[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Free Show | Home]

What the fuck is the right answer on what is consciousness?

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 130
Thread images: 13

File: IIB_what-is-consciousness_WEB.png (191KB, 2552x3620px) Image search: [Google]
IIB_what-is-consciousness_WEB.png
191KB, 2552x3620px
What the fuck is the right answer on what is consciousness?
>>
>>9075987
The first and third one on the first row is the right answer.
>>
Emergent dualism.
>>
>>9075992
>beliebing that Consciousness is a physics thing

That's enough reddit for one morning
>>
>>9076002

consciousness is a requisite property for doing physics
>>
>>9075987
The guy in the picture seems to have a hole in the hypothalamus.

Maybe that's why he's depressed enough to research consciousness, no pleasure in eating, no pleasure in fucking. He must be from >>>/r9k/
>>
Consciousness is a byproduct of inanimate matter and nothing more. There is nothing special about it and the only reason people make questions like yours is because they somehow feel entitled to having a meaning, purpose or higher quality distant from that of material and objective reality, which is the same way of thinking of a religious idiot. The next time you feel like making a garbage pop-sci thread like this, please take it to >>>/x/ unless you like feeling embarrassed.
>>
>>9076017
I only made this thread to gain more knowledge on consciousness for the pursuit of knowledge. Do not assume other people's motive on why they make threads.
>>
File: shiro.jpg (21KB, 347x316px) Image search: [Google]
shiro.jpg
21KB, 347x316px
It is the thing that makes you think
>>
File: an_hero.jpg (87KB, 1300x861px) Image search: [Google]
an_hero.jpg
87KB, 1300x861px
>>9076017
>inanimate
>brain

what did God mean by this?
>>
>>9076026
If that is true, then you are a massive retarded faggot. Everyday there are idiots who make these same "consciousness" threads - and, judging by the image, which is also the same one that is always posted, these idiots could all be only one person: you -, and yet you have made this thread, which means you don't lurk and that's why I'm calling you a massive retarded faggot. If, however, that is not true, then you are either a shitposter or a troll. In any of the aforementioned cases, you should fuck off.
>>
>>9076032
Why do you use words like aforementioned?
>>
>>9076017

>byproduct of inanimate matter

the concept of "inanimate matter" is a byproduct of consciousness
>>
>>9076044
>the concept of "inanimate matter" is a byproduct of consciousness
No. Consciousness is a byproduct of inanimate matter. If consciousness is truly immaterial, then there is no reason for it to be confined to something material like the brain; if you don't think consciousness is in the brain you can try an experiment called shooting yourself in the fucking head and see if you're still conscious after the experiment. With that being said, this is the science board, if you want to discuss further bullshit that is unfalsifiable and of unscientific nature, please take it to /his/ or wherever else, just not here.
>>
File: DrawingHands.jpg (35KB, 325x281px) Image search: [Google]
DrawingHands.jpg
35KB, 325x281px
>>9075987
It's a series of strange loops. A system of self-descriptive, self-referential, self-organizing phenomena. The key is to realize that consciousness can only emerge slowly, through integration of experiential knowledge, such that those loops align themselves coherently with the reality in which the system has been immersed.
>>
>>9076056
So you think consciousness is property dualism?
>>
>>9076056
Dude

Inanimate means not alive
brain causes consciousness
brain is a live

so consciousness is caused by something that is alive

so consciousness is a byproduct of animate matter.

Dense
>>
>>9076064
Daily reminder that G,E,B is inconclusive pop-sci garbage.
>>
>>9076078
I don't know what that means because I'm not really a pseudo-science kind of guy, I just think this discussion is pathetically pointless and you should stop giving hope that people are worth anything but a damn.
>>
>>9076110
Property dualism is the third picture in the first row.
>>
>>9076118
As previously said, each and every single "possibility" of that image is implying there's something special about consciousness, in "property dualism" the illustration suggests it's an undetectable kind of lenght which is, once again, unfalsifiable. I will say it for the last time: consciousness is not anything special, it's not something you should have a problem accepting unless you have the same mindset of mysticists. I will not post itt again.
>>
>>9076135
*kind of wave/wavelenght
fixed.
>>
>>9076064
Very nice response. Very fristonian.
>>
>>9076091
Search up essentialism and population thinking and youll see "alive" is a social construct which relates to one of those two ideas
>>
>>9076109
>G,E,B is inconclusive pop-sci garbage
I don't disagree!
>>
>>9076144
No.

Alive is a very real thing. Any classical bullshit about forms and manifestations of abstract ideas irl can go fuck itself up the ass with a cactus
>>
>>9075987
Some of these are not even mutualy exclusive.
I mean Epiphenomenalism, Identity theory and functionalism are basically saying the same thing.
>>
>>9076151
No, theres no dividing line of life and inanimacy. Its not essentialist. Life is a label we put on things intuitively and through science have tried to define but its not objective. In truth what we call life is just a type of dissipative dynamic system and some other non living systems have these qualities. My point is because there is no dividing line, arguing about whether living came from non living or the mind a livig thing came from an inanimate brain, is stupid
>>
>>9076217
but dude.... immaterial quantum consciousness
>>
>>9075987
higher order
>>
>>9076217
>thinking dynamic systems theory can explain life
>thinking systems are actual entities
brainlet.
>>
>>9076236
Well whats your opinion
>>
>>9076217
what makes life alive is meaning-making, biosemiosis
>>
>>9076240
Whats that
>>
>>9076243
something i really dont have time to explain right now, especially if you arent already familiar with semiotics
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18365164
>>
>>9076240
Well does it apply to slugs or bacteria?
>>
>>9076243
this is a good lecture
http://media.uoregon.edu/channel/archives/5936
>>
>>9076255
yeah
>>
Buddhism and emergent dualism both sound like they could be correct but also Hofstadter's (if I understood it correctly) that consciousness arises as self-reference in recursive systems.
>>
>>9076251
This doesnt conflict with what i was saying and probably explains alot less than ideas from dynamic systems.
>>
>>9076251
It may describe aspects of life but doesnt explain the constraints on what determines what is alive
>>
Just think about what it would mean if speed and distance wasnt real but we just see it like that.
>>
>>9076293
Predicting things through quantities like these isnt necessarily objectivity.
>>
>>9075987
Streams of particals that act like waves.
Quantum says it best.
>>
>>9075995
This,,,
>>
My guess is that everything is conscious, but the state of consciousness is as different as things are different physically.

I have a brain state, and a state of consciousness, and its different from your brain and consciousness; and both are different from my brain and consciousness when I am asleep. Just gradually extend this comparison to non-brain things and it becomes clear: everything is conscious, but differently conscious in degree with how they are different.
>>
>>9076266
dynamic systems is lame compared to emergence and complexity. Systems are arbitrary models and arent very good for general concepts
>>9076269 it describes what life does in (G)eneral
>>
File: theories_of_consciousness.jpg (488KB, 862x2428px) Image search: [Google]
theories_of_consciousness.jpg
488KB, 862x2428px
>>
>>9076032
Not lurking /sci/ makes you retarded? If he is a regular, then he is not necessarily a shitposter or a troll just because he posts threads about subjects that are brought up a lot. You just don't like the subjects, and I hate to break it to you, but just because you don't like a subject doesn't make it objectively bad.

Consciousness threads aren't going anywhere, so how about you fuck off. There are tons of threads you can go and shitpost about your IQ memes and your stem circlejerking.
>>
>>9075987
Without a doubt, higher-order theory is the ultimate thing that allows consciousness, but it only pushes the question of consciousness away, like the big bang pushes the question of where the universe came from, or panspermia pushes the question of where life comes from.

This is also sort of presented in a way where each of these things oppose each other, when it's not really the case.
>>
>>9076553
emergence and complexity are described by dynamic systems... its literally the field for it. you are clearly a brainlet.

it may describe what life does but it isnt a constraint on what life has to do to be. non-living things can have semiotics or w.e or there wouldnt be semiotics in the first place. looking at dynamical systems and physics is the best way to see what properties living systems have and what they need to show in order to be.
>>
File: 4chan_arguments2.jpg (276KB, 857x1506px) Image search: [Google]
4chan_arguments2.jpg
276KB, 857x1506px
>>9076643
>>
>>9076643
>non-living things can have semiotics or w.e or there wouldnt be semiotics
see
>>9076256
>>
>>9076667
im not going to. explain whatever it is that is relevant to what i said. also do properly explain the biosemiotics thing. if not then gtfo.
>>
I think consciousness arises from different parts of your brain talking to each other. The reason I think this is because your brain definitely locks your consciousness from certain things, like breathing, accessing the actual processes that form images and so on. Your consciousness, I think, is a defined network inside your brain that information is fed into and is allowed to play around with.

Take your memories. This little network only has so much capacity, so your "non-conscious" brain takes the shit you don't need at night time and gets rid of it, before handing all the things you do need back to your conscious brain.

I don't think there's anything mystical, but there is definitely information and processes kept out of the consciousness, suggesting to me it IS a defined, real thing. And no, "its just electrons bro" doesn't make it an illusion or any less real. Space is just space, but its still a tangible, real thing.
>>
>>9076677
its literally titled "the emergence of biosemiotics from physio-chemical dynamics".
if you cant figure out the relevance i cant help you.
>non-living things can have semiotics
this isn't true, without life to interpret it information is meaningless.
>also do properly explain the biosemiotics thing
read a fucking book. im not going to explain an entire field of science to you. You clearly dont even have the prerequisite knowledge of semiotics.
i suggest https://e-edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/319303/mod_resource/content/0/Texts_for_the_READER/Lesson_13_Favareau_History_biosemiotics.pdf
>>
>>9076698
the emergence of biosemiotics from physiocheical dynamics isnt the same as the emergence of life from biosemiotics. this is a fucking forum. its for debate. im not going to go away and read your fucking shit, youll have to explain it or atleast give me a good fucking reason to read about it. why should i read something if im not given an inkling of why i should read it.

tell me why biosemiotics explains life. tell me how it explains life and not just describes it. tell me why its necessary. show me you know what the fuck you're talking about.
>>
I'd consider myself a realist, alright? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist...

I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.
>>
>>9076733
I find your request to be to mentally taxing atm.
maybe in a few hours or tomorrow when i take my amphetamines. For now, my garden and aquaponics system need me.
I dont respect people that wont take the time to educate themselves. This is eminently relevant to what we are talking about. If you are talking about what you are talking about and hearing a famous consciousness researcher talk about frontiers in theoretical biology doesn't spike your curiosity. I suggest you go pay someone to educate you. As you are obviously incompetent to do it yourself.
Also lets try not to be assholes to eachother because i dont find lecturing people i dont like amusing.
>>
File: boomheadshot.png (1MB, 1000x520px) Image search: [Google]
boomheadshot.png
1MB, 1000x520px
>>9075987
Seriously the best explanation for the existence of the hard problem of consciousness (difficulty explaining how consciousness arises from matter) is that consciousness doesn't arise from matter. Sometimes there are no solutions.
>solve x^2=-1
>mathlets look for x in R
>hurt themselves in their confusion
>no solution
In reality it's the other way around, matter arises from consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental and can't be explained in terms of anything else, meanwhile matter is reducible to a set of ideas describing it.
>x^2=-1
>x=i
>that was easy
>we were in C the whole time
>>
>>9076764
no, we are in a specific argument or debate. its up to you to explain yourself. im open to learning but i dont have time for everything. you finding it mentally taxing should even accept that without trying to insult me you bastard.
>>
>>9076026
If you'd lurked moar you'd know you can safely ignore that guy. He turns up in a lot of consciousness threads to tell people they're entitled unspecial religiotards who should experimentally shoot themselves in the head. He doesn't ever explain consciousness, he's just in an eternal buttrage about it.
>>
>>9076764
and if its relevant, explain why.. no it doesnt, explain why it should spike my curiosity. convince me you know what you're talking about.
>>
>>9076803
eh, how dare you reject my snarkiness
>>9076806
eh eh meh
>>
>>9076031
Inanimate and animate are meme worse anyway. It just means something that moves.
>>
What is consciousness?

Consciousness is a product of millions of years of evolution resulting from the existential tension of God not knowing who it is. We are the universe experiencing itself. We are all God. We are the very atoms in this universe banding together and taking a good look in the mirror. Consciousness exists because it has to, and the atoms that came together to make your physical body also organised themselves to give you the ability to be for a reason: to know thyself.
>>
>>9075987
Somewhere between Emergent Dualism and Higher Order Theory would be the most correct answer I believe.
>>
>>9077729
this makes sense in a weird vague esoteric kind of way. Quite poetic description of evolution.
>>
>>9077729
where did you get this idea from?
>>
>>9076091
Ok but you must be a fool to consider the language we use to be faultless. "Alive" is a loaded term with historical development. This is why /sci/ should read more philosophy, and philosophy students (half of /lit/) should study more science. When it comes to complex issues like consciousness, one must take into consideration both neuroscience and its related fields, and philosophy of mind and language as well.
>>
>>9077901
LSD
>>
>>9077901
A barely literate German cobbler in 1610 called Jacob Boehme.

http://wondergressive.com/1610-god-fractal-self-replicating-algorith/

God is a binary, fractal, self-replicating algorithm and the universe is a genetic matrix resulting from the existential tension created by God's desire for self-knowledge.
>>
>>9075987
Half of these are just the same thing.
>>
The pretentiousness of some of /sci/ never ceases to astound me.
They like to believe as if though they have the answers to the mystery of consciousness, while regurgitating facts and symbols which have lost all coherent meaning.
I once posted my own theory of mind, but was met with ridicule by simpletons who lacked basic conceptual processing ability.
For shame /sci/. For shame.
>>
>>9075987
Imagine a tray of almonds. Now place a warm wet wrap over them, and leave them for a week. Look, the almonds have started to grow! They are now "activated".

That is how the mind do.
>>
>>9078280
quite interesting , i like.
>>
>>9078280
Wow, that is shockingly similar to my own theory of God.

"God is firstly existence. The idea of existence applies to itself and is given its order by itself. There is an infinite sequence of bits of existence being informed by bits of existence in a chain. Then because existence is whole, existence is informed of itself entirely, making each bit of existence within all infinite bits of existence and contain each bit of existence.

The whole is informed of itself fully. God knows itself. Again, the whole is informed of itself fully but this time it is informed of its informing or knowing. God knows that it knows or is given Awareness and subsequently Bliss(the harmony of self-knowing.) (note: God at this step is similar to our own awareness, except that each mote of bliss is clearly perceived individuated and while also experiencing the infinite spaciousness of existence)
God possess the attributes of Omniscience and Omnipresence. His Awareness is spread through out the whole uniformly. At each piece of bliss, a new whole arises at that point. God multiplies Himself by Himself in addition to his original Self. The process continues, the new whole again arises at each point of bliss. The process continues infinitely.

Mathematically we can look at it like n+n2, where n is the previous sequence of the set starting with infinty : ∞, ∞+∞2, ∞+∞2 + (∞+∞2 )2, etc…
God is an infinite expansion of infinite existence-awareness-bliss.

God in this state is a homogenized stasis. He is the Totality of Reality, All Alone. However the self-knowing pattern of God continues. God’s Omniscience spreads outside of itself to form the Logos (or word of God). Because God is All of existence, the Logos is also God."
>>
>>9075987
Functionalism or Behaviorism. The rest are hogwash.
>>
>>9076740
There is no threshold that makes us greater than the sum of our parts, no inflection point at which we become fully alive. We can’t define consciousness because consciousness does not exist. Humans fancy that there’s something special about the way we perceive the world, and yet we live in loops as tight and as closed as animals do, seldom questioning our choices, content, for the most part, to be told what to do next.
>>
>>9075987
Epiphenomenalist master race
>>
As a biologist I really like cognitivism/epiphenomenalism/functionalism
>>
File: Beautiful-Radha-and-Krishna.jpg (95KB, 637x800px) Image search: [Google]
Beautiful-Radha-and-Krishna.jpg
95KB, 637x800px
>>9075987
Consciousness is the manifestation of the soul, it is also referred to as Brahman. Consciousness, or Brahman, is spiritual, not material. Therefore you will never be able to understand consciousness through materialistic sciences requiring instruments and so forth but only through means of meditational and yogic practice. Consciousness is not a produced through a combination of material elements, but it is because of consciousness, the spiritual, that the material elements arise. Material depends on the spiritual to sustain it, otherwise it cannot come into manifestation and degrades when it is absent. This is the reason when consciousness leaves the body at death, the material body starts to degrade.

Additionally, since material advancements in technology are not required to understand consciousness, the spiritual science of consciousness has been known for ages. Hinduism is more or less a science for consciousness. Consciousness is a person's true self, but out of ignorance people identify with their body or their mind thinking that they are their bodies. When is fully aware that Brahman is his actual self, he is said to have attain Moksha, or liberation from suffering.
>>
>>9076042

I guess he chose words on how accurately they pass the message.
>>
>>9075987
Functionalism or Epiphenomenalism
>>
>>9079576
broehme was way better sorry
>>
>>9075987
Higher Order Theory sounds very interesting, possibly due to my background (CS). I think it's very plausible that the more you can reason about your reasoning, the more conscious you are.
>>
>>9081536
I think more a gradient descent on free energy using sparse algorithms.
>>
The only answer is that God gave us consciousness so find him and sing our praises to him.
>>
>>9081536
a second order embeddedness in multidimensional maps.
>>
>>9076798
Then... that would mean that the universe is a mental construct??
>>
File: Lyrans.jpg (127KB, 466x640px) Image search: [Google]
Lyrans.jpg
127KB, 466x640px
>>9076798
next thing you are going to tell that Pleiadian chicks are contacting you inside you brain and telling you to spread the love?
>>
>>9075987
its a combination of a few of those.
>>
>>9081860
What he's describing is panpsychism. It's a very common idea outside western cultures, and has also been a common idea among many scientists. Even Einstein was arguably panpsychistic in his description of his belief in god.
>>
File: 345673496.jpg (51KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]
345673496.jpg
51KB, 640x640px
>>9077729
wrong

Consciousness is a by-product of the ability of an organism to move. In order to move, an organism must engage in a set of repetitive movements. Sure, movement could be created through a mechanical system, like the maple seeds. But that approach limits the organism to a single mean of movement with little ways to adapt it.

However, with a nervous network, the whole movement thing gets very easy. Its the same problem as building an automatically opening door. Sure you could do it like ancient people and use pressure plates, counter weights, pulleys and stuff or you could just hook up an electric motor, a movement sensor and connect them with electric wires. The latter is easier to install, takes less room, is maintainable and can be upgraded easily while the former is inferior in every aspect.

So when the organism has some rudimentary nervous system, it is not a stretch that it is developed further through evolutionary means. The nervous system gains light sensors to sense the surroundings and move accordingly. Oh, but now its food source is all moving and evading the creature. Thus it evolves its sensors and brain to be more crisp and quick to be able to follow the prey. The prey also evolves its brain as a response to this. Soon enough, we have deer and wolves.

>But muh god
>>
>>9075987
Dualism is too phantasmagorical.
Emergent dualism is plausible but poorly stated.
Property dualism is also plausible but again poorly stated (how does it differ from Pan Psychism for example?)
Pan psychism (see above).
Identity theory makes no sense. It's hand-waving and begging the question.
Same for functionalism and Behaviourism.
Epiphenomenalism is plausible but poorly stated (how does this differ from property dualism proper or Pan Psychism? What exactly is so special about brains compared to other natural systems?)
Cognitivism is begging the question.
Same for Higher Order Theory.
Same for Buddhism.
Quantum Conscousness is quackery.
>>
If I assemble the Eiffel Tower using indivisible Legos, the Eiffel Tower doesn't magically emerge as a separate object from the individual Lego pieces. The Eiffel Tower doesn't actually exist. It's just an illusion, it's the brain interpreting the Lego structure as the Eiffel Tower.

It's the same with consciousness. Consciousness doesn't really exist. What we see as being consciousness is just the individual bits of matter which makes up the brain. It's not a 'property', it doesn't 'emerge'. It's the brain itself and nothing more.
>>
File: 1469240044174.gif (1MB, 386x281px) Image search: [Google]
1469240044174.gif
1MB, 386x281px
>>9075987
>the right answer
>>
>>9081895
Nice begging the question you have there brainlet.
>>
>>9075987
All it is is being good at remembering things
>>
>>9075987
For something like this it's impossible to know for sure, we can only guess.
>>
>>9081900
I've actually an IQ of 135.
>>
>>9081895
Consciousness is not an illusion, it's the only thing I personally know for a fact exists because it is all I have ever experienced the qualia of
>>
>>9081886
What scares me about it is its logical implication of solipsism

And I don't want solipsism to be real :(
>>
Cognitivism and Epiphenomenalism are the only both completely true correct answers, and both Emergent and Substance Dualism are true to a certain extent. Consciousness as described as the "soul" (not life outside of life or whatever the fuck, but the actual "you" part of you) definitely sits somewhere on those lines.

About my statement regarding the dualisms, the whole "parallel dimensions this we cannot observe it" claim is absolute bullshit, but whatever holds the consciousness beyond a simple physical realm is indeed beyond physical. It's likely nothing special either though, as in consciousness itself isn't physical but it's definitely real and just requires complex physical phenomena.
>>
>>9081746
If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Obviously yes, it's there. But if there is no conscience, say there's no life in the universe at all, is the universe really there? Yeah, it is. But it doesn't matter then and can't be experienced. Thus experience is reality and if there is no experience there is no reality.

Kinda creates a retarded loop of philosophy.
>>
>>9081886
einstein didnt literally believe in god.
>>
>>9082029
what's it like to be a mind-independent tree?
>>
>>9075987
Consciousness is an illusion,

The complex neural networks in our brain are "tunned" to find patters (useful evolutionary trait) and we developed self awareness as by product.

From self awareness to consciousness there is a very small gap.
>>
>>9082248
Patterns*
>>
>>9075987
All of those, except the reatrded ones.
>>
>>9075987
It's a survival mechanism developed through millions of years of natural selection in a hostile environment.
At it's very core is a very basic decision, fight or flight.
>>
>>9082029
The experience of sound is purely a qualitative construction that is distinct from the phenomena that produced it.

If there is nothing to experience the universe, then for all intents and purposes the universe does not actually exist. What is "the universe" made of? "Quantum strings?" What are those?
Invisible energy vortexes. Emptiness. Our conscious experience is literally everything. The idea of there being something outside of our experience is an illusion. You nor anybody else has ever known something outside their experience. Even your own internally generated thoughts about what might be out there are just that, thoughts. Manifestations within the realm of conscious experience.

We keep looking to solve the hard problem of consciousness within physical reality, but I'm starting to think that, if there are higher dimensions involved in this universe, that it must come from an adjacent dimension on a higher axis.
>>
Where is Eliminative Materialism?
>>
>>9082650
It would be an interpretation of functionalism in response to accounting for phenomenal properties.
>>
>>9075987
there is no difference between 5, 6, 7, and 8
which also happen to be the correct answer
>>
>>9082650
Whats that
>>
>>9082678
Explain them
>>
Functionalism, possibly epiphenomenalism or behaviorism.

There's no doubt that it's physical; the dual planes shit is just dumb. It's the kind of dumb that's on par with vitalism where it's moreso ignorance but sadly coupled with wishful thinking that "this is obviously going to be non-physical. What the fuck else could it be?" but centuries later after new fields emerge that were as unfathomable today as genomics is to Charlemagne find little to no support concerning it and it is disregarded and superseded by its physically-based successor.
>>
>>9082678
>there is no difference between 5, 6, 7, and 8
t. brainlet
Behaviorism refers to external behaviors, which are not events in the brain.
"Function" implies something that evolved because it was useful, "accidental side effect" implies the contrary.
>>
>>9075987
Consciousness is the bitter delusion that there is more to our awareness and subjective experience than merely the interaction between the sum of our impulses and circumstances.
>>
>>9076017
>Consciousness is a byproduct of inanimate matter and nothing more
How would one differentiate a p-zombie?
>>
>>9076570
>tfw unironically a mysterianist
The whole argument seems to be unresolvable
>>
>>9084232
ia actually made an argument earlier where a p-zombie would still come out with qualia-like questions like "why does this feel like this?"
>>
>>9084199
>>
>>9084378
sorry meant to post this one
>>
>>9084370
They would, sure. That's why they're indistinguishable from normal people. But then, is there not something innately interesting about consciousness, that it may be present or not but one cannot know when they look at someone.
Unless you say that qualia simply doesn't exist, in which case I don't think I could demonstrate otherwise. But I find it hard to have an opinion like that, when I'm certain that there is a fundamental difference between the sensation of seeing red and the simple unconscious processing of light
>>
I'd consider myself something like a 'linguisitc idealist', whereby reality is essentially meaning and it's communication. I don't believe the brain materialisticaly causes conscious experience.
>>
>>9084660
So there is no external, objective world? Because there is a difference between saying the world you experience is fabricated, and saying what you are (and possibly other minds) is all there is. If you mean the former, mainstream science pretty much agrees already.
>>
>>9084399
i dont think there needs to be a fundamental difference. its just a matter of perspective.
>>
>>9084399
i think its just that consciousness is an underdetermined concept. i think it just seems interesting because its so rich. and that is because it is just the inversion of a very difficult inference problem. the brain learns parameters for a very complicated world that is difficult to analyse. it is non-analytical. when it reconstructs this as qualia, it again seems very complicated as you reinstate the interactions that made it non-analytical in the first place.
Thread posts: 130
Thread images: 13


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/


If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site.
This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived.
If you need information for a Poster - contact them.