Comment by erikpukinskis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikpukinskis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

My best at guess is that the universe itself is conscious, and we'll eventually let go of the idea of individual consciousnesses. An ant hive sees a larger field more clearly than I do, maybe at a slower refresh rate but not by much.

Are individual ants conscious? Somewhat. Are we conscious when we're receiving reality through memes beyond our comprehension? Somewhat.

Are our rods and cones conscious? Our brain stem? The cells that make us vomit? The bacterial colonies in our sinuses?

I just think the answer to all of these questions when all is said and done will be yes. And we'll be sad how much life we killed because we didn't think it was conscious enough.

And maybe if we're lucky when we die we get to watch our consciousness grow to include all things. Maybe that's why we have circuits in our brain that seem to respond that way to mushrooms.

Maybe there's a genetic advantage to harboring the illusion that you are a separate consciousness, but it's just there to make you want to struggle to hold up your tiny corner of a collective consciousness.

No. the universe isn't conscious. The universe is matter. Consciousness is a part of the universe. Therefore consciousness is simply material. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's just that our egos are too big to accept that we are nothing more than dirt.

Have you ever considered that objective reality is seated in consciousness rather than the other way around? Look into Plato's allegory of the cave. The world around you is actually a simulation created in your brain by synthesizing inputs from your sensory organs - you aren't experiencing it directly. That model includes the conception that you have a brain and sensory organs which simulate an objective reality. In other words, the possibility that objective reality stems from the subjective world, i.e. the mind, is not an absurd assertion.

Just to nitpick: Wouldn't this by definition make it non-objective?

I would think the objective reality in your explanation would be what your sensory organs are reacting to, not what you perceive.

Yes I've thought of this but didn't want to complicate things. My current stance is that reality is dualistic and both subjective and objective are symbiotic and can't exist without the other.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

It seems to me that there is no evidence for either the subjective or the objective realms being the "real" reality. There is a strong argument for either, and they can both be explored with depth.

The concept of "reality", of a physical universe, of a "you", of order and pattern, of an persistent objective reality outside of you, do not exist per se, but as simulation and models in your mind that you accrued throughout your life.

To be more specific, there is an underlying reality that is neither "objective" nor "subjective", but from which both of these realities emerge once a conscious being appears in it. We cannot directly know the true nature of this underlying reality, as it cannot be directly experienced. What we call objective reality is really the experience of the simulation in our mind synthesized from sensory data, as well as our model of this simulation (science), and not the underlying "true" reality.

I'm not sure I follow.

From my understanding of the term, the "real" reality would be the same as the objective realm per definition;

What do you mean when you say "objective" as in "... the subjective or the objective realms"? Some sort of shared definition? If so, wouldn't this also be subjective to a certain degree?

I might just be post-hoc rationalizing my own interpretations here, but doesn't our subjective experiences of reality being based on our sensory organs' interpretation of stimuli from what is presumably the objective reality make fewer assumptions than a concept involving interconnected or "symbiotic" realities?

Just to add to the discussion: Subject would be Perceiver, and Object would be Perceived. Are they actually capable of being separated?

Why should we assume that they are not?

In an instantaneous-clip of all our sensory data (visual field, auditory sphere, tastes, smells, touches/bodily tactility), where do we draw the line between perceiver and perceived ?

The possibility of "objetive" reality coming from the mind is indeed a common theme from Plato to The Matrix. Very fun to explore, but actually useless, if not actively harmful.

That's a content-free drive-by comment. You only criticize without a single reason as to why the idea is "useless" and "harmful".

No. the universe isn't math. The universe is matter. Math is a part of the universe. Therefore math is simply material. Nothing more, nothing less.

Math isn't anything but matter. Math is just another thought construct. A powerful thought construct, but a thought construct nonetheless. As a thought construct it too is material. The electronic impulses on you computer are no different than the ones in your brain.

So yes. Math is also a material manifestation. Life is a material manifestation. Thought is a material manifestation. The problem is with you trying to separate yourself from matter, but the very thing you're using to create that separation is thought. It is the very thing you're trying to get away from, and so you cannot exist separate from thought by using thought. It is a futile and empty game.

Ideas are not material. Even if they are stored in material brains.

Especially not when they can be independently rediscovered without having any trace of them stored anywhere.

Ideas are not material, but thevardanian has a point in the context of this thread. Unless you believe in some kind of supernatural force, all you have is matter and matter-based thought. Ideas are not material but they still need a brain to be held. And a very conscious one.

About rediscovering, you can simply argue that ideas are matter properties so an intelligent being can recognize them.

You can not distinguish ideas from material reality. That is sensory perception, and your ideas that result are basically the accumulation of material structures, or simply knowledge. So ideas are not anything more than the knowledge that you have which interprets, and reinterprets the sensory perception.

Is difference (the distinction in question) something intrinsic to the world, or something imposed upon the world?

Let's not even get into "matter" and modern science which already undermines the notion that things are solid...

Let's just get to the point:

If EVERYTHING in the universe, everything in reality is "matter"... then what does "matter" mean anymore?

It may as well be magic. Harry Potter material. No difference. Because this "matter" exists in nothing.

You are in a building, in a city, in a country, in a continent, on planet Earth, in solar system, itself floating in a galaxy, itself floating in the "universe" ... itself floating in ... what?

Nothing.

At which point you call it matter, I could call it "consciousness" (in the author Bernardo Kastrup's meaning then, as a underlying field to everything), some may call it "god". We can also just call it magic. Poof! Here we are.

PS: Also see

The mental Universe

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Henry2005Nature.pdf

The Physicalist Worldview as Neurotic Ego-Defense Mechanism https://www.instapaper.com/read/811142201

How do you know? Where is your proof?

If matter is all there is, that means either you deny the existence of consciousness (which is an untenable position), or you believe that it arises out of nothing (which requires a "magical" mechanism).

It's other way around. The existence of our egos makes the claim that we are more than dirt true.

Consider the possibility that you are underestimating the wonder of dirt.

While I agree with your statement it's hard to actually prove.

Take mushrooms.

They just play with the nervous system and jumble up the brain chemistry. You ascribing those experiences as something supernatural, or spiritual is the problem. The experience is just that. A fleeting experience. To constantly demand an experience over and over again, or to ascribe certain experiences some great importance is just you interpreting those experiences. Everyday life is just as "spiritual" as anything else. It is the newness, and uniqueness that you demand. This uniqueness of experience is only demanded by the knowledge that you have. Otherwise you have no way of telling yourself that it is a unique experience. As each moment in life is a unique moment.

There's nothing really spiritual about it. There's nothing really special about it. It's the value that you ascribe to it, through the knowledge that you have which makes it "special".

> The experience is just that. A fleeting experience.

I don't know what it is. I'm open to multiple possibilities. Either way, you don't know.

All I'm pointing out is that knowing is the only thing that is there. The experiencing structure is only the knowledge that is there of the experience. Otherwise if knowledge wasn't there you wouldn't know what you are experiencing, or when you're experiencing it.

Godel Escher Bach has a bit where he explores an ant colony as consciousness, opposed to an individual ant (which are more like "thoughts", to put it one way)

Perhaps individual ants are conscious to a degree. This kind of non binary contiousnes was explored in "I am a strange loop"

Consciousness is clearly a spectrum. Ask anyone who has ever got really drunk, or even woken up slowly.

Trying to ask 'when does a baby become conscious' is like trying to say 'when does a baby become tall'.

I still think consciousness is a real thing, and we definitely don't know what causes it, and maybe it is possible to find out. But I think the answer (if there is one) will come from AI - definitely not philosophers and probably not biologists.

I think the answer (if there is one) will come from AI

We might have to wait until brain simulation becomes a reality, which I expect to happen eventually (assuming we don't manage to pull the plug on civilization).

There are species of ants that can pass the mirror test.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com