What is the solution to the hard problem of consciousness?

>humans contain quantum fairy magic that's observed nowhere else in the universe
>how DARE you ask that I provide a justification for why this is a reasonable explanation
Why do consciousness threads always attract flaming retards?

because nueroscience is hard

>humans contain quantum fairy magic that's observed nowhere else in the universe

Entanglement and quantum states are real things and are a huge field of study in physics and mathematics.

>how DARE you ask that I provide a justification for why this is a reasonable explanation

You say this even after I said I was willing to explain anything you didn't understand.

It's cool tho, I see you aren't here to debate, just to spew retarded insult at things you don't understand on the internet.

>nice

>spacing

>you

>retarded

>faggit

>cunt

you

mad

?

>Entanglement and quantum states are real things and are a huge field of study in physics and mathematics.
What the actual fuck does that have to do with human conscience and sentience? Fluid mechanics is also a major field of study but that doesn't mean my brain runs on Navier-Stokes.

Go ahead and explain. All you've done so far is spout incoherent technobabble and I would like to be surprised to find that you were just bad at communicating instead of yet another pseudointellectual. But you won't because you're using this as a cop-out since you have no factual basis for saying what you're saying.

So this is the third time I will tell you that I will explain anything, that I have already said, that you haven't understood. I already put it in simple to research terms, but I can go full on metaphors if you want, but you have to tell me what you don't understand.

>We need to try explaining what matter is and how it arises from consciousness instead.
You're arguing a fancy version of solipsism, which is a certified pseudoscientific idea.

Also btw, you're not real and only a figment of my imagination.

>We need to try explaining what matter is and how it arises from consciousness instead.
You're arguing a fancy version of solipsism, which is a certified pseudoscientific idea.

That wasn't me that said that, I was the guy doing the star trek gifs....

>Also btw, you're not real and only a figment of my imagination.

Maybe I'm breaking the 4th wall?

Fine:
>Consciousness is a pure quantum state that arose and is indistinguishable, from the mixed quantum state, of that of your personal consciousness. Consciousness is entangled, in superposition, with all possible outcomes of the universe and the present you represents a single state vector of all possible outcomes.
Most of the matter in the universe is larger than its De Broglie wavelength and therefore not quantum in nature.

Theory disproven. NEXT!

>but that doesn't mean my brain runs on Navier-Stokes.
> has a complex network of electric-pressure conduits

>Most of the matter in the universe is larger than its De Broglie wavelength and therefore not quantum in nature.

Not an argument, but nice try. You probably need to jumble in some more phrases that you don't understand. Maybe try using a boggle? Most of the matter in the universe doesn't have consciousness, only you, in your respective frame.

>the molecules form an interference pattern at the detector which implies that they must have been superposed while passing through the slits.
>The team’s measurements imply that this molecule has a wavelength of about 500 femtometres, which is about four orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of a molecule by itself.
Except quantum physics doesn't care if you're bigger than your de Broglie.
Theory undisproven.

Yeah so that was me not star trek gif guy.
>solipsism
Solipsism is just out of control skepticism, it's not related to consciousness apart from your own consciousness being the only case where skepticism is completely unreasonable. I'm arguing metaphysical idealism.
>pseudoscientific
If science can't hack it pseuodoscience is the hero we need.
>not real and only a figment of my imagination
Note that a consciousness is still required.

Consciousness is so absolutely fundamental that it's literally impossible to doubt. It's also perfectly adequate for describing everything we know about matter.
Meanwhile matter can't even begin to describe consciousness and quantum physics has proven it doesn't exist when minds aren't observing it anyway.
Idealism is clearly the superior theory.

>which is a certified pseudoscientific idea.
Not him but how is it pseudoscience?

Is this just the same one guy spamming these 'muh consciousness is a mystical entity' threads?
What are you trying to achieve? Self affirmation?

>Meanwhile matter can't even begin to describe consciousness and quantum physics has proven it doesn't exist when minds aren't observing it anyway.
Is that really what the double slit experiment says?
I thought there were many interpretations of it.

There are many interpretations but some are better than others. But yes in the double slit the particles don't really exist in any meaningful way until they're detected.

...

Instead of calling a metaphysical interpretation "certified pseudoscience", could you perhaps instead give actual arguments against it? It is true that you can't deductively know the external world you experience is an actual external world. So how do you escape the doubt?

>Meanwhile matter can't even begin to describe consciousness and quantum physics has proven it doesn't exist when minds aren't observing it anyway.

So, are wave functions not products of consciousness then? If you use quantum mechanics to give credence to the idea that consciousness collapses the wave function by interacting with it somehow, it seems you need an external world after all.

>What are you trying to achieve?

He's probably trying to achieve discussion about a subject he finds interesting.

Wow, where have I seen this before? Oh that's right!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

From Wikipedia:

Vitalismis the belief that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things".[1]Where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the "vital spark", "energy" or "élan vital", which some equate with thesoul. In the 18th and 19th century vitalism was discussed among biologists, in a discussion between those who felt that the known mechanics of physics would eventually explain the difference between life and non-life and vitalists who argued that life could not be reduced to a mechanistic process.
Some vitalist biologists proposedtestable hypothesesmeant to show inadequacies with mechanistic explanations, but these experiments failed to provide support for vitalism. Biologists now consider vitalism to have been refuted byempirical evidence, and hence as belonging to the realm of religion rather than that of science

Alright friends, let's draw some parallels.

consciousness is an illusion, much like geocentric universe or time dilation

>external world
No problem with an external world, it's just made of minds and ideas instead of little chunks of stuff

Scientists have been wrong throughout history.
Pessimistic meta-induction says modern scientific theories will be found lacking and replaced with something better. A hundred years ago they knew a lot about light, metals and electronics but had to throw out all of classical physics and develop quantum physics to deal with the photoelectric effect.
Today the hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved.

What do you mean when you say external world? I'm clearly referring to the wave functions. If you hold that they are also created by consciousness, then it sounds like you're conflating the inter-subjective reality (sounds, color, etc) which minds create with the actual external world. If consciousness collapses wave functions, it has at best influenced the wave functions, not created them.

The very idea of using the collapse in quantum mechanics to justify idealism necessitates some sort of external world for consciousness to interact with, otherwise the argument is useless.

This all sounds really similar to biocentrism, which makes this same mistake.

The external world is obviously a mental projection of our consciousness.

Oh, I'm sorry, you understand consciousness fully.
So surely you should be able to build consciousness out of inanimate matter, if the technology allowed?

my consciousness or your consciousness? a projection of a unified consciousness wherein we all take part?

External world = things outside your own mind, which in idealism are other minds and their ideas.
>If consciousness collapses wave functions, it has at best influenced the wave functions, not created them.
Yes but there's no reason it can't both create and collapse them. That is what material is supposed to be able to do with material wave functions after all, and idealism doesn't say quantum physics is different it just says reality is fundamentally mental.
>necessitates some sort of external world for consciousness to interact with
Yes but consciousness and the external world have to interact via shared mental properties so the external world is at least partly (I think wholly) mental.

Building consciousness might be too ambitious. We should start with trying to detect it.

Nobody knows for sure yet user, I guarantee that when an answer is complete it will not be satisfactory to our curiosity. The realms of objectivity and subjectivity are inherently distinct. Exactly how the structure of the brain produces consciousness will be understood, but why the robustness of an immaculate landscape makes you feel relaxed will never be explained through non-subjective means.

Probably a consciousness that resides in the bulk (4d +). Maybe some intelligent race that has evolved to exist outside of time and can retroactively interact with matter.

>Yes but consciousness and the external world have to interact via shared mental properties so the external world is at least partly (I think wholly) mental.
Not the guy you were replying to originally but what do you mean by this? I'm not seeing the necessity of "have to interact" here.

I was reading up on cognition & nutrition and it reminded me of this interview:

"I think the very structure of nerves is a kind of resonance and carries possibly like as a semi-conducting system, it carries a function that’s analogous to the objective music outside the body and so when you give the organism a chance to relax and begin to respond to the music, you are re-enforcing or enabling a process that is very basic to the life of the brain cells and all of the living organism.

If you believed in the mechanistic cognitive science artificial intelligence interpretation of consciousness, you would see the present moment as an infinitesimally thin division between past and future that’s moving along like a line on the grass analogous to a certain measurement of depth, width and height, except moving along the timeline.

But the unreality of that, the complete nonsensicalness of it, in fact, you can see when you whistle a tune or listen to music or see a performer who is doing in an intricately whole and organized way a song or other performance, a director who can organize everything in the orchestra to produce the desired effect is having to see where the particular moment is going and where it has been, the pace of the music and all of the qualities that are developing in each moment, depend on what you’re perceiving to come and has recently passed. And so the brain is like a musical composition. It doesn’t exist only in the present and the moment of consciousness spans time - so that you’re simultaneously present in an infinity of these infinitesimally thin presences." - Ray Peat

is he right, lads?

What is he saying? Is he saying consciousness isn't merely present?

...

This is pretty dense. Empirical science is based on sensory observation and yet you deny the very fundamental observation that you are conscious. Congratulations, you just took science back to the same level of intellectual masturbation as speculative metaphysics.

Yeah until you reach the source of it all. The universe had a beginning therefore everything has a beginning.

It's almost like new fields of study explain more phenomena and supersede old fields.

How life works used to be just as much of a mystery as consciousness. I mean, can you imagine explaining circadian rhythm to Aristotle? Parts of it still are. I don't think that necessarily means some parallel dimension or whatever shit dualism is explains it.

>The universe had a beginning
proof it

We assume we can learn about the external world, if we can learn about it then we have to be able to interact with it somehow.
We don't necessarily have to be able to interact with (parts of) it without that assumption.
Sure I'm conscious but when I sensorially observe a mouse all I sense are its furs and brains and behaviors but no consciousness. Science should try objectively detecting consciousness before it tries building one because obviously how could it claim to have built one unless it could objectively verify its existence?
You don't even need a new field of study here though, you just have to reinterpret what we already have.
If consciousness is fundamental then of course you're going to have a hard time explaining how it arises from matter. The hardness of the problem despite brains being objects that are easily studied is a huge clue that some assumption or interpretation is wrong somewhere.

You're all wrong.

Consciousness is simply the next emanation of the quantum chakra field to the seventh astral plane. Matter is just a quantum illusion of the soul.

>the hard problem of consciousness
>which I am unable to state
>bcoz brainlet
GTFO

I'm back again, let me get in on this. Collapse of the wave function through consciousness/measurement is parallel to measuring a particle in superposition to arrive at it's spin value. Example: In the double slit experiment, the act of observing which slit the wave goes through, collapses the wave out of superposition and into a defined quantum state vector/particle that now has a defined value and trajectory through the information gathered/memorized by the detector/observer. John Wheeler said it best, with "it from bit." The external world, outside of your ability to gather information on it, will act as if all the information is in superposition. The external world is an ocean of probabilities based on their function space. Why that space operates based on physical laws in the first place, is beyond me. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to observe it, does it fall? If no one observes it, then the probability of it falling is based on the information that was known about it. Is it half dead, high probability, was it young, low probability. All of it based on the information contained in the tree and it's function space. Your personal reference frame of consciousness is your memory. You only really gained consciousness in your life up until the point when you could remember events and information. Very bleak when you get to the truth of it all.

This is probably the user who posted the thread about having constant brain fog.

Literally, just study brain biology...

Just have to cum in some bitch and wait a while, or are you implying that chemicals are animate?

any sufficiently advanced computer program is indistinguishable from consciousness

your program runs on a meat computer which has been overcomplicated through millions of years of evolution from its beginnings as a much more simple if-then machine for seeking certain stimuli and avoiding others.

>seeking
>avoiding
>indistinguishable from consciousness
youtube.com/watch?v=JnlULOjUhSQ

Gametes literally are animate.

Reality is magical, not mechanistic

There is no avoiding this conclusion

Roger Penrose offers a complete quantum theory of mind in "The Emperor's New Mind". I'll take the word of Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS, mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford over that of a random cuck on this shithole any day.

Hard problem of consciousness solved. Mind is not a computable phenomena covered by the Church-Turing Thesis.

Yeah I'm still with Based Sir Roger Penrose on this.

this is some obscurantist zizek shit right there
>the information contained in the tree and it's function space
kek

Is consciousness a real word?
or is it just an appealing way of saying awareness?

It's magical in a mechanistic way but there is no way we can even begin to visualize this.

Yea, i guess that's what you get when you try to talk math terms and quantum physics on an anime chat board for science