Whats the scientific definition of consciousness? Can science

Consciousness is difficult to define because people who don't have consciousness will disagree with the definition given by people who do have it.

In general, any definition that attempts to conflate "consciousness" with "identity" is a definition made by somebody who lacks consciousness.

Neurology still has a lot to do on this field, but in a few decades conciousness will probably be understood completely, now we can only theorize based on what we know.

>>8759144
I like you.

its also what makes it literally impossible to talk to normies on the subject - the ideas are literally identical to them. Both are this magic quality that they believe they have that makes them separate and unique from the rest of the universe.

>>8759137
>Whats the scientific definition of consciousness?
If you can feel you are conscious.

>>8759137
Science can't reach consciousness, it's far beyond it. The problem with you people is that you think logic is your savior. The truth is logic has a well defined limit. It ends with consciousness. You will never understand it.

>>8759137
Consciousness is what groove is to music. It is the result of the process of a cerebellum in progress.
It's like traffic. You need active participants who use the passages to create traffic.

>>8759144

yeah, it's not really worth arguing about with people.

>>8759179
[citation needed]

>>8759207

case in point.

>>8759207
Smoke a heroic dose of DMT. Sorry to say but there's no other way of getting that information through your thick brains. Except if you prefer 10 years of discipline and meditation.

>>8759217

drugs don't work on most people like that. they just get scared and act stupid usually.

>>8759144
edgiest post i've seen all day

>>8759137
Consciousness should be defined as a state of being where the entity who possesses consciousness is able to comprehend its own existence and free will, as well as being able to feel [ >>8759174 ]

A problem that we run into is if consciousness really means so much to us, wherein if you cant point to the exact lever at which something is no longer that something, chances are there is no such thing as that something.

>>8759244
Its honestly true though. Get outside your own head and you'll see.

>>8759239
Certain drugs like DMT and lsd can have very consistent effects. The problem is often in the doseage, anything less than necessary for "breakthrough" will just leave the person confused and likely scared. Hence the 'heroic' dose.

>>8759207
It might be more accurate to say that consciousness ( or better phrased , the hard problem of consciousness - why we experience qualia at all ) is not in the realm of science right now, and likely will not be for a very long time.

He might also just be saying that the understanding of consciousness in and of itself cannot be approached logically, it must be experienced directly. For example, you could never describe the color red to a blind man that had never had sight. He would never really understand it and logic would never bring him closer to it.

>>8759260
Ehhhh. I'm really not sure if 'free will' should be in that definition. Any serious examination doesn't provide any serious evidence for free will.

>>8759265
>For example, you could never describe the color red to a blind man that had never had sight. He would never really understand it and logic would never bring him closer to it.
>Hurr, humans are bad at imaging things therefore qualia exists

>>8759137
its when you're smart enough to be self-aware. Intelligence can be measure.

https://youtu.be/c7Ax2BqZo3Y

>>8759276
Are you fucking stupid?

Literally all of your ideas and concepts are based in things you've experienced, or generalized from things you've experienced. You literally can't imagine something accurately that you haven't experienced, or that can't be assembled from combinations of things you've experienced.

and qualia is pretty self-explanatory. Yeah, let's make it physical - say its actually the particular combination of nerve inputs that generates it, which produce a memory in the brain. Then, through logic alone, you cannot reproduce the experience of that. I mean, maybe eventually we'll be able to feed experiences directly into people's brains. But thats something else entirely.

>>8759342
>You literally can't imagine something accurately that you haven't experienced
Only because I'm human.

>maybe eventually we'll be able to feed experiences directly into people's brains. But thats something else entirely.
How the fuck is that something else entirely?

>>8759324
who is this beardo

>>8759350
Its literally something else entirely. Instead of their sensory organs providing the input, you're providing artificial sensory input.

Yeah, and you are human, and we're talking about humans. If we had some creature that, given a perfect description of an object, could stimulate its own mind in such a way that it could replicate the sensory signals that would be produced by interacting directly with the object, then it could be said to know it. But would we say such a thing experienced it through artificial sensory input, or being told about it?

At that point, distinctions start to lose their meaning.

>>8759387
The idea of qualia requires for some information to be noncommunicable. If you try to provide an example of noncommunicable information, you communicate it, ergo qualia is a paradox.

>>8759265
What's the best dmt plant or type of DMT?
Here's a list: http://www.neurosoup.com/dmt/dmt-plants/

>>8759342
>maybe eventually we'll be able to feed experiences directly into people's brains. But thats something else entirely.
Can not be done. Consciousness is preventing from that because the brains structure to random. Or they have to change you to a cyborg already.

>>8759889
>change you to a cyborg
I'm down. That's actually the area I want to get into.
Bio-computer-engineering