What is your answer to the hard problem of consciousness ? Howcome

Yep. Panpsychism basically.

>>8261974
This, with dynamics of CTMU.

>>8261964
>bananas are made of subatomic particles
>so is the universe
>the universe is a banana

You're assuming that consciousness is some "special" characteristic and not a product of the human brain.

>>8262003
/thread

>>8262003
Which sentence says that, can you point it out ?

>>8261964
Maybe each fundamental subparticle has intrisic primitive consciousness, but how does each one of those unify under a complex individual consciousness like ours?

File: 1300834839077.jpg (77KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x480px

>>8262018
>Since they all abide the physical laws of the universe, doesn't that mean the universe is conscious in nature somehow ?
This one suggests it.
It also points out the major flaw in your logic.
I really like to think that moderns philosophers are lacking knowledge about the physical universe and not just retarded.

Just read >>8262003 again
/thread

>>8262003
delet this

>>8262063
Well it is true that consciousness arises from completely physical structures. Ofcourse this doesn't mean the universe itself is conscious, but when you arrange it right, it gets conscious.

I think the point is that the origin of consciousness is something entirely physical and perhaps testable. Which means there is no spiritual fictional element that makes things conscious and infact consciousness only requires the correct order of quarks, atoms and other components, which makes the concepts like IA consciousness absolutely plausible

>>8262003
why should it be just a product of the human brain?
why not a product of a mammal brain?
why not a product of a brain, period?
does it even need a brain?

>>8262104
It's impossible to tell because its subjective by nature. Thats why it's the hard problem of consciousness. The only consciousness you can actually confirm is yours and yours alone.

But you don't need a human brain to have complex behaviour and intelligence. Even jellyfishes with no brains can eat, navigate, detect threats and run away from predators, etc...

>>8262111
I know and I agree. however I want to point out that it may be a fallacy to believe intelligence and complex behavior are necessary for consciousness. We just assume that it is, since we are relatively intelligent.

>>8262123
Consciousness is being self-aware. You can't be self aware if you have no sensory inputs or a feedbacking mechanism in whatever does the input processing.
So I think we know that you need the tools and capacity to be conscious to have consciousness, and that comes with intelligence.

>>8262111
>The only consciousness you can actually confirm is yours and yours alone.
It's impossible for exclusive information to exist, so the only logical conclusion is that there actually is only one.

If you removed a neuron from your brain and replaced it with an artificial neuron made of metals (like a transistor or CPU or something) that did the same thing, you'd still be conscious probably. Then you could replace more of them one by one, until you'd have a brain made of artificial neurons only. Shouldn't you still be conscious?

What if you replaced a neuron with a WIFI-chip and connected it to a computer simulation of a neuron, and then replaced neurons one by one until your brain was just a collection of simulated neurons on some Cloud service. Maybe it would be simulated 100 times faster than real life, or 100 times slower. It could be put on pause indefinitely too. At what point would your consciousness end or would it?

Maybe your neurons could be simulated using an algorithm that was operated by humans using just rocks as a simulation (like a mechanical computer). Rocks can do computation but it's pretty hard to accept there'd be a conscious somewhere in the patterns of rocks being pushed around.

And what if you split a brain in two and build exact copies of the missing sides using artificial neurons. You'd end up duplicating a consciousness?

related: >>8262185

>>8262003
No, it's not X is Y so Z must be Y, it's X (inert matter) has the emergent property of Not-X (living system). A banana, or any physical object, is not the same as consciousness, which is the experience of any given object in the first place. Your argument is reddit-tier.

I have often wondered how likely it is that I was born a human and not as an ant or bee or something like that. Or maybe a dinosaur (for 170 million years the planet was full of them).

Maybe consciousness requires something that only humans have, or only apes have, or mammals or something. That could explain the statistics. Maybe consciousness requires a region in a brain that only some animals have like mirror neurons or that "theory of mind" stuff that social animals use to simulate others' states of mind.

The other solution is that my consciousness is is every consciousness out there but obviously I can't remember that cause brain stores memories locally.

>>8262134
consciousness is not being self-aware. you can very well be alive and perceive the world, but be not self-aware at a moment.

>>8263750
>consciousness is not being self-aware
is that you deepak ?

>>8261964
>>>/his/

File: yeah like that.jpg (79KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 720x479px

>>8261964
>Howcome quarks, gluons, protons, neutrons, etc create in consciousness ?

>>8262003
laughed

>>8262078
>I think the point is that the origin of consciousness is something entirely physical and perhaps testable.

Conversely, it could also imply that the entirety of the universe is fundamentally spiritual and that physical structure is inseparable from this.

File: main-qimg-2d575da5f58dfefe36bed51c64787e3a[1].png (1MB, 1000x520px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x520px

>>8265826
Well if consciousness originates from the correct arragements of quarks, protons and atoms then the mystery is solved. Consciousness is nothing more than a property of matter that we haven't explored throughly yet.

File: tmp_22709-1920x1080-black-solid-color-background1262111762.jpg (33KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1920x1080px

Root 2
area to line

A handful's a bunch

>>8261964
Well, erm, everything in our daily lives is based off of an algorithm, all planets or bodies in the universe hold some sort of magnetic or electrical field and even our brains give off electrical signals, all gymnosperms and angiosperms follow the "golden Ratio" and everything we know in the universe can be explained using math, even the complex code for life can be written out by a computer. It is very likely that we are a computer simulation due to the unexplainable nature of certain phenomena, one instance being the fact that there is a "maximum" velocity that can be reached, represented by "C" , or the speed of light, yet this seemingly unbeatable speed is completely left in the dust by the opposing power of the super-vacuums known as blackholes. Which very well should not exist and trap everything inside of its super massive center. We also cannot see the edge of the universe, most say it is becasue the universe is expanding and therre is "nothing" outside of the edge of our expansion, but I prescribe to the belief that it is the edge of our simulated "reality". Hurr durr, look at me, I know nothing about science, roast me like I'm in /b/ *mmmrrrrpppp* wubbalubba-dub-dub /sci/-cunts.

>>8261964
What's so magical about consciousness?

Do you make rocks fly with it? Does it break any law of nature?... wtf man?

>>8265834
And a property of matter we can never explore objectively, because the act of observing consciousness has to be done with another consciousness.

File: 1450324015284.jpg (167KB, 1018x762px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1018x762px

>>8261964
So we meet again NEETfag

Whelp, time to sagebomb yet another shit thread

>>8266931
>>8266932
>>8266933
>>8266935
>>8266937
>6937▶
>File: 1428610965347.jpg (29 KB, 396x300)
>>8266940
>>8266941
>>8266943
>>8266953
>>8266956
>>8266959

>being this much of an assmad brainlet faggot

i didnt post this thread. stay triggered nigger

concienceness is holy light. that's it. that's what makes us matter to begin with, friend.

>>8262204
>Rocks can do computation but it's pretty hard to accept there'd be a conscious somewhere in the patterns of rocks being pushed around.
well, I don't find it hard at all. why do you think so?
>And what if you split a brain in two and build exact copies of the missing sides using artificial neurons. You'd end up duplicating a consciousness?
why not? what makes consciousness so special, that you can't duplicate it? of course the two parts wouldn't be connected anymore, thus they would work just like twins do

>>8266858
>implying observing matter doesn't have to be done with another matter