Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

#41

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

jnurmine wrote: post #39
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many neurons does it take to make a consciousness? The thing about consciousness is that you can't really define it. You know you have it because you experience it. You assume that other humans have it because they are like you. You might further assume that certain other beings have it because they are also like you in many ways (though you'd likely disagree with the idea that theirs is as meaningful as yours).…

Perhaps consciousness is not a crisp yes/no choice but a gradient... Dolphins are conscious but to a degree less than humans, likewise mice less than dolphins and so on.

Perhaps, and perhaps a person with Down's Syndrome has a lesser consciousness as well, but we have no way of knowing that. Personally I think it is pretty arrogant and shot-sighted of us to think that our experience of the universe is somehow better and more real than anything else's.

Re: The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

#42

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

_Schizotypy wrote: post #33
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many neurons does it take to make a consciousness? The thing about consciousness is that you can't really define it. You know you have it because you experience it. You assume that other humans have it because they are like you. You might further assume that certain other beings have it because they are also like you in many ways (though you'd likely disagree with the idea that theirs is as meaningful as yours).…

We don't know that yet, but there isn't functionality without the network

How much functionality is required? Where is the line? Human beings can live and interact with the world with fully half of their brain removed. Are they conscious? What about Asplanchna brightwellii and its 200 or so neurons?

Here's my point: there is literally no measurement you can perform that will help you draw this line, because the experience of consciousness is entirely subjective.

Re: The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

#43

Post by saalweachter »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #40
saalweachter wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhhhhh. I was trying to say the opposite. Or rather, I was actually trying to say that phenomenon are rarely unscientific, only the explanations . You can have scientific and unscientific explanations of the origin of life on Earth. You really only declare a phenomenon unscientific if we've spent a long time not being able to come up with any good scientific explanations. For instance, we commonly regard the questio…

The difference is that we can conceive of such testable predictions, even if we don't have any currently. That's because they'd be objectively observable. I challenge you to even conceive of what a "test for consciousness" would look like. Let's imagine you have one. How confident in it will you be when the first person who fails it says "but I am conscious!"?

You are confusing "a scientific test for consciousness" with "a scientific theory of consciousness".

False positive and negative rates are not particularly new to science or medicine. When we run blood tests to determine if a person has a particular disease, some percent of people with the disease will be tested as not having it, and some percentage of people without the disease will be tested as having it. Just because we fail to detect something accurately 100% of the time doesn't mean we don't understand it.

Re: The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

#44

Post by snikeris »

ghthor wrote: post #26
flossball wrote: post #3

What did I just read??? I can't help but feel stupider for reading it. This is complete garbage. Some relationship to the internal frequencies of the brain, ie. its various analog clock tree mechanisms means that because all matter is based on subatomic vibrations rocks and atoms have a degree of consciousness too? Wow, my laptop running at 2.2GHz(and various other frequencies) must be a supreme being. Yes, obviously…

What is your definition of consciousness? Mine is the ability to see a probabilistic future and maybe make decisions about that future. Under that defination all matter is conscience due to its quantum probalistic nature.

Having an experience of the color red, for example.

I think I'd call what you're describing executive functioning.

I'd imagine one could experience things w/out having any notion about the future, or even an ability to make decisions.

Re: The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

#45

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

saalweachter wrote: post #43
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that we can conceive of such testable predictions, even if we don't have any currently. That's because they'd be objectively observable. I challenge you to even conceive of what a "test for consciousness" would look like. Let's imagine you have one. How confident in it will you be when the first person who fails it says "but I am conscious!"?

You are confusing "a scientific test for consciousness" with "a scientific theory of consciousness". False positive and negative rates are not particularly new to science or medicine. When we run blood tests to determine if a person has a particular disease, some percent of people with the disease will be tested as not having it, and some percentage of people without the disease will be tested as having it. Just beca…

You're missing the point, which is this: How do you know your scientific test is accurate? With a disease, we know by looking at the results of people who were inoculated or treated vs those who weren't. This is possible because data is objective.

When you are making your magic consciousness detector, how will you know when it is working?

Re: The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

#46

Post by _Schizotypy »

snikeris wrote: post #44
ghthor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your definition of consciousness? Mine is the ability to see a probabilistic future and maybe make decisions about that future. Under that defination all matter is conscience due to its quantum probalistic nature.

Having an experience of the color red, for example. I think I'd call what you're describing executive functioning. I'd imagine one could experience things w/out having any notion about the future, or even an ability to make decisions.

How do you define "experience"?

Re: The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

#47

Post by saalweachter »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #45
saalweachter wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing "a scientific test for consciousness" with "a scientific theory of consciousness". False positive and negative rates are not particularly new to science or medicine. When we run blood tests to determine if a person has a particular disease, some percent of people with the disease will be tested as not having it, and some percentage of people without the disease will be tested as having it. Just beca…

You're missing the point, which is this: How do you know your scientific test is accurate? With a disease, we know by looking at the results of people who were inoculated or treated vs those who weren't. This is possible because data is objective. When you are making your magic consciousness detector, how will you know when it is working?

Why do you need a consciousness detector/test at all to study the nature of consciousness and develop a falsifiable theory that explains its origins, properties, and the conditions under which it can exist?

Re: The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

#48

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

saalweachter wrote: post #47
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point, which is this: How do you know your scientific test is accurate? With a disease, we know by looking at the results of people who were inoculated or treated vs those who weren't. This is possible because data is objective. When you are making your magic consciousness detector, how will you know when it is working?

Why do you need a consciousness detector/test at all to study the nature of consciousness and develop a falsifiable theory that explains its origins, properties, and the conditions under which it can exist?

If you have a theory about the conditions under which consciousness can exist, you will need to test it. How will you test that theory if you cannot tell what is and isn't conscious in the first place?

Let's say my theory says that rocks are conscious and hippos are not. Without some means of detecting consciousness this theory is untestable.

Re: The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man

#49

Post by snikeris »

_Schizotypy wrote: post #46
snikeris wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having an experience of the color red, for example. I think I'd call what you're describing executive functioning. I'd imagine one could experience things w/out having any notion about the future, or even an ability to make decisions.

How do you define "experience"?

What happens to you when you're conscious or dreaming.
Post reply on HN