Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmaswell | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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 :)

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....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com