How does /b/ explain consciousness?

Bullshit with a side of gravy

>>593517461
/thread

being aware that i can stroke my penis and it'll feel fantastic

inb4 quantum bullshit, free will, and god

>>593516981
we don't go fuck yourself

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

File: oh-shit.jpg (17KB, 497x355px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 497x355px

>>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

>>593516981

This is not the kind of discussion to be had on /b/, where 95 % are fucking overstimulated idiots.


I attended the Greenland 2014 discussion held by the Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies. Dennet, Chalmers, Clark, Churchland etc, were all there.

Was fucking amazing, but the top minds in neuroscience and philosophy pretty much agree it is far too early for anyone to claim with any sort of authority that they can "explain consciousness".


We should just take a pluralist view and see what the ongoing research pans out.

With that said I am pretty interested in protopanpsychism despite it being purely conjecture at this point.

>>593518854
go on?

We're machines, man. Our brains are picking up signals from somewhere else, which tells us what to do. When we die, our "user" simply boots up another "consciousness".

>>593518300
OP here, I rate your comment

>>593517907
>inb4 some fag pretending he can dismiss serious philosophical claims that may or may not utilize quantum physics or free-will

I love how uncredited /b/etas actually think they can definitively reject ongoing academic discussions.

>>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

Who knows? Who cares? I like drugs and sex and alcohol, and when I die, that's probably the end.

>inb4 hedonist
Let's stop pretending anyone does anything besides to stimulate their base, animalistic desires.

>>593516981
consciousness is a fluke chance. on a scale of the multidimensional plane we live in we are practically a negative distance on a timeline or scale of any sort

>>593519810
there is no true ego

>>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.

>>593518995
I think the MCCS uploaded the majority of the discussions on youtube. Look up something like Greenland 2014 Dennet Chalmer etc.

I stand by the idea that this isn't the place for any remotely serious discussion, especially recently.

>>593520720
Wtf has happened to /b/? Literally only shit threads...

>>593516981
Consciousness is a result of our collective energy as living organisms.
Other than that it shouldn't be explained.

File: well.gif (493KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 480x360px

>>593520720
so don't take anything seriously ,better than naked bananas.
Please go on...

Your mom

>>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.

>>593516981
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG09dR2I_W8

1:38 is where it gets interesting

>>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.

>>593520138
>negative distance
kill your self

what do you mean explain it?

your question doesn't have any context or framing, it's like asking, "explain trees".

>>593522258
in context of what it is

File: Thelarch.jpg (64KB, 327x490px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 327x490px

>>593522258

>>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

>>593522582
That's not a tree

>>593523083
it's not a pipe either

>>593522183
as in non existent or in terms we can't comprehend

>>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.

File: touché.jpg (18KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x300px

>>593523083

File: stewie.png (255KB, 560x614px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 560x614px

>>593523781
I've never heard a worse explanation

>>593523607
Philosophy is the gateway to science and science is the gateway to philosophy. The two are inseparable in my opinion. What is theoretical physics but advanced philosophy?

No but seriously I find this to be the most logical and likely cause of the emergence of consciousness in our species.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG09dR2I_W8

really starts at 1:38

>>593521980
But there are other online forums where people don't shit post and all try to have a serious and most importantly an informed discussion on the issue.

On /b/ there is almost no interest in informed discussion, just pop-science discussions and rhetoric, no room for nuance or serious argumentation.

Best of luck finding the diamonds though, kudos for sifting through it. I personally am probably leaving the 4chins for good.

>>593523607
Yeah... and you're ugly

>>593518854
a philosobro on /b/? What manner of fuckery is this? Also, protopansychism is a very elegant theory. What are your feelings towards Galen Strawson?

>>593524172
Not only that, but a huge portion of scientific theories go well beyond merely the strict observed data points. Not merely in physics but in general.

Which is why the anti-philosophy "science only" crowd come off as just uninformed.

>>593516981
coming to /b/ with such a question is really a waste of time. Try Daniel Dennett consciousness on Google to find your answer.

>>593516981

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

>>593524896

You would be better at communicating your ideas if you sounded less like a faggot.

Everyone knows in their hearts that God is the source of consciousness, but are merely suppressing the righteous truth.

You can't have logic or consciousness without god, and the very fact that you are conscious or are using logic demonstrates this fact. This is axiomatically the case.

Your consequences have actions. And you can see your hands

>>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.

File: UrAFag.gif (1MB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x350px

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
A series of electrical charges flowing through the synapses of your brain. So a series of chain reactions of electrons and chemicals

>>593525320
You have not yet begun to think about the topic... go away and do your home before espousing such bullshit :)

>>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?

>>593525320
Fuck you.
Any single ray of sunshine is infinitely more brilliant that any "self-evident" argument for a higher power, or any of the retards that blindly accept them.

>>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.

>>593525683
every thought and feeling you have is all caused by different drugs and hormones interacting with each other. Also you're behavior, ego, and personality is caused by your surroundings.

>>593525831
> Everything in space time will happen in a certain way, never changing
>and BOOM it can do so many things

>>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.

>>593521833
Spot on nigga. I tried to tell my idiot boss this while i was working in advertising... he fired me.

>>593525831
"Everything is happening everywhere all together all at once" is a much greater idea than any of that horseshit you just spouted

ITT:
contrarian after contrarian after 3edgy4me contrarian

And I didn't need to read a single reply to know this.

>>593516981

You, and me, and all other organisms on the planet, are nothing but an agglomeration of molecules and atoms working at self-replication under a set of rules and possibilities.

Consciousness is nothing more or less than an organism's detection of the environment in which it exists turned onto itself. It is literally just aware of the fact that you're aware.

It's a trick.

File: Neckbeard Award.jpg (96KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 550x550px

>>593526238
>taking my words out of context
>Thinking your pitiful argument is valid
It can do many things, because its suppose to. It exists, thats why, you blabbering IDIOT

>>593521934
>Joe rogan
Git da fuck outta here nigger. The big people are talking.

>>593516981

The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

>>593526728
>It can do many things
> Everything in space time will happen in a certain way, never changing

>>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.

>>593516981
If you sit and stare at something, and feel what it feels like to be you, it feels like you're a thing, inside a body, looking out through the eyeballs.

>>593526001
One fatal flaw. Most animals are awake and aware bur are they conscience of themselves?

File: images.jpg (20KB, 335x150px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 335x150px

this

>>593524613
>Right the fucken Atheists lol

>>593525975
How did you determine that and could you be wrong?

You thinking is by definition evidence of God.

>>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.

>>593526110
How did you determine that and could you be wrong?

Logic by definition requires God.

>>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.

File: mckenna.jpg (2MB, 1724x1924px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1724x1924px

Depends on if you subscribe to the consciousness being separate from the brain or being a result of it.

Either way, no one knows for sure yet and everything about it is speculation at best.

We don't even have an actual working model on how memory works that isn't pure speculation, hell, no one knows much of anything about anything really.

>Logic by definition requires God.
wut

>>593527698
Gonna have to extrapolate on that one pal

>>593526110

I disagree. I have had an experience that seemed like it could be explained by contact with some aspect of a godlike intelligence.

>>593527698

You, however, are full blast fucking retarded. Well done.

>>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

>>593528748

Cthulu

>>593527207
>animals
>>593526001
>perception of something by a person.
Why did you ignore that part of the definition? Can any animal that does not possess consciousness be a person?

>>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.

>>593528999
You're in left field dude. Reminder... the question was: how do you define consciousness?

>>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 ?

File: 1385354184003.jpg (89KB, 897x669px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 897x669px

>>593530887
I like you

>>593529827

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.

>>593531191
and where did I claim to understand consciousness please point that out to me? as I remember stating precisely the opposite in my earlier comment

>>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?

>>593530261
>Language and inquiry do nothing but diminish 'it', whatever it may be.

I don't necessarily agree to this. Substituting "it" for any explained phenomenon hasn't diminished "it", it's only raised more questions which made "it" even more intriguing.

I'm not sure if you're saying inquiry is worthless because we will never know or if you're saying there is some other route to discover a fundamental truth?

>>593527207
They can be. Some are even aware of death.

>>593531191
I like you too ... I'm sorry I posted my comment to you by mistake ... apologies I've been drinking a lot tonight :)

>>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".

>>593532483
s'All good, /b/ro

>>593525831
Wow I have never heard such nonsense before. That literally went nowhere.

>>593531780

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!!

I should probably go to sleep.

>>593533313
Come post at 2*2*2ch.net/eris/, I need more people like you there

>>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".

>>593528228

such an underrated post.

such an excellent post, though.

File: platonic solids.jpg (377KB, 1209x1116px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1209x1116px

>>593533699

i drew a picture of 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.

File: P1000322_CM1.jpg (305KB, 816x612px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 816x612px

Consciousness explained by a mathematical formula, what more could you want.

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

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

File: hit kicking in.gif (2MB, 300x176px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x176px

>>593534389

>>593528999

>What is happiness?

dopamine

>Is there happiness?

dopamine

>How can there be happiness?

dopamine

File: 125636373735.gif (2MB, 280x188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 280x188px

>>593534715
you're a fucking dope

File: FGDFGEDGFG.jpg (469KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1600x1200px

>>593534688

how is this not perfectly obvious to you?

>>593534389
>>593533313
I'm not fucking kidding, I need you as a regular on my board.
4*2ch.net/eris

>>593534715
+serotonin too, nigga

>>593534933
he is actually right

http://technologyadvice.com/podcast/blog/activate-chemicals-gamify-happiness-nicole-lazzaro/

>>593516981
I think its a function of the universe, kinda like gravity.

The next scientific discovery that drastically alters human life will be the discovery that consciousness is separate from the body--and that consciousness came before matter.

And consciousness survives physical death.

/b/ called it first.

just ask >>593520549

>>593535105

I am Dr Zetetic.

You will know me.

>>593534996
My sober meatbrain is far too limited for such art
>>593535120
You're a goddamn dope too

>>593535294
aye, I'm Pope Who ;3

>>593535319
Nah I'm a Neuroscientist actually.

I've astrally projected before

>>593535601
Mathematician here, 600k starting

>>593535601
I'm God, nice to meet you

File: 1620419_261651434011078_531160414_n.jpg (25KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 720x720px

>>593519810

When you stop allowing yourself to learn, this is when you lose your consciousness.

>>593535120

Yes, serotonin, I know.