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

The unending quest to explain consciousness

bookforum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 255 posts

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#211

Post by KillahBhyte »

toasterlovin wrote: post #193
toasterlovin wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was just reading through this sub thread and I agree. I immediately started comparing the statements against Russell's Teapot ("...can't get bogged down...") and God of the Gaps ("...lack of explanatory power physical theories...") type issues.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#213

Post by hackinthebochs »

gear54rus wrote: post #49
cygx wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it reasonable to assume that for thought processes to occur, there must be some processing, so rocks are out. A more interesting example would be, say, trees, which do communicate with each other to some degree. Is that accompanied by some form of awareness? What's the lower bound of complexity at which consciousness kicks in? What about supraorganisms such as insect hives? Human cities? An ecosystem as a whol…

Information could be encoded in molecule oscillations and therefore 2 rocks of different temperatures would communicate it when touching (heat transfer would occur). Can this be considered processing?

Heat is entropy, but entropy is basically a measure of disorder/randomness. So when two substances transfer heat, they necessarily are not communicating information, except perhaps that there exists a temperature differential.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#214

Post by carapace »

adrianN wrote: post #207
carapace wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on who you ask. There are people who routinely leave their bodies and go about and "obtain information", as you put it. Heck, there were Learning Annex classes on it. YMMV.

I'm pretty sure that proof of extrasensory experience would yield you a nobel prize, but so far all studies of the subject that I'm aware of were either negative or had their methods heavily critized.

And yet...

I use "ESP" all the time, for trivial things: leaving the house so as to arrive at the bus stop just before my bus does.

AFAIK, the PEAR lab came closest to formally establishing "psi" (or whatever it is) but never in such a way as to be absolutely incontrovertible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalie...

It's almost as if the phenomenon is coy.

It's a cultural "blockage": overcome the cultural conditioning against it and suddenly "woo-woo" is easy, even trivial. Conversely, you can float like a cloud over the Nobel Prize committee and they won't look up.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#215

Post by BlueTemplar »

pygy_ wrote: post #192
BlueTemplar wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do waves split and gather again ?

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#216

Post by abnry »

KillahBhyte wrote: post #211
toasterlovin wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was just reading through this sub thread and I agree. I immediately started comparing the statements against Russell's Teapot ("...can't get bogged down...") and God of the Gaps ("...lack of explanatory power physical theories...") type issues.

When I say can't get bogged down I mean I don't have the energy to get into a big long discussion.

You baited me into starting one... but I'll be brief. The sensation of seeing blue is clearly, to me, unrelated to the material aspects of blue light or the interaction of that light on the cells in my retina, or the electric signals of neurons in my brain. I could imagine myself as the same person except for the perception of two colors swapped. All this is summarized in the question, "What canvas does the brain's neurons draw its images on?" I can't imagine any answer that is material.

Also, saying that physical theories lack explanatory power is not the same thing as saying there is NOTHING can offer explanatory power, or even that physical theories cannot augment any theories. But I strongly oppose the blind optimism of those believing pure physical theories will explain consciousness when it is has so far failed abysmally. That is not the same thing as saying no such physical theories exist, but that I wish more people realized just how optimistic they sound without real reason to be.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#217

Post by yohsii »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #198
yohsii wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

psychedelics are a shortcut for those who don't want to spend time meditating, you can achieve the same result without drugs. it's difficult to convince somebody who hasn't had the experience and of course if you'd had the experience you wouldn't need convincing but i'd suggest you stay open minded and at least try to explore these things when the time is right. and if you won't, it's alright, you'll remember everything once you die

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#218

Post by yohsii »

nkrisc wrote: post #202
yohsii wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 int…

Conjecture and speculation, on your part. > if consciousness was created by physical processes, what created the first consciousness? Perhaps a different physical process, since we can see that a physical process is capable of creating consciousness. It seems very plausible that consciousness is simply an emergent property of complex, multi-cellular life. If so, then a better question isn't what created the first con…

i've experienced it, and so can you. don't take my word for it. invest serious time in meditation and if you want a shortcut, drink ayahuasca or consume 5meo-dmt. it is just as scary to realise that your ultimate identity is God (with all the responsibility that entails - full responsibility for your own life and your environment etc), that you are fundamentally alone (we are all the same consciousness experiencing itself from different perspectives) and eternal with no respite of death. you are kidding yourself if you think your life is an accident. you are alive because you desired to be. it is your deepest desires that drive your incarnation into each life.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#219

Post by pygy_ »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #215
pygy_ wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do waves split and gather again ?

These Socratic games are fun, and I guess I get where you’re coming from. .. but that doesn’t really answer my question regarding subject persistence and the subjective continuity of identity. What emerges tomorrow when I wake up could be another me, like one can argue that a new wave forms after the split.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#220

Post by toasterlovin »

abnry wrote: post #216
KillahBhyte wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just reading through this sub thread and I agree. I immediately started comparing the statements against Russell's Teapot ("...can't get bogged down...") and God of the Gaps ("...lack of explanatory power physical theories...") type issues.

When I say can't get bogged down I mean I don't have the energy to get into a big long discussion. You baited me into starting one... but I'll be brief. The sensation of seeing blue is clearly, to me, unrelated to the material aspects of blue light or the interaction of that light on the cells in my retina, or the electric signals of neurons in my brain. I could imagine myself as the same person except for the percep…

> The sensation of seeing blue is clearly, to me, unrelated to the material aspects of blue light or the interaction of that light on the cells in my retina, or the electric signals of neurons in my brain.

Why is it your assumption that the sensation of seeing something is anything other than simply the network of neurons in one part of your brain firing in concert in response to visual stimuli? Why is the color purple, which is a mix of blue and red, also perceived as an intermediate between blue and red if the sensation of seeing a color is not linked to it's actual, physical properties and how they interact with your visual sense organs?

Post reply on HN