Hacker News Reader

Comment by hardbass | Hacker News Reader

Very wishy washy and confused. Does this person know anything of thermodynamics, turing computability, information theory and probability? If she doesn't, she should be dismissed.

Regarding "is it a group", I should ask her is she a single thing or a group of neurons and organs?

>Start with some simple questions! Things like: does this mean that any tool that can be used to do the things that a human can do counts as conscious? Are ploughs conscious? What about calculators? Or: do you think that if a parrot can utter the phrase “I’m really awesome”, then you should assume that the parrot is conscious, for that reason alone? Basically, just focus on how much emphasis Adam is placing on outputs: it’s all of his emphasis, remember!

Good question, let us take it even further. Does Rebecca Lowe count as conscious? She seems to behave a lot like me, but I am not sure if she is a human. She could just be an object and tool.

View on HN

> thermodynamics, turing computability, information theory and probability

What do any of those things have to do with consciousness?

I did find the article a bit difficult to read. I think a choose your own adventure is perhaps not the best framework for expressing the ideas contained in this article.

These are the absolute basics to foolproof yourself from devolving into complete nonsense. If your theory fails any of these physical and mathematical laws then either disprove the laws or admit your theory is wrong.

There are traditions that have explored consciousness for thousands of years before some of those mathematical/physical concepts and completely independent of them. My guess is that you'd file them into the nonsense box but I think they drill down into what consciousness a lot better than science has so far.

Unfortunately, there have been traditions that studied the atomism theory for centuries too. Mostly I would say all of that ended up of no use until actual experimental and observational evidence arrived. Sometimes a new physical knowledge arises that despite past thinkers best attempt, they didn't have access to.

You certainly mean "a lot more", not "a lot better", unless you believe in another form of knowledge than scientific knowledge?

When it comes to the topic of consciousness, so far I feel science is not the right tool for the job. In the same way that a computer might store RGB values and be able to manage all the transformations necessary to render graphics, it's all a mathematical representation until it's left the screen. Science is that mathematical representation of the universe, consciousness is when it's "left the screen" and is experienced.

Those traditions, with their introspection and meditation, are drilling into experience of consciousness. Or that's my take on the whole thing.

Even if you believe it needs something more than science, your theory must first do homework to verify it does not violate any scientific principle (or can disprove that scientific principle), and you have exhausted all natural causes before positing your special cause. You still need scientific justification in that case too.

You complain that the map is not the territory, but the map was never supposed to be the territory, the point is precision of the map. The more precise is the map the better it is.

Me? No complaints here. I think I agree with you. The better our science, the more precise our map, right?

But none of those have anything to do with consciousness. How could any theory related to consciousness "fail" any of those four things?

Any theory about any phenomenon in the world has "things" to do with these. These are universal physical and mathematical laws. If your theory violates this, you have to disprove physics first or admit your theory is wrong.

Could you give an example of a consciousness-related theory that violates one of these? It sounds to me a bit like saying that if your chess move violates thermodynamics then it's an illegal move. I suppose it's true but I can't imagine one that does.

A chess move cannot violate thermodynamics. But if you make a theory that a chess game hypercomputes, then it violates existing knowledge of physics. And you haven't been able to demonstrate by experiment that the chess move hypercomputes. Physical laws are not like human or legal laws that can be violated. Either it cannot be violated, or it can be violated and the physical law is wrong, which requires experimental and mathematical evidence, not wishy washy verbal salads.

ANd yes, an example would be Penrose believes something in the brain is non-computable. However Penrose is a very excellent thinker as far as the standards for consciousness theories go, for he posited a physically testable theory as far as I know. Even if it turns out to be wrong, this is worthy of respect.

It's okay to violate physical laws, they only hold when they hold. Newtonian physics violates the laws of Aristotelian physics. Special theory of relativity violates the laws of Newtonian physics. Boltzmann brain violates the second law of thermodynamics. Dark energy violates the law of conservation of energy. Neutral kaon decay violates CP symmetry.

That means the older physical law was wrong or an approximation, that's what I meant. You 'violate' newtonian physics because its not completely correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com