20 ms·

We're just stuck at a dead end as regards the hard problem of consciousness. Quantum theory appeared to have potential because of the apparent links between con

We're just stuck at a dead end as regards the hard problem of consciousness. Quantum theory appeared to have potential because of the apparent links between consciousness / observation and wave-function collapse. This may not help. The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. I don't think this helps either. If I had to take a punt I'd say that we can't find a solution because it's the substrate of everything, so by definition can't be measured by us.

kbd 5y ago
> The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. > because it’s the substrate of everything Recommend checking out Bernardo Kastrup (two PhDs, many books and videos on YouTube) who argues that mind is fundamental.
- bencollier49 5y ago
  > That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. They do it by changing the meaning of the word "consciousness" so that they can then show that this new thing they've defined doesn't exist. It's a remarkable strawman.
  - loopz 5y ago
    If consciousness doesn't exist, who is it that can disprove it, and why should anyone listen? It's a bit like proving the universe is a simulation or not. These can never be proved or disproved. It's quite silly to deny consciousness though! It's similar to deny one's existence. So philosophy and psychology shines some light on these questions.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  I don’t think “two PhDs” is the flex you think it is to most people with PhDs.
  - kbd 5y ago
    “I have a PhD and I am unimpressive”
    - bigbillheck 5y ago
      Personally, I was smart enough to stop after one phd.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  Checked him out, he doesn't have his own RationalWiki entry, just a footnote under Deepak Chopra https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra lesser kook.
taberiand 5y ago
Are there good articles that explain why it seems we're at a dead end in explaining consciousness without needing to go subatomic? Because I've never read anything convincing that concludes consciousness, when described as an emergent property of the macro-level operation of the cells and chemicals of our brains, is proven to be impossible.
ramraj07 5y ago
Other than popular science writers or physicists thinking they understand everything because they understand QCD, who said consciousness is stuck at a dead end for a lack of theories? The current standard hypothesis is that our synapse based computational network is more than sufficient to explain consciousness, we just don’t have the tools to prove or disprove the same. Connectomics research is still at its infancy unfortunately. Trying to invoke QC where we haven’t even gotten the bandwidth to prove or disprove a far simpler theory seems like a bad idea.
- philipswood 5y ago
  Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing. This gives them an unusual take on observers and consciousness. While everyone else tend to be happy with "consciousness is a physical computation", they tend to need/want something more. As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality.
  - RobertoG 5y ago
    >>"As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality." That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). So, he doesn't need any wave-function-collapse magic to explain quantum mechanics. >>"Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing." That's very insightful.
    - philipswood 5y ago
      >> That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). He considers a working QC as basically an experimental confirmation of the many-worlds interpretation. Something like: "So tell me, these amazing parallel computations - where exactly do you say that they are being computed again if not in the parallel worlds?" There is a nice interview with him in Wired that touches this briefly: https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/ https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computin... Check his answer to: "So what prompted you to start thinking about quantum computing?" My take is that for him the QC started as a thought experiment to get a quantum observer to sidestep the whole wavefunction collapse by a classical observer problem. >> That's very insightful. Thanks.

kbd 5y ago

> The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. > because it’s the substrate of everything Recommend checking out Bernardo Kastrup (two PhDs, many books and videos on YouTube) who argues that mind is fundamental.

bencollier49 5y ago
> That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. They do it by changing the meaning of the word "consciousness" so that they can then show that this new thing they've defined doesn't exist. It's a remarkable strawman.
- loopz 5y ago
  If consciousness doesn't exist, who is it that can disprove it, and why should anyone listen? It's a bit like proving the universe is a simulation or not. These can never be proved or disproved. It's quite silly to deny consciousness though! It's similar to deny one's existence. So philosophy and psychology shines some light on these questions.
ramraj07 5y ago
I don’t think “two PhDs” is the flex you think it is to most people with PhDs.
- kbd 5y ago
  “I have a PhD and I am unimpressive”
  - bigbillheck 5y ago
    Personally, I was smart enough to stop after one phd.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
Checked him out, he doesn't have his own RationalWiki entry, just a footnote under Deepak Chopra https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra lesser kook.

taberiand 5y ago

Are there good articles that explain why it seems we're at a dead end in explaining consciousness without needing to go subatomic? Because I've never read anything convincing that concludes consciousness, when described as an emergent property of the macro-level operation of the cells and chemicals of our brains, is proven to be impossible.

ramraj07 5y ago

Other than popular science writers or physicists thinking they understand everything because they understand QCD, who said consciousness is stuck at a dead end for a lack of theories? The current standard hypothesis is that our synapse based computational network is more than sufficient to explain consciousness, we just don’t have the tools to prove or disprove the same. Connectomics research is still at its infancy unfortunately. Trying to invoke QC where we haven’t even gotten the bandwidth to prove or disprove a far simpler theory seems like a bad idea.

philipswood 5y ago
Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing. This gives them an unusual take on observers and consciousness. While everyone else tend to be happy with "consciousness is a physical computation", they tend to need/want something more. As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality.
- RobertoG 5y ago
  >>"As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality." That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). So, he doesn't need any wave-function-collapse magic to explain quantum mechanics. >>"Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing." That's very insightful.
  - philipswood 5y ago
    >> That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). He considers a working QC as basically an experimental confirmation of the many-worlds interpretation. Something like: "So tell me, these amazing parallel computations - where exactly do you say that they are being computed again if not in the parallel worlds?" There is a nice interview with him in Wired that touches this briefly: https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/ https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computin... Check his answer to: "So what prompted you to start thinking about quantum computing?" My take is that for him the QC started as a thought experiment to get a quantum observer to sidestep the whole wavefunction collapse by a classical observer problem. >> That's very insightful. Thanks.