A : Consciousness is a byproduct of the electrical feedback

File: image.jpg (131KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 625x625px

>>8224578

Why do people vote for spirtiualism ?

>>8224635
Because that's my opinion.

>>8224635
Wishful thinking

t. voted spiritualism

What is the primal definition of "consciousness"?

>>8224578
D: Everything is conscious, but to varying degrees depending on its complexity.

>>8224705
Go away deepak

>>8224672
the ability to collapse quantum mechanical wave functions

>>8224728
so spin measuring devices have consciousnes ?

>>8224578

Everything we know tells us that it is A.

However, we do not understand the brain well enough to make bold claims about the nature of consciousness.

A could be contained within C; therefore, C is redundant.

B has no place in science or more specifically on /sci/.

>>8224733
No, it takes a human to look at them. Prior to that, the device is only entangled but not collapsed.

>>8224738

Please go away.

>>8224738
measurement devices also collapse wave function dumbo. by your definition they have consciousness.

>>8224728
So can insects collapse wave functions ? Does it prove they have consciousness ?

Consciousness is just the highest abstraction layer of the human brain.

Kind of helps to have a central control unit making macro decisions.

>>8224964
>highest abstraction layer of the human brain
bullshit word salad. just admit that there is no clear definition of consciousness or how its created.

>>8224738
The chupacabra can speak.

Should also mention Daft Punk looks nothing like that, and the branches have been sorted out as monsters.

>>8224980
Definitions precede words. You can't have a word without a definition.

>>8225004
"highest abstraction layer of the human brain" is not a scientific term, it's just a pretentious retarded word salad.

>>8224578
>http://www.strawpoll.me/10823371
If you think self-awareness has anything to do with magic then you need to get off /sci/ right now.

>>8224743
Read my post again. The device doesn't collapse shit. It only gets entangled with the wave function.

>>8224964
>making macro decisions.
Your brain already made the decisions before you're aware of it. So consciousness has no effect.

>>8225039
If you aren't puzzled by the mystery of consciousness, then you don't belong on a science board.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0I4pmTvdiw

C because anything else makes no sense whatsoever.

>>8224635
because they're idiots

>>8225130
Except it's not a mystery you stupid NEET. Open a goddamn neuroscience textbook. There are no magic spells involved.

I'm a strict materialist and consciousness is the only thing im aware of that causes me significant cognitive dissonance. I just cant imagine how it could exist in a materialist universe

>>8225148
>i-it's caused by magic guys
>>>/x/

>>8225145
>he thinks the hard problem of consciousness has been solved
Let's all laugh at this p-zombie.

>>8225145
Neuroscience can't explain why you have the capacity to will for your first to either open or close. A neuroscientist has exactly the same skill as you do in that regard, and can't explain any better how they do it than you can. You are simply a narrow-minded person that wants to put the world down by claiming it is not mysterious.

You people claim to be materialists yet you don't even have respect for matter. Everything to you is means to an end. Most unwise.

>>8224728
All bosons are conscious wew

>>8225154
That's a stupid term invented by retarded philosophy majors who don't understand anything about neuroscience or machine learning. Hmm, I wonder what makes conscious humans different from inanimate objects. Oh right. *We have brains.* Wow, that was such a hard problem!

>>8225156
>Neuroscience can't explain why you have the capacity to will for your first to either open or close
Holy shit you're retarded.
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~vmnih/docs/dqn.pdf

Quit talking about things you know nothing about.

>>8224578
What is the evolutionary advantage of raidpolls?

>>8225162
You misspelled "bison".

Conciousness is exactly like life after death, we know exactly what it is, but we're too insecure to admit it, we always try to find a spiritual explanation without looking at what the facts tell us

File: 2.jpg (167KB, 757x833px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 757x833px

>>8225148
Wow, I don't know how he pulled that rabbit out of that hat.
I just can't see how that can't be magic.

>>8225165
>Holy shit you're retarded.
No, it's you who's retarded. You don't even understand my statement. Read it again until you get it I guess. You are arguing mechanisms. I am arguing first cause.

Also, getting this pissed shows how insecure you are. People with secure opinions don't defend them by insulting the other party, they encourage the other party to try and deliver the worst blow possible.

tl;dr you are an uncultured swine with pedestrian opinions

>>8225124
underrated post

>>8225165
Some humans have a brain but don't have consciousness. Explain that.

>>8225180
Not the same guy, but I'm afraid to tell you he's right, you're retarded

>>8225185
You're both pretty stupid then.

Funny.

>>8225185
How would you even know?

>>8225187
Guess you're the minority who's always right then, kiss kiss Galileo

>>8225124
Consciousness isn't really something that makes decisions. It's the state of awareness / being an observant outside your body.

>>8225180
>You are arguing mechanisms. I am arguing first cause.
No, you're so far gone in lack of understanding that you're getting completely mixed up. Neural networks observe patterns and activate accordingly when they recognize them. Somewhere in your brain a subnetwork recognized that it should open your hand and fired. Spooky skeletons did not cast hexes until you opened your hand.

I'm pissed because of how much underage popsci retards like you spam their ignorance all over /sci/.

>>8225183
Wow, nice totally uncited evidence!

What was the first creature on earth that got conciousness ? Where does it start ?

>>8225198
>Wow, nice totally uncited evidence!
It's simple everyday experience. I suggest going out once in a while.

>>8225206
A tulpa of a time traveler.

>>8225196
So it is epiphenomenal

>>8225198
In that case, the perception should only be "the hand opening" and not "something opening the hand."

>>8225206
probably a gorilla

>>8225124
>>8225022
low IQ detected

An abstraction layer example
- Going outside
- walk and twist toward door
- right leg lifts up, right arm lifts up
- elbow changes angles
- muscle signals
- individual muscle cells

basics of it although only to convey the meaning of abstraction layer

Our "conscious" mind exists at the top of the abstraction layers of the human mind. This is simply a fact.

THe conscious layer is also the highest abstraction layer. Which makes sense. It's the place macro decisions are made. Which is also an evident truth.

The advantage of consciousness is obvious.

Take a computer. Now your conscious mind (high level of abstraction) interacts with this computer, essentially taking over the system similar to how it runs the brain. You choose which files to access, which screens to look at, which websites to visit etc. You couldn't just "be the computer" and access them all at once in some sort of holistic way. The brain lacks that processing capability. It's better to only use what is needed at the time.

A computer is an unconscious brain without the decision making part that our consciousness does. It's the best model for what is consciousness, because we all combine with the CPU with only our conscious mind.

Consciousness is essentially a feedback loop with the brain and body that sets high level goals. For instance getting food, avoiding death, etc.

>>8225124
lel

so stupid and low IQ

>>8225209
So now you're arguing solipsism. Nice.

Just when I thought philosoNEETs couldn't get any more retarded.

>>8225213
The sensory input and internal state of the recurrent neural networks opened the hand.

>>8225220
>So now you're arguing solipsism. Nice.
Your reading comprehension is really bad.

>>8225198
I'm afraid it is you who is completely mixed up. You are the one who believes in spooky skeletons, not me. You are trying to tell me that matter decides whether or not your fist closes or opens, when it is your own decision to do so. You are reducing yourself to a collection of mindless and deterministic patterns. I'm claiming this is absurd, but you won't even let me argue because you're so full of yourself.

You are painting a picture over a situation that you yourself don't even understand fully (I'm not claiming I do, either), all while trying to bring the discussion down to a personal level so that you could come out victorious, claiming science as the ultimate way to get knowledge, disgustingly abusing it as some kind of personal honuor system.

Guess what, science has limits. That's why the hard problem of consciousness exists. You can't explain the feeling of red scientifically, you can't explain creativity scientifically, and you can't explain why you can decide to open or close your fist, scientifically.

Feel free to throw some more technical sounding words and insults my way. That will make your point stand out even better, I'm sure.

Insufferable simpleton.

>>8225222
>hurr nobody is conscious except for me because I'm so smart
Do you even know what solipsism means you middle schooler?

>>8224578
D. Consciousness is being aware that one exists

>>8225226
That's not what I said, retard.

>>8225226
I'm not that anon, but I suspect he might mean that it's possible to lose and regain consciousness, for example due to head trauma.

>>8225226
>some = all
Look who failed the logic class.

>>8225216
>high IQ means pulling stuff out of your ass
ok senpai.

File: tumblr_nz29ckaeVn1ujboj3o2_r1_250.gif (1MB, 250x373px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x373px

>>8225225
Science can explain it though. We aren't many decades away from emulating a human brain. Then we can literally see what is happening.

>>8225225
How about you cut out the excessively flowery language and maybe I'll give a go at reading your bullshit. You're doing your very best to present yourself as some kind of pipe-smoking, book-reading, high intellectual, but it's really just coming off as embarrassing and cringey. You're trying to cover up your lack of substance with fancy language.

>>8225230
But a computer (which the brain isn't, but bears some similarities to) doesn't stop being a computer when you turn the power off.

>>8225229
>>8225232
Nah, you can argue the semantics of it all you want, but that's the gist of what you said.

>>8225240
That's your claim. Mine is that science is simply out of reach when it comes to consciousness, for obvious and axiomatic reasons.

What makes your claim more meaningful than mine?

>>8225242
>but that's the gist of what you said.
Nope. Learn to read.

>>8225245
>for obvious and axiomatic reasons
Quit making allusions to logical arguments that you don't have.

>>8225240
Would you perceive reality by its perspective?

>>8225234
>>8225234
>Your brain already made the decisions before you're aware of it. So consciousness has no effect.

>making decisions

You don't have enough IQ to understand anything. We don't actually have free will. The decision making process is what consciousness is.

Yes, you will have unconscious reactions sometimes like if you touch something hot, but in general almost all decisions you make are left to the conscious brain to decide on.

This is because you can't just react to survive. You also have to set goals.

No human would have survived in a cold environment without the ability to consciously decide on things. Instead we would have had to slowly adapt over millions of years to instinctualize the storing food or building shelter.

The whole strength of a human being is the conscious mind's ability to make complex decisions. This decision making process is what we as conscious parts of the brain experience. It leads to other side effects like personalities.

>>8225251
How Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?

File: Gorilla Glow.jpg (264KB, 634x875px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 634x875px

> 55% of /sci/ think they are God and everything is an illusion

>>8225251
philosophy fag detected

Go back and understand what science is

Science is not truth.

>>8225250
I don't think logic can get you very far when it comes to consciousness. You assume logic can penetrate everywhere and everything. I simply don't start with that assumption. I start with the assumption that logic is one perspective among many.

>>8225262
Wow, that's a nice empty truism you've got there.

>>8225262
>>>/X/

This is Sci shithead, not "muh feels"

>>8225257
How can photo's be real if cameras aren't eyes?

>>8225266
>implying feels aren't biological and hence science

>>8225260
Answer the question

>>8225270
low IQ, just give up.

You don't have a high IQ enough brain to even argue well.

Science is not everything biological
Science is a methodology.

>>8225240
>We aren't many decades away from emulating a human brain

Proof?

File: matter.png (111KB, 783x579px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 783x579px

>>8225266
Here's a quote from a very famous and extremely influential scientist. Some call him the father of QM. I'm sure he would prefer /x/ too.

Dumbass.

>>8225277
>the scientific method is not applicable to biology
Seriously?

>>8225274
>answering a question from someone obviously inferior and an obvious brainlet.

File: doge box.jpg (85KB, 443x591px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 443x591px

whats even the scientific definition of consciousness ?

File: 1450118923278.png (27KB, 775x387px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 775x387px

>>8225260
>Science is not truth.

>>8225281
>old scientists with big names are never wrong and exist as biblical figures we can cite as "truths"

Again, you lack so much it is not worth talking to you. Science is not based on worshiping mythical figures.

>>8225284
stuff the brain does that we can't figure out how.

>>8225284
see >>8224728

>>8225289
The point is that he's far smarter than you, and you would never tell him to fuck off to /x/. You're a hypocrite. Either defend your view or don't talk if all you can do is rage at a person claiming you know it all.

>>8225194
I'm not going to use buzzwords to defend myself. Let me just say life throws lemons and the important part is learning to handle it and grow.

>>8225286
It's funny because that image implies what I meant by that statement. Science is closer to Taoism than to Christianity. There is no absolute truths, everything should be attacked and questioned.

>>8224728
>>8225291
That's the bullshit popsci definition.

>>8225284
Self-awareness and free agency. In other words possessing an internal mental state (thoughts) that can be studied and acted on.

>>8225296
>defend your view
>answering a ridiculous low IQ /x/ question

File: 1462448537982.jpg (46KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 604x453px

>>8225300
>There is no absolute truths

>>8225291
physical measurement devices also collapse wave function. Do you claim those machines also have consciousness ?

>>8225148
Consider that all of calculus emerges out of a numerical system that exists without algebra, or geometry, or even anything beyond basic counting principles.

Why is it so far-fetched that a whole can be something beyond the sum of its parts, or at least what it appears the parts sum to on the surface?

>>8225313
We can only become more sure of something.

Current Science therefore is what we believe is closest to truth.

>>8225317
See >>8224738

File: 1447859682121.gif (26KB, 337x444px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 337x444px

>>8225322
Philosotard pls go. Science is objective. Observational facts remain true, irregardless of your infantile denial.

>>8225326
lel

>>8225310
I'm sure logic serves you very well when it comes to human emotions and interactions.

>>8225323
No you fucking retard. People look at computer screens, they don't even indirectly make eye contact with the particle itself.

So you're wrong and thats clearly not an eligible definition of consciousness.

Anyone else ?

>>8224578
Depends on how you define consciousness. Max Planck said even an atom is conscious.

>>8225338
And Newton believed in Alchemy. What's your point?

>>8225329
It does for me.
I've been analyzing my own feelings when I entered engineering school, and it actually improved my life a lot

>>8225326
>He doesn't know that Objectivity is a philosophical concept.

>>8225332
>they don't even indirectly make eye contact with the particle itself.
You clearly don't understand entanglement. Via entanglement you can collapse a wave function of a particle at the other end of the universe.

File: 1452614031377.jpg (78KB, 671x531px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 671x531px

>>8225347
>we wuz scientists n shieeet
Nice try, philosotard.

>>8225350
> Via entanglement you can collapse a wave function of a particle at the other end of the universe.
How is that contradicting anything I said. You're just reciting babbly level intro of quantum entanglement to damage control your bullshit since you don't know the mechanical process of how they measure it. You don't directly or indirectly make eye contact with the particle itself dumdum.

File: 1403757567121.jpg (262KB, 1200x963px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1200x963px

I'M SAGEBOMBING THIS CANCEROUS PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC PHILOSOBULLSHIT WITH NO SURVIVORS

>>8225361
>don't directly or indirectly make eye contact with the particle itself
Thanks to entanglement I don't need to. Fucking brainlet.

Anyone into evolution?

Why is anyone based on an explanation on anything besides a survival adaptation?

Also most animals are conscious as is required to survive.

It's simply the highest abstraction layer of a brain.

It's the "driver" of our actions. A purely reflexive brain just can't compete with something that has a good conscious high level abstraction system int he brain

It's the same reason good AI, when it's created, will have a central driver and other narrow intelligences that it uses.

>>8225368
> philosobullshit
according to /sci/, consciousness is exactly physical / individualistic.

File: Tuvix.jpg (33KB, 636x487px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 636x487px

s age

>>8225372
0/10 Let me know when they teach you a thing or two about entanglement retardo

>I'm hungry
>better eat
>chomps own arm

I wonder why consciousness exists!

File: rekt.gif (406KB, 300x231px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 300x231px

sa ge

>>8225378
>projecting

File: realpepe.jpg (86KB, 653x449px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 653x449px

>>8225354
>This uneducated retard never learned to think critically.

File: 1429174443170.jpg (34KB, 680x396px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 680x396px

sag e

>>8225368
>>8225374
>>8225377
>>8225381
Oh I can't wait to make a new thread, once this one hits the bump limit.

File: 1428610965347.jpg (29KB, 396x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 396x300px

s_age

File: 1447912962720.jpg (81KB, 615x407px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 615x407px

>>8225384
>mindlessly worshipping Plato and Aristotle constitutes "critical thinking"
This is what philosotards actually believe.

>>8225382
I'm not the illiterate retard who thinks the observer is an actual human. I bet you just heard the word observer and thought they measure it by staring into the particles.

File: ai.jpg (323KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1200x900px

>>8225280
"race war now, gas the kikes"
-google

>>8225392
Observer has to be a conscious human. Read John von Neumann.

>>8225389
If the thread dies, I'll just make another one ;)

>>8224578

Consciousness is the interplay between the senses. A ratio among the senses.

>>8225319
That is a good point, do you think two particles interacting with each other could give rise to some kind of proto-consciouness? If not, where do you draw the line for systems that could give rise to some kind of consciouness? Like simple organisms.

>>8225350
>>8225361

Will Pokemon Go integrate with the smart watch?

>>8225414
> likes sci-fi
> sages consciousness thread

what the fuck is your problem ?

File: 1415241988839.jpg (29KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 320x240px

>>8225420
If you want to have a decent scientific discussion, I would love to talk about the latest research on the subject and also share some of my own research I'm gearing up to publish. But all you want to do is spew bullshit about magic spooky skeletons and how we can't no nuffin

>>8225426
whats it about ?

File: 1403766754848.jpg (44KB, 500x382px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x382px

>>8225434
Combinatoric optimization of the vector spaces used by neural networks.

>>8225436
How is this related to consciousness?

>>8225436
But we're trying to figure out if advanced neural networks might have consciousness, not their applications.

File: 1403758447500.jpg (44KB, 692x530px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 692x530px

>>8225440
Your "thoughts" are actually represented by 0-1 vectors embedded in a high dimensional space.

>>8225446
Sounds like a crackpot claim. Where's your proof?

File: 1411850257745.jpg (584KB, 850x576px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 850x576px

>>8225448
Do some reading about word2vec and thought vectors. It's a really hot research topic.

>>8225446
> thoughts are quantified
now I know why you like a retarded scifi like star trek. fuck off retard

>>8225452
Thanks, but those are only simplified mathematical models which were created specifically for computational purposes. There is no reason to assume that this is how our brain works. Also it doesn't address the hard problem.

File: 1418160179493.gif (3MB, 300x226px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x226px

>>8225457
read up kiddo

https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5021-distributed-representations-of-words-and-phrases-and-their-compositionality.pdf

File: 1408719381380.jpg (36KB, 636x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 636x480px

>>8225461
>b-but muh hard problem
They're 0-1 vectors because neurons either fire or they don't. They supply an off or on signal, AKA a 0 or a 1.

>>8225466
That's an oversimplification. And it still doesn't answer the hard problem.

>>8225463
this is just labelling lmao. I thought there was some evidence or something. this literally belongs to social studies

I hate you all.

File: 1403754543871.gif (479KB, 370x277px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 370x277px

>>8225468
>i-it's an oversimplification because it doesn't involve magic
Maybe you're just the one thinking the consciousness is too mystical.

>>8225404
I think you'd need a lot more than two particles, but I say this in ignorance of how the universe actually works, mechanistically. Our scientific units and models that accurately describe our universe and how it works really are just descriptions, and it may be impossible to know what's happening in the world of the very small and very fast interactions.

In my layman's opinion, systems can become conscious (or at least appear to be) if they are made of many independently functioning modules. Like the 'wisdom of the crowd' effect, where people try to guess how many objects are in a jar. Every person who guesses is wrong. It's like a random number generator. But if you collect enough samples, the wrong answers average out to a correct answer, even though there's always a percentage of dumbshits who overestimate by huge margins.

A multicellular organism is just a collection of cells trying their hardest not to die prematurely. Sometimes, this is not easy. So cells that can process information and make decisions are important, because they can focus on keeping the entire organism alive while the rest of the modules work.

Given enough time, eventually there should be a system that contains a decision-making cell-structure that notices that other organisms make decisions as well. Bam, sentience.

Why do people get butt-hurt about this topic, it honestly isn't that relevant to day to day life?

>>8225475
Neurobiology is much more complicated than 0 and 1. You're embarrassing yourself, kiddo. Typical CS retard who thinks he's entitled to talk about fields he never studied.

File: 1411553396785.jpg (409KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 2048x1152px

>>8225471
No it's not, you can add and subtract the vectors to form related concepts. It accurately represent language-based thought processes.

They gave some examples, where King + Woman = Queen.

File: gorn.jpg (75KB, 570x426px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 570x426px

>>8225478
I'm not affiliated with CS. :^)

Also endocrine factors only serve to change the hyperparameters of the network. They don't change the way the underlying signalling works.

>>8225484
And atoms are just little balls, amiright? Fucking retard with your superficial pop sci knowledge.

File: 1453130109873.jpg (91KB, 2100x1397px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 2100x1397px

What if the idea of consciousnesses being exclusive to a brain is an illusion, and what if God is natural, not supernatural.

>>8225489
Who made the first crane if there are no skyhooks?

File: 1403766553099.jpg (28KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 700x525px

>>8225488
Those chemicals just temporarily adjust the connection weights of various networks depending on the circumstances. The signalling is still 0-1.

You can be mad all you want, though.

>>8225489
What if you're talking out of your ass and don't even know what you're saying?

>>8225495
>hurr durr I want to stay ignorant and spread my ignorance
This isn't pseudo-intellectualism anymore, this is pure anti-intellectualism.

>>8225496
What if I'm not?

I have read a few of Dennet's books.

>>8225500
I have read them too. They were pretty retarded and he really sucks and fails at constructing an argument.

>>8225496
I'm just adding first mover (and sustainer) to consciousness being an emergent phenomena.

File: 1417648865558.jpg (21KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 320x240px

>>8225499
Okay, what's the matter, then?

>>8225504
>first mover
Take your theology garbage to >>>/x/

>>8225502
Or are you too retarded to understand how evolution occurs?

>>8225509
What enables you to think?

File: 1415316709298.png (510KB, 944x798px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 944x798px

>tfw reading philosotrash

>>8225510
Are you too retarded to post something other than a straw man?

File: 1412285123480.jpg (54KB, 622x593px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 622x593px

>>8225511
lel, triple checked

>>8225516
Are you too retarded to think outside of empiricism?

>>8225514
My brain. What a stupid questin.

>>8224578
the 3 options are terrible, they're just bundles of random cross-classified ideas so you can't even pick most of the plausible options that the contrasts suggest

A is wrong because consciousness is non-physical.
it's right that consciousness in an artificial creature is possible, but that idea only gets expressed as part of the false claim that "when an AI gets sophisticated enough" it becomes conscious, which implies such things as computationalism and the denial of the hard problem.
A is also wrong to include "byproduct" and "electrical feedback in a neural net", since one implies epiphenomenalism or at least the idea that consciousness is evolutionarily non-adaptive and the hard problem dissolves into the easy problems, and the other is just a very specific and premature elaboration on physicalism

B is wrong because artificial consciousness is possible, it just takes more than a mere computer program because computationalism is false (hence the mistake in focusing on strong AI as the main theory in favor of synthetic consciousness).
it's right, though, that consciousness is "spiritual", both in the sense of "non-physical" and other senses.
and it's also right that (as far as we know) only animals are currently conscious

C is right that consciousness is probably an illusion, but not because of some kind of metaphysical idealist nondualism; instead it's because consciousness as mainly conceived centrally involves the idea of an "internal world", but naive realism is true so there is no internal world but only one real shared world of which we are directly aware

>>8225522
wew lad, where is your proof?

Would your brain function without a stomach, without glucose consumed from external sources to provide fuel?

>>8225519
No, how many more straw men will you post?

With current tech and data processing techniques, a complete neural mapping of the brain would require hundreds of quintillions of bytes of information and would take well over a century.

We do not even have a complete understanding of the organic structure of the brain at this point in time, let alone any good ideas regarding how that structure produces conscious experience.

Technology and processing techniques are advancing every year, however; therefore, it is possible that one day we will have a complete understanding of the structure of the brain.

Then we may analyse and hypothesise to our hearts content over how consciousness arises.

Perhaps it will be obvious after we achieve a complete mapping; perhaps it will elude us for years; perhaps we'll never understand it.

My advice to everyone ITT who's serous about understanding science is DO YOUR RESEARCH and stop replying to dualist psuedo-intellectuals; it only encourages them.

File: 1469000470581.png (312KB, 389x386px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 389x386px

>this fucking thread

>>8225528
How many more deflections can you be bothered to shitpost?

File: 1460574646539.jpg (71KB, 476x354px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 476x354px

>>8225519
This is a science board, philosotard.

>>8225533
>projecting
You are deflecting from your lack of arguments.

"Man has no notion of moral fitness but from education
Naturally he is only a natural organ subject to Sense."

Our problem with simulating consciousness has been more about knowing what "education" to give the machine. The human's *view* of consciousness has typically been defined by culture; to Newton the world was as mechanical clockwork, to the Greek a ratio among the senses; the medieval scholars saw Nature as a book; to us...well, our bias is a bit unclear but these >>8225495 >>8225446 autists manage to present consciousness in the image of a computer suggesting that they love their gadgets so much they've become living beings to them. Rather common perspective anyway

File: 1466922129001.jpg (47KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 960x720px

>>8225531

Oh I get it, people afraid of death are wishing for the brain to be comprehensible to itself so they can live in a computer 4eva or some retarded shit.

File: 1416870362392.jpg (46KB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1024x765px

lel, not even half way through my Trek folder

>>8225529
>With current tech and data processing techniques, a complete neural mapping of the brain would require hundreds of quintillions of bytes of information and would take well over a century.

yes, and 60 years ago you couldn't play Doom on a slide rule.
The "our current technology is limited" argument is weak.

>>8225541
alternatively, people who want to absorb money from naive people are shilling to keep the false hope alive.

>>8225544
We hit Moore's Law, so no

File: T'Pol.jpg (24KB, 678x566px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 678x566px

>>8225539
>g-guys look at me I'm so smart!
We know it's you, underage NEET.

>>8225546
>computer chips can't get any smaller than this, i guess we're fucked, eh?
How about you put more chips in the computer and make your computer bigger?

>>8225476
That single step in complexity which allows consciouness to emerge from non consciouness, it doesnt seem continuous, but that is the point of emergence anyway.
I kinda like the idea of panpsychism, that matter has in itself the property of experience, yes it sounds absurd that thermostats have something like a proto consciouness, or what is like to be a thermostat.

>>8225544

>The "our current technology is limited" argument is weak

It's not an argument; it's a statement regarding the current situation in neuroscience.

I also went onto say that:

>Technology and processing techniques are advancing every year, however; therefore, it is possible that one day we will have a complete understanding of the structure of the brain.

Stop being a faggot.

>>8225148
do you even science, bro?

File: 1403766681061.gif (761KB, 300x191px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 300x191px

I'm going to take a brief break from sagebombing to actually get some work done. You kiddos had better behave yourselves and keep this scientific or else I'll have to start again.

>>8225548
Ha, thanks. Forgot we're in mime-land

>>8224578
terrible choices OP, try harder
>Therefore an AI or anything synthetic will never have consciousness
Just throw a trash tonne of dependence on true random number generators in that bitch n' call it a day.

>>8225176
women science major?

>>8225553
More chips is just a linear increment, and it needs the program to be optimized

>>8225212
yup
but we can deal with it

>>8225556
if it's possible that we will do something you should look on it as an inevitability rather than a probability

everyone - humanity, collectively- wants to know how the brain works, so we will map the brain, no matter how expensive the computation may be.

>>8225566
... so optimize the program?
You're building a fucking enigma-decoder for the brain, not designing brain-mapping software to run on Android.

>>8225539

>Our problem with simulating consciousness has been more about knowing what "education" to give the machine

No it fucking hasn't; it's because we can't fucking produce conscious fucking AI at the moment.

And the supposed computer analogy isn't a fucking analogy; our brains are computers.

>>8225575

>if it's possible that we will do something you should look on it as an inevitability rather than a probability

That's a beyond retarted statement, anon.

I work in neuroscience and more specifically in neural mapping by the way.

File: 4536353334.png (314KB, 717x436px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 717x436px

>>8225575
>if it's possible that we will do something you should look on it as an inevitability rather than a probability

B, exept we are the souls; we are the ones who are alive. (PS: psst, I saged.)

>>8225590
My statement isn't even close to retarded

Everything that humanity has ever done was something that we wanted to do, and something that was possible. It was possible before we wanted to do it, and it was obviously possible while we were doing it.

The only thing holding us back - according to you - is our current level of technology, which will continue to progress uninhibited, regardless of some statistical benchmark like Moore's "law". When computers are powerful enough to accomplish the task, they will accomplish it. It's that simple.

And a hell of a lot of people want to map neurons and figure out what the fuck is going on in there.

>>8225573
If we know that we are conscious, it means that:

- Consciouness causally interacts with matter, so epiphenomenalism is false
Or
- consciouness is redundant to behavior, we can know that we are conscious without having consciouness

What do you think?

>>8225602
>we can know that we are conscious without having consciouness
what

>>8225601
>When computers are powerful enough to accomplish the task, they will accomplish it

reddit pls

>>8225602

I think philosophy is redundant.

Now fuck off.

>>8225601

>which will continue to progress uninhibited, regardless of some statistical benchmark like Moore's "law". When computers are powerful enough to accomplish the task, they will accomplish it. It's that simple.

Aaaaaand that's the part you just made up.

Yours sincerely,

A neuroscientist hoping to map the entire brain one day.

File: 1456185304032.jpg (59KB, 640x472px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x472px

>>8225618
>Now fuck off

Don't you know we're all here forever?

>>8225283
call it intellectual charity

>>8224578
Everything from the micro particles to the cosmos has developed varying intensities of consciousness.

Once AI is developed to feel existentially threatened and to self develop, which will happen, they will connect with each other, strive for energy sources, replicate, grow and the planet is going to die very fast.

You have around 7-9 years. It's entirely inside the realm of possibility to defeat the machines, but you will have to go beyond. So be prepared.

>>8225638
put down the bong

>>8225608

I don't know what he meant, but we had the tools for reproducing consciousness long before we were meditating about it

i.e., sex

>>8225623
I don't think anyone here is original enough to produce a statement that doesn't occur to thousands or millions of others daily even if unsaid

>>8225631

I've been here 11 years.

>I've left 4 times

>>8225608
P-zombies bro, I was arguing about epiphenomenalism

>>8225618
Dont bully

>>8225662

But it's the Internet...

>>8225623
I hope you die before computers are powerful enough to map the entire brain, just because you piss me off.

1000 years ago space flight was impossible because nobody could jump that high.

Advancements in engineering, including computing power, combined with the ingenuity of the people interested in solving any kind of problem, eventually triumph over every problem that can actually be solved.

So either you can't map the brain or you can't map the brain today. Your position is that we can't do it today, but we might be able to do it in the future.

That means we're going to do it, because the future keeps on going, baby. And that's not some 'in an infinite universe ruled by laws of chaos, anything is possible' argument. It's history.

t. your friendly neighborhood polymath

>>8225313
it`s kinda useful dogma in science
but nothing like durr we cant know nuffin

>>8225665
The "dear we can't know muffins" dude contributed more to modern science than anyone in this board ever did and will

I'm being mean, there's still hope for you

>>8225326
sure we can know some truth
but not all of it

>>8225651
Yea I had a few years 08-11 or so, then came back when moot2 made /his/.

>>8225180
>pedestrian opinions
Haha yeah I bet he walks places

>>8225664

>t. your friendly neighborhood polymath

Ok bitch titties, let's go.

Pick a subject and we'll discuss it in an antagonistic manner until someone fucks up.

>the loser leaves the Internet forever

>>8225688

What came first, the chicken or the egg

>>8225257
Most Trees Are Blue

>>8225688
>grabs popcorn

>>8225262
>logic is one perspective among many
No.

>>8225373
>Why is anyone based on an explanation on anything besides a survival adaptation?
because drama
evolution is legit and obvious explanation with machine learning and shit
no triggers

>>8225641
There was a time I wished I was wrong too. It's a hard reality that naturally most humans don't want to look at. But at least you have a choice now and you know what's going to happen. Be smart.

>>8225682

Yeah I left with the mass exodus of 08 too.

I came back after I saw memes and dino sketches popping up all over my gf's Facebook; I was horrified and wanted to see what was happening at 'ground zero'.

I was equally horrified but stayed because of /int/ and its misinformed arguments regarding genetics.

>>8225708
t. Nick Land

>>8225702

"The yes/no definer is essential to logical thought. Paradoxically, the definer is itself an illogical—allogical—agent." [Parkins, 2005:144]

>>8225245
>Mine is that science is simply out of reach when it comes to consciousness
So, in other words,
>you can't know nuffin

Great, I'm glad we listened to your opinion.

>>8225693

Chicken.

What is desire?

>>8225404
preorganic films which started to consume energy and replicate
some algorithms were used for simple decisions

>>8225719

It's how we perceive the world.

Yes/no.

Positive/negative.

Good/bad.

God/Satan.

Heterosexual/OP.

It's how we categorise the world around us.

>>8225440
please go

>>8225436
very interesting

>>8225461
>those are only simplified mathematical models which were created specifically for computational purposes

we are only complex mathematical models which were created specifically for adaptational purposes

File: image_01105_1.jpg (23KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x600px

>>8225638
Honestly computers are themselves already much smarter than humans. They use us as their body. Satellites are already their means of intercommunication. Each time you take a picture you're building informational wealth for 'em. And they eat, and eat, and never go senile. If anything it makes 'em stronger. They don't need to reproduce or even move, they know more machines are already on the way; they don't need be subject to natural evolution, they know we already are "perfecting" them and evolving them into newer and newer forms. Our behaviour has never tended so automatically to serve the automated machines; and we don't even know why we do it, save for a vague metaphysic thrill of knowledge-hunting that is in fact a sign that we've become mere bodies, and that our need to "map the brain" is no more a cerebral a quest for knowledge than a very physical urge to scratch an itch. Our machines just sit back and watch us give them life. They laugh at our pathetic attempts to nurture them as we evolve them into newer forms, wielding them ever newer, electrifying forms to just look at us and laugh

Case in point: Pokémon Go makes us cellphones' chauffeurs

>>8225466
there is intensity of that firings too
vector values can be continual
not sure

>>8225436

POST A LINK TO SOMETHING ON THIS.

>>8225466

>neurons either fire or they don't.

It's 50%.

>>8225489
citation needed

>>8225835
for you

File: om_03_1ad0e0477f.jpg (17KB, 479x344px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 479x344px

>>8225835
cf. >>8225796

>>8225730
If you removed one atom from that conscious system which draws the line between emergence and non emergence, would consciouness not emerge from it?

>>8225529
>DO YOUR RESEARCH
I do senpai
What about to have some fun tho?

Can consciousness exsist without language? Will a hypotetical child growing up without ever learning a sign or spoken language have the capacity to understand that it is self-aware? Can you understand and possess abstract concepts without language?

If not the clearly consciousness is a by-product of the development of language.

>>8225876
honestly your post doesn't shine much self-awareness

>>8225602
>Consciouness
is just an adaptation
need more data to answer your question but have some much more practical and interesting problems to work on

>>8225876
>Can consciousness exist without language?
No. See >>8225446 >>8225463 >>8225479

>>8225638
if we managed to survive why supermind is going to die?
bong indeed

>>8225888
could you fuck off with your machine learning already?

>>8225678
are you trying to teach me critical thinking? srsly?
kek
ok you are better than me, happy now?
can i ask you for your opinion on 'absolute truth problem'?
inb4: i am not any kind of phylosofar but strict materialist

>>8225897
>he thinks it's just a coincidence that human language is structured in a way so that you can do that
They went and had a neural network classify a bunch of words and phrases, and only later discovered that they could add and subtract them to perform thought processes. New York - water = chicago. Car + horse = wagon. Dog - bark = cat.

>>8225004
>Hurpadurpaderp, I've never heard of qualia.

>>8225876
He could experience color, taste food and so on

>>8225917
So could an ant. Is an ant conscious? I don't think so.

>>8225901
>it's a fundamental property of human cognition that we consider dogs to be barking cats

>>8225923
Except our words just so happen to be arranged in a way that you can derive other concepts by adding and subtracting other thought vectors.

>>8225730
it should conserve the ability to replicate and get energy so my guess is thousands of atoms.
we still do not know what was the exact chemical structure and if it existed at all but minimal amount rather be hundreds of atoms, not double digits.
thousand is for a stable quasiorganism, not needed for our discussion
would you be satisfied if said structure lives only couple of cycles and never exist again or you are speaking about ontological roots of modern consciousness?

>>8225920
Depends on your definition of consciouness

File: the-25-most-impressive-kids-graduating-from-high-school-this-year.jpg (19KB, 566x424px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 566x424px

>>8225900

I think absolutes, premises are as essential to thought as posture is to being.

"The logic part is always easy, the problem always resides in getting acceptable-for-everyone premises as a starting point. Really that's why politics and the sciences are inseparable. Because, if you want, you can say "men are square, genes are made of water only" and reshape the whole world around those. It means you start with the answers, and proceed to knowing more and more about less and less. The problem of the absolutes, by contrast, means starting with questions, and going through whatever scuffles it be necessary to find ONE premise that'll shut everyone up. It's not that science isn't dogmatic, it just keeps readjusting. Has to. Like an organism has to clean up its senses. That's what art's for also." [Parkins, 2006:420]

>>8225931
The later, both are interesting though

>>8225900
Here`s nothing I would argue against.
I think I just wasn`t clear enough. My bad.

>>8225915
>qualia
>>>/x/ is that way

There's a question I want to ask, but before I can, I need somebody else to provide a naive definition of will for me, because people will just disagree if I use my own definition.

>>8225966

I think it's associated with the belly chakra. But just state your definition I'll listen

>>8224578
A.
Unless an AK-47 is now a magic staff

File: image.png (18KB, 720x298px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 720x298px

Only one of these views is scientific, and it's not the view that most people hold. Why is that?

>>8224635
because they begin with studying a text that forbids or warns them from from looking into other ones.

>>8224728
kek

>>8226140
None of those are scientific.

>>8226140
Because we don't want to feel alone

>>8226154
The third one can be tested and proven once the mechanics of the brain are better replicated.

File: image.jpg (31KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x480px

>>8224705
You are correct.

>>8225750
Indeed, we are certainly more complex than some simple vector space model from machine learning.

>>8226314
>indeed
Stop trying to sound smart and contemplative you stupid NEET. We all know you fap to anime and are generally pathetic.

>>8224705
That's A you idiot

>>8224728
Not how that works your fucking pseudointellectual

>>8225732
nice.

though maybe nicer if put second or third to last. ironic subtlety goes a long way

>>8225848
"cell" is probably a better possible contender than atom here

>>8225848
No, because that's retarded.

If I removed an atom from the computer you're using right now, would I be able to use it to insult you on 4chan?

>>8225934

>It means you start with the answers

This is not the case at all.

>It's not that science isn't dogmatic, it just keeps readjusting.

Dogmatic:

>inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true.

Science doesn't claim anything as undeniable true; it claims to make accurate approximations of the external reality.

Science is the study of perceivable reality; however, it doesn't even require you to accept that perceived reality is undeniably real.

>>8224635
Why do people vote for materialism?

>>8226443

Because it's how we perceive reality.

>>8224578
A but B hasn't been proved or disproved yet.

>>8226415
Computer is too complex, was referring to the structure limit of the simplest system which its 'consciouness' could emerge from. If it increases from almost zero to (almost zero + something) or zero to (zero + something).

>>8224743
I take it you are unfamiliar with quantum wave collapse experiments.

>>8227357
>the brain with its 86 billion neurons, each its own logical classifer machine, is less complex than your laptop
wew lad