/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10218239

243KiB, 640x360, David Chalmers.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 15 Dec 23:51:30 2018 No.10218239 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10218260 >>10218296 >>10218982 >>10218998 >>10219015 >>10219536

Would a mathematical theory of consciousness be the greatest scientific discovery of all time?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Dec 2018 23:55:58 No.10218252 Report

Quoted By: >>10218272

>Would a mathematical theory of consciousness be the greatest scientific discovery of all time?
define "consciousness"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Dec 2018 23:58:25 No.10218256 Report

Quoted By: >>10223933

Did Chalmers always look like Quicksilver?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 00:02:28 No.10218260 Report

Quoted By:

>>10218239
building a machine with a conscious would be

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 00:10:04 No.10218272 Report

Quoted By: >>10218277

>>10218252
Define 'define "consciousness"'

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 00:12:11 No.10218277 Report

Quoted By: >>10219229

>>10218272
To give a definition of consciousness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 00:23:47 No.10218296 Report

Quoted By:

>>10218239
No one except the discoverers and maybe a handful of people would give the slightest of fugs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 00:27:58 No.10218298 Report

Quoted By:

There is a machine with consciousness and it’s you in that space suit you call a body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 00:28:47 No.10218300 Report

Quoted By: >>10218447

Got a BA in math and philosophy. The answer is no. Philosophy will never do anything that anyone cares about and math is a meme

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 00:30:54 No.10218302 Report

Quoted By: >>10218447 >>10218471 >>10218472 >>10219004

Consciousness, just like Bohr's atom model or other scientific theories are just incomplete descriptions of experienced (sometimes indirect through measurements) phenomenons. They help us making statements and making helpful predictions. Their incompleteness is not a fatal flaw. One has simply to acknowledge it's boundaries. Such as Bohr's Model is actually really crude, but helpful for a good portion of phenomenons.
I argue that "consciousness" is just a model as well. It's no (absolute) "truth", since it's hard to prove or disprove it's fundamental existence without starting to use questionable metaphysical arguments. Still, it helps explaining phenomenons like "I can choose between things" and "I experience the world".
I'm convinced that describing consciousness mathematically is "easy", but only at first glance. If we could have a complete map of the brain + the body including electrical properties etc., we could simulate consciousness. But there are so many atoms in just one person, that the sheer mass of data would murder this way of doing stuff.
In my opinion, no, a mathematical theory of consciousness would not be the greatest scientific discovery. We would try to discover a reality we projected by trying to understand some questions with very few data and experiences. Instead, one should look for answers to proper questions: What is the process of choosing? What is the cause for our world view, which is a subset of what our sensors (eyes, ears etc.) deliver to our brain, to be the way it is and not differently? Those questions are much more fruitful and "satisfying to answer" than a "theory of consciousness", because even after this wall of text nobody can really say: dafuq is consciousness in the first place?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 01:51:58 No.10218447 Report

Quoted By:

>>10218302
So I'm just gonna tack you under 'no'
Next time just do like this guy >>10218300

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 02:05:34 No.10218471 Report

Quoted By:

>>10218302
good post

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 02:05:42 No.10218472 Report

Quoted By:

>>10218302
So you seek further terminology in hopes THAT will lead to the definitive answer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 03:05:52 No.10218678 Report

Quoted By:

>implying objectivity can ever give an account of subjectivity

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 05:31:26 No.10218982 Report

Quoted By:

>>10218239
Chris Langan's already got it with the ctmu.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 05:41:55 No.10218998 Report

Quoted By:

>>10218239
It can't be because it is wholly beyond the scientific
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Eternal_return

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 05:45:55 No.10219004 Report

Quoted By: >>10223948

>>10218302
We can already "simulate" consciousness. Fuck your girlfriend while she is off birth control and you can generate a new consciousness. It will not help you to understand its nature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 05:52:47 No.10219015 Report

Quoted By: >>10219023

>>10218239
only if it's understandable for human beings, which it likely isn't given how many variables will probably be involved

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 05:58:15 No.10219023 Report

Quoted By:

>>10219015
This. It's the same as with AI. The AI we already have now is already not comprehensible to human beings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 07:56:32 No.10219229 Report

Quoted By:

>>10218277
define definition

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 11:48:10 No.10219536 Report

Quoted By: >>10219550

>>10218239

No.

Analogy:
Turing Machine - Occam's razor is applicable, has few and simple rules. Can be written in mathematical expressions. Can compute everything.
Operating System - Occam's razor is not applicable, complicated as fuck. Cannot be written in mathematical expressions. Linux for example, has 30 million lines of code (LOC).

Universe - Occam's razor is applicable, has few and simple laws/axioms. Can be written in mathematical expressions. Can compute everything.
Consciousness - Occam's razor is not applicable, complicated as fuck. Cannot be written in mathematical expressions. We don't even know how many millions of LOC it would take to simulate a human brain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 11:56:21 No.10219550 Report

Quoted By: >>10220594

>>10219536
I mean you can't create a mathematical theory of consciousness in the first place.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO giulio tononi.jpg, 55KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 20:11:52 No.10220594 Report

Quoted By: >>10221010

>>10219550
>blocks your path

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 20:30:02 No.10220635 Report

Quoted By:

Can you derive consciousness from E8 lattice?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Dec 2018 22:48:32 No.10221010 Report

Quoted By: >>10222602

>>10220594
everyone, stop, collaborate and listen

CoNEctOmE SpeCiFic HaRmOnIC WaVeS

https://opentheory.net/2018/06/seed-ontologies/

there, I said it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Dec 2018 14:43:14 No.10222602 Report

Quoted By:

>>10221010
IIT is obviously on the right track.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault (2).jpg, 90KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Tue 18 Dec 2018 03:28:31 No.10223933 Report

Quoted By:

>>10218256
Only since cutting his hair.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Dec 2018 03:41:07 No.10223948 Report

Quoted By:

>>10219004
Maybe it would though anon

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches