5 ms·

Well, people have lot of different answers, some of them pretty ridiculous. One fundamental reason why this is such a controversial and confusing topic with a

Well, people have lot of different answers, some of them pretty ridiculous. One fundamental reason why this is such a controversial and confusing topic with a wide range of opinions is that consciousness is meta-physical phenomenon. I.e. it's out of the scope of science in a way. But the concept that there's something beyond science is completely unintuitive to many people (by "beyond science" I obviously don't mean BS like spirituality etc., it's from a purely rational perspective). So trying to understand consciousness with science only will inevitably fail.

maverick_iceman 10y ago
Why is it beyond the scope of science? No experiments have shown that consciousness can violate the laws of physics and steady progress has been made in explaining consciousness from neuroscience.
- monktastic1 10y ago
  In another sense, no progress has been made. We may have explained why consciousness is experiencing sadness as opposed to happiness right now, or red instead of blue, but not why "it is like something" to be conscious in the first place (i.e., the "hard problem").
- placebo 10y ago
  You are referring to the soft problem of consciousness, which is not what the argument is about. I too am convinced that the hard problem of consciousness is beyond the scope of science. It is beyond science not in the sense that it violates the laws of physics but because when you get right down to it, your consciousness is the only "real" thing that you can ever know about. Everything else you supposedly "know" - every concept, every derived "laws" of physics are thought models which you only know by being conscious of them. A very crude analogy would be to say that consciousness is like a camera that enables science to be done, but the camera can't take a picture of itself.
  - RivieraKid 10y ago
    Finally a consciousness-related opinion I can 100% agree with. The camera analogy is spot on. How did you develop this opinion / way of looking at things?
    - placebo 10y ago
      Decades of struggling with the question and scrutinizing what others came up with :) Nothing I've mentioned though is original or new - just took some time to filter out the noise, look carefully and honestly and connect the dots.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    The camera can in fact take a picture of itself - if there's a mirror. (But it can never take a picture of the mirror - just what the mirror reflects!) So, what would be a mirror for consciousness? Is there one?
    - lefnire 9y ago
      AI
- psyc 10y ago
  I don't know whether it's actually beyond the scope of science, but it's currently extremely premature for restricting all thought and discussion about it to narrow hard science.
  - maverick_iceman 10y ago
    What's an example of "broad soft science"? Astrology? Telekinesis?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  Physics and science is basically a description of what we perceive through consciousness.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  > Why is it beyond the scope of science? I don't know if this is what the parent meant, but I interpreted that statement to mean that the concept and explanation of consciousness is beyond our current scientific frame of reference. Think about past frames of reference which "science" attempted to utilize, to some effect and failure. I put quotes around science for a reason, because I have a specific example, to wit: Think about alchemy. To a certain extent, a form of scientific process was used by these early - for lack of a better word - proto-chemists. They pondered, came up with ideas, experimented, took notes, compared results, etc. They discovered new substances and compounds we use to this day; they created the prototypes of some of the lab equipment still used. Their methods ultimately led to our current "scientific method" of inquiry. But despite their successes and failures, despite their best attempts and experiments, in many ways they were hampered by the framework of "science" they were investigating. For instance, they knew little to nothing about atoms or elements - instead grouping things into the "classical" elements of earth, fire, water, and air (and in some cases "spirit"). They still had a mindset of "like for like", meaning that their experimentation led to them using substances or similar that had some nature which was like what they were attempting to perform or gain the result of. I won't belabour this point - only to say that because their framework of reference limited them, they couldn't make the "giant leap" forward that was needed to really understand and do what it is they were trying to do (let's not dwell on the philosophical/spiritual aspects of the so-called Philosopher's Stone quest). So perhaps that's where we are today, in regards to science and trying to explain and understand consciousness? That isn't to say we won't eventually be able to explain and explore the topic; our nature of asking questions, trying experiments, coming at the problem from a myriad of different angles, and the collaboration between these disparate fields will likely lead us to the knowledge (and also it will open up many more questions, as it always has and does). As noted in the article, we are taking more steps even today - and I am also pleased to see that there is a greater collaboration going on between the fields and people who deal with this at a basic level - the physicists, the neuroscientists, computer science, biologists, etc. This kind of cross-fertilization is absolutely needed in order to understand this problem.
bmh100 10y ago
I must disagree. Skepticism, moral epistemology, the origin of reality, etc., are metaphysical concepts. Consciousness, in its various definitions, clearly has physical descriptions and criteria. Once consensus is reached about a definition, it will be much easier to determine the causes and requirements for it. As neuroscience, computer science, and information technology progress, it will eventually become possible to precisely manipulate and/or create/simulate consciousness.
- JackFr 10y ago
  > As neuroscience, computer science, and information technology progress, it will eventually become possible to precisely manipulate and/or create/simulate consciousness. There's a good word which describes that sentence: 'faith'
  - lefnire 10y ago
    Or possibly 'extrapolation'. We've seen science explain magic time and again: eg, what was previously an evil spiritual infestation is now a bacterial infection. Think on the analogy, a metaphysical phenomenon became physical (and observed/manipulable). Unless you're a dualist, you buy that the brain (a science-accessible object) equals the mind in a fundamental way (from MRIs, brain damage, etc). Whether it's connected to a separate physical phenomenon yet unobserved, or creates the mind by emergence in a way that's not inductively accessible but only deductively (through information theory and the like, per this article). So yes, 'faith' in science to do what it does best - but 'extrapolation' from prior scientific achievements in explaining magic.
  - bmh100 10y ago
    I prefer the term "conjecture based on deductive reasoning." It is reasonable to presume that something is theoretically possible unless we have specific evidence that it is impossible. For example, even though it is impossible today, most people would agree that it's theoretically possible to create self sustaining colonies in other solar systems. "Faith" usually implies less, or even no, basis in reason. If you still feel "faith" is the more appropriate term, please explain your reasoning.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

Why is it beyond the scope of science? No experiments have shown that consciousness can violate the laws of physics and steady progress has been made in explaining consciousness from neuroscience.

monktastic1 10y ago
In another sense, no progress has been made. We may have explained why consciousness is experiencing sadness as opposed to happiness right now, or red instead of blue, but not why "it is like something" to be conscious in the first place (i.e., the "hard problem").
placebo 10y ago
You are referring to the soft problem of consciousness, which is not what the argument is about. I too am convinced that the hard problem of consciousness is beyond the scope of science. It is beyond science not in the sense that it violates the laws of physics but because when you get right down to it, your consciousness is the only "real" thing that you can ever know about. Everything else you supposedly "know" - every concept, every derived "laws" of physics are thought models which you only know by being conscious of them. A very crude analogy would be to say that consciousness is like a camera that enables science to be done, but the camera can't take a picture of itself.
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  Finally a consciousness-related opinion I can 100% agree with. The camera analogy is spot on. How did you develop this opinion / way of looking at things?
  - placebo 10y ago
    Decades of struggling with the question and scrutinizing what others came up with :) Nothing I've mentioned though is original or new - just took some time to filter out the noise, look carefully and honestly and connect the dots.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  The camera can in fact take a picture of itself - if there's a mirror. (But it can never take a picture of the mirror - just what the mirror reflects!) So, what would be a mirror for consciousness? Is there one?
  - lefnire 9y ago
    AI
psyc 10y ago
I don't know whether it's actually beyond the scope of science, but it's currently extremely premature for restricting all thought and discussion about it to narrow hard science.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  What's an example of "broad soft science"? Astrology? Telekinesis?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
RivieraKid 10y ago
Physics and science is basically a description of what we perceive through consciousness.
cr0sh 10y ago
> Why is it beyond the scope of science? I don't know if this is what the parent meant, but I interpreted that statement to mean that the concept and explanation of consciousness is beyond our current scientific frame of reference. Think about past frames of reference which "science" attempted to utilize, to some effect and failure. I put quotes around science for a reason, because I have a specific example, to wit: Think about alchemy. To a certain extent, a form of scientific process was used by these early - for lack of a better word - proto-chemists. They pondered, came up with ideas, experimented, took notes, compared results, etc. They discovered new substances and compounds we use to this day; they created the prototypes of some of the lab equipment still used. Their methods ultimately led to our current "scientific method" of inquiry. But despite their successes and failures, despite their best attempts and experiments, in many ways they were hampered by the framework of "science" they were investigating. For instance, they knew little to nothing about atoms or elements - instead grouping things into the "classical" elements of earth, fire, water, and air (and in some cases "spirit"). They still had a mindset of "like for like", meaning that their experimentation led to them using substances or similar that had some nature which was like what they were attempting to perform or gain the result of. I won't belabour this point - only to say that because their framework of reference limited them, they couldn't make the "giant leap" forward that was needed to really understand and do what it is they were trying to do (let's not dwell on the philosophical/spiritual aspects of the so-called Philosopher's Stone quest). So perhaps that's where we are today, in regards to science and trying to explain and understand consciousness? That isn't to say we won't eventually be able to explain and explore the topic; our nature of asking questions, trying experiments, coming at the problem from a myriad of different angles, and the collaboration between these disparate fields will likely lead us to the knowledge (and also it will open up many more questions, as it always has and does). As noted in the article, we are taking more steps even today - and I am also pleased to see that there is a greater collaboration going on between the fields and people who deal with this at a basic level - the physicists, the neuroscientists, computer science, biologists, etc. This kind of cross-fertilization is absolutely needed in order to understand this problem.

bmh100 10y ago

I must disagree. Skepticism, moral epistemology, the origin of reality, etc., are metaphysical concepts. Consciousness, in its various definitions, clearly has physical descriptions and criteria. Once consensus is reached about a definition, it will be much easier to determine the causes and requirements for it. As neuroscience, computer science, and information technology progress, it will eventually become possible to precisely manipulate and/or create/simulate consciousness.

JackFr 10y ago
> As neuroscience, computer science, and information technology progress, it will eventually become possible to precisely manipulate and/or create/simulate consciousness. There's a good word which describes that sentence: 'faith'
- lefnire 10y ago
  Or possibly 'extrapolation'. We've seen science explain magic time and again: eg, what was previously an evil spiritual infestation is now a bacterial infection. Think on the analogy, a metaphysical phenomenon became physical (and observed/manipulable). Unless you're a dualist, you buy that the brain (a science-accessible object) equals the mind in a fundamental way (from MRIs, brain damage, etc). Whether it's connected to a separate physical phenomenon yet unobserved, or creates the mind by emergence in a way that's not inductively accessible but only deductively (through information theory and the like, per this article). So yes, 'faith' in science to do what it does best - but 'extrapolation' from prior scientific achievements in explaining magic.
- bmh100 10y ago
  I prefer the term "conjecture based on deductive reasoning." It is reasonable to presume that something is theoretically possible unless we have specific evidence that it is impossible. For example, even though it is impossible today, most people would agree that it's theoretically possible to create self sustaining colonies in other solar systems. "Faith" usually implies less, or even no, basis in reason. If you still feel "faith" is the more appropriate term, please explain your reasoning.