Consciousness and the Laws of Physics • Hacker News Board

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#81

Post by morpheos137 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:53 PM UTC

foxhop wrote: post #75

morpheos137 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the program was coded to produce subjective feeling, no. Otherwise, it would suprise me very much. I believe what we call consciousness is selected for and is written into the structure our brains have. I do not beleive that consciouness exists outside of living brains. Maybe I am wrong but so far there has not been much evidence. I also do not believe consciousness is simply an accident but that it was specifical…

Check out some documentaries on the octopus or the crow. You might have to revisit some of these theories.

Are you saying an octopus or a crow is not conscious? I am not saying that. To me it is clear that higher animals have a sense of self. Whether they can pass the paint dot test is another matter.

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#82

Post by roberttod » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:53 PM UTC

skohan wrote: post #62

vermilingua wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This solution isn’t ignored because it’s boring, but because it isn’t rigorous enough. If consciousness just is an emergent property of the function of neural cells, define function, define neural cells? What is the lowest level of complexity of each that allows consciousness? Why only neural cells, that is if it is only neural cells at all? By the anthropic principle it is a given that consciousness arises from the…

Idk I tend to think it is rigorous enough, and maybe the fact that we don't intuitively believe it's rigorous enough is an artifact of an evolved spiritual impulse. It seems to me consciousness is something we have to have to exist the way that we do. In order for the human animal to function, we need to understand the past, predict the future, understand the motivations of others and come up with stories about the w…

Could you explain why only some of our neurons are part of our consciousness? If it's emergent then why does only part of our nervous system get to experience the world, or is the other part also concious but we are not aware?

There's a lot of tricky questions here that no one can really explain. I don't think the answer need be any "spookier" than any phenomenon that's unexplained - except maybe it's just surprising we've made so little progress at all.

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#83

Post by foxhop » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

skohan wrote: post #36

sampo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the tv-series Big Bang Theory, there is a moment where Sheldon (a theoretical physicist) and Amy (a neuroscientist) argue, whose discipline is more important and fundamental. Sheldon says that physics studies the fundamental building blocks of the universe. And just like your professor, Amy says something along the lines that neuroscience studies the processes that study the fundamental building blocks of the univ…

I really hate that show, but along those lines I have sometimes wondered if when we are studying theoretical mathematics, are we actually discovering principals about how the universe works, or are we really mapping principals of how the brain processes information without realizing it.

I love the map analogy, humans have been making those for a long time too. I've always enjoyed maps and mazes and also why I took to mathematics at a young age because it does seem like once you learn basic algorithms you can feel around a problem with numbers and then just get a sense because you know the "map" like the back of your hand. Teaches the next generation, universal way to communicate with other humans at the same level of abstraction, etc.

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#84

Post by ulisesrmzroche » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

ulisesrmzroche wrote: post #52

vehemenz wrote: post #14

A few thoughts. 1. Sean is leaving CalTech at the end of next year. It's not a huge surprise, given his interests, that he is pursuing the issues in the philosophy of mind that intersect with quantum physics. Most work in this area is unadulterated quackery, and he is one of the few physicists who understands philosophy well enough to not make me cringe. 2. Most physicists implicitly engage in ontological metaphysics…

I dunno, it’s hard to tell. Everett never wavered. It’s not like everyone bought into MWI in the first place. As in everyone thought he was crazy until everyone realized he wasn’t. Why go with general consensus now when general consensus was wrong from the start? Downvotes of course. Y’all do realize that the consensus of physics at one point was that the earth was flat right?

The essay is good tho. I fall on the camp that feels there’s some surprises yet but it’s definitely not panpsychics

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#85

Post by dukeofdoom » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #68

dukeofdoom wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah maybe, but that's a little like claiming Usain Bolt isn't the fastest man in the world because there is no agreed definition of "fastest man", because everyone can have their own definition of what is means to be the fastest man. IQ is the best measure we have to compare how fast your brain stores and processes information compared to others.

Sure, that could be a reasonable thing to say about IQ. But "fastest man" is well defined, because speed is well-defined. "being fast at storing and processing information" is a candidate for a definition of intelligence, but far from the only one. So no, it's nothing like claiming that Usain Bolt isn't the fastest man in the world. Or maybe it is: Bolt is almost certainly not the fastest person over 100 miles, so wh…

IQ tests tend to have a mix of questions to measure:

"verbal comprehension, processing speed, perceptual organization, and working memory"

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#86

Post by athenasword » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

EMM_386 wrote: post #24

lbrandy wrote: post #6

Here's my attempt at a tldr. 1. The laws of physics at the time scales, space scales, and energies of the human brain are "known" and we have deep reasons to believe that more will not be discovered. He spends a great deal of space explaining and arguing that the credence that physics is "complete" in this regime should be very, very high. 2. Given the current laws of physics, there is no place or room for non-physic…

How does free will play into this? If the world is run by all physical laws, then I had no choice typing this out and submitting it, rather then closing the tab right now. My "decision" isn't real. If it is an actual conscious choice, that was not calculatable by the exact state prior, then consciousness is fundamental.

My conclusion after a good amount of reading and thinking on this:

Free will, defined as autonomous decision-making partially influenced/affected by the external environment, does exist.

Now 'autonomous' = determined by the agent, i.e. the decision to have pizza today is determined by something in you, not fully determined externally, but that something is likely not your conscious experience.

In that sense, free will does not exist.

But that does *not* mean that everything you do is predictable because P!=NP. Even God, if s/he exists, does not yet know what you will do tomorrow, s/he's waiting to find out.

So: you are not free, but you are not bound to something either.

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#87

Post by BoiledCabbage » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 3:00 PM UTC

srean wrote: post #45

creamytaco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is another wow moment that follows from the one you mentioned: The universe you experience is different than my own. We use language and shared culture to consensually hallucinate a "shared" universe but no such thing truly exists for us. We can perceive objects and describe them in similar ways but the fact remains that we can't access the universe that the objects truly exist in (if that even exists) since, fo…

That's right. Things that we agree on being named the same we call 'real'. Imagine this, say what everyone perceives as the color red I perceive it as what everyone else perceives as yellow. But since I have been taught the name of the colors by these people, I will end up matching the names of the colors although I am perceiving something very different. This needs to be considered in debates on whether animals have…

> Only thing we have is their observable external behavior. If that is consistent with the 'consciousness' hypothesis, then that's all we can say. In that case we have about as much evidence of presence of consciousness that a fellow human ...

It's been mind boggling to me for years that this isn't the default accepted position. That most intelligent life (ie animals) are conscious just like us. Look at what dogs, cats, monkeys do. In what possible way can you say they aren't conscious but another person you can't speak with is? Based on what evidence?

The fact we try and reserve consciousness for humans is the most "epi-cycles in support of geocentrism" thing I've ever seen in science. It's silly. It's wholly unscientific, in fact it's anti-science as it actively avoids the most scientific explanation to reach a conclusion that "we're special".

Its flawed and a stain on science.

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#88

Post by foxhop » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

Arun2009 wrote: post #40

One of the things I want to do before I die is to acquire an authentic knowledge of classical Indian philosophy (particularly the monistic idealistic strands of thought in it) and the modern scientific account of reality, and evaluate for myself how their claims fare against that of the other. I don't understand why more Indians and particularly Hindus are not doing this. This looks to me like a thrilling intellectua…

Me too! However why stop at Indian philosophy?

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#89

Post by jcims » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #16

Personally, it amazes me how many people find it difficult to believe or accept, that human consciousness would just be an emergent property of how neural cells function and are connected together. That all of human consciousness would reside on a higher level than the laws of molecular physics and chemistry. That consciousness emerges from the level of cell biology. No need to postulate anything supernatural, or any…

'Emergent phenomena' is the 'draw the rest of the damn owl' of this conversation. It's doing way too much work to be useful. It's like saying that life is an emergent phenomena from condensed energy.

Re: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics

#90

Post by skohan » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

roberttod wrote: post #82

skohan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk I tend to think it is rigorous enough, and maybe the fact that we don't intuitively believe it's rigorous enough is an artifact of an evolved spiritual impulse. It seems to me consciousness is something we have to have to exist the way that we do. In order for the human animal to function, we need to understand the past, predict the future, understand the motivations of others and come up with stories about the w…

Could you explain why only some of our neurons are part of our consciousness? If it's emergent then why does only part of our nervous system get to experience the world, or is the other part also concious but we are not aware? There's a lot of tricky questions here that no one can really explain. I don't think the answer need be any "spookier" than any phenomenon that's unexplained - except maybe it's just surprising…

Which part of an internal combustion engine creates the forward motion of a car? Is it the fuel injector? The spark plugs? The pistons? Of course it's none of these things: the function of an engine is obviously a result of all of these parts of a complex system working together. It would be silly to claim that internal combustion is some intrinsic property of matter which exists at some level in the metal of the pistons, and maybe also in the doors of the car in a way we don't fully understand.

Consciousness is observably a property of the brain. Consciousness can be predictably altered or removed by interfering with the chemical function at the synapse, or by inflicting physical trauma on brain tissue. Honestly I don't see what is so difficult to understand here.