What the fuck is the right answer on what is consciousness?

If that is true, then you are a massive retarded faggot. Everyday there are idiots who make these same "consciousness" threads - and, judging by the image, which is also the same one that is always posted, these idiots could all be only one person: you -, and yet you have made this thread, which means you don't lurk and that's why I'm calling you a massive retarded faggot. If, however, that is not true, then you are either a shitposter or a troll. In any of the aforementioned cases, you should fuck off.

Why do you use words like aforementioned?

>byproduct of inanimate matter

the concept of "inanimate matter" is a byproduct of consciousness

>the concept of "inanimate matter" is a byproduct of consciousness
No. Consciousness is a byproduct of inanimate matter. If consciousness is truly immaterial, then there is no reason for it to be confined to something material like the brain; if you don't think consciousness is in the brain you can try an experiment called shooting yourself in the fucking head and see if you're still conscious after the experiment. With that being said, this is the science board, if you want to discuss further bullshit that is unfalsifiable and of unscientific nature, please take it to Veeky Forums or wherever else, just not here.

It's a series of strange loops. A system of self-descriptive, self-referential, self-organizing phenomena. The key is to realize that consciousness can only emerge slowly, through integration of experiential knowledge, such that those loops align themselves coherently with the reality in which the system has been immersed.

So you think consciousness is property dualism?

Dude

Inanimate means not alive
brain causes consciousness
brain is a live

so consciousness is caused by something that is alive

so consciousness is a byproduct of animate matter.

Dense

Daily reminder that G,E,B is inconclusive pop-sci garbage.

I don't know what that means because I'm not really a pseudo-science kind of guy, I just think this discussion is pathetically pointless and you should stop giving hope that people are worth anything but a damn.

Property dualism is the third picture in the first row.

As previously said, each and every single "possibility" of that image is implying there's something special about consciousness, in "property dualism" the illustration suggests it's an undetectable kind of lenght which is, once again, unfalsifiable. I will say it for the last time: consciousness is not anything special, it's not something you should have a problem accepting unless you have the same mindset of mysticists. I will not post itt again.

*kind of wave/wavelenght
fixed.

Very nice response. Very fristonian.

Search up essentialism and population thinking and youll see "alive" is a social construct which relates to one of those two ideas

>G,E,B is inconclusive pop-sci garbage
I don't disagree!

No.

Alive is a very real thing. Any classical bullshit about forms and manifestations of abstract ideas irl can go fuck itself up the ass with a cactus

Some of these are not even mutualy exclusive.
I mean Epiphenomenalism, Identity theory and functionalism are basically saying the same thing.

No, theres no dividing line of life and inanimacy. Its not essentialist. Life is a label we put on things intuitively and through science have tried to define but its not objective. In truth what we call life is just a type of dissipative dynamic system and some other non living systems have these qualities. My point is because there is no dividing line, arguing about whether living came from non living or the mind a livig thing came from an inanimate brain, is stupid

but dude.... immaterial quantum consciousness

higher order

>thinking dynamic systems theory can explain life
>thinking systems are actual entities
brainlet.

Well whats your opinion

what makes life alive is meaning-making, biosemiosis

Whats that

something i really dont have time to explain right now, especially if you arent already familiar with semiotics
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18365164

Well does it apply to slugs or bacteria?

this is a good lecture
media.uoregon.edu/channel/archives/5936

yeah

Buddhism and emergent dualism both sound like they could be correct but also Hofstadter's (if I understood it correctly) that consciousness arises as self-reference in recursive systems.

This doesnt conflict with what i was saying and probably explains alot less than ideas from dynamic systems.

It may describe aspects of life but doesnt explain the constraints on what determines what is alive

Just think about what it would mean if speed and distance wasnt real but we just see it like that.

Predicting things through quantities like these isnt necessarily objectivity.

Streams of particals that act like waves.
Quantum says it best.

This,,,

My guess is that everything is conscious, but the state of consciousness is as different as things are different physically.

I have a brain state, and a state of consciousness, and its different from your brain and consciousness; and both are different from my brain and consciousness when I am asleep. Just gradually extend this comparison to non-brain things and it becomes clear: everything is conscious, but differently conscious in degree with how they are different.

dynamic systems is lame compared to emergence and complexity. Systems are arbitrary models and arent very good for general concepts
it describes what life does in (G)eneral

...

Not lurking Veeky Forums makes you retarded? If he is a regular, then he is not necessarily a shitposter or a troll just because he posts threads about subjects that are brought up a lot. You just don't like the subjects, and I hate to break it to you, but just because you don't like a subject doesn't make it objectively bad.

Consciousness threads aren't going anywhere, so how about you fuck off. There are tons of threads you can go and shitpost about your IQ memes and your stem circlejerking.

Without a doubt, higher-order theory is the ultimate thing that allows consciousness, but it only pushes the question of consciousness away, like the big bang pushes the question of where the universe came from, or panspermia pushes the question of where life comes from.

This is also sort of presented in a way where each of these things oppose each other, when it's not really the case.

emergence and complexity are described by dynamic systems... its literally the field for it. you are clearly a brainlet.

it may describe what life does but it isnt a constraint on what life has to do to be. non-living things can have semiotics or w.e or there wouldnt be semiotics in the first place. looking at dynamical systems and physics is the best way to see what properties living systems have and what they need to show in order to be.

...

>non-living things can have semiotics or w.e or there wouldnt be semiotics
see

im not going to. explain whatever it is that is relevant to what i said. also do properly explain the biosemiotics thing. if not then gtfo.

I think consciousness arises from different parts of your brain talking to each other. The reason I think this is because your brain definitely locks your consciousness from certain things, like breathing, accessing the actual processes that form images and so on. Your consciousness, I think, is a defined network inside your brain that information is fed into and is allowed to play around with.

Take your memories. This little network only has so much capacity, so your "non-conscious" brain takes the shit you don't need at night time and gets rid of it, before handing all the things you do need back to your conscious brain.

I don't think there's anything mystical, but there is definitely information and processes kept out of the consciousness, suggesting to me it IS a defined, real thing. And no, "its just electrons bro" doesn't make it an illusion or any less real. Space is just space, but its still a tangible, real thing.

its literally titled "the emergence of biosemiotics from physio-chemical dynamics".
if you cant figure out the relevance i cant help you.
>non-living things can have semiotics
this isn't true, without life to interpret it information is meaningless.
>also do properly explain the biosemiotics thing
read a fucking book. im not going to explain an entire field of science to you. You clearly dont even have the prerequisite knowledge of semiotics.
i suggest e-edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/319303/mod_resource/content/0/Texts_for_the_READER/Lesson_13_Favareau_History_biosemiotics.pdf

the emergence of biosemiotics from physiocheical dynamics isnt the same as the emergence of life from biosemiotics. this is a fucking forum. its for debate. im not going to go away and read your fucking shit, youll have to explain it or atleast give me a good fucking reason to read about it. why should i read something if im not given an inkling of why i should read it.

tell me why biosemiotics explains life. tell me how it explains life and not just describes it. tell me why its necessary. show me you know what the fuck you're talking about.

I'd consider myself a realist, alright? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist...

I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

I find your request to be to mentally taxing atm.
maybe in a few hours or tomorrow when i take my amphetamines. For now, my garden and aquaponics system need me.
I dont respect people that wont take the time to educate themselves. This is eminently relevant to what we are talking about. If you are talking about what you are talking about and hearing a famous consciousness researcher talk about frontiers in theoretical biology doesn't spike your curiosity. I suggest you go pay someone to educate you. As you are obviously incompetent to do it yourself.
Also lets try not to be assholes to eachother because i dont find lecturing people i dont like amusing.

Seriously the best explanation for the existence of the hard problem of consciousness (difficulty explaining how consciousness arises from matter) is that consciousness doesn't arise from matter. Sometimes there are no solutions.
>solve x^2=-1
>mathlets look for x in R
>hurt themselves in their confusion
>no solution
In reality it's the other way around, matter arises from consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental and can't be explained in terms of anything else, meanwhile matter is reducible to a set of ideas describing it.
>x^2=-1
>x=i
>that was easy
>we were in C the whole time

no, we are in a specific argument or debate. its up to you to explain yourself. im open to learning but i dont have time for everything. you finding it mentally taxing should even accept that without trying to insult me you bastard.

If you'd lurked moar you'd know you can safely ignore that guy. He turns up in a lot of consciousness threads to tell people they're entitled unspecial religiotards who should experimentally shoot themselves in the head. He doesn't ever explain consciousness, he's just in an eternal buttrage about it.

and if its relevant, explain why.. no it doesnt, explain why it should spike my curiosity. convince me you know what you're talking about.

eh, how dare you reject my snarkiness
eh eh meh

Inanimate and animate are meme worse anyway. It just means something that moves.

What is consciousness?

Consciousness is a product of millions of years of evolution resulting from the existential tension of God not knowing who it is. We are the universe experiencing itself. We are all God. We are the very atoms in this universe banding together and taking a good look in the mirror. Consciousness exists because it has to, and the atoms that came together to make your physical body also organised themselves to give you the ability to be for a reason: to know thyself.

Somewhere between Emergent Dualism and Higher Order Theory would be the most correct answer I believe.

this makes sense in a weird vague esoteric kind of way. Quite poetic description of evolution.

where did you get this idea from?

Ok but you must be a fool to consider the language we use to be faultless. "Alive" is a loaded term with historical development. This is why Veeky Forums should read more philosophy, and philosophy students (half of Veeky Forums) should study more science. When it comes to complex issues like consciousness, one must take into consideration both neuroscience and its related fields, and philosophy of mind and language as well.

LSD

A barely literate German cobbler in 1610 called Jacob Boehme.

wondergressive.com/1610-god-fractal-self-replicating-algorith/

God is a binary, fractal, self-replicating algorithm and the universe is a genetic matrix resulting from the existential tension created by God's desire for self-knowledge.

Half of these are just the same thing.

The pretentiousness of some of Veeky Forums never ceases to astound me.
They like to believe as if though they have the answers to the mystery of consciousness, while regurgitating facts and symbols which have lost all coherent meaning.
I once posted my own theory of mind, but was met with ridicule by simpletons who lacked basic conceptual processing ability.
For shame Veeky Forums. For shame.

Imagine a tray of almonds. Now place a warm wet wrap over them, and leave them for a week. Look, the almonds have started to grow! They are now "activated".

That is how the mind do.

quite interesting , i like.

Wow, that is shockingly similar to my own theory of God.

"God is firstly existence. The idea of existence applies to itself and is given its order by itself. There is an infinite sequence of bits of existence being informed by bits of existence in a chain. Then because existence is whole, existence is informed of itself entirely, making each bit of existence within all infinite bits of existence and contain each bit of existence.

The whole is informed of itself fully. God knows itself. Again, the whole is informed of itself fully but this time it is informed of its informing or knowing. God knows that it knows or is given Awareness and subsequently Bliss(the harmony of self-knowing.) (note: God at this step is similar to our own awareness, except that each mote of bliss is clearly perceived individuated and while also experiencing the infinite spaciousness of existence)
God possess the attributes of Omniscience and Omnipresence. His Awareness is spread through out the whole uniformly. At each piece of bliss, a new whole arises at that point. God multiplies Himself by Himself in addition to his original Self. The process continues, the new whole again arises at each point of bliss. The process continues infinitely.

Mathematically we can look at it like n+n2, where n is the previous sequence of the set starting with infinty : ∞, ∞+∞2, ∞+∞2 + (∞+∞2 )2, etc…
God is an infinite expansion of infinite existence-awareness-bliss.

God in this state is a homogenized stasis. He is the Totality of Reality, All Alone. However the self-knowing pattern of God continues. God’s Omniscience spreads outside of itself to form the Logos (or word of God). Because God is All of existence, the Logos is also God."

Functionalism or Behaviorism. The rest are hogwash.

There is no threshold that makes us greater than the sum of our parts, no inflection point at which we become fully alive. We can’t define consciousness because consciousness does not exist. Humans fancy that there’s something special about the way we perceive the world, and yet we live in loops as tight and as closed as animals do, seldom questioning our choices, content, for the most part, to be told what to do next.

Epiphenomenalist master race

As a biologist I really like cognitivism/epiphenomenalism/functionalism

Consciousness is the manifestation of the soul, it is also referred to as Brahman. Consciousness, or Brahman, is spiritual, not material. Therefore you will never be able to understand consciousness through materialistic sciences requiring instruments and so forth but only through means of meditational and yogic practice. Consciousness is not a produced through a combination of material elements, but it is because of consciousness, the spiritual, that the material elements arise. Material depends on the spiritual to sustain it, otherwise it cannot come into manifestation and degrades when it is absent. This is the reason when consciousness leaves the body at death, the material body starts to degrade.

Additionally, since material advancements in technology are not required to understand consciousness, the spiritual science of consciousness has been known for ages. Hinduism is more or less a science for consciousness. Consciousness is a person's true self, but out of ignorance people identify with their body or their mind thinking that they are their bodies. When is fully aware that Brahman is his actual self, he is said to have attain Moksha, or liberation from suffering.

I guess he chose words on how accurately they pass the message.

Functionalism or Epiphenomenalism

broehme was way better sorry

Higher Order Theory sounds very interesting, possibly due to my background (CS). I think it's very plausible that the more you can reason about your reasoning, the more conscious you are.

I think more a gradient descent on free energy using sparse algorithms.

The only answer is that God gave us consciousness so find him and sing our praises to him.

a second order embeddedness in multidimensional maps.

Then... that would mean that the universe is a mental construct??

next thing you are going to tell that Pleiadian chicks are contacting you inside you brain and telling you to spread the love?

its a combination of a few of those.

What he's describing is panpsychism. It's a very common idea outside western cultures, and has also been a common idea among many scientists. Even Einstein was arguably panpsychistic in his description of his belief in god.

wrong

Consciousness is a by-product of the ability of an organism to move. In order to move, an organism must engage in a set of repetitive movements. Sure, movement could be created through a mechanical system, like the maple seeds. But that approach limits the organism to a single mean of movement with little ways to adapt it.

However, with a nervous network, the whole movement thing gets very easy. Its the same problem as building an automatically opening door. Sure you could do it like ancient people and use pressure plates, counter weights, pulleys and stuff or you could just hook up an electric motor, a movement sensor and connect them with electric wires. The latter is easier to install, takes less room, is maintainable and can be upgraded easily while the former is inferior in every aspect.

So when the organism has some rudimentary nervous system, it is not a stretch that it is developed further through evolutionary means. The nervous system gains light sensors to sense the surroundings and move accordingly. Oh, but now its food source is all moving and evading the creature. Thus it evolves its sensors and brain to be more crisp and quick to be able to follow the prey. The prey also evolves its brain as a response to this. Soon enough, we have deer and wolves.

>But muh god

Dualism is too phantasmagorical.
Emergent dualism is plausible but poorly stated.
Property dualism is also plausible but again poorly stated (how does it differ from Pan Psychism for example?)
Pan psychism (see above).
Identity theory makes no sense. It's hand-waving and begging the question.
Same for functionalism and Behaviourism.
Epiphenomenalism is plausible but poorly stated (how does this differ from property dualism proper or Pan Psychism? What exactly is so special about brains compared to other natural systems?)
Cognitivism is begging the question.
Same for Higher Order Theory.
Same for Buddhism.
Quantum Conscousness is quackery.

If I assemble the Eiffel Tower using indivisible Legos, the Eiffel Tower doesn't magically emerge as a separate object from the individual Lego pieces. The Eiffel Tower doesn't actually exist. It's just an illusion, it's the brain interpreting the Lego structure as the Eiffel Tower.

It's the same with consciousness. Consciousness doesn't really exist. What we see as being consciousness is just the individual bits of matter which makes up the brain. It's not a 'property', it doesn't 'emerge'. It's the brain itself and nothing more.

>the right answer

Nice begging the question you have there brainlet.

All it is is being good at remembering things

For something like this it's impossible to know for sure, we can only guess.