Here's a dumb question: What is consciousness?

What does it mean to be conscious? Where is its source? Can it be transferred? Is it reliant upon memories or is it a mere tool of the brain? Both? I can go on, but I want a decent discussion on the entity that is consciousness.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Campbell
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

A spook used by homo sapiens to justify their actions after the fact. The more you look at history and sheer amount of chaos in human behaviour, you begin to see that this can not possibly be the work of "conscious" beings, rather an abomination born of cacophonous horde of morons who think their capricious actions can be justified or explained anyhow.

>here's a dumb question
>actually one of the most profound questions ever and perhaps the foremost subject of historical and contemporary philosophy

Just because a dumb person is asing the question, that doesn't render the question itself "dumb"

>What does it mean to be conscious?
It means you’re capable of thought, bonus points if you can think about thinking too
>Where is its source?
Idk? God? Logos?
>Can it be transferred?
I doubt it, it can maybe be copied though
>Is it reliant upon memories or is it a mere tool of the brain?
Both?

>What does it mean to be conscious?
Having a brain able to produce the mental states we call consciouness.
>Where is its source?
Brain
>Can it be transfered?
Depends on what is exactly the direct substrate of consciouness.
If it's the electrical activity then I guess slowly replacing the brain itself with a synthetic equivalent could be considered a form of transfert.
If it's the brain matter itself, then you can't.
You probably also can't if the answer is in-between.
A copy is going to merely be a mental clone of yourself rather than a continuation of your existence, it's possible that people will talk about the Theseus Ship and other thoughts experiments about identity but they are not really about the actual continuity of consciouness unless the brain works in some theorized ways or if you theorize that continuity of consciouness is not a thing.
Brain, I don't really get why memory is important, amnesiacs probably don't lose their consciouness.

>Muh physicality

If your consciousness was a mere result of some matter and electric impulses, you wouldn't have had things such as a sense of being, inner voice or second thoughts, which are non-physical manifestations of your consciousness. As is your brain.

Something unprovable by science

Fuck, OP. Depends on who you ask. If you're Abram, consciousness is the thread that holds all things together. If you're some psych major on Veeky Forums, it has a very specific definition that doesn't hold water as soon as you pay it minimum scrutiny.
I'd read "Spell of the Sensuous."
TL;DR everything has consciousness and there are structures of ancient intelligence that hold up the fabric of nature and reality. Like trees and how they talk to each other, and SHIT LIKE THAT.

> you wouldn't have had things such as a sense of being, inner voice or second thoughts
That doesn't follow any more than you wouldn't see, touch or feel anything

If you can't even prove consciousness. You can't prove it exists for anyone else. Or maybe it does exist for other people, but that thing you think of as consciousness isn't actually consciousness. Consciousness is the inviolable self, the individuality of agency, alien to all others and unknowable to the self.

Conciousness is the topic that has been most written about that we know the least about.

Anyone that thinks about it, he will realize that we are but a conglomeration ob conciousless atoms that put toghether in a particular way produce conciousness, we are atoms aware that we are atoms.

That way i see it, is that life is simply such an ubelivably complex and impeobable result of chemestry.

Life can emerge from.dead things

Conciousness can emerge from unconciousness.

What happens if we keep going forward i wonder?

This guy did tho.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Campbell

Except those are capabilities created for you to stimulate and evolve your consciousness to a lower, more profitable state of entropy

Bitch are we talking about the ego or are we talking about consciousness because Stirner was a fucking punk and you need to cite your goddamn sources

>simulation theory proven
>The two assumptions are 1) that consciousness exists
Are you retarded?

Consciousness is experience that is unknowable to any other conscious being is consciousness indeed actually exists. It also might not exist even though there's a word for it, just like medical concepts like the 4 humors. The only reason consciousness matters of because of agency. If you ever get to the point of shared consciousness or shared memory or shared knowledge, the fundamental implications are mindblowing because sense of self and agency are built upon the mind being at least partially inviolable.

There were no dead things when god created animals my dude.

It's a buzzword for the people who fell for the western civilization meme of objectivism, which itself is reminiscent of the western memes of dualism and essentialis. It is meaningless because it literally points to no substance, to nothing, it's just a word that describes something that does not exist.

As such, the answer to that question is completely meaningless and only generates pointless waste of time. The answer to "what is X" can only be really given if X actually exists. If not we waste time each one with their own particular definition of something that truly no one has experienced or seen or tasted or touched. Wild guessing.

As it stands, it is also one of the most important questions that western philosophers have been trying to solve - they've been baited that they can really get there because they fell for the meme

It's not so much about consciousness than what exactly is real outside of this reality, inside the larger reality. That thing is consciousness.

>ywn sail the great seas of Mars, deftly gliding between red islands as you explore a literal New world

Anyone else born too early here?

What do you mean when you say that? You didn't define your parameters of inquiry very well. I know what you mean when you ask "what is sight" or "what is hearing", but you should provide an example of the exact phenomenological features you don't understand.

If you mean
>what's the inner voice I have when I read this greentext

That's brodmann's area 44 transducing a transduction, literally echoing vibrations goo in your head have saved to re-vibrate later. You can apply it to other senses because of echoing waves that ultimately owe to at least one of 5 transduced sensory signals (sound, touch, taste, smell, sight) modified by meta-signals. "Consciousness" is what happens when you have a cave so big and flexible it can echo, reproduce, and mutate what you yell into it.

Now get a real job you pseud.

What internal sound do you hear when you see this?
>我是二蛋
None? You've never transduced, received, formatted, or modified the sensory data required to compile and bind into the brain-echo that makes those squiggly lines meaningful. Reasonably, you can take this principle and apply it to everything else.

dude

like

what if

oxygen is a hallucinogen

and life is just like a long oxygen trip

and

when you "die" you wake up

>assume consciousness therefore conciousness

Consciousness doesn't exist. It's just a meme.