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

381–390 of 393 posts

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#381

Post by solarmist »

davidhs wrote: post #261
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 have orthostatic hypotension, which doesn't affect me as much since I've gained weight, and I've lost consciousness from standing to quickly up, but sometimes it doesn't all go away. I black out, a moment later I am somewhere, I don't know who I am or where I am, a moment later the rest fills in. The way I understand it as the blood pressure drops your brain stops to function properly but it might still somewhat fu…

Yup. I have this too and have had similar experiences, but they've only lasted a couple seconds. I wasn't able to get a detailed picture like OP was describing.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#382

Post by solarmist »

kovek wrote: post #338
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…

This reminds me of standing up too fast

Yup. It's caused by orthostatic hypotension.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#383

Post by ncmncm »

hiacynt wrote: post #218
ncmncm wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All knots can be untied, if that is what you choose to do. But not everybody chooses that. Thus far you have not chosen that. "Noticing yourself" is something literally everyone does. Not everyone ties themselves in knots. The alternative to tying yourself in knots is to think clearly without inventing falsehoods. "P-zombies" is just another word for solipsism. The moment somebody proposes either, you know there will…

P-zombies and solipsism are two totally different things.

Yet, curiously similar.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#384

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

naasking wrote: post #380
darkscape wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it's actually, "ta-da, we're not conscious! but here's why we think we are!" And of course the "think" has a quality to it that the hard problem is about. It's interesting how illusionists and eliminativists explain away aspects of SE by invoking (other) aspects of SE. "You merely have an illusion of being conscious" - that illusion is the hard problem, so now explain that illusion. I could be having an illusio…

> It's interesting how illusionists and eliminativists explain away aspects of SE by invoking (other) aspects of SE. "You merely have an illusion of being conscious" - that illusion is the hard problem, so now explain that illusion. I've explained this elsewhere, but will repeat here: this argument relies on a definition of "illusion" that begs the question on the existence of a subject, just like Descartes. Define i…

> It's like you're asking me to explain the dinosaur you saw while you were hallucinating.

No, it's not like that at all. We're not discussing the dinosaur. We're discussing the existence of hallucinations (and SE in general). The dinosaur is irrelevant; the fact that it was possible to have the experience is the central question.

Again, this comes back to my fundamental argument with Dennett (and one that he graciously conceded in an email back in the 90s; not sure he would do so now): trying to figure out what it is that we are conscious of, rather than how we are conscious of anything at all. I'm 110% ready to concede that everything we are conscious of is an illusion, an error, a projection, an intent-laden stance etc. I'm 110% ready to concede that everything we think we experience as a "self" is wrong.

None of that helps to explain how experience is possible. So you're either denying that SE exists, or like Dennett insisting that mysterious SE can be explained by non-mysterious stuff.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#385

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

naasking wrote: post #379
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I'd say you're just telling yourself a retroactively edited story that there is a singular subjective experience in order to make sense of our own thoughts and behaviours So look, "The Intentional Stance" is for me one of the most important books I've ever read in this general area, and I totally buy all the stuff Dennett and others have built up around the idea that what we are conscious of is an edited, self-…

> In the quote I included above, who is the "you" that is telling and who is the "yourself" that is being told? This is still begging the question by the use of "who". There is no "who", there is no self, there are only thoughts that refer to a "self", but the referrant does not actually exist in the way that's implied by these thoughts; there's no spirit or homunculus in your mind to which "self" actually refers. >…

From the paper you linked, in the Conclusions:

> We argue that the attention schema theory provides a possible answer to the puzzle of subjective experience. The core claim of the theory is that the brain computes a simplified model of the process and current state of attention, and that the content of this model is the basis of subjective reports.

Sure, that's all fine. Subjective reports are interesting. But they are not the same as subjective experience. What we say about what we experience is no doubt complex, and has a complex relationship with actual brain behavior. But consciousness, at its heart, is not about what we report, it's about the experience of being something.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#386

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

naasking wrote: post #376
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does that false conclusion occur? What is the entity in which it occurs? There is no "conclusion" here in the sense of "2+2=4". What is at stake is not a reasoned, or evidential analysis of how the world is. It is, rather, that subjective experience exists (we know it exists because we have subjective experience, and whether the experience is of something invented and false does not change the fact that the exp…

> It is, rather, that subjective experience exists (we know it exists because we have subjective experience, and whether the experience is of something invented and false does not change the fact that the experience exists). What is in dispute here is what "subjective experience" means . If we both agree that "subjective experience" is a phenomenon that can in principle be captured by a third person objective descrip…

> If we both agree that "subjective experience" is a phenomenon that can in principle be captured by a third person objective description,

Now we get to the heart of it (and the reason why consciousness is and has been such a difficult problem): I do not agree that this is true.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#387

Post by noduerme »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #68
noduerme wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, being on delay doesn't detract from consciousness. Think of it this way: No matter how incredibly fast a monstrous AI ever becomes, it will always suffer some delay. >> in which world I am the first seconds after the alarm clock rings. Do you actually believe those are real, other worlds? I'm tempted to, sometimes. But if they are, it's more an argument that consciousness is real and something even grander than…

> Do you actually believe those are real, other worlds? Logically this depends of how do you define a world. Even if you imagine them as parallel universes with physics similar or mindboggingly dissimilar to that of our world, you can still say there is just one world in which all these sub-worlds exist. So, talking seriously I wouldn't say there are other worlds or there are not. I would just say "observable world"…

Waking up is an interesting thing, and that's why your post caught my attention. I often feel like I'm standing on the edge between two fully functioning worlds.

>> Believing these limitations don't render us futile in trying to understand all the phenomena of existing universe and their nature seems absurdly naïve to me.

I don't so much agree. Yes, "all the phenomena" may never be understandable. But if I think about the cognitive ability we have now (to look at a star and understand it's plasma; what plasma is; to see that the sun rises and know we are rotating on an axis while orbiting it; to be able to visualize where we are on that axis and plane; to move electrons around tiny circuits, create images and sound by controlling these things we can't see) it seems to me that you could have looked at humans 10,000 years ago and thought they would never be able to understand these things, but we're not very different from them. I'm less pessimistic on it. I think if we have another 10,000 years we'll probably be quite good at understanding the universe. Maybe even the universe of dreams?

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#388

Post by watercooler_guy »

Buttons840 wrote: post #144
shrimp_emoji wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then step into the Star Trek transporter. :) You're obliterated, then perfectly reassembled on the other side. Is that still "you", "subjectively"? Should you or others even care about that question? And, if not, damn, that's ego-killing af.

Here's a thought experiment. You're going to use a Star Trek teleporter-like device to make an exact copy of yourself. What are the odds that you end up being the copy? Or rather, what should you believe the odds are that you will be the copy? Of course, I , the original, will not be the copy, but if I go in knowing I'm not the copy, the the copy will come out knowing he's not the copy. Thus, you should go in believi…

A good way to know for sure would be to use a sharpie to draw a mark on the inside of the particular chamber you step into before the machine is activated. Then, after you are copied, both people will have the memory of drawing such a mark. But the copy, who just materialized in a second chamber, will be surprised to find that there is no mark in front of him.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#389

Post by webmaven »

foobarian wrote: post #233
webmaven wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is, why did the FPV-experiencing consciousness happen to bind to the body you are in? And why does it stick? You're asking questions equivalent to "why does the interior of a box happen to bind to that particular piece of folded cardboard? And why is the same interior there when the box is closed and reopened?" If each brain has a consciousness, and each is uniquely generated by that brain, the 'bindin…

That line of explanation doesn't do it for me, because there is only one brain that has my FPV consciousness. Why this particular one? I think it's a question related to the topics of breaking symmetry, or nondeterminism. It's also a great unsolved question that many smarter people than me couldn't answer so I'm not hopeful I'll live to see it answered. But I will continue to wonder at it now and then, like when arti…

I think you aren't understanding the answers we're giving you. There is no difference between asking "why does my brain have my consciousness" and asking "why does my head have my face". It is exactly the same question.

Re: What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

#390

Post by webmaven »

spookthesunset wrote: post #285
chasd00 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is only one brain that has my FPV consciousness. Why this particular one? to me, the answer is because you were born with that one. Maybe it's better to think about how your FPV consciousness didn't exist prior to your birth. It came into being when you came into being. I don't think there's a separation between your FPV consciousness and physical brain. If your metabolism stops your FPV consciousness stops

> Maybe it's better to think about how your FPV consciousness didn't exist prior to your birth That is unknowable though. You may just not remember it. Is memory what makes consciousness?

People can lose the ability to form new memories without losing consciousness, but arguably without any memory at all you won't have any continuity of experience, which seems essential.
Post reply on HN