Hacker News Reader

Comment by bulbar | Hacker News Reader

I think the alternative is that our brain, somehow, is connected to some metaphysical aspect of reality which is what most religions believe.

View on HN

The counter to that is that altering the brain directly alters the consciousness. I can take LSD and I literally change. I can have parts of my brain removed and parts of my self disappear. It's not like cutting off a leg, where I lose capabilities but am still the same me.

The logical conclusion is that the brain makes me.

> The logical conclusion is that the brain makes me

The logical conclusion under the popular axiomatic framework of materialism, for sure.

But there are other possible logical conclusions depending on your philosophical foundations, e.g. the brain could be a receiver for consciousness which is translated into our worldly experience from somewhere else.

"an", not "the" alternative.

Consciousness can be not-emergent but also not metaphysical, think sci-fi-type undiscovered physics or matter.

Another alternative is that consciousness exists on the map, and unfortunately we're confusing that with the territory.

Aren't you saying the same thing? It seems like the metaphysical and the map would be analogous here.

Of course both of those suffer from the recursive problem of just kicking the can one level up. But I guess that's fundamentally unsolvable so who cares.

I feel like someone confusing the map and territory can exist without needing to invoke the metaphysical. Maybe, I'm misunderstanding tho

If something happens "on the map" doesn't that imply the map to exist and be some sort of metaphysical thing? As opposed to a purely theoretical construction.

I think you can be a monist and still have a map. To me it's similar in the sense of "all models are wrong, some are useful." A mathematical model (a map) doesn't require a metaphysical foundation to exist. Right?

I agree that a monist can have a map. But you said "consciousness exists on the map" which (AFAICT) would imply the map to be "real" else how would something happen on it as opposed to being an emergent property of the contents of the territory?

For example temperature is an emergent property of matter, it does not happen on the map, do you agree? Assuming you do, what would it mean for temperature to happen "on the map"? (Obviously that's nonsensical so for a second here just don't think about what temperature actually is.) Would such a state of affairs not imply dualism?

Temperature is a model. It exists on the map.

Temperature is a classic example of an emergent phenomenon. It can be physically measured using (for example) a mercury thermometer which is an exceedingly simple construction. It is a real thing. You can touch a hot or cold surface and feel it for yourself, no map required.

Anyway even if you don't like the example I chose can you see the point I was trying to make? What would it mean for a quantifiable phenomenon to happen on the map as opposed to happening in the territory? How would it interact with the world (ie the territory)? Would it not necessarily imply dualism?

A variable within a model can be measured. We use physics to describe the universe, but we shouldn't confuse it with the universe.

I agree, but what does that have to do with what I just asked? What would it mean for a quantifiable phenomenon to happen on the map as opposed to happening in the territory?

You can measure a derived value that appears on your map, but you do so by observing concrete things from within the territory. So in that case the quantifiable things happen entirely within the territory and (as you say) it is important not to confuse the map with that.

So when you earlier suggested that "Another alternative is that consciousness exists on the map" I'm asking what would that entail? How could consciousness exist on the map as opposed to within the territory? If it did, would that not imply dualism - that the map were in fact real?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com