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。

A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications

105 点作者 danielam11 个月前

13 条评论

tasty_freeze11 个月前
I&#x27;ve never understood why Chalmer&#x27;s reasoning is so captivating to people. The whole idea of p-zombies seems absurd on its face. Quoting the article:<p>(quote)<p><pre><code> His core argument against materialism, in its original form, is deceptively (and delightfully) simple: 1. In our world, there are conscious experiences. 2. There is a logically possible world physically identical to ours, in which the positive facts about consciousness in our world do not hold. 3. Therefore, facts about consciousness are further facts about our world, over and above the physical facts. 4. So, materialism is false. </code></pre> (endquote)<p>Point 2 is textbook begging the question: it imagines a world which is physically identical to ours but consciousness is different there. That is baking in the presupposition that consciousness is not a physical process. Points 3 and 4 then &quot;cleverly&quot; detect the very contradiction he has planted and claims victory.
评论 #40869917 未加载
评论 #40884231 未加载
评论 #40883864 未加载
评论 #40870157 未加载
评论 #40883654 未加载
评论 #40884633 未加载
评论 #40883961 未加载
评论 #40883701 未加载
评论 #40884519 未加载
评论 #40871519 未加载
评论 #40884107 未加载
评论 #40870360 未加载
评论 #40883857 未加载
评论 #40871478 未加载
Animats11 个月前
<i>&quot;The implications of consciousness explanations or theories are assessed with respect to four questions: meaning&#x2F;purpose&#x2F;value (if any); AI consciousness; virtual immortality; and survival beyond death.&quot;</i><p>This is theology. What&#x27;s it doing in Elsevier&#x27;s &quot;Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology&quot;?<p>Most of the classical arguments in this area are now obsolete. The classic big question, presented in the article, was, “Out of meat, how do you get thought?&quot;. That&#x27;s no longer so mysterious. You get some basic processing elements from molecular biology. The puzzle, for a long time, was, can a large number of basic processing elements with no overall design self-organize into intelligence. Then came LLMs, which do exactly that.
codeflo11 个月前
As a thought experiment, imagine we were to scan the position of every molecule in the human body to the Heisenberg limit of accuracy. Imagine we were to plug the resulting model in a physics simulation that models every biochemical and physical interaction with perfect fidelity. This is a thought experiment, and what I suggest isn&#x27;t ruled out by physics, so let&#x27;s assume it&#x27;s technologically possible. Would the simulated being be &quot;conscious&quot; in the same way the original human is? Would it experience &quot;qualia&quot;?<p>If you think the answer might be no, then congratulations, you actually believe in immaterial souls, no matter how materialist or rationalist you otherwise claim to be.
评论 #40870150 未加载
评论 #40883746 未加载
评论 #40883550 未加载
评论 #40881688 未加载
评论 #40883859 未加载
评论 #40881656 未加载
评论 #40884174 未加载
评论 #40888440 未加载
评论 #40884399 未加载
评论 #40881492 未加载
评论 #40870204 未加载
评论 #40870438 未加载
评论 #40870062 未加载
detourdog11 个月前
I’m still thinking about what Helen Keller discussed in her paper on consciousness and language.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=40466814">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=40466814</a> The paper is linked and disused in this thread. Her description of the void before having language is eye opening.
pmayrgundter11 个月前
Robert Kuhn is a really impressive dude. I&#x27;ve been occasionally running across his videos on YT from these interviews. I&#x27;m very impressed that he&#x27;s rolling it all up into a written research project as well.<p>&quot;I have discussed consciousness with over 200 scientists and philosophers who work on or think about consciousness and related fields (Closer To Truth YouTube; Closer To Truth website).&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;playlist?list=PLFJr3pJl27pJKWEUWv9X56y_ut3xwFDv1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;playlist?list=PLFJr3pJl27pJKWEUWv9X5...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@CloserToTruthTV&#x2F;videos" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@CloserToTruthTV&#x2F;videos</a>
robwwilliams11 个月前
What a massive and impressive coverage. The author, Robert Kuhn of Closer to Truth (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;closertotruth.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;closertotruth.com</a>), ends this beast with a request to readers:<p>&gt; Feedback is appreciated, critique too—especially explanations or theories of consciousness not included, or not described accurately, or not classified properly; also, improvements of the classification typology.<p>I think RK would enjoy Humberto Maturana’s take on cognition and self-cognition. Maturana usually does not use the word “consciousness”.<p>Start with Maturana’s book with Francisco Valera:<p>Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (1970)<p>The appendix of this book is important (“The Nervous System”). Last few pages blew my brain or mind ;-)<p>Thinking about consciousness without thinking more deeply about temporality is one problem most (or perhaps even all) models of consciousness still have.<p>Since Robert Kuhn works in thalamocortical activity the theme of timing should resonant.
kkoncevicius11 个月前
To me it seems that the hard problem of consciousness can be stated a lot simpler, like so:<p><i>How can we tell if another person is conscious or not?</i><p>As far as I see, this is not possible and will never be possible. Hence the &quot;hard problem&quot;.
评论 #40884166 未加载
评论 #40883593 未加载
utkarsh85811 个月前
Vedic philosophy has an interesting take on the problem of consciousness.<p>It take consciousness to be emanating from particles the size of atoms. They word those atomic particles as &#x27;atma&#x27; ( in english souls, some even call it spiriton!).Those particles are fundamental to the universe and indivisible like quarks, bosons etc. Like radiation emanating from sun, it handles consciousness as &#x27;emanating&#x27; from soul.<p>Each and every living being starting from size of a cell has a soul feeling (partially) about mechanisms of its body. A multi-cellular organism is then explained as a universe in itself where millions of cells with souls are thriving. The organism will then contain a &#x27;chief soul&#x27; directing the working of whole body (which will be us case of humans). Further the philosophy expands this concept to the real universe in which all organisms with their individual consciousness are directed by a chief &#x27;super consciousness&#x27;( in Vedic terminology it is termed as paramatma, some translate that as equal to God Concept) Although then it further expands by saying that there are infinite (almost) parallel universes but that&#x27;s other thing...
评论 #40885478 未加载
brotchie11 个月前
Two things I&#x27;m absolutely convinced of at this point.<p><pre><code> 1. Consciousness is primitive. That is, interior experience is a fundamental property of the universe: any information system in the universe that has certain properties has an interior experience, 2. Within the human population, interior experience varies vastly between individuals. </code></pre> Assertion 1 is informed though reading, introspection, meditation, and psychedelic experience. I&#x27;ve transitions the whole spectrum of being a die hard physical materialist to high conviction that consciousness is primitive. I&#x27;m not traditionally panpsychic, which most commonly postulates that every bit of matter has some level of conscious experience. I really think information and information processing is the fundamental unit (realized as certain configurations of matter) and certain information system&#x27;s (e.g. our brain) have an interior experience.<p>Assertion 2 is informed through discussion with others. Denial of Chalmer&#x27;s hard problem doesn&#x27;t make sense to me. Like it seems logically flawed to argue that consciousness is emergent. Interior experience can&#x27;t &quot;emerge&quot; from the traditional laws of physics, it&#x27;s like a nonsense argument. The observation that folks really challenge this makes me deeply believe that the interior experience across humans is not at all uniform. The interior experience of somebody who vehemently denies the hard problem must be so much different from my interior experience to the extend that the divide can&#x27;t be bridged.
评论 #40884132 未加载
评论 #40869560 未加载
评论 #40887851 未加载
评论 #40869362 未加载
评论 #40885591 未加载
评论 #40869336 未加载
someoldgit11 个月前
Kuhn&#x27;s compendium of theories is very comprehensive in many of the philosophical areas but could be more detailed in section 9.3 on Electromagnetic field theories, which is my favourite.<p>Another up to date compilation of 15 articles on Electromagnetic Field Theories of Consciousness: Opportunities and Obstacles is available here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.frontiersin.org&#x2F;research-topics&#x2F;18437&#x2F;electromagnetic-field-theories-of-consciousness-opportunities-and-obstacles&#x2F;magazine" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.frontiersin.org&#x2F;research-topics&#x2F;18437&#x2F;electromag...</a><p>One of the authors (Joachim Keppler) has a very interesting recent paper here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.frontiersin.org&#x2F;journals&#x2F;human-neuroscience&#x2F;articles&#x2F;10.3389&#x2F;fnhum.2024.1379191&#x2F;full" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.frontiersin.org&#x2F;journals&#x2F;human-neuroscience&#x2F;arti...</a>
cut311 个月前
This topic is so interesting. If I were creating a system for everything, it seems like empty space needs awareness of anything it could expand to contain, so all things would be aware of all other things as a base universal conscious hitbox.<p>Panpsychism seems neat to think about.
评论 #40869616 未加载
bzmrgonz11 个月前
This is a wonderful project, I had no idea there was so much fragmentation n the topic of consciousness. Maybe we should feed these writings and concepts to AI and ask it to give us any grand unifying commonality among them, if any.
评论 #40868786 未加载
评论 #40868975 未加载
评论 #40884173 未加载
评论 #40869051 未加载
评论 #40869715 未加载
cantorshegel211 个月前
how is hegel and his science of logic not in this?