7 ms·

"...through conscious effort." Which is the aforementioned firing of neurons. Consciousness is not supernatural.

by druddha 10y ago

ythl 10y ago
> Consciousness is not supernatural. Prove it. And update the wiki while you are at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Burden of proof error, those claiming it is supernatural must prove it. "not supernatural" is the null hypothesis and is backed by mountains of evidence in the field of neuroscience.
  - ythl 10y ago
    That's like OP saying: "The NSA is not spying on anybody" "Prove it" "Burden of proof error, those claiming the NSA is spying on somebody must prove it. Not spying is the null hypothesis and backed by mountains of evidence" The problem is that I wasn't making a claim either way. I only requested proof of a definitive statement made by OP.
    - dang 10y ago
      > That's bullcrap. Please review the HN guidelines, which include this: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - ythl 10y ago
        I appreciate the concern, and I'm sorry, but I can't control my actions. Everything I do is deterministic. It doesn't matter what the "HN guidelines" say, my current actions have already been prescribed millions of years ago. I was destined to call OP's statement bullcrap since the beginning of time. Like the article says, I have no free will.
        dang 10y ago
        In that case we may have no choice but to ban you.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      > Burden of proof error, those claiming the NSA is spying on somebody must prove it. Which would also be the correct burden of proof. Burden of proof isn't about who's making the claim, it's about whether the claim is positive or negative. You can't logically prove a negative, i.e. you can't prove the NSA isn't spying on you, you can only prove they are. It only takes one example to prove they are, but no number of checks of their equipment can prove they aren't because you might not have seen them all and they could be hiding some. The same applies to claims of anything, regardless of which side is making a claim, the claim itself can be looked to, and phrased in the positive and that's where the burden of proof lies. So whichever side is on the side of "X is true" suffers the burden of proof, never the side that says "X is false". If I say God doesn't exist for example, the burden of proof still lies upon those who believe he does despite my poor stating of my side of the argument because God exists is still the positive claim and thus the only one that's provable.
      - ythl 10y ago
        > You can't logically prove a negative, i.e. you can't prove the NSA isn't spying on you, you can only prove they are. That's simply not true. You can prove a negative, it just takes a lot more effort. Imagine if computer scientists took the same approach: "Hey everybody use our new crypto, there are absolutely no flaws in the design" "Prove it" "Nope, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is a flaw" That type of "burden of proof" argument is not helpful or productive in real life, which is why algorithm/hardware designers go to great lengths to mathematically prove there are no flaws in their design. It's called Formal Verification. If you toss the burden of proof on your customers, you'll have no customers. I can certainly challenge any claim that anyone makes, positive or negative, and I have no obligation to spend time and energy proving or disproving anything. It all comes down to who wants the other party to change more.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Outside of math, the only place where proofs exist, you're simply mistaken. In the real world, there's no such thing as proof, only evidence, and in the world of evidence only [1]positive and thus verifiable claims suffer the burden of proof. This isn't debatable, this is a fact that you either understand or you do not, it isn't a matter of opinion. > I can certainly challenge any claim that anyone makes, positive or negative Yes you can, but it doesn't make your challenge logical. If you challenge someone to prove a negative claim, you are logically wrong and are demanding the impossible. Yes, they may have made a negative claim, the correct response is to say the claim itself is invalid and rephrase it to a valid form and then determine where burden of proof lies. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot If you say "Fish definitely don't have dreams", I'll say that can't ever be proven, there may be one mutant fish somewhere that does dream and you can't examine them all and thus the claim is simply logically invalid. So the claim should be rephrased as "fish dream" and whoever is on that side suffers the burden of proof. However, just because it hasn't been proved that fish dream doesn't mean it's true that they don't, what it does mean is lacking evidence that they do, the answer is unknown.
- xamolxix 10y ago
  >> Consciousness is not supernatural. >Prove it. How do you prove a negative? That aside, if the "supernatural" exists it's just laws of physics we do not understand yet.
- lfuller 10y ago
  The burden of proof is on you to show it is in fact supernatural. Were it not, literally anything could be claimed as truth. At this point in time, the overwhelming majority of evidence indicates that consciousness is deterministic. If you disagree, you'll need to provide concrete proof to the contrary.
  - ythl 10y ago
    > The burden of proof is on you to show it is in fact supernatural. I'm not claiming it is supernatural. I'm only challenging the definitive statement that it is not supernatural and asking for proof.
    - gpderetta 10y ago
      Are you stepping into invisible pink unicorn territory?
      - ythl 10y ago
        Let me put it this way: Consciousness is definitely not deterministic.
        gpderetta 10y ago
        It could go either way, but so far the biology and neuroscience point to quantum indeterminism effects having little to no role in the brain. Still I do not see how indeterminism would actually enable free will. Would an automa without free will acquire it if a higher counter was added to its brain?
  - loki49152 10y ago
    The alternative to "deterministic" is not "supernatural". This is a false alternative that leaves out all of the other possibilities, including the option that "deterministic" is not an accurate description of causality in the first place.
  - theorytheater 10y ago
Phithagoras 10y ago
Certainly! I'm not arguing for any supernatural quality of consciousness. Instead I'm suggesting that free will may be defined as our (apparent) ability to influence the cycle of stimulus-response. We are (or at least I am) conscious, which seems best explained as a product of this cycle occurring. Consciousness may have a top-down influence that can affect the deterministic chain of events. I suppose the answer lies in whether or not we are responsible (even in part) for physical changes in the brain. Which seems hard to prove... Edit: impossible to prove if we consider this a self-referential first order logical system

"...through conscious effort." Which is the aforementioned firing of neurons. Consciousness is not supernatural.

by druddha 10y ago

"...through conscious effort." Which is the aforementioned firing of neurons. Consciousness is not supernatural.

ythl 10y ago

> Consciousness is not supernatural. Prove it. And update the wiki while you are at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

gnaritas 10y ago
Burden of proof error, those claiming it is supernatural must prove it. "not supernatural" is the null hypothesis and is backed by mountains of evidence in the field of neuroscience.
- ythl 10y ago
  That's like OP saying: "The NSA is not spying on anybody" "Prove it" "Burden of proof error, those claiming the NSA is spying on somebody must prove it. Not spying is the null hypothesis and backed by mountains of evidence" The problem is that I wasn't making a claim either way. I only requested proof of a definitive statement made by OP.
  - dang 10y ago
    > That's bullcrap. Please review the HN guidelines, which include this: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - ythl 10y ago
      I appreciate the concern, and I'm sorry, but I can't control my actions. Everything I do is deterministic. It doesn't matter what the "HN guidelines" say, my current actions have already been prescribed millions of years ago. I was destined to call OP's statement bullcrap since the beginning of time. Like the article says, I have no free will.
      - dang 10y ago
        In that case we may have no choice but to ban you.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    > Burden of proof error, those claiming the NSA is spying on somebody must prove it. Which would also be the correct burden of proof. Burden of proof isn't about who's making the claim, it's about whether the claim is positive or negative. You can't logically prove a negative, i.e. you can't prove the NSA isn't spying on you, you can only prove they are. It only takes one example to prove they are, but no number of checks of their equipment can prove they aren't because you might not have seen them all and they could be hiding some. The same applies to claims of anything, regardless of which side is making a claim, the claim itself can be looked to, and phrased in the positive and that's where the burden of proof lies. So whichever side is on the side of "X is true" suffers the burden of proof, never the side that says "X is false". If I say God doesn't exist for example, the burden of proof still lies upon those who believe he does despite my poor stating of my side of the argument because God exists is still the positive claim and thus the only one that's provable.
    - ythl 10y ago
      > You can't logically prove a negative, i.e. you can't prove the NSA isn't spying on you, you can only prove they are. That's simply not true. You can prove a negative, it just takes a lot more effort. Imagine if computer scientists took the same approach: "Hey everybody use our new crypto, there are absolutely no flaws in the design" "Prove it" "Nope, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is a flaw" That type of "burden of proof" argument is not helpful or productive in real life, which is why algorithm/hardware designers go to great lengths to mathematically prove there are no flaws in their design. It's called Formal Verification. If you toss the burden of proof on your customers, you'll have no customers. I can certainly challenge any claim that anyone makes, positive or negative, and I have no obligation to spend time and energy proving or disproving anything. It all comes down to who wants the other party to change more.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        Outside of math, the only place where proofs exist, you're simply mistaken. In the real world, there's no such thing as proof, only evidence, and in the world of evidence only [1]positive and thus verifiable claims suffer the burden of proof. This isn't debatable, this is a fact that you either understand or you do not, it isn't a matter of opinion. > I can certainly challenge any claim that anyone makes, positive or negative Yes you can, but it doesn't make your challenge logical. If you challenge someone to prove a negative claim, you are logically wrong and are demanding the impossible. Yes, they may have made a negative claim, the correct response is to say the claim itself is invalid and rephrase it to a valid form and then determine where burden of proof lies. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot If you say "Fish definitely don't have dreams", I'll say that can't ever be proven, there may be one mutant fish somewhere that does dream and you can't examine them all and thus the claim is simply logically invalid. So the claim should be rephrased as "fish dream" and whoever is on that side suffers the burden of proof. However, just because it hasn't been proved that fish dream doesn't mean it's true that they don't, what it does mean is lacking evidence that they do, the answer is unknown.
xamolxix 10y ago
>> Consciousness is not supernatural. >Prove it. How do you prove a negative? That aside, if the "supernatural" exists it's just laws of physics we do not understand yet.
lfuller 10y ago
The burden of proof is on you to show it is in fact supernatural. Were it not, literally anything could be claimed as truth. At this point in time, the overwhelming majority of evidence indicates that consciousness is deterministic. If you disagree, you'll need to provide concrete proof to the contrary.
- ythl 10y ago
  > The burden of proof is on you to show it is in fact supernatural. I'm not claiming it is supernatural. I'm only challenging the definitive statement that it is not supernatural and asking for proof.
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    Are you stepping into invisible pink unicorn territory?
    - ythl 10y ago
      Let me put it this way: Consciousness is definitely not deterministic.
      - gpderetta 10y ago
        It could go either way, but so far the biology and neuroscience point to quantum indeterminism effects having little to no role in the brain. Still I do not see how indeterminism would actually enable free will. Would an automa without free will acquire it if a higher counter was added to its brain?
- loki49152 10y ago
  The alternative to "deterministic" is not "supernatural". This is a false alternative that leaves out all of the other possibilities, including the option that "deterministic" is not an accurate description of causality in the first place.
- theorytheater 10y ago

Phithagoras 10y ago

Certainly! I'm not arguing for any supernatural quality of consciousness. Instead I'm suggesting that free will may be defined as our (apparent) ability to influence the cycle of stimulus-response. We are (or at least I am) conscious, which seems best explained as a product of this cycle occurring. Consciousness may have a top-down influence that can affect the deterministic chain of events. I suppose the answer lies in whether or not we are responsible (even in part) for physical changes in the brain. Which seems hard to prove... Edit: impossible to prove if we consider this a self-referential first order logical system