6 ms·

I upvoted the original article not necessarily because I thought it was particularly well-written, but because I looked forward to seeing what the HN comments a

I upvoted the original article not necessarily because I thought it was particularly well-written, but because I looked forward to seeing what the HN comments about the article would say. Nevertheless, I left to go somewhere before I had a chance to peruse them. I think in a conversation about consciousness, it's very important to define exactly what it is you're talking about. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I get the impression that within the field, "consciousness" refers to specific patterns of brain activity. (Some neuroscientist on here can correct me if I'm wrong.) These patterns can be be studied experimentally, simulated computationally, or theorized about mathematically. All fall well into the modern definition of what science encompasses. Testable predictions about reality can be made and understood. Then the author of the first piece uses a different word a little later in the article: > Experience - "why does the feeling which accompanies awareness of sensory information exist at all?" This, in my opinion, is a whole different idea. As a scientist myself (my research is in molecular-dynamics and quantum monte carlo), "experience" is not something that can be assessed at all by the scientific method. Many people argue that "experience" doesn't even exist (see the concept of p-zombies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie). As for me personally, I'm certain that it does, for if you removed all of my faculties and senses with the exception of leaving my mind intact, I would still experience existence. The curious thing about this is that there's no way for me to tell whether other people (you all) exist in the same way that I do, not even in theory. How do I know if you actually experience existence or are simply a collection of particles following the same rules of physics that everything else does? For then if I was you, I wouldn't be me anymore. One prerequisite for something being scientific is that it must be testable, and this sort of thing is not. So it's not science and I don't waste time conflating it with what actually is science. It's an interesting philosophical question. It's been debated for centuries, and it will continue to be debated for centuries (along the same lines as qualia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) but there will never be any kind of resolution to the issue.

TelmoMenezes 13y ago
Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation. Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just don't know, and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
- blueprint 13y ago
  Consciousness is a mystery only to those that cannot define what it is. What is the origin of awareness itself? It is the very activities one is aware of. The activities produce energy which we call consciousness. The dimension that the consciousness can see is determined by the quality of the very activities. Consciousness is thus not solely generated by neurological activities. Before denying this because of your first impression, please confirm if what I'm saying is true or not, and whether it is confirmed by all evidence or if there is in fact any evidence which contradicts it. What I've said here doesn't come from my thoughts or ideas.
  - TelmoMenezes 13y ago
    I tend to agree with the general tone of what you're saying, but have a problem with "The activities produce energy which we call consciousness". Either you are using the word "energy" in the regular sense or as a metaphor for something else. If it's the former, we're missing some physics. if it's the latter, you're still sweeping the problem under the rug.
    - blueprint 13y ago
      I don't think the physics is missing - it should be all there, according to my confirmation. There are numerous examples around us. Waves propagate themselves owing to the very energy inside of them. Gravity is energy that is produced by the activities of everything in the world - the stress energy tensor says the same thing, but people don't seem to really recognize what it means.
      - jimmaswell 13y ago
        well, gravity is actually distortions, curves in spacetime, not something carrying energy, as far as I know.
        Xcelerate 13y ago
        Anything that has energy (and so far, this seems to be everything that exists), creates a gravitational field. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor
foobarbazqux 13y ago
The interesting thing is that the scientific method is fundamentally based on humans agreeing about their experiences, usually ones involving their sense of sight.
- test-it 13y ago
  No, it's not. It can be used by a single, blind person, be it a human or not.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Human senses are always used to make measurements, but yes, an individual human can agree with himself by repeating scientific experiments.
orblivion 13y ago
It occurred to me at one point - the fact that you and I even try to argue the point that consciousness exists, is evidence to outside observers that we are not philosophical zombies. (Which leads to an amusing, or perhaps disturbing, question about the people who scoff at the concept) Also, it may not be science but it is still philosophy and extremely important. Science is based on philosophy too.
- simonster 13y ago
  It sounds like you're misunderstanding the concept of a zombie. Zombie simonster is physically identical to simonster. On Twin Earth he is also sitting in front of his computer talking about consciousness, and he also emphatically believes that he is conscious. The only difference between zombie simonster and me is that, when zombie simonster says he is conscious, he is wrong. David Chalmers discusses this possibility in his book, and doesn't believe that it invalidates the zombie argument, but personally, I would prefer to think that the fact that I am sitting here writing about consciousness is somehow related to the fact that I am conscious. I'm still thinking this through, and have been for some time, but I think this requires that consciousness be physical in nature.
  - orblivion 13y ago
    I only read the synopsis of the Wikipedia article and am not very versed in this particular model. However to me, the notion doesn't seem to make sense. If you're talking about philosophical zombies, you're acknowledging that consciousness is a real phenomenon, of some sort. If we're sitting here typing about it, we should also conclude that it has an effect on the physical world. So a philosophical zombie, being physically identical to a human but for not having a consciousness, would act differently than a human because it lacks consciousness, which is a real phenomenon with implications on the physical world. (which I suppose you allude to in your second paragraph) EDIT: Ok I think I see a counterargument. Perhaps belief in consciousness is purely physical, and actual consciousness is just perception of this belief, and a perception of choice in acting on it, whereas our actions are deterministic. Seems like a strange scheme, but I suppose it's possible.
- 13y ago
LeafStorm 13y ago
> One prerequisite for something being scientific is that it must be testable, and this sort of thing is not. So it's not science and I don't waste time conflating it with what actually is science. It's an interesting philosophical question. As a dualist, I agree that the question of whether experience exists (and whether there is a soul of some type powering it) is not answerable by science. But many of the people I discuss this with take the attitude that because it can't be answered by science, it's not even worth discussing as a possibility. It feels like a physicist approaching a mathematician with a theory based on experimental results, and being rebuffed for not having a proof. I haven't even read the original article, much less the HN comments, but based on what I've read here (and on my past experience discussing similar subjects on HN), a similar attitude is likely to be at play.
eloff 13y ago
The odds argument for example is easy explained with the anthropic principle - namely we wouldn't be thinking about the odds of being conscious unless we were conscious. The article mostly takes three mysterious things: time, quantum mechanics, and consciousness and gives them one hand-waving "consciousness was always there and will always be there" answer. It's tidy in a way, but that's not science and it's completely opposed to the spirit of science. Not to mention a non-physicist drawing conclusions about unrelated fields using difficult to understand theories is new-age mysticism. It's the same pseudoscience people like Deepak Chopra have been spouting for years. A physicist would be quick to point out that observation affects the quantum realm regardless of whether there is a human being checking the output of his instruments or not (although as I'm not a physicist, I may be too rash in drawing even that conclusion.) Or in Harris's words, the moon doesn't go away when nobody's looking at it. Consciousness is indeed a mystery, but the article adds little of substance to the discussion.
neltnerb 13y ago
The only sensible experiential definition I've heard for consciousness is the word "cognizance". Meaning, consciousness is the ability to be aware. This is the term many Buddhists use in translation, and it's by far the best fitting for me. It fundamentally comes from asking the question, "What am I if you strip away everything that is impermanent?" Emotions are impermanent, thoughts are impermanent, sensations are impermanent... but cognizance -- if you take that away, there is no longer anything. It is the most fundamental. I didn't notice the earlier post on this, but I think all people should think deeply on this. It is not just sophomoric philosophy, it's deeply practical, and few people bashing it understand it. That lack of understanding leads incredibly often to, well, suffering. Acknowledging the nature of existence intellectually isn't enough, you need to experience it. I see this very often in people of any age. Fear of death, fear of loss, fear of love, fear of change. But at the root, no matter what happens if you are comfortable with the nature of your own existence, you know that no one can take that cognizance away. Buddhists monks manage to light themselves calmly on fire in the interest of helping others. Anyway. I obviously have many thoughts on this. It's something I've been thinking about and meditating on a great deal for over a decade. I will just end with a famous quote by Pascal. All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. EDIT: I also hate it when philosophers abuse physics. I'm a physicist, so every time I hear "quantum mechanics" in a philosophical context I put down the book to avoid throwing it. As a friend put it, as soon as Buddhist monks can derive the ground state of the hydrogen atom, I'll give them credit for understanding quantum mechanics. I think that people who suggest that Buddhism is related to these sorts of things know neither physics nor Buddhism.

TelmoMenezes 13y ago

Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation. Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just don't know, and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

blueprint 13y ago
Consciousness is a mystery only to those that cannot define what it is. What is the origin of awareness itself? It is the very activities one is aware of. The activities produce energy which we call consciousness. The dimension that the consciousness can see is determined by the quality of the very activities. Consciousness is thus not solely generated by neurological activities. Before denying this because of your first impression, please confirm if what I'm saying is true or not, and whether it is confirmed by all evidence or if there is in fact any evidence which contradicts it. What I've said here doesn't come from my thoughts or ideas.
- TelmoMenezes 13y ago
  I tend to agree with the general tone of what you're saying, but have a problem with "The activities produce energy which we call consciousness". Either you are using the word "energy" in the regular sense or as a metaphor for something else. If it's the former, we're missing some physics. if it's the latter, you're still sweeping the problem under the rug.
  - blueprint 13y ago
    I don't think the physics is missing - it should be all there, according to my confirmation. There are numerous examples around us. Waves propagate themselves owing to the very energy inside of them. Gravity is energy that is produced by the activities of everything in the world - the stress energy tensor says the same thing, but people don't seem to really recognize what it means.
    - jimmaswell 13y ago
      well, gravity is actually distortions, curves in spacetime, not something carrying energy, as far as I know.
      - Xcelerate 13y ago
        Anything that has energy (and so far, this seems to be everything that exists), creates a gravitational field. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

foobarbazqux 13y ago

The interesting thing is that the scientific method is fundamentally based on humans agreeing about their experiences, usually ones involving their sense of sight.

test-it 13y ago
No, it's not. It can be used by a single, blind person, be it a human or not.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Human senses are always used to make measurements, but yes, an individual human can agree with himself by repeating scientific experiments.

orblivion 13y ago

It occurred to me at one point - the fact that you and I even try to argue the point that consciousness exists, is evidence to outside observers that we are not philosophical zombies. (Which leads to an amusing, or perhaps disturbing, question about the people who scoff at the concept) Also, it may not be science but it is still philosophy and extremely important. Science is based on philosophy too.

simonster 13y ago
It sounds like you're misunderstanding the concept of a zombie. Zombie simonster is physically identical to simonster. On Twin Earth he is also sitting in front of his computer talking about consciousness, and he also emphatically believes that he is conscious. The only difference between zombie simonster and me is that, when zombie simonster says he is conscious, he is wrong. David Chalmers discusses this possibility in his book, and doesn't believe that it invalidates the zombie argument, but personally, I would prefer to think that the fact that I am sitting here writing about consciousness is somehow related to the fact that I am conscious. I'm still thinking this through, and have been for some time, but I think this requires that consciousness be physical in nature.
- orblivion 13y ago
  I only read the synopsis of the Wikipedia article and am not very versed in this particular model. However to me, the notion doesn't seem to make sense. If you're talking about philosophical zombies, you're acknowledging that consciousness is a real phenomenon, of some sort. If we're sitting here typing about it, we should also conclude that it has an effect on the physical world. So a philosophical zombie, being physically identical to a human but for not having a consciousness, would act differently than a human because it lacks consciousness, which is a real phenomenon with implications on the physical world. (which I suppose you allude to in your second paragraph) EDIT: Ok I think I see a counterargument. Perhaps belief in consciousness is purely physical, and actual consciousness is just perception of this belief, and a perception of choice in acting on it, whereas our actions are deterministic. Seems like a strange scheme, but I suppose it's possible.
13y ago

LeafStorm 13y ago

> One prerequisite for something being scientific is that it must be testable, and this sort of thing is not. So it's not science and I don't waste time conflating it with what actually is science. It's an interesting philosophical question. As a dualist, I agree that the question of whether experience exists (and whether there is a soul of some type powering it) is not answerable by science. But many of the people I discuss this with take the attitude that because it can't be answered by science, it's not even worth discussing as a possibility. It feels like a physicist approaching a mathematician with a theory based on experimental results, and being rebuffed for not having a proof. I haven't even read the original article, much less the HN comments, but based on what I've read here (and on my past experience discussing similar subjects on HN), a similar attitude is likely to be at play.

eloff 13y ago

The odds argument for example is easy explained with the anthropic principle - namely we wouldn't be thinking about the odds of being conscious unless we were conscious. The article mostly takes three mysterious things: time, quantum mechanics, and consciousness and gives them one hand-waving "consciousness was always there and will always be there" answer. It's tidy in a way, but that's not science and it's completely opposed to the spirit of science. Not to mention a non-physicist drawing conclusions about unrelated fields using difficult to understand theories is new-age mysticism. It's the same pseudoscience people like Deepak Chopra have been spouting for years. A physicist would be quick to point out that observation affects the quantum realm regardless of whether there is a human being checking the output of his instruments or not (although as I'm not a physicist, I may be too rash in drawing even that conclusion.) Or in Harris's words, the moon doesn't go away when nobody's looking at it. Consciousness is indeed a mystery, but the article adds little of substance to the discussion.

neltnerb 13y ago

The only sensible experiential definition I've heard for consciousness is the word "cognizance". Meaning, consciousness is the ability to be aware. This is the term many Buddhists use in translation, and it's by far the best fitting for me. It fundamentally comes from asking the question, "What am I if you strip away everything that is impermanent?" Emotions are impermanent, thoughts are impermanent, sensations are impermanent... but cognizance -- if you take that away, there is no longer anything. It is the most fundamental. I didn't notice the earlier post on this, but I think all people should think deeply on this. It is not just sophomoric philosophy, it's deeply practical, and few people bashing it understand it. That lack of understanding leads incredibly often to, well, suffering. Acknowledging the nature of existence intellectually isn't enough, you need to experience it. I see this very often in people of any age. Fear of death, fear of loss, fear of love, fear of change. But at the root, no matter what happens if you are comfortable with the nature of your own existence, you know that no one can take that cognizance away. Buddhists monks manage to light themselves calmly on fire in the interest of helping others. Anyway. I obviously have many thoughts on this. It's something I've been thinking about and meditating on a great deal for over a decade. I will just end with a famous quote by Pascal. All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. EDIT: I also hate it when philosophers abuse physics. I'm a physicist, so every time I hear "quantum mechanics" in a philosophical context I put down the book to avoid throwing it. As a friend put it, as soon as Buddhist monks can derive the ground state of the hydrogen atom, I'll give them credit for understanding quantum mechanics. I think that people who suggest that Buddhism is related to these sorts of things know neither physics nor Buddhism.