how can you verify the existence of any consciousness other

No :c

>>8281777
Define consciousness

>>8281780
your thoughts and the ability to perceive your surroundings

>>8281777
what did he see, /sci/?

>>8281782
Fucking idiot.

>>8281820
great argument, troglodyte.

>>8281777
Ask them to perform a task that requires them to make predictions about their own thinking in advance.

>>8281820
Any answer that he gave, you were just going to call him an idiot weren't you?

>>8281780
Define your mom.

>>8281777
Is the interaction of value to you.

>>8281777
Since we don't really know how the brain works or what consciousness really is the question you are proposing is currently unanswerable

>>8281777
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

>>8281777
Realize that you-in-the-past was also a difference consciousness. Realize that you can't know any information about reality without knowing there is something beyond what you are directly experiencing.

And yes, this requires faith.

>>8281777
By reproducing one artificially and comparing it to current ones.

>>8282288

How do you compare it

>>8282309
By measuring behavior?

Because then I could control the world I percieved. It would all be just in my head, right? If I can't control my surroundings, that means that it's real, physical.

>>8281875

But perhaps they don't even exist. Perhaps they, or all that can be perceived, is an illusion by a grand deceiver. How can one distinguish between someone capable of making predictions about their own thinking in advance, and an illusion of someone making predictions about their own thinking in advance?

>>8281777
Do some sort of brainwave test and then think about something then do the same test on someone else if you get similar results then reality seems to apply to each of your conciseness the same therefore you seem to confirm it

>>8282001
"You can't" is indisputably the only correct answer.

>>8283692
okkhams razer naga

>>8283710
It's a neat concept for finding the model with highest likelihood, but it can't prove anything. Parsimony is elegant, but elegance isn't essential.

>>8281875
A computer could recite it's algorithms on demand.

>>8281777
Who is that? (pic)

>>8281777
>>>/phi/losophy

File: sad-bored.png (147KB, 325x324px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 325x324px

Assuming (>>8281782) and OP are the same faggot, then by monitoring your own nerve impulses in the brain while thinking "your thoughts" and you find a correlation, then prove that it is a causation, then you can monitor someone else's brain.
If you find the same or somewhat similar nerve impulses, then you can be sure he is thinking similar thoughts to "your thoughts".

Not so hard after all, is it?

hmm.... really makes you think

You literally fucking can't. And do you ever wonder what is behind you? Does it stop existing when you not looking? The only thing that I think for sure exist is that fucker that are looking through my eyes right now which is me fucking crazy isn't really make you think

>>8284130
probably some crop from a porn video

>>8282001
Fucking idiot.

Just google criticisms of solipsism

You can ask other people

>>8281784
muh dick

>>8284279
That's why I'm asking

>>8285780
>>8284130
jordi from brazzers

>>8283692
>Perhaps they, or all that can be perceived, is an illusion by a grand deceiver.
>How can one distinguish between someone capable of making predictions about their own thinking in advance, and an illusion of someone making predictions about their own thinking in advance?
If I have a choice between a consciousness test that can exclude the possibility of an invisible puppet-master pulling the strings to create the illusion of minds, and a consciousness test that reliably excludes rocks, bricks and chairs, I'm gonna pick the latter.

>>8283736
>A computer could recite it's algorithms on demand.
Yes, but it won't make use of that information except in small, trivial ways.

>>8284237
>implying the brain, neurons and consciousness are the same phenomena

>>8281777
You can't.
You can't even verify your own conciousness.
/thread