I'm sorry If this is not strictly science but I think some

File: 8DBD626E513F2340032241D475751BBDE7B22BE7[1].jpg (24KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 277x296px

> Therefore, If we have "consciousness", everything in this universe also has.

>>8066360
lel, Come on man. Please tell me where I am missing something (not being an idiot, just want feedback)

>>8066350
2potato4me

>everything is made of lego blocks
>therefore cars are buildings

>>8066362
For starters, consciousness is an unquantifiable subjective experience. You can't even prove anybody that you yourself have consciousness by scientific means.

Second of all, your claim "Therefore, If we have "consciousness", everything in this universe also has." Was not supported by any of the things you stated previously. They don't even have anything to do with it.

>>8066350
You did not provide any argument to WHY matter is what is conscious. What if consciousness is for example created by a chemical process?

>>8066381
>consciousness is an unquantifiable subjective experience
completely agree.
>You can't prove anybody that you have consciousness by scientific means
Also agree.
But "you" know "you" exist. Any form of experience you have is a proof of this.

Why don't you think the conclusion is correct? If consciousness is not a feature at a "primary level" or subatomic or however do you want to picture it, then: it comes with a specific molecule? Do all living forms have it? If not, only pluricellular beings? If not, only mammals? If not, just a specific kind of ape? Where do we draw the line?

>>8066396
I get what you are saying.
But where do we draw the line there? It's just our neurons? Or the nervous system of an insect also implies consciousness? What about when we are just a cell (a zygote), do we have consciousness there? How many cells untill we have consciousness?

>>8066409
Yes, that's the question. Right now, we don't know. Since we have no idea where to draw the line we may as well believe all matter is conscious for now.
I also believe in panpsychism.

>>8066404
>>8066409
What Im trying to tell you is that there is a spectrum of chemical complexity in the universe:
In one end there are the huge molecules of an animal or a plant (maybe we humans are at the very end of the spectrum, altough I'm sure some biochemists wouldn't agree).
And on the other end there are H and He atoms, maybe an O2, N2, etc...

I feel like placing a mark on that spectrum and saying "from here to that end there is consciousness and from here to the other end there is not" is something kind of stupid.

>>8066350
there are good arguments against extreme skepticism man
>We can't know If God is real
nigga descartes whole point was to prove god

also no this is not science, go to /his/

>>8066788
I think it can be considered science. It's pure empirism: every experience (or experiment) that you have proves that you exist.

And Descartes also believed that animals were machines without feelings

Go to /x/

>>8068971
nah, I think this belongs here

>>8070074
not really, if anywhere it belongs to /his/

There is mounting hard evidence that supports panpsychism.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

>>8066350
The conclusion is a non sequitur.
You could use your argument to "show" that rocks are alive, if you think about it.

>>8070141
And in fact they may be:

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-iron-bar-capable-decision-making.html

>>8070145
Decision making is a strong word for what is happening there.

double slit experiment

>>8070703
your mom's and your sister's?

>>8070154
Ha, it's also a strong word for us humans and every other life form

>>8070703
What do you mean?

>>8070110
how does that exactly prove panpsychism? I don't understand

File: 1462446492351.jpg (138KB, 693x693px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 693x693px

Shit thread.

>all living beings are made of DNA
>all living beings are the same

File: 1358633848220.jpg (63KB, 450x350px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 450x350px

>>8071016
We're all just energy bro. Now pass the joint.

>>8071016
Who said that?

>>8066362
What if consciousness is an emergent property from physical systems in a certain class? Then your ideas go die.
Also, define "consciousness" rigorously.

>>8066350

Hey OP, if you're still here, just wanted to let you know, I agree with you. Although I've never phrased it Panpsychism.

>>8066350
But clearly we are different from rocks. Where do people get the idea that Same Components->Same Thing?

>>8070145
Whats the fluctuation going on there? How is the slot machine causing the fluctuation?
This just sounds like complete and utter bullshit.

All those things you said you can't be sure about are subsets of consciousness. You can be sure they exist as they inherit that property from thinking therefore existing.

I'm pretty sure thinking is a sign of intelligence, being is what you do, and thinking therefore being is a way of showing your smarts. The meaning of the epistemological statement only points to your lack of intelligence. But maybe I've been reading too much 4chan posts.... The domain of pure ontology: spirit, God, soul, etc often interacts with the domain of science; I can objectively pray, meditate, interpret etc...
This is an integration and a transcendation of the derivative ontological basis. I think therefore I'm smart/have intellectual faculties, is a better way of saying something. I definitely function, though, unless I'm mentally ill. That's the > meaning I get, anyways.

>>8073735
actually, the interpretation and soul simile is definitely higher order yet. but maybe i'm being prideful.

death.silence
(God)

God is definitely dead, unless you're hearing voices.

File: consciousness.jpg (216KB, 645x1082px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 645x1082px

I'm suprised the thread hasn't exploded into the usual autism that /sci/ tends to when discussing anything related to consciousness.

>>8066439
>>8066409
>>8066428
Even if we manage to map out the entire brain and figure out where consciousness is formed, the hard problem of consciousness still persists. And that is, why are all those physical chemical operations accompanied by subjective expereince. Why doesn't it all just happen without "you" being there to experience it? I think this is a very baffling question, and it amazes me how some people just can't see the problem. It's almost as if they're not conscious themselves and can't comprehend the scope of it.

>>8073821
But what about the alternative interpretation of non-duality?

>>8073839
Which is what exacly?

>>8073877
Either you don't know what non-dualism is in which case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
or you're not interpreting it.
The latter argument has two cases, either you disagree with non-dualism in which case you should explain why, or you're not thinking about non-duality in which case this discussion is pointless.

>>8066350
>You can't be sure about anything.
>Therefore, If we have "consciousness", everything in this universe also has.

>>8073896
I'm not sure exacly how my post relates to non-duality, so I guess I'm not talking about it. Maybe I could easier respond if you explain how the "alternative interpretation of non-duality" ties into what I said in my post.

>>8073953
Non-duality would make the hard problem a soft problem.
>linguistics

File: lalaladog.jpg (52KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x333px

>>8073695

>>8073821
why cant we say human consiousness is only possible with a human brain and body?
Its like saying everything is a chair because you cant draw a line between chairs and tables and tables and counters and counters and glasses and glasses and human beings..
Is everything reducible to subatomic particles? Why? Why cant human beings be the "basis" while molecules and atoms are whats built upon it?
Sometimes atoms break down into humans and sometimes humans build up into molecules and sometimes into atoms..

>Philosophy (Solipsism and Descartes' "cogito ergo sum") tells us
Philosophy is much more than that, I am afraid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

What are your thoughts on this, /sci/? The thought of consciousness as an electromagnetic field somehow feels more intuative to me than the integrated information theory.

>>8071167
>What if consciousness is an emergent property from physical systems in a certain class?
It's pretty obvious that is the case, given the alterability of conscious experience and function through drugs, surgery or injury. Conscious arises from the physical brain. Alter the brain and you alter consciousness. Destroy the brain and you destroy consciousness.

>>8071167
>>8075716
We already know the brain has a part in creating consciousness. The question is how subjective experience is created and how it can even exist. It feels like most people kind of dance around the hard problem when discussing this.