this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
574 points (97.0% liked)

Science Memes

11440 readers
288 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (7 children)

To be honest the thing that confuses me is that I am conscious. That’s weird, how am I aware, there is no explanation of this. Assuming we pretty much understand all physics and science and there isn’t anything surprising around the corner. Consciousness has to be a physical thing, a computation. But that’s weird as hell too? What rule of the universe governs whether or not something is aware. A brain could do everything it does now without being really aware just pretending. And if that’s true does that mean it’s just the flow of information that can become conscious? Could anything become conscious? If I made a marble Rube Goldberg machine complicated it enough and doing the right calculations could it be conscious?? It feels wrong it feels like we are missing something

[–] zeca@lemmy.eco.br 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

This is exactly what puzzles me. Or at least you seem to be talking about what puzzles me. The problem is that when I mention this to others, most missunderstand what I mean by "being aware" or "conscious", and im not sure its possible to refer to this phenomena in a much better way. But that is exactly the argument i usually make, that an automata could behave exactly like me, following the supposed physical laws, but without being aware, or having any sensation, without seeing the images, hearing the sounds, only processing sensorial data. Processing sensorial data isnt the same as feeling/hearing/seeing it.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

i disagree with your assumption that an automata could somehow behave exactly like you

like, that doesn't make any sense, you can't know what your actions are without you performing them, we can't magically step outside of space and time and look at our reality like the pages of a comic book, your actions are per definition unique to your specific configuration of particles. It's like how two books can be identical but obviously they're not literally the same book, because they're in different places in space.

your line of reasoning feels a lot like all of the paradoxes, it's a neat thing to think about but ultimately there's the extremely trivial solution of "well that's not possible so it's a nonissue"

[–] zeca@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I don't understand your second paragraph and how it relates to what I said.

What about what I said depends on stepping outside space and time?

Do you think I meant that an automata could copy me? thats not really what i was talking about.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)