Is the crown neuron that scientist found consciousness the whole

quantum science has fucking nearly nothing to do with consciousness most likely. At least given all I know, I'd say pretty fucking confidently quantum shit is relevant to consciousness only as a source of randomness. (Also quantum shit isn't random at all, just highly chaotic)

>>8825340
>crown neuron
Oh boy can't wait to read the shit people come up with about this

Well uhh... it's kinda intuitive, I guess?

>>8825373
I can see new age people jizzing all over this already.

>>8825373
OP here.

The reason why it's called a crown neuron because the neuron is shaped like a crown.

>>8825349
>quantum shit isn't random at all
...

>>8825473
Yeah no shit.

>>8825716
>... (I'm an idiot)
... (yeah)

>>8825716
>>8825751
>unpredictable = random
unpredictable =/= random
sometimes unpredictable is random, but it also could be chaotic. Without being sure, it looks exactly the same.

>>8825349
It's not random, because they are conscious, quantum particles are conscious.

>>8827238
my dick is conscious

>>8827238
[citation needed]

>>8827240
Innit?

>>8827241
It's a hypothesis, but it could turn out to be reality.

>>8825340
No single neuron 'is consciousness'. That view has been outdated since the 'grandmother cell' was replaced by distributed network theory. Complex cognitive functions are mediated by distributed networks and nonlinear interactions therein. Not by individual constituents of the network.

>>8827252
>It's a hypothesis, but it could turn out to be reality.
It's a completely baseless conjecture.

>>8827268
No it isn't, it is grounded in logic. It's an educated guess but still just a guess.

>>8827271
It's not grounded in logic, it's more of a fabulation than anything. There's absolutely no reason to think quantum particles are conscious. The only people who argue that matter is by default conscious are bad philosophers of mind and new age idiots.

>>8827279
How explain qualia then?

>>8827280
Start here:
>http://www.fflch.usp.br/df/opessoa/Dennett-Quining-Qualia.pdf

>>8827280
I can accept not having an answer to the hard problem without subscribing to a doctrine that claims matter is by default conscious. Moreover, the postulation that quantum particles are conscious does nothing to explain qualia. It only pushes the problem of explaining them further back to subatomic matter.

>>8827284
>Dennett
Not even clicking that shit, I've heard the argument a million times.

>>8827286
>doctrine
I never said I was devoted to it like a religion.

> It only pushes the problem of explaining them further back to subatomic matter.
What's the alternative? A cosmic consciousness? You can't say ordinary physicalism because that is clearly false.

>>8827292
>Not even clicking that shit, I've heard the argument a million times.
So why the fuck did you ask that retarded question ya gebroni. You should already know that qualia can be explained away without bringing in quantum nonsense.

>>8827294
>you should already know that qualia can be explained away
I want it explained, not explained away. For fuck's sake, isn't science about obtaining knowledge? Why would you just dismiss a problem because it challenges your preconceived notions about existence?

>>8827303
>Why
Here's why
>http://www.fflch.usp.br/df/opessoa/Dennett-Quining-Qualia.pdf

>>8827292
>You can't say ordinary physicalism because that is clearly false.
It's not clearly false and it's the claim that is most consistent with our current knowledge of the world. Physicalism is also consistent with emergentist paradigms, which are in my mind the best way to explain consciousness and how it arises. Consciousness is a complex self-referential system which comes about from the interactions of sets of neurons.

Now, to go back to the idea that qualia are found in subatomic matter, let me outline a huge problem with this. A classic example of a qualia is that of the color red. Now, it's obviously unclear what the link is between the phenomenology of red and the wavelength which produces it is. What is clear, however, is that there is such a link. The quale 'red' is always experienced in conjunction with its corresponding wavelengths. Yet, at the subatomic scale, it would impossible to detect such a wavelength, and thus red would be an impossible quale. It makes no sense to claim that qualia are then explained at the subatomic level, as none of our current perceptions can be found there. No sounds, no colors. Those can't exists at such a micro scale.

>>8827310
>emergentist paradigms
Emergentism isn't real. It is merely an abstraction of the details, instead of explaining how every single individual subatomic particle interacts on a macro scale we explain it in simpler terms for us to understand. Same with computers, or any machine that consists of many parts interacting, you could describe everything about them with the most basic description but it can be easier to generalize. Consciousness is incompatible with emergentism because it can't simply arise out of physical interactions.

>The quale 'red' is always experienced in conjunction with its corresponding wavelengths.
Yes and? When you see red on your screen it is always in conjunction with 255 0 0 for each pixel that is red but it doesn't mean 255 0 0 is the same as the color red, it is only a symbol representing red.

>No sounds, no colors. Those can't exists at such a micro scale
I admit there are problems with this claim, I'm not denying that. However, the act of experiencing could exist on a micro scale. The other possibility is that the universe is consciousness and we are all part of some giant mind, of course that means God is real.

>>8825373
C R O W N
H
A
K
R
A

>>8827326
>Emergentism isn't real. It is merely an abstraction of the details

That's not how emergentism is conceived.

>Consciousness is incompatible with emergentism because it can't simply arise out of physical interactions.

It's a much better explanation than simply claiming that consciousness was there all along, which is no explanation at all.

>but it doesn't mean 255 0 0 is the same as the color red, it is only a symbol representing red.

I agree with you there, I'm not denying the existence of the hard problem. I was simply pointing to the causal link between stimuli and experience to make the argument that certain qualia cannot arise at the micro scale.

>However, the act of experiencing could exist on a micro scale.

But when I asked why we would need to make such an assumption, you brought up explaining qualia. All I've shown is that it can't explain macro-level qualia. So even if subatomic particles were conscious, that would solve the hard problem. So I don't see why we should assume quantum particles are conscious. It seems like an unnecessary and extravagant proposal.

>>8827354
>That's not how emergentism is conceived.
But it is what emergentism actually is. People that talk about emergentism think it is somehow possible for new laws of physics to just magically appear on the macro scale. Don't you realize that is even crazier than claiming particles are conscious?

>It seems like an unnecessary and extravagant proposal
I'm not saying it's truth, it's just an idea, science begins with ideas. The point is, anyone who seriously believes viewing the brain as merely a computer will remotely explain consciousness is delusional. I would take it even further and say anyone who thinks visualizing the universe as composed entirely of unconscious stuff mixing together and somehow becoming conscious is also delusional. I know I can't say the way it really is but at least people could maybe look at things differently.

>>8827360
>But it is what emergentism actually is. People that talk about emergentism think it is somehow possible for new laws of physics to just magically appear on the macro scale.
It's not new laws of physics. Emergentism simply claims that explaining complex systems cannot be done through a reductionist argument, e.g. claiming that a biological system is simply a set of chemical reactions. What is necessary is to add to this set the interactions between its different members. These lead to unforeseen organization patterns. You have a lot examples of this in AI. One example is Vogel et al. (2013a, 2013b), who work in computational linguistics, who show that principles of conversational cooperation (so-called Gricean maxims) can emerge from Decentralized POMDPs by simply giving each agent in the models the task of maximizing its reward. In so doing, cooperative behaviors emerge that are not programed into the system. Emergentism is really not as crazy as people make it out to be. In fact, I think it's pretty intuitively appealing.

>>8827374
Nothing you said contradicts my claim. I am not saying you can't describe interesting properties about complex systems. Also saying biology is simply a set of chemical reactions is not the same as explaining it in terms of chemical reactions. I am not saying you should ignore interacts between members, I am saying that if you wanted to (you would be insane to do it) you could explain it all with it's most basic parts but it would be a nightmare to do. Consciousness however, is a very different thing, it is more than mere complexity.

>>>/his/
Here is a board for humanities. This is a a science and mathematics board. Please fuck off.

>>8827238
/worsethan/x/