4 ms·

I'm an atheist with zero spiritual inclinations whatsoever, but it does seem to me that science has not properly grappled with the hard problem of consciousness

I'm an atheist with zero spiritual inclinations whatsoever, but it does seem to me that science has not properly grappled with the hard problem of consciousness. Everything I've read that tackles it from a science perspective seems like side-stepping, weasel words ("emergent property"), or wholesale denial ("it's an illusion"). Not very scientific! There seems to be a collective hubris at play, where people are afraid to say "I don't know".

lambdatronics 6y ago
Once I read a neuroscience article saying that all of our senses are external to the brain -- the brain only 'experiences' electrical signals, not 'reality.' What if we do have sensory neurons in our brains, though -- wouldn't that lead to a sense of self? Quite literally. I suspect it's something like that. We can do better than say "I don't know." We already know that consciousness can be manipulated with drugs, electrodes, accidents, etc. That rules out the metaphysics and quantum voodoo some people think is necessary. It's not a solved problem, but I'm confident we'll find the a perfectly scientific explanation. In that sense, it's merely a hard problem, not "The Hard Problem."
082349872349872 6y ago
Here is my Blindsight inspired hypothesis, that consciousness has been an accidental application to ourselves of mechanisms that are useful for predicting the behaviour of others: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23475069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23475069 In breakfast terms: if it has been fitness-increasing in the past to note that all the other animals go down to the water hole at similar times (thereby freeing up some desirable carcasses for scavenging? or at least making it easier to cross over to far away trees while the predators are busy elsewhere?) we may start to model mealtimes. Once we notice that others have a morning feed that affect our actions ("breakfast" is followed by "rush hour"), it isn't that big a jump for our grey cells to experience our own morning feed in the same category, as breakfast.

lambdatronics 6y ago

Once I read a neuroscience article saying that all of our senses are external to the brain -- the brain only 'experiences' electrical signals, not 'reality.' What if we do have sensory neurons in our brains, though -- wouldn't that lead to a sense of self? Quite literally. I suspect it's something like that. We can do better than say "I don't know." We already know that consciousness can be manipulated with drugs, electrodes, accidents, etc. That rules out the metaphysics and quantum voodoo some people think is necessary. It's not a solved problem, but I'm confident we'll find the a perfectly scientific explanation. In that sense, it's merely a hard problem, not "The Hard Problem."

082349872349872 6y ago

Here is my Blindsight inspired hypothesis, that consciousness has been an accidental application to ourselves of mechanisms that are useful for predicting the behaviour of others: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23475069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23475069 In breakfast terms: if it has been fitness-increasing in the past to note that all the other animals go down to the water hole at similar times (thereby freeing up some desirable carcasses for scavenging? or at least making it easier to cross over to far away trees while the predators are busy elsewhere?) we may start to model mealtimes. Once we notice that others have a morning feed that affect our actions ("breakfast" is followed by "rush hour"), it isn't that big a jump for our grey cells to experience our own morning feed in the same category, as breakfast.