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

Consciousness is worth thinking about

hack.ly

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: Consciousness is worth thinking about

#31

Post by mdda »

Tichy wrote: post #24

Consciousness is just an illusion. It is not a useful concept either. It won't help you to program robots, for example. I was very surprised to learn that according to Less Wrong, the concept of "Zombies" is accepted by a lot of researchers of consciousness: http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/ A zombie here is defined as a person that is exactly like a conscious person, down to every atom, but is not consciou…

But the zombie idea is an interesting thought experiment. If the zombie isn't conscious then it also (likely) rules out the quantum hand-wavery of the OP - since any physical quantum effects would be replicated. It draws out the distinction pretty well.

Re: Consciousness is worth thinking about

#33

Post by ca98am79 »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #27

Years ago I had a good talk with David Chalmers at a Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness conference. That prompted me to read his book. Roger Penrose and others also have interesting ideas of what is really consciousness. Most people probably never experience expansive meditation, but for those of us who do that seems like further evidence that consciousness is not all in our physical brains.

Thank you for your comment - I totally forgot to mention Roger Penrose in the article. My friend actually also brought him up with David Chalmers. For others, here is a short video on some of his ideas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

Re: Consciousness is worth thinking about

#34

Post by jng »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #27

Years ago I had a good talk with David Chalmers at a Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness conference. That prompted me to read his book. Roger Penrose and others also have interesting ideas of what is really consciousness. Most people probably never experience expansive meditation, but for those of us who do that seems like further evidence that consciousness is not all in our physical brains.

Frankly, Penrose's thesis that consciousness stems from the quantum effects in microtubules, and the pseudo-"proof" based on a scammy reductio-ad-absurdum showing that consciousness can not be a computable function, are one of the biggest piles of horsesh*t in this whole field. I'm amazing he hasn't lost all credibility from such kind of deceitful thinking.

Re: Consciousness is worth thinking about

#35

Post by Tichy »

mdda wrote: post #31
Tichy wrote: post #24

Consciousness is just an illusion. It is not a useful concept either. It won't help you to program robots, for example. I was very surprised to learn that according to Less Wrong, the concept of "Zombies" is accepted by a lot of researchers of consciousness: http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/ A zombie here is defined as a person that is exactly like a conscious person, down to every atom, but is not consciou…

But the zombie idea is an interesting thought experiment. If the zombie isn't conscious then it also (likely) rules out the quantum hand-wavery of the OP - since any physical quantum effects would be replicated. It draws out the distinction pretty well.

It is interesting, I am just puzzled that people think such zombies are conceivable.

Re: Consciousness is worth thinking about

#36

Post by vixen99 »

mistercow wrote: post #17

It's certainly worth thinking about longer than the author has. I don't want to be mean, but the part about QM, in particular, was just infuriating. I wish we could send out a memo to the world that says "Please do not draw metaphysical conclusions from mathematics or science unless you are an expert on the field you are drawing conclusions from."

I'd tear up the memo. Ignore, demolish or be persuaded by a conclusion by all means but don't define who may or may not contribute it on the basis of a fitness-to-participate filter.

Re: Consciousness is worth thinking about

#38

Post by gtr32x »

I am writing this in part directly to gizmo but also to the rest of the HN readers. First of all, I didn't think it was necessary to call this 'crackpottery'. Coming entirely from a scientific perspective one could write this off as completely philosophical and almost non-sensical. I would like to say that I've definitely gained some new insights or nearly a moment of eureka from reading certain words of the article.

Of course, I can't describe exactly what is it that I've felt. But I can sort of provide the environment into which I've felt that feeling to try to find that common denominator which may exist in all of us.

I've been a big fan of Buddism, I can't say I'm a Buddist but I definitely try to take elements from Buddism that I concur with to better define my own experience with the world. Buddism has a notion which is identically described by the author - observation of the world without egos. Buddism suggests that being able to achieve this allows inner zen. I'm here not to advocate nor prove anything related to Buddism, I just want to use it for a setup leading to where I am at.

Through schooling an education, one thing we've learned is to be objective, and unbiased. This means innocent until proven guilty; do not accept any claims without facts; discounting scientific discoveries without proofs etc. That is, we come to be capable of being objective with things that do not 'directly' connect with our consciousness. Now, entering the consciousness, can we still be objective? Can we observe our own failures just like how we observe the failures of others without emotional attachment? Can we connect to what others say to comfort us when we experience a rejection, a breakup? Can we understand that the past cannot be adjusted and therefore NEVER experience the feeling of regret and ONLY gain experience of what could be done better next time if the same were to happen? In general, can we completely deattach ourselves from our emotions and just observe the entities, whether it be you, him, or I, it's all the same.

I can't speak for others, but for a brief moment while reading the article, I've felt a weird out-of-place sensation where I'm just a being, and I am not I. It's almost as if disconnecting my consciousness with my body, it's almost scary.

Just food for thoughts.

Re: Consciousness is worth thinking about

#39

Post by Tichy »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #29
Tichy wrote: post #24

Consciousness is just an illusion. It is not a useful concept either. It won't help you to program robots, for example. I was very surprised to learn that according to Less Wrong, the concept of "Zombies" is accepted by a lot of researchers of consciousness: http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/ A zombie here is defined as a person that is exactly like a conscious person, down to every atom, but is not consciou…

It will help me to understand myself. That's much more important than programming robots. What if I don't actually need any robots in the first place?

In my opinion it won't help you, because it is just an illusion. If it would help you understand yourself, it would also help you build a robot that is similar to you.

But OK, that is just an opinion, I lack the energy to write more atm.

Re: Consciousness is worth thinking about

#40

Post by e3pi »

Here on HN we've seen some sort of quasicrystal fabric distributing the prime integers and providing a possible entry onto gaining headway proving the Riemann Hypothesis:

HN search:

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2013/06/quasicrystals_an...

http://fadereu.posterous.com/knk103-the-crystals-of-mt-zeta

So OP ca98am79's suggestion of a common consciousness we -as I vaguely understand it - be as transceivers(?) of/with(?) merits some similar consideration, for those still cycling among these perennial questions.

Rowing to City Dock everyday, a recurring observation of complex wave crest interference's semi-chaotic patterns with discrete natural nos sub-wave-train symmetric `beats', share the same medium of all semi-uniform distributed diversely scaled and chaotically asynchronous impulse sources afloat upon all of Eagle Harbor and beyond.

Thank you ca98am79 to boldly post here.

Post reply on HN