I'm sorry If this is not strictly science but I think some of you would find this topic interesting

What Im trying to tell you is that there is a spectrum of chemical complexity in the universe:
In one end there are the huge molecules of an animal or a plant (maybe we humans are at the very end of the spectrum, altough I'm sure some biochemists wouldn't agree).
And on the other end there are H and He atoms, maybe an O2, N2, etc...

I feel like placing a mark on that spectrum and saying "from here to that end there is consciousness and from here to the other end there is not" is something kind of stupid.

there are good arguments against extreme skepticism man
>We can't know If God is real
nigga descartes whole point was to prove god

also no this is not science, go to Veeky Forums

I think it can be considered science. It's pure empirism: every experience (or experiment) that you have proves that you exist.

And Descartes also believed that animals were machines without feelings

Go to /x/

nah, I think this belongs here

not really, if anywhere it belongs to Veeky Forums

There is mounting hard evidence that supports panpsychism.

quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

The conclusion is a non sequitur.
You could use your argument to "show" that rocks are alive, if you think about it.

And in fact they may be:

phys.org/news/2015-08-iron-bar-capable-decision-making.html

Decision making is a strong word for what is happening there.

double slit experiment

your mom's and your sister's?

Ha, it's also a strong word for us humans and every other life form

What do you mean?

how does that exactly prove panpsychism? I don't understand

Shit thread.

>all living beings are made of DNA
>all living beings are the same

We're all just energy bro. Now pass the joint.

Who said that?

What if consciousness is an emergent property from physical systems in a certain class? Then your ideas go die.
Also, define "consciousness" rigorously.

Hey OP, if you're still here, just wanted to let you know, I agree with you. Although I've never phrased it Panpsychism.

But clearly we are different from rocks. Where do people get the idea that Same Components->Same Thing?

Whats the fluctuation going on there? How is the slot machine causing the fluctuation?
This just sounds like complete and utter bullshit.

All those things you said you can't be sure about are subsets of consciousness. You can be sure they exist as they inherit that property from thinking therefore existing.

I'm pretty sure thinking is a sign of intelligence, being is what you do, and thinking therefore being is a way of showing your smarts. The meaning of the epistemological statement only points to your lack of intelligence. But maybe I've been reading too much Veeky Forums posts.... The domain of pure ontology: spirit, God, soul, etc often interacts with the domain of science; I can objectively pray, meditate, interpret etc...
This is an integration and a transcendation of the derivative ontological basis. I think therefore I'm smart/have intellectual faculties, is a better way of saying something. I definitely function, though, unless I'm mentally ill. That's the > meaning I get, anyways.

actually, the interpretation and soul simile is definitely higher order yet. but maybe i'm being prideful.

death.silence
(God)

God is definitely dead, unless you're hearing voices.

I'm suprised the thread hasn't exploded into the usual autism that Veeky Forums tends to when discussing anything related to consciousness.

Even if we manage to map out the entire brain and figure out where consciousness is formed, the hard problem of consciousness still persists. And that is, why are all those physical chemical operations accompanied by subjective expereince. Why doesn't it all just happen without "you" being there to experience it? I think this is a very baffling question, and it amazes me how some people just can't see the problem. It's almost as if they're not conscious themselves and can't comprehend the scope of it.

But what about the alternative interpretation of non-duality?

Which is what exacly?

Either you don't know what non-dualism is in which case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
or you're not interpreting it.
The latter argument has two cases, either you disagree with non-dualism in which case you should explain why, or you're not thinking about non-duality in which case this discussion is pointless.

>You can't be sure about anything.
>Therefore, If we have "consciousness", everything in this universe also has.

I'm not sure exacly how my post relates to non-duality, so I guess I'm not talking about it. Maybe I could easier respond if you explain how the "alternative interpretation of non-duality" ties into what I said in my post.

Non-duality would make the hard problem a soft problem.
>linguistics

...

why cant we say human consiousness is only possible with a human brain and body?
Its like saying everything is a chair because you cant draw a line between chairs and tables and tables and counters and counters and glasses and glasses and human beings..
Is everything reducible to subatomic particles? Why? Why cant human beings be the "basis" while molecules and atoms are whats built upon it?
Sometimes atoms break down into humans and sometimes humans build up into molecules and sometimes into atoms..

>Philosophy (Solipsism and Descartes' "cogito ergo sum") tells us
Philosophy is much more than that, I am afraid

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

What are your thoughts on this, Veeky Forums? The thought of consciousness as an electromagnetic field somehow feels more intuative to me than the integrated information theory.

>What if consciousness is an emergent property from physical systems in a certain class?
It's pretty obvious that is the case, given the alterability of conscious experience and function through drugs, surgery or injury. Conscious arises from the physical brain. Alter the brain and you alter consciousness. Destroy the brain and you destroy consciousness.

We already know the brain has a part in creating consciousness. The question is how subjective experience is created and how it can even exist. It feels like most people kind of dance around the hard problem when discussing this.