5 ms·

> Truly I find the mechanistic view of nature so grim and pointless. Ok, but an anthropomorphic view of nature is fanciful and _also_ pointless. This is not a

by ebg13 6y ago

> Truly I find the mechanistic view of nature so grim and pointless. Ok, but an anthropomorphic view of nature is fanciful and _also_ pointless. This is not alive by any but the most inclusion-oriented definitions, and yet it follows light: https://www.popsci.com/make-light-following-robot-instructions/ https://www.popsci.com/make-light-following-robot-instructio... Talking about "intelligence" and "awareness" makes sense _sometimes_ because we don't understand where our consciousness comes from. For mechanisms where we have the capacity to concretely observe how and why they happen, cavalierly throwing in notions like "intelligence" and "awareness" is an emotional deception, a pathetic fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy#Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy#Science), that adds nothing except fantasy. You see a complex mechanical process and call it grim and pointless unless one introduces metaphysics. I see a complex mechanical process and call it fundamentally beautiful and awesome without needing the metaphysics.

zarmin 6y ago
What if consciousness is fundamental instead of emergent?
- ebg13 6y ago
  > What if consciousness is fundamental instead of emergent? And what if Wolverine was Lord of the Vampires? Speculative fiction is still speculative and still fiction. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan%27s_Canon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan%27s_Canon https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Newton%27s_flaming_laser_sword https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Newton%27s_flaming_laser_swor...
  - zarmin 6y ago
    I'm reminded of this quote: > we don't understand where our consciousness comes from
    - ebg13 6y ago
      Your two options are: 1. Make something up about whether consciousness is fundamental and run with it. 2. Don't make anything up when you don't need to, because we can answer how plants follow the sun without needing to talk about consciousness, just like we can answer how an automatic door opens for me when I get close without deciding to call it conscious. > From below: Is there an option where we don't act like consciousness is solved when it's convenient for our argument? You're saying "Consciousness isn't solved, therefore we should imagine that these things are conscious." I'm saying "Consciousness isn't solved and that's irrelevant because we have purely mechanical explanations for these things that don't require imagining that they're conscious." Because a lightbulb's glow when I push a button or flip a switch _might_ be a sign of the lightbulb's consciousness, but that's 1) not necessary and 2) purely made up and deep into Russell's teapot.
      - zarmin 6y ago
        Is there an option where we don't act like consciousness is solved when it's convenient for our argument? > Reply to above: If consciousness is fundamental, the "purely mechanical" explanation is not purely mechanical. I've found HackerNews to be broadly allergic to the idea of nonlocal consciousness, and worldviews that are not material reductionism. Nevertheless, I will once again point to the work of Dean Radin, among others, to demonstrate that these are not unfalsifiable claims.
        bena 6y ago
        I think the problem with both of your arguments is that neither of you will be able to actually define consciousness in a way that is satisfactory to the other party. Which is cool. Because we don't really fundamentally understand what it actually is. We have a rough feeling, but any definition we put forth will either also be satisfied by something you both agree is not conscious or not be satisfied by something you both agree is conscious. So we can't really say if it is emergent or fundamental. And it may even be a property of purely mechanical elements.
        benlivengood 6y ago
carapace 6y ago
It turns out that the bio-molecular machinery that neurons use to do their thing is also present throughout all cells. In other words, all life thinks. Brains are just concentrations of thinking tissue. "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjD1aLm4Thg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjD1aLm4Thg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698
- ebg13 6y ago
  > In other words, all life thinks Only for a hyper-inclusive definition of "think" that loses any communicative value.
  - carapace 6y ago
    I commented 36 minutes ago and the video is 52 minutes long, which makes me suspect that you didn't watch it. It's pretty thought-provoking, I don't think you'll be disappointed by it.
    - ebg13 6y ago
      > I commented 36 minutes ago and the video is 52 minutes long, which makes me suspect that you didn't watch it. Youtube video playback speed is configurable.
      - carapace 6y ago
        So you did watch it? What do you think?
        ebg13 6y ago
        It's an excellent presentation, and I'm grateful that you shared it and agree that people should watch it. But I still say that using the word "thinking" for non-macro-scale biomechanical processes is charlatanism. We don't know how we get from molecules to thoughts, but saying "therefore thoughts" is a bridge too far. If you start doing that, the words we reserve for discussing the leap from mechanism to self lose their meaning because suddenly an automatic door is thinking, which is just...not...necessary.

by ebg13 6y ago

zarmin 6y ago

What if consciousness is fundamental instead of emergent?

ebg13 6y ago
> What if consciousness is fundamental instead of emergent? And what if Wolverine was Lord of the Vampires? Speculative fiction is still speculative and still fiction. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan%27s_Canon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan%27s_Canon https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Newton%27s_flaming_laser_sword https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Newton%27s_flaming_laser_swor...
- zarmin 6y ago
  I'm reminded of this quote: > we don't understand where our consciousness comes from
  - ebg13 6y ago
    Your two options are: 1. Make something up about whether consciousness is fundamental and run with it. 2. Don't make anything up when you don't need to, because we can answer how plants follow the sun without needing to talk about consciousness, just like we can answer how an automatic door opens for me when I get close without deciding to call it conscious. > From below: Is there an option where we don't act like consciousness is solved when it's convenient for our argument? You're saying "Consciousness isn't solved, therefore we should imagine that these things are conscious." I'm saying "Consciousness isn't solved and that's irrelevant because we have purely mechanical explanations for these things that don't require imagining that they're conscious." Because a lightbulb's glow when I push a button or flip a switch _might_ be a sign of the lightbulb's consciousness, but that's 1) not necessary and 2) purely made up and deep into Russell's teapot.
    - zarmin 6y ago
      Is there an option where we don't act like consciousness is solved when it's convenient for our argument? > Reply to above: If consciousness is fundamental, the "purely mechanical" explanation is not purely mechanical. I've found HackerNews to be broadly allergic to the idea of nonlocal consciousness, and worldviews that are not material reductionism. Nevertheless, I will once again point to the work of Dean Radin, among others, to demonstrate that these are not unfalsifiable claims.
      - bena 6y ago
        I think the problem with both of your arguments is that neither of you will be able to actually define consciousness in a way that is satisfactory to the other party. Which is cool. Because we don't really fundamentally understand what it actually is. We have a rough feeling, but any definition we put forth will either also be satisfied by something you both agree is not conscious or not be satisfied by something you both agree is conscious. So we can't really say if it is emergent or fundamental. And it may even be a property of purely mechanical elements.
      - benlivengood 6y ago

carapace 6y ago

It turns out that the bio-molecular machinery that neurons use to do their thing is also present throughout all cells. In other words, all life thinks. Brains are just concentrations of thinking tissue. "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjD1aLm4Thg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjD1aLm4Thg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698

ebg13 6y ago
> In other words, all life thinks Only for a hyper-inclusive definition of "think" that loses any communicative value.
- carapace 6y ago
  I commented 36 minutes ago and the video is 52 minutes long, which makes me suspect that you didn't watch it. It's pretty thought-provoking, I don't think you'll be disappointed by it.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > I commented 36 minutes ago and the video is 52 minutes long, which makes me suspect that you didn't watch it. Youtube video playback speed is configurable.
    - carapace 6y ago
      So you did watch it? What do you think?
      - ebg13 6y ago
        It's an excellent presentation, and I'm grateful that you shared it and agree that people should watch it. But I still say that using the word "thinking" for non-macro-scale biomechanical processes is charlatanism. We don't know how we get from molecules to thoughts, but saying "therefore thoughts" is a bridge too far. If you start doing that, the words we reserve for discussing the leap from mechanism to self lose their meaning because suddenly an automatic door is thinking, which is just...not...necessary.