Hacker News Reader

Comment by netizen-936824 | Hacker News Reader

So if our behavior is the result of neuronal networks processing information, what is the 'causal relationship'

'Higher level' stuff like behavior is the result of our cells communicating, there's no magic 'soul' that act on our biological systems. It generally goes from low->high but there is some feedback that occurs at 'high' and induces changes at 'low'

The reality is a combination and thinking it just goes one way is flawed reasoning. Nothing is unidirectional and nothing is binary

View on HN

What makes you think consciousness arises from matter? Is it a verifiable hypothesis?

It's far simpler to say it does based on the entire body of our research up until this point than it doesn't so the burden of proof is on those saying that it doesn't.

I don’t think there is much existing research that directly tackles this question, is there any? Meanwhile, there is research[0] that appears to be investigating the potential of such reversed causality or at least something adjacent.

[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0057...

There's tons of research on consciousness in the medical field, as it's directly relevant for many disorders and conditions affecting it.

Is there some research that makes a refutable claim that consciousness arises from matter, and then proves that claim experimentally?

It's literally irrelevant when everything we do to manipulate and track it works already. That's why I said the burden of proof is on the silly philosophical claim that it doesn't arise from matter.

Like when doctors see someone's blood ammonia levels go up and they're suddenly less aware of everything going on, less responsive, less able to talk about their thoughts and less coherent. Or patients with hypoglycemia losing their short term memory and eye sight and ability to make coherent sentences. And how we can do EEGs and directly see declines in electrical activity when this happens.

How could you possibly think that the consciousness is independent of matter at that point? It seems utterly ridiculous.

Blood ammonia level rise correlates with loss of coherence, but a causative link would require direct proof that consciousness arises from matter, and I suspect there is no such proof (the responses in this thread supporting my suspicion).

The other, straightforward interpretation is that there may be a third factor that caused both the high ammonia marker and lack of coherence, and naturally that could be patient’s own consciousness and/or its interactions with other consciousnesses (e.g., alcohol abuse).

Sir there's dozens of different things that alter brain physiology with measurable results in alteration of consciousness. I just took a random example.

Ah yes, but none of those things are the ~one true reason~ for consciousness! Ah ha gotcha!

ignores how systems work together to produce emergent behaviors

My point is that both causal directions are a possibility, and scientific experiment does not seem to have proved one way over the other so far.

I don’t think that it would be verifiable, but it is a default hypothesis that we don’t assume some yet unseen way of interaction between something and our material bodies.

Also, I don’t think that it is unreasonable to imagine “consciousness” happening as an emerging feature of sufficient complexity. Remember, we have 3 billion neurons with orders of magnitudes more connections between them.

I don’t mean some third thing interacting with our material bodies. What I mean is consciousness as the territory, and perceived matter and time-space representation as a simplified map.

Do you have evidence for this? Because it sounds like a larger leap of faith than I have assumed in my post.

No, but neither do I have evidence for consciousness arising from matter. If you can point me to some, I’d welcome that.

Your logic is literally flat earth level sillyness. There's tons of evidence in medicine/biology of consciousness arising from matter.

Flat Earth is a trivially refutable theory, and had been specifically demonstrated to be false.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but I am failing to see the same in case of the “consciousness-from-matter” theory.

EEG signal go up, person awareness go up. Boom. Done deal.

Until there is evidence I’m calling this cargo cult.

Note that the article actually suggests the evidence to the contrary. You make a choice to change your lifestyle, boom microbiome.

Choices are the result of neuronal information processing which can, in some ways, be impacted by diet and microbiome. It goes both ways.

I'm not sure you and I have the same definition of "awareness"

An organism can detect something, be aware of it, by sensing it. This involves some stimulation and then neuronal transmission, the processing that happens determines if the stimulus reaches conscious awareness as not all stimuli does.

To add to this, conscious awareness can be equated to all thought processes. Thought processes are an internal representation of signal processing some by the communication networks of the brain and other associated systems (mostly neurons/glia but other systems do have impact on processing in various ways)

It is abundantly clear that this is your position. What I was asking for is reasoning / research / evidence to support the idea that thought processes are representations of neuronal activity and not the reverse.

https://news.rub.de/english/press-releases/2021-05-20-neuron...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15505972/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.0116...

You are ignoring what I write. My point is that those neurons that move prosthetic arm may be consequences of conscious activity, its indicators if you will. I won’t read the rest of the links.

Does computation in computers arise from matter?

If matter arises from consciousness, then by extension so does computation.

I’m not saying it as a fact, as it is neither refutable no verifiable—but neither is the conventional view.

The explanation that I offer is note plausible than the conventional view (magic souls)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it at least seems like a step in the right direction where the hypothesis is based on already verified behavior of neurons and their networks

The problem with the consciousness is that by default it is limited to ability perceive senses and bacteria clearly is beyound our limits of consciousness, but that does not make them less real. Our brains collect and process information subconsciously - the layer of our consciousness is not responsible for all the background work, that our brains are doing. There can't exist hypothesis in regards of gut processes affecting very thin layer of consciousness.

So, but can you disprove that gut bacteria can't impact brain processes? They can deliver signals to the brain, so what is exatly the obstacle that it makes it impossible task?

First I would like you to define consciousness

Perhaps you could give an example by defining “matter” or “reality” or whatever you believe is the underlying territory?

(Without circular definitions or those involving consciousness, of course.)

I don't understand how there could be circular reasoning involving consciousness when explaining what matter is. I am not a physicist so I will stick with the chemical definition. Matter is made up of atoms, which are made up of proton, electrons, and neutrons. These particles interact and react to form ordered structures which have new emergent properties. These systems build on each other to create new systems such as cells which make up organisms which is what you and I are.

You skipped the part where it is the matter that your consciousness observes.

Ah I see, that's a good method of writing off evidence arbitrarily!

If we cannot agree that objective observations can be made and shared from the perspective of a human, then it's obvious that you will just write off everything after that point and this conversation is meaningless. This agreement is generally implicit when discussing the results of research.

I am not writing the evidence off, merely pointing out that you are observing correlational evidence, and causal link in one particular direction is your conjecture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com