6 ms·

Physicist Sean Carroll’s take, based empirical understanding, and what would be necessary for some essence of a person’s conscious to remain after death. https

by jrue 5y ago

Physicist Sean Carroll’s take, based empirical understanding, and what would be necessary for some essence of a person’s conscious to remain after death. https://youtu.be/jUIjDncKZbM https://youtu.be/jUIjDncKZbM

jiocrag 5y ago
This is really bad. Inscrutable and arrogant for the layman, basic and non-explanatory for the well versed. What exactly is being “explained” here? Atomic energy post mortem? If that’s the attempt, it’s a fail.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  It's an elaboration of the fact that brain meat is not magic, and can't be magic, and everything we understand about the laws of physics leaves no room for future discoveries allowing for magic. The statement that there is no afterlife is equivalent to the statement that the sun is not made of spaghetti. There's no possible math, context, perspective, or arrangement of facts that would allow the sun to be made of spaghetti. Your consciousness resides in your neocortex, the thin sheet of neurons on the surface of your brain. We know this because when injury or illness disrupts or damages its operation, your consciousness goes away. It's maintained if there's injury or illness anywhere else. There's no room for disembodied mystery. There's no room in the laws of physics for information transfer such that the pattern of physical connections and electrochemical activity in your brain to be communicated intact when you die. Everything we know about the universe leaves no mechanism for your mind to continue after biological death. We will eventually scan brains, and at some point we might be able to extend our minds into machines and maintain our consciousness after the biological parts die. We don't know enough about the nuanced particulars of neuroscience but the challenges are a matter of resolution, scale, signal strength, and not damaging a living system. There's no mystery to the phenomena of consciousness allowed by laws of physics. Multiverse or simulation theory leaves room for some different level of reality where the substrate of your mind resides. Those are interesting abstractions, but there's no evidence or theory to suggest either of those contexts are valid. It's not arrogant to assert that the moon isn't made of cheese or the sun is not made of pasta, or that there is no life after death. It seems to me that insisting on those things in the face of evidence would be arrogant, as you would be claiming that you know better than everything that can be proven, all of those things for which we have evidence and explanation.
  - fivea 5y ago
    > It's an elaboration of the fact that brain meat is not magic, and can't be magic, and everything we understand about the laws of physics leaves no room for magic. This assertion is rather short-sighted and presumes, wrongly, that knowledge on a topic is already complete. Yet, we live in a day and age when scientists are still discovering muscles in the jaw. We're talking about basic anatomy, not how neurons work. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29705819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29705819 Is it too hard to imagine that knowledge on how the brain actually works is still far from complete?
    - skywal_l 5y ago
      What the parent is trying to say is that it's not because we do not know how something works that any explanation is therefore true. The equivalent of "it's never aliens". There might be an afterlife or not. But in order to accept this idea as true, a proof (extraordinary one in that case) is needed. And for now, except some anecdata, there isn't much to it (as far as I know).
      - fivea 5y ago
        Your comment makes no sense at all and is based on an attempt to surreptitiously invert the burden of proof. No one has argued that "not know how something works" implies that "any explanation is therefore true." That would be silly. The basic principle is falsiability. It has been widely established that a sufficient condition to alter or eliminate consciousness and even personality traits is inflicting precise physical changes to the brain, such as severing pathways. There is absolutely no evidence, let alone reproducible observations, supporting crackpot theories such as afterlifes or any form of consciousness that is not dictated by the brain. It makes absolutely no sense to appeal to this or any other form of crackpot theories by alleging that established facts and knowledge covered by mainstream theories is still under development.
        jiocrag 5y ago
        Narrow thinking. There is currently no evidence supporting “crackpot” theories like consciousness persisting our understanding of the physical realm. Of COURSE we’ve not witnessed any scientific evidence of life after death — that would be a scientific discovery! To assert that atomic activity dictates the bounds of consciousness sounds a lot more like asserting the moon is made of cheese than entertaining the possibility that it isn’t. We didn’t even understand basic atomic principles until Rutherford et al around 100 years ago, and our knowledge regarding neutrinos and particle acceleration is still rapidly evolving. To claim that because we have not directly witnessed or extra-physical consciousness is a bit like saying a grain of sand is the smallest unit because we haven’t witnessed anything smaller.
kozikow 5y ago
His arguments are based on the assumption of "we are biological computers made out of atoms flying in spacetime". Authors of this conference argue precisely against this assumption - e.g. they explore alternatives in the "beyond physicalism" book. He claims that we figured all the physics relevant for the brain, so there is nothing potentially there. Penrose and Hammerhof theory of quantum processing inside the neuron is still under heavy debate. We still weren't able to simulate a single biological neuron - see blue brain project. Donald Hoffman presents solid arguments that spacetime and "atoms" are projections from some more complex reality underneath.
- oogetyboogety 5y ago
  This. The assumption that we know how atoms work in the brain is absurdly reductionist. I would ask a physicist well versed in information theory to validate the holographic principle's validity. Once they make this breakthrough in physics, then I would use that result to begin to put faith into Sean Carroll's assumption. "Afterlife" isn't even well defined in this argument. What decisions and experiences are the ones that define you as a conscious individual in the physical sense? Based on your answer to this, I could recreate an "afterlife" decision matrix for you matching your personality to varying degrees by reprogramming the relevant constructs that exist in your brain. For a physicist, this is not a scientific argument at all. It all sounds very philosophical.
Winsaucerer 5y ago
'The mind is the brain' -- his very first premise is a controversial assumption, one that's a long way from being universally accepted. Without that assumption, the rest of his argument falls apart. There are many people, myself included, who think that while there is a connection between mind and brain (the brain clearly has a causal impact on the mind), the two are not the same. I'm being quite brief here. I have done a lot of thinking, and even writing (this was a big part of my PhD) about this, and let me just say that there is a lot of room to reasonably disagree with Sean Carroll. His view is just one in the marketplace, and is certainly no more (and possibly less!) scientifically robust than the alternatives.
- wruza 5y ago
  Sorry for stupid questions, so what’s there and is it worth it? Also, do you think that “mind” part is singular or plural, per universe? If plural, where do they come from? Where is the mind science central, is there a site or a starter kit?
  - Winsaucerer 5y ago
    I've mentioned the names of a handful to some others, but quickly again: various types of dualism (substance and property), monist views like George Berkeley's idealism, and non-reductive physicalism. I mention above that Sean Carroll is diving into philosophical questions here. If you'd like to learn more, then depending on your expertise, you could look up more on philosophy of mind -- there's a lot of literature. There are also scientific investigations that may be of relevance to these questions to, such as near death experiences, out of body experiences, that sort of thing. I don't think that those sorts of experiences actually would settle the discussion either way, but they are interesting and relevant nonetheless. I haven't watched the video that this HN article is about yet. When you mention singular or plural, are you asking if I think there's just one mind or many in our universe? My own personal view, I think there are many minds in our universe (is that what you were asking?). I lean towards an idealist view similar to, but not the same as, George Berkeley's. One where mind/mental is the fundamental substance, and the physical world exists on top of that mental substrate. Mine is a pretty uncommon view though. Most people are physicalists of some sort or dualists, I think.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by jrue 5y ago

jiocrag 5y ago

This is really bad. Inscrutable and arrogant for the layman, basic and non-explanatory for the well versed. What exactly is being “explained” here? Atomic energy post mortem? If that’s the attempt, it’s a fail.

robbedpeter 5y ago
It's an elaboration of the fact that brain meat is not magic, and can't be magic, and everything we understand about the laws of physics leaves no room for future discoveries allowing for magic. The statement that there is no afterlife is equivalent to the statement that the sun is not made of spaghetti. There's no possible math, context, perspective, or arrangement of facts that would allow the sun to be made of spaghetti. Your consciousness resides in your neocortex, the thin sheet of neurons on the surface of your brain. We know this because when injury or illness disrupts or damages its operation, your consciousness goes away. It's maintained if there's injury or illness anywhere else. There's no room for disembodied mystery. There's no room in the laws of physics for information transfer such that the pattern of physical connections and electrochemical activity in your brain to be communicated intact when you die. Everything we know about the universe leaves no mechanism for your mind to continue after biological death. We will eventually scan brains, and at some point we might be able to extend our minds into machines and maintain our consciousness after the biological parts die. We don't know enough about the nuanced particulars of neuroscience but the challenges are a matter of resolution, scale, signal strength, and not damaging a living system. There's no mystery to the phenomena of consciousness allowed by laws of physics. Multiverse or simulation theory leaves room for some different level of reality where the substrate of your mind resides. Those are interesting abstractions, but there's no evidence or theory to suggest either of those contexts are valid. It's not arrogant to assert that the moon isn't made of cheese or the sun is not made of pasta, or that there is no life after death. It seems to me that insisting on those things in the face of evidence would be arrogant, as you would be claiming that you know better than everything that can be proven, all of those things for which we have evidence and explanation.
- fivea 5y ago
  > It's an elaboration of the fact that brain meat is not magic, and can't be magic, and everything we understand about the laws of physics leaves no room for magic. This assertion is rather short-sighted and presumes, wrongly, that knowledge on a topic is already complete. Yet, we live in a day and age when scientists are still discovering muscles in the jaw. We're talking about basic anatomy, not how neurons work. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29705819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29705819 Is it too hard to imagine that knowledge on how the brain actually works is still far from complete?
  - skywal_l 5y ago
    What the parent is trying to say is that it's not because we do not know how something works that any explanation is therefore true. The equivalent of "it's never aliens". There might be an afterlife or not. But in order to accept this idea as true, a proof (extraordinary one in that case) is needed. And for now, except some anecdata, there isn't much to it (as far as I know).
    - fivea 5y ago
      Your comment makes no sense at all and is based on an attempt to surreptitiously invert the burden of proof. No one has argued that "not know how something works" implies that "any explanation is therefore true." That would be silly. The basic principle is falsiability. It has been widely established that a sufficient condition to alter or eliminate consciousness and even personality traits is inflicting precise physical changes to the brain, such as severing pathways. There is absolutely no evidence, let alone reproducible observations, supporting crackpot theories such as afterlifes or any form of consciousness that is not dictated by the brain. It makes absolutely no sense to appeal to this or any other form of crackpot theories by alleging that established facts and knowledge covered by mainstream theories is still under development.
      - jiocrag 5y ago
        Narrow thinking. There is currently no evidence supporting “crackpot” theories like consciousness persisting our understanding of the physical realm. Of COURSE we’ve not witnessed any scientific evidence of life after death — that would be a scientific discovery! To assert that atomic activity dictates the bounds of consciousness sounds a lot more like asserting the moon is made of cheese than entertaining the possibility that it isn’t. We didn’t even understand basic atomic principles until Rutherford et al around 100 years ago, and our knowledge regarding neutrinos and particle acceleration is still rapidly evolving. To claim that because we have not directly witnessed or extra-physical consciousness is a bit like saying a grain of sand is the smallest unit because we haven’t witnessed anything smaller.

kozikow 5y ago

His arguments are based on the assumption of "we are biological computers made out of atoms flying in spacetime". Authors of this conference argue precisely against this assumption - e.g. they explore alternatives in the "beyond physicalism" book. He claims that we figured all the physics relevant for the brain, so there is nothing potentially there. Penrose and Hammerhof theory of quantum processing inside the neuron is still under heavy debate. We still weren't able to simulate a single biological neuron - see blue brain project. Donald Hoffman presents solid arguments that spacetime and "atoms" are projections from some more complex reality underneath.

oogetyboogety 5y ago
This. The assumption that we know how atoms work in the brain is absurdly reductionist. I would ask a physicist well versed in information theory to validate the holographic principle's validity. Once they make this breakthrough in physics, then I would use that result to begin to put faith into Sean Carroll's assumption. "Afterlife" isn't even well defined in this argument. What decisions and experiences are the ones that define you as a conscious individual in the physical sense? Based on your answer to this, I could recreate an "afterlife" decision matrix for you matching your personality to varying degrees by reprogramming the relevant constructs that exist in your brain. For a physicist, this is not a scientific argument at all. It all sounds very philosophical.

Winsaucerer 5y ago

'The mind is the brain' -- his very first premise is a controversial assumption, one that's a long way from being universally accepted. Without that assumption, the rest of his argument falls apart. There are many people, myself included, who think that while there is a connection between mind and brain (the brain clearly has a causal impact on the mind), the two are not the same. I'm being quite brief here. I have done a lot of thinking, and even writing (this was a big part of my PhD) about this, and let me just say that there is a lot of room to reasonably disagree with Sean Carroll. His view is just one in the marketplace, and is certainly no more (and possibly less!) scientifically robust than the alternatives.

wruza 5y ago
Sorry for stupid questions, so what’s there and is it worth it? Also, do you think that “mind” part is singular or plural, per universe? If plural, where do they come from? Where is the mind science central, is there a site or a starter kit?
- Winsaucerer 5y ago
  I've mentioned the names of a handful to some others, but quickly again: various types of dualism (substance and property), monist views like George Berkeley's idealism, and non-reductive physicalism. I mention above that Sean Carroll is diving into philosophical questions here. If you'd like to learn more, then depending on your expertise, you could look up more on philosophy of mind -- there's a lot of literature. There are also scientific investigations that may be of relevance to these questions to, such as near death experiences, out of body experiences, that sort of thing. I don't think that those sorts of experiences actually would settle the discussion either way, but they are interesting and relevant nonetheless. I haven't watched the video that this HN article is about yet. When you mention singular or plural, are you asking if I think there's just one mind or many in our universe? My own personal view, I think there are many minds in our universe (is that what you were asking?). I lean towards an idealist view similar to, but not the same as, George Berkeley's. One where mind/mental is the fundamental substance, and the physical world exists on top of that mental substrate. Mine is a pretty uncommon view though. Most people are physicalists of some sort or dualists, I think.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]