Can science solve the hard problem of consciousness?

Can science solve the hard problem of consciousness?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FLb9EIiSyG8
consc.net/notes/lloyd-comments.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_problem_of_consciousness
youtube.com/watch?v=2ZPSnkQWs6o&t=1s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It can't, the only thing science can do is write it off as an illusion and just ignore it, simply because science doesn't have the tools to investigate the subjective.

Consciousness doesn't even exist.

Because our brain is a p=np approximating machine, but with limited processing power, hence the "experiences" which are, in fact, logic and reasoning 'mistakes'.
I quote mistake because I meant 'approximate' in that regard, those 'approximates' allows the brain to process a finite number of data.

>Because our brain is a p=np approximating machine
what does it mean? p=np is either true or false

Quantum decoherence.

I think you are just saying random words

this

Then what am I experiencing right now boyo

You can watch video game footage for decades, mapping out every possible state of the game and deconstructing every mechanic, but still not find evidence that there is a player.

You can watch the player character and realize that it acts rational and tries to achieve a goal, which would suggest that there is in fact a player

>reads words in head in voice of choice
>says it doesn't exist
ok

And people can then argue the player character isn't special, it just has a more advanced AI than the NPCs. They'll be wrong, but they'll still have a point in this context where there's no hard evidence that the player exists

No. §17 in Leibniz's Monadology addresses this.

This is irrelevant, regardless of it being true or false.

>player character isn't special, it just has a more advanced AI than the NPCs.
that's correct

Yes. We're a long way away, but I'm having trouble thinking of any natural phenomena that was unexplainable and eventually wasn't eventually explained by science.

thats jumping to conclusions

A-Are people in this thread conflating free will with conciousness?

How did you detirmine that

Things that make this a really hard question to address:

Out of body experiences, near death experiences, apparition experiences, psi, and memory of past lives phenomena

Many in the "free will is an illusion" camp also believe consciousness is an illusion.

but thats completely retarded.

free will OBVIOUSLY is an illusion, and consciousness OBVIOUSLY is not an illusion. anyone disagreeing with either of those if OBVIOUSLY a retard

nothing obvious about any of that retard

You're assuming there's one consistent definition for "consciousness." That's one of the vaguest, most multi-purposed terms there is. Obviously everyone agrees there's such a thing as "regaining consciousness" where you wake up from anesthesia for example, but not everyone believes you have literal "qualia" / "experience" phenomena beyond your own behavior i.e. you think you "see colors" because reporting and acting in terms of that notion is part of your visual stimuli response behavior rather than because there actually is some phenomenon of "what it's like to see colors" in need of an explanation.

I mean I see your post and its dumbass reasoning, and you're not going to think your way out of that MOST OBVIOUS fact.

The problem from there is how to describe it, not whether or not it is happening.

Sure user, it's all of physical reality that's wrong because you have a very strong belief that something extra is really there and there's no possible way your brain could just be making you believe something that isn't true because human cognition is 100% accurate to literal reality and never makes use of shortcuts even though the latter would be selected for over the former as a much less costly way to get the same level of evolutionary fitness. I mean, you JUST KNOW, and if you can't count on your personal intuition, what else could you count on? Obviously not the scientific method, that approach never gets us anywhere, all great advancements in science and technology come from going with what seems right to you personally because it JUST DOES.

What is the problem? Your brain gets some input and then acts on it. Do you really need some magic "qualia" to explain how when you see blue wavelengths of light you "experience" blue (what that means and how it is distinguished from simply seeing blue light or your brain processing the light information is very unclear to me. Guess I'm just a brainlet).

Literally /thread

You're so full of shit. Stop reading into what you think I am saying, and read what I am actually saying.

It is the simplest, most obvious empirical observation that I am currently experiencing something. There is no intuition about it. It comes from basic empiricism, one of the foundations of science.

This experience could be something that is created by my brain. There is a lot of evidence for that. My saying that it undeniably exists does not invalidate that, you fucking sperg.

Dualist fags / idealism fags overrate their own personal ingrained biological behaviors around the idea of "experiencing" and as a consequence are convinced this idea represents some actual phenomenon beyond their own behavioral routines that physics is failing to account for. It's pretty narcissistic desu.

But you are undeniably experiencing something. How retarded are you?

Have you ever stopped to consider how extremely "simple" and "obvious" is exactly how things that only exist as a mental narrative would be registered? These "things" have the alleged simple and raw and immediate characteristics to them precisely because there isn't really anything there. You believe you see lots of things you really have no knowledge of when pressed for details in a controlled setting. Perception is more a process of your brain reasoning out how things ought to be than it is an actual presentation of "experiences."

What about your experience makes you think it is anything more than your brain's processing of the sensory inputs you receive?

Why the fuck do you think the two claims are at odds? What is wrong with you?

Huh? It asks how the consciousness works? It works the way it's structured, duh.

You are undeniably basing your entire argument on "I have a very strong belief." You can have a very strong belief in something that isn't actually true. That's all it takes for this "problem" to fall apart: Just recognizing that your brain is completely capable of using false belief as a tool for making useful behavior happen. It's way more plausible the issue is with that belief we're personally geared towards as organisms than it is plausible that our reported belief in this is some indication of a fundamental aspect of reality that transcends physics and causality.

Holy fuck

I am basically just restating cogito ergo sum and you fags are trying to read a bunch of bullshit into it because your reading compehension and reasoning skills are appalling.

I EXIST. I AM AWARE.

My brain probably produces that experience. How? Good question.

And if you want to go Zen on me and say that the I is an illusion,

THERE IS AWARENESS.

Deal with it.

I think p-zombies exist. They resemble human beings in every way except they unironically believe things like this

>I am basically just restating cogito ergo sum
Thought and qualia aren't the same thing. Thought is just information processing, not a "hard problem" topic.

You are undeniably basing your entire argument on "current scientific knowledge can't explain it therefore it doesn't exist"

Holy fuck

Cuckito ergo sum user

I AM THE KEK NOT YOU

The hard problem is all about dualism.
Explain to me where the electrochemical interactions and reactions to stimuli stop and where qualia begins. If you can't you are elevating subjective experience over objective reality with no evidence or reasoning.

If you don't think you're doing this then you are either unclear on implications of the position you're advocating or you're a troll

That's the whole fucking problem you idiot

Consciousness posting should be a bannable offence by now

Why? Because you morons flail helplessly at it?

>science can't currently explain it therefore it either doesn't exist or it's magic

face it senpai we're just brains in skulls doing super cool binary computing interweaved with multiple environmental, biochemical and probabilistic analog layers i think its cool af desu but idk lmao

So many words, so little said

The study of computer science coupled with biology will yield what you seek. What you find will scare you.

youtube.com/watch?v=FLb9EIiSyG8

We are a wave. Oh how much Mark Twain really knew...

"Nothing exists except space and you, and you are just a thought."

>Solve the problem of consciousness

It has already been solved.

#
Some ideas really don't correspond to existing phenomena. A lot of ideas as a matter of fact. Try applying what you wrote to the idea of humors, or aether, or phlogiston, and see why you're not making a valid point.

Love that album

Idea of a phenomenon corresponds to that phenomenon.

No dummy its not a problem. We know that electrical and chemical signals exist. We know that when a person is thinking or seeing or "experiencing" those signals are firing. YOU are the only one with the problem, the problem being your inability to accept that reality.

Sure, so if I just imagine something it will become real?
Or of someone says they experienced something or has a belief in something, then it must have been willed into reality? Because I really can't follow what you could possibly mean otherwise.

Holy fuck. What I am saying in LITERALLY NO WAY contradicts what you describe. How fucking dense are you to not see that there is a giant fucking mystery to the fact that electrical signals correspond to what I think and experience?

Fucking christ.

>Voice of choice
What? How do I make my head's voice sound like a cute anime girl? How have I never heard of this?

Do you really need to introduce this level of autism into the discussion?
The idea of "phlogiston" exists, as did the belief that this idea refers to a real world phenomenon, but the actual alleged real world referent of phlogiston does not.
In contrast, the idea of "hydrogen" exists, the belief that this idea refers to a real world phenomenon exists, and the actual alleged real world referent of hydrogen exists.
You can have ideas and believe those ideas refer to a real world phenomenon without that necessitating that this belief is true. This happens all the time because ideas by their nature are abstract and not limited in any mandatory way to the scope of real world phenomena.

>a giant fucking mystery
Or maybe the only giant thing is the degree to which you're overrating the validity and significance of your personal sensory related behavioral routines. That seems like a pretty likely explanation to me.

By using my free will.

Seriously though, consciousness is a nonsensical concept.

>consciousness is a nonsensical concept
I think you're mostly right, but I'd add that the fact people behave as though "consciousness" means something is itself something that isn't nonsense, as in there's a lot of explicable utility behind people behaving in that way. And I think it's important to recognize that because this is what explains how and why anyone has this belief to begin with.

We are not talking about behavior you fucking moron.

You don't believe you are, but you are. That's the point. You believe there's some "qualia" thing there that science can't explain, but in reality what's there is your behavior of reporting that this thing is there and otherwise acting as though it's there. And these behaviors aren't a mystery unless we insist on assuming what's being reported actually corresponds to a real world phenomenon. Given that we have no evidence for that being true, we only really need to explain / account for what we do have evidence of (your behavior). And we can explain / account for that just fine without appealing to some new science of the extra-physical.

It's funny, to me it's completely trivial that the "hard" problem of consciousness is a problem of a complex system.
Ultimately I think it comes down to the degree to which you are able to cognitively separate the your own cognition FROM your own cognition, as this very thing is a heuristic tool adapted for a different kind of problem solving than modelling/investigating complex "mechanical" systems.

It doesn't exist it's just an illusion.

What are you talking about then?

You know that computers can regulate their own computations and if programmed to do so can compute a simulation of alternative computations.

Do computers experience qualia?

I bet we make make a computer claim to experience qualia.

David Chalmers once wrote an essay about thermostats having qualia ("What is it like to be a Thermostat?").
consc.net/notes/lloyd-comments.html

Only after it solves the easy problem of consciousness.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_problem_of_consciousness

Not guy you're replying to, but it's a piece of cake. Can't you listen to songs in your head?

everthing is conscious to a degree and every thing is just what god choses to obserb
youtube.com/watch?v=2ZPSnkQWs6o&t=1s

The thread is about consciousness. We are talking about consciousness, awareness, experience.

Not my behavior surrounding the fact that I am conscious. Literally how stupid do you have to be to conflate the two?

It's like you have no idea what you even think you are saying. You just get off on the fantasy of being in control of everything and having an explanation.

You people are absolutely fucking retarded.

>”Conciousness is an illusion”

An illusion means there is some being subject to the illusion, other wise what the fuck is the point of it

>”I’m not real”

Paradoxical, notice how people who spout this like Jim Carrey refer to themselves as “I” still


Science is better off saying that the consciousness/self is real but not static. I’d love for someone to bring something up that can refute this

fuck off you retards. stop making these pseudoscience piles of garbage or take them somewhere else.

f u c k o f f

There are only two theories that are even close to being viable, let alone correct. First, logical positivism, the most brainlet world view ever conceived, seen in full dissolution here: Second, dialectical materialism. Mostly bullshit, post-metaphysics of habermas, fodor's non-reductive materialism by way of practopoiesis etc. Stupid brainlet shit really.

>pseudoscience
Eat shit and kill yourself you're brainwashed and in a cult you fucking hopeless cunt

>science and math are a cult, our nonsense rambling with "opinions" we just pulled out of our asses after 2 seconds in wikipedia is profound and free
i d i o t

How retarded do you have to be to unironically say "I do not have consciousness"

History will look back on you idiots as strange and bizarre fools. How could such an insanity have happened? They might not even believe it.

kys

Lol mine was a joke. I'm surprised the link went somewhere.

It is clear-thinking science and math that will save us from your retarded ideology.

“The cold hand of science”. Literally being nihilistic and edgy because it breaks new ground and has things no one ever said before in said theories. Also it’s a bunch of self loathing cucks like Sam Harris running away from real life.

>I think you are just saying random words
My experience with this board in a covalent bond

Consciousness is a state of matter, a combination of physics, electro-magnetism, quantum mechanics, biology, etc. It exists as an emergent state of energy. Think of when someone dies, the consciousness within them dissipates as the natural mechanisms creating it break down.

dude stop
what the fuck do you imbeciles gain from rambling like this
go away

No one knows what it is.

That includes you. You don't get to say it doesn't exist just because you can't explain it.

How intellectually irresponsible does one have to be to do that?

I’m tired of being told I as a being don’t exist. If a crazed psychopath kicked in Sam Harris’ door and threatened to kill his two children, his wife, and him himself, you bet your ass he would jump up and try to stop him. Because they exist, and killing them means they cease. Going on youtube and explaining that love is chemicals and the self doesnt exist is breaking no new ground, because its preposterous.

The concept of god is also unfalsifiable and frequently described as ineffable but ever-present. Should I fear for my immortal soul?

What about string theory?
Plus science can't explain everything because there's literally an infinite amount of phenomena to explain. Empiricism was a mistake

The only thing decoherent here is you

No, you should kill yourself.

It literally doesn't exist. It can be explored, it is being explored but the memey concept of "consciousness" is idealism/nonexistent.

Phenomena are experienced, not imagined, their nature is guessed, deliberately constructed even, so can end up wrong. If someone says he had an experience, I see no reason to say he hadn't.
Phlogiston and hydrogen are not phenomena and never were. Nobody confuses theory with experience.

it's simple. "Spirits" exist on an ethereal level in a void which is as of right now invisible to modern science (it exists in our universe but is for the most part undetectable by human senses like sight/sound and might be part of the cosmic microwave radiation) However evolution by chance, was able to tap into this alternate dimension by using brainwaves electrical signals in the brain to attach a soul to the physical body. There are billions, maybe even trillians of souls wandering the void with no purpose only experiencing qualia until being attracted to the brain waves set off by living intelligent beings until they are attached to that body and given desires, wants, feelings, and purpose.

Dead man paradox: If there is no way to detect consciousness, how are we talking about it right now? Evidently it was detected at some point, therefore it is within the realm of science QED.

>It can be explored, it is being explored
It isn't you moron

Your comment reeks of autism and you're not making a valid rebuttal