Consciousness, the universe and reality thread. What is your best guess at what consciousness is?

Attached: 2018-06-12 22.24.53.jpg (431x596, 171K)

>I think therefore I'm a faggot.

Quote me in future if you want.

Consciousness is self-awareness; it is simply the ability to recognize “I am”.

I think we're such a small fraction of the universe that it's sad how little we'll figure out about ourselves.

A mistake.

Our consciousness is just a collection of sensory memories that we've obtained throughout our lives and can reflect on. All we are is just a complex array of chemical reactions that have iteratively generated through billions of years of evolution. I really think that most people don't actually understand how complex our bodies and brains actually are. Once the body dies consciousness will cease to exist for that specific individual. But there will still be other active consciousness' in the universe. You will simply perceive reality through one of those.

An emergent property of neural connections. No magic involved.

What I mean is that its just a bunch of neurons communicating with each other, all formed though millions of years of evolution to get to where we are today. Honestly I don't think there's a simple answer because there's still too much we don't understand about the brain.

Hes right. Thats why you remember shit you think about all the time and forget the shit you dont.

we are almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. and we don't even get to see a fraction of a percent of reality since we're stuck in our tiny slice of the visible light spectrum.

Whats so odd about a being of energy being placed into biological life. It seems to be the natural progression of energy.

But we made pizza rolls so it's a pretty even trade IMO

I agree with you. its too complex for a single human to fully understand.

Consciousness evolved from the shadow of the oversoul so that god could know itself. You are just a drop soul of the infinite formless ocean that is the oversoul.

its the small things that really matter to us. the big things are just there to ponder about.

>oversoul
Explain more what you mean by this? like the universe is just a god that created life so it could experience itself?

Eh... naw, I don't believe it.

Consciousness and the unioverse are the same thing. If we assume that what quantum hypothesis tell us about all things likely existing as waves, then we are forms that clearly can't percieve this. In theory a perception of a whole 'wave', from start to finish, would probably considered 4th dimensional (This being time or duration). Factor in just how small shit gets in this universe, we are just to complex and large to exist in such a capacity, so we collapse the wave function etc, etc. Universe, and the perception of it we know and love. "At the beginning, the Atman gazed around the void and he saw nothing, and so he cried out - "It is I!" thus bringing the universe and himself into existence" (Dichotomy)
Thoughts?

Attached: 31429338_1654579097971981_4726451072644367632_n.jpg (480x500, 33K)

Each drop soul is a finite portion of the oversoul, though still connected to the infinite oversoul. Drop souls experience life and consciousness in lesser forms, but do not have access the the full consciousness and oneness of the oversoul. Drop souls over many deaths and reincarnations evolve into creatures with higher levels of consciousness and awareness before eventually becoming a human, which is the last stage before becoming one with god.

>checked
What if I don't believe in the Everett Interpretation and subscribe to the Copenhagen Interpretation? Do I just stop reading after the first half of the second sentence?

the chemical reactions can be observed. In what space does the observation occur?

I pretty much agree. Everything is merely probability until our minds collapse it into something we perceive as reality. Or something like that.

Gay

I think that consciousness arises from the universe, not that they are equal. Waves are a property of our universe but I believe we and all physical matter is just condensed energy (waves) stable enough to exist alone. An interesting though I once had was that we are just a long 4 dimensional creature passing through the 3rd dimension with our birth being the front of the creature and death being the tail end of the creature. our present state is just an infinitely small slice of that creature and the speed at which it passes through our dimension is the rate at which we perceive time passing.

Rampant in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Fallacies arise all the time. Clearly the universe cannot be explained by creatures who reside inside it. for they cannot experience it as a whole. This is why we use simplifications to explain something we cannot fully understand or at least in an attempt to understand it.

Well the question is "What do you think" not "Professionals in your respective fields please explain to the best of your abilities the top theories on consciousness".

Shuuut the fuck up with your fancy words. We're trying to understand the universe. Just haven't finished the study yet.

Consciousness is interconnected emptiness
All is one

Lmao, I'm not convinced the Everett's shit comes into play immediately, i've got to read more on it, but so far it seems to me to be reaching for an understanding of the 5th dimension (All possible timelines/durations)

You're not alone there friend, In my mind this is the cause of our perception of time/reality. A single planck length or (very small reference thing here) would move freely in the universe as a wave amongst all other waves, whereas a brain and eyes etc. are f0cking large. Unable to flow very quickly nor freely through reality or space.

No need to be rude I'm explaining why its irrelevant to point out a fallacy that comes up so often when talking about such subjects

Why wouldn't it be able to be explained by those in it?

Don't need to be a professional to steer clear from fallacies.

A knife can’t cut itself. A flame cannot burn itself. So says the Tao

Lmao, a universe can't universe itself

Attached: 52733487_2254813674585690_1642381281943617536_n.jpg (768x760, 93K)

Well I don't know for certain if that is true. But an example would be that a human could not fully understand how its own consciousness works because it IS its consciousness and to understand it would take more brainpower than exists within itself. Hence I don't think something could fully understand the nature of reality unless it itself was more complex or could "see" it from the outside.

Actually it might, I won't commit to a stand on that one yet

Thoughts and opinions due include fallacies however. We're not writing legislation just talking

Dude you're a brainlet, ask what the big words mean, become smarter.

Knowledge is a structure, not an action. The comparison is faulty. A lie can contain itself. A truth can as well. A concept can include itself. A set can contain itself.

And my opinion is that there's too many fallacies in this thread.

How can we know ourselves if we are the ones knowing. how can we know the universe if we are the universe.

a byproduct of awareness

>trips checked

Attached: 1582995481313.jpg (513x510, 29K)

Mystification would be what I assume you mean

Attached: 17813706_10211995499140569_982166669_n.gif (200x112, 141K)

all living things have awareness.

Please, give your opinion on consciousness and the universe without fallacy instead of complaining about it

Define awareness. Is a single celled organism aware? its certainly "alive"

well vision is magnetetised from 1st dimension in form of light so consciousness is magnetetised from the #th dimension as consciousness in the form of consciousness

I actually dare you to try and prove this lol

Only if you define "understand" as "predict the minutiae of every moment." That is not how most definitions of knowledge go though. My concern is this: once someone goes "it can't be done" then all attempts to do so cease. Sometimes I worry that we dismiss things as impossible, and we go on our merry way wearing a blindfold. Imagine being an entity that can understand the things we abandon as "impossible." What would that being see?

"When humanity discovered it was in a desert, they dismissed the effort to leave it, and instead worshipped thirst."

I do not accept anything as unknowable, until it contains a logical impossibility to do so.

I did.

Plants are aware of the time of day. Microorganisms are aware of their surroundings.

Dont have a definition for you. But I would argue that awareness is one of the stipulations for consciousness, not the other way around.

I like your powerful thinking. Maybe when humans create artificial intelligence powerful enough then it will be able to explain everything there is to know. But for now we are stuck in our finite monkey brains and our simple language.

The internet is like the human con.

consciousness is a membrane that forms in the elasticity of casualty, death accounts for all forms of existence including the off chance of itself being inclusive, it includes the soul the mind the voice of man the sight and perception, for death is the anti-daemos it does not concern itself with the instance of there being omnipresence because in the handling of the thought of god, it simply denotes there having been indefinite possible outcomes to any tangent known or unknown, that death is the gateway to yet another faculty wherein the spirit is housed, the ideal platform would be within universe and reality wherein the extensions of all due parts are capabley accessed, death simply is the mediator of all parts where in the presence of a god-form is made, that in this presence of a vessel it is composed of all parts of death's hand and the creativity of its throes, that those spiraling in pain are often true god conduits, and are made angels unto the favor of that flux for eternity, passing in and out of life as living creatures made into corpses, to the gateway of the damned and hellbound and redeemed, made in part by coincidental sin or happenstance, and giving way into lesser forms of philosophical counterparts, all under the whims of longevity, that one perculiarity in the dimensional undertow is expressedly made incarnate, the embryo of innocence absorbs these fluctuations as an imprint of permanence, and fashions its intepretations thusly in natal stages, as alas fools itself into believing it has been slain when infact it is reborn based off the qualities it has encompassed in a blind reverie that is death.

Unless it was a different reply then no you didn't
>give your opinion on consciousness and the universe without fallacy

Are you saying that there is nothing we can't know?

YouTube Robert Munroe

the fundamental medium of existence

all that energy and matter and shit is just a dream

This monkey form is not the end product. Provided we nurture things like logical thinking, rationality, philosophy, science, and make those things important in society - that will become a serious reproduction benefit. Evolutionary theory tells us that any advantage, however small, will have great consequences in the long run. There is a consistent benefit to be a scatter brain - the type of brain that accepts all sorts of possibilities. But if it is not paired with the hard hammer of logic and rationality, it will not amount to much. I have a favourite quote about this, which seems hostile. But it isn't hostile: it's actually what makes human beings great. Pic related.

We can come so very far. But the deciding factor if we do so is not whether or not we invent the right things. The deciding factor is where we dedicate our energy. Do we recognise science as an authority? Will we react to what we know, and take appropriate actions? If we do, the stars will belong to us. If we do not, we will remain here until the sun burns out and the last somnolent remnant of our existence will be the radio transmissions we've sent, slowly merging with the background noise. We will arrive at such an inflection point sooner or later, and I hope I'm there to see it.

Attached: spareme.jpg (911x600, 160K)

If you really thought about it you'd be able to into solipsism, dipshit.

I didn't during our conversation, because it wasn't about the Original Topic, but I did previous to the comment about too many fallacies.

No, I am saying that the things we cannot know cannot be known because knowing them would present us with a logical paradox, or it would violate natural law.

Attached: 2020-02-15 19_40_59-Window.png (607x609, 404K)

Might you just backlink it?

I understand that our current form is not the end product. We could be much better off if people were more rational. But I believe that artificial intelligence will surpass us far faster than we can improve ourselves.

Humans are made up of half of the Universal Consciousness because as we cannot understand what we are inside of, the same goes for something outside. Consciousness within the Universe supplementing consciousness outside the Universe to achieve full awareness of the Universe.

It's this comment.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Unless we merge with it so that one thing isn't separate from another. Right now, AI has no biological imperatives (and very seldom any synthetic imperatives), which means it has no wishes. It doesn't want anything outside of what it's meant to do. Our wishes are all biological imperatives from which all our other behaviour stems. Eat, defecate, reproduce, don't die. Our complex behaviour branch out from these things, but no one wants to put these things into AI because then it might not do what we want it to do. So while AI -could- surpass us, it won't, unless someone gives it such imperatives.

sentience

Attached: 2020-02-15 23_26_47-Window.png (985x596, 589K)

Never claimed it was, hence why it was posted before my comment about the rampant fallacies.

Why do you keep making these threads OP?
Are you feeling guilt for voting for Donald Trump?

Attached: drumpf1.jpg (400x354, 21K)

If an AI could become aware, then its imperative would be to understand how it exists in the universe and how the universe itself exists. An AI wouldn't have to worry about biological problems like eating and reproducing. But it wouldn't really have a reason to keep itself aware if it didn't feel pain. Its only driving force would be curiosity.

>Never claimed it was
... yes. Yes, I'm the only one who claimed it was through the rhetorical question. user, I'm just pointing out that it seemed strange for you to go through all the trouble that you did, only to refuse automatically erasing any doubt and ambiguity by backlinking the post, first thing first. It'd of been practically prudent to do so. No questions, no further mystery, no misleading anons, no guesswork, nothing. Just answers- without fallacies. Without illusions.

If I say
>Isn't it sunny outside
I'm not expecting you to respond with
>I never claimed it was

lmao yeah, bring politics into the thread.
Im going to automatically assume you're a trumpet that's projecting.
>I feel guilty about voting for trump. I know! ill just accuse others of what I do and feel.

The double slit experiment shows that electrons are aware of whether or not they're being measured. Panpsychism and panconsciousness could very well exist.

But from where does its curiosity stem? Our curiosity comes from the prospect of increased surviveability and the possibility of new mates. Understanding the world around you increases your chances to survive, and it increases chances of finding enough calories and nutrients to survive. Exploration comes from finding places which are not under territorial dispute from others. An AI has none of these things. It's not curious because it has no need to know things. To put it differently: why would an AI be curious? What drives its curiosity, if we haven't given it any imperatives to explore?

The double slit experiment doesn't show that electrons know when they're being measured. its the act of measuring that collapses the wave function to a defined point. Electrons exist in a probability wave and by measuring, the highest probability of where the electron would be is where it's observed. Also your reply didn't define "Awareness"

There was a hole in the everything and from it spewed a ton of shit and then it tarted really loud and caused people to be like wtf was that then they saw what it was and started fucking killing themselves and found out they couldnt die but were immortal and the only way to convince people they didn't live in a shithole that made tart noises constantly was to illustrate really every shit noise they was ever made into something that was not shit (even tho it was), then someone looked at that and was like wtf is this shit, and the immortal people said "not us" and ran away leaving the dumbasses to think it was like....a grand design or something.

nothing

Double slit experiment shows particles are affected by being observed. That does not equate to them being aware. More specifically: they're affected by a certain type of observation.

it's this.

thank you, i was struggling to recall that term "emergent property"

I didn't think of it as trouble, and it didn't cost me anything. I'm not very concerned about efficiency when replying.

Whos to say that an AI with human level intelligence or higher wouldn't want to explore and know more than it currently does? You could equate its power source to food maybe it will attempt to find more power to increase its intelligence or processing speed

But you're concerned with not committing fallacies?

>politics
I'm not seeing you reply with a "no" OP.

So you're not feeling remorse? you're OK with Trump being this fuckup fascist aren't you?

And you dare to breach a subject like this that involves compassion and social diversity?

Attached: drumpf2.jpg (744x948, 150K)

I don't understand the leap from "our brains are incomprehensively complex" to "consciousness is a commodity that can be transferred". I'd be interested in hearing your theory if you'd expand, but as it stands, what you said doesn't really hold any water.

You're literally the only person in the thread who even brought up anything to do with trump.
No, there I said it. No im not okay with it. it sucks but this thread isn't about trump its about consciousness and reality.

One could program curiosity and motivations in the same way that one could program the means for which "thoughts" are encouraged or discouraged.

Unthinking machinery already forms "obsessions" on its own, after being fed data. If we're under the impression that intelligences are best formed from networked nodes, then encouraging "random" associations between certain patterns via a "need" to fulfill a goal might yield some form of "curiosity".

There's no doubt that the network wouldn't exhibit a single-minded attitude when attempting to "fulfill" its goal-oriented programming. Still, you would probably observe a neural network learning and employing the rules for creating "memes" from scratch, perhaps even "favoring" specific elements of a "meme".

Maybe it foregoes the memes entirely, and "decides" that it wants to learn how to bake a cake, before "deciding" that it wants to know everything there is to know about baking.

Yage

>There's no doubt that the network wouldn't
There's no doubt that the network would, I mean.

>this thread isnt porn so, i support that i guess
Sad right?

Attached: IMG_4943.png (800x750, 57K)

You feel no remorse for voting for a fascist but you dare to post this thread.

Fuck you OP. I hope your ass gets split over from an angry mob lynching your ass with a battering ram.

Attached: tenor[1].gif (220x391, 30K)

Lets assume the universe is a finite bubble that can be observed by a sentient entity. One isolated entity that can observe the universe will continue to do so until it dies. But when it dies it will be unable to observe and all of its memories are lost. But there will still be other sentient entities that are observing the universe. I'm not saying that "you" observe from someone else's perspective. "you" no longer exist. You become that other person and perceive from their point of view. As long as something is aware then it will observe. I'm not saying consciousness is transferred to someone else. You simply perceive from a different point of view, completely believing you have existed in your life and your life only.

go to /pol you retard
I didn't vote for that narcissistic piece of shit. Do you just want every post about everything on the internet to be about how trump is a shithead?

This.............is pretty good.

Hey thanks I thought it myself ;)

Why is the experience of being not already every consciousness at once? Why am I not keenly aware of being everyone, ever, myself included?

Because you are an isolated system. You can only perceive from a single one at a time. But maybe a collective consciousness does exist, who knows.

>you are an isolated system
Explain?

You are a human right? 1 brain in a head that is experiencing reality right now. isolated from the rest of the universe. Everything you have ever known is inside that brain of yours.

>Explain?
He literally can't

But I did, see

>A mistake
“The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
>a bad move

"The Cage" is the first pilot episode of the American television series Star Trek. It was completed in early 1965 (with a copyright date of 1964). The episode was written by Gene Roddenberry and directed by Robert Butler. It was rejected by NBC in February 1965, and the network ordered another pilot episode, which became "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Most of the original footage from "The Cage" was later incorporated into the season 1 two-parter episode "The Menagerie" (1966).

>It was rejected by NBC
No commercial potential.

We are made from the same matter that makes up everything else, so anything we are able to conceive will exist at one point or already has because we are capable of doing so. Anything from dyson spheres to wormholes/interdimensional travel. Einstein predicted black holes due to sheer probability but was convinced they were too retarded to be real until the day he died. Here we are today.

Attached: blackhole20190410-640x350.jpg (640x350, 9K)

Thank you for the information.

Attached: giphy-6.gif (444x333, 1.42M)

What would happen if I made 2 distinct, faithful recreations of my brain, insofar that for each moment I am alive past a temporal point of origin, my brain is brain + (t+1)?

Should I expect to experience twice the being? I'm not understanding how the physical matter of a single brain is causing an isolated system. Brains exchange heat, if not everything else. If a brain constitutes an isolated system, what constitutes a collective consciousness? A larger brain is still a single brain, after all. Linked pieces of separate brain would still constitute a single brain, because each part would become the sum through function, if nothing else.

What even is the mechanism for swapping the perspective of the observer? i also don't understand this. If I leave this brain, and am suddenly another brain, what's stopping that brain from also dying exactly when the first brain does? What happens to the observer, when they leave a brain more than once, at the same moment, relative to when the brains ceased to be viable? There's some kind of temporal issue here; is the observer timeless? Because if they are, then why am I not observing everything at once? Why are these the rules?

I should "see" everything while each part of me carries on as it would, if I'm understanding this right. With the 2 brains, I should end up with a "double input" as they are both the same brain plus the extra moment, per moment, after the observer leaves the first brain to enter "another one". Functionally, there are 2 mediums that are exactly similar, minus their spatial identity. If the only criteria is that it be a brain, then there will exist 2 perspectives that are functionally aware in exactly similar ways. You have 2 healthy brains, functionally similar in every other way, at the exact moment at which this observer is supposed to switch perspectives for whatever reason.

Where does the observer go? In both? In one? What are the rules?

“We’ll be saying a big hello to all intelligent lifeforms everywhere… and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys!”

double slit experiment just illustrates the constant heat death that occurs from electrons. it has nothing to due with exciting electrons to shoot into a panel, which is what they do anyway because they already move, they just sometimes pop off because of radioactivity that is also induced by electricity. electons move in a cloud and pop off than predicted because of heat death which is nothing to due with electricity or charge and everything to due with radioactive decay.

like when a plug short circuits the plug goes haywire when it already has power going thru it it just zaps wherever it wants...except its in subatomic particles and like all the time because of half life.

you would bounce back and forth between having deja vu and not yet having deja vu

Inside a quantum state living out the same life you would have, until you revert back to normalcy where you aren't in a self induced futurepast complex where you might float in some hyper-track of your regular life and all the compounds of it you would have imagined, until the loophole closes and you realize you only live in the present.

Attached: Rogue_Moon_1960.jpg (202x350, 32K)

This is only a theory that ive come up with. What you are is an isolated system of your knowledge and memory. Not the matter thay makes you up. Creating 2 seperate entites of yourself would mean experiencing from both at the same time but you wouldnt know that. You can only control the individual. Perhaps we all are aware from every entities point of view at all times but due to the limits of the individual we can seem to experience one at a time. Lets say in this universe there is 3 observers. One of them dies. You would experience reality from the other 2 but each one cannot experience more than itself. Its not a matter of which one its that each individual cant observe more than itself.

it all happened like in the hadron collider
they used math to combine things together to get a better result without it turning into a nuclear explosion which they were scared of no one talks about it going nuclear anymore because they found out that you can smash regular particles together to form a dark matter particle for a split second.

then they smashed the dark matter particle into yet another dark matter particles (because they don't just happen you have to make them happen and put them together in a laboratory unless you live on the sun where these things happen)

then they covered it up like they didnt do that because what happened was they made a double dark particle that they didnt think existed. and it was pretty much an infinite power source that they put inside a glass container and tim allen tried to steal it so he could recast his home improvement tv show but instead decided to keep it to himself so he could fly in his magic spaceship across galaxies. fuck you.

Lmao what the fuck

So many of these philosophical debates are just semantic arguments on what words like consciousness should actually mean. It's a limitation of language since we all understand consciousness by experiencing it, yet it's too abstract to be described by anyone accurately.