What are Veeky Forums's thoughts on the hard problem of consciousness...

The subjectivity question in this sense has nothing to do with uniqueness, but why it is like something to be you or me, why we aren't zombies.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

We actually do sort of know how both neurons and memory works.
And really, you could ask the same thing about computers.
"How does a bunch of electrons and silicon produce light and information on a screen?"
All of that is done using matter and there's absolutely no reason to assume that consciousness is different. It's just how it works. "Why" doesn't matter, and you can ask whatever questions you want, and make up whatever reasons you want. That's why there is no hard problem of consciousness. It asks questions about what isn't there.

Biology dictates reality, umwelt.

So which phenomenon exactly are you asking us to explain? The only "evidence" for any kind of consciousness beyond brain chemitry is people claiming to have that kind of consciousness because they "feel" it. Which can easily be explained by brain chemistry. Your problem doesnt exist.

I don't have a conscious.

Well, I'm not telling the whole truth. I don't let morality interfere with reality.

>This hypothetical being that acts like a human without having a consciousness isn't possible I think.

Actually, it may be...IBM's Watson assembles information into an answer with an output that resembles a human's, but using an entirely different process. It's not hard to envision a machine capable of fooling a human, Turing test style, but with nothing like a human process of reflection and recollection. It may have a consciousness, but one that operates in fits and starts, as it's forced to "slow down" to human levels of operation in order to communicate with us.

(Pic related was about such a machine...it could overcome the issue of being trapped by its creator, but had no "moral compass" to guide it, and so, left the human that helped it escape to die)

All the same, the "hard problem" is bullshit, imo.

there isn't a fedora big enough

that really hurt my feelings :(

Producing light on a screen is fundamentally different from creating experience, because the creation of light is something we can understand with our scientific model of the universe. We don't even know what subjective experience is, what laws allow it to exist. It's not so much questioning the brains ability to create consciousness, but to explain how it can even exist.

As the dual form of the function and the input manifested, variables and numbers were distributed. You are part of a matrix. There are variables, because there is infinity. There are infinite universes each emanating from there own origin. As the rays of an origin disperse, they become discreet. This is your pre-determination at the absolute [infinity].

This has been asked over 200 times in the last two months.
Stop copypast'ing this shit just because you've anchored to
>science can't prove nuthin

Here is my copypasta response to your copypasta nonsense:

Coordinate Reality Model
Survival and Reward Prioritization Model

The brain follows these rules:
1.) Particular functions are handled by particulars parts of the brain
2.) The brain stores information and related information [longterm-shortterm; abstract-literal]
3.) The brain is reactive to threats and attractions [fight-flight; attraction-attachment]

And that's basically it. The complex part is finding out:
1.) How it does it
2.) How it came to be that way
3.) The details of storage and relationship model building

It's not some great spooky mystery and it's not a soft science, it's just harder to look at because we don't have the tech, and different people build [modify] different brains based on different experiences and environments...

The multi-verse is composed of primes. The mechanics of primes creating parts in give off multiplicative properties, that all numbers can be expressed in. Having the coefficient identity be the same is symmetry. But nonetheless, you're separate in origin. Perhaps the function that defines the equivalence relation brings intra-universal formal manifestations to the separate symmetric identities.

This is a whole bunch of nonsense you made up. It's what antisocratics call "figured out" even though they haven't used true deductive logic, and instead use unconstrained inductive logic and then follow up in fallacy loops.
Stop using logical fallacies.
You can just look them up, it takes seconds.
The lists work like this:
Fallacy name; What it means; Example
It's that simple.
Stop. Using. Fallacies.
Either you have empirical proof, or you're just making shit up.

The fact that you can even say a thing like that makes me question that you even have experience to begin with. For someone with experience, the hard problem should be very easy intuitively to understand but hard to put into words.

You're saying experience is created by brain chemistry, but you don't wonder about what mechanics allow the experience to exist? From our understanding of matter, matter is not accompanied by some magical property that allows it to have experience. No matter how complicated the chemistry gets the question will still be there. You acting like there is no problem and your thoughtprocess is essentially analogous to saying if you build complex enough lego it can become a computer. But it being plastic makes it nonconductive and not capable of being a computer, the same way matter is not able to have experience, according to our scientific understanding of matter. Therein lies the problem.

Morality has fuckall to do with the hard problems of consciousness. Morality is part of the easy problems.

It's math, dummy.
>unconstrained induction
>Hard answer, for a hard question.

It's emergent statistics

>This hypothetical being that acts like a human without having a consciousness isn't possible I think

If you think of a human being as nothing more than a fuckload of chemical reactions, a molecular machine basically, isn't it very logical to assume that we should be zombies? Yet we're not.

There was no math there.
Conjecture with words is no math.
I don't think you know what math means.
Also, conjecture itself isn't math just because you don't know what a false dilemma is.
Many stupid people think they use false dilemmas to build abstract walls they interpret at restraints, and therefore as math.
But that's not logic nor is it math.
It's called circular logic based on made up nonsense.

Conciousness is inductive.

The implication was there. What I said was logical, from one step to the next. If you don't understand something, ask instead of talking irrelevant nonsense.

It's also deductive and constructive.
Don't be so simple.
Inductive doesn't build a coordinate reality model if there are contradictions or connections/associations.

But you are implying what a zombie is. You are implying humans are not defined by the made up comncept called "zombies".

And you are implying there is something inside you, but "you can't perceive it".

KEK

I think the electromagnetic field theory of consciousness feels the most intuitive out of all the explanations, although it doesn't answer the hard problem. It basically goes like this:

Consciousness could be an electromagnetic field created by the firings of neutrons. If this is true, then comes the question of how the brain can know of consciousness if the field is not directly connected to the brain. The answer would be that the field can affect the physical brain in the same way magnetism can induct current in a wire. The brain creating a field that then interracts back with it creates a feedback loop, which is how you can think about consciousness for example. Synchronous firing of neurons amplify the effect of the field.

The problems with this theory:
>Would other, stronger electromagnetic fields (that we are exposed to every day) not influence the brain's EM field and alter our consciousness?
>EM field would persist while you sleep, though consciousness is not active. Is there a required amount of complexion required for the field to be conscious?
>Hard problem of consciousness persists, although moved down a few levels.

Why don't you explain your premises, then?

>implication
>logical
You can't use logical fallacies and still be logical.
again, stop being stupid and just google "list of logical fallacies" you idiot.

The "thinking" you're doing has already been empirically proven wrong.

I can never understand why people refuse to look things up and stand corrected?
Are you afraid of being judged?
People will always judge you more for being stubborn and wrong than for standing corrected.
Idiot.

Those points are all addressing the easy problems of consciousness. You're essentially doing what's depicted in the OP image. Assuming it's as simple and straight forward as you say, we should all be philosophical zombies.

Lol conciousness is simple, if you try and differentiate it with logic then it becomes exponentially complex... so why not keep it simple!
Lets define conciousness to be a group of collaborative connections.
So for example, I am happy to accept that countries, companies and cultures are concious. Why? Well every individual which makes up said examples of conciousness are acting as neurons.
It is simple :)

>Zombies
You mean we don't have free will.
Talk like an adult please.
And we don't. This is the scientific consensus because it's based on empirical science.
Our "choices" are determined by genetics [sensitivity], environmental [induction], training [deduction], and repetition [connection].
People may "irrational" or "broken" decisions when they're brain is malfunctioning.
Malfunctioning isn't free will; free will does not exist.
Neither cognitive scientists nor neurologists believe in the circular logic you and the other idiot user are using.
Quick tip: You haven't been exposed to what logical fallacies are; that is why you are malfunctioning right now.
Scientific proof: Learn them and you will stop malfunctioning.

>is you try to use logic than things aren't intuitive
or intuition is wrong, which is why we invented science and logic

You have some serious backward thinking.
Talking about "affirming the consequent" fallacy taken to an existential level.

>You mean we don't have free will.
P-zombies have been talked about so much in the thread so I assumed you knew what kind of zombie I was talking about.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
I agree with most of your points on free will, though this is is not related to free will.

Logic was invented for communication, not because it was right.
Logic is needed for any form of communication!

I am not making an "affirming the consequent" fallacy, I was creating a definition.

Rudin W. Real and Complex Analysis pg 15. Theorem 1.17 explains simple functions yield a function at n -> infinity. If we define a system of equations, with a common function, on the universe time-spatially, then we have applied algebra. Look up linear algebra etc and apply it. The reason there are infinite universes originating at their own origin is because we let that be for relativities sake. This is implied in multi-object universe, where for each object there is a universe. (points on a plane). This implied discreet measurable dimensions. Measurability would be on the real line, implying pre-determination in domain. Obviously any number can be expressed as primes. (2^x times 3^y e.g.) These primal identites are thus the parts that run all mechanisms of all numbers. The coefficient identity, being the same classifies itself (look up equivalence relations). The rest is implied intuitively.

also, the last step brings us to another order of reasoning (another reason why we exist in essence).

Fuck. I thought I was talking to someone who implied consciousness literally "feels like it exist".

subjective experience exists in non-sentient animals.

one example is animals that are colorblind. they can't see all of the colors, so they view the world subjectively.

Well in that case, my response should be directed to the other person who posted in response to me.

you're going to have to specify what part of the hard problem of consciousness you are addressing. the hard problem of consciousness is a phrase amateur philosophers and/or luddites like to throw around without actually defining it.

Good point

Yep OP show us your definitions!

The very simple and clear definition is what I wrote in the OP; "How can matter give rise to experience"? Why does it feel like something to be you or me?

>the hard problem of consciousness is a phrase amateur philosophers and/or luddites like to throw around without actually defining it.

The problem is well defined, I don't think that it's some sort of wishy washy term that can mean a lot of different things depending on how you define it.

Without logic there is no correct or incorrect, because those are communicative words as well.
All arguments must be communicative and all arguments must be logical and contain proof.

Oh look, circular logic, appeal to authority and loaded statements, none of which have any empirical basis.
It's so cute you think you're the first to adopt that way of "thinking".
Now well me crystal heal people because I can't prove they don't.

conscious experience is exhibited in animals with partial sentience like great apes and cats/dogs. humans aren't 1000 steps above everything else; this is a common misconception stemming from a lack of understanding of animals' learning and understanding capabilities.

if you haven't already seen them, you should watch some of the videos on Koko the gorilla.

youtube.com/watch?v=SNuZ4OE6vCk

I think I might stop replying to you, because you don't explain these oh so apparent fallacies that I'm using. But if you explain what's wrong, we might have a further discussion.

I don't think I ever implied humans are 1000 steps above anything. The hard problem applies to animals as well, assuming they have experience, which they probably do.

>Argument from Silence
Hey, fallacies are easy.
They work like this:
Term; Explanation; Example.
You then take the example as a formula.
If the person's argument follows that formula, then they're using that fallacy.
It's plug and play.
It isn't complicated and it doesn't need to be explained.
You're asking
>"I have 1 apple and 1 other apple. You say when I put them together I have 2 apples. I don't believe you because I don't understand addition. Fuck you. Prove to me this... these... concepts"

All fallacies follow this format:
X = Y because of P, where P = Presumption.
What that presumption is, and examples of how it's wrong... are called formal and informal fallacies.

Pic: That's you.

Well I shall explain before I disappear...
The connections made between the matter (neurons for example) give rise to experience because that is what experience is (just to be clear! I am making a definition here not a circular argument, a definition)
Why do we feel this "experience"?
Well somebody has to feel it, that is the definition of feeling after all.
So how about that someone be you!
Your definition of logic is logical! :)

I think you're replying to the wrong person again.

I don't think you understand what logic, reasoning or science is.

Oh I am. You're a dumbshit.
If you have to ask for fallacies to be explained, then you're a idiot. An insane, mentally ill idiot.
A grand moronic dipshit manchild.
Kill yourself.

no you're just retarded as fuck
stop trying to project on others to escape criticism

I'm not making any god damn fallacies. Quote me and just list the god damn fallacy, if there is even one. This is my post, did you read it?

There was someone who actually said they were replying to the wrong person in response to me. Dumb fuck.

the question "How can matter give rise to experience" is like the question "What is the meaning of life" in that there is no proper answer as the question has to be broken down into many different questions.

Some components:

How did conscious thought arise through natural selection?

What are the components necessary for a biological mind able to produce conscious experience?

What are the physical characteristics of conscious thought?

How is conscious thought able to be produced biologically?

Is there a dimension or a place for information ? As information surely must be something that has importance in physics. If so is the physical brain existing in a dimension of information too where all the pieces of the physical realm produce together a informational you?

after looking at the four questions I posted, the first one (How did conscious thought arise through natural selection) seems like an improvement over the question "How can matter give rise to experience"

The three other questions explain all of the aspects of this question.

Well it's hard to break down into questions because we know so little about it. By breaking it down into those questions you're making assumptions that might not hold true, because qualia and subjective experience are concepts completely disconnected and incompatible with our models of the physical world.

/thread

Genocide of dualists when ?

as a physicalist, I've always disagreed with the existence of qualia. I think qualia is just higher forms of the conscious experience other animals are capable of experiencing.

subjective experience is differences in what we store in our minds and how this affects our viewpoint, and memory is proving to have a very physical function with modern studies. one study that shows how neurons can be removed to completely remove a memory:

news.mit.edu/2014/erasing-traumatic-memories-0116

wrong link

extremetech.com/extreme/123485-mit-discovers-the-location-of-memories-individual-neurons

>as a physicalist, I've always disagreed with the existence of qualia. I think qualia is just higher forms of the conscious experience other animals are capable of experiencing.
It being a higher form of conscious experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. That's like saying that there's no such thing as radio waves, it's just light with lower energy. Qualia describes a phenomena. It not being real makes as little sense as anger not being real.

>subjective experience is differences in what we store in our minds and how this affects our viewpoint
That's just a statement that says no brain is the same as the other. It doesn't explain why there is experience.

Oh god, now you're pretending to have a conversation so at the end you can congratulate yourself.

No one was talking about "qualia" here until a month ago when you decided to spam the board.

Get a real education and stop roleplaying on here.

Everything you've cried about has been disproven a billion times over, INFALLIBLY so.
It's called falsificationism.

Your retarded new age beliefs are FIN.
Done with. FINITO.
D E A D W R O N G.

We know how it all works.
It's called neurologic you idiot.
Stop posting shit from pre-neurology.
Qualia is an old idea the time period when people ate mercury and believed little people lived inside of semen.

Stop being a faggot.

>How can matter give rise to subjective experience?
I don't think it can. There's no physical law which asserts that the existence of consciousness is necessary for the universe to function. You can just say that consciousness (not its contents) exists independently of the physical universe and be done with it.

I'm the person replying to him, see pic. unless you think that he's posting from two different ips for some reason.
Qualia is hypothetical in function, so it has to be proven to be theoretical before you use it as a thing that has any evidence for existence. Radio waves are detectable with modern devices and the objectively exist, while qualia is not detectable in any way.

the reason why there is experience is differing viewpoints and memories formed in a unique way based on the environment, past memories, and genetics of the organism that creates the experience.

I really hope you're not older than 18, or worse, you actually are in a scientific field, because you are the single most and cancerous person I've ever seen on Veeky Forums, and that's saying a lot. Are you really so afraid of any discussion that implies the scientific standard model doesn't have all the anwers to everything, that you have to shit up the thread this much, with insults mirroring that of a 10 year old? Could you maybe just tone down your autism a bit?

I don't understand what exacly you mean by proposing that qualia isn't real. Qualia is the name given for the subjective experience of things like color, emotions, sound, etc. By denying its existance, are you trying to say you don't have subjective experience?

>he fell for the materialism meme

Mind is an immaterial projection generated by a fully material organ

What is conscientiousness if not knowing what you're doing and choosing to act? If you don't have conscience you can't be moral or immoral.
This posses a similar issue with free will.

((([citation needed])))

Only rational explanation there is m8, sorry that you can't see the truth of something with muh authorities spoon feeding evidence to you

Without*

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Awaiting evidence, senpai.

>inmaterial projection
>rational
maximum quok

conscience is not the same thing as consciousness.

Conscience is part of the easy problems and can be explained by biology and evolution. The actual experience accompanied/created by conscience is what's hard to explain, not conscience itself.

*tips fedora*

pic related explains your strawman. now it's your turn to explain how neurons create 'conciousness'.

>creation of light is something we can understand with our scientific model of the universe
So is consciousness. Everything we know about the brain fits perfectly within established laws.
Here you are.

>So is consciousness

Not yet. You're welcome to explain it to me if you think you know. And please try to get an intuative understanding of what the hard problem is before you attempt to do so.

>please try to get an intuative understanding of what the hard problem is before you attempt to do so.
That's gonna be hard, given you've utterly failed to even vaguely describe it in any way other than pure hand-waving.

Consciousness is [insert quantum woo nonsense] that makes humans feel special because we're not just an object that conforms to the physical laws of the universe.

If this isn't good enough, maybe this will suffice?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
If you want even more in depth, here is a paper about it from chalmers.
consc.net/papers/facing.pdf

Why is subjective experience magical?
This whole thing feels like a poorly defined word game. We experience things with way we experience them because of the way our brains work. Asking why a brain that's capable of of observing it's surroundings and using that information to understand them has an "experience" is akin to asking why a car that provides traction and steering is capable of driving - it's because that's what we name the thing it does.

Maybe I'm not understanding the "hard problem", but it still seems meaningless.

Ironically, I think understanding the hard problem is easier if you look at our brains it in the purely materialist view. Why should chemical reactions add up to the kind of inner movie of yourself you experience right now, why doesn't everything going on in your brain happen in the dark, with no observer there to experience it? The car analogy would only be true if it was like something to be the car driving itself.

>Why should chemical reactions add up to the kind of inner movie of yourself you experience right now,
Because that's what a brain does - it's very complicated system designed to observe and try to model its environment. The "inner movie" isn't some magic thing that's distinct from the operation of a brain, it's just us describing what we perceive.

>why doesn't everything going on in your brain happen in the dark
I'm not sure what you mean by "in the dark". You've clearly trying to build an analogy for something, but I don't understand what.

>with no observer there to experience it?
The idea of an "observer" is an entirely human invention. We're observers of our own thoughts because that's how we defined the word observer - it's us perceiving stuff.

We consciously perceive our own thinking because that's an enormously useful skill, that allows for all kinds of predictive and social skills.

>The car analogy would only be true if it was like something to be the car driving itself.
The car analogy wasn't about anything a actually car does. The point of the car analogy was that the words we use were created to describe what was being done.

Cars dive because that's what we say cars do. People have experiences because that's the word we invented to describe people perceiving and understanding their environment.

I feel like we're not quite talking about the same things here.

The connections between neurons are physical. The firing sequences for those neurons are not. We know the external world only from a single perspective (objectively), but we know our internal activity from a double perspective (objectively and subjectively). The physical activity of our brains can be objectively known, and the law of causality strictly applies thereto. But the internal experience of this activity is not corporeal, it does not 'occupy space'. A thought, an image, a memory cannot be conceived as something that 'resides' or exists within the physical brain. The inside of the brain is made up of organic matter, nothing besides. Knowledge is, reckoned logically, a collection of firing orders for the neurons in the brain. This collection or code has no material existence, any more than a hypothetical or imaginary line between the set of x points has material existence. This is double aspect theory.

The law of causality only applies to the objective, empirical side of things (i.e. to physical, chemical-electrical brain activity). There can be no casual relationship whatever between events which occur simultaneously. The internally experienced phenomenon of consciousness is simply the subjective, first-person aspect of physical brain activity. The latter does not 'give rise' to the former, nor it is not the cause thereof. They are two different aspect of the selfsame thing. This is double aspect theory.

That's silly.
The photos on my harddrive don't occupy any physical space either. The words in a book have the exact same composition as an ink smear.

The universe isn't a collection of stuff. It's an arrangement of stuff. And the arrangement is just as real and objective as the stuff is.

>The photos on my harddrive don't occupy any physical space either.

That's because they are encoded into bits, and then retained in binary form. It is not the photos themselves which are stored, but a code which represents (or corresponds to) the photo. You cannot actually see the photo by opening up your hard drive and looking at the platter. You need the correct equipment to decode the binary and project the image.

property dualism/biological naturalism (pic related) at the practical level of description

Orch-OR is interesting and should be at least explored scientifically more.

>searle

pls no

at the fundamental level, physicalism. property dualism is completely compatible with naturalism. look in to fodor, multiple realizability, problems with type physicalism , etc.

it makes sense that relational properties can arise between matter that processes information that are not fully reducible to the physical arrangement of the matter. if they were fully reducible, multiple realizability would be impossible.

i'm sure there are counter arguments that are compelling to all of this, but i've dabbled in phil of mind for a while and this is what i've come to

>It is not the photos themselves which are stored, but a code which represents (or corresponds to) the photo.
So what? It's still clearly physical.

>You cannot actually see the photo by opening up your hard drive and looking at the platter. You need the correct equipment to decode the binary and project the image.
And a blind person still couldn't perceive it even then. Why does the required equipment matter here?