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

What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 393 posts

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#181

Post by bondarchuk »

psyc wrote: post #161
bondarchuk wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very funny, of course, but one can easily reply that those who do believe consciousness is a hard problem are just deluding themselves. Especially when (as is usually the case) a clear definition of the concept "hard problem" is not even given.

I hardly think Chalmers (and others) forgot to define what the problem is. It's more likely you haven't read and/or understood them.

The definition given in Chalmers (1995, facing up to...) following Nagel, i.e. using the linguistic construction "what it is like", is incomprehensible and ill-defined. I believe this is the origin of the term "hard problem". Some other arguments for the existence of a hard problem build on the dogma that "philosophical zombies" are conceivable (which we can deny by saying they aren't). Others depend on inverted qualia thought experiments, which we can deflate by denying that inverted qualia are possible at all (or by denying that "qualia" is a coherent and well-defined concept). If there's an unambiguous and clear explanation of the concept of "hard problem of consciousness", or a clear argument for the existence of such a problem not built on shaky assumptions, I'd love to hear it.

By the way, there is a whole line of debate on the sense or nonsense of the ever-present "what it is like" phrasing:

>‘What it is like’ talk (‘WIL-talk’) — the use of phrases such as ‘what it is like’ — is ubiquitous in discussions of phenomenal consciousness. It is used to define, make claims about, and to offer arguments concerning consciousness. But what this talk means is unclear, as is how it means what it does: how, by putting these words in this order, we communicate something about consciousness. Without a good account of WIL-talk, we cannot be sure this talk sheds light, rather than casts shadows, on our investigations of consciousness.

(Jonathan Farrell - ‘What it is Like’ Talk is not Technical Talk)

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#182

Post by bondarchuk »

felix318 wrote: post #180
bondarchuk wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble is that the sort of drug-induced insight (or pseudo-insight as some would call it) you refer to is usually accompanied by strong euphoric effects, which impairs your ability to dryly reason about those experiences even a long time after the fact. Nor can I completely shake the impression that those who believe a e.g. a DMT trip offers genuine insight into the nature of consciousness simply had an insuffic…

There are altered states of consciousness that occur naturally and don't lead to a sense of euphoria. Sleep paralysis for example. It happened to me once and it made me see things differently, nothing religious or mystical, just an enhanced perspective. To give an example, during my episode I had what is usually described as an out-of-body experience. I felt myself walking around my bedroom as if I were awake, only t…

One can easily arrive at the same insight (i.e. being in the body is just an illusion) without actually experiencing it. Of course, if you have such an experience and you get knowledge or inspiration from it, so much the better. But to say that theorizing about consciousness is a waste of time if you haven't experienced altered states is myopic.

(sleep paralysis is a good example though)

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#183

Post by felix318 »

bondarchuk wrote: post #182
felix318 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are altered states of consciousness that occur naturally and don't lead to a sense of euphoria. Sleep paralysis for example. It happened to me once and it made me see things differently, nothing religious or mystical, just an enhanced perspective. To give an example, during my episode I had what is usually described as an out-of-body experience. I felt myself walking around my bedroom as if I were awake, only t…

One can easily arrive at the same insight (i.e. being in the body is just an illusion) without actually experiencing it. Of course, if you have such an experience and you get knowledge or inspiration from it, so much the better. But to say that theorizing about consciousness is a waste of time if you haven't experienced altered states is myopic. (sleep paralysis is a good example though)

I don't think it's a waste of time (I'm not OP by the way) but you would surely be missing data.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#184

Post by eatsyourtacos »

zubspace wrote: post #41
krapp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only fascinating if you refuse to accept a non-supernatural or non-metaphysical definition of consciousness. Otherwise, most of these questions become trivial when consciousness is considered as a physical, biological process bound to the brain. Why is consciousness bound to a person's location? Because their brain is bound inside their skull. Why are you inside your body and not someone else's? Because your…

I can completely follow your logic. And I completely agree that going supernatural or decending into a soul-debate is not constructive. That was not my intent. Still, you and I can probably agree to some extent, that there is an inner eye inside of our heads looking outside. It also makes sense to me, that those processes could spawn from a feedback loop inside of a brain. Still. why did this inner eye spawn in this…

>Still. why did this inner eye spawn in this head we are in? There are 8 billion heads, why this one?

I get what you are saying, but honestly that question doesn't make sense. You are this one because that is how your brain developed.. just like you physically look how you are because of how your body developed. To say "why am I how I am" to me is no different than "why do I look this way?"

>Can it be explained physically?

Well.. if I smash you in the head with a hammer, your "consciousness" would most likely be affected because I damaged your brain, right? Seems pretty straightforward that we can indirectly say that yes it can be explained physically. We may not be able to explain the details.. but seems like we can say it's just simply what our brain evolved to do. Just like how our physical looks evolved for various reasons / chance.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#185

Post by cgriswald »

stevofolife wrote: post #147
misja111 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have neither a feeling nor a rationally logical proof of this idea. It's just an intuitive guess. This intuition, that there is something special and unique about what 'we' are, is baked into our brains by many thousands of years of evolution, and this makes it so extremely difficult for us to believe that there's nothing more to us then a bunch of molecules. This is why people have invented theories about souls,…

We are unique as humans if you compare us to any biological being. Saying we are not is a very big understatement.

My interpretation of the GP's use of 'unique' here isn't specific necessarily to humans, just to conscious beings.

Still, if you take the set H of properties of humans and the set B of the properties of all other Earth creatures, you'll find that H is a proper subset of B. What makes humans 'unique' in the regard you mean isn't kind, but scale and combination.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#186

Post by tablespoon »

throwawayguy7 wrote: post #78

What this article and most others lack is an adult treatment of why serious neuroscientists and philosphers of the mind feel the problem is in fact, hard. To me, the fact that illusion and hallucination are being invoked is strong evidence of handwaving being engaged in to dismiss an otherwise difficult problem. This is not a scientifically rigorous explanation and it doesn't take the other side seriously. As a young…

> To me, the fact that illusion and hallucination are being invoked is strong evidence of handwaving being engaged in to dismiss an otherwise difficult problem. This is not a scientifically rigorous explanation and it doesn't take the other side seriously.

Yeah. IIRC, some people say the passage of time is an illusion too. It's pretty hard for me to take seriously anyone who defends their favored theory or interpretation by hand-waving away contrary but fundamental observations as illusions.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#187

Post by eatsyourtacos »

krapp wrote: post #26
zubspace wrote: post #23

What I find fascinating about consciousness is that it seems to be bound to your location. But how and why? Why are you inside of your body and not in someone elses? The article poses this question, but leaves it unanswered. For me it begs the question: If conscousness is bound to a location, is it possible to transfer consciousness from one entity to another? Is there some kind of thing we did not yet detect? What h…

This is only fascinating if you refuse to accept a non-supernatural or non-metaphysical definition of consciousness. Otherwise, most of these questions become trivial when consciousness is considered as a physical, biological process bound to the brain. Why is consciousness bound to a person's location? Because their brain is bound inside their skull. Why are you inside your body and not someone else's? Because your…

Completely strange people downvote this comment. It is completely logical, and if you disagree with any of this- it is up to you to prove otherwise.

Obviously it does make people uncomfortable talking like this.. I don't understand why, I guess they are scared of the simple truth that we are simply the most evolved animals on our planet- but still animals. There is nothing special about our brain (compared to other species), it's just a bit more advanced. And we have physical features that have basically allowed us to take advantage of our brain power and continue to grow.

We are animals. So anyone who wants to talk about consciousness being on something like a 'soul' or whatever better be just as prepared to talk about how my cat also has a soul.. and dolphins have a soul.. and why is this dolphin's consciousness in dolphin A instead of dolphin B.

I think the truth is a lot less interesting than people want to believe..

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#188

Post by foobarian »

eatsyourtacos wrote: post #184
zubspace wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can completely follow your logic. And I completely agree that going supernatural or decending into a soul-debate is not constructive. That was not my intent. Still, you and I can probably agree to some extent, that there is an inner eye inside of our heads looking outside. It also makes sense to me, that those processes could spawn from a feedback loop inside of a brain. Still. why did this inner eye spawn in this…

>Still. why did this inner eye spawn in this head we are in? There are 8 billion heads, why this one? I get what you are saying, but honestly that question doesn't make sense. You are this one because that is how your brain developed.. just like you physically look how you are because of how your body developed. To say "why am I how I am" to me is no different than "why do I look this way?" >Can it be explained physi…

The question is, why did the FPV-experiencing consciousness happen to bind to the body you are in? And why does it stick?

I guess it would be interesting to look at why it persists through sleep. And whether there were ever instances of people who wake up with different personalities. Also edge cases around coma/near-death restarts.

Or maybe things work like coroutines, and no matter which thread you get assigned to the state is all in the context. I mean it looks like that is 99.9% the case given what we know about memory formation, physical brain structures etc.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#190

Post by naasking »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #93

Like Dennett in "Consciousness Explained", both of these authors seem almost entirely focused on what we are conscious of rather than the fact that we are conscious of anything at all. Their descriptions of their work are all centered on the question of what it is that we actually experience. This is is a fascinating question, and entirely worthy of investigation. But it is not the same question as: how is it possibl…

> But it is not the same question as: how is it possible that we have any experience at all?

You're right, it's not the same question. Dennett answers that question too though: you don't have conscious experience, you only think you do.

Thus, the questions he and these authors address are the only ones worth investigating. In time, exploring these questions will reveal the illusion behind consciousness, just like the progressive elaboration of the biochemistry of life revealed the fiction people tried to spin around how living matter simply had to have something different than non-living matter ("elan vital" in vitalism).

Post reply on HN