this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
117 points (96.8% liked)
Showerthoughts
43095 readers
149 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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.