1 ) What do you think consciousness originates from ?

That is the complete answer. If you're asking how it's represented in memory, there are experiments that show the brain has a distributed capacity to store recallable information. You literally wouldn't be as aware of yourself as you are now if you had no name growing up. You're not born being able to refer to yourself and formulate conscious awareness of your preference, that's a behavior learned behavior. You literally have to practice being you or you won't be you/won't be conscious. Identity doesn't happen in a vacuum.

>1 ) What do you think consciousness originates from ?
The collapse of quantum mechanical wave functions through interaction with complex neuronal networks.
>2 ) Do you think it's entirely physical or is it something more ?
It is an emergent phenomenon and cannot be fully accounted for by only reducing it to its physical origins.
>3 ) Do animals like jellyfish that don't have brains but rather have neural networks have consciousness ?
Given that low IQ humans and women don't have consciousness, it would be very questionable.
>4 ) If you're with the idea that it's completely physical, can an artificial intelligence have consciousness ?
maybe
>5 ) What happens to consciousness after death ?
It vanishes.
>6 ) Why is your consciousness seated in your brain / body instead of someone elses ? And what does that imply ?
Because the neuronal clusters collapsing quantum mechanical wave functions are located in my brain.
>7 ) Is consciousness an inevitable outcome of universe ?
no

>You literally wouldn't be as aware of yourself as you are now if you had no name growing up

Kek

Social conventions such as naming have no impact on an organism's ability to be self-aware user. You've made the horrible leap from self-awareness to self-identification in respect to language.

No, you're right, identity does not happen in a 'vacuum' (I'm not even sure what this means to be honest) I would argue that 'identity' is a macro-effect of self-awareness and the accumulation of personal experiences. Identity, which in some contexts in synonymous with personality, generally shapes a person's temperament in social climates and towards them self.

>The collapse of quantum mechanical wave functions through interaction with complex neuronal networks.
This is a falsifiable hypothesis. It has been falsified.

Since consciousness is just electrical activity, Is it quantifiable ?

>no impact on an organism's ability
In binary terms, no. The ability doesn't emerge only in name-giving animals. But there's a limit to how well you'll use that ability if you aren't given a name. Any cursory contact with genetics will have it apparent that abilities don't come in binaries. All traits come as gradients of expressibility.

>is just electrical
Anything that isn't undergoing nuclear fusion is "just" electrical activity. You have to understand HOW chemicals differentiate if you want to have a macroscopic discussion of the relevance of the electric force.

>This is a falsifiable hypothesis.
Of course.

>It has been falsified.
Not yet. The experiments required to test it go against "political correctness".

>The experiments required
Staring at your monitor is an experiment. It's been tested in so many ways that you don't understand that I have a hard time thinking you're worth the effort it takes to type a proper explanation of the falsifying evidence.

...

1.) It's the actual and residual acclimation of neurochemical impulses in the brain created by organ interactions with both the environment and other neurochemical impulses.

2.) It's physical: neurochemical, electric, blood, organ input/output

3.) The brain is a reactive mesh of cells; non-brain organisms react but do not have long term memory.

4.) AI could achieve sentience with a complex system. The issue is that we have been trying to skip the evolutionary process and just trying to teach AI navigation and language without trying to teach it to identify all physical stimuli and to react to it to protect itself and seek out energy.

5.) Nothing. Death is death; however the "data" that is our accumulative interactions [influence] with the universe goes on due to cause and effect. Part of you; your influence and actions may dissipate and fade, but you formed part of the historical causal matrix and are therefore an intricate part of systemic reality [grandfather paradox+butterfly effect].
6.) It's seated in the brain because the brain was the first organ to develop. The rest of the body are survival tools that mutated over time.
7.) Inevitable? Following our current Universe's rules, then in this exact model of the Universe, yes. Does this mean ours was the only possibility? Hypothetically, no. Our Universe could end and another start with no consciousness developing in it; also blah blah multiverse bullshit.
But in our current Universe? Yes. Because it already has.

>Any cursory contact with genetics
Literally find any information about genetics and you have your source for trait gradients.

>an intricate part of
Wrong. There is exactly one instrument in the universe that can accurately reflect your desires. It doesn't have a secondary storage device and when it stops metabolizing nutrients it'll be done with the entire entanglement process. There are a hundred different things you can do right now that will have zero significant effects on the world/future. It's a part of it, but it's almost universally an insignificant part of it.
>the first organ
You're gonna need to qualify that somehow. There are decent arguments that chlorophyll and mitochondria started as different bacteria and were later integrated into organelles. It's probably invalid to compare modern organs to archaic evolutionary structure in the ancestral biology.

>Staring at your monitor is an experiment
but has nothing to do with this discussion

Any specifically?

No, literally any information on genetics works for understanding the gradientness of trait expression.

This'll be faster if we use binary search across common object types.

1. A rock cannot stare.
2. Humans can.

From this, we can see that a human is much more likely to be relevant to a discussion of consciousness than a rock would be. Do you agree or disagree with this rock-human distinction?

Do you seriously consider it to be a deep insight that a rock is not a human?

>incoherent response
>default to disagree
Post discarded.

Lmao, your "argument" is bullshit and you know it. You don't disprove quantum mechanics by posting a "muh panpsychism" straw man.

Wrong?
Followed by a bunch of mumbo jumbo?
Hey idiot, do you understand how space-time works? Do you understand consequentialism?

>There are a hundred different things you can do right now that will have zero significant effects on the world/future.
That's not true. That's not how time works.
Cause and effect are absolutes.
Quantum woo is just woo.

>You're gonna need to qualify that somehow.
No no no no no.
Hey idiot, I said FIRST ORGAN.
Not FIRST PIECE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL.

You're a gigantic fucking moron.
You deserve no respect as you don't understand the very basics of science or scientific terms.

Get a doctorate and then get back to me.

>disprove quantum mechanics
>incoherent response
>default to disagree
Post discarded.

Hypothesis in question is quantum consciousness.

Then why don't you address the hypothesis instead of posting straw men? Lmao kiddo, looks like you don't know enough QM.

>criticism of binary search
Because binary search will get this done faster.

Will get what done faster? Time wasting?

>failure to establish priors
Post discarded.

>do you understand how space-time works?
Yes, strictly speaking, it behaves like not-a-brain.

You're simply not going to use general relativity to say anything about consciousness. The equations that describe the shape of space-time will not give you any information about the nature of conscious interaction.
>consequentialism
Irrelevant. The only consequential portion of this discussion was question #7 about the inevitability of consciousness. We already have consciousness ITU so we already know everything there is to know about it from a consequential perspective.
>FIRST ORGAN
Yes, so qualify that somehow. What makes an organ an organ? Because your claim sounds like complete bullshit without even a hint of evolution behind it. You're not even worth the time it takes to sound off a list of alternate organs that are much more likely to be analogous to the 'first organ' than the brain is.

So, strawman, strawman, strawman and more strawman?

Then stating consequentialism and cause and effect are "irrelevant"?

Then you ask to qualify the statements of "first organ" while at the same time trying to play irrational mind games about "what REALLY is an organ"?

Go fuck yourself and your lack of education.
Do you even have fundamentals to work from?
Do you even know what epistemology is?
No.
You have zero clue.
The fundamentals I'm working from are COMPLETE and are supported by the scientific consensus.

>The fundamentals I'm working from are COMPLETE and are supported by the scientific consensus.
If I attacked a strawman of your argument, then you need to make your actual argument clear, not butthurtpost about credentials that you have no expertise with. Real scientists don't yell about their credentials, they educate people. You don't seem to have any grasp of how to apply any of the "fundamentals" you've named off.

>If I attacked a strawman of your argument, then you need to make your actual argument clear, not butthurtpost about credentials that you have no expertise with.

No. That's not how debate works at all.
You need to learn both the Socratic Method and the Scientific Method.

"Argument from Silence" is a fallacy.

And I didn't yell about credentials, I pointed out that what I put down isn't some fringe theory.
What you put down however is anti-science and basic simplistic denials

And then you end it again with the "Argument from Silence" and imply the "Argument from Ignorance".

First step to being a scientist:
NEVER USE FALLACIES
NEVER USE BULVERISM

You're an idiot. A anti-epistemological, fallacy using idiot.
And you expect people to teach you things?
No. Never. You're supposed to teach yourself.
It's called being an autodidact.

I'm not going to spoon feed you anything, you fallacy using drone.

But I can answer all of your questions and more.
I could even introduce fundamentals so simple to understand they would completely change how you see everything.
But you don't deserve it because you used strawman attacks.
It's not just disrespectful, it proves you can't be taught because you're dedicated to lying to yourself and others so that you never have to change your mind.

So why waste my time if you're just going to keep cycling in fallacies and then demand answers when you won't even accept the ones already given?

>isn't some fringe theory
That doesn't make it correct or accurate.
>is anti-science
Don't tell me, show me. What makes my explanation anti-scientific? Don't say that it is, show that it is. Explain why you think that it isn't scientific.
>you expect people to teach you things?
Not at all. I expect you to stop shitposting, if that.

If you had something to teach, that's what you'd have started with. If you had a problem with my ideas, you'd have attacked them on the basis of those ideas rather than by naming off other ideas that don't even conflict with my ideas. You literally didn't do anything but name ideas back there. You offered no explanation whatsoever. You entered bitch mode 100 times faster than could possibly be reasonable or wise for an educated scientist.

Calm down, step away from the computer, get out of bitch mode and come back when you have something to explain that doesn't involve me or your perception of me.
>all of your questions
I didn't ask any. Go shitpost somewhere else.

Not only are you using fallacies, but now you're going off on unrelated tangents and being complete non-sequitir.

I want you to say
"Using fallacies is always stupid"

Do it.
And stop your projecting, etc.
Stop your raging.
You have no right.
The fact that you think you do proves you're a sophist.
Sophism can never equate to science.

Not sure if trolling or stupid. You continually search for sequences of words which inspire you to create a new strawman while ignoring the overarching argument.

He's a sophist.
Typical of people on the internet that have never studied fundamentals or epistemology, yet attack positions from ignorance and then offer only nonsense and personal attacks and demands in it's place.
Classic sophism.

ITT : you cant know nuthin

ITT: Strawman fallacies against Philosophy

The Axiomatic Scale states you can known proofs but that presuppositions and untested specifics are not axiomatic truths/proofs.

It's the Socratic [fallacy checking] on one side of the scale, and Empiricism [direct physical proof] on the other.
If you have nothing, then it's nothing.
If you have more doubt [Criticism], it's called reason; if you more proof [Empiricism] it's called evidence.
You can also lack reason and evidence.
When the scales are full and balanced, you have a balanced Axiomatic statement/conclusion.

Often people with learning disabilities and comprehension/cognitive deficits have difficulty with Epistemology.

>I want you to say
Alright, lemme see if I can get this right.

All so-called logical fallacies are purely contextual. That means that what may be a fallacy in one context is perfectly valid logic in another. What truly determines intelligence is the ability to tell when a given logic is fallacious or not. For example, when arguing that OP is a faggot, it is perfectly valid to attack OP's character rather than the content of the OP. While this doesn't maintain any of the topical coherency that OP might have intended, it is nevertheless a valid argument that OP is a faggot. While unintelligent fools might say it was an ad hominem argument fallacy, it was actually user's intent to say only that OP was a faggot and ignore OP's (un)original claims.

>You have no right
I have all the rights. Mostly freedom of expression, but I'll willingly admit that I'm an amerifag so if that bothers you then you're welcome to get a passport and come tell me off in person.
>strawman
If anything I responded with was a response to a strawman of your argument, it's your job to point out what your actual argument is.

Corrected:

It's the Socraticism [fallacy checking] on one side of the scale, and Empiricism [direct physical proof] on the other.
If you have nothing, then it's nothing.
If you have more doubt or coherent induction lacking in fallacies [Socraticism] it's called reason; if you more proof or counter-proof [Empiricism] it's called evidence.
You can also lack reason and evidence.
When the scales are full and balanced, you have a balanced Axiomatic statement/conclusion.

>What do you think consciousness originates from?
I personally lean towards the theory that it's a separate fundamental property from space and energy

>Do you think it's entirely physical or is it something more?
I don't think it's physical

>Do animals like jellyfish that don't have brains but rather have neural networks have consciousness?
I think it exists in varying quantities

>If you're with the idea that it's completely physical, can an artificial intelligence have consciousness?
I don't think any computer-based AI can be conscious

>What happens to consciousness after death?
idunno read the bible xd

>Why is your consciousness seated in your brain / body instead of someone elses ? And what does that imply?
I'd say it implies that the brain forms a unique physical organization that's able to interact with the conscious entity

>Is consciousness an inevitable outcome of universe?
I don't think it's directly correlated

>All so-called logical fallacies are purely contextual.
No. Are you kidding me?
There for FORMAL and INFORMAL fallacies.
FORMAL fallacies are always wrong in all circumstances.

Fallacies are not determined by personal feelings or belief that something fits at all.
That's called the argument from ignorance, and is a FORMAL fallacy.
No amount of context can make a FORMAL fallacy rational or logical.

I don't even understand how you can get it twisted since Epistemology follows very ultra specific logical laws.

And no, you don't have a right to violate those laws.

Your use of FORMAL fallacies and trying to parlay them off as INFORMAL fallacies is ridiculous.
It's like you haven't actually studied the subject but looked them up online in the past year and decided to reject Epistemology because it got in the way of your egotism.

So keep it up. Use more FORMAL fallacies and look like a fool.
You didn't even know there were classifications of fallacies.

Micro-organisms have rudimentary sensing. They have some "awareness" of the world.
As simple as "eat" or "don't eat" or "move along the gradient towards warmth" You may not think of them as intelligent, but just think of them as very, very simple intelligences, making very simple decisions.

As organisms combined and grew so did their awareness, and their decisions.

Necessarily, at a certain point, in order to survive, it's senses and decisions would pertain to the state of itself. But still, in rudimentary ways.

The combined awareness of self and environment is consciousness.

A better question is "where does abstract thinking come from", and at what evolutionary stage does a conscious organism have this?

>argument from ignorance
Arguments from ignorance can be correct. Often times people don't understand why they're right, but they're still right. Contextual.

>No amount of context can make a FORMAL fallacy rational or logical
Bet you I can. Name and explain any fallacy and see if I can't produce a context that makes it valid.

If you're gonna be belligerent about this feel free to make a thread for it. I can run context around any supposed fallacy any day.

>Epistemology
Why do you keep capitalizing that? Are you one of those coreisall faggots? Did s2k lie to you about the "rules" of "Epistemology"? Is this an elaborate LessWrong troll? You you earnestly believe that you're being anything other than an insufferable cunt right now? Do you comprehend the gravity with which you have contributed absolutely nothing but shitposting to this thread? What belligerent put you here to try to explain "Epistemology" as if it was something worth saying? Exactly which sequence of events led you to Veeky Forums today? And if this is part of your programmed routine, how did you initially find this place?

I disagree, there's nothing falsifiable about it. It's just a nonsense statement. Collapse of the wave function just means you had a superposition of states that has become a single pure state of some observable. This doesn't have any kind of relation to consciousness and is purely a nonsensical statement.

Why are you guys always confusing self-awareness with consciousness?

Prove that a self aware creature is unconscious.

>It's just a nonsense statement
It's not. Most belief systems are actually testable. Lots of old myths about the seasons can be tested by traveling to other parts of the globe to see that seasons differ by region, for example.

>1 ) What do you think consciousness originates from ?
Some sort of conscious unity We can not study
>2 ) Do you think it's entirely physical or is it something more ?
Something more
>3 ) Do animals like jellyfish that don't have brains but rather have neural networks have consciousness ?
Possibly, but we can not experience another's consciousness
>4 ) If you're with the idea that it's completely physical, can an artificial intelligence have consciousness ?
>5 ) What happens to consciousness after death ?
rejoins with consciousness's source
>6 ) Why is your consciousness seated in your brain / body instead of someone elses ? And what does that imply ?
Consciousness is affected by the release of chemicals
>7 ) Is consciousness an inevitable outcome of universe ?
No, it is a creations

It's a new age meme term. "Consciousness" is the big mystery everyone wants to understand, but it's "too hard to define" so people end up thinking they can make up any arbitrary theory they want and it means as much as any other psychology theory.

If even a rigorous interpretation of science suggests that consciousness would not originate from anything but rather that everything originates from consciousness why would you seek to put the pure self in any sort of subjugate position? An aesthetic concession of a social race?

ITT
Veeky Forums has become /x/

There isn't any mystery to the brain or thought.
We know it's neurochemical impulses because we can disrupt them and alter them.

"Quantum thought" has no science behind it and no Quantum scientists support Quantum woo.

It's called Quantum woo for a reason.
Look it up. It's been debunked multiple times.

/x/, leave Veeky Forums

> thread is not about quantum
> bitches about quantum and wants /x/ to leave
I guess you're the taster of baits.

It's happening

independent.co.uk/news/science/insects-are-conscious-claims-major-paper-that-could-show-us-how-our-own-thoughts-began-a7002151.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation

Educate yourself, kid.

xyz

>believing consciousness exists somewhere other than the brain

fuck off with your fortune cookie philosophy bullshit retards