Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JohnFen 1098 days ago
Sure, but none of the means we know what "consciousness" is.
3 comments

Every account of the universe is grounded in brute facts, for which there is no justification. That hardly means we can't claim to understand things. I would say we understand consciousness more or less in the same way we understand nuclear physics: we have a very compelling ontologically flavored justificatory framework which both allows prediction and makes theoretical sense. We know quantum field theory is not the right theory of the universe. We may never know the fundamental theory. But it would be ridiculous to say "we know nothing about how the nucleus works."
> I would say we understand consciousness more or less in the same way we understand nuclear physics

But we know what nuclear physics is. We don't know what consciousness is. I'm not asking how consciousness works, I'm asking what consciousness is.

If you study enough theoretical physics, you'll begin to wonder what nuclear physics is, I can assure you.
I think that we know what it isn’t, even if we can’t fully define what it is.
I know what consciousness "is." I'm experiencing it right now.
Ah. I use the term "the subjective experience of consciousness". IE, what you are experiencing could really just be a VR drug hallucination, completely unrelated to anything else, or an epiphenomenon of a completely mechanistic universe.
I would argue that if you can't communicate it to another, then you don't know what it is. You only know what it's like to experience it.
I guess it depends on what your definition of is is!

To put it another way, either you also have consciousness, in which case I have explained it, or else I can't explain it to you because you don't.

Prove it
No, it's entirely self-evident. You prove I don't.