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

Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

heraldscotland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 244 posts

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#221

Post by yetihehe »

imtringued wrote: post #218
postmodest wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could Pet Rocks Be Conscious? I mean, really. I feel like having a method of sensation and an ability to react to those sensations is a fundamental basis for "consciousness" and if you can point to the sun or the Local Cluster's sensory apparatus, I may listen to the rest of your (the Editorial You, not the commenter this reply is attached to) argument. Otherwise, we're just pointing at complex things and saying "doe…

The problem with your definition is that it excluded forms of life that do not have actors and sensors. Implying that consciousness is not a mental property, but rather a property of being physically able to manipulate the world. I.e. you are saying Stephen Hawking is definitely less conscious than an average human with functioning arms and legs. In its essence, you are too focused on your own experience of reality.

It is about fundamental basis for consciousness. Stephen Hawking had sensory apparatus and a method to react to inputs. Alas, I would say he is no longer conscious. If he had no method to react, like locked-in patients, we could argue about whether they are conscious, but we are currently trying to measure consciousness in those people too by measuring brain waves (look, something changes predictably when he hears us). We don't see any evidence that sun has any sensory input or output. It's like you arguing whether 0.9999 or 0.99999 is bigger when I argue whether 0 or 1 is bigger.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#222

Post by hackable_sand »

dgoodell wrote: post #95
a13o wrote: post #54

We never bothered to define consciousness with any scientific rigor, so why not? It's common for things that are everywhere, to also be nowhere at all. Could the cosmos, in fact, be smurpity-badoingo?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that you can’t have productive discussions about things that you haven’t solidly defined?

That is a real problem though. Many things you cannot define because their bounds are indefinite. To define those things requires knowing the bounds. It's much simpler to accept our limitations in language and cognition because it removes those artifical boundaries when connecting physics to metaphysics. We only need to describe things when they matter.

Then there are things you can very solidly define but never know what they are. We can describe physics, and their applications, but when connecting metaphysical effects down to the constituent quantum processes the whole is unknown. We aren't sensible enough.

The truly wholesome perspective is from outside the universe.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#223

Post by hackable_sand »

yetihehe wrote: post #221
imtringued wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your definition is that it excluded forms of life that do not have actors and sensors. Implying that consciousness is not a mental property, but rather a property of being physically able to manipulate the world. I.e. you are saying Stephen Hawking is definitely less conscious than an average human with functioning arms and legs. In its essence, you are too focused on your own experience of reality.

It is about fundamental basis for consciousness. Stephen Hawking had sensory apparatus and a method to react to inputs. Alas, I would say he is no longer conscious. If he had no method to react, like locked-in patients, we could argue about whether they are conscious, but we are currently trying to measure consciousness in those people too by measuring brain waves (look, something changes predictably when he hears us…

A pure observer with no deliberate actions or impulse reactions sounds like it can most definitely be conscious.

Do we have to interact with it?

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#224

Post by yetihehe »

hackable_sand wrote: post #223
yetihehe wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is about fundamental basis for consciousness. Stephen Hawking had sensory apparatus and a method to react to inputs. Alas, I would say he is no longer conscious. If he had no method to react, like locked-in patients, we could argue about whether they are conscious, but we are currently trying to measure consciousness in those people too by measuring brain waves (look, something changes predictably when he hears us…

A pure observer with no deliberate actions or impulse reactions sounds like it can most definitely be conscious. Do we have to interact with it?

> A pure observer with no deliberate actions or impulse reactions sounds like it can most definitely be conscious.

Yes, but how can we know about the existence of such observer? There can be infinite number of such observers filling every cubic millimeter of our space, but does it change anything for us? Existence of such observer is as meaningless as orbital teapots [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Edit: a voice recorder without a tape and battery meets your definition. Is it conscious?

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#225

Post by sixQuarks »

hscontinuity wrote: post #152
sixQuarks wrote: post #21

The article is quite ridiculous for stating that the alternative theory of a Multiverse is sloppy. It didn’t really give a reason why it’s sloppy. The Multiverse theory is an elegant and simple explanation for why everything seems to be so fine tuned. What’s more sloppy of an explanation - that the cosmos is somehow conscious and directed life to appear, or that there is an infinite number of universes? Looking back…

"Doesn’t it make sense that the next step is to discover there are multiple universes?" That depends. Multiple universes don't explain causation. For example if you assert that all things present in the material world you live in (right now) at some point transcended existence in thought only to a material form (the planet didn't build concrete, we did) - how does this fit through entropy in a multiverse? To assert t…

I dont understand what you’re trying to say

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#226

Post by CuriouslyC »

Scarblac wrote: post #217
CuriouslyC wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't know that we're unaware when "unconscious" just that we're unresponsive, and we don't have memories of that time. There is evidence that the senses are still active and a lot of brain activity continues. There is evidence that the human brain contains many consciousnesses, just look into research on split brain studies. I'm sure you've had the feeling of being aware of what was going on but feeling powerles…

> There is evidence that the senses are still active and a lot of brain activity continues Why do you mention that if you're arguing that absolutely everything is conscious? Why would brain activity be relevant?

Because I'm arguing that there is consciousness, the processing systems of the brain are just too disoriented to pull together unitary consciousness sufficient to actively drive the body. Being knocked out doesn't turn the lights out, it just scatters them into a bunch of individual lights that are no longer working together, and don't imprint memories well.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#227

Post by CuriouslyC »

meat_machine wrote: post #219
CuriouslyC wrote: post #65

The most fundamental argument for panpsychism is that it obeys Occam's razor FAR better than the "emergent animate matter" hypothesis. Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens, so from the perspective of Occam's razor we would actually need to explain why it DIDN'T happen for non-animal matter. Additionally, if we go with the emergence hypothesis, we…

from wikipedia: >Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements it's a general principle or _recommendation_, not some law of the universe. Some people might argue that "God wills it" is the simplest explanation for many things, but that doesn't mean it's true. The simplicity of an explanation doesn't necessarily have an…

It isn't just about the simplicity of Panpsychism, friend, it's about the big things we have to explain if we rule it out that we are so far from being able to explain as to make us look foolish despite all our supposed knowledge. We don't even have a clue how to explain them, despite building atom bombs and space flight and getting close to artificial intelligence. That to me speaks volumes.

Please explain to me how emergence could create new "dimensions" that didn't exist before. Every emergent system we've ever observed creates unexpected complexity __WITHIN THE CONFINES AND STRUCTURE OF THE SYSTEM__. What you're describing is like if a flock of seagulls moved in unity then teleported to the other side of the earth they were so united - it makes zero sense within the framework, and only by ejecting from the framework can you salvage the notion.

I don't perfectly understand all the steps from zero to smartphone, but I have had enough education to have a decent overview, and I can gain that knowledge if I seek it. What will you study to understand consciousness?

The "emergence" you're describing from LLM behavior is a jump in capabilities that occurs due to complexity, but the LLM is just getting better at what it does, it isn't magically developing the ability to levitate researchers due to emergence, which is what "dumb" matter becoming conscious would be like.

The whole "god in the universe" angle is overblown, the root of panpsychism really is this: We and the rest of the stuff in the universe can perceive, feels, has free will, and makes decisions.

I understand it's hard to let go of your humancentric fallacies. The history of science has been brave men having to fight the power to point out the ways in which humans aren't unique or the center of the universe. Particularly if you're Christian, the idea that everything the bible said about man being god's chosen is bullshit must be a bitter pill to swallow.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#228

Post by phantompeace »

coldblues wrote: post #146

I believe consciousness is on a spectrum of self-awareness. It just exists, perhaps even without evolutionary need. Even if you act mainly on instinct or even purely you could still very well be conscious. You will continue to exist as long as conscious life is able to propagate. For me, it makes sense that a state of nonexistence can't exist. Your consciousness is not unique, it's only a physical phenomena, thus it…

> I also believe consciousness is not quantifiable, but shared, and you just have a narrow perspective at a time.

I agree, but I would go 1 step further and say: we are all human, yet experience life as individual beings rather than the sum of the species. Similarly, we are all alive and conscious, as the trees in the forest, as the bugs that dwell within, and as the bacteria that dwell within the bugs. It’s all happening right now, but we experience a small, linear slice because we are separated by our brains.

Due to the sense of self that arises from having a brain, we consider ourselves just an instantiation of a member of our species, but i firmly believe that the same life-force (the soul?) is living as all beings, simultaneously. Most probably across the universe.

That’s why when we hurt other people/animals and the environment that which they make up, we end up only hurting ourselves. Buddhists have the concept of Karma. Islam has the concept of a Judgement day where animals, plants and even the ground you stepped on, would speak against you if you transgressed against them during your life. I don’t think these are simply stories made up to keep us in line whilst we’re on this planet - I believe that there may be something more to all of this.

On a side note: I wonder if there exists a world where the predominant life forms are literally connected? Not by DNA history, but by something physical whereby they can share the same brain/experience whilst in different bodies. A literal hive mind. I wonder if that would be more conducive to cooperation on a global scale vs the way life evolved on Earth through competition?

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#229

Post by mannykannot »

dgoodell wrote: post #95
a13o wrote: post #54

We never bothered to define consciousness with any scientific rigor, so why not? It's common for things that are everywhere, to also be nowhere at all. Could the cosmos, in fact, be smurpity-badoingo?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that you can’t have productive discussions about things that you haven’t solidly defined?

Why is it so hard for people who hold this view to see that there is a bootstrap problem for any knowledge beyond personal experience if this were true? The reality is that definitions are works-in-progress, and getting started often involves a 'definition' that is little more than a placeholder for an eventual explanation of something currently unexplainable.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#230

Post by mannykannot »

Philip Goff, like a number of other philosophers promoting some sort of panpsychism, spends much more time trying to argue that our minds cannot be merely biophysical phenomena than he does in explaining what he actually means when he says things like "consciousness is fundamental" and "electrons are conscious."

The article quotes Goff as saying his ideas "fit into the space between traditional religion and secular atheism": a sort of secular God in the Gaps concept, and he seems uninterested in bringing it out of the gap and into the light.

Post reply on HN