[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
How close are we to understanding how the...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread replies: 88
Thread images: 8
File: original-600x450.jpg (107 KB, 600x450) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
original-600x450.jpg
107 KB, 600x450
How close are we to understanding how the brain creates consciousness?
>>
>>7844638
Thanks to quantum mechanics we're like super close :^)
>>
| | that close pham
>>
>>7844645
>>7844646
Could you elaborate?
>>
>>7844638
We don't know shit. Ask again in 200 years.
>>
>>7844638
>implying the brain creates consciousness
>>
where have you been?

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-brain-consciousness-optimal-degree-connectedness.html
>>
>>7844638

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/phantom-limbs-explain-consciousness/459780/
>consciousness is phantom attention
>>
Its just a bunch of neurons. When you die, you just fall into a deep sleep with no dreaming. Or when go to another dimension.
>>
>>7844669
I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with anything innovative.
>>
>>7844666

fuck off
>>
>>7844638
>how the brain creates consciousness
Five. Literally five terms out on a five term question.
>>
>>7844638
People are getting closer but I have absolutely no idea how close.

There are research groups all over the world right now trying to figure out the internals of the neuron.

There's an incredible array of nano tunnels for some reason.
>>
>>7844645

Currently the conesus among neuroscientists is that quantum phenomenons aren't large enough to affect the neurons in the brain.
>>
>>7845016

>tripfagging
>on /sci/ of all boards
>>
>>7844638
Reasonably close if you actually pay attention to the right academic papers.
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~rhg/
>>
>>7845105
That's not even a trip idiot. that's just a name fag
>>
>>7844638
>the brain
Who cares about the brain, we need to know exactly how chemistry causes matter to be become aware of reality. Then figure out how consiousness works on a quantum level.
>>
>>7844638
>Define "consciousness".
/thread
>>
>>7847048
This desu senpai

Epic reply
>>
Conciousness is stored in the Soul, the brain is just a container for the Soul.
>>
>>7845052
But quantum mechanics also says that anything is possible :^)
>>
>>7847085
id love to see the mathematical proofs you wrote to support this conjecture
>>
>>7846826
oh shit dis nigga knows his stuff

granger doesn't really study consciousness though. He is by far the most forward thinking person in AI and "brain science" though.
>>
>>7847097
I was contacted by a minor god a few years ago and they explained to me how souls work.
It's an interesting fact that only about 10% of humans have a Soul, most are just mindless flesh golems.
>>
>>7847085
>>7847097

lol noobs, get back to youtube comments
>>
>>7844725
What does that mean?
>>
>>7847099
I was actually pretty surprised when I came across his research. You hear a lot of 'AI' people go on about how we still don't know how the brain works, but really it's mostly an inter-field communication issue. I'd really like to do more work to connect especially comp. neurosci and CS-AI, but I'm in an awkward position academically these days slowly trying to finish up a belated degree while working full-time.

It's cool to read about though.
>>
>>7847130
How did you find out about him? Was very surprised to see him pop up in a /sci/ thread. Though I think a lot more people will know his name over the next 5 years or so.
>>
>>7844638
It's hard to say. We're far enough that it's hard to tell. We might even be close, might be ridiculously far.
>>
>>7847048
Yeah, gotta agree here.
>>
>>7847094
nice futurama quote, upboated
>>
>>7845105
It's so the AI that get seeded with internet data will have a way to find their identity in the mass. It just creates a patterned symbol, nothing more, nothing less.
>>
The consciousness creates consciousness. Try to wrap you head around the paradigm of thought. Language and reason are not the only tasks the brain is encompasses by, be it the visual senses, olfactory for distinguishing odors, the perception of time (closely related to reason), and other things. Words themselves and your ability to syntactically string together this statement is an interior struggle imbued by nature in a hidden form, measured by what we organize in our growing pool of knowledge.
>>
OP's pic is the most accurate representation of a brain creating consciousness
>>
>>7847160
My school requires an upper-level composition class for all majors (you can choose STEM, liberal arts, or general categories). My class's final paper was on the current state of a facet of our field and where we saw it going in the next decade or two. I chose 'strong' AI mostly because I felt most people who have opinions about it don't know what they're talking about, even major experts. I like the idea of strong AI and want to research it, but so far there's deniers on one side and crazies on the other.
>>
>>7845052
I'm hoping this is a meme reply to a meme post
>>
>>7844645
fuck off memer
>>
Emergent property of inherent complexity.
>>
>>7844638
Are you stupid? The brain is the consciousness.
>>
>>7844638
0%
>>7844666
this
>how close are we to rationalizing macroscale cell coding
somewhat, maybe 30% look at recent LTP, working memory and magnetic effects research

>consciousness is da matter // consciouness is da quantum computer brain 10^31 synapsesses // hard problem

look there is not such thing as consciousness, for example do you always feel as though you experiencing life? Or do you sometimes feel unaware of experiencing life.
>>
>>7848695, again
>>7845052
this is completely untrue... you're saying that macroscopie phenomenon cannot be affect by minutae, which is not only specious but falsifiably incorrect... re: spontaneous gradients w/RE microtubule management
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/references/S1534-5807%2815%2900554-7

The sequential addition of quantum affects on the biochemical balance sheet that is a cell:
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n1/full/nphys2474.html

Look fucktards this question is beyond anyone in the field, so far so that the prominent theories on consciousness all sound like a crock of horse shit to literally everyone else.

If you care about the problem your first step ( seriously only if you care, please stop posting this shit ) is to look for a discernable difference that is explainable in simple, reasonable language, between ATTENTIONAL and CONSCIOUS focus/directed behaviour

Then contrast this with the resting state/background process known as the 'default mode network'.

If you come up with a reasonable explanation you will be able to publish a paper in nature, literally.
>>
>>7848695
>for example do you always feel as though you experiencing life? Or do you sometimes feel unaware of experiencing life.

... wut
>>
>>7848734
>>7848734
>subjective understanding of what consciousness is
No one even agrees on consciousness. Pop-culture has propagated malformed examples, i.e. mirrors and animals

Every animal that i've seen in front of a mirror has disliked it, and I've met many who seem to comprehend it is them. An understanding of (yourself) as an existence is also a requisite for social networking as you need to be able to properly distinguish between I-phenomenon and they-phenom. There are various experiments with birds that even show the supposition of the self in terms of prey-behaviour.

Ants exist beyond a frame of individual consciousness.

What is a mental image? Is it your consciousness observing a mental image, or is a mental image simply a mode of consciousness?

Is language the basis of thought, and can a formulation of consciousness exist without a basis in formal language?

Seriously im sick of these general threads get into a tiny aspect of the discussion or go back to whatever listicle website you frequent.
>>
>>7844638
Fuck you and your pseudointellectualism.

We've understood that consciousness is an inherent property of recurrent neural networks for a long time. Go read a book.
>>
>>7848807
>we
>understood
>for a long time
>>
>>7844638
>create conciousness
you do realize every organism has some level of conciousness, right? Even some machines are considered to have low-level self-conciousness. One doesn't "create" conciousness like a spirit or a soul, it's simply the compilation of all your calculations with a programmed and reprogrammed response.

Basically, you can't "create conciousness", because it's not tangible. Take a civilization of people for example. It's capable of growing (building), taking in food (trading), reproducing (colonization), and doing several other things that we consider to be done by "concious life".

Conciousness is entire relative, subatomic particles have conciousness because they "know" who to attract to. Atoms have conciousness because they "know" who to bond with and when to bond with them. Cells have conciousness because they "know" what foods to let in or out and how to process certain molecules. Neurons "know" who to react to the receiving of certain synapses. So "conciousness", as you can clearly see, is a ridiculous, intagible, made-up term.
>>
>>7844638
We haven't found an answer in over 2000 years. I'm also pretty sure we will never find the answer.

Either we are too stupid, we overlook something important or we are not capable of understanding consciousness.

How does energy and matter interact in a way that there is a perception of yellow, something that doesn't even exist in the "real" world?
>>
>>7844638
Oh the fallacy.

Conscioussness creates the brain.
>>
File: evidence.jpg (30 KB, 600x407) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
evidence.jpg
30 KB, 600x407
>>7844638
>consciousness
>>>/x/
>>
>>7848826
>being a shitposter
>>>/b/
>>
>>7846826
that's not about consciousness, that's about logic and algorithms.
>>
File: 1455011950689.jpg (20 KB, 306x306) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1455011950689.jpg
20 KB, 306x306
>>7845016
>>
>>7848828
>posting pseudo-intellectual pop-science circlejerking opinion-based discussion threads on a math/science board isn't shitposting
kill yourself my man
>>
>>7848817
>conciousness is knowing
I think most definitions preclude this misunderstanding. Conciousness is always implicated as being an observer of the action, so if you want to form an analogy you'd have to say it would be the nameless observer in the single slit experiment, or the article by which the electron chooses the destination.
>>
>>7848836
you are so stupid you don't even know that consciousness is. YOU better kill yourself.
>>
>>7848839
Yeah, that's kinda what I was going for. But we ARE pre-programmed to do all of our tasks, just like subatomic particles. (except we have the ability to "reprogram" certain aspects of ourselves, though this is more akin to "scripting"). I guess "know" wasn't the best word to use in that case
>>
>>7848793
>Is language the basis of thought, and can a formulation of consciousness exist without a basis in formal language?

The "understanding" we have of words and numbers precedes the words themselves, so "language" definitely isn't everything. For example, the word "guagua" in Chile evokes a completely different idea for the people of Cuba, even if they have a similar semantic structure.

Language is both a blessing and a curse. It's a very huge obstacle that blocks our individual understanding to already set ideas, yet it's necessary for communicating ideas to other people. But it isn't everything. You can ask what something "is" an undefinite amount of times, until you hit a point where you need to address "direct experience", which is something that precedes words.

There is nothing be known about what is "consciousness", because like the entirety of language, it's a concept that we choose how to define.
>>
>>7848846
>you are so stupid you don't even know that consciousness is.
That consciousness is what? Finish your sentences before you get all butthurt about your right to post non-rigorous and non-scientific questions on a math/science board.
>>
>>7848855
i would disagree as its clear that humans and animals ( especially depressed ones ) chose to not do things, even in real time. I think what you're describing is much better represented by plant automata like facing the sun, or by biochemical phenomenon like a circadian rhythm.

>>7848862
>understanding preceeds language
There is no reason that would be the case. Just because someone isn't formally defined as 'language' doesn't mean it isn't compartmentalized, organized, stored, and set by a series of grammatical semantics.

Memories appear to be stored in a set of semantics, and their translations within (intra) and interneuronnaly may be a microcosm that imprints 'language' or didactic into our conceptualization processes. ( i can't find the refernce but give me time )
>>
>>7848866
was a type. "what consciousness is" is what i wanted to say.

just because we have no rigorous and scientific way to understand consciousness yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. if you don't like that, guess what? FUCKING leave the thread you retard. you're better of doing calculations in your head, since you obviously don't live a life.
>>
>>7848883
They choose not to do things due to the presence of a variable in that specific function, not because they personally modified that function themselves
>>
>>7848886
>was a type
how do you even press the "e" key on accident? It's across the keyboard from the "o"
>>
>>7845016
>>7847508
https://youtu.be/YgHNtzxO0y8
you should watch this video. It's directed towards tripcode users but it's applicable to simple namefags. It's kind of funny, but it has a lot of good points.
>>
>>7848886
>>7848886
>you enjoy rigorous things instead of handwavy, ad hoc weed-cafe "dude consciousness maaaan" discussions therefore you can only be a rote number cruncher
So not only are you a pseudo-philosophizing tool, but you're anti-intellectual too.
>>
>>7848883
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding your point about language. Are you saying that "words exist"? That humans need "language" to think? Because it feels like we're talking about completely different things.

It's hard to explain my ideas though, as it involves not "thinking with words", and I'm trying to explain it by using them.
>>
>>7847097
>>7847108
taking the b8 this hard
>>
>>7848918
I'm not anti-intellectual, you're just too stupid to realize that consciousness exists, even though we can not prove it. If you truly do not realize that RIGHT NOW as you read this sentence, you do it CONSCIOUSLY as an observer, this very second, then you must be truly retarded. None of our science can YET explain how that happens.

I'm sorry for you being retarded, if that helps.
>>
>>7848900
sure, proof?
>>7848938
i'm just saying there's increasing evidence to a basis for the organization of ideas in the mind that is very similar to languages (https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2015/12/07/chomsky-was-right-nyu-researchers-find-we-do-have-a-grammar-in-our-head.html). I can't mind the most recent example ( there was some sort of foundational unit to memory, like 31 storage types? ) and that LTP isn't all it has been cracked up to be (http://elifesciences.org/content/3/e03896v2)
>>
>>7848956
>None of our science can YET explain how that happens.
So why are you talking about it on a science board when all you have to offer is meaningless conjecture that holds about as much weight as >>7847085
>>
>>7848938
>>7848965
i think you have different understandings of the what a language is.
I would suggest sticking to the Computer Science Definition.
>>
>>7848978
but there is very little evidence of function type organization in the brain... so why extend a faulty analogy
>>
>>7848965
I understand what you mean (it's rather unrelated to my point, good think I asked for a clearer explanation), but I don't think it's explained very appropiately in these websites. "We have grammar in our heads" I mean, come on. Who the hell isn't going to be confused about this arbitrary statement? It's a bad thing, because people can interpret it very differently from what the scientists are actually trying to state.
>>
File: 1398018997010.jpg (140 KB, 680x684) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1398018997010.jpg
140 KB, 680x684
>>7849002
but i didn't say that, and explicitly referred to an underlying architecture

that you took it in the most simple sense ('x'/god has provided the grammar of language in your brains automagically) is entirely your own interpretation.
>>
>>7848965
The proof's in any occurrence ever. We act certain ways due to the presence of specific tangible things. Not because of some vague "conciousness".

I struggle to see any case where an action is taken just because that organism "wanted to". Almost everything we do is due to an observable environmental cause.
>>
>>7849051
that being said I think you could exemplify what we as humans generally refer to as consciousness, as a sort of executive process, by our 'thoughts', right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_identification
http://www.itn.brain.riken.jp/publications_recentactivity.html
Specifically, http://www.nishinippon.co.jp/nnp/national/article/216215

>>7849060
>what are social experiments
The fact that we react differently under observation is entirely dependent on the postulate of a metacognate of self, which is usually a formal postulate of consciousness...

fuck off.

>>7849066
>proof
There is no direct proof of your assertion, but there is loads of indirect proof of mine.
>>
File: 6oUIw[2].gif (2 MB, 320x240) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
6oUIw[2].gif
2 MB, 320x240
>consciousness doesn't exist because we can't measure it
>>
>>7849066
>direct observable environmental cause
what is a dream? what is a projection of consequences? clearly anxiety is a generalized extension of what you're claiming is the end-all be all of decision making or action-formation, but it malfunctions... and causes illogical actions. You are claiming that people have no control over their ability to navigate emotional stimulation... which is clearly wrong as there are good soldiers and bad ones, just like good bad athletes by consistency.

OR you're claiming that the brain is a rube goldberg machine of environmental inputs, and that knowingness is impossible. That's unfalsifiable and i reject it on that basis. That there is chaos or non-schotastic processes that navigate the mind is actually foundational to neuroscience... It has emerged as a proposition of criticality theory...
doi:10.1038/srep05990
DOI: 10.1016/0166-2236(90)90047-E
"wanted to" is specious
>>
>>7849101
i mean its cool you guys have a surface apprehension of the question that the mind must have a place, but your ideas are similarly platonic

you have never read anything about neuroscience, and like everyone in the age of the internet confuse a deep question with deep thought
>>
>>7844638
Define Consciousness. Not that easy, but do this first.

The rest is easy.
>>
>>7849121
>They choose not to do things due to the presence of a variable in that specific function, not because they personally modified that function themselves
Lol anything you could say after this could only be constituted as shit post.
>>
>>7849121
when did I CLAIM that basis of thought was language? i put it out there as one of the suppositions theorists use to falsify a theory of conciousness... seriously fuck off
>>
File: 1400977845303.jpg (45 KB, 352x395) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1400977845303.jpg
45 KB, 352x395
>>7849051
>>7849051
There's no logical coherence between your initial claims about how language may be the basis for thought, and how memory organizes mental ideas in similar ways to grammar. They're different things, and *you* are the one interpreting stuff like you want to.

Your thoughts hardly make sense at all. And if they do, you're not expressing them correctly.
>>
>>7849154
>>7849152
REEEEEEEEEEE

>logical organization of ideas has biological foundation CANNOT influence the basis of thought into language
yep ok bye
>>
>>7849154
seriously go back to programming in abstract language... while denying language and pretending your mind analogizes machine code or something similarly alien...
PFTTT
>>
>>7849152
>when did I CLAIM that basis of thought was language?

*Claims about that it MAY be. You didn't even specify that you put that as an example, ambiguous kiddo.

Please, stop shitposting. This is a serious discussion board.

>>7849164
>>7849171
Putting words in my mouth. Undeserving of a good reply.
>>
There are too types of idiots in this thread.

Those with answers.
And those who deny that the problem of consciousness is even a problem.

Both are equally retarded.
>>
>>7849230
im the only one contributing papers or ideas to the discussion though...
and i put a question mark at the end of the original proposition, kidderino...
>uses abstract comp.sci language formulation as a model for learning/behaviour
>cries i infer that's their basis
>cries when i point out implication that indemnifies that approach
Yeap, ok.
Thread replies: 88
Thread images: 8
Thread DB ID: 513199



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

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 wtabusse@gmail.com with the post's information.