164
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
164 points (96.1% liked)
Showerthoughts
43156 readers
88 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You seem to be an expert in consciousness, so I have a question for you. How do the neurons in the human brain, transmitting electrochemical signals, create subjective sensation?
Neurons are physical objects, but our thoughts don't feel physical. They don't feel like energy. I don't feel My thoughts in My head the way I feel a headache in My head, or a cramp in My legs. They're just there.
How can the machine create the ghost? Why does consciousness exist? How do feelings happen?
Neurons transmit signals via action potentials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential
The "hard problem of consciousness" is complex with many theories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
As for experiencing stimuli and sensation. Sometimes called "the easy problem of consciousness". That's explainable by modern research. It's a product of biological systems that are designed to be stimulated by specific stimuli. All of them are complex.
Cognitive functions are a product of neural architecture (neural pathways and regional hubs) in the brain but also from the constantly changing state of neuron potentials (how likely a neuron will or won't fire at a very specific point in time) that are influenced by internal and external stimuli.
Brain oscillations, (brain waves that vary in frequency through the day and tasks, and regions) also heavily influenced this state. So does sleep or how long someone is awake. How much attention they give some things or if they are mind wandering and a whole host of other influences that directly impact priming effects (an effect where once a pathway in the brain has an action potential go through it, it's more likely to fire again --this is time dependent). And subsequently that changing state I referred to.
At present it is incredibly difficult to predict brain activity at a macro scale. Because it does not follow predictable patterns. Because the state is constantly changing. Too many interacting factors that can't be accounted for in a single model.
Humans also do not use real math in our cognitive functions. We use heuristics. I don't know the exact distance or speed that a baseball is traveling towards me. Yet I can predict when I need to swing a bat. (Not me personally but some humans can do this).
Even expert baseball players are not computing the actual real speed (in any unit) when observing the ball moving towards them. They use heuristics which are much faster though less accurate. Experts get better at their estimates though compared to non experts.
We aren't calculators and we don't use numbers like computers do.
A.i. systems are statistical probability formulas. They do use numbers. They are in many ways a fancy search engine. That's not what organic systems are. We don't even use mathematical probability.
I already knew all that, and none of it explains whence this "mental dimension" of subjective experience comes. You've explained the maths and chemistry of the computations, but not the science of feeling. Where are our thoughts? How can a physical process give rise to a mental process?
I'm starting to think you're as clueless about the hard problem of consciousness as the world's bleeding edge neuroscientists, who also don't know.
Yeah that's the hard problem I gave you a link to.
There are multiple theories. Some listed on wiki.
A problem is defining what consciousness even is. Like a specific measurable construct. Not a vague abstract idea.
And depending on your answer, will result in a different theory on what it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Also the "binding problem" is related to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
Just because it's not fully understood doesn't mean that a mystical magical explanation is true.
But I can assure you it's not based on mathematical probability formulas.
Otherwise SPSS would have gained sentience 30 years ago.
Awareness is a product of the organic structure and processes of nerve tissue because that's what all brain functions are a product of.
I personally ascribe to the theory that understanding of a self is a product of sensory processing as it's imperative for an organism to understand it's different and independent from its environment to interact with it.
But maybe that's not your definition of consciousness.
If instead your definition is more about quali , then the binding problem is more akin to your question.
The binding problem is complex. And our lack of understanding how it works is why we can't program a computer to have it.
But binding sensory information together to create a cohesive "picture of reality" is not my definition of consciousness.
But it could be yours.
My definition is the "sense of self as independent from environment".
Because people with brain damage that impairs "binding" does not take away a sense of self. So to me, the sensory binding isn't required to consciousness. Consciousness exists without it.
There are other resources than Wikipedia on both these concepts I describe.
Whole books written about them.
But now you know the terms so you can find additional resources. I honestly can't sum up the entirety of that information better than I Already have without writing you an essay.
Just check out the wiki.
The theories start under the philosophical section of the hard problem page.
That's a fallacy. Humans do things they don't understand all the time. Humans have been working with complex organic molecules for thousands of years. Humans started using CO2 to change the climate before they understood it. Humans made airplanes before they understood the aerodynamics of an aerofoil. Humans used genetics to engineer an entirely new species, dogs, before they knew what DNA is. And human scientists spent hundreds of years thinking dogs have no feelings because dogs can't talk. Humans are always doing stuff they don't understand.
Your entire argument boils down to "I dunno why neural networks produce qualia, and therefore there's absolutely zero chance our artificial neural networks produce qualia."
How can a human program a computer to create quali if we don't know how quali is created ?
This is not the same thing as using tools in our environment that we don't fully understand how they work.
The structure of a neural network, in terms of how it mathematically produces qualia, is a tool in our environment we don't fully understand. We don't know why neurons in this particular shape produce qualia.
And then we made artificial neurons and tried putting them in similar shapes. Some parts are different, some parts are the same. LLMs definitely share our language skills and produce language the same way our Wernicke's area does. But they definitely don't have the same critical thinking skills. So clearly we copied some functions of the brain, but not all of them.
We don't know if we copied qualia.
No. Llms do not produce language like humans do. I don't know why you would think that.
There is nothing in the brain that is akin to llms.
Children can acquire language words and rules faster than even computers can.
We do not pattern match. We do not only regurgitate what we heard or read somewhere else. We are creative in our word generation.
So the definition of consciousness is stimulus-response that doesn't use numbers?
No. That's the definition of a fap. Fixed action pattern.
Aka "Instincts".
I see. So consciousness is definitionally uniquely human because of complexity, and other complex stimulus-response is simply instinct.
No. Humans have faps too.
There is no scientific evidence that sense of self is only in humans.
Cool. What about consciousness?
What is your definition of consciousness?
A word that is just nonsensical enough to mean whatever you want it to mean, while still sounding adequately serious enough for serious discussion among serious people.
See also: freedom.
Well you can define a construct.
In science we often use terms that are open. So we first define what we mean before discussing the construct.
That way everyone is talking about the same thing. Otherwise it's just arguing semantics.
Okay. Consciousness is the awareness of the passage of time.
Perception of time is your definition of consciousness?
Do you instead mean memory of autobiographical events ?
Patient H.M lost his ability to form new memories of his experiences. (Starting after a brain surgery removed part of his memory centers as a kid). Would that count as losing "consciousness"?
People with dementia also lose their ability to form new memories. Though the complete loss of this ability is after the disease has progressed to severe levels.
People with Korsokoff disease. Sometimes called "locked in time" is also a disorder where new memory is disrupted so the individual often has no understanding that many years have passed. But they also suffer from a loss of time. Possibly because the amnesia is so extreme and complete.
This is why I say that time perception is part of memory.
People with Korsokoff are often distressed when they see their aged face in a mirror. Because to them, they have aged 20 years without experiencing the passage of 20 years.
Would you say these people are not conscious ?
You get why even defining consciousness is not particularly easy.
But we can't develop explanations without a specific defined phenomenon that can be measured or identified in some way.
Nope. Just awareness that time passes. Memory is irrelevant.
How can you have awareness of time if you have no memory of 1 second ago?
Perception of time is part of memory that "now" is different than it was 1 second ago.
Time, as experienced by a human is a product of sensory processing and memory. Short term and working memory. There is bit of research on manipulating the perception of time by different tasks and events.
https://www.popsci.com/how-time-seems-to-stop/
It's the experience of change.
This is why the speed of time can be altered based on tasks and attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis
Time , as defined by physics , is its own thing independent of an animal's perception of time.
Like how vision is from light. But light is not vision.
We do have a circadian rhythm. So do all animals.
This is an internal clock that regulates the body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm
Likewise , basic small time tracking appears to be largely done by the brain stem, limbic system, but probably the cerebellum. But not the cortex (higher function brain regions)
It is generally believed "consciousness" is a process of the cortex as this is where complex cognitive tasks are done.
"Experiments have shown that rats can successfully estimate a time interval of approximately 40 seconds, despite having their cortex entirely removed.[25] This suggests that time estimation may be a low-level process.[26]"
There is also a human disorder where the loss of time estimate ability can occur. Not completely independent of memory disorders. Short term memory is impaired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyschronometria
Yep. Like you said/contradicted yourself. You don't need memory to perceive time.
Two forms of time perception.
But my point was memory is impaired in all forms except the one only measuring tracking estimates. Because you won't have any higher brain function with a cortex removed so they can't evaluate autobiographical memory because it won't exist.
And making short time estimates is done by the brain stem.
Even with no cortex. Likely because circadian rhythm is somewhat controlled from brain stem.
No cortex makes one essentially brain dead in many ways. No language. No sensory processing. No vision hearing or touch perception. No internal thoughts. Nothing. (Look up "default mode network, and why internal thoughts won't exist without a cortex).
Brain stem mostly regulates things like heart beat and breathing.
I understand your point, and I consider it irrelevant. One of those fun side effects of having me define consciousness twice, and never contesting either definition directly....only indirectly implying that consciousness requires a human brain.
Okay but my point was you would say someone has consciousness when they are without any higher brain function and lacking a cortex.
And, someone with their higher cortex but a damaged cerebellum, who is no longer able to track time, would not be conscious, by your definition.
I mean if that's your definition then you are welcome to it.
I don't know of any theories of consciousness that consider the tracking of time to be what counts. 🤷. Because of the two examples I give.
Yep.
Like I said at the beginning. My first definition of consciousness is "a word meaningless enough to mean what you want, while still sounding like a serious person having a serious conversation".
Here is a list of your mistakes:
On the other hand, you don't seem stupid. Try joining a debate club at the local college, learn some fundamentals of rhetoric, and things will go much better for you in the future.
Edit: theories of consciousness are just as BS as theories of teapots orbiting Uranus, as they are unfalsifiable without arbitrary constraints.
Edit2: also, I should point out that having defined consciousness as 'awareness of the passage of time' after mentioning stimulus-response, I was pretty clearly setting up an argument that literally everything is conscious. That's why you should not have let me define the terms, and brought your own definition that I would have had to argue against.
There are definitions that actually fit with modern neuroscience and can be evaluated.
Your choice to choose a definition that doesn't align with modern knowledge is not evidence that it's undefinable.
The two most popular ones are a sense of self as separate from the environment.
Another is the ability to be able to predict the environment and plan or adjust plans accordingly.
Another is sensory binding to experience a unified perception.
All of these can be evaluated objectively and investigated for mechanisms. They all have a ton of research on them.
Your definition was something you came up with on the fly to see what I would say. And that's fine.
But I explained why this definition is flawed.
Even so. It can also be objectively measured and has been extensively researched as to its mechanisms.
So even if that was what consciousness is, we do have theories and research , at present, to explain how it works.