In this thread, we post real scientific facts, theories and hypotheses that you find unsettling, creepy or overall mysterious.

Garbages like chemtrails, HAARP, UFOs certainly not welcome.

Slow board, i'll start

The implication that there is a second consciousness inside of you that operates independently [b][/b]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8

Goyim:
Slow board, i'll start

The implication that there is a second consciousness inside of you that operates independently [b][/b]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8

After watching that video i have to say That's really not how it works unless you're literally a split-brain patient. When your brain hemispheres are able to communicate normally (i.e. the "wire" mentioned in the video isn't severed), they form a collective consciousness, sort of like a two-component hive mind. This is why people who've sustained substantial trauma localised to one hemisphere often undergo personality changes.

Shiitposter:


After watching that video i have to say That's really not how it works unless you're literally a split-brain patient. When your brain hemispheres are able to communicate normally (i.e. the "wire" mentioned in the video isn't severed), they form a collective consciousness, sort of like a two-component hive mind. This is why people who've sustained substantial trauma localised to one hemisphere often undergo personality changes.

Are you really sure? I mean the two consciousnesses can communicate but that doesn't really mean that they are one while connected. The evidence is that in split brain patients the right hemisphere acts as an independent consciousness.
Sure if right brain feels like doing something and communicates it to left brain you know why you're doing a certain thing and are not surprised at your own actions, but it doesn't really change that you have two consciousnesses that receive and proceed information differently.
If the least we can take from this it's that your subconsciousness isn't that much of a "sub" as rather mute and should get a little more credit and consideration when discussing behaviour.

Most people I believe pictute their subconscious as something dormant that doesn't really play an active role, but as split brain patients prove, the subconscious really is capable of doing active decisions

Goyim:


Are you really sure? I mean the two consciousnesses can communicate but that doesn't really mean that they are one while connected. The evidence is that in split brain patients the right hemisphere acts as an independent consciousness.
Sure if right brain feels like doing something and communicates it to left brain you know why you're doing a certain thing and are not surprised at your own actions, but it doesn't really change that you have two consciousnesses that receive and proceed information differently.
If the least we can take from this it's that your subconsciousness isn't that much of a "sub" as rather mute and should get a little more credit and consideration when discussing behaviour.

Most people I believe pictute their subconscious as something dormant that doesn't really play an active role, but as split brain patients prove, the subconscious really is capable of doing active decisions

What do you mean by two conciousness, care to elaborate?

Shiitposter:


What do you mean by two conciousness, care to elaborate?

the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

There's still one 'consciousness'; however, it becomes aware that it is not guiding all of its actions.

It's a structural change that results in increased subjective awareness, relating to how we operate.

We do not make decisions, we simply draw up explanations for the actions after they have already been executed.

This phenomenon allows an individual a subjective insight into the illusion of free will.

Therefore, it is rather creepy.

Goyim:



the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

There's still one 'consciousness'; however, it becomes aware that it is not guiding all of its actions.

It's a structural change that results in increased subjective awareness, relating to how we operate.

We do not make decisions, we simply draw up explanations for the actions after they have already been executed.

This phenomenon allows an individual a subjective insight into the illusion of free will.

Therefore, it is rather creepy.

Why the need for a "consciousness" to explain your own actions?
Your eloboration doesn't really explain why consciousness does what it does.

Also consciousness doesn't just explain your past actions. It's also able to deduce, plan future actions and reflect

Shiitposter:


Why the need for a "consciousness" to explain your own actions?
Your eloboration doesn't really explain why consciousness does what it does.

Also consciousness doesn't just explain your past actions. It's also able to deduce, plan future actions and reflect

why the need for a "consciousness" to explain your own actions?

Why did consciousness evolve?

Well, we do not currently understand how consciousness arises as we do not have a complete neural map of the brain; however, it is not guaranteed that once we do have such a map, that consciousness will be immediately understood.

The technology and data processing techniques pertinent to this field are advancing every year, however.

To indulge in informed surmising, it is possible that consciousness is a spandrel; that is to say, a by-product of other evolved mechanisms.

In this respect, it would be viewed as an emergent property.

also consciousness doesn't just explain your past actions

That is not what the available experimental data indicates.

It's also able to deduce, plan future actions and reflect

Again, this is where the illusion comes into play.

All available evidence indicates that we do no such thing; we merely think that we do.

Essentially, consciousness is an internal simulation and free will is merely an illusion

Goyim:




Why did consciousness evolve?

Well, we do not currently understand how consciousness arises as we do not have a complete neural map of the brain; however, it is not guaranteed that once we do have such a map, that consciousness will be immediately understood.

The technology and data processing techniques pertinent to this field are advancing every year, however.

To indulge in informed surmising, it is possible that consciousness is a spandrel; that is to say, a by-product of other evolved mechanisms.

In this respect, it would be viewed as an emergent property.



That is not what the available experimental data indicates.



Again, this is where the illusion comes into play.

All available evidence indicates that we do no such thing; we merely think that we do.

Essentially, consciousness is an internal simulation and free will is merely an illusion

All available evidence indicates that we do no such thing; we merely think that we do.

I'm currently planning how I'll spend the rest of my day. How the Bleep is this an illusion

Shiitposter:




I'm currently planning how I'll spend the rest of my day. How the Bleep is this an illusion

The planning is being undertaken by what some call the subconscious and then being fed into an internal simulation, which we recognise as consciousness.

How the Bleep is this an illusion?

It’s an illusion insofar as you believe there is a ‘you’ that has a ‘choice’.

You are an organic machine performing computations and running programs/subroutines, which operates on an input-output/stimulus-response basis.

The conscious experience and notion of free will are illusory in that respect.

Goyim:


The planning is being undertaken by what some call the subconscious and then being fed into an internal simulation, which we recognise as consciousness.



It’s an illusion insofar as you believe there is a ‘you’ that has a ‘choice’.

You are an organic machine performing computations and running programs/subroutines, which operates on an input-output/stimulus-response basis.

The conscious experience and notion of free will are illusory in that respect.

How can the planning be subsconscious if I can actively create a list of things I'm going to do? That's not created by outside stimuli or against my control. It's not reactionary.

Also...
A simulation of what? And what exactly would perceive and process that simulation?

Shiitposter:



How can the planning be subsconscious if I can actively create a list of things I'm going to do? That's not created by outside stimuli or against my control. It's not reactionary.

Also...
A simulation of what? And what exactly would perceive and process that simulation?

The list is created before you are aware of it, as is the decision to pursue one of a range of potential goals.

The decisions are made before you are aware of 'making' them. (Outside influences)

A simulation of what?

A simulation of conscious experience.

And what exactly would perceive and process that simulation?

We do not currently know how consciousness arises.

Goyim:




The list is created before you are aware of it, as is the decision to pursue one of a range of potential goals.

The decisions are made before you are aware of 'making' them. (Outside influences)



A simulation of conscious experience.



We do not currently know how consciousness arises.

Just because outside influences can influence your decisions doesn't mean they only happen because of outside influences.
Just as I can choose to change my decision because of your post I can choose to completely ignore your post and stick with my original decision regardless or change it because of deciding to take more time thinking about my plans and coming to a different conclusion by having a longer and deeper thought about it completely independent from anything I've experienced today.

Shiitposter:




Just because outside influences can influence your decisions doesn't mean they only happen because of outside influences.
Just as I can choose to change my decision because of your post I can choose to completely ignore your post and stick with my original decision regardless or change it because of deciding to take more time thinking about my plans and coming to a different conclusion by having a longer and deeper thought about it completely independent from anything I've experienced today.

You don't understand. There are nothing but outside influences. Your brain is essentially a very complex difference engine: the only thing it does is process input. It's not capable of producing a truly independent action. Absolutely everything that happens in there is a response to outside stimuli. Those stimuli may not necessarily be based on sensory perceptions of things happening at that very moment. Sometimes those stimuli initiate processees that go on for very long periods of time - possibly for your entire life. Your consciousness is composed of a very large number of such processes.

Your entire life is already pre-determined. Your subjective self is only there for the ride.

Goyim:


You don't understand. There are nothing but outside influences. Your brain is essentially a very complex difference engine: the only thing it does is process input. It's not capable of producing a truly independent action. Absolutely everything that happens in there is a response to outside stimuli. Those stimuli may not necessarily be based on sensory perceptions of things happening at that very moment. Sometimes those stimuli initiate processees that go on for very long periods of time - possibly for your entire life. Your consciousness is composed of a very large number of such processes.

Your entire life is already pre-determined. Your subjective self is only there for the ride.

You literally cannot prove that and you never will be able to. Heck quantum processes literally are based on chance and are unpredictable so really the only thing that you can prove is that nothing is predetermined and even if it were, chaos theory dictates that arbitrarily complex event become so chaotic that even IF there was a way to literally acquire every single piece of information it would be impossible to calculate the outcome

Shiitposter:


You literally cannot prove that and you never will be able to. Heck quantum processes literally are based on chance and are unpredictable so really the only thing that you can prove is that nothing is predetermined and even if it were, chaos theory dictates that arbitrarily complex event become so chaotic that even IF there was a way to literally acquire every single piece of information it would be impossible to calculate the outcome

I really didnt want too spend this much time on one topic, but fuück it, i have free time.

You're probably aware of Laplace's demon. It's fairly easy for an educated person to accept it, because our minds are capable of conceptualizing, if in a very abstract manner, an tracking every atom in the universe. We do this by simplifying the thought to a scale that we can operate in: perhaps you visualize the journey of a single atom through the ages, then form an abstract expanded image from that. It's easy to see all the ways an atom might interact with other atoms if you've studied enough physics. The building blocks of matter are easy to understand.

The human mind isn't. We don't even properly understand what the mind really is. Therefore it's extremely hard to the mind as a clump of if-then sentences. You'd have to account for biological factors, the surrounding physical world, and even immaterial systems like society, which is ultimately composed of the interactions of six billion people. It's impossible.

It's easy to think that the human mind doesn't adhere to the same kind of mechanistic-deterministic principles as those simple atoms in Laplace's articulation just because of that event horizon of complexity. But in that you're proposing that the mind has some intrinsic, special quality that exempts it from the laws and mechanics of the entire rest of the universe. You kinda need proof for that, dog.

The fact that the mind is beyond some threshold of complexity alone doesn't mean shit. That we don't currently possess the means to model all the interactions contributing input to a mind doesn't mean they're not fundamentally computable - even if in practice necessitates an omniscient god-being with infinite computing capacity to do it.