3 ms·
The problem with these debates is that they turn into a referendum on how people feel about mysticism. Some want to think that a mysterious phenomenon like cons
by lambdatronics 6y ago
The problem with these debates is that they turn into a referendum on how people feel about mysticism. Some want to think that a mysterious phenomenon like consciousness requires a solution that takes us beyond science into the mystical. Others can't stand mysticism, especially not in a field of scientific inquiry.
If neuroscience provides a detailed scientific explanation for how consciousness works, that'll put it all to rest. Of course, the mysticism camp doesn't believe this is possible even in principle, and there are likely to be some holdouts even after the problem is solved, just like we have flat earthers now.
- kranner 6y agoI wonder if the solution will turn out to have too many components to be satisfyingly understandable by humans, i.e. something like a 200-page proof that only a proof checker can validate. That may be a situation to confound both the mysterians and the non-mysterians.
- klipt 6y agoOr a proof only creatures who znurg can understand https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/znurg-2 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/znurg-2
- FeepingCreature 6y agoI expect the solution to turn out to be so simple that nobody will take it seriously.
- lambdatronics 6y agoI think there's probably a few key conceptual ingredients at most, but it might be that the implementation is complicated. As an analogy: we know that mitochondria provide power to cells by oxidizing sugar and converting the energy to ADP/ATP, but how all of that actually gets carried out is very complex.