Live data from Hacker News

A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

sciencemag.org

121–130 of 224 posts

Re: A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

#121
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman numerals are not a place-value system and you can’t make a computer use Roman numerals just by switching to a custom font.

OpenType font shaping is shockingly powerful ([e.g.]( https://blog.janestreet.com/commas-in-big-numbers-everywhere... ), so I'd be surprised if someone hasn't made a Roman numeral font already.

Heh, I knew I should have said something about OpenType shenanigans :)

Re: A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

#122
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your definition actually accurate enough to capture instances of intuitive judgements that "this is a conscious being" without being overly broad to include "obviously non-conscious" things? By calling it a spectrum, the already fuzzy definition becomes so broad as to be almost useless. Your spectrum and "knowing" model admits conscious GPS, albeit "low consciousness." What about spiders or GPT-3 or suitibly chose…

Self-awareness is paradoxical, I am aware of that. What I'm trying to model at least mentally for now, is something that has a chance of becoming self-aware unless we are missing something else. In other words, let's say these are the necessary but not necessarily sufficient conditions for the emergence of self-awareness: (1) having some model of the world (MOTW), (2) maintaing a relative position of Self in MOTW, (3…

I don't think it's paradoxical. I just get the impression you may have jumped to building models without carefully considering the exact phenomenon you claim to deconstruct. "Self-awareness" or "consciousness" are just words. What do they point to in the world?

Re: A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

#124
The post only mentions recognizing letters and digits, but no mention of the subject actually writing them. Since the subject was an engineer, maybe writing numbers would be a sort of mechanical thing, that could bypass that limitation? That would've been a nice addition to this study.

Re: A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

#125
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes me think of this silliness I saw today: https://mobile.twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/12892831187305... I recommend first watching it with you eyes closed and after that seeing how you can manipulate your perception. It was easy to hear “brain needle” with my eyes closed.

I don't get it, all I can hear is some noise followed by 'brain storm'.

The point is that the "brainstorm" bit can also sound like "green needle" if you focus on it.

Re: A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

#126

Somehow this is not surprising for me, I have heard about experiments related to free-will wherein the brain already made a decision even before the conscious mind became aware of it. Thus putting doubts on our conscious experience of free-will. Also, in terms of problem solving, there are experiments which show that the brain calculates the answers and "presents" the answers later on to the consciousness. It's not l…

All of the research you describe can be safely bundled into the same category as "dead salmon shows brain activity on an fMRI if you squint hard enough." It's phrenology for the 21st century, except with dyes and MRIs instead of head shaped calipers. The second you say the words "conscious mind", you leave the realm of science. At best, "consciousness" is an abstraction used by psychiatrists and laypeople over much d…

Isn't "conscious mind" just shorthand for "frontal lobes" ?

If we can detect the brain solving a variety of things without ever hitting the frontal lobes then that's pretty interesting.

Re: A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

#127
post #41

> In contrast, when shown numbers with embedded faces, the number’s effect apparently swamped that of the face: RFS reported seeing neither; everything looked like spaghetti. Yet an EEG still showed the characteristic N170 spike for registering faces. Somehow, his brain was still processing and identifying a face—a fairly high-level skill—even though his conscious mind was oblivious. This deficit shows high-level cog…

Makes me think of this silliness I saw today: https://mobile.twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/12892831187305... I recommend first watching it with you eyes closed and after that seeing how you can manipulate your perception. It was easy to hear “brain needle” with my eyes closed.

The comments below are fascinating too. Some claiming that it's two separate recordings even though you can easily see that it's a single six second video, and others even talking about Russian brain washing.

Re: A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

#128
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-awareness is paradoxical, I am aware of that. What I'm trying to model at least mentally for now, is something that has a chance of becoming self-aware unless we are missing something else. In other words, let's say these are the necessary but not necessarily sufficient conditions for the emergence of self-awareness: (1) having some model of the world (MOTW), (2) maintaing a relative position of Self in MOTW, (3…

I don't think it's paradoxical. I just get the impression you may have jumped to building models without carefully considering the exact phenomenon you claim to deconstruct. "Self-awareness" or "consciousness" are just words. What do they point to in the world?

I experience some sort of an illusion of existence. Then I look at other creatures that look like me and act like me and I generalize, I say: maybe they exist the same way as I do. Then I hear from others that the generalization seems to be called "counsciousness" or sometimes "self-awareness". It's paradoxical because "I" doesn't exist the same way as a rock or any object and yet its continuity creates a resemblance, an illusion of existence.

Try to think of your exact quantum copies - what happens the moment you are cloned? What happens to your "I"? Nothing. The "I" never existed in the first place and therefore nothing happens to it when it's physically copied ;) That's the paradox.

Re: A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

#129
post #49
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes me think of this silliness I saw today: https://mobile.twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/12892831187305... I recommend first watching it with you eyes closed and after that seeing how you can manipulate your perception. It was easy to hear “brain needle” with my eyes closed.

This is insane. Does anyone know where I could read about how this works or how the audio is generated?

I don't and that's a good question, but you may be interested to know that it need not be generated. Look up some YouTube videos relating to the "Paul is dead" conspiracy theories and there are several examples. People swear they can hear "I buried Paul", but you can also make yourself hear "Cranberry sauce" (which is what a Beatle said was actually the line).

Re: A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness

#130
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the research you describe can be safely bundled into the same category as "dead salmon shows brain activity on an fMRI if you squint hard enough." It's phrenology for the 21st century, except with dyes and MRIs instead of head shaped calipers. The second you say the words "conscious mind", you leave the realm of science. At best, "consciousness" is an abstraction used by psychiatrists and laypeople over much d…

Why does our not fully (or even close to fully) understanding how the brain works mean conscious vs subconscious is unscientific? Is all mental health research unscientific based on the same logic? My understanding is that it's conclusive that some of our brain's processes we feel we are controlling (conscious thinking), while others happen in the background without us realising. The fact that we don't understand eve…

You're making a common mistake, that of equating "scientific" with "good". Science is a particular method for learning about the world, not a marker of moral worth. I don't want to get too far into the epistemological weeds here, but there are plenty of other, perfectly valid ways to understand the world, many of which are used and studied in academia. The easiest examples to point to are philosophy and mathematics. Mathematicians are not scientists, neither are philosophers.
Post reply on HN