6 ms·

Rejected by other experts who also have no idea how to explain consciousness.

XorNot 2y ago
Your theory having serious problems but no competitors does not actually solve the serious problems with it. If I can't tell you why the sky is blue, it doesn't make your theory that it's green more likely to be right.
- morbicer 2y ago
  Funny example. There are languages where sky is kinda green. Vietnamese: The word "xanh" can refer to both blue and green. Japanese: Historically, "ao" (青) could refer to both blue and green. Welsh: "Glas" can mean blue, green, or gray
n4r9 2y ago
We're talking about people like Marvin Minsky or Hilary Putnam, who have made very significant contributions to the discourse. And if Max Tegmark thinks your claims are a bit too far out, you've got your work cut out.
- IWeldMelons 2y ago
  Marvin Minsky, Tegmark and Putnam have nothing to do with neuroscience, and have no authority to speak about the nature of consciousness.
  - hshshshsvsv 2y ago
    Why neuroscience has a monopoly on Consciousness?
    - IWeldMelons 2y ago
      Because it studies the only known vehicle of consciousness - neurons and their networks.
      - hshshshsvsv 2y ago
        It's not known. It's a belief hold among some scientists. It also assumes materialisam is true.
        IWeldMelons 2y ago
        Ahaha. No, I am a neural network, and I am conscious. Destroying my network will destroy my consciousness.
        mtarnovan 2y ago
        Not necessarily, there are plenty of rigorously documented cases of people being conscious without any brain activity. This article is also pretty interesting: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.9555...
        dekhn 2y ago
        I am not aware of rigorously documented cases of people being conscious without any brain activity. Can you point me to some?
        hshshshsvsv 2y ago
        Are you aware of any documented cases of observing brain activity without using consciousness?
        dekhn 2y ago
        Yes- that's a widely done thing. In particular, brain activity is evaluated using EEG, MRI, reflex response, and many other physiological methods.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > Marvin Minsky, Tegmark and Putnam have nothing to do with neuroscience, and have no authority to speak about the nature of consciousness. Oh come on. Computer scientists and physicists are the pinnacles of humanity, who can speak with authority on absolutely everything, and have status that trumps every other kind of expert.
  - etiam 2y ago
    That's probably mostly fair, but then would you also agree that a hand-wavy piece of bloviation about purported quantum effects in a ubiquitous cytoskeleton component really doesn't have anything to contribute to the matter either?
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Firstly, I would argue that it is very much in philosophy's remit until we can agree on a definition of "consciousness". Secondly, if a misapplication of Godel's Theorem is used as evidence for the legitimacy of a hypothesis about consciousness, then it is perfectly valid for a philosopher to point out that misapplication.
    - Asraelite 2y ago
      I think we're looking at it from the wrong angle. It's really about psychology and theology. There is no rational reason to even raise the question of why we have free will or consciousness in the first place. We do so because it appeals to our innate human desires that we evolved to follow, such as the desire to feel in control or have purpose. These instincts are so strong and have such an ability to create biases in our mental reasoning that they cause otherwise very intelligent researchers to speak nonsense. The more interesting question IMO is how and why exactly, from a neuroscience point of view, people consistently fail in their application of logic when it comes to questions about the meaning of life like this.
      - n4r9 2y ago
        I think I get what you're saying. It's as if there was still a section of physicists clinging onto the idea of an ether, saying that it's critical to our understanding of electromagnetism and that the transmission of light cannot be explained without it. Meanwhile everyone else is saying we've moved on; the world makes sense without this.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    Marvin's work in neuroscience, in his own words: https://web.mit.edu/dxh/www/marvin/web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/ConfocalMemoir.html https://web.mit.edu/dxh/www/marvin/web.media.mit.edu/~minsky... He invented a very successful sub-area of microscopy specifically to probe brains. I care about Minksy's opinions in a wide range of science since he demonstrated himself as a capable general intelligence.
WhitneyLand 2y ago
The ability to invalidate or critique a solution does not require knowing any part of the solution.

Your theory having serious problems but no competitors does not actually solve the serious problems with it. If I can't tell you why the sky is blue, it doesn't make your theory that it's green more likely to be right.

morbicer 2y ago
Funny example. There are languages where sky is kinda green. Vietnamese: The word "xanh" can refer to both blue and green. Japanese: Historically, "ao" (青) could refer to both blue and green. Welsh: "Glas" can mean blue, green, or gray

n4r9 2y ago

We're talking about people like Marvin Minsky or Hilary Putnam, who have made very significant contributions to the discourse. And if Max Tegmark thinks your claims are a bit too far out, you've got your work cut out.

IWeldMelons 2y ago
Marvin Minsky, Tegmark and Putnam have nothing to do with neuroscience, and have no authority to speak about the nature of consciousness.
- hshshshsvsv 2y ago
  Why neuroscience has a monopoly on Consciousness?
  - IWeldMelons 2y ago
    Because it studies the only known vehicle of consciousness - neurons and their networks.
    - hshshshsvsv 2y ago
      It's not known. It's a belief hold among some scientists. It also assumes materialisam is true.
      - IWeldMelons 2y ago
        Ahaha. No, I am a neural network, and I am conscious. Destroying my network will destroy my consciousness.
        mtarnovan 2y ago
        Not necessarily, there are plenty of rigorously documented cases of people being conscious without any brain activity. This article is also pretty interesting: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.9555...
        dekhn 2y ago
        I am not aware of rigorously documented cases of people being conscious without any brain activity. Can you point me to some?
        hshshshsvsv 2y ago
        Are you aware of any documented cases of observing brain activity without using consciousness?
        dekhn 2y ago
        Yes- that's a widely done thing. In particular, brain activity is evaluated using EEG, MRI, reflex response, and many other physiological methods.
- tivert 2y ago
  > Marvin Minsky, Tegmark and Putnam have nothing to do with neuroscience, and have no authority to speak about the nature of consciousness. Oh come on. Computer scientists and physicists are the pinnacles of humanity, who can speak with authority on absolutely everything, and have status that trumps every other kind of expert.
- etiam 2y ago
  That's probably mostly fair, but then would you also agree that a hand-wavy piece of bloviation about purported quantum effects in a ubiquitous cytoskeleton component really doesn't have anything to contribute to the matter either?
- n4r9 2y ago
  Firstly, I would argue that it is very much in philosophy's remit until we can agree on a definition of "consciousness". Secondly, if a misapplication of Godel's Theorem is used as evidence for the legitimacy of a hypothesis about consciousness, then it is perfectly valid for a philosopher to point out that misapplication.
  - Asraelite 2y ago
    I think we're looking at it from the wrong angle. It's really about psychology and theology. There is no rational reason to even raise the question of why we have free will or consciousness in the first place. We do so because it appeals to our innate human desires that we evolved to follow, such as the desire to feel in control or have purpose. These instincts are so strong and have such an ability to create biases in our mental reasoning that they cause otherwise very intelligent researchers to speak nonsense. The more interesting question IMO is how and why exactly, from a neuroscience point of view, people consistently fail in their application of logic when it comes to questions about the meaning of life like this.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      I think I get what you're saying. It's as if there was still a section of physicists clinging onto the idea of an ether, saying that it's critical to our understanding of electromagnetism and that the transmission of light cannot be explained without it. Meanwhile everyone else is saying we've moved on; the world makes sense without this.
- dekhn 2y ago
  Marvin's work in neuroscience, in his own words: https://web.mit.edu/dxh/www/marvin/web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/ConfocalMemoir.html https://web.mit.edu/dxh/www/marvin/web.media.mit.edu/~minsky... He invented a very successful sub-area of microscopy specifically to probe brains. I care about Minksy's opinions in a wide range of science since he demonstrated himself as a capable general intelligence.

WhitneyLand 2y ago

The ability to invalidate or critique a solution does not require knowing any part of the solution.