<story><title>The Challenge of Consciousness</title><url>http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/21/challenge-of-defining-consciousness/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Florin_Andrei</author><text>EDIT: fixed stupid brain bug&lt;p&gt;Dennett&amp;#x27;s approach is absurd. Consciousness is &lt;i&gt;the only thing in the Universe&lt;/i&gt; that is self-evident in the strict sense. Everything else is at least second-hand stuff - see the brain in a vat hypothesis. To say that consciousness is an illusion is ridiculous; I can see how he gets there, but the conclusion is absurd. Somewhere along the way there&amp;#x27;s a mistake; no, I don&amp;#x27;t know where the mistake is, and I could not even begin to hypothesize. OP&amp;#x27;s article points out this predicament very well. It is a hard problem indeed.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;One of the most promising theories (discussed in the podcast) assumes that consciousness is a fundamental attribute of reality, the other side of the coin (matter being the first one).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I can hear the objections being raised already, but it&amp;#x27;s a neat promising step towards solving the hard problem. Suddenly the reducibility paradox vanishes.&lt;p&gt;It would also relieve another problem. If you can&amp;#x27;t trivially reduce consciousness to neural activity, then how is it coupled with perception? There would appear to be a gap between the sensory chain and the fact of awareness. And then for consciousness to work, it would already have to be everywhere (in a sense, possibly even a somewhat metaphorical one, or at least non-trivial). The assumption you mention solves this problem.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;here&amp;#x27;s a talk by Culadasa, very experienced meditator and a neuroscience professor&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s very, very hard to agree with Dennett, and it&amp;#x27;s getting harder the more you advance in the practice of meditation. As soon as you realize that you can peel off and disconnect layers upon layers of perception (external at first, then the many internal layers too), and also greatly reduce the waves of what is commonly called &amp;quot;thinking&amp;quot;, while consciousness does not diminish but instead becomes at once more vivid and more stable, more calm and more intense, less connected to external factors but more broad - all that talk about &amp;quot;the illusion of consciousness&amp;quot; starts to look extremely suspicious. It&amp;#x27;s not perception, and it&amp;#x27;s not thinking; it can relate to these things, but it&amp;#x27;s fundamentally different. It can ultimately exist completely independent of inputs, either external (sensory) or internal (thoughts, mind activity in the trivial sense, even memory).&lt;p&gt;Don&amp;#x27;t just read about it. Go ahead and have the experience yourself. It changes a lot of perspectives. You don&amp;#x27;t even have to go all the way to the highest levels described in the literature - the intermediate stuff is revelatory enough already.</text></item><item><author>aaimnr</author><text>I always point to David Chalmers when someone wants to understand the problem of consciousness. I like how casual he is about possible solutions and gives credibility to all the options (unlike eg. Daniel Dennett, who seems almost religious about how revolutionary his &amp;quot;there&amp;#x27;s no problem at all&amp;quot; approach is).&lt;p&gt;I really recommend this podcast in which Sam Harris talks with Chalmers about all the options currently in the game: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.samharris.org&amp;#x2F;podcast&amp;#x2F;item&amp;#x2F;the-light-of-the-mind&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.samharris.org&amp;#x2F;podcast&amp;#x2F;item&amp;#x2F;the-light-of-the-mind&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of the most promising theories (discussed in the podcast) assumes that consciousness is a fundamental attribute of reality, the other side of the coin (matter being the first one). Which leads to the conclusions, that consciousness is everywhere, but not as &amp;#x27;condensed&amp;#x27; as in the brain. Seems crazy at first, but the more you think about it the more plausible it seems.&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;#x27;s a nice paper about it: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;370&amp;#x2F;1668&amp;#x2F;20140167&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;370&amp;#x2F;1668&amp;#x2F;2014...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Within this paradigm it starts to make sense to call the reality &amp;quot;The Mind&amp;quot;, as some Buddhist schools do. There&amp;#x27;s also the crazy part, about how under some conditions it could potentially lead to experiencing other peoples&amp;#x27; minds.&lt;p&gt;For the more adventurous, here&amp;#x27;s a talk by Culadasa, very experienced meditator and a neuroscience professor, in which he shares some thoughts about the problem and also some of these crazy experiences he had: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;s3.amazonaws.com&amp;#x2F;dharmatreasure&amp;#x2F;150430-tcmc--culadasa--dharma-talk.mp3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;s3.amazonaws.com&amp;#x2F;dharmatreasure&amp;#x2F;150430-tcmc--culadasa...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>IsaacL</author><text>I also practiced meditation (Vipassana) for several years, and, like you, realised that positing the non-existence of consciousness is a dead-end.&lt;p&gt;Buddhism seemed to go deeper than many other philosophical frameworkss for this reason. However, I looked into many philosophical systems, and I was extremely surprised to discover that the thinker with the most consistent views on reality and consciousness (both self-consistent and consistent with my own experiences) was &lt;i&gt;drumroll&lt;/i&gt; Ayn Rand.&lt;p&gt;Though she&amp;#x27;s known for her views on egoism and capitalism, she wrote a ton about consciousness, perception and concept-formation. If you look at my comment history you&amp;#x27;ll see I talk about her a lot on HN, and that&amp;#x27;s because I think computer scientists will gain immense value from studying her works. Introdution to Objectivist Epistemology and The Romantic Manifesto contain her deepest writings on consciousness and cognition and are the books I&amp;#x27;d recommend. &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;aynrandlexicon.com&amp;#x2F;lexicon&amp;#x2F;consciousness.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;aynrandlexicon.com&amp;#x2F;lexicon&amp;#x2F;consciousness.html&lt;/a&gt; is a good taster.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;aynrandlexicon.com&amp;#x2F;ayn-rand-works&amp;#x2F;introduction-to-objectivist-epistemology.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;aynrandlexicon.com&amp;#x2F;ayn-rand-works&amp;#x2F;introduction-to-obj...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;aynrandlexicon.com&amp;#x2F;ayn-rand-works&amp;#x2F;the-romantic-manifesto.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;aynrandlexicon.com&amp;#x2F;ayn-rand-works&amp;#x2F;the-romantic-manife...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve met a couple of other Objectivists who have practiced meditation - not many but they exist. I was very surprised to discover the connection between the two areas. Hopefully in a thread like this on a site like this, curious minds will read this comment and be persuaded to investigate further. It&amp;#x27;s a fascinating journey!</text></comment>
<story><title>The Challenge of Consciousness</title><url>http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/21/challenge-of-defining-consciousness/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Florin_Andrei</author><text>EDIT: fixed stupid brain bug&lt;p&gt;Dennett&amp;#x27;s approach is absurd. Consciousness is &lt;i&gt;the only thing in the Universe&lt;/i&gt; that is self-evident in the strict sense. Everything else is at least second-hand stuff - see the brain in a vat hypothesis. To say that consciousness is an illusion is ridiculous; I can see how he gets there, but the conclusion is absurd. Somewhere along the way there&amp;#x27;s a mistake; no, I don&amp;#x27;t know where the mistake is, and I could not even begin to hypothesize. OP&amp;#x27;s article points out this predicament very well. It is a hard problem indeed.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;One of the most promising theories (discussed in the podcast) assumes that consciousness is a fundamental attribute of reality, the other side of the coin (matter being the first one).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I can hear the objections being raised already, but it&amp;#x27;s a neat promising step towards solving the hard problem. Suddenly the reducibility paradox vanishes.&lt;p&gt;It would also relieve another problem. If you can&amp;#x27;t trivially reduce consciousness to neural activity, then how is it coupled with perception? There would appear to be a gap between the sensory chain and the fact of awareness. And then for consciousness to work, it would already have to be everywhere (in a sense, possibly even a somewhat metaphorical one, or at least non-trivial). The assumption you mention solves this problem.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;here&amp;#x27;s a talk by Culadasa, very experienced meditator and a neuroscience professor&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s very, very hard to agree with Dennett, and it&amp;#x27;s getting harder the more you advance in the practice of meditation. As soon as you realize that you can peel off and disconnect layers upon layers of perception (external at first, then the many internal layers too), and also greatly reduce the waves of what is commonly called &amp;quot;thinking&amp;quot;, while consciousness does not diminish but instead becomes at once more vivid and more stable, more calm and more intense, less connected to external factors but more broad - all that talk about &amp;quot;the illusion of consciousness&amp;quot; starts to look extremely suspicious. It&amp;#x27;s not perception, and it&amp;#x27;s not thinking; it can relate to these things, but it&amp;#x27;s fundamentally different. It can ultimately exist completely independent of inputs, either external (sensory) or internal (thoughts, mind activity in the trivial sense, even memory).&lt;p&gt;Don&amp;#x27;t just read about it. Go ahead and have the experience yourself. It changes a lot of perspectives. You don&amp;#x27;t even have to go all the way to the highest levels described in the literature - the intermediate stuff is revelatory enough already.</text></item><item><author>aaimnr</author><text>I always point to David Chalmers when someone wants to understand the problem of consciousness. I like how casual he is about possible solutions and gives credibility to all the options (unlike eg. Daniel Dennett, who seems almost religious about how revolutionary his &amp;quot;there&amp;#x27;s no problem at all&amp;quot; approach is).&lt;p&gt;I really recommend this podcast in which Sam Harris talks with Chalmers about all the options currently in the game: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.samharris.org&amp;#x2F;podcast&amp;#x2F;item&amp;#x2F;the-light-of-the-mind&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.samharris.org&amp;#x2F;podcast&amp;#x2F;item&amp;#x2F;the-light-of-the-mind&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of the most promising theories (discussed in the podcast) assumes that consciousness is a fundamental attribute of reality, the other side of the coin (matter being the first one). Which leads to the conclusions, that consciousness is everywhere, but not as &amp;#x27;condensed&amp;#x27; as in the brain. Seems crazy at first, but the more you think about it the more plausible it seems.&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;#x27;s a nice paper about it: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;370&amp;#x2F;1668&amp;#x2F;20140167&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;370&amp;#x2F;1668&amp;#x2F;2014...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Within this paradigm it starts to make sense to call the reality &amp;quot;The Mind&amp;quot;, as some Buddhist schools do. There&amp;#x27;s also the crazy part, about how under some conditions it could potentially lead to experiencing other peoples&amp;#x27; minds.&lt;p&gt;For the more adventurous, here&amp;#x27;s a talk by Culadasa, very experienced meditator and a neuroscience professor, in which he shares some thoughts about the problem and also some of these crazy experiences he had: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;s3.amazonaws.com&amp;#x2F;dharmatreasure&amp;#x2F;150430-tcmc--culadasa--dharma-talk.mp3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;s3.amazonaws.com&amp;#x2F;dharmatreasure&amp;#x2F;150430-tcmc--culadasa...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>aaimnr</author><text>Did you mean Dennett, instead of Chalmers? I agree that the Dennett&amp;#x27;s conclusions seems to be false almost on a logical level. The self is an illusion for sure, the consciousness for sure isn&amp;#x27;t (EDIT: not saying here that there exists &amp;#x27;pure consciousness without content&amp;#x27;).&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Don&amp;#x27;t just read about it. Go ahead and have the experience yourself. It changes a lot of perspectives. You don&amp;#x27;t even have to go all the way to the highest levels described in the literature - the intermediate stuff is revelatory enough already.&lt;p&gt;It is indeed. The more you meditate, the more you see that most of the things that you do &amp;#x27;outside&amp;#x27; are meaningless, just playing with your representations of the world and pretending they are real. Of course we can&amp;#x27;t do anything to somehow reach the &amp;#x27;real&amp;#x27; world, but at least we can drop the pretending part.&lt;p&gt;The title of this book may seem both scary and beautiful in this regard: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.buddha-heute.de&amp;#x2F;downloads&amp;#x2F;treeriver.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.buddha-heute.de&amp;#x2F;downloads&amp;#x2F;treeriver.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
Not sure I&amp;#x27;d recommend it for beginners, but I just love the title.</text></comment>