• ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    23 minutes ago

    Action potential doesn’t do thinking. Thinking happens at neuron junctions and that shits chemical and analogue. The electrical part just moves the data to the next synapse. There are some gap junctions but those aren’t really associated with thinking.

  • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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.

  • theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 minutes ago

      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

    • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Maybe there’s a quantum aspect to it, maybe there’s not…

      I see what you did there, intentionally or not.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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

        • Soleos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The distinction being made when we talk about “understanding” and “choices” I about the distinction between sentience and sapience.

          Dogs are sentient, meaning they have a conscious experience involving emotions and works with memory and instincts to determine motivated actions. This is a complex system that results in complex behaviour like preferring one food over another, stubbornly ignoring your commands, or recognizing when you’re upset and coming up to you to comfort you. It’s beautiful.

          Sapience is related to the capacity to be meta/self-aware. This is what is normally meant by “understand” and “choice” when talking about how “special” humans are. As far as we can tell in experiments, dogs do not have the capacity to understand themselves like “I’m a dog who really enjoys walking” or “Good dogs take care of people, so I’m going to choose to take extra care of human because I want to be good.” This is what you might call “wisdom” or “rational” behaviour, and some animals to exhibit sapience to an extent. Both can be involve what we think of as “choices” e.g. selecting one of several options, but they’re distinct behaviours.

          Humans engage in both, making it extra confusing. I’m not being particularly meta-aware and rational when I choose to cut off a piece of my steak and eat it. I am being more meta-aware when I choose to slow down my eating because I want to be respectful of my friend who cooked it for me, and I want to savour the moment, appreciating the flavours, texture, and effort that went into its preparation.

          My dog knows that I prepare her food and she expresses her emotions and desires to me and she responds to my behaviour/communication. But she doesn’t understand that I chose to rescue her or that we are two people living our short and shorter lives together.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            52 minutes ago

            How can we truly know this though - we don’t even really understand sapience on a philosophical level, let alone on a scientific one. The word itself is based on homo-sapien, and ultimately it means “why are we the most special”. It’s been a constant game of moving goalposts

            Here’s a paper on animal metacognition. The intro is worth a read

            Moving on to more common examples of metacognition, think of the many videos of dogs feigning injury when their human has an injured leg. That’s the same as your example with eating slower

            There’s also a recent study I read where they trapped a rat in a tight cage, and another rat would learn to let them out. Then they added chocolate chips - the other rat would usually eat most of them before letting the other one out - but would save at least one

            There’s even videos of a dog having a conversation with those word-pads, where they had to be convinced that their owner was human and not a dog, but was adamant that the small dog was a cat

            We hold ourselves back, because we’re always starting from the perspective of humans being more, or that animals would act like us if only they were smarter… But ultimately, they have different priorities

            Only recently have we started to look for things like language, culture, meta cognition, and every other “human” trait with an open mind. And we find it, everywhere

            Whose to say dogs don’t wonder where we go all day, why they get left behind, and ponder their life as a dog?

  • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Calling it a lump of fat is a bit like calling the Milky Way a very sparse field of hydrogen

  • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    11 hours ago

    You’re an electrified hunk of fat piloting a meat-covered skeleton riding on a damp rock that’s hurling through space and time.

    • SkidFace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      26 minutes ago

      “At thе end of the day, your brain is just a meat computеr in a bone cockpit piloting a skin robot You think the world makes sense? Nothing makes sense! So you might as well make nonsense!”

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      11 hours ago

      It’s actually a lump of lava with a thin crust. Any time the crust breaks we have a very bad time.

    • kozy138@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It’s weird that we, as people, think that our being or self ends at our skin. And we’re just a consciousness controlling a meat cube.

      What about all the bacteria living on and inside of us? People would die without their microflora.

      What about our subconscious/unconscious doings/thoughts? Are we in control of them? Or are they in control of us? Could consciousness be an illusion? One created by our senses’ interpretation of external stimuli.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      I enjoy Marcus Aurelius paraphrasing Epctetus…

      “You are a little soul bearing about a corpse.”

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Be fair. You are an abstraction layer; a subsystem running on that electrified hunk of fat. There’s plenty of stuff that evolution has delegated as non-conscious functions of the fatlump.

  • dankm@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    A CPU is just a rock we hit with magic lightning…

  • Masta_Chief@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    This gets explored a bit in The Talos Principle and it’s sequal. Working on the 2nd one now, it’s been fun

  • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The brain is not a “lump of fat”. If you desiccate the brain, most of what’s left are lipids, yes, but at that point you are not conscious anymore. The brain is a mix of proteins, carbohydrates, water and fat.

    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Also fairly sure that electrical impulses alone cannot account for consciousness. If that were “all” there was to it we’d have simulated a human brain by now. There’s a few theories about quantum processes being involved but this isn’t exactly easily proven.

      • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 hours ago

        If that were “all” there was to it we’d have simulated a human brain by now.

        Didn’t it take them a long ass time to do this for a fruit fly brain?

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Depends on when you start the timer. The fruit fly brain was only completely mapped recently. There’s a simulation of it that runs on a laptop. If that simulation can run on a modern laptop and the map was otherwise available, then it likely could have been done on supercomputers in the decades prior.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        To simulate a human brain, we would need a complete map of it. We don’t have that yet. If the quantum theories around neurons are correct, then the map would be incomplete without it.

        I doubt we could simulate it directly without a very specialized ASIC.

        • Wintex@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The connectome doesn’t really seem to be so realistic, at smaller scales sure.

  • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    To my knowledge there are interesting quantum-mechanical effects at play as well though. There’s a lot of esoterical nonsense around that of course, however first discoveries pointing into this direction are quite promising.

    I always remember a quote from Alan Watts talking about this topic: “You are the universe experiencing itself”. The idea of consciousness being an emerging property of the universe itself makes most sense to me, and the non-deterministic properties of quantum mechanics open this possibility.

    Definitely more inspiring to think about it this way than just as a lump of fat.

  • Kwakigra@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’ve never understood why people think the most sophisticated and complex technology humans have ever been aware of is too mundane just because we have scratched the surface of understanding it.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    people don’t like this idea because if that’s all we are, then who is anyone to say that the inevitable equivalent man-made lump of fat with electrical activity isn’t entitled to all the same rights and status that we are

    also jeebus doesn’t want you to think you can’t go on getting punished even after you’re dead