Anyone ever really question how consciousness can manifest itself

Yes. Scientists conduction the appropriate research ask this all if the time. It's their job. Stop getting involved with the pseudo-science and persue the actual peer reviewed, scientific, demonstrable, experimental pathways to actual truth about this subject instead of just sitting back and falling prey to obvious logical fallacies and fallacious thinking. If you care about facts and reality, and making sure you believe as many true things and as little false things as possible, fucking put effort in and don't be so intellectually dishonest and or lazy.

>>723568527
> Pseudoscience.
> Intellectually dishonest.

What part of what I said implies that I'm intellectually dishonest. Or how is what I said pseudoscience in any way mate.

>>723568124
There are so many ways consciousness may manifest, and we can't prove or disprove any of them. It might come from information, it might come from a quantum phenomenon that only occurs in the human brain, it might be a soul. Or a combination. Or something different altogether. If it is something scientific, then there's the question of how emotions exist, and what makes them exist. We know everything about galaxies hundreds of thousands of lightyears away, but barely anything about what exists behind our eyes.

File: consciousness.png (111KB, 953x660px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 953x660px

>>723568737

>>723568737
I agree, it's very strange to think of it from a scientific standpoint. At it's simplest form, to what we know of course by science, the brain is information of course. Even if we don't fully understand how this information itself is interpreted or fully conveyed in the brain. It is still information, and that itself is interesting to think of the possibility of consciousness, or self awareness for that matter being able to be derived from anow array of information. No matter how complex it may fully be it's still very interesting how it could be possible to create this expereince.

>>723568527
Philosophies regarding unanswered questions are not necessarily bad. Science is only as good as the intuition to test what has yet to be tested. Philosophy is a conduit to intuition. As much as people may have it, philosophy is very meaningful toward science.

We tend to overlook then delay between action/reaction in the mind and how the processing of the reaction information generates a perception of will that breeds the conscious experience.

>>723569410
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that imply that free will is an illusion?

>>723569298
>>723568527
I agree. Most scientific theories are bred from philosophy. From a scientist sitting and thinking about why something happens. Gravity wasn't found in an experiment. It was conceived through thought, then proven with experiment. There are inductive theories, which are forged from philosophy then tested with science, and deductive theories, which are deduced from
experimental results. Both are equally valid.

>>723569599
It is. Every bit as much as the illusion that you are the person who was yesterday you, and how memories are not as real as the moment. We are a consequence really. At least from everything I've gotten from the research, our heads are illusion machines. This doesn't change the fact that we exist consciously to have what feels as free will. We still get to enjoy that, but the reality is quite the opposite.

>>723569773
So us, being conscious of the processing of our reactions is what conveys a feeling of free will at us?

>>723570169
It's all speculation. Free will may or may not be a thing, but a lot of psychologists and biologists are against the idea.

>>723570322
Why is the delay itself, between action and reaction, relevant to the idea?

>>723570169
The path of stimulus and response is extremely complex, but to simplify it, the choice to push a button or not push ambition was unconsciously decided moments before you even noticed, and your whole experience of reality is a slight delay from actual events in time anyway. Your conscious mind is there to validate the decision and provide feedback to the unconscious. Consciousness is merely a threshold anyway. Just below the line we are unaware, just above we are in a conscious haze. The newness vary our experience depending on how intense the perception is. This is why you walk without thinking about it, why you don't smell 99% of the farts that people enjoy, why you can miss a gorilla in the room, and why you will always have a hard time understanding who you are in other's eyes. The illusion and processes that make up our conscious experience are only the projection on the screen to the whole host of operations behind it.

>>723570977
So what you're essentially saying from that is that there's a possibility that all reactions by ourselves are predetermined through our subconsciousness as apposed to us "experiencing" it determined through our consciousness? Such as we are of course conscious of everything, however, we just watch it play out as "free will" is truly just our subconsciousness determining the aproporaite reaction to do and our conscious mind perceiving that?

>>723571595
Bump.

>>723571595
Yea.

But the issue people seem to have is how that changes everything... But it changes nothing for us to know that.

The sun is dominantly green, we see it as yellow because of our atmosphere, and knowing it is not really yellow doesn't make our day to day lives different. Just the same, know that consciousness and free will are an elusive game of survival, but enjoy the life you have to its greatest it will be.

>>723568124
Its the DMT
/thread