4 ms·

To put it kindly, I'd say this is sophomoric philosophy. The OP suggests that "a more simple and elegant resolution to this paradox is that there is simply one

by gizmo 13y ago

To put it kindly, I'd say this is sophomoric philosophy. The OP suggests that "a more simple and elegant resolution to this paradox is that there is simply one consciousness, and that it alone observes (possibly, decides) these quantum states.". This raises obvious the question: where does that consciousness come from? The author makes no attempt to address that problem. The answer he gives "the UNIVERSE is like ALL consciousness, man" doesn't really have substance. There is other crackpottery, such as the claim that the material world is created by consciousness. This is unscientific (and lousy philosophy) because it's a philosophy that explains something without giving us any insight or deeper understanding. The suggestion that "consciousness is the present moment" is also confused. Brains experience the present moment together because the present moment is part of the state of the individual brains. If two brains don't share any common input then they don't share the present moment either. Or to put it in a different way, we wouldn't share the present moment in a meaningful way either with a brain that lives in the same world as us but runs 1000x faster or 1000x slower. I could pick this apart further, but I don't see the point. This article really isn't up to HN quality standards.

omarchowdhury 13y ago
Your comment is sophomoric, I'd pick it apart, but I don't see the point. Your comment really isn't up to HN quality standards.
- gizmo 13y ago
  A lot of people check the comments before reading an article. My comment is intended as some sort of public service announcement: don't bother reading the article. I think there's value in that. Of course, if I posted a blog post with the same contents and titled it "Consciousness is worth thinking about: a rebuttal" it would certainly deserve to get flagged.
  - omarchowdhury 13y ago
    Your comment doesn't really have any "picking apart". You just pose a few questions and frame the article's author as someone not be taken seriously. You can't argue against someone simply by saying "what you said is crackpottery". I found more value in the article than your comment.
  - eksith 13y ago
    "My comment is intended as some sort of public service announcement: don't bother reading the article." Isn't this by and large antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge? It's not quackery, it's not sophomoric, it's an inquisitive exploration of an idea. Also, please see: http://duncancarroll.tumblr.com/post/57994245946/no-really-consciousness-is-worth-thinking-about http://duncancarroll.tumblr.com/post/57994245946/no-really-c...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
northwest 13y ago
And: > Around this same time I became aware of the problem of observation in quantum mechanics. At it’s basic level the issue is that you can affect particles by simply observing them. That's simply because you can only measure by adding energy to the system, which obviously changes the state of the system.
- DennisP 13y ago
  That makes it sound like a straightforward classical effect. It's weirder than that. In the two-slit experiment, if you measure which slit a photon (or other small particle) passes through, then after a bunch of particles you get two spots on the wall. If you don't measure, you get an interference pattern, as if the particle were a wave that passed through both slits. This is true even if you make the decision about whether to measure, after the particle has already passed through the slit. Check the measurement after the particle passes the slit, but before it hits the wall, and the interference pattern goes away.
ca98am79 13y ago
Hi, I am the OP. Thank you for taking the time to read my article and to write a response. > where does that consciousness come from? great question! Yes, I make no attempt to address that problem only because the main point of my article was to raise awareness that there is a possibility that consciousness doesn't come from the brain. The important question you bring up is extremely interesting in itself, and I really don't have any idea to the answer. It reminds me of gravity - we have theories about it, but we don't know where it comes from.
- dtf 13y ago
  If you're interested in consciousness, I recommend reading some of Antonio Damasio's books. I really enjoyed "The Feeling of What Happens". He has some fascinating theories on the machinery of (brain-originated) consciousness, embodiment and the primacy of emotion, and he tends to explain them in the context of his various clinical cases (eg lesions to certain brain areas such as the central gray will irrevocably destroy consciousness, while others can have much more subtle effects). I think his concept of "core consciousness" seems close to what meditation practitioners are trying to explore.
wellpast 13y ago
I've discussed this topic of consciousness with others and there is a common visceral reaction (like the one in this comment) that is common when challenging the presumed location of consciousness, especially from programmers, and I'm curious why. One thought I've had is that programmers (given our profession) tend to fetishize the idea that ultimately we will understand the brain well enough to recreate consciousness in machine and code. It's pretty exciting to believe that as a programmer; much like it was probably exciting to think that we were at the center of a Ptolemaic universe. I'm okay with someone wanting to ask whether the world is really flat, even if he doesn't address what other shape it could be. I found this article to be a very interesting questioning about some assumptions we have regarding consciousness.
- dvanduzer 13y ago
  I think most of the "argument" comes from the conflation of the "what is it like" with "where does it live" questions.[0] Most of the "dumb" arguments about "where does it live" are actually "what is it like" questions, most of which are thoroughly disposed of in Dennett's Quining Qualia.[1] [0] http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_insid... [1] http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm

by gizmo 13y ago

omarchowdhury 13y ago

Your comment is sophomoric, I'd pick it apart, but I don't see the point. Your comment really isn't up to HN quality standards.

gizmo 13y ago
A lot of people check the comments before reading an article. My comment is intended as some sort of public service announcement: don't bother reading the article. I think there's value in that. Of course, if I posted a blog post with the same contents and titled it "Consciousness is worth thinking about: a rebuttal" it would certainly deserve to get flagged.
- omarchowdhury 13y ago
  Your comment doesn't really have any "picking apart". You just pose a few questions and frame the article's author as someone not be taken seriously. You can't argue against someone simply by saying "what you said is crackpottery". I found more value in the article than your comment.
- eksith 13y ago
  "My comment is intended as some sort of public service announcement: don't bother reading the article." Isn't this by and large antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge? It's not quackery, it's not sophomoric, it's an inquisitive exploration of an idea. Also, please see: http://duncancarroll.tumblr.com/post/57994245946/no-really-consciousness-is-worth-thinking-about http://duncancarroll.tumblr.com/post/57994245946/no-really-c...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

northwest 13y ago

And: > Around this same time I became aware of the problem of observation in quantum mechanics. At it’s basic level the issue is that you can affect particles by simply observing them. That's simply because you can only measure by adding energy to the system, which obviously changes the state of the system.

DennisP 13y ago
That makes it sound like a straightforward classical effect. It's weirder than that. In the two-slit experiment, if you measure which slit a photon (or other small particle) passes through, then after a bunch of particles you get two spots on the wall. If you don't measure, you get an interference pattern, as if the particle were a wave that passed through both slits. This is true even if you make the decision about whether to measure, after the particle has already passed through the slit. Check the measurement after the particle passes the slit, but before it hits the wall, and the interference pattern goes away.

ca98am79 13y ago

Hi, I am the OP. Thank you for taking the time to read my article and to write a response. > where does that consciousness come from? great question! Yes, I make no attempt to address that problem only because the main point of my article was to raise awareness that there is a possibility that consciousness doesn't come from the brain. The important question you bring up is extremely interesting in itself, and I really don't have any idea to the answer. It reminds me of gravity - we have theories about it, but we don't know where it comes from.

dtf 13y ago
If you're interested in consciousness, I recommend reading some of Antonio Damasio's books. I really enjoyed "The Feeling of What Happens". He has some fascinating theories on the machinery of (brain-originated) consciousness, embodiment and the primacy of emotion, and he tends to explain them in the context of his various clinical cases (eg lesions to certain brain areas such as the central gray will irrevocably destroy consciousness, while others can have much more subtle effects). I think his concept of "core consciousness" seems close to what meditation practitioners are trying to explore.

wellpast 13y ago

I've discussed this topic of consciousness with others and there is a common visceral reaction (like the one in this comment) that is common when challenging the presumed location of consciousness, especially from programmers, and I'm curious why. One thought I've had is that programmers (given our profession) tend to fetishize the idea that ultimately we will understand the brain well enough to recreate consciousness in machine and code. It's pretty exciting to believe that as a programmer; much like it was probably exciting to think that we were at the center of a Ptolemaic universe. I'm okay with someone wanting to ask whether the world is really flat, even if he doesn't address what other shape it could be. I found this article to be a very interesting questioning about some assumptions we have regarding consciousness.

dvanduzer 13y ago
I think most of the "argument" comes from the conflation of the "what is it like" with "where does it live" questions.[0] Most of the "dumb" arguments about "where does it live" are actually "what is it like" questions, most of which are thoroughly disposed of in Dennett's Quining Qualia.[1] [0] http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_insid... [1] http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm