[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 88 KB, 999x800, ZachdelaRocha_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10404466 No.10404466 [Reply] [Original]

all you see and sense is electrical signal. This is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. The only people that deny this are people like jordan peterson, and conservative mysticists who claim there is something "unknowable" about sensing.

>> No.10404476

>>10404466
physicalists are so narrow

first define what you mean by consciousness, then explain how science has been able to isolate and explain its properties and then reproduce it

I'll wait

>> No.10404479

>>10404466
if consciousness isn't real, how can you trust your consciousness to tell you that electrical signals even exist? After all, your consciousness isn't real.

>> No.10404481

>>10404466
the electric universe

>> No.10404483

>>10404476
it is simply what the brain senses.

The brain senses it. Our species has know this for atleast one hundred years

>>10404479
>muh semantic philosophy
yeah ill take a number one with large fries

>> No.10404488

>>10404483
as easily as you dismiss others, you have been dismissed

>> No.10404490
File: 885 KB, 400x300, AngryAngryNPCs.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10404490

>>10404483
>it is simply what the brain senses
So you have no thoughts, no internal dialog, no internal visualization ability, and no imagination?

>> No.10404493

One thing I HATE is when people write IN CAPS for no other REASON than trying to make their MEANINGLESS shit look like it's IMPORTANT.

>> No.10404499

>>10404488
have fun living in the dark ages, im guessing you deny global warming and vaccines?

>> No.10404503

>>10404499
if you aren't willing to argue constructively neither am i
Im not going to keep trying if you keep being retarded, later

>> No.10404509

>>10404503
He also refuses to address brain processes that are not sense related.

>> No.10404750

>>10404466
It's real. It just might not be objectively "special" in the way we want.

>> No.10404823

>>10404466
are electrical signals real?

>> No.10404824

>>10404466
well ther is someting unoable but not for the easil deceaved

>> No.10404847
File: 32 KB, 636x773, NPC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10404847

>>10404466
Found the P-zombie

>> No.10405132

>>10404490
in its synaptic connections the brain stores a probability distribution from which one can generate all the types of things one is likely to see in the world.
during sensing uses the things in that distribution to interpret sensory information.
during imagination, internal dialogue etc etc it does the opposite and actively generates those things on its own.
regardless of what is happening, consciousness is still just these things (what we sense stored internally)

>> No.10405145

I think consciousness is real but it's just not real in humans. A more complex creature or AI could in the future technically achieve real consciousness.

Doing drugs like DMT makes you immediately realize that all the feelings of insight and self you and your brain gives you are illusions that are easily reproducible with drugs.

You only think you are conscious because you have a memory and an illusion of continuation. Your brain just makes decisions at any moment in time and you linking this in chronological order and making connections between these is what you call consciousness. But it's just an illusion.

Split brain experiments show that people just make up whatever their motives for their actions are afterwards and truly believe in it. This shows that the conscious brain doesn't even make decisions but is just a part that makes up the motives after the fact.

If you really think about it you know this is true. Where you did something and have no idea why you did it but then just made up an excuse afterwards for yourself why you did. This is what your brain does for every single decision.

The biggest lie humanity told itself that we still believe and is completely unscientific in nature is that we have free will and consciousness. Rooted deeply in western religion and thus creeped into our culture. But it's completely false.

Maybe one day in the future we will create the first conscious being in the universe though in the form of an AI. Turns out we were just the booting program and of no significance just like single-celled organisms that only combined make up you as a person. So did humanity combined make a machine that ended up being conscious.

Humans can't make conscious decisions and are barely self-aware.

>> No.10405154

>>10404466
>x isnt real
do you know how stupid you sound?by that logic nothing is real and nihilism is accurate. just do whatever whenever nothing matters. its a self defeating stance

>> No.10405167

Consciousness denial is a creepy and absurd byproduct of technoscientific training. Even if its mainly fedora tier undergrads shitposting this trash, it honestly makes me sympathize with anti-scientific movements to spite them.

>> No.10405168

Our intuitions about consciousness and phenomena is that it is unexplainable by physical phenomena and so physicalist standpoints are wrong, requiring us to invoke an alternative ontological standpoint however the following argument interrupts that because if one can show that our beliefs about consciousness from the non-physicalist standpoint are faulty then we can no longer entertain those beliefs.

1. There is an explanation of our phenomenal intuitions that is independent of consciousness.

2. If there is an explanation of our phenomenal intuitions that is independent of consciousness,
and our phenomenal intuitions are correct, their correctness is a coincidence.

3. The correctness of phenomenal intuitions is not a coincidence.

therefore

4. Our phenomenal intuitions are not correct.

The crux of this argument is firstly about whether beliefs about phenomenal intuitions are coincidentally correct/incorrect. This is a no brainer. The consciousness problem and our stakes in it is unintelligible and baseless if we believe that our hypothetical correctness about it is is coincidental.

Secondly it is about whether our intuitions about consciousness being abberrant from physical explanation is independent of consciousness itself.

It is true that they are independent. From a non-physicalist standpoint, we can describe all the physical facts about the brain but not the phenomenal "what its likeness". we can describe a complete and perfectly working human (like a p-zombie) without any reference to its conscious state. All of its behaviour is physically explained. So much so that even a p-zombie will say "ouch" and even a p-zombie will claim to be conscious and also claim that its consciousness is strange and physically unexplainable.

>> No.10405170
File: 117 KB, 543x691, Anime+smug+faces+1_15cee3_5978426.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10405170

>>10404466
SPEAK EMS TO ME DADDY
NYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA~

>> No.10405172

>>10405168
>continued.

From this it is evident that our beliefs about the strangeness of consciousness are physically caused by neuronal interactions in the brain in a way that is ambivalent and independent of the ontological status of consciousness because if p-zombies existed they would also believe they have consciousness even though they dont have consciousness. and ultimately without those beliefs, we wouldnt be engaging in this conversation right now.

All the things possible for us to sense or have insight about including consciousness are physically explainable through light hitting our sensory epithelia and/or changes in neuronal activation. problems posed by consciousness is therefore a problem with the brains need to seek explanations and its ability to do so; about physical things. because the activity and output of the brain is completely and purely explainable physically. rendering beliefs about consciousness independent of phenomena.

One could argue that p-zombies might not be possible but then again, i could still design a perfect model of the brain, do all the calculations by hand and hypothetically, if i put the same information about sensory inputs in as a normal person like me or you has received through out our lives, i would still end up writing out the same outputs that are equivalent to a p-zombie saying theyve got consciousness and that it needs to be explained even though im just doing this on paper. the problem of consciousness therefore becomes not an ontological problem but a biological one in the same vein that people designing a.i have problems or experience peculiarities with their machines just by running them and not knowing what is going to happen.

>> No.10405174

>Physicists choose the abstractions of electricity to describe the world, and then say it describes the world.

Nicely done OP. Maybe the abstractions poorly explain consciousness because they aren't the right tools for the job.

>> No.10405196

>>10404466
What is unkowable about consciousness is why you need to be there and it's not just electrical signals by themselves.

>> No.10405620

fags

>> No.10405781
File: 32 KB, 244x295, 1549216626321.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10405781

>>10405132
>consciousness is still just these things
If these things exist, and consciousness are these things, then you just proved consciousness exists.

Nice one.

>> No.10405810

>>10405781
sure there is something to be called consciousness but its a physical state and has no alternative ontological status.
one of my other arguments would go along the lines of how particular human consciousness is. when we consider the other "what its like"s like to be a crab or bat or a.i. you get an intractable distribution until you realise consciousness is an incoherent concept.