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

Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 280 posts

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#131

Post by goldenkey »

Ste_Evans wrote: post #129
cam_l wrote: post #127

My favourite explanation of the emergence of consciousness inherent in matter is an article by Elizabeth Grosz. It makes an argument for what i guess is a version of panpsychism that sounds, philosophically, very practical. http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia15/parrhesia15_gros...

Yes, but the problem is it is contradicted by scientific observation: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-thin... What do we call academics who ignore current knowledge that contradicts their ideas? Cranks. A subset of cranks being most "philosophers".

Oh please suppress your ad hominem "crank" attack. The post you linked gets so many things wrong, its as if they are battling an entirely different entity.

Electrons don't need to think to be conscious because thinking != consciousness. Experiencing their state is all that needs to occur to satisfy consciousness.

The idea is that consciousness experienced is 1:1 with the state of the matter producing the consciousness.

Also, the randomness in quantum behavior could actually be how conscious entities think. Electrons may only have a couple states but they get to roll the dice, fairly, on those states. Just like we think we do, even though our decisions are random..not actually "willed."

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#132

Post by goldenkey »

yokljo wrote: post #113

What if your consciousness exists outside your physical brain, and within your brain is basically an aerial that is "tuned to your frequency", so no matter where you are your brain will always communicate with the same consciousness. I suppose with that theory comes the ability for two brains to tune into the same consciousness, and various other fun implications. Is there already a name for this?

In the same vein, there are theories that subunits of our brain are conscious in their own right. And if the visual cortex could communicate itd say "Stop showing me cat memes!!" :-)

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#133

Post by trixie_ »

dEnigma wrote: post #112
trixie_ wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given what artificial neural networks are already capable of, it shouldn't seem like a magic trick what our own brains are capable of (from the outside). The hang up is on the inside right? You have an essence to your consciousness experience that you believe a fly, bacteria, rock, computer, artificial neural network may or may not have. Panpsychism does answer that question by saying yes, they all have some sliver o…

Simply answering a question with "Yes" without providing evidence or a deeper explanation seems pretty useless and like no additional knowledge was gained.

Pansychism seems to explain a lot of the hard questions. Even without a deeper understanding than 'there is a single conscious and you are a piece of it', simply thinking that way changes the understanding of life/death. You are unknowingly everyone. Punching a guy is on some level punching yourself. The afterlife is irrelevant, when you die you go on existing as the other 7 billion humans, plus animals, etc... This is why philosophers and neuroscientists alike a so excited about the idea and writing papers about it.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#134

Post by goto11 »

Ste_Evans wrote: post #129
cam_l wrote: post #127

My favourite explanation of the emergence of consciousness inherent in matter is an article by Elizabeth Grosz. It makes an argument for what i guess is a version of panpsychism that sounds, philosophically, very practical. http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia15/parrhesia15_gros...

Yes, but the problem is it is contradicted by scientific observation: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-thin... What do we call academics who ignore current knowledge that contradicts their ideas? Cranks. A subset of cranks being most "philosophers".

It is not contradicted. That comment is not science, it is just speculation (or philosophy if you wish). It is a grave fallacy to think that just because speculation is performed by a scientist, that speculation is science or "observation".

At our current understanding of consciousness we have no way of observing its presence or absence except subjectively. So at this point there is no scientific way of either proving or disproving that a carrot have consciousness.

You may think it is "obvious" that a carrot does not have consciousness. Which is fine, but that doesn't make the opinion science. For what it is is worth I intuitively think consciousness requires a complex brain, but I recognize I cannot prove or disprove it given our current understanding.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#135

Post by robotresearcher »

yokljo wrote: post #113

What if your consciousness exists outside your physical brain, and within your brain is basically an aerial that is "tuned to your frequency", so no matter where you are your brain will always communicate with the same consciousness. I suppose with that theory comes the ability for two brains to tune into the same consciousness, and various other fun implications. Is there already a name for this?

Dualism.

Or ‘Mind-body dualism’ to disambiguate with other uses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_dualism

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#136

Post by sgt101 »

trixie_ wrote: post #95
jacobsimon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree with the problems you describe, but I don’t think panpsychism explains any of these problems either. It’s a non-answer, and functionally equivalent to saying nothing about consciousness. The “evolutionary illusion” you describe is precisely what we’re trying to understand: the brain is doing an extraordinary magic trick and no one knows how.

Given what artificial neural networks are already capable of, it shouldn't seem like a magic trick what our own brains are capable of (from the outside). The hang up is on the inside right? You have an essence to your consciousness experience that you believe a fly, bacteria, rock, computer, artificial neural network may or may not have. Panpsychism does answer that question by saying yes, they all have some sliver o…

I'm curious, could you list the things that you think Anns can do that underpin your argument?

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#137

Post by pcpcpc »

paraschopra wrote: post #84

Panpsychism is exciting. But there are two problems in it. One is the combination problem: what sort of collection of atoms are conscious and what are not. If you propose then that only agents or complex systems are conscious, you are faced with the second problem: the boundary condition. What do you call an agent, and why? I’m ultimately hopeful that subjective experience will come to be seen as something fundamenta…

For anyone else reading this comment and curious about Buddhism and Panpsychism, here are some links. Buddhism suggests that the perception of the boundary of the self (I am a distinct, separate being) is a delusion/wrong view. Perhaps we experience a shared universal consciousness (with discreet elements?) passing through ourselves like a river with drops of water flowing through it, evaporating, and then falling somewhere far away?

"Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen Buddhism, went so far as to say, “All is sentient being.” Grass, trees, land, sun, moon and stars are all mind" https://www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch-unites-buddhist-neur...

"It’s like a cloud. Even when the cloud is not there, it continues always as snow or rain. The cloud does not need to have a soul in order to continue. There’s no beginning and no end. You don’t need to wait until the total dissolution of this body to continue—you continue in every moment." https://engagedharma.net/2017/07/05/thich-nhat-hanh-there-is...

More here... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Western_philoso... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#138

Post by goldenkey »

kirre245 wrote: post #111
trixie_ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think panpsychism argues that everything is conscious, at all levels, simultaneously. There are no boundaries. What you experience as a boundary is just the limit of your awareness. Just as you don't consciously beat your heart or heal your wounds. And if you think about it a lot it's tough to really tell where your own boundary brain/body ends and the environment begins. I like the panpsychism stuff because it res…

Maybe I misunderstand the concept, but when we are newly born we are somewhat not conscious in the usual sense of self. In that theory does it mean we, or our atoms are already conscious but we dont have the awareness yet? Because our brain is first producing a trick of the perception of self once it is fully developed? In the spiritual world many advanced people have had these experiences of oneness with the world o…

You are hitting the right target. Looking at recurrent neural nets. Finite impulse responses. A consciousness experience is merely a transformation of external reality over time and space. It can tangle the left leg with the thumb, the past with the present. For simple entities, like electrons, their lack of memory means that entanglement will be extremely basic. For more complex things that involve more tangled transformations of reality through space and time, thatll mean a greater amount of awareness of the center of that tangle.

For us, the center of the tangle is our bodies, located, and present. But like you said, babies are very much just passthroughs like the electron. The only difference is that they are storing a ton, the storage just isnt being used in any capacity, its passively sitting there. As the storage begins to become used, and sent to interfere with the present and future inputs, then self awareness results in the form of the intersection.

Good observations..!

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#139

Post by qyv »

yokljo wrote: post #113

What if your consciousness exists outside your physical brain, and within your brain is basically an aerial that is "tuned to your frequency", so no matter where you are your brain will always communicate with the same consciousness. I suppose with that theory comes the ability for two brains to tune into the same consciousness, and various other fun implications. Is there already a name for this?

What if we all share the same consciousness, but are simply unable to comprehend it? To me the idea that all concious entities are in fact shared is comforting, because it implies that what we do with our lives will always be remembered. Even after our lives end, our singular consciousness, with all of our memories, thoughts and feelings, remains.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#140

Post by TeMPOraL »

drdeca wrote: post #128
blechinger wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because we perceive something doesn't make it real. I think that's the issue here. By what mechanisms do we prove the perception is congruent with reality?

I believe this was all in response to the idea that “it _feels_ like consciousness is in the head/brain” being an argument against panpsychism. That one can do things such that it _feels like_ one’s consciousness is elsewhere, seems to go against that point? Though, a similar point of “if a person loses their head, their consciousness seems to go away. Their hands do not move independently.” And “ If, as panpsychism…

> I believe this was all in response to the idea that “it _feels_ like consciousness is in the head/brain” being an argument against panpsychism.

I'm trying to argue against panpsychism by noting that the place where it "feels like" consciousness is is completely arbitrary and one can learn to move it around, so this feeling is useless as evidence for panpsychism.

Post reply on HN