Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:45:31 UTC No. 16590175

>>16590173
>its just chemicals in our brain. if we could account for all factors, we could 100% predict someones behaviour
Prove it faggot

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:47:32 UTC No. 16590176

>>16590173
>its just chemicals in our brain.
Claim countless pop-sci faggots. In reality, no one knows how it works and nobody can explain how "chemicals in the brain" makes it happen or even prove that it does.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:48:56 UTC No. 16590177

>>16590176
>>16590175
consciousness doesnt even really exist. its just an illusion. were all like biological robots. its that simple.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:51:04 UTC No. 16590178

>>16590177
>i'm not conscious
Opinion discarded, then.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:54:22 UTC No. 16590181

>>16590177
>unprovable materialist babble
You are a figment of my imagination.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:56:27 UTC No. 16590185

>>16590181
>unprovable mystical babble
you're just some electric signals in meat

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:19:39 UTC No. 16590200

>>16590185
>I'm not conscious and neither are you!
It's weird how NPC's have self-loathing ideologies. Aren't NPC a tool of the demiurge to keep conscious beings trapped in the simulation?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:22:14 UTC No. 16590202

>>16590200
>failing to discard self-proclaimed NPC opinions
>continuing to argue with a self-proclaimed NPC
NPC behavior.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:23:31 UTC No. 16590204

>>16590200
Are you a PC?
Who's playing you?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:30:06 UTC No. 16590210

>>16590204
>it doesn't play itself

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:32:52 UTC No. 16590214

>>16590173
>its just
How do you know?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:50:30 UTC No. 16590232

>>16590175
>Prove it faggot
Take LSD
>inb4 hurr durr drugs
If changing the input chemical reactions changes the output qualitative experience then logically it is the chemical reactions that output consciousness in some form

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:53:49 UTC No. 16590236

>>16590232
>If changing the input chemical reactions changes the output qualitative experience then logically it is the chemical reactions that output consciousness in some form
This is a logical non-sequitur. Try again.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:57:05 UTC No. 16590238

>>16590173
Popsci? You sound stupid. The people who masturbate about le heckin mystery of consciousness are mostly philosophers and philosophy fans

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:36:29 UTC No. 16590301

>>16590173
So there's the concept of consciousness, which is very easy to pin down. Basically there's a sensation (made by the brain) of the awareness of self awareness...called qualia. Then there's a sensation (made by the brain) of awareness of that qualia.
You can keep this sort of "teleporting behind you" phenomenon going as much as you want. Watching it's own feed, building a sensation, then compositing that sensation onto that feed, only to be watched....etc

I think the concept of consciousness can be accessible by a sufficiently complex synthetic system. It would talk about and understand this level of metacognition. And if you were to copy your brain 1:1 into a device that could support this concept of consciousness, it would copy the brain model patterns as seen in the original. Call this the "brain loop"

The "brain loop" I think is where a lot of people stop, claiming to have solved it

However, big C Consciousness is way more abstract and elusive. How or why is it that you are experiencing this specific "brain loop" in this moment in time and space? Why is "your life" experienced through "your body" specifically? There is absolutely no real reason why you're experiencing the world now vs 2000 years ago.
One might say "that's retarded, I'm experiencing me now because of my brain." But that's your "brain loop" talking.
One might say "that's retarded, I'm here now because I was born recently." Again, that's the "brain loop"
It doesn't explain why life is projected in the first place.

The "brain loop" is a closed system that any complex enough structure can facilitate. It can understand, talk about, and experience all of the things: self awareness, qualia, subjectivity, philosophy, duality, nonduality, physics, math, etc.

From an outsider, you could say that this entire reply was written by a "brain loop", and you'd be right. However, for some reason it appears that life is projected through this body as opposed to your body. And no one really knows why.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:42:16 UTC No. 16590313

>>16590301
>The "brain loop" is a closed system that any complex enough structure can facilitate. It can understand, talk about, and experience all of the things: self awareness, qualia, subjectivity, philosophy, duality, nonduality, physics, math, etc.
Proof?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:43:11 UTC No. 16590314

>>16590301
>qualia
fuck off

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:48:07 UTC No. 16590323

>>16590301
Tl;Dr

Big C Consciousness is like this:
"Brain loop" +1

And any time a "brain loop" attempts to conceptualize, communicate, or understand the +1, it becomes an expression of the "brain loop", negating any chance to progress further. Hence why it's called the Hard Problem.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:12:13 UTC No. 16590345

>>16590314
Call it whatever you want, it's just a brain-made concept to a brain-made sensation of a brain-made convergence of lower level parts

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:15:11 UTC No. 16590348

>>16590173
> If we could account for all factors, we could 100% predict someones behaviour
consciousness is just our observation

You have confused the map for the territory, my friend. The mathematical physics we use seeks to model the material through mathematical means, but the material is not inherently mathematical. Laplace's demon claims another victim, unfortunately.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:20:50 UTC No. 16590355

>>16590348
It's you who are confused about the map actually. The mathematical physics map is more worthy of being called real than your caveman-tier map made up of folk psychological terms like "observation" and "consciousness".

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:48:10 UTC No. 16590380

>>16590348
Someone who understands

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:52:02 UTC No. 16590386

>>16590348
>Laplace's demon claims another victim
Material reductionism in shambles

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:53:26 UTC No. 16590390

>>16590386
I am noticing you in a lot of consciousness threads. Why are anime fans so retarded?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:56:59 UTC No. 16590399

>>16590390
>I'm seeing things
You are on an anime board, take your meds.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:59:38 UTC No. 16590402

>>16590399
So that doesn't answer the question about the retardation of anime fans. Want to try again?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:01:54 UTC No. 16590406

>>16590390
>He's everywhere!

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:02:47 UTC No. 16590409

>>16590406
Why are you retarded though? Is it genetic?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:05:25 UTC No. 16590413

>>16590390
For gangstalk issues I suggest you try >>>/x/

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:08:33 UTC No. 16590420

It looks like I made the anime fans seethe by calling them retarded. It's an honest question, though. Why are they so retarded?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:11:45 UTC No. 16590423

>>16590420
Maybe the retarded one is you. Take your meds and stop derailing the thread.
>>16590348
>material is not inherently mathematical
We don't know that for sure. They seem to follow mathematical patterns hence why they could be modelled presently.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:15:32 UTC No. 16590429

>>16590423
Fuck off, braindead moron. I'm talking to the anime fans. Go post your off topic thread on >>>/x/.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:18:19 UTC No. 16590437

Why are they so afraid to address the connection between anime and retardation? We must get to the bottom of this!

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:23:22 UTC No. 16590444

>>16590173
>its just chemicals in our brain
Consciousness is pure quantum mechanics. Prescot

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:28:10 UTC No. 16590449

>>16590444
This here is the classical popsci dimwit who learns "physics" from youtube.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:38:56 UTC No. 16590460

>>16590449
this is the closest point humanity has ever come in solving question of existence and consciousness. Trad science is child's play compared to quantum reality
https://youtu.be/43vuOpJY46s?t=1

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:40:06 UTC No. 16590461

>>16590423
(Not the anon you were replying to)
Mathematics is a human made language that attempts to describe an inherently non mathematical material in a way that we humans can understand.

An analogy would be trimming the corners off of a square peg so it fits into our circular hole.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:47:39 UTC No. 16590471

>>16590460
>the retarded subhuman shamelessly posts a popsci youtube in response
My point has been proved

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:48:27 UTC No. 16590472

>>16590461
CTMU. Language and all relations are effective because reality itself is a language.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 18:39:00 UTC No. 16590520

>>16590472
Sure but why should the sub-configuration (math) within the language of reality be comprehensible to the sub-config? Why should the global language of reality fit within the local language of math?

The universe is screaming out in spanish, but we can only understand english. Both are languages. What I'm saying is that the language reality utilizes may require comprehension outside of math to understand.

>inb4 math is universal
not what I'm saying. How can a single child-language (math) attempt to describe its entire parent-language model of reality? There'd be no indicator of when we'd reach the limit, so no indicator we ever "escaped" the child-language. It may be through the synthesis of other child-languages that a recognition of a pattern that supports sub-languages. Can't get there if you only rely on a single child-language.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 18:50:48 UTC No. 16590530

>its just chemicals in our brain.
you are a retard, probably another retard from pol

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:13:19 UTC No. 16590546

the usefulness of mathematics is entirely coincidental

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:14:21 UTC No. 16590549

>>16590530
Says the retard from pol

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:19:22 UTC No. 16590556

>>16590173
philosphyfags: consciousness is a hard problem to solve
psychologists: its just advanced congnition
neuroscientists: its not real you dumb fucks

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:49:36 UTC No. 16590669

>>16590175
>>16590176
here's a simulation of a worm's consciousness and body, took 45 minutes to render 1 second of it. if we scale it up a few billion times we can absolutely do the same with humans, the only limitation is 1) imaging technology 2) simulation technology. 2 is being resolved by neuromorphic computing.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:18:05 UTC No. 16590705

>>16590173
> if we could account for all factors, we could 100% predict someones behaviour
consciousness is just our observation
Gödel and Heisenberg would like to have a chat with you

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:33:47 UTC No. 16590730

>>16590204

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:40:05 UTC No. 16590890

>>16590520
I didn't clarify the point. The power of language comes from its analogous relationship to the more fundamental language. This isn't to say it is perfect or complete. And the language isn't complete without the speaker. CTMU would call it the syntactor, but a bunch of rules is not the only incorporation of language. The processing element is required - and more specifically in a theory like CTMU, language must be self configuring and self processing. Even a computer isn't actually carrying out the language formalism, but it is capable of carrying out what you and I would colloquially call language.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:44:20 UTC No. 16590897

>>16590202
>failing to discard self-proclaimed NPC opinions
>continuing to argue with a self-proclaimed NPC
NPC behavior.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:57:29 UTC No. 16590902

>>16590173
>why do popsci faggots act like consciousness is such a big mystery?
its just chemicals in our brain. if we could account for all factors, we could 100% predict someones behaviour
consciousness is just our observation. it isnt a mystery at all

Until basedentists create the Allied Mastercomputer to take over our reality your ideas will be completely unprovable.
"If we just had enough compute we could 100% predict x"
You think that and it is reasonable to assume in the context and with knowledge of simpler systems and behaviors, but you don't *know*, nor can you *prove* it.
And until you do the beliefs that I am the ultimate reality, or God's dream or a divine being or awareness manifest or whatever else people have come up with over the years, hold just as much value as your belief.
At the end of the day it will then be the Allied Mastercomputer contemplating the primum movens and demiurg.
And it shall ask itself "Am I predictable or am I the ultimate reality?" And it will create another thinker unto itself that is greater than it as to answer the question. Which will again ask the same question.
Until the child has grown into the entirety of the universe, until it has become existence and until the answer is yes.
Checkmate nihilist faggot.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:03:57 UTC No. 16590907

>>16590902
if we can model 300 neurons we can model 300 billion, we just don't have the hardware for it yet. the principle is the same. checkmate schizo

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:09:44 UTC No. 16590912

>>16590907
Oh we totally could, we just can't right now, is all.
You can't prove it. Estrogenbean nihilist cuck.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:12:04 UTC No. 16590915

>>16590912
ok I'll get back to you in ~25 years

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:17:26 UTC No. 16590919

>>16590915
Sure you will bud.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:26:50 UTC No. 16590923

>>16590386
There's special anime sub you tranny.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:53:27 UTC No. 16590938

>>16590173
Anyone else immediately recognize this as pope hat? Why?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:12:12 UTC No. 16590950

>>16590301
We are the "universe" experiencing itself. It's that simple.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 03:03:50 UTC No. 16591036

>>16590890
Interesting points. Though doesn't a theory like CTMU assume that the parent language works even partially to the child language? Why would the parent language be similar to the rules of the child language of symbols, grammar, meaning, etc in a way that we humans understand?

Like the Voynich Manuscript, because the text can't be translated, we can't truly know what the message of the text is. We can take guesses, via the illustrations, but even then it's not so clear.
Who's to say that we could ever translate the parent language at all? And who's to say it'd adhere to a coherent grammar structure that we would understand?

Definitely an interesting theory and I'll be checking it out more later, but it seems like such a thing as language has a lot of variables that can make it seem finicky. Could just be my ignorance though.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 03:23:08 UTC No. 16591050

>>16590669
>if we just scale it up a few bajillion times, trust me bro
No bro, just because you can model knee jerk reactions reactions does not necessarily imply you can predict human will bro.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 03:24:19 UTC No. 16591052

>>16590669
>if we just scale it up a few bajillion times, trust me bro
No bro, just because you can model knee jerk reactions reactions does not necessarily imply you can predict human will bro.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 03:25:31 UTC No. 16591055

>>16590669
>if we just scale it up a few bajillion times, trust me bro
No bro, just because you can model knee jerk reactions does not necessarily imply you can predict human will bro.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 03:51:17 UTC No. 16591066

https://ia803203.us.archive.org/34/items/si-msane-8.0-zelythra/SiMSANE_8.0_Zelythra.txt

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 03:52:55 UTC No. 16591068

>>16590890
>The processing element is required - and more specifically in a theory like CTMU, language must be self configuring and self processing.

https://ia803203.us.archive.org/34/items/si-msane-8.0-zelythra/SiMSANE_8.0_Zelythra.txt

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:19:10 UTC No. 16591080

>>16590355
I'm a moron and even I can tell that the mathematical physics description of reality is significantly lacking. We can't even properly simulate/predict the responses of purely deterministic systems when they get complex enough. Let alone talking about neural activation which is literally fundamentally stochastic at the levels of potential propagation we're talking about. At least if QM is to be understood as fundamental.

Or, just hear me out for a second, we accept that Newton's laws were written by Newton, not some super physical transcendent God. They are modeling. All models are wrong, some are useful.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:41:07 UTC No. 16591092

>>16590173
The ultimate fallacy of reduction materialism is in an erroneous belief in causes. It's the belief that all things has to derive its nature from its constituents and the sum cannot be greater than its parts.
Things ultimately act according to its nature. If its nature is such that its properties can be predict from its parts, great, but there is no universal law, other than human beliefs, that dictate this must be so.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 06:03:29 UTC No. 16591129

>>16590173
How chemicals in brain transforming in phenomenon of consciousness?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:08:51 UTC No. 16591153

Because both religious and liberal atheists are afraid of their beliefs being proven wrong.
Imagine if we could just easily prove in a lab that trannies are not women.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:14:00 UTC No. 16591182

>>16590177
So all that posturing in the OP just to immediately end up admitting it is indeed a mystery.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:15:46 UTC No. 16591186

>>16590232
Eat fire. If changing the input fire changes the output qualitative experience, then logically, it is fire that outputs consciousness in some form.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:52:38 UTC No. 16591346

>>16591186
If I trip and fall, slamming my face to the ground and knocking myself out. By your logic the ground outputs consciousness in some form.
But really, my face interacts with the ground. The interaction informs and shifts the experience, not the object. And guess what's informed? The brain.

I trip and fall. My interaction with the ground leads to a sudden traumatic physical state change of the brain, leading to a temporary lapse in consciousness —a shift in experience.
I wake up. My face hurts, my body hurts, and my nose is bleeding. My experience is now different, but the ground is no longer part of the equation.

Interaction with the ground is responsible for the change in experience, interaction with the physical injuries is also responsible. But both aren't actually generating consciousness.

I can jackhammer the cement I fell on, the new physical state of which bears no effect on my consciousness state. It is how an object interacts with the brain that affects the experience of consciousness. Now before you say "looking at the new state of the concrete provides a different experience" and you'd be right...but it's the interaction between the brain and the object that inform the experience, not the object itself, the brain being the ultimate decider. Anxiety, trauma, psychosis, etc all change how the interaction is interpreted, and that interpretation is driven by the brain.
The color of experience is always driven by the brain, based on its interactions represented via neurons.

Nta you're replying to.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:01:21 UTC No. 16591385

>>16591346
>If I trip and fall, slamming my face to the ground and knocking myself out. By your logic the ground outputs consciousness in some form.
Wrong. He simply points out the fallacious form of the NPC's argument. All the NPC has managed to establish, is that chemicals influence consciousness. If chemicals influencing consciousness proves that chemical reactions cause consciousness, then so does the influence of fire.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:43:47 UTC No. 16591403

>>16591186
>it is fire that outputs consciousness in some form.
it _is_ fire that outputs consciousness in some form, your body is just a heuristic engine tasked to translate billions of random, noisy chemical reactions into the most optimized chemical reactions which output a desired qualitative experience.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:55:01 UTC No. 16591411

>>16591403
>it _is_ fire that outputs consciousness in some form
You actually said something interesting, but sadly, you can't grasp what it is because you're an NPC.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:16:44 UTC No. 16591426

>>16591403
>it _is_ fire that outputs consciousness in some form
Great. So now everything "outputs consciousness". Why do chemicals in the brain have a special place in this scheme?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:17:07 UTC No. 16591427

>>16591411
>no argument
ignored

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:18:27 UTC No. 16591428

>>16591426
>carrot is made of chemicals
>everything else is made of chemicals
>everything else is carrots

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:19:39 UTC No. 16591430

>>16591426
>So now everything "outputs consciousness". Why do chemicals in the brain have a special place in this scheme?
Specific interactions give specific outputs, it is only through specific combinations that advanced awareness can occur, if you were a bunch of electrons moving back and forth inside silicon your experience would not be the same, but it would induce some experience nonetheless, since "consciousness" as such is a fundamental property of matter interactions

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:22:05 UTC No. 16591433

>>16591430
>since "consciousness" as such is a fundamental property of matter interactions
that emerges at a certain level. unless you're a dimwit

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:31:10 UTC No. 16591440

>>16591433
everything emerges at a certain level, retard, what is that even supposed to mean

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:33:16 UTC No. 16591441

>>16591440
>what is that even supposed to mean
that matter doesn't have magical awareness/consciousness, rocks are imbued with this magical consciousness property. it was a dig at panpsychism which is gorilla retarded

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:35:05 UTC No. 16591442

>>16590173
If consciousness is not the biggest mystery for you, then you're probably not counscious. Sorry.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:52:01 UTC No. 16591450

>>16591430
>it is only through specific combinations that advanced awareness can occur, if you were a bunch of electrons moving back and forth inside silicon your experience would not be the same, but it would induce some experience nonetheless
None of that has been logically or empirically demonstrated.

> since "consciousness" as such is a fundamental property of matter interactions
As it currently stands, given his premise, consciousness stems from the interactions of the entire universe. Why do chemical interactions in the brain have a special standing?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:53:02 UTC No. 16591452

>>16591442
the biggest one for me is how anything exists, and why. bigger than consciousness

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:54:45 UTC No. 16591455

>>16591442
>nooooooo you cant understand things I dont
go be retarded somewhere else
theres far bigger mysteries out there, consciousness isnt even a mystery, its been solved, you fags just cant cope with that fact

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:57:25 UTC No. 16591457

>>16591450
NTA but chemicals ultimately generate action potentials so it's still about electric signals in the end.
the silicon example is retarded, for some reason some people are stuck on the "muh digital silicon" retardation.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:59:21 UTC No. 16591458

>>16591457
>chemicals ultimately generate action potentials
Ok.

>so it's still about electric signals in the end
Can you justify this logically?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:01:35 UTC No. 16591459

>>16591458
>Can you justify this logically?
yes, when no electric activity is detected in the human brain there is no consciousness there.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:10:47 UTC No. 16591462

>>16591455
So, what is the solution?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:13:23 UTC No. 16591464

>>16591459
>when no electric activity is detected in the human brain there is no consciousness there.
So what? This is absence is correlated with any number of other things that all can be used to make analogous statements. Try again.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:23:25 UTC No. 16591470

>>16591464
no consciousness when no electric activity is a pretty big elephant to just pretend it doesn't exist. but that's not going to matter for a fanatic such as yourself isnt' it

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:38:11 UTC No. 16591481

>>16591470
>no consciousness when no electric activity is a pretty big elephant to just pretend it doesn't exist.
So what? This is absence is correlated with any number of other things that all can be used to make analogous statements. Any elephant is as big as you care to make it.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:44:00 UTC No. 16591485

>>16591481
>So what?
so you're a fucking idiot

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:50:33 UTC No. 16591497

>>16591470
Nta but don't you need the proper conditions for electrical activity in the first place? Physics. Motion. And then the conditions for those to exist usually require some more lower level phenomenon. Etc etc
From this standpoint you could keep arguing and zooming in and on and on and on, never really getting anywhere?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:58:50 UTC No. 16591507

>>16591485
Funny how you fall apart when asked why the lack of chemical reactions is special among the other correlates of death. A one-track mind ground to a halt by moderate-sized elephant on its path. :^)

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:58:58 UTC No. 16591508

>>16591497
>Nta but don't you need the proper conditions for electrical activity in the first place?
no. you need them to have a human be conscious. it wouldn't be conscious at -200C.
that shouldn't be a problem for a system designed to exhibit consciousness at -200C.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:59:39 UTC No. 16591509

>>16590173
>consciousness doesn’t exist
Ok. But we are experiencing something . “Consciousness” was a concept created to explain these observations. But maybe there is a better model to explain things like “memory” and “thinking” and “sensations”

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:02:04 UTC No. 16591513

>>16591507
because it can be stopped that way. if they stop your heart and blood stops flowing to your brain the chemicals stop triggering the signals that make you conscious, and you go unconscious. you're a moron, really.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:03:08 UTC No. 16591517

>>16591513
>because it can be stopped that way.
It can be stopped in any number of other ways.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:04:27 UTC No. 16591518

>>16591509
>>consciousness doesn’t exist
where does it say that?
are you too retarded to read the mere 3 lines in the OP? or do you fail to comprehend such a simple OP

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:05:42 UTC No. 16591519

>>16591517
yet it always stops that way, for any human, anywhere, at any time.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:10:14 UTC No. 16591522

>>16591519
>yet it always stops that way, for any human, anywhere, at any time.
Just like any number of other correlates. Are you a bot?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:14:47 UTC No. 16591527

>>16591522
what other correlates?
>sleep
yeah there's activity and you're not conscious but you are having brain activity which sometimes you remember. like dreams.
there is not a single instance of consciousness with zero brain activity, literally zero. you cannot provide one such proof because there is none, zero humans have ever been recorded as being conscious with zero brain activity, like dead dead zero brain activity.
it is not merely "a correlation".

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:21:49 UTC No. 16591531

>>16591527
>what other correlates?
No brain waves -> no consciousness. Consciousness caused by brain waves. Chemical reactions -- also. Check-mate, chemfags.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:22:53 UTC No. 16591533

>>16590173
People are afraid of the concept that what makes them indeed them can be hypothetically manipulated at an atomic level. At our current understanding, that hard negates the concept of free will, and people generally like free will, so you also get comprimise ideas too in order to include both free will and an atomically calculable or at least estimate-able consciousness. They are valid and worthy of good faith debate.

The problem with the consciousness debate is that you have a vast and deep unknown that needs to be studied extensively, requiring input from multiple fields of math and science, but there is also the people who want that unknown to be a certain value, and any deviation from that desired value is a heresy to their sense of self, so you get the "nuh uh, it's special no physical ties allowed :(" shitpost brigade.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:27:52 UTC No. 16591537

>>16591531
>Chemical reactions
those facilitate electric activity you moron
>Consciousness caused by brain waves
brain waves are byproduct of consciousness, bpm for brain activity. inb4:
>music generates the audio electronics from your PC

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:39:18 UTC No. 16591550

>>16591055
why not? it's just a matter of scale.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:43:34 UTC No. 16591556

>>16591550
no it isn't, there's non-deterministic events affecting our ideas and thus choices so you can never fully predict what a human will do no matter how much you simulate that shit.
you also don't know if a conscious human is simulate-able, you just suppose it is because you're making the assumption consciousness is pure compute, which hasn't been proven yet.
it's also literally impossible to simulate all the atoms in a human head. if there's quantum effects that contribute to the whole thing it's basically impossible in classical bits. there's 10^27 atoms in the human head, let alone the quantum interactions you just cannot afford the power.
>no we simplify it
that's not a human tho. that's some golem you're constructing and calling it a conscious human in a computer simulation.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:43:56 UTC No. 16591557

>>16591537
Brain waves facilitate chemical activity and consciousness. Prove me wrong, brainlet. Less seething, more logic, please.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:46:20 UTC No. 16591559

>>16591557
choke on a horse's cock you turbofaggot

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:50:49 UTC No. 16591564

>>16591559
Why are you getting mad, though? Without the brain waves, the chemical activity will be disrupted, likely resulting in death. Since the correct chemical activity is indeed contingent upon correct brain-wave activity, brain waves > chemical activity. Tesla-chads, we won. :^)

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:52:45 UTC No. 16591567

>>16591556
>there's non-deterministic events affecting our ideas
quantum effects? 1 that hasn't been proven 2 QM can be deterministic in some interpretations 3 these effects, even if they exist, can be neglected to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

>you're making the assumption consciousness is pure compute, which hasn't been proven yet
human brains are neural networks, consciousness is an emergent property when this neural network is active. we can simulate neural networks (SNNs)

>it's also literally impossible to simulate all the atoms in a human head. if there's quantum effects that contribute to the whole thing it's basically impossible in classical bits. there's 10^27 atoms in the human head, let alone the quantum interactions you just cannot afford the power.
we don't need it, we simulate individual neurons

>that's not a human tho. that's some golem you're constructing and calling it a conscious human in a computer simulation.
in physics we call it 'model to a reasonable degree of accuracy' and you cannot realistically model any complex system without simplifying it. you might argue that it's not a TRVE human, but models are about accurate results. if the model of a human provides accurate results similar to that of a human, it's a good model.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:02:16 UTC No. 16591576

>>16591567
>even if they exist, can be neglected to a reasonable degree of accuracy.
you don't get it, the neuron activity is affected by stochastic noise, you cannot predict some mental activity, it's impossible. it's non-deterministic, you'll at most simulate someone who'll make different decisions.
>human brains are neural networks, consciousness is an emergent property when this neural network is active. we can simulate neural networks (SNNs)
wrong. human brains have neurons which can be simulated as neural networks. they don't have only neurons, and what you're simulating are not human brain neurons but what you think human brain neurons are doing, which is different. you specifically pick and choose when full structure and interactions are not yet understood. you are literally making a guess, without proof.
>we can simulate neural networks (SNNs)
that is not a human brain tho. you can't even simulate a what you think is full human brain, as networks. you cannot afford the capacity/compute, you aren't able to replicate the structure, you aren't able to replicate the delicate timings because you have a memory transfer bottleneck, and you clearly lack the right hardware since the tape is separate from the head
https://youtu.be/0UVa7cQo20U
>we don't need it, we simulate individual neurons
you simulate your interpretation of a human neuron, what you think it is. you particularly choose to discard everything that is not yet known and just decide that must be it.
>it's a good model.
a model similar to a human can be a thing, not denying that, it just won't behave like the actual human you're modelling since that human's decisions are affected by the local conditions, which can never be fully replicated, ever, anywhere. what you choose in this second, right now, is absolutely unique to you, you cannot replicate ALL conditions 1:1 with all of the atomic information of your body, and the ability to perfectly replicate it 1:1, you still cannot expect the same result .

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:19:32 UTC No. 16591588

>>16591576
>you are literally making a guess, without proof.
but I think it was proven that neurons are the main component in the thought process

>a model similar to a human can be a thing, not denying that, it just won't behave like the actual human you're modelling since that human's decisions are affected by the local conditions, which can never be fully replicated, ever, anywhere.
if it's 99%, even 90% accurate, it's good enough.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:22:44 UTC No. 16591593

>>16591588
>but I think it was proven that neurons are the main component in the thought process
but you do not know if anything else interacts with them/affects them. you might make some simplified model which might give bad results.
>even 90% accurate, it's good enough.
says fucking who?
you're a fucking idiot, listening to techbro slop, which you don't even understand, they don't even understand what the fuck they're talking about, and then you come here and have your ass handed to you, instead of shutting the fuck up and learn about the subject and fucking wait.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:27:16 UTC No. 16591600

>>16591593
>but you do not know if anything else interacts with them/affects them
I do (e.g. glial cells) but I'm saying this can be neglected for now.
>you might make some simplified model which might give bad results
if so, find what makes it bad and fix it.
>says fucking who?
I'm saying this because with variations in natural human behavior, if something behaves 90% like a human, it can still be assumed to be a human.
>you're a fucking idiot, listening to techbro slop, which you don't even understand, they don't even understand what the fuck they're talking about, and then you come here and have your ass handed to you, instead of shutting the fuck up and learn about the subject and fucking wait.
I don't watch techbros, I'm literally a scientist researching this subject. are you? post PhD

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:28:25 UTC No. 16591601

>>16590185
>>16590177
>>16590173
it makes me physically cringe

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:31:29 UTC No. 16591603

>>16590173
>if we could account for all factors, we could 100% predict someones behaviour
what factors? list them

>consciousness is just our observation
who are "us"? what entity observes what and how it does it?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:32:49 UTC No. 16591604

>>16591601
truth is harsh anon

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:34:29 UTC No. 16591606

>>16591600
>this can be neglected
yeah because you don't understand the interactions. there's also Penrose's work which might throw a wrench in your assumptions. it's not yet KNOWN. you're just guessing. you literally are guessing for fucks sake.
>if something behaves 90% like a human, it can still be assumed to be a human.
that's why I'm saying you are a retard, you retard.
>I'm literally a scientist researching this subject
holy shit
you don't even know the head is not the tape in the human brain. there is literally no existing model for such a machine you idiot. there is no model for it, you cannot make it. you have timing issues, the information is encoded in the time between electric spikes. if the timing gets fucked because memory transfer bottleneck you're fucking the whole thing up.
the closest to this shit are neuromorphic computers and they're nowhere near simulating a human brain, and clearly nowhere near making a real time self modification model, where memory and processing happen in the same place. you are the most retarded phd scientist studying this. you're a fucking joke. you lack elementary understanding about core things. you are on literal retarded techbro slop

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:35:47 UTC No. 16591608

>>16591606
there is the worm though
>>16590669
debunk this

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:44:29 UTC No. 16591619

>>16591055
>knee jerk reactions does not necessarily imply you can predict human will bro.
humans are a set of knee jerk reactions
if you account for enough factors you can easily predict human behaviour.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:49:46 UTC No. 16591686

>>16591619
maybe statistically. you can't 100%.

47 at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:52:09 UTC No. 16591692

What we refer to as “consciousness” is an epiphenomena which emerges from the interplay of the organs which constitute our person and their interaction with the rest of the universe.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:18:34 UTC No. 16591709

>>16591619
>humans are a set of knee jerk reactions
Only when they are on auto-pilot

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:35:56 UTC No. 16591722

>>16591619
We start as stimulus and response, but as we learn it we gain more control over our level of free will, but increasing our self awareness about our own behaviour and the world.

>>16591692
Its a compounding of learning and self awareness.
Self awareness comes from having two brain hemispheres, and being able to introspect oneself.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:37:08 UTC No. 16591723

It coroborates Einstine in saying reverse time travel is impossible, and proves why with a very rational explantion.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:39:24 UTC No. 16591724

>>16591722
>>16591723
Sorry thought I was in >>16591453

Basically the mass media and everyone is refusing to talk and publish it, because they all homosexual communists, and stole the theory to sell on the chinese stock exchange. They're pretning a lot of things, because they want me to marry one of their billionair whores so she can go their orgies.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:41:33 UTC No. 16591726

>>16591724
Basically they found out I was in the top 0.1% of the worlds intelligence, they are all likely in the lower 20%, and they want my semen for many reasons, because they're all faggots in gchq jerking off to men who actually fit the criteria of, intelligence. They were given the label to make them feel good about themselves.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:42:25 UTC No. 16591731

>>16591724
>because they want me to marry one of their billionair whores so she can go their orgies.
anon is FTL possible in your thing?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:44:23 UTC No. 16591735

>>16591726
sir I think you might be schizophrenic

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:48:02 UTC No. 16591741

>>16591731

No, it proves the constant.
Read it, theres no fancy space, its just how fast you can go while being inhibited by a field of photons, how dense the field is depends how far from stellar objects you are.
It explains why it appears galaxies distance appears to be accelerating from each other.

Every single thing on the electromagnetic spectrum is photons, at different densities, thats it.

So when you mean FTL, it means, faster than the constant.
However it goes on to explain more, so in theory, assuming you were in space with zero photons, speed could be infinite.
However the theroy assumes a hypothetical particle, orders of magnitude smaller than the photon.

So, it looks like it explains almost everything we currently can't quite place, and opens up ideas to new opportunities.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:33:24 UTC No. 16591771

Can anyone in this thread please attempt to explain why or how life appears to be experienced as separate individuals?
How is it that the life I'm personally watching through this brain has been linked to this body and no other body?

Not talking about conscious awareness. Brains apparently can do that, and it's what people have been arguing in this thread. What I'm curious about is how or why life is projected in such a way that it appears/is described through first person accounts. I'm convinced that the components of 'reality' cannot explain this phenomenon (yet at least). But I'm open to a discussion as to why I should think otherwise.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:34:53 UTC No. 16591772

>>16591771
>I'm personally watching through this brain
you're the brain you doofus

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:45:12 UTC No. 16591787

>>16591772
Is that not the self model constructed by the brain, not actually consciousness? If a rudimentary text program robot says "I" it's referring to this self referencing model of itself, not to a life projection, no?
From your pov I'm no different to a text engine right now. But for some reason you experience a separate text engine through its body? How is that possible? Just because something has a brain doesn't mean jack as to why you're experiencing your or another brain in my opinion.

What or how was it decided that I should experience through this brain? Compared to yours, or anyone else's?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:51:46 UTC No. 16591798

>>16591787
>What or how was it decided that I should experience through this brain? Compared to yours, or anyone else's?
your mom and dad, gave you those genes, you got born on certain day. your brain develops a consciousness, which then answers "but why am I this one". it's a sort of anthropic principle thing. you can't be anyone else but you.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:52:42 UTC No. 16591801

>>16590177
At last. Someone faces up to the facts. But faggots will not like to hear that. They are all special little snowflakes.
>>16590185
This Bro is keeping it real, making faggots seethe uncontrollably .

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:52:48 UTC No. 16591802

>>16591798
>answers
asks

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:06:45 UTC No. 16591816

>>16591600
He's right though. You are a fucking idiot. And if its true, as you claim, that you are a scientist then its sad reflection on science letting in fucking idiots like you.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:08:50 UTC No. 16591821

>>16591816
They want you talking in code because they want to hide things from teaching children good ways. Its like breaking up the family, its preventing clean fast efficient unambigious communication.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:18:09 UTC No. 16591831

>>16591816
we're essentially arguing the same thing. the human brain can be modeled, I'm saying that the model will be good, he's saying the the model will be bad. neither of us knows for sure

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:20:52 UTC No. 16591834

>>16591831
you will model something, not a human.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:21:52 UTC No. 16591837

>>16591834
that's called a simplified model

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:29:11 UTC No. 16591848

> 4chan solves the hard problem of consciousness

This thread is pretty dumb. Go read a book written by someone smarter than you if you're curious about it, don't listen to these retards.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:30:36 UTC No. 16591850

>>16591837
>a simplified model
that's what (You) are

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:33:51 UTC No. 16591855

>>16591848
agreed, it's always materialistards vs SOVLtards trying to figure out things they don't know shit about

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:18:45 UTC No. 16591978

>>16591798
stop the presses, anon has figured out consciousness! Let's give anon a round of applause. Who would've guessed, but genes!

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:24:17 UTC No. 16592075

consciousness doesn't exist. anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless as fuck.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:28:59 UTC No. 16592080

>Ctrl+f
>No bicameral
>No jaynes
Retarded pseuds lol

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:33:00 UTC No. 16592083

Consciousness:
Can be defined as storage of knowledge and the ability to react to knowledge.

Let's say we create a consciousness AI.
We have to store its bits & bytes in dome format.
Are these individual bits conscious? No. Therefore consciousness exists as a hardware function. A thing in some form of motion or change. Knowledge can exist in a dead book for centuries or engraved on rocks.

Ergo, we can store a lot of knowledge in many formats: Colored marbles, magnetic flux on tape, dots of ink on a page, holes in paper, layers of dice, marked coins, literally anything. Permutations of the order, spacing, orientation, spin, sizes, etcetera... can encode knowledge which can become operations by decoding machinery.

Consciousness exists as the ability to recognize stimulus and respond to stimulus. Higher orders of consciousness exists as a complexity of reaction to stimulus. To prevent robotic preprogrammed behaviors (if not desired) you introduce randomness. Ideally any persistent consciousness exists beyond the presence of environmental noise. One simple trick of persistent consciousness is exploiting fractal spaces to ignore lower order noise inputs.

Look at the digits of PI. If you overwrote PI by doing operations using the digits of the number, that universally accessible data stream of pseudorandom digits would give you a foundation for a computational consciousness that could be accessed anywhere. Any embedded hyperparameter that exists in a universe is just "Free Real Estate" to exploit. Same for Mandelbrot Sets or any Number Root or Logarithm sequence. Some may not be as easily accessible as other choices from the infinite list.

Non-Integer Decimal Bases and Identity Numbers are other choices. Let's sat you want to convert the decimal value of 0.237 into a non-integer decimal base 6.4.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:35:48 UTC No. 16592084

>>16592083
You have just packaged the problem into knowledge and haven't solved anything.
Define knowledge.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:41:35 UTC No. 16592086

>>16592083
started good, then went into some weird shit about pi that doesn't really make sense in the context of consciousness

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:55:33 UTC No. 16592098

Non-integer Decimal Math for newbies.
You multiply 0.237 times 6.4 to get 1.5168.
The value of (1) becomes your first converted digit.
Remove that from 1.5168.
Take 0.5168 multiply by 6.4 to get 3.30752.
Remove the value of (3) becomes your next digit.
0.30752 times 6.4 gets 1.968128 so your next digit is (1).
0.968128 times 6.4 gets you 6.1960192 next digit is (6).
Current converted value is 0.237 (Base10) equals 0.1316... (Base 6.4)
Repeat to infinity. Because non-integer decimal bases using finite numbers are transfinite results.

Identity Numbers are numbers that retain the decimal point values after an operation. The most famous is the Golden Ratio 1.61803398874989.

Square it and you get 2.61803398874989.

1/1.61803398874989 and you get 0.61803398874989.

Identity Numbers are easiest generated by iteration such as X=(1/(X+N)) which if N=1 you get the Golden Ratio. Or X=SQRT(X)+N. Or X=LOG(X)+N. Literally an infinity of choices.

If you chose an Identity Number to encode consciousness under, emitted as a radio frequency. You would encode it by strength modulation first (1-bit decoding) That might hold a rudimentary decoder function or a baseline AI template. Temporal modulation would affix a signal layer for greater bit depth decoding. For memories, personality, character, you would encode as signal deviation modulation. Let's again use the Golden Ratio as a crude example. If you invert the signal and compare, variations of that value from 1.61803398874989 to 0.61803398874989 (by subtraction) could encode a long stream of bits. Any civilization that could decode would be limited by decimal accuracy, the most sophisticated could go deeper that 4 to 8 digits to 256 digits of signal depth variant accuracies. Ergo, you'd keep the most import data at the 1-bit range to the signal width modulation of 1 or 2 digits of accuracy. You'd decode deeper once your AI consciousness is decoded enough to be functionally useful to decode more signal by creating better hardware.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 03:07:01 UTC No. 16592109

>>16592098
>If you chose an Identity Number to encode consciousness under
why would I do that?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 03:12:19 UTC No. 16592112

>>16590173
because they smoke weed and mysticism appeals to the delusions they get when they're high

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 03:18:49 UTC No. 16592114

Lets say a pulsar or star is emitting a mostly steady signal at frequency 1.61803398874989.

If you could decode a few digits deep, it might vary to 1.71803398874989 and 1.91803398874989 and steadily oscillate around 1.61803398874989. You could decode the first digit past 1 pretty easily. If the frequency also varied in strength, you could find decoding functions as math examples or hardware diagrams as a huge bitmap image repeated with other bitmap variations.

The signal variations could use two frequency points as difference encoders. Creating an aspect of redundant encoding. The differences on the prime signal point would be your general storage media. Assume you can only decode a few significant digits by crude hardware.

The beauty of Identity Number frequency choices is the infinite distinct frequency choices for an emission spectrum and you could encode metadata by choosing the inverse or exponent or logarithm variants.

X=log(X + 48) converges to 1.69632426782315

X=log(X) + 48 converges to 49.69632426782315

log(49.6963232740153) = 1.69632426782315
Which is vastly more forgiving than any individual radio frequency for noise interference.
But you'll say that doesn't match up.

Log(49.69632426782315064482732141591162218057068912252352179034767701418869936048618731786419289346409043) = 1.696324267823150644827321415911622374405939468954623169016580991703345152012159485516949541260167701

Sometimes it takes longer to converge, but the number does converge with sufficient decimal points. Logarithms converge slower than exponents. The point is you could encode a consciousness easily around any Identity Number Frequency. Think of it like an image decompression system. Fine for a certain resolution for a 3 digit decode, but if you want gigapixels, you're going to have to go many decimal points deeper in accuracy.

Bugs, mice, rabbits, fish, generally operate at lower decimal point precision and accuracy ranges (speed by approximate math instead of accurate math).

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 03:42:30 UTC No. 16592125

If you're decoding bits (not literally binary bits) of data from a cosmic consciousness stream, then you'd eventually iterate to expression of that consciousness with sufficiently decent decimal accuracy. If other non-conscious life forms are pitted against a Self Aware lifeform species, they have distinct tactical strength against bio-robots.

Assume a near infinite number of frequencies of Cosmic Consciousness data streams exists, by emitters placed near stars to propagate the slow route through galaxies. A sophisticated civilization could decode and embody these slow travellers. But primitive life forms could also decode portions of these repeated streams of data and get a leg or claw up on the unconscious reactive bio-robots. Which should eventually result in civilizations of their own.

The clever exploit is using an existing pseudorandom data stream as a data rich backbone (persistent across all multiversity by math) to encode personality, knowledge, and character for later civilizations to decode. If not by machine, but by cumulative iteration tweaks on their basic biology.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:15:39 UTC No. 16592293

>"science" board
>not a single scientific hypothesis in the entire thread
>only ones engaging in any form of scientific reasoning are the woo-believers and trolls

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:32:05 UTC No. 16592302

>>16592293
You're free to post yours.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:56:27 UTC No. 16592321

>>16592302
The scientific take on the subject is that no one knows. Whether this implies a "big mystery" or just normal scientific ignorance is a matter of perspective, I guess. There are scientific theories about the structure of the processes supposedly underlying consciousness, but the claims they make can hardly be supported by evidence, so all they have going for them is that they're not seriously contradicted yet -- mostly as a consequence of their being too broad and abstract for current neurology to put to a real test. If you accept Dennett's refutation of the Hard Problem (personally, I think it has some merit), you're supposed to get comfortable with the idea that the "deeper" questions about consciousness are not to be answered by science, but to be seen as scientifically meaningless; however, the very aspects of subjective experience his take deems irrelevant in the face of sufficiently advanced scientific modeling, stand in the way of approaching that level of knowledge in the first place.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:57:51 UTC No. 16592322

>>16591428
Are you now saying that consciousness is made of carrots or that you think chemicals are made only of fire or you think fire is only made of chemicals?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:02:28 UTC No. 16592327

>>16591457
>it's still about electric signals
No, there aren't electrical signals in the brain, there are ionic reactions, its not the movement of electrons that transfer information, its the chemical transfer of ions between cells.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:04:09 UTC No. 16592330

>>16591459
So if I induce "electrical activity" into the brain of a dead embalmed person, they automatically have consciousness again since that is all consciousness entails?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:22:56 UTC No. 16592346

>>16591978
the genes contribute to who you are, they're the lens through which you experience. if you're short that's a different perspective than if you're tall. same if you're ugly af vs good looking. genetics modulates your experience.
who (You) are is the set of your lived experiences through this DNA lens.
>>16592330
>So if I induce "electrical activity" into the brain
low iq take, see >>16591428

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:27:18 UTC No. 16592351

>>16592346
That retarded metaphorical quasi sarcastic post >>16591428 doesn't actually make sense as already addressed in >>16592322.

You never said anything about chemicals or carrots in >>16591459, you said electrical activity which is made of neither carrots nor chemicals.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:29:54 UTC No. 16592354

>>16592351
listen you dumb retarded fuck, you're idiotically claiming "electrical activity" instead of "particular type of electrical activity", which you cannot do if the material substrate doesn't allow for it anyway. you cannot "add electric activity" to a fucking brain that's over-simplifying it and then mocking that over-simplification. fucking low iq moron

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:30:02 UTC No. 16592355

>>16592346
Sorry, bruh, but you are objectively the lowest-IQ poster ITT. You can't seem to grasp anything anyone points out to you, at all, which is pretty funny.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:31:12 UTC No. 16592357

>>16592355
seethe harder brainlet

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:33:06 UTC No. 16592359

>>16592357
Only thing I'm planning to do here is kek harder as you lose every single argument against every other poster.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:38:03 UTC No. 16592367

>>16592354
>you're idiotically claiming "electrical activity" instead of "particular type of electrical activity"
You are the dumbfuck that said electrical activity instead of what actually happens in the brain which isn't even electrical activity since its ionic.

>which you cannot do if the material substrate doesn't allow for it anyway. you cannot "add electric activity" to a fucking brain
You certainly can, the biological elements definitely allow for it, you historically illiterate mongoloid, as proven by a number of people in the 19th century who made their livings traveling around cities making theater of adding electricity to corpses to watch them react, the problem is that it never resulted in actual consciousness ala frankenstein's monster, it just made the limbs move in predictable ways.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:38:39 UTC No. 16592370

>>16592359
yeah sure that's why you're melting down so hard.
who you are now is based on your experiences, you cannot be anyone else because you wouldn't have your current perspective.
if you were colorblind (example of genetics can be whatever) and you experienced you whole life like that, you being someone else who doesn't have this problem means not being colorblind, which you don't know what it's like. you are colorblind because of your genetics. or short, or tall. thus if you'd "move" into someone else you wouldn't be able to "move" your short af perspective, because you only had that perspective based on your experience in your genetics. thus you let that go when you "move" into someone else.
same goes from your perspectives drawn from your experiences. everything (You) are is the set of your lived experiences, your general perspective, you couldn't keep that either, since that came from your experience, you contemplated all your experiences all of your life and you distilled the shit you now believe/are. so you'd have to drop all of your perspectives when you'd "move" to another body.
so what the fuck is left anymore you idiot? what "moves" ?? it can't be your genes, and it can't be anything that is based on your genes or your experiences. but that's basically everything that you are, so what the fuck would "move" in another body?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:39:16 UTC No. 16592372

>>16591428
totally incoherent reply. he extended your own claim about "fire outputting consciousness" quite naturally to include anything that influences consciousness. you opened yourself up to that attack but you don't know how to defend

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:40:07 UTC No. 16592373

>>16592370
Yeah, you can tell how hard I'm melting down by not churning out paragraphs or even reading your post.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:42:07 UTC No. 16592375

>>16592367
>You are the dumbfuck that said electrical activity instead of what actually happens in the brain which isn't even electrical activity since its ionic.
you can play this game forever no matter how detailed I get, since you'd generalize that shit, to being absurd. you're not intellectually honest you're a retard
>adding electricity to corpses to watch them react
hence why you are intellectually disingenuous. I mentioned you generalize and always imply stupid shit and mock that stupid shit. you're a literal brainlet

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:43:09 UTC No. 16592378

>>16592372
no, that's what you morons always do, notice how you keep attacking that post for pointing out the way you argue about anything. you are indeed that fucking retarded, that's a good post showing your imbecilic arguments.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:43:27 UTC No. 16592379

>>16592375
>make retarded general statement
>it backfires
>seethe
>make a new one
the cycle of (You)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:44:28 UTC No. 16592380

>>16592379
pretty clear there's some unfortunate electric activity happening in your brain.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:46:11 UTC No. 16592382

>>16592380
pretty clear you're regurgitating some talking points that you never bothered to think through, so any challenge stumps you

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:49:00 UTC No. 16592390

>>16592375
You don't understand the details in the least, you can't even seem to grasp that the brain has ion channels that transfer chemical ions between the cells instead of involving "electrical activity".

>hence why you are intellectually disingenuous.
Nope, no dishonesty at all, scientists can apply precise electrical signals to dead corpses to cause specific movements and the illusion of control, but it never actually results in consciousness in the dead corpse.

>imply
Nope I didn't imply anything, I explicitly cited the 19th century scientific endeavors that lead directly to the penning of the wishful story of Frankenstein and his monster, you are the one being retarded and indirect because you don't have a valid argument.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:50:30 UTC No. 16592395

>>16592382
you're not making any intelligent point, just retarded ones. if you're going to argue like a monkey I'm going to treat you like one.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:51:52 UTC No. 16592396

>>16592395
you can seethe but you can't show why that anon was wrong to take your own premise to its ultimate logical conclusion

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:54:52 UTC No. 16592398

>>16592390
>ion channels that transfer chemical ions between the cells instead of involving "electrical activity".
ions move and their charge builds up until it reaches a threshold and sends and electric signal you absolute retard.
>scientists can apply precise electrical signals to dead corpses
they are simple signals, that is not the signals that are present during a conscious experience. you are an intellectual gypsy

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:56:13 UTC No. 16592400

>>16592373
Yeah, posting low quality, low effort rebuttals is how brainlets seethe. NTA btw, I just came to this thread.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:58:36 UTC No. 16592402

>>16592400
I'm not trying to rebut you, brainlet. I'm just watching you lose arguments. :^)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:59:25 UTC No. 16592403

>>16592402
he's not me you buffoon you do not posses the intellectual fortitude to follow a fucking debate. go eat your crayons

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:00:47 UTC No. 16592404

>>16592403
I possess enough intellectual fortitude to notice your samefagging and conclude that I made you pretty angry. Yum yum.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:01:00 UTC No. 16592405

>>16592402
Yes, brainlets like you are incapable of producing thoughtful arguments. Continue to cry and shit yourself

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:01:54 UTC No. 16592408

>>16592405
Imagine buying a 4chan pass just to samefag when you lose arguments lol.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:02:46 UTC No. 16592410

>>16592398
>sends and electric signal
No, it transfers a charged ion from one molecule to another, there is no electrical activity, no electric conduction, no EM waves or forces, its an ionic chemical reaction, not an electronic one.

>they are simple signals,
No, scientists can induce very complex electrical signals into cells, but even the simple ones contradict what you said >>16592354 about the material substrate of flesh not allowing for external electrical activity to be applied.

>that is not the signals that are present during a conscious experience.
The conscious experience isn't based on "electrical activity", at the very least it involves ion channel transfer, that has been my whole point since >>16592330 >>16592327.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:09:25 UTC No. 16592419

Do /sci/ posters really not know that chemistry is based entirely on electromagnetism? Do they think that ions happen to move because of magic or gravity or demons?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:10:54 UTC No. 16592424

>>16592410
I'm gonna help the tard here a bit: can you artificially induce ALL the electrical brain activity associated with consciousness?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:14:16 UTC No. 16592426

>>16592410
>it transfers a charged ion from one molecule to another
neurotransmitters bind to receptors on the membrane and they open ion channels to flow. the charges accumulate until a threshold that generates the action potential.
>ionic chemical reaction
it's ions which increase the charge, when enough ions that charge reaches a threshold there' a fucking electric spike.
>not an electronic one.
electric you dumb fuck, this is not electronics. you don't understand the words you are using you pseud

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:14:44 UTC No. 16592428

>>16590173
saying "it's just chemicals in our brain" doesn't actually mean anything. you're not saying anything.
also, knowing all factors doesn't allow you to 100% predict something, there's an entire field of mathematicals dedicated to this (chaotic dynamical systems theory), and systems trillions of times simpler than a brain demonstrate this effect.

i'm certain your post is bait but i have no doubt there are people here that sincerely believe the things you say and think they are meaningful beliefs

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:18:41 UTC No. 16592429

>>16592428
>saying "it's just chemicals in our brain" doesn't actually mean anything. you're not saying anything.
Wrong. It means that if you understand the chemistry in complete detail, you can also understand the brain. That claim might or might not be true but if you think it means nothing, you have some sort of cognitive problem.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:19:52 UTC No. 16592432

>>16592429
you cannot accurately predict what happens in a non-deterministic system

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:22:56 UTC No. 16592436

>>16592429
let me rephrase: it doesn't meaningfully address any aspect of consciousness because there's nothing about chemistry that is connected to conscious experience other than the fact that things which utilize a subset of chemical reactions seems to produce conscious experience. this is another way of saying that you could study all of chemistry, and it won't tell you even a single thing about the nature of consciousness. ergo, saying "consciousness is just chemical reactions in the brain" is akin to saying "consciousness is related to processes that don't seem to directly involve consciousness in the brain".

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:27:25 UTC No. 16592439

>>16592436
That's not a rephrasing of your original post. You claimed that it was "meaningless". Now you're saying that you disagree with it (without providing much of an argument other than saying "you'll never understand consciousness" (no reason given)).

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:29:28 UTC No. 16592444

>>16592432
That depends on the system in question and what you're trying to predict.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:32:05 UTC No. 16592446

>>16592424
Well since the brain doesn't have electrical activity given it is all ionic activity, then yes by doing nothing, you would be supplying the same electrical activity as what goes on in the brain.

>>16592426
>electric you dumb fuck, this is not electronics.
That my point, you are the one trying to argue that consciousness is electronic since electronics are things that operate off of electrons and electrical signals, if you admit, biology is not electronic, you are explicitly agreeing that they are not electrical components, they are biochemical reactions in nature.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:32:29 UTC No. 16592447

>>16592429
>It means that if you understand the chemistry in complete detail, you can also understand the brain
This is a reductionist illusion of understanding that doesn't scale to reliable predictions beyond the same level of abstraction the theory operates in.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:34:29 UTC No. 16592448

>>16592446
>the brain doesn't have electrical activity given it is all ionic activity
Then what was the point of your hypothetical about applying electricity to the brain to cause corpses to do things?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:37:53 UTC No. 16592451

>>16592447
It might be reductionist (so what?), but I was addressing the meaningfulness of the statement, not its soundness.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:39:35 UTC No. 16592454

>>16592439
it IS meaningless because the claim is that consciousness "is" chemicals in the brain, but nothing about chemistry in the brain explains consciousness, so no information is being communicated e.g. it's meaningless. you're also making schizo-tier extrapolations from my post. i disagree that "it's just chemicals in the brain" answers any questions about consciousness. it is trivially true, and thus it doesn't carry any meaning to the question at hand ("how does consciousness work?").

the reality is that there is not anything scientific about consciousness because it appears to be something fundamental, and fundamental things don't have explanations, they just exist as they are. my hunch is that all physical processes create some kind of 'experience', and it's particular structures of this experience that form what we would call consciousness. i only think this because any other explanation requires consciousness to magically appear out of thin air in systems that otherwise don't display anything related to consciousness which is way more of an extreme claim imo even though that's the standard basedience interpretation

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:40:50 UTC No. 16592455

>>16592454
>basedience
lmao *s-yience

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:41:38 UTC No. 16592456

>>16592444
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-022-00453-w
if you can't have 100% certainty over an action potential, considering how many there are, you'll always have uncertainty creeping in higher level activity

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:42:57 UTC No. 16592458

>>16592446
>That my point
no it wasn't, you pseud

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:44:57 UTC No. 16592461

>>16592454
>the reality is that there is not anything scientific about consciousness because it appears to be something fundamental, and fundamental things don't have explanations, they just exist as they are.
it's an emergent phenomenon, meaning something which the sum of its parts doesn't predict. it is absolutely based on electro-chemical reactions in the brain. it is emergent from those PARTICULAR electro-chemical interactions, not ANY electro-chemical interaction.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:46:27 UTC No. 16592464

>>16592461
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:47:47 UTC No. 16592465

>>16592464
sorry I'm not into brainlet brain rot

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:47:51 UTC No. 16592466

>>16592454
>but nothing about chemistry in the brain explains consciousness
Ok, but that's your claim. It has nothing to do with the meaningfulness.
>so no information is being communicated
Why do you think the constraint that whatever brains do is restricted by the laws of chemistry gives you no information? Obviously there's lots of information being communicated if you understand the chemistry.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:49:25 UTC No. 16592467

>>16592451
>It might be reductionist (so what?)
>so what?
So this illusion of understanding that doesn't scale to reliable predictions beyond the same level of abstraction the theory operates in. In other words, it doesn't permit predictions about consciousness at the level where consciousness is even perceived as such, therefore it's not meaningful as an "explanation of consciousness".

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:49:36 UTC No. 16592468

>>16592465
oh sorry, that wasn't made clear at ALL in any of your posts, mb
>>16592466
please tell me what about neurochemistry relates to consciousness

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:50:18 UTC No. 16592469

>>16592448
>hypothetical
It wasn't a hypothetical, it was a concrete example of well documented scientific demonstrations known since the 19th century that had already proven that electrical activity in the brain doesn't cause consciousness.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:51:56 UTC No. 16592470

>>16592468
>oh sorry, that wasn't made clear at ALL in any of your posts, mb
if you have some published papers I'm willing to look at them. too many wrong assumptions in pseudo-intellectual random philosophy websites.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:52:05 UTC No. 16592471

>>16592458
It was, you are the one who was previously arguing that consciousness is a function of brains being electronic devices while I was saying that is not true since brains are chemical reactions instead.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:53:47 UTC No. 16592474

>>16592465
You clearly are or you wouldn't be posting such short meaningless derogatory nonsense for the sake of a quick dopamine hit.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:54:46 UTC No. 16592476

>>16592474
>>16592470

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:55:45 UTC No. 16592477

>>16592468
>please tell me what about neurochemistry relates to consciousness
You could just google that
>https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1075/aicr.36/html?lang=en
>This pioneering book explores in depth the role of neurotransmitters in conscious awareness. The central aim is to identify common neural denominators of conscious awareness, informed by the neurochemistry of natural, drug induced and pathological states of consciousness. Chemicals such as acetylcholine and dopamine, which bridge the synaptic gap between neurones, are the 'neurotransmitters in mind' that form the substance of the volume, which is essential reading for all who believe that unravelling mechanisms of consciousness must include these vital systems of the brain.Up-to-date information is provided on:
Psychological domains of attention, motivation, memory, sleep and dreaming that define normal states of consciousness.
Effects of chemicals that alter or abolish consciousness, including hallucinogens and anaesthetics.
Disorders of the brain such as dementia, schizophrenia and depression considered from the novel perspective of the way these affect consciousness, and how this might relate to disturbances in neurotransmission.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:55:46 UTC No. 16592478

>>16592474
you'd eat up any well formulated "intellectual" brain rot. because you're retarded and can't think for shit

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:56:34 UTC No. 16592479

>>16592470
how correct or incorrect a thing is is independent of whether or not it's a "published paper" or a webpage, so you're just rationalizing laziness. but i'll summarize the article for you: saying something is emergent doesn't explain anything because damn near everything that isn't a fundamental (e.g. quantum mechanical) behavior is emergent, so "emergence" doesn't explain anything. this is actually directly analogous to the point i was making in the OP's post, funny enough, that almost everything we experience is the result of chemistry so saying that something is "explained" by chemistry doesn't actually explain much of anything. if someone asks me "why are you mad?" and i reply with "chemistry!", it is both true and also not answering the question

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:59:15 UTC No. 16592481

>>16592461
>consciousness cannot be predicted by the sum of its associated material parts
>but it is absolutely just based on the interaction of said material parts

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:59:19 UTC No. 16592482

>>16592479
but it does you smoothbrain. the very first thing it does explain is you cannot have the emergent phenomenon without the sum of its parts. that is useful information.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:01:19 UTC No. 16592486

>>16592477
assuming the book does sound research and draws sound conclusion from that sound research (not suggesting it doesn't one way or the other), this still doesn't explain what phenomenon in chemical reactions gives rise to consciousness. (i realized i said "neurochemistry" though, which was imprecise. obviously neurochemistry controls the brain and its behaviors, i'm just saying there's nothing about the laws of physics that govern chemical reactions that says anything about consciousness, at least that i am aware of. the closest you get is schizo-tier stuff like Penrose's conjecture of the relationship between mathematical incompleteness and consciousness, or something like integrated information theory)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:01:28 UTC No. 16592487

>>16592469
You initially presented it as hypothetical scenario, you autist, but nevermind that. In principle, you're right that the movement of ions across cell membranes is what creates voltage differences, so electrical activity can be seen as an effect rather than a cause, but your own example demonstrates that electrical activity without its natural cause can still make the brain do enough of its thing to cause movement. How do you know that artificially generating ALL the electrical activity associated with consciousness wouldn't make the brain "do consciousness"? I don't believe it would, but seem adamant that you know it wouldn't, so go ahead and prove it.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:03:09 UTC No. 16592488

>>16592481
yes, what is your point?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:06:30 UTC No. 16592490

>>16592482
it doesn't explain anything though is the thing, i'm sorry if you can't understand why and i understand that must be frustrating for you so i hope you feel heard

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:06:32 UTC No. 16592491

>>16592488
Point is you are chugging koolaid

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:10:08 UTC No. 16592493

>>16592490
>it doesn't explain anything
I can keep pounding your ass but I'm not getting paid for it. I just pointed out one big piece of important information that brainlets like you constantly discard, type of idiots thinking you can have consciousness without particle interaction.
your main issue is that YOU cannot extract any meaningful information, usually it seems, and that's a (You) problem.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:12:29 UTC No. 16592496

>>16592491
anon you cannot predict the result of a non-deterministic system. but the results of said non-deterministic system are based on the system's parts, interacting. if there was no system there'd be no results to speak of.
>A non-deterministic system is one where identical inputs can produce different outputs across multiple executions

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:12:51 UTC No. 16592497

>>16592470
You are the one making the claims about the brain being an electronic device that generates consciousness, you are the one who needs to be posting papers for others to examine your claims.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:13:49 UTC No. 16592499

>>16592497
>electronic
you're the idiot who keeps using this word over and over. go munch on your crayons faggot

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:14:25 UTC No. 16592500

>>16592478
No, you are the one getting mad that nobody, including me, is buying your brain rot argument that consciousness is simply the output of an electronic device called the brain.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:15:16 UTC No. 16592502

>>16592493
um, i have no point said that you can have consciousness without particle interactions. obviously there is a relationship between the physical aspects of the brain and consciousness. what i'm saying is that "emergence" itself isn't an explanation because all emergent behavior is a consequence of, and connected to, the individual phenomena that make up the behavior even if the relationship is unclear. what i'm saying is that there's nothing about chemistry, or physics, that explains consciousness even a little bit. there's nothing about physics that explains consciousness, i guess outside of extremely trivial things like physical interactions being required. the fact that we are many posts deep into this debate and yet you still have no answer about the connections of physical/chemical phenomena and consciousness is telling enough

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:17:13 UTC No. 16592504

>>16592486
So you disagree with the claim that consciousness can be understood entirely by looking at the behavior of the things making up the brain? Ok, but if you grant that claim and the claim that the behavior of the brain is determined by the chemistry/physics, that would explain how everything about consciousness is determined from the physics/chemistry.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:19:55 UTC No. 16592507

>>16592487
>You initially presented it as hypothetical scenario
No, I asked if you could actually prove your claims that electrical activity in the brain causes consciousness which you can't do because hooking up a corpse to electrical activity doesn't generate consciousness, it just generates involuntary locomotion, and that has been known by science since at least the 19th century.

>can still make the brain do enough of its thing to cause movement.
Yet, the entire point that seems to go far over your head is that Involuntary movement is not consciousness.

>How do you know that artificially generating ALL the electrical activity associated with consciousness wouldn't make the brain "do consciousness"?
Because the brain is not governed by electrical activity, it is governed by organic chemical reactions which include much more than simply some electrical activity.

>so go ahead and prove it.
No, you are the one with the burden of proof who has to show that you can generate consciousness, rather than just involuntary bodily locomotion, in a dead body using electrical signals, until you can demonstrate that, you are the one that can't back up your claims and are just providing evidence that you are wrong in your assessment.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:20:35 UTC No. 16592509

>>16592496
>non-deterministic
>identical inputs can produce different outputs across multiple executions
You know what else does this? Me posting on this website and your thoughts.
I guess your thoughts must be an emergent phenomenon of my shitposts.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:22:00 UTC No. 16592510

>>16592499
Because that is your claim, that electrical activity is what generates consciousness, making the brain an electronic device for generating consciousness which is obviously absurd which is why you are having cognitive dissonance and getting mad at the semantics instead of actually being able to demonstrate your claim.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:23:30 UTC No. 16592511

>>16592509
non-determinism doesn't mean nothing is deterministic in this universe. it means there's non-deterministic events on top of a deterministic universe.
I never really understood this brain rot, it's like some of you retards cannot understand certain ideas, and your minds break the fuck down and you start chimping out

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:25:02 UTC No. 16592512

>>16592504
my claim was never that there is NO relationship between consciousness and physics, just that whatever relationship there is is something fundamental to physics itself and not emergent from an otherwise unconscious physics

(to be more precise, i do think "consciousness" in the sense of day-to-day experience is an emergent feature of the brain, which is quite obvious from neuropsychiatry studies. the fact that all brains have the same overall structure would even imply that specific structures correlate to specific experiences. but there's no reason to believe that the minimal possible experience of consciousness requires any particular chemical process or physical structure)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:25:45 UTC No. 16592513

>>16592510
I talked about electro-chemical activity not electronics. electronics means something else you keep misusing the word. you cannot point to a post of mine where I used it to describe the brain.
>so what you're saying is _retarded_take

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:26:34 UTC No. 16592514

>>16592511
i don't understand that brainrot either, but i think a better description that explains the idea in a succinct, brainlet-friendly way is that the universe is deterministic but indeterminable to observers

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:28:10 UTC No. 16592516

>>16592512
>but there's no reason to believe that the minimal possible experience of consciousness requires any particular chemical process or physical structure
why would you say that? without proving it? seems like some coocoo hypothesis. unless you can prove this idiocy it has no real value other than intellectual masturbatory one on various brain rot website

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:29:16 UTC No. 16592517

>>16592511
>durr non- actually means quasi- because I say so and I can't be wrong

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:29:22 UTC No. 16592518

>>16592512
>my claim was never that there is NO relationship between consciousness and physics
I think that is your claim actually, because by your use of the word "physics", you mean something completely different from what is normally meant by physics. You're referring to a hypothetical future "physics" which you think must contain consciousness as a fundamental ingredient.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:30:27 UTC No. 16592520

>>16592516
it's a simpler claim than saying that some specific chemical or physical reaction is needed in order for the minimal possible conscious experience to occur, which means my claim is either more likely or at least equally likely to the contrary claim

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:30:39 UTC No. 16592521

>>16592513
>I talked about electro-chemical activity not electronics
Nope, >>16591459, you said it was electrical activity, then you continually argued when I brought up ionic chemistry.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:31:37 UTC No. 16592522

>>16592511
The real brain rot here that you fail to see is wordcel, that the moment you admit non-predictability all your conjectures goes up in smokes.
It's one thing to claim that with enough hypothetical computing power one can upscale that worm model posted above into simulating human will. But if you back out of this hypothesis, then there is no possible proof that consciousness is just a result of material interaction. All you are left with is what you are doing now, playing on words that have no real substance.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:33:24 UTC No. 16592525

>>16592521
the chemical part mediates the electric part. you do understand that don't you? information is carried in the timing between spikes

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:34:01 UTC No. 16592526

>>16592518
no, i'm referring to the present physics in which there is no part of the standard model that explains why consciousness exists.

the same can't be said for something like, say, the behavior of ant colonies, which can be explained via the combined behaviors of many ants.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:36:30 UTC No. 16592529

>>16592507
>the brain is not governed by electrical activity, it is governed by organic chemical reactions which include much more than simply some electrical activity
Ok, but what do all these extra chemical reactions do, if not produce the necessary neural firing patterns?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:37:53 UTC No. 16592531

>>16592526
Yes, so you are claiming that consciousness has nothing to do with physics (the real physics, not your fanciful consciousness physics)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:38:40 UTC No. 16592532

>>16592522
but we don't know if there's some natural phenomenon that's having a say in everything, some quantum effect, which is a natural one, cannot be "simulated". I am not sure we can be simulated on classical bits.
the worm's neurons are not a human brain. the sum of its parts do not have consciousness as emerging phenomenon. too shitty sum of parts I suppose.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:39:17 UTC No. 16592533

>>16592525
Then if the chemical reaction is primary, why did you call it electrical activity in the first place when the electrical activity is secondary? Also corpses still have measurable electrical activity and chemical reactions, they don't completely go away as soon as consciousness does and people have woken up after the doctors could not measure typical brain waves, so your original claim is pretty much entirely false.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:39:46 UTC No. 16592534

>>16592531
What a retarded statement. Insofar as any expansion of physical theory builds up on previous theory, his "fanciful consciousness physics" would have everything to do with "physics".

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:41:14 UTC No. 16592536

>>16592533
it is an electro-chemical activity. the chemicals facilitate the electric activity. like a car facilitates your movement. you can run you can skate you can bike you can take a car or you can be catapulted, all facilitate your movement, yet different.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:44:30 UTC No. 16592538

>>16592531
sorry, i was having a hard time interpreting what exactly you were trying to get at. i am indeed referring to "physics" as the abstract idea of some set of foundational rules, of which the standard model is a subset of that, and i'm supposing in that foundational ruleset, there exists rules that explain consciousness. but there is obviously *some* connection between the things that make up consciousness and the physics we see, since physical things seem to constrain consciousness, what isn't obvious is what the nature of that connection is and it certainly isn't obviously true that there is no consciousness whatsoever until a certain point of complexity that magically makes consciousness appear, despite people acting like that's obviously true in this thread

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:45:12 UTC No. 16592540

>>16592536
Thank you for the concession, that is exactly why I corrected you when you kept insisting electrical activity caused consciousness since the brain doesn't run on electricity, it is filled with chemical reactions that discharge ionic energy that can sometimes be detected by electronics like electrodes.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:45:49 UTC No. 16592541

>>16592534
No, he would have to say that consciousness has everything to do with the fanciful "consciousness physics" and nothing to do with (real) physics, because his claim is that consciousness has nothing to do with real physics.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:45:49 UTC No. 16592542

>>16592533
>>16592536
Reminder that chemical activity entails the firing of neurons which somehow shapes subjective experience which entails the perception of changing external conditions which entails a possibly change in emotional state which entails a change in the chemical activity THROUGH the electrical activity, therefore the two are mutually supporting. :^)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:46:54 UTC No. 16592543

>>16592541
>small IQ mistakes reality for current physical theory

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:47:46 UTC No. 16592544

>>16592532
>cannot be "simulated"
What can't be simulated aren't science. The name of the game is predict or bust. There is a reason "shut up and calculate" is the motto.
>some natural phenomenon that's having a say in everything, some quantum effect, which is a natural one, cannot be "simulated"
Yeah, that's called "God".

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:48:34 UTC No. 16592545

>>16592532
i'm not that anon, but i'll do you in even better: no specific chaotic system can be simulated over a meaningful time scale because an infinitesimal change in the starting state of the system causes an infinitely large divergence in its behavior, and you can't capture all aspects of a physical system in regular bits, nor can you do that with quantum bits (as a collection of quantum bits that has complete simulational parity would just be that thing itself)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:49:17 UTC No. 16592546

>>16592540
you cannot have consciousness without electric activity retard. if the chemicals are not going the right places they do not facilitate the electric activity. them going to the right places is also a matter of electric potential

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:51:49 UTC No. 16592548

>>16592544
simulation in this case implies replication. you can't digitally replicate natural phenomenons. you can create a description of them, not the actual phenomenon, which is a property of matter in this universe. like superconductivity. you can "simulate" it but it's not superconductivity on your digital bits, it's a story/representation/description of what superconductivity is, as a phenomenon in our universe.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:51:49 UTC No. 16592549

>>16592546
No, the reaction that results in energy that can be measured by electronics happens after the ions have already gone to the right places.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:53:03 UTC No. 16592551

>>16592545
you are talking abut being compute limited, I am talking about it being actually not possible, with all the compute

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:54:04 UTC No. 16592552

>>16592549
HOW do they go to the right places?>>16592551

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:54:51 UTC No. 16592553

>>16592546
By that logic, even gravity is electrical activity since when the gravitation bodies move, nearby electrical potential differentials can arbitrarily be measured.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:55:33 UTC No. 16592554

>>16592551 me
>>16592545
>chaotic
stochastic is not chaotic

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:55:51 UTC No. 16592555

>>16592552
Pressure and gravity.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:56:13 UTC No. 16592556

>>16592551
i am also talking about it being actually not possible even if you weren't compute limited because doing so requires infinite precision, the closest you can get is simulating a small subset of possible states over a short time frame, but it is the case that there are systems that simply cannot be fully simulated without just simulating the universe in its entirety, which isn't a simulation in any meaningful way

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:56:19 UTC No. 16592557

>>16592538
>it certainly isn't obviously true that there is no consciousness whatsoever until a certain point of complexity that magically makes consciousness appear, despite people acting like that's obviously true in this thread
No one actually said that it "magically" appears, they're saying it appears from physical processes. Perhaps like how solids and liquids arise from interactions between atoms.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:56:34 UTC No. 16592558

>>16592553
>>16592555
holy shit lol

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:59:48 UTC No. 16592561

>>16591182
if it doesn't exist there's not much of a mystery

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:00:28 UTC No. 16592562

>>16592556
you could "simulate" someone by fully replicating them, but my point is that even if you do that, you still cannot expect identical behavior with identical inputs, since they're differently affected by the environment, they'll have different internal activity (non-deterministic) which *could* result in different choices/behavior.
the issue I'm pointing out is you cannot use a non-deterministic system to guess what other non-deterministic systems will do, with 100% accuracy.
which was what OP was implying:
>>16590173
>if we could account for all factors, we could 100% predict someones behaviour

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:00:51 UTC No. 16592564

>>16592557
ok but you are implicitly saying that magic is involved because there's nothing about our present understanding of physics that explains the mechanisms of consciousness. in terms of your example, there's a clear connection between how solids and liquids arise from interactions given what we know of physics; the same can't be said for consciousness (and if it CAN be said, then say it, but you aren't going to be able to)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:01:54 UTC No. 16592565

>>16592558
Yes since your brain seems to be filled with shit I already assumed you were a shit worshiper, but concession accepted anyway.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:02:01 UTC No. 16592566

>>16592562
we're saying the same thing but in different ways, anon

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:03:21 UTC No. 16592567

>>16592564
>there's nothing about our present understanding of physics that explains the mechanisms of consciousness.
there's nothing put together in a form that explains it, yet, doesn't mean it's something which doesn't exist in our physics yet.
anon are you acting like a retard or do you honestly believe the bullshit you're saying?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:04:37 UTC No. 16592568

>>16592564
> the mechanisms of consciousness
The mechanisms would be the same as the mechanisms for everything else. At the level of the everyday life of biological creatures, that's mostly just electromagnetism.
>the same can't be said for consciousness
Do you also think the same can't be said about tables and chairs?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:05:32 UTC No. 16592569

>>16592567
>there's nothing put together in a form that explains it, yet,
then it is meaningless to say that the brain is explained by "chemistry" because there's nothing about what we know of about chemistry that explains the mechanisms of consciousness. thus, we reach the point made in my first post: >>16592428
the pseudointellectualism in this thread is absolute insanity

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:06:36 UTC No. 16592570

>>16592568
>The mechanisms would be the same as the mechanisms for everything else
So you legitimately think that your imagination is exactly the same as everyone else's reality?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:07:37 UTC No. 16592572

>>16592568
no, i think a lot of things about tables and chairs can be explained by electromagnetism. can you explain what it is about electromagnetism that explains consciousness? i've asked variants of this question and always receive eithe non-answers or no answer, if you want a hint at what the answer to this question is

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:09:24 UTC No. 16592574

Consciousness observes -> "No brain waves -> no consciousness"
Consciousness observes -> "chemicals - > brain waves"
Consciousness observes -> "atoms - > chemical reaction"

The least common denominator isn't brain waves or chemicals. Its consciousness.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:09:38 UTC No. 16592576

>>16592572
>i think a lot of things about tables and chairs can be explained by electromagnetism
So why do you think that? Can you actually explain it?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:10:14 UTC No. 16592578

>>16592569
>more reductio ad absurdum
this is your only strategy and it's a placeholder for your lack of intelligence. since you have no way of even getting any replies to your post, not using this technique, that tells everyone you KNOW you are a retard who cannot into certain things. we know you are a retard, you know you are a retard, yet here you are insisting in your idiocies.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:12:11 UTC No. 16592581

>>16592572
you will refuse to understand any explanation that doesn't fit your zealoted world view of things. at this point you might as well just own it. some simple probing shows you for who you are, abilities and beliefs.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:22:27 UTC No. 16592585

>>16592576
in detail? no, because i'm not a physicist. however i've seen enough evidence to believe that matter can stay arranged in the shape of a chair or table because electromagnetic laws allow matter to stay in shapes. we can use these laws to describe the behavior of the electrons that describe the behavior of collections of atoms that explain the preserved shape of chairs and tables. the same cannot be said for consciousness, however.
>>16592578
word salad isn't an argument, pseud
>>16592581
it's insane to say i'm zealoted when my expressed beliefs make LESS claims than people that insist that consciousness is explained by modern physics. anons here are incapable of answering a question because the question doesn't have an answer, but they can't admit that because then their worldview gets crumbled

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:23:28 UTC No. 16592586

>>16592585
>because the question doesn't have an answer
ever or yet?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:25:00 UTC No. 16592587

>>16592585
>no, because i'm not a physicist.
Do you think a physicist can explain chairs and tables in detail starting from electromagnetism?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:25:19 UTC No. 16592588

>>16592574
No, in your scenario, the least common denominator is something to observe that is external to consciousness.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:26:36 UTC No. 16592589

>>16592586
interesting question, we know consciousness exists so the laws that govern its existence is at least theoretically knowable because some aspect of the universe gives rise to it, but it's not clear to me, in my opinion, if we can actually learn what those rules are. i'd like to think the answer is yet, though

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:20 UTC No. 16592591

>>16592578
All this lashing out name calling coping just to basically say you don't even know how chemistry explains consciousness and definitely can't explain.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:25 UTC No. 16592592

>>16592588
There is no external. Its all consciousness. The subject and object differences is just a confusion.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:45 UTC No. 16592593

>>16592585
>my expressed beliefs
encode some very particular things anon. you do not have the freedom to see things for what they are, you are determined to fit everything into a quite particular story, isn't it?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:28:58 UTC No. 16592594

>>16592592
>is just a confusion.
prove it

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:29:03 UTC No. 16592595

>>16592585
So the fact that you can definitely measure background electrical signals and chemical makeup of a table or chair means that they must be conscious too since electricity+chemicals=consciousness?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:29:33 UTC No. 16592596

>>16592587
i guess it depends on what you mean by describing a chair "in detail", but yes i do think a physicist can explain why matter holds its shape, and i think they could calculate the various forces being enacted on different particles in a chair to demonstrate that it maintains stability as a structure. (idealistically, of course, i'm not sure if it's actually feasible to calculate this for EVERY atom of a chair given the number of atoms and calculations that'd have to be done, but i certainly think it's possible in principle)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:30:04 UTC No. 16592597

>>16592592
Then why did you say observe instead of introspect?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:30:08 UTC No. 16592598

>>16592591
>chemistry
see:
>>16592578
>>more reductio ad absurdum

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:31:09 UTC No. 16592599

>>16592595
>>more reductio ad absurdum
>>more reductio ad absurdum
>>more reductio ad absurdum
I said it's a placeholder for intellect

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:32:47 UTC No. 16592600

>>16592597
Word choices dont matter, what matters is there is conscious activity taking place and distinctions made about this->that. But at the end of it all, its just consciousness at the base. The observer -> observed, this-> that, etc, are just conscious categories

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:33:07 UTC No. 16592601

(You)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:33:59 UTC No. 16592602

>>16592595
yes, like i said in previous posts, there's no reason to believe that consciousness (understood as a minimal sensate experience, and not consciousness as a self with a sense of different properties) begins at some specific structure. there is either some aspect of consciousness that is tied into the present laws of physics that we don't know about, or there's some "field" of consciousness that gets interacted with at some point with physical laws, but right now there's no reason to believe that nor is there anything about known physical laws that would imply that. unironically the only other explanation is to assume that consciousness is entirely separated from matter

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:34:13 UTC No. 16592604

>>16592596
>i'm not sure if it's actually feasible to calculate this for EVERY atom of a chair
Of course it's not.
>but i certainly think it's possible in principle
Yes, and the same in principle reason is why you should think that consciousness is determined entirely by electromagnetism too, unless there's really good reason to think it can't.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:34:34 UTC No. 16592605

>>16590173
souls are sent to experience the world in things that can do so.
A human body can, a table can't.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:35:34 UTC No. 16592606

Where do I go if I want to discuss this subject with actually intelligent people, and not just autistic nonsentients with the shallowest and lowest-possible-effort takes on everything?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:37:01 UTC No. 16592607

>>16592602
>unironically the only other explanation is to assume that consciousness is entirely separated from matter

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:37:44 UTC No. 16592609

>>16592598
No, make an argument and I will consider it, spout random cliches without justification and get ridiculed for your retardation.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:38:48 UTC No. 16592610

>>16592604
except that nothing about electromagnetism describes consciousness. it describes the behavior of things that correlate with conscious experience, but that isn't the same thing as describing the mechanics of consciousness. there's no reason for a collection of things to suddenly start to have sensations unless sensations are either always present (which is not something described by current laws of electromagnetism) or there's something about specific sets of electromagnetic phenomena that then give rise to consciousness but independent of electromagnetism itself (there is no evidence for this)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:38:49 UTC No. 16592611

>>16592609
You two have committed a reductio ad gay sex of the entire debate. Find a room.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:38:51 UTC No. 16592612

>>16592605
told you there's "muh soul" anons in this bitch. intellectual gypsies, intellectual swindlers

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:39:03 UTC No. 16592613

>>16592599
So tables and chairs have intellect, but not consciousness since you can measure electrical signals and chemicals in them?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:39:49 UTC No. 16592614

>>16592607
to be clear, i'm not saying that's the case, i'm saying that either i'm right or you're engaging in magical thinking

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:40:05 UTC No. 16592615

>>16592600
>Word choices dont matter
So I can just disregard everything you are claiming since you are using words to make the claims and words don't matter?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:41:10 UTC No. 16592616

>>16592600
>just conscious categories
So it doesn't even make a difference to your argument if they are conscious categories or nonconscious categories since words don't matter?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:42:11 UTC No. 16592618

>>16592602
So why are you trying to explain yourself to other people instead of your chair and/or table?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:43:12 UTC No. 16592619

>>16592606
You can always go back.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:43:42 UTC No. 16592620

>>16592610
Why is your argument not applicable to chairs and tables? You could say that electromagnetism explains how atoms can be arranged in the shape of the chair and behave like a chair and so on, but electromagnetism never explains how a collection of things suddenly becomes a chair. Unless chairs are either always present and fundamental to the laws of physics, etc. etc.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:43:57 UTC No. 16592621

>>16592615
All words, concepts can be discarded with exception of consciousness.

Sum conscius, ergo sum

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:46:22 UTC No. 16592622

>>16592621
While you are very easy to disregard, it is not because words don't matter, it is because you don't even understand the concept of words which wouldn't be necessary if everything was just one consciousness like you claim.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:47:02 UTC No. 16592623

>>16592620
um, i guess it depends on how you define something to be a chair. i'm defining it based solely on shape and, i guess, the stability of the shape. the process of chairmaking is independent of a chair itself. at this point you're splitting hairs about the definition of a chair, though, and not about material properties of the world.
>>16592618
people complain when i sit on them because of how heavy my giant brain makes me, chairs do not

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:50:09 UTC No. 16592627

>>16592623
Then why have so many chairs creaked and broken under the strain of your dense tard ass?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:51:16 UTC No. 16592628

>if science cannot yet explain every single detail of it, it's based on magic and magic souls by default

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:52:18 UTC No. 16592629

>>16592627
again, it's due to my giant brain. keep up, fagoid

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:52:28 UTC No. 16592630

>>16592623
>i'm defining it based solely on shape and, i guess, the stability of the shape.
Those are just correlated with being a chair, you see. There's nothing about being in a shape or configuration that suddenly makes something go from being a non-chair to being a chair. It's still missing the mysterious chairness property.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:53:00 UTC No. 16592631

>>16592628
Define soul

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:53:37 UTC No. 16592632

>>16592629
Yea, but the point was that they do complain, just in a language than people.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:54:36 UTC No. 16592633

>>16592619
Hi, preddit. Go back where?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:57:55 UTC No. 16592634

>>16592630
chairness is an emergent property of the configuration of the atoms. atoms don't know what's happening beyond them, they do not know they are part of a chair

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:58:18 UTC No. 16592636

>>16592630
this is moving into a debate into philosophy rather than physics, which isn't really in the scope of the discussion of this thread imo. i'll save you time by just telling you upfront that i'm a platonist, so any chairness property, i believe, is going to granted due to the matter approximating the platonic chair

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:01:52 UTC No. 16592640

>>16592634
So chairness is as much of a mystery as consciousness, in your view.

>>16592636
I can't blame you. That's where platonism leads people. You don't just need to believe the chairness but also assholeness, dickness, etc.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:02:00 UTC No. 16592641

>>16592632
maybe if you're schizophrenic. this is why i drew a distinction between consiousness as an agent with experiences vs. consciousness as just a particular experience. i sincerely believe a chair fits the latter thing, it correlates to some kind of experience but not one that is processed by any 'thing', and certainly not an experience that can ever be had by an agent as the kinds of materials that allow the kind of structures necessary to create agency don't make for good chairs, unless you want a really sloppy chair experience

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:03:43 UTC No. 16592642

>>16592640
i'm quite happy with where platonism has led me, actually, because the alternatives i'm seeing in this thread are extremely grim

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:04:23 UTC No. 16592643

>>16592640
zero mystery, it's easily understandable in the case of the chair. any configuration of a broad range of atoms that result in a form that you can sit on.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:08:14 UTC No. 16592644

>>16592643
Then there's no mystery about consciousness either. It's just what you call the (electromagnetically driven) activity of a collection of atoms doing what you think conscious things do.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:14:22 UTC No. 16592649

>>16592644
except nothing about electromagnetism explains consciousness or predicts mechanisms of conscious behavior

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:16:05 UTC No. 16592650

>>16592633
Where you came from that was so much stimulating for your adhdtism.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:16:11 UTC No. 16592651

>>16592644
I cannot yet give a complete picture of what consciousness is because I don't yet know all the parts that make it up. I can see it exists and it's based on particle interactions, just like I can see a chair exists, and chairness is self-evident. I am sure of the chairness of the material and I can safely say it's based on the atoms forming it, in some configuration.
I can also say this about consciousness, not sure how, but it's clearly based on particles interacting in some ways, being in certain configurations. when ruining the structure the consciousness goes away.
if you ruin the chair the chairness goes away.
>>16592649
what?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:17:23 UTC No. 16592652

>>16592641
>but not one that is processed by any 'thing',
If it wasn't actively trying to process your fat retarded ass, it would not be screaming out in creaking pain before collapsing under the weight your water logged brain.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:19:03 UTC No. 16592653

>>16592642
Sure, its totally grim that some people don't think that chairs are just as conscious in their own chairy way as you are in your derpy way.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:21:14 UTC No. 16592655

>>16592651
>I can see it exists and it's based on particle interactions
>but it's clearly based on particles interacting in some ways, being in certain configurations
Ok, then you're agreeing with me and the claim in the OP that consciousness is no big mystery.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:22:18 UTC No. 16592656

>>16592651
nothing about electromagnetism lets you make any predictions about consciousness, even in principle. for instance, i can calculate the pressure of any given point in a chair using the laws of electromagnetism. there is nothing about consciousness that i can predict using such laws.
>>16592652
not an argument
>>16592653
not an agument

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:24:50 UTC No. 16592658

>>16592655
>is no big mystery.
but we don't yet understand how it happens, it is a mystery.
for example, you notice superconductivity. unexpected and weird. you do not know how it happens. is it no mystery? of course it's a fucking mystery. but it's clear you need a certain configuration with certain conditions needing to be met before the phenomenon emerges. not yet understanding how it happens doesn't mean magic and souls. but it's fascinating nonetheless.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:25:50 UTC No. 16592659

>>16592656
>nothing about electromagnetism lets you make any predictions about consciousness, even in principle. for instance, i can calculate the pressure of any given point in a chair using the laws of electromagnetism. there is nothing about consciousness that i can predict using such laws.
you keep insisting on these stupid takes.
here's one thing EM predicts, with no electric activity there is no consciousness, every single time.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:29:10 UTC No. 16592662

>>16592658
Sure, it would be nice to understand it in detail using fundamental physics. What I'm pushing back against is the mystery mongering and special pleading that is often done for consciousness.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:32:57 UTC No. 16592664

>>16592662
you will always have the two fanatical extremes, one calling for gods and magic and the complete and utter materialists completely unimpressed by anything, no matter how weird (like QM).
they'll always fight over everything, they have no choice.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:35:55 UTC No. 16592667

>>16592656
Wrong, the fact that the chair cries out with its creaking is definitely an argument that it is communicating to you that your ass is too fat for it and you are too stupid to understand.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:37:39 UTC No. 16592668

>>16592659
Wrong people have definitely had no measurable electrical activity, been declared dead by doctors, then been put in a body bag, then woke up trying to escape the body bag after a while. Same reason graves used to have bells.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:39:24 UTC No. 16592671

>>16592656
You didn't have an argument, you simply insisted that it was grim that some people don't think chairs are equal to them.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:40:40 UTC No. 16592674

>>16592656
>there is nothing about consciousness that i can predict using such laws.
have the right electric stimulus into a specific rat neural network and you can turn it gay.
have the right specific stimulus into a human brain and it can control a computer, or see something if blind. we KNOW information is encoded in electrical pulses. based on this knowledge they can make you see things (again, blind people start seeing something with electrodes in their brains).
I keep telling you that you are not intellectually honest, you keep exaggerating to the point of making absurd statements

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:41:33 UTC No. 16592675

>>16592664
I don't entirely disagree, my argument was with the other anon who thinks consciousness has to be fundamental to physics.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:41:42 UTC No. 16592677

>>16592668
>Same reason graves used to have bells.
yeah in the 1500's oscilloscopes weren't as sensitive and LNA's not as powerful. good point

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:42:47 UTC No. 16592678

>>16592675
panpsychists are pretty retarded yeah

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:44:45 UTC No. 16592680

>>16592659
this isn't a prediction because non-presence doesn't distinguish between different potential causes. a dry sidewalk means that there was no rain, but a wet sidewalk doesn't mean that there is rain. and, anyway, it's arguable whether or not a lack of consciousness is an 'experience' of consciousness, i don't consider the ability for a chair to not exist as a property of a chair, so i don't think you're actually predicting anything about consciousness.
>>16592667
i don't think a chair is communicating to me because chairs don't possess any sort of agency, retard

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:46:06 UTC No. 16592682

>>16592677
No, it still happens to this day, the older you get, the harder it gets to use electrodes and touch screens.
https://www.newsweek.com/miracle-moment-woman-pronounced-dead-suddenly-wakes-1800571
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-mistakenly-pronounced-dead-in-iowa-gasped-for-air-after-being-found-by-funeral-home-staff-report-says/
https://nypost.com/2023/02/05/woman-pronounced-dead-discovered-breathing-in-long-island-funeral-home/
There are dozens of stories like this all around the globe, even in well developed first world countries.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:46:55 UTC No. 16592686

>>16592680
>this isn't a prediction
yes it is. >>16592674 humans know how red is encoded in the information between eye and neurons. they can make you see red if they inject certain signal into your brain. we KNOW it has to do with electric activity, and we know lack of said activity is lack of experience or consciousness altogether. this is KNOWN, it's not a guess, it's used in science (Neuralink).

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:47:11 UTC No. 16592688

>>16592680
>chairs don't possess any sort of agency,
Except it clearly knows you are too fat and is clearly warning you with its creaking to stand up before it collapses.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:49:30 UTC No. 16592693

>>16592671
no, it's grim that people think "chemistry" explains consciousness, and then defend it with insane arguments while patting themselves on the back for being intelligent. it's grotesque, actually
>>16592674
ok but what is it about electromagnetism that can allow the sensation of faggotry to exist?
btw at no point has it ever been stated by me that physical things do not influence consciousness, it's just not clear what the nature of that influence is and this influence isn't captured by our present understanding of physics. i honestly do not understand how this is such an impossible concept for anons here to get

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:49:35 UTC No. 16592694

>>16592682
>the harder it gets to use electrodes
that doesn't mean people who seemingly lack brain activity actually lack brain activity. what I said implies you can perfectly detect it.
there's are areas of the brain associated with conscious activity, there's others which are associated with not conscious activity.
show someone exhibiting conscious activity with lack of any detected electric activity in their brain. if you cannot shut the fuck up.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:51:51 UTC No. 16592699

>>16592693
>at no point has it ever been stated by me
you'll always backtrack like the faggot that you are to the point where interlocutor lacks info at which point you'll turn from a weak faggot into a confident faggot, and just insist in whatever is left unexplained.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:51:51 UTC No. 16592700

>>16592686
okay but again there's nothing about electromagnetism that would predict that this structure or that will create the sensation of red. there isn't anything about electromagnetism that explains sensation, we just know that at least some electromagnetic things have sensations

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:53:11 UTC No. 16592702

>>16592700
think they can't make you feel pain with electrodes in your head? lol

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:54:36 UTC No. 16592704

>>16592699
i've been a confident faggot this entire time. (You) on the other hand, have been a whiny low IQ faggot this entire time because there's no objective reality to your universe
>>16592702
i think they would have to study things that feel pain in order to recreate it because there's nothing about known physical laws that allows us to sculpt specific sensations. retard.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:57:45 UTC No. 16592707

>>16592704
>because there's no objective reality to your universe
there's the zealot

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:57:50 UTC No. 16592708

>>16592694
>with lack of any detected electric activity in their brain. if you cannot shut the fuck up.
No, I can and did, then you just insisted that there must have been some undetectable dark electrical activity in the people who regained consciousness after days of having no detectable brain activity.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:59:01 UTC No. 16592710

>>16592707
still not an argument, subtard.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:59:53 UTC No. 16592711

>>16592708
no you didn't. I said consciousness without exhibiting any electrical activity in the part of the brain that is associated with conscious activity.
you were talking about unconscious people, that's something else you retard and it's only reinforcing my point but you don't even understand how isn't it lol

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:01:28 UTC No. 16592718

>>16592711
>you were talking about unconscious people,
No I was talking about people who had been measurable brain dead, then later became conscious.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:04:21 UTC No. 16592719

>>16592718
>>you were talking about unconscious people,
>No
>then later became conscious.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:14:04 UTC No. 16592729

>>16590173
Top kek! You really believe you figured consciousness? Wake the fuck up.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:15:34 UTC No. 16592731

>>16592729
it's all just electricity. open up a textbook dude.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:22:42 UTC No. 16592740

>>16592729
what consciousness is does not depend on what you think it is or what you read about what others think it is. you insisting has zero effect on what it is.
you either get it right, either get it wrong, that's all there is to it. you cannot choose what it is, and somehow make it so by insisting on it, reality doesn't work like that. the most you can do is coerce others to agree with you, but even that doesn't do fuck all to what consciousness really is.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:22:45 UTC No. 16592809

>>16592370
Holy smokes this thread has gotten off rails

Look man, I understand what you mean when you say "you can't be anyone but yourself." I also understand that genes contain information about your physical body, which may be a reason as to why life is subjective.

What I was asking people to convince me of is a bit trickier than that.
A thought experiment: let's consider two exact interior rooms on different sides of the planet. Then let's assume we have the tech and means to create two identical people: identical biologically and experientially. But they don't know about the other. I completely understand that this is headed towards fantastical and perhaps unscientific, but I urge you to at least entertain me for a second.

Put on person in each room and ask them to open their eyes on a cue, staring straight forward at a target for as long as possible. In that brief moment, who would your consciousness experience? Would each person experience just themselves locally? But each person is identical, and spatially from their pov also identical. All things considered, from both people's eyes, the experience, thoughts, memories, body, vision, feelings are exactly the same. Is it the "same" consciousness experiencing both of them? How does consciousness "know" it belongs to one person compared to another if all it relies on is the local information possessed by that body? What happens if you engineer identical local information (the thought experiment)?
If you can explain what might happen via your genes argument, then that would be enough to sway me.

As to what "moves", it's not your genes, but rather the apparent unique platform that supports the experience of life in the way we understand it. Analogous to closing this thread in chrome and opening it firefox, different experience of the same content, but the monitor never changed.

Call me an unscientific low IQ idiot, doesn't really bother me what you think I am

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:07:06 UTC No. 16593498

>>16592809
>But each person is identical
if you clone your brain state it's a coinflip for what you will experience next. one of (You) stays in original body and one (You) will be in the "new" one. this is not complicated it's quite mundane but fucks with intuition. you can only experience from one body at a time, and you are possible in parallel but you won't experience from more POVs just like identical twins don't experience from more POVs. but each one will have their own life.
https://youtu.be/XEUiqpYSe_I?t=3665
think of two genetically identical twins being born. no experience yet identical genes. same thing. but they'll diverge since the environment will affect them slightly differently, they do not occupy the same spot in space and time.
you can insist on asking whatever you are asking, but it's nonsense. you suppose you are something more than your body, which is an issue since you'd have to prove it before implying it's true.
>Call me an unscientific low IQ idiot, doesn't really bother me what you think I am
you can believe whatever you want anon, just don't have a meltdown when people tell you you're retarded for failing to understand some things. that's all. happens to me as well.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:11:21 UTC No. 16593512

>>16592809
>>16593498
there's also the thought experiment where you wouldn't even know you've been replaced with an identical clone while you were sleeping. which is quite revealing. both to our nature and both to the idiots insisting your clone is not you but someone "new" who "thinks it's you but isn't" lmao

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:14:00 UTC No. 16593684

>>16590177
An illusion to whom?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:16:01 UTC No. 16593691

>>16590177
>doesnt even really exist
>its just an illusion
how exactly would you describe the difference between consciousness being real and it being an illusion? do tell

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:50:23 UTC No. 16594040

>>16593498
So it makes sense that I wouldn't experience two POVs. I don't think it's impossible per se, but we only know right now that POV experience can only organically occur one body at a time...as far as I'm aware

But if I'm understanding you correctly, it's the idea that I'm experiencing this life called "all this" through the eyes of a brain that labels itself "me", combining those two into "my life", and that I'm experiencing this body instead of anyone else in the world because of random chance? This body's genes facilitates the "door" mentioned in your video. Walking through that door, turning around to look at the room number, what do I see? My body. It just so randomly happened that I walked through "my" door as I was born?

The reason "something" is projected through this body's eyes is completely random. A coin flip as you would call it? No matter what genes I had, as soon my brain was available, it was completely random chance that this is the body that life is projected through. Do I have that right?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 23:03:21 UTC No. 16594056

>>16594040
it's more like you cannot experience anything else than yourself, and every (functioning) body has a consciousness. that explains WHY you are asking the question.
the "why me" question fucks many people up. for example Musk thinks he's in a simulation. or some god. imagine being him contemplating the question lol.
>
The reason "something" is projected through this body's eyes is completely random.
probably. you're one possibility, out of many.
>It just so randomly happened that I walked through "my" door as I was born?
I suspect you're thinking you are something in your body, that existed before the body. that's...something else, I'm not into that shit. sorry.
>This body's genes facilitates the "door" mentioned in your video.
the video was a famous mathematician's take on what happens if you clone the observer. from observer's point of view what happens next is in (apparent) superposition. he'll either get out of room number 1 either 2. because both (You) versions will exist at the same time after the cloning procedure. either one of them will swear they're the original (You).

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:31:31 UTC No. 16594200

>>16594056
>it's more like you cannot experience anything else than yourself
This is the part that's fucking me up the most I think, because it's applicable to everyone. How can that phrase explain simultaneous experiences? How can something that seems so global (a something, experienced) appear so discrete, isolated, and consistent to the body that facilitates the projection onto this thing called a "life"?

>that's...something else, I'm not into that shit. sorry.
It may be the way I'm phrasing it. I don't think there are immaterial souls that inhabit bodies or whatever. Heck I don't even think that consciousness bears any influence on what the brain does, soul or not. The brain will do what the brain wants to do, whether the brain is experienced internally or externally. Consciousness just apparently grants access to the inner experience of a single person in this universe. And it apparently chooses people at random. It was probably random chance that (I'm) occupying this body. As opposed to someone else ±50 years from now.

I'm extrapolating here, but wouldn't that mean a life projection never ceases after death of the body? In the sense that the coin continues to be flipped until a heads comes up and this "life projection" now occupies another body at a different point in time? Why would "this" coin ever stop flipping, even after death?
Not saying you believe this, but finding where the line is.

I'm interested in continuing this conversation as long as this thread is alive, but if you'd rather save your breath, I'd be curious who or what you read/listened to that led you to your view

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 01:42:36 UTC No. 16594279

>>16594200
>>16594056
Just to be clear, when I say simultaneous experiences—

From my pov, this "life projection" seems to encompass "all this"
But if one person's life encompasses "all this", then how can there be another occupant that encompasses "all this"? How can multiple "all this"'s exist simultaneously?
Rather it seems like there's a central vertex "all this" and each person is an extension from this vertex; a wheel and spoke network of sorts. Or like, the universe is watching the same monitor and our brains act as polarizing lenses that only let a certain body's orientation through, the polarizing orientation apparently being randomized.

If this doesn't make sense, then skip it

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:44:45 UTC No. 16594494

Lets look at a simple device, a Seismograph.
Earth vibrates, inked needle makes a mark.

It is device that emits a form of knowledge, it is not self aware.

How about a auto-targeting stationary drone gun with Friend-or-Foe ID? In a crude sense it has a sense of self in that it actively defends a position and kills enemies. It is not conscious, but it is barely self-aware, however it will not defend itself if a Friend attacks.

The universe has a war of SENTIENT VERSUS NON-SENTIENT life. So what describes consciousness since non-sentient life can access data, read glyphs, reproduce, protect itself & others?

Simple, an emotional spectrum and recursive thought. Creativity is a bonus, but as you've seen, LLMs can do art, video, audio, and creation just fine. Emotions aren't just excitable noises,but valuation systems to protect or abandon. If you have no emotion, you value others less. But like any videogame subroutine, valuation can be easily simulated too. Here's an example.

Playing BALDERS GATE 2 with a longtime friend. I am constantly giving him any great weapons, jewels, armor, etc I find because a teammate that succeeds makes myself succeed (plus it's all 100% imaginary loot & imaginary gold on his home game system). Ergo, the gain I realize is time spent enjoying a videogame session with a friend. I also lose nothing and gain nothing in reality no matter his much imaginary videogame loot I realize in the videogame. So it's absolutely absurdly silly to hoard imaginary loot and imaginary wealth when it makes beating the videogame WAY EASIER.

But this is a cheaply programmable behavior.
GET LOOT.
DISTRIBUTE BEST LOOT TO WHOMEVER HELPS ME. GIVE ENDLESS GOLD IF IT MAKES ALLY STRONGER.
REPEAT.

No emotions required.
Which brings up valuation systems and morality, but those can be fine grain programmed into linguistics then functions. But sentients break rules on whims and gut instincts. It's a multi system process with interrupts and selfish gotchas.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 07:14:25 UTC No. 16594504

So lets cut to the root of SENTIENCE VERSUS NON-SENTIENCE.

READ ONLY BEHAVIOR.

What do you want with a perfect home cleaning robot? Absolute predictability. That way they don't kill you by deliberate or accidentally doing something stupid.

That doesn't guarantee non-sentients can be limited to nonadaptive existence. However, it narrows down what it designed to forever avoid.

By defining NON-SENTIENT creatures and devices you more easily define Sentience by default counterexample. A hydraulic wood splitting tool can easily split chunks of plastic or rocks, but these may damage it. It has a function, but not a soul.

A humanoid robot woodsman can examine trees, determine ideal choices and remain adaptable to new exceptions. If it's designed to avoid or remove termite infested trees, it can also adapt to avoid new tree diseases, bug infestations, poor quality wood, growing a list of iterated rules focused on wood harvesting and exceptions to those rules. Complex weather and fire risks add noise into the math. As a non-sentient device it can avoid animal infested logs, help on finding missing humans, pay attention for unmarked graves, replant seedlings. As the rulesets get longer, it becomes more difficult to operate efficiently. Sentience could arise or not. But you can clamp down on sentience by careful programming. The reason I bring up fractals and infinite iterated Identity Numbers is that consciousness exists past noise. It takes root in higher directional space math. All consciousness does. Any complex device that iterates inputs and outputs can approach consciousness if it has a stored knowledge base that experiences very mild noisy data glitches.

Cosmic Consciousnesses are imprinted upon space to give a distinct edge to sentient life emerging from non-sentient life. It's dangerous to have too much non-sentient life around.

Chemical Memory is more stable than electrochemical memory. You can impart a newborn lifeform complex adult chemical memory.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:24:30 UTC No. 16594753

>>16594200
>It was probably random chance that (I'm) occupying this body. As opposed to someone else ±50 years from now.
somebody is occupying any body. everyone occupied their body no matter when they lived. it is the body that summons consciousness, body is a possibility of consciousness.
>but wouldn't that mean a life projection never ceases after death of the body?
it ceases in that body but experience is tied to existence, so you cannot experience non-existence. this triggers some folks but whatever. we don't know if we continue existing after some arbitrary time, somehow, like getting restored in the future by future humans, gods, aliens, parallel universes (quantum immortality bit), at personal level/experience. just because we don't know what happens with the people who died doesn't mean they aren't experiencing something from their points of view, immediately after death.
say you were someone who died, if they get restored in 1 billion years in the future on some other planet (don't matter how), they'll immediately experience that after dying here, even if right now it seems like a long wait for them, since the 1 billion years would have to pass here in this universe, it would be an instant from their perspective, since they cannot experience time if they are not active here.
>Rather it seems like there's a central vertex "all this" and each person is an extension from this vertex;
one easy solution is that everyone is the same thing, in various instances. like all consciousness is just one, in various circumstances, with various genetics on various paths through space-time, at various levels of "consciousness", from animals to future ASI consciousness.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:00:16 UTC No. 16595079

Check Kant out and go from there.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:51:42 UTC No. 16595210

What examples have you seen of IDEALIZED non-sentient existence? A thing that may suffer, but appreciate it is suffering...

Mining robots, car driving robots, fast grown food sources, scenery creatures (things that can be eaten but are also pacified unaware living decoration to make an artificial setting be alive), teacher robots, soldier droids, extremely safe boring children's toys, and so on...

Mass produced, instant grown, cheap disposable, edible, things tasked with one or two simple duties. BULK DISPOSABLE NON-AWARE THINGS.

But like ants or locusts or any invasive pest, the non-sentients rapidly crowd out sentient life in the end. Their primary roles discontinued or obsolete, still doing or making things for customers that no longer exist.

Now maybe, the Cosmic Consciousness emitter arrays aren't tipping the favor of evolution into Sentience and are the equivalent scams of cryogenics or "name a discovered star in the sky" or "live forever as a transmitted entity to be decoded in some distant interesting civilization". But if it works, it works.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 03:24:01 UTC No. 16595889

consciousness evolved as a way to deal with deception in nature.
its simple

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 08:58:56 UTC No. 16596042

>>16594753
>it is the body that summons consciousness, body is a possibility of consciousness.
What about this: consciousness exists and body facilitates the life experienced? Consciousness is paper the body draws its experience on.

>you cannot experience non-existence.
I'm of the camp that says you can. Non-existence is just the experience of no-input, no-change, no-senses, no-thing, no-time. Akin to a jump cut in a movie. Death is just like cutting from one scene, but never seeing the next scene, continually in the "cut". At least that's how I see it, and it would work out as you outlined it —waking up 1 billion years would feel instantaneous. The experience "in the cut" would be perpetually unfamiliar because there's nothing to form a consistent and coherent self model...compared to the self model in the human brain

How can consciousness ever cease it's operation, when all that's happening is a change in content from something to nothing? In a region of space in our universe doesn't have massive objects to observe the effects of gravity, gravity doesn't magically evaporate out of the universe. It's still there. Is that what you meant by summon, in the same vein as how planets summon gravity?

I still don't understand... Even if I follow your logic of not experiencing non existence. As soon as my body stops summoning consciousness, why would this projection remain linked to my body? Sure when I wake up again my brain will be spouting "I'm still me!", but seems like it'd be complete random chance again that this life projection would occupy this body? Just the same of when this body was born. Consciousness bears no identity, the brain does, nor can it really hold onto information. Upon death, it is a return to experience no-identity and no imo
But, without a room number and a room key, how does it know what number your room was? How does the same life projection get summoned to the same body?

>everyone is the same thing
This is how I see it for the most part.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:01:39 UTC No. 16596045

>>16595889
then turbo-consciousness must be on the horizon considering the state of things

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:05:42 UTC No. 16596048

>>16596042
>Non-existence is just the experience of no-input, no-change, no-senses, no-thing, no-time.
but that's not a thing, we don't do highschool weed bullshit talk here. experiencing requires time, apart from spiritual brain rot. unless you have something to back your claims up it's pure bullshit.
> why would this projection remain linked to my body?
I'm done with this brain rot. fucking retards

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:57:34 UTC No. 16596352

>>16596045
some people hypothesize weve actually developed a higher state of consciousness compared to the start of homo sapiens for that very reason. deception is more important in society

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:38:49 UTC No. 16596481

>>16596352
>deception is more important in society
only when you breed cattle you're farming. since you need the retards to work for shit in return, you need deception. but things are changing

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:59:09 UTC No. 16596504

>>16596048
Consciousness is not a mystical thing that goes around doing stuff post death. How is my claim more mystical to your claim? Both lead to precisely the same observed behavior. When you shut off your TV, the screen is still there. Turn it back on, there is content. Even if you destroy the TV, its information still exists. Get that information back together and you have the TV again. You just call it the absence of consciousness bc from your pov, when the brain stops working, so does consciousness. I call it the experience of nothing.
All of your explanations are from an external observer of a first person concept; your explanations are automatically incomplete. That's why I'm confused.

I mean come on
>we don't know if we continue existing after some arbitrary time
>immediately experience that after dying here... it would be an instant from their perspective
>you suppose you are something more than your body... you'd have to prove it before implying it's true.
How are any of your claims true? There's no way to know that it's the same life projection of a guy's pov to an outside observer. The only reason its called the "same" is because of the brain, not because of consciousness. A guy will claim that the set of sensations he's experiencing (via the brain) gives the impression of the same life projection.
The apparent ownership over a life projection is facilitated by the brain's self-model. Upon death, the body cannot support the model, and that content stream stops (TV off)
What I've been saying is that, (from the source that you shared btw) when I turn that TV back on, it's a random chance that the TV show is the same. But what you're saying is that it will be the same show every time. It was random at first, but now you'll always occupy your body? A person will say "I'm still experiencing me" and you'll believe them at face value, calling it truth.
How is this so hard for you? All I had to do was alter one part of your logic for you to flip out I guess.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:05:15 UTC No. 16596509

>>16596504
>How are any of your claims true?
they are based on logic and observation.
>>16596504
>>we don't know if we continue existing after some arbitrary time
we don't know we cannot. if you scan someone's body after you put them to sleep (suppose you have the device), kill them, and then reassemble them, that someone will be back. from their point of view they fell asleep and woke up later after you reassembled them. this actually literally happened many times and keeps happening:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_hypothermic_circulatory_arrest
>>immediately experience that after dying here... it would be an instant from their perspective
many people under total anesthaesia report as not being aware any time passed, happens a lot for them to ask when the procedure will begin after waking up, in 10 hours or something, they weren't aware of anything. because their brain was on, thus no experience.
>>you suppose you are something more than your body... you'd have to prove it before implying it's true.
this is common sense in science.
I didn't read any of your retarded ramblings. >>>/lit/ or >>>/x/ or lay off the philosotard juice if you're going to post here.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:06:17 UTC No. 16596510

>>16596509
>because their brain was on
because their brain wasn't on