Hacker News Reader

>Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation.

Just one thing to note with science. You cannot in actuality prove anything with science. It's a fundamental and logical consequence of the scientific method itself. Nothing can be proven. Science can only disprove things.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Einstein

This occurs because of the following reason: If I make a hypothesis and I make 10,000 observations that are inline with my hypothesis I still haven't proven my hypothesis correct... because at any point in time in the future, I can make an observation that contradicts all my previous observations. Thus no amount of observation can prove something, but one contradictory observation can disprove something.

I get where you're coming from but this property of science is literally what makes all these arguments of "spirituality" more attractive because science is indeed fundamentally crippled with reliability issues.

That is a fundamental statement about reality in itself. We don't definitively know if anything is true. We only know certain statements are false. Anything we think is true is literally in your words: "a bias"

Proof is the domain of math and other logical games we make up to play. Proof doesn't actually exist in reality.

>Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation.

Technically, hypotheses cannot be proven because it's possible that all measurements were outliers.

Also, defining something as <X> doesn't necessarily cause it to be that, but with adequate ~training[1] (basically, cultural beliefs and behavioral norms) it can make it appear as such. This phenomenon surrounds us constantly, and is filtered out from our experience.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

> Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. That's literally what the scientific method is all about and how a hypothesis, supported by evidence, becomes a theory, and thereafter a law, based on observable and measurable phenomena

And yet these laws, for all of their increasing accuracy at labeling and predicting phenomena, emerge from subjective human understanding, which itself we have no ability to explain. The maps we build are ever more intricate, but I think we tend to overestimate the role of those maps in getting closer to truly understanding what’s going on.

This is not in any way an endorsement of metaphysical beliefs, but points at why “spirituality” (not the religious or woo woo kind) emerges from and drives science forward. I think of it as a kind of humility and willingness to embrace awe and wonder, and a recognition that science is only one pillar of understanding, and is ultimately just an increasingly intricate map of the territory. This isn’t to say that we won’t eventually find bigger answers, but we’re certainly not close.

> In what way would you live your life differently if you believed the opposite of what you believe right now?

I do think this is an interesting thought experiment, but I don’t think there needs to be any opposition here. Believing in science has sometimes become synonymous with believing that science somehow is the stuff of base reality. While it’s certainly closer than older beliefs about spirits and gods, there is still underneath it all a primordial and mysterious quality to everything that science has no answers for.

To me, this points not at the need to adopt a specific belief, but to hold space for the fact that we still understand so little.

> Anything beyond that…is, by definition, less about science and more about philosophy or even religion.

Philosophy and religion are just other language games that explore other aspects of the same territory. Over time, religion has proven to be less useful, and certainly isn’t backed by empirical evidence. Philosophy points to the unknowability of things, but even a scientific stance is in some sense a philosophical stance.

Often these approaches are pitted against each other, but with the exception of religion, I think they are all necessary pillars of a broader understanding.

Science without a philosophical understanding of science is arguably just another form of religion. This is not to say that science is invalid or not useful, but rather that it is not sufficient. Maybe that will change as our scientific knowledge grows.

> which itself we have no ability to explain.

Patently untrue. We've made great strides understanding how human minds work in the world, both at the psychological and the fundamental physical level. To suggest otherwise is prevarication at the very least.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness remains as hard as ever. The “Understanding” aspect of our cognition is still very poorly understood.

Our growing understanding of psychology and the mechanisms of the brain have not gotten us much closer to understanding understanding or consciousness itself. This is not to say that progress thus far is not meaningful, or that we won’t get there. The point is that we have barely scratched the surface, but often behave like we know much more than we do.

It isn't as if our process of understanding the world is even remotely mysterious, nor is the basic mechanisms underlying neural computation. Thus, to me, it seems like saying that we haven't begun to understand this stuff is ridiculous.

We do not have a single working model that explains consciousness itself.

And until we do, all formulations from this context of consciousness still reduce to a fundamental mystery. Similarly, our ability to make increasingly accurate observations has not gotten us closer to understanding the context of existence itself.

It’s possible that this is just unknowable to human minds, even though I hope we’ll eventually get there, but I’d argue it’s all pretty mysterious. Most scientists working at the edges of these frontiers would, too.

I'm a scientist who has worked in these fields and I don't think there is any fundamental mystery here except the hard problem of consciousness, which has nothing to do with understanding.

I’m saying that many scientists would fundamentally disagree with you. I’m aware of the position that “science has explained” these things, but tend to agree with the response that this is a position with no foundation.

> I don't think there is any fundamental mystery here except the hard problem of consciousness

That’s an astronomically large mystery that is the cornerstone of our understanding of existence. It’s the context through which any of this matters.

e.g. if we’re brains in vats, all we’ve proven is that we’ve gotten really good at introspecting the simulation. This would obviously recontextualize everything we’ve discovered. I’m not saying I believe this hypotheses, but am pointing to the fact that the implications of understanding consciousness itself are enormous.

The hard problem of consciousness can’t just be swept under the rug because we have no answers. And that’s all I’m really getting at. We should acknowledge the degree to which we do not and currently cannot explain base reality.

I’m curious why you believe that understanding is somehow not intrinsically tied to consciousness, thereby making it just as mysterious as consciousness itself. It could be that we’re using different definitions.

The scientific method is predicated on a kind of pre-existing intuition about the validity of the methods and findings of science. Whatever science is, our brains seem intrinsically capable of navigating towards better and better approximations of reality. And consciousness seems to be critical to the process.

Counterpoint: maybe the hard problem of consciousness is a nothing burger. Roughly speaking this is sometimes called anomalous materialism. My personal sense is that the observable correlations between physical activity in the brain on the one hand and conscious perception on the other is sufficiently well documented that it is reasonable to assert that for every conscious perception there is a one to one physical correlation. If that is the case then, regardless of how one resolves the question of consciousness per se, studying the physical activity is studying the mechanics of consciousness. And thus to say we now nothing about it is simply wrong.

As to the question of why I think understanding per se isn't related to consciousness there are a few ways to think about this: 1) the philosophical zombie _understands_ without being conscious, 2) various parts of the brain are understood to participate in understanding without being critical to consciousness (eg, I used to wake up in the morning knowing how to solve a homework problem that I didn't know how to solve when I went to sleep) and 3) artificial neural networks and other machine learning approaches can reasonably be said to understand specific things without being conscious. I think that if it isn't totally obvious, it is at least reasonable to assert that very large language models understand some things but are not conscious in any way.

Recall that what I object to here is the bald assertion that we know nothing about these phenomenon. This just isn't the case operationally, philosophically, ontologically, whatever way you want to look at it.

Consciousness implements understanding...and, it can also mimic it (grant one a false impression of understanding) that is typically indistinguishable from the real thing (see also: dreams). Worse: it can often not do otherwise (than mimic understanding, such as wondering what is actually true).

Scientists who have little background in the complexity and nuances of consciousness, and language & culture (also fantastic reality simulators) frequently have errors in judgment that they simply can't detect, and typically can't even try to grapple with because of these misunderstandings.

And, with all the polarization in the world, it's interesting there's so little (if not negative) interest in these sorts of phenomena.

Strides, not great strides, unless you redefine great. Why the universe has a mind (human) emerging from energy (atoms etc.) is probably unknowable.