Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 51 KB, 590x350, consciousness-780905.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11055916 No.11055916 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What makes us conscious?

>> No.11055918

consciousness

>> No.11055919

>>11055916
The three minds inside each person of human kind

>> No.11055921

>>11055916
You're mama

>> No.11055928

The creative nothing

>> No.11055936

God and our divine soul

>> No.11055939

Our human essence.

>> No.11055982

your imminent 3 day ban

>> No.11056019
File: 359 KB, 1279x918, fmp11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056019

I have studied this question long and hard. About a year ago I reached my ultimate goal, I call it "the essence", I could explain but I'm sure you will all be reading it and shitposting about me soon enough.
Sincerely, the last philsopher

>> No.11056038

>>11055916
Hopeful idealist answer: God
Realistic answer: it's just a very complex product of evolution and we give it more hype than it deserves because we are observing it through itself.

>> No.11056043

>>11055916
>What makes us conscious?
The wave equation.

>> No.11056050

It's an evolutionary trait meant to help us survive and reproduce, not unlike thumbs.

>> No.11056078

>>11056043
>a mathematical object makes us conscious
Shut the fuck up and go study some ontology, Galileo.

>> No.11056079

>>11056019
>implying you are me

>> No.11056082

>>11056050
The fact that p-zombies are logically possible proves your statement to be unlikely.

>> No.11056087

>>11055916
Memory and its relation to itself.

>> No.11056092

>>11055936
this

>> No.11056098

>>11055919
This

>> No.11056102

>>11056092
>>11056098
these

>> No.11056103

>>11056082
>falling for the meme
Nice criticial thinking skills there champ

>> No.11056105

>>11056102
tHis

>> No.11056106

>>11056082
>p zombies are logically possible

>> No.11056108

>>11056103
I am sorry that my ability to think about something without contradiction rustles your jimmies, friend.

>> No.11056114

My mind

>> No.11056117

>>11056108
>thinking inner realities aren't the true place of being

Bruh, just cause you can't wrap your head around some ones outside actions does not mean they are 'zombies'

>> No.11056122

>>11055916
this isn’t /lit/ related at all, take it to >>>/sci/

and to answr your ape question, there is no such thing as consciousness

>> No.11056128

>>11056117
Are you literally retarded? Do you understand what p-zombies are?

>> No.11056134
File: 122 KB, 836x550, asf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056134

>>11056114
But where is your mind, though?

>> No.11056136

>>11056128
Yup. Are you just following some ones else ideas? Are you indeed blind to your own thoughts, anon please.

>> No.11056138
File: 31 KB, 148x200, 87299381-C182-48F8-B916-EA70E6CA6B03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056138

>>11056134
yes, where is it?

>> No.11056139

>>11056128
I just googled that and they're basically what, NPCs? Sounds like a self-aggrandizing thing so you can tell yourself you're the only person that thinks.

>> No.11056140

>>11056134
You don't need to know

>> No.11056149
File: 84 KB, 801x548, weeping.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056149

>>11056139
>Sounds like a self-aggrandizing thing so you can tell yourself you're the only person that thinks.
>the absolute state of this board

>> No.11056150

>>11056149
Hes not wrong, its a door way to nihilism.

>> No.11056155

>>11056078
>ontology
Ontologies are nothing more than an heuristic representation of the observed universe that helps us think more efficiently.

The interconnectivity in the brain creates a spike of consciousness. However, it is not the amount of connections that makes us conscious, but the disconnection from everything that is outside our minds. That way the mind experience itself as separate from the outside world.

The fundamental spiritual property exist in all things. It is the separation that makes it approach a discrete state and become a self.

t. stemfag

>> No.11056159

>>11055916
The geocosmic unconscious

>> No.11056163

>>11056150
Have any of you absolute retards ACTUALLY read Chalmers? Because he argues exactly the OPPOSITE THING of what you think he's arguing.

>> No.11056164

>>11056149
whats your point

>> No.11056167
File: 46 KB, 376x401, sheeple.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056167

>>11056163
Ah yes, everyone who doesn't think like me must be p-zombies... they can't see the TRUTH like I do.

>> No.11056172

>>11056167
I'm not that other anon but you are confusing the philosophical thought experiment of the p-zombie with solipsism

>> No.11056178

>>11056163
Seperating the human race into two potential catagories based off 'spiritual life', or 'pyschological life' is a slippery slope no matter the arguement anon, I completely refute the idea of it even being possible, not saying its not a good thought experiment, but it actually holding creed for your own philosophy is retarded.

>> No.11056180

>>11056164
My original point is that, p-zombies being a logical possibility, consciousness seems utterly superfluous from an evolutionary point of view. The biological fitness of a p-zombie and that of a normal, conscious human being would be IDENTICAL. If you want to tackle consciousness from an evolutionary perspective, you'd do better considering it something like an innocuous side effect that doesn't affect fitness at all.

>> No.11056185

>>11056167
>implying this sentiment this is mocking isn't 100% accurate

>> No.11056187

>>11056180
>consciousness doesn’t affect biological outcomes
>cascading neurological activity which organizes around self referential resonant fields is not pertinent to building heuristics for acquiring energy and access to mates
>>11056178
there is a range of consciousness, there are already studies in the works to define what the gradient looks like. not all humans are as conscious as others anon

>> No.11056190

>>11056180
I don't understand how a p-zombie is a logical possibility. You're conveniently skipping over that part.

>> No.11056196

>>11056190
What part of "being behaviorally identical yet not having subjective conscious experience" is difficult for you?

>> No.11056203

>>11056167
Is this how you see the world ? A constant contest for validation and superiority ? No wonder you're depressed...

>> No.11056204

>>11056187
>equating consciousness to neurological activity
You should keep to your neuroscience books, friend, you clearly don't even have a clue.

>> No.11056214

>>11056196
Not that anon, but it should be difficult for you as well.
>>11056204
This is the kind of person that needs not to lurk more. Please leave and never come back.

>> No.11056220

>>11056190
Since we do not understand what consciousness is, we cannot measure it or notice when it's there, we can just "assume" it's gone or tampered (e.g neurological conditions).
So now, knowing that, one can ask : If the only way for me to know that someone is conscious is to judge from their behavior how could I differentiate someone that is just responding accordingly to outward stimuli like a chatbot from someone that is actually conscious ?

>> No.11056232

>>11056187
>consciousness doesn’t affect biological outcomes
>cascading neurological activity which organizes around self referential resonant fields is not pertinent to building heuristics for acquiring energy and access to mates

yes that's what he said, what is this a verbose meme ?

>> No.11056236

>>11056190
>he doesn't think that anything is possible
Sad.

>> No.11056239

>>11056196
The problem is that it isn't just a philosophical idea, it would need to be physically possible, which it isn't. Consciousness is necessary for thought on the human level, you can't just have human intellect minus one of its integral parts

>> No.11056247

>>11056220
How do you explain gravity anon? What is it really that draw on matter?

Perhaps you are asking the wrong question, anon. What is that makes a person unconscious?

>> No.11056250
File: 52 KB, 442x500, 1508002803834.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056250

>>11056239
I'm not even gonna bother answering this, so here's a funny picture depicting you as a mentally challenged person.

>> No.11056251

>>11056236
If anything is possible then what is logic?

>> No.11056254

>>11056239
completely baseless speculation

>> No.11056258

>>11056239
>it would need to be physically possible
No it wouldn't. It just has to be conceivable to show that the mind (consciousness) is not exactly equal to the brain.

>> No.11056260

>>11056203
Yes I do, I can't help it.

>> No.11056262

>>11056251
>then what is logic?
Constraints on chaos.

>> No.11056272

>>11056247
Don't ask me dude, I think this all bullshit, I'm just trying to make you understand the other Anon's point of view since you both seemed like you were talking about different stuff.

>> No.11056279

In Less Than Nothing Zizek makes a brilliant point, though I couldn't find the quote right now.

He criticizes the notion of consciousness as something "positive" in the sense of something brought about in order to reach something higher, in any sense. He uses evolution itself in his argument, because it's not that birds evolved wings in order to fly, but they evolved wings because they couldn't escape the predators without it (not his example, it's just what came to mind). In that same way, it's not that we develop conciousness in order to be able to do something more, but because there is something we would not be able to handle without it. Consciousness itself would be a residue of our incapacity to work with sophisticated things like language, morality and society by using the more crude senses of instinct that takes care of other things.

This breaks apart a lot of romantic ideas concerning consciousness as if it was an end in itself or an indicator of a better way to handle situations in contrast to, idk, other animals, plants or rocks. And not simply the first escape route that we managed to develop in order to deal with new problems we created for ourselves when we started to rely heavily on our intelect and social relations to survive.

>> No.11056281

>>11056272
I'm not the person you replied to.

>> No.11056290

>>11056281
Oh well that makes it easier,
imo since we don't understand consciousness I find it presumptuous to call ourselves conscious at all.
Maybe if we solved this first conundrum there wouldn't be a need for thought experiments like the p.zombie.

Just like I find it strange to start making assumptions about the universe and its future without figuring out what the fuck gravity is.

>> No.11056314

>>11056262
Logic is just reasoning with your own principles and perceptions. A reasonable person sees the contradictions of perception in illogical statements. Humans may share common logic but that doesn't necessarily mean our perceptions capture the true essence of the universe. When someone says "that's not possible," what he really mean is that his perceptions can't be reconciled with the idea he is confronting. In other words, he can't disagree with himself. Who's to say logic applies throughout all possible universes? How can we claim something is impossible in this world, and then claim that very thing impossible in all worlds? Furthermore, how do we not know this world has been a smokescreen up until this point, concealing itself through random events that appear to be logical, and that at any moment it could become incomprehensible to our minds?

>> No.11056315
File: 301 KB, 620x412, matrix_steak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056315

>>11056279
>Objectively judging the value of self awareness
I fucking hate communists. My answer to this is very simple: We cannot escape subjectivism without either transcending or dying. Objectivism is the philosophy of torture.

>> No.11056334

>>11056314
>Who's to say logic applies throughout all possible universes?
It is very easy to say something like that without any deep thoughts at all. I don't find your post very interesting.

>> No.11056346

>>11056334
To clarify, it's possible that there's a world that, if humans were able to observe it, could not be understood by us.

>> No.11056349

>>11056314
It's impossible to have a round square in any universe. In any universe it is impossible for parallel lines to meet.

>> No.11056355

>>11056187
Of course it's a spectrum, but seperating people onto two end points of the scale would do nothing but create ambiguous definitions.
I'd argue that the soul is actually more alive in a 'p-zombie', because it has completely seperated it's self from it's habitat.

>> No.11056362

>>11056314
But thats retarded. Nobody on earth can possibly say that a triangle has 4 sides, because then it ceases logically to be a triangle. You can't just say 'Well thats what he percieves' because its a constant that is not subjective.

>> No.11056364

>>11056349
>In any universe it is impossible for parallel lines to meet.
When you project higher dimensional objects onto lower dimensional spaces you get some interesting shapes. How sure are you about that statement, other than having heard it from some pop-science clown in a video somewhere?

>> No.11056368

>>11056349
Depending on the geometry of the universe there might not be such a thing as "parallel lines" at all.

>> No.11056375

>>11056315
But that's not what he is doing, it's almost the opposite and he is so far from being an objectivist. Just read the book and stop forming opinions on some stranger's recriation of someone's argument on a ping pong mongolian note board.

>> No.11056381

>>11056368
>Depending on the geometry of the universe there might not be such a thing as "parallel lines" at all
This is more accurate, but I think the flaw is in thinking that there is such a ting as lines. What is a line? You can define a line in an euclidean space, but if you transform that space, it is no longer a line? Sure the mathematical definition of a line can be useful, but to think of it as some fundamental property of reality is simply dumb.

>> No.11056382

>>11056362
Triangles have 3 sides when they are a 2d surface.
1 for each edge, and then the top part.
That's 4.

>> No.11056404

>>11056290
>since we don't understand consciousness I find it presumptuous to call ourselves conscious at all

>Dude, don't you think it's presumptuous to call this bag of gold "heavy" since we don't understand the true nature of matter?

>> No.11056409

>>11056404
lel

>> No.11056422
File: 5 KB, 190x266, BRAINLET.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056422

>>11056038
>Consciousness isn't miraculous because we can only comment through it!

I despise this meme.

>> No.11056443

>>11056349
>>11056362
What if a 9th dimensional being told you that you were wrong? How would you respond? Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean it's impossible. If anything's impossible, it's your ability to understand it.

>> No.11056445

>>11056404
Yes I would think it is.
The thing is right now we're wondering about the nature of consciousness, and if we were to wonder about the nature of mater and you would point out that you understand the nature of mater because you can feel how heavy this huge bag of gold is I would surely point out that it is presumptuous to call this bag of gold "heavy" since we don't understand the true nature of matter.

Of course in most context no one would argue that we are conscious beings, and that your hypothetic bag of gold is heavy.

>> No.11056464

>>11056443
What if a 9 dimensional being Said I was right?

>> No.11056468

>>11056445
>and you would point out that you understand the nature of mater because you can feel how heavy this huge bag of gold
But of course that's not what I would point out. What I would point out is that I perfectly understand what the adjective "heavy" means without needing to know a thing about the true nature of matter, because, oh big surprise, I'm a competent speaker of the English language (which apparently you aren't since you seem so confused about the adjective "conscious").

>> No.11056469

>>11056443
>Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean it's impossible.
>If anything's impossible, it's your ability to understand it.
Do you see how you just contradicted yourself? And do you se how this fundamentally disproves your entire position.
>b-but muh 11 dimensional space

>> No.11056479

>>11056167
>hahhaa... look at all these unthinking sheep thinking they’re the only conscious people in a world of sheep... I’m the only conscious person in a world of unthinking sheep for realizing everyone thinks they’re the only conscious person in a world of unthinking sheep!

>> No.11056486

>>11056479
Yeah, that image was lame. Too bad for the anon posting it.

>> No.11056487

>>11056469
>if
I was gonna leave out the "if" to be more insulting, but I understood that it would be contradicting. What I didn't expect was for someone to claim it was contradicting, anyway.

>> No.11056497

>>11056468
If it's not something you would point out in a similar context how can you argue that it has anything to do with what I'm talking about ?

I am talking about the nature of consciousness, and you are trying to say I am mistaken about it's definition when there is no clear definition for what it means to be conscious. If anything you seem to be the one that is confused by the meaning of the word "conscious".

>> No.11056528

>>11056487
Yes, but is demonstrates an important point, which is that even misconceptions are part of reality.

>> No.11056540

>>11056497
>I am talking about the nature of consciousness, and you are trying to say I am mistaken about it's definition
No, I'm not trying to say that. I'm trying to say that you're conflating two different matters, to wit:
>knowing what consciousness is
>knowing what the word "conscious" means
The first matter is an extremely difficult philosophical (scientific?) problem.
The second matter is almost trivial. "Conscious" can be defined as, if you allow some philosophical jargon, "having qualia". In layman terms: having sensations, like the smell of a rose or the visual impression of a painting. Every normal person more or less knows what the word "conscious" means because they know what it feels like to smell roses and look at pictures, although most persons would be at a loss to give a coherent explanation of what consciousness is.

>> No.11056547

>>11056479
DUDE NEUROSIS LMAO

>> No.11056560

The better your memory, the more conscious you are. No memory = no consciousness. All mental action is the relation of past perceptions.

>> No.11056563

>>11056540
And yet you struggle to give me a proper definition of what being conscious means.
Don't get me wrong I know exactly what you're trying to get at, I'm not acting dumb, what I was trying to illustrate is the criticism that can be made on the principle of the cogito. I would try to explain it in more details but it's really late and I'm litteraly falling asleep on my keyboard (but you can look it up and since threads on /lit/ usually last more than one day I'll give you an answer in a few hours), but what you say is common knowledge might not be as easy to explain as you think.

>> No.11056576

>>11056382
the fuck

>> No.11056585

>>11056560
Have you meditated on this one? It sounds like it could be true, but I am not completely convinced, and right now I am trying to imagine how it would be to have no memory.

>> No.11056586

>>11056576
What dont you understand anon
1 2
3
And the top part (your view) for 4

>> No.11056598

>>11056586
I still don’t get it

>> No.11056601

>>11056585
Well, computers have memory, lots of it, and they are not conscious. So there are some holes.

>> No.11056609

>>11056598
He's counting a face as an edge and calling them all "sides"

>> No.11056611

>>11056598
Pretend a triangle is a building, it has a roof. Thats the 4th side.
Your eyes are the 4th side

>> No.11056615
File: 263 KB, 764x551, 1517321465855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056615

>>11056609
Indeed.

>> No.11056616

>>11056611
so the area

>> No.11056626

>>11056616
No. The top of the area ends, at the 2d surface level, amd above that level, must be another edge of it's 'dimensions'.

>> No.11056632

Emotions

Fuck how do spoilers work

>something religious as the source of emotions

>> No.11056633

>>11056586
A triangle has tree edges and one surface. A cube has 12 edges and 6 whatever you call them. This does not change with dimensionality.

>> No.11056636

>>11056585
Memory benefits humans because it allows us to be more aware before we make decisions. Not only do we observe the present, but we are able to relate the present to the past with memories. Since we are able to reflect on our memories, we understand that there will be a time when we will reflect on the present, so we understand that there is a future. Consciousness is just the juggling of memories, the relation of memories to other memories, the perception of your perceptions. I don't understand why consviohsness is so controversial or philosophical. It's just memory

>> No.11056647

>>11056636
>Consciousness is just memory!

>> No.11056651

embarrassing thread, please refrain from discussing philosophy in the future

>> No.11056662

>>11056647
You can't be aware of something you haven't perceived. If thinking about something requires a past perception of that object, then thinking relies on memory. The ability to form memories and the ability to relate them are different, but together, they contribute to the differences in intelligence among humans and what we call consciousness.

>> No.11056669

>>11056633
Sure in most academic views, but thats not the point

>> No.11056677

>>11056662
>You can't be aware of something you haven't perceived
Gee, I wonder if I saw that unicorn I'm thinking about right now in a previous life.

>> No.11056706

>>11056677
Not sure what you're getting at. Can you explain why you think consciousness isn't just the relation of memories?

>> No.11056708
File: 2 KB, 125x70, 1523578999851s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056708

>>11056677
Gee, I wonder if you came up with the idea of a unicorn by your self or if you've seen it depicted in art.

Makes yuh think..

>> No.11056710

>>11056636
Imagine a being with a way to sense the world, and a way to act upon the world. The being have a mental state. When it senses the world, the mental state changes according to not only it's current perceptions but also the mental state it is already in. When it acts, it acts according to it's mental state.

sensory data <- sensory input
mental state <- sensory data + previous mental state
actions <- mental state

Can you imagine how this being has a memory, but is may not be conscious about it? Indeed we humans are like this. We learn something so well that it eventually gets automated. Then we start to act unconsciously, and so surely consciousness must be more than just keeping a memory.

>> No.11056722

>>11056669
A triangle does not get more edges or sufaces in higher dimensions. Your observation is silly.

>> No.11056743

>>11056708
I know what you're trying to say, it's the old Aristotelian dictum: Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu. I was shitposting because the way you worded it is retarded. I'm aware of the existence of China even though I haven't ever perceived China (I did perceive photographs of China, but that's not China).

>> No.11056762

>>11056743
>I'm aware of the existence of China even though I haven't ever perceived China
>I'm aware of the the existence of x, but I have not perceived x
This is a false analogy to what I said.
>I'm aware of the existence of China even though I've never perceived the existence of China
Now you see that it makes no sense.

>> No.11056773

>>11056706
>Can you explain why you think consciousness isn't just the relation of memories?
Because the relation of memories is just a fragment of the phenomenon called "consciousness". I can have thoughts about the future, I can have thoughts about non-existent things, etc. All of these things are conscious phenomena. I would say that memory is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for consciousness.

>> No.11056776

>>11056762
Since you want to be grammatically autistic, let me rephrase it:
>I'm aware of China even though I haven't ever perceived China.

>> No.11056789

>>11056773
Not the one you are responding to, but as I pointed out in this post. >>11056710 We also have to be "conscious" of our memories, and so your argument leads nowhere.

>> No.11056795

>>11056773
>I can have thoughts about the future
The result of remembering the past. If your past actions are remembered now, then you understand that present actions will be remembered later.
>I can have thoughts of non-existent things
Like what? It can only be thought of as a compilation of memories, else it can't be imagined. You've never perceived nothingness, so you can't imagine it.

>> No.11056802

>>11056795
>Like what?
Like Sherlock Holmes.

>> No.11056809

>>11056138
>>11056134
WAY OUT IN THE WATER
See it swimmin'

>> No.11056815

>>11056795
>Like what?
This is dumb. Some people also claim that it is impossible to have thoughts without language. The only true constraint on imagination is what states your brain can possibly be in.

>> No.11056817
File: 17 KB, 252x241, 6.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056817

If you show me a triangle, "look at this thing", and ask me how many sides I see and I say "four", instead of simply calling me out for being wrong and thinking my point of view is totally invalid, you could consider that, perhaps, I was looking at the square next to it and thinking that's what you meant.

My point is that, even though a triangle is never going to have 4 sides (by definition, that is, by convention on what the word triangle means), when there is a divergent opinion about it, it is not necessarily a faulty opinion, but a fault in communication. The triangle is a shit example, but in real life there are plenty of situations in which it doesn't matter how certain you are of your version, that doesn't necessarily mean the other is wrong in his view, considering his references for it are totally different from yours.

>> No.11056831

>>11056795
>It can only be thought of as a compilation of memories, else it can't be imagined
Also, be careful not to confuse what can be thought with what can be "intuitively" imagined. Remember Descartes' example of the chiliagon and the pentagon in his Meditations.

>> No.11056836

>>11056802
Sherlock Holmes, the character, is formed in memory by reading the story. The same goes for non-fiction. Sherlock Holmes might not be a real person, but he is a real character based on memories from the real world, i.e, he's human, a detective, etc. Since humans don't always tell the truth, and the book is labeled fiction, your memory helps you know he is not a real human.

>> No.11056837

>>11056817
That may be true but it has nothing to do with the original argument (conceivablity and possibility)

>> No.11056842

>>11056795
you do not think with memories and you can produce de novo shapes and sui generis ideas withou input because of the structure of visual and cerebral cortex u fucking autist

>> No.11056843

>>11056837
That's because I think those are trivial next to communication

>> No.11056853

>>11056836
>formed in memory by reading the story
But that's question-begging, sweetie. If I'm not conscious RIGHT NOW of the things I have in front of me, memory isn't worth shit at explaining consciousness. Your theory of "consciousness is nothing more than memory" can't explain why I am conscious RIGHT KNOW of the fact that I'm front of my computer.

>> No.11056857

>>11056355
there is no soul in a p-zombie, they have too low of architectonic complexity in the wrong cortices to produce the self referential resonant field

you could be high iq and almost a p-zombie, most engineers are p-zombies as are most teachers and doctors
>>11056232
you are not sapient and you do not understand entailment, please take an upper division phil course or review your notes.

>> No.11056860
File: 54 KB, 770x405, AdobeStock_43062103-770x405.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056860

>>11056817
If this is not the same idiot that posted before, it really illustrates the problem with this board.

>> No.11056869

>>11056842
>you don't think with memories
With what, then?
>without input
Memories are input

>> No.11056879

>>11056857
>self referential resonant field
Why would you make your argument in terms that is unintelligible for the people you are trying to convince? Are you really interested in discussing ideas, or are trying to fool yourself into believing that you are smarter than us?

>> No.11056886

>>11056853
Memories are perceptions. To remember is to perceive your past perceptions. To be conscious of the present is to perceive the present perception, the constantly generated memory of now. You can't perceive the perception of something truly present, because the moment has already passed, which is why you can reflect on it. Otherwise, it is mere perception.

>> No.11056906

>>11056879
no i just don’t care about other people, im participating on terms that are agreeable to my own standards of conduct. self referential resonant field of neurological/cortical activity is enough to convey exactly what the biological correlate for the mind is, since describing it in reductive terms would not aid my own ability to express the notion. Personally i strongly disdain describing what is essentially the hardest of all phenomena to express in signs in the language of neurology or information science, or electromagnetism but its necessary as you are all mostly gov-corp children who have not thought deeply about anything you were not prompted to by Ted Talks or your teachers.

Again, I want to stress, i have nothing to tell you besides self referential resonant field of functional hubs and neurological activity, since the problem of induction and the observer problem both impinge upon the description of consciousness through reductive neuroscientific signs which are contingent upon the loss of truth value, and correlative consciousness of a machine. Nietzsche’s essay On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense gives an apt description, as does Spengler’s discussion of motion, and consciousness is a special kind of motion inside the neocortex and thalamus, which would elucidate why talking about it is problematic. Self reference and the property of resonance, fields of force, are the closest we can come to modeling the problem. Cognition turns on itself and seems to disappear into biological substrates, while simultaneously causing biological reactions by looking at itself all while behaving in an automatic, yet detached manner in relation to sensory awareness and autonomic biological function. Its a queer phenomena to describe, and to do so in terms that are rooted in language and mathematical signs, like Thomas Metzinger valiantly attempts to do, is difficult. The best an elim mat can hope for is segregating interiority, volition and memory from each other and trying to attach autonomic processes to each component of subjectivity to try to sublate them into passive ghost in the shell witness states, this is unstatisfactory to me for the very same reason i cannot communicate the idea properly. That is because the act of self reference necessitates an existent entity or system which is aware that it is a system and its awareness changes it which causes the turning on itself and the cascading information which is resonant and seems to appear in many places all at once and not to concentrate itself in a brain region, functional hubs, as shown by the human connectome project, do not behave in a linear manner, and they seem to resonante with one another, as consciousness examines itself, it references its own internal structure and function which resonates throughout the different linked hubs (functional) and causes cascading effects, which is how one can ideate and one can cause psychosis through thought and can stabilize oneself

>> No.11056910
File: 445 KB, 712x400, hyacinth-macaw-beak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056910

>>11056886
I'm not the one you are debating, but the more you post, the more revealing it is how dumb you really are.

>> No.11056916

>>11056149
He's right, every time I see someone use the term "p-zombie" I imagine them as 19 year old pseuds who spend a little too much time on Wikipedia

>> No.11056918

>>11056906
lmao, nice try

>> No.11056929

>>11056910
Your post is useless to me. Show me where I've gone wrong, and then you'll only need to tolerate a lesser amount of my stupidity. Otherwise, I'll keep repeating my ideas.

>> No.11056931
File: 200 KB, 400x400, 1515040773291.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056931

>>11056906
>consciousness is a special kind of motion

>> No.11056944

>>11056886
>To remember is to perceive your past perceptions
What does this mean? If it means that every time I remember something I'm literally having the same perceptions I had some time ago, this is clearly stupid and wrong (think about pain). If that's not what you mean, then you'll have to explain what do you mean by "perceiving a perception", because as far as I'm concerned, all I've ever perceived are objects, and I haven't got a clue what "perceiving a perception" means.

>> No.11056967

>>11056944
To perceive a (past) perception is the same as being aware of a memory. The effect is not the same for sensory details because perceptions are flawed to begin with, and memories (past perceptions) aren't encoded and recalled with perfect accuracy. Our brains just don't have the complexity to perform this. To perceive your perceiving of perceptions is even fuzzier, proving that our perception of an object does not represent the true nature of that object. The more perceptions you form in a total image, the more inaccurate the thought is. All math is derived from 1 + 1 = 2, an easy perception, and all upper math is perceptions based on that fundamental perception, yet most people don't understand advanced mathematics.

>> No.11056989

>>11056967
You should stop. Your first post was clever, even if wrong, but now you are just wandering off.

Let me ask you again? Can our choices be informed by changes in our brain that are not conscious thoughts?

There may be such a thing as a constant state of consciousness, and you have come nothing close of disproving it.

>> No.11056992
File: 15 KB, 251x242, 1515446475623.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11056992

>>11056967
>To perceive a (past) perception is the same as being aware of a memory
You're now defining memory in terms of current awareness (which you first tried to explain in terms of memory). Congratulations on refuting yourself.

Also:
>All math is derived from 1 + 1 = 2
Stop it lad, please. My sides can't take it anymore.

>> No.11056998

>>11056992
>You're now defining memory in terms of current awareness (which you first tried to explain in terms of memory). Congratulations on refuting yourself.
this

>> No.11057010

>>11056967
>>11056906
I smell an autodidact

>> No.11057018

>>11056989
I'm not sure what you mean by conscious thoughts. To hold perceptions, or, to perceive perceptions, is to be conscious. Again, this is memory, the recalling of a past perception. Therefore, any thought or imagination is based on past perceptions. To rely on consciousness to make a decision is to rely on memory, or the relation of memories, to make a decision.
>>11056992
I have not refuted myself. When I say aware, I mean to perceive. I was only using different terms to get the point across to someone who was confused. Memory is the perception of past perceptions.

>> No.11057044

>>11057018
The process of memory is the perception of past perceptions, while a memory itself is a past perception, if this clarifies anything.

>> No.11057054

>>11055919
>>11056098
>>11056102
>>11056105
Those

>> No.11057112

>>11056992
Present Awareness = Perception
Present Consciousness = Perception of present perception, which isn't actually present, but moments ago
A memory = A Past Perception
Process of Memory = Perception of Past Perception
General Consciousness = The recalling and relation of past perceptions

>> No.11057118

>>11055916
your mana pool

>> No.11057125

>>11056019
Do it.

>> No.11057190
File: 9 KB, 284x178, analytic prowess.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11057190

>>11057112
Kek, let's take this apart, I really commend your turbo-autismo no matter how misguided it is.

I'm gonna numerate your shit to make it simpler:
>(1) Present Awareness = Perception
>(2) Present Consciousness = Perception of present perception, which isn't actually present, but moments ago
>(3) A memory = A Past Perception
>(4) Process of Memory = Perception of Past Perception
>(5) General Consciousness = The recalling and relation of past perceptions

I can reformulate (5) as:
>(6) General Consciousness = The recalling and relation of past present awareness(es)

(this follows from (1))

So, as you see, you're defining consciousness ultimately in terms of present awareness, which is exactly what you did not want, as you consider that consciousness is nothing but memory. I hope you had fun kid, I surely did.

>> No.11057218

>>11055918
this

>> No.11057258

>>11057190
Consciousness is memory, and memory is the perception of past perceptions. Consciousness is the perception of awareness, I agree. Of course, present awareness is required, otherwise there is no experience on which to form a perception. But there is a difference between awareness and perception of awareness; the former always precedes the latter, so that consciousness must always work with past perceptions. You can not think about what are perceiving at that moment, though it is a small amount of time

>> No.11057311

>>11057258
So you agree that your whole theory of consciousness boils down to the primitive, unexplained concept of "present awareness". You just replaced consciousness with an equally unintelligible spook.

>> No.11057316

>>11057258
To give an example, imagine two humans at a baseball game. Soko retains his memories, while Bert does not. As a player hits a home run, Soko and Bert are both aware of what's happening. However, Soko forms a memory of his awareness, then relates that perception to previous perceptions. Soko then understands that the player has gained his team one point, which increases their chance of winning, which tells Soko whether or not the home run is good or bad based on what team he likes.

>> No.11057357

>>11056773
Memory isn't necessary for consciousness but it is necessary for it to create an identity

>> No.11057373

>>11057357
Agreed, if by "consciousness" you mean having perceptions/qualia/whatever. I should have said "self-consciousness", which was what I was actually thinking and what you seem to aim at by "identity".

>> No.11057375

>>11057311
Present awareness is just the use of the senses. I'm not explaining how visual images are formed or how pain is simulated, because those questions are answered in technical detail in biology textbooks.

>> No.11057377
File: 1.85 MB, 1105x1456, 1524451140689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11057377

>>11055916
Integrated information

>> No.11057381

>>11057375
>I'm not explaining how visual images are formed or how pain is simulated, because those questions are answered in technical detail in biology textbooks.
Except they are not, champ, and that's exactly why the hard problem of consciousness exists.

>> No.11057398

>>11057373
>"self-consciousness", which was what I was actually thinking
Why? No one cares about this because it's not interesting.

>> No.11057401

>>11057373
I am referring to qualia, I think its also possible there are other “tools” similar to memory that consciousness could utilize, that maybe other beings could have inherited but that's just speculation

>> No.11057405

>>11057398
To you it's not, why waste your time replying if it isnt

>> No.11057410

>>11055916
our brain does. how does it do that? we don't know yet. we do know that all animals have it, to varying degrees.

>> No.11057414
File: 446 KB, 808x805, 1503503070002.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11057414

>>11055916
Evolution selects for the development of consciousness as it allows for an organism to more easily survive and reproduce (the ability to reason being obviously a significant advantage in nature), and so consciousness is a very slowly developed system of interconnected nerves and neurons which allow you to make decisions according to stimuli, probably beginning with very simple responses to general stimuli (if a nerve senses pain retreat away from the source of the pain) into what we now consider "consciousness" which is essentially a perpetual "response" to external stimuli presented in the context of what we consider cognition.

Basically "you" as in your consciousness through which you understand the world around you was created by nature in order to help protect your body and to aid it to more easily put its dick into a vagina. It could be said your consciousness is just another organ in your body necessary for its survival.

>> No.11057419

>>11057405
Because it's an annoying point that always gets brought up in discussions of consciousness even though it's irrelevant. I hope by posting this I discourage others from doing the same in future discussion.

>> No.11057421

>>11057410
>Animals have it to various degrees
give me your definition of consciousness and how it differs from awareness

>> No.11057465

>>11057421
Consciousness is subjective experience, i.e. to be a subject. Awareness is perception, i.e. apprehension of objects.

>> No.11057472

>>11057465

So what defines subjecthood? What differentiates it from an entity capable of "apprehension of objects"?

>> No.11057475

>>11057465

Also, how can you confirm, deny or define another's subjective experience if all you have is your own subjective experience to go off of?

There is no subject/object division, metaphysically.

>> No.11057482

>>11057465
How can you prove animals have it? You can prove they have perception/awareness only, Crows for have shown that they have the ability to remember faces and solve problems by thinking ahead but this doesn't prove they are conscious

>> No.11057490

>>11057475
>Also, how can you confirm, deny or define another's subjective experience if all you have is your own subjective experience to go off of?

I'm not the OP, but that's fairly obvious: analogy from my own case. I know I'm conscious, and I do a lot of complex shit, like speaking a language. So if I see another dude that resembles me in a whole lotta ways, including speaking a language, I infer that he must resemble me in another aspects, e.g., being conscious. The power of this argument, of course, diminishes as you consider species further removed from your own.

>> No.11057498

>>11057490

But in this case another person's subjecthood is contained within YOUR subjective experience. So there's no denying or confirming that it isn't just a projection of your own subjective experience. It isn't as obvious as you think.

Not a "solipsist," by the way. But I don't believe in the (primarily Western) idea of subject/object, me/the rest of the world.

>> No.11057509

>>11057498
>But in this case another person's subjecthood is contained within YOUR subjective experience
Huh? No, what is contained within my own subjective experience is the perceptual evidence on which I claim "that other dude is conscious".

>> No.11057528

>>11057509

So this is something you've come to know OUTSIDE of your own subjective experience, then?

How did you go beyond your subjective experience to know this?

How can you know that this perceptual evidence, which belongs only to your unique perceptual system, speaks to some universal "truth"?

>> No.11057537

>>11057528
What the fuck are you talking about, you schizo? I don't actually know if the other dude is conscious or not, but attributing consciousness to him is the simplest explanation of his (equally complex to mine) behavior. I can live with that.

>> No.11057541

>>11057537

I'm challenging ur logic, brah. Gah, lrn 2 think cogently. I have an Ivy League degree in philosophy, I'm not trolling you.

>> No.11057552

>>11057537

You can't answer my questions. Your logic is schizo.

>> No.11057559

>>11057552
>So this is something you've come to know OUTSIDE of your own subjective experience, then?
No.
>How did you go beyond your subjective experience to know this?
I didn't. How could I?

>How can you know that this perceptual evidence, which belongs only to your unique perceptual system, speaks to some universal "truth"?
I never made any claims to "some universal truth", whatever that means.

Happy now, schizo?

>> No.11057560

>>11057552
He did he basically said he can't know he just assumed they are

>> No.11057568

>>11057560
Sure, buddy. If by "assume" you mean "make a plausible hypothesis based on observation". All this shows is that maybe you have a somewhat schizophrenic definition of knowledge which implies absolute certitude :^)

>> No.11057579

>>11057568
Well one can only assume, this is just an argument of solipsism. You seem to like using schizo as a buzzword also.
>A plausible hypothesis withen your own experience*
fixed it for you

>> No.11057583

>>11057579
But of course it's within my own experience my dude, how else could it be? Do you actually have a point?

>> No.11057590
File: 452 KB, 3840x2160, 2712962-Edward-Witten-Quote-I-have-a-much-easier-time-imagining-how-we.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11057590

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ&t=123s

>> No.11057599

>Huh? No, what is contained within my own subjective experience is the perceptual evidence on which I claim "that other dude is conscious".
This was you? You made the claim that your subjective experience is evidence of others consciousness

>>11057583

>> No.11057604

>>11057599
your point being...?

>> No.11057637

>>11057054
>>11056098
>>11056102
>>11056105
all of that

>> No.11057643

>>11057637
Esto.

>> No.11057648

>>11057472
Subjects are entities which perceive.

>>11057475
Inductive reasoning.

>>11057482
>prove
Not possible, but I can make inferences.

>Crows for have shown that they have the ability to remember faces and solve problems by thinking ahead but this doesn't prove they are conscious
Why even associate the ability to solve problems with an internal state of perceptiveness other than unchecked anthropocentrism?

Based on information integration theory, evolutionary theory, the ubiquity of animism among pre-historic humans, anecdotes of lsd experiences, and knowledge of my own subjectivity it seems evident that consciousness is a necessary product of biological systems. Objects moving of their own accord in an environment of rival existence develop perception through their striving for reproduction/growth/resource acquisition. Such an internal state of feeling guides a given organism to its evolutionary objectives better than those without such capability so naturally those are the only organisms which exist.

>> No.11057653

>>11057604
That it is an assumption based through your own experience, you cannot prove someone else is consciousness. Does this matter? To you probably not.

>> No.11057666

>>11057648
Is every organism conscious then? Plants? Cells? Insects?

>> No.11057672

>>11057653
Sure. I wouldn't call it an assumption, because I did offer an argument (which you conveniently ignored) which takes as a basis my own subjective experience, but whatever, I don't mind. And no, I don't think you can prove someone else is conscious, as I very clearly implied when I said "I don't actually know if the other dude is conscious or not". And no, I don't care that someone else's consciousness is not as certain (for me) as my own consciousness. I think any honest person inclined to empirical thinking should admit this.

>> No.11057675

>>11057666
Yes

>> No.11057682

>>11057675
Whats the difference between a organism and an atom?

>> No.11057689

>>11057675
Is my skin conscious where I am not?

>> No.11057693

The ability to narrate your life.

>> No.11058099

>>11056636
Animals have memory and aren't conscious

>> No.11058136

>>11055936
this, no other "explanation" can do it justice

>> No.11058216

>>11057414
This

>> No.11058234

>>11056279
I wonder if in 100 years people are going to look at our use of evolution as an explanatory tool and think we're off our rockers like we do when Taoists explain the nature of the universe by comparing it to a flower.

>> No.11058607

>>11056019
Pasta?

>> No.11058758

>>11056906
you sound like a massive faggot

>> No.11058807

>>11055936
What makes god conscious?

>> No.11059244

>>11057682
Organic matter and inert matter, i.e. atoms aren't reproductive systems.

>>11057689
There are a number of problems with how you've framed this. First of all this concept of selfhood "I" is an ideal in your mind, the subject of a given body is not a discrete entity that controls volition and rides around in the head, its the focal point for perception in that body and as such it is identifiable with the particular component through which perception is constituted. Second, skin cells are as dead as pubic hair in a shower drain. Third, particular components of a body are not rival organisms naturally selecting against one another so there is no evolutionary pressure driving them toward developing perception out of competitive necessity. Lastly, when you experience your skin touching your desk the cells involved are conscious qua they're function constitutes the subjective experience of touching your desk.

Also, it's impossible to say whether or not multiple parallel consciousnesses occupy a given person as they would be imperceptible to to one another though it wouldn't really matter if it were the case as they'd always be experiencing the same thing, thus there's no cause for interference of one another.

>> No.11059251

>>11058607
I made the post with pasta in mind but no, not yet anyway

>> No.11059304

>>11055918
OP on suicide watch

>> No.11059317

>>11056134
HEY

>> No.11059331

>>11056547
How do I make it stop?
Is that really what the word neurosis means?
That kind if mind grinding haunts me since I was a kid

>> No.11059382
File: 132 KB, 725x713, 1412930181550.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11059382

>>11055916
Are you looking for a medical/scientific answer, or a philosophical answer?

>> No.11059490

>>11056139
You're not fucking qualified to post here. I despise the fact that I share this board with maxpseuds who have never pondered a philosophical question in their lives. Even if you don't agree with p-zombies, you should know what they are.

>>11055916
Attention to all other fags that followed our memes here from reddit:

Be aware of every concept on this page and you'll be minimally qualified to participate in meaningful discussion here. I mean it. You are the same type of fag who debates physics PhDs about black holes in the youtube comment section to Avengers.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

Read it, and I guarantee you that you will be floored by the knowledge that all of your inane "bro deep" pothead philosophy has been thought of, answered, rebutted, debated, and pondered in depth. two millenia of literature on the subject, and your pseud ass dismisses it all with a snarky post on 4chan.org/lit/

>> No.11059720

>>11059331
Pls respond

>> No.11059764

>>11059490
1. people in here actually can't read that much text
2. even if they could, they're too arrogant to consider that they need to read anything to have non-retarded opinions on a subject

>> No.11059931

>>11056314
you cannot say or thought something that is illogical, literally read wittgenstein

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action