[cool_shit]

I can't stand articles like this -- they bait you into reading poetry at the promise of science. So many words, so few ideas that are actually substantive. Consciousness speculation articles are a dime a dozen today, this is part of the noise. Even worse when they ramble on for what seems pages of periodic content.

[M_Grey]

It's painful, but it's "the hot topic", and nobody likes to be told that in the absence of new information, an absence of noise would be nice so we can focus on the things for which there is new information. The problem is that people, especially in the realm of pop-sci, get "favorite topics". They don't really understand much, but it's their "expert topic" and they love it. When the reality of science, which is slow progress via a sawtooth graph, hits they don't bail, they tend to just... want more.

As a result you get a lot of "What does it look like from the perspective of a photon?" or "What does the inside of a black hole look like?" The real lack of knowledge is boring, and there are enough such excitable people to keep some magazines (on and offline) profitable. I think it's also important to remember that most people, even technical people, who aren't into physics simply don't understand the topics in question well enough that the headline in question, 'Is Matter Conscious' doesn't turn them off immediately. The difference there, between largely uncritical (if intellectual) wide-eyed curiosity, and science is pretty stark.

The truth is though, that it's a matter of interest, and most people (whatever they claim) aren't really interested in physics, they just like "the cool stuff".

[lutusp]

One can argue that such contentless articles only reveal to us what we don't know (a "known unknown"). It might be true that we can't know this particular thing, but that's still an open question.

But I agree that there are too many such articles, with too little original content.

[KennyCason]

I think that's the point. At this point the understanding of the nature of consciousness and reality are still just speculation. It shows either a fundamental limit of human reasoning (which I think is well known), and/or that we still have a lot learning/researching to do.

But statements like "The possibility that consciousness is the real concrete stuff of reality", or none-the-less quite fun to unpack and discuss. Even if unintelligible due to aforementioned limits of human reasoning. :)

I think if you find yourself always looking at the world 100% through rigorous logic/methodologies, and don't allow your mind to wonder and explore new possibilities, then I think it's safe to say that human reasoning will absolutely remain bounded.

(also, the comments section was fun to read as well)

[catshirt]

I'm reminded of people talking about tripping. we don't really have the vocabulary or knowledge to talk about certain things and they end up sounding wishywashy.

but I don't think it means we can't try, or hypothesize...

[M_Grey]

It reminds me of Hamilton Morris talking to this guy who's been taking huge doses of PCP for years. He gets absolutely lit, and then does "art", which is highly meaningful to him, but... pretty much just to him. Some people never really learn the difference between the feeling of profound understanding that can occur while dreaming or high, with profound understanding.

[catshirt]

good point! I just don't want the false positives to discourage us from trying to share our feelings just because it's difficult.

[M_Grey]

Sure, and I'm for limitless sharing of feelings, but in the context of, "Here are my feelings on 'X'."

[catshirt]

we're on the same page. and you shine some light on OPs point that I now see more truth to- poetry parading as science.

[kartan]

> Yet mathematics is a language with distinct limitations. It can only describe abstract structures and relations.

I have a hard time getting this point. Mathematics began as something concrete. In fact, abstract mathematics is one huge accomplishment of the human mind.

In general, I find all the article hard to read. Maybe I lack the expertise to fully grasp what is this about. But it looks like there is no attempt to explain the ideas in clear terms.

I will suggest that if you want to know more about consciousness Daniel Dennett is a better read.

[Pica_soO]

Welcome back to the 70s marxist discussion groups, where all sentences are just rumbling empty cargo-trains of abstraction, promising huge trainloads full of future deep meaning - going nowhere. Good we discussed this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgDnA0in1t0

[oldmancoyote]

I think this subject is too deep for some people to understand. Rather than find fault with themselves, they find fault with the subject.

[abiox]

or perhaps there's no real depth to speak of, leaving little but mystical obscurantism. depends on what you mean by "this subject".

[Pica_soO]

Did you just call the emperor a streaker?