/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15690063
This isnt science, your not allowed to post this.

Julian Jaynes solved consciousness. All other thinkers since have been tepid and subpar. Too bad his second book was never released. He was going to go on about how emotional processes like sexual arousal subvert consciousness. The masses would have ridiculed him.

>>15690063
Try to create a magnetic field with your brain and extend that field towards other organs in your body, and also towards external objects in the environment. Seems like there is a internal electromagnetic sensory apparatus. Some say its the pineal gland, which has piezoelectric calcite crystals within it. Also try to visualize your bone structures with your consciousness. They create a weird hallucinatory effect when you do it.
People always debate about what consciousness is, yet they hardly ever debate about what its capable of. Its clearly capable of far more than most people are aware of.
People always deny any sort of nonphysical perceptual event as a 'hallucination', but they never dispute the existence of such hallucinations, nor do they debate the implications on the brains ability to hallucinate ethereal energy in free space which can be manipulated by awareness of the mind.

>>15690063
NDErs say that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. And NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife. And as one NDE researcher said that he does not know anyone who has read the literature on NDEs who has not been convinced by it, and the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

So consciousness is solved as eternal. But materialists refuse to read the literature that refutes their worldview.

And NDEs are more real than life. One way this manifests is how much better and more intense the feelings are there. As one woman remarked:

>"So I went into the light, and as I was moving up into the light, I just started to feel so good. You know like I can't, words can't explain it. Like the higher that I went into the light, and the more that I moved up and further away from Earth, the better I felt. And the feeling of pleasure does not really apply to this Earth, like nothing can compare. Like if you took everything that you were in favor of, like maybe getting a massage, in a hot tub, your favorite music, your favorite food, your favorite drink, everything that you love, happening to you all at once, no matter what it is, all at once, it would not even closely compare to the pleasure that was just within that light. And as you moved further into, like further away from this Earth, the pleasure felt even better. So you just moved up it felt better and better, it was insane."

From here: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

And the NDE convinces everyone who has it, even hardcore skeptics, according to this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So this argument is literally airtight, irrefutable proof of an afterlife, because we know now that the NDE will convince anyone, no matter how skeptical they may be.

>>15690063
Say the cause of consciousness is discovered. Then what? What would one even do with that information? Sure philosophers might get new material but zero new technology will come out of it.

>>15690063
>As it turns out, consciousness is just as mysterious as the big bang,
No its not, we know that the big bang theory is just the result of a logical explosion that comes from making projections based on assigning a value to a null value, but we really have no idea what consciousness is.

>>15690312
>What would one even do with that information?
Sentient Robot holocaust

>>15690345
Neuromorphic computing and lab grown brains already exist.

>>15690312
>Say the cause of consciousness is discovered. Then what? What would one even do with that information?
Remote mind control. The glowies are already doing this. They explored the quantum nature of consciousness several decades ago and now they are using targeted Aharanov-Bohm effect to influence your thoughts. Why else do you think the spike protein is supposed to disrupt the blood-brain barrier coincidentally at the same time they're rolling out 5G?

>>15690063
nope. consciousness does not mean spiritual bullshit is science. consciousness is produced by the material brain. grow up.

>>15690631
>consciousness does not mean spiritual bullshit is science.
But it does mean your metaphysics is wank and science that relies on it is fake. Granted, no science actually relies on it.

>>15690633
>your metaphysics is wank and science that relies on it is fake
nope. like i said, consciousness just depends on the material brain, fact. there is nothing special about it. let's not be silly now.

>>15690641
>like i said
No one cares what you said. You are mentally ill.

>>15690075
But anon, there's no reason to ridicule.
All systems are hackable. Consciousness is indeed a system.

>>15691089
Where did I ridicule?

>>15690312
>Zero new technology will come out of it.
[Citation Needed]

Everytime we figure out how something fundamental works, in this Universe, it has influenced our technological development.

Everyone is free to have an opinion, though I expect logical thinkers to come up with logical opinions.
Have you fully evaluated your position on this? Really?
Sometimes we have knee-jerk thoughts and opinions, that come to a more correct conclusion upon reflection.

I am no expert in that field, but I am generally a logical thinker, and my opinions are formed from a factual basis that is consistent, in general. Thus, I am always willing to evaluate my positions again.
If you have informed information regarding why determining root details of the existence of consciousness won't influence technological development, I look forward to reading it.

>>15690330
If you have two hats, one hat is stuff we have explained 100% defined from the lowest possible axioms, to the highest configuration of complexity possible for that subject. Then a second hat of stuff we have not done that for...

The big bang and consciousness both fall into the same hat.

If that's your bar for "mysterious", they aren't wrong. Just depends where you decide to put that bar.

>Semantically arguing
But it's technically consistent.

>>15690631
Your viewpoint is quite bandwagon, sir.
A true scientist is always open to possibilities, even if they always apply their belief on falsifiable evidence that remains through scrutiny. From an efficiency standpoint, it's reasonable to forego exploring concepts that have little tangible evidence. However, if you are someone who's opinion could change if evidence emerges that can withstand scrutiny, then perhaps someone will discover it someday.

Since we don't know "everything" there may be an evidence based backing for spirituality's existence that we just haven't discovered at this time.

I am not trying to change your current opinion, because it is correct based on scrutiny's expectations. However you sound as though you wouldn't be open to new evidence, should it emerge.

(Merely suggesting keeping your eyes open.)

>>15690633
There used to be no "science" that relied on heliocentrism.
That's not really an impressive bar.

>>15690071
Yes it is. materialism != science.

>>15690631
>consciousness is produced by the material brain
proof?

>>15691141
he is literally psychotic and 99% of the stupidest shit you read on this borad that makes your eyes bleed because it is so mind boggling retarded it is that one schizo

>>15691141
In fact you can (and I do) pick him out in every single thread by simply asking yourself "what is the most unscientific thing to think and say about this thread topic" and when someone posted it, it is him

>>15691916
working on it. proof that consciousness precedes the material?

>>15690304
Lmao, schizo book

>>15691935
there is no proof for either so far, thats the point.
im not hinting at either being the source, but since you cant ultimately trust your senses you gotta keep an open mind about either hypotheses until proven of course.

>>15691961
it's forever impossible to prove, so i am just going to take a side.

>>15691969
nothing wrong with that, but I prefer to stay neutral.

>>15690631
How do you know the substance that matter is made of is in some way fundamentally unlike what consciousness is made of? If there is an objective world of non conscious matter you have no way of ever verifying it because everything you ever observe must be containable and representable to your conscious subjective experience. You have no way of knowing what matter is like, if it can exist independent of consciousness, and even if it can be completely independent of consciousness, there is no good reason to imagine that it is fundamentally unlike the substance of the conscious experience. Mind and matter may not be the same if you don’t want to be a solipsist, but to say that matter we can only ever sense indirectly must be completely different from consciousness is silly because they share the same origin. If matter creates consciousness of consciousness emerges out of matter, then consciousness and matter must ultimately be the same thing in different forms, and that goes both ways. The universe is probably made of mind and consciousness if consciousness can emerge out of it.

>>15691974
i got confused, i thought i was on the determinism thread. as for materialism/idealism, i don't refuse the possibility of idealism. only certain people's ideas of it, involving le magical free will and law of attraction bullshit, and similar nonsense.

>>15691983
>non conscious matter
as far as we know, most matter is non conscious. for example, a banana is not conscious.

>>15691989
same bro, same.

>>15691961
>there is no proof for either so far
what? show me consciousness without a material support. what the fuck are you talking about?
whenever we meet consciousness it always has matter support. that's a serious hint don't you think?
your spiritual woowoo is not on the same foot as consciousness emerging from matter. fuck outta here

>>15690063
It's kind of wild how by understanding the universe you end up understanding the organic brain.

>>15691992
Your subjective experience is a creation compiled by your brain and therefore the banana you experience is “made” of consciousness and as much originating out of mental activity as it is the causality that grew it with chemical reactions. It has qualia and is presented in a way your brain is evolved to represent information. You can never actually observe what matter is like independent of consciousness because you have to experience it through mental activity. But all matter must in some way be “pregnant” with the potential of consciousness for consciousness to emerge out of it into us as conscious beings.

>>15690063
I was having trouble understanding the universe, so I studied a brain for the answers. To my surprise it worked.

>>15692010
reading this made my eyes bleeds it is so stupid

>>15692010
not trusting your senses is not "spirtual woowoo".
you're relying on an assumption. but yes I grant you that the material side as a lot more weight, as of now.

>>15692025
>reading this made my eyes bleeds it is so stupid
still no argument, whenever you have something conscious it always has matter support. there's zero cases of consciousness without matter support. or do you know any?

>>15692038
NTA, obviously neurons have a lot to do with consciousness. I'm very skeptical that a rock is conscious for example, but there is no definitive proof that shows how consciousness arises purely from physical mechanical phenomena.
there is not a single hypothesis that explains qualia (material or otherwise). I don't think we need to understand physics deeper more than we already do to demonstrate consciousnesses but the fact that we haven't hints that maybe physics can't explain it. of course thats just speculation. otherwise consciousnesses should be as easily explained as Newtonian physics are to 10 year olds.

>>15690312
>but zero new technology will come out of it.
true, but god will be discovered, infinite wisdom is upon us

>tranny navel gazing thread

>>15692038
you cant even prove matter exists outside of your imagination mouth breather. The only thing you can prove is you are conscious and experiencing, as always the droolers have it bass ackward

>>15692056
then I have another thought experiment. suppose we reach the tech to scan and assemble a 100% perfect atomic copy of yourself. I think there's no debate that it will (leaving souls out of this discussion) behave identically to you. if copy-paste happens in a double blind setup nobody knows who the original you is anymore, provided the process is flawless.
now, running this scenario it appears that if we arrange matter in a very particular way (your 3D info for example), we get another conscious being.
funny how matter just does that, in certain configurations. if there was a name for this...
I mean sure, you could argue for a spirit, and matter would be a sort of key that perfectly matches that spirit, but then having two identical bodies means it will be "channeled" identically by both bodies. but they'll diverge soon, one may become "evil" as it were, clearly different souls at that point. so that means humans have the power of just creating souls, which makes zealots foam at the mouth.
so the whole matter is key/antenna type shit is also out the door.
most likely consciousness is emergent from matter.

>>15692067
if you'd get your face bashed in you will quickly remember what we all call matter, and why.

Has anyone ever really asked themself.. "who am I?"
I don't mean you're name. Your name was given to you.

>>15692038
A conscious entity without matter is literally a ghost. The only way to prove a species of animal is real scientifically, you need to catch a specimen or its corpse. The scientific method makes predictions and manipulates matter to prove them. How could a conscious entity even be detected empirically if it did not reveal itself by intelligibly manipulating matter in a distinctive way? He is right, your argument makes no sense if you are a materialist. Lots of people claim to interact with non material consciousness, but that doesn’t prove or disprove materialism.

>>15692074
>more retard noises

>>15692078
>claim
faggot

>>15692074
Pain is qualia you dope, that means it’s non material and therefore claiming to prove materialism with it is absurd.

>>15692069
>funny how matter just does that, in certain configurations. if there was a name for this...
I don't deny that matter has something do with it, just whether or not it's the complete story.
but I don't think it's magic or spirits either, I just think it might be beyond the realm of what we call physics.

>>15692082
That is how you spell claim, moron.

>>15692086
the thing about retards is they have just enough brain power to make elementary observations of what they are experiencing. They lack the capability to turn that examination on itself to examine what is doing the experiencing. It is like they shortcut. They cant comprehend that the tv is not reality, it is a falsified and warped representation of reality easily hacked and distorted. His argument is "you are stupid I know it is real because it is right there on the tv!" He cant process that what he is seeing is not reality. It is pretty scary knowing how most people are this dumb and even worse they vote

>>15692094
*shortcircuit

>>15692094
I'm sorry but you spiritualists don't have any coherent theory either. there is an idea that mind might precede matter, sure but so far it's just an idea, I need more than just an idea.

>>15692098
>I'm sorry but you spiritualists don't have any coherent theory either.
>more retard noises
well if you just throw enough shit you make up at the wall maybe something will stick

>>15692089
I'll also give you that we still never ran the cloning (perfect total cloning, with brainstate) experiment and we don't know. would be really surprising if we couldn't get another identical you, but a vegetative body or something without consciousness. that would be a total mindfuck
yes, I also agree matter can be part of the equation. I really don't KNOW either way, it's just speculation based on everything I learned so far.

>>15692098
you are in plato's cave btw. I am not and this was solved 1000's of years ago

>>15692094
>He cant process that what he is seeing is not reality.
I got that shit during highschool or some shit
>doode, there's like....more. we ain't seeing everything
holy shit you are the most retarded of all /sci/ namefags.

>>15692103
There is no reason why if your hypothetical cloning machine worked you wouldn't get an identical me. you definitely would, but it still doesn't explain why those bunch of atoms, cloned or birthed, in this hypothetical case cloned, produce qualia.

>>15692102
I'm not denying your theories, moron. I'm just rightfully skeptical of what you have to say since you didn't provide proof either.

>>15690304
>NDE
What does this have to do with those retarded monkey jpgs?

>>15692112
>There is no reason why if your hypothetical cloning machine worked you wouldn't get an identical me. you definitely would, but it still doesn't explain why those bunch of atoms, cloned or birthed, in this hypothetical case cloned, produce qualia.
yep, I also expect it to be a perfect me, with all of that extra stuff attached, nothing missing.
how and why might be related to total number of stuff happening at once. consider something like a macro organism, virtual beings, created by humans. if you affect one side of the planet the other side will respond a certain way. it does behave like an organism.
various gods that various religions created, you can "perceive" them by the actions their believers take on their behalf. you can perceive that being in their actions. they can create this virtual being this way, as perception.
something like that is what might be happening in our brains, and we call consciousness. if it's something virtual we'll have a pretty hard time nailing it down. we'll only see small parts "working on its behalf" at any time we check. a neuron here, some nerve signal there. there's always some physical arrangement at any one point we measure, that's doing something.

>>15692110
>I’m a moron who didn’t understand the anons comment but rather than acknowledge that to myself I’ll pretend he said something straw manny instead that I can understand hee hee I win in my own head!
Dumbass. Better mask up because Covid is spontaneously back in time for the presidential election

>>15692129
>...they can create this virtual being this way, as perception
data is not consciousness it's certainly necessary for it but its not it.

>>15690063
Consciousness is beyond observation. Nothing can be objectively known about it. As far as the physical world is concerned it does not even exist. Any investigation into consciousness is completely confined to a single individual, nothing can be shared or built upon.

>>15692166
that's the thing. it might become consciousness if it flows in certain particular ways. we don't know if it is or isn't, yet.

>>15692191
it's certainly an interesting problem, but I don't see how if it goes a different way it becomes conscious. I don't think it's an emergent property, I think consciousness should scale. the same way computing works fine even with a dozen transistors (a Turing machine). you just get a really shitty computer but it still computes.

>>15692219
can emerge when closed systems start working with eachother, specialized on different shit. it enables a new general behavior (functions). sort of like we do on the planet. if we care about it, and we all have common goals, and work together towards them, it can become "self-aware" as it were, given enough "neurons" and dataflow.
dataflow matters as quality, which determines actions in certain "neurons". what data flows where might be the difference between nothing and cousciousness, if data has impact in physical world, why not? you send an email and someone does some shit physically, that's data determining material action.
given enough scale difference between systems they can manifest similar behavior, clearly limited, but could be a fractal common theme for some behaviors.

>>15690312
That depends on the source
>sufficiently complex system
Some people an hero, maybe some advances in ai
>quantum bullshit
Snake oil salesmen and schizos multiple exponentially, superdeterminists seeth even more
>literal souls
Religion gets a boost

>>15692227
>...enough "neurons" and dataflow
again its not a "not enough data" problem.
as for the rest I still don't see how this explains experience, you just keep asserting that it happens. not how it happens.

>>15692233
>literal souls
Schizos get a bigger boost than religion in that case imo.

>>15692244
I mentioned that at different scale there might be similar behavior, not full behavior re-enacted at a different scale. thus the religious gods will always die with the last human remembering (and thus enacting) them. it's not full consciousness, but it's an incomplete consciousness.
not sure you pay atention, I'm not saying that it categorically is, about most of my theories, these are just speculation. somehow you seem pretty sure of yourself that it cannot be a not enough data. and I also mentioned data quality, and it's intimately connected to some sort of processing node, be it a human or a neuron or anything with the same function. we don't know yet
>as for the rest I still don't see how this explains experience, you just keep asserting that it happens. not how it happens.
at least I'm doing something. makes more sense to get some boundaries for what you are probing.

>you cannot know what counsciousness is
>don't even try bro
>soul, consciousness, experience, all of it bro, can't do it, don't even try. trust me
be wary of these arguments, they are setting you up to fail. these fucks found a comfy position from where to gatekeep what we actually are.

>>15692257
They’ll be religious schizos instead of garden variety ones

>>15692264 (me)
and if consciousness is intimately tied to data, then that might imply that at least our "type" of consciousness might be limited to a certain scale, imposed by the speed of light.

Consciousness can be defeated with an icepick. The hard problem is just spirituality for atheists. Stop putting humans on pedestal. You're an upjumped ape and your experience of red is no more profound than your experience of taking a shit.

>>15692337
holy based

>>15692337
it's not that profound but it's very interesting.
also its important to be able to control it and thus the interest.

>>15692401
what do you mean "control it"?

>>15692406
if you can learn something that can be used to gain power someone will try to control it to gain power. you must assume it will happen and what does that mean and how do you avoid that and everything that implies.
I sometimes get religiousfags point of view, in that it's better to not look and just go with something that makes you feel good. but not sure if that's something that will work long term, and can be insanely limiting. we might miss out on a lot of stuff, good stuff, because of that.

>>15690063
Consciousness will never be accounted for unless we somehow manage to move beyond it. Of course, a state beyond consciousness is necessarily inconceivable so this whole endeavor isn't too promising.

>>15692279
pretty sure dennet was an Epstein boi. p sure I have seen pics of them together

>>15690382
But do particles even exist?

>>15692110
ah yes I have been here for almost ten years and never once heard any of you talk about any of this and in fact I have relentlessly attacked and called schizo and mocked for talking about it but YOU, you knew it all along! stfu you retarded sack of shit, there is no one more annoying than someone who claims yo have known something everyone knows for absolute fact did not. You are the saddest of psueds and most pathetic of incels. Dont ever talk to me like we are in any way equals

>>15692544
Why do you make every thread about yourself? Quit shitting up this board.

>>15692558
suck shit out of my asshole mental midget

>>15692544
>never once heard any of you talk about any of this
that our senses cannot perceive the extra shit that's out there? that you cannot see wifi? are you retarded?

>>15692560
no son, YOU are retarded. When you are retarded everything not retarded, looks retarded to you mouth breather

>>15692563
so you cannot form a coherent argument? you spent 10 fucking years on this website and learnt fucking nothing.

>It's the every three days "consciousness" shit flinging thread where new posters that haven't read much about philosophy make the obvious observation that it probably has something to do with the brain, and the same masterbaiter freaks out and calls everyone ITT an idiot.
>>15690304
The NDE poster is here too. It's not an airtight argument. Furthermore, why do you keep on copy pasting this over and over again? Are you prostheletizing or something?

>>15692094
the same argument works for shit you're halucinating as well. the way our brain senses the environment, technically, you "see" whatever the brain is showing you with the information your eyes got. it can perfectly overlay shit that is not experienced by anyone else but you. whatever your brain shows you as in your religious hallucinations, can totally be fabricated by your brain, not real in the sense that no one else but you is experiencing that shit, which we usually call fake, hallucinations. but it can feel extremely real and personal for you, just that not real in the sense that it's shared with anyone else.

>>15692592
I am wondering if you understand you are probing my point

>>15692624
*proving

probably not

>>15692632
yes I am, that is why I wrote it, but at the same time it invalidates all the spiritual bullshit as well, and we're left with no reference point. we have no choice but to lean on the things we share with eachother, "the material reality" with which we all agree that we at least perceive.
doesn't get us anywhere if anything anyone says is shutdown with this argument, you can basically go all out with it on basically any argument. I get it, it's just retarded. I keep saying it you are not listening. it's not productive, that's all.
I keep trying to point to you what we have and you go insane by pointing out what we don't have, hence no way of getting anyway and nothing gets solved.

>>15692642
>anyway
anywhere

>>15692069
If you want a fun experiment, you should read up on the arguments over the years for elan vital and then pop into the next consciousness thread posted here and draw parallels between the two.

>>15692662
just because we don't understand how/why it happens, from matter, does not mean we can't consider that it is emergent from matter. and later on maybe we'll understand the how and maybe even why.

>>15692662
>elan vital
>life force
not sure what the fuck that is all about, and I rarely see eye to eye with another human, not really interested in what retards have to say about anything, doesn't seem they solved anything so why the fuck would I study their shit?
what the fuck is life force? there could be some weird interactions at micro scale and quantum foam shit. there's shitload of effects working together to generate consciousness. all from matter, without fucking "life force". I have no clue how or why, I just know it seems intimately tied to matter. not making any other wild claims.

>>15692704
>there's shitload of effects
there COULD be

>>15692704
>>15692686
I'm saying that elan vital was touted as "something more" responsible for life itself. You had people trying their damnest to grasp at any straws related to its existence and special pleading because life was considered sacred and could not be reduced to just chemicals interacting with other chemicals.

It is fun to watch history replay itself.

>>15692739
I'd like to point out that I am on the physicalist side of the argument. I just think people trying to claim that consciousness is indeed "something more" are using the same shitty arguments vitalists did in decades prior.

>>15692739
I'm also torn on this special vs you mean nothing debate. even if consciousness depends on matter nothing really changes, we are still "special". I haven't seen aliens yet, so we are special that way, at least in this part of the universe.

>>15692757
Have you seen a dolphin or an elephant?

>>15690075
Fellow Jaynes enjoyer, we are few.

>>15692704
Well to me, I wonder why abiogenesis cannot be engineered in a laboratory. It is glaring that abiogenesis still hasn’t been solved and unless you believe that life was created by divine intervention or something, it seems reasonable to suspect that maybe abiogenesis was a chemical interaction but must have included something “extra”. Biology does not defy the laws of physics or chemistry, and yet we cannot make abiogenesis with our knowledge of physics or chemistry. So something we cannot detect may be missing, some sort of extra force present that isn’t present in a lab. Maybe we just aren’t being imaginative or speculative enough in the search for abiogenesis. Maybe abiogenesis requires some extreme physical conditions to achieve that were present in the early universe but are no longer possible? I know that sounds crazy but if we can’t create life from scratch in a lab and all of the geological theories are ineffective, maybe we need to look to the cosmos, to the extreme conditions of star formation or planet formation to discover how life first began. If life is a physical process, there must be a physical force unaccounted for to explain why abiogenesis remains elusive or we’re just not thinking cosmic enough. The failure to create abiogenesis in a lab proves that life is a bit more mysterious and unusual than just a chemical reaction. You wouldn’t think self replicating molecules would be so hard to make but they are.

>>15690063
The correspondence between neuron shapes and galaxy filament shapes means literally nothing, except that the corresponding math is scale invariant.

t. panpsychist

>>15691916
hit your head with a hammer

>>15690063
The inner and outer worlds are both an illusion, they're one and the same thing (yin and yang and shit)

One begets the other

>>15692069
>then I have another thought experiment. suppose we reach the tech to scan and assemble a 100% perfect atomic copy of yourself.
This is literally impossible, as measuring something that is in an indeterminate state alters that thing. So your thought experiment fails because even with 100% godlike technology its still impossible to create a perfect copy of something without destroying the original.