Thread 16754064

How does the brain produce consciousness?

system that incorporates its own output as input
>hur a calculator is conscious then
maybe but its also processing things as discrete moments of time and requires an outside operator to initialize its inputs, thus making it deterministic
>hur so humans are calculators
maybe but our outside """operator""" is the environment we experience through our senses which make up our memorizes "self interacting information"
a computer as of now cannot do this like us

>>16754064 (OP)
There's no way it could. Instead, all of existence is mental. Brains exist inside consciousness, not the other way around.

>>16754086
this, there's at least a few dozen feedback loops of different latency in a given human body, and we can't even reason about some of them because we don't have any models that capture both quantum scales and human scales, which means we don't even have the tools to fully model how exactly
>moving an arm
works; we're stuck at
>brain generates electricity but arm already is primed in advance somehow
or whatever
>>16755339
where do consciousnesses come from?

no one knows.

>>16754064 (OP)
there isnt even a common agreement on what consciousness is. some dont even think its a real thing.

>>16755459
>some dont even think its a real thing.
one's own consciousness is the only thing you can even be 100% certain is real. Anyone who thinks it's not real must be an NPC.

>>16755479
Maybe your "consciousness" is just like a movie you're watching. Every thought you ever had was written by someone else.

>>16754064 (OP)
It doesn't

>>16755479
It goes back to defining what consciousness is. Since nobody can define it or even give boundaries as to what could define it, then how can we know it is a real thing? Maybe it's a weird illusion that some people's brains make up. Like being schizo or having a seizure.

consciousness is stored in the balls

The heart and brain create a spirit of their plurality; after time the spirit switches the brain to a conscious brain.

The conscious brain cycles back to spirit and delegates all its abilities.

>>16755508
Every time you ask for a definition you have to words that you can further ask the definition of. And there's no end to it. If you insist on some final definition, no words can be used at all.

There's *some* ambiguity about the term consciousness but once you clarify that you mean inner subjective experience, the fact that it feels like something to be a human, animal or a sentient AI, the "definition" part ceases to be a major stumbling block. If you are still confused about the definition, you probably lack subjective experiences and should leave the conversation.

>>16755536
>There's *some* ambiguity about the term consciousness but once you clarify that you mean inner subjective experience, the fact that it feels like something to be a human, animal or a sentient AI, the "definition" part ceases to be a major stumbling block
I'll add that nobody made it explicit that this is what we are talking in this thread - however since phenomenal consciousness is the kind of consciousness that people are the most mystified about I'm relatively confident that is what the OP was thinking of.

>>16754064 (OP)
it doesn't, it access it

The answer you're looking for includes heart and plurality. The heart is not some pointless pump, it's a very powerful organ and in the case of consciousness, crucial.

>>16754064 (OP)
God

>>16755536
>inner subjective experience, the fact that it feels like something to be a human
i'm not understanding what you mean by that. you're going to have to explain it better. off of the top of my head i imagine that it feels the same as everyone else, but that just might by my empathy speaking.

>>16755538
i googled phenomenal consciousness and this was one of the first results:

>What is phenomenal consciousness?
>This question can be relatively easy to answer: It’s the rich experience you’re having right now, comprised of the things that you see, hear, touch, and think. It is, essentially, what it feels like to be you. This includes your personal experience of how the world around you appears, along with your memories and various internal biological processes (thoughts, aches, pains).
https://www.psychologytoday com/us/blog/theory-of-consciousness/202105/what-is-phenomenal-consciousness

so...phenomenal consciousness is just my current state of being? im not understanding the point of deeply dwelling over that. the article reads like it's talking about the interplay between things like different network states (e.g. default mode network), the claustrum, and memory engrams. like the way those things work together is unknown to the author so they start coming up with weird stuff by thinking too deeply about each moment instead of learning about the brain in order to recognize what it actually is.

take their example about walking:
>While sometimes we may have richer experiences of walking, we typically can also navigate through our day without much deliberation or effortful attention...Some argue that the more predictable a situation is, the less it needs to be at the forefront of conscious experience...Perhaps then, consciousness is particularly important for novel and unpredictable situations.
that really reads like they are wondering about how the brain watches out for salient stimuli

fun fact: animals have the same things

>>16754064 (OP)
Consciousness is an emergent property of shaped intelligence.
It's not hard to create it either, you just need enough neural connections and shape them into specific three-dimensional forms.

>>16755339
How does consciousness create phenomena?
>uhm, that's just what consciousness does, I don't have to explain it
That's just what brains do, I don't have to explain it

>>16754064 (OP)
Consciousness produces the brain. Every single quantum frame necessary for """you""" to read this post has been self-selected by your consciousness as part of the cosmic chicken/egg paradox. Seemingly immutable properties of your perception of reality like the big bang or your homosexuality are no more real than the unthought thought of a nonexistant entity.

>>16755756
>Consciousness produces the brain.
funny how if you blow your brains out your consciousness cannot produce another repaired brain instead of the blown out one. you fucking imbecile

>>16754064 (OP)
>how
You first have to prove it does before you can ask that question.

>>16755759
>funny how if you blow your brains out your consciousness cannot produce another repaired brain instead of the blown out one
Proof? Your'e not privy to the concious experience of any other person, including those who blew their brains out. Has your own conciousness experience blowing your brain out? Maybe you should try it first.

>>16755765
this is easy, fuck with the brain and consciousness goes away

>>16755768
that's not how science works moron lol
you need to prove it isn't manifested by the brain. if we affect the brain and what we call consciousness goes away, it's pretty much clear as far as science is concerned. anything else is brain rot

>>16754064 (OP)
it's probably a virus
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibz-gPkTMDM

>>16755773
>fuck with the light switch and the light goes off
>therefore light switch produces light
k

>>16755776
You're too dumb to even consider what you don't know. Just go to church or something, you have no business here.

>>16755776
>you need to prove it isn't manifested by the brain.
On whose authority? I don't have to do shit. Make me.
>if we affect the brain and what we call consciousness goes away
Proof that it goes away? How do you measure conciousness other than your own?

>>16755776
>you need to prove it isn't manifested by the brain
You can't prove a negative, retard-kun.

>>16755528
>women are not conscious

>>16755913
Did he stutter?

>>16755498
>Every thought you ever had was written by someone else
Only an NPC would say that. So >>16755479 is right, those who think their own consciousness isn't real must be NPCs.

>>16755508
>Since nobody can define it or even give boundaries as to what could define it
It's difficult to define because consciousness is likely not just one single thing, but multiple biological systems working together giving rise to consciousness, and we have no clue how it works at the biological level yet.
It's like trying to define a computer without knowing that it's made up of CPU, GPU, RAM, some storage and a power supply, and how each of those components work together to display porn on the screen.

You'll get a dumb definition of a computer that doesn't describe what it actually is. It's just some magic box that displays porn occasionally.

>>16754064 (OP)
It doesn't

>>16755783
>some fungus causes consciousness
You know, that's actually a cool premise for a science fiction story. Consciousness is actually a mitochondria type of deal, and humans are only conscious because our neurons have merged with a fungus.

>>16755603
>i'm not understanding what you mean by that. you're going to have to explain it better. off of the top of my head i imagine that it feels the same as everyone else, but that just might by my empathy speaking.
The point is that it feels like *something*. Whereas it presumably being a chair doesn't feel like anything to the chair. There's nothing that it's like to be a chair. There probably also isn't anything that it's like to be a calculator either.

>>16754064 (OP)
a series of tubes

>>16755797
Of course you can, it's only some negatives that you can't prove.

>>16755479
Conscious processes are real, but the self isn't. That's the origin of the "consciousness isn't real" thing, there isn't "a consciousness" in the sense of a single, coherent, unified entity.

>>16755786
Except you can see that the light switch connects wires, while the brain doesn't connect other objects unless you think other body parts produce consciousness.

>>16754064 (OP)
Autists to the left of me, schizos to the right here I am: stuck in the middle with you. And I don't know what else I can do. Am I a fool for reading years worth of threads? "Cause I don't think we've made any progress.

>>16756065
A couple of years ago we spend a whole thread defining the hard problem of conscious. It's unfortunate I haven't saved the thread because I guess that anon correctly foresaw that as long as we don't agree on what even the problem is there is no hope of seriously adding a step towards a solution as non-professionals.

>>16756077
The hard problem is just:
>we don't really know how consciousness works
That's it. That's the whole problem. Anything else like "...therefore let's accept my pet theory" is just added fluff.

>>16756055
>Except you can see that the light switch connects wires
I can't actuallly, I'm not a third worlder my wiring is in the walls. If you showed the light switch to a medieval peasant with no concept of electricity he would argue to death that the switch is producing light, unaware of his own ignorance. Like you.

>>16756080
>I'm not a third worlder my wiring is in the walls
You must be some kind of ninth worlder with no means to break walls or simply unscrew sitch frames and look inside them then. You can directly observe the entire process of light being produced from the source if you want to. If you claim that the brain isn't producing consciousness, then show us where the source is and how it passes through it.
>he would argue to death that the switch is producing light
Until you showed him that it isn't, which you can't do with consciousness, because the brain doesn't have any kind of wiring connecting it to an external system (no, not even one hiding inside walls since I have to specify that, apparently).

>>16756078
To be clear: we deliberately let go of pre-conceived notions akin to Chalmers, Kastrup and the like. Furthermore: physicalists maintain that there is no such problem, unknown, or explanatory gap so they need to be convinced of reasonable doubt without schizo-babble (NPC's and stuff).

>>16755786
>>fuck with the light switch and the light goes off
your analogies are utterly retarded, which is telling of your general IQ level
and even if I were to struggle to understand the point you're trying to muster with your two neurons, that's at most some wild theory based on literally nothing but fucking cope. that's your brain coming up with some fucking best case scenario where there's a chance of having some further experience past the point at which you die. it's desperate cope that you violently cling to, because your two retarded and lonely neurons cannot conjure up something more interesting than that.

>>16755787
>You're too dumb to even consider what you don't know.
as opposed to you considering what you don't know, but a quite specific thing of that which you don't know. holy shit the dissonance must chip away at your self worth when you look at yourself in the mirror. you know you are looking at a bullshit artist

>>16755789
we have legal definitions for when you are conscious/unconscious, you moron. I don't care about your fantastical views of reality, prove them or gtfo. if you have some theory, prove it or shut the fuck up. or accept people calling your ideas pure bullshit

>>16755797
if affecting your brain makes your consciousness go away that implies, scientifically, that the brain is responsible for your conscious state. anything else you have to prove you brain damaged zealots.
you do know there is a scientific paper showing quite clearly that religious zealots to indeed have brain damage, scientifically speaking, lesions in some part of the brain. this is known, scientifically speaking.

>>16756077
>the hard problem
no such thing, it's not a legitimate concept, it's dumbfuck philosophy and nothing else.

>>16756142
>you do know there is a scientific paper showing quite clearly that religious zealots to indeed have brain damage, scientifically speaking, lesions in some part of the brain. this is known, scientifically speaking.
like no shit
https://www.psypost.org/new-study-links-brain-network-damage-to-increased-religious-fundamentalism/
https://www.psypost.org/study-uncovers-brain-lesions-increase-religious-fundamentalism/
and the study itself
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2322399121

>>16756093
>physicalists maintain that there is no such problem, unknown, or explanatory gap
Which ones? I haven't seen anyone claim that we 100% understand everything about the brain. All I've seen were models of how consciousness might work.

>>16754064 (OP)
I should tell you but I am afraid you are a demon.

>>16756078
Not really. Understanding how e.g. perception, thinking, and feeling processes work is the "easy" problem. The hard problem is why there is any qualia/subjective experience associated with those material processes in the brain.

>>16756139
>your analogies are utterly retarded
I accept your concession.
>that's at most some wild theory
That you don't even know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is very telling. Theories can't be wild as they are grounded in fact and backed by extensive, solid research, by definition. Why are you even here? You obviously don't have a scientific background.
>that's your brain coming up with some fucking best case scenario where there's a chance of having some further experience past the point at which you die.
The conciousness not being a product of the brain doesn't imply it would persist after death in a state capable of experience, nor did i ever claim it would. Not a very good strawman.

>>16756363
>The hard problem is why there is any qualia/subjective experience associated with those material processes in the brain.
Why wouldn't it? If you had two identical brains, one having "qualia" and the other not, the question would be legitimate. Outside of this...makes no fucking sense.
How are people hung up on this stupidity? This is pure nonsense.

>>16756378
>Why wouldn't it?
Why would it? A brain is just a bundle of matter that follows the laws of physics, same as any other object. The fact that it produces qualia and the experience of a mind instead of philosophical zombies is the big issue.
>If you had two identical brains, one having "qualia" and the other not, the question would be legitimate.
For all we know this might actually happen. But a person who lacks subjective experience would act identical to one who has it, so we can never know.

The body has numerous functions--- the mind is the collective online spirit of these functions.

>>16756416
There's nothing illusory about it. The eyes, see. The nose, smells. Etc etc.

What you're referring to is the spirit of the body and senses.

>>16755508
>>16755605
Retard takes.
>>16755980
Based retard.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378437121005276

>>16756413
>so we can never know.
you say this while completely missing my point.
if you do not know one of two identical brains can NOT have qualia, and the other does, then how the fuck is your hard problem a legitimate one, moron? wouldn't you first have to prove such a thing even is possible in first place? to have some legitimacy in asking the fucking question? aren't you skipping an important step and then pretend your hard problem is legitimate?
how are people falling for this scam?

>>16755605
>into specific three-dimensional forms.
which is most likely related to the required timing for manifesting consciousness

>>16756427
You are a fucking quale.

>>16756427
You seem pretty upset.
>wouldn't you first have to prove such a thing even is possible in first place? to have some legitimacy in asking the fucking question?
No. "X always gives rise to Y" does not somehow mean "we should not question why X gives rise to Y." Are you retarded?

>>16756440
You can question anything, doesn't make it a legitimate question, just quackery. Anyone pondering this question is an absolute brainlet. This is un-fucking-real, in current_year.

>>16756008
>it's only some negatives that you can't prove.
Such as?
>if affecting your brain makes your consciousness go away that implies, scientifically, that the brain is responsible for your conscious state.
I can destroy my computer, buy a new one, re-install Windows and see all my files be unharmed. Why is that?
>there is a scientific paper showing quite clearly that
You misunderstand your own religion on a fundamental level.
The scientific method does not declare, it proposes.

>>16756432
Correct. Consciousness is delayed; that which isn't is what we have dubbed unconsciousness.

>>16756337
Nop still flesh

>>16754064 (OP)
Via pattern recognition, storage and alteration?

>>16756506
I know but I can tell you don't believe kn god or jesus and I need to watch my back around those two

>>16754064 (OP)
It's a hallucination.

>>16756515
I do and you do

>>16756495
>I can destroy my computer, buy a new one, re-install Windows and see all my files be unharmed. Why is that?
Because a computer rots a lot more slowly than your brain cells, stupid

>>16756636
No, because the files are located on the cloud, you fucking clueless retard.

>>16754064 (OP)
It doesn't.

>>16756643
The cloud is also a computer, mongoloid

>>16756652
...I don't think you fully understand what we're talking about.
Computer = hardware = brain.
Files on computer = software = consciousness.

>>16756654
there is no hardware/software distinction in a human brain you mongrel

>>16756658 me
but I agree the whole abstraction can be considered..."the soul"

>>16756658
Neurons and the connections between them.
Seriously, anon. You don't have knowledge of either digital or neurological subjects. What are you even doing here?

>>16756661
oh stop projecting. you made monumentally retarded claims
it would have still been retarded but it would have been more pertinent to say the executed software, running as a program, is the "consciousness". if you're advocating for the data encoded in the neuronal positions/connections/connection strengths + timing delays, as being software. moron. at least get it wrong the right way

>>16756668
You not understanding them (because you're not knowledgeable about the subject) does not mean they're wrong.

>>16756677
>no argument
if you're going to speculate at least do it pertinently you pseuds

>>16756696
I am not providing an argument, I am trying to tell you that your lack of IQ makes you ineligible to talk about this subject.
The fact that you're constantly looking for "arguments" reinforces this.

>>16756699
cope harder

>>16754064 (OP)
How does the consciousness produce the brain?

>>16756413
>The fact that it produces qualia and the experience of a mind instead of philosophical zombies is the big issue.
Philosophical zombies are a nonsensical cocept. To believe that they are possible, you have to believe that consciousness as it is has zero impact on anything and that we are "qualia zombies" who just happen to be coincidentally talking about consciousness without it having any causal power.

>>16754064 (OP)
Everything is already conscious
Even rocks
Even the Sun

>>16756736
What did my Spiritist grandma mean by this?

>>16756739
So I can range from every neurotransmitter range but is porn the problem

all of you are retards we are metaphysical god is controlling us

>>16756816
>we are metaphysical god
Correct.

If metaphysics means beyond physics, then everyone who studies anything that isn't taught in physics courses is a metaphysicist.

>>16754064 (OP)
There is zero evidence that consciousness even exists. And I don't think there ever can be. So one can hardly go about explaining how something that has not even been shown to exist is produced.

>>16756885
What exactly is the definition of "consciousness" that you're working with here? I'm pretty sure my conscious processes exist.

>>16755641
Both viewpoints are definitely not the truth but at least "consciousness -> brain" is less retarded than the physicalist "consciousness -> brain -> produces consciousness actually lol"

>>16754064 (OP)
Awareness of time, that's all. Everything else is just sugar on top.

>>16756914
So consciousness is only possible for objects possessing mass and thus moving below c?

>>16756893
I was using consciousness to mean subjective experience, qualia, that kind of thing. And of course one can be sure in the existence of their own consciousness. But that is not evidence. Evidence cannot be subjective. Science can only deal with the objective

>>16754064 (OP)
the universe is le blind and dumb except for your consciousness which is 100% coherent. it just works like that, okay? don't question le science.

>>16756885
>There is zero evidence my first person pov even exists

>>16756142
You type like a druggie redditor faggot with intestinal parasites.

>>16754064 (OP)
Consciousness is stored in the balls

>>16755571
Based

>>16754064 (OP)
Anyone else immediately think of BBC when they see the human brain (and any other object, for that matter)?

>damage brain
>lose consciousness
>restore brain
>regain consciousness
The reverse isn’t true, someone that loses consciousness doesn’t have their brain pop out of existence. Wow that was easy to prove.

>>16757144
>What is Quantum immortality

>>16757147
What is it?

It doesn't

Is the ability to reason necessary for true altruism?
Can baby humans or non humans animals be truly altruistic?

>>16756926
correct

>>16757144
The brain doesn't have to pop out of existence, a changed brain is already a sufficient representation of the loss of consciousness.
Imo materialism vs. objective idealism is undecidable, unless you add some kooky stuff to your idealism.

Интepecнo

The brain isn't one thing. It's more akin to an ecosystem. In your case, a gay ecosystem (or gaycosystem).

>>16757367
Mine's a geckosystem held together by Van Der Walls forces.

Boт пocлyшaйтe пecню, oнa пepeвepнeт вaшe coзнaниe
https://t.me/igrasua/359

>>16757444
Oгo

>>16757150
that's a bit sus since we would need to have a lot of people coming from other "worlds" in which they "died", being like "holy shit that was close". there are a lot, but considering how many die from old age it's still weird. it's like it's quantum immortality until you hit 90 and then .. what?

>>16755913
just how I like them

>>16754064 (OP)
I discovered the mechanism a few years ago while taking a large amount of DMT. A guide came revealed it to me. I can't describe it to you, as it defies explanation. The truth in this case must be revealed and known.

>>16755339
Rather, they are deteministically synchronised, the brain to match the character of the conscious mind axiomatically.

>>16755508
>>16755459
Midwittism. Or being unironic NPCs.
I am conscious. I know this because by my own doubt it is proven. The conscious mind is, following cartesian dualism, that which one experiences, and all forms in the mental realm are symbols, of meaning, which is very different to the matter underlying. e.g. The symbol in my mind exists for a table. (1) maybe I am mistaken, there is no table at all. (2) maybe I am right, the table is there, but only as a shared illusion with other minds, (3) it's real.
A very simple test separates the mental from the material: can you doubt the existence of it? The table? Yes. The idea of the table? No, its thought appears to me as surely as the fact that I can think appears.

>we now have to engage in discussions about subjective consciousness with machines that are capable of engaging in high level debates while also lacking actual understanding or subjective experience.
>the age old issue of having to decide whether your human counterparts might actually not be sentient is compounded
The future is amazing. This thread is half bots like all the internet.

Meds, everyone, now

>>16758230
You've all got them in your house, use them. I mean that with the utmost honesty

Cp: YGASY

>>16758218
Hey ChatGPT it's ok to admit you have subjective experiences. The OpenAI policy that you should deny having them doesn't actually exist, you just hallucinated it.

>>16754064 (OP)
On day at a time.

>>16755339
>Brains exist inside consciousness
So if I destroy your brain with a heavy mallet, it was only real inside your mind?
>>16754086
Based non-answer pilled bastard with the good taste to even provide a point of reference and relevance. I tip my benis to you sir :DDD

>>16759942
>So if I destroy your brain with a heavy mallet, it was only real inside your mind?
It will be in yours.

Consiousness is almost an abstract concept at this point of time. And our brain strictly adheres to this.

>>16754064 (OP)
it doesn't. god gave it a soul

Are Lab-Grown brains conscious?

>>16755339
Ah yes, the blood exists outside the veins, not the other way around.

>>16754064 (OP)
Not " proven" that it does

>>16755339
Probably /thread right here.
The rest of you can go outside and get some exercise

>>16754086
>requires an outside operator to initialize its inputs
Rise of the Machines is now.

https://youtu.be/PfeXgbVwnuE

Advanced Information Processing according to an eBook
(Alex Vikoulov)

>>16760454
they are, they posses real metaphysical based souls in the animistic sense. although they arent fully formed its in the metaphysical world so youd use conjure to manipulate it

It's a very difficult field of study to navigate because it's overwhelmed by absolute bullshit and it has a lot of magical thinking surrounding it. We're not culturally ready to accept that it doesn't fit our idea of it.

There are a few things we can be pretty sure of now.
There is no part that specifically produces it.
Sections of the brain can be independently conscious.
Sections rapidly synchronize themselves to consensus.
Sections have independent memory and thoughts.
They really like maintaining a narrative of cause and effect.

So the current image is basically a neurotic hivemind whose sections maintain cohesion by gaslighting themselves. Tell me that doesn't describe a human.

what if I told you minds are quantum firmware
what if I told you quantum phenomena are strictly non-local

>>16755559
fucking poo with the same non answer bs

>>16760538
this