[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

[Advertise on 4chan]

File: bruhufhiuuuuuuuuuu.jpg (101 KB, 396x385)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
this shit freaks me the fuck out. WHY are we aware and HOW. this makes no sense
i began life as a rock. then i listened to the blue man group, and i'm blue daba de daba dai, and i became aware and i freaked the fuck out because i wasn't supposed to be. worst story ever.
File: ruh roh.jpg (52 KB, 861x878)
52 KB
i think (i pooped the bed), therefore i am (in big trouble)
You were a worm before you were a man.
There's only philosophical explanations, not scientific
some fags are saying it's quantum mechanics, but in all honesty until we meet another species that's also definitively conscious I'm just gonna say something we can never hope to understand with our feeble minds
File: 1644691013053.png (3 KB, 136x249)
3 KB
Mind is quantum computer, is srsly complicated
In short, it's fucked up beyond all comprehension
In short it's not a physical phenomenon and is proof of a diety
it's a physical process, fundamentally no different than any other.
Self-awareness is response to one's own stimuli.
In other words, a feedback system that monitors your own state.
Suppose you make a machine that does some task.
Then you start adding self-monitoring routines to the program.
Enough complexity and the correct methods and boom, consciousness it is.
Notice how animals have varying degrees of consciousness that correspond to their complexity.
Insects are hardly better than micro drones, and yet as you increase the complexity of the nervous system you get fish, birds, rats, dogs, pigs, dolphin, apes, humans. You get the idea.
Why is this a big deal to you?
I understand your frustration with the question of "why".
What I hope to teach you today is that the "WHY" behind consciousness is the same "WHY" that is behind the entirety of the universe and causality itself. Consciousness is not a special case.
We will never be able to understand everything. For the simple reason that we are puny brains in a vast, possibly infinite universe. We must accept this.
you say that the less complex an organism, the less conscious it is. But consciousness never equals zero. Even a rock is conscious to some infinitesimally small degree. This is why it is often described as a background property of reality.
>Enough complexity and the correct methods and boom, consciousness it is.

So.. Magic. Think how absurd it is that with enough complexity you suddenly get this subjective experience. This is handwaving that doesn't answer anything.
>Notice how animals have varying degrees of consciousness that correspond to their complexity.

How were you able to join the consciousness of an insect? You have no clue what their experience is like.

>Why is this a big deal to you?

Because you can not account for consciousness in terms of this non-conscious stuff called materials in any coherent way. They are fundamentally different categories, so every bottom up explanation just stops at "and... POOF!".
For OP, consciousness makes much more sense when you understand that it is all there is. There are no materials. The world is only consciousness. The "Hard Problem of Consciousness" goes away in this view because there is nothing for consciousness to emerge out of.

We are aware because awareness is all there is. Consciousness is fundamental.
>"WHY" that is behind the entirety of the universe and causality itself. Consciousness is not a special case.

Consciousness is special because it is of a completely different category that its supposed constitute parts.

You might say that a program emerges from the lower level stuff. And that this is comparable to how consciousness "emerges" out of material stuff. It isn't so in the slightest.

From the lowest levels of a program, you have the manipulation of bits. You can explain bottom up from bit manipulation to the program because the program itself is of the same category (a more complex bit manipulation) and material just like the lowest level parts. So it may take a lot of work to understand going bottom up, but at least there is a feasible connection in that they are of the same category.

Subjective experience or consciousness is of a totally different category than material stuff. Material things are quantitative, while consciousness is qualitative.

The program is of the same category as the lowest level parts. Thus, the two situations are totally different.

There are no problems in science like that of trying to explain how material things give rise to subjective experience.
There is no scientific explanation and there never will be. Consciousness is not observable in any objective way, as physical phenomena are. You can observe the behaviors of other people and the physical processes occurring within their brains at any level of granularity enabled by future technology, but you will never be able to observe a subjective experience associated with them. If you were a machine or zombie, there would be no reason to ever include a term representing "consciousness" in your model of the world. You only know better because of your own experience of awareness.

This doesn't have to be a cause of distress. You can simply exit the materialist mind prison.
It’s pretty obvious if you think about it:
Consciousness is the universe is physics is you. You are a process within consciousness, not a separate entity, more like an abstraction. Think of yourself as a wave on the ocean of consciousness. You aren’t really alive in the first place so you will never die. You experience all lives simultaneously as there is only consciousness.
you aren't, you're just action -> reaction and your emotions are reaction to action
Just read Schopenhauer

t. Einstein, Schrodinger, and Wolfgang Pauli
Consciousness is awareness. The "we" that is assumed to be is the recursion function of conscious brain placing a self-reference point. The rest of the body also creates consciousness. Like your eyes/hand/skin/ears/tongue/etc, the brain is also a conscious creator. But overall, the consciousness is consciousness of, by that, the conscious and the "subject" are always intertwined and never separate. When I'm conscious of the red flower, the consciousness and the red flower act as single unit. When I'm conscious of the pain/bleeding as I grab on to the thorny rose, this is a one single event. There's no "I" that is feeling pain. There's one single event where the consciousness of pain is processed by the brain.
Also there's no consciousness outside of body nor "inside" as a thing that which rests within the body. Consciousness is tied to the body's interactions with outside world or the brain's interactions with the events of the body's interactions of outside world.
>random word salad
Consciousness is not awareness, it is the procedure of gaining the right type of fuel from the internal body. Consciousness is not the experiencer, that is because we are living things - we live.

You get knocked unconscious you don't fail to live, and it regenerates.
There's a study about quantum mechanics possibly being involved featured in >>15010218. Even if it's a part of the puzzle it wouldn't explain it though.
As to the why: why not and because it may be evolutionarily beneficial or an emergent outcome. Also are we as aware as we could be or are we as aware as animals probably are to us?
Yes see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind. Neumann-Wigner interpretation people like this especially because it resolves causal closure by enabling wave function collapse in the brain to be guided contextually by the conscious observer as I remember.

There's also a slightly related field that has been having a lot of success apply quantum mechanical formula to the brain in order to explain some facets of cognition
>>15010251 That article is linked in the article that this month summary is based on. I'll update it to add the study later.
I don't think this particular study / its results are relevant to the NWI and think at this point the NWI is simply outdated and something like spiritualism. I'd be interested in why there's still people supporting this interpretation and info on what they think about, let's say, insect observers or up-to-date experiments/results/explanations of physical interaction (like photons interacting) as observation.
NWI is as valid as any other interpretation experimentally, it comes down to philosophical arguments, and there are pros/cons to all of them. The brain being something like a quantum computer just fits well with the NMI.
>put quantum in front of some retard idea
>wooow sooo smart
lol. lmao even
Consciousness is the result of any sufficiently nonlinear system.
File: r.jpg (244 KB, 1200x630)
244 KB
244 KB JPG
>There's only philosophical explanations, not scientific
Any knowledge thinked by logic is science, there are many kinds of sciences, the highest one is theology and the second is philosophy. So shut your fucking mouth modernist son of a bitch
No one knows where consciousness comes from; in terms of understanding it we're still where Descartes was. The only things we know is that it (likely) comes from the brain and that it's unique to humans. People have even used consciousness as an argument for God's existence.
You are mistaking consciousness for sapience. Though even that's arguable if it's exclusive to humans. Elephants and whales for example show a lot of complex cognitive ability.

But even plants are likely conscious.
>stones are conscious
Consciousness is discrete though.

>so every bottom up explanation just stops at "and... POOF!".
>For OP, consciousness makes much more sense when you understand that it is all there is. There are no materials.
And then... POOF! Creatio ex nihilo of all the consciousness is dreaming of.
Computational Theory of Mind as non-magic substrate and information processing and the LessWrong Bayesian theory of mind model people are probably on the right track.
It's the most complex thing known to us in the universe so we don't exactly know how it all works, but we have some ideas.
Also maaaaybe some generalizable model related to the ratio between change in entropic state (one of my friends at google pet project with AI) and causation (also not magic), but that's more a theme than an "how" mechanism.
Interestingly, the model has weird implications about weird panpsychism qualia that just aren't arranged to respond to stimuli. The universe it too fucking weird man
File: odomtech.png (1.19 MB, 1440x810)
1.19 MB
1.19 MB PNG
there is a consciousness field, the astral plane, hyperspace, and brains interface with it to control reality
consciousness can be manipulated by electromagnetic pulses like any computer, read and write
there is consciousness field related consciousness manipulation as well, probably scalar waves, or some other mechanism
the gateway process describes consciousness and some of the reality manipulation capabilities
here's the gateway process
here's dr. robert duncan for some consciousness manipulation technology
here is dr. steven greer for the rest

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

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.