Hacker News Reader

Comment by sharkbot | Hacker News Reader

Considering we don't have great definition of consciousness, it's a bit of a stretch for you to say that "Consciousness does not depend on anything..., everything else depends on it".

In fact, your broad statement isn't true. Consciousness does depend on having a physical brain in a certain state of development, and depends upon a "normal" chemical environment surrounding that physical brain (ie, no anesthetics). There are autonomic functions in the brain that absolutely don't depend on consciousness.

View on HN

Agreed. To say that everything depends on consciousness is somewhat naive. In fact, the things we are "conscious" of are not always accurate representations, whatever that may mean. For example:

"People commonly misreport their own experiences. We don’t even have good insight into how much fun we are having or even whether an experience we are having at a particular moment in time is pleasant or unpleasant. Some examples (among many): being paid a paltry sum to tell another person that the boring and repetitive task in which we have just engaged is fun leads us to think we enjoyed it (Festinger & Carlsmith 1959); observing that we have chosen one item from a range that seems identical leads us to conclude that we have detected differences between them (Nisbett & Wilson 1977). Subjects who experienced arousal caused by an injection of norepinepherine reporting being happy or angry, depending on what cues they’re given (Schachter and Singer 1962), while subjects who exercise prior to encountering an opposite sex confederate of the experimenters rated the confederate more attractive (Allen 1989). We are systematically bad at assessing the causes and the precise character of our experiences. Moreover, there is evidence that our intuitive physics is unreliable. Naïve subjects assume, falsely, that an object that is travelling through a curved tube will continue to follow a curved trajectory when it leaves the tube (McCloskey et al. 1980)." [Source: http://agencyandresponsibility.typepad.com/flickers-of-freed...]

| Considering we don't have great definition of consciousness

Yes, you will not be able to "define" consciousness. However, you can point to it, so others can get it. It is on the basis of that discovery of consciousness that we can say it is independent. And yes, modern/western science has it backwards. Consciousness does not depend on the brain or body, these are events in consciousness.

A simple book that can help you get it is The Power of Now by Tolle. Science assumes that consciousness depends on the brain, we often take these assumptions to be facts.

You seem to be using obfuscatory wording to avoid the issue. We have evidence that physical brains are not just correlated with consciousness, they are the cause. Anesthetic is probably the best example; once you've administered anesthetic to a brain, consciousness is lost, while removing it restores consciousness. There is no continuity under anesthetic, the time is just 'skipped'.

A simple book that will help you get it, is "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker. Science assumes that consciousness depends on the brain, since that assumption explains the observations. What's more, we take assumptions for facts once we have enough consistent observations to overcome the biases of reasonable people.

I am not trying to obfuscate. And I am sorry if i sounded condescending when I mentioned "getting it".

When you dream at night, and see yourself in a "body", is the mind and consciousness of that body your real consciousness. Is that body's brain creating your real consciousness. If science points to that consciousness, then there is a strong possibility of it being the wrong consciousness. The consciousness of the sleeping person is the real one. The same applies here too.

Normally, since the conscious state is one of low awareness, one is not aware in deep sleep and swoon. However, when one practices being aware and raises the level of awareness, one is conscious in all states. All this becomes very apparent as one raises one's awareness and comes out of "mind consciousness" -- continuously living in thought.

As a person who is sympathetic to Buddhism, I appreciate what you're saying. But, what you are describing is still vulnerable to the "anesthetic defence": Can you (or someone) remain conscious after the administration of anesthetic, especially after training? If not, then consciousness appears to be a strictly physical phenomenon.

I haven't found any literature to suggest that consciousness thru anesthetic is the case. I don't deny that meditation may give you the impression that you have reached "deeper" levels of consciousness, but I don't think your conclusions are justified by the evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com