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

Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 280 posts

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#191

Post by naasking »

taneq wrote: post #97
naasking wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's confusion consciousness for self awareness. That's not the hard problem that needs solving, it's actually one of the easy problems.

I think stating that there's a "hard problem of consciousness," which is not explained by self-awareness, is begging the question. We just kind of assume that there's something inherently special about qualia, raise them on a pedestal, and claim that they are unique to humans. Why assume that 'what it's like to experience the colour red' isn't just the experience of being aware that you're experiencing a red visual i…

> I think stating that there's a "hard problem of consciousness," which is not explained by self-awareness, is begging the question. We just kind of assume that there's something inherently special about qualia, raise them on a pedestal, and claim that they are unique to humans.

Merely asserting the existence of self-awareness or describing how self-awareness arises doesn't address any of the questions raised by qualia, even if they are an illusion.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#192

Post by lisper »

Razengan wrote: post #178
lisper wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We humans draw this boundary all the time. We do it based on an entity's I/O behavior, and in particular, the complexity of interactions that it is possible to have with it. Agency is not a binary quantity. A normal adult human is an agent, and a blastocyst is not, but there is no bright line where agency is bestowed. It happens gradually. None of this is a deep mystery. The only thing that is mysterious is how the t…

Just for fun, what exactly is meant by "agent" and how is a human one?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#193

Post by CuriouslyC »

dalbasal wrote: post #179

Enough credible people have publicly considered the idea credible for me to open my mind. But... I have to keep my mind open with a brace. otherwise, it'll call occam's razor & snap shut. At the heart of consciousness particles ideas (I think) is the idea that conciousness can't emerge from nonconscious stuff. This is counterintuitive to me. We now know of all sorts of emergent phenomenon. Species emerge (from other,…

How does Occam's Razor apply here?

You have evidence that some matter (yourself) experiences its existence. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter experiences its existence. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter experiences its existence and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter (conscious and not) and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis requires a lot more assumptions.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#194

Post by naasking »

simonh wrote: post #176
taneq wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think stating that there's a "hard problem of consciousness," which is not explained by self-awareness, is begging the question. We just kind of assume that there's something inherently special about qualia, raise them on a pedestal, and claim that they are unique to humans. Why assume that 'what it's like to experience the colour red' isn't just the experience of being aware that you're experiencing a red visual i…

Exactly, I just don't see what the problem is. I am not just experiencing this input. I am aware of the fact that I am experiencing this input. Or even I am aware of the fact that I am aware of myself experiencing this stimulus. Also even a simple stimulus can have all sorts of context dependent meanings and associations. Is see red. That's the colour of blood, also the colour of one of my wife's dresses, and our car…

I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the hard problem. The hard problem is about why "experience" exists at all, why perceptions have a qualitative character that appears to be impossible capture using a third-party objective description, eg. a scientific or mathematical description.

Think about it: every way you would describe a subjective experience seems to eventually rely on a first-person statement at some point. The obvious way to resolve this is to deny that first-person perspectives actually exist, that they are an illusion, despite the fact that we can apparently directly observe their existence. So before we can accept this argument, we need an explanation for how this actually works. It's not something you can just hand-wave away.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#195

Post by pentops »

gotocake wrote: post #33
dustfinger wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A consequence of time is that every event does not all happen at once. A consequence of space is that everything is not all in one place. Perhaps a consequence of spacetime is that events have a location and a moment, but no guarantee of order?

There is a guarantee of the order of causally related events, just not an absolute timing. All observers will agree that Alice throws a ball which Bill later catches, but different observers will disagree on when these events occurred exactly. They will however all agree that the order is Alice throws, Bill catches, and none will see Bill catch a ball that Alice later throws. To use the lightning bolt example from Ei…

> All observers will agree that Alice throws a ball which Bill later catches

I think this needs qualification.

If I am stood directly behind Alice or Bill then it is possible I never see the interaction at all even though I am an observer, just as if I hold a two identical pencils together and look at them from the correct angle I observe only a single pencil.

The important thing is in all cases, observers "see" space-time interactions as the geodesic of the event projected on to their own observational frame.

Through that projection it is possible to lose degrees of freedom which can be space-time etc.

It's through this projection that HUP emerges since if in the observational frame the time dimension is limited, the projected time axis of the event tends toward zero.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#196

Post by cybervegan »

The neural network of nematode worms has been modelled in software, and a robotic avatar has been built for this "mind". It behaves very much like a real nematode worm.

Real nematode worms appear to be conscious to an extent, in so far as they forage for food and mates, and retreat from danger or threats. I don't think we would argue that nematodes have the same level of consciousness as we do. If the mechanical model also does this, it it conscious too?

We also know that different animals display different levels of consciousness, in many ways reflected by the amount of brain mass they posess; animals with far simpler brains appear, by and large, to be less conscious than animals with larger, more complex brains. We also know that damage to brains alters the properties of consciousness, as do interference with brain chemistry or electrical activity. It seems more likely that consciousness is an emergent property of the interactions between the physical structure of the brain/nervous system and electrical/chemical messaging.

I think that assuming matter has a special, magical property of "consciousness" is just re-hashing the unfalsifiable concept of a "soul".

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#197

Post by 0-_-0 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #193
dalbasal wrote: post #179

Enough credible people have publicly considered the idea credible for me to open my mind. But... I have to keep my mind open with a brace. otherwise, it'll call occam's razor & snap shut. At the heart of consciousness particles ideas (I think) is the idea that conciousness can't emerge from nonconscious stuff. This is counterintuitive to me. We now know of all sorts of emergent phenomenon. Species emerge (from other,…

How does Occam's Razor apply here? You have evidence that some matter (yourself) experiences its existence. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter experiences its existence. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter experiences its existence and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter (conscious and not) and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis req…

> You have evidence that some matter (your PC) can run Windows. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter can run Windows. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter can run Windows and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis requires a lot more assumptions.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#198

Post by dandare »

I for one fail to understand what is it so mysterious about consciences. Also, the article spends way more time lamenting the mystery than explaining what the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" is.

Yes, we can not build consciousness yet, so what. We have a very good reason to believe it is completely based on matter and physics because everything we have seen so far seems to be based on matter and physics.

One way or another, our brain seems to be some kind of computing meat machine that runs some kind of program(s). In order to keep us alive, this program is trying to predict what will happen next. A lion appears to be running in our direction? I predict it will get closer and closer and then it will eat us. Next step: in order to better predict the future, model in also your own actions. I will not stand here if I know a lion is going to eat me, I will run to that nearest tree. So the brain predicts that we will end up climbing that tree. Then, model in your understanding of the future and better grab a rope before you start running to that tree.

Throw in all kinds of imperfections, remnants of older systems, evolutionary pressures, instincts and emotions and voila, you appear to be conscious.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#199

Post by JoeAltmaier »

dandare wrote: post #198

I for one fail to understand what is it so mysterious about consciences. Also, the article spends way more time lamenting the mystery than explaining what the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" is. Yes, we can not build consciousness yet, so what. We have a very good reason to believe it is completely based on matter and physics because everything we have seen so far seems to be based on matter and physics. On…

That describes behavior, but not the sense of self-awareness?

If conscious means, reacting to the environment (opposite of unconscious) then that could make sense.

But if it means self-aware it doesn't get any closer to explaining that.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#200

Post by dandare »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #199
dandare wrote: post #198

I for one fail to understand what is it so mysterious about consciences. Also, the article spends way more time lamenting the mystery than explaining what the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" is. Yes, we can not build consciousness yet, so what. We have a very good reason to believe it is completely based on matter and physics because everything we have seen so far seems to be based on matter and physics. On…

That describes behavior, but not the sense of self-awareness? If conscious means, reacting to the environment (opposite of unconscious) then that could make sense. But if it means self-aware it doesn't get any closer to explaining that.

Maybe I don't understand the question. What else is "self-awareness" than a program calculating its own actions based on the knowledge of its own prediction ability? Can you disprove such program will be self-aware? Can you prove your self-awareness is something more?
Post reply on HN