I that get the hive-mind consciousness rolling?

Given your statement thought it would mean any given mathematical fractal is a unique expression that can 'never' be translated to another individual correctly. It will always be 'on some axis' meaning minimum two points of observation + one observer.
>*Tail end of a fractal*

>>9726118
Kinda like 'u ded, hv cheat codez nw'

[Anonymous No.9726128]

>>9726121
Again, that’s what you have to do if you’re doing science. That’s not what this is. If you’re trying to get at the essence of consciousness, unavoidably there is going to be speculation, because there is no proof one way or the other to show what its nature is

[Anonymous No.9726129]

>>9726118
I know the quantum immortality meme, but it errs on the fundamental mistake people make when they hear about the double slit experiment. Observation requires modification of the thing observed

[Anonymous No.9726137]

>>9726128
That’s right, it’s speculatory. That’s why you cannot say “Life probably restarts when you die”

[Anonymous No.9726150]

>>9726137
Ok fine. I believe that it is probably maybe the most likely possibility (according to me) (and probably nietzsche and yeah that’s an appeal to authority but there it is)

[Anonymous No.9726318]

>>9718295
>consciousness was separate to the physical matter inside ones head
he was correct
>I have the opinion that consciousness is the result of the physical workings of the brain, nothing more.
you are wrong

>>9718321
brain is a limiter for consc, see cases where ppl did not know they had damage or lack of grey matter yet had normal lives, they didn't know about their disability until much later in life

[Anonymous No.9726334]

>>9726318
>brain is a limiter for consc
Completely inconsistent with the evidence. By damaging the brain, you damage consciousness. By destroying certain parts of the brain, I can destroy your ability to form long term memories, to recognize faces, to parse the grammar of spoken words, to generate grammatically correct spoken words (which is a different part of the brain), etc. You are your brain.

[Anonymous No.9726339]

>>9726334
how is it inconsistent

[Anonymous No.9726341]

>>9726339
I just explained. Again, we have countless cases of brain damage causing damage to the mind in various ways. This is evidence that the brain is what creates the mind, not this asinine position that the brain limits the mind.

[Anonymous No.9726347]

>>9726341
and there are cases where there is brain damage from the start of which the person is unaware of
read what you quoted

there is also evidence the mind is not created by the brain
and it does limit consc, like already so intelligently proved

[Anonymous No.9726356]

>>9726341
>This is evidence that the brain is what creates the mind,
wrong this is evidence the brain is what limits the mind
else the wouldn't be cases like this:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

[Anonymous No.9726357]

>>9726341
>This is evidence that the brain is what creates the mind
wrong this is evidence the brain is what limits the mind
else there wouldn't be cases like this:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

[Anonymous No.9726383]

>>9726341
What if the brain contains the mind but is not the mind itself? If you poke holes in a jug of water, will that influence the water?

[Anonymous No.9726409]

>>9718295
I have both philosophy and medicine degrees. In my mind qualia is a major area of interest, it is inherently subjective and separate from the objective world, scientific investigation is in the first instance unable to give us information about it. Whether the subjective world is supernatural to you by that fact or not is up to you. I believe in some form of emergentism, qualia are fully dependent on physical matter to exist but they are not physical events, that much is obvious.

We do not know what it is only that it is more certain it exists than anything else in the world. Something about us is immaterial, but that doesn't need to be a religious statement.

[Anonymous No.9726411]

>>9718295
Firstly, all living things, including plants, are conscious. If you deny this you're an anthropocentric retard. Secondly, phenomenology is real and the phenomenal experience of adjacent organisms effect each other via signals we have no knowledge of, e.g. life in the Pacific northwest has its particular character because the organisms there, predominantly trees, have developed a particular mode consciousness through their millions of years of existence. As more beings go through the same grooves of particular experience there is a widening in scope and potential for recurrence of such phenomena.

[Anonymous No.9726418]

>>9726411
You start off strong but then fall apart after saying phenomenology. Phenomenology is a brilliant mode of inquiry and Heidegger, Merleau-ponty and Matthew Ratcliffe are must read philosphers if anyone wants to begin to approach the issue of consciousness. However none of it is about mystical signals sent between organisms.

[Anonymous No.9726431]

>>9718757
In the context of the libet experiment where does the intent to flex your wrist come from? Would this argument not extend the souls reach to unconscious thought as well as conscious? It seems the libet experiment supports an external force. A quote from the PDF below, "Libet performed a separate experiment where he asked subjects NOT to flex their
wrists, but merely “get ready” to do it at a particular time, and then not actually do it. In these trials, RP was still recorded. "

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/libet&ved=2ahUKEwid_Zjw9fXaAhWjrFQKHR8WDj8QFjAlegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw03dfNhiwG0eHF9e5cQ6SIe

[Anonymous No.9726444]

>>9726431
Not him but likelihood is there is a totally sufficient pathway from sensory input causing electrical processing in the various relevant brain areas to a signal being sent to the limbs. As a signal is sent to the limb it is also sent to sensory areas giving the brain ownership of that action. Whenever you twitch you experience the same mechanisms but the brain does not send a signal to reigster this as an intended movement.

You can have breakdowns of this process in mental illness when people do not feel ownership over the movement of their limbs such as alien hand. In thought insertion the signals registering ownership and intent do not even occur to thoughts and so people do not feel they produced the thoughts they had.

[Anonymous No.9726463]

>>9726357
>This man has a specific type of hydrocephalus known as chronic non-communicating hydrocephalus, which is where fluid slowly builds up in the brain. Rather than 90 percent of this man's brain being missing, it's more likely that it's simply been compressed into the thin layer you can see in the images above. We've corrected the story to reflect this.

Granted, the brain has a whole lotta plasticity and redundancies, different sections can actually take over tasks normally centered on the opposite side of the brain. It isn't uncommon for someone who has had half their brain surgically removed to live a relatively normal life (though there's a few tell-tale behavioral signs, if you know what to look for). But all the tasks the whole brain normally takes can still be recorded happening in the remaining gray matter.

We can alter memory, personality, consciousness, perspective, and perception in a myriad of ways, by altering the body. We've machines that can tell you which of a specific set of objects you are thinking of, whether or not you've been in a room before, and even ones that can predict whether or not you are going to push a button, before you yourself are consciously aware of the decision to do so.

If there is a soul, there's pretty much nothing left for it to do, and apparently has nothing to do with who you really are. (Though that still works in some religious models - where ego and identity is but an illusion or prison of the material world.)

[Anonymous No.9726465]

>>9726431
see
>>9719978

[Anonymous No.9726476]

>>9726463
No-one can half their brain removed and live at all. You are thinking of split brain syndrome where they separate off the communication tracts between the hemispheres.

[Anonymous No.9726477]

>>9726357
Please don't rely on sensationalist science-ignorant reporting.
http://www.untrammeledmind.com/2018/02/so-his-brains-just-squished-rather-than-only-10-there-a-bonsai-brains/

[Anonymous No.9726478]

>>9718295
The guy has the same stance as the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.9726502]

>>9726418
By phenomenology I meant the study of objects of consciousness not in reference to 20th century philosophy. There isn't a better way of denoting the contents of consciousness than phenomenal experience.

>However none of it is about mystical signals sent between organisms.
They're still natural, it's just unconscious signaling/perception that we don't yet understand. It could merely be part of sensory perception such as visual sensation as the first person experience of trees is manifested in their particular external appearance which induces particular sensation in viewers, as such the phenomenal awareness of the tree was encoded in the visual signal. I doubt that's all there is to it considering countless testimonials of people taking drugs and feeling a oneness with nature and the ubiquity of animism among prehistoric people. We're all emanating countless signals among which there are ones of consciousness, whereabout in that is just yet to be determined.

My point is that the content of our minds is as real and forceful as anything else that effects change in the world, not a superfluous byproduct of neural function. The particular modes of this force aren't known, but nonetheless everything anyone thinks is sending signals and creating external change.

[Anonymous No.9726510]

>>9726476
It's actually a standardized procedure, if rarely done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaDlLD97CLM

[Anonymous No.9726513]

>>9724016
seems like a baseless assumption that communicating with a non-physical mind requires a "massive neuronal spike"

[Anonymous No.9726514]

>>9718476
A brain is just a bunch of neural biochemical reactions and electrical impulses.

[Anonymous No.9726518]

>>9726476
You can remove a lot more and still live - quality of life is another thing, though, in this girl's case, came out relatively normal.

It's less the right side of the brain is overrated and more than it has enough neural plasticity to take over. Doing the same to an adult doesn't work nearly as well.

[Anonymous No.9726526]

>>9726518
Any source because i still do not believe it one bit.

[Anonymous No.9726530]

>>9726526
Nevermind i looked it up and it appears to be true, i still cannot fathom how it is at all possible.

[Anonymous No.9726532]

>>9726526
Google Karley Miller half brain removed, take source of your choosing.

People have survived with a LOT less - just, usually not very well. Isn't testament to the existence of the soul though, as it's been proven those that are high functioning have created neuro centers with the nearly all the same functions in what is left of their brains. Ya can't be conscious without them - or at very least, you can't demonstrate conscious behavior.

[Anonymous No.9726535]

https://youtu.be/b7XUacIH_OQ

[Anonymous No.9726540]

>>9726532
>Karley Miller half brain removed
Think Karley Miller is actually a different girl who had the same procedure at 17, rather than 9.

Apparently she's a blind photographer with half a brain:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/inspire-me/87167625/legally-blind-photographer-karley-miller-lives-her-dream

[Anonymous No.9727934]

>>9718295
It's basically a non-concept (as in, the universalism and philosophical notions attached). It has no place in the scientific study of mind.

[Anonymous No.9728636]

>>9718295