No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about • Hacker News Board

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#71

Post by bglusman » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:45 AM UTC

On my mobile so haven't had time to read all the comments or finish original article, but I agree, consciousness is worth thinking about, and trying to understand scientifically/rigorously. Many people are doing so but in particular in my research this one known as Integrated Information Theory[1] is a strong candidate, or precursor to such a candidate, and I'd encourage anyone intereated in the question or in advancing discussion of this proposed language and theory to do so[2]. Maybe I'm using the citation brackets wrong there though, apologies, I'm on a bus and it's dark and I'm tired :-)

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197184

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#72

Post by benched » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:45 AM UTC

You cannot reduce or hand-wave consciousness away by calling it illusory, or by reducing it to neural activity. You can try, but you'll just be stringing words together to make nonsense.

Every one of us experiences consciousness - subjectivity, qualitative awareness, 'what it is like to be a me' - directly. We gain one type of knowledge about consciousness by studying and poking the brain, and by observing people with abnormal brains. But that can only take us part of the way.

We gain another kind of knowledge about consciousness by making subjectivity into an object. We can do that via means such as meditation, LSD, DMT, mushrooms, marijuana, some types of physical exertion, and perhaps more esoteric means like astral travel, or involuntarily by near-death experiences. These give insights by allowing us to become aware of awareness, to perturb, or to side-step normal consciousness.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#73

Post by benched » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:48 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #68

If you believe in the existence of consciousness, what would prove to you that your qualitative experience is fundamentally no different to the state of a Turing machine? What would persuade you that what is called "consciousness" is of no special interest? OP states that "[consciousness is] a situation where a root cause is murky and escapes testability", which is simply special pleading. If you cannot test your hyp…

Do you yourself experience subjective awareness? Why? And what does that subjective awareness have to do with a Turing machine?

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#74

Post by runeks » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:48 AM UTC

I suspect that we cannot define what consciousness is because we are consciousness. Only an observer outside a system can say what that system is. An entity cannot observe itself.

The expression "experiencing consciousness" makes as little sense as "seeing vision" or "tasting flavor". Experiencing is consciousness, seeing is vision and tasting is flavor.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#75

Post by rdtsc » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:49 AM UTC

beowulfey wrote: post #36

robbiep wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what is wrong with 'it emerges from neural activity'? really, it is quite an adequate solution for a species with our current level of philosophical and scientific understanding. That doesn't mean it is right, and doesn't discount potentially other options such as something that, despite my own strong scientific background, I have a fondness for through buddhism and meditation - and which is mentioned in the orig…

Saying it emerges from neural activity doesn't explain the mechanism; it's merely the result of something we don't understand. So neurons fire and we see this pattern of activity in a state of wakefulness etc, etc... well, okay but WHY? I would say it will never be explained until we can recreate a consciousness artificially, and since it's next to impossible to experience another's consciousness, it might be an unso…

> I would say it will never be explained until we can recreate a consciousness artificially

Even then it would probably end up being an emergent phenomena not necessarily understanble. As in you can simulate a brain perhaps in the distant future and well you have consciousness by some metrics we choose to measure it. So what? We put these bits of code in, we ran this training input set on it, and now consciousness comes out of the other end, we won't necessarily understand how and what it is.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#76

Post by rickhanlonii » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:52 AM UTC

seiji wrote: post #29

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is not evidence whatsoever that consciousness emerges from neural activity. None? Ever? Consciousness could just be a free floating quantum mechanical genie attached to my back? Hogcock. We are only brains. If your brain gets squished, you don't really care because you'll cease to exist in this light cone.

>We are only brains. If your brain gets squished, you don't really care because you'll cease to exist in this light cone.

I agree with you. However, we both have to give serious consideration to the objection that our brains are a necessary but not sufficient condition of consciousness.

We do not know, as of yet, that our brains are not merely some sort of wireless router for some higher existential consciousness. I don't think it is, but intellectual integrity demands that it's seriously considered.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#77

Post by Tloewald » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:54 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #68

If you believe in the existence of consciousness, what would prove to you that your qualitative experience is fundamentally no different to the state of a Turing machine? What would persuade you that what is called "consciousness" is of no special interest? OP states that "[consciousness is] a situation where a root cause is murky and escapes testability", which is simply special pleading. If you cannot test your hyp…

> but it must exist because my subjective perception tells me it does.

What is there besides one's own subjective perception? Hello! This is a figment of your imagination calling.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#78

Post by calhoun137 » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:55 AM UTC

Since we are doing another meta-discussion on how supposedly nasty the comment section is sometimes, I'd like to say I don't have a problem with the tone of the comments at all, and I for one would be really sad if people started pulling their punches. The extremely high degree of criticism found in the comments is actually something I value very highly about this community.

One of the things I love about the comment section is that people treat each other like adults who are capable of handling criticism. This isn't the office, this is HN.

Not being able to handle criticism is a debilitating personality trait for someone who wants to achieve a high level of success in any sort of intellectual pursuit; and that is the reason why I strongly disagree with the desire on the part of some to change this aspect of the community.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#79

Post by RivieraKid » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #68

If you believe in the existence of consciousness, what would prove to you that your qualitative experience is fundamentally no different to the state of a Turing machine? What would persuade you that what is called "consciousness" is of no special interest? OP states that "[consciousness is] a situation where a root cause is murky and escapes testability", which is simply special pleading. If you cannot test your hyp…

Some people get so used to the idea that science explains everything, that they became completely blind to opposing views. It's hardwired deeply into their brains. That's how I explain to myself this kind of blindness I witness in every discussion about consciousness.

Why do I feel pain when the atoms in my brain are in a specific configuration? Current state-of-the-art physical models can't possibly explain that. And it's even impossible to describe what feeling of pain is in physical terms. (No, I don't mean neural activity during pain, I mean the feeling of pain.)

Every physical theory is based solely on consciouss experience. Everything we know about the world is through consciousness.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#80

Post by stianan » Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 1:57 AM UTC

seiji wrote: post #66

EGreg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that there are no other components besides the brain that cause there to be subjective experience? One might very well suspect that there is something more, considering that no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience. Your soul could be observing your body and being affected by it. While your memories and feelings are in the body, your su…

no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience. This isn't a one time affair. Every human carries DNA explaining exactly how to create more intelligent conscious creatures. It doesn't take "special conditions." It happens in squalor, mud huts, ice, desert, famine, over excess—everywhere. We are self-replacing nanomachines looking like individual discrete ent…

Nope. Not possible. You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less.

You cannot reasonably claim to know this. Of course, your parent comment cannot know that "no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience" either, as long as he only has access to his own subjective experience.