/sci/ - Science & Math

Define consciousness

>>2922681

Free will. Thoughts. Emotions. Things that distinguish us from rocks.

>>2922705

Animals have all those things

>>2922671
I believe it is the same state as before you were born.

>citation needed

>>2922709

Rocks are not animals

>>2922717

And?

consciousness is merely a manifestation of electrical activity in your brain. when the electrical activity ceases, "consciousness" ceases.

>>2922705

How do you know rocks don't have all those things?

Consciousness only exists because all of the parts of the brain, that allow it to exist, are in working order. Remove a major element and the whole thing goes away.

Think about if you ripped apart a water molecule. You know that the hydrogen molecules and oxygen combine together to make the water, but in their base forms they're purely that: base forms.

So you'd have no concept of consciousness, which is obviously another concept that is hard for people to wrap their brains around. That's why it's best not to worry too much about it because you'll probably get a brain aneurysm from thinking to deeply, lol.

>>2922722

So consciousness is a really good epileptic seizure?

Consciousness is a process. When you die, the process stops.

>>2922744
no you're an idiot

It's possible your consciousness survives death in some form, although this is not as of yet provable with current science.

>>2922754
yes, if you redefine consciousness and death it is possible

>>2922754

[citation needed]

And besides, death IS The stopping of biological functions in the brain. god your fucking stupid

>>2922761
>god your fucking stupid
>your
>stupid
>your stupid

>>2922770

>>2922770

>makes bullshit assertion
>gets called on it
>nitpicks grammar
>yup, you're fucking stupid.

if u believe that a 'consciousness' can exist before the conscious being that has it.. then it can exist after as well.. mm.. k?

OP here, thank you for the insight, sirs.

>>2922778
consciousness, like i said, is a complex manifestation of electrical activity in the brain. if the activity ceases, consciousness ceases. that's it. it doesn't go on.

>>2922761

I'm saying theoretically, not definitely. Although if consciousness ends on death, it would suck. Imagine that you can't see, hear, or feel anything and you think to yourself "This is it? Well, this stinks." And then you just sit twiddling your thumbs in an inky black void for eternity bored as hell.

>>2922816

Consciousness is a byproduct of brainpower. Death is the end of biological functions in the brain. Those two are one in the same. You cant have death without the end of biological functions in the brain stopping.

>>2922822

I'm just saying that it sounds like an awfully boring afterlife. Even being tormented in hell forever would be more exciting. At least you'd meet interesting people.

>>2922832
there is no afterlife. you don't think. you don't know anything. there is no consciousness. there is no thumb-twiddling. you're dead. that's it.

>>2922832
go hit yourself over the head with a hammer until you knock yourself out
once you wake up, you tell me that oooh, that was a boring knocking out life and that you remember it
(you won't be able to because you were unconscious), that is what death is like. You do not experience it because you are dead.

>>2922816
You wont be bored trust me. Because 'you' wont be. Theres nothing.

If you want to know what thats like think back to before you were born. Can't remember feeling or thinking then?

Well its just like that.

>>2922845

I once had a guy on /b tell me that there's no god, heaven, or hell, but that you spend eternity smoking a cigarette while propped up next to a lamppost. He claimed that that's what atheists believe happens when you die. Now, I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic), so I have no idea what they think.

>>2922671

Most likely, just ceases.

However Neal Stephenson explores the concept in a fun way in Anathem. It's a good read.

>>2922871
no, that is not what atheists believe happens when you die, because atheists for the most part probably have their own different ideas of what happens when you die, because atheism is not an organized religion. also, do you think there is a god? if you can not say yes, you are an atheist. if you can not say no, you are a deist/theist. but there's no fucking such thing as an agnostic.

>>2922871
I was in that thread. That guy is an idiot. He literally could not imagine not existing.

Atheists (generally) believe than when you die you are gone. Your brain function ceases and all you as a discrete consciousness ceases to exist.

>>2922861

What, you don't think residing in an inky black void forever is boring? Seems so to me. Unless you get some porno magazines to read.

>>2922887

Did you forget your own post? (>>2922816). If you can't see or feel anything, how can you read dirty magazines?

>>2922887
You dont reside anywhere when you die. Theres no dark or light or even a brain to process it and note the lack of light.

You are dead and gone.

Asking where the conciousness goes after death is like asking where the fire goes after a match has been blown out.

The fire isn't anywhere, its gone, no longer existing.

>>2922897

If you want to nitpick, your molecules still exist and may become part of a new life form. Thus you aren't really gone at all.

>>2922908
Thats a matter of identification. If you donate blood the blood isn't 'you'.

Or if you lose a hand in an accident thats not really 'you' either.

We just arbitrarily say certain atoms are 'us' and the rest aren't.

So really your atoms aren't yours. They're just atoms.

>>2922895

Yeah, good point. Even if the Hustler magazine was in Braille, you can't feel anything.

>>2922854

Not the same guy, but where you're asleep or unconscious, you have dreams. Maybe death is just like going to sleep and dreaming forever and you never wake up.

>>2922940
That would defy the laws of thermodynamics...

>>2922940
no because the dreams are a result of electrical activity in your brain WHICH ISN'T FUCKING THERE WHEN YOU DIE

>>2922948

I dunno; I've had atheists tell me that near death experiences are the result of misfiring neurons when the brain ceases functioning. So do you just hallucinate forever after death or something like that? Because that's what I get the impression they're claiming.

Or do these hallucinations stop eventually and if so, how much time elapses?

>this thread

>>2922960
They stop when the neurons stop firing. Which is when your brain dead.

I guess depending on the method of death it could be a few minutes (for drowning or suffocation) to a few milliseconds (for a bullet wound to the head)

>>2922960
hoh

lee

shit

i'm getting trolled. when the activity ceases, the hallucinations cease. what is so fucking hard to understand about that?

>>2922882
>>2922880

Technically an atheist only doesn't believe in a god. It does not preclude belief in an afterlife or whatever.

>>2922960

That's a theory, but no one really knows what happens in the brain at physical death.

>>2922882

>Your brain function ceases and all you as a discrete consciousness ceases to exist.

So if you cease to exist as a discrete consciousness do you split into multiple consciousnesses or something? That would be weird. Kind of like that TV show "Herman's Head".

>>2922975
Allow me to explain
Science believes when you die thats it you're fucking gone
Everything stops
Nothing ever was
You are not aware of anything, and you never knew you were alive in the first place.
It cant even be defined as nothing, as nothing is something. There is nothing to tell you you exist at all, so you dont exist, you dont even know anything you dont have the capacity to know, you dont have anything that can know

You are less than nothing when you die.

Your physical form will remain for a while, but you wont know you ever existed in the first place

No brain=no existence

>>2923017

Heck, even if you're a religious person, you have to believe God created your soul at some point. So before that happened, you didn't exist.

>>2923017
Well, if you ask me, that's a kinda lame religion to follow. Sheesh!

>>2923028

Yeah, really. See >>2922832 and >>2922816

>>2923028

Its not religion but truth.
1/10 for this thread

>>2923015
No you do not
There is nothing
nothing
nothing
Not even awareness of the nothing
its like when you sleep
It just seems to skip to you being awake again
it'll skip to you being born "for the first time"
And you could be born again in the future or past. You never existed, you dont know.
Every shred of previous being will be removed
But you WILL come back. Nature does that. One thing dies and another comes to life. Nature wouldnt waste a conciousness.

>>2923035

A lot of people have had psychics tell them about past lives they led, so perhaps there's some way your consciousness survives death.

I can't vouch for the truthfulness of this, but...

>>2923035

Kind of Buddhist, huh?

>>2923050
It is possible to see your past lives grave but you will have no idea that was you.
You don;t know who you are coming back is, how would you indicate you were their past life?

Watch flowers, when one die either many or another of the same are reborn, i believe the conciousness works in the same way.
It doesnt survive, when you die it is wiped clean, and put into a newly formed baby, or animal, for you to learn again. I cant prove THIS, but the way nature seems to work it seems the most reasonable concept, nature doesnt waste anything.

>>2923063

Kind of what I subscribe to BUT

reiterating this, it is not PUT anywhere after you die, its just dead and doesn't exist anymore.

But look at it that way, you're gone but new things get to start living all the time. Same as it was with you - you just suddenly got born. I suspect this will happen many more times and if it doesn't - I won't be there to give a fuck

>>2923050

I find psychics untrustworthy. They usually tell you some shit like "Oh, you were George Washington in a past life." when you were probably really some peasant in Russia who died at the age of 25 from bubonic plague and had his house burned by Mongol invaders in the year 1235.

For 13.7 billion years, your brain, and thus your electrical activity, did not exist. For the billion of years after you die, the exact same thing will happen. Thus it is only logical to assume that, when your brain activity is absent, a state identical to when before you were born will happen (ie: there will be nothing).

>>2923107

See >>2923027

>>2923115

Until you can show me where my soul is, logic dictates it's stupid to assume electrical activity in your brain isn't the entirety of your consciousness.

>>2923126

I was just saying that even if you are a religious person, you had to not exist at one point assuming God created everything else.

>>2923126
I think the soul and the electrical activity is one and the same. Except religionfags have this wacky ideal that the "soul" lives through everything. yeah shut up you fucks

I watched this video called the theory of everything

The theory was that nature had to keep changing and the evolutionary demands werent being met fast enough

So nature made life self aware so it could advance itself

Nature made it so that you could ponder the meaning of everything while drastically altering everything evolving the world faster than nature ever could

The only reason we wonder where we go when we die is because we were made to wonder these things

We may never find an answer, but we're here to ask questions until we die, so we can speed up evolution and knowledge, humans are SUPPOSED to play God.
Deathright now is the only flaw in nature, if humans overcame it, nature would stop evolving altogether, i reckon

>>2923145
Also another theory
The LHC is for testing the big bang right?
What if that big bang created a universe so small you didnt notice it? But it lived on just like ours? The universe is digital,isnt it? So that reasonable.

What if people were created by much bigger people?

What if they are so big you couldnt ever see even a fraction of them?

And thus we have we are our own gods. Paradox anyone?

While I don't believe in the supernatural, here's my own thoughts on the matter, op.

Whatever consciousness is we do not yet understand, eventually though, we will be able to replicate it.

This doesn't mean consciousness goes away when you die, maybe in some form, it remains. We don't "know," there is also no evidence that I know of to suggest it does remain.

That said, look at it this way:

Before you were born, you were dead. This implies that death is not necessarily the end, since "you" came into existence from apparent non existence, and therefore logically it could happen again.

Ever been put out for surgery? I remember the mask being put on my face, a few seconds went by and suddenly my eyes were opening and I was in a different room. The transition was instantaneous. 3 hours had passed and I hadn't felt anything but a blink of time.

I'm guessing death is something like that. The entire evolution of the cosmos, even the end of time, will come in what seems like a blink. And then what? Who knows.

Perhaps there simply is no such thing as subjective unconsciousness... There is only consciousness. When we die, we don't EXPERIENCE unconsciousness. We don't experience time. We don't experience. Now is all that exists.

>>2923155
>The LHC is for testing the big bang right?

<sigh>

>>2923170
Not op but I was put under for surgery as a child and I remember it vividly because I was terrified, also I had nightmares the whole time I was unconscious and so I can't relate with your "it was instant!" story. :(

>>2923155

The LHC is designed to test conditions similar to those immediately after the big bang by concentrating incredible amounts of energy into a very small location.

>>2923179

Interesting. It's likely we were given different drugs, although i have no idea what they used on me. All I remember is waking up and wondering how I got into a different room, where everyone had gone and why I felt like someone just beat the hell out of me.

>>2923188
I had the same experience as you waking up in the other room and being kinda like "wtf?," I wasn't really terrified going into the surgery, I got terrified because the guy who administered the anaesthesia said "I want you to count ten breaths" and by #7 I was paralyzed and the doctor began prepping me for something and he was holding a scalpel, so I was super afraid that he was going to cut into me while I was still awake since I couldn't signal to him that I was in any way (except my eyes were open, but I couldn't even close them or control my pupils because that's how paralyzed I was).

Then I was nightmaring which was at least better than being awake, lol.

>>2923191

Freaky! I know they generally use more than a single drug... One that paralyzes, one that numbs and one that knocks you unconscious. I've heard horror stories about how the paralysis drug works better than the others.

What if the brain is like a radio or television receiver?

>>2923145
link to video?

nothing is impossible

>>2923410
also inb4 the universe came from nothing.

energy cannot be created.

>>2923417

Now.

>What happens to consciousness after you die?
It stops.

atheists refuse to accept or look into anything other than non-existence.

keep on blaming everything on misfiring neurons, atheists.

>>2923436
As a scientist, I will look at anything for which you have (reliable) evidence. Do you have any reliable evidence that the mind, which is merely the result of physical processes in the brain, somehow survives braindeath?

>>2922671
What happens to a program execution after it terminates?
It just ends. It's over.

>>2922880
Oh god, not this again.

An agnostic is a clearly separate position from (certain kinds of) atheism. The common atheist actively denies the existence of an interfering god. An agnostic has no belief. A deist and theist actively believes in the existence of a god.

>>2923436
Scientists have been looking into this for centuries. It's not that they reject anything. It's that there's nothing there to support any dualist claims regarding the human consciousness.

>>2923443
Atheism - lack of belief in a god.
Agnostic - unsure about the truth of a belief.
It is possible to be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic christian, etc.
I'm an epistemologist. We MADE these words. So go back to doing science, while we do things with words and ideas.

>>2923454
I'm sorry. That's simply not how the words are used. Language is defined by usage, not by dictionaries, and not by etymology. Moreover, that's never how the term was used. When Huxley coined the term agnostic, he meant it clearly to stand in stark contrast with a positive belief in a god, and active denial of gods.

To repeat my copypasta, the breakdown is, and has always been:
- Theist - Holds a positive belief that there is a god who regularly interferes in human affairs.
- Deist - Holds a positive belief that there is a god who made the universe, but otherwise does not interfere.
- Ignorant - Hasn't made up his mind yet, and/or is waiting for more evidence. Sometimes called agnostic. Sometimes called atheist.
- Strong agnostic - Holds a positive belief that there cannot be good arguments for or against the existence of god, theist or deist. Sometimes called atheist.
- Atheist - Aka the common Dawkins-style weak atheist. Holds a positive belief that the evidence disproves the theist god. Holds that the other kinds of gods are unnecessary, untestable, and ultimately simply mental masturbation. Furthermore holds that positive belief in either kind of god is delusion.

>>2923438

Does emulating those physical processes in software count (under the mentality that said mind could be considered still functioning via a copy)? How about approximately simulating a person's mind/personality through a program?

>>2923474
Count for what? Could you be more clear in your assertions?

>>2923466
If your argument is that a term's proper meaning is defined by usage, not by dictionaries, then things are nowhere near as clear cut as you're laying them out to be, since there's obviously disagreement regarding the usage of those terms.

In short, you're talking out of your ass.

>>2922960
>>2922972
>>2923126
Pretty much on the right track, afaik.

>>2923482
My point(s) are simple.

1- Only a few "people" on 4chan use the terms "agnostic atheist" and "agnostic theist". Otherwise such terms are basically completely absent from all discourse.

2- They're nonsensical. What is the difference between an agnostic theist and a gnostic theist? Degree of certainty in belief? It fails to capture the very important middle ground between atheist and theist that Huxley very clearly intended when he coined the term agnostic, and the very clear intent of anyone when they self identify as agnostic.

There is some debate over the terms though, such as atheist as someone without a belief in god, vs someone who actively denies such a thing's existence. I have laid out the best estimation I have given my large knowledge of the modern discourse, with acknowledgments of possible alternative definitions in use.

>>2923478
>Count for what?

That the mind could be considered to "remain," as a copy, while the original dies with the (original) brain.

>>2923508
Possible. I'm not sure where it would "remain" though. With the strong analog, or even same thing, of computers, the "program" resides in memory or on disk. However, I don't see where the "program" could reside after braindeath.

>>2923491
>1- Only a few "people" on 4chan use the terms "agnostic atheist" and "agnostic theist". Otherwise such terms are basically completely absent from all discourse.
That's just blatantly false. I'm not even taking 4chan into account when assessing the common usage of terms. If you want to get an idea of how widespread the "4 quadrant bullshit" is outside of this site, just google "agnostic atheist -4chan". Fuck, Agnostic Atheism even has its own independent Wikipedia entry, because it's so damn common, yet here you are, claiming that it's not, just because this denial of reality serves your argument. What the fuck's wrong with you?

>What is the difference between an agnostic theist and a gnostic theist? Degree of certainty in belief?
The claim to knowledge. They're different in the same way the claims "I don't know, but believe" and "I believe, because I *know*" are different.

>>2923519
Of course, because it's on wikipedia it has to be common, despite that I haven't heard anyone in any religious debates ever use the term, no have I ever seen it used in theological texts nor in new atheist texts, and so on.

Also, just for humor's sakes, what's the difference between believing in something, and knowing something?

We need a 1-day autoban for a?theis[mt] and a?gnostic

>>2923510

I was talking more from the psychological/philosophical perspective. The original is completely gone after brain death. The copy could be thought of as a new cell, born form mitosis (more-or-less)--but perhaps the Star Trek transporter would be a better analogy.

>>2923524
A gnostic approach states that God is 'knowable'. That definite, tangible awareness of God, not as a belief, but as a fact, as an experience, is possible. Any of the mystical traditions would fall into this category, since they attempt to directly 'know' God/the gods.

You follow?

>>2923547
It seems apparent that the (human) mind is the result of physical processes in the brain.

I feel slightly uncomfortable saying that when the brain ends, the mind ends, but that /seems/ to be the logical conclusion. Thus, unless the processes that make up the mind are somehow duplicated, like with a star trek transporter, I fail to see how the mind can survive without the physical processes that give rise to the mind.

>>2923551
So, an agnostic theist is someone who says "I have no good reason for believing in god, but I do so anyway" ?

>>2923525

I agree. They should filter and automatically ban anyone who uses the following words on /sci.

RELIGION
GOD
JESUS
DAWKINS
ATHEIST
AGNOSTIC
CHRISTIAN

>>2923524
>Of course, because it's on wikipedia it has to be common
Uhm, yeah, that's exactly right. It's certainly a better measurement of commonality than this intellectually worthless textbook example of an appeal to ignorance:

>despite that I haven't heard anyone in any religious debates ever use the term, no have I ever seen it used in theological texts nor in new atheist texts, and so on.

Look, I may have come off as an overly confrontational douche so far, but my real motivation isn't to get you to agree with me, but to realize that the arrogance and self-righteousness you've employed in your initial is not warranted at all, because this issue is not as straightforward as you want it to be. It is indeed not uncommon to use the term "agnosticism" to refer to an acknowledgement of unknowability rather than a clear middle ground between theism and atheism. That doesn't mean this definition is more correct than yours, or Huxley's, but it certainly does mean that your definition is by no means the one that most accurately reflects the common usage.

>Also, just for humor's sakes, what's the difference between believing in something, and knowing something?
"Knowing" is the (personal) acceptance of something as proven beyond reasonable doubt, whereas "Believing" is an acceptance of something completely independent of proof.

>>2923563
*initial response

>>2922671
Yes it does just go away.

You can't compare sleep to death. When you sleep your brain is still running.

It would be like a car driving along, when you sleep its like the cars stopped, the engine sits there idling it never stops.

But when you die its like the car running out of fuel (oxygen to your brain). There is no more. Everything stops. No more movement nothing. Your brain just stops working.

>>2923563
>Look, I may have come off as an overly confrontational douche so far, but my real motivation isn't to get you to agree with me, but to realize that the arrogance and self-righteousness you've employed in your initial is not warranted at all,
Perhaps. This is 4chan, and I don't much care if I come off self-righteous to the same idiotic blather that I see day in and day out. Meh.

>because this issue is not as straightforward as you want it to be.
And I politely disagree. It is.

>It is indeed not uncommon to use the term "agnosticism" to refer to an acknowledgement of unknowability rather than a clear middle ground between theism and atheism.
Correct. I included that in my above classifications. Also, this in no way gives credence to the "agnostic atheist" "gnostic theist" etc. bullshit.

>That doesn't mean this definition is more correct than yours, or Huxley's, but it certainly does mean that your definition is by no means the one that most accurately reflects the common usage.
I again politely disagree. It's possible that you didn't fully read my classification, and how I made note of the several usages of agnosticism in use, which I labeled for brevity "ignorant" and "strong agnostic".

>>2923563
So, to confirm, an agnostic theist is someone who would openly admit "I believe in the existence of god, but I lack any compelling reason to do so." ?

>>2923573

>Perhaps. This is 4chan, and I don't much care if I come off self-righteous to the same idiotic blather that I see day in and day out.

Exactly. And if you're going to insult the beliefs of others and try to justify child rape and bestiality, don't expect any kindness from other posters.

>>2923579
Now, that is a flagrant lie. I have never claimed that rape of any kind is morally acceptable. I have stated numerous times that it is not, and ought to be punished.

>>2923555
>Thus, unless the processes that make up the mind are somehow duplicated, like with a star trek transporter, I fail to see how the mind can survive without the physical processes that give rise to the mind.

Would a software emulation in a sufficiently advanced computer, do the job?

>>2923608
Uh, sure. Yes. So, if you find some way to "digitize" the brain, then sure. You get all of the wonderful ethical dilemmas of star trek transporters though.

>>2923573
>Also, this in no way gives credence to the "agnostic atheist" "gnostic theist" etc. bullshit.
Well, it does when evaluated by your own criterion from an earlier post, i.e. the commonality of those concepts. But putting this all aside and looking at those concepts from a purely practical position, I personally do think that a 4 quadrant system enables one to put more accurate "labels" on one's beliefs than your breakdown does, which didn't describe a very applicable spectrum of belief, in my opinion.

>which I labeled for brevity "ignorant" and "strong agnostic".
Yeah, that's pretty much my main objection to your breakdown in regards to your argument that terms should be defined by their usage, not their etymology, or dictionary definition (a position I actually do agree with). I don't think (and this is purely my own, personal observation) that people actually define the terms "Ignorant" and "Strong Agnostic" the way you did, nor do I believe they should. I mean, I even have a hard time fitting my own beliefs into your system, because it's a combination of "Strong Agnostic" and "Atheist".

>>2923575
>So, to confirm, an agnostic theist is someone who would openly admit "I believe in the existence of god, but I lack any compelling reason to do so." ?
Pretty much, yes. Although I might exchange "compelling reason" for "testable evidence", or something along those lines, given that there are many believers who consider their personal anecdotes as compelling reasons for their beliefs, but not as actual, tangible evidence.

>>2923608

Not in my opinion because it is a separate entity from the biological organic being that is you and as such could not maintain the same though processes and is not the same consciousness, so at best is a cleverly designed simulation of your personality removed from the human existential experience.

If it makes you feel better to think there will be a virtualized automaton conveying your basic ideals to the world after you die, go for it... but don't expect that the current version of yourself shares an existential experience or shares a consciousness and don't expect the automaton to receive the same human rights as you currently enjoy.

Subjective experience; what it is like to be something.

That one thing that makes us not pzombies.

(Not OP but that's my definition of consciousness and I want to know what happens to it).

>>2922816
To some people, that's what it's like before death.

>>2923575
Please read pic. It hopefully clarifies the case.

>>2924828
qualias, qualias everywhere

>>2922832

boring?

it won't be boring.

it will be nothing.

you won't have any notion of time.

you won't feel anything. (don't read this sentence like it's a bad thing, you just won't feel bad OR good)

you will just commune with nature.

you will become a part of the whole.

some of your carbon will go to plants, and when these plants get eaten, they will be part of another being

the water in your body will reenter hte water cycle. you will be in rain. you will be in rivers annd lakes. you will be in the sea.

and i feel good about all this.

Take a hit of 80x+ salvia and find out.

wut

>>2923557
"I believe because it is absurd."

>>2925165
You are my Jesus.

death is all the same, a simple death from old age is the same as a death from being burnt to a cinter in an explosion. You don't feel anything, you experience nothing (Similar to before you were born). All these recreation arguments are bullshit and false. How can you expect one who has been burnt into nothing come back into something else? Nature doesn't care. Faggots here are acting like it's a person with feelings who should bring you back to life after you die, no. Our population of plants/animals bring people back. Unique people, with no clue of what they're doing on earth.