Hacker News Reader

Comment by mach1ne | Hacker News Reader

The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" may be a problem through which one may find a suitable definition for their own humanity, but it absolutely is not a scientific problem.

If one wishes to gain concrete data, one needs to define the problem before defining the answer. Any current "problems" relating to consciousness are explainable without needing a consciousness component. I have not encountered a single problem which couldn't be explained by pure cognitive computation.

Consciousness becomes a problem suitable for scientific endeavor the moment someone can actually define the problem.

View on HN

Yes, just like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, it's not a scientific question because it doesn't allow for any testable hypothesis. Science is bound by the scientific method, questions of philosophy exist outside these bounds. Is math invented or discovered? Does the wave function collapse upon observation, or do observers exist in superposition? Is my "red" the same as your "red"?

Even if we could have exact answers to these questions, they wouldn't allow use to make predictions, and so they are not science. I think it's reasonable to say that means they aren't "useful", we can't go to space or build skyscrapers with these answers, but I think it equally makes them the more interesting questions. Our usual tools at rational inquiry fail to penetrate these sorts of questions.

Actually most of the problems you described are relevant and do exist in the objective world. The problem of the problem of consciousness is that there is no aspect in the definition of consciousness which couldn't be explained by objective mechanisms.

Currently, asking whether there is a consciousness is like asking if there is glaxtimbo. What is glaxtimbo, you may ask? I can't explain it, but I feel like it is there. That's the extent to which the definition of consciousness in its unexplainable attributes currently reaches.

As a doctor in quantum physics, we probably will be able to test between interpretations in the future, so you should not use this as an argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com