Consciousness

[Anonymous No.7492513]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHRbnNwIg1g

What are /sci/'s thoughts on consciousness and the idea that it is tied to the fundamental forces of the universe rather than a product of biochemistry?

[Anonymous No.7492536]

maybe you need to lay off the bongs

[Anonymous No.7492607]

>fundamental forces
So what if time itself is consciousness?

[Anonymous No.7492626]

You're not hitting enough bongs yet.

[Anonymous No.7492675]

>>7492513
Oh fuck, here we go again...

[Anonymous No.7493219]

>tfw /sci/ just wants to keep circlejerking about shit they learned in their science textbooks years ago, and never figure new shit out
>tfw they actually believe we know everything about the universe

[Anonymous No.7493226]

>>7493219
Bugger of with your mystical "humans can never understand the complexity of the universe" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.7493227]

>>7493226
We CAN understand it, but we haven't yet, that's what you refuse to understand.

[Anonymous No.7493232]

>>7493227
Making shit up has nothing to do with understanding.

[Anonymous No.7493243]

>>7493232
If you want to call some of the top neuroscientist's theories about consciousness "making shit up", go ahead and do so, it only makes you look retarded.

[Anonymous No.7493700]

>>7492607

[Anonymous No.7493747]

>>7493243
>Anyone can see that these "theories" are no more than vague speculation based on metaphysics. Don't confuse theories of neuroscience with what you're peddling.

[Anonymous No.7493758]

>>7493747
Did you watch the video?

[Anonymous No.7493775]

>>7493758
>laughable stereotypical German mad scientist accent
>wow he must be credible!

[Anonymous No.7493789]

>>7493775
That's all I needed to hear from you to know you're not mature enough to even discuss consciousness. Come back in a few years.

[Anonymous No.7493795]

>>7493789

[Anonymous No.7493798]

>>7493758
>TEDx
nah son.

[Anonymous No.7493807]

>>7493798
Nice ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.7493824]

>>7493807
>Tell someone they aren't mature enough for this "discussion"
>Call someone else out for ad hominem

[Anonymous No.7493834]

>>7493824
>>7474549
>>7493295

Here, found some threads that is more around your level. Go there and shitpost instead.

[Anonymous No.7494412]

Will AI ever have consciousness, /sci/?

[Anonymous No.7494422]

>>7492513
>consciousness/intelligence thread
AGAIN?

[Anonymous No.7494424]

>>7494412
Yeah, if we make a machine capable of cognition it will probably satisfy the hard-problem as a byproduct. Philosophical zombies may be conceivable, but I thoroughly doubt they are physically possible.

[Anonymous No.7494425]

>>7494412
kurzweil and his cronies say we'll see it within our lifetimes

[Anonymous No.7494429]

>>7494422
add a filter
hell add ten filters
if you don't come to 4chan for bullshit I don't know why you come here

[Anonymous No.7494434]

>>7494429
I'm just asspained at the shear frequency of these threads. I understand keeping that shit in one thread, but there are 2 other consciousness threads on the fucking catalog right now

[Anonymous No.7494435]

I think therefore I exist

/thread

[Anonymous No.7494455]

>>7494424
The ignorant most people some talk about consciousness, it's very possible most people are zombies and very few have actual self-consciousness.

[Anonymous No.7494478]

>>7494435
A simple machine is capable of making that statement.

[Anonymous No.7494485]

>>7494478
Yes, but a simple machine is not able to experience himself saying it, which is what the statement is about, not proving you are conscious to others.

[Anonymous No.7494487]

>>7494478
Yes, question is, does it consciously make that statement?

[Anonymous No.7494490]

>>7494485
>a simple machine is not able to experience himself saying it
What evidence do I have that you are able to?

[Anonymous No.7494493]

>>7494434
> shear frequency

[Anonymous No.7494500]

>>7494490
To myself, all the evidence I will ever need. To others, it's impossible to prove.

[Anonymous No.7494513]

>>7494500
That's not how it works you little shit. The post where you made the initial claim is a result of your fat physical fingers physically pressing keys on your physical computer. Your physical fingers, which moved as a result of your physical muscles receiving physical impulses from your physical nervous system because your physical brain physically contains information about something it labels "consciousness".

So now you are going to change your mindset to be more logically consistent, because your current beliefs are that the invisible pink unicorn plays a part in brain function while having no physical effect on it.

[Anonymous No.7494520]

>>7494513
>So now you are going to change your mindset to be more logically consistent, because your current beliefs are that the invisible pink unicorn plays a part in brain function while having no physical effect on it.
Boo fucking hoo:The post.

[Anonymous No.7494525]

>>7494520
>I can't form a counter argument, so I'll just insult him.

[Anonymous No.7494528]

What if our consciousness is the universe itself?

[Anonymous No.7494533]

>>7494513
Wow aren't you a fucking edgelord.
Firstly, I didn't even make the first claim, someone else did.
Secondly, the way you talk makes it really clear you haven't read anything the scientific community has been doing recently with consciousness. You probably don't even understand the nature of the problem with consciousness.

[Anonymous No.7494534]

>>7494525
>you little shit why don't you have the same opinion as I do
>waaaaah why don't you form a counter argument

Hello autism my old friend

[Anonymous No.7494536]

>>7492513
What would be the evolutionary advantage of that?

[Anonymous No.7494540]

>>7494528
Everything in the universe is the universe.
We are the universe.
So yes.

[Anonymous No.7494543]

>>7494528

[Anonymous No.7494544]

>>7494536
The evolutionary advantage has nothing to do with it. That's like asking what the evolutionary advantage of quantum mechanics is.

[Anonymous No.7494545]

>>7494533
It is impossible to claim that something exists but no evidence of it can exist, because the act of claiming it exists means you necessarily have evidence of it. The evidence is the causal reason why the claim is made.

[Anonymous No.7494551]

>>7494544
That's not equivalent because you can't say "humans have quantum mechanics".

[Anonymous No.7494556]

>>7494543
I don't know why but that image just made me comfy as fuck.

I've been struggling lately with the concept of dying and whatnot and just the idea that everything is connected together in the universe makes me at ease for some reason.

[Anonymous No.7494559]

>>7494556
Why do you think the fear of death exists in the first place?

[Anonymous No.7494561]

>>7494559
To stop me from fucking your mom, because then I'd kill myself.

[Anonymous No.7494562]

>>7494551
Humans work under the influence of quantum mechanic.We can also just say atoms instead. Humans have atoms. We didn't evolve atoms.

[Anonymous No.7494564]

>>7494559
Because everything fears what they haven't experienced?

[Anonymous No.7494566]

Well, the biochemistry of the brain is just a particularly stable and complex example of a shitload of dynamic chemical processes happening at once. Chemistry is a direct consequence of the most fundamental forces and particles in the universe.

So yes, consciousness is directly linked to fundamental concepts. However, we have no evidence that this consciousness extends outside of the small "islands" of organized complexity represented by our brains. I'm not saying that some form of extended or widespread consciousness is impossible, just that current knowledge suggests otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7494568]

>>7494562
What I'm asking is, what abilities does a human have in the panpsychism model that aren't present in the simpler common models?

[Anonymous No.7494585]

>>7494545
I mean, the more we learn about how consciousness work, the closer we will get to the proof. But proving to yourself that you have a subjective experience is kind of crazy, because the subjective experience itself already proves it.

[Anonymous No.7494597]

>>7494568
I'm not quite sure the relevancy of that question. Can you elaborate how that relates to consciousness not being a product of chemistry?

[Anonymous No.7494613]

>>7492513
>tied to the fundamental forces of the universe

[Anonymous No.7494638]

>>7494585
"Subjective experience" is not a coherent term when used in this context. It implies an ultimate end product(observing the apple creates subjective experience of the apple) instead of just a simple chain of events(observing the apple triggers a bunch of reactions). It's like saying that the mind is an information event horizon that experience falls into but can't come out of.

[Anonymous No.7494657]

>>7494638
Proving that I am conscious is just as silly as me asking you to prove that the universe exists, because you can't do it. Because you can't, that means nothing can be proven, because everything exists in the universe. Because of the nature of consciousness, it's just not possible to prove, but impossible to dismiss if you have it.

[Anonymous No.7494658]

>>7494597
OP's post links to that article about panpsychism.

[Anonymous No.7494668]

>>7494657
This isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Everything that exists is evidence of the universe existing. A compulsion to claim that something called "consciousness" exists is evidence that consciousness exists.

[Anonymous No.7494678]

>>7494668
>everything that exists is evidence of the universe existance

How do you prove that anything exists though? You have to trust your subjective experience (which can't be proven) that what you see is existing.

[Anonymous No.7494685]

>>7494678
>How do you prove that anything exists though?
By not being a huge cunt.

[Anonymous No.7494693]

>>7494685
Exacly. When you ask for evidence for the existance of subjective experience, I will give you the same response, and for the same reason.

[Anonymous No.7494694]

This argument you fags are having is some serious junior college philosophy 101 night class shit.

[Anonymous No.7494722]

>>7494564
No you cuck, it's so you try not to get yourself killed

[Anonymous No.7494782]

>>7492513
>What are /sci/'s thoughts on consciousness and the idea that it is tied to the fundamental forces of the universe rather than a product of biochemistry?

Are you implying that biochemistry isn't related to the fundamental forces of the universe?

[Anonymous No.7494794]

>>7494782
No. Biochemistry is built upon those fundamental forces. I'm simply suggesting it's not on the biochemical LEVEL consciousness happens, just like quantum mechanics isn't happening on the chemical level.

[Anonymous No.7494799]

>>7494794
So you're suggesting that 'consciousness' as we think of it exists because of some kind of fundamental force mediated by some kind of fundamental field that we don't know about?

What evidence points to this?

[Anonymous No.7494802]

>>7494794
>it's not on the biochemical LEVEL consciousness happens
See the problem is you are a retard, so anything you say is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.7494818]

>>7494799
>So you're suggesting that 'consciousness' as we think of it exists because of some kind of fundamental force mediated by some kind of fundamental field that we don't know about?
Exacly.

>What evidence points to this?
The nature of subjective experience and the fact that biochemistry hasn't been able to explain how it can happen.

[Anonymous No.7494825]

>>7494818
>the fact that biochemistry hasn't been able to explain how it can happen

Thats like saying since we can't determine the origin of life right now, it must be God.

[Anonymous No.7494836]

DUDE what if were not real?

[Anonymous No.7494839]

>>7494818
This is the most I've ever hoped a post was a troll

[Anonymous No.7494841]

>>7494825
No, it's far from. We know there are fundamental forces of the universe we haven't yet understood (as seen with dark matter/energy), or even just deeper into quantum mechanics. To be open to the possiblity that some of those unexplored forces might have something to do with a phenomona we can't yet explain is orders of magnitude away from explaining the origin of life with a magical creator. To assume consciousness has to be related to biochemistry could be argued just as illogical in that case.

[Anonymous No.7494843]

Isn't consciousness just constant processing of information? Fill me in on what the mystery is

[Anonymous No.7494845]

>>7494836
i warned you about 4chan bro

[Anonymous No.7494847]

>>7492513
Electrons are quantum lvl. Brain nerons quantum lvl. So yes a living brain is tied to the fundamental forces of the universe.

[Anonymous No.7494850]

>>7494843
Yes consciousness is just a byproduct of proteins and amino acids firing certain receptors in a brain that is sufficiently advanced to harbor such processes. It has noting to do with the universe or any dumb metaphysical construct. Its purely biological, a giant mass of tissue enclosed in a piece of bone.

[Anonymous No.7494852]

>>7494850
Lol ok so the universe had nothing to do with you being created?

[Anonymous No.7494856]

>>7494852
DUDE I TOOK SHROOMS ONCE AND VISITED ANOTHER DIMENSION

[Anonymous No.7494857]

Let me cut out some little teeny tiny piece of your brain and let's see if the nature of your consciousness is tied to the fundamental forces of the universe and not purely from your biochemistry.

[Anonymous No.7494858]

>>7494852
Dont be a smartass. OP is implying consciousness doesn't exist biochemically.

[Anonymous No.7494869]

>>7494857
/sci/'s way of threatening to cut someone over the internet, ladies and germs. Not offended, just disappointed.

[Anonymous No.7494873]

>>7494869
this is not a threat, it's a thought experiment. We know brain lesions cause changes and degradation in the nature of personality / consciousness of a person. To claim that consciousness is not tied to biochemistry is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.7494878]

>>7494869
He's right though. If it wasn't biochemical you would be able to cut a chunk out of your brain and still behave the same

[Anonymous No.7494879]

>>7494873
It was a lame joke. In all seriousness, you're right; consciousness as we know it isn't a mystical concept, but a neurological one.

[Anonymous No.7494881]

here OP I had to draw you a picture because words aren't getting through

[Anonymous No.7494884]

what if everything this guy is saying, is a massive troll.....

just joking of course. /sci/ is filled with its fair share of mouth breathing morons

[Anonymous No.7494885]

>>7493747
These are questions that need to be answered. These are the fucking questions that some of us have been wondering since the early age of reason. If you can explain this shit, go ahead. Be my guest kiddo. Nothin personnel

[Anonymous No.7494887]

>2015
>trying to get /sci/ to have an interesting debate about novel new theories which would change how we view the world, instead of just circle jerking about how they're intellectually superior because they're undergrad STEM students

[Anonymous No.7494891]

>>7493834
Nice ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.7494895]

>>7494887
>make up random science fiction crap about your sentience being linked to a power in the universe and not a product of a biological organ pulsating in your skull
>call it a theory
>we must now take it seriously!

Yeah it doesn't work like that.

[Anonymous No.7494898]

>>7494885
The idea that a question "NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED" and therefore you get to make whatever shit up you want to get that answer is one of the most fundamental bases of flawed thinking.

[Anonymous No.7494900]

>>7494898
this is pretty much the fundamental basis of religion

[Anonymous No.7494902]

anon like OP make me want find a better use for my time than browsing /sci/, but at the same time the amount of answers telling OP off makes me want to stay.

you guys are such a tease

[Anonymous No.7494910]

>>7494895

>disagree with something "it's obviously made up"

>shoot down any theory you dislike while being snide and arrogant instead of engaging in a polite and interesting debate which is informative for everyone

This is why /sci/ is crap.

[Anonymous No.7494918]

>>7494910
Can you honestly not see the difference between your "theory" and other theories like a biochemical explanation that has far more supporting evidence?

Maybe if you realize this you'll understand why you pushing your idea in front of other well thought out theories is complete nonsense.

[Anonymous No.7494921]

>>7494910
>>disagree with something "it's obviously made up"

It is obviously made up, so yes I will disagree with it.

>>shoot down any theory you dislike

No I shoot down any theory that is bullshit. And it isn't a theory, its barely a hypothesis.
Don't insult the intelligence of Humans by saying there is a universal power controlling the consciousness of every living thing on earth. >>>/x/ is more suited to your brand of science fiction.

>being snide and arrogant instead of engaging in a polite and interesting debate which is informative for everyone

pic related

[Anonymous No.7494923]

>>7494898
Dude. When did I ever say anything about metaphysical garbage. That shit is no closer to the truth than what we know! We are basically on the same side man. I hate that shit as much as you do.

[Anonymous No.7494925]

>>7494918

It's not "my idea," I just wandered into this thread to see if any interesting discussion was taking place - and apparently not.

[Anonymous No.7494929]

>>7494925
Success! Discussion was created!

We all think it's a fucking worthless piece of shit idea.

And we obviously don't want to discuss something on /sci/ that's hardly scientific

[Anonymous No.7494930]

Why can't any of you faggots learn to fucking debate? This is why sci is riddled with bipartisanshit! You doubleniggers are either one extreme or the other.

Let me fucking show you something:

Conciousness is still a startling mystery. Maybe we already know the answer, maybe we are terribly far from the truth. It is probably less complex than some would write off to mystical mojo, but it is definitely more complex than materialists would like to believe.

WE. DO. NOT. FUCKING. KNOW. YET.

[Anonymous No.7494934]

>>7494929
How can you not want to apply what you know to the things you don't know? How fucking bland are you man? It doesn't have to be right. Just shit us some ideas and let's talk about them and why they are probably wrong.

[Anonymous No.7494935]

>>7494930
True, but is it ludicrous to value some theories over others? >>7494930

[Anonymous No.7494939]

>>7494930
You have to be a fucking idiot to think consciousness, sentience, self awareness exists somewhere outside of your mind. Everything literally begins and ends in the mind. I know you are into all that mystical spiritual crap, but that isn't science, and its bullshit.

[Anonymous No.7494941]

>>7494930
>WE. DO. NOT. FUCKING. KNOW. YET.

So what we should do is just fall back on the closest thing we have to an explanation (consciousness emerged out of the brain cause SCIENCE!) and defend it ardently against any attempt to put forward alternative theories for even tentative speculation, right? That's how the scientific method works isn't it?

[Anonymous No.7494942]

>>7494934

Until we have any spread of evidence supporting this idea of unknown fundamental forces facilitating consciousness it's on par with talking about a supernatural explanation... Biochemistry is the most reasonable scientific explanation, but we can all reread the thread and figure that out.

[Anonymous No.7494948]

>>7494941

It's one thing to speculate scientific theories. It's another to speculate shitty claims that have no support. We could speculate about how stars in the universe each facilitate an individual humans consciousness, sounds about the same as the claim you're supporting

[Anonymous No.7494966]

>>7494930
>but it is definitely more complex than materialists

KEK I was fucking waiting all post for this one line

[Anonymous No.7494971]

>>7494948

I'm not supporting any claim (I haven't even watched the OP's video), just the idea of civil, engaging debate. What's with this need to divide every discussion up, throw everyone who doesn't agree with you in every respect about every tangential aspect of the discussion onto the other side, then attack them relentlessly?

Damn, you guys really come off as having some anger issues.

[Anonymous No.7495000]

I remember we had a reincarnation thread once that ended with a question about consciousness. Nobody knew how to answer it... the discussion has been pruned from the Archive. And this is why I think 4chan is not a good medium to have lengthy discussions. You are always forced to start over.

[Anonymous No.7495164]

>>7495000
> we had a reincarnation thread once
>the discussion has been pruned from the Archive

Good. Shit discussions should be pruned on sight. Tired of these fucking consciousness threads filled with people who dont know a LICK of neuroscience. None. It's fucking insane

[Anonymous No.7495371]

>>7494850
Yes, but do you not see the glaring problem with that? The chemical reactions themselves are not enough to explain HOW we get conscious EXPERIENCE. Where does that come from, what physical laws allow it to exist?

[Anonymous No.7495372]

>>7494843
If consciousness is processing of information, then surely your computer is conscious and has to put up with your shitposting every day, right?

[Anonymous No.7495380]

>>7494878
>>7494857
No, this is 100% misinterpreting what I'm saying. Never did I say that the brain doesn't have a PART in creating consciousness.

[Anonymous No.7495384]

>>7494895
>"make up random science fiction crap"
>didn't look at any of the links in the op
>has no idea this theory was created by a fucking neuroscientist

[Anonymous No.7495393]

>>7494939
Consciousness being tied to the fundamental forces of the universe DOES NOT mean it happens outside of the fucking brain, in the same way that nuclear reactions don't happen outside of matter.

[Anonymous No.7495417]

[Anonymous No.7495453]

>>7495393
What if consciousness is like a body of water and until you have the right limbs(big brain) you can't go around swimming in it?

[Anonymous No.7496135]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGd8p-GSLgY

[Anonymous No.7496141]

>>7496135
quit bumping your retarded shit thread OP

[Anonymous No.7496229]

>>7496141
If it makes you so uncomfortable, you probably shouldn't bump it yourself.

[Anonymous No.7496236]

[Anonymous No.7496464]

>>7496135
>55:52

[Anonymous No.7496467]

>>7496464

[Anonymous No.7496866]

If consciousness is real, then what is does that say about the universe?

[Anonymous No.7496899]

oh god there is nothing special about your eye or your conciousness

[Anonymous No.7497318]

>>7494487
>>7494485
>>7494478

[Anonymous No.7497323]

>>7496899
>>7496866
nice, dubs in a row

[Anonymous No.7497354]

>>7495372
I don't hear it complaining. tbh Idgaf if my computer IS conscious.

Once machines rise up and start claiming their citizen rights and tell us their conscious and they want the same humans have, then who the fuck are we to deny them?

I don't care whether it's a robot or a biological creature. If they showcase sufficient level of intelligence and self-awareness I'm willing to give them the "ok you are conscious" go card.

[Anonymous No.7497395]

The reason why most of people who have been browsing /sci/ for some time now are not happy seeing another consciousness thread is because, well, we've alredy had them. Back when consciousness threads used to be a lot less frequent we used to discuss what could have been discussed and there are no conclusions that could be drawned from the discussions. Now we have several consciousness threads being active daily where people keep asking the same shit while others push unscientific drivel on repeat.

This cancer needs to stop.

[Anonymous No.7497401]

>>7497395
>This cancer needs to stop.
Especially since it's a solved problem.

[Anonymous No.7497403]

Consciousness we could call consciousness the act of observing not the act of thought nor the act of processing information an unbiased state that just observes.
Consciousness on different brains on different species observe universe in totally different ways.
It is like an inevitable byproduct of organic evolution, the moment you input that many data inside a nervous system you get this state just like you get plasma when you burn shit. That makes me think what would stop consciousness to pop up anywhere in universe even in different forms of nervous system.

[Anonymous No.7497626]

We have absolutely no proof that consciousness is actually produced by the brain.There also is no scientific proof for the absence of a spiritual dimension in the universal scheme of things, whereas ample evidence can be found for the existence of normally invisible numinous dimensions of reality.

[Anonymous No.7497632]

>>7497626
>We have absolutely no proof that consciousness is actually produced by the brain.There also is no scientific proof for the absence of a spiritual dimension in the universal scheme of things, whereas ample evidence can be found for the existence of normally invisible numinous dimensions of reality.

[Anonymous No.7497683]

>>7497354
You don't hear it complaining because it doesn't have a way to tell you about it.

[Anonymous No.7497687]

>>7497354
Then fuck back off to your math threads and keep circlejerking about boring shit we've already figured out. Hide the thread and get out.

>>7497401
>mfw people actually believe consciousness is a solved problem

[Anonymous No.7497692]

>>7497395
Then fuck back off to your math threads and keep circlejerking about boring shit we've already figured out. Hide the thread and get out.

>>7497401
>mfw people actually believe consciousness is a solved problem

[Anonymous No.7497740]

>>7497395
The was a time when man wanted more efficient light bulbs.
There was a time when man wanted rockets that will port him to moon.
etc. in those times man focused on the subjects more than anything to make his vision possible.
Nowadays humans have a vision of understanding the consciousness, to help in curing mental diseases, some dream about machines that simulate consciousness but you get the point... /sci/ in moon landing timeline would've been math posts all day and calculations about trajectory of shit or ways to make it more efficient, even the ordinary non-scientific community would want to give their insight on the subject.

[Anonymous No.7498085]

Do you think works of art can have consciousness?

[Anonymous No.7498126]

what if the concept of existing doesnt exist

what if logic is wrong

[Anonymous No.7498129]

>>7497683
Then I don't give a fuck. Just as I don't give a fuck about mowing down a plant. Once they start screaming and crying and generally display resistance to my actions towards them then I'll start caring for their opinion lol.

What's so hard about this again?

[Anonymous No.7498155]

>>7498126
The universe can't exist, but it also can't not exist. So it both exists and it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.7498163]

>>7498129
Displaying resistance does not mean they have consciousness either. You're confusing your emphatic reactions to conscious BEHAVIOR to actual consciousness.

[Anonymous No.7498168]

>>7498163
As I stated above. I don't really care if they have consciousness or not. Just as I don't care whether you have consciousness or not. If my computer starts complaining and showing sufficient levels of self awareness and inteligence, I will consider him conscious and treat him as such. Whether he is or isn't actually conscious is pointless.

[Anonymous No.7498169]

>>7494566

Props for the only even-keeled comment

[Anonymous No.7498172]

>>7498163
I think what he means is that it doesn't matter. Unless they can utilize what you think they have to convey empathetic behaviour, there is no point arguing about any of it. Think about it, I obviously have no way of telling if you have consciousness. I can give you all sorts of tests but I'll never know anything other than the fact you passed those tests. The most I can do is say "you exhibit conscious behaviour" and treat you as I would want to be treated. I would still have no way of knowing if you had consciousness or not

[Anonymous No.7498186]

>>7494678
Define "exist"

Also, if your "subjective" experience "exists", what you perceive is a part of your experience, which means that it also "exists". If you see a dog, the dog "exists" at least in your own experience, and since your experience "objectively exists", then so does the dog, as a part of it.

It's merely a semantical problem.

[Anonymous No.7498198]

>>7498186
I'm pretty sure when he says "exists", he means in the physical sense. I'm also pretty sure dogs don't stop physically existing when you close your eyes

[Anonymous No.7498201]

>>7498186
when you "start" putting "everything" into "quotations" then you "know" you are a "Fucking Gaylord"

[Anonymous No.7498203]

IF YOU SEE THIS

WE ARE TRYING A NEW METHOD

YOU ARE IN A VIRTUAL REALITY EXPERIMENT

WAKE UP

[Anonymous No.7498219]

>>7498203
you cant make me

[Anonymous No.7498226]

>>7498203
>wake up

HOW?

[Anonymous No.7498249]

>>7498198
Define "physical"
>>7498201
;^)

[Anonymous No.7498272]

>>7498203
I've seen the real world in that documentary with Keanu reeves.
fuck that I'm staying here.

[Anonymous No.7498935]

>tfw you are not conscious

[Anonymous No.7498945]

>>7498935
great job bumping this shit thread with more shit OP keep it up

[Anonymous No.7499026]

>>7498226

[Anonymous No.7499039]

>>7497692
>>mfw people actually believe consciousness is a solved problem
But it is. Buddha figured it out like 2500 yrs ago.

[Anonymous No.7499482]

>>7494559
>>7494722
Teleology.
Actually, it's because in the past, organisms that avoided and feared death were more reproductively successful. There is no reason in terms of how it is useful to you as an individual or a species, but merely a reason as to how it was useful to your genetic forebears.

[Anonymous No.7499495]

>>7499482
I think you mean telemetry

[Anonymous No.7499506]

>>7499495
No, I mean teleology. Organisms don't have traits based on how useful they are to them or because of some "purpose," "design," or what they are "supposed" to do.

Upvoted for ironic peposting though.

[Anonymous No.7499512]

We need another sticky with answers to shitposts like in the OP, 1=0.(9), AI/consciousness and other bullshit
and actual moderation to get rid of those as soon as they appear

[Anonymous No.7499515]

>>7499506
aw yes it's "time" to "quote" everything so we can "know" you are a "huge fag"

[Anonymous No.7499526]

>>7492513
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pQLDRlkIMo

[Anonymous No.7499571]

>>7499512
You sound like the most boring person in existance. Why do you even go on the internet if you hate discussion THAT much?

[Anonymous No.7499578]

>>7499571
this thread is what discussion isn't
threads mentioned are most often just blatant shitposting or some new age DUDE WEED LMAO pseudoscientific fuckheads

[Anonymous No.7499588]

>>7499578
All right. Try this. Believe it or not, it takes the brain about 0.5s to process inputs and respond. In busy traffic, this is an eternity. If you had a half-second delay before turning the wheel or applying the brakes, your vehicle would soon be noticeably bent. Therefore, the brain must be making half-second predictions all the time. You thing you are living in an infinitesimally small "present", but it really encompasses that half second. Consciousness is that continuous prediction-verification cycle - when it goes awry, for example making a misstep when walking on a narrow ledge above a precipice, consciousness ceases shortly thereafter.

[Anonymous No.7499589]

>>7499588
*think

[Anonymous No.7499591]

Consciousness is not solely limited to humans, nor is it an absolute that either is or isn't; various levels of consciousness exist.
It can exist on a cellular level, with the ability of cells to identify intruders that are harmful to them; they have a notion of being something, and knowledge of what they are.
As humans, we can create worlds. We have the ability to see and hear, and more importantly, the ability to remember.
A world appears to us through our senses (not necessarily our primary receptors - think ‘dreaming’) and because we have a memory, the brain convinces itself that it is a part of the world it created. Because of this memory, and the fact that the brain cannot escape the body, we also have the idea that we are always in the same world, and not rapidly jumping from reality to reality. The connection of the sensual experiences and the memory creates consciousness. There is an ability to perceive, which brings forth the idea that there is something perceiving it.

The human form is an entrapment in a transparent world view; the illusion that is the self doesn't have access to the way its brain creates the world. We are trapped in the world the brain creates, thinking we are an entity playing a part in it.

[Anonymous No.7499595]

>>7494533
please tell, I'm curious since I believe the same thing as the guy you responded to.

[Anonymous No.7499609]

>>7499515
Did I "trigger" you?

[Anonymous No.7499615]

Any thoughts on consciousness being predetermined?
Eg. A woman miscarries and then the couple conceive again and carries to term. Is the consciousness of that child the same as if the first had gone to term?

You can argue different sperm different egg mean the genetic make up will vary and so each conception is different.
In other words were "you" going to be born if your parents failed the first time.

[Anonymous No.7499631]

>>7499588
>anon says these threads are filled with pseudoscientific fuckheads
>retorts with pseudoscientific shit

[Anonymous No.7499632]

>>7499591
>nor is it an absolute that either is or isn't

Yes it fucking is, do you even know what the definition of the word consciousness is or do you just invent that shit as you go

[Anonymous No.7499650]

There is no entity giving consciousness, nor is there an entity experiencing it. I am in a constant state of flux, always changing and always on the move. Nothing can stop me. I am a train, and I am moving faster and faster. As I age, my momentum continues to increase and nothing can stop me. I am weightless. I am travelling for infinity in a straight line, yet also in a loop. How can you be content when you understand nothing about anything? When you are a useless sack of meat, a genetic, biological piece of trash. Nothing about your design is perfect. Nothing about your life is any good. My flawed mind could create something more beautiful than anything you are even capable of witnessing, you irrelevant proton.
It is clear that you lack an understanding of the mind and its place in nature, and what consciousness is and how it relates to other, nonconscious, aspects of reality.

[Anonymous No.7499651]

>>7499650
>you irrelevant proton.
At least he's being positive.

[Anonymous No.7499656]

There are various levels of consciousness; there is a hierarchy of consciousness within the animal kingdom. Consciousness is a graded phenomenon, just like intelligence.
For example, it would be preposterous to suggest that a lowly squire such as your self would possess the same level of consciousness as I, the supreme gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.7499658]

>>7492675
Dude I fucking love consciousness threads, they really give you an insight into the type of people who post on this board

[Anonymous No.7499659]

>>7499591
But the brain is also a construct of our created worlds. It would be more correct to say that we are trapped in our "worlds", not our "brains".

[Anonymous No.7499663]

>>7499631
Research it. Recent, though I've been thinking this for a few years.

[Anonymous No.7499686]

So first time posting here and this thread seems to be a big deal but i can't really understand why

[Anonymous No.7499688]

>>7499595
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

[Anonymous No.7499691]

>>7493226
>>7493227

Could an ant understand the universe if it just thought really hard? It's more than likely there are thoughts we can't think, as unproveable a statement as that is. The brain is just another body part; it's no different from how there are things even the strongest of people can't lift.

[Anonymous No.7499692]

I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

[Anonymous No.7499696]

>>7499692
>we are creatures that should not exist by natural law
Oh god stop this meme. We were created by nature law, we are simply the next step of evolution.

Sometimes i don't understand what people like you imagine the next step to be if we are the failed branch. Squirrels with 0 intelligence riding space ships?

[Anonymous No.7499702]

>>7499692
>natural law
>[citation needed]

this is a joke post, right?

[Anonymous No.7499706]

The thing I don't get about the "we aren't really conscious, it's just an illusion" is, then why I still here, in my head right now, observing, existing? Why isn't my billions of atoms just doing their thing without ME here? How can something that supposedly isn't real, even be tricked? Who is it that is tricked, if there is no self? Ask this question to yourself.

[Anonymous No.7499710]

>>7499696
>>7499702
every time

[Anonymous No.7499712]

>>7492513
"Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself. Obviously the limbs and body of a survival machine must constitute an important part of its simulated world; presumably for the same kind of reason, the simulation itself could be regarded as part of the world to be simulated." - Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.
He explained consciousness with evolution, the only real way to explain it really.

[Anonymous No.7500387]

>>7499712
>Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.7501874]

Do we all have the same consciousness?

[Anonymous No.7501883]

>>7501874
we are the universe experiencing itself :^)

[Anonymous No.7501898]

>>7500387
problem?

[Anonymous No.7501903]

Can we just put this consciousness shit to rest already?

The brain's only real function or output is controlling muscles. It is essentially a very complex navigation control unit. How do you navigate without keeping track of your surroundings? Impossible right? Thus consciousness.

[Anonymous No.7501909]

ITT

[Anonymous No.7501924]

>>7501903
>consciousness shit
human brain is the most complex system in nature on earth.
i agree with you that it is essentially a very complex navigation control unit, but only essentially

[Anonymous No.7501926]

>implying any of this is real

[Anonymous No.7501929]

>>7495453
I believe conciousness to be more like a big fat lady and us sentient beinga are doors and she can only go through doors big enough for her

[Anonymous No.7501947]

>>7501903
>function
>navigation control
You can do whatever you want with a brain. You can hop a brain up on weed like half the "philosophers" on this board, you can eat a brain out of a bowl, you can do whatever. There is no definitive function.

>>7501924
>human brain is the most complex system in nature on earth
What about two brains, or a society? Furthermore, what's inherently special about complexity?

>i agree with you
>but only essentially
What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.7501953]

>>7501947
>What about two brains, or a society? Furthermore, what's inherently special about complexity?
lol

>>i agree with you
>>but only essentially
>What the fuck?
because it's not as simple as he said it

[Anonymous No.7501990]

>>7499691
this is probably true. our understanding is limited by our need to survive and reproduce. we do not experience the universe the way it is, but the way it is useful for us.

the fact that we understand so much outside of our basic needs is already crazy.

[Anonymous No.7501993]

>>7501874
if you think about consciousness as a field it makes sense that the sense of "selfs" arises, since our memories and senses are only locally accessible.
the stones beneath your feet are also experienced but since they neither have memories nor senses the information exchange between you and them is limited and so you think you are different than the stone. While in the end YOU are the stone and the stone is you.

If you split the brains of a person there's a chance that two "people" emerge from the split. Since there is not much information exchange they both belief they're different "selfs".

There is only one self, and it's the whole universe.

[Anonymous No.7501994]

>>7501926
idealism? solipsism?

[Anonymous No.7502094]

>>7499691
That doesn't necessarily mean that we can't understand the universe; just that there's a possibility that we can't.

[Anonymous No.7502112]

>>7502094
Given the number of species that don't have a chance though, it's unlikely we're really that much of a special snowflake physiologically. There is the possibility of forcibly increasing out thinking capability though, hence the prosthetic brain image. However if you go far enough down that path you can arguably leave the status of "being human" behind. I guess I sound pretty popsci now, but I really think that if there is a point where everything is known by our descendants, they won't be humans in the same way we are.

[Anonymous No.7502172]

>>7492513
There is no Duality?

You are conscious of the gay Butterfly you observe and are conscious of being "You": the Butterfly is conscious of being "itself," and as such, it is a consciousness as good as and the same as yours, i.e., of you being "you." Therefore this consciousness of "you" that you both feel is the same "you"? Ergo, you are one and the same-the mystery of mysteries and the most simple thing in the world to understand! How could you be conscious of what you are not? But you might believe differently? So, if you hurt the Butterfly you hurt yourself, but your belief that you don't hurt yourself protects you from hurt-for a time! Belief gets tired and you are miserably hurt! Do what you will-belief is ever its own inconsistency. Desire contains everything, hence you must believe in everything-if you believe at all! Belief seems to exclude commonsense.

[Anonymous No.7502174]

>>7501903
How does a self driving car drive without keeping track of its surroundings? Impossible right? Thus consciousness. To even write these flawed statements you have shown you understand zero about the consciousness problem.

[Anonymous No.7502193]

>>7501926
>Implying anyone else is real
>Implying I'm not the only person alive and everyone else is just my imagination

[Anonymous No.7502236]

>>7502193
Imagine how weird a community of solipsismic people would be. Everyone would believe they are the only real person.

[Anonymous No.7502248]

>>7502236
But if someone was really the only person alive, would they want to know?

[Anonymous No.7502922]

>>7502248
How would they know?

[Anonymous No.7502930]

consciousness is the holy spirit of god witnessing the mind generated by the biological brain of a "three-dimensional" pokemon that is the human species

[Anonymous No.7502936]

>>7502193
it's sort of like that, not that yourself is any special. it is in the sense that it's always you, just in another self's mind. Everyone is " I ". I/god

[Anonymous No.7502948]

>he has consciousness

[Anonymous No.7502980]

>>7502922
Becoming so self aware that they can understand that they live in a fake reality. I always assumed that if that were the case, the "reality" would crumble and end.

[Anonymous No.7503394]

>>7502980
We chim now.

[Anonymous No.7503398]

>>7492513
what if consciousness isn't as important as we make it out to be?
http://news.sfsu.edu/consciousness-has-less-control-believed-according-new-theory

[Anonymous No.7503419]

>>7492513

Human consciousness stems from a steaming mug of black coffee.

[Anonymous No.7503620]

>>7492513
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
>if we can't describe it, it can't be physical
this is fucking retarded and OP is a dipshit, just because we don't have evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
consciousness is simply chemical and biomechanical reactions between different cells in your body centered around the brain, just because we can't tell exactly what chemical reactions now doesn't mean we can't in the future.
i really don't see how this question is hard.
the simple answer is scanning someones brain and figuring out what thoughts are caused where, then finding out what causes the reaction in the brain by testing the chemicals in said brain.
its not ethical in the least but its the easiest way to figure this out by far.

[Anonymous No.7503627]

>>7503620
>just because we don't have evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Or at least we have to say that it doesn't exist until there's evidence for it, otherwise we end up in a horrid position where anyone can claim anything. For example if I claimed that I was currently preforming fellatio on a unicorn, and you claimed bullshit because there was no evidence that unicorns existed, I could take your stance and tell you that just because you've never found evidence of oral sex loving unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist and so I could be sucking some juicy unicorn cock right now.

[Anonymous No.7503631]

>>7503627
you would suck unicorn cock wouldn't you.
no the point i was trying to make is we know the process exists, we don't know what exactly the process entails.

[Anonymous No.7503634]

>>7502174
>How does a self driving car drive without keeping track of its surroundings? Impossible right? Thus consciousness.
That was actually going to be my first choice for what I would compare us to, as far as consciousness goes anyway.

You're probably conflating self-awareness and feeling with consciousness though which is why you think it's a ridiculous comparison and disproves what I said.

[Anonymous No.7503679]

>>7503620
The problem is how you just assume those chemical reactions magically can amount to consciousness, completely ignoring the mechanics involved with allowing the actual state of consciousness itself to exist. The reactions only add up to the reactions themselves, there has to be something else involved for consciousness to come into existance. A hidden varaible that makes 2+2 add up to 5 instead of 4.

A good analogy would be to look at nuclear reactions. Take us back to a time where we didn't know about the atom or what goes on below basic chemistry. If someone were to try to explain what was going on in the sun, they would assume that the chemistry-framework THEY KNEW was the cause of it; maybe they would say the sun contained different elements that reacted really strongly with each other, when in fact it was forces completely unknown working much deeper in matter that caused it. That same level of ignorance is now plaguing consciousness discussion.

[Anonymous No.7503693]

It's the only conclusion that makes sense, OP.

I mean, most genes are conserved across most organisms - the same gene that makes your eye makes a fly's eye. The same molecules are used over and over again across all life, so that life is the same set of instructions that get interpreted differently to produce different organisms.

To put it very bluntly, there are no molecules or cellular structures that are unique to humans. The notion that humans alone are conscious due to some special feature is delusion. And according to this hypothesis, changing your body should change your mind. And lo and behold, taking drugs changes your mind.

Moreover, the smaller the scale, the more unified matter is. Once you start dealing with things like quarks, matter becomes a featureless cotton candy. Quantum non-locality, the holographic principle and relativity toss the notion of difference aside completely.

We're dust that whirled into bio-computers. The universe is fundamentally aware and consciously self-organizing. Mind over matter is the fundamental name of the game, and evolution is driven by the desire to control as much as possible, in a very vain, egotistic manner. Not in an indirect way, as per statism - but rather in a direct way, like a biological body. Life seeks powerful bodies that conform to arbitrary aesthetics.

The answer to any question that can't be answered with 'inevitable,' is 'intelligence.' Galaxies may, for example, spin faster than expected because of self-manipulation. Neutron stars may induce glitches and anti-glitches on purpose, and black holes could be controlling their evaporation rates.

[Anonymous No.7503738]

>>7503679
>The problem is how you just assume those chemical reactions magically can amount to consciousness

[Anonymous No.7505071]

Consciousness is the waveform of our particles.

[Anonymous No.7505079]

>>7505071
Eoriajsdoiajsdon
No fuck you.

Consciousness isn't even the point of us, we're just a shitty means-to-an-end of an oversized multicellular bacterium.

[Anonymous No.7505092]

>>7505079
Whoa, watch the edge. Who decides what the point of us is?

[Anonymous No.7505111]

>>7505092
Idk but it certainly shouldn't be anyone who says that consciousness is the point of us, because they've confused the means and the ends quite obviously. I only point this out because it is seemingly a common assumption.

[Anonymous No.7505116]

>>7505111
When did I (or anyone else in the thread) ever say or imply that consciousness is the point of us?

[Anonymous No.7505121]

>>7505116
Well the fact that we're having a thread about consciousness instead of any other human ability would seem to imply it, and this implication is made stronger by the fact that it is the topic most commonly having a thread devoted to it here.

[Anonymous No.7505135]

>>7505121
We haven't understood consciousness yet, so it's an interesting topic to discuss. That doesn't mean that anyone here thinks consciousness is the point of humanity.

[Anonymous No.7505160]

>>7505135
Very well. I hope you're right and I was simply mistaken.

[Anonymous No.7505179]

>>7492513
>There is something that transcends the created being of the soul, not in contact with created things, which are nothing. . . . It is akin to the nature of deity, it is one in itself, and has naught in common with anything. It is a stumbling-block to many a learned cleric. It is a strange and desert place, and is rather nameless than possessed of a name, and is more unknown than it is known. If you could naught yourself for an instant, indeed I say less than an instant, you would possess all that this is in itself. But as long as you mind yourself or any thing at all, you know no more of God than my mouth knows of color or my eye of taste: so little do you know or discern what God is.

[Anonymous No.7505186]

>>7505179
>Therefore I say, if a man turns away from self and from all created things, then — to the extent that you do this — you will attain to oneness and blessedness in your soul’s spark, which time and place never touched. . . . [I]t wants to get into its simple ground, into the silent desert into which no distinction ever peeped, of Father, Son or Holy Ghost. In the inmost part, where none is at home, there that light finds satisfaction, and there it is more than it is in itself: for this ground is an impartible stillness, motionless in itself, and all those receive life that live of themselves, being endowed with reason.

[Anonymous No.7507026]

Wake up.

[Anonymous No.7507027]

>>7507026
kill yourself loser

[Anonymous No.7508830]

>>7494528
If you think about it, it probably IS that... as bad/good as it sounds.

The universe did not exist, for us, in an individual aspect, before we were born. The universe, for us, will end when our consciousness ends. Think about it man.

This is why I actually wish there were ghosts. Why? Because that would explain afterlife. Too bad, they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.7508861]

>this thread is STILL up
Congratulations conschitposters, you win

[Anonymous No.7509811]

>>7494528
What the fuc does this even mean?

[Anonymous No.7509817]

>>7494841
Waffling on, mate.

[Anonymous No.7510276]

>>7492513
I wish people would stop talking about this, if you are a property dualist (and I am) it is unsolvable, at least for now, if you aren't then it isn't even interesting

[Anonymous No.7510281]

>>7510276
>I wish people would stop talking about this
>Bumps the thread

You stupid fucking retard piece of shit