Is consciousness a quantum phenomena? If so, what are the implications of this as quantum computing and AI advances...

Is consciousness a quantum phenomena? If so, what are the implications of this as quantum computing and AI advances? Are there any viable theories (other than Chris Langan's horseshit CTMU) discussing the nature consciousness? Also, what are some of the ethical dilemmas posed by Turing Complete robo waifus?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
megasociety.org/noesis/76/05.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You don't want the answer to this question burger.
Go talk about jews or something. Jerk off to anime. Anything else.

>>Also, what are some of the ethical dilemmas posed by Turing Complete robo waifus?

You already know the answer to this if you're asking it.

>it thinks its conscious
cute

No not really. Does anyone really know the complete answer to that question? I can think of some possible responses, but it is very, very open ended. It is honestly something that could be contained in volumes and therefore I thought that it would be an interesting point of discussion.

When your robo waifu is as smart as you(or perhaps 20 IQ points lower) they kind of have the same rights as humans.

Albeit, they won't be human. Which leaves a lot of variability for how they will be treated and want to be treated.

Im curious what consciousness is too.

We don't have any really good leads on figuring out what it is so it makes no sense to automatically declare it a quantum phenomenon or whatever.

If you can think that you are conscious are you? To me, that would be an indicator of some degree of self awareness. If we are considering AI in the quantum capacity this also means that the AI would be able to derive different conclusions concerning the question of its own consciousness. In this sense there is also some degree of free will, that is, freedom of thought and to choose between different options the one that is best according to some definition. How is this definition derived? Is it based on previous conclusions. In this sense we can say that the AI is thinking and furthermore that it is developing identity. Identity would then contain the supplemental framework whereby further conclusions would be drawn, and necessarily would develop and contain its own system of values thereby differentiating itself from other AI. Does identity facilitate motive? If the AI is continually solving this problem of self, then it may be argued that yes, it does. If the AI is self aware, aware of others, aware that it is distinct in its awareness, and motivated to process its reality through identity, then maybe it is conscious. Idk.

I'll show you soon user.

Consciousness is basically the RAM of reality.

no.,

QM has nothing to do with consciousness.

This question is interesting. I wonder if it is possible to create a genuine intelligence through quantum computing. In this sense, it could be said that consciousness can be a quantum phenomenon, but perhaps not exclusively so. It could be that quantum computing is merely our most viable means for producing consciousness and one (but perhaps not the only) avenue by which we can understand and explore it.

Consciousness isn't an emergent phenomenon, it's an inherent characteristic.

Consciousness is the existence from which everything else - space, time, matter, energy - descends.

Thanks for that, Deepak.

But we're trying to talk about science here.

tfw quantum physics agrees with him, not you

seems related and close enough to our last thread. can anyone here answer why evil exists and what the hell god is doing? id like the answer before tomorrow preferably

tfw you woo woo faggots don't know what the fuck you're talking about

cyberneticist here. no, consciousness is not a 'quantum' phenomena. it's an emergent property of self-reflective cognitive systems.

'turing complete' doesn't mean what you think it does. your phone is turing complete.

as far as the ethical quandries of sexbots, ANY cognitive system over a certain threshold can attain consciousness, and yes, at that point it is a sentient being. science is flirting with this boundary right now, but most likely won't be able to cross is for another ten or twenty years.

Well pratice does help

Why do many witchrafts people do it often?? The pratice??

Why so many temples built??

>and yes, at that point it is a sentient being. science is flirting with this boundary right now, but most likely won't be able to cross is for another ten or twenty years.
come on now, are you saying monkeys, dogs, or whales are not sentient beings? weve been fucking around with them in science for decades

the functioning of every cell in our bodies relies on first- and possibly even second-order quantum effects
this however has exactly NOTHING to do with the software. the effects we observe (consciousness, intelligence) are amply explained by classical means
in fact, the connectome is so vast (number of possible states exceeds number of atoms in our light-cone by a few tens of orders of magnitude), that scientists have real trouble explaining why we're so dumb. does the running of a heart seriously need more connectivity than your average datacenter, or is the software really that shitty? nobody knows

...

yes. dogs, monkeys, and whales are sentient beings. pretty much all animals are.

i'm saying we won't be able to create a machine consciousness, not that we can't fuck with helpless animals.

I posted a thread the other day but it got moved to bant. Read through if you'd like.

i think i agree wtih you that its not too far away, i would bet less than 50 years for sure assuming no giant disaster befalls earth

The software can only be as good as the number of brain holding ancestors birthed in the past.

>666
What did satan mean by this ?

what you just wrote makes no sense

one theory that I like is that the machinery needs to be so powerful because it has to evolve software that is a good fit for the environment from basically nothing, and do this at least semi-reliably, every time

>
whyd it get moved to bant it seems pretty philosophical

do mods just remove any threads of substance these days? like they delete any threads that dont have the keywords "blacked" or "how do we solve western women" or "why dont you have a gun" or "why cant white bois compete" or "nigger hate thread" or

you guys ever notice Sup Forums has a fucking algorithm? and seems like the same dominant forces are repeatedly posted the same retarded bullshit over and over again?

almost like your mind is being.....programmed....

the name is Lucifer

I've always liked Ocr-OR

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

Red pill me on Christopher Langans theory. I listened to the audio on YouTube. It sounds like some sort of quantum quackery shit with big words and famous quotes from philosophers.

>Is consciousness a quantum phenomena?
Jesus christ, american education.

Well, is consciousness observed in quantum scales, that is, under 100nm sizes? NO

SO IT'S NOT A FUCKING QUANTUM PHENOMENA

STOP USING QUANTUM JUST TO SOUND COOL

REEEEEEEE

t. Physicists before his coffee

idk. I assume theres faggots as janitors.

everything manifests from consciousness, nothing creates it. so in essence the only "real" thing is consciousness, and everything else is an illusion.

Bro. Physics doesn't talk about consciousness. AKA you're a faggot.

>We don't have any really good leads on figuring out what it is
>We
who is we? mainstream jewish science? people have known what consciousness actually is for thousands of years.

There is a ted talks speech that will change your life. Wish I could remember who it was. Consciousness is a constant hallusination of your brain.

When I say "the software"... I'm talking about the software that has evolved to be in the brain over the past millions of years.

The complexity of the software is limited by the number of brain holding ancestors... because that is the quantum of evolutionary data. Natural selection can only select once per ancestor.

...

what the fuck do you know about it? anyone can see this shit for themselves. try meditating or if you're too lazy take some DMT or something.

...

>what the fuck do you know about it? (Quantum mechanics)

>
>try meditating

thank you that's what i was trying to say. consciousness is an emergent phenomena of self-reflective perception systems.

you've got it backwards. consciousness arises from matter.

according to buddihsm, the five elements of sentience are: matter/form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness itself. each arises from the other and all are interconnected.

Consciousness is considered an illusion as far as physics is concerned

meditation can improve your ability to contemplate consciousness. it is very difficult to actually get into an altered state of consciousness with it, but it can be done.

now, if you combine legit meditation with, say, cannabis, then you can really contemplate the nature of consciousness!

btw buddhist here; i've studied kung fu and tai chi for....many years, and we do a lot of philosophical study on the nature of consciousness. i could probably answer some questions for y'all but idk if you would believe or care for my answers.

Uh, no shit? It was meant more to ask about whether or not it could be, that is whether or not consciousness could be produced via quantum computing in which case it would be, in one sense, a quantum phenomena. So not really just using it to sound cool. Also, consciousness has not really been observed at all in the mechanical sense and has only really been scientifically addressed in psychology. So that is honestly a moot point. This is dumb, its almost ignorant of what I was actually trying to talk about.

it's not an illusion any more than your browser is an illusion. it's just an emergent phenomena that arises from level-crossing self reflective cognitive-perceptual systems.

lmao got a job at the cybernetics factory? did norb weiner hire you from cybernetics school?
fuck outta here kid, complex systems overtook cybernetics decades ago

Read the CTMU paper and the CTMU wiki pages

paper starts out identifying problems in worldviews from science and philosophy, and their flaws as systems, then he goes on to develop a logical framework built on tautologies

It's not hard to understand, people don't like it because they're afraid of new words and concepts that haven't been approved by TED talk academics

>calls theory horseshit without elaborating
not an argument

megasociety.org/noesis/76/05.htm

there would be no difference between using a quantum computer or a regular computer. a regular computer would probably be cheaper for the same power level even if you had to use a warehouse full of rack servers.

HERE, HAVE A REDPILL ON QUANTUM MECHANICS

It is an imperfect model used to estimate the behavior of instruments involved in related experiments. You can construct simulations using the methodology, if you care, but they are tedious and generally don't produce output you can "render" straightforwardly (e.g. point-like particle vs. level set of probability field). Again, all it does is estimate the behavior of instruments - themselves made out of the very same stuff they are measuring. There is no "ghost in the machine", and we do not have any evidence for alternate realities in which what can be identified as consciousness, human or otherwise, exists.

Sorry, but as far as we know, death is an unexciting absolution of nothingness.

Not in a decade when production becomes as cheap as our computers

There is no god

i work in research. cybernetics is roughly speaking the application of complex systems theory to information systems. it seems most of the people ITT don't really have much grasp of the topic under discussion.

youtube videos can't really substitute for books as far as giving you a good grip on the ideas involved.

There are some aspects of the behavior of very small that are yet undiscovered. We don't know what the rules would be for a classical simulation that would produce quantum results.

>hey guys lets just use physics' nomenclature to sound smart and "explain" how consciousness works
>Physics doesn't talk about consciousness

M8 if you try to explain a phenomena WITH a physical theory, you better be fucking knowing what the fuck you're doing and what you're talking about. If anything, consciousness is clearly a macroscopic feature of the brain.

Yeah, that's pretty well put actually.

And from which corner of your ass did you manage to pull that piece of illuminating information out?

I didn't mention any spaghetti monsters or relatives thereof. Is this a retort? I honestly can't tell any more.

I now see exactly what you mean, but you're still wrong because evolutionary leaps exist, so there is no maximum speed of evolution.
you can indeed gather info about your immediate surroundings and painstakingly crawl towards a local minimum (this is performed in the natural world mostly by adjustments to gene expression patterns, which take place, as you say, on the scale of generations and produce small adaptations like lighter skin and sharper noses)
or you can do a random search across the entire space of possibilities and given enough time you will find a good, deep optimum valley - this is evolution by mutation, takes place at geological time scales and produces spectacular results

Okay.

If that's how you define it has nothing more to do with quantum physics than my browser

>And from which corner of your ass did you manage to pull that piece of illuminating information out?
Discussion with other science types

One question, what is fear and how is it related to consiousness?

yes, consciousness has no more to do with quantum physics than your browser does. i mean both of them depend on electricity which is .... sort of a quantum-related or quantum-involved phenomena. but that part is at a 'lower level' than the phenomena of browsers or minds.

Nigger. You need to read through the fucking link I posted.

Heres a whole explanation in a thread I made. Lemme know when you're done. fuckkin mods 404 the shit if i psot it.

fear is an emotion. it's related to consciousness same as all emotions are.

to use the buddhist terminology from earlier: it's matter/form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and then consciousness itself.

fear is a 'mental formation' which arises within a consciousness system. it evolved as a self-preservation tool in early animals and continues through to you today. no great mystery there, although it is very illuminating to contemplate perhaps, since fear is such a great percentage of our motivation.

your shit is shit. none of that has any scientific validity or makes any sense.

basically you're creating a pseudo-religion based on scientific jargon, which nobody believes but you. creating religions is a normal human activity at any time and especially at a time of moral and intellectual nihilism like this one, but don't mistake your fantasies for science.

ITS NOT A RELIGION! You dont worship anything jesus what the hell is wrong with you people. Make up your own minds!

You can say there are aspects to the algorithm that make it go faster or slower.... but any algorithm's effectiveness is ultimately limited by the number of jumps available.

Even if you say every generation represents pages and pages of new "software".... the only thing that validates these pages as helpful (or not catastrophically harmful) is the binary question of whether this person reproduced. There's only 1 bit of information associated with each new generation. And that bit says "this was good enough to reproduce"

religion doesn't have to be about worship. it's just about made-up beliefs that are deeply held and connected to emotion. which your obviously is because you got angry with me. it's a religion.

that's not intended to demean what you're saying. but the scientific validity of all your verbiage is NILL, so if you believe it anyway because you emotionally cling to the ideas, then it's a religious belief. i'm not here to question your religious beliefs....i just have to point out that science doesn't support them.

make up your own mind. Don't believe it if you don't want to, but you're still a huge faggot.

wellllll....even those who don't reproduce can spread their ideas, emotions, and mind-patterns to other conscious minds via symbol-communication, which creates reflections of those thought patterns in other minds, which is kind of a way of living beyond your own physical form.

even if you don't reproduce your genes, you can also reproduce your memes. the 'souls' of our loved ones live on within our own consciousnesses when they die, in the form of memory-reflections of their patterns of consciousness.

>religion doesn't have to be about worship.
Is there a religion that isn't?

Are you saying that believing in something you can't be 100% sure is true, then that's a religion? Because that makes everything a religion.

> any algorithm's effectiveness is ultimately limited by the number of jumps available

yes but big-E Evolution (mutation and subsequent long-term selection of viable mutations by the environment) is not algorithmic, it is simply stochastic

yes, i am a huge faggot, no argument there. ;)
but scientifically your diatribe is tripe, you should accept that and move on. cling to the ideas if you want to but don't act as if there is any evidence supporting them.

(((Science)))

Science doesn't even know what the source of Gravity comes from.

LUL

>Is consciousness a quantum phenomena?

Biology major here.

No, consciousness is not a quantum phenomenon. We know this to be the case because quantum interactions are too erratic/unstable to carry such information at the physiological temperature of 37 degrees Celsius.

Ignore anyone who claims otherwise. Quantum mechanics is a huge meme.

Conciousness is a portal through your pirenial gland to the 8th dimension. Even Descartes said so

asking about the source of gravity is like asking who built the hole in the doughnut

no, believing in something without any evidence at all because you don't CARE if it's really true, is a religion.

plenty of religions don't involve worship. buddhism, also asian ancestor religions. many pagans don't 'worship' the gods, they just believe in them like you believe in the weatherman...with the caveat that weathermen are using science, pagans are not. which is why paganism is a religion.

>it is simply stochastic
It's both. There's no contradiction between something being an algorithm and something being stochastic.
Many search algorithms have stochastic components... and reproduction is only partially random.

The source of gravity is matter friendo.

youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU

They don't know where it comes from.

Never heard that definition before.

Also religious fags also tend to care very much about stuff being true. They just don't apply genuine critical analysis. Not because they don't care f it's true, but because they feel they shouldn't dare doubt it being true.

Then would that be an argument to say that AI, a creation of previous iterations of 'consciousness' is just as conscious as its creator?

Deepak Chopra cashes on old Indian medicine for people who have never experienced spiritual expansion...

Combining spirituality with artificial intelligence leads to the moral question - can AI have a soul?

And if you don't believe in a soul... then an identity/something that believes in the infinite...

It becomes a recursive equation rather quickly, given that the ultimate destination for consciousness is the universe itself, and that is for all we know, infinite.

It comes from matter.

There's lots of things we don't know though. Why does matter exist. Why does gravity come from matter.

Look into it. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

>if you combine legit meditation with, say, cannabis, then you can really contemplate the nature of consciousness!

How do you know the conclusions you've come to are both true and justifiable and not simply a direct result of messing with the chemistry of your brain?

>Deepak Chopra cashes on old Indian medicine for people who have never experienced spiritual expansion...

FWIW i don't entirely disagree with the spirit of what deepak says... I just think it's crazy to say he's talking about science (Rather than philosophy)

I litterally do.

Then you would know matter doesnt fucking emit gravity. We don't know where it comes from. Newton had to make the assumption it was there without elaborating on where it comes from.

he actually has a point in a way. einstein taught us that the effects of gravity can be described as a spacetime deformation, spacetime having the geometric properties of a noneuclidean Reimann manifold, which is a huge breakthrough.

but it doesn't get us allllll the way to understanding why matter deforms spacetime. that's a very deep question and we haven't exactly penetrated to a full and complete answer.

but just because science doesn't understand all the deepest mysteries of the universe doesn't mean that what it *does* understand isn't true.

you have to take scientists with a grain of salt sometimes because they are human and subject to biases and tend to overstate their conclusions and find the results they want to find.....but at the same time, it's also wrong to go to the other extreme of throwing all everything science says just because there's a measure of uncertainty involved in the process.

Look, TL;DR.

We're in a dimension. I don't know how we got here, I don't care. We're working on a mathematical equation to get us out. Not out as in 'to the stars', but 'out'. Di-men-shun-uh-lee. We've got about 4 million people working on it as of Wednesday.

Help out, will ya?
Go talk to /x/; a few goony-birds over there have apparently already 'ascended'.

If you look at this picture, you realize how small a portion of yourself your conscious experience is. The mind is amazing.

How do you know it doesn't emit gravity?

All gravity originates at matter. This is one of the best tested theories we have. There's lots of things we don't know about gravity. Why it exists, why it is weak, why it is so far reaching. But we know where it comes from.

I think it's not the scientists fault it's jsut that funding is given for certain things and not other things and research is dictated by whose giving the money.

Sorry here's the latest version

welll....yeah. they don't care if it's true, because they *believe* it's true regardless of evidence. there's no difference between that kind of 'faith or belief' and 'not caring' about truth value unless we are talking about propositions that are logically not falsifiable.

well, you have to way your conclusions against the evidence, consider if they have internal logical coherence, and then rigorously question your own ideas to see if they stand up to analysis. then gather more data, contemplate more, and attack your own ideas again.

if they stand up to critical analysis again and again, then either you have a valid idea or your critical analysis was flawed.

that's the scientific method in a nutshell. use it to benefit all areas of your life. you're welcome. ;)

What if Einstein is wrong?

You can see, generally "YOU" only exist in the red squares, although when ruminating or remembering the orange sections may come under concious experience

>an identity/something that believes in the infinite...

wut?