4 ms·

The idea that experience is not irreducible is rare. Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? Max Planck: "I regard consciousn

The idea that experience is not irreducible is rare. Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Barrin92 5y ago
Reminds me of James Jeans, another idealist physicist, which I feel like is becoming slightly more popular again of a view. "The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."
0xBABAD00C 5y ago
> Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? I do. Considering consciousness, a property of animals on a planet in a star system, irreducible and more fundamental than, say, quarks and bosons, seems laughably wrong to me. On the same level of wrong as medieval "geocentric" world views. I have a hard time imagining how those accomplished physicists think this way..
nineteen999 5y ago
> Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? About half of HN, who think that we will be able to manufacture some form of AGI that should have the right to be treated as the equal of humans.
- nefitty 5y ago
  I pre-commit to supporting AI and automaton rights. I am an ethical vegetarian.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nineteen999 5y ago
    I consider people with that mindset to be an enemy of humanity. And I love animals. Some of them are cute, and some of them are delicious.
    - nefitty 5y ago
      That's a personal failure of empathy. Any reasoning beyond need is a rationalization. Humans can survive without killing animals. Nice try though.
      - nineteen999 5y ago
        Billions of people all around the planet both love some animals, and eat others. They are the majority and your view is in the minority. Do you consider all of them to have a personal failure in this regard too? Nice attempt to try and single someone out personally though.
        nefitty 5y ago
        Yes, I do consider that a failure by the majority. I'm not sure if it's just your hesitation to truly consider the experience of suffering in other creatures, or laziness, but majority views don't always align with moral correctness. I am singling you out personally because you felt an overwhelming need to brag about your pride in dismissing the suffering of other creatures.
        nineteen999 5y ago
        > overwhelming need to brag > moral correctness The only brag here are these plain and simple examples of virtue signalling. But putting the discussion about animal suffering to one side here, since it is irrelevant in regards to the original point regarding A(G)I - sure they may become useful in the future, but deserving of rights equivalent to animals, let alone humans? They are tools created by man, nothing more, I would not feel the slightest hesitation about hitting the power switch, disconnecting the battery, or unplugging the power cable at the end of the day if it has outlived its utility, or has malfunctioned in a way that could potentially negatively affect humans (or animals for that matter). Neither should you. There is no sentience there, just simulation. No matter how charming you might find the simulated conversation or sex acts with them.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  A person who thinks that animals are nothing more than colonies of abnormally cooperative eukaryotes may still dislike animal cruelty on the basis that anyone who is capable of it would be capable of cruelty to humans, or that practicing one prepares you for the other. I imagine the same argument could be made to apply to robots, even if you wanted to sidestep the machine consciousness question. P.S. this argument is a very familiar one if you recognize it - if you have ever heard the advice not to date anyone who's mean to waiters, that's the same idea - that whatever causes cruelty, causes it against all targets.
  - nineteen999 5y ago
    I feel like your comment is entirely gibberish. In the real world, nobody mistakes autism for intelligence.

Barrin92 5y ago

Reminds me of James Jeans, another idealist physicist, which I feel like is becoming slightly more popular again of a view. "The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."

0xBABAD00C 5y ago

> Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? I do. Considering consciousness, a property of animals on a planet in a star system, irreducible and more fundamental than, say, quarks and bosons, seems laughably wrong to me. On the same level of wrong as medieval "geocentric" world views. I have a hard time imagining how those accomplished physicists think this way..

nineteen999 5y ago

> Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? About half of HN, who think that we will be able to manufacture some form of AGI that should have the right to be treated as the equal of humans.

nefitty 5y ago
I pre-commit to supporting AI and automaton rights. I am an ethical vegetarian.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nineteen999 5y ago
  I consider people with that mindset to be an enemy of humanity. And I love animals. Some of them are cute, and some of them are delicious.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    That's a personal failure of empathy. Any reasoning beyond need is a rationalization. Humans can survive without killing animals. Nice try though.
    - nineteen999 5y ago
      Billions of people all around the planet both love some animals, and eat others. They are the majority and your view is in the minority. Do you consider all of them to have a personal failure in this regard too? Nice attempt to try and single someone out personally though.
      - nefitty 5y ago
        Yes, I do consider that a failure by the majority. I'm not sure if it's just your hesitation to truly consider the experience of suffering in other creatures, or laziness, but majority views don't always align with moral correctness. I am singling you out personally because you felt an overwhelming need to brag about your pride in dismissing the suffering of other creatures.
        nineteen999 5y ago
        > overwhelming need to brag > moral correctness The only brag here are these plain and simple examples of virtue signalling. But putting the discussion about animal suffering to one side here, since it is irrelevant in regards to the original point regarding A(G)I - sure they may become useful in the future, but deserving of rights equivalent to animals, let alone humans? They are tools created by man, nothing more, I would not feel the slightest hesitation about hitting the power switch, disconnecting the battery, or unplugging the power cable at the end of the day if it has outlived its utility, or has malfunctioned in a way that could potentially negatively affect humans (or animals for that matter). Neither should you. There is no sentience there, just simulation. No matter how charming you might find the simulated conversation or sex acts with them.
whatshisface 5y ago
A person who thinks that animals are nothing more than colonies of abnormally cooperative eukaryotes may still dislike animal cruelty on the basis that anyone who is capable of it would be capable of cruelty to humans, or that practicing one prepares you for the other. I imagine the same argument could be made to apply to robots, even if you wanted to sidestep the machine consciousness question. P.S. this argument is a very familiar one if you recognize it - if you have ever heard the advice not to date anyone who's mean to waiters, that's the same idea - that whatever causes cruelty, causes it against all targets.
- nineteen999 5y ago
  I feel like your comment is entirely gibberish. In the real world, nobody mistakes autism for intelligence.