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

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#111

Post by Dylan16807 »

Gravityloss wrote: post #10

Everybody keeps getting the Schrödinger's cat experiment 100% backwards. It was created by Schrödinger to highlight how absurd the interpretation of quantum mechanics was at that time. Since then, even the Copenhagen interpretation basically says that the "observation" happens already at the Geiger counter: "Analysis of an actual experiment found that measurement alone (for example by a Geiger counter) is sufficient…

The cat experiment is a simplification. It doesn't matter that it was created to show the absurdity. People are not getting it wrong.

All you need to know at the end is that the bigger / more energy a system has, the less time it can stay superimposed before collapsing by itself into one state. For anything macro-scale this timeline is basically zero.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#112

Post by eloff »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #87
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of this line of reasoning, but it contains a subtle problem: there is no way to measure consciousness. We assume a correlation between consciousness and human-like intelligent behaviour. We assume that we are unconscious when in deep sleep, for example, but we have no way of knowing for sure. It could just be that we are not recording any memories for later reference. Long story short, no, there is no scie…

> there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that damage to brain will impair an entity's level of consciousness There is loads of evidence from studying states that alter the brain. For example, damage to certain parts of the brain produces hemispatial neglect. The person loses awareness of not just one half of the universe but the concept of that half. This is not consistent with an incorporeal soul, which would co…

In a few sentences you brought more of value to the table than that entire article. I'm all for alternate theories, but the wilder the theory, the more evidence is required. At the very least a thorough look at the existing evidence and how it can be better explained under the banner of the new theory is required.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#113

Post by fennecfoxen »

RivieraKid wrote: post #90
jasonkolb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the best comment I've seen in this thread. It illustrates the key point IMO, which is that pretending like you have all of the relevant information precludes you from understanding the real cause of the phenomenon you're observing. Having a closed mind should never be celebrated as a rational thing to do even if it means not accepting the dogma du jour.

What the fuck is dogma du jour?

1. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+dogma

2. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+du+jour

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#114

Post by bittired »

Great post.

I personally think that people that reply indicating that anyone who doesn't believe in the traditional sciences, not including Philosophy but rather using our "accepted body of Physiological and Psychiatric knowledge" as truth, are one step away from Asperger's. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense, since many with Asperger's are highly functioning, but their tendency to clinch onto mathematics and incomplete (but widely accepted) science and use it as the answer for everything is childish. I believe that our universe (the entirety, beyond what we experience) is not completely "rational", but some just cannot accept that. We would not be where we are today without Philosophers like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. However, if a conservative talk show host came along saying the same thing as these philosophers, they would attempt to beat him/her down for being an idiot.

There is much to be learned by thinking outside of the box and trying to understand others' points of view. I'm a conservative-leaning moderate and independent (U.S.). I actually listen to both sides of the story (or more if possible), and then make up my mind which works with my existing belief system and where I can improve, knowing that both of them are biased and probably neither are completely right or wrong.

I'm not better than anyone else, but I get frustrated, as it is farcical how one-sided conversations here can be, and how little people give and come to terms with each other.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#115

Post by Dylan16807 »

tatumizer wrote: post #110
jongraehl wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't follow - the type of consciousness we experience could be different. Though if you were saying that it's absurd to call single cell 'conscious' in the sense that human brains are, then I agree.

I really think every cell is conscious, and whatever we believe to be "our" consciousness comes from a single cell. I am not alone in this opinion: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/awnew.htm (though I came up with this trivial idea independently, and later found the article by googling) This ME-cell gets inputs from other cells obvioously.

What happens when that cell dies? Lots of neurons die, it must happen all the time.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#116

Post by Attilaa »

runeks wrote: post #74

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.

Thank You. I'm glad someone said this.

Edit:

Alan Watts talks in depth about these matters. Although these explanations are not scientific or falsifiable -- it's an interesting attempt at understanding our own views of consciousness.

Just because the feelings of love are not falsifiable, does not mean that it does not weave a great story that one tells themselves to keep sane.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#117

Post by eloff »

rickhanlonii wrote: post #76
seiji wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A wireless router that evolved through a process of natural selection from simple, not conscious single-celled (and simpler) life-forms? That seems a bit far-fetched don't you think?

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#118

Post by [deleted] »

jongraehl wrote: post #109
tatumizer wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If single-cell organism is conscious, and each cell of our body is a "single cell", it immediately follows from here that "our" consciousness is in fact consciousness of a certain, very specialized, cell which resides somewhere in our body. Maybe it lives in the brain, maybe elsewhere, but it's a single cell nonetheless.

It doesn't follow - the type of consciousness we experience could be different. Though if you were saying that it's absurd to call single cell 'conscious' in the sense that human brains are, then I agree.

[deleted]

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#119

Post by Attilaa »

negamax wrote: post #43

I think it's worth adding to this thread that Buddha in his teachings said, eye has eye consiousness, ear, tongue, mind.. has their consiousness. He described consiousness as one of the five aggregates of human state. I never could wrap my head around the concept that awakening means also to see consciousness as empty.

Beautiful. Thanks for linking in Buddha's teachings.

Re: No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about

#120

Post by tatumizer »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #115
tatumizer wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think every cell is conscious, and whatever we believe to be "our" consciousness comes from a single cell. I am not alone in this opinion: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/awnew.htm (though I came up with this trivial idea independently, and later found the article by googling) This ME-cell gets inputs from other cells obvioously.

What happens when that cell dies? Lots of neurons die, it must happen all the time.

Do you know that MANY cells in our body are not replaceable? E.g. those that control muscles. If this cell dies, the man dies, it's that simple. BTW, bacteria (=~cell) intelligence is an active area of research (google it, you will be surprised). That's the only form of intelligence we know. Apparently, we are not familiar with the most intelligent ones yet - they (certain species) may have very developed knowledge of things, including the art of DNA manipulation, which goes far beyond everything ME-cell (=human) knows. Why assume we are the brightest ones? It's laughable.
Post reply on HN