4 ms·

I notice that on the wikipedia page, an equal number of philosophers and cognitive neuroscientists are mentioned. For instance: "The existence of a "hard proble

I notice that on the wikipedia page, an equal number of philosophers and cognitive neuroscientists are mentioned. For instance: "The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial. It has been accepted by philosophers of mind such as Joseph Levine, Colin McGinn, and Ned Block and cognitive neuroscientists such as Francisco Varela, Giulio Tononi, and Christof Koch. However, its existence is disputed by philosophers of mind such as Daniel Dennett, Massimo Pigliucci, and Keith Frankish and cognitive neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene, Bernard Baars, and Antonio Damasio." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

whatshisface 7y ago
If a neuroscientist had an opinion about who should get elected president this year, that would not make the presidential election a neurological issue.
- SubiculumCode 7y ago
  If the a hard problem is real, then it is a neuroscience issue. If it does not exist, then the illusion of it is a neuroscience issue.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    What if consciousness real but not a neuroscience issue? If you want a thought experiment to illustrate that, imagine a VR world where the inhabitants are connected in with headsets. Nothing inside the world will explain why it feels to everyone like experiences are being exported out of it.
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      "imagine a VR world" I don't see how this contributes any insights into the issue. How is that "world" any different from a real world experience, relevant to this issue? I mean, nothing in Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean ride explains "why it feels to everyone like experiences are being exported out of it" either.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        >nothing in Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean ride explains "why it feels to everyone like experiences are being exported out of it" either. Yeah, exactly. There's no way to tell if neuroscience is just the "Pirates of the Caribbean" ride through which something else is getting pulled through on boats. Is there any evidence one way or the other? What would evidence look like? I think it is beyond the reach of science because there is no experiment you could ever do that would illuminate it. Something that can only be resolved by discussing the options and choosing which one feels the most reasonable is philosophy, and not science.
    - chr1 7y ago
      In all cases it is a Math issue. Either there exists some effective computation that would produce behavior similar to the behavior of conscious being, and could be performed in VR world too, or computation would require exponential resources, or (in the most unlikely case) such computation would not exist, and it would be possible to show why it cannot exist. Neuroscience and Physics can help to find the rules for that computation. And Philosophy can have fun talking about what lies beyond unknown.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        Behavior similar to a conscious being =/= conscious being.
        tialaramex 7y ago
        This is the P Zombie (Philosophical Zombie) problem. You're going to have to do much better than just state as a fact that you're right to convince everybody else. After decades of debate about this topic from top philosophers I think it's very unlikely that anything novel, much less decisive will come from a Hacker News sub-thread.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        I didn't invent P-Zombies, I'm just using them as evidence that the issue of consciousness is metaphysical.
        chr1 7y ago
        You can tie a metaphysical issue to everything by asking if it "really" exists, or is it something else that is absolutely not distinguishable from the "real" thing. If by hard problem of consciousness you mean that kind of question, then it is definitely up to philosophy because no one else is even asking it. Everyone answers the question about P-Zombies every day, by deciding the people they meet are conscious, based only on their behaviour. The more interesting question is whether it is possible to get human like behaviour from a program running on classical computer.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  No, but that's not the point. The fact that many of them are quoted or referenced suggests that their opinions are relevant, at least to Wikipedia editors. Most other articles on the subject continually reference neuroscience and neuroscientists. Regardless, not everything fits into neat little boxes. I would personally be more interested in the views of a neuroscientist on the matter, but then again I'd expect them to be likely to dismiss it as not being a problem at all. I'd also be interested in the views of someone who works with AI and the like. Personally I think the problem will be "solved" as soon as we have sufficiently advanced conversational assistants and we just start assuming they are conscious because they seem like they are. I think having that sort of thing in our daily lives will dramatically change people's intuitive perspective on the issue.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    >I would personally be more interested in the views of a neuroscientist on the matter, Some neuroscientists having an interesting take on the election does not imply that elections are a neurological topic. Philosophy is open to contributions from amateurs.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      When and how did philosophy undergo professionalization? "Professionalization tends to result in establishing acceptable qualifications, one or more professional associations to recommend best practice and to oversee the conduct of members of the profession, and some degree of demarcation of the qualified from unqualified amateurs (that is, professional certification). It is also likely to create "occupational closure", closing the profession to entry from outsiders, amateurs and the unqualified."
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        That's a huge question, but I think it happened in the 20th century during the academic boom.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
There aren't many problems that go away just by being declared not-hard - or in extremis, not-a-real-problem. Especially not by being declared not-a-real-problem by the problem itself.

whatshisface 7y ago

If a neuroscientist had an opinion about who should get elected president this year, that would not make the presidential election a neurological issue.

SubiculumCode 7y ago
If the a hard problem is real, then it is a neuroscience issue. If it does not exist, then the illusion of it is a neuroscience issue.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  What if consciousness real but not a neuroscience issue? If you want a thought experiment to illustrate that, imagine a VR world where the inhabitants are connected in with headsets. Nothing inside the world will explain why it feels to everyone like experiences are being exported out of it.
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    "imagine a VR world" I don't see how this contributes any insights into the issue. How is that "world" any different from a real world experience, relevant to this issue? I mean, nothing in Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean ride explains "why it feels to everyone like experiences are being exported out of it" either.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      >nothing in Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean ride explains "why it feels to everyone like experiences are being exported out of it" either. Yeah, exactly. There's no way to tell if neuroscience is just the "Pirates of the Caribbean" ride through which something else is getting pulled through on boats. Is there any evidence one way or the other? What would evidence look like? I think it is beyond the reach of science because there is no experiment you could ever do that would illuminate it. Something that can only be resolved by discussing the options and choosing which one feels the most reasonable is philosophy, and not science.
  - chr1 7y ago
    In all cases it is a Math issue. Either there exists some effective computation that would produce behavior similar to the behavior of conscious being, and could be performed in VR world too, or computation would require exponential resources, or (in the most unlikely case) such computation would not exist, and it would be possible to show why it cannot exist. Neuroscience and Physics can help to find the rules for that computation. And Philosophy can have fun talking about what lies beyond unknown.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Behavior similar to a conscious being =/= conscious being.
      - tialaramex 7y ago
        This is the P Zombie (Philosophical Zombie) problem. You're going to have to do much better than just state as a fact that you're right to convince everybody else. After decades of debate about this topic from top philosophers I think it's very unlikely that anything novel, much less decisive will come from a Hacker News sub-thread.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        I didn't invent P-Zombies, I'm just using them as evidence that the issue of consciousness is metaphysical.
        chr1 7y ago
        You can tie a metaphysical issue to everything by asking if it "really" exists, or is it something else that is absolutely not distinguishable from the "real" thing. If by hard problem of consciousness you mean that kind of question, then it is definitely up to philosophy because no one else is even asking it. Everyone answers the question about P-Zombies every day, by deciding the people they meet are conscious, based only on their behaviour. The more interesting question is whether it is possible to get human like behaviour from a program running on classical computer.
robbrown451 7y ago
No, but that's not the point. The fact that many of them are quoted or referenced suggests that their opinions are relevant, at least to Wikipedia editors. Most other articles on the subject continually reference neuroscience and neuroscientists. Regardless, not everything fits into neat little boxes. I would personally be more interested in the views of a neuroscientist on the matter, but then again I'd expect them to be likely to dismiss it as not being a problem at all. I'd also be interested in the views of someone who works with AI and the like. Personally I think the problem will be "solved" as soon as we have sufficiently advanced conversational assistants and we just start assuming they are conscious because they seem like they are. I think having that sort of thing in our daily lives will dramatically change people's intuitive perspective on the issue.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >I would personally be more interested in the views of a neuroscientist on the matter, Some neuroscientists having an interesting take on the election does not imply that elections are a neurological topic. Philosophy is open to contributions from amateurs.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    When and how did philosophy undergo professionalization? "Professionalization tends to result in establishing acceptable qualifications, one or more professional associations to recommend best practice and to oversee the conduct of members of the profession, and some degree of demarcation of the qualified from unqualified amateurs (that is, professional certification). It is also likely to create "occupational closure", closing the profession to entry from outsiders, amateurs and the unqualified."
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      That's a huge question, but I think it happened in the 20th century during the academic boom.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

There aren't many problems that go away just by being declared not-hard - or in extremis, not-a-real-problem. Especially not by being declared not-a-real-problem by the problem itself.