TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Consciousness as a State of Matter (2014)

76 点作者 robertothais大约 8 年前

12 条评论

Elrac大约 8 年前
To me, this read like Alan Sokal's Postmodernism troll piece. I understand Tegmark is a reputable physicist, but the abstract could have been written by Deepak Chopra after skimming a math text.
评论 #14200941 未加载
ozy大约 8 年前
I don&#x27;t get how very intelligent people can hold such views.<p>Where does the dance go, when the dancers go off stage? The dancers are not the dance, but create the dance. There is some kind of duality there.<p>Similar for the brain. What it does creates the mind&#x2F;consciousness. Should that feel like something? Why not?<p>How does the brain decide on next actions? By simulating&#x2F;predicting futures and &quot;feeling&quot; which is desired, and acting towards that future. Why would that not feel like something?<p>The &quot;hard question of consciousness&quot; is not an answer. It is a philosophical device without backing. It is unknown if qualia is actually hard, maybe most learning systems have it. What we do know: it is hard to have intuitions about it ...
评论 #14202913 未加载
akyu大约 8 年前
The math in this paper is beyond your average Hacker News poster. So no wonder these comments are just name calling.
评论 #14200137 未加载
cool_shit大约 8 年前
It is tempting to be lazy and criticize this work because it contains a few instances of the phrase &quot;quantum consciousness&quot;.<p>This paper has one purpose: To get people thinking of the brain and information-carrying systems from a physical perspective rather than solely a computer-science or information-theoretic perspective, or even worse -- a biological perspective. Physicists were largely responsible for computer science and information theory, and they will be largely responsible for breakthroughs in biology and machine-learning as interdisciplinary laboratories continue to grow.<p>Physics is the most sophisticated area of applied mathematics that currently exists. Whatever consciousness is, it will be understood through physics -- because, presumably, <i>that&#x27;s what it is</i>.<p>That said, it is interesting to see a consolidated paper touching on common motifs. The brain exhibits many characteristics of any other state of matter; for example, it has phase transitions.<p>One thing I disliked about this paper is the conclusion is draws from its examples with the gold ring and the pond. They go on to say that information is not persistent in a pond; for example if you write your name on the surface, the energy will be propagated away and the surface will return to a higher entropy state fairly quickly. This is true, but one cannot say that the brain is different solely because of this. The brain is <i>constantly</i> under &quot;external&quot; influence. It is constantly being supplied with fresh nutrients; neurons are constantly being supplied with tugs from their neighbors. If you were to remove all incoming nutrients, the brain would surely collapse as an information processor, too (e.g. death of the organism).<p>I would go so far as to say that a conscious system requires <i>constant</i> input, and does not necessarily do anything in the absence of any input. This assertion is in direct contradiction to the heuristics (&quot;principles&quot;) established in the paper. For example, computers, bacteria, and brains are all computing systems which require constant input.
Insanity大约 8 年前
(disclaimer: I did not yet read the whole paper)<p>This part stood out to me in their idea of how philosophy views consciousness<p>&gt; A traditional answer to this problem is dualism — that living entities differ from inanimate ones because they contain some non-physical element such as an “anima” or “soul”.<p>I believe this makes it sound like philosophers are actively looking for the soul, or another explanation of consciousness that lies outside of &#x27;physics&#x27;.<p>This might be true for some philosophers, but there are other philosophies to adhere to. More contemporary would be the works of Daniel Dennett or John Searle.<p>Cartesian Dualism is surely something not a lot of philosophers would get behind anymore.
评论 #14202130 未加载
评论 #14202548 未加载
runeks大约 8 年前
Consciousness is a bit like the speed of light: it&#x27;s defined, not measured. It&#x27;s not possible to measure the speed of light because we&#x27;ve made this constant the basis of all other measurements. Consciousness is a lot like that: unmeasurable, and the basis of all experience.<p>In all frameworks there must be some unquestionable property, which defines the framework. For physics this is the speed of light, for life forms it&#x27;s consciousness.
评论 #14202876 未加载
irickt大约 8 年前
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.math.columbia.edu&#x2F;~woit&#x2F;wordpress&#x2F;?p=6551" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.math.columbia.edu&#x2F;~woit&#x2F;wordpress&#x2F;?p=6551</a><p>&gt;&gt;&gt; Tegmark’s career is a rather unusual story, mixing reputable science with an increasingly strong taste for grandiose nonsense. In this book he indulges his inner crank, describing in detail an utterly empty vision of the “ultimate nature of reality.”
评论 #14199756 未加载
评论 #14221693 未加载
euyyn大约 8 年前
&gt; why do conscious observers like us perceive the particular Hilbert space factorization corresponding to classical space (rather than Fourier space, say)<p>I&#x27;m surprised this is even considered by an MIT Physics professor. Conscious observers like us do perceive &quot;Fourier space&quot; in colors and pitch. Am I missing something?
d--b大约 8 年前
There is a long history of pushing the location of human consciousness further and further with technological advances. First it was god, then it was somewhere in the ether, then it was electromagnetic waves, now quantum mechanics. People just can&#x27;t stand the idea that conscious thoughts are made of matter.
评论 #14203318 未加载
thriftwy大约 8 年前
Even if it wasn&#x27;t nonsense, it would be.<p>Because the description focuses on how we perceive the world; not on <i>who is this</i> we <i>that perceives</i>.<p>The mystery of consciousness in the observer, not in what it observes.
评论 #14199859 未加载
评论 #14199604 未加载
评论 #14199007 未加载
评论 #14198766 未加载
评论 #14199860 未加载
gator-io大约 8 年前
The truth is simple. We are in the Matrix.
评论 #14202895 未加载
ghughu大约 8 年前
None of us seem qualified to judge this paper as valid or not valid or to say which parts are valid and which aren&#x27;t and why.<p>But the only active thing we can do in Hacker News is leave a comment and this article tickles with me enough to want to leave a comment.<p>I guess the best comment I can leave here is one that avoids the ignorant-about-own-ignorance pitfall of false expertise and just leave a meta-comment about the comments.