3 ms·

Whenever this issue comes up I just link to this: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-compl

Whenever this issue comes up I just link to this: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws... "The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood" Worth reading.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Now give a full mathematically rigorous explanation of consciousness. Give three examples. Do not use the word "Obviously..."
- yters 8y ago
  You may want to check out the proof: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18377525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18377525
  - SilasX 8y ago
    That links to a comment on a different article that says "here's a great math-free explanation" and links this discussion.
    - yters 8y ago
      The parent link at the top of the page is to the proof. I'm pointing to the HN page in the hopes of discussion. Here's the direct link to the proof: https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/
- yongjik 8y ago
  That's neither here nor there. The actions of a swarm of ants or Windows 10 can look dark, mysterious, inexplicable, or downright malicious, but there's nothing in their behavior that warrants something out of our known physical law. That doesn't necessarily mean we understand their behavior, of course. Complex behavior can arise out of simple underlying rules. That's hardly controversial, except (for some reason) when it's about human brains.
- dooglius 8y ago
  The blog post explicitly addresses this
- Misdicorl 8y ago
  This isn't necessary at all for GPs point. We also can't give a mathematically rigorous explanation for the path a hurricane will take, but that doesn't mean there's magic unknown physics at play.
- adrianN 8y ago
  First give a definition of consciousness that allows me to determine whether something is conscious or not.
dragonwriter 8y ago
I've read it, and I tend to think the position it argues for is likely correct, but for complex systems that we don't have models for, the only basis we have for believing it is that we have enough holes in our knowledge of how things interact that it is possible that no esoteric physics play a role and so assuming that they do not is the simplest plausible assumption. There is a good reason for that to be a working assumption. Until we can work out all the relevant implications of mundane physics and either find them adequate or not to model he phenomena of concern, we can't say that the physics of those phenomena are known (or say that they aren't; we’re in the realm of potential unknown unknowns.)

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

Now give a full mathematically rigorous explanation of consciousness. Give three examples. Do not use the word "Obviously..."

yters 8y ago
You may want to check out the proof: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18377525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18377525
- SilasX 8y ago
  That links to a comment on a different article that says "here's a great math-free explanation" and links this discussion.
  - yters 8y ago
    The parent link at the top of the page is to the proof. I'm pointing to the HN page in the hopes of discussion. Here's the direct link to the proof: https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/
yongjik 8y ago
That's neither here nor there. The actions of a swarm of ants or Windows 10 can look dark, mysterious, inexplicable, or downright malicious, but there's nothing in their behavior that warrants something out of our known physical law. That doesn't necessarily mean we understand their behavior, of course. Complex behavior can arise out of simple underlying rules. That's hardly controversial, except (for some reason) when it's about human brains.
dooglius 8y ago
The blog post explicitly addresses this
Misdicorl 8y ago
This isn't necessary at all for GPs point. We also can't give a mathematically rigorous explanation for the path a hurricane will take, but that doesn't mean there's magic unknown physics at play.
adrianN 8y ago
First give a definition of consciousness that allows me to determine whether something is conscious or not.

dragonwriter 8y ago

I've read it, and I tend to think the position it argues for is likely correct, but for complex systems that we don't have models for, the only basis we have for believing it is that we have enough holes in our knowledge of how things interact that it is possible that no esoteric physics play a role and so assuming that they do not is the simplest plausible assumption. There is a good reason for that to be a working assumption. Until we can work out all the relevant implications of mundane physics and either find them adequate or not to model he phenomena of concern, we can't say that the physics of those phenomena are known (or say that they aren't; we’re in the realm of potential unknown unknowns.)