Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather. - Bill Hicks
>>593516981 consciousness: you know that you know that you know,and all you know it's about you and only you. But you don't know all about you,because the part of you that know that you know you don't know completly and you never will. So you know that you know and you know that you will never know everything that you need to know about you
>>593518854 Are there any good way to find your true ego when you feel lost? i feel less conscious than 5 years ago, and i don t get if it's because of my costant questioning myself and the nature of things or something else
>>593519246 I don't care if it's academic, I care if it's scientific. You can circle jerk philosophy all you want but the fact remains there's no remotely established relationship between quantum physics and consciousness, and there's certainly no precedence for free will since any scientific study of the brain basically takes it as a premise that the brain can be modeled mechanistically. Fuck off.
>>593519810 I don't think there is a true ego, I think a representationalist model of the self is more accurate. Systems biology is pretty much flatly rejected the self and is now working with models where the biological system is a "non-self system".
In short, the Buddhists had the right idea when thinking that the ego isn't inherently established in any way.
Feeling less or more conscious isn't necessarily tied into the ego at all, but more upon a bundle of components, such as attentional abilities, sensory feedback, mnemonic recall, etc. I find this far more useful in that then there is no nebulous propertyless bare particular to deal with, merely components that can be trained individually.
There are various habits which may lead to poorer cognitive performance over time that should be rectified. An example is eliminating the intake of multiple streams of digital media at once. So don't side screen a video while you type as you listen to music and check your phone, such things are being shown to reduce gray matter. In general learn to reduce multi-tasking in your daily life and increase your capacity for single-locus concentration.
>>593519810 Can you bring forth your self from 5 years ago so that we may compare his consciousness with your self now? >>593520720 >/b/ is shit so let's not try to have good threads I wholeheartedly disagree, I think /b/ is the perfect place to discuss consciousness. There are always a few diamonds in the sewers here.
>>593516981 our present understanding of consciousness is like the greeks understanding of cosmology or biology... There are some extremely interesting points of view on what a science of consciousness might look like the heavy hitters for me are Dan Dennett / Hofstader Thomas Metzinger, Sam Harris, Ramahandran, The Churchlands, Susan Greenfileld, Sue Blackmore ... but we really don't know for sure just how close or far we are from a theory of consciousness
>>593516981 at some point it became an advantage to recognize patterns and gain a sense of intuition. >seems like a predator could be nearby. I recognize these pawprints >winter is coming >these berries make me feel better than those berries >etc eventually, we became smart enough to make life easy enough that we had downtime. Our higher functioning minds need to be used somehow, so we thought and communicated. That's what I think, at least
>>593520509 >I don't care if it's academic, I care if it's scientific
They are mostly one in the same.
>You can circle jerk philosophy
Almost no serious thinker on consciousness actually thinks that philosophy can be untethered from science. I presume you are not involved in the sciences yourself based off of your comment. Quine is rolling in his grave.
> there's no remotely established relationship between quantum physics and consciousness
Since all of the fundamental forces have been reduced to quantum theories, saying this is just incoherent unless you honestly think that consciousness is outside of physics all together, and since biology reduces to chemistry which reduces to physics, such a thing isn't tenable for someone who remotely respects the sciences.
What you likely mean is the quantum woo pushed by lay people, which is fine to be irritated with, but one should be cautious not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Lets say for example we find out that consciousness is electromagnetic/electrodynamic communication between parts of the brain, which is one of the theories, that by definition means it is quantum, because the modern theories are qed and qem etc.
> there's certainly no precedence for free will
There is no justification for this statement, learn into a priori
>since any scientific study of the brain basically takes it as a premise that the brain can be modeled mechanistically
That isn't true, and an interpretation of the data has little to do with the functionality of a model. Especially since the models do not reflect the ontology directly, they merely expose relationals. To think that a tangential premise of a study has anything to do with the truth value of what can be derived from such studies is woefully naive. A mechanistic model =/= an axiom that ontologically precludes free-will.
You should really brush up on your philosophy of science.
From a biological stand point your conscious is simply sequences of information traveling down a quantum super highway. All that information gets stored in a 4 terabit hard drive somewhere in your brain. So every thought and action you have is just a small electric signal your brain receives from your nervous system.
However you as an individual have free will, or so it would appear.
Thus your consciousness is a combination of electrical signals being interpreted by your brain, and your brains ability to organize and register that information.
Consciousness is an emergent phenomena of neural activity. A pattern, which persists as a semi-stable time binding mechanism. The current scientific paradigm is unable to account for the necessity of sleep, because they are unaware that consciousness is not a noun, it is a verb. It requires effort. All things which require effort require rest. Human consciousness has not evolved in a manner which is conducive to it's constant perpetuation. After a period of time, the construct of consciousness begins to break down. Without sleep, permanent damage to the generative processes of consciousness can occur. The scaffolding, if you will, itself consisting of ephemeral epiphenomena. will begin to warp, and even break, with catastrophic, even fatal results.
This all, however, refers to the form of consciousness that we refer to as the "ego".
What we generally are unaware of is that the ego itself is a subordinate system of supranormal pataphysical consciousness, which is of course, the fundamental source of so-called "reality".
>>593516981 Consciousness is basically the reason we believe we have souls, a soul and consciousness are the same thing, one from a spiritual point of view, and one from a scientific. Let me lay this shit on you /b/rother >we are nothing more than the universe experiencing itself.
>>593524267 I understand you,and probably you are right. But i think that talking in a place like this could share some enlightenment and maybe just maybe,you can find out something not smart or deep,but different and interesting
>>593525188 The human evolution of self awareness comes from the stoned ape theory by Terence McKenna. Consciousness pretty much is self awareness. I got arrested for drug possession today, gotta love 'murican justice system. The cop let me go without pressing charges which is nice.
>>593524267 Eh. I guess I just prefer higher variance in intelligence of posts. It's not so dry and sometimes they're pretty entertaining. I've already partially migrated to 2*2*2chan, and likely won't stay here much longer. Both are pretty shitty anyways, but that's the internet for you.
YOUR ALL A BUNCH OF BRAINWASHED IDIOTS. There really is no such thing as consciousness. Everything in space time will happen in a certain way, never changing. Even if you were to time travel, it was already meant for you too. Even if you think you are doing something random, it was meant to happen, and you cannot change that. Me choosing to write this post isnt a choice at all, due to the fact that time space already has stated I have done so. FOr example, can matter think? No. A particle? No. What about multiple particles, forming an element. Cant think. What about those elemnets over time forming cells? Can they think? Nope. What about those cells coming together to form neurons? NO. So, since the brain is a cluster of neurons and other cells, what makes you think there is such a thing as consciousness? For example, a computer, can a transistor think? No, but put millions upon millions of transistors together lie neurons, use programming like DNA to make it work and BOOM it can do so many things. But that doesnt mean it can think. We dont think, we think we think, and we do.
>>593516981 the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later" the awareness or perception of something by a person. plural noun: consciousnesses "her acute consciousness of Mike's presence" the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. "consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain" By googling consciousness?
>>593521833 I really enjoyed reading your answer, as a medicine student I find "consciousness as a non self system" a very scientific and biologically acceptable way to define a being and its behaviour. What I cognitively feel I lost is the representation of myself, the only one which is inherited with your perception of the reality itself based on the environment you have lived in.
>>593516981 I see consciousness as a way of seeing my own butthole from space while I feel as light as a feather. The fact I can drift off and have an out-of-body experience with only my consciousness to witness such a butthole is quite an emotional moment.
>>593526492 How is it horseshit? I find it hard to beleive you when you dont provide a valid argument. How is a particle not thinking different from multiple together preformingg different actions? Let me guess, your also the person that believes we are created by god and have a soul. How is it, everything happening in your brain makes you, well, think? Not the process of thinking, but being able to freely think upon your own request.
>>593526851 Well over 7 of that 9 minutes was Terrence McKenna. Do you have the attention span of a fly? Or the ego of a man with his head up his ass 'cuz he loves the smell? Get off your goddamn high horse.
>>593527177 I couldn't honestly say I believe I think upon my own request, or even that I have or do not have true free will. All I know is that I am SOMEHOW capable of experience the results of my thought, actions, and experiences. But I don't know how. I subscribe mostly to Zen Buddhism and Discordianism, and don't believe in any sort of god, but thanks for making up a bunch of bullshit for your strawman opponent to believe in.
>>593527698 >>593527333 >logic requires god Holy hell, that's preposterous. You can't even say something more majestic like "god makes the flowers bloom" or something? Which god does logic require? Yahweh? Zeus? Krishna?
Thinking about this stuff really makes me feel stupid. I don't know. We're using a process that's a part of our own consciousness, thought, to crack the hard problem of consciousness itself. We can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to try and solve it, but what if the problem itself intrinsically unsolvable.
Reality is what we perceive at the moment Our perspective of what we consider reality can easily change What defines what's real then? If our objectives and what we consider right change every instant What is reality? We can't even remember the day we were born We only see what was defined as our birth, life could be a projection, we consider life to what we see right or wrong. There's countless amount of parallel projections of a separate world from every mind in what we consider life itself Our own world could be small, but huge itself. What we know as world is what we've seen. The small space we've lived in in this planet could be the only existing land, as you as a single individual has not visited the rest. So what is the world itself? What we see, or what is shown to us.
What is happiness? Is there happiness? How can there be happiness? What we portray as happiness is what makes us content. But our own happiness will be the opposite to at least one or more individual Therefor there can't be happiness. Only what makes us content, Because another persons happiness can make you miserable Happiness is greed, selfishness. You can't be happy, because the cost of happiness is another persons suffering. Selfishness
>>593528228 There,i think this is an important point >no one knows for sure yet and everything about it is speculation at best. You can raise questions to yourself that have no "right" answer. So speculation for me it's all we will have,until we can understand the physical part of the processes. But even then i think about perception and reality...
>>593528685 >contact with some aspect of a godlike intelligence I've experienced something very similar, but then realized that the intelligence should be bequeathed to the entire universe of experience, and not to any idea of a god. But sometimes it certainly seems that way, I'll give you that.
>>593529033 Fair enough. >>593529479 >everything about it is speculation at best Language and inquiry do nothing but diminish 'it', whatever it may be. It's there, but will evade any attempts to nail it down before you've even raised the hammer.
>>593527333 so you have a 3 letter word and therefore you have an explanation for one of the deepest mysteries ? whats more likely that you have a true explanation or are you like most people in history just confused by language into thinking that you understand things that you really do not ?
Well I've come to preliminary conclusion that this reality is simply a mental construct. There seem to be rules that seem to be consistent, but the consistency of those rules is itself a deliberate aspect of this construct. And I have also come to the preliminary conclusion that all sentient beings that I am currently aware of are facets of this being's consciousness. We are fingers on the hand of god, and god has sat on that hand for a time, to play "the stranger" with itself. Blasphemous, surely, but accurate, as far as I am aware, currently.
>>593531321 You might be interested in The Black Iron Prison http://www.principiadiscordia.com/bip/1.php Also this video where Alan Watts plays God for his audience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1LzVN8nqg0
We can explain sensory information, and how it all comes together to form conscious experience, but what about that experience itself? That subjective observation of color, smell, shape, taste. Is my perception and color of red the same as yours? How do you quantify that quality. Is it physical? Objective? Is subjective experience objective? Is consciousness the result of the structure of the constituents of our mind, or is it an intrinsic property of those constituents? Is there even a fine line between what is conscious and what isn't, if consciousness arises from physical systems?
>>593531865 If you seek to explain something, then it certainly seems fruitless to wind up with more questions after the explanation, doesn't it? Unless you're a masochistic theologian, I suppose. Language is a means of putting things into intellectual boxes, and NO intellectual box could EVER be great enough to hold such a fundamental majesty as "it".
I am familiar with the concept. I have experienced, apparently, a state of what could best be described as superconsciousness. Directly apprehending reality on a level which seemed at the time to be of ultimate solidity, compared to which, ordinary waking life is a delicate tissue of .. not deceit.. but more.. pleasant fiction, for the most part. My blood became as molten gold in my veins and REALITY ITSELF SHATTERED!! REVEALING THE WHITE HOT SUPERCOMPLEX OF OUR TENTACULAR HYPEREXISTENCE!! OH THE MATH OF IT!! METATRON CALLED AND I ANSWERED!!! THIS WORLD IS A SITCOM!!! A SUNDAY FUNNY!!! I ALONE HAVE PLUMBED THE DEPTHS OF ULTIMATE REALITY AND I HAVE BROUGHT BACK PRESENTS!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!
>>593532679 >If you seek to explain something, then it certainly seems fruitless to wind up with more questions after the explanation, doesn't it?
I see what you're saying, and honestly appreciate your view point but I disagree.
>Language is a means of putting things into intellectual boxes, and NO intellectual box could EVER be great enough to hold such a fundamental majesty as "it".
But, language evolves with time, experience, and technology in our case. Words are made to connotate ideas with them. For example, it would have been inconceivable for someone 500 years ago to understand the internet, and yet here we are and we understand it at least to some degree.
Let me propose a question, maybe?
Are our brains great enough to hold the fundamental majesty of "it", and if they are. And, it were to become a common experience or thing, could we not assign a word to it?
If you were to say that no, are brains are too weak a structure to hold such information I would be personally disappointed, because it is a very sad prospect that we will never know "it".
>>593533815 I think trying to put it into words is a waste of time, and think that "it" is simple conscious experience. That's all. Your experiences, my experiences, our ideas that we experience OF our experiences... That's all there is and that's all that matters. Of course "all conscious experience" is a linguistic construction, but I honestly think that it has to be experienced to be understood.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.