Live data from Hacker News

The unending quest to explain consciousness

bookforum.com

191–200 of 255 posts

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#191
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aspects of consciousness can be affected by brain injuries. So, yes, fundamentally physical.

what you are able to do in your body is affected by your brain, even what you are able to calculate. consciousness has a far greater scope than human abilities. consciousness disembodied is still intelligent and aware but becomes infinite, undifferentiated, whole.

> consciousness disembodied is still intelligent and aware

Consciousness has never been disembodied as far as anybody can demonstrate.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#192
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds plausible. Another issue I have with emergentism and other functionalist theories is that they don’t seem to account for the persistence of identity across consciousness discontinuities. Your consciousness sometimes vanishes the re-emerges as yourself. Where (or when) is your mind during the leap? Does it perform discrete time travel?

Why does it have to be somewhere?

It doesn’t (it could do a discrete leap forward in time). Still, why do I wake up as myself every morning? One of the papers linked in this thread discusses (lack of) object permanence from a QM perspective, I’d like to understand how subject permanence works as well, and functionalism does’t handle that well.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#193
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me turn that question on its head and ask you why should it be sufficient? Just because it interacts with matter doesn't mean we default to assuming a materialistic approach is sufficient. I can't get bogged down with arguing why it seems obvious to me that it isn't sufficient. As I wrote earlier, it still boggles my mind that people think otherwise.

FWIW, I believe your stance is the one that requires justification. After all, you seem to be positing (although it’s hard to tell, since you’re not committing to anything specific) that the default assumption about a phenomena we observe which takes place in a universe which otherwise follows the laws of physics, is that the phenomena is somehow not explainable using the laws of physics.

And I'll just add: your approach to consciousness is strikingly similar to how Christians conceive of souls.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualia is not a scientific concept and really needs to be dismissed. (By definition it cannot be measured or observed.) I doubt you agree, but any study of consciousness that has a chance of succeeding will need to be extremely rigorous. I believe that an explanation of consciousness - much like the theory of evolution - will be both very simple and very unpopular.

>"Qualia is not a scientific concept" That is true. >"And really needs to be dismissed" I would agree with you if it weren't for these darn images and sounds and thoughts that flood my mind every time I wake up from the un-consciousness of sleep. It seems to me that you're recognizing the impossibility of scientific study of qualia itself (rather than correlates of it) but you are then taking the radical step of dism…

> every time I wake up from the un-consciousness of sleep.

Do you not dream when you sleep (I mean, when you enter REM state)?

I know there are people who don't - but most of us I believe do dream (and some of us can become "conscious" of being in the dream state, while continuing to dream - aka, so-called "lucid dreaming").

I'm not a researcher or anything in regards to consciousness - but I wonder if there is anything that study of people who dream vs those who don't can tell us about it?

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#195
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you were conscious before your life and you will be after it. it may be a different type of consciousness and not attached to your ego or current identity, but you will always have consciousness. if you are a materialist, you will never be able to explain the origin of anything as there will always be a level before. consciousness needs no beginning, it has always been and will always be, your true identity is God an…

You're not describing consciousness - you're trying to hide spirituality and religion in scientific terms, and making utterly unverifiable claims from nothing. This is what you'd like, but not what you have any evidence for. If you're going to make that sort of claim, call it spirit, or soul, but consciousness is a clearly defined concept that you have to actually break the definition of in order to make these claims…

you can become aware of it, just meditate or consume 5meo-dmt. preferably do both. personally i drank copious amounts of ayahuasca and meditated. i also trained at a buddhist campus and meditated 16 hours a day for a year. you can become aware of these things but don't take my word for it, do the self inquiry yourself, all of the answers are within.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#196
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what you are able to do in your body is affected by your brain, even what you are able to calculate. consciousness has a far greater scope than human abilities. consciousness disembodied is still intelligent and aware but becomes infinite, undifferentiated, whole.

> consciousness disembodied is still intelligent and aware Consciousness has never been disembodied as far as anybody can demonstrate.

psychedelics and meditation will get you there, just put in the effort to do the self inquiry. with some persistence and courage, you'll experience it first hand.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#197
post #175
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fundamentally physical? consciousness is fundamental and eternal, no beginning no end. forms change and are not fundamental at all.

How so? Somewhere between conception and birth consciousness arises. Gametes are clearly not conscious as far as we can tell, and yet a baby is. So somewhere in the physical development that happens in between, consciousness arises as a result. The exact point is a topic of much debate. Somewhere between mortal injury and decomposition, consciousness vanishes. Live humans, yet to succumb to a mortal wound, are clearl…

if consciousness was created by physical processes, what created the first consciousness? consciousness has always been and will always be, the physical realm is just a play of form, temporary and changing and your identity on this earth is also a temporary form that ostensibly begins at conception but is actually is process that goes back to the origins of the universe and beyond the physical realm, to a supreme intelligence and consciousness that is behind everything.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#198
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not describing consciousness - you're trying to hide spirituality and religion in scientific terms, and making utterly unverifiable claims from nothing. This is what you'd like, but not what you have any evidence for. If you're going to make that sort of claim, call it spirit, or soul, but consciousness is a clearly defined concept that you have to actually break the definition of in order to make these claims…

you can become aware of it, just meditate or consume 5meo-dmt. preferably do both. personally i drank copious amounts of ayahuasca and meditated. i also trained at a buddhist campus and meditated 16 hours a day for a year. you can become aware of these things but don't take my word for it, do the self inquiry yourself, all of the answers are within.

The very fact that a physical substance can affect your consciousness tells us it isn't eternal or fundamental - you can literally change how your perceive it with drugs.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#199
post #13
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are theories that equate information processing (integration/differentiation) with consciousness. It maps well with what happens in your brain, where too little or too much functional connectivity maps to loss of consciousness (think anesthesia and epilepsy).

Rocks also have complex internal structure that responds to external influence, e.g. atoms vibrating in their crystal lattices depending on heat and pressure. Maybe there is a Boltzmann consciousness inside the rock when you're picking it up. What is "information" and what is noise is a matter of interpretation.

Rocks have random structure, not complex structure. Randomness does not entail consciousness. A feature of consciousness is that it is informative: it informs you about the external state of the world or about internal processes. But a random configuration of molecules carry no information. (A random string is information but it doesn't carry information, i.e. mutual information with another structure.)

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#200

This is one of the many reasons why I love science fiction. Many of my favorite novels center around consciousness and the related technology to assist/enable/enhance it. Reading these in my younger years, many of these novels have shaped my life, especially my career. I may be confusing my authors, but some of the more recent novels I've read (from about 10 years or so ago, it's been a while), I think from Alastair…

Regarding copying - try this thought experiment:

What if it were possible to probe a single neuron and copy its exact functioning - that is, the actual neuron and the artificial copy both act the same to the same inputs, and produce the same outputs. Not only that, but this artificial neuron, once fully copied and functioning, could then be inserted in parallel with the original. Then - kill the original.

So there's now this artificial neuron (it doesn't have to be inside the actual brain, either!) working exactly like the original. In fact, let's say this artificial neuron does exist outside the natural brain (and let's ignore any propagation delays or whatnot, though in reality, anything we did with electronics would be vastly faster than actual neuronal signal speeds).

So - we have "copied" (or "uploaded" if simulated with software) a neuron from the brain to a new place outside of that brain.

From the brain's perspective - everything is the same.

Do it over and over and over again - until all the neurons are copied from brain to outside of it.

Again - from the brain's perspective, everything is the same - but now it is completely artificial - and may even be running as a simulation in some fashion.

Now - we did this "one neuron at a time" - but how is that fundamentally different than if we could (somehow) make a copy "all at once in parallel" (something similar to the transporter of Star Trek) - then killed the original?

Of course - if that copy and the original existed and were aware at the same time - their experiences would diverge - but what if the copy was instead "wired" to the same inputs and such (that is, in parallel) to the original brain. In short, kinda like the original way we were copying and killing neurons, but this time, instead of killing the neurons (again, wired in parallel), we let them live, then killed them all at once at the end.

Since both sets are receiving the same inputs and producing the same outputs - where is the "being" or the "consciousness" at? Is it only in the natural brain - or in the artificial? Both at the same time? If we killed one, but not the other - where is the being now? Does it matter which we kill?

We could do the opposite - kill off one of the artificial neurons - and the being should still be ok, right? But what if we randomly selected which we killed - artificial one time, natural another - but since they are all wired together in the same manner and were operating in the same manner in parallel - now where is the "being"?

So - does it matter if we kill off the natural neurons in serial vs parallel? Furthermore, assuming everything is wired together in parallel - would copying everything, then killing off the natural side matter? At what point and "how" does the "being" transfer from one side to the other? Furthermore, how fast must the natural side be killed or shut off - and if there is a disconnect between the two sides - does that matter? Like - if the natural side is disconnected from the copy then a nanosecond later is killed - is the being now still in the artificial copy? What does the being experience in all of this?

The funny thing is - something like this already happens - naturally - to our bodies every day and over time. But we retain the concept of "self" and "being". But it happens slowly, and it doesn't happen "all at once" - a copy isn't made and then the original killed off, but rather cells die and are replaced (maybe not perfectly - leading to aging, disease, and possibly death) over the course of time - but by the above thought experiments - does that really matter, especially if it were done quick enough?

Like - imagine a single brain - but connected to two separate but identical bodies. When one blinks, the other blinks as well. Sever the connection with one of the bodies - the being in the brain should "go" with the body still connected, right? So if there are two brains, connected to the same body - and they are both operating in identical fashion - where is the being? Which brain? Both?

Again - this is all a thought experiment - which has been explored in depth by many people for quite a long while. It has been explored by science fiction several times. In both thought arenas, different conclusions have been made over what really happens - or might happen. But really, no one can say to know the answer.

Post reply on HN