7 ms·

I'm not saying anyone is dumb; I'm saying we as a society haven't made understanding the mind a priority. Also, I did read it. That "workable" definition is so

by debt 12y ago

I'm not saying anyone is dumb; I'm saying we as a society haven't made understanding the mind a priority. Also, I did read it. That "workable" definition is so presumptuous about the nature of consciousness. What I'm saying, and many others are as well, as that we still need to have a discussion about what we're even talking about. The mind may not even be able to be understood or measured in the "realm of science". That is, we may have to use alternative language to explain something like the mind. We as a society haven't answered fundamental questions such as what is the mind, why does it exist, where does come from, is it a physical/nonphysical phenomenon, etc. We can't really solve(especially "compute it") the mind problem if we don't fully understand the problem domain.

krisgee 12y ago
> why does it exist, where does come from, is it a nonphysical property of the body or vice versa Are any of these actual debated questions? Outside of religious arguments I don't think anyone can question that (in order) the answers are It doesn't need a why/It was the best tool our ancestors evolved for their niche It comes from electrochemical reactions in your brain Of course it isn't you die when you are killed, getting head injuries can change your personality/memories. Since your brain exists in physical reality the question "can we run a perfect simulation of physics" is also exactly "can we compute conciousness". Since it's looking pretty good that we can run a simulation of reality at the level we work at it's also looking pretty good for that whole "mind" in a computer thing.
- wslh 12y ago
  Since your brain exists in physical reality... Beyond the religious arguments we don't know if the brain exists only in the physical reality in the sense that you can't prove/disprove this hypothesis.
- nardi 12y ago
  Certainly they aren't debated outside of naturalist circles. But even amongst "non-religious" people, it's somewhat of an open question whether our physical, observable universe is the only thing that exists.
- functional_test 12y ago
  It sounds like you subscribe to Materialism [1]. In fact, these are widely debated questions. Materialism is only one of many philosophies that seek to answer these questions (e.g. dualism). Be careful about accepting answers like that if you haven't examined at least the major alternatives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
  - __david__ 12y ago
    Widely debated by whom? These other philosophies are useless for trying to figure out how consciousness (or anything, for that matter) actually works, as nothing they explain is falsifiable in any way. I may as well argue about how many angels fit on the head of pin—some will find the topic fascinating, but at the end of the day it doesn't actually reveal anything useful about the world.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- indrax 12y ago
  >It comes from electrochemical reactions in your brain This isn't an explanation. None of it answers the interesting questions. How and why do computers work? Well they are made of atoms and run on electricity. They do useful work and we call it computation. This is all true and important to understand, but it is filling a slot that needs to be filled with things like computability theory. I'm not sure what was meant by nonphysical property, but many materialists disagree over whether consciousness can be copied like a text, or is necessarily destroyed as a book is.
orasis 12y ago
Understanding the mind has been a priority for Buddhists for 2500 years. Many state of the art understandings of mind do not assume any sort of objective reality. So, questions like "where does mind come from", "is it a physical/nonphysical phenomenon", which are based in on a materialistic theory of reality, may not be valid when talking about theories of reality that are based on perception.
snowwrestler 12y ago
I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, but your comments read to me like a bunch of mystical nonsense. Have we conclusively defined what "consciousness" is? No. But we haven't, as a society, conclusively defined what a chair is either. That doesn't stop us from accurately and precisely measuring and modeling all sorts of chair and chair-like objects. Measuring and modeling get more difficult when it comes to information. Take the Bible and rearrange the letters alphabetically and it will be the same size, same weight, same chemical composition, etc.--but contain a lot less information. A lot of the things that seem weird about the mind are not that different from most information systems. But we're learning to measure and model those too.
- quick111 12y ago
  Sadly the more you think about the "Hard Consciousness Problem" the more it becomes like "mystical nonsense". The more you reduce the mind into being computable physical process the more it becomes a choice (or a frustrating cycle back and forth) between consciousness not being computable no matter what including in our brain making us zombies living under some sort of illusion or consciousness being totally computable by computer or anything in which case any system could have some sort or consciousness, even human given the correct configuration, e.g. computer, a flock of specially trained neuron like birds. Where would that consciousness "be" in the flock of birds. Also could the consciousness exist on a non human time frame? Would it still exist because it was being computed even slowly? And what happens to it when it hits a breakpoint? Have you captured an instant of consciousness or has it disappeared?
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    I am convinced that almost all the "problems" with a computable consciousness are really the emotional problems of us humans coming to terms with our status as just another animal, which is just another pattern of matter and energy. Yes, it implies that other animals and systems might be conscious too. Why is that a problem?
    - quick111 12y ago

by debt 12y ago

krisgee 12y ago

> why does it exist, where does come from, is it a nonphysical property of the body or vice versa Are any of these actual debated questions? Outside of religious arguments I don't think anyone can question that (in order) the answers are It doesn't need a why/It was the best tool our ancestors evolved for their niche It comes from electrochemical reactions in your brain Of course it isn't you die when you are killed, getting head injuries can change your personality/memories. Since your brain exists in physical reality the question "can we run a perfect simulation of physics" is also exactly "can we compute conciousness". Since it's looking pretty good that we can run a simulation of reality at the level we work at it's also looking pretty good for that whole "mind" in a computer thing.

wslh 12y ago
Since your brain exists in physical reality... Beyond the religious arguments we don't know if the brain exists only in the physical reality in the sense that you can't prove/disprove this hypothesis.
nardi 12y ago
Certainly they aren't debated outside of naturalist circles. But even amongst "non-religious" people, it's somewhat of an open question whether our physical, observable universe is the only thing that exists.
functional_test 12y ago
It sounds like you subscribe to Materialism [1]. In fact, these are widely debated questions. Materialism is only one of many philosophies that seek to answer these questions (e.g. dualism). Be careful about accepting answers like that if you haven't examined at least the major alternatives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
- __david__ 12y ago
  Widely debated by whom? These other philosophies are useless for trying to figure out how consciousness (or anything, for that matter) actually works, as nothing they explain is falsifiable in any way. I may as well argue about how many angels fit on the head of pin—some will find the topic fascinating, but at the end of the day it doesn't actually reveal anything useful about the world.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
indrax 12y ago
>It comes from electrochemical reactions in your brain This isn't an explanation. None of it answers the interesting questions. How and why do computers work? Well they are made of atoms and run on electricity. They do useful work and we call it computation. This is all true and important to understand, but it is filling a slot that needs to be filled with things like computability theory. I'm not sure what was meant by nonphysical property, but many materialists disagree over whether consciousness can be copied like a text, or is necessarily destroyed as a book is.

orasis 12y ago

Understanding the mind has been a priority for Buddhists for 2500 years. Many state of the art understandings of mind do not assume any sort of objective reality. So, questions like "where does mind come from", "is it a physical/nonphysical phenomenon", which are based in on a materialistic theory of reality, may not be valid when talking about theories of reality that are based on perception.

snowwrestler 12y ago

I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, but your comments read to me like a bunch of mystical nonsense. Have we conclusively defined what "consciousness" is? No. But we haven't, as a society, conclusively defined what a chair is either. That doesn't stop us from accurately and precisely measuring and modeling all sorts of chair and chair-like objects. Measuring and modeling get more difficult when it comes to information. Take the Bible and rearrange the letters alphabetically and it will be the same size, same weight, same chemical composition, etc.--but contain a lot less information. A lot of the things that seem weird about the mind are not that different from most information systems. But we're learning to measure and model those too.

quick111 12y ago
Sadly the more you think about the "Hard Consciousness Problem" the more it becomes like "mystical nonsense". The more you reduce the mind into being computable physical process the more it becomes a choice (or a frustrating cycle back and forth) between consciousness not being computable no matter what including in our brain making us zombies living under some sort of illusion or consciousness being totally computable by computer or anything in which case any system could have some sort or consciousness, even human given the correct configuration, e.g. computer, a flock of specially trained neuron like birds. Where would that consciousness "be" in the flock of birds. Also could the consciousness exist on a non human time frame? Would it still exist because it was being computed even slowly? And what happens to it when it hits a breakpoint? Have you captured an instant of consciousness or has it disappeared?
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  I am convinced that almost all the "problems" with a computable consciousness are really the emotional problems of us humans coming to terms with our status as just another animal, which is just another pattern of matter and energy. Yes, it implies that other animals and systems might be conscious too. Why is that a problem?
  - quick111 12y ago