Does consciousness involve quantum mechanics and if not...

>how would you approach creating a consciousness purely with logic gates?
You don't. It's not possible to make signs out of any combination of binary relationships. You need a ternary relationship.

Everything involves being conscious, when will you people learn.

>guy: dudes im conscious

Doesn't cut it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence although any evidence would be a nice start at least.
Consciousness is a mystical/new age concept outside mainstream science since it's not falsifiable.

Define self-awareness
You don't have conscious control of your legs when you walk. Neither are you entirely conscious of how exactly you are moving your arm and hand joints when replying to this post
youtu.be/wPiLLplofYw

Pinch yourself to find out if you are awake, that's half consciousness right there. Look in a mirror and see if you can tell which image is you. And that's awareness, Bam those are the only two conditions for consciousness awake and aware.

But it's only an experiment you can do for yourself, you can't prove someone else's consciousness with this method.

And what if the realization that you're not real would cause insanity so your brain tricks you into thinking it's not a machine?

What the fuck are you trying to say?
Being a machine or not is irrelevant.
You're one of those cunts who put consciousness on a metaphysical pedestal, aren't you?

You miss my point entirely. A universe without consciousness is a world without observation. Intelligent processes could still occur but they would be presented to nothing (a complete experience vacuum) and, therefore, would be meaningless to even think about.

This is the old "if a tree falls in the forest when there's no one there..." argument.
It makes a "thud" and ruffles the leaves of nearby trees.
This degenerates into a discussion over what "sound" is; vibration in air or sensation in brain.
As Einstein put it, "Do you really believe the Moon is not there where no one is looking at it?"

who cares what you feel?

I’m not an idealist but consciousness has to reconciled with its surrounding environment. I’m don’t believe it will be helpful to work under the assumption that it doesn’t exist (even as a thought experiment designed to spur new theories).

>How would you approach creating consiousness purely with logic gates?

I think they all mapped out the visual cortex.

And regarding the quantum nature of consiousness; this video may be related
youtu.be/DJsJIVXkrGQ

youtu.be/ADiql3FG5is

Consciousness must involve quantum effects, simply because of the fact that we live in a world governed by quantum effects. Everything is quantum, so why would consciousness be the exception?

Keep adding logic gates and firing them randomly over infinite time until you reach a pattern that exhibits consciousness.

I think all you muh consciousness spergs are a bunch of retards putting the cart before the horse. Self awareness is probably exactly what it says on the tin - a brain using its current state as an input and analyzing that as well. Then, since it is aware of the fact that it is processing information it gets stuck in infinitely recursive logic loops trying to "understand existence" and "prove qualia".

It's meaningless to talk about anything in non-physical terms.

That still doesn't explain it.

Explain what, exactly? You've construed the question ass backwards is the problem. Consider proving that someone else's brain is conscious rather than focusing on yourself.

>>one of those cunts
your consciousness is approaching 1 billion
what about gravitational potential energy? its kinda empty space/difference, intangible - yet very real and useful to know, so there is in fact meaning in that which does not physically exist. what if mind/intelligence is also immaterial, yet very real, however illusory?
>>it gets stuck in infinitely recursive logic loops trying to "understand existence" and "prove qualia"
what happens if you would like to stop doing so?
see image; it relates to efficacy, and freewill - which can be expressed as a maximisation of future potential (amongst many other factors)

Jesus Christ you fucking pseuds

Just READ the shit out there that people have written. This is an old question and people WAY smarter than you have done work on it.

If you want to give an original idea, first do some background research and just read some fucking books

maybe you could help by providing some links for people instead of moaning

you had the opportunity to potentially decrease the entropy in the universe, not this time. stay demon

>mfw my IQ is higher than everyone in this thread combined

Any classical program is already conscious. Neural networks probably aren't.

He's a mathematician.

>Any classical program
what the fuck is a "classical program"
u just makin shit up nigga

>not falsifiable
Wrong.

The usual algorithmic shit like your web browser.

Create a program with a random task in unlimited time. Every 30 minutes it must analyze all the data it processed and describe what it has already done and what is expected to happen in the next week.It includes describing previous descriptions and checking if expectations were fulfilled. It must diagnosis why expectations weren't fulfilled, if that is the case.

Quantum electrodynamics are effecting the electrons in your brain cells.There's not enough information to say if the brain takes advantage of it in some way.

The same effects occur in every piece of electronic equipment, but we intentionally design things so they don't have an impact. Nobody wants a logic gate that's randomly wrong sometimes. One of reason we set CPU speeds the way we do is because the electrons moving through a circuit are probabilistic. You need to wait until the number that have been pushed into a semiconductor only has a one in a septillion chance of not being enough; otherwise things get random.

>Consciousness must involve classical physics, simply because of the fact that we live in a world governed by classical physics. Everything is classical physics, so why would consciousness be an exception ?

I get that you are trying to be clever, but what you've said is really nonsensical.

It's not a matter of "needing" quantum effects. Quantum effects occur at the scales where the mechanisms that produce consciousness occur, so clearly they're going to have an influence. Quantum mechanics is a description of ALL reality and denying it functions in biological systems is flat out wrong.

All knowledge flows from "I think, therefore I am". If you deny that starting point you deny all science. That people are conscious beings with free will is an axiom that all scientific inquiry hinges on.

Quantum consciousness deniers... you are claiming that consciousness is the one exception. You are dualists without realizing it.

...and it does. I think you're conflating the idea that our mathematical models of classical and quantum physics cannot reconcile with the idea that reality is literally split into two realms that cannot interact, which is retarded.

>Does consciousness involve quantum mechanics
only in a indirect way through field to field interactions. the brain produces magnetic field through electrical activity. there may be random subatomic particles that get diverted from their original flight path thanks to magnetic fields in the brain slightly

most of conscious thought is neurons linked together with electrical impulses running though them. it was proven you can make simplified robots with no programing using transistors linked together with electricity running through them. they can even learn to do things like crawl to charging stations or into light so solar panels can charge them on their own. though not just any random combinations work. the scientist that found he could do this admitted he based it off of insect nervous systems which technically arent considered as having a brain

how does this work? the electrical potential of neurons works the same way for transistors as from a technical standpoint they are the same thing. your cpu's in computers are just clusters of transistors but those are running in a digital for not analog. code for digital is at its bases level on or off aka 1 or 0.

analog signals based of the electrical potential of neurons are a float between 0 and something like 0.000000075 ish mhz.

the chemical component which many play up would relay signals to slow and just acts as a switch to turn off some path ways or open them up for electricity. it connects one part of the neural network to another with chemical receptors.the chemical component doesnt actually dictate what is going on with the electricity in neurons.

memories seem to be a chemical imprint in the connection between some clusters. this seems to adjust the current running through the brain and some how the current reaching different points in the brain makes a single complex concept like a house and knowing what it is.

>free will

who knows m8

>mfw my IQ is higher than this guy's IQ and I was a paranoid schizophrenic who literally starved myself to death to keep people from poisoning me through my food
Wow, it's almost like being smart isn't a vaccine against being wrong.
Hmm... really makes you think.

>Quantum consciousness deniers... you are claiming that consciousness is the one exception
No, there are many such "exceptions." Why do you think classical physics still gets used all the time? If anything, the cases where quantum effects matter are the exceptions, not the other way around.

/thread

>being this ill

>the idea that reality is literally split into two realms that cannot interact
Not him, but it's not that quantum effects and phenomena better described by classical physics don't "interact," it's that quantum effects don't *matter* outside of specific conditions that much of the everyday world we deal with doesn't have. You could describe anything with quantum physics if you wanted to, but it would be retarded to describe the motion of planets with it because the impact of quantum effects there is completely negligible. It would be like trying to predict the results of a Baseball game on the basis of molecular structure. Technically you could reduce what's going on to that level, but there are emergent patterns which become way more relevant and eclipse the smaller scale details once you move past certain scales / conditions.

Just pointing out that "a smart person believes this" isn't a very great argument. If anything the most intelligent among us exist at an especially dangerous precipice where they're most vulnerable to ridiculously bad ideas since extreme intelligence generally comes with low latent inhibition. That's why "down to Earth" is an expression. These people are not "down to Earth," they're as far from Earth as you can get, which can result both in groundbreaking brilliant ideas and in completely psychotic terrible ideas.

There are no exceptions to quantum physics.

Sometimes we use classical physics because either the math is too hard with quantum physics, or we don't understand quantum physics well enough to explain a certain phenomenon.

The universe is not dualistic. There isn't a "quantum scale" and a "classical scale". Everything is quantum. Classical physics is just a heuristic that usually works.

>mfw brainlets try to deny quantum consciousness

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation

descartes brianlet detected. read some kant.

Everyone should read this book before they post anything about consciousness.

>Sometimes we use classical physics because either the math is too hard with quantum physics, or we don't understand quantum physics well enough to explain a certain phenomenon.
No, you don't understand this topic at all.
In classical contexts the results that would be predicted by classical physics are identical with the results that would be predicted by quantum physics. The impact of phenomena not already covered by classical physics are negligible in those contexts.
>The universe is not dualistic.
This has nothing to do with dualism. The way non-quantum physical systems behave isn't in conflict with quantum physics, it's emergent from it. Influences exist that are relevant at one scale and negligible at another, that's all. Just because a gentle breeze can knock over a sand castle doesn't mean you need to factor in the force of gentle breezes when constructing an actual house. This isn't dualism, it's the very straightforward concept that not all factors have a non-negligible impact at all scales / circumstances.

>Consciousness as a Quantum Dynamic Effect
>Quantum Spin Formalism on Consciousness
>The "Quantum Underground": Where Life and Consciousness Originate
>Consciousness in the Universe — An Updated Review of the "Orch OR" Theory
It's quantum flapdoodle trash trying to pass itself off as neutral overview of different explanations.

>non-quantum physical systems
name one such system

I read the first 15 pages of this book and I can confidently say it's utter trash

You are so woefully confused. You are talking about models. Classical physics is just a model that happens to make accurate predictions in most, but not all cases.

It has predictive power but not explanatory power.

>observation
Popsci please stay on >>>/facebook/

>creating a consciousness purely with logic gates?
You remind me of those tards that say things like "love is just a chemical redaction" after learning about water molecules.
Go ahead and explain how even a single protein works, _then_ we'll discuss reduction of consciousness to an algorithm...

"Decerebrate"?????
Jesus, how horrifying.

>realization that you're not real
Cogito Ergo Sum,
If you can realize anything, you're real.

Yeah linear filters are much better.

>This degenerates into a discussion over what "sound" is;
You're not smoking good enough weed.
The whole point of "if a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it" is that there are, by definition, certain unknowable things.
We take it for granted that the tree makes a sound, but given the parameters, we can never know in an absolute sense.
And THAT'S the whole point.

>"consciousness" might be the result of completely biochemical reactions but I say it's supr speshul majik and that changes everything
Fucking brainlet subhuman.

>If you can realize anything, you're real.
Sounds like you're jumping to conclussions. "Thinking" is fundamentally the same process as any other physical interaction in nature.

You miss my point entirely.
Saying "it's just chemicals" is a handy chant for the OCD tards among us, but the truth is chemistry is often so incredibly complex, it's a miracle people aren't more mysteriously complex and deep.
You can't hand-wave away a phenomenon because "it's all just protons, neutrons and electrons, I learned this shit in 9th grade".

>"Thinking" is fundamentally the same process as any other physical interaction in nature.
So.... writing a poem is no more complex or involved than a meteor falling to Earth?

The point is: if you can think, then you exist.

>chemistry is often so incredibly complex, it's a miracle people aren't more mysteriously complex and deep
This changes absolutely nothing. The complexity of a system doesn't change or "mystify" it.
>You can't hand-wave away a phenomenon
Says you. Where's your proof it's anything more.

>So.... writing a poem is no more complex or involved than a meteor falling to Earth?
Yes. How are they fundamentally different?
>The point is: if you can think, then you exist.
That's a statement. How do you derive one from the other? What stops you from being "not real"

Because something needs to be doing the thinking...

The idea of being "not real" is trivial and semantic

You're not doing the thinking. It's your brain, "you" then become aware of it and think it's you doing the thinking.

>Because something needs to be doing the thinking...
There are 0 arguments in this sentence. Could you enlighten me how you differentiate the "thinking" of the brain from the rest of nature, outside worthless philosophical wankery.

>Yes. How are they fundamentally different?
A meteor doens't have an emotional need to trivialize humanity.

>You're not doing the thinking. It's your brain,
What am I, if not "my" brain?????

Consciousness is a product of biological processes so I'm pretty sure it's Veeky Forums related even if it brings out >muh dualism and >muh hard problem knuckleheads

there's no "i"

>A meteor doens't have an emotional need to trivialize humanity.
You should probably move to facebook or Veeky Forums. Anyways, the double-digit IQ layer of abstraction you slap on reality doesn't change a thing.

Nice argument.
Still waiting to hear why I'm not my brain.

But regardless of that "you" something is existing. Some kind of structured reality..

Im not arguing for you im just arguing that 1st person experience is a valid empiricism.

You arent your brain because consciousness doesnt encompass all perceptible phenomena. Because you cant observe the inner workings of the brain also.. even with effortful thonking, thoughts arise from nowhere. You clearly arent your brain but emerge from aspects of its function.

Why not?

I'm not my testicles either, except in the sense that they are a part of me.

Since my brain is the part of me thaqt does ths thinking, you can't say "You're not doing the thinking. It's your brain," any more than you can say "you're not peeing on my leg, it's your dick".

>Some kind of structured reality.
what do you mean by that?

"you can't say "You're not doing the thinking. It's your brain"
what part of you're not doing the thinking. It's your brain don't you understand? the thinking happens before you're aware of it, you're not doing it

Quantum physics in itself doesn't have "explanatory power" either, that's why there are multiple differing *interpretations* attempting to explain it.
>name one such system
Most everything that isn't 100 nanometers or smaller, or very low temperature.
And don't turn this into a semantics argument, I was very clear that this isn't "non-quantum" as in quantum scale phenomena don't exist, it's "non-quantum" as in quantum effects become negligible at the classical limit.

Just that something is happening. Phenomena with structure.

You cant say its a part of you if youre not aware of it. If its not part of the self aware phenomenal you. If you have no sensory connection to it. Your analogy is dodgy. You can say its your brain not you because your brain does alot more than building the coniitive structure of you which is not the same as the individual parts of the brain. The leg analogy is bad. What about cutting off finger nails.

Yes the brain is the part that does the thinking but only part of ur brain does it.

Being blind because of damage to the visual cortex is an example of why youre not your brain. Brain damage that doesnt affect your concept of "you" or your conscious perception. Outside of the fact you have no access to visual stuff.

>the thinking happens before you're aware of it
This isn't true. You think about something which collapses the quantum state and creates a history of you retrieving the relevant information from the neuronal structures in your brain.

Citation niglet.

we all agree you're a dick user

>Why not?
Self-awareness can not be studied using the scientific method.

Its been studied for the last 20 years in neuroscience so gtfo...

>btfo
>why cant you do it.. why cant you set your monkey free.

This is the most Reddit question I've ever heard