9 ms·

For anyone interested in consciousness, I highly recommend this blog: https://www.consciousentities.com/ https://www.consciousentities.com/ The author (Peter H

For anyone interested in consciousness, I highly recommend this blog: https://www.consciousentities.com/ https://www.consciousentities.com/ The author (Peter Hankins) does an excellent job of summarizing and critiquing current research papers in philosophy and neuroscience, and the comments on the articles are often very informative. Can we the mystery of human consciousness in the 21st century? Ok, ok, maybe we should start with a definitions...

trevyn 8y ago
I'm starting to think that there's not much mystery left to consciousness, it's just that most people are really uncomfortable with the idea that "we" are just the complex interactions of electrical impulses and meat. Or, perhaps, the implications of that.
- jchw 8y ago
  I think it's definitely more complex than that: not just that we don't know what it is, we don't even really know how to quantify it. I'm no expert or even well-read on the subject but I recommend reading one of the articles about measuring conciousness, it's pretty interesting.
  - trevyn 8y ago
    We know exactly how to quantify it: When you have a network of neurons that is connected in such-and-such a way, where the neurons behave in such-and-such a manner, and are in a given initial state and evolve over time, you have what we call consciousness. I don't think anyone has a falsifiable objection to this. I think one of the underlying problems is that people want a cold, objective quantification of a word that is inherently emotional and subjective. So when the objective definition does not align with the emotional experience, they dip into mysticism or philosophy, neither of which is testable science. Really, the word "consciousness" is not a scientific word, it's kind of like trying to quantify God. Can we test a being's self-awareness, decision-making ability, etc.? Yes. Is there something "consciousness" that is not testable? Then that part is not science. We can really really want it to be science, and keep looking for ways to test it, but until we do, it's just conjecture. (Personally, I think that once we're able to model brains that we agree "are conscious", all of this feeling of mystery will fall away.)
    - mcbits 8y ago
      I'm uncomfortable with that for the same reason I'd be uncomfortable with "if you connect rocks in such-and-such a way, you have a computer." It's not a very enlightening explanation.
      - _Schizotypy 8y ago
        Don't some rocks contain silicon, so really pure and doped rocks make a computer.
        trevyn 8y ago
        Exactly, and even if nobody has ever built it or written a formal proof that it would work, you can still imagine how it would work and prove it to your own mind. (This would work for a purely mechanical computer made out of rocks, too.) Personally, with enough knowledge about how modern AI works, and a reasonable understanding of the neuroscience literature, I feel there is no fundamental mystery to consciousness, only awe at the level of complexity harnessed.
        adrianN 8y ago
        That's the point. While the explanation might be technically correct, it is in no way precise enough to call it understanding.
      - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
        Thank you for that concise but clear explanation of what I always felt was lacking with many over-scientified views of profound subjects like consciousness. We don't push back those models because they are "uncomfortable", make us feel bad, or inferior, or anything like that - but because they are simply non-functional! There are many aspects and phenomena in the world, in human interactions, in my own consciousness - which are simply not explained by the reductionist view! "Based on some complicated network of neurons" is not good enough! I clearly have these phenomena and experience, and this "complicated network" explanation just gives no explanation at all really! While other less scientific models do. I'm like "sure, I can accept whatever science you can give me and become a fully logical being, but don't ask me to ignore obvious phenomena that I know I have and experience, that is just stupid!".
- curo 8y ago
  The scientific method was designed to study phenomenon and test observations empirically. There's an essential problem with using science to confirm or describe that in which phenomenon and confirmation is presented. If you're talking about the neural correlates of consciousness, you're right that we're removing a lot of the mystery. But if you're talking about the mystery that is your own subjective being, then we may never solve that problem. As Susan Greenfield states, "we can't turn the water into wine" Sam Harris does a great 5m summary on the hard problem of consciousness that's worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiaKm6PlpsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiaKm6PlpsQ
  - trevyn 8y ago
    I'm saying there is no mystery -- that people invoke mystery as an avoidance tactic when they have cognitive dissonance about an otherwise well-established conclusion, or when they find some pleasure in invoking the unknown and philosophizing. There should be nothing mysterious in 2018 about a biological being that has an internal self-model, memory, and processes sensory stimuli and internal neural firings over time, both of which have a direct relation to the physical basis of that self-model. That is what self-awareness is. "Experience can't be explained by science because science only arises in experience" sounds profound but contributes nothing -- if you invalidate the content of your experience, then you no longer have any reliable axioms on which to build any argument whatsoever, and we might as well all go home. The Sam Harris video you linked makes a good point -- that we want an explanation of consciousness that intuitively makes sense. I'm saying that if you study enough AI and neuroscience, it does intuitively make sense. His counterexample of explaining the "brittleness of glass" is intuitively OK with us even if we don't actually personally understand all of the details of the molecular and atomic interactions, because it does not fundamentally challenge our beliefs of who we are. If there's some explanation of consciousness that does challenge our beliefs of who we are, you better believe you're going to need a more comprehensive and complex explanation before you're going to intuitively believe it.
    - bencollier49 8y ago
      This isn't meant as an ad-hominem, but it still staggers me when I see comments like this. There seems to be a class of people who are unable to see the gaping chasm left by science in its inability to describe the reasons for our ability to experience subjective consciousness. We would need a scientific revolution to understand it. Neuroscience has nothing to say; physics has little to say. The OP article makes the point that we haven't got near to cracking the problem. Personally, I think we have a category issue. We simply don't know what category to put consciousness in, and all attempts to solve it thus far have been category mistakes.

trevyn 8y ago

I'm starting to think that there's not much mystery left to consciousness, it's just that most people are really uncomfortable with the idea that "we" are just the complex interactions of electrical impulses and meat. Or, perhaps, the implications of that.

jchw 8y ago
I think it's definitely more complex than that: not just that we don't know what it is, we don't even really know how to quantify it. I'm no expert or even well-read on the subject but I recommend reading one of the articles about measuring conciousness, it's pretty interesting.
- trevyn 8y ago
  We know exactly how to quantify it: When you have a network of neurons that is connected in such-and-such a way, where the neurons behave in such-and-such a manner, and are in a given initial state and evolve over time, you have what we call consciousness. I don't think anyone has a falsifiable objection to this. I think one of the underlying problems is that people want a cold, objective quantification of a word that is inherently emotional and subjective. So when the objective definition does not align with the emotional experience, they dip into mysticism or philosophy, neither of which is testable science. Really, the word "consciousness" is not a scientific word, it's kind of like trying to quantify God. Can we test a being's self-awareness, decision-making ability, etc.? Yes. Is there something "consciousness" that is not testable? Then that part is not science. We can really really want it to be science, and keep looking for ways to test it, but until we do, it's just conjecture. (Personally, I think that once we're able to model brains that we agree "are conscious", all of this feeling of mystery will fall away.)
  - mcbits 8y ago
    I'm uncomfortable with that for the same reason I'd be uncomfortable with "if you connect rocks in such-and-such a way, you have a computer." It's not a very enlightening explanation.
    - _Schizotypy 8y ago
      Don't some rocks contain silicon, so really pure and doped rocks make a computer.
      - trevyn 8y ago
        Exactly, and even if nobody has ever built it or written a formal proof that it would work, you can still imagine how it would work and prove it to your own mind. (This would work for a purely mechanical computer made out of rocks, too.) Personally, with enough knowledge about how modern AI works, and a reasonable understanding of the neuroscience literature, I feel there is no fundamental mystery to consciousness, only awe at the level of complexity harnessed.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        That's the point. While the explanation might be technically correct, it is in no way precise enough to call it understanding.
    - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
      Thank you for that concise but clear explanation of what I always felt was lacking with many over-scientified views of profound subjects like consciousness. We don't push back those models because they are "uncomfortable", make us feel bad, or inferior, or anything like that - but because they are simply non-functional! There are many aspects and phenomena in the world, in human interactions, in my own consciousness - which are simply not explained by the reductionist view! "Based on some complicated network of neurons" is not good enough! I clearly have these phenomena and experience, and this "complicated network" explanation just gives no explanation at all really! While other less scientific models do. I'm like "sure, I can accept whatever science you can give me and become a fully logical being, but don't ask me to ignore obvious phenomena that I know I have and experience, that is just stupid!".
curo 8y ago
The scientific method was designed to study phenomenon and test observations empirically. There's an essential problem with using science to confirm or describe that in which phenomenon and confirmation is presented. If you're talking about the neural correlates of consciousness, you're right that we're removing a lot of the mystery. But if you're talking about the mystery that is your own subjective being, then we may never solve that problem. As Susan Greenfield states, "we can't turn the water into wine" Sam Harris does a great 5m summary on the hard problem of consciousness that's worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiaKm6PlpsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiaKm6PlpsQ
- trevyn 8y ago
  I'm saying there is no mystery -- that people invoke mystery as an avoidance tactic when they have cognitive dissonance about an otherwise well-established conclusion, or when they find some pleasure in invoking the unknown and philosophizing. There should be nothing mysterious in 2018 about a biological being that has an internal self-model, memory, and processes sensory stimuli and internal neural firings over time, both of which have a direct relation to the physical basis of that self-model. That is what self-awareness is. "Experience can't be explained by science because science only arises in experience" sounds profound but contributes nothing -- if you invalidate the content of your experience, then you no longer have any reliable axioms on which to build any argument whatsoever, and we might as well all go home. The Sam Harris video you linked makes a good point -- that we want an explanation of consciousness that intuitively makes sense. I'm saying that if you study enough AI and neuroscience, it does intuitively make sense. His counterexample of explaining the "brittleness of glass" is intuitively OK with us even if we don't actually personally understand all of the details of the molecular and atomic interactions, because it does not fundamentally challenge our beliefs of who we are. If there's some explanation of consciousness that does challenge our beliefs of who we are, you better believe you're going to need a more comprehensive and complex explanation before you're going to intuitively believe it.
  - bencollier49 8y ago
    This isn't meant as an ad-hominem, but it still staggers me when I see comments like this. There seems to be a class of people who are unable to see the gaping chasm left by science in its inability to describe the reasons for our ability to experience subjective consciousness. We would need a scientific revolution to understand it. Neuroscience has nothing to say; physics has little to say. The OP article makes the point that we haven't got near to cracking the problem. Personally, I think we have a category issue. We simply don't know what category to put consciousness in, and all attempts to solve it thus far have been category mistakes.