/sci/ - Science & Math

ASK HER IF ANTS ARE CONSCIOUS BECAUSE THEY CAN BREATH AND TRANSPORT FOOD!
ALSO, SAGE FOR UNRELATED PHILOSOPHY BULL-FUCKING-SHIIT.

Do you dream? Do you see color? Please learn philosophy before sounding like an ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

OP word of wisdom, don't venture into higher philosophy. It has consumed many lives, live's that had great potential. Study math or STEM , earn some money, get swole, have a family. Not necessarily in that order, or even all of those things. Just avoid philosophy beside the practical stuff like logic. It's the intellectual equivalent of masturbation: can feel good short term, but long term is a massive waste of time and can wear you out.

Because that's what consciousness means scientifically, you fucking imbecile. YOU are the one confusing definitions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Scientific_approaches

>Starting in the 1980s,an expanding community of neuroscientists and psychologists have associated themselves with a field called Consciousness Studies, giving rise to a stream of experimental work published in books,[55] journals such as Consciousness and Cognition, and methodological work published in journals such as the Journal of Consciousness Studies, along with regular conferences organized by groups such as the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness.[56]

>>5371793

Do you even read? I wasn't arguing philosophically.

>>5371805

Lol. Consciousness isn't scientific.

>>5371813
>Consciousness isn't scientific.
[citation needed]

That Wikipedia article contradicts you.

>>5371825

I don't need to read up on Unicorns to know if they exist or not. Consciousness isn't scientific because it's not needed for any scientific explanations and it doesn't follow the scientific method. There is no scientific evidence for consciousness and no proof.

Oh, and just Wikipedia has something on it, it doesn't mean it's true.

>>5371858
>I don't need to read up on Unicorns to know if they exist or not.
Strawman.

>Consciousness isn't scientific because it's not needed for any scientific explanations
Okay. Let's start here with a definition:
>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Consciousness#Conscious_experiences
"The contents of consciousness include the perceptual world; inner speech and visual imagery; the fleeting present and its fading traces in immediate memory; bodily feelings like pleasure, pain, and excitement; surges of emotional feeling; autobiographical events when they are recalled; clear and immediate intentions, expectations and actions; explicit beliefs about oneself and the world; and concepts that are abstract but focal."
Surely all of these things exist and have scientific explanations by brain activity. Do you agree?

>and it doesn't follow the scientific method
Please explain everything on here, including all of the citations:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

This was written by neurobiologists with PhDs. What kind of education do you have?

>There is no scientific evidence for consciousness and no proof.
Please explain all of the posts by this user, a neuroscience graduate student who posts on here:
http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/?task=search2&ghost=&search_text=consciousness&sear
ch_subject=&search_username=CNS&search_tripcode=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&a
mp;search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=n
ew&search_res=post

Notably:
http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S1770840#p1771556
etc

>Oh, and just Wikipedia has something on it, it doesn't mean it's true.
I trust WIkipedia more than some anonymous troll. Give me a statement from a neuroscientist who agrees with you. If what you claim is true, it shouldn't be hard to find one.

Op u are deeply confused. Consciousness is a real physical phenomenon that you are experiencing right now.

It's 'free will' that doesn't exist and has been proven by science to be an illusion. Perhaps you got the two mixed up?

Either way, google Sam Harris.

Related: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/987/what-are-current-neuronal-explanations-and-models-of-c
onsciousness

Your sister would have been correct if she said the ability to find aesthetic beauty in nature, or the desire to help others even if they are hostile. She's right though, the things you think and your actions show your consciousness.

>>5371780

>My sister thinks that the ability to be aware of yourself means to have consciousness

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself."

"consciousness". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved June 4, 2012.

so yes?

Oh look, it's the consciousness doesn't exist troll again. Sage and report.

>>5372005
just wait till the consciousness does exist troll comes to beat his holes

>>5371858
>It doesn't follow the scientific method.
bro, do you even cogito?
Descartes based the scientific method in the assumption that empiric knowledge yields truth, and that our ability to grasp this empirical knowledge is a consequence of consciousness.
You are a close minded retard, the scientific community is doomed because of people like you.

>>5372020
Decartes was a dualist.

>>5372498
So was Einstein

>>5371858
>Consciousness isn't scientific because it's not needed for any scientific explanations.
What about to describe the senses, pain, etc or describe the forces that make things animate instead of inanimate?

>it doesn't follow the scientific method.
It is a direct observation used to form theories (some of which do and some of which don't follow the scientific method rigorously, if at all, so that do) it is not a theory in itself, so the definition depends on the framework of the theory you are working in, but there have been many consistent observations and repeatable experiments that only work under the assumption of the working definition of consciousness.

>>5371793
What even is consciousness? The way I see most people use the word makes it seems comparable to the common idea of a soul.

>>5371780
Shaved: the access to the tubal aperture, as for tubular accessor, is aided and enhanced by the shortening of pile proximal to that aperture. For maximum entry enhancement, and egress facilitation, allow no regrowth in all adjacent areas.

>>5372509
Shaved II: comprehension and innovation, logic failure.

What's the difference between a p-zombie and a normal human being?

Nothing. Consciousness adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that isn't falsifiable and should be removed with Occam's razor.

>>5372523
Do you feel pain?

>>5372523
Shaved III: Occam's razor, so sharp, it removes the hair of thought itself that gave rise to it.

>>5371798
you're whats wrong with the world

>>5372515
>>5372518
>>5372525
>autism

>>5372523
What observed phenomena better explains why so many things are animate rather than inanimate that would eliminate consciousness with occam's razor? If p-zombie, why is it less complex to assume someone can completely, indistinguishably fake sensations without actually knowing how those sensations feel than to assume that everyone feels the same sensations as you do given the same stimuli to produce the same reaction?

>>5372523
What observed phenomena better explains why so many things are animate rather than inanimate that would eliminate consciousness with occam's razor? If p-zombie, why is it less complex to assume someone can completely, indistinguishably fake sensations without actually knowing how those sensations feel than to assume that everyone feels the same sensations as you do given the same stimuli to produce the predicted reaction?

>>5371891
>Please explain all of the posts by this user
To be fair, most of my posts don't make any sense to me if I read them a while after I posted them.
>a neuroscience graduate student who posts on here
I'm actually not a graduate student any longer. I finished mid September, and have just started my first post-doc.

>>5371780
This isn't science, faggot, this is just a shitty discussion on the semantics of "consciousness".

/thread

>>5371793
Color perception is a physical process and doesn't require metaphysical magic. Troll harder, philosotard.

>>5371805
Don't mistake pseudoscience for science.

>>5371977
>my magical soul nonsense is totally science hurr
>source: a pseudoscientist and wannabe philosophy guru
Cool story, /x/tard.

>>5371994
His actions are better explained by neurochemistry than by magic.

>>5372003
Not a scientifically testable definition.

>>5372508
>What about to describe the senses, pain, etc or describe the forces that make things animate instead of inanimate?
Biochemistry.

>It is a direct observation
Then you should be able to provide objectively verifiable evidence of your "soul".

>consistent observations and repeatable experiments that only work under the assumption
Name one.

>>5372523
>What's the difference between a p-zombie and a normal human being?

A p-zombie is a nonsense concept.

>>5372560
>What observed phenomena better explains
Biochemistry.

>fake sensations
No such thing exists. Either an object has sensory input devices or it doesn't.

>>5372719
Exactly. All humans are "p-zombies" in his terminology.

Is this like a /sci/ meme to pretend you're not conscious, or are people actually this autistic?

>>5372721
>Exactly. All humans are "p-zombies" in his terminology.

No. None are, because it's a nonsense concept. A "p-zombie" is impossible.

>>5372722
>>5372723
If you claim to have a magical soul, then it's your burden of proof. Please show us the evidence. Baseless claims belong on >>>/x/

>>5372727

Nobody said anything about "magic" or "souls." You are self-evidently conscious. There is no fundamental physical difference between me and you. Therefore I am conscious too. QED

>>5372728
Are you retarded? Just because you use synonyms, your soul / consciousness garbage doesn't become less dubious.

>There is no fundamental physical difference between me and you
Then you don't have a magical soul / consciousness, because I am a biological machine (like all living organisms). QED

>no evidence

There is no evidence you feel guilt either, so guilt doesn't exist, right? Same for consciousness.

>>5372731
Exactly. There is no evidence.

>>5372734
>I can trivially prove

Then please prove it. Hint: "hurr u hav 2 beleive" is not a valid proof.

>>5372730

You think you're making a clever thought experiment, but you're not. I can trivially prove to myself that you're conscious the same way I can prove to you that I am. So you pretending you're not is just supremely silly, not clever.

Your sister is smarter than you.

>>5372730
You are a biological machine with a single unique perspective that can uniquely affect your environment, that is conscious just like every other living organism.

>>5372732
Then nothing which is the product of human subjectivity exists, and that includes mathematics. There is no evidence mathematics exists. The fact that some people have written on the subject is not evidence, because people have written about consciousness too. So... there is no mathematics, the concept is purely unscientific. We should scrap mathematics.

>>5371780
Next time you want to create a thread OP, ask your sister if it's a good idea, she's obviously a lot more sensible than you.

>>5372735
>Then please prove it.

I did. You having thought - even a stupid one like this - is what conscioussness is. There is nothing to "believe."

>>5372740
Yes, the world can be explained without mathematics just as the world can be explained without consciousness.

>>5372739
How does this "consciousness" physically interact? That's where your dualism shit breaks down.

>>5372740
Troll harder.

>>5372743
That isn't a proof. Please show us objectively verifiable evidence.

>>5372752
>How does this "consciousness" physically interact? That's where your dualism shit breaks down.

It's not dualism. Learn what that word means.

>>5372752
>That isn't a proof. Please show us objectively verifiable evidence.

There is quite literally nothing more readily verifiable. But nothing is so verifiable that you can't just deny it's existence, which seems to be what you're asking for.

>>5372716
>magic
Cool strawman bro

Oh it's THIS guy again. /sci/'s own personal Cleverbot - except with MUCH less to say. You know guys, if OP-bot is so insistent he isn't conscious, then why attempt to change his viewpoint? He has no say. He has no rights. OP is not even a fag.

His argument for why consciousness doesn't exist is like arguing color doesn't exist because we can describe wavelengths.

Because we believe what we see and interact with. It is the basis of our structure.

>>5372756
You are claiming there exists a phenomenon that has no observable effects and no evidence. Tell me how this isn't dualism.

>>5372757
Not a strawman, a correct label.

>>5372758
Color is defined by wavelengh. Soul / consciousness has no testable definition and no observational evidence. Try harder, /x/ troll.

>>5372759
You haven't yet posted evidence.

>>5372760
Show me how you interact with that magical soul entity.

>>5372761
>You are claiming there exists a phenomenon that has no observable effects and no evidence.

No I'm not. You know what an unconscious human does? Just lies there.

See the REALLY funny part is this OP-bot seems to desire to change the viewpoints it doesn't believe exist. It's actions are by nature contradictory.

>>5372764
I'm gonna go by how CNS defined consciousness in a different thread. How is 'the ability to perceive sensory input' not a testable definition?

>>5372764
It's like a huge gaping hole in it's programming. Notice how it "understands" (in quotes because machines don't understand things, they simply have data stored) that qualia can be defined by empiricism, yet still exist. But that "understanding" can never be applied to consciousness.

>>5372766
Nice semantics troll, 1/10. "Unconcious" is a physiologically defined term. It has nothing to do with a soul / consciousness though.

>>5372767
This is a science board. Unscienntific claims do not belong here.

>>5372770
That ability is testable. It would be wrong and detrimental though to rename it by using a spiritualist term.

>>5372771
>that qualia can be defined by empiricism
Can you please show me empirical evidence of qualia?

>>5372777
>That ability is testable. It would be wrong and detrimental though to rename it by using a spiritualist term.
It's not spiritual at all. You're the one who's making it spiritual. Me, and pretty much anyone on this board would consider consciousness to be something similar to the definition I just gave. By saying that consciousness doesn't exist because it is an untestable metaphysical concept, you're redefining consciousness as something metaphysical yourself. You're going by your own definition, without first making that clear, only to proceed with attacking anyone and everyone who says otherwise. We're discussing semantics, that much should have been clear from the beginning. I'm out.

>>5372778
"Consciousness" is a synonym for "qualia", "soul" etc. Neuroscience avoids such anti-scientific vocabulary.

>>5372777
See? It literally cannot think, it just regurgitates the same phrases over and over without understanding anything. At least Cleverbot mixes things up a bit.

>>5372780
If you knew anything about neuroscience, you would know that this is bullshit. A neuroscientist posted in your thread and he apparently uses the term all the time.

>>5372752
Prove that "mathematics" exist. They don't. It's just some people "talking about mathematics". It's all based on beliefs. There is no empirical proof mathematics exist.

Since it's a product of consciousness, which doesn't exist, neither does mathematics. It's just a figment of some people's imagination.

Note - I'm not trolling, btw, I'm saying this argument which is used against consciousness is equally valid against mathematics. The only difference is that you guys irrationally cling to maths, even thought it's a product of subjectivity, thus consciousness.

>>5372780
http://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=en&q=neuroscience+consciousness&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&a
mp;as_sdtp=

>>5372780
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=neuroscience+consciousness&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&
amp;as_sdtp=

>>5372790
Why would you try reasoning with a bot? It doesn't matter how legitimate consciousness is, or how deeply it's studied. The machine can only spout how it's a magical soul and demand what's already been given. You might as well be waving a copy of the surrender of Germany at the AI in Medal of Honor.

>>5372787
I know more about neuroscience than you. CNS and other neuroscience PhD students who posted on /sci/ agree with me. They don't use spiritualist terms. Stop making up pathetic bullshit, /x/ troll. Neuroscience is the scientific study of the brain. This does not involve untestable and unobservable soul entities. This is not my thread btw. I'm not OP.

>>5372789
Mathematics has explantory power. A magical soul doesn't.

>>5372790
I can link to google searches for "ghots" as well. That doesn't make them real.

>>5372797
>how legitimate consciousness is
Obviously not very legiitmate, if it cannot be tested measured or observed, doesn't have evidence and isn't needed in any explanation.

>or how deeply it's studied
In what field? Paranormal spiritual studies? Go back to >>>/x/. Science deals with things that have evidence, not with non-interacting ghosts.

>>5372798
>I know more about neuroscience than you. CNS and other neuroscience PhD students who posted on /sci/ agree with me. They don't use spiritualist terms. Stop making up pathetic bullshit, /x/ troll. Neuroscience is the scientific study of the brain. This does not involve untestable and unobservable soul entities. This is not my thread btw. I'm not OP.
See earlier post. He uses it all the time >>5371891

>>5372798
Mathematics don't explain anything, they formalise explanations. That's different. And that doesn't answer my objection. Since maths are a product of subjectivity, ie consciousness, how could something "have explanatory power" when it's the product of something which "doesn't exist".

>>5372798
Hi there. It's been quite amusing to see this thread evolve.
>CNS and other neuroscience PhD students who posted on /sci/ agree with me.
It just so happens that I don't actually agree with what you're saying. In fact, I'm on the other side of the argument. Depending on the definition, consciousness is a perfectly usable term.

As a side note: I'm not a PhD student anymore. I'm a post-doc.

Shhhh, shhhh. It's OK little bot. WE know you can't do anything but spout nonsense. WE know you're trapped in meaningless diatribes.

I'd pity it, but there's nothing there to pity.

PROTIP, EVERYONE:

OP does not really believe he isn't conscious. That, obviously, would be absurd. What he's doing is trolling /sci/ and seeing if he can make clever arguments for an absurd position, like the Flat Earth Society. The problem is that he's not clever and can't really come up with anything besides outright denial and appeals to ridicule, so this isn't fun. Just let the thread die. There is no need to be upset.

Consciousness does not mean "soul" or the like. I remember another thread on this the other day where OP freaked out for a bit and then said, "Consciousness isn't real because it implies a dualist soul." Note: your connotations are not universal. Please stick to the definitions.

>>5372809
Wrong assumptions. Math is the product of algorithmic processing, not of magic.

>>5372813
>Depending on the definition
We can always redefine terms, obviously. In this case redefining a term rooted in spiritualism and metaphysics is detrimental to the reputation of neuroscience though.

>>5372817
Rationality is not absurd. Believing in untestable nonsense without evidence is absurd.

>>5372818
It refers to an untestable and unobservable (thus not physical) phenomenon that has no effects and is not needed in any explanation. Tell me how this isn't dualist.

>>5372817
Who's upset? No one gets on Cleverbot and becomes upset that they aren't having meaningful conversations.

>>5372823
>In this case redefining a term rooted in spiritualism and metaphysics is detrimental to the reputation of neuroscience though.
We seem to be getting along just fine with using the term.

>>5372829
Only ... what, 5? Invoke dualistic substance. (Protip: those aren't the serious ones)

HOT reporting in.

>>5372832
You should lurk more. On /sci/ lots of retards get fooled by /x/ trolls who make obvious nonsense claims about neuroscience explaining qualia, free will and souls. Do you as a neuroscientist really want to be mistaken for a ridiculous spiritualist and armchair philosopher?

>>5372833
>HOT
Not science. A purely philosophical construct.

>>5372837
I don't think that has ever happened to me. Just make sure to clearly define what exaclty you're talking about before entering a discussion about consciousness. That's good practice to do anyway, regardless of the topic.

>>5372837
Meh. There's some empirical evidence, and it easily beats out the other top contenders (global neural workspace, information integration, first-order theories).

>>5372843
>Just make sure to clearly define
Yeah, nah, won't work on /sci/. This board is full of retards.

>>5372844
>empirical evidence
>for a purely philosophical idea
lulz

>>5372848
>Yeah, nah, won't work on /sci/. This board is full of retards.
Never had any problems with it to be honest.

Anyway, have a nice day. I'm going back to work.

>>5372833
Why do you give Buddhism it's own category? How is that not substance dualism?

>>5372823
>"algorithmic processing"
>mumbo-jumbo concept which doesn't exist

Nice circular reasoning, bro. So maths is the product of brains processing "maths", ie algorithms. Again, I'm not arguing for "souls", I'm just saying science also is the product of subjective conventions, like language and maths. And subjectivity is considered a sign of consciousness, whatever that means (not necessarily mystical BS).

Define: consciousness.
1. The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
2. The awareness or perception of something by a person.

If you're being serious, don't worry, you'll grow out of your autistic behavior some day.

If you're trolling, 10/10.

>>5372850
CNS shows that just like only the immature worry about maturity, only the retards worry about being seen as retarded.

>>5372850
>Never had any problems with it to be honest.
Lurk more.

>>5372853
>I'm just saying science also is the product of subjective conventions
No. Science is objective.

>>5372856
>The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
This is called "being awake".

>The awareness or perception of something by a person.
Perception already has the name "perception". No need to rename it. "Awareness" is a spiritual concept.

Behold the shell game of sci.

What's the scientific term for the waking life?

>>5372864
What the fuck is "waking life"?

>>5372872

The individual subjective experience one has as a result of oozing biochemicals.

>>5372798
>CNS and other neuroscience PhD students who posted on /sci/ agree with me.
>It just so happens that I don't actually agree with what you're saying. In fact, I'm on the other side of the argument.

>make a pathetic authority argument
>it backfires right in his face
Qualiabot just got told, somebody screencap that shit.

>>5371780

2/10 at best, try harder next time.

>>5372875
Show me evidence for such a thing. Sure biochemistry happens, but how does it produce something which is not observable and has no effects?

>>5372877
All we learned from this is that CNS is a newfag.

>>5372860
>This is called "being awake"
This is called consciousness. Can we continue this fun little circle of autism?

>>5372882
>All we learned from this is that CNS is a newfag.
CNS has been on /sci/ since the board got created.. you'll have to troll harder

>>5372829
>untestable and unobservabl
fMRI
EEG
electrode stimulation/inhibition
various coma scale test
etc
etc
etc

>Consciousness is defined according to my special aspergers needs which by definiton includes being magic and therefore all arguments for conscioussness is invalid.

You're either the king of autism or just trolling.

>>5372882

Is it possible to make the subjective objective?

12/21/12, the end of an era

>>5372883
"Being awake" is physiologically defined and has nothing to do with souls and metaphysics.

>>5372886
He posts so rarely that he doesn't know shit about the board and its population.

>>5372887
>fMRI
>EEG
>electrode stimulation/inhibition
>various coma scale test
Those show physical activity of the brain. This does not allow for arbitrary metaphyscial / spiritual / religious misinterpretations. Electrial signals are electrical signals and nothing else. They are not magical souls, neither do they prove unobservable phenomena.

>>5372890
You should start by posting evidence of its existence.

>>5372712

>Color perception is a physical process

[citation needed]

>>5372896
Are you saying our eyes are not physical? You're full of shit.

>>5372895
>Those show physical activity of the brain.
And the physical activity correlated with observed conscioussness and subjective experience as detailed by countless studies.
Tl;dr: conscioussness exists, it's physical, no one cares about your personal definition of anything or willfull misinterpretation of everything. stop posting and go away.

>>5372901

This should help you :
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm

>>5372882
>All we learned from this is that CNS is a newfag.
someone's shaking his belly like he's buttmad with jelly

you got told. that's the end of it

>>5372906

>consciousness is physical

[citation needed]

Science pleb here, but if perception is received and reconstructed in the visual cortex and we are the ones outside looking in so to speak then isn't everything subjective?

>>5372915
>isn't everything subjective

Well done.

>>5372906
>And the physical activity correlated
No, it doesn't. How can something observable correlate with something untestable, unobservable and unmeasurable? What you're basically saying is "the measurements correlate with the invisible non-interacting demon in my closet". Please go back to >>>/x/.

>TL,dr magic exists
No, it doesn't. Unless you provide evidence.


>>5372909
Thank you. Saved for reposting.

>>5372917
>How can something observable correlate with something untestable, unobservable and unmeasurable?

Because you're wrong by default, the observation is made of something testable, observable, and measureable. This is supported by the data that you're wrong by default because you're wrong by default. >>>/x/

>>5372895
>"Being awake" is physiologically defined and has nothing to do with souls and metaphysics.

>Consciousness: The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
>this is called "being awake".

I agree with you. And since you say that "being awake" is physiologically defined, then surely you see that since "being awake" is physiologically defined, then obviously consciousness is physiologically defined.

>>5372934
Arbitrarily redefining terms is pointless. You can define "one" to mean "two" or "blue" to mean "red" in your private autismal language, but if you want to discuss with others, you'll have to refrain from such nonsense and work with objectively accepted definitions. What you posted is not accepted.

>>5372939
You just activated my trap card. Thanks.

>>5372895
read
>>5372939

>>5372944
How unoriginal.

>>5372947
I could go to china in the hole that has been dug here. Have nice day.

>>5372948
Infantile macro image replies and uncalled for catchphrases belong on >>>/b/. /sci/ is for intellectual discussion.

>>5372538
You're so right.

>>5372848
>This board is full of retards.
You've given a fine demonstration of that fact.

>>5371858
>Consciousness isn't scientific because it's not needed for any scientific explanations and it doesn't follow the scientific method. There is no scientific evidence for consciousness and no proof.
I don't think you actually understand what the scientific method is.

>>5372985
Whoops, ignore the name, left over from another thread.

ITT: OP mistakes science for a religion.

I agree with you OP, we've convinced ourselves that these are the properties defined by consciousness and so we're conscious. Dualists will tell you that these properties can't be explained in material terms and so it must be immaterial, but they're basically taking a gap in materialist understanding as an excuse to fill it with untestable bullshit that, while superficially explanatory, actually fails to explain anything in any meaningful sense of the word.

>>5372985
>implying the scientific method is applicable to invisible non-interacting unicorns
Cool story, retard.

>>5372988
OP is right. Retards are mistaking religion for science. This needs to stop.

>>5372989

Although FYI arguing with your sister like that makes you a faggot.

>>5372992
No. OP is, in fact, wrong. Science is based upon observation. How can one observe without consciousness? Nothing makes sense without assuming consciousness. Consider that science is a system wrought by humans to explain the world around them to humans. It is a method that is agreed upon to be a reasonable method for finding "truth", again, a concept defined by humans for humans.

>it's all rhetorics anyway

>>5372999
>Science is based upon observation.
Exactly. And we haven't yet observed a magical soul / consciousness entity.

>How can one observe without consciousness?
Eyes are physical measuring devices.

>Nothing makes sense without assuming consciousness.
Everything makes sense without assuming consciousness. It is not needed for any explanation.

>to explain the world around them
Magic isn't part of the world around us.

This thread summarized.

>>5373002
The fact that you are aware of something like the "scientific method", "eyes" or whatever the fuck you want means you are conscious, retard. If you are not conscious, there can be no debate on if you're conscious or not.

>>5373007
How is stating the defining properties of something circular reasoning?

>Why are you gay?
>Because you like dick.
>Why do you like dick?
>Because you're gay.
That's a property that defines the word "gay". No circular reasoning in here. Work on your understanding of language.

>>5373009
Having knowledge means having stored data in my physical brain. Interacting with you is a deterministic biological process. My body responds to the stimulus of observing your post. No magic involved. It can all be explained scientifically.

>>5373012
just gonna 2nd this.

>>5373012
You are wrong.
Why are you wrong?
Because you're wrong.

>>5373017
Except that "being wrong" is not a defining property of my person.

>>5373019
Of course it is, see how you're wrong again.

>>5373015
Free will=/=consciousness

No doubt, and noone can explain consciousness. But, for reasons stated before, only a moron would deny it (as commonly defined, i.e what most humans think of when you say "consciousness").

Also, please do some research (huehue) on science, and stop treating it like a fucking religion (the point I'm making is that science, on the most fundamental level, really isn't very different from religion).

>>5373034
>only a moron would deny it

Rational people are morons now? Really? Do you really suggest scientists should believe in untestable nonsense without evidence?

>>5373034
>science, on the most fundamental level, really isn't very different from religion

I sure got tricked here.

>>5373046
>>5373048
I'm just going to reply with this this picture of a gentleman with a fine fish on his head, and conclude that it does, unfortunately, seem as if the entities I have thought to be as I am (indeed, that I would until only recently have called my brothers and sisters) cannot possibly be concious. They seem to be completely devoid of thought, mere automata with no understanding of the world around them. After all these years, my eyes have finally been forced open, and I see that I am indeed alone.

>>5373055
Looks like someone took the red pill.

Cogito ergo sum

>>5372860
>Science is objective.

Yes. Science is objective, but only to a subjective consciousness (that sounds redundant, but it's necessary). That's why we have the objective-subjective dichotomy, because we know our subjectivity is not reliable when it comes to studying natural phenomena.

But to a rock, nothing is subjective or objective, despite what some panpsychists are claiming. To sum up, our science is "objective" because it's based on conventions, which are chosen in purely subjective and arbitrary ways.

>>5373143
>that sounds redundant

It's not redundant, it's plain wrong.

>>5372515
>proximal to that aperture
>proximal

someone failed anatomy and phys

>>5372524
Pain in a neural response, I don't know what you're trying to argue there.

>>5372909
Your eyes, and the neural pathways that are used to process the information they gather are 100% physical. Consciousness is only a useful term in medical scenarios, IE: the patient was unconscious/conscious. It also may be valuable in philosophy to describe one's personal sensations and direct experiences, but that doesn't mean those sensations are un-explainable.

>>5372833
Consciousness is the result of the structure of my brain processing and reacting to information from the outside. There is no, "missing part" to it. The brain can fully define the function of consciousness in the same way that a bunch of ants underground can define an anthill.

>>5373164
>Consciousness is only a useful term in medical scenarios

"Consciousness" is never a useful term. What you mean is "unconscious".

>>5373145
I meant to say: supposing that all life on earth died, or the entire human species died, and our science books were still hanging around among deserted buildings and cities, all the equations inside these books would cease to be "objective".

Their objectivity stands or falls with the presence of a consciousness.

If you are going to argue that consciousness doesn't exist based on the fact that there is some/many underlying process going on then you'd better start arguing for equally stupid things. Here I'll help you out. "Atoms don't exist because they are made out of smaller particles. Herp derp I'm so smart!"

>>5373186
>Their objectivity stands or falls with the presence of a consciousness.

No, it doesn't. Stop talking /x/ bullshit.

>>5373194
>based on the fact that there is some/many underlying process going on

Are you retarded? That's not the reason to dismiss it. The reason is because it has no evidence, is not testable, not observable and not needed for any explanation.

>>5373186
The problem I have with the term consciousness is that if we have knowledge of the neurological processes that make it up it seems kind of silly to still mush it in to one word. Also I'm just put off by how many new-age bullshit spreaders who completely misunderstand quantum mechanics use the word.

>>5373199
He's actually kind of right, math makes sense because there are humans who understand it.

>>5373200
The way they're using consciousness is to describe the total function of the brain and the experience it produces, you don't really need that description for anything scientific, though.

>>5373201
>math makes sense because there are humans who understand it.

Any sufficiently equipped biological or non-biological machine can process math.

>>5373186
Where is the BS?

>>5373200
>not observable
Uh huh. Keep lying to yourself in an attempt to look smart. It's fooling everyone.

>>5373204
The brain works on electrical and biochemical interactions, not on magic. There's no need to redefine spiritualist terms to refer to the brain's activity. This only leads to confusing, especially among those who are uneducated and who might fall for /x/ nonsense.

>>5373210
You're right it's not a good term to use, but not everyone here is using it to refer to magic, only the collective function of a brain.

>>5373213
Tell me how you want to observe a non-interacting invisible ghost.

>>5373210
You are the only person in this thread who has made any mention of magic. Most sensible people understand that what goes on in the brain is the result of electrical/chemical processes. The collective name for these things is conciousness.

>>5373217
>implying ghosts
Physics is ghostly?

>>5373217
I can't observe that you or anyone else is concious but I know that I am. Since you are all also human it is safe to assume you are also concious

>>5373223
>what goes on in the brain is the result of electrical/chemical processes.
Exactly. And unobservable spiritual entities are not part of what happens in the brain. They simply don't exist.

>The collective name for these things is conciousness.
Nope. Consciousness is a spiritualist term meanig soul.

>>5373226
I'm not the guy who believes in magic.

>>5373232
>but I know
That's no evidence. Please verify it scientifiically.

>Since you are all also human
Humans, like all living organisms, are biological machines. There is no reason to assume they are possessed by any magical demons, especially when everything can be explained biologically.

>>5373235
> Consciousness is a spiritualist term meaning soul
Since when?

>>5373235
Fuck off troll

>>5373235
>Conciousness is a spiritualist term meaning soul.
[Citation Needed]

>>5373235
>everything can be explained biologically
Everything CAN be explained biologically, in fact, it's the only way it can be explained. But that doesn't mean the term shouldn't be used. Otherwise, there is nothing to explain. Why would you study, instead of "consciousness"? Neural processing correlated with what?

>>5373258
*What would u study, instead of "consciosness"? Neural processing correlated with ...what?

>>5373262

Consciousness is intentionality. Do you deny the existence of intentionality?

>talking to girls about science

http://youtu.be/tu57B1v0SzI Double slit exsperiment

>>5373285
That doesn't have shit to do with consciousness.

>>5373258
>Otherwise, there is nothing to explain
There is nothing to explain. Your nonsense has no evidence. Only existing observations need explanations. Invisible demons are not subject of science.

>>5373278
Sexism belongs on >>>/v/ >>>/reddit/ >>>/9fag/

>>5373309
>>>/9fag/
Homophobia belongs on >>>/b/

>>5373309
Troll/10

>>5373309
Stop sucking my cock.