/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10915134

356KiB, 916x1200, ECsTnaxXYAAhyM4.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 05:17:21 2019 No.10915134 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10915145 >>10915253 >>10915256 >>10916500 >>10918411

What is /sci/'s preferred explanation of consciousness?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 05:19:35 No.10915138 Report

Quoted By:

It's what you get when you have enough layers of an object obtaining information about its surroundings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 05:22:46 No.10915145 Report

Quoted By: >>10915151 >>10915326 >>10915399

>>10915134
Not science. Fuck off

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 05:24:56 No.10915151 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915145
Define "science".

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 06:34:45 No.10915253 Report

Quoted By: >>10915349

>>10915134
I have to kick out functionalism because it just makes less sense the more you think about it, and it can't be integrated with physics anyway. I'm going straight up Dualism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 06:40:49 No.10915256 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915134
i would say that my preferred explanation for consciousness is that humans and even lower lifeforms found it advantageous (in the natural selection sense) to employ neural networks in the form of biological brains to encode memories and algorithmically determined behavioral patterns. the encoding of memories of sensory inputs and the capability for memorization of algorithmic processes (thought processes) led to animals with advanced brains developing an "operating system" of sorts, or at least, a basis program to organize and be the "master program" for the other programs that are required for survival.

so, in a nutshell, consciousness is the basic cognitive function of brains, and serves as the basis/scheduler for their other cognitive functions that enable survival.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 07:21:52 No.10915326 Report

Quoted By: >>10915341

>>10915145

>Not science. Fuck off

Your retardation must be of the earth orbit variety.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 07:27:54 No.10915341 Report

Quoted By: >>10916496

>>10915326
>U-unfalsifiable rambling about consciousness IS SCIENCE!11

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 07:31:49 No.10915349 Report

Quoted By: >>10916260

>>10915253
>it can't be integrated with physics anyway
>I'm going straight up Dualism
Your logic is inconsistent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 07:46:23 No.10915377 Report

Quoted By: >>10915402

Consciousness is a bunch of hot air, it is yet again just a tool nature developed for the sake of survival. Since being self-aware and not obeying the hard programming can be very useful.

My body really does not like going to the dentist, because pain can lead to death and death is bad. But my mind can go against the will of my body and do something that will benefit my survival in the long run.

That is all consciousness is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 08:06:35 No.10915399 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915145
I agree. there are so many truths science can't explain because it's based on empirics using the 5 senses and presupposes various paradigms that are popular at the time of investigation.

Read Thomas Khun or Feyerabend.

imagine you had to learn math strictly empirically, without using axioms, intuition and logic...WHAT A MESS. It would be GARBAGE

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 08:08:57 No.10915402 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915377
>the most intimiate and important tool man uses to observe the world
>it's just a bunch of hot air cause we can't explain it
kek

>will power
>That is all consciousness is.
No consciousness is prior to the will, it's more like the ability to perceive a choice is possible, that you can do X or Y, then perceiving what choice you actually make, and also being aware of the process of awareness itself, it's very META
matter-brains will never understand it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:57:36 No.10916260 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915349
>Implying it can't
Isn't physics the one with the hypothetical particle fields, multiverses, unverifiable QM interpretation, multiple dimension, cosmic super strings, and all that other bullshit? How crazy is a consciousness field? please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 19:05:56 No.10916496 Report

Quoted By: >>10916653

>>10915341
Math isn't about falsifiability.
Empiricism/falsifiability IS NOT the only metric for finding truth in science, mathematics, or philosophy.
Stop trying to gimp intelligent rational search for answers because you're either too much of an ideologue or an idiot to accept of valid forms of discourse.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO types of dualism.png, 76KiB, 1920x420

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 19:07:41 No.10916500 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915134
You're a brainlet if you aren't an interactionist dualist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:10:41 No.10916653 Report

Quoted By: >>10916661

>>10916496
>Math isn't about falsifiability.
No one claims math represents reality.

>Empiricism/falsifiability IS NOT the only metric for finding truth in science, mathematics, or philosophy.
It is indeed the only method for finding scientific facts. You can speculate all you want but don't try to pass off your baseless opinions as comparable to facts. They have no bearing on reality.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO post singularity meme.jpg, 460KiB, 1196x752

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:12:12 No.10916656 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbFuudKAic

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:13:11 No.10916661 Report

Quoted By: >>10916662 >>10916665

>>10916653
>No one claims math represents reality.
Math represents reality to a tighter degree than empirical methods, which are statistical rather than absolute.
>It is indeed the only method for finding scientific facts. You can speculate all you want but don't try to pass off your baseless opinions as comparable to facts. They have no bearing on reality.
Wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:14:14 No.10916662 Report

Quoted By: >>10916666

>>10916661
>Math represents reality to a tighter degree than empirical methods, which are statistical rather than absolute.
Wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:15:58 No.10916665 Report

Quoted By: >>10916681

>>10916661
>Math represents reality to a tighter degree than empirical methods, which are statistical rather than absolute.
How do you know?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:16:02 No.10916666 Report

Quoted By: >>10916681

>>10916662
Not wrong.
This is why a mathematician will write a construction of some algebra hundreds of years before it's found in nature, but why entire foundations of science (like classical mechanics) are completely falsified by new results.
Science can never find truth or facts, unlike mathematics, and whenever science DOES write a theory of reality, it's done so mathematically, as only mathematics has a claim to be about objective truth and reality.
Science is, and always will be, secondary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:25:22 No.10916681 Report

Quoted By: >>10918405

>>10916666
>This is why a mathematician will write a construction of some algebra hundreds of years before it's found in nature, but why entire foundations of science (like classical mechanics) are completely falsified by new results.
It's only found in nature by empirical observation. Without that you have no way to tell the difference between math which represents nature and math that doesn't. That's why falsification is needed, yet you take it as a flaw, while holding up its results as proof.

>Science can never find truth or facts, unlike mathematics
It's impossible to get truth about reality, only empirical facts. Mathematics is truth about idealized models, not reality. There is no way to tell that your idealized model corresponds to reality without empirical observation. So you are forced to avoid questions like >>10916665

>whenever science DOES write a theory of reality, it's done so mathematically, as only mathematics has a claim to be about objective truth and reality.
So any theory written mathematically is true?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 08:52:44 No.10918405 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916681
Since we can only know facts, not truth, maybe I should believe some alternative facts provided by Donald Trump since behavioural science journals are rife with articles intended to advance an agenda.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 08:57:50 No.10918411 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915134
Either eliminative materialism or idealism
depending on the universe.

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