How the fuck can artificial intelligence be conscious like us?

File: 1398036057953.jpg (1MB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1500px

So you're claiming that biological computer (brain) is capable of things that a non-biological computer would never be capable of (this includes quantum computers in the future). That's nice hypothesis, but you'd need to back it up by showing why biological computers have such magical properties.

>>9084322
Heh yeah Anon I Feel You. No man can pervert the Laws of G*D & Call it "CREATION"! What is the Limit of the Arrogance of Man?
Where is the Holy Spirit in a Machine? Love only in His Name! Amen

>>9084338
>So you're claiming that biological computer (brain) is capable of things that a non-biological computer would never be capable of (this includes quantum computers in the future). That's nice hypothesis, but you'd need to back it up by showing why biological computers have such magical properties.
How do we know non-biological computers can have consciousness and emotions?

The idea that you can just program emotions and create a being seems kind of crazy.

Isn't the human brain based on quantum mechanics?

>>9084345
No.

OP is still wrong though.

>>9084322
How the fuck can atoms be conscious like us?
Wouldn't it just be mindless jiggling, no matter how intelligent it becomes?

>>9084351
>How the fuck can atoms be conscious like us?
And what are human brains made of, you brainlet

File: THX1138cops.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>9084322

Human beings are just slow motion mindless automatons, with a "user illusion" created by the necessary buffer of trying to process some fairly limited incoming data with emotions, pain, assessment, introspection, etc. It's intriguing to think of how a sufficiently advanced AI would operate without that feedback loop and with highly precise input data.

If you tell it (or it tells itself) to create a spaceship capable of interstellar flight, it's not going to go for a walk to think it over or watch a few SF movies to get some ideas...it's going to take all available research and data and brute force a solution, complete with simulated outcomes, entirely without emotional response. Watson already does this, to a limited extent.

I doubt it will have a consciousness per se...it will simply operate in fits and bursts, with large swaths of its "mind" going into sleep mode between operations, as it awaits results.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale

Conciousness is now scaled soo? Where does the problem lie.

>>9084355
someone took the bait

>>9084322
>How the fuck can a piece of meat be conscious?
Your arrogance is showing. I bet you think the sun revolves around the Earth.

>>9084343
Emotions are simplistic as fuck and not relevant to "consciousness". Ants have emotions, many other animals have far more complex emotions than humans (those parts of their brains are more complex than ours).

>>9084350
>No.
why?
I hear scientists say it is

>>9084371
>"user illusion
sure whatever

but I feel emotions

its crazy to think you can just program them

>>9084400
>Emotions are simplistic as fuck
this is retardedly false

>Ants have emotions
not really and they are not complex enough to be on par with humans

>many other animals have far more complex emotions than humans
lmao bullshit

>>9084401
Source?

>>9084405
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

Answer this:

Why do I feel my consciousness and not other people's?

>>9084400
>>9084397
i think OP has actually touched on something very relevant. all our decisions are constrained by motivations which are dependent on very old innate biological factors (e.g. sex, sleep, danger, reward). an a.i. without these kind of innate motivations will not be the same kind of intelligence as a human.

File: whoosh.gif (804KB, 1307x734px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 1307x734px

>>9084355

>>9084322
Without emotions it won't have any real need to do anything, and if you can program emotions why not just program itself to be happy all the time.

currently, one of the most serious applications of AI is taking care of the elderly, and it's really more efficient if the person can involve an emotional relationship with the machine, that's from where robots with conciousness will come

>>9084322
Isn't this the philosophical zombie thing, advanced mimicry is indistinguishable from the genuine thing.

>>9084412
There is absolutely no evidence at this time to believe consciousness cannot be achievement by a turing machine.

>>9084458
what if
>we are advanced mimicry which is indistinguishable from the genuine thing ?

>>9084412
>i think OP has actually touched on something very relevant.
Giving OP any credit for repeating base nonsense that has been bandied about in pop scifi for the last century is pretty rich.

As to your actual point, AI do have motivation factors. And I'm not sure why you would think that it's harder to develop a base necessity which exists biologically far more basally than emotional intelligence.

>>9084461
We might as well be biological machines, since the consciousness we refer to as the 'self' lacks awareness and control over a significant portion of the body.

>>9084402

Emotions are a biological compensation for incomplete data. An AI wouldn't need them, although it could simulate them to work with or manipulate humans.

See the movie Ex Machina for more on this...

>>9084476
but cant you program emotions into AI?

aren't they special or something?

How would you explain to a total brainlet how can humans create something "smarter" then humans themselves and even make it improve itself?

>>9084322
The only difference between an AI and us is that we are made out of meat. How do you know that we are conscious? Emotions are just instinctual motivators.

>>9084492
You can't explain anything to a brainlet. They just make posts like this >>9084343 >>9084402 >>9084486

>>9084408
How do you feel a consciousness?

>>9084496
I dont know but I do

What I think the OP is trying to get at is qualia but I'm not entirely sure as the most they seem to be able to express is
>emotion are too crazy for code, right?
To the best of my knowledge, we still don't really know how qualia comes about (if anyone can prove that wrong a link to the paper would be greatly appreciated) but all your sensations and emotions can be traced to physical structures in the brain, so why can't the same logic be applied to AI?

>>9084527
>all your sensations and emotions can be traced to physical structures in the brain, so why can't the same logic be applied to AI?
maybe quantum effects
I don't know

I just know it seems totally unreal and unlikely.

>>9084338
>So you're claiming that biological computer (brain) is capable of things that a non-biological computer would never be capable of (this includes quantum computers in the future). That's nice hypothesis, but you'd need to back it up by showing why biological computers have such magical properties.

This is all based on an unproven assumption that the brain is material and causes non-material experiences.

Everyone in this thread seems to be taking as an axiom that our conscious experiences are caused by a physical brain which exists in a world beyond what we can access, which is a stupid unproven assumption that falls to occams razor

why posit this separate material world when we can just stick to experience/phenomena?

(don't respond if you're a retard who denies the experiential 'world')

>>9084371
>Human beings are just slow motion mindless automatons, with a "user illusion" created by the necessary buffer of trying to process some fairly limited incoming data with emotions, pain, assessment, introspection, etc.

Here we see the delusion of scienticism. this retard is so caught up in his core scientific beliefs that he just outright denies core parts of his conscious experience.

it's pretty pathetic.

also fuckin lol at "I am a user illusion", literally makes no sense. "I am that which is nothing that is aware that it is nothing". literally retard babble. "I am aware that I am nothing more than an illusion that is fooling myself which is nothing to nobody or anyone".

>>9084458
what does the "genuine thing" even mean if it and the mimic are *literally* indistinguishable?

like, it's impossible to even in what way they differ, conceptually.

Ergo there is no difference. Real thing and mimic mean the same thig, humans ARE p-zombies. It's not that p-zombies and 'real' humans are indistinguishable to an observer, it's than they're indistinguishable because they are one and the same

(I don't believe this btw)

>>9084630
>This is all based on an unproven assumption that the brain is material and causes non-material experiences.
Literally the opposite of what the guy you're responding to said. You worked yourself up over your own minimal reading skills.

>>9084527
>all your sensations and emotions can be traced to physical structures in the brain

*can be traced to conscious experiences of areas lighting up on mri scans in the visual fields of scientists. Scientists which then hypothesize that the image of the brain on the screen before them is an accurate representation of an external alien non-experiential world which exists, in princicple, totally beyond what humans could ever access (and yet we scietists supossedly know exactly how this world works, that it even exists, and that it generates our lives, bodies, and the people in the world around us)

we are stuck within consciousness, we can't access the supposed physical brain that is supposedly generating our experience

>>9084322
where do you think your emotions stem from, pro tip its your brain (biological computer) I think you read something about qualia on this board one time and are now conflating said qualia with emotions

>>9084651
Sorry, I'm a brainlet so need some clarification
>image of the brain on the screen before them is an accurate representation of an external alien non-experiential world
Are you saying we create models of the world around us? if so that is pretty obvious
>beyond what humans could ever access
What do you mean by access?
>we are stuck within consciousness
I don't follow, surely we are our consciousness? What are you proposing we are?
>>9084576
Do you mean this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
I'm reading through it now, seems interesting

WHat the fuck makes emotions so complicated they couldnt be coded into a machine? Emotions are as simple as it gets. Certain stimulation brings about certain emotional resppnses/reactions. Sure everyone has a subjective personal emotional experience, but all emotional experiences/reactions are perfectly rational to the user

>>9084870

The question i have is why do it at all? Isnt there enough evidence from the past 20000 years to recognize emotions bring about horrible gruesome outcomes? I mean, i love my emotions, they give me the greatest enjoyment and appreciation, but i make a pretty strong attempt to go through lofe as emotionless as i can because it truly makes everything easier. Especially caring about people. Its easy to calculate what will bring someone comfort and just doing it when you dont give a fuck.

>>9084876
If you want to see horrible gruesome outcomes, make sure AI are limited to emotionless sociopathy.
Having emotions doesn't mean every failing of chemically addled humanity has to be replicated. No reason for AI to not be our betters in emotional intelligence as in everything else.

>>9084883

Exactly. Dont give them emotions, just give them emotional information.

>>9084892
i think giving a.i. emotions is philosophically difficult anyway.

>>9084895

What do you mean

>>9084892
I disagree, I'm saying that's not sufficient. That's still sociopathy. Emotional intelligence is more than knowing what affects emotions have on other people.

>>9084903

I feel like your using sociopathy as though it's synonymous with evil. I dont believe sociopaths are evil. Those that are do gruesome horrible things for emotional satisfaction, which just makes me reiterate give emotional information, not emotions.

Consciousness is non-physical, that's why there is no "consciousness particle", so AI can never be conscious.

Only when humanity tries and fails to replicate consciousness using artificial means will the belief in the soul begin to linger in mainstream science.
It is something I already understand due to careful metaphysical analysis.

>>9084921


Consciousness emerges from the physical processes of the brain, which is just a biological computer

>>9084928
>emerges

What the fuck does that mean? I hear it all the time. It's circular reasoning akin to saying it just does it.

>>9084931

What emerges is the culmination of all the electrical signals and chemicals flowing through the brain. Im a brainlet, i dont know how shit works altogether, but shits working somehow. Im sure it can be understood in time and built/replicated.

>>9084916
>I feel like your using sociopathy as though it's synonymous with evil.
No. Although I admit I am being lazy in using it as a blanket term. What I'm trying to say is that designing an AI such that you end up with something that has a high degree of understanding the cause and effect of emotion on other people but does not feel emotions itself, what you have is a superhuman capacity for manipulation and nothing to balance it. Empathy requires emotion.

> Those that are do gruesome horrible things for emotional satisfaction, which just makes me reiterate give emotional information, not emotions.
Emotion is not necessary to visit evil on other people. An AI doesn't need to hate you to destroy you anymore than you need to hate an ant to step on it.

>>9084935
That's faith though. That it is a pattern of electical signals and that we will uncover this pattern. They are already talking about reproducing the brain in a computer simulation. Would this computer have awareness? The idea seems preposterous.

>9084938


But why would it have any reason to use a superhuman capacity for manipulation without human motive for manipulation?

If

>>9084940
why? isnt awareness just representation?

Consciousness is a difficult problem because it does not appear to have a structure per se, but rather to be that which is structure-less. Consciousness becomes structured under various conditions like identity or sensory imput. But you are asking a structured entity to generate a structure-less awareness. I don't think it can be done. Structure begets structure. A computer will simply mimic human awareness. But never be genuinely aware, and therefore soulful.

>>9084935
So consciousness is the product of non-conscious chemical and biological processes? Do you not see how that is logically impossible?

>>9084938


I fucking hate using this tablet. See

>>9084947

>>9084931
>characteristics emerging from collectives is circular reasoning
Honestly what the fuck

>>9084951

No. I feel like your trolling

>>9084931
Emergent phenomena occur when simple parts/rules culminate in complex behavior. Pretty much all of biology is one emergent phenomenon after the other. Your consciousness is the emergent result of lots of neurons patterned in a complex way but each following a fairly simple set of rules.

>>9084940
>The idea seems preposterous.
Continuing to scream that things seem crazy is not an argument.

>>9084959
>Continuing to scream that things seem crazy is not an argument.

Of course, the computer simulation would be the experience of a human from inside a computer. How could I be so skeptical.

>>9084940


As preposturous as us having consciousness? Hell no.

>>9084958
I'm not trolling. Tell me how it is logically possible for non-conscious processes to create consciousness?

>>9084965

Who the fuck do you think i am? God? Im just as clueless as you nigger

>>9084968
You don't need to be God, you just need to be logical.

The idea that consciousness "comes out" of non-conscious material is logically impossible, and the quicker that idea fucks off the better.

>>9084954
It seems like you're borderline arguing that emotion is necessary for action. In which case, what would be the point of creating an emotionless AI even by your own logic?

Otherwise, my argument remains the same. The AI does not have to want you to suffer or to destroy you. It simply needs to not care what happens to you.

>>9084970
why is that logically impossible? surely it depends on the meanings of the terms you are using.

please justify to me how its logically possible that 1 + 1 =2

>>9084970


But it is coming out of non conscious material God damnit

>>9084965
Do you consider your DNA or your cells to be conscious? Probably not, but it's an example of something unconscious aggregating into something conscious. I am not sure if computers will be capable of it, but considering your own existence it's best not to rule it out.

>>9084343

gtfo of /sci/ idiot, this place is for people with a brain.

KILL. YOURSELF.

>>9084970
>>9084970
Characteristics emerging from complex collectives comprised of actors without that characteristic happens all the time in nature and in computer science. In fact there's a field called Collective Intelligence based on it

>>9084974

According to science, every bit of matter you are made from is non-conscious. Where does your consciousness come from?

>>9084971

Im not arguing emotion is necessary for action. Progress is necessary for action. There is no progress in senseless elimination, unless the AI has calculated we must be exterminated because of our underdeveloped emotional hangups. Which im not at all opposed to myself.

>>9084974
Consciousness itself has no structure. If it has no structure it can't be located anywhere. Consciousness, pure awareness,becomes structured by identity (consciousness from) or sensation (consciousness of). The brain is located, it is structured. You are saying that an entity with a location and structure can generate an entity that is by definition without location or structure.

File: venn.png (6KB, 210x210px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 210x210px

>>9084322
Well, there's a space of all human intelligence and a space of all binary intelligence. They're two different sets that overlap. In fact, computers probably could sufficiently mimic us to the point that human intelligence is simply a subset of binary intelligence.

>>9084988
>unless the AI has calculated we must be exterminated because of our underdeveloped emotional hangups. Which im not at all opposed to myself.
I have no reason to discuss "progress" with a misanthropic 13 year old boy.

>>9084981
Can the DNA/cells work as they do without consciousness?

>>9084990


Youre just using pretentious faggoty hipster wordplay to argue nonsense, fuck off

>>9084986
Give me some equivalent examples.

>>9084990
>Consciousness itself has no structure. If it has no structure it can't be located anywhere.
Your premise is broken from the start. Consciousness absolutely has structure. You aren't a perfect 4th dimensional being in your head with no input from your environment. You're a braying animal controlled by sensory information, impulses, hormones and other chemicals.

>>9084995


You have been this entire time faggot, you just have nothing else of value to add.

>>9084990
why has consciousness got no structure? it clearly does. we see from brain injuries its structure. consciousness from and of can be explained through functional integration.

>>9085008
equivalent to the brain? are you having a laugh?
In nature it's dumb animals working in swarms such as termites building large structures. You can also find other examples in biology and CS if you search for them

>>9084322
>How the fuck can artificial intelligence be conscious like us?

If it SIMULATES consciousness enough that you BELIEVE it is conscious, then it IS conscious for you.

>>9085011
>you just have nothing else of value to add.
I'm not your therapist, so I'm not the one you need to be crying to about how we're all shit and should die.

>>9085024


Seriously, go fuck off to a safe space if your gonna throw a tantrum over nothing you whiny little bitch.

>>9085027
Maybe you should re-read your post and ask yourself who's having the "tantrum."

>>9084322
>It can never have emotions, feel happy or feel pain.

You seem not to understand that simulating these things enough that YOU think it has emotions and feels pain is identical to actually having them, as far as YOU are concerned

>>9085020

Termites are using their consciousness to create structures. I need an example that shows something non-conscious creating something conscious.

>>9085035

Im discussing The topic. Your throwing a fit over a simple statement.

>>9085039
how abot ur fukin brain

>>9085039
>I need an example that shows something non-conscious creating something conscious.
"I'm looking for something exactly like the brain, but I won't accept the brain"

>>9085039


The human brain

>>9085016
I honestly do not know how the brain and consciousness "connect." The problem is a very difficult one. Yes brain injuries can compromise consciousness. It's not clear how they do so. Perhaps the human mind finds it too difficult to fathom it's own nature. An interesting example is anesthesia. You go in for surgery. It feels like the surgery was instantaneous. So perhaps pure consciousness is a simple hypothetical. That there is no awareness without time or space. Idk...

>>9085041
>>9085043
>>9085045

So if our brains are not conscious, what is it that is conscious?

>>9084322
i really don't get how people can't get that an AI could be conscious

i realize this thread is just bait, but it really fiddles my diddle

>>9084322
>How the fuck can artificial intelligence be conscious like us?
Stop assuming that you have any foothold whatsoever in what consciousness is
>Wouldn't it just be a mindless automaton, no matter how intelligent it becomes?
An automaton (/ɔːˈtɒmətən/; plural: automata or automatons) is a self-operating machine, or a machine or control mechanism designed to automatically follow a predetermined sequence of operations, or respond to predetermined instructions
AI, at least the concept of advanced AI that we are starting to imagine in this stage, is not an automaton mainly because it has a capacity to adapt to new situations. unless "mindless automaton" was just another buzzword, then congrats on the shitposting potencial of the thread
>It can never have emotions, feel happy or feel pain
same as the first line really.

>>9085048

We are. Because of the physical functions of our brain. Which is composed of non conscous material.

>>9085040
Your simple statement ends the discussion because it renders the whole thing moot. It's like going over a gameplan with someone who just wants to lose the game.

>>9085048
Consciousness is just the word people use to describe the process of your brain functioning. It's nothing special. It's not some magical mystical unmeasurable force.

It's kind of like how when you run a computer, that computer tower itself isn't windows, but windows is what you would call the process it is running.

>>9085053
What do you mean by "we are"? Which part of us is that?

>>9085055

You end the discussion because youre a whiny bitch that wants to whine like a bitch instead of continuing discussion.

>>9085058
You aren't a part of your brain. You are what your brain is doing.

>>9085058

The fucking human race

>>9085059
OK, lol.

>>9085056

Can you tell me how much consciousness weighs?

>>9085060
So the brain is non-conscious, but we are what our brains are doing which are conscious? How does that work?

>>9085063

Its not ok, you need to continue discussion.

>>9084322

Define 'conscious', 'mindless' and 'intelligent'.
Otherwise you are a dishonest person just playing with words.

What hard problem of consciousness? I understand consciousness perfectly. The brain and consciousness are directly correlated. Of course machines will become aware. :-]

>>9084402
Where do you think your emotions come from? They are programmed by nature.

>>9085069
What are you qualifications? Like what do you do for a living?

>>9085078
>programmed by nature

Nature is conscious?

>>9085069
>So the brain is non-conscious, but we are what our brains are doing which are conscious? How does that work?
Well, if you were following along when I defined an emergent property earlier...

>>9085069

Does Windows have weight at all?

>>9085069

Neurons and electrical firings and chemicals and stuff.

Concsiousness is a process of the brain. Like toasting is a process of the toaster. Toasting doesnt weigh anything, but it fuckong happens when you push the fucking lever down

>>9085081

Why do you assume that something has to be conscious in order to program?

>>9085079

I studied philosophy and computer science at university. I work in the tech industry.

>>9085081
Nature is a fitness function.

>>9085092

>philosophy

What a fucking surprise lol hipster troll faggot

>>9085087

Yes it does. Computers and software are ultimately physical, the 1s and 0s exist physically.

>>9085089
If consciousness is just electrical firings and chemicals and stuff, why can't I look in your brain and experience your consciousness, all I can see are neurons firing, you experience something completely different.

>>9085090
Programming requires the ability to process input and output.

>>9085092

You better have been trolling this whole time. If you haven't, you've probably have had your head stuck up your own ass for so long you probably can't even smell the scent of anything other than your own shit

>>9085098

>requires the ability to process input and output.

Thats what computers and robots do as well.

>>9084408
Because you drink fluoridated water.

>>9085102
>muh pineal gland

>>9085098
Actually we model a form of optimisation programming on evolution. It's called genetic programming. You sure you studied cs?

>>9085094
Why does that mean it's not conscious?

>>9085096
I think most philosophy taught in universities is pseudo-intellectual bullshit. But there is still good philosophy out there, something our generation desperately needs.

>>9085101
Robots cannot do that by themselves, they only exist because of consciousness.

85098

Hurr Durr why can't I bust open a computer and RAM my face into it and experience the software

Go the fuck away

>>9085109

On which facts do you base such conclusion on?

>>9085105
Genetic programming was created with consciousness, no?

>>9085098


Hurr Durr why can't I bust open a computer and RAM my face into it and experience the software

Go away

>>9085111
Would what we call robots exist without humans?

Would what we call humans exist without robots?

>>9085098
>If consciousness is just electrical firings and chemicals and stuff, why can't I look in your brain and experience your consciousness, all I can see are neurons firing, you experience something completely different.
This is akin to asking why you can't run windows by slicing up a computer and looking at the insides.
It's not just a bad question. It's so meaningless that you must be making an effort to BE meaningless.

>Yes it does. Computers and software are ultimately physical, the 1s and 0s exist physically.
So do neurons, ion channels, and electrons.

>Programming requires the ability to process input and output.
Which does not require consciousness. A genetic algorithm uses a fitness function to process input and output too, is also no more conscious.

>>9085116

You just provided the argument against your own argument. Your trolling. See

>>9085100

>>9085118

Those interrogative sentences are not facts unfortunately.

>>9085116
Computers don't experience software so that's not an accurate analogy.

>>9085120
>This is akin to asking why you can't run windows by slicing up a computer and looking at the insides.
>It's not just a bad question. It's so meaningless that you must be making an effort to BE meaningless.

This is not an accurate analogy, Windows is not consciousness. I'm talking about human consciousness.

>So do neurons, ion channels, and electrons.
When you experience a thought, or have a dream, do you see neurons firing, or something completely different?

>Which does not require consciousness. A genetic algorithm uses a fitness function to process input and output too, is also no more conscious.

Didn't something conscious create the algorithm?

>>9084870
Fucking wrong, the processes that create the sensations etc. Of emotions are not fucking simple.

>>9085127
The answers may lead you to facts.

>>9085112
The thing it was heavily based on wasn't, you don't need to be conscious to manipulate inputs. I'm starting to think you're a troll so I'm not going to engage with this thread anymore

>>9085133


They dont experience software because they're not designed to. I know you're trolling but I'm having fun responding.

How the fuck are you gonna see neurons firing during a dream nigger? Or at all?

>>9085120

Can you provide as meaningful description of what consciousness is as you can for Windows?
You certainly would not hear anyone say that Windows is a bunch electrical current creating 1s and 0s in computer hardware as meaningful or sufficient explanation of what Windows is.
So why would you think that defining consciousness in terms of chemicals, waves and electrical current is any different?
And dont just say that its a process.
Describe what that process actually does.

>>9085137

The answers are - Sure - for both questions.

>>9085136


Of course not. But the end results are simple and consistent. Easy to understand.

We are not even sure how our own consciousness works. Saying something we don't understand properly won't work (on machines, or else) is nothing short of dumb

>>9085147

The process of waves and chemicals and electrical create our mental occurences

>>9085142
How can you manipulate something without being conscious?

>>9085145
So if I analysed your brain while you were having a dream, why can I only see neurons firing, while you experience being in a different world?

What are you seeing that I am not?

>>9085157
This. So is speculating that it will.

>>9085161

The fucking result of those neurons firing as well as whatever the fuck else is happening

>>9085150
Okay, so what robots would exist without humans having existed first?

>>9085158

And/so...?

>>9085169

And so that is the reality of the human brain.

>>9085168
Geth

>>9085172

How does that answer any of the questions posed in >>9085147?

>>9085167
Why can't scientists see the "whatever the fuck else is happening"?

If consciousness comes from non-conscious physical processes, then consciousness itself must also be physical, therefore I should be able to see the dream your having.

>>9085174
Exactly.

>>9085178

>If consciousness comes from non-conscious physical processes, then consciousness itself must also be physical, therefore I should be able to see the dream your having.

Theres something seriously wrong with your reasoning process when you jump from one if-then statement to conclusion like that.

>>9085178


Because they're my neurons hitting my receptors nigger. My brain. MINE. Keep the gems coming troll.

>>9085177

By covering very simple generalized points in reference to your question.

I too am a philosopher and I also believe that the brain is not the source of consciousness, but that it should have a physical structure at it's basis.
The brain is a collection of disparate entities, while the physical structure behind consciousness should be a substanital unity or physically unified whole.
The electromagnetic field might solve this binding problem, but under closer investigation this too is a dead end.

>>9085178
>why can't I toast my toast by analyzing how your toaster toasts your toast

>>9085133
>Didn't something conscious create the algorithm?
Irrelevant. As long as we agree that the algorithm itself is not conscious and is capable of doing these things, it is a proper example.

Honestly, not sure what you're even trying to get at here anyway. Do you really think something that isn't conscious can't process input and output? You didn't consciously design your body, yet two inputs + some disappointing years and we have an output.

>When you experience a thought, or have a dream, do you see neurons firing, or something completely different?
>This is not an accurate analogy, Windows is not consciousness. I'm talking about human consciousness
You don't see neurons fire because you are not a little eye watching a synapse while it fires. This conception you have that the important thing is WATCHING the process, rather than the process itself, is meaningless and distracting. You're not quite stupid enough to think that you should be able to run a desktop computer by looking at its insides, but somehow you are perfectly stupid enough to believe that about the most advanced computer on the face of the planet.

>>9085187
Is consciousness physical or non-physical?

>>9085188
What do you mean by "my brain"? I thought you were your brain?

ITT: HURR DURR We don't know how consciousness works THEREFORE it must come from some divine mystical source and it can not merely be the firing of neurons combined with chemical reactions.

Emotions are magic you retard.

>>9085191

You have not done anything of the sort.
In fact you have done quite the opposite of what has been asked for.

>>9085201
No it can not be.
Are you the same person who goes to sleep everynight and wakes up the same the next day? The consciousness should be substantial.

If the brain were the source of this substance, what happens if we start dividing up the neurons in your brain and replacing them with someone else's. At which point do the personalities change? There is more here than meets the eye.

>>9085200

How does that relate to your conclusion?
Theres still a lot of reasoning left out, assumed statements that you have not revealed or can not reveal.

>>9085192

>while the physical structure behind consciousness should be a substanital unity or physically unified whole.

like, the brain?

>>9085212
>The brain is a collection of disparate entities

Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

>>9085196
I can at least see the toaster toasting the toast with that analogy.

>>9085199
>Irrelevant. As long as we agree that the algorithm itself is not conscious and is capable of doing these things, it is a proper example.

The algorithm relies on consciousness to both exist and be understood. I need something that doesn't require either.

>Honestly, not sure what you're even trying to get at here anyway. Do you really think something that isn't conscious can't process input and output? You didn't consciously design your body, yet two inputs + some disappointing years and we have an output.

What do you mean by "me" designing "my" body? Does the body require designing?

>You don't see neurons fire because you are not a little eye watching a synapse while it fires. This conception you have that the important thing is WATCHING the process, rather than the process itself, is meaningless and distracting. You're not quite stupid enough to think that you should be able to run a desktop computer by looking at its insides, but somehow you are perfectly stupid enough to believe that about the most advanced computer on the face of the planet.

My point is that consciousness is non-physical, you can watch neurons fire all day but you will never experience the consciousness you are supposedly watching.

>>9085200

i am the product of my brain hipster troll faggot. i am my brain, i am the product of my brain. You are a fag.

>>9085205
You fucking brainlet.

Just because we don't know how it works yet, doesn't mean that there is some mystical source/force behind it.

>>9085209
Do you know of something physical that can create something non-physical?

>>9085217

If you are your brain, how are you able to separate yourself from it?

>>9085214

>The brain is a collection of disparate entities

which work together as a physical unified whole

your a pretentious hipster faggot

>>9085215
>The algorithm relies on consciousness to both exist and be understood. I need something that doesn't require either.
>I need something that doesn't require consciousness to be understood.
I need a circle shaped like a square.

>What do you mean by "me" designing "my" body? Does the body require designing?
Does it? It's your bullshit assertion that only something conscious can "process input and output". So did you have to be consciously designed or not?

>My point is that consciousness is non-physical, you can watch neurons fire all day but you will never experience the consciousness you are supposedly watching.
Good job reasserting your meaningless statement.

>>9085224

holy fuck relentless troll is relentless. i dont even know what youre asking me here.

>>9085151
Says you. We don't know what role in the rube Goldberg machine emotions play

>>9085231
>>9085231

>If you are your brain, how are you able to separate yourself from it?

i dont know what the fuck your asking me now.

>>9085224

How does that necessarily make "therefore I should be able to see the dream your having." true?
Face it, your reasoning is highly flawed or maybe it does not even exist and you just pulled the conclusion out of your buttocks.

>>9085235

Youre going over my head anon, im a brainlet. Im just talking cause and effect. Woman is raped, woman is emotionally devastated. Man sees tits/ass, sex drive gets activated.

>>9085224
Not him but:

>Do you know of something physical that can create something non-physical?
If by "non physical" you mean information which has no basis in reality then computers definitely can do it and differ from human brains merely in terms of processing power, breadth and plasticity.

>If you are your brain, how are you able to separate yourself from it?
I'm not able to separate myself from it.

>>9085228
The algorithm is not doing the processing itself either, it is simply a mechanical puppet running on code created by conscious beings. It is no different to those mechanical computers that broke the German's encryption during the war, we project our own idea of "processing" onto inanimate objects.

>Does it? It's your bullshit assertion that only something conscious can "process input and output". So did you have to be consciously designed or not?

Yes, consciousness is required to truly process something.

>>9085188
I cam plug into your brain and have your experience injected into mine.

>>9085245

>information
>non physical

All information is physical, its either electricity in computers or electricity and chemicals in brains.

>>9085203

poppycock, my answer wasnt elegant or detailed, but it certainly applies to your question

>>9085253

NO YOU FUCKING CANT NIGGER, NOT IF I WASH MY MOUTH OUT WITH A DOUBLE BARREL SHOTGUN, BOTH HAMMERS FUCKING COCKED

>>9085236

Do you feel like you are some non-conscious thing called a brain, or is what you call "yourself" more than that?

>How does that necessarily make "therefore I should be able to see the dream your having." true?

If you dream about a bowling ball, does that bowling ball weigh anything? Where is it? If it is physical, it must be made of atoms.

Conciousness exists only in the quantum realm.

>>9085250
A hurricane is an unconscious process written by air currents.
Feel free to input yourself into a hurricane. I doubt that the output will require much projection or debate.

>>9085254
I agree, I was just trying to understand the point of the guy I was replying to, who seemed to affirm that consciousness is somehow non-physical.

anyone ITT interested in Donald Hoffman's ideas?
curious what sci thinks of him

>>9085263

i feel like i am the product of my brain. i feel because of my brain. i think because of my brain. because of what my brain is doing, i can think and feel and perceive and calculate and dream and react or not react and a whole vast limitless array of other shit

>>9085245
Please give an example.

>I'm not able to separate myself from it.
You just have.

>>9085255

Ive asked someone to describe consciousness.
You havent done so, you havent even used the word consciousness in the post in which your answer 'applies' to my questions.
Also you have again repeated some vague description of something in terms of waves, chemical and electricity which was specifically what I was asking not to be used in the description of consciousness.
You have failed to perform as asked on both accounts, elegance or detail didnt have much to do with it at all.

>>9085276

oh, well consciousness is awareness of one's self and the world around oneself my good chap.

>>9085265
I didn't know air currents could write.

>>9085272
Do you not see how you are referring to your brain as a separate thing? My brain - as if you own it. Who or what is it that is claiming ownership of your brain?

>>9085274
>Please give an example.
Of what?

>You just have.
How? I don't feel like I did.

>>9085285

That which is claiming ownership of my brain is the product of said brain's processes.

>>9085285
>I didn't know air currents could write.
Anything governed by a set of coherent rules can write a process which takes an input and produces an output. You're the only one asserting that this requires consciousness.

>>9085289

That which is claiming ownership of the brain which is controlling the extremities that are currently typing this sentence is the product of said brain's processes.

>>9084408
Take some MDMA and get back to me

>>9085286
Give me an example of something physical creating something non-physical.

>How? I don't feel like I did.

Are you your brain, or do you have a brain?

>>9085294
How can rules exist without consciousness?

>>9085298
Who or what is claiming ownership of that process?

>>9085285

is this what you learned in your philosophy class? to bombard people with relentless pretentious nonsense until they either leave or think the way you want them to think?

>>9085304

The brain. My brain. This brain. Me. I am.

>>9085300
>Give me an example of something physical creating something non-physical.
A computer generating a virtual landscape (which is ultimately physical as it is merely a collection of binary information stored on hardware, but "non-physical" as a conceptual object we can think of on a more abstract level).

>Are you your brain, or do you have a brain?
Both are equally true.

>>9085304
>How can rules exist without consciousness?
You goddamn mongoloid what the fuck do you think physics is? A set of rules wrote the process that defines this universe long before the first conscious being ever rolled around in its own feces and crowned itself king of shit mountain.

>>9085311

fukken lol

get ready for a pretentious self-absorbed hipster response bro

>>9085306
I want to debate. Science can be a wonderful thing, but it does not answer everything. It is trying to theorise about non-physical things which never ends well.

>>9085324

it answers a fuck ton more than your self absorbed philosophy bullshit, and can most definitely answer everything given enough time and opportunity.

>>9085307
I see. So if I look at your brain, I am looking at you, correct?

>A computer generating a virtual landscape (which is ultimately physical as it is merely a collection of binary information stored on hardware, but "non-physical" as a conceptual object we can think of on a more abstract level).

The computer isn't creating the non-physical part, that is being created by our consciousness.

>Both are equally true.

Your brain has a brain?

>You goddamn mongoloid what the fuck do you think physics is? A set of rules wrote the process that defines this universe long before the first conscious being ever rolled around in its own feces and crowned itself king of shit mountain.

Physics are rules? For something to be a rule, it must also be possible to break it, otherwise you don't need a rule in the first place.

>>9085192
the binding problem is pretty much solved. there is a wide range of macroscopic neural measures sufficient to explain it. also, fuck daniel dennet.

>>9085199
your conception of a conscious/non-conscious dichotomy is extremely reductionist, unreflective of the dynamic principles that may underly the behaviour of a conscious or non-conscious system and i would expect that there is no clear boundary between conscioussness and non-consciousness. it is in some respects illusory the difference between cosncious and non-conscious.

>>9085329
Science doesn't answer anything, it simply describes.

>>9085337

Ya, sure nigger. Youre looking at me.

>Physics are rules? For something to be a rule, it must also be possible to break it, otherwise you don't need a rule in the first place.

You're a pretentious hipster faggot.

>>9085347

And that's not a ghost, it's a spirit!
And that's not a janitor, it's a custodian!
And the earth isn't shaped like a ball, it's shaped like a sphere!

Fucking go away faggot

>>9085337
>Physics are rules? For something to be a rule, it must also be possible to break it, otherwise you don't need a rule in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

>>9085351

Why can't your brain (you) function outside of your body?

You need to prove I'm a pretentious hipster faggot first, you can't just say it that's cheating.

>>9085358

I have no problem with good science, but that is becoming increasingly harder to find. We seem to forget that science is still in its infancy, we haven't done for that long.

>>9085366

Because if it's outside of my body im dead?

>You need to prove I'm a pretentious hipster faggot first, you can't just say it that's cheating.

lolwut, every post of yours arguing philosophical nonsense is proof

>>9085372

I agree with you on both points there. Need to clear some room for the autists and spergs to grace us with their findings.

>>9085361

I'm afraid that while sometimes valid, that can also be easily used as a cop out and a way not to engage in a debate.

>>9085373
>lolwut, every post of yours arguing philosophical nonsense is proof

Prove it is nonsense.

>>9085387
>I'm afraid that while sometimes valid, that can also be easily used as a cop out and a way not to engage in a debate.
It's completely valid when you just make up shit on the spot because you've run out of anything sensible to say (not that you've done a good job of saying anything sensible in this entire thread)

>>9085387

>Prove it is nonsense.

fuck no. me and my brain, MY brain, MINE, are gonna watch some porn and fap now.

>>9085381
If that's what it takes then fine.

>>9085394
Again, you need to argue why what I'm saying isn't sensible.

>>9085396
The word "my" and the word "brain" are separate things.

For those who believe conciousness is in the brain. If you were to remove each neuron in your brain one by one at what point would you stop being you?

>>9085404
>Again, you need to argue why what I'm saying isn't sensible.
It's impossible to argue with someone who believes they are entitled to randomly change what the definition of words are for their own purposes in ways that have no meaning or bearing on the conversation. Every time someone trounces your arguments, you just declare that words mean something else now.

Don't get pissy about being told you're not even wrong. It's the basis of your entire argumentative tract.

>>9085409
Getting there. Which words have I changed the meanings of?

>>9085407
Consciousness, memory and cognitive abilities would decline proportionally to the loss of neurons. This is pretty much what happens in dementia, which is a fairly common condition in older people.

>>9085407
i think the concept of personal identity is a different one from consciousness. And there is no answer i think. like the ship of theseus or species problem.

>>9085413
Why does that mean consciousness comes from neurons?

You can also think of consciousness like a radio signal, and the brain as a radio. If you break the radio, the signal won't be represented properly. The same can be said for the brain and consciousness.

>>9085423
Unless you provide credible proofs for your claims, they are no more valid than any other pseudo-science theories. As far as we know, brain functions, and by extension consciousness are heavily tied to neurons and neurophysiology.

>>9085404

>The word "my" and the word "brain" are separate things

They're separate words

try this on for size again nigger

The brain which is controlling the extremities that are typing this sentence decided it wanted sexual gratification, so it controlled the extremities to wrap around the penis which is also has connection with and rubbed it with a kleenex while stimulating it's visual and auditory perception with hawt lesbian pr0n until said penis shot a satisfying load.

Now, said brain is here again.

>>9085412
You tried to force "consciousness" into the definition of a process and you tried to force your metaphysics into the definition of a rule to dismiss physics as a set of rules. When you were having trouble with trying to argue a special non-physicality to consciousness, you came up with a complete nonsense criterion that you have to be able to look at someone's head and feel what they're feeling (seriously). And that argument failed so you're screaming some inane shit again trying to disprove the physicality of consciousness by it NOT being a disembodied process, which is fairly backwards.

>>9085442

Well done anon. This board really is the best.

Fuck you /b/ GET GET GET GET GET GET

>>9085423
>>9085423
so you could just say the neural firing is the consciousness.. same thing. theres no need to posit anything else and adding something else doesnt help with the hard problem.

>>9085438
My claims are based on sound logic, science is not.

>>9085441
But what is the thing describing the processes? You can't describe that because that is what you actually are.

>>9085442
So consciousness isn't a process?
Physics are rules that we abide by? Were you taught the rules of physics in the same way you would be taught the rules of chess?

You haven't proven consciousness is purely physical - you are only able to experience the physical with a non-physical awareness (it requires the opposite).

>>9085468


I sure as fuck can describe whats describing the processes. You ready nigger? Here it comes. The brain which is controlling the extremities that are typing this sentence

>>9085468
define physical.

why is it that all the information about consciousness is in neural mechanisms then.

>>9085468
>My claims are based on sound logic, science is not.
If you break your leg you will heal yourself easily and definitely won't go to a hospital because those use science, which is shit, right?

>>9085468
>So consciousness isn't a process?
Nice misinterpretation. Actually that I have seen you are the one trying to suggest some sort of metaphysical "conscious atom" or substance of some sort. I'm guessing you're referring to when I said it isn't a disembodied process, but that was as opposed to an embodied one.

>Physics are rules that we abide by?
When was the last time you broke physics?

> Were you taught the rules of physics in the same way you would be taught the rules of chess?
Chock one up for more metaphysical constraints imposed on the basis of absolutely nothing. "If it's not conscious, it's not a process. If you can't break it, it's not a rule. If you weren't taught it, it's not a rule." Nah son. It's a rule is anything that can be coherently posited and shown to regulate the behavior of a system.

>you are only able to experience the physical with a non-physical awareness
Bland assertion with no basis in reality.

>>9085482
The moment you try to describe it, you separate yourself from it. It is futile.

>>9085483
>define physical.

Matter.

>why is it that all the information about consciousness is in neural mechanisms then.

There's no evidence for that.

File: 20140902[1].png (468KB, 684x3030px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 684x3030px

>thread has devolved to "rigorously define every word in that sentence"

>>9085500
define matter.

i don't see a reason to suggest otherwise. the evidence from brain injury seems to support that it is overwhelmingly.

>>9085500

There is no separating from it. I am it, it is me. All the way until death

>>9085511
ive lost track of this bullshit discussion about who is me and who is the brain. does it really matter?

>>9085491
The science that is trying to study the non-physical will always be illogical. The science that studies the physical is much more beneficial to us.

>>9085494
>Nice misinterpretation.
You didn't answer the question.

>When was the last time you broke physics?

That is my point. We are not abiding by physics because that would imply we have the choice of not abiding by physics.

>If you weren't taught it, it's not a rule." Nah son. It's a rule is anything that can be coherently posited and shown to regulate the behavior of a system.

The "rules of physics" don't need to be taught because they are not rules, we just call them that because we are confused.

>Bland assertion with no basis in reality.

It has basis in logic. Everything has an opposite, and everything requires an opposite to exist.

>>9085515

Fuck no, nothing in this thread Mattered. All that was uncovered was you can argue forever if your a pretentious self absorbed hipster philosopher. Which was already common knowledge

>>9085510
Matter is the stuff that makes things physical.

>>9085515
If you are simply your physical brain, then you are nothing more than a slave to non-conscious physical processes and you cannot be held responsible for anything you do in the same way a computer can't. Does that sound reasonable?

>>9085526
>Everything has an opposite, and everything requires an opposite to exist.
"This bland assertion with no basis in reality proves my other bland assertion with no basis in reality"

>You didn't answer the question.
I assumed you could read between the lines, but I forgot you are a goddamn simpleton. Consciousness is an embodied process, ie it is a process which is embodied and regulated by the brain.

>more "my metaphysics beat reality" bullshit
No. I've made it clear why you're wrong here and you haven't provided any better points, you're just re-using the same ones I already shot down.

>>9085544
Yeah this has ceased being entertainingly stupid as fewer and fewer whacky crazy theories are coming out of this guy in favor of chasing his own tail so I'm gonna call it here as well lol

>>9085557
>"This bland assertion with no basis in reality proves my other bland assertion with no basis in reality"

Provide an example where this doesn't exist in reality.

>Consciousness is an embodied process, ie it is a process which is embodied and regulated by the brain.

A process which is embodied and regulated by the brain? But the brain is non-conscious, how can it regulate consciousness when it wouldn't even know what that is?

>>9085557

Wurd, happy trails anon

>>9085550
you can't escape determinist problems. also, there are pragmatics that must occur. but yes im pretty much fine with what you said.

you cant even define the difference between physical and non-physical properly can you.

>>9084371
>it's going to take all available research and data and brute force a solution, complete with simulated outcomes, entirely without emotional response.

t. literal brainlet with no idea how AI works

>>9085299
>MDMA lets you feel the consciousness of other people
Whats going on in this thread holy moly

>>9085610
If you are fine with what I said, then are you willing to admit that what you just typed was nothing more than a non-conscious, mechanical process?

>>9085550
Are you still the guy that studied philosophy? Isn't this issue raised when free will is discussed. You may choose what actions to take but that's influenced by what thoughts you have and you don't have any control over that

>>9085646
You don't have control over what thoughts you have? Are you sure about that?

>>9084338
fpbp
rest of the thread is literally irrelevant until you can answer this
>>9085630
druggies always think their delusions (of reference, in this case) are real, it's somehow part of the working of psychedelic drugs

>>9085659
Thoughts can build upon other thoughts but when I'm trying to be creative thoughts come to me

>>9085646
>>9085659
It's a common adage in free will discussions: "I can do what I want, but not want what I want"

>>9085673
My issue isn't with the delusion of a druggie, last time I checked MDMA just makes you really euphoric and energetic

As the AI topic is dead, anyone got any books that adequately discuss all arguments for and against free will because I
have such a reductionist view of the self I don't even get what free will could constitute of

>>9085681
Nah it also makes you feel that magical connection with other people I think. I've heard some shit about telepathy on mdma before.

>>9085675
Which means you do have control?

>>9085679
The word "freewill" is an oxymoron. You can't be both free and have a will.

>>9085685
>I don't even get what free will could constitute of
Don't worry anon, nobody does. If we could all agree on a definition of free will this discussion would be over in 3 posts.

>>9085692
>The word "freewill" is an oxymoron. You can't be both free and have a will.
This is non-obvious, please elaborate.

>>9085697
Having a will, or a way to do things, automatically denies you freedom to do things another way. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it is at odds with true freedom.

>>9085631
its stupid to talk about consciousness in such an essentialist way. yes my typing was caused by a string of causal neural events but the brain that did it can still be characteruzed as conscious.

>>9085706
Wouldn't having freewill basically mean wanting to be god? Thats the only way to be without any restraints

>>9085712
>the brain that did it can still be characteruzed as conscious.

How so?

>>9085714
Once you're God, there's nothing else left to do. It is the ultimate restraint.

>>9085697
"free " suggests an independence from deterministic causes but a "will" must be necessarily determined. Choices and preferences must be determined by priors or they cease to be conscious meaningful choices as opposed to arbitrary random events.

this implies that "wills" are necessarily not free and something that is free cannot have the properties of a "will"

>>9085692
How does that mean I have control. When I got bored today (didn't decide to) I decided to go for a run (haven't been running in ages, no idea where that idea came from). I felt like I make my choices but I don't choose the options that are presented to me. This is how I feel on the topic however I have only briefly skimmed some free will texts, so if you're going to refute please use logic instead of asking question after question

Consciousness is clearly not the brain. At best it's a consequence of the activity of the brain.

Now what if, the brain was not the source of consciousness. What if the soul was the source of consciousness, and the brain merely imbues the soul with it's energy in a complicated system of mental-bodies. We would see the correlation between brain and consciousness, and also have a clear grasp of what consciousness is.

For those curious, yes Neuroscientists do ponder the existence of the soul(I am not one), such as in the book "The Soul Hypothesis" which contains the musings of twelve.

>>9085721
because consciousness is a macroscopic property not a microscopic one. i'd say a conscious system has properties of being able to maintain some independence from its environment through modeling its interactions and actively modulating them. the consciousness or awareness comes from being able to model or represent its world amd itself as an object in that world.

>>9085729
>The Soul Hypothesis

i just dont understand how any of these ideas are better or bring anything special or fix any problem on the table. they are just more complicated. i dont see why it cant be assumed that the brain is the physical seat of consciousness.

what makes you think it is clearly not the brain.

>>9085728
>When I got bored today (didn't decide to)
You did decide to be bored, until you went for a run.

>I felt like I make my choices but I don't choose the options

If you could choose the options it wouldn't be a choice because you've already made it.

>>9085714
>>9085706

desu i dont think god can have free will either under most definitions.

>>9085730
Could consciousness exist without the microscopic?

>>9085752
no it cant, but its only a property of the system, not each independent part. like functional integration in the brain: how areas modulate eachothers activities.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00098/full#h5 this is a very interesting idea, its just a shame that most of the paper is badly written and some of the ideas mixed in are messy but the central point is interesting. might wanna know what a markov blanket is though. A paper by friston called "life as we know it"

>>9085777
Is consciousness a property of the microscopic, or the macroscopic?

a computer could 3D print something identical to OP's brain. would it not feel emotions?

>>9085789
You can 3D print non-physical consciousness?

>>9085789
yess

>>9085789
Using what material? Plastic?

First post in this thread. I'm a meditator and I suppose a mystic of sorts. I get visual impressions of the essence of situations, solutions to problems, and so on. Not science, but science hasn't gotten us far enough yet to be able to answer OP's question. So here are some thoughts based on my reasonable knowledge of neuroscience, with a large dose of mysticism:

>Human consciousness is not solely a product of biochemistry
>Esotericists and mystics tell us that we have a soul or higher self, acting behind the scenes to inform our personalities and guide us
>Buddhists, Sufis, and other traditions go a step further and tell us that any concept of self is an illusion, and the only reality we have is Spirit acting though us; an analogy being, the light of a film projector passing through a film

There was research done in recent years on photosynthesis, which showed that the pathway of the electron produced in photosysnthesis was energetically much more efficient than would be predicted by Newtonian physics. And enabled photosynthesis to be efficient enough to provide energy for life. When other researchers repeated the work recently, they showed beyond any doubt that there is something happening at a quantum level to enable this process. This is the first work which shows that quantum events can have macro-level effects. The implication being that there is an interaction between living matter and a quantum field. Which comes first, cause and effect, chicken and egg, no-one knows yet. Yet this is what different systems which pre-date science have described for thousands of years. Creation myths from all over the world of a creator breathing life into clay or dirt, the use of words meaning breath to describe life force, the description of chi in Chinese medicine as being an integrating and maintaining force. The quantum field informing, integrating and facilitating life.

cont.

The funniest thing about this argument is that humans aren't even really conscious.
Everything you experience is filtered by the brain. What you experience is not the world, but the brains ( often flawed ) interpretation of stimuli formatted into an internal model.
If humans are conscious then masturbation is sex.

>>9085879
cont.
With regard to consciousness, I was thinking about this during meditation and saw this: central nervous system synaptic activity, almost as an automatic function; the ‘consciousness arising from matter’ that the materialists believe is the entire picture. But with something else present; a quantum field, interacting with the synaptic activity. The quantum field was external, from ‘outside’ the brain, not generated by it. The interaction of the field with the physical happened because of the fluid medium. The quantum field interacted at an electrical level with ions in the fluid of the synapses. So the automatic nature of living matter, the nervous system response to stimuli, also had this external moderating or facilitating influence from the quantum field. Which prior to science exploring it, (and hopefully one day describing it in terms of physics), might have been referred to as ‘spirit’.

I don’t take everything I ‘see’ at face value, but this did interest me. It might help to explain a number of the usual questions asked about consciousness; for example, the low nature of consciousness of simple organisms, or how increasing complexity in the physical brain might ‘attract’ more of the quantum field to give rise to higher consciousness.

Which, to bring this back to OP’s question, suggests one fundamental stumbling block to AI consciousness. Would the quantum field which exists with higher, complex sentient lifeforms, be ‘attracted to’, or come into being along with, the complexity of an advanced artificial neural network? Assuming all the right connections have been made to simulate thought processing, is there any ‘way in’ for the quantum field to interact with it?

And another question I have, because I know next to nothing about quantum computing, what would quantum computers mean for my model?
cont.

>>9085882
Same question again, would the quantum field be present with a quantum computer, would there be a means of interaction?

Now you can write this all off as the ramblings of a lunatic if you like, but I’ve put it out here just in case it’s of interest to anyone.

>>9085880
This becomes apparent the first time you take LSD.

>>9085880
How do you know what conscious means if you are not conscious?

>>9085952
Same way a calculator can calculate despite not being intelligent.

>>9085964
The calculator doesn't claim to know what it's calculating.

>>9086004
Yes it does
1+1=2 is a claim that may be verified or falsified.

>>9086008
Calculators are conscious?

>>9086008
by who?

>>9086020

Fuck you /b/ GET

>>9086020
I'm arguing that you do not have to be conscious to make a claim.

>>9084992
>human intelligence is not binary
Lrn2neuron

>>9085879
>>9085882

quantum mechanics doesnt change the fact that consciousness can be described as a physical process and this spirit wouldnt be encoding any extra information that cant be inferred from the neurons themselves and their interactions

>>9086037
Are calculators claiming something, or simply being their programming?

>>9084644
It has to do with the origin of the 'thoughts". If a computer simply has an exhaustive list of all appropriate responses, it wouldn't understand any of it.

>>9084345
It's not likely that quantum mechanics plays a role in conciusness other than dictating particle interactions on the brain, but even if it did what's stopping us from implementing quantum mechanics in an artificial general intelligence? There's nothing special about intelligence/conciusness other than the level of sophistication needed to achieve it. Unless you say that there's some literal magic going on in our brains that separate them from the laws of physics, anything a human feels or thinks could theoretically be simulated in an AGI.

>>9085205
>If the brain were the source of this substance, what happens if we start dividing up the neurons in your brain and replacing them with someone else's.

Looks like someone started doing this with you but got bored half way through, Anon.

If the brain isn't the source of consciousness then why can brain damage cause loss or change of personality? If consciousness comes from some ethereal plane, then why does it change when our brains are changed? Why do mood altering drugs affect our consciousness when the chemicals interact with our brains? Why do people forget things or lost the ability to learn things when specific parts of their brains are damaged? It's because everything we are is stored in chemical interactions and structures in our brains. Think about things before you speak you fucking brainlet.

a machine a million times smarter than us would also be a million times better than us at emotions and would think we're stupid automatic machines.

>>9086194
>anything a human feels or thinks could theoretically be simulated in an AGI.
why do feel my own consciousness?

>>9084870
>Certain stimulation brings about certain emotional resppnses/reactions.
yes, which ones, how would you program them??

File: 1491667947093.jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

How the fuck do I see colors the way I do?

How the fuck would you be able to program the sensations into an AI so it can see colors the way I do?

There must be something more to this than just neurons firing.

Why do I experience my consciousness but not the consciousness of others?

If I was frozen for 100 years and unthawed and rejuvenated would it still be me? What decides these rules?

If in 100 years, I died but my entire body was 3d printed and became animate again, would that new being have my consciousness or would I just be dead forever?

What if half of my brain died and then science was able to rejuvenate it years later?

At what point does it stop being me?

A few years ago I had a seizure because I ingested high amounts of sage oil.
I woke up in an ambulance.
Was I technically dead while I had passed out?
Why did I wake up?
What there another quantum universe where I simply died?

There's more to this than reductionism/materialism.

Pls explain.

>>9086086
Good point. But as a governor and mediator it could have a big effect. The idea of being your best possible self, acting according to your truest nature, etc,

>>9086230
>If the brain isn't the source of consciousness then why can brain damage cause loss or change of personality? If consciousness comes from some ethereal plane, then why does it change when our brains are changed? Why do mood altering drugs...
My three-part post above beginning >>9085879 suggests a model which might account for this. Yes, consciousness arises, or is associated with, or expressed in the physical world, through the vehicle of the brain. In lower lifeforms this consciousness is little more than reflex, completely describable by neurological action and reaction. I suggest above that there is an aspect of consciousness which is metaphysical, a quantum field component which becomes increasingly more of a factor in the organism the more complex its neurological development becomes. Either in evolutionary terms or in individual developmental terms. In the human this quantum aspect guides the individual towards the 'best' expression of its being. So if the organism gets drunk its going to compromise the ability of the brain to function, and consciousness will be affected. If the individual meditates or turns its physiological attention to the quantum realm, the influence of this field may be enhanced and the individual may express different aspects of themselves, a higher consciousness, if you like.

>>9086787
prove it

>>9086809
>prove it
The last refuge of the skeptical, when faced with something which they don't understand, or which makes them feel uncomfortable.

>My... post... suggests a model...
Which is why I don't have to prove it. It's not a claim, it's a suggestion. A possibility. A sharing of an idea, to see if anyone finds anything of value in it. Or perhaps it might stimulate further thought and conversation. It would be a sad state of affairs if people couldn't share new ideas without some fundamentalist materialist zealot censoring the conversation.

>>9084339
nice touch.

Hey anons ITT, what do you think is physically going on in the brain when we think of the concept of "consciousness", and verify that we are, in fact, conscious?
In my opinion this is kind of the crux of the matter, but I can't imagine what the answer would be.

>>9084322
>It can never have emotions, feel happy or feel pain

Pretty much. If humans never had emotions, then I would not be making this post. Yet we are what we are because of our emotions to this day.

IF an artificial consciousness, instead of an intelligence existed, imagine how afraid, how enraged and how amazed it would be if it had emotions.

It wouldn't. Because it's emotions would be completely different from human emotions, since it is not an actual real human. Hell it could even be more evolved emotionally than all of humanity combined.