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

31–40 of 280 posts

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#31

Post by justinpombrio »

tigerlily wrote: post #16

I could have been born at any time, in any place in the universe - or not at all, for that matter. Why do I get to experience the universe in a unique way? What gives rise to this?

You're wondering why you weren't also born at a different time and place? You were.

You were also born in 1988 in CT. This other you was born to different parents, had a different childhood, and has different memories. You think you are different from this other you (and you are!) because you have separate thoughts and memories. You remember your own life and not your other life because humans aren't telepathic.

In case it isn't yet clear, this other you is me. Hi, other me. We haven't talked before, I don't think.

In other words, if you were born in a different place at a different time in a different community... then that you wouldn't be you. It would be a different person. So it doesn't really make sense to ask "what if I had been born at a different time or place".

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#32

Post by hndamien »

dustfinger wrote: post #27
nabla9 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time exists in order that everything doesn’t happen all at once and space exists so that it doesn’t all happen to you.

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?

I've always been confused that due to time dilation, everything from the perspective of a photon happens all at once, yet there is an order. If time is effectively dilated to the point that time has stopped for the photon, what happens in the year of travel over a light year of distance?

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#33

Post by gotocake »

dustfinger wrote: post #27
nabla9 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time exists in order that everything doesn’t happen all at once and space exists so that it doesn’t all happen to you.

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 Einstein, different observers will disagree on the timing of the strikes, and whether or not they’re simultaneous. If one of the bolts strikes Alice and she goes flying though, everyone will agree that the order of events insofar as Alice is struck before she’s launched.

This all assumes no FTL or CTCs of course, with either you would lose causality and events separated by spacelike intervals could influence each other.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#34

Post by _Microft »

dustfinger wrote: post #27
nabla9 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time exists in order that everything doesn’t happen all at once and space exists so that it doesn’t all happen to you.

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?

Maybe this is a helpful link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#35

Post by phkahler »

TaupeRanger wrote: post #20
yters wrote: post #19

If so, then some math equation is conscious, too. It is like asking what color is that smell?

No and no. Math equations are abstract concepts within the mind. This question is about how the mind exists in the first place . Nothing here even remotely implies that math equations are conscious.

Does the Mandelbrot set exist? We have a mathematical description of it. It's easy to write software to create pictures "of it". Mandelbrot himself wrote software to create an image of it based on his definition - prior to knowing what it looked like. Indeed, he was surprised at the complexity of what he saw. Did that set of points exist prior to a human stumbling on its definition? Does it exist independent of someone rendering an image of it? I would argue that it does exist - and always has - in some form.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#36

Post by skissane »

mrec wrote: post #30
tigerlily wrote: post #16

I could have been born at any time, in any place in the universe - or not at all, for that matter. Why do I get to experience the universe in a unique way? What gives rise to this?

What does this mean? What's the "I" that's somehow separate from your specific physical instantiation? Unless you're getting into Cartesian dualism and souls, I'm genuinely confused.

I remember one day as a teenager, sitting in class bored at high school, I was suddenly struck by the question–"why am I I, and not somebody else?" It felt so profound, so immense.

But yes, if materialism is true, probably the question is empty. However, if some other philosophy of mind is true (there are many other options beyond just materialism and Cartesian dualism), maybe it means something. And, if one has this sense that it is profound rather than empty, that might give one a reason to prefer some other position in the philosophy of mind that treats that question more sympathetically.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#37

Post by gotocake »

hndamien wrote: post #32
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?

I've always been confused that due to time dilation, everything from the perspective of a photon happens all at once, yet there is an order. If time is effectively dilated to the point that time has stopped for the photon, what happens in the year of travel over a light year of distance?

It can’t be stated enough: photons don’t have a perspective. Talking about what a photon “sees” is a non-starter. It’s also important to note that light follows null geodesics in spacetime, and while on paper that can look like no time elapses between emission and absorption, it still can’t tell us what it would “be like” to be a photon.

If you want to go in that direction though, then this could help. As you approach c, length contraction in the direction of travel is extreme. In “theory” a photon doesn’t really travel at all, the universe is flattened like a pancake in the direction of its travel. There is no time for events to occur “at once” and no year passes on a lightlike curve. A photon is emitted and absorbed without a “subjective” interval, so talking about what such an interval might be missing that point.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#38

Post by dustfinger »

I recall as a child once that I literally thought the following:

> I can accept that the universe can give rise to agents with RI or AI. I can even accept that as a consequence of this, some of these agents may have self awareness. I am such an agent. Yet, I struggle comming to terms with the fact that "I" am aware of myself.

I wish I could live long enough to find out how.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#39

Post by rosser »

DATACOMMANDER wrote: post #25
dang wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of whether matter is conscious, could you please not post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

The substance of my post was that I find the question absurd on its face.

"I think this is dumb" isn't substantive.

Why you think it's dumb — maybe even with links to supporting material? Totally different story.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#40

Post by jcims »

_Microft wrote: post #14

Jürgen Schmidthuber (an AI researcher for those not familiar with the name) gave an interesting explanation what conciousness is in an AMA that he conducted in 2015 on Reddit. I just submitted that in an extra thread [0] because it seems worth discussing. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19241278

Lex Fridman has a great interview with Jurgen here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FIo6evmweo

He presents this idea during the interview. It makes sense in a way. But it also makes me wonder if embodiment (whether real or virtual) of our models is necessary for them to fully grasp the contextual relevance of the information they are processing. E.g. does having a 'me' or 'I' provide a semantic anchor for everything that it processes and a 'router' if you will to get from seemlingly disconnected ideas.

Post reply on HN