Where is consciousness coming from in this picture?

>>16718495 (OP)
It doesn't develop until months after birth. there's a reason why abortions can happen so "late" these days.

>>16718496
Develop? How?

>>16718495 (OP)
>muh consciousness
It's just brain signals.

>>16718495 (OP)
the substrate the atoms are drawn on

>>16718495 (OP)
Consciousness is stored in the balls.

>>16718495 (OP)
Where is the physical brain located inside said game.
Answer: Nowhere.

>>16718495 (OP)
>where does the signal come from before the TV is assembled

>>16718517
peak

>>16718553
Do you have any more retarded analogies?

>>16718495 (OP)
The left

>>16718495 (OP)
From the sperm cell. 100 %.

>>16718495 (OP)
No one knows.

your mom

This is litrally the ultra super very hard problem of cocussness.

>>16718495 (OP)
Sciencecucks are deathly terrified of qualia cause they can't explain it
>uhhhhh it develops later...like a compootah...we're just compootahs
>are computers self-aware?
>*beings to shit and piss himself*

>>16718495 (OP)
the ingredients for it are in the head of the sperm and the nucleus of the egg

the answer is that it depends
it depends on the consciousness of the parents
the more consciousness was present during conception, the earlier and stronger consciousness emerges in the new life
thats why it is murder to abort an embryo of two people with high consciousness, a strong bond between them and a planned pregnancy
but if it‘s between two very unconscious individuals, it was just a loveless quick fuck and it was an aw shit moment, then the baby is just a clump of cells for a long time
some people get born and are still not much more than cell clumps
some people go through their whole life like this
basically, it‘s pointless to discuss at what point consciousness emerges because it‘s context dependent

>>16718751
Are the quales in the room with you?

>>16718788
your mom in the room with me

>>16718791
Mmm I love triggered qualiatard tears

>>16718794
who?

>>16718798
Ask the quales

>>16718799
ok
you know some I could ask?

>>16718495 (OP)
Both cells contain building instructions for a brain. When physical matter and physical forces are organized in a particular way (pun intended) then from that organization of physical matter and physical forces emerges a quality we call consciousness.

>>16718553
Can you show us where the signal is in the room with you now? If not: why does the signal favor TV's to make itself known?

>>16718498
Some fucking trillion neurons start firing upon each other

>>16718495 (OP)
That's something coming but it's not consciousness.

>>16718495 (OP)
Consciousness is an emergent property that develops as the organism complexifies and especially as it is met with social situations.

As far as we can really comprehend, there is no consciousness yet in that stage. Also, your consciousness is continually developing, wavering, evolving, etc.

>>16718788
p-zombie moment

>>16718559
That depends, do you have any more retarded questions?

>>16718850
>Can you show us where the signal is in the room with you now?
Can a medieval peasant with no technology capable of measuring a TV signal or understanding what a TV signal even is find a radio signal? Does his incapability of detecting a signal imply the TV is the source of the signal itself?
>why does the signal favor TV's to make itself known?
Obviously because the TV is a receiver for the signal, it was designed to be. You don't have to look far to find biological receivers that came to be through unguided processes such as evolution - magnetoreception in birds, heat sensing in pit vipers, even the 5 senses are essentialy signal receivers.

>>16719051
Can a TV or computer receive consciousness signals too?

>>16719061
>Can a TV or computer receive consciousness signals too?

If you were to introduce water into the equation, it very well may could.

Some niggas attempting to fashion man-made horrors within the scope of human comprehension for corpo use ("muh compute") already thaught neuronal CPU's how to play pong a couple months back, which is a very crude first baby step into this direction.

... By "neuronal", we're talking "actual, live brain cells", by the way.

Presumably, these cells they're using don't have any microtubulary structures contained in those life support dishes, hence there would be no way for them to create anything even approximating the quantum-modulated engram/EM hologram making up an individual consciousness as we have come to understand it

I would bet my left nutsack there's more than one AI black lab working on an upscaled brain-sized version of this already though

>>16719061
Maybe, maybe not. Given that each person is only truly aware of their own conciousness and only assumes other humans must be the same way, the question of anything having a conciousness is a hard one to begin with.

>>16719185
>first
nah brub, I remember a few years ago a cluster of rat neurons learning to pilot a jet in a flight simulator. Iirc, the only stimulus they used was to electroshock them if they crashed, which led them to fucking learn how to fucking pulot the thing, hilarious

>>16719043
Are the pzombies in the proom with pyou?

>>16718495 (OP)
You need to really zoom in on the spermatozoid and spot the Y-chromosome
That's where consciousness comes from

>>16719051
>Can a medieval peasant with no technology capable of measuring a TV signal or understanding what a TV signal even is find a radio signal?
Then why does the medieval peasant assert that such a signal exists?

>Obviously because the TV is a receiver for the signal, it was designed to be.
How do you know?

>qualiatards got tired of getting btfo on /his/ so they came to /sci/ instead
try /x/

>>16719308
>Then why does the medieval peasant assert that such a signal exists
He does not, but it does in fact exist, so he would be smart to consider it a possibility.
>How do you know?
We are fortunate enough to have the technology and understanding sufficent to detect and measure TV signals. Given that we are aware signals such as these which cannot be detected without sufficently advanced technology exist, we should be vary of automatically assuming something is a source when it merely be a receiver. Especially when there's no practical reason to make the assumption. You don't need to assume the brain is the source of conciousness for modern neurology/psychology/etc. to work.

>>16719322
>when it merely be a receiver
can*

>>16718495 (OP)
Cartoon characters aren't conscious, anon, the only consciousness is coming from the person who drew the cartoon and the people who observe and interpret the cartoon in your picture.

The sperm (male) is the navigating entity with a goal. The male is conscious.
The egg is inert, unmoving, no goal.
The female is unconscious.

>>16718495 (OP)
Consciousness comes from. the structure of the brain. It needs far more than only 1 cell.
It has no meaningful implication either.

>>16719389
Is a conscious brain still conscious if you take away one molecule? What if you take away 100 molecules? 100000 molecules? Lets say the brain gets certainly non-conscious after n molecules are taken away, why was it still conscious at (n-1) deficit? And what did this one molecule contribute to create such a categorical change in the brain?

>>16719447
How many molecules did you have to remove to become this mentally retarded? Honest question.

>>16719453
I accept your concession

>>16719456
I accept your concussion.

>>16719447
>Is the jenga tower still up after you take away one piece? What if you take away 100 pieces? 100000 pieces? Lets say the tower certainly falls after n pieces are taken away, why was it still standing at (n-1) deficit? And what did this one piece contribute to create such a categorical change in the tower?
A mystery to be sure

>>16719487
Jenga tower doesn't not randomly emerge a categorically different property cause you built it. From the perspective of the natural world, there's no meaningful difference between a standing jenga tower and all its pieces in a rubble. In fact ironically the only thing that gives jenga a new property, that of a "tower" is being beheld by consciousness. This also disproves the "emergent property of le brain" theory, because in order to be a consciousness, an ability to recognize consciousness must be present, which can only belong to consciousness. Meaning that consciousness must precede a conscious mind.

>>16719498
I more or less agree and lean into panpsychism myself, i wasn't the Anon you originally replied to.

>>16719447
The structure of the brain provides more than exclusively an ego illusion. Iteratively removing synapses will certainly degrade memories, motor functions, cognitive abilities and more, depending on where you take them from.
In your case tho removibg synapses ad infinitum might just do nothibg at all.

>>16718751
Yes, computer can be self aware. What a stupid post.

>>16719610
Are self-aware computers in the room with us right now?

>>16718495 (OP)
Where are you in this picture? You

>>16719600
Did this proposition come from structure?

>>16718502
Signal the brain to create a 2nd abstract space of mind different from the one you're currently in. It's just brain signals, just like think really hard.

It was in superposition.

>>16718517
I personally castrated myself because I am a tranny and have no healthcare yet I still have a consciousness though

>>16718788
Yea, its in the room with me right now. No soientist could ever theorise the origin of subjective experience

>>16720112
debatable

>>16719051
Good job finally discovering the concept of eyes and ears and their inherent comparison to tv antennas.

>>16719185
CPUs have been able to play pong ever since they developed computerized opponents in the Atari days several decades ago.

>>16719351
Eggs aren't inert and unmoving, they contain just as much genetic material as sperm and move from the ovaries to the uterus and eventually out of the body.

>>16719458
kek

>>16719498
No, a tower is a tall narrow structure, the jenga pieces get the quality of tower by being stacked into a tall narrow structure.

>>16720217
*except the ones who theorized and coined the term qualia from the comfort of Harvard

>>16720252
Qualia is a philosophical term not scientific

>>16720255
Except of the fact that the term was invented in harvard by harvard scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Irving_Lewis

>>16720263
>C. I. Lewis was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed-upon modern sense. Frank Jackson later defined qualia as "...certain features of the bodily sensations especially, but also of certain perceptual experiences, which no amount of purely physical information includes"
>Clarence Irving Lewis (April 12, 1883 – February 3, 1964) was an American academic philosopher.
>Frank Cameron Jackson AO FASSA FAHA FBA (born 31 August 1943) is an Australian analytic philosopher and Emeritus Professor in the School of Philosophy (Research School of Social Sciences) at Australian National University (ANU)
???

>>16720294
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce
Yes, you skipped the establishing sentence to ignore the guy who came up with the original idea in favor of the guy who called it qualia instead of quale, so obviously you are confused and sewing confusion because you are only considering part of the sentence that explains where the idea came from.

>>16718495 (OP)
It comes in much later. With the development of the neural network.

>>16720300
Also a philosopher who was famous for his philosophy and worked as a scientist as a day job. Why are you so intent on splitting hairs?

>>16720311
Yes, you disproved your retarded claim >>16720217 by showing that scientists can also be philosophers.

>>16718495 (OP)
>when does the soul enter the body