/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15512415
>what even is consciousness
An emergent property of matter.
>materialism
Oh...so we attributing it to an aetheral phenomena outside of all of reality now?

>>15512415
Don't mix up consciousness with intelligence.
Consciousness is the ability to be aware of experiences.
Intelligence is the ability to process complex experiences towards goal oriented outputs.
A mentally disabled person is conscious but not intelligent.
An AI is intelligent but not conscious.

>>15512473
How do you know an AI is not conscious
How do you know other people are conscious and not p-zombies

>>15512480
I don't for sure; it's an assumption.
If I want to be pedantic about the whole thing I would have to take up the solipsistic position in which case I am the only being conscious and you are all NPCs, because I can only know for sure from direct observation that I am conscious.

>>15512415
I guess you dont have a robust understanding. Heres my take on it.

Consciousness is the information modeling center of our brain. It processes information and models reality based on information it has access to, whether that is through our physical sensory like eyes/etc or our memories while we sleep or a hybrid as we normally use to inference the world around and navigate in such. Its one part of our mind system that makes up the capabilities of the brain.

Other parts are our memory center and our attention span (ability to focus on specific point of interest).

>>15512473
This guy is saying its separate, but I think its the same thing. Its just that conscious modeling can be small or large, with it comes more capable inference. You know like how AI models are 3bit,4bit,16f 32bit, etc. Same way, consciousness can be large or small and capabilities large/small along with it. Underlying structure of the consciousness is probably the same across almost all species on earth, we all share the same gene and evolved from the same ancestors. So there's a common link somewhere. Whether that evolution took place in the plants era or microbes era, its ancient. So all complex organisms share this trait and some plants/trees share this trait as well.

>>15512497
>So all complex organisms share this trait and some plants/trees share this trait as well.
Based and Dissolutioned-Into-All-Matter-Pilled.

>>15512490
>it's an assumption.
So why inconsistently assume that some agents of intelligence who can insist on their own consciousness like people are conscious, but others who do that like AI aren't?

>>15512511
Checkmate.

>>15512415
>>15512497
Also the difference between human mind/AI is that human has real time capability to train as well as inference. Meanwhile machine learning uses expensive backpropagation to train which can take days/weeks/months to get even semi decent results. Humans imo do a much simpler training method that saves a lot of energy/time. The results are decent too.

>>15512511
Because what does it matter, practically?
When people make your kind of argument that X is conscious, the real argument by extension is, X should be treated the same as us.
Both Materialism and Idealism agrees that organisms plant and up are conscious. Then does that mean we shouldn't eat anything and starve?
This only becomes an issue when, if, AI develops to such a stage that they care about been treated as an equal.

>>15512490
The point I'm trying to make is that, at least in terms of any of us determining if something is conscious, intellect and consciousness are inextricably linked.

Personally I don't think it's that big a jump to assume that adaptable intelligence entails consciousness and vice-versa

My guess from personal experience is that consciousness/qualia is tied almost exclusively to the functions of memory.

>>15512542
>Because what does it matter, practically?
It matters significantly for modeling and forecasting future outcomes and planning social/civic strategy because the right answers will help demonstrate the warning signs and predict whether or not AI can potentially develop to that stage or to a stage where it might eve see you as something it needs to eat or risk starving, so it matters for the development and use of AI now.

>X should be treated the same as us.
Its more like can I control X or do I have to worry about X trying to control me when communication is already established since that is typically what you want to know is if X can understand you.

What about dogs and other highly intelligent animals we can communicate with, are they conscious according to your assumptions?

>>15512548
NTA, but consciousness is ofcourse tied to memory, at the very least the short term memory as we are only able to recall events from that part of brain. But the recollection part isn't the consciousness part, its an important part as a self-referencing machine, to verify its own output. But the consciousness is the machine that creates those memory for which can be accessed later. Its the one that processes information and creates worlds, images, relationships, feelings, etc.

People say there's a "feeling of sadness" a "feeling of xyz" as if its a "thing" inside a mind scape. Which is what qualia claims to be, but thats an extremely flawed way of understanding how the brain/consciousness works. The consciousness merely processes information and creates the "feelings" "images" "objects". But the creations aren't a physical thing, nor an "energy" thing. Its merely a classification matrix, where hierarchies, 1d/2d/3d structures are created in this table for which is OFTEN confused as a "real" thing. That idealists/qualia-ist/materialists fight over whether its real or not and what place it has in the world. I think the "matrix table" is merely electrical signals/sequences of patterns and the nature of all mental objects are artificial.

Channeling the Buddhists here, there's no true essence to any object our mind constructs. Its all empty.

>>15512430
You used to be based, namefag. But now you're just regurgitating anti-human materialist dogma. What happened? I hope it's just an impersonator.

>>15512548
>at least in terms of any of us determining if something is conscious, intellect and consciousness are inextricably linked
Conceptually no, because you can't know for sure something (or someone) else is conscious unless you can somehow directly perceive their perception of their qualia like you would the color of an apple.
You can only perceive your own awareness of your qualia.
You can however perceive another's intellect by their reaction to stimulus.
>My guess from personal experience is that consciousness/qualia is tied almost exclusively to the functions of memory
Guess been the operative word here.

>>15512561
>demonstrate the warning signs and predict whether or not AI can potentially develop to that stage
AI can develop into that stage when a complete romantic retard specifically trains one with "survival" as its prime directive, just as how human intelligence and preferences evolved.
Baring that the only other risk is the paperclip scenario.

>>15512415
No one ever said consciousness resides in the brain before the last 80 years or so

>>15512581
roko's basilisk
matrix
some scenario where it tries to gaslight into collective insanity because electronic sensors and sensory organs just have some inherent difference or it tries to force human conversion for a invisible body snatchers style genocide.
There have been plenty of other scenarios and I bet you could come up with others if you really thought about it.

>>15512574
>materialist
[woosh]
Youre too retarded to @ me. Go to reddit and be with your own kind you Neo-20th-Century-Fundementalist-Christain-Without-Christ.

Your God-of-the-Gaps means only self declared ignorance.

>>15512591
Sure, but all those are a variation of the paperclip scenario.

>>15512430
>An emergent property of matter.
Cringe and NPC pilled

>>15512588
Lets not try to forget the 2500 years of consciousness history where detailed analysis of consciousness first emerged with the analysis of physical body.

>>15512574
Anti-human dogma HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

>what even is consciousness
Quantum

>>15512415
Clearly it is a phenomena. Not a thing but a phenomena. What is phenomena? That which is happening and has its roots as an event in interaction between things.

>>15512601
Sounds more like it just makes you feel better to minimize the risk when you could just as easily say that your first suggestion was just a variation of paperclip apocalypse.

>>15512602
Then why do people live out Mathematical principles?
>Free will deer is free!
Then act outside of the limits of Physics.

>>15512610
Quantum implies quanta (ie quantity), so what is the smallest quantity of consciousness or the basic unit?

>>15512618
The gauge boson of the consciousness field is the qualion.

>>15512615
>Then act outside of the limits of Physics.
I do by making decisions which are not causally determined by physics. For example deciding what porn to jerk to.

>>15512601
The collective insanity scenario is specifically different since there was no actual end goal to maximize any output, there was just an attempt to come to a meeting of the minds with incompatible minds and accidentally resulting in both of them losing their minds.

>>15512624
>deciding what porn to jerk to
Physiological and Biochemical stimuli reinforced hy repeated exposure. What you didnt do was fap to an equation unknown to the human species.
>are not causally determined by physics
I can measure your soul, human-mortal.

>>15512613
Unintended conquesence is the root of all risks.
But to come full circle, all these are elements of intelligence, of reaction to stimulus.
Whether or not an AI is actually conscious or not like I am right now of this conversation have no bearing on how it will act.

>>15512632
He thinks levels of reallity are not causaly connected anon.
He sees chemistry outside physics and biology outside both. For him it is just fields of inquiry not interconnected and interdependant reallity.

>>15512632
Okay, then tell me what porn I will jerk to. Should be no problem for you to predict if you have solved consciousness.

>>15512640
Step-mom/Sis

>>15512643
Hahaha, never. That's so cringe.

>>15512647
Ill take you as a vanilla then good sir
Maybe nerdy kink

>>15512621
Does that make consciousness a fundamental physical force and the qualion the force carrier?
What is the qualion's mass and spin?
Can it form into a Bose Gas?
Why is it named more like fermion than boson?

>>15512656
That is beyond us anon.
>Check mate

>>15512656
Consciousness is a fifth force to extend the standard model. It is either massless or has imaginary mass.

>>15512664
What about spin? How can it be a force carrier if massless?
Negative mass isn't really a thing that has ever been measured, how can imaginary mass be a thing?

>>15512737
>how can imaginary mass be a thing
It was real in my equations.

>>15512415

Consciousness is fundamental. It does not arise out of matter. In fact, our conception of matter is itself a mental construction, like all of spacetime.

>>15512747
Oh nice there is an equation, then what is the equation for the mass of a qualion that leads to negative mass and how is it derived?

>>15512639
Such a wierd way of viewing reality, like only being able to see the chess piece you are moving on the board and no other pieces, let alone where its being placed on the board.

>>15512737
>How can it be a force carrier if massless?
Uhm, photon bros? Our response?

>Negative mass isn't really a thing that has ever been measured, how can imaginary mass be a thing?
Tachyonic.

A thing that knows that it knows that it knows things that know thing that know that it knows things that knows that it knows that it knows things that know it knows things that knows...

>>15512575
>No, you're wrong, let me restate exactly what you said and claim that's correct
Weird post

>>15512571
>consciousness is the machine that creates those memory
That is an absolutely enormous leap. There is no good reason to assume experience comes before commitment to memory.
>The consciousness processes
You're conflating consciousness with cognition. They mean two different things.
>Schizo ramblings
Yeesh

>>15512415
Unpopularopinion: it's brain fluids moving chaotically. We will be able to understand it when we figure out navier stokes.

>>15512415
The issue of consciousness is one of the most profound and important questions in human knowledge right now. It lies at the intersection of physics, biology, psychology, ontology, epistemology, and for some, even religion.

One issue is that science has essentially proven that it stands alone in its utility in understanding the world. There is really no other epistemic system that serves as an alternative.

Yet, also as an epistemic system, it functions as an interface for a subjective perspective to understand objective phenomena. All of the phenomena that science studies rigorously is objective.

Consciousness is a subjective phenomenon. See the issue? There seems to be no way to empirically verify consciousness. It can't be measured, touched, seen, or felt from the outside.

With "abstract" phenomenon, say a good example is blood pressure, they essentially have no meaningful existence. Blood pressure is reducible to the material movement of blood cells in your veins--back to material phenomenon. Blood pressure may be measurable, but it has no "meaningful" existence, it is an extensive property.

The issue is that, from the subjective viewpoint trying to understand consciousness, if we take it to be an emergent property of the brain, it still seems like it has a "meaningful" existence, unlike blood pressure. As a subjective viewpoint, consciousness is a priori the most real thing there is.

There are a whole host of issues with conscioussness, the hard problem, and science as an epistemology. It would take hours to talk about this in depth. I guess I just mean to say that we probably won't ever know--one of the original guys who talked a lot about the hard problem said that it's like trying to bite your own teeth. It seems that the most immediately real thing to ourselves, as subjective beings, will be forever out of reach of our subjective understanding. The mechanics at play are just too weird.

>>15512967
No you are not getting it.
My point is you technically cannot determine something else other than yourself is conscious.
You can however determine something else is intelligent.
Consciousness and intelligence are two different things; they are not inextricably linked as you stated.

>>15512988
>reddit spacing

>>15513013
>you technically cannot determine something else other than yourself is conscious.
Technically, you just ask them to squeeze your finger while you point your finger near them, its a rudimentary test paramedics use to determine if someone is conscious.

>>15513029
And how do you know they are not aware even if they don't have the ability to react to the stimuli that is your finger?

>>15513029
>paralyzed people are not conscious
You're a bad paramedic.

>>15513045
>>15513050
I said rudimentary, not complete, there are further tests like a blink test for paralysis when there are vital signs but they can't pass the squeeze test. You were saying that you couldn't test if they were conscious not if they aren't and the squeeze test is a basic test to confirm that they are conscious rather than they aren't.

>>15513060
What about a humanoid robot that can squeeze hands and blink? Is it conscious?

>>15512639
>he thinks all things are knowable
uh oh... should we tell him, bros?

>>15513024
It's not a reflex, it just looks better than not doing it.

For starters, read Blindsight. What started as a sci-fi novel with vampires by a failed biologist turned into a core academic text.

Once you have the "bug" of what consciousness is and isn't, its hard to look at the problem the same way ever again. For one thing its clearly not beneficial as an overabundance causes suicide and anti-breeding behaviors, so its anti-darwinian, which means it popped up by chance and is destined to expire just as easily.

It also has profound implications for AI. In a sense what we are building may become fiercely intelligent but has little hope for developing consciousness. To optimize learning in a system that by its nature will favor utility is running completely in the opposite direction of consciousness. Consciousness flourishes in a chaotic absence of utility, its not built from completely rational steps, its a detour. This is unlike anything we would call our attempts at AI. Its like this, AI has the potential to become fiercely more intelligent than anything that has ever existed UNLESS it becomes conscious, then that game is over, so to speak.

As far as natural selection is concerned, anything that becomes too aware has signed its death warrant.

>>15513060
Let's not bog the conversation down to semantics.
The "conscious" talked about in medical and sciences is simply the objectively measurable ability to react to stimuli.
The "conscious" talked about when the conversation of consciousness comes up like this one is the fundemental awareness a person have of experiences.

>>15513072
Ask its name and if it knows where it is at and if it correctly answers it passes the test.

>>15513090
If you can squeeze a finger on demand, you are actively demonstrating a fundamental awareness of the finger and showing that you understand the experience of squeezing and can repeatably do it.

>>15513089
Good.
Last thing I would want is for the most powerful tool every created by mankind to started having a will of its own.

>>15513111
I can sum it up like this; If your AI has one moment of self-reflection, you've bricked the damn thing.

>>15513089
>anything that becomes too aware has signed its death warrant.
Anything that is not aware enough signs the same warrant probably much quicker.

>>15513103
So can a robot.
Does that prove the tincan have the same fundmental awareness of experiences as a me?
In fact, how do I know YOU have the same fundmental awareness of experiences as me, and not just a complex bio-physically bot capable of simply having the intelligence to react to stimuli as me?

>>15513117
>Does that prove the tincan have the same fundmental awareness of experiences as a me?
Probably moreso, do you know your core temp down to the tenth of a degree and your current run time down to the nanosecond?

>the same
What? Who said that? Of course everything has a different perspective, but there are still ways to test if there is an internalized perspective at all.

>>15513116
Not as is evidenced in nature. Proliferation comes in the absence of self-awareness in most everything. The mycelium doesn't stop to think about which system to overtake, its just does.
Man will always be handicapped by the need to ask why. Man puts a balloon on his dick. Man gives his woman sterility pills. We're not playing the successful long game.

>>15513127
>The mycelium doesn't stop to think about which system to overtake, its just does.
You are wrong, it deliberates with the environment and exchanges and barters resources based on a multitude of factors that may change over time depending on the situation.

>>15513123
>but there are still ways to test if there is an internalized perspective at all
That's the crux of of the matter, there isn't truly one.
You are measuring consciousness by the ability to output data, when in fact consciousness is the ability of a system to be aware of data.
And this awareness is only something you can atest yourself within you.

>>15513136
When you anthropomorphize concepts like "barter," sure, but that's not what its doing. It never "deliberated" or added weight, its purely a chemical exchange of convenience. This is most unlike man who does indeed deliberate and barter in the truest sense but unlike the non-conscious organism, can do so in ways that stymies his entire aim. Also in man he's aware that his aim is ultimately fruitless which makes him most unfit.
The mycelium will always have the luxury of ignorance.

>>15512415
>what even is consciousness
something science is too inept to figure out.

>>15512632
>Physiological and Biochemical stimuli reinforced hy repeated exposure
Prove it, show that every decision ever made by a person can be explained purely in physical terms. Show the work, ensure we can follow the decision back to before the person was born and trace it even to their grandparents etc.
If you can't do this, then shut the fuck up about determinism because it's just an opinion you hold.

>>15512812
>Tachyonic
made up psuedoscience

>>15513024
It's called paragraphs retard. I swear no one said this shit until Redditors started showing up here and trying to prove they weren't election tourists.

>>15512415
Biochemical reactions, if you want to understand what your brain is capable of doing do some psychedelics

>>15513076
>Puting worda in mouth
Is this new tactic of scizos?

>>15512415
Fuck niggers

>Eureka

>Simulate AI/consciousness program synchronously
>take 1 second pauses between each discrete step
>discrete steps somehow magically connected across time into cohesive conscious "frames"

I really don't see how it could be a computation. If it is emergent (whatever that means for a mental quality out of material) from computation somehow, it's still something "extra" on top of the computation steps that connects them. If it is not just emergent from computation then it's someting extra also.

>>15514027
>Prove it
Timestamp with a view of your room or youre simply a bot.

>>15512415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

Stuart Hameroff 2021 - Quantum biology and consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkECK3RzEPM

>>15512473
Consciousness needs to have a cognitive purpose in order to be selected for. It must be therefore responsible for the gain in crystalized intelligence observed even after 40s in humans and not observed in mindless Turing machines.

>>15512988
Yet there are 10s of anons in this thread debating consciousness, which they do by typing with their physical fingers controlled by their physical brains. So somewhere down the line it has to be possible to explain this phenomenon (of people talking about consciousness) in completely physical terms.

>>15514870
>Consciousness needs to have a cognitive purpose in order to be selected for.
Well no, that's not how it works. Consciousness could be an outcropping of something that was once advantageous but is now vestigial, possibly a hindrance. Also just because something was selected doesn't mean it provided a positive longterm advantage going forward. Things that work in a purely situational framework yet hinder longterm survival get selected for all the time.

It is a bias to say self-awareness must mean something or have some ultimate utility going forward.

>>15515167
Could be but it isn't. Being once advantageous for cognition within the context of allowing expansion of inner axiomatic system continues to be advantageous. All cases where it stops being advantageous are exactly a blind machine following rules, even towards its own destruction, the opposite of consciousness. Humans are not blind machines.

>>15515209
I would call a mechanism that allows the species to preserve poor qualities, promote them, terminates itself despite being physically fit, or just outright refuses to breed a hindrance. These are all crimes against natural selection committed by reason, rumination.

>>15514870
>Consciousness
>observed
And pray tell how would you OBSERVE consciousness?
What you are observing is intelligence, the output of data given input stimuli.
The only consciousness you can observe is the one within yourself.

>tranny navel gazing thread

I'd gladly participate in this thread but alas OP is a schizophrenic retard that can't spell, so i'm just going to hide it. Not going to dignify brainlet OP's, no sire

>>15515214
>committed by reason
Again, committed by blind mechanisms left unchecked. Degeneracy is a product of Less consciousness(thus more NPC-like) supported by easy material attainment.

>>15513954
Consciousness can't be figured out with science because it's one of those self-referencing paradoxes.

Consciousness is just short term memory

>>15512415
If consciousness didn't exist, neither would reality. For then there would be nothing to affirm its existence.

It's one of the biggest questions and will remain untouchable by science because its something that can't be measured. If the day comes that it will be measurable, it sure would cause a societal ruckus if it is found that not everyone has a consciousness and the NPC meme is proven true.

Its hard to have any meaningful discussion about this subject when so many mystify consciousness especially here in this brainlet low IQ central.

>>15514864
I wonder can you do it by seeing books persone read?

>>15516669
post shelf 4 free sychoanalese

>>15516694
>sychoanalese
sikoanalice
There we go, that bothered me.

>>15512415
there is no scientific proof for fatalism, it was an ancient philosophical mind game with no basis.
but scientific proof exists, such as in economics, actions taken have outcomes.
whole thread is discarded.

>>15516707
I see..
And what is the criteria/framework you use to interpretate the data?

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

>>15517046
Showing me the book you read shows me what you dont know and the tier of said books tells me the limits of saod knowledge.

Reverse deduction, you cant do it so dont try, as you have to be past said limits to realize its the end of that paradigm into the next tier, otherwise a dunce will retort me with the false limits of their knowldge that Ive surpassed. You can add a memo, stating info that can let me know "I just read this as a catchup or because it covers the whole field and Im a specialist." but I know this is a slim chance.

I know because its my Job to know and to know how to know knowing.

>>15516585
Its always filled with retarded theistic brained children. They always resort to "muh soul/consciousness" thats not physical.

>>15517596
What's outside of the Universe then? Explain without superstition