Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Drakolyik t1_izhq860 wrote

Reply to comment by 4354574 in The technological singularity is happening (oc/opinion) by FrogsEverywhere

I personally don't think there is a hard problem. I find that is one of the last refuges for spiritual beliefs, hiding behind overcomplication. Consciousness is an emergent spectrum and proponents of the hard problem seem to believe there needs to be some part of the physical body to point at when it's really the sum total of a lot of different parts.

It's similar to how creationists are never satisfied with all of the evidence in favor of evolution. Always asking for a new missing link between the missing links we've already found. It'd be great to have a complete accounting of all parts of the evolution of species, but that isn't happening and consciousness is likely similar.

10

4354574 t1_izhr173 wrote

What proof do you have that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain? If you don't have proof, then don't frame it as a statement.

And even if consciousness emerges from the brain, there is still the huge tiny issue that we have *no idea* how electrical impulses become thoughts and emotions.

As for myself, I have seen and experienced far too many phenomena that we can't explain unless consciousness is nonlocal, so there's no point in trying to convince me otherwise.

4

Drakolyik t1_izhzidf wrote

I clearly said "I personally think...", Which means it's my opinion.

However, to say we have no idea how consciousness is probably an emergent property of different systems in the brain is kind of just ignorant of current knowledge in neuroscience.

It's like all this ancient aliens shit when anthropology has a pretty good idea of how human beings created the pyramids.

9

Entalstate t1_izrr9b8 wrote

Neuroscience doesn't have shit. A better analogy would be to say physicist have a pretty good understanding of God. Of course, that is nonsense, but no more so than the idea that neuroscientists have the foggiest idea of how subjective reality exists.

2

morderkaine t1_izi36un wrote

What proof do you have that it isn’t? The brain is all there is that thinks and makes us who we are and let’s us control our bodies. With the lack of anything else, consciousness can only be from there.

3

4354574 t1_izr0px7 wrote

No proof, just so much experience with psychic phenomena that it's mundane - except it can only be explained by a nonlocal mind. Or I'm really crazy.

So, crazy it is, eh?

Also, paranormal research meta-studies show a slight positive affect, indicating something interesting is going on. You won't find that on Wikipedia, though: the tiny cadre of editors that act as the gatekeepers of anything to do with the paranormal are hardcore skeptics who quickly delete any evidence from studies that others try to add.

Also, the only theory of mind that has any empirical evidence can be interpreted as allowing for a nonlocal consciousness.

Roger Penrose is probably the most brilliant person alive and he says that we need a new type of physics to explain consciousness.

"I don't believe in any religion I've seen, so in that sense I'm an
atheist. However, [...] there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective".

- Penrose

Basically, the kind of dismissiveness with which the subject of consciousness is often treated and the assumption that it's local are both unwarranted.

1

Skinny-Fetus t1_iziwhes wrote

I agree they haven't provided any proof of their opinion but they did frame it as just their opinion.

Regardless, I wanna point out what they say is still possible. Unless you can rule this out (aka prove it wrong), you can't say the hard problem of consiousness is neccasrily a problem

1

geroldf t1_izicxzh wrote

Exactly right. The “hard problem” is a red herring.

1