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

Science Memes

11440 readers
592 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 40 points 6 days ago (5 children)

I never understood this weird hangup, it's like people struggling to reconcile free will with deterministic actions to a being outside normal time. Of course you'll make the same choices if you rewound time and changed nothing... You're the same, the universe is the same down to the last particle - how does that conflict with the idea of agency?

Consciousness is an emergent property. One neuron is complex, but 1000 can do things one could never do alone. Why is it so surprising that billions, arranged in complex self organizing structures, would give rise to something more than the sum of its parts?

Maybe there's a quantum aspect to it, maybe there's not... It seems like it's all based in this idea humans are so extra special that surely there must be special laws of the universe just for us

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (4 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 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 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.

[–] tomalley8342@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I believe the academic label for your concern is the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness which specifically questions the gap in explanation between the physical process and the subjective experience. Going against the grain of the OP picture, this is definitely still firmly within the realms of philosophy, not at all a settled science.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago

We absolutely are missing something. Clearly it requires more than just a lot of intelligence, otherwise we'd have seen a computer become sentient by now instead of ChatGPT proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they absolutely will not be anytime soon.

[–] u_u@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

Also, I am very interested in the question of, why me? Why am I in charge of this body's consciousness. How was it decided that of all conscious being that ever and will exists, I am conscious of this world from my point of view, at this point of time.

This is the only existential question I can't seem to let go, especially since I am a non-theist. It will be easier to answer if I am a believer, or at least spiritualist.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 6 days ago

Consciousness is the AI assistant in meat mecha suit.

It seems like we make decisions, but we don't. Think of a decision you've made - you think over it, you sleep on it, you imagine outcomes and might decide intellectually - but you don't lock it in. That just happens - sometimes it even flips at the last second, and you don't know why you did it - for better or worse

Our brain does a lot of preprocessing - vision, hearing, balance, walking, language...

Our conscious minds preprocess time. It turns our senses and our experiences into stories, abstract predictions, laterally pattern matching, and ultimately - analysis and recommendations

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Maybe there's a quantum aspect to it, maybe there's not...

I see what you did there, intentionally or not.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 8 points 6 days ago

Heh. It was unintentional, next time it won't be

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yep. This was the issue people took with Chomsky's approach to language, basically the same sentiment. Humans are "special" in some way. It underlines the basis of almost all cognitive, neuroscience, and language research for decades.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 10 points 6 days ago (9 children)

It's crazy to me how much this holds us back, and the amount of cognitive dissonance involved

Take pets. We look at them acting shifty around the sock they know they aren't allowed to play with, and say "she's thinking about it". We avoid words like "walk" because they've understood one of the meanings of it. And usually not just the meaning, but the difference between tone and context - most won't react the same to "should we take her for a walk" and "is he able to walk". My mom's dog knew all of our names, and the difference between "soon", "tomorrow", and "the day after tomorrow" - she would watch the door all day on the right day

And yet, most people will share all of these observations and turn around to dismiss it as "she's just a dog". For them it's just association and behavioral conditioning, but the same things are different for humans because we're extra special. Clearly her acting shifty before stealing the sock isn't planning or considering, it's instincts fighting against training

But only humans can ever understand, only we make choices. Because we're extra special

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sorry Natural Intelligence bros, but meat can't think. You've been duped into thinking human beings are conscious by Big Omega 3. Intelligence can only exist in computers using real electricity. Not that piddly ion pump stuff.

[–] Ziglin@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (3 children)

What about photons, hmmm? They're used for quantum computing and don't (technically) need "real electricity".

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

code "object-request-error"

msg 'Invalid status 503 Service Unavailable for Some("01/93/da/2e/55/b3/75/2a/84/1c/2ee79309c6b9.jpeg") - {"message":"failure to get a peer from the ring-balancer"}'

lmao so true

[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Depends on what you mean by 'consciousness'. If you mean the actual biological process that is happening in our brains - yes. If you mean something different, it is probably not a scientific meaning but more a philosophical or religious one, which is ultimately not a bad thing but you should separate this from actual science.

[–] Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 10 points 6 days ago

We are ALL thinking lumps of fat on this blessed day :)

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What if life's evolutionary end point is always sentience?

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Then life is even more pointless and cruel than it appears.

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 2 points 4 days ago

That would be poetically fitting for an universe determined to die a heat death.

No, you're the electrochemical interactions happening inside the lump of fat.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago

I'm still rooting for Idealism or the immortal soul to somehow be a thing.

Go Banana!

[–] Wizzard@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago

Speak for yourself. I try not to think.

load more comments
view more: next ›