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

Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 191 posts

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#121

Post by Chathamization »

tpeo wrote: post #8
breckinloggins wrote: post #5

This equivocation between consciousness and meta-consciousness is so widespread that a plethora of books, which are seemingly dedicated to the project of "explaining consciousness", instead spend their entire contents explaining some hypothesis involving meta-consciousness and then proceed to declare victory without ever touching consciousness itself. Jaynes' "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bica…

No new words are needed. What you need is that people stop conjuring new words to explain the same things over and over again, using and re-using words under different meanings without ever bothering to either listen or read their predecessors properly, which only leads to feelings of ineffectualness and a strange sensation of déjà vu. When authors in the philosophy of mind stops rehashing ideas that could and most l…

> When authors in the philosophy of mind stops rehashing ideas that could and most likely have occurred to 17th century philosophers for the sake of attaching their names to a publication, then it will see some progress.

I doubt people involved in philosophy of the mind will ever be useful here. If one keeps up to date on neuroscience, they'll see a lot of progress being made, but none of it is coming from the "philosophy of the mind" people. Not only that, but the "philosophy of the mind" people don't even seem to be aware of much of what's happening in neuroscience.

There seems to be a certain "God of the gaps" aspect to how philosophy approaches science, where people pretend that philosophy is fundamental approach to a field which is working on a particularly large and difficult problem. So you see that philosophers often approach things like the human mind and quantum theory quite different from how they approach chemistry or non-mind physiology.

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#122

Post by dark_silicon »

ramblerman wrote: post #111

This puts me in an uncomfortable spot w/regards to abortion. My go to argument was always 'the lights aren't on yet'. If I'm understanding correctly they might be, albeit dimly, and each day getting brighter.

I'd encourage anyone to examine their conscience, read about the viability of babies born prematurely, and consider that even post-birth a baby is not self-sufficient. We don't have good criteria for what makes something alive or conscious, yet many draw an arbitrary line at birth.

I'm not looking to continue this discussion, but I'm glad you're thinking about this.

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#123

Post by cat199 »

ramblerman wrote: post #111

This puts me in an uncomfortable spot w/regards to abortion. My go to argument was always 'the lights aren't on yet'. If I'm understanding correctly they might be, albeit dimly, and each day getting brighter.

the lights start the moment there is attraction between 2 people..

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#124

Post by thevardanian »

narag wrote: post #56
Sawamara wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideas are not material. Even if they are stored in material brains. Especially not when they can be independently rediscovered without having any trace of them stored anywhere.

Ideas are not material, but thevardanian has a point in the context of this thread. Unless you believe in some kind of supernatural force, all you have is matter and matter-based thought. Ideas are not material but they still need a brain to be held. And a very conscious one. About rediscovering, you can simply argue that ideas are matter properties so an intelligent being can recognize them.

You can not distinguish ideas from material reality. That is sensory perception, and your ideas that result are basically the accumulation of material structures, or simply knowledge. So ideas are not anything more than the knowledge that you have which interprets, and reinterprets the sensory perception.

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#125

Post by cat199 »

RoutinePlayer wrote: post #103

I find that any discussion of consciousness that doesn't build upon the work of so many other great thinkers (like Daniel Dennett, et al.) is usually a waste of time.

and yet such 'great thinkers' are quick to 'not build upon the work' of religious thinkers throughout the ages, despite the fact that at this level, these topics lie solely in the realm of philosophy..

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#126

Post by the_af »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #100
arunix wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such goal attainment does not require consciousness. Even in our species, functions like breathing and blood circulation are autonomous, and they continue even in our sleep when consciousness is absent.

The fact that you have no memory of time while you are asleep does not prove that consciousness is absent. The fact that your brain's executive network are unaware of the workings of "autonomous" activities does not indicate that those activities lack consciousness. You are also unaware of my consciousness but I assure you that it exists.

> The fact that your brain's executive network are unaware of the workings of "autonomous" activities does not indicate that those activities lack consciousness.

I'm lost. To me it means those activities lack consciousness. It's also the opinion stated in Jaynes' book, which was mentioned by user breckinloggins.

It's not the same as me being unaware of your consciousness. Your consciousness is foreign to me. It's always impossible for me to perceive it. My own consciousness is internal and I can perceive it. You may argue there are some activities of my own consciousness that I cannot perceive -- it's debatable, but we can discuss it -- but arguing about your consciousness from my perspective does not apply.

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#127

Post by thevardanian »

atom-morgan wrote: post #110
thevardanian wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. the universe isn't conscious. The universe is matter. Consciousness is a part of the universe. Therefore consciousness is simply material. Nothing more, nothing less. It's just that our egos are too big to accept that we are nothing more than dirt.

Take mushrooms.

They just play with the nervous system and jumble up the brain chemistry. You ascribing those experiences as something supernatural, or spiritual is the problem. The experience is just that. A fleeting experience. To constantly demand an experience over and over again, or to ascribe certain experiences some great importance is just you interpreting those experiences. Everyday life is just as "spiritual" as anything else. It is the newness, and uniqueness that you demand. This uniqueness of experience is only demanded by the knowledge that you have. Otherwise you have no way of telling yourself that it is a unique experience. As each moment in life is a unique moment.

There's nothing really spiritual about it. There's nothing really special about it. It's the value that you ascribe to it, through the knowledge that you have which makes it "special".

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#128

Post by [deleted] »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #105
thevardanian wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. the universe isn't conscious. The universe is matter. Consciousness is a part of the universe. Therefore consciousness is simply material. Nothing more, nothing less. It's just that our egos are too big to accept that we are nothing more than dirt.

How do you know? Where is your proof? If matter is all there is, that means either you deny the existence of consciousness (which is an untenable position), or you believe that it arises out of nothing (which requires a "magical" mechanism).

[deleted]

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#129

Post by ghgfhgfhn »

otakucode wrote: post #94
breckinloggins wrote: post #5

This equivocation between consciousness and meta-consciousness is so widespread that a plethora of books, which are seemingly dedicated to the project of "explaining consciousness", instead spend their entire contents explaining some hypothesis involving meta-consciousness and then proceed to declare victory without ever touching consciousness itself. Jaynes' "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bica…

It seems to me that if you extend 'conscious' to cover things outside a persons attention, you've made the word 'conscious' meaningless. If I take away all of the things that you claim to be 'conscious' of but not actively aware of, would you be comfortable with me saying you were no longer conscious? Sure you actively thinking about things, but you don't have that sensation of the bottom of your big toe in your shoe…

"Why not extend it out to blanket the whole of the universe?"

Why not? I don't see why not at all.

Re: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think

#130

Post by monktastic1 »

dwaltrip wrote: post #42
monktastic1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you look around your kitchen, the sensations of color are nearly instantaneously associated with rich semantic information about the various objects. Nearly . This is why the main thrust of meditation is about becoming aware of ever-subtler processes, both on- and off-cushion. When there's enough awareness to distinguish between the arising of bare perception and the associations it triggers (for example), it…

Hi monktastic! > This is why the main thrust of meditation is about becoming aware of ever-subtler processes. Indeed. It's an incredible method to find insight. > When there's enough awareness to distinguish between the arising of bare perception and the associations it triggers... I would argue that the concept of bare perception, absent of any sort of understanding (the understanding could be quite minimal, as with…

Hi dwaltrip :)

> It's like asking for mass without of gravity. The consciousness _is_ the understanding of each instantaneous moment.

Of course, if someone were to somehow spend time conscious without association, they wouldn't be able to convince anyone they did so. Maybe it's impossible, maybe it's possible, but it's not very amenable to debate.

So I'm trying to stick to more empirically testable claims. In particular, here I'm hypothesizing that the reason we believe consciousness is equivalent to its various functions is that we don't have enough precision of awareness to distinguish them. The experiment is simple (though not easy): become increasingly aware of the subtle processes, and plot your belief over time. My own result (and that of many who have done the experiment) is that I've clarified two aspects of my experience ("the sheer fact of experience" and "the particular forms it takes") in such a way that I no longer identify them. YMMV, but I think it's a wonderful exercise!

Relatedly, I'm curious what you think of the idea that you can only know that you are conscious, whereas it is impossible (even in principle) to know whether another being is.

Thanks as always for the chat.

Post reply on HN