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

201–210 of 393 posts

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#201

Post by whaaswijk »

ncmncm wrote: post #140
whaaswijk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly, you're referring to the "easy" problem of consciousness, i.e. the "mechanistic" explanation of how a self could be constructed by the brain. That's an interesting question and I think your take is a coherent and plausible one (from a materialistic perspective). However, I still think this doesn't get around the hard problem of why these interactions actually feel like anything. I've never h…

You haven't explained why you think they shouldn't "feel like anything". How do you distinguish "feeling like anything" from anything else you experience?

Well, as far as I'm aware notions of feeling or experiencing are not accounted for in our current physical models. Does an electron feel anything? On the one hand, if it does, it seems to me like physical models have to be extended to include some primitive form of consciousness. This would be something like panpsychism. On the other hand, if single electrons do not have consciousness, why do large collections of them in specific structures have it? Note that, to me, it seems insufficient to say that collections of electrons can be used to model or compute with. Namely because it raises the question of why this modeling has a feeling tone (qualia) to it.

Finally, I don't know if I can make a meaningful distinction between feeling and experiencing. I believe a feeling is an experience.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#202

Post by visarga »

jostmey wrote: post #176
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…

What is consciousness? Self-awareness seems like a good definition that can be explained in the context of artificial intelligence research. What is the experience of consciousness? The experience of an emotion? To me, this seems beyond the reach of our current understanding

Well, at the very least there has to be a "space" of experiences where they can be represented and related to each other. This representation space needs to also include possible outcomes for the agent goals, this will color every perception into shades of "good" and "bad". This would explain how we can represent and value our experiences. Why do they feel like anything then? I bet it's because we have evolved hardware for it, and equally because we're playing a game with real stakes (the human game of life).

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#203

Post by webmaven »

neosat wrote: post #168
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…

exactly ^. The first central question is "how is it possible that we have any experience at all?" That leads naturally to the other important question "who is the observer that's aware" i.e. who is the "we"/I that is aware. It's telling that science has made incredible progress (e.g. in the last 100 years) but on questions such as these above, we know little more than people knew then. Although we do know a lot more…

Personally, I think that "who" is somewhat beside the point. "What" and "how" are the more interesting questions.

The answer to "who" just becomes "a specific instance of X" that perhaps has some low probability combination of minor characteristics compared to other Xs.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#204

Post by bitexploder »

Osiris wrote: post #196

I do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and a common submission technique is to cut off blood flow to the brain (known as a blood choke). I've lost consciousness twice after being put into a blood choke. The experience of regaining consciousness is visceral. For those that haven't experienced it, it's very much like a turning on a computer. Initially, your brain does not (or cannot) process input like vision, sound, touch, etc. Slo…

I slept once on the mats. I literally remember feeling like I was in a fuzzy and comfortable dream and waking up to my partner shaking me and asking if I am alright. I blurted out something like "What are we doing?" and I was wondering why my partner was sitting next to me and where I was and what was going on. But not in a panicked or concerned way. Like some parts of my brain knew what was happening. But the thinking me was trying to put together all the sub-conscious streams again and get them routed correctly.

Turns out his cross collar choke was tighter than I thought. It was not unpleasant and I had a mild buzzy/headache-y feel for the rest of the day. It all felt a little dreamy and is one of the strongest memories I have had in recent years. Definitely something I remember clearly.

Also: if anyone is in the Denver area we have mats at our office :)

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#205

Post by Dylan16807 »

visarga wrote: post #195
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? Let me send this ball straight back to you. In the morning when you wake up what happens? You might take something to eat. How would you find the kitchen, how would you recognise the food, or even know you need it? Of course, you are conscious. That's how. It is possible to be conscious because otherwise your body wouldn't be…

You don't think it's possible to seek nutrients without having experiences?

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#206

Post by visarga »

neosat wrote: post #168
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…

exactly ^. The first central question is "how is it possible that we have any experience at all?" That leads naturally to the other important question "who is the observer that's aware" i.e. who is the "we"/I that is aware. It's telling that science has made incredible progress (e.g. in the last 100 years) but on questions such as these above, we know little more than people knew then. Although we do know a lot more…

"Who is the observer" is not consistent. Maybe "what part of myself is the observer".

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#207

Post by Osiris »

bitexploder wrote: post #204
Osiris wrote: post #196

I do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and a common submission technique is to cut off blood flow to the brain (known as a blood choke). I've lost consciousness twice after being put into a blood choke. The experience of regaining consciousness is visceral. For those that haven't experienced it, it's very much like a turning on a computer. Initially, your brain does not (or cannot) process input like vision, sound, touch, etc. Slo…

I slept once on the mats. I literally remember feeling like I was in a fuzzy and comfortable dream and waking up to my partner shaking me and asking if I am alright. I blurted out something like "What are we doing?" and I was wondering why my partner was sitting next to me and where I was and what was going on. But not in a panicked or concerned way. Like some parts of my brain knew what was happening. But the thinki…

I live just south of Denver! What a coincidence.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#208

Post by at_a_remove »

Osiris wrote: post #196

I do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and a common submission technique is to cut off blood flow to the brain (known as a blood choke). I've lost consciousness twice after being put into a blood choke. The experience of regaining consciousness is visceral. For those that haven't experienced it, it's very much like a turning on a computer. Initially, your brain does not (or cannot) process input like vision, sound, touch, etc. Slo…

I had something similar on nitrous oxide, except that there was this sense that there were parts, like crystals, which were made to slot together and they were hooking back to each other, one by one, and each addition added some kind of functionality. Unfortunately, the whole thing was rather fast -- I come out of general anesthesia like a shot, I am told -- and I was unable to observe more than that.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#209

Post by dTal »

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…

>Why are you inside of your body and not in someone elses?

This seems definitionally incoherent, on the level of "if I had been Shakespeare, who would he have been?"

If "you" were "in" "someone else's" body... you'd be them, not you.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#210

Post by zozbot234 »

bondarchuk wrote: post #151
ed-209 wrote: post #45

Theorizing about the nature of consciousness without having been subjected to it's multitude of altered states is an obvious waste of time. If you can't or won't venture into the "field", then at least have the humility to address the aggregate experiential data of those who have.

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 (jhana) that are neither solely induced by drugs nor "strongly euphoric" in any real sense.
Post reply on HN