Hacker News Reader

Comment by josscrowcroft | Hacker News Reader

Totally relate. My curiosity about things like:

"Why do I feel like my hand touches something even though, on an atomic level, I'm sure it's still separated by space?"

and

"What if none of this was real?"

have led my friends and family to assume I've gone crazy.

The worst part? For a long time I believed them, and I'm sure part of me still does..

But with relation to the article, it occurs to me that these questions began in my mind around age 5 or 6. I think this is pretty common, too, but kids are told to focus on "important" things.

View on HN

To me, that's the best argument against curiosity. (I know it's not a perfect argument.) Because some questions don't have answers, or the answers are deeply troubling.

That's why I regret how much I have pursued my curiousity about Human/artificial AI, evolutionary biology, the nature of religion, etc.

Sometimes, it's better to be a bit innocent and ignorant (also respectful and nice, otherwise the world can get into trouble with violent religious zealots) -- no one gets psychically hurt that way.

> That's why I regret how much I have pursued my curiousity about Human/artificial AI, evolutionary biology, the nature of religion, etc.

Can you elaborate?

The conclusion that a consciousness is nothing but a series of mechanical interconnections, a machine that can be built or destroyed, fundamentally a kind of computer, and not something metaphysical, magical, or unexplainable, can be unsettling. Maybe that's what they meant?

Interesting, I came to an opposite conclusion using relatively logical and rational reasoning. There are really strong arguments suggesting that consciousness can't be explained as a complex interaction of physical particles.

Hint: the core of the problem (and core of many, if not most, philosopical problems) is "What is the definition of consciousness?"

If you can't define what a consciousness is then you can't claim it's impossible to explain physically. How can there be strong arguments supporting a hypotheses if fundamental parts of the hypothesis aren't defined?

I didn't say that I can't define consciousness. The problem is that consciousness doesn't have a reasonable objective definition. So my definition is subjective: "Consciousness is my ability to perceive and feel, for example the ability to feel pain or to dream." HN is not very good for this type of discussion, we (or anyone reading this) can continue here if you want: http://public.enterprisewiki.co/7a8b0605-d425-460d-8b57-354a....

Another interpretation of those facts is that mechanical interconnections between various deterministic processes can result in emergent behaviours which are profoundly beautiful. What if the glass is half full?

www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html

All of those images are generated with very simple deterministic rules but they are still sublime.

Exactly, it can be a rough transition period from the first realization to getting to appreciating it in the way you said. I forgot to elaborate on that part.

It's easy to imagine it being possible to build a consciousness without having built one. Life began millions of years ago and hasn't stopped since; whatever we come up with now sits on the shoulders of all that. We imitate what we are or what we find around us, and even if we are genuinely creative; why is there something instead of nothing? That is ultimately what enables us to do things or think about them, after all, and so to me no magic is lost. Yeah, not even making a mini universe with people in it would make this one less awesome, to me, and wouldn't answer a single one of the more profound questions, for me.

I dare say if you really think you found solid, objective answers for, uhm, anything, I encourage you to look even closer and/or consider the bigger picture... at least for me, it always ends up being a huge mystery again :)

If it helps, the determinism of the observable universe in the cases of physics and chemistry might be an elaborate illusion of averages on the quantum level.

In essence, we can't see the quantum interaction of particles and their superpositions, we can only see the average produced by a large number of these actions and reactions. This gives a small, but nonetheless interesting, hole from which randomness can leak into the apparent deterministic systems we see.

I recently walked a similar road when thinking about human behavior as a product of genetics and outside inputs. For me, the angst was the view that "free will" might be fictional, and I had built a lot of my personal ethics onto that pillar. But it was curiosity that led me out of that nihilistic moment when I thought about the loophole above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com