A : Consciousness is a byproduct of the electrical feedback in a neural net and completely a materialistic concept ;...

A : Consciousness is a byproduct of the electrical feedback in a neural net and completely a materialistic concept ; Which means an AI when gets sophisticated enough, is conscious.

B : Consciousness is a spiritual concept and exclusively found in humans / animals ; Therefore an AI or anything synthetic will never have consciousness

C : Consciousness is an illusion as in the viewer (you) are the god, the observer and everything there is and everything else is (you)r imagination : Means that no consciousness is truly real.

It's time to make a decision Veeky Forums

strawpoll.me/10823371

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/10823371
youtube.com/watch?v=m0I4pmTvdiw
cs.toronto.edu/~vmnih/docs/dqn.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

Why do people vote for spirtiualism ?

Because that's my opinion.

Wishful thinking

t. voted spiritualism

What is the primal definition of "consciousness"?

D: Everything is conscious, but to varying degrees depending on its complexity.

Go away deepak

the ability to collapse quantum mechanical wave functions

so spin measuring devices have consciousnes ?

Everything we know tells us that it is A.

However, we do not understand the brain well enough to make bold claims about the nature of consciousness.

A could be contained within C; therefore, C is redundant.

B has no place in science or more specifically on Veeky Forums.

No, it takes a human to look at them. Prior to that, the device is only entangled but not collapsed.

Please go away.

measurement devices also collapse wave function dumbo. by your definition they have consciousness.

So can insects collapse wave functions ? Does it prove they have consciousness ?

Consciousness is just the highest abstraction layer of the human brain.

Kind of helps to have a central control unit making macro decisions.

>highest abstraction layer of the human brain
bullshit word salad. just admit that there is no clear definition of consciousness or how its created.

The chupacabra can speak.

Should also mention Daft Punk looks nothing like that, and the branches have been sorted out as monsters.

Definitions precede words. You can't have a word without a definition.

"highest abstraction layer of the human brain" is not a scientific term, it's just a pretentious retarded word salad.

>strawpoll.me/10823371
If you think self-awareness has anything to do with magic then you need to get off Veeky Forums right now.

Read my post again. The device doesn't collapse shit. It only gets entangled with the wave function.

>making macro decisions.
Your brain already made the decisions before you're aware of it. So consciousness has no effect.

If you aren't puzzled by the mystery of consciousness, then you don't belong on a science board.

youtube.com/watch?v=m0I4pmTvdiw

C because anything else makes no sense whatsoever.

because they're idiots

Except it's not a mystery you stupid NEET. Open a goddamn neuroscience textbook. There are no magic spells involved.

I'm a strict materialist and consciousness is the only thing im aware of that causes me significant cognitive dissonance. I just cant imagine how it could exist in a materialist universe

>i-it's caused by magic guys

>he thinks the hard problem of consciousness has been solved
Let's all laugh at this p-zombie.

Neuroscience can't explain why you have the capacity to will for your first to either open or close. A neuroscientist has exactly the same skill as you do in that regard, and can't explain any better how they do it than you can. You are simply a narrow-minded person that wants to put the world down by claiming it is not mysterious.

You people claim to be materialists yet you don't even have respect for matter. Everything to you is means to an end. Most unwise.

All bosons are conscious wew

That's a stupid term invented by retarded philosophy majors who don't understand anything about neuroscience or machine learning. Hmm, I wonder what makes conscious humans different from inanimate objects. Oh right. *We have brains.* Wow, that was such a hard problem!

>Neuroscience can't explain why you have the capacity to will for your first to either open or close
Holy shit you're retarded.
cs.toronto.edu/~vmnih/docs/dqn.pdf

Quit talking about things you know nothing about.

What is the evolutionary advantage of raidpolls?

You misspelled "bison".

Conciousness is exactly like life after death, we know exactly what it is, but we're too insecure to admit it, we always try to find a spiritual explanation without looking at what the facts tell us

Wow, I don't know how he pulled that rabbit out of that hat.
I just can't see how that can't be magic.

>Holy shit you're retarded.
No, it's you who's retarded. You don't even understand my statement. Read it again until you get it I guess. You are arguing mechanisms. I am arguing first cause.

Also, getting this pissed shows how insecure you are. People with secure opinions don't defend them by insulting the other party, they encourage the other party to try and deliver the worst blow possible.

tl;dr you are an uncultured swine with pedestrian opinions

underrated post

Some humans have a brain but don't have consciousness. Explain that.

Not the same guy, but I'm afraid to tell you he's right, you're retarded

You're both pretty stupid then.

Funny.

How would you even know?

Guess you're the minority who's always right then, kiss kiss Galileo

Consciousness isn't really something that makes decisions. It's the state of awareness / being an observant outside your body.

>You are arguing mechanisms. I am arguing first cause.
No, you're so far gone in lack of understanding that you're getting completely mixed up. Neural networks observe patterns and activate accordingly when they recognize them. Somewhere in your brain a subnetwork recognized that it should open your hand and fired. Spooky skeletons did not cast hexes until you opened your hand.

I'm pissed because of how much underage popsci retards like you spam their ignorance all over Veeky Forums.

Wow, nice totally uncited evidence!

What was the first creature on earth that got conciousness ? Where does it start ?

>Wow, nice totally uncited evidence!
It's simple everyday experience. I suggest going out once in a while.

A tulpa of a time traveler.

So it is epiphenomenal

In that case, the perception should only be "the hand opening" and not "something opening the hand."

probably a gorilla

low IQ detected

An abstraction layer example
- Going outside
- walk and twist toward door
- right leg lifts up, right arm lifts up
- elbow changes angles
- muscle signals
- individual muscle cells

basics of it although only to convey the meaning of abstraction layer

Our "conscious" mind exists at the top of the abstraction layers of the human mind. This is simply a fact.

THe conscious layer is also the highest abstraction layer. Which makes sense. It's the place macro decisions are made. Which is also an evident truth.

The advantage of consciousness is obvious.

Take a computer. Now your conscious mind (high level of abstraction) interacts with this computer, essentially taking over the system similar to how it runs the brain. You choose which files to access, which screens to look at, which websites to visit etc. You couldn't just "be the computer" and access them all at once in some sort of holistic way. The brain lacks that processing capability. It's better to only use what is needed at the time.

A computer is an unconscious brain without the decision making part that our consciousness does. It's the best model for what is consciousness, because we all combine with the CPU with only our conscious mind.

Consciousness is essentially a feedback loop with the brain and body that sets high level goals. For instance getting food, avoiding death, etc.

lel

so stupid and low IQ

So now you're arguing solipsism. Nice.

Just when I thought philosoNEETs couldn't get any more retarded.

The sensory input and internal state of the recurrent neural networks opened the hand.

>So now you're arguing solipsism. Nice.
Your reading comprehension is really bad.

I'm afraid it is you who is completely mixed up. You are the one who believes in spooky skeletons, not me. You are trying to tell me that matter decides whether or not your fist closes or opens, when it is your own decision to do so. You are reducing yourself to a collection of mindless and deterministic patterns. I'm claiming this is absurd, but you won't even let me argue because you're so full of yourself.

You are painting a picture over a situation that you yourself don't even understand fully (I'm not claiming I do, either), all while trying to bring the discussion down to a personal level so that you could come out victorious, claiming science as the ultimate way to get knowledge, disgustingly abusing it as some kind of personal honuor system.

Guess what, science has limits. That's why the hard problem of consciousness exists. You can't explain the feeling of red scientifically, you can't explain creativity scientifically, and you can't explain why you can decide to open or close your fist, scientifically.

Feel free to throw some more technical sounding words and insults my way. That will make your point stand out even better, I'm sure.

Insufferable simpleton.

>hurr nobody is conscious except for me because I'm so smart
Do you even know what solipsism means you middle schooler?

D. Consciousness is being aware that one exists

That's not what I said, retard.

I'm not that user, but I suspect he might mean that it's possible to lose and regain consciousness, for example due to head trauma.

>some = all
Look who failed the logic class.

>high IQ means pulling stuff out of your ass
ok senpai.

Science can explain it though. We aren't many decades away from emulating a human brain. Then we can literally see what is happening.

How about you cut out the excessively flowery language and maybe I'll give a go at reading your bullshit. You're doing your very best to present yourself as some kind of pipe-smoking, book-reading, high intellectual, but it's really just coming off as embarrassing and cringey. You're trying to cover up your lack of substance with fancy language.

But a computer (which the brain isn't, but bears some similarities to) doesn't stop being a computer when you turn the power off.

Nah, you can argue the semantics of it all you want, but that's the gist of what you said.

That's your claim. Mine is that science is simply out of reach when it comes to consciousness, for obvious and axiomatic reasons.

What makes your claim more meaningful than mine?

>but that's the gist of what you said.
Nope. Learn to read.

>for obvious and axiomatic reasons
Quit making allusions to logical arguments that you don't have.

Would you perceive reality by its perspective?

>Your brain already made the decisions before you're aware of it. So consciousness has no effect.

>making decisions

You don't have enough IQ to understand anything. We don't actually have free will. The decision making process is what consciousness is.

Yes, you will have unconscious reactions sometimes like if you touch something hot, but in general almost all decisions you make are left to the conscious brain to decide on.

This is because you can't just react to survive. You also have to set goals.

No human would have survived in a cold environment without the ability to consciously decide on things. Instead we would have had to slowly adapt over millions of years to instinctualize the storing food or building shelter.

The whole strength of a human being is the conscious mind's ability to make complex decisions. This decision making process is what we as conscious parts of the brain experience. It leads to other side effects like personalities.

How Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?

> 55% of Veeky Forums think they are God and everything is an illusion

philosophy fag detected

Go back and understand what science is

Science is not truth.

I don't think logic can get you very far when it comes to consciousness. You assume logic can penetrate everywhere and everything. I simply don't start with that assumption. I start with the assumption that logic is one perspective among many.

Wow, that's a nice empty truism you've got there.

>>>/X/

This is Sci shithead, not "muh feels"

How can photo's be real if cameras aren't eyes?

>implying feels aren't biological and hence science

Answer the question

low IQ, just give up.

You don't have a high IQ enough brain to even argue well.

Science is not everything biological
Science is a methodology.

>We aren't many decades away from emulating a human brain

Proof?

Here's a quote from a very famous and extremely influential scientist. Some call him the father of QM. I'm sure he would prefer /x/ too.

Dumbass.

>the scientific method is not applicable to biology
Seriously?

>answering a question from someone obviously inferior and an obvious brainlet.

whats even the scientific definition of consciousness ?

>Science is not truth.

>old scientists with big names are never wrong and exist as biblical figures we can cite as "truths"

Again, you lack so much it is not worth talking to you. Science is not based on worshiping mythical figures.

stuff the brain does that we can't figure out how.

see

The point is that he's far smarter than you, and you would never tell him to fuck off to /x/. You're a hypocrite. Either defend your view or don't talk if all you can do is rage at a person claiming you know it all.

I'm not going to use buzzwords to defend myself. Let me just say life throws lemons and the important part is learning to handle it and grow.

It's funny because that image implies what I meant by that statement. Science is closer to Taoism than to Christianity. There is no absolute truths, everything should be attacked and questioned.

That's the bullshit popsci definition.

Self-awareness and free agency. In other words possessing an internal mental state (thoughts) that can be studied and acted on.

>defend your view
>answering a ridiculous low IQ /x/ question

>There is no absolute truths

physical measurement devices also collapse wave function. Do you claim those machines also have consciousness ?

Consider that all of calculus emerges out of a numerical system that exists without algebra, or geometry, or even anything beyond basic counting principles.

Why is it so far-fetched that a whole can be something beyond the sum of its parts, or at least what it appears the parts sum to on the surface?

We can only become more sure of something.

Current Science therefore is what we believe is closest to truth.

See

Philosotard pls go. Science is objective. Observational facts remain true, irregardless of your infantile denial.