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

Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery, It’s Matter

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–216 of 216 posts

Re: Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery, It’s Matter

#211

Post by collyw »

redial wrote: post #53
goatlover wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it depend on what sort of attributes phenomena in the category are supposed to have? If we say that everything is material, then presumably we mean that there is a criteria for what makes something material, probably along the lines of what physicists use to make physical theories. Otherwise, our category should just be called "everything".

I've always found that line of argumentation very disingenuous[1]. Of all the explanations we have for anything that has ever been explained, anywhere in any time, they all fall in the physical/material category. This of course doesn't mean there could never be another explanation. But the time to take it seriously is when serious evidence is presented. Just because we can imagine a certain reality in which events, a…

> Of all the explanations we have for anything that has ever been explained, anywhere in any time, they all fall in the physical/material category.

So far we haven't come up with a decent explanation of consciousness which is why I am prepared to be a bit more open minded. The fact you can't observe it, only experience it adds to that. It may well be physical, but it may not.

Re: Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery, It’s Matter

#212

Post by redial »

collyw wrote: post #211
redial wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always found that line of argumentation very disingenuous[1]. Of all the explanations we have for anything that has ever been explained, anywhere in any time, they all fall in the physical/material category. This of course doesn't mean there could never be another explanation. But the time to take it seriously is when serious evidence is presented. Just because we can imagine a certain reality in which events, a…

> Of all the explanations we have for anything that has ever been explained, anywhere in any time, they all fall in the physical/material category. So far we haven't come up with a decent explanation of consciousness which is why I am prepared to be a bit more open minded. The fact you can't observe it, only experience it adds to that. It may well be physical, but it may not.

It might be an entirely different thing altogether! why restrict our "open mind" to only those two choices?

> So far we haven't come up with a decent explanation of consciousness which is why I am prepared to be a bit more open minded.

Then we should say we don't know. It's disingenuous to say that because we don't have an answer, or as in this case, a full and complete answer, then it means that it might be this entirely different thing for which nobody has any evidence, no one has any explanation and no one can even describe or define.

Re: Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery, It’s Matter

#213

Post by dragonwriter »

collyw wrote: post #11

"Human conscious experience is wholly a matter of physical goings-on in the body and in particular the brain." Is there any proof of this? The while article seems to hinge on this assumption and then go on from there. We can't see or measure consciousness (brain activity yes, consciousness no). We only experience it. The article makes far to many naive assumptions without any proof.

> Is there any proof of this?

The idea of proof, in the empirical sense in which term is used in dealing with any statements about phenomena, presumes this about all phenomena. It is itself unprovable (for any phenomenon), as it is the axiomatic underpinning on which all "proof" of anything about phenomena rests.

Re: Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery, It’s Matter

#214

Post by empath75 »

whybroke wrote: post #186
Jarwain wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would see A. The cloned me in chamber B would be brought into existence at that moment. They would share all the memories as me, and believe to be the one in chamber A. May be slightly confused about why the letter changed, unless you prepared yourself beforehand. But the original observer that was put into the duplication chamber, would maintain their letter A

If consciousness is purely a result of the arrangement of the brain, why would you not see B and the copy see A since the bodies are identical? This paradox is the problem with a simple emergent property explanation. To say somehow the different history of the atoms in the original brain vs the atoms in duplicate is somehow relevant to the emergent property would be a very odd claim: we don't take into account the pr…

I don't think this as mysterious a problem as you think it is. If I take a snapshot of a VM on aws, and copy it to a new instance, the vm will 'experience' being shut down on one instance and waking up on another, while the original will wake up exactly as it was. This no more negates the existence of the operating system than your scenario negates the existence of consciousness.

(Btw, the videogame _Soma_ goes over your exact scenario)

Re: Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery, It’s Matter

#215

Post by ZeroFries »

nitrogen wrote: post #209
RivieraKid wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those only imply that the physical state of the brain affects consciousness, which both camps agree on.

But physicalism explains it while dualism has to work around it, violating Occam's razor. More points in favor of physicalism: scientists' ability to alter rat neurons to be photosensitive and attach them to fiber optic cables, the ability to implant memories in rats by altering a neuron, the mapping of place neurons in rats -- or perhaps the fact that brains are produced entirely from matter consumed by the mother d…

Or, matter is entirely imagined. Neurons are imagined. Atoms are imagined. Reality is inseparable. Only one thing exists, as you say.

Re: Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery, It’s Matter

#216

Post by Jarwain »

whybroke wrote: post #186
Jarwain wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would see A. The cloned me in chamber B would be brought into existence at that moment. They would share all the memories as me, and believe to be the one in chamber A. May be slightly confused about why the letter changed, unless you prepared yourself beforehand. But the original observer that was put into the duplication chamber, would maintain their letter A

If consciousness is purely a result of the arrangement of the brain, why would you not see B and the copy see A since the bodies are identical? This paradox is the problem with a simple emergent property explanation. To say somehow the different history of the atoms in the original brain vs the atoms in duplicate is somehow relevant to the emergent property would be a very odd claim: we don't take into account the pr…

I'm not thinking about this from my perspective, however. I'm in a way thinking of it from an outsider's perspective.

In terms of "me", there would be two individual instances of me that open their eyes and either see A or B. The "original" is determined by you the question-asker, and the fact that that "original" walked into chamber A. Because that "original" walked into chamber A, that "original" would see the letter A, whereas the clone would see the letter B. Its possible that the "original" was, at time of cloning, completely recreated/rearranged. However, that "original" would retain the A designation/"originality" because to an observer, someone walked into a chamber with no other exits, and exited out the same chamber, that someone is the same person.

You are as much what others think of you as what you think of yourself, in this case.

Post reply on HN