/b/ - Random

>>257094 (OP) 
I guess it has something with internal simulations of future events. And the distinction between "me" and "everything else". Not gonna strain my tiny brain over things that smarter people have given up defining.

I think consciousness is a term that humans use to define our own experience and justify our place at the top of the world order we (humans) have put ourselves. This going back to the Greeks and is pretty fundamental to western philosophy. Despite millennia of philosophizing and the advances made in biology we're still in a very anthropocentric frame of mind about what consciousness means and what it would look like in other beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
Bite this, lol.

>>257094 (OP) 
You you sound too gay I’m not listening

OP, if you want a bigger challenge, try to define the concept of causality. Something so basic. Is it binary in your sense?

Going in reverse order:
>Is consciousness non-binary?
I don't think so. Among people, the degree of conscious qualia does seem to vary a good bit. Would we really think some nigger in Africa with a literal room-temperature IQ has the same degree of inner life as someone like Francis Galton did? And we see the same thing across different species; some species show signs of consciousness (anon above mentioned the mirror test, for example), but likely don't possess the same degree of qualia and an "internal agent" that humans have. It's not obvious to me that increased intelligence necessarily implies developing consciousness, though. More on that below.
>Does consciousness affect anything?
The "philosophical zombie" thought experiment was always retarded. If an entity is identical to you, down to the atom, it can't possibly lack consciousness if you have it. I guess if you're inclined to a philosophically idealist or a theological view maybe you could disagree, but I see no way to make a copy of a conscious entity that somehow lacks this property.
But the most important question: who cares? I mentioned above that I don't think consciousness is a necessarily implication of intelligence, which I consider the more important property. Is there any reason to think for example that any silicon intelligence we manage to create will be conscious in the way we understand it? Why would it need to be, if it can behave intelligently? The conscious mind in people already mostly just pretends to be in charge, and makes up post-hoc rationalizations for things the body does autonomously anyway. The brain's job, from an evolutionary perspective, is to produce behavior, not to manipulate arbitrary information in an abstract way. Consciousness might well be an evolutionary fad that vanishes before too long.

>>257094 (OP) 
>Let's define consciousness as the property of being able to metaphysically experience thoughts, sensations, feelings, etc.
I'm afraid I can't follow down this road since I have no meaningful reference for the "metaphysical". It would be better to define consciousness simply as "the property of being able to have experiences". If one was to be so vague then we need not consider the structural component at all. With the supplied definition we must agree there is a structural component and that the structure is outside of ones physical existence which I feel is unnecessary. In any case I suspect this definition written in the original post lends more towards "self-awareness" which is not only the capacity to collect sense data but also to reflect on it and realize one is collecting it (otherwise I see no reason for a metaphysical component).

>>257094 (OP) 
>cuckime

>>257094 (OP) 
Humans are only partially conscious. There's a whole world of information that we're not processing because our brains are not evolved for it.

>>257455
And? Filtering relevant information from noise starts at the sensory organs. We can't see UV or IR for a reason. What was irrelevant for survival in the past was rightfully ignored. You don't have a brain in order to better understand or feel unity with the the world, you have a brain to (paradoxically) help you survive longer.

>>257094 (OP) 
>Do non-Whites have it?
No.
>Do animals have it?
Yes.
>Do insects have it? 
Yes
>Do plants and primitive forms of life (eg. amoebas) have it?
Yes
>Can computer programs (ie. "AI") have it?
No
>Can concepts (eg. a "waifu") have it?
Yes

>>257105
Nobody willing to try? For example regarding the difference in qualities like necessary, sufficient and interchangeable for causes and sets of causes?

>>257094 (OP) 
Smoke a heros dose of salvia to answer these questions

>>257163
>If an entity is identical to you, down to the atom, it can't possibly lack consciousness if you have it.
That thought experiment was asking if everything about you is confined to "an entity is identical to you, down to the atom". You know, chasing the ghosts of spirituality. You word that the way as if assuming the physical reductionism is provably complete. I might agree with you for that being the most probable, but not to the degree of being proven. Consider the psychological and societal implications as well. Especially the mindset that stance fosters, for example in chinks.

<am I bored enough to post in this thread?
<is my dialog gonna be worse than Ergo Proxy's? 
>>257101
>dogs are as dumb as snakes
Who knew?
>>257094 (OP) 
Did anybody say the solopism thing where only my  perspective is real? 
>>257105
>>257857
If you're a fatalist then you'd not care about causality and if anything is possible then that mindbreaks people due to temperal causality issues implying there are an infinite number of realities, it doesn't sound like you're really in control if you lost at x thing in some other life in every way and also won. At what point did your soul/perspective get dictated to be at that point in that timeline? Are reality tunnels really something that shifts around to show 'you" everything at some point but without regards to time?  I mean,  they even say time isn't really moving, is perspective just a shifting eye through possibilities and not really real at that point? You become a differerent person with every new glance? How can something literally have so many options? Seems like a waste of time and space to me. Surley it's just a thought experiment but then that means so  is your very mind and life at least potentially. You may yet just be some dreaming thing and you may yet be alone in this. You don't get to experience anything else from that sort of perspective so caring about this would just make one become indecicive and not make descisions at all of which isn't a very fun way to end a timeline now is it? That's thinking about making a decision and decsions are what made you alive therefore the more aware you are the less alive at that point.   And yes that is a joke. They say fatalists are men of action and it may be or may not be ironic a thing., no?

I don't really care beyond myself. That's my reality tunnel. What makes me have my reality tunnel is j cleary fate, whatever that is. Meaning I am not a fatalist as I am not religious. Guess I'm dying now and the religious zealouts, those bold fools, get to have such fortune rather than just think about it. Then again I could go comotose and dream up a better reality. That'd be steller. Humans should evolve to be more delluional it would fix a lot of things... and to eat bamboo or something  real lazy like a panda. ...  
>>257899
<it's the machine elves bro they sent me back and they hold the clothes of time and space together bro I am not small enough to fit through the cloth yet bro that tapestry is meant for another tiiiiime maaan
>>258029
Same issue as 'are you the alternate reality version of yourself (now or later.. unless there is no later then never and also always)'. You could be reincarnated as your other selves later, even in a redundant dimension. Or not. 

brb think about my reason for being 

>>257489
You have earned one Internet use it wisely.