>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 >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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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...
>>7849066 >proof There is no direct proof of your assertion, but there is loads of indirect proof of mine.
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.