7 ms·

The Grand Illusion: Why consciousness exists only when you look for it (2002)

52 points by monort 11y ago

mikekchar 11y ago
Writing on a topic that I know next to nothing :-) Hopefully it will provide entertainment if nothing else. I have thought recently that consciousness, or any phenomenon that includes the awareness of the passage of time, is an illusion of memory. Imagine that you have only an instantaneous existence. Over time you move from one instance to another, changing state each time. In essence you are a state machine. At any given instant, your new state depends on your current state and new inputs (not only are you a state machine, but you are a regular expression!). Unlike a state machine with a fixed set of states and an infinite tape, you have a near infinite set of possible states and a finite tape. The way the state is constructed, it is possible to reason about the likely path you took to reach your current state. Of course, states you were in only a few iterations ago are easy to deduce while states that you were in a long time ago are much harder to deduce because there are many possible paths. Finally, let's imagine that you can partition your state. In other words, you can take a small part of your state (call it a sub-state) and you can deduce past sub-states that you would have had to pass through in order to reach this sub-state. With this in place, "awareness" could merely be the act of enumeration past possible sub-states. So you can "concentrate" on a sub-state and at any given instant deduce the sub-states that have lead to this position. Because your interface with reality would be the review of these possible past sub-states, it would appear from your point of view that there was a flow of occurrences that led to your current state. But all of the information you are processing is internal and so your awareness would be dependent upon the instantaneous state only. You could get very silly and imagine that if your movement between states was idempotent, that you could even execute the state machine out of order and it would still produce the same awareness of order and hence flow of time. If this were to be the case (and I have no real reason to believe that it is -- it's just an entertaining thought), I don't think it would be as discrete as I describe it. If you consider a neural network, it has a similar kind of state and a similar kind of "memory". Training the neural network creates outputs from inputs based on what had previously been input. One might imagine a kind of network that could walk backwards through "memorised" patterns by feeding the outputs back into inputs, but I don't think any such thing exists (and possibly it can't exist). Aside: I know about convoluted networks, but I don't think they produce the effect I am describing. Like I said, it's an interesting mental exercise, but not necessarily anything like what really happens.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
We can't even properly define consciousness. Why ask whether or not something exists when we're not even sure what the word consciousness is referring too. Consciousness is similar to other loaded/ambiguous words in the English language like "spirituality." Everybody has a different perception of what it is, and nobody can really define it. Lots of female hipsters still like to toss the word "spirituality" around while never really knowing what the hell it means. "Consciousness" on the other hand has a more scholarly philosophical flavor. If you want to get into a meaningless pseudo-scientific discussion with no logical end (and beginning), "consciousness" is the perfect word to guarantee things will go nowhere. Like this article, for example.
- redwood 11y ago
  What is your point? Are you saying there is no point to having words for things that we don't fully understand? Male hipsters too, btw.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    I'm saying no point discussing it. Especially on HN. Articles grounded in science are a better fit.
    - sriku 11y ago
      There is a lot of discussion about "functional programming" without a consensus on what constitutes that and what are paraphernalia. A notion exists in a word form when it has some definition, even if it cannot be articulated well. Here by "definition" I mean something like "the ability to categorize examples even if fuzzily", i.e. saying that "a rock is not conscious while a human is" already indicates the existence of a definition. Note that this doesn't require that you be able to describe the category in a nice precise sentence. Through dialogue, critique, experiments, we can gradually construct a specific sense for the word that a group of people can work on. Take "energy" for instance. The word existed before physicists defined it precisely, and even the definition within that domain evolved when quantum mechanics came around. Furthermore, the usage of the word isn't limited to contexts in physics only. Is it worthless to ponder "what might a physics definition of consciousness be?".
renatofdds 11y ago
"The User Illusion" by Tor Nørretranders is a must read for anyone interested in the subject. One of the best books i've ever read.
lamacase 11y ago
I don't see that it matters whether consciousness is "actual" or "illusory" (whatever that distinction entails) for the purposes of explaining subjective experience. The degree to which that experience reflects, or fails to reflects, physical reality is certainly interesting but I don't see it changing the nature of the problems. "Instead of asking how neural impulses turn into conscious experiences, we must ask how the grand illusion gets constructed." I really don't see what the difference is. How are we to interpret the notion that, say, the color Orange is really just a "trick"? Some sleight of mind perhaps? What point was the author trying to make?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- seszett 11y ago
  > How are we to interpret the notion that, say, the color Orange is really just a "trick"? That might not seem important today, now we know what colour is in terms of physics and the only remaining unknown might be how we internally perceive it, but the nature of colour was a real question at one time, and trying to understand it ended up improving our knowledge of physics. Trying to understand consciousness, however pointless you might think the difference between an actual consciousness and one constructed on the fly is, could very well lead to interesting discoveries as well, eventually. It's also interesting to know in itself.
- entelechy0 11y ago
  There is no continuous consciousness. It is the result of unconscious processes culminating into individual perceptions of consciousness, making it appear like we are experiencing one continuous reality, when in reality, something far more complicated is driving us behind the scenes.
dm2 11y ago
I think that it would be good to start with evolution to attempt to pinpoint the different stages that consciousness was created. http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Graziano_JCN_2014.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Graziano_JCN_2014.pdf "Speculations on the Evolution of Awareness" - Michael Graziano "selective signal enhancement" is an interesting concept. http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Consciousness_Research.html http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Consciousness_Research.ht... http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/ http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/
- themgt 11y ago
  Wow. The author of that has published numerous papers on neuroscience and consciousness, has written well-received adult literature, award-winning children's books, popular science nonfiction books, passable orchestra music, papers on fake universes modeling emergent laws of physics and he's "an avid practitioner of ventriloquism and performs his art with a monkey sidekick named Kevin" http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/ http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graziano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graziano I feel quite lazy now.
  - dm2 11y ago
    Thanks for the link to his blog. I always forget to check those for full papers, I updated my post with a link to the PDF. Yeah, he's certainly contributed a lot to consciousness research. http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/MG_Vita.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/MG_Vita.pdf I've done a lot of thinking and discussing around brain-transfers and what it requires, I'm really interested in reading his papers around that topic, and some of the others.
jpasden 11y ago
One of my problems with conceptualizing "consciousness" and ideas such as "attention" or "unconscious processes" is that I have such a fondness for analogies that I am forever trying to find the proper one, and it inevitably comes down to some kind of computer-based analogy like the memory management example given in the article. Instinctively, I find it absurd that the human brain should work similarly to how human-created computer systems work, and that these analogies should be tossed out, but maybe it actually does make a kind of sense? Is there a convergent evolution occurring whereby we will eventually come to understand human consciousness because the more we improve our computer systems, the closer we come to approximating the fundamental "thinking powers" of the human brain?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- tburn 11y ago
  There are two situations that I believe will reveal the answers about consciousness: 1. Complete simulation of a human brain and its synapses. This would allow us to see the various states of the brain during its thought processes, and it would probably confirm the Identity theory philosophy of mind. 2. Recreation of convincing consciousness in AI. This mimicry would reveal that consciousness is indeed an illusion, and would confirm the Functionalism philosophy of mind. Consciousness is such a tantalizing subject because it seems like it should be explainable using science, but we just don't have the capacity to understand it yet. This is why it's still firmly in the realm of philosophy, and why there are so many pseudoscientific attempts to explain it.
- fragsworth 11y ago
  I'm leaning towards defining consciousness as something related to memory, since we would probably all agree that the things we are conscious of are the things we can consciously remember, and vice versa - if we can remember something, we would say that we were conscious of it.
- teekert 11y ago
  A computer is deterministic, it operates by a set of understandable rules. We know that for sure. For our brain, we don't know. biology is mostly stochastic (unless it has evolved to obtain a certain level of deterministicness). It is difficult to replicate in a machine. But I think humans have a very strong sense that there must be a deeper set of rules that operates our brain and constructs consciousness. Therefor, the creation of a computer with consciousness would prove a certain set of rules exists, and we can understand those rules, even though a computer (as a computer is today) does not function at all like a brain. "What I cannot create, I do not understand" (Feynman), apparently we don't care if the mechanism behind the created thing is different in this case. So I think the lesson learned will be that consciousness can follow from a set of rules but less about how our own consciousness works. Who says there can be only one kind?
unclebucknasty 11y ago
It's a weird question because, for me, it starts too far up the chain. Consciousness is a question of subjective perception, but I cannot yet truly define the actual things that I perceive. So, as I look at my screen, I can acknowledge its existence and repeat stuff I've learned about about atoms, elements, etc. But, when I truly start to question how this physical world is held together and what proof we have that it even exists beyond, say, a simulation, then I fail. There is some fundamental level at which I'm not "certain" of anything. So, how can I begin to ask questions about how I perceive those things?
- collyw 11y ago
  Science requires a fair amount of faith. Its not like you can repeat every experiment.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    Yeah, I'm talking about something a little different.
smegel 11y ago
Even if it is an illusion, so what? It doesn't stop me experiencing it, which is really what consciousness is all about. I think, therefore I am
- stan_rogers 11y ago
  Or, I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. In some sense, at least, it amounts to the same thing.
fdik 11y ago
If consciousness is an illusion, then ego is an illusion as well. Who is it then, who is succumbing to this illusion?
dschiptsov 11y ago
The precise wording is crucial here. It is "the self" - the notion of persistent, continuous "I am" is this "grand illusion". Some ancient Indian and later Tibetan scholars have written about it since 7th century's "doctrine boom" and following "age of the great translation" (of Indian texts into Tibetan language), which resulted in all that plurality of Tibetan sects, while "the realization" of the illusory nature of what we call "I" goes back to the times of Upanishads, long before the Buddha himself. In modern words, what we call "consciousness" is mere a set of processes, which could be switched on and off.)
- nonzetsu 11y ago
  no! there is suboff for subconscious
ExpiredLink 11y ago
Consciousness has bee a philosophical topic for centuries. She is a psychologist and obviously unaware of it.
- nonzetsu 11y ago
  NO, EVEYBODY CAN LEARN ANYTHING WITHOUT DEGREE PLUS PSYCHOLOGY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH NEUROLOGY AT SOME POINT
  - ExpiredLink 11y ago
    It's a scientific principle to study the exiting body of knowledge, at least the important works, before you publish your own theories and findings. BTW, your keyboard seems to be broken.
seszett 11y ago
Hmm... that's not directly related to main topic of the article, but I read: You hadn't noticed it before, but now that you have, you know that the clock has struck four times already, and you can go on counting Does that really happen? I am never able to do that, each time the church's clock strikes and I want to know what time it is, I can never be sure if I have missed one or two strikes at the beginning, and I often do miss one (and there is no mean to determine how many could have been missed). I thought that was the same for everyone, and the reason why it strikes again two minutes after the first time, so you can be ready to count. Other than that, the article is pretty much how I had been thinking of consciousness already.
satori99 11y ago
As soon as I saw this headline, I knew it would be Susan Blackmore. I once saw her give a talk on this topic, among others, at The Australian Museum. She is a remarkable speaker and was brutally honest about her own less-than-scientific past in researching human consciousness; > It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a skeptic.
d-equivalence 11y ago
I think the author of this article confuses consciousness for the interpretation of things that occur in consciousness.
- tehwalrus 11y ago
  Would you care to define a concrete difference between those two things?
  - d-equivalence 11y ago
    Dunno, maybe practice Zen Buddhism for a decade or two.
    - tehwalrus 11y ago
      I am a (lapsing) mindful meditator, and I'm still not sure this article contradicts any of that stuff (which is the distilled science from things like Buddhism.)
      - d-equivalence 11y ago
        I understand, but forgive me, when I try to argue about consciousness using logic or read scientific studies about it, I always feel like being a 14 year old talking about sex, so I don't talk about it anymore. I prefer doing it. Quite possibly its arrogance, or jadedness. But I've come to develop my own opinions about issues like that, through other means of acquiring knowledge than science, which I feel is grossly inadequate to address such issues. And no, I'm not talking about secular/clinic types of mindfulness. Probably that makes me a weirdo in circles like HN, but oh well.
  - resu_nimda 11y ago
    I would say that consciousness is the "running narrative," the combined succession of whatever it is that has your "focus" at any given time. It may not always be a single object, multiple threads can weave in and out, or rise and fall from consciousness. This seems...hard to argue against. For example, when trying to reason about a somewhat complex system, I am often trying to "multi-task" or "juggle" multiple things. Sometimes I will get caught on one thing, possibly draw some conclusion, and then remember, "oh yeah, that won't work because of X." I don't think it makes sense to discard the concept that X has entered, exited and re-entered my conscious thought process. Another example - if I catch a whiff of an old girlfriend's perfume, or hear a song strongly connected to a time from my past, I am instantly thinking of those things in a way that I wasn't the moment before. But those memories have continuously existed in my head in some form, or I wouldn't be able to recall them. Over time they have mutated, morphed, and mixed with other experiences - I don't think it's like neatly organized and addressed computer memory - but there is some unbroken chain that lives "below the surface" most of the time. Again I don't see the value in discarding this concept. But I think the more salient point of the article, and what I believe d-equivalence is referring to with the "interpretation of consciousness," is the concept of unreliability. Due to the ever-churning and "living" nature of our memories - combined with the fact that the brain is merely an evolved tool with certain properties useful for keeping humans alive (as opposed to an impartial processor/arbiter of "true experience") - our perspective on our own thought processes is unreliable. Most of the experiments described in the article seemed to me like standard "tricks of the mind." It edits, it rewrites history on the fly, it fills in the gaps, because it has learned to anticipate, to identify things it has seen before. The being that can create a mental model that correctly anticipates what happens next has the advantage. Our brains have been honed to do so as a matter of survival, going so far as to creatively make things up and eagerly overfit, and we've developed ways of catching it in the act.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

52 points by monort 11y ago

Writing on a topic that I know next to nothing :-) Hopefully it will provide entertainment if nothing else. I have thought recently that consciousness, or any phenomenon that includes the awareness of the passage of time, is an illusion of memory. Imagine that you have only an instantaneous existence. Over time you move from one instance to another, changing state each time. In essence you are a state machine. At any given instant, your new state depends on your current state and new inputs (not only are you a state machine, but you are a regular expression!). Unlike a state machine with a fixed set of states and an infinite tape, you have a near infinite set of possible states and a finite tape. The way the state is constructed, it is possible to reason about the likely path you took to reach your current state. Of course, states you were in only a few iterations ago are easy to deduce while states that you were in a long time ago are much harder to deduce because there are many possible paths. Finally, let's imagine that you can partition your state. In other words, you can take a small part of your state (call it a sub-state) and you can deduce past sub-states that you would have had to pass through in order to reach this sub-state. With this in place, "awareness" could merely be the act of enumeration past possible sub-states. So you can "concentrate" on a sub-state and at any given instant deduce the sub-states that have lead to this position. Because your interface with reality would be the review of these possible past sub-states, it would appear from your point of view that there was a flow of occurrences that led to your current state. But all of the information you are processing is internal and so your awareness would be dependent upon the instantaneous state only. You could get very silly and imagine that if your movement between states was idempotent, that you could even execute the state machine out of order and it would still produce the same awareness of order and hence flow of time. If this were to be the case (and I have no real reason to believe that it is -- it's just an entertaining thought), I don't think it would be as discrete as I describe it. If you consider a neural network, it has a similar kind of state and a similar kind of "memory". Training the neural network creates outputs from inputs based on what had previously been input. One might imagine a kind of network that could walk backwards through "memorised" patterns by feeding the outputs back into inputs, but I don't think any such thing exists (and possibly it can't exist). Aside: I know about convoluted networks, but I don't think they produce the effect I am describing. Like I said, it's an interesting mental exercise, but not necessarily anything like what really happens.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

We can't even properly define consciousness. Why ask whether or not something exists when we're not even sure what the word consciousness is referring too. Consciousness is similar to other loaded/ambiguous words in the English language like "spirituality." Everybody has a different perception of what it is, and nobody can really define it. Lots of female hipsters still like to toss the word "spirituality" around while never really knowing what the hell it means. "Consciousness" on the other hand has a more scholarly philosophical flavor. If you want to get into a meaningless pseudo-scientific discussion with no logical end (and beginning), "consciousness" is the perfect word to guarantee things will go nowhere. Like this article, for example.

redwood 11y ago
What is your point? Are you saying there is no point to having words for things that we don't fully understand? Male hipsters too, btw.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  I'm saying no point discussing it. Especially on HN. Articles grounded in science are a better fit.
  - sriku 11y ago
    There is a lot of discussion about "functional programming" without a consensus on what constitutes that and what are paraphernalia. A notion exists in a word form when it has some definition, even if it cannot be articulated well. Here by "definition" I mean something like "the ability to categorize examples even if fuzzily", i.e. saying that "a rock is not conscious while a human is" already indicates the existence of a definition. Note that this doesn't require that you be able to describe the category in a nice precise sentence. Through dialogue, critique, experiments, we can gradually construct a specific sense for the word that a group of people can work on. Take "energy" for instance. The word existed before physicists defined it precisely, and even the definition within that domain evolved when quantum mechanics came around. Furthermore, the usage of the word isn't limited to contexts in physics only. Is it worthless to ponder "what might a physics definition of consciousness be?".

renatofdds 11y ago

"The User Illusion" by Tor Nørretranders is a must read for anyone interested in the subject. One of the best books i've ever read.

lamacase 11y ago

I don't see that it matters whether consciousness is "actual" or "illusory" (whatever that distinction entails) for the purposes of explaining subjective experience. The degree to which that experience reflects, or fails to reflects, physical reality is certainly interesting but I don't see it changing the nature of the problems. "Instead of asking how neural impulses turn into conscious experiences, we must ask how the grand illusion gets constructed." I really don't see what the difference is. How are we to interpret the notion that, say, the color Orange is really just a "trick"? Some sleight of mind perhaps? What point was the author trying to make?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
seszett 11y ago
> How are we to interpret the notion that, say, the color Orange is really just a "trick"? That might not seem important today, now we know what colour is in terms of physics and the only remaining unknown might be how we internally perceive it, but the nature of colour was a real question at one time, and trying to understand it ended up improving our knowledge of physics. Trying to understand consciousness, however pointless you might think the difference between an actual consciousness and one constructed on the fly is, could very well lead to interesting discoveries as well, eventually. It's also interesting to know in itself.
entelechy0 11y ago
There is no continuous consciousness. It is the result of unconscious processes culminating into individual perceptions of consciousness, making it appear like we are experiencing one continuous reality, when in reality, something far more complicated is driving us behind the scenes.

dm2 11y ago

I think that it would be good to start with evolution to attempt to pinpoint the different stages that consciousness was created. http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Graziano_JCN_2014.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Graziano_JCN_2014.pdf "Speculations on the Evolution of Awareness" - Michael Graziano "selective signal enhancement" is an interesting concept. http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Consciousness_Research.html http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Consciousness_Research.ht... http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/ http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/

themgt 11y ago
Wow. The author of that has published numerous papers on neuroscience and consciousness, has written well-received adult literature, award-winning children's books, popular science nonfiction books, passable orchestra music, papers on fake universes modeling emergent laws of physics and he's "an avid practitioner of ventriloquism and performs his art with a monkey sidekick named Kevin" http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/ http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graziano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graziano I feel quite lazy now.
- dm2 11y ago
  Thanks for the link to his blog. I always forget to check those for full papers, I updated my post with a link to the PDF. Yeah, he's certainly contributed a lot to consciousness research. http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/MG_Vita.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/MG_Vita.pdf I've done a lot of thinking and discussing around brain-transfers and what it requires, I'm really interested in reading his papers around that topic, and some of the others.

jpasden 11y ago

One of my problems with conceptualizing "consciousness" and ideas such as "attention" or "unconscious processes" is that I have such a fondness for analogies that I am forever trying to find the proper one, and it inevitably comes down to some kind of computer-based analogy like the memory management example given in the article. Instinctively, I find it absurd that the human brain should work similarly to how human-created computer systems work, and that these analogies should be tossed out, but maybe it actually does make a kind of sense? Is there a convergent evolution occurring whereby we will eventually come to understand human consciousness because the more we improve our computer systems, the closer we come to approximating the fundamental "thinking powers" of the human brain?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tburn 11y ago
There are two situations that I believe will reveal the answers about consciousness: 1. Complete simulation of a human brain and its synapses. This would allow us to see the various states of the brain during its thought processes, and it would probably confirm the Identity theory philosophy of mind. 2. Recreation of convincing consciousness in AI. This mimicry would reveal that consciousness is indeed an illusion, and would confirm the Functionalism philosophy of mind. Consciousness is such a tantalizing subject because it seems like it should be explainable using science, but we just don't have the capacity to understand it yet. This is why it's still firmly in the realm of philosophy, and why there are so many pseudoscientific attempts to explain it.
fragsworth 11y ago
I'm leaning towards defining consciousness as something related to memory, since we would probably all agree that the things we are conscious of are the things we can consciously remember, and vice versa - if we can remember something, we would say that we were conscious of it.
teekert 11y ago
A computer is deterministic, it operates by a set of understandable rules. We know that for sure. For our brain, we don't know. biology is mostly stochastic (unless it has evolved to obtain a certain level of deterministicness). It is difficult to replicate in a machine. But I think humans have a very strong sense that there must be a deeper set of rules that operates our brain and constructs consciousness. Therefor, the creation of a computer with consciousness would prove a certain set of rules exists, and we can understand those rules, even though a computer (as a computer is today) does not function at all like a brain. "What I cannot create, I do not understand" (Feynman), apparently we don't care if the mechanism behind the created thing is different in this case. So I think the lesson learned will be that consciousness can follow from a set of rules but less about how our own consciousness works. Who says there can be only one kind?

unclebucknasty 11y ago

It's a weird question because, for me, it starts too far up the chain. Consciousness is a question of subjective perception, but I cannot yet truly define the actual things that I perceive. So, as I look at my screen, I can acknowledge its existence and repeat stuff I've learned about about atoms, elements, etc. But, when I truly start to question how this physical world is held together and what proof we have that it even exists beyond, say, a simulation, then I fail. There is some fundamental level at which I'm not "certain" of anything. So, how can I begin to ask questions about how I perceive those things?

collyw 11y ago
Science requires a fair amount of faith. Its not like you can repeat every experiment.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Yeah, I'm talking about something a little different.

smegel 11y ago

Even if it is an illusion, so what? It doesn't stop me experiencing it, which is really what consciousness is all about. I think, therefore I am

stan_rogers 11y ago
Or, I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. In some sense, at least, it amounts to the same thing.

fdik 11y ago

If consciousness is an illusion, then ego is an illusion as well. Who is it then, who is succumbing to this illusion?

dschiptsov 11y ago

The precise wording is crucial here. It is "the self" - the notion of persistent, continuous "I am" is this "grand illusion". Some ancient Indian and later Tibetan scholars have written about it since 7th century's "doctrine boom" and following "age of the great translation" (of Indian texts into Tibetan language), which resulted in all that plurality of Tibetan sects, while "the realization" of the illusory nature of what we call "I" goes back to the times of Upanishads, long before the Buddha himself. In modern words, what we call "consciousness" is mere a set of processes, which could be switched on and off.)

nonzetsu 11y ago
no! there is suboff for subconscious

ExpiredLink 11y ago

Consciousness has bee a philosophical topic for centuries. She is a psychologist and obviously unaware of it.

nonzetsu 11y ago
NO, EVEYBODY CAN LEARN ANYTHING WITHOUT DEGREE PLUS PSYCHOLOGY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH NEUROLOGY AT SOME POINT
- ExpiredLink 11y ago
  It's a scientific principle to study the exiting body of knowledge, at least the important works, before you publish your own theories and findings. BTW, your keyboard seems to be broken.

seszett 11y ago

Hmm... that's not directly related to main topic of the article, but I read: You hadn't noticed it before, but now that you have, you know that the clock has struck four times already, and you can go on counting Does that really happen? I am never able to do that, each time the church's clock strikes and I want to know what time it is, I can never be sure if I have missed one or two strikes at the beginning, and I often do miss one (and there is no mean to determine how many could have been missed). I thought that was the same for everyone, and the reason why it strikes again two minutes after the first time, so you can be ready to count. Other than that, the article is pretty much how I had been thinking of consciousness already.

satori99 11y ago

As soon as I saw this headline, I knew it would be Susan Blackmore. I once saw her give a talk on this topic, among others, at The Australian Museum. She is a remarkable speaker and was brutally honest about her own less-than-scientific past in researching human consciousness; > It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a skeptic.

d-equivalence 11y ago

I think the author of this article confuses consciousness for the interpretation of things that occur in consciousness.

tehwalrus 11y ago
Would you care to define a concrete difference between those two things?
- d-equivalence 11y ago
  Dunno, maybe practice Zen Buddhism for a decade or two.
  - tehwalrus 11y ago
    I am a (lapsing) mindful meditator, and I'm still not sure this article contradicts any of that stuff (which is the distilled science from things like Buddhism.)
    - d-equivalence 11y ago
      I understand, but forgive me, when I try to argue about consciousness using logic or read scientific studies about it, I always feel like being a 14 year old talking about sex, so I don't talk about it anymore. I prefer doing it. Quite possibly its arrogance, or jadedness. But I've come to develop my own opinions about issues like that, through other means of acquiring knowledge than science, which I feel is grossly inadequate to address such issues. And no, I'm not talking about secular/clinic types of mindfulness. Probably that makes me a weirdo in circles like HN, but oh well.
- resu_nimda 11y ago
  I would say that consciousness is the "running narrative," the combined succession of whatever it is that has your "focus" at any given time. It may not always be a single object, multiple threads can weave in and out, or rise and fall from consciousness. This seems...hard to argue against. For example, when trying to reason about a somewhat complex system, I am often trying to "multi-task" or "juggle" multiple things. Sometimes I will get caught on one thing, possibly draw some conclusion, and then remember, "oh yeah, that won't work because of X." I don't think it makes sense to discard the concept that X has entered, exited and re-entered my conscious thought process. Another example - if I catch a whiff of an old girlfriend's perfume, or hear a song strongly connected to a time from my past, I am instantly thinking of those things in a way that I wasn't the moment before. But those memories have continuously existed in my head in some form, or I wouldn't be able to recall them. Over time they have mutated, morphed, and mixed with other experiences - I don't think it's like neatly organized and addressed computer memory - but there is some unbroken chain that lives "below the surface" most of the time. Again I don't see the value in discarding this concept. But I think the more salient point of the article, and what I believe d-equivalence is referring to with the "interpretation of consciousness," is the concept of unreliability. Due to the ever-churning and "living" nature of our memories - combined with the fact that the brain is merely an evolved tool with certain properties useful for keeping humans alive (as opposed to an impartial processor/arbiter of "true experience") - our perspective on our own thought processes is unreliable. Most of the experiments described in the article seemed to me like standard "tricks of the mind." It edits, it rewrites history on the fly, it fills in the gaps, because it has learned to anticipate, to identify things it has seen before. The being that can create a mental model that correctly anticipates what happens next has the advantage. Our brains have been honed to do so as a matter of survival, going so far as to creatively make things up and eagerly overfit, and we've developed ways of catching it in the act.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]