>>16987935
consciousness is just the monodromy around the puncture produced by the first person pronoun in the semantic state space of natural language, just like how entanglement is a consequence of symmetry even without hidden variables
t. pseud with a big vocabulary

>>16987936
What happens in the second-person world?

>>16987954
i don't know, maybe you can tell me?

>>16987957
NO YOU.

>>16987957
underrated

>>16987935
The Qualia Research Institute guys seem to believe something like this.
https://qualiacomputing.com/2024/07/30/costs-of-embodiment/
My understanding is that they admit that in principle it's possible to simulate the functional behavior of a human with classical computers, but this is very computationally expensive and requires very deliberate design compared to the quantum implementation which would explain why we evolution didn't make zombies out of us but digital versions of ourselves would be.

Consciousness is not a fundamental property, but emergent from the greater pattern. If you pause a universe and dig into a living system, you won't see any consciousness-stuff. It appears that consciousness is an emergent property of a mechanism which can be created, understood, replicated, and improved.

we do not live in a world of things, but a world of processes. wake up.

>>16988765
>emergent from the greater pattern
Of what?
>inb4 muh neuron activity pattern
Even a low-grade midwit should be able to see this is a category error.

>>16987957
>What about the third-person world?
He wondered.

File: READ THIS .jpg (94.2 KB)

Consciousness is quantum and seems to suggest the idea of "The Soul" being a real thing. Recent real world experiments with mice and anesthesia seem to suggest Penrose is correct and consciousness is indeed quantum and not computational. The vast majority of "settled science" is just midwit losers grifting for grant money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

https://www.wellesley.edu/news/wellesley-teams-new-research-on-anesthesia-unlocks-important-clues-about-the-nature-of-consciousness

>>16988821
No amount of quantum stuff will get you closer to solving the hard problem and no amount of cope will save the idea of a soul

From the perspective of being within a single timeline, we can't ever solve the quantum problem with an incomplete dataset. We don't know what happened in the branches we can't observe, which is every single other branch. We may be able to crack the mystery under a simulation though, but creating an accurate enough simulation requires completed laws of physics and a way to measure matter configurations with perfect fidelity. So, we are basically fucked.

>>16987935
Yes this is basically correct.
The alternative is dualism, though every dualist is in denial about their dualism.

File: brainlet12.png (244.8 KB)

>The alternative is dualism, though every dualist is in denial about their dualism.

>>16988859
You probably think something like "consciousness emerges from computational processes" or some reddit tier pseudointellectual statement like that.

This is simply dualism. There is no magical world of "computational processes".

>>16988864

Not in the tangible sense, but in the abstract sense of "given calculation always has given answer" there is such a place. We just can't access it directly.

>>16987935
Amazing isn't it? God is great.

>>16987935
As we age, we stack up memories and perceived experiences which grant us the illusion of consciousness. Some people behave like animals and never even experience this illusion. Maybe ignorance is bliss as The Matrix taught us.

File: images (6).jpg (44.1 KB)

>>16987954
Prehaps we're already living in 2d...

The cartesian system with its x y z coordinates results with the observer being a 3rd party.
>we do not view ourselves, we view from ourselves.

Picture a ball, it can face in any 3d direction by spinning in 2d. If space doesn't exsist then you're not actually moving through the 3rd dimension, the same way gravity can be said not to be a force that pulls.
The 3rd dimension is a scam, just like gravity is a scam. I hope you can understand the congruence.

File: brainlet-pattern-recognition.png (96.1 KB)

>You probably think something like "consciousness emerges from computational processes" or some reddit tier pseudointellectual statement like that.
>This is simply dualism. There is no magical world of "computational processes".

>>16987935
Everything that interacts is "entangled", you're entangled with the ground right now. If you mean the weird "spooky" shit, you probably mean superposition, but that's extremely fragile.

>>16988898
>i heckin love science!

consciousness isn't actually something real/significant. It's just a made up word for something that doesn't exist, an illusion.
The only reason people gaslight themselves into believing it's significant is narcissism. They desperately want to believe they're more important than a rock on some fundamental conceptual level.

File: greyest-retard-itt.jpg (35.2 KB)

>consciousness isn't actually something real/significant. It's just a made up word for something that doesn't exist, an illusion.
>The only reason people gaslight themselves into believing it's significant is narcissism. They desperately want to believe they're more important than a rock on some fundamental conceptual level.

>>16988935
>an illusion
but anon... who/what is witnessing the illusion?

>>16988937

A figment of the universe's imagination, which has the audacity to consider itself conscious.

File: jeet.jpg (87.1 KB)

@16988941
>t.

>It's mysterious how something can be greater than the sum of its parts
this is just quantity changing into quality. like how an anthill is greater than its ants

>>16988990
>this is just quantity changing into quality
There's exactly zero examples of this happening except via subjective perception itself. Muh "emergent phenomena" depend on consciousness in the first place so they can't explain consciousness itself.

>>16988771
>Even a low-grade midwit should be able to see this is a category error.

suppose i am one, explain why!

>>16987935
What i finde mysterious is how everyone argues what consciousness is but no one actually defines/agress upon what we are tallking about in the first place.

>>16992153
Good starting oint anon.

Ok what are we talking about?

>>16992158
I dont know. Some speak about qualitative experience some about the "observer" of that experience (The soul).
Naturally, both groups think other is retarded so i guess we can just kill ourselfs and end our missery.

>>16992160
But what are we actually trying to prove?

>>16992167
Who knows anymore anon. I know only that:

1.Some try to disprove other positions (based one one set of ontological framework) from they'r own ontological framework (My fairytale world is better then yours because your claims dont fit my fiction type of thing)

2.Some are trying to prove they'r own ontological framework acuratelly describes the phenomena while in same doing the thing from point 1.

3. Some ask for proves because they are not aware what the group means by consciousness

What do you think anon?

>>16992170
I think the question is why subjective experience exists. And how it can come fro dead matter.

>>16992173
Fellow naturalist i see.

And what do you mean by subjective experience?

>>16992176

Exactly. And what do you mean by mean. And what does anything mean when you get down to it.

>>16992179
I want you to put finger on the thing you call subjective experience. I want you to touch my ass woth one hand and point out with another.

>>16992176
Why burning my hand hurts and why i feel scared when someone threatens me.

Both of wich seem to be the cause of evolution. If fire wouldn't hurt, kids would burn to death. And if i would not feel scared i might get stabbed to death.

>>16992185
And i suppose neuropsychology/biology/cognitive psychology do not satisfy you with amswers? Why is that? Do you feel the gap between "feeling of fear" and neural processes uncany?

>>16992187
Actually no it does satisfy me, I do not understand why some people claim that it can't just be neurons.

>>16992188
Because they're scared of being not made of space magic, but instead being a reproducible, understandable, improvable mechanical process. Weaklings and sobbers the lot of them.

>>16992188
Well from what i understand, the gap they are pointing too is in most cases:

1.Asking teleological question "Why is the world the way it is"
2. Seeing world and perception as two different ontological kinds of worlds
2.1. Asking for a common link between the two.
3.Feel it is uncany because we cant actually see other peoples SE. Even if we could we could only have our SE of theiy'r SE. This begs the question where does consciousness exist as this separate realm?

Perhaps whole tallk about consciousness could have more value if we explore how people missunderstand each other.

When I imagine a triangle, where's the triangle?

>>16992188
>I do not understand why some people claim that it can't just be neurons.
Category error. From the neuron side you witness nothing like consciousness and from the conscious side you witness nothing like neurons.

>>16987936
Load of bull shit.
Your consciousness is the reflection of the real world through your psyche.
You see the model of the world, you can predict events by learning patterns. That's awareness and cognition.
You see yourself as part of the world. That's self awareness.

Human minds are full of shit lately because of AI retards. AI does not have consciousness, because it's model of the world is frozen and it's not even the real model of the world, it is a compressed version of the Internet, quite literally. Plus it's psyche is basically absent.

Since consciousness is defined as reflection of the real world through psyche, AI does not have it. Because it does not have psyche and it's world model is not really that of the real world, it's just lossy compression applied to random data from the web.

> quantum entanglement
Only works on smol scale. That's why quantum puters are a meme. Basically an analogue computer that you cannot scale much. And with current qubit capacity it losses to regular digital computers, while being more expensive.

>>16987935
what actually is meant by subjective experiences? cant nearly all experiences be measured or use a neuralink to confirm of "subjective" experience or now we'd call it an objective experience agi can provide objective insight

>>16992280
What I mean is basically experiencing anything, like the appearance of the color green, for instance.

>>16992311
cant you just use a neuralink and actually make it objective? why make it an excuse to be subjective or subject to subjectivity when you can measure reality that way

>>16992941
You can't make something subjective objective by definition.

>>16988765
>emergence
k so what's the totally-not-arbitrary bottleneck for consciousness to appear? 1,000 neurons? 10,000 neurons?

>>16992961
The exact number of neurons a human has. Only humans are conscious, because the alternative is we're acting like dicks to helpless conscious beings we eat.

>>16992971
Zero. Plants have consciousness

>>16992945
why not? wont a device make the entire definition pivotal? wtf dumbass nigga

>>16992971
>The exact number of neurons a human has.
seeing as not only each human is different, or that our brains change throughout our whole lives, and that other animals besides humans are capable of consciousness exist, this fails to explain anything.
>Only humans are conscious, because the alternative is we're acting like dicks to helpless conscious beings we eat.
oh its a jew.

>>16988935
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
Any "-ness" is a reification.

>>16993068
>why not?
Because, dumb niggercattle, if it's not even in the same category anymore it's clearly not the same thing but a different one.

>>16993119
>Any "-ness" is a reification.
We've reached the point where most internet "intellectuals" can't get through a post without making a category error, i.e. you're not just wrong but basically incoherent.

>>16993153
Describing living thing (e. g., with "conscious") doesn't create ontological substance.

>>16993167
No shit, retard. People invent words to refer to things that exist, not to make them exist.

>>16993191
Or not even necessarily things, it can refer to a concept which is a nexus of related observations.

>>16987935
To that context consciousness seems almost like a metapattern to wholistic and reductionistic ideas and civilization and the contents to ideas about psychology to consciousness and claim the ego id and super ego were part of the contents to consciousness and to that line of thinkmg >>16993119 >>16993153 that any -ness were reification and that consciousness to and within that context was reified idea within context to sphere to reified ideas and reification within that context was reification to ideas and patterns and commodities and to that context that reification had the context to patterns and poetry and to that context the traces to reification would also have left traces to and through language or something like that

>>16992243
>real world
>psyche
proof of existence for either?

>>16992971
>it would make us feel bad to not be special and admitting that we are cruel, greedy, and evil
most rigorous /sci/zo

>>16992971
but you must believe in nested consciousness because every time a neuron dies or a new one is generated out poops a new person.

>>16995524
Isn't reification a form of reification. So what is entailed here? Even if it were true, that wouldn't debase the various claims without debasing reification.