/sci/ - Science & Math

Something that doesn't exist

>>6053012
then how are you aware of what you do right now?

>>6053024
Who says he is?

>>6053030
Well, you obviously are.

Consciousness is today what chemistry was in the 1780s. Asking now will get you uncertain, cautious, early answers, it being a new field.

In truth, we can't give a meaningful answer for a decade or two, but we're getting there

>There are dualists on /sci/ right NOW

Game theory program.

Consciousness may just be the wibbly-wobbly side-effect of quantum phenomena randomly occurring within our synapses.

wat

>>6053004
Consciousness is very rudimentary a survival tool, in the early years of man people with out that voice that said "hey don't do that" were either killed off by the saber tooth, or were exiled by the group and let out in the wilderness alone. As you know people are social creatures. However as we as people evolved so has that voice

>>6053004
I don't know, but it clearly has something to do with the brain, and has a causal effect (so is externally verifiable).

I'd guess answers are on the way this century, given the big progress in neuroscience.

The constituent parts of your neural correlates giving rise to higher and lower order experience that have different faculties and capacities for salience and organization.

>>6053004

Begin with a function of arbitrary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then, take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness.

Everything with neurons has consciousness.

>>6053259
does ur moms dick have consciousness?

>>6053004
Simple brain chemistry

>>6053259
Except Jellyfish

My hypothesis, which is as worthless as everyone else's, is that consciousness is the direct result of massive complex systems of neurons working together. The experience of stimuli, or "the experience of the color red," as an example, would be the culmination of the substrates that the visual stimulation of "red" included. Since there aren't any other factors we're aware of, I'm putting my money on the experience being in the axons and dendrites themselves, or if anyone could figure out how, in the neuron itself; again, somehow. Because neuroscience is hard.

I base this hypothesis on absolutely nothing. Because we can still do that in this field.

>>6053004
You on the wrong website for this question

>>6053275
I agree with you, but the answer isn't even addressed by the understood chemical processes. How does a person experience things? We can see what part of the brain is activated by seeing something red, we can even render it as an image based on an electromagnetic image of that persons brain activity; but how in the actual fuck do we make sense of, and experience that image?

If brains weren't hard to understand, we wouldn't be even be able to talk about this.

The apex of an aware system that raises and falls in "height" as the system tries to become aware of itself or loses awareness of itself.

Experiments to try out on consciousness:

Slow down or speed up different lobes in the brain. Does slowing down your visual cortex mean you see in slow motion relative to your other senses?

Link cortex together, experience what it's like to be someone else!

Map out all the Qualia. Seriously, why aren't they doing this already? Fucking set the screen to red, see what lights up on MRI, set the screen to blue, see what lights up....

Once mapped, use info to create new qualia structures. Truely know what it's like to be a bat.

Create an exocortex port. Now you can plug and play new senses like video game cartridges!

Figure out how far you can go with the exocortex and determine if a regular old CPU emulating a lobe will create Qualia for you.

There's so much fun that can be had with consciousness. More fun than the heaviest drug trip. Hacking your reality itself

meh I hate everyone elses definition so here's mine.

consciousness is having values.
there is no good model for how we start having these values.
You talk about complex systems, but you don't talk about the hierarchy of them. Algorithms are built to discern and use information for behaviors. A set of behaviors is how we set up "intelligent" ai. The CPU of the brain chooses which behavior "works". This is the top of the complex system as we understand it.
Consciousness is weird though. Humans believe that owning other humans is wrong morally. Is this a result of internal programming or a societal standard?

>>6053302
that pic is so amazing. saved.

I wish that we could be just mapping out as many different qualia as possible, but so many different substrates overlap and appear to contradict other systems in the exact same clusters of neurons that it's impossible to just do a rudimentary 'diagnostic' of a persons brain to determine which substrate/system does what. We basically have to go through and do every individual possible situation until the end of the universe or until we quit

>>6053308
bro do you even neuroscience? because i don't think you do.

>>6053315
neuroscience has not observed consciousness.

>>6053321
NAME SOMETHING THATS COME CLOSER
>you can't
consciousness happens in the brain, no evidence to support any other assumption, and will inevitably be understood through neuroscience.

COME AT ME BRO

>>6053315
neuroscience can see the head light up when you follow your morals, but it doesn't explain why you have them.

>>6053327
that's what behavioral science is for.

>>6053326
:\
artificial intelligence
that was sooooo hard.
you can't even look at thoughts yet, because they occur in a very complex way. You want to get consciousness out of that? The sum total of memories, thoughts, and feelings?
it's not going to happen.

>>6053334
I can get behind that.
it's still going to be a while pretty sure...

>>6053338
in no way shape or form is AI aware of its actions in a conscious way. that's like, an example of something that isn't conscious but replicates intelligence.
And yeah we can too look at thoughts, you're retarded.

see
>>6053292

>>6053004
Probably my eyes

>>6053343
> we can too look at thoughts, you're retarded.
no you can't tard.
thoughts are too complicated

>>6053351
suck on my source, faggot

>http://biomagnet.uni-muenster.de/PDF_library/000834.pdf

>>6053312
pft. Just do the same thing we did with everything else. Do enough samples, work out a formula. Make a pretty picture of the formula. Voila, all possible senses mapped out.

What it's like to be an *everything*.

Then that just leaves the whole why am I me/where is consciousness after death bit. Which I think might have a chance of being discovered once you have enough experience with all the other shit.

>>6053368
I don't think you fully appreciate how complicated the brain is, bro. Shit's so complicated, it allows you to contemplate your own existence.

Also, that pic is some physics bullshit i read a shitty article about.

>>6053379
>it allows you to contemplate your own existence.
Not exactly. The thing doing the contemplating is not the same thing that is being contemplated.

>>6053387
>implying the brain doesn't generate consciousness

>>6053358
> introduction says nothing about looking at individual thoughts
try again faggot.

what does the thought of imagining a blue bird look like?

>>6053402
Here's a dumbed down video for you, retard

>http://on.aol.com/video/seeing-thoughts-with-mris-175528969

>>6053402
a bunch of neurons dropping down from potential states with respect to the optical stimuli from the eyes seeing said bird, only shifting in translation to getting the stimuli from the temporal lobe instead of the eyes themselves seeing a bird.

>>6053379
The act of thinking is just neurons doing stuff unconsciously. You only become aware of your thoughts after they've happened (MRI can predict you're thinking of something up to 6 seconds before you know about it).

So all that human complexity stuff won't be needed to map out a perception space.

>>6053410
I agree 100%, because you've stated objective facts lol
I'm referring to
>>6053292

>>6053410
so when someone thinks about an object, an mri is 6 seconds ahead of realizing this is happening before they are? that makes no sense.

>>6053406
I know what MRI's our, I'm not going to watch your shit video.
I read your fucking intro it was about the technique and resolution.
you cannot view actual thoughts, just feelings and general motion.
i've had plenty of brain imaging done for me

>>6053409
can you tell the difference between imagining a blue bird and a red hat?

>>6053399
That's not what I'm implying. The part of the brain thinking about stuff will never think about itself.

>>6053416
I know what MRI's *are

that's just...weird...

* general emotion.

I'm watching something else though

>>6053416
you not being able to understand the implications of what you read doesn't mean it isn't relevant.
>>6053417
you're talking out your ass, aren't you?
>>6053415
a neural signal begins in the brain stem and moves out through the rest of the functions, generally consulting the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain most commonly associated with a sense of self) very last.
So basically, your understanding of the world is just an after-the-fact rationalization of events as the rest of your brain decided they should happen. This raises interesting questions about free-will and shit

>>6053424
I read it you fucking tard.
It said nothing about being able to read your thoughts.
Being able to see electric activity in the brain is not the same as being able to interpret it.

is it too late to inb4 shitstorm?

>>6053428
You're like, seven different kinds of retarded. I hope i'm being trolled.

>>6053433
you haven't shown anything.
you just keep posting shit links that you can't interpret rationally.

you cannot look at the brain activity of a patient and know what they are thinking about.
The technology doesn't exist.
If you want to post an article about interpreting electrical signals instead of just fucking looking at them come back.
otherwise you have no argument

>>6053413
We test it out by stimulating that region of the brain in subjects and see if they report it's red.

You calibrate first by showing them what color they should see.

>>6053424
>you're talking out your ass, aren't you?
What I'm saying is that there is a hard limit on how much you can analyze something. Analyzing object A gives rise to sensation B. Analyzing sensation B gives rise to sensation C. If you keep doing that, you will lose consciousness because you're trying to create a self-referential paradox.

>>6053475
>lose consciousness
Can you describe this process in a rigorous, scientific manner?

Is it even possible that an arrangement of atoms can bring about consciousness/free will?

I don't think it is

>>6053004
I am philosophical zombie, consciousness is for faggots!

>>6053170
>and has a causal effect

What does it do?

>>6053326
>consciousness happens in the brain

The brain is a physical organ and all its processes are physical. There is no evidence for anything metaphysical/spiritual without observable effects happening in the brain. Please keep dualism on /x/.

>>6053302
>>6053312
>>6053368
>Map out all the Qualia.

How do you map out something which has no observable effects? Hint: You don't. In science we dismiss such untestable metaphysical nonsense by applying Hitchens' razor. The scientific method requires observational evidence.

>>6053399
>implying it does

There is no evidence that the brain produces any metaphysical spirits. The brain obeys the laws of physics and all its causal effects remain physical. If you want to believe in dualism, stay on /x/. It's unscientific.

It's a synonym for "soul".

>>6053769
>consciousness
>metaphysical/spiritual without observable effects
0/10

>>6053793
Please name its observable effects.

inb4 you just arbitrarily rename things which already have their own scientific names

>>6053238

based zhakarov

>>6053799
Any conscious event is reportable.

>>6053805
That's a meaningless statement. You did not answer my question. I asked you to name its observable effects. Please do that.

>>6053811
If your conscious isn't there than how are you breathing?

LOL dumbass

>>6053814
Breathing is a biological process and does neither require nor imply metaphysical or spiritual qualities. Are you trying to "troll"?

>>6053811
I don't see how. The subject's reports of their conscious events are observable. It's called heterophenomenology.

>>6053819
If /x/tards claim ghosts exist, does that mean they actually exist? No, it fucking doesn't. That's not how science works. Please go to school and learn the scientific method.

>>6053821
>That's not how science works
Nice OPINIONS idiot

>>6053821
How is this at all relevant?

>>6053825
>>6053828
The scientific method requires objectively verifiable observational evidence. "Muh baseless metaphysical beliefs" is not science. Please go to school and educate yourself.

>>6053834
Okay-- but I don't see how subjective reports aren't "objectively verifiable observational evidence". Anything dumped into the components of working memory are reportable, as all these project and eventually reach the motor areas. Your analogy is just false.

>>6053844
Subjective reports are not objective truth. Refer to >>6053821

>>6053850
And my reply to that would be "Anything dumped into the components of working memory are reportable, as all these project and eventually reach the motor areas. Your analogy is just false."

>>6053852
So you're saying all psychotic hallucinations are true because the patients say so? Cool story, troll.

>>6053856
They sure are true. Those patients have cortex-wide NMDA hypoactivity and atrophy, plus mesolimbic hyperactivity, a recipe for scrambling working memory.

>>6053860
>They sure are true.

So any ridiculous claim made by a schizophrenic is true? 0/10, you're not even trying anymore.

>>6053865
It's true insofar as it captures the mental representations within the schizophrenic's working memory.

So guys, what if time itself is consciousness?

>>6054095
Hegel already had an idea like this, look up his dialectic idealism

>>6053573
The brain starts rendering a fractal. Since fractals have infinite detail, it will eventually run out of think space like a computer runs out of memory.

>>6053799
The normal state of consciousness comprises either the state of wakefulness, awareness, or alertness in which most human beings function while not asleep or one of the recognized stages of normal sleep from which the person can be readily awakened.

The abnormal state of consciousness is more difficult to define and characterize, as evidenced by the many terms applied to altered states of consciousness by various observers. Among such terms are: clouding of consciousness, confusional state, delirium, lethargy, obtundation, stupor, dementia, hypersomnia, vegetative state, akinetic mutism, locked-in syndrome, coma, and brain death. Many of these terms mean different things to different people, and may prove inaccurate when transmitting and recording information regarding the state of consciousness of a patient. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to define several of the terms as closely as possible.

>>6053799
Clouding of consciousness is a very mild form of altered mental status in which the patient has inattention and reduced wakefulness.

Confusional state is a more profound deficit that includes disorientation, bewilderment, and difficulty following commands.

Lethargy consists of severe drowsiness in which the patient can be aroused by moderate stimuli and then drift back to sleep.

Obtundation is a state similar to lethargy in which the patient has a lessened interest in the environment, slowed responses to stimulation, and tends to sleep more than normal with drowsiness in between sleep states.

Stupor means that only vigorous and repeated stimuli will arouse the individual, and when left undisturbed, the patient will immediately lapse back to the unresponsive state.

Coma is a state of unarousable unresponsiveness.

>>6053799
t is helpful to have a standard scale by which one can measure levels of consciousness. This proves advantageous for several reasons: Communication among health care personnel about the neurologic condition of a patient is improved; guidelines for diagnostic and therapeutic intervention in certain situations can be linked to the level of consciousness; and in some situations a rough estimate of prognosis can be made based partly on the scale score. In order for such a scale to be useful it must be simple to learn, understand, and implement. Scoring must be reproducible among observers. The Grady Coma Scale (Table 57.1) has proved functional in this regard. It has been used for more than 10 years at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, to gauge the level of consciousness of patients in the neurosurgical intensive care unit and elsewhere. The grade I patient is only slightly confused. The grade II patient requires a light pain stimulus (such as a sharp pin tapped lightly over the chest wall) for appropriate arousal, or may be combative or belligerent. The grade III patient is comatose but will ward off deeply painful stimuli such as sternal pressure or nipple twist with an appropriate response. The grade IV patient reacts inappropriately with either decorticate or decerebrate posturing to such deeply painful stimuli, and the grade V patient remains flaccid when similarly stimulated

>>6053799
The exact neuronal connections that modulate alertness, wakefulness, and normal sleep and drowsiness are not well defined. A distinct group of neurons, the reticular formation, is located in the periventricular areas of the midbrain, pons, and medulla. In addition to modulating various interconnecting pathways within the brainstem, this group of neurons relates to the levels of alertness and wakefulness. It is postulated that a diffuse group of neuronal connections emanates from this reticular formation, projecting up the midbrain into the thalamic structures and then on to the cortex. This system is referred to as the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS). The ARAS receives input from all sensory systems, and efferent connections are extensive. It is thought that this system is responsible for modulating alertness and sleep. As such, any interruption of this system could result in alteration in the level of consciousness (or in abnormalities in the sleep cycle).

The mechanisms producing dysfunction of the ARAS arc varied and strongly dependent on the etiology of the illness. In some instances, there may be more than one factor contributing to deterioration in the level of consciousness. For instance, metabolic and toxic diseases generally produce stupor or coma by affecting neuronal metabolism or altering neuronal transmission. In such situations, dysfunction generally occurs in an orderly rostrocaudal fashion, beginning with cortical dysfunction and sequentially involving the diencephalon, midbrain, pons, and medulla (such a progression is characteristic of the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia). Early on, with involvement of the cortex, seizures or other abnormal movement patterns that are cortically modulated (such as myoclonus) can occur

>>6054416
>but will ward off deeply painful stimuli such as sternal pressure or nipple twist with an appropriate response

What the fuck are they doing to their patients?

>>6054405
>>6054411
>>6054416
You could have just linked the source of your copypasta.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21250221

Btw you completely missed the point.

>>6054482

No, YOU missed the point. You want to do semantic quibbling, I'll skin you.

>>6053004
Applied qualia

>>6053275
>He thinks synapses are chemical reactions
lel

>>6054533
They are.

>>6054516
So you're just trolling? That's sad. You could do something more productive instead.

>>6053004
muh quantum mechanics

Recursive gravity.

Consciousness is what you are.

The brain is a concept we (consciousnesses) agree on, which has some properties, which has been measured to have certain correlations between reactions of a person and such properties.

Because our words are made to describe things we can agree on, on the "consensuated" reality, we cannot talk about consciousness in a proper way. We can only relate measurements in brains with behaviors.

Sad, but true.

>>6054538
>They have

Consciousness is what happens when the "existence" property of something is measured. The brain looks for differences in things, so when this property is measured, the brain cannot categorize it because the contrast does not exist.

>>6054541

You're sad. You've been punked, and you have nothing left to fall back on.

>>6055453
What are you talking about?

>>6055467

If you can't follow the thread, there is no hope for you.

>>6055471
I did follow the thread. Your comment doesn't make sense.

Consciousness is likely the brain doing a recursive on itself.

The act of sensing, and responding to the senses in terms of drives can be probably be simulated on a "philosophical zombie". Consciousness is likely the subjective sensation of the brain attempting to analyze "itself" to give it a higher sense of awareness to its immediate surrounding beyond the immediately physical.

You could probably make a thinking machine capable of completing a turing test actions without consciousness, just through a pre-programmed stimulation of our own brains language concept-maps onto a computer with a lot of processing power with the implicit instructions of imitating a human. Once a machine could independently form a concept of self and its environment without preprogrammed instructions or knowledge, that action would probably create consciousness regardless of how it was coded.

>>6055776
>doing a recursive

I doubt the brain has a single consciousness residing in it.

Likely the region of the brain that you experience as you shares the same memories and receives the same information as your other other regions with the functional capacity for consciousness, and forms an unconscious consensus on action and thought, then performs its specialized function on the body.

Take for example the independent control exhibited after an hemispherectomy.

People think the consciousness is singular and special, but I will laugh when its proven otherwise.

consciousness is the perception of being as being; human beings are the only beings for which their being is an issue, that is conciousness, an aperture to being

>>6055819

Um, "Analyzing". Analyzing the external environment likely doesn't lead to consciousness because simple machines can perform that, and are obviously not conscious. Analysis of ones internal systems likely leads to the phenomenon of consciousness.

>>6053170
>it has something to do with the brain
thanks, for one moment I thought consciousness was just some kind of inter-dimensional being possessing my body

>>6055836
FREUD WAS RIGHT AGAIN

>>6053041
>Implying state of mind does not emerge from neuronal interactions

>>6053259
Why because they interact? Heart cells also communicate with each other in a coordinated complex pattern, is my heart conscious?

That moment when bounch of pothead junkies are more productive and creative in neuroscience than /sci/.
http://tripzine.com/pit/signal_theory_poster.pdf

>>6055976
Any psych/neuro people here?

How much of this is true vs crank bullshit with neuroscience buzzwords?

>>6055976
I would like to read this, but I am not an ant.

>>6056027
lmgtfy.com/?q=signal+theory+poster

>>6055996
Masters neuroscience student here but thats unreadable

>>6055996
Heres the .pdf link for anyone

http://tripzine.com/pit/signal_theory_poster.pdf

>>6053770
Um. Qualia is the very definition of observation, dumbass. Learn to information.

>>6053772

The brain can still look inward and decide what the fuck it is based on what the fuck it sees. I'm not the guy you quoted, but I'm not talking about spirits and I don't think he was either.

Quit being a Jew and arguing semantics.

I imagine the same processes which allow trees to branch outward allows the mind to branch outward as well, with the memories being like the leaves and the connections between events, memories, sights, smells, etc. are like the branches. A little more complicated, no doubt, but as we grow and learn it is very similar. At some point, the "entropy" that allowed for the growth can no longer sustain the entire system and the organism dies, just as a tree will die when it eventually grows too large, but a small branch can be plucked off and grow into another full tree under the right circumstances.

>>6055976
>Thus, increased recurrent excitation within cortical circuits is the direct cause of perceptual distortions, hallucinatory constructs, and expanded states of consciousness associated with the psychedelic state.
>increased recurrent excitation

Except some 5-HT2A receptors are inhibitory, even in sensory areas, and exogenous ligands tend to activate different signalling cascades (i.e. LSD). The model of thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits is vastly simplistic ignoring thousands of things and this conclusion he presents is simply a giant non-sequitur.

>>6055864
Maybe it doesn't possess your entire body, just your brain. We could all be inter-dimensional forces, what this dimension calls "consciousness", acting and reacting to the environment we are presented. What force motivates one long chain of carbon skeletons to go out and find other long chains of carbon skeletons? Could consciousness be a force no different than gravity?

>>6056060
Observation is a physical process of measurement and does not involve any metaphysical or spiritual qualities.

>>6056062
What does this have to do with the post you're quoting? Absolutely nothing. Introspection is an algorithmic process. It is physical and does not support any claims of metaphysical intervention.

>>6056427
>measurement
>physical
pick one

>>6056438
What else do you think it is? Magic? Do you even science?

>>6056448
do you

>>6056453
Yes, I do.

>>6053806
which Zhakarov (or Zakharov?) are you talking about?

captcha ilaborang which

>>6056469
nevermind, found it. Prokhor Zakharov. I am disappoint. I was expecting a good read.

captcha lowermost moostem

>>6053806

Good news everyone! The substructure of the universe regresses infinitely towards smaller and smaller components. Behind atoms we find electrons, and behind electrons, quarks.

Each layer unraveled reveals new secrets, but also new mysteries!

>>6055895
All we can agree on is that the brain is an interface of the mind with memories, senses and the body.

>>6053230
why isn't this the best response.

>>6056784
Because it doesn't answer the question.

>>6053004
I think the best dumbed down, non philosophical way to explain consciousness is by explaining what we would be without it.

now before we get started, lets remember that we are all actuallly individually aware, and not fragmented sums of some super entity. each and every person here is in fact equally aware as I am, and you are.

Having said that, consciousness itself is practically a form of adhd unto itself; we are given the notion that we are unique so that we don't sit still. and because this factor alone led to a higher rate of survival (by being nomadic, by being creative) the trend was reinforced and what we call consciousness became standard quo.

tl;dr: it, like our fingers and eyes heart and liver, is a device of evolution and nothing more.

>>6056801
That idea completely fucking misses what consciousness is. Survival instincts comes from memory and emotion; things that are purely chemical; it should be able to work without you being aware of it.

>>6056801
>is by explaining what we would be without it.

We would be exactly the same. Adding or removing something which has no observable effects doesn't change anything. That's why we dismiss such assumptions by Hitchens' razor.

>>6056805
>That idea completely fucking misses what consciousness is

Tell me what it is.

>>6056808
are you high or something?

>>6056438
Why don't you give me an example of you measuring something that isn't physical.

>>6056808
>We would be exactly the same
What? Of course we wouldn't. No observable effect? The act of observation is part of the effect. I understand what you're getting at but the "mind" clearly exists, just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't, whether its some paranormal magic energy that exists completely outside of known science, or simply the sum of its parts.

>>6056805
being privy to that chemical exchange is consciousness itself
it's not a video game where there is you and the controller, they aren't two pieces to a puzzle, they are no less and no more than one mechanism, that's consciousness.

hyper realism can't save you now

>>6056808
same goes for this post, you're implying that removing consciousness is somehow possible. consciousness is literally a biproduct of those chemicals, we are only privy to them because we are distinctly unique and separate entities. physically and mentally, which are both the same

the reason this question seems to perverse science is because scientific method is based on observation, and consciousness is observation itself. I mean I know you guys know this already, but spelling it is important sometimes.
my main point is that observation is 100% physical, consciousness itself is 100% physical.

how strange it is to be anything at all

>>6056814
No, I don't take drugs.

>>6056816
>The act of observation is part of the effect.
No, it isn't. The act of observation is a physical process of measurement and does not warrant any metaphysical connotations.

>clearly exists
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>6056816
>The act of observation is part of the effect

that's a good way to put it.

trying to prove we exist is literally impossible
this statement is the sum of the words in it
prove = observe
exist = observed
to observe the observed in real time is like asking mona lisa to look at herself.
and there are no gods to lend us mirrors.
we are the canvas and the paint
holy fuck I'm high disregard everything I said you actually don't exist this is just a test.
>>6056817
>>6056801

>>6056820
Not fully understanding something doesn't make it metaphysical, just like if time travelers from the future popped up and started levitating around using magnetism or whatever, it would not be magic.

>>6056817
>being privy to that chemical exchange
What does a chemical exchange have to do with dualistic soul nonsense? A chemical exchange is clearly measurable and observable. It does not support your point.

>you're implying that removing consciousness is somehow possible
There is nothing to remove because it doesn't exist in the first place. We are biological organisms. Our bodies obey the laws of physics. Outdated untestable and unobservable metaphysics has no place in a modern scientific world view.

>is literally a biproduct of those chemicals
Chemicals are physical and physical processes stay physical. They do not have any invisible byproducts without observable effects. Please keep /x/ beliefs in /x/. This is a science board and the scientific method requires objective observationa evidence.

>and consciousness is observation itself
Observation is a physical process of measurement without any metaphysical qualities.

>100% physical.
Something physical has to have physically observable effects. "Muh non-interacting invisible spirit" is definitely not physical and does not even exist. Apply Hitchens' razor.

>>6056820
>metaphysical
don't even use that word
he is not implying anything metaphysical

the statement he's making is pretty grounded, observation CAN NOT exist without consciousness
I know what you're thinking
lizards and birds, and larvae. fucking algae has observation, are they conscious? yes. are they creative enough to be considered conscious on a level in regards to treating them with equal moral as our peers? no, that would be a massive greyscale, single celled organisms observe. they ARE conscious. these words should never have been so put out of their own true designation by years of abstract media conceptual and marijuana users.

>>6056821
>trying to prove we exist is literally impossible

It is easily possible by means of scientific observation. Human beings are visually observable.

>>6056833
define observation

>>6056829
>Not fully understanding something

Understanding WHAT? Before we try to "understand" something, we first need to have observational evidence of it. "Muh made up fictional ghost" is not something that needs to be understood but only needs to be dismissed as unscientific nonsense.

>>6056829 -->cont'd from

>>6056820

As well, you speak of hitchen's razor, yet you begin your counter with "no, it isn't," and the only substantiation you provide to follow is

>does not warrant metaphysical
You are assuming the the nature of the subject is metaphysical. However, we are trying to define something that is majorly undefined, and here you are, slapping a VERY constraining label on it. If you want to claim the mind is purely metaphysical, prove it. If it's in the definition, explain how consciousness is intrinsically metaphysical.

>observation is a physical process
This in no way contradicts what I said, and no one is claiming otherwise.

>>6056832
but I never mentioned soul. these are my posts
>>6056833
>>6056821
>>6056817
>>6056801

read 833, there's no soul, there's no metaphysics, there is observation, and that is the progenitor of consciousness.

>>6056834
thanks, we now know that humans exist. that doesn't say a goddamn thing about whats behind our eyes. you can only perceive other people talking to you, you can't observe their consciousness, this isn't goddamn pacific rim.

>>6056833
>don't even use that word
I use whatever word most accurately describes the observations. That's how we do it in science.

>he is not implying anything metaphysical
He was arguing in favor of a soul/consciousness. Tell me how that isn't metaphysical nonsense.

>the statement he's making is pretty grounded
Grounded in what? His spiritual beliefs do not qualify as scientific evidence. Scientific evidence has to objective.

>observation CAN NOT exist without
Observation is a physical process of measurment. An interaction with the environment is being detected and the information is quantitatively or qualitatively processed. This does not imply any magical souls. Please stop trolling.

>lizards and birds, and larvae. fucking algae has observation, are they conscious?
No, they are not, and neither are humans. No organism has any metaphysical properties. From a scientific point of view we dismiss this nonsense by applying Hitchens' razor.

>>6056840
hey, I'm >>6056841
using a name for a minute
do you agree/disagree with what I'm saying? I feel like we're sort of on the same page.

>>6056846
>I use whatever word most accurately describes the observations. That's how we do it in science.

alrighty then..... how are you applying metaphysics to consciousness again? metaphysics isn't scientific, there's no need to use the word, it's completely inaccurate, it's phylosophical. this isn't philosophical, this is /sci/

>That's how we do it in science.
>using non scientific subjects

how can you construct an argument like that? this sounds like /x/ now.

>>6056840
>However, we are trying to define something that is majorly undefined
Do it. I'm waiting.

>If you want to claim
I don't claim anything. I only apply Hitchens' razor to obviously unscientific claims.

>This in no way contradicts what I said and no one is claiming otherwise.
You claimed the process of observation proves the existence of soul/consciousness. As I explained, it does not.

>>6056841
>but I never mentioned soul.
You used a synonym. Cool story, troll.

>there's no soul, there's no metaphysics
That's what I'm telling you.

>and that is the progenitor of consciousness.
No, it isn't. Please keep spiritualist/dualist beliefs on /x/. /sci/ is a science board.

>that doesn't say a goddamn thing about whats behind our eyes
Behind my eyes is the optic nerve, which connects them to my brain.

>you can't observe their consciousness
Exactly. That's why the concept is unscientific hogwash and to be dismissed by Hitchens' razor.

>>6056847
Yes, I do. The only thing stopping this discussion from vibrant is the fact that one side is referring to the mind/consciousness as metaphysical, as if its an axiom or something. Its very hard to reason your point when the counter is mostly "no, that's metaphysical"

>>6056846
he said
>The act of observation is part of the effect.

find the word soul, I can't seem to find it.
>Observation is a physical process of measurment. An interaction with the environment is being detected and the information is quantitatively or qualitatively processed. This does not imply any magical souls. Please stop trolling.

listen, please holy fuck man
NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SOULS.
NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT METAPHYSICS
are we clear on this yet? I don't believe in souls or magic, or metaphysics, I don't think he does either. no one said soul but you.

>>6056853

Consciousness Troll uses the word metaphysical to mean occult.

>>6056850
>how are you applying metaphysics to consciousness again?
Something without observable effects is metaphysical. Definition of metaphysical: "empty talk without basis in reality".

>metaphysics isn't scientific
That's exactly the reason why your beliefs have no place on a science board.

>it's phylosophical. this isn't philosophical, this is /sci/
You got the message. Will you please either stop talking out of your ass now or go to /x/ where that nonsense of yours belongs?

>how can you construct an argument like that?
By applying rationality.

>>6056854
>>However, we are trying to define something that is majorly undefined
>do it. I'm waiting

does Forum not mean anything to you? Communication..? we* are trying, not him, by himself, with a fucking stopwatch.
why even post that.

>You claimed the process of observation proves the existence of soul/consciousness. As I explained, it does not.

he literally never said that once. source the damn words or stop using them.
and where is that synonym?

sources man, get em out. start greentexting
I want to see the word Soul in my/his post
as well as the word Metaphysics used in our own arguments, or any synonyms.

>>6056853
It is your burden of proof. You have to define it rigorously and demonstrate scientific evidence.

>>6056855
>find the word soul
He used its synonym "consciousness". Do you have problems with the vocabulary of the English language?

>listen, please holy fuck man
I am neither a man nor holy. "Holy" is not a scientific term. Please keep religion out of /sci/.

>NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SOULS.
>NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT METAPHYSICS
At least one poster ITT claimed the existence of a soul/consciousness. Read the thread.

>I don't believe in souls or magic, or metaphysics
Then what are you still arguing? If you agree that a soul/consciousness doesn't exist (or at least agree that the very notion of it is unscientific as fuck), you should either argue in favor of my position or ignore the thread.

>>6056861
it does have observable affects, you're just not organizing the information we're giving you properly.
how can I straighten this out for you

consciousness is a synonym for observation
and vise versa
that is my argument, no magic, no soul, no metaphysics.

it's improvable, not due to metaphysics, but due to the inherent characteristics of scientific method which are inclusive of observation itself
how can you define observation with observation? you can't.
and thus it's not scientific, it's a construct that precedes science; logic.

not math
not soul
just logic

can you handle this

>>6056871
just because a fucking thesaurus says consciousness and soul are synonyms doesn't warrant them to be used in an argument that is prolifically trying to disseminate each word by means of either combining or separating them, thereby truly defining either or.

so in short, you are wrong. we never brought soul or metaphysics into this. my argument is clear here
>>6056873

What makes us "whole". It is apparently infinite, as it can evolve, and is made of more than one type of life. There are infinite possibilities for consciousness as a whole. We are infinite organisms with a finite psyche.

>>6056854
>Do it
Um... welcome to the thread?

>clearly unscientific claims
I'll just dismiss this without evidence now....

>Claimed observation proves consciousness
No I did not. You're confusing a statement I made in referral to my point as my point.

>as I explained
All you've done is offer arguments which don't actually contradict the other arguments, which people here are trying to explain to you. Beyond that, you hit that buzzword button a little too many times and popped out a whole bunch of "razor" an "metaphysical" but I fail to see anything empirically substantial.

And as for the other guy

>You used a synonym, troll
No he did not. However, considering how undefined the mind is, as we've been discussing, many people would consider them synonymous, an opinion which would be unscientific. You, however, seem to be trapped inside the notion that this is the only possible perception of consciousness.

>>6056867
>does Forum not mean anything to you? Communication..?
The communicational pr>>6056833
oblems ITT are yours and not mine.

>why even post that.
That poster made a claim. I am encouraging him to fulfill his burden of proof.

>he literally never said that once
In >>6056833 he said <span class="math">[/spoiler]>observation CAN NOT exist without consciousness

>and where is that synonym?
See the last quote. He used the word "consciousness".

>>6056879
oh sweet jeesus please fuck off, I already destroyed your thread on 'meaning of life' don't try to shit this one up. gtfo
go write a poem or draw something pretty.

>>6056881
You are depression only.

>>6056871
Burden of proof? I'm not fucking proving anything. We're having, or trying to have, a discussion about the characteristics of a thoroughly undefined construct. YOU are making claims. It is YOUR claims that I am trying to negate. Hello? Are you paying attention in there?

As well, and I can't believe I actually have to point this out...

SYNONYMS does not mean that the words in question mean THE SAME THING.

Jeez. If you paired al the snynonyms in the english language you'd get plenty that don't necessarily mean the same thing, especially since the definitions of many words, if not most words, are a bit open-ended/malleable

>>6056873
>it does have observable affects, you're just not organizing the information we're giving you properly.
You did not give me any information other than "muh belief". Science does not work on faith. Post a rigorous definition and objectively verifiable evidence.

>consciousness is a synonym for observation
No, it is not. Observation is a physical process of measurement and has nothing to do with metaphysical notions of a soul or spirit.

>that is my argument
An arbitrarily made up falsehood is not an argument.

>it's improvable, not due to metaphysics, but due to the inherent characteristics of scientific method which are inclusive of observation itself
That means it is metaphysics, i.e. empty talk without basis in reality. Everything in existence has to have scientifically measurable/observable effects. Something without effects can be dismissed as non-existent. Hitchens' razor.

>not math
>just logic
Logic is a branch of math.

>can you handle this
Handle what? Your ignorance? I'm trying my best to educate you.

>>6056876
>just because a fucking thesaurus
I prefer to accept a "fucking" thesaurus rather than the uneducated opinion of an anonymous poster on 4chan who demonstrably lacks basic understanding of logic and language.

>so in short, you are wrong
What is this kindergarten bullshit? Just repeating "hurr durr your wrong" only makes you look immature.

>my argument is clear here
An already disproved fallacy is not an argument.

>>6056884
>You are depression only.
you are on good stuff

>>6056883
he says
>However, we are trying to define something that is majorly undefined
(we, us, forum, this entire thread)
you say
>That poster made a claim. I am encouraging him to fulfill his burden of proof.

nothing wrong with this, but can we state exactly what his, yours and mine, ideas are?

>thesuarus says consciousness is a synonym
so? does that mean dogs are made of wood because they bark?

>>6056877
>but I fail to see anything empirically substantial.

I did not make any claims. I am only applying Hitchens' razor here. Still waiting for you or the other anon to substantiate their claims with evidence.

>>6056888
>Burden of proof? I'm not fucking proving anything.
So you can't substantiate your claims? You're just talking out of your ass? /x/ or /pol/ might be the right board for you, not /sci/.

>SYNONYMS does not mean that the words in question mean THE SAME THING.
That's the definition of synonym.

>>6056896
>so in short, you are wrong. we never brought soul or metaphysics into this. my argument is clear here

Don't take it out of context! You Are wrong because a synonym does not actualy translate directly to every other word.
they all have subtle differences and similarities where they CAN be exchangeable SOMETIMES in the right CONTEXT
this is not the time to exchange words by thesaurus.

>An already disproved fallacy is not an argument.
>disproved fallacy

I uhh.. thanks?

>>6056897
>so? does that mean dogs are made of wood because they bark?

You honestly don't know the difference between synonym and homonym? How old are you?

>>6056889
The core problem here seems to be that you cannot separate the concepts of soul and consciousness as different things. So let me put it for you this way:
What we are trying to say, does not include anything about the soul or the metaphysical. So, BY DEFINITION, you are misunderstanding the discussion by bringing about the topic, especially by trying to insert it into our language.

Also, even though the whole synonym argument is just siilly, here's some synonyms for consciousness: awareness, cognition

Really though, the point needs to be made that if you link together synonyms one by one, every word can eventually meet any other word.

>>6056908
Please get a dictionary and look up what synonym means.

Consciousness acts in the same manner as light, for it is always beaming out. The Sun beams out in every direction, and a human consciousness beams out to every part of itself. It governs your brain, which governs your body, it is what makes us "whole", it connects us to life, so that we are living. It's that necessary component. Since we are in finite space, with finite resources, I assume that the correct term for consciousness is the infinity that is harmonious with a finite psyche.

>>6056910
>SYNONYMS does not mean that the words in question mean THE SAME THING.
lol, no, no it isn't
I think we've found exactly where you are confused.

do you really believe that every synonym can be exchanged in every sentence?
do you know how much confusion that would cause

>>6056921
alright just for you
>a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated.

>Nearly
>NEARLY

metaphysical is NEARLY the same.
it is not the same. in this context, it is highly different you fool.

do you still think you're right? the dictionary's even agreeing with me now.
I said

>SYNONYMS does not mean that the words in question mean THE SAME THING.
you said
>that's the definition of synonym

so wait.. Same and "Nearly the same" are synonyms? somehow?

>>6056910
>That's the definition of synonym.
lol, no, no it isn't
I think we've found exactly where you are confused.

do you really believe that every synonym can be exchanged in every sentence?
do you know how much confusion that would cause

>>6056921
alright just for you
>a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated.

>Nearly
>NEARLY

metaphysical is NEARLY the same.
it is not the same. in this context, it is highly different you fool.

do you still think you're right? the dictionary's even agreeing with me now.
I said

>SYNONYMS does not mean that the words in question mean THE SAME THING.
you said
>that's the definition of synonym

so wait.. Same and "Nearly the same" are synonyms? somehow?

Consciousness is an electrical storm whose medium is the brain. The constraints and limitations of that medium cause notable patterns to emerge from what would otherwise be a chaotic electric soup.

>>6056918
I am still waiting for you to define the word "consciousness" in a meaningful and scientific manner, i.e. your definition has to refer to something scientifically observable and it has to convey information. By conveying information I mean it shouldn't just arbitrarily rename existing terminology like e.g. "responsiveness" for the sole purpose of forcefully using your dualist vocabulary.

>>6056928
>do you really believe that every synonym can be exchanged in every sentence?

That's the fucking purpose of synonyms. Do you even into language?

>>6056906
We have given you plenty of information that you claim to seek, but you simply say "hitchen's razor" and are done with it. Here, let me show you in an example post so maybe you can understand, because having your critical points directly contradicted isn't enough for you.
>>6056906
Your arguments aren't scientific. Using hitchen's razor, I can dismiss everything you've said. Observation is consciousness.
do you feel like I just proved you wrong? Of course not. Because all I did was claim the application of a process which needs to be defended since the claim of applicability is a claim in of itself, which is a sweeping assumption on my part, and then attempt to substantiate my claim with my premise, even though that isn't necessarily MY premise.

Also, logic is not a branch of math, and hitchen's razor does not give you authority to dismiss ANYTHING as not existing just because you don't have evidence of its NOT existing.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Look, i'm sorry you can't quantifiably measure your consciousness, but we also couldn't quantifiably measure the light of the sun at the dawn of man; doesn't mean it wasn't there, or that we couldn't see it.

>>6056932
So lets call it responsiveness instead then to satisfy your autistic hating of a single word.
Though the meaning is the same.

>>6056912
>You did not give me any information other than "muh belief". Science does not work on faith. Post a rigorous definition and objectively verifiable evidence.

I literally just said that you can't, because it would require a separate entity to verify it,
you can not verify that I am conscious, you just assume that I am because you're not solipsistic, like most sane people. but it is not determinable through science. I already made this clear.
it is only determinable through logic.
the logic was posted

>we are given the notion that we are unique so that we don't sit still. and because this factor alone led to a higher rate of survival (by being nomadic, by being creative) the trend was reinforced and what we call consciousness became standard quo.
consciousness and observation are one synonymous concept. Observation would be the more precise word to use as a scientist.

>>6056938
Ugh.. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out on a science board whose primary language is english (I'm assuming)

Conscious is a synonym for informed. I could make a point already, but im going to make it EXTRA clear.

So, by this logic with synonyms...

Conscious = informed

Now, conscious and vigilant are also synonyms. so, I guess,

conscious = vigilant
So, by your logic, informed = vigilant. But those words have completely distinct meanings. If someone out there really thinks this doesn't prove that point then you'll have to give me a moment to link enough words together that even you cannot refute it.

>>6056932
Look guys, someone just figured out the topic of the thread.

>>6056939
>We have given you plenty of information
Who is "we"? Speak for yourself. The only kind of information you provided ITT was expressions of baseless beliefs.

>Your arguments aren't scientific
Hitchens' razor is a principle of rationality and part of the scientific method.

>Observation is consciousness.
This has already been addressed and shown to be wrong ITT. Please refrain from reposting disproved fallacies.

>Also, logic is not a branch of math
What else do you think it is? A branch of geology? Either you're trolling or very uneducated.

>hitchen's razor does not give you authority to dismiss ANYTHING as not existing just because you don't have evidence of its NOT existing.
Something which doesn't have observable effects cannot have evidence and can be dismissed as non-existent. There are no non-interacting ghosts. Deal with it, /x/tard.

>"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Sure we should start believing in unicorns, fairies and slenderman now? Is that what you're saying?

>>6056944
>Though the meaning is the same.

No, it is not. "Responsiveness" is a biological term, "consciousness" is a dualist/spiritualist term. Big difference. On /sci/ we use scientific terminology and we refrain from posting /x/ nonsense.

>>6056949
>I literally just said that you can't, because it would require a separate entity to verify it,
This is called "peer review". Please learn the scientific method.

>you can not verify that I am conscious
That's why scientists dismiss the notion of a soul/consciousness by applying Hitchens' razor.

>you just assume that I am
No, I don't. I do not make unnecessary and unscientific assumptions.

>it is not determinable through science.
Then what are you doing on /sci/?

>it is only determinable through logic.
>the logic was posted
I don't think you understand what logic means. Please take a course on formal logic. "Muh belief" is not logic.

>consciousness and observation are one synonymous concept.
No, they are not. The physical process of observation has nothing to do with metaphysical properties.

>>6056957
Wow. So, I'm just going to focus on the part of this post that I find hugely more significant than the others, the part where you refute the idea of
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

We had no evidence that America existed. So they never did.
We had no evidence that the platypus existed, so it never did.
We had no evidence of quarks or gluons, so they never existed.
We had no evidence of single celled organisms, so they never existed.

That is you.

>>6053004
> What is consciousness?

>+ 190 posts and 18 image replies omitted.

>>6056957
What you're missing is that saying the razor applies does not mean it does.

Also, regarding math and logic... how exactly did math come before logic? Hm?

>>6056951
You do not understand what "synonym" means. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

>>6056972
All these things are observable. Your comparison is wrong. The correct version would be "We can never have evidence that a non-interacting ghost exists, therefore we dismiss it as non-existent".

>>6056951
I can't believe you have to spell this out either
why don't people actually understand what a synonym is for

I mean.. here let me fucking draw this shit out for you, I hear that some people learn better with pictures next to the words.

>widow I got a dart burn
at what point did this boys father die and darts burn people?

you can't base an argument off of presuming all words used can be exchanged with synonyms

you just can't. stop trying to validate this, it's not real.

>>6056980
You do not understand what synonym means. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

>>6056980
no, you don't know what a synonym is. this is sad man.

It's impossible to answer this like explaining how a simple machine or device...

But it is beyond hilarious to hear some of the explainations some of you are content with.

>a conscious observer arising from a configuration of molecules in motion

You idiots should be ashamed of yourselves.

Consciousness is the very essence of all that exists, the most fundamental level of the Universe... the Higgs field.

We are all simply the physical filter (our body, nervous system, brain) that modulates this primordial essence (higgs field) for shining through us like a light source behind film in a projector... and don't take that metaphore literally you fucking aspies, it is a representation of funtion.

Now you know why hippies, mystics, Einstein and Tesla realized that "all is one."

The singularity, you're it motherfucker.
.

>>6056979
>What you're missing is that saying the razor applies does not mean it does.
Even though it is obvious, I explictly explained why the razor's prerequisites are met.


>how exactly did math come before logic?
Do you even history of math? Mathematical logic started to be a new branch in the late 19th century. Nonetheless there has been math before logic was formalized and researched by people like Peirce, Russell, Cantor, Hilbert and Gödel.

>>6056980
wow. Just wow. I just proved to you that you are wrong about synonyms. Like, hardcore proved. 2+2=4 proved. And you're just going to tell me I'm wrong? That's how you do science, huh?

Instead of making vague appeals to scientific concepts, why don't you actually explain why I'm wrong, without referring to a scientific construct that alleviates you of the duty of thorough explanation? That is, before you just go saying, "wrong" "metaphysical" or "hitchen's razor" please please PLEASE, actually explain, maybe just once at least, WHY. Because THAT is science.

>>6056972
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Please take a basic probability class. P(H|E) > P(H) IFF P(H|~E) < P(H).
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/
>lern 2 maths

Also,
>implying that "evidence of absence" means "proof of absence" hurr durr

>tards arguing about synonyms
>not realizing that there is such thing as different definitions
>not knowing that "bark" as in "the sound a dog makes" is not the same word as "bark" as in "the stuff on trees"
>2013

also Frege and Boole
>>6056891

>>6056988
I don't think he wants to understand the fault he's making for sake of weakening his argument. and that is the falcrum of his entire argument basically, employing flimsy synonyms in other peoples arguments to manufacture falsehoods or incongruencies that aren't there.
I seriously need to sleep anyways.

>>6056980
just look at my picture guy, you might learn something.

>>6056984

>>6056996
Being right after adding several qualifiers does not make the original point right.

and no you didn't. I know that's not an argument but seriously, I re-read everything you posted and you simply just didn't. Not once did any explanation you offered for the application exclude the presumption that your premise is correct.


As for the most recent bullshit in this argument...

Just read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>>6056999
In the context of the original phrase, which needs to be understood as simply being a casual, unscientific phrase used to refer to a concept much more technically correct, it does mean that. And in the context of the conversation, it does mean that.

There's a reason I put it in quotations.

>>6057010

It's a Troll.
Sometimes it claims it is a 20 yr old gril with "science education"

what the fuck that's supposed to mean, I don't know. I studied chemistry and math, not 'science'

>>6053004

localized information processing of reality (including the brain)

>>6056984
Are you verbally deficient or something? Any person with an above average IQ knows how to use a thesaurus without producing semantic garbage. I suggest reading a book once in a while.

>>6056990
>projection

>>6056997
I am not going to repeat myself. Read and try to understand the explanatios posted ITT. If you have trouble understanding them, feel free to ask questions.

Look at these legendary aspie's arguing over linguistic drivel instead of concepts.

Stay pleb /sci/

It's funny how I used to actually derrive intellectual stimulation from this board... you fuckwits cannot even handle abstract thought processes.

Going back to /x/ before I catch aspergers syndrome.

>>6057010
>just look at my picture guy, you might learn something.
I am not a guy and I looked at the picture. Read my response to that post. If you are too unintelligent to use the thesaurus for its intended purpose, that's not my fault.

>>6057011
Hitchens' razor is a simple application of modus tollens. Do you reject logical inference?

>>6057013
Your opinions are irrelevant to logical truth.

>>6057021
>It's a Troll.
Not everyone arguing against your (wrong) views is a "troll".

>I studied chemistry and math
That sounds more like "I took freshman intro courses".

>>6057040
What are you talking about? You keep saying "read this response to that" but none of them actually say anything. Hell, your response to that picture was just to insult the man and claim he's wrong. How the fuck is that an argument?

You aren't describing why the razor applies anywhere. You are describing the facets of the razor and claiming they apply. That is all, other than this stupid synonym thing that is as disprovable (as I've done) as 2+2 = 3

>>6057042
>your opinions are irrelevant to logical truth.
...okay? So are yours I guess. Where does this get us, exactly?

>>6057063
Do I really have to spell this out for your undersized brain? Hitchens' razor is an application of modus tollens aka proof by contradiction. If something exists, it have to have evidence. Ergo the impossibility of evidence implies non-existence. QED

>>6057068
I did not post any opinions. I only posted observational facts and logical inferences.

>>6057071
Yeah I know. There you are again, just describing the razor instead of actually substantiating it.

Also, you seem to be having difficulty discriminating between the concepts of "evidence" and "observable evidence"

If you simply cannot understand the distinction (although I doubt very much the existence of truly unobservable anything) then that is a limit on your mind that I cannot reason past, as it is inherent.

>>6057071

This is the logic of a cretin.

>>6057071
Imply does not mean prove. Oh wait, are they synonyms? hehehe....

>>6057074
Cool, me too

>>6057087
>just describing the razor instead of actually substantiating it.
What part of my post did you fail to understand?

>discriminating between the concepts of "evidence" and "observable evidence"
Those are the same thing. All evidence has to be observational. The only reason to write "observational evidence" instead of "evidence" is for emphasis.

>>6057090
Formal logic is for "cretins"? Cool story. How hard did you fail your formal logic class? I bet you're one of these people who cannot even grasp what an implication means in propositional logic.

>>6057087

You are also a cretin for arguing with this small minded anon.

>>6057095
Do you fail to understand what a proof by contradiction is?

>>6057100
>ad hominum

>>6057098
>Those are the same thing
Bye.

>>6057100
yes, yes, we're all impressed by how big and strong your wisdom is.

>>6057112
>Bye.

Goodbye, anon. I hope some day you'll understand the scientific method.

>>6057133

He does, but due to a lack of severe autism like yourself he also aknowledges it's limitations...

We are having a nice theortical conversation about consciousness which isn't very productive if you confine yourself to the endless set of limitations you have apparently cramed your tiny little mind into.

You are a brute, a true intellectual heathen capable of nothing more then regurgitating the terms, definitions, and ideas of people that you have been instructed to memorize in a formal setting.

You are a true shame to the intellectual and scientific community, a bastardization of what should be a growing and expansive experience.

How does it feel to be incapable of taking part in a discussion that is on the edge / forefront of current understanding.

You will never discover anything original with your current mindset, you are nothing more than a record keeper of other's thoughts and ideas. A waste of a human mind.

>>6057133

He does, but due to a lack of severe autism like yourself he also aknowledges it's limitations...

We are having a nice theortical conversation about consciousness which isn't very productive if you confine yourself to the endless set of limitations you have apparently cramed your tiny little mind into.

You are a brute, a true intellectual heathen capable of nothing more then regurgitating the terms, definitions, and ideas of people that you have been instructed to memorize in a formal setting.

You are a true shame to the intellectual and scientific community, a bastardization of what should be a growing and expansive experience.

How does it feel to be incapable of taking part in a discussion that is on the edge / forefront of current understanding.

You will never discover anything original with your current mindset, you are nothing more than a record keeper of other's thoughts and ideas. A waste of a human mind.

interesting

>>6057149
>>6057151
>on the edge / forefront of current understanding.

The question "what is consciousness?" is nothing new. It has been discussed for thousands of years without yielding any non-trivial results. I know you're pseudo-intellectual and you want to feel deep and smart, but if you honestly believe a discussion among uneducated students on 4chan will solve the hard problem of consciousness, you must be fucking retarded.

>>6053035
Four posts down and the thread was answered, yet totally ignored

>>6057182
Most philosophical questions have been around for a really long time. How can you say there have been no advancements? I think our answers to these questions are much better than they used to be.

As far as discussing it here, why not?
This is a science board. Wouldn't it make sense that intelligent people, along with unintelligent people, would gather to discuss science? If you think you're intelligent, then clearly you must believe this.

Unless you're one of those people that think philosophy "has no place" in science.

>>6057202
Well its a very open ended thing, I'm not sure that would completely shut down the topic but honestly I wish anons in this thread would read this. Maybe we could get something good going.

>>6057203
/sci/ is "science & math". /sci/ is not "pseudo-intellectual random". Science is defined by the scientific method. If you want to spout simplistic and uneducated opinions about untestable and unobservable things, you are wrong on the science board. You have /b/, /pol/, /r9k/ and /x/ to discuss philosophy.

>>6057182
>but if you honestly believe a discussion among uneducated students on 4chan will solve the hard problem of consciousness, you must be fucking retarded.

That's the thing, it could be... as in a possibility.

You're ruling out of even the slightest chance only shows just how out of touch you are with reality.

No one thought a patent-clerk deemed useless by his academic professors would go onto become a celebrated genius and formulate e=mc^2 either.

Small minds look for reasons why things cannot be done.

I would be ashamed of you if I had any role in your upbringing... it's very sad to see such a failure at a basic level.

>>6057203
>This is a science board.
Exactly. This is a science board and not a philosophy board.

>would gather to discuss science?
Please discuss science. So far there is no science discussion going on here. All I see is scientifically illiterate kids mistaking their edgy wannabe philosophy opinions for scientific facts.

>philosophy "has no place" in science.
Philosophy and science are polar opposites. Science is about explaining factual observations while philosophy is about made up problems not relating to anything in reality.

>>6057208
Here we have a classic misunderstanding of the relationship between philosophy and science.

Science is a subset of philosophy. all philosophy tries to do, is apply logic to everything. Obviously, because of our limited human consciousness or cognizance or whatever you'd like to call it, our ability to do that is limited. But we try anyway.

There is no other place for philosophy. Science IS philosophy. The only reason that so many fields of science exist outside of philosophy today is because of how broad our understanding of particular subjects has developed to be. The need arises for more and more particular subsets to arrive, as can be seen to continue through recent years as smaller and smaller specialization arise in different branches of more specific study.

At the dawn of science, the lines were severely skewed, if effectively relevant at all.

>>6057211
>That's the thing, it could be... as in a possibility.
A lot of things "could be". Come back when you have factual evidence.

>how out of touch you are with reality.
As a scientist I am working with reality every day. If anyone is out of touch with reality, then it's you. You are the person who prefers to dwell in kindergarten tier philosophy.

>No one thought a patent-clerk deemed useless by his academic professors would go onto become a celebrated genius and formulate e=mc^2 either.
He was never just a "useless" patent-clerk. He was a successful science student and afterwards became and accomplished researcher. The fact that he also happend to work temporarily in a patent office doesn't change that.

>Small minds look for reasons why things cannot be done.
Scientists are "small minds"? Sure it must take a "large mind" to comprehend your toddler philosophy babble. Perhaps our IQ is just too high to understand you. We should all dumb down ourselves in order to communicate with you, shouldn't we?

>I would be ashamed of you if I had any role in your upbringing...
I highly doubt you would be capable of assisting anyone's upbringing.

>it's very sad to see such a failure at a basic level.
How did I fail? Academic success is what you call "failure"?

>>6057222
>>6057208

uh... you guys realize...
the scientific method is philosophy...right?

That and much more here... is this really being discussed?

>>6057233
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
forgot to put in the link, ha

>>6057229
>Science is a subset of philosophy.
No, it isn't. The invention of the scientific method made philosphy obsolete. Science explains reality while philosophy dwells in anti-intellectual "u cannot know nuthin" and "muh made up metaphysics" garbage.

>all philosophy tries to do, is apply logic to everything.
Logic is a branch of math and not understood by most philosophers. Philosophy generally rejects logic.

>There is no other place for philosophy.
Philosophy belongs on /x/, /b/, /r9k/, /pol/.

>Science IS philosophy.
No, it isn't. If we sat around, circlejerking over "u cannot know nuthin" instead of doing experiments, there would be no technological progress. Philosophers nowadays are just as anti-science and ass-backwards as creationists.

>>6057233
No, it isn't. The scientific method is a rigorously defined process of gaining truth about observations in nature. Philosophy on the other hand is "muh beliefs" and "muh fallacies".

>>6057241
Okay, okay, so, let's just keep on ignoring the fact that the scientific method...IS...philosophy...

Other than your own existence, and possibly that you aren't omniscient (haven't read anything about this, anyone know of anything someone might've published concerning it? I'm sure there's got to be plenty), offer me one thing that you think you know with scientific certainty. I will argue against your knowing it, in the form of questions, as per "burden of proof" and all that. Let's see who comes up with some bullshit answer first.

>>6057252
Did you just literally say "u cannot know nuthin"? Toppest lel. No, I won't play your little pseudo-intellectual game of "I will deny everything you say." Please grow up. We don't need more of this toddler bullshit.

>>6057222

The aspie is strong with this one aswell.

I am sorry you we're dropped, and presumably from a very high distance, directly onto the right side of your head as a child...

What is it like to be a human being incapible of a single original thought?

True science is about discovery... yes the scientific method is a brilliant tool when employed for the purpose of absolute accuracy and finalization of the entire process of discovery.

But the scientific method =/= science.

Some things are beyond our current means of observation, technology has it's obvious limitations which change over time with advancement.

There are also (and I know this will make your aspie little brain quiver in agony) things that are inherently unable to be observed due to thier very own nature, or atleast without corrupting any possible quantative analysis.

Consciousness, while elusive and abstract certainly is a worthy topic for scientific discussion.

I just wonder what kind of creature or mental mutant you must be to actually sit here and postulate the notion that the scientific community isn't allowed to participate in discussing / exploring the nature of consciousness?

I mean really... just what the fuck is wrong with you to even entertain such a vigourus conviction when it is probably the holy grail topic amongst every great scientist we've known.

>>6057260
>Dismissed without evidence

>>6057247
>The scientific method is a rigorously defined process of gaining truth about observations in nature.


[citation needed]

>>6057247
it's just assuming that Hume's "muh false assumption of causality" and ability to reason is bullshit leading to no meaningfull progress of understanding the nature (conclusion of his ideas was - you cannot describe world by laws - as you can never be sure that for example gravity is temporaly misguiding observation that migh not be observable some time in the future.)

tl:dr disproving science as a source of knowledge is unproductive and highly authoritative bollocks.

>>6057247
>The scientific method is a rigorously defined process of gaining truth about observations in nature

And the idea that the scientific method yields observable truth is by nature *a philosophical position*

Really, I love science and I think it has brought us far more than philosophy ever can or will, but outright rejection of philosophy not because of any logical reasoning, but of basic misunderstanding of it only hurts your position.

Philosophy can be intellectual masturbation, but it is an important framework for understanding what exactly the scientific method brings us

Agree with videos like this or not, its important that we have this discussion just as it is important to doubt previous axioms.

I get blasted on boards like /lit/ for a heavy skew in favor of science (often being accused of "scientism", although I prefer postpositivism) but I know that acceptance of science does necessitate *some* axioms. While they are the simplest and most intuitive axioms, they are nonetheless inescapable, and we must recognize that science does not yield what can be called with intellectual honesty undoubtable truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ooV-19NLY

>>6057267
>True science is about discovery... yes the scientific method is a brilliant tool when employed for the purpose of absolute accuracy and finalization of the entire process of discovery.
>But the scientific method =/= science.

Nope. Hate to burst your bubble but "true science" is not just about discovery. If it is about anything it is about replicatability.

Also, science=scientific method. Were it about discovery, then you wouldn't limit yourself to just using the scientific method, because while the scientific method is highly useful, it's only one means to an end.

>>6057267
>What is it like to be a human being incapible of a single original thought?
You tell me what it is like. Unlike you I am highly creative.

>True science is about discovery... yes the scientific method is a brilliant tool when employed for the purpose of absolute accuracy and finalization of the entire process of discovery.
Science is about explaining observations. Do you even know the scientific method?

>But the scientific method =/= science.
Science is defined by the scientific method.

>There are also (and I know this will make your aspie little brain quiver in agony) things that are inherently unable to be observed due to thier very own nature
Something which can never be observed can be dismissed by Hitchens' razor. We can safely say there are no non-interacting demons.

>Consciousness, while elusive and abstract certainly is a worthy topic for scientific discussion.
Scientific discussion requires factual evidence. "Muh baseless belief" is not scientific discussion.

>I just wonder what kind of creature or mental mutant you must be to actually sit here and postulate the notion
It's called scientific education and you're in dire need of it. Please go to school and learn the scientific method.

>the holy grail
You're religious? That explains a lot. But please keep it on /x/.

>>6057281
This.


Also
>>6057235

>>6053004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fu_k8_tae0

Vsauce answered this question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjfaoe847qQ

>>6057287
>You're religious?
Speaking on this anon's behalf, I'm going to give you a moment to clear up whether you're this dumb, this in denial, or just being spiteful, the latter I would remind you is very detrimental to both scientific discussion, and your integrity in the eyes of readers.

>>6053167
>aka "I don't understand it - it must be some kind of magic"

I'd say we are just unable to get initial state of universe/reality (whatever it is) which is highly deterministic, and what we call consciousnes is just unability to give any predictible claims about what your "independent" action will be since there are so many variables determining it.

Penrose's hope to find free will in quantum mechanics is just like saying given free will is just combination of random effects in given circumstances - "I'm concious because dynamics of my brain MIGHT depend on random phenomena and random phenomena in another brain I communicate with.

it's like - determinisitc begavior + some weird shit in QED etc. => some magic ... => free will and consciouness. That's a new age sci-fi for me.

Also case might be - such complicated system as brain cannot be explained and comrehended with system of the same compexity.

>>6057295
Very good video.

>>6057295
How is vsauce so
B A S E D
A
S
E
D

>>6057304
also free will my lie somewhere in "chaotic" part of this graph (of course it is very simplified one, but given complexity of brain same phenomena may be observable. In chaotic phase your brain is just guessing and guess is technically indeterminant.

ITs a blessing brought upon us by our creator.

Prove me wrong.

>>6057352
Technically, you can't. Technically, and I know SO many people will get so mad at this, Agnosticism is the only true scientific religion if you ask me. You have to have a touch of Agnosticism to account for the whole Unattainability of true scientific certainty thing. But woah, lets not let this derail the thread. God knows (being used figuratively...) it could.

>>6057332
Chaos is still deterministic, but unpredictable. The way you might think of it is that chaos is the emergence of great complexity from simple processes -- not the emergence of reedom.

>>6057352
>Prove me wrong.
it emerged spontaniouysly
prove me wrong

>>6057231

Congratulations.

You truely are a very unique and special kind of stupid.

You're ability to selectively filter information based on your own convictions is rivaled only by the religious fanatic.

And yet you choose to make a mockery of science, intellectualism, and the entire human race in one swift stroke.

I pitty you, and therefore find it merciful that you are allowed this special kind of reinforcing idiocy that allows you to continue living without experiencing the need to destroy yourself.

Parroting aspies are a dime a dozen, enjoy living inside that tiny little mental box inside your head... it's where you belong you petulant little shit.

>>6057408
:(

>>6057408
>immature insults, immature insults everywhere

You must be mistaken. This is "/sci/ - science & math" and not your butthurt blog. Please keep your childish expressions of emotional distress on facebook. Nobody cares how much scientific facts hurt your feelings. If you can't deal with it, then stay away from /sci/.

>>6057352
from where your creator's free will came from?

*tips fedora*

>>6053693
>I don't think it is
>think

Reality really doesn't give a shit what you think.

>>6057427
>deez nuts.

>>6057366

I agree completely...

Anything else is belief based in blind faith, believing in God or Athiesm.

This thread is outrageous.

>>6057459
give me definition of something/being that exists.

>>6057459
>Blind faith

heh heh whoa there buddy lets get something str8 m8

theres nothing 'blind' about my faith, I am fully aware that there can be no objective certainty about what i believe.

>>6057408
While your unjustified rage is simultaneously cute and entertaining for all readers, I'd recommend closing your browser before you start cutting yourself.

An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation.

>>6057689
>aware of yourself
That does not make any sense.

>>6058760

Obviously you've never had a concussion.

so what's the consensus on this topic? is there such a thing as consciousness or no?

the consensus is that unconsciousness exists

>>6059353
It is dependent on the observer.

>>6059353
>so what's the consensus on this topic?
That /sci/ have a village autist that throws a shit-throwing tantrum every time someone mentions a scientifically accepted term that he/she/it disagrees with.

What would happen if we cut 2 heads open and start to connect the neurons? Where would be the point where the two consciousnesses become one?

My opinion (not a fact) is that consciousness is a property of biological structure of brain. I don't believe it could be replicated as simulation of any kind.

>>6053302
Nigga, slowing down the speed of your visual cortex would make you see everything as if it were sped up.

Have no fear, a neuroscientist is here!

To be completely honest, consciousness is currently one of the least understood biological phenomena. That being said, we do have an idea of what it is, albeit a crude one.

It all starts with evolution, specifically with mammals. See, mammals have evolved the most complex sensory awareness in the history of all life forms. Our complex sensory inputs require massive amounts of neurons to process the information we get from our environment. If we couldn't process this information, we wouldn't be fit to survive. Even the survival of the smallest and earliest mammals depended on their ability to react to their environment. As a result of gaining such a complex understanding of what's around them, those little mammals had larger and more complex brains than the dinosaurs around them. The neocortex, something unique to mammals, formed for reasons we do not quite understand. Perhaps it was out of necessity to process all the extra information we were receiving. Nevertheless, the neocortex in other highly evolved mammals became bigger and more complex. Eventually, at some point, our understanding of our environment became so great, we reached some sort of precipice to where we became as conscious as we are today. But that's not totally correct, imo, consciousness does not happen after a certain point. It's more of a spectrum and happens gradually. This is why dolphins, bonobos, and chimpanzees can be considered to have a high level of consciousness. Even your pet cat has a certain level of consciousness. Humans are not unique in the respect that we have consciousness, but somehow we have such a complex consciousness that we no longer need to focus on our survival. Somehow, from there, we developed our cultures, languages, cities, and space shuttles.

>>6057037
>"linguistic drivel"
>not relevant in a thread about defining consciousness

>>6057042
>Not everyone arguing against your (wrong) views is a "troll".

I may not necessarily disagree with you, but how can you be this dense?

>>6057151
>You will never discover anything original with your current mindset
Not supporting anyone, but there is plenty he could "discover" with his mindset in various fields of study.

Consciousness simply put is routine.

Imagine with me for a second that your Brain is a landscape of hills, valleys, and mountains. While your Neurons are rivers flowing through the awe that is your wetware, and as time passes these rivers like all rivers erode the land away. Allowing for stronger currents to form so that these rivers may spread, twist, and fork off into more and more rivers. Day after day following the same routine. With the landscape changing based on external input. One day you may absorb enough mystery's in the world, and be compelled to read a book about physics or the like allowing for your rivers to fork off into new channels through the same old land.

>>6057295
Thank you for sharing. I subscribed and liked.

>>6053004
Consciousness is the minds attempt at understanding itself. It is also the biggest break-through evolution has made in self-sustaining, for lack of a better term, energy.