Live data from Hacker News

A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

noemamag.com

111–120 of 240 posts

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#111

Can we retitle this as there is nothing new here besides long musings

There is, if you read it. > Which brings us to the most striking idea — that some types of electrical oscillations could mediate an experience of self. > In 2021, Hanson found that similar electrical activity — spontaneous low-frequency oscillations — is evident across many different organisms, from E. coli to humans. She concluded that across a diverse range of creatures, the oscillations may have a shared function:…

If I were to say this is just a coincidence, how would you respond?

If it’s not:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01676...

If everything is pulsing with electricity and they are syncing to something global …

From the paper:

Examples of biological systems that have been modeled using PCOs include cardiac pacemakers [2], crickets that chirp in unison [3], and rhythmic flashing of fireflies [4]

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#112
post #82

Articles like this annoy me: it seems to want to comment on philosophy of mind, but shows zero awareness of the classic debates in that discipline - materialism vs idealism vs dualism vs neutral monism, and the competing versions of each of those, e.g. substance dualism vs hylemorphic dualism, eliminativist vs reductionist/emergentist materialism, property dualism, epiphenomenalism, panpsychism, Chalmers’ distinction…

[flagged]

Sir, where do hypotheses come from?

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of philosophy is testable and the inspiration for scientific enquiry. Philosophy contains logic as a major area of study and the results of this work are core tenets in mathematics which enables the ability to conduct rigorous science. Science itself is the product of philosophical enquiry.

Science is the product of philosophical inquiry if you ask philosophers. Just like the Internet is the work of Al Gore, if you ask Al Gore.

The difference is that what we now call “science” actually did start out as a branch of philosophy, and only gradually became separated from it; and there are figures who made substantial contributions to both disciplines (e.g. Henri Poincaré, who made significant contributions to both mathematical physics and philosophy of science)

Al Gore’s relationship to the Internet can’t be compared

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#114

I've been thinking as well that from some perspective a human being isn't actually a single life but rather itself a multitude of separate tiny-life forms that cooperate to survive (the cells). The voice in our head is the emerging consciouness that act as a captain, it's useful for the captain to think of itself as one being. Now this said, I feel the article is jumping a bit too much on the Animism hippie bandwagon…

Trees giving you the very thing you need to live every minute wasn’t enough of a compromise for you? They’ve quite negotiable with us. Gotta watch The Happening again.

To be clear, trees did not "give" us oxygen. Trees evolved from bushes which evolved from algaes, which evolved from some mono-cell life forms which are a common ancestors to us as well. They were shaped by natural selection, it was indeed awesome for them to get out of the water and start consuming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They did not give us oxygen though, there was no high level consciousness of gifting life to others as your sentence is implying. This said, trees are awesome and we should definitely not cut them or burn them for no reason or pure sadism. We should though also consider them as a parte of the environment where live. If we need them and there is plenty and there aren't other constraints we can use them to build things. Having too much carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere is a constraint very important to value. We don't want to literally destroy our home. I can keep this thoughts rationally in my brain without having to come up with metaphors where the giant rock we happened to be on is a "mother" nurturing us. The earth is not our "mother", we evolved here because simply all other rocks did not have the right conditions to sustain life. The universe is mostly a harsh and cold place, we should save/improve/increase the places that can be home. I feel though the people that start to lean into Animism are just not very scientific, they mean well, but they won't learn all the technology tools that could help me preserve our home planet more effectively.

Ending on a positive note, many scientists both love nature and are rationally scientific (rather than romantic). All the awesome work being done with using LLM to speak with whales and recognize better dogs emotions and pain levels is very inspiring.

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#116
post #71

Articles like this annoy me: it seems to want to comment on philosophy of mind, but shows zero awareness of the classic debates in that discipline - materialism vs idealism vs dualism vs neutral monism, and the competing versions of each of those, e.g. substance dualism vs hylemorphic dualism, eliminativist vs reductionist/emergentist materialism, property dualism, epiphenomenalism, panpsychism, Chalmers’ distinction…

As a linguist, article like this also annoy me by the claims that "X [whales, dolphins, parrots, crows...] uses language." We have known since 1957 that there is a hierarchy of "grammars", with finite state "languages" being near the bottom, and transformational grammars at the top. Human languages are certainly at a minimum at the context free phrase structure grammar level. My point is that by using the word "langu…

It's philosophy. It doesn't concern itself with facts or knowledge.

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#117
post #82

Articles like this annoy me: it seems to want to comment on philosophy of mind, but shows zero awareness of the classic debates in that discipline - materialism vs idealism vs dualism vs neutral monism, and the competing versions of each of those, e.g. substance dualism vs hylemorphic dualism, eliminativist vs reductionist/emergentist materialism, property dualism, epiphenomenalism, panpsychism, Chalmers’ distinction…

[flagged]

> Philosophy has little to do with reality.

Translation: I’ve never read Aristotle.

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#118
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your position is self-refuting: you are dismissing philosophy, yet simultaneously making philosophical claims in doing so-claiming that all knowledge is empirical is itself a philosophical claim (empiricism)

There's no contradiction. Philosophy is something everybody does after a beer. No point in pretentding that it's a relevant profession for hundreds of years already.

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is the product of philosophical inquiry if you ask philosophers. Just like the Internet is the work of Al Gore, if you ask Al Gore.

The difference is that what we now call “science” actually did start out as a branch of philosophy, and only gradually became separated from it; and there are figures who made substantial contributions to both disciplines (e.g. Henri Poincaré, who made significant contributions to both mathematical physics and philosophy of science) Al Gore’s relationship to the Internet can’t be compared

> The difference is that what we now call “science” actually did start out as a branch of philosophy, and only gradually became separated from it;

It was hundreds of years ago, when philosophers of nature, aka people who thought about usefull stuff, left to become scientists. What remains in philosophy since then is all the useless stuff.

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#120
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're describing the scientific method. Philosophy is not for "understanding the universe". Surely it cannot be blamed for not fulfilling a goal you only imagine it to have.

It can be blamed for being pretentious useless ramblings.
Post reply on HN