/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11621222
>>11621499
A brain still functions when someone is unconscious or otherwise loses consciousness, though, otherwise there wouldn't be dreams and you would need a ventilator to nap.

>the car can't drive itself
Self driving car, autonomous vehicles can
>Why would the body be able to drive itself?
Why would the consciousness be able to drive itself?

>When the soul/consciousness leaves the body, the body becomes dead.
Not there are plenty of disorders that take away a person's self awareness and environmental awareness and a person can live with dementia for years after their personality and awareness have been completely stripped from their minds.

>>11621162
Why don't science people just accept the existence of an alien entity called soul/consciousness living inside your body? I mean the car can't drive itself. Why would the body be able to drive itself? When the soul/consciousness leaves the body, the body becomes dead. God gave us consciousness and put it in our body. Anyone saying consciousness is just a process and not an entity that resides in the body is a fool.

>>11431173

Because as we advance further in technology we will eventually reach a point where materialism and non-materialism will converge repeatedly. For instance we have several threads a while back concerning artificial wombs. But rarely discuss what the philosophical fallout concerning the belief in "soul/ consciousness" would be. Both the natural womb and artificial womb would bring individuals to life. But what does that mean for ourselves when we can prove no functional difference from the two? We could assume that the soul/consciousness is a farce. But why would we spend hundreds of thousands of years convincing ourselves we had souls to begin with? Is it because our scope of observation was so limited that we couldn't see the process in true form thus derived an interpretation? Or is it because we desperately sought out an avenue to alleviate personal suffering even if only mentally. And we convinced ourselves well enough to develop long lasting religions and momentarily forget our raw origins?

What would it mean if the opposite happened though? That creating artificial wombs does not yield functional individuals like ourselves? Even after pain stakingly replicating every part of the woman's womb and fetal development process? Would we then have to acknowledge that souls/consciousness or some other essence is beyond our reach? That there is information we cannot take hold of because we operate as a sub-set in system that is the universe? Thus proving that a sub-set cannot properly assess the whole "set" it resides in?

Both results would require acknowledgment of views that transcends materialism as we currently know it.

>>11431205

Thanks for proving my original point that this discussion cannot happen.

Because the soul (consciousness) creates reality in this simulation. And God pulls the strings by setting up whatever he wants and making it look 'natural' by giving it a probability of having happened.

>>10512728
Dualism is the core on which western mind is familiar with. The alternatives are materialism, which is what western mind is trying and failing to explain what consciousness is in materialistic terms. The other alternative is monism that comes in few different varieties. The physicalist version is "all is physical matter, including mind/consciousness" and the spiritual/idealistic version which states all is soul/consciousness. Few more alternatives are neither physical nor consciousness are proper, but they are both part of a neutral substance that is monism, also known as "neutral monism." Finally, the Buddhist option is to discard any notion of substance "the thing" that makes the universe, and stick with neutral monism, but without all is neutral "the thing" substance and instead adopting a all have no substance to be called such(modern variation is called mereological nihilism).

>>10422227
>unironically thinking mind and soul (consciousness) are separate things
This is how idealistic, religious people cope.
Go praise Christ/Mohammed/Hindu shit and leave this board

>>10283333
beware bad english cus not native speaker.

There is no such thing. Lets say you blacked out last night after drinking an entire bottle of whiskey. You dont remember anything after taking the last cup. You wake up 10 am in your
bed. Cops come in at the morning arresting you as a suspect of murder. Turns out it was self-defense but you dont remember anything about it, and you would never hurt somebody no matter what because you appreciate life. Was your "soul/consciousness" still there when it happened? Were you truly conscious of your actions back then, even though you dont remember it?
I like to call it "thinking pattern". Even though if you were sober you would 99% not kill someone, that night your thinking pattern was definitely at work. You placed your own life first so you were not willing to die so easily. You were at a robot mode.

That's why I believe AI will never reach true consciousness. At it's peak it may only replicate thinking patterns from alive people, but never make their own. BTW Im not talking about machine-learning algorithms which are totally NOT TRUE AI. AI with "pre-rendered" thinking patterns may come with the same conclusion from a scientist but not with the hypothesis. It would take me too long to deeply explain this but im sure you can assume most of what i was going to say. If i had to cut it into fewer words, id say;

What would differentiate us humans from AI is that we are extremely random and also unpredictable to an extent. Everything influences us.

because it is the source of the soul/consciousness

>>10074746
So, basically the argument is:
There exists an immaterial soul (consciousness).
Therefore, there exists an immaterial soul (consciousness).

Because I say so....or something.

>>10024108
I have a master student who is utterly incapable of imagining anything. When you talk about concentrations, dilutions or enzymes, DNA /RNA whatever, she cannot picture how they interact or work. I need to put everything down on paper so she can see it, because imagining it is beyond her capabilities. She told me so directly and spontaneously "I cannot picture those things, how primers bind the target stands and the polymerase and so on. I just can't do such things, can you draw it?"

Based solely on this fact I know that she will probably fail. And that she has no soul/consciousness.

>the soul
>consciousness
>your appendix
>love
>dreams
>female cum

>>9284332
Animals definitely have soul/consciousness/mind, and have been known to express emotions outwardly. Dogs are a prime example of emotionally expressive animals. When you put dogs in an MRI and show them pictures of their owners, you see brain activation in regions analogous to the human brain regions associated with love. Similarly, dogs, dolphins and bonobos all exhibit aspects of altruism -- behaviors that are beneficial to other animals (even across species) with no immediate benefit to themselves. There is myriad evidence for animal intelligence, even if it doesn't necessarily reach human levels.

It doesn't get erased - it changes it's frequency and observes another stream from parallel reality. That's why sometimes in dreams you don't remember your waking life - the memories aren't there. That's also why sometimes in dreams you have vivid memories of parallel life which you are observing now. Depends how big the frequency shift is. If it's small one then you would remember you waking life.

You = observer of the stream of consciousness
Soul = consciousness + subconsciousness
Higher self = observer of both streams across the Absolute

Yes there are two observers within you. Subconsciousness has it's own stream, just like consciousness.

Now, this is obviously my opinion, as that is how the reality is revealing itself to me. YMMV

>>9238797
Of course it might not, but it may also exist. If you couldn't doubt God's existence, you would have no freedom of thought. Same principle with being able to act as you want.

Now killing someone might seems bad. Killing a million might be worse. But if every mind/soul/consciousness will come to live again, in another plane of existence, or live again infinite times, in infinite realities in infinite universes, what sense does it make to say that God is evil if every wrong is irrelevant in an eternal existence?

The problem of evil is fundamentally flawed because it assumes not only that there is evil, it defines evil and quantifies it. Being murdered is awful by a human perspective. So yes, there is suffering. Does that mean that the entirety of existence (that which may exist beyond comprehension) is immersed in in suffering?

Soul => Consciousness => Observation => Choice => Reality
We (thanks to quantum mechanics) are only recently understanding that observation changes what happens.

But I believe in God so I guess muh innate bias

I died once.

But there's fucking nothing. There is no freedom or enlightenment in death.

Stay alive as long as you possibly can anons. It's the only thing you can ever have. There's no gods, there's no afterlifes of any sort. There is no soul. Consciousness is chemistry. Your mind and body are a machine. Take care of them.

How big of a role do environmental factors play in terms of psychology, neurology and biological composition of humans and other animals? How much does our "free will"/soul/consciousness play a role in our biological composition and is our "free will"/consciousness just a product of the physical rules/influence of our environment?

The 'soul/consciousness' attached to your particles will leave your body an wont come back. You will be like those potato girls.

Your physical body will decompose but your spirit/soul/consciousness-energy will "jump" to the next dimensional plane of existence; as for what that looks like nobody knows.

Soul = consciousness

Consciousness does not exist. It is a modern version of an outdated concept: the soul. There is no correlate of consciousness in the physical world. We hold on to the concept because we still believe that there is some, "us" that exists independently of our physical bodies. When I say that consciousness does not exist, I am not talking about awareness, or perception, or experience itself. I am talking about the idea that our brain, "produces" something. And that that something is different than our bodies themselves.

In reality, there is only the body. The mind is tangential to that. Transhumanists and others believe that we eventually will be able to remove our consciousness from our bodies. I think this is nonsense. The process is a property of the medium, it can not be divorced. If I recreate the exact state of my digestive system in another person, it does not make it my digestion. The "our-ness" of our brains is more than the exact synaptic states of all the neurons, it is the neurons themselves. The only difference between the digestive tract and the brain, is that the brain is immensely more affected by existential circumstance than the digestive tract.

Neuroscientists and philosophers have searched a long time for consciousness, to no avail. The obvious answer is that it doesn't even exist. And why should it? Just because we imagine something doesn't mean it exists. In fact, I think the concept of soul/consciousness is so deeply ingrained in our understanding of the world it is difficult to see past.

>>7028094
>Hurr durr Humans only have evolved a MAGIC SOUL!
>Consciousness is a binary phenomenon you either have all of it or none of it.
>The human brain is not identical to an animal brain, therefor there's consciousness hidden in it despite being structurally similar to all other mammalian brains!
I honestly don't get it. Why is someone who thinks like this visiting a science board?

being alive means having a soul (consciousness)

>>6983580
>>6983579
in that case what do you think happens to our self/soul/consciousness?