Hacker News Reader

Comment by hshshshshsh | Hacker News Reader

Big bang theory no longer excites me. As long as we can't explain consciousness all these theories are pointless. All theories mere appearances in consciousness including the universe and everything we experience.

Consciousness has the property to render infinite universes and theories.

But we have no clue how universe creates consciousness.

View on HN

Consciousness is a specific biological adaptation which is primarily focused in the management of social relationships, status, and the prolonged adolescence of children. (and their required care)

There's no reason to think that consciousness is an important question in the objective sense; it just matters to people. (and rightfully so) People wondering about consciousness in the universe might be akin to dogs wondering what the big bang smelled like.

Are we both talking about the same thing?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

What is an important question in the objective sense? Is life, or no because that just matter to life? It seems oxymoronic, "objective question", "objectively important".

I don't follow GP's sort of solipsist (?) take, but would say question of whether big bang took place in a black hole is pointless compared to life/experience and how they arise.

Solipsism is the question whether it's all made up by my mind and only my mind exists.

I am not interested in that.

I am interested in the thing in which all the made up stuff appears. And the thoughts and mind appears. Even I appear in that.

Seems like someday we will prove that if you get enough neural like things organized in a structure similar to ours or some mathematical similarity thereof that consciousness automatically arises like mixing certain elements to get a compound but in a vastly more complex manner

First define consciousness such that the definition differentiates you from a computer with a webcam.

You cannot define consciousness. You can only experience it. In fact consciousness is the only thing you will ever experience.

Perhaps you should use 'sentience' or something more precise to mean 'qualia-experiencing'. The word 'consciousness' is quite overloaded and thus trips people up who haven't thought about this as extensively as you have. In particular many people take it to mean "self-awareness" (whether correctly or not), but it seems obvious to me that there are many sentient beings which lack self-awareness but still have an internal experience.

Yes. Self awareness is just another content inside consciousness.

You can measure various aspects of a computer. You can't measure consciousness.

That's not a definition. Depending on the definition, it may be possible to measure it.

You cannot measure consciousness. You are consciousness thinking of itself as the human. Measurement is an event appearing in consciousness done by humans.

It's like persons inside GTA talking about measuring the Samsung monitor. It makes no sense cause they can never see the monitor or locate it. They appear in the monitor.

You absolutely can measure "various aspects of consciousness" -- for example, "how much of the last 24h has this consciousness been awake" seems simple. So your definition seems kind of weak, could you be more precise?

Conversely, in your definition, is consciousness the only "thing" that you would describe as not being able to measure various aspects about it? Are there any other objects or concepts which you also cannot measure various aspects about? If yes, what differentiates those things from consciousness?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com