3 ms·

That's odd, I'm always disappointed when hackers or scientists lean towards an esoteric view of consciousness, mainly because we should be supremely well suited

by Udo 16y ago

That's odd, I'm always disappointed when hackers or scientists lean towards an esoteric view of consciousness, mainly because we should be supremely well suited to realize that the mind is not a concept that somehow requires supernatural augmentation to be feasible. Dealing with both information processing and the nature of reality every day, I feel there is really no excuse for hackers and scientists to evoke the metaphysical. I also think postulating a supernatural component to consciousness prevents an observer from really noticing the phenomenal beauty of the natural processes involved.

dasil003 16y ago
> That's odd, I'm always disappointed when hackers or scientists lean towards an esoteric view of consciousness, mainly because we should be supremely well suited to realize that the mind is not a concept that somehow requires supernatural augmentation to be feasible See, that right there betrays a misunderstanding of my entire point. Why must we be only focused on what is required for something to exist? Why the obsession with cause and effect at all levels? I agree this stuff is fascinating, fun, and an epic quest unto itself. But if you try to invoke Occam's Razor after your girlfriend dumps you, you're going to be as clueless Eisenberg's fictional Zuckerberg was in that situation. To distill all the nuance, joy and sorrow of the human experience into that which can be analyzed, measured, quantified and recorded in a canonical model is a sad existence. It is as if you are content to never taste fresh fruit because frozen fruit contains all the same constituents.
- Udo 16y ago
  > Why must we be only focused on what is required for something to exist? I believe it's important to distinguish between a scientific world view and a spiritual one. In the world of science and curiosity, we always ask why something is the way it is. Looking at the requirements for a phenomenon can be a tool in this process, but it's not the only one. In this scientific world, separating and understanding cause and effect is extremely important, it's part of the mission. You call it obsession, and maybe that's a fair charge, but it's really one of the things necessary for constructing scientifically meaningful models. > But to distill all the nuance, joy and sorrow of the human experience into that which can be analyzed, measured, quantified and recorded in a canonical model is a sad existence. Please realize that not all of us think this way. For some of us, making stuff up because it somehow resonates with our hearts is the definition of a sad existence. Some of us want to analyze, measure and quantify the universe simply because it is vast and awesome, and revealing the underlying mechanisms of it is extremely rewarding. On a personal note, I believe that religious and supernatural world views cheapen much of the nuance, joy and sorrow of the human experience. And yes, we all feel those things, and they're not a religious experience. We're scientists, not robotic kitchen appliances.
  - dasil003 16y ago
    > I believe it's important to distinguish between a scientific world view and a spiritual one. Why? > In the world of science and curiosity, we always ask why something is the way it is. So the spritual world is not curious? What about when you ask yourself why the universe exists? Do you then stick your fingers in your ears and chant lalala because it is a scientifically intractable question? > In this scientific world, separating and understanding cause and effect is extremely important, it's part of the mission. You call it obsession Yes, but let me state unequivocally that you do not need to define yourself by science in order to perform science with integrity. Such thinking is actually a form of faith: that science is the only source of meaning. > Please realize that not all of us think this way. Yes, I was just stating my opinion. It was clear that you do not think this way. However I believe you are a critical thinker and that I may at least get you to appreciate why I would see things that way. > For some of us, making stuff up because it somehow resonates with our hearts is the definition of a sad existence. You're using "making stuff up" in a subtly pejorative way here, but everyone makes stuff up. Making stuff up is also part and parcel of science. In fact it is the essence of sentience. Resonating with your heart is an orthogonal issue which applies equally well to science or philosophical endeavours; we can all be trapped or misled by it. But the material difference between philosophy and science is that science is only concerned with testable hypotheses. But are testable hypotheses the only important things in life? > Some of us want to analyze, measure and quantify the universe simply because it is vast and awesome, and revealing the underlying mechanisms of it is extremely rewarding. I agree, which I alluded to in my previous reply. > I believe that religious and supernatural world views cheapen much of the nuance, joy and sorrow of the human experience. Sure, but so too does pseudo-science cheapen science, or inferior ideas cheapen great ideas. Don't use religious nuts as a strawman to justify an atheistic hubris that nothing exists beyond what our physical instruments are capable of revealing. In closing, let me state that I don't hold onto any particular belief and use it as a shield against evidence and reason; as no doubt you have witnessed among a certain type of faithful individual and which has shaped your opinion of "the spiritual world". Instead I just take the nature of my own consciousness as evidence that there is something bigger going on here than we can be aware of from within our meatsacks. This is undeniably a form of faith, because of course there is no firm evidence for such a broad claim; but neither is there evidence against it, and it does not make me hostile to any form of observation and deduction that science can provide us. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." —F. Scott Fitzgerald

by Udo 16y ago

dasil003 16y ago

> That's odd, I'm always disappointed when hackers or scientists lean towards an esoteric view of consciousness, mainly because we should be supremely well suited to realize that the mind is not a concept that somehow requires supernatural augmentation to be feasible See, that right there betrays a misunderstanding of my entire point. Why must we be only focused on what is required for something to exist? Why the obsession with cause and effect at all levels? I agree this stuff is fascinating, fun, and an epic quest unto itself. But if you try to invoke Occam's Razor after your girlfriend dumps you, you're going to be as clueless Eisenberg's fictional Zuckerberg was in that situation. To distill all the nuance, joy and sorrow of the human experience into that which can be analyzed, measured, quantified and recorded in a canonical model is a sad existence. It is as if you are content to never taste fresh fruit because frozen fruit contains all the same constituents.

Udo 16y ago
> Why must we be only focused on what is required for something to exist? I believe it's important to distinguish between a scientific world view and a spiritual one. In the world of science and curiosity, we always ask why something is the way it is. Looking at the requirements for a phenomenon can be a tool in this process, but it's not the only one. In this scientific world, separating and understanding cause and effect is extremely important, it's part of the mission. You call it obsession, and maybe that's a fair charge, but it's really one of the things necessary for constructing scientifically meaningful models. > But to distill all the nuance, joy and sorrow of the human experience into that which can be analyzed, measured, quantified and recorded in a canonical model is a sad existence. Please realize that not all of us think this way. For some of us, making stuff up because it somehow resonates with our hearts is the definition of a sad existence. Some of us want to analyze, measure and quantify the universe simply because it is vast and awesome, and revealing the underlying mechanisms of it is extremely rewarding. On a personal note, I believe that religious and supernatural world views cheapen much of the nuance, joy and sorrow of the human experience. And yes, we all feel those things, and they're not a religious experience. We're scientists, not robotic kitchen appliances.
- dasil003 16y ago
  > I believe it's important to distinguish between a scientific world view and a spiritual one. Why? > In the world of science and curiosity, we always ask why something is the way it is. So the spritual world is not curious? What about when you ask yourself why the universe exists? Do you then stick your fingers in your ears and chant lalala because it is a scientifically intractable question? > In this scientific world, separating and understanding cause and effect is extremely important, it's part of the mission. You call it obsession Yes, but let me state unequivocally that you do not need to define yourself by science in order to perform science with integrity. Such thinking is actually a form of faith: that science is the only source of meaning. > Please realize that not all of us think this way. Yes, I was just stating my opinion. It was clear that you do not think this way. However I believe you are a critical thinker and that I may at least get you to appreciate why I would see things that way. > For some of us, making stuff up because it somehow resonates with our hearts is the definition of a sad existence. You're using "making stuff up" in a subtly pejorative way here, but everyone makes stuff up. Making stuff up is also part and parcel of science. In fact it is the essence of sentience. Resonating with your heart is an orthogonal issue which applies equally well to science or philosophical endeavours; we can all be trapped or misled by it. But the material difference between philosophy and science is that science is only concerned with testable hypotheses. But are testable hypotheses the only important things in life? > Some of us want to analyze, measure and quantify the universe simply because it is vast and awesome, and revealing the underlying mechanisms of it is extremely rewarding. I agree, which I alluded to in my previous reply. > I believe that religious and supernatural world views cheapen much of the nuance, joy and sorrow of the human experience. Sure, but so too does pseudo-science cheapen science, or inferior ideas cheapen great ideas. Don't use religious nuts as a strawman to justify an atheistic hubris that nothing exists beyond what our physical instruments are capable of revealing. In closing, let me state that I don't hold onto any particular belief and use it as a shield against evidence and reason; as no doubt you have witnessed among a certain type of faithful individual and which has shaped your opinion of "the spiritual world". Instead I just take the nature of my own consciousness as evidence that there is something bigger going on here than we can be aware of from within our meatsacks. This is undeniably a form of faith, because of course there is no firm evidence for such a broad claim; but neither is there evidence against it, and it does not make me hostile to any form of observation and deduction that science can provide us. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." —F. Scott Fitzgerald