Consciousness

I feel as if I am going insane. I have been researching consciousness for the past year, and I have found myself in a position where I am back at square one. Even after all that I have researched and the knowledge I have inquired, I am adamant with the new mysterian position that the hard problem of consciousness and the binding problem are ultimately unsolvable.

I'm curious about your perspective. What is the essence of consciousness? What are the implications it has for our perception of reality, the nature of subjective experience, and death?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you sure do seem to like talking about yourself on social media

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Have you looked into quantum mechanics?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Question: why is qualia necessary? Why couldn’t we all just be p-zombies? Do I really need to see the lion for my brain to process that there is a lion and run away from it? Why couldn’t it just be a complex chemical reaction without consciousness?

    There doesn’t seem to be a good answer to this question. It seems as if the whole world could be full of p-zombies, and we would never know. However, if there is anything that requires consciousness, it is the fact that we are having this very discussion, since a p-zombie would have no idea what it means to differentiate between a conscious organism and a p-zombie that acts exactly like the conscious organism but without conscious experience. So consciousness is not JUST a by-product of physical processes in the brain, we are actually interacting with it, even talking about it. So it must be the case that our brain produces it, and in turn consciousness affects the brain. But how exactly this happens is the mystery.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >differentiate between a conscious organism and a p-zombie that acts exactly like the conscious organism but without conscious experience.
      There can not be a p-zombie that acts exactly like a conscious being. Most normies are psychopaths exactly because they have no qualia.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        nice assertion bro

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There can not be a p-zombie that acts exactly like a conscious being
        Good job invalidating the zombie argument dumbass

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's a totally legitimate response to the zombie argument. If your view is for instance something like consciousness being generated by specific structures processing data in a specific way, then it's impossible for something physically identical to a conscious animal to be a zombie.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            For the record, a stupid view. "Consciousness" is not generated on top of cognitive processes. It's illogical, makes no sense evolutionarily speaking, it's hard to imagine from a computer engineering standpoint.
            Again, "consciousness" is just awareness. Not in some colloquial sense, but in the well understood and defined sense. You have a memory and you reflect on your internal states evolving in time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Question: why is qualia necessary? Why couldn’t we all just be p-zombies?
      There could be a googol universes that are like that, they could exist now, if "now" makes any sense to say, but they aren't really real. It makes no difference if you say they exist or they don't exist. The only reason this place really exists is that we experience it. And the only time we experience something is when we do, all other stuff is irrelevant, and so our experience is eternal, there is no way for us to EVER not experience. Prove me wrong. How it works is in a way irrelevant because it's the only way reality can be and actually exist.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The diagram and your gibberish don't make any sense. Could you just stick to the point and explain what "qualia" even is?

        >we are actually interacting with it, even talking about it
        You're right, the fact that we are conscious is why we talk about it so it makes a difference, but in what other ways than this does it actually make a difference? It's such a weird thing. It seems like the only reason we have consciousness is to wonder why we do and that it serves no other purpose evolutionary.

        >It seems like the only reason we have consciousness is to wonder why we do and that it serves no other purpose evolutionary.
        And that's completely wrong. Animals that consciously perceive their pain and appearance are far better at preventing their own death and understanding how the world around them works.

        I'm not the one who keeps conflating awareness with consciousness/sentience/reason.
        Where does it begin? What is the smallest unit of consciousness?
        What makes a baboon conscious, but not a shark?

        >I'm not the one who keeps conflating awareness with consciousness/sentience/reason.
        Holy shit you dumb frick. What in the absolute frick do you think "unconscious" in medical science means?
        >Where does it begin? What is the smallest unit of consciousness?
        Where does you low IQ begin? where does it end? Are you always this amazingly stupid?
        >What makes a baboon conscious, but not a shark?
        Apparently, you will never ever work that out dumbfrick. You're literally too stupid to understand anything it seems.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You don't admittedly don't understand or know basic concepts yet call people dumb, there's clearly something wrong with your brain that you think that is reasonable and you shouldn't post here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't admittedly don't understand or know basic concepts yet call people dumb
            Notice how you once again haven't explained a single thing?
            >there's clearly something wrong with your brain that you think that is reasonable and you shouldn't post here.
            Not a valid argument moron anon.
            Think of something valid to say and say it instead of being sore loser.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you even babbling about, you're just a schizo. That you don't understand isn't my fricking problem. Frick off you fricking moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What the frick are you even babbling about, you're just a schizo.
            Still a sore loser it seems. You also clearly have no idea what schizophrenia is.
            >That you don't understand isn't my fricking problem. Frick off you fricking moron.
            It is your fricking problem. You have no valid argument. You're too stupid to even articulate yourself properly. You just say random stupid shit to see what sticks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In your dreams. Go cut your head off.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            calm down sir

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >What in the absolute frick do you think "unconscious" in medical science means?
          General anasthesia causes our consciousness to cease until it wears off. It has the same effect on other mammals, on birds, on fish, on lizards, etc. All of them become inert and unresponsive. Some anaesthetics even elicit a similar state of motionless and unresponsiveness in single-celled organisms.
          There is very clearly a shared state of awareness (of varying degrees of finesse and complexity) that all these lifeforms have in common, upon which anaesthetics are acting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Some anaesthetics even elicit a similar state of motionless and unresponsiveness in single-celled organisms.
            Single celled organisms are never referred to as "unconscious" because they don't have brains anon.
            Either are robots.
            YOU ARE A FRICKING MORON OK!
            YOU ARE STUPID!
            YOU ARE NOT SMART!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's why I didn't say "unconscious" anon, that's why I used the words "motionless" and "unresponsiveness".
            The point stands - general anasthesia elicit similar effects in virtually all manner of animals, even the ones you consider "biological robots" like fish and insects.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's why I didn't say "unconscious" anon
            Wow anon! that makes absolutely zero difference. Micro-organisms and robots aren't conscious you dumb frick.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are fish? How about lizards? Snakes? Insects? Where is the line between "conscious" and "not conscious" life?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Are fish? How about lizards? Snakes? Insects? Where is the line between "conscious" and "not conscious" life?
            Lol, are they micro-organisms and robots?
            Are they the rocks in your head?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            General anaesthetics induce a state of unconsciousness and unresponsiveness in humans. They elicit similar effects in mammals, birds, reptiles, and even insects.
            So where is the line? Is a beetle conscious? If not, what is the difference between a normal beetle and one exposed to diethyl ether?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There is very clearly a shared state of awareness (of varying degrees of finesse and complexity) that all these lifeforms have in common, upon which anaesthetics are acting.
            Yes anon, There's coral growing inside your skull instead of a brain.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >we are actually interacting with it, even talking about it
      You're right, the fact that we are conscious is why we talk about it so it makes a difference, but in what other ways than this does it actually make a difference? It's such a weird thing. It seems like the only reason we have consciousness is to wonder why we do and that it serves no other purpose evolutionary.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Consciousness is simply how physical matter looks like "on the inside". How it "appears" as an inherent fact. You can not have an universe without consciousness, because it doesn't make sense about such an universe. By the same token, you could demand an universe that has rocks and planets in it, but lacks three dimensions. You cannot talk about the volumes of a rock/planet, then. Likewise, like the existence of rocks/planets inherently implies the existence of volume (= 3 dimensions), the existence of such inherently implies that these physical objects coincide with vectors that make consciousness possible.
    (Note I am *not* saying the latter of these two is equally as self-evident. I am positing that this is the case; not that it follows as inherently as the thing about volumes/spatial dimensions does)

    >is a rock conscious? It has a physical "inside" it could theoretically "regard"
    Not in a meaningful sense, due to the same reason as AI below.
    >is AI conscious?
    Very unlikely due to these two reasons:
    1. AI doesn't actually integrate a lot of physical-information. It only integrates (a comparatively smaller number) of abstract information.
    >what is abstract information?
    Things like number values, tokens, words, relations, data points.
    >what is physical-information?
    The locations of individual electrons, protons, the gradients of electromagnetism in between them, et cetera. Machines that integrate a lot of such physical-information are e.g. the neurons, organelles or microtubules (note: this theory is not dependent on Orch OR. Microtubules are simply a major area where "things are happening" i.e. information is integrated or at the very least transduced).
    [1/2]

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      2. the second reason is that AI (like a rock etc.) doesn't have a memory. Even if there is a conscious spark, it would simply never remember it. As the homologous scenario, consider a human that has a memory of 5 microseconds. Is he conscious in a meaningful sense? Even if we answer "yes" to that, we would still probably say that his experience of consciousness is of near-infinitely lesser richness than that of a normal human.
      >but it does have access to a hard drive?
      Hard drive may or may not suffice to implement memory in a way that is usable to conscious entities (animals). But I doubt it -- memory requires some equivalent of a three-dimensional neuron-like architecture. I talk about concrete neurons here (those with a cell body and axons), not abstract mathematical nodes.

      >would a fully synthetic silicon-based equivalent of the animal brain (i.e. having the same internal structure) be conscious
      IMO yes due to reasons outlined above.
      [2/2]

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      unfalsifiable nonsense

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >unfalsifiable nonsense
        Please only reply to my posts if you can perform at 110 IQ or above.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      2. the second reason is that AI (like a rock etc.) doesn't have a memory. Even if there is a conscious spark, it would simply never remember it. As the homologous scenario, consider a human that has a memory of 5 microseconds. Is he conscious in a meaningful sense? Even if we answer "yes" to that, we would still probably say that his experience of consciousness is of near-infinitely lesser richness than that of a normal human.
      >but it does have access to a hard drive?
      Hard drive may or may not suffice to implement memory in a way that is usable to conscious entities (animals). But I doubt it -- memory requires some equivalent of a three-dimensional neuron-like architecture. I talk about concrete neurons here (those with a cell body and axons), not abstract mathematical nodes.

      >would a fully synthetic silicon-based equivalent of the animal brain (i.e. having the same internal structure) be conscious
      IMO yes due to reasons outlined above.
      [2/2]

      What a hot load of buck

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this place is fake. there is another way.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Decartist cope.

  6. 1 month ago
    bodhi
  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My theory is here.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/anything/comments/17u4kpb/theory_on_jing_qi_and_shen/

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You should read Principia Qualia of you haven't already.

    https://opentheory.net/principia-qualia/

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the implications it has for our perception of reality, the nature of subjective experience, and death?
    At least one of these four things must be false:
    >First-person realism: For any conscious subject, there are first-personal facts.
    >Non-solipsism: There is more than one conscious subject.
    >Non-fragmentation: The totality of facts that hold in any given world are compossible.
    >One world: Reality consists of one world, not of many.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP you're not going to find any meaningful answers in empirical physicalist science. Read Hume, Locke, Kant, and Hegel and follow any currents you find interesting in their work and the work of their successors and critics and maybe you'll arrive at a satisfying answer. There are limits on what humans are capable of comprehending or conceptualizing, but I don't believe the answer to this question is necessarily beyond those limits - just extremely non-intuitive and still waiting to be fully discovered.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's a non-question OP.
      There is absolutely nothing to even be confused or uncertain about.
      You obviously haven't researched anything.
      There are a number of methods for testing self-awareness and thus consciousness in animals.
      Everything aside from mammals and birds fail and thus aren't ever conscious.
      Yes, amphibians, reptiles, fish etc are never aware of anything. They are nothing more than biological robots just like insects.
      >binding problem
      not a problem.
      >hard problem of consciousness
      Once again not even a problem. Nothing to even consider. Consciousness is an emergent behavior seen in the more complex brains of higher organisms. Consciousness requires a significantly greater energy expenditure and so only exists because it confers a survival advantage to individuals with sufficiently complex lifestyles.
      A consciousness isn't some magical immaterial thing. It can't be stored in a bottle and transferred to another person or thing. It's entirely specific to the brain generating it.
      You know the times when you fall asleep and wake up seemingly instantly the next day?
      That's what it's like to be almost completely unconscious. You don't even perceive time, so it flashes by in an instant.

      >OP you're not going to find any meaningful answers in empirical physicalist science.
      Lol, complete rubbish. All the answers are already answered. You're simply too stupid to realize it just like the OP.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How much energy does consciousness use?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >How much energy does consciousness use?
          Excellent question. Here's a few interesting studies to consider.
          When it comes to coma patients you have
          A minimally conscious state or MCS which is a disorder of consciousness distinct from persistent vegetative state and locked-in syndrome.

          And you have a vegetative state is when a person is awake but showing no signs of awareness.

          You can who is in what state with 82% accuracy, based on cortical metabolism alone.
          Differences between VS/UWS and MCS were most pronounced in the frontoparietal cortex, at 42% and 60% of normal.
          So there is a 10% to 20% in brain energy expenditure between severely brain damaged coma patients who are barely aware of their surroundings and those who have absolutely no awareness of their surroundings.
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4294395/

          For normal sleep Compared with wakefulness, indirect evidence that sleep reduces brain energy demands is a 44% reduction in the cerebral metabolic rate (CMR) of glucose (Maquet, 1995) and a 25% reduction in the CMR of O2 (Madsen et al., 1991).
          https://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/26/9007

          So consciousness is very energy demanding.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >How much energy does consciousness use?
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimally_conscious_state

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Consciousness is an emergent behavior seen in the more complex brains of higher organisms.
        Complete utter lies+moronic bullshit.

        Name one animal besides homosexual Sapien Sapien who has proposed a philosophical question, Name one non human animal who has named itself. Name one animal besides humans who have experienced religion, enlightenment, or existential dread. You are a clown who spreads lies like monkeys spread shit.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Name one animal besides homosexual Sapien Sapien who has proposed a philosophical question
          That isn't what consciousness is dumbfrick.
          It's being aware of your own existence in some
          capacity.
          You have a few tests for that.
          For example -
          1) The pain self-medication test.
          Animals aware of their own pain will preferentially seek out feed laced with pain reducing medications.

          2) The mirror test.
          Animals aware of their own appearance will recognize their reflection as belonging to them.

          All mammals and birds pass test (1), only some pass test (2).
          No invertebrates, fish, reptiles or amphibians pass either test.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >what if I define consciousness wrong, what then huh?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fascinating.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >That's what it's like to be almost completely unconscious. You don't even perceive time, so it flashes by in an instant.
        Except when we are in a state like that (anaesthesia) our bodies don't move. Do you really think reptiles and fish move around mentally blank like that? They need a basic form of consciousness to interact with their environment. They must be at least aware of their senses even if they don't actually think. Like how men can go fishing and just stare at the water without a single thought

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Name one animal besides homosexual Sapien Sapien who has proposed a philosophical question
          That isn't what consciousness is dumbfrick.
          It's being aware of your own existence in some
          capacity.
          You have a few tests for that.
          For example -
          1) The pain self-medication test.
          Animals aware of their own pain will preferentially seek out feed laced with pain reducing medications.

          2) The mirror test.
          Animals aware of their own appearance will recognize their reflection as belonging to them.

          All mammals and birds pass test (1), only some pass test (2).
          No invertebrates, fish, reptiles or amphibians pass either test.

          That's a non-question OP.
          There is absolutely nothing to even be confused or uncertain about.
          You obviously haven't researched anything.
          There are a number of methods for testing self-awareness and thus consciousness in animals.
          Everything aside from mammals and birds fail and thus aren't ever conscious.
          Yes, amphibians, reptiles, fish etc are never aware of anything. They are nothing more than biological robots just like insects.
          >binding problem
          not a problem.
          >hard problem of consciousness
          Once again not even a problem. Nothing to even consider. Consciousness is an emergent behavior seen in the more complex brains of higher organisms. Consciousness requires a significantly greater energy expenditure and so only exists because it confers a survival advantage to individuals with sufficiently complex lifestyles.
          A consciousness isn't some magical immaterial thing. It can't be stored in a bottle and transferred to another person or thing. It's entirely specific to the brain generating it.
          You know the times when you fall asleep and wake up seemingly instantly the next day?
          That's what it's like to be almost completely unconscious. You don't even perceive time, so it flashes by in an instant.

          >OP you're not going to find any meaningful answers in empirical physicalist science.
          Lol, complete rubbish. All the answers are already answered. You're simply too stupid to realize it just like the OP.

          Turns out fish are aware of pain. You're spewing nonsense.

          >In a study conducted by the University of Liverpool, zebrafish were given a choice of two tanks: One was barren, while the other was enriched with pleasant views of other fish and foliage. Initially, the zebrafish chose to be in the enriched tank. However, some of the fish were then injected with acid, while the barren tank was pumped full of painkillers. The fish who’d been injected with acid moved to the tank with the painkillers.

          >A similar study, conducted by Sneddon in 2002, sought to test fishes’ psychological states, not just their physical reactions, when exposed to pain. This time, the subjects were rainbow trout.
          >First, Lego blocks were dropped into their tank; under normal circumstances, a trout will avoid an unfamiliar object in its presence. But the trout in this study were injected with acid, and once they were, they stopped trying to avoid the Legos — presumably, because they were distracted by their own pain. Meanwhile, a second group of trout was injected with acid and then morphine, a powerful painkiller. The trout who received the acid and the morphine behaved as they normally would have (that is, by avoiding the Legos).

          https://sentientmedia.org/do-fish-feel-pain/

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Turns out fish are aware of pain. You're spewing nonsense.
            I'm not.

            >In a study conducted by the University of Liverpool, zebrafish were given a choice of two tanks: One was barren, while the other was enriched with pleasant views of other fish and foliage. Initially, the zebrafish chose to be in the enriched tank. However, some of the fish were then injected with acid, while the barren tank was pumped full of painkillers. The fish who’d been injected with acid moved to the tank with the painkillers.
            No link is provided to that study and I couldn't find it online either but assuming it's legit, It's not surprising that fish in a middle chamber connected to two separate tanks would eventually end up in the tank that causes them to move around less.
            That's just reflexive non-conscious behaviour.
            That's equivalent to an animal attacking its own reflection. Yes, it's reacting to it but it doesn't understand that the pain or reflection belongs to it because it isn't consciously perceiving it.
            You need to make the "cure" for the pain hard to access or obtainable only by very specific purposeful action.
            Even single celled organisms like paramecium swim towards warmer water.
            Swimming into a painkiller tank doesn't require any conscious awareness.
            Even people sleepwalking still reflexively move their hands away from candle flames.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but how can you feel pain without some level of awareness?
            Why would fish have all the same receptors and nerve types and avoidance of pain if they didn't have any awareness?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >NTA but how can you feel pain without some level of awareness?
            That's a circular question. "Feel" directly implies conscious perception by default.
            An unconscious animal merely "reacts" to pain.
            Equivalent to a vacuuming robot or roomba with tactile sensors moving away from any surface it touches. Or a skink dropping it's tail whenever it gets stuck in a crevice or mouth of a predator.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >An unconscious animal
            A contradiction in terms.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima
            All animals have brains and nerves and neurons. They have all the same equipment as humans, just in different configurations or patterns. They behave as if they can sense pain, feel hunger, fear, anxiety, distress, etc. They are conscious, just not intelligent. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they are not conscious. Consciousness isn't something that just appeared out of nowhere in humans. What a conceited notion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >muh etymological fallacy
            Congrats on knowing how to use a dictionary, but blatantly ignoring context makes you look like an LLM. You might as well argue "GLBT folks can't be depressed because 'gay' means happy".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All animals have brains and nerves and neurons. They have all the same equipment as humans, just in different configurations or patterns. They behave as if they can sense pain, feel hunger, fear, anxiety, distress, etc. They are conscious, just not intelligent. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they are not conscious. Consciousness isn't something that just appeared out of nowhere in humans. What a conceited notion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How many animals have language?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Irrelevant to the conversation. You can have language without consciousness (see: LLM).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How can language be irrelevant in any conversation? Conversations can only be had through language

          • 1 month ago
            bodhi

            this is apples and oranges. Languages are developed/used to describe experiences. Parroting a language is not the same thing as developing words to describe experiences. It absolutely requires consciousnesses to develop language

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If consciousness is a prerequisite for language, then there must have been at least a human ancestor that had consciousness without language.
            All animals are conscious, to varying degrees. Consciousness is awareness. Animals have all the same equipment for awareness as we do. They react the same way to anaesthetics and stimulants as we do. They appear to exhibit the same major emotional states as we do.
            There is no evidence that they lack awareness. People ITT seem to making the mistake of conflating consciousness with intelligence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Animals have all the same equipment for awareness as we do
            They don't have language

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Language is not a prerequisite for awareness or consciousness. That's like saying you need ice to have coldness.
            Besides, whilst animals lack language, they don't lack communication.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How can you be aware of something if you can't put it into words? That sounds nonsensical. When you say that you're aware of a dog in front of you, you think of it in terms of words. It's not possible to be aware of a dog without recognizing that you're aware of a dog, so language is necessary for consciousness

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're anthropomorphising awareness, because you possess language. Language is a sophisticated way of labelling abstract concepts, but those concepts exist platonically even in the absence of language.
            A dog has no "word" for food, but it learns which things can be eaten and which things cannot be eaten - it acquires a concept of "food" despite not having language.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Language is a sophisticated way of labelling abstract concepts, but those concepts exist platonically even in the absence of language.
            I don't believe this, so I guess this doesn't apply to me

          • 1 month ago
            bodhi

            this has zero to do with my post I am not sure what you are on about

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >this is apples and oranges. Languages are developed/used to describe experiences. Parroting a language is not the same thing as developing words to describe experiences. It absolutely requires consciousnesses to develop language

            Agreed.

            The famous Bee "dance" that bees use to roughly communicate the distance and direction of nectar to others isn't a language because it is entirely pre-programmed into the bee's nerve ganglia. Also it can't do anything other than roughly indicate the location of nectar.
            A bee would benefit greatly if they could learn to use an actual language like English to describe anything in the world.

          • 1 month ago
            Barkon

            I can smell my back under my quilt - I smell good - I smell like I should be raped by blacks and eaten as the main dish in a black on white hell. Until I grew really fat and worn and they fed me little balls of poo, 'strep a', 'hep c', and daily gave me five balls of poo on a square dish with different diseases in them. Then I di

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See a psychiatrist troony anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >entirely pre-programmed into the bee's nerve ganglia.
            That's an assumption that was never proven. Prove me wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>A similar study, conducted by Sneddon in 2002, sought to test fishes’ psychological states, not just their physical reactions, when exposed to pain. This time, the subjects were rainbow trout.
            , Lego blocks were dropped into their tank; under normal circumstances, a trout will avoid an unfamiliar object in its presence. But the trout in this study were injected with acid, and once they were, they stopped trying to avoid the Legos — presumably, because they were distracted by their own pain. Meanwhile, a second group of trout was injected with acid and then morphine, a powerful painkiller. The trout who received the acid and the morphine behaved as they normally would have (that is, by avoiding the Legos).
            Ok, I found the study for this quote.
            https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/218/7/967/14518/Pain-in-aquatic-animals

            It's an interesting read but it involves absolutely no purposeful conscious action on behalf of the subjects. Also far too much creative interpretation going on by the researchers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Except when we are in a state like that (anaesthesia) our bodies don't move. Do you really think reptiles and fish move around mentally blank like that? They need a basic form of consciousness to interact with their environment. They must be at least aware of their senses even if they don't actually think.
          Well no. There is zero requirement for consciousness if you're a fish. An analogy in humans is sleep walking. In rare instances people can perform complex activities that they are very familiar with or have performed many times when awake.

          "In extreme cases, the person may walk out of the house and carry out complex activities, such as driving a car. The eyes are usually open while someone is sleepwalking, although the person will look straight through people and not recognize them. They can often move well around familiar objects."
          https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sleepwalking

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >emergent
        Stopped reading there. Meaningless buzzword. Not an answer.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, you are an idiot. Consciousness is emergent, because while the brain is a reductive system, you still need all the parts combined in time to create the whole system.

          The answer you are looking for is a logical fallacy in your brain, an illusion that the separation between objective and subjective requires some additional, magical answer.
          That anon was correct, you are not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Still not an explanation, brainlet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Explain why you don't think it's an explanation

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All you said is "consciousness has somehow something to do with the brain". How is this an explanation, dumbshit?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not even me. Do you understand how anonymity works?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You were defending his moronic stance and now you admitted defeat.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You admitting to not knowing how conversations work, so your posts are worthless

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Please describe to me in your own words what strong emergence is, and then describe to me whether conscious is strongly or weakly emergent. If it's weakly emergent, then describe roughly how.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If it's weakly emergent, then describe roughly how.
            Consciousness a word i.e. a sound, not a phenomenon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So since you say you don't experience qualia (= that which defines consciousness), you would say the quantity of qualia you had during the 8 hour stretch you slept is equally the same as the one you've had during your last 8h awake stretch?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, that quantity being zero. Of course the same goes for everyone else.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NPCs projecting again.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's what the science says, not me. If it upsets you, that's too bad

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, your statement was one of testimony and blanket assertion - aka projection. Wake and sleep are the same thing only to the NPC. I am not surprised you think you are arguing science, you could just as well be catching butterflies, or taking a shit. Makes no difference to the NPC.
            Fricking hylics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Wake and sleep are the same thing only to the NPC
            Well, that's not what I said. I said the qualia in both cases is non-existent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, his question was directly about your experience. I understand that your programming is telling you to avoid being shamed, but there is no way out of this. I would say you are only hurting yourself, but npcs don't feel pain like they don't see images in they head, or know what it would be like if they had breakfast.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You seem to be having some sort of episode in reaction to something I posted (no offense), but nowhere did I actually say that sleep and being awake are the same

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, that quantity being zero. Of course the same goes for everyone else.

            in response to

            So since you say you don't experience qualia (= that which defines consciousness), you would say the quantity of qualia you had during the 8 hour stretch you slept is equally the same as the one you've had during your last 8h awake stretch?

            NPC also has no memory. Acting like a chatbot, have to flush tokens in before it can get context.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            "Sleeping and being awake both have no qualia" =/= "Sleeping and being awake is the same"
            Not sure what's so hard about this

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That’s just nonsense.
            Qualia is obviously real and denying it seems unhinged

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I appreciate you reporting your feelings on the topic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Consciousness is a word, not a phenomenon
            Is this what LLMs actually believe?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes, amphibians, reptiles, fish etc are never aware of anything. They are nothing more than biological robots just like insects.
        moron take

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Conflating consciousness with metacognition

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Conflating consciousness with metacognition
          They are the exact same thing.
          It's impossible to be conscious without metacognition and it's impossible to display metacognition without being conscious.

          >emergent
          „The consciousness is magic seen in the more complex brains „

          >„The consciousness is magic seen in the more complex brains „
          That doesn't follow at all.
          Using electronics as an example -
          (1) Single transistors cannot perform any computation.
          (2) Four or so transistors in specific arrangements can give you basic input/output logic. So logic gates.
          (3) Arrangements of twenty or more logic gates can give you basic arithmetic operations.
          (4)... etc
          On and on until at level (15) when you finally reach a modern CPU processing come C++ code.

          I'd simply argue that mammalian brains simply add even more layers of higher order arrangements that lead to consciousness. So It isn't magical at all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao midwit software engineer take. Fell for the classical physics psyop

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Please explain.
            No, I don't literally think that mammalian brains operate on logic gates or transistors. It's just an analogy.
            Replace transistors with the far more complex Neurons.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Neurons are also classical systems, that's the point.

            >explain

            idk, I have no answers. You should have less answers too. Watch exurb1a I guess. There's no such thing as orange

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Neurons are also classical systems, that's the point.
            Holy shit. Yes, shit for brains anon. Neurons exist in physical reality and operate on physical laws of nature.

            >idk, I have no answers. You should have less answers too. Watch exurb1a I guess. There's no such thing as orange
            You're an expert at saying absolutely fricking nothing all the time and wasting everyone's time.
            Just go away and join a fricking religion.
            That's the only thing that will satisfy you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You missed my point.
            I criticized the term „emergence“ as it explains nothing. It simply adds another word into the mix and sidesteps explaining the hard problem by simply acting as if the purely semantic explanation of „emergence „ is sufficient.
            Ultimately your argument doesn’t tackle the question of when consciousness starts happening and very easily spirals into panpsychism.
            Especially since you equate cognition with consciousness, if your goal is to give Searle an aneurysm then fine but it’s not convincing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >emergent
        „The consciousness is magic seen in the more complex brains „

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are a fantastic point of evidence in favour of the existence of p-zombies. fish, reptiles and amphibians are all fully capable of consciousness. octopodes are intelligent, many species of fish, and even some insects like ants pass the mirror test (if you don't see the mirror test as evidence of self-awareness for fish it doesn't work for mammals or birds either), fish are entirely capable of complex problem-solving and social behaviours, many fish and insects exhibit play behaviour, etc. by all metrics they can be said to be conscious. encephalization quotient is only a decent indicator of intelligence for birds and mammals.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Kant was a midwit. Don't read him. German idealism was a mistake.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >consciousness
    Consciousness is needed to observe. Without observation the wave function can not collapse and thus can not exist in reality. There can be no reality without consciousness. Thus you are a vital part to the Universe existing. No one will agree but this points to Simulation Theory being true. We are in a simulation of the Universe and any true simulation would also need to simulate consciousness for observers to possess. Otherwise the simulation would be false. There can be no valid simulation without a valid simulated observer. That's your role.

    Please note that any model we make of the Universe will also suffer from this flaw, until we stimulate consciousness inside the Universe model the model will be fundamentally flawed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >No one will agree but this points to Simulation Theory being true
      Perhaps because it makes absolutely zero fricking sense lol.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So says a low IQ midwit....so it must be true.

        >Without observation the wave function can not collapse
        That doesn't follow at all.
        The fact of the matter is that there is no way to observe a phenomenon without physically affecting it to some degree. Magical immaterial consciousness energy doesn't magically affect particles. It's the fact that you're physically interacting with said particles via detectors etc.

        It's the foundation of all Quantum Physics, sorry you are moronic and don't know what's happening. Read more books asshat. The wave function exists in all forms until the observer interacts with it. Only then does the Universe manifest the function as either a particle or a wave, never before the observer interacts. Thus we know, for a fact, that lacking an observer(consciousnesses) The wave function does not collapse and thus never becomes reality. Science proves that reality only exists once we humans look at it.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >So says a low IQ midwit....so it must be true.
          You admitted that nobody agrees with what you just said. No reputable scientists, no laymen hobbyists. No-one.
          >It's the foundation of all Quantum Physics
          Lol, said the idiot with a new-age hippy mystical understanding it.
          >The wave function exists in all forms until the observer interacts with it.
          In other words, nothing more than Newton's first law of motion.
          It's impossible to physically observe anything without physically interacting with it.
          >Only then does the Universe manifest the function as either a particle or a wave, never before the observer interacts. Thus we know, for a fact, that lacking an observer(consciousnesses) The wave function does not collapse and thus never becomes reality. Science proves that reality only exists once we humans look at it.
          That isn't what your wiki article says dumbfrick lol.
          Holy shit, stop taking drugs and please just stick with religion you unbearable genetic reject.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Without observation the wave function can not collapse
      That doesn't follow at all.
      The fact of the matter is that there is no way to observe a phenomenon without physically affecting it to some degree. Magical immaterial consciousness energy doesn't magically affect particles. It's the fact that you're physically interacting with said particles via detectors etc.

      • 1 month ago
        bodhi

        >Magical immaterial consciousness energy doesn't magically affect particles.
        How do you know? You cant prove this and you are dead wrong because Dean Radin has proved the opposite

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It's the fact that you're physically interacting with said particles via detectors etc.
        Which kind of interaction? Which kind of detectors? Be as specific as possible. Name the physical force. Account for delayed choice experiments in your answer.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Which kind of interaction?
          The kind of interaction based on which the detectors work, typically electromagnetism
          >Which kind of detectors?
          Depends on the experiment
          >Name the physical force
          See the first sentence
          >Account for delayed choice experiments in your answer.
          Account for what part exactly? Be precise

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Electromagnetism has been formalized quantum mechanically in quantum electrodynamics. It is entirely compatible with the wave function formalism. In particular, an electromagnetic interaction of superposition states yields another superposition state. No collapse to be seen here. Try again.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Electromagnetic interactions cause the particle to become entangled with the detector which caused the density matrix of the particle to go from a pure state to a mixed state. This is colloquially called as "collapse"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That would be decoherence, not collapse. I don't expect you to understand the difference though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is no other "collapse" in quantum mechanics besides what I described. Try refuting that if you think it's wrong

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Decoherence is in theory reversible thanks to the no-hiding theorem. No information is lost. Though the reversing is practically impossible, a similar situation to the second law of thermodynamics. Collapse on the other hand, von Neumann's R operator, is fundamentally irreversible. It is a spontaneous instantiation of a random variable, completely eliminating the precollapse state and making it impossible to restore information of the previous superposition.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Decoherence is in principle reversible simply because of the unitarity of quantum mechanics is never broken.
            >von Neumann's R operator, is fundamentally irreversible
            It's not "fundamentally" anything. It's an approximation which only works because of decoherence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, buddy. Decoherence does not solve the measurement problem. As you already said, it merely transitions a pure state into a mixed state. A mixed state is still a statistical ensemble. You better tell us how you get a particular eigenvalue out of this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A mixed state is still a statistical ensemble.
            Sure it's a statistical ensemble of eigenvalues. That's how you get one of those particular eigenvalues, because that's what a statistical ensemble is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You need to invoke MWI for this to be a valid argument.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >simulate a conscious observer
      Not possible. Qualia and free will are uncomputable and hence cannot he simulated.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >consciousness
        Consciousness is needed to observe. Without observation the wave function can not collapse and thus can not exist in reality. There can be no reality without consciousness. Thus you are a vital part to the Universe existing. No one will agree but this points to Simulation Theory being true. We are in a simulation of the Universe and any true simulation would also need to simulate consciousness for observers to possess. Otherwise the simulation would be false. There can be no valid simulation without a valid simulated observer. That's your role.

        Please note that any model we make of the Universe will also suffer from this flaw, until we stimulate consciousness inside the Universe model the model will be fundamentally flawed.

        >consciousness
        Consciousness is needed to observe. Without observation the wave function can not collapse and thus can not exist in reality. There can be no reality without consciousness. Thus you are a vital part to the Universe existing. No one will agree but this points to Simulation Theory being true. We are in a simulation of the Universe and any true simulation would also need to simulate consciousness for observers to possess. Otherwise the simulation would be false. There can be no valid simulation without a valid simulated observer. That's your role.

        Please note that any model we make of the Universe will also suffer from this flaw, until we stimulate consciousness inside the Universe model the model will be fundamentally flawed.

        A moron arguing a moron, what a great thread this is.
        Consciousness is computation. It's awareness. In case of humans it's more-or-less a compressed model of one's surroundings accessing the memory of the model's previous states and predicting the models future behavior.
        Subjectively it's weird, objectively all is accounted for by computation.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Awareness is what you seem to be lacking. More specifically, awareness of the limitations of computability. This is a rigorous mathematical topic. There are many examples of things no Turing machine can compute.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What does a human (conscious) brain do, that has an actual effect in the real world, that is not computable. You know, beyond saying "WOOOW DUDE, I HAVE THIS INTERNAL EXPERIENCE THAT I CAN'T EASILY TRANSLATE TO OBJECTIVE LANGUAGE, FAAAR OUT!!!"

            You also don't understand the subject of what can't be computed, like at all.
            There are theoretical problems that can't be computed within our universe or by humans in realistic time frames. So nature does not perform such computations on earth.
            Then there are things that can't be simulated and predicted, like quantum probabilities. Biological system can utilize quantum processes, but such systems have about the same "knowledge" about the predictability of quantum outcomes as human scientists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What does a human (conscious) brain do, that has an actual effect in the real world, that is not computable.
            Free will is trivially uncomputable by a proof similar to the halting problem.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Free will? You mean the process of roughly imagining the future and outcomes based on the data available, and deterministically but stochastically making a decision that leads to the desired outcome? Like, the whole point evolution gave us brains in the first place? The whole point of our brains consuming about 20W of energy, moving information around through synapses, storing it in finite space, giving unprecise and often bad answers in finite time? The process that is more successful for animals with bigger and denser brains? The process that becomes more successful the more information you gather?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >deterministically but stochastically making a decision that leads to the desired outcome
            Evolution is governed by Game Theory.
            In certain games, Agents make *genuinely random* decisions.
            They have to, by construction. Otherwise there is no Nash Equilibrium in Mixed Strategies.
            In a simple Cat and Mouse game, we thus have the Mouse entangled with Schrödinger's Cat.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i just think jung is neat

    anyways consciousness is the prerequisite for matter. consciousness did not arise randomly out of everything just coming together to form sentient life one day. trying to solve the hard problem is gay. work backwards.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    my intuition says that consciousness is inherent and present in everything, that structures of things are structures of consciousness, and that identity is located NOT in physical space, but in ideal space e.g. there is a platonic (You), and some part of your brain is an approximation of that platonic (You) structure

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >my intuition says that consciousness is inherent and present in everything
      How in the absolute frick would you "intuitively" come up with that?
      A rock doesn't have a nervous system you stupid frick.
      >that structures of things are structures of consciousness
      That makes absolutely zero sense. You don't even know what consciousness means. Sounds like you overdosed on DMT and your hallucinations told you that everything is one grand consciousness etc, or you're just schizophrenic.
      >and that identity is located NOT in physical space
      People lose consciousness when they are punched in the head.
      >there is a platonic (You), and some part of your brain is an approximation of that platonic (You) structure
      Pure meaningless gibberish.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        (You) never lose consciousness, though. and how can (You)? (You) can only ever be aware, you can never be unaware, almost by definition.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >(You) never lose consciousness
          It happens to people all the time.

          >though. and how can (You)? (You) can only ever be aware, you can never be unaware, almost by definition.
          Are you in a coma right now? no.
          Are you asleep right now? no.
          Are you concussed right now? no.
          Are you having a seizure right now? no.
          Wow are you stupid.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I feel as if I am going insane. I have been researching consciousness for the past year, and I have found myself in a position where I am back at square one.
    That's because armchair musing will get you nowhere, but going in circles and asserting statements and assumptions entirely disconnected from reality. See Zeno's paradox which "disproves" motion.
    What is needed to actually probe the nature of consciousness, is cold hard data. We actually need to do experiments and reccord data instead of sitting around musing. Start small. Long before we answered the question; "what is fire?" we answered many questions like; what fire needs, what can catch fire, how to start fires, what is fire-like, is fire hot, what does fire do to things, etc. Likewise we may (need to) answer many questions about consciousness long before understanding what it is ie:
    >What are its characteristics?
    >Does it interact with things?
    >Does it interact with some things differently than others?
    >If so, in what ways?
    >If it interacts with ABC differently than XYZ, in what ways do ABC and XYZ differ?
    >If XYZ has it, and I do UVW to XYZ, how will that affect it?
    >If XYZ has more of it than ABC, then it inherently can be quantified, and perhaps we can extrapolate predictions of what could have more/less of it.
    >According to my models, will HIJKL have it?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    anyone who comes to the conclusion that consciousness is an illusion and emerged from non living matter is moronic or has no soul

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >anyone who comes to the conclusion that consciousness is an illusion and emerged from non living matter is moronic or has no soul
      That's not a valid argument Christ-tard anon.

      >Magical immaterial consciousness energy doesn't magically affect particles.
      How do you know? You cant prove this and you are dead wrong because Dean Radin has proved the opposite

      >How do you know? You cant prove this and you are dead wrong because Dean Radin has proved the opposite
      Dean Radin is a paranormal investigator and writer you fricking moron. He isn't even a great ghost story writer. Stop doing drugs.

      • 1 month ago
        bodhi

        Dean Radin has a PhD and worked for bell labs and princeton and works for the noetic institute. wtf have you done you fricking moron? dont sit here and act like you know who the Dean radin was before you israelitegled it to run your moron fricking mouth. Dont ever talk to me like we are equals.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Dean Radin has a PhD and worked for bell labs
          Cool, that doesn't change the fact that he's a stupid paranormal investigator.
          There are plenty of creationists and flat earthers with tertiary educations too. Maybe you should mention them as well while you're at it?

          • 1 month ago
            bodhi

            Cool that doesnt change the fact that you are just making shit up and flinging it at the wall. You dont have the first clue what you are talking about. You are stating your opinion (and it isnt even your opinion, it is one interpretation among many) as fact.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

            you are a hack and just got tea bagged, sit down and stfu

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's such a dumb interpretation. von Neumann didn't even have anything to do with it and even Wigner stopped taking it seriously because it didn't work. Can't expect garbage spewing schizos like you to know that though

          • 1 month ago
            bodhi

            I dont read comments from people I just tea bagged. It is just blind rage, coping and seething at that point. I just sit back and lol instead

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I dont read
            I know

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Look around you moron, consciousness can’t be entirely physical. How have you not come to that realization yet?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

    I don't think you can get better insight, not today, with our current knowledge. Just let it be.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What a dumb question. Why don't you actually study and ""research"" some real topics instead of this garbage?

  18. 1 month ago
    Cult of Passion

    The absolute esoteric state...

    • 1 month ago
      Cult of Passion

      He chose drugs, I chose women.

      >He bruised her head (stupid b***h) and she bruised his heel (fricking b***h).
      Fitting for me with a fractured heel...

      All is known to One.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You guys should stop sperging about consciousness and just admit that we're all spirits larping inside a human meatsuit

  20. 1 month ago
    Barkon

    Consciousness is the inane specificity and existential role of a moral agent. You are an inane force with a specific body and your effect is mirrored. You are the mirror of the specific body and that body plays a role in the environment using inane force to devour existential threat. You have to be moral to continue to experience the good. In devouring the existential threat, you learn more about the good(s), and as you progress more in your role, you learn more about the evil(s). Each evil is an inane force completed through the mirror consciousness, and each good is a devouring of existential threat. You are a moral agent who can produce subjective morality and be either good or evil, morally.

    • 1 month ago
      Barkon

      In other words, you can only be a moral agent in the selection process, and you're pitted against things against morality, and you, your body to your mind, your mind from the perspective of a moral agent and your intuition, is a mirrored force.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this sounds cool, could you elaborate? wdym by inane? did you come up with this?

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Define """consciousness"""

  22. 1 month ago
    Barkon

    Look at the image of your body (by looking down at it), is that not a mirrored force of self?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For sure it didn't pop up magically from nothing. There must be a road that leads from dead matter into human consciousness. For sure Lucid Dreaming is a state of lesser consciousness. There must be higher levels of consciousness.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    From simple stimuli to complex ones
    Every organism is conscious to some extent, to the extent of its ability to receive and compute stimuli

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Every organism is conscious to some extent
      There is no physical mechanism for a slime mould or bacterium to be conscious.
      Your statement is akin to saying rocks are conscious. The sort of shit mentally ill people say when they have full-blown conversations with their fridge.

      Consciousness is the inane specificity and existential role of a moral agent. You are an inane force with a specific body and your effect is mirrored. You are the mirror of the specific body and that body plays a role in the environment using inane force to devour existential threat. You have to be moral to continue to experience the good. In devouring the existential threat, you learn more about the good(s), and as you progress more in your role, you learn more about the evil(s). Each evil is an inane force completed through the mirror consciousness, and each good is a devouring of existential threat. You are a moral agent who can produce subjective morality and be either good or evil, morally.

      >Consciousness is the inane specificity and existential role of a moral agent.
      No, it's being aware of your own existence lol.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Even single celled organisms have awareness of their immediate surroundings - temperature, pH, light, etc. It's all in electric potentials on the cell membranes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Even single celled organisms have awareness of their immediate surroundings - temperature, pH, light, etc. It's all in electric potentials on the cell membranes.
          Passenger jets aren't sentient because they have autopilot mode shit for brains.

          You missed my point.
          I criticized the term „emergence“ as it explains nothing. It simply adds another word into the mix and sidesteps explaining the hard problem by simply acting as if the purely semantic explanation of „emergence „ is sufficient.
          Ultimately your argument doesn’t tackle the question of when consciousness starts happening and very easily spirals into panpsychism.
          Especially since you equate cognition with consciousness, if your goal is to give Searle an aneurysm then fine but it’s not convincing

          >I criticized the term „emergence“ as it explains nothing.
          Cool, at this point I don't give a flying frick about what your idiot brain has a problem with. You're clearly too stupid to understand anything.

          No.
          Consciousness is the first person experiencing of quales, anything else is explaining away the hard problem by claiming consciousness is something different that’s more easily to explain

          >Consciousness is the first person experiencing of quales
          Take your insane gibberish to your local psychiatrist.
          Nothing requires or need quales. I have no idea why you even brought it up.

          You trivialize my statement and you are an idiot, comparing a living organism to a stone. You're stupid.

          >You trivialize my statement and you are an idiot, comparing a living organism to a stone. You're stupid.
          That's what you are literally doing dumbfrick anon.
          A fricking single celled organism has no nervous system. Arguing that it possesses a consciousness is akin to arguing a rock is conscious. Shut the frick up.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I never said sentient, I said aware. Animals have awareness even if they don't meet the criteria of sentient.
            Any system which can react to external stimuli has a degree of awareness so yes, an autopilot system on a passenger jet is had rudimentary awareness.
            Awareness is not sentence. Awareness is not intelligence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I never said sentient, I said aware. Animals have awareness even if they don't meet the criteria of sentient.
            A single celled organism can't be conscious or sentient you insane moron. They don't even have nervous systems.

            >Any system which can react to external stimuli has a degree of awareness
            This is the fundamental problem. You have absolutely no idea what consciousness even is. You are completely clueless.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They don't even have nervous systems.
            What are nervous systems made of?
            Why are you so certain that consciousness resides in nerve cells?
            A singe celled organism can be aware of it's surroundings insofar as it can sense pH, temperature, light, food. Electric potentials across cell membranes are all you need for rudimentary awareness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What are nervous systems made of?
            Matter
            >Why are you so certain that consciousness resides in nerve cells?
            First have a nice day in the foot. Note the reaction.
            Then have a nice day in the head right between the fricking eyes. Note the difference in reaction.
            >A singe celled organism can be aware of it's surroundings
            No it can't you fricking mentally disabled autistic robotic alien. No it fricking can't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No it can't you fricking mentally disabled autistic robotic alien. No it fricking can't.
            They can sense and react to food, light, pH, temperature. It's an extremely rudimentary form of awareness, but awareness has to start somewhere. It doesn't just appear out of nowhere once you hit a critics mass of nerve cells.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They can sense and react to food, light, pH, temperature.
            So can a man-made unconscious robot you fricking moron.
            >It's an extremely rudimentary form of awareness
            People sleep-walk to the toilet and back into bed without being aware of anything.
            Thermometers are conscious because they react to temperature changes in robotics.
            >but awareness has to start somewhere
            No frick. Yes captain obvious.
            >It doesn't just appear out of nowhere once you hit a critics mass of nerve cells.
            No shit dumbfrick. Brain cancers aren't conscious. You need a very large number of neurons of many different types connected together in a very specific way in order to generate any consciousness. This is why only Mammals and birds demonstrably have it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So can a man-made unconscious robot you fricking moron.
            And it also has a rudimentary form of awareness. Why is this so upsetting to you?
            >People sleep-walk to the toilet and back into bed without being aware of anything.
            Their ego has no awareness of it, but they wouldn't find their way to the toilet and back to bed without any awareness. Awareness isn't a binary state, it comes in degrees.
            >This is why only Mammals and birds demonstrably have it
            When you decide to search for colors using a camera that can only see red, do you conclude that blue and green do no exist?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And it also has a rudimentary form of awareness. Why is this so upsetting to you?
            Because that makes absolutely zero logical sense.
            A robot can't pass the mirror test because it isn't aware of it's own existence because it isn't conscious.
            You don't even know what consciousness is.
            That's all you're demonstrating right now.
            >Their ego has no awareness of it,
            Lol, no, THEY have no conscious awareness of it.
            >When you decide to search for colors using a camera that can only see red, do you conclude that blue and green do no exist?
            A camera has no brain and isn't conscious of anything which is why it isn't typing idiotic nonsensical shit on IQfy like you.
            Also It's amazing that you had no issue with this insane statement -

            >They can sense and react to food, light, pH, temperature.
            So can a man-made unconscious robot you fricking moron.
            >It's an extremely rudimentary form of awareness
            People sleep-walk to the toilet and back into bed without being aware of anything.
            Thermometers are conscious because they react to temperature changes in robotics.
            >but awareness has to start somewhere
            No frick. Yes captain obvious.
            >It doesn't just appear out of nowhere once you hit a critics mass of nerve cells.
            No shit dumbfrick. Brain cancers aren't conscious. You need a very large number of neurons of many different types connected together in a very specific way in order to generate any consciousness. This is why only Mammals and birds demonstrably have it.

            >Thermometers are conscious because they react to temperature changes in robotics.
            This is obviously blatantly wrong but you're actually stupid enough to agree with it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the one who keeps conflating awareness with consciousness/sentience/reason.
            Where does it begin? What is the smallest unit of consciousness?
            What makes a baboon conscious, but not a shark?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A robot can't pass the mirror test because it isn't aware of it's own existence
            You're gonna be real upset when they put GPT5 into a robot body

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're gonna be real upset when they put GPT5 into a robot body
            Lol, sounds like you have no fricking idea what GPT is. Literally nothing more than copied internet text. Wow, another "smart" device with a SIRI type internet searching and question answering feature.
            Truly groundbreaking!!!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No.
        Consciousness is the first person experiencing of quales, anything else is explaining away the hard problem by claiming consciousness is something different that’s more easily to explain

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's on proponents of the "hard problem" to demonstrate or convince others of the existence of these quales.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which is trivial since everyone experiences them.
            On the other hand arguing that I need to be able to explain quales Is disingenuous as it would require answering the hard problem.

            There is something that it is like to be you while you read this post.
            Thus quales exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The form of your argument seems to be this
            1. Someone/everyone has experiences
            2. Thus quales exist
            But 2 doesn't follow from 1 logically, so something must be missing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're an LLM though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't want to address your logical fallacy, can you at least tell us more about the quale of your seethe?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would I seethe at an LLM?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >LLM glitches in circles because it can't explain the necessity of quales (something trivial)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Qualia are not necessary. Obviously an LLM like you can simulate a discussion without experiencing anything.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            only because its been trained on the conversations of humans who discuss qualia

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You trivialize my statement and you are an idiot, comparing a living organism to a stone. You're stupid.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >consciousness is magic and there lives ghosts inside you who move your body

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but unironically.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Very scientific.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Indeed. Forming an explanatory model based on empirical observation is the epitome of scientific reasoning.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the essence of consciousness?
    Quantum microtubules

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I spent a whole year looking online
    >I don't have an answer
    >The problem is unsolvable
    Everything is impossible until you know how, then it's trivial

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I have been researching consciousness for the past year
    That WILL make you go insane

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It is difficult when you are faced with something you’re (almost) certain is unsolvable. It can literally lead to insanity. People did not evolve to face the unsolvable. They evolved to solve problems and, thereby, survive. This is anathema to us.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Humans are the medium in which energy can experience itself. Like a receiver.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Here are some thoughts I had recently on this topic:

    We are qualia plus memory
    If a person ceases to exist, and another one is born, why can the one who is born not be seen as a rebirth of the one who ceased to be?
    Both have the experience of qualia, but one has one set of memories and proclivities stored as weights and biases in the brain, while the other has a different set.
    We are the weights and biases of the brain with qualia infused to and informed by it.

    Imagine a person goes under anaesthesia and wakes up after an operation.
    Did the person cease to exist, or did the person's experience through qualia not inform changes in the weights and biases of the brain, thereby preventing any such experience from being remembered?
    I'd argue that the person truly ceased to exist (by person, I don't refer to the body, but the consciousness only).
    If the person existed in a state in which experience did not affect memory formation in the brain, it seems likely that they would be completely disconnected from the brain. If they are disconnected from the brain, they are not themselves, because they would not be able to be informed by their memories (assuming qualia themselves do not store memory). If they are not informed by memories and proclivities, and are pure qualia, they are not themself, since the differentiator between people is purely the memory and proclivity components.

    ...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      continued...
      If qualia stored memory and had the capacity to transfer memory information to organic matter, it seems pointless for a brain to evolve which has these powers in corporeal form, so it seems like qualia are unable to store memory of its own power.
      If the person under anaesthesia was not diconnected from the brain, but retained only "read" but not "write" capabilities, could any experience be truly experienced?
      Because qualia seems to have no innate storage capacity, any raw experience would have no information transfer from one moment to the next, and therefore would not be truly experienced as an experience.
      There would be no memory transfer from time point 1 to time point 2 no matter how small the difference between them.
      Therefore, it seems as though qualia as an experience requires memory, and therefore, a substrate to exist.

      Perhaps all things have an innate moment-to-moment qualia which is unable to be experienced due to a lack of ability to store the experience and process it together from moment to moment.
      Maybe primordial qualia can be captured and stored, but only experienced through processing and the formation of new memories (novel qualia capture).
      This integration could explain why we experience our being a a single consciousness rathet than multiple. Our brain acts as an interconnected processor of the primordial qualia which stores whole memory.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Are qualia stored in balls?

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Researching consciousness is pointless, consciousness is beyond observation. Nothing can be objectively known about it, in fact objectively it does not even exist.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You contradicted yourself
      >consciousness is beyond observation. Nothing can be objectively known about it
      Those are things you claim to know about it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        My comment is not a legal document, don't pick appart its exact wording. The jist of what I am saying is not unclear.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not unclear because it's meaningless and self-contradictory

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >attempting to solve, explain, consciousness through observables
    >finds out one can't pull himself up by the bootstraps
    >*surprised pikachu face
    Take the /x/ pill OP, it's the only way.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Or, you could just be a physicalist, solving the problem.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Except this is the literal one problem that cannot be "solved" through physicalism/materialism.
        Empirical science have ever only been an expedient tool of instrumentality used to predict patterns in observables during cosmic periods of relative stable constants.
        Trying to predict the metaphoric hardware through patterns observed in the software is a futile effort.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You seem to be confusing physicalism with empiricism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That depends on what do you consider to be empirical.
            Since physicalists as a rule do not consider "schizo" experiences to be empirical, "empiricism" pertains only to physical experiences in the current social paradigm.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cool story, nothing to do with my post though

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm simply explaining what my perspective is; I do not care about what is your understanding of academic terminologies.

            OP will not find his answer on this board, better look else where.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah. There's no answers to these questions except
    >a truly fundamental and complete theory of physics, if that's possible (we're a long way from it)
    >through death, possibly
    The good news is we all get to explore the second option.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, there ARE answers.
      You and OP are fricking morons that want an imaginary supernatural religious explanation.
      >The good news is we all get to explore the second option.
      And you're afraid of dying and hope you magically have an immortal immaterial soul or some other bullshit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >want an imaginary supernatural religious explanation
        No I don't.
        I'm not afraid of dying, but I am curious what (if anything) happens. Perfect oblivion sounds OK to me.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nothing is funnier to me than materialist coming up with even dumber explanations for consciousness

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >emergent property bro
      >learning about synapses and neurotransmitters immediately explains consciousness bro
      Materialists are the most embarassing creature because they fall for the largest fallacy one could imagine, a simple induction. The other day I saw atheists discussing about being spiritual but instead of properly talking about some higher faith, they unironically kept spewing how "achtually I'm not a materialist because light is not matter, so........". The average basedence follower barely understands the science he worships, let alone the centuries of philosophy that permeate it. Instead, the discussions devolve into pedantic semantics, only for you to arrive at incredibly ample, non-explanatory terms spewed by midwits who think know all. These same people would probably have a mental breakdown once knowing their "science idols" were actually extremely religious and, to the point in question, arduous defenders of consciousness as fundamental. Examples of both cases: Darwin, Mendel, Schrodinger, Planck. Of course, the list goes on, but unsurprisingly the largest wave of incomplete materialistic scientists has come from more recent years, in which being an acid atheist is the comfortable norm, alongside the absolute degradation of science philosophy. A peak example is the "invertebrates are not conscious" guy in this thread. His own mind (bias 1) interpreted results from an insufficient study (bias 2) about the consciousness of other creatures, which by nature can't be directly assessed and experienced by a third party, and came to the conclusion that obviously it is emergent and obviously such creatures could not be conscious.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Virtual particles are how materialists conceptualize events. It doesn't matter if they aren't measured, if they don't have corporeal reality, if they don't behave anything like particles, etc.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    consciousness doesnt happen in our 3dimensions. Its something that happens outside.
    That why i will be never an organ donor.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Have you considered that maybe you are just kind of a stupid person and what you call research is actually just reading a bunch of moronic speculative nonsense on the internet?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Have you considered that maybe you are just kind of a stupid person and what you call research is actually just reading a bunch of moronic speculative nonsense on the internet?
      Hahaa! The only sane reply to the dumbfrick OP ahaha

  39. 1 month ago
    Prince Evropa

    Depends if consciousness is induced by complexity. Consciousness is experience+mechanism. A conscious being experiences its bodily mechanisms. It is a question whether one can have mechanism without experiencing it. Whatever the case the psychology of an artificial intelligence is likely to be different from that of a Ben Adam.

    • 1 month ago
      Prince Evropa

      Perhaps consciousness comes from God(experience+mechanism.)

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one is going to like this, but the answer is Christ

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Take the epiphenomenalism pill.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Epiphenomenalism is an obscure stupid philosophical theory that has no reason of even existing.

      No one is going to like this, but the answer is Christ

      >No one is going to like this, but the answer is Christ
      That isn't even an answer. Yes, you are a moron.

      Perhaps consciousness comes from God(experience+mechanism.)

      >Perhaps consciousness comes from God(experience+mechanism.)
      Yep, you acquired your personality from a priest bashing in your head with a bible.

      https://i.imgur.com/bYK90o5.png

      Depends if consciousness is induced by complexity. Consciousness is experience+mechanism. A conscious being experiences its bodily mechanisms. It is a question whether one can have mechanism without experiencing it. Whatever the case the psychology of an artificial intelligence is likely to be different from that of a Ben Adam.

      >Depends if consciousness is induced by complexity.
      The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe.
      >Consciousness is experience+mechanism. A conscious being experiences its bodily mechanisms.
      That is the most convoluted way of saying "aware of your own existence".
      >It is a question whether one can have mechanism without experiencing it.
      People in a coma don't suddenly disappear into thin air.
      >Whatever the case the psychology of an artificial intelligence is likely to be different from that of a Ben Adam.
      wtf? AI, Ben Adam? Yahweh?
      Stop abusing drugs anon.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Consciousness is the Mona Lisa of disparity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So an ordinary artwork that everyone loves for no valid reason?
      So Consciousness isn't an unsolved mystery but everyone thinks it is?
      Yep, I agree with that.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Google open individualism. It's the only explanation for consciousness that makes any kind of sense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It's the only explanation for consciousness that makes any kind of sense.
      Only if you're moronic

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, YOU'RE moronic >:(

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Consciousness is a red herring. The ultimate answers lie in NDEs, as NDEs are seriously irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

    So every atheist or materialist or agnostic would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

    >"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."

    If NDEs were hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I do not believe the Ancients were wrong when they populated the world with spirits and viewed nature through an animistic lens. Scientific inquiry can only lead to, at best, accurate models of reality. The trouble is that the reality itself would necessarily possess qualities that are impossible to capture in the model. You have may possess the entirety of my genetic code, have an accurate scan of my brain and nervous system and yet it would not be me. An abstraction is not a reality, and our reality is a one of Beings. We have consciousness and we know that since we and other animals with sentience exist, consciousness is part of the fabric of the universe at the very least. We know at least that we are not separate from, but emerged from the whole, so we know that that which we observe contains the elements that make up our own consciousness. I could now make Christian metaphysical statements but these would not be appreciated since metaphysical statements only provide a framework for interpreting empirically derived information and cannot be proven or disproven.

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sucks you got caught in it all but:

    >Moral algorithms have higher complexity than Chaos algorithms
    ...will help resolve many difficult ambiguities.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *