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

No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

duncancarroll.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 155 posts

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#11

Post by tokipin »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #6
Xcelerate wrote: post #4

I upvoted the original article not necessarily because I thought it was particularly well-written, but because I looked forward to seeing what the HN comments about the article would say. Nevertheless, I left to go somewhere before I had a chance to peruse them. I think in a conversation about consciousness, it's very important to define exactly what it is you're talking about. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I get the…

Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation. Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just do…

on the other end, i think it's also weird to say that we will never understand consciousness.

frankly i think our science just isn't very advanced at the moment. particularly lacking is our understanding of anything that isn't linear

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#12

Post by TelmoMenezes »

blueprint wrote: post #8
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation. Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just do…

Consciousness is a mystery only to those that cannot define what it is. What is the origin of awareness itself? It is the very activities one is aware of. The activities produce energy which we call consciousness. The dimension that the consciousness can see is determined by the quality of the very activities. Consciousness is thus not solely generated by neurological activities. Before denying this because of your f…

I tend to agree with the general tone of what you're saying, but have a problem with "The activities produce energy which we call consciousness". Either you are using the word "energy" in the regular sense or as a metaphor for something else. If it's the former, we're missing some physics. if it's the latter, you're still sweeping the problem under the rug.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#13

Post by dvanduzer »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #6
Xcelerate wrote: post #4

I upvoted the original article not necessarily because I thought it was particularly well-written, but because I looked forward to seeing what the HN comments about the article would say. Nevertheless, I left to go somewhere before I had a chance to peruse them. I think in a conversation about consciousness, it's very important to define exactly what it is you're talking about. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I get the…

Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation. Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just do…

It's perfectly reasonable to define consciousness as "that which emerges from neural activity" if your model is able to describe that emergent behavior.[0]

This is not the same as describing what it "feels like" from the inside. From your comment, I infer that you are rejecting the explanatory powers of neuroscience because you are expecting it to speak to the "feels like" question.

[0] http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#14

Post by orblivion »

Xcelerate wrote: post #4

I upvoted the original article not necessarily because I thought it was particularly well-written, but because I looked forward to seeing what the HN comments about the article would say. Nevertheless, I left to go somewhere before I had a chance to peruse them. I think in a conversation about consciousness, it's very important to define exactly what it is you're talking about. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I get the…

It occurred to me at one point - the fact that you and I even try to argue the point that consciousness exists, is evidence to outside observers that we are not philosophical zombies. (Which leads to an amusing, or perhaps disturbing, question about the people who scoff at the concept)

Also, it may not be science but it is still philosophy and extremely important. Science is based on philosophy too.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#15

Post by simonster »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #6
Xcelerate wrote: post #4

I upvoted the original article not necessarily because I thought it was particularly well-written, but because I looked forward to seeing what the HN comments about the article would say. Nevertheless, I left to go somewhere before I had a chance to peruse them. I think in a conversation about consciousness, it's very important to define exactly what it is you're talking about. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I get the…

Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation. Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just do…

Well, there is Gulio Tononi's Information Integration Theory (http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long, see also Christof Koch's summary in SciAm at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of...). Personally, I don't find it particularly compelling at present, since the claims made are much stronger than the evidence to support them and I'm not entirely sure I believe the assumptions necessary to test the theory empirically. But it's out there.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#16

Post by TelmoMenezes »

tokipin wrote: post #11
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation. Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just do…

on the other end, i think it's also weird to say that we will never understand consciousness. frankly i think our science just isn't very advanced at the moment. particularly lacking is our understanding of anything that isn't linear

I didn't say we will never understand it, although it is certainly a possibility. One might argue that Godel's incompleteness theorems suggest a reality where some things are unknowable.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#17

Post by guard-of-terra »

blueprint wrote: post #8
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation. Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just do…

Consciousness is a mystery only to those that cannot define what it is. What is the origin of awareness itself? It is the very activities one is aware of. The activities produce energy which we call consciousness. The dimension that the consciousness can see is determined by the quality of the very activities. Consciousness is thus not solely generated by neurological activities. Before denying this because of your f…

I'll be aware even if you remove all activities and all senses from me. For some time, anyway - then my mind will likely wander.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#18

Post by TelmoMenezes »

dvanduzer wrote: post #13
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation. Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just do…

It's perfectly reasonable to define consciousness as "that which emerges from neural activity" if your model is able to describe that emergent behavior.[0] This is not the same as describing what it "feels like" from the inside. From your comment, I infer that you are rejecting the explanatory powers of neuroscience because you are expecting it to speak to the "feels like" question. [0] http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the…

I disagree, it is only possible at the moment to define _intelligence_ as "that which emerges from neural activity". There is not evidence whatsoever that consciousness emerges from neural activity. This is just a type of religious dogma in disguise. Think about it. Thanks for the link.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#19

Post by LeafStorm »

Xcelerate wrote: post #4

I upvoted the original article not necessarily because I thought it was particularly well-written, but because I looked forward to seeing what the HN comments about the article would say. Nevertheless, I left to go somewhere before I had a chance to peruse them. I think in a conversation about consciousness, it's very important to define exactly what it is you're talking about. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I get the…

> One prerequisite for something being scientific is that it must be testable, and this sort of thing is not. So it's not science and I don't waste time conflating it with what actually is science. It's an interesting philosophical question.

As a dualist, I agree that the question of whether experience exists (and whether there is a soul of some type powering it) is not answerable by science. But many of the people I discuss this with take the attitude that because it can't be answered by science, it's not even worth discussing as a possibility. It feels like a physicist approaching a mathematician with a theory based on experimental results, and being rebuffed for not having a proof.

I haven't even read the original article, much less the HN comments, but based on what I've read here (and on my past experience discussing similar subjects on HN), a similar attitude is likely to be at play.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#20

Post by stianan »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #16
tokipin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on the other end, i think it's also weird to say that we will never understand consciousness. frankly i think our science just isn't very advanced at the moment. particularly lacking is our understanding of anything that isn't linear

I didn't say we will never understand it, although it is certainly a possibility. One might argue that Godel's incompleteness theorems suggest a reality where some things are unknowable.

I appreciate your point, but I think invoking Gödel's incompletness theorems in this context is taking them far out of their scope.
Post reply on HN