= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
likeananon comments on A Kick in the Rationals: What hurts you in your LessWrong Parts? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (194)
Does
hurt you in your LessWrong Parts? (the article's conclusion)
Only one word needs to be added for it to be accurate (if unexciting).
Pretty exciting the first time it occurs to you? It's an article in "Psychology Today. com" This is admittedly beside the point of the main post.
That barely qualifies as insight when you're high.
You forgot the "do not exist outside your consciousness" part. Or is that wrong? The upvotes on your post tell me I'm missing something... but to me what you quoted is different, and yes, a lot less exciting, than what i quoted?
It was mocking, but I think basically accurate. Light has wavelengths and sound has pressure waves whether we're there to observe them or not. Even if you want to argue that it's not really "colour" or "sound", who cares? The only part of it that's actually created by our consciousness is the conscious appreciation for what already exists.
I recall the realization that consciousness was a physical process as being much more exciting than the realization that I only experience my conscious thoughts.
No, I was talking about a different realization.
Depending on what 'conscious perceptions' is supposed to mean that's either completely the opposite of astounding or just false.
Though on second thought I suppose the realization that perception is a physical process occurring inside your skull is exciting in a certain sense!
No, it's implicit the way it is.
Perception entails consciousness, unless you have a weird definition of perception.
Look up blindsight. Perception without conscious processing.
A definition of perception according to which insects have it doesn't sound too weird to me.
There.
This could be checked giving a pinprick to someone in a coma while scanning their brain. (And I'm being generous and not assuming a definition of consciousness which excludes healthy people in deep dreamless sleep, because if perception entailed consciousness in that sense, alarm clocks would work much less reliably.)
Not as much as "physics is wrong because our brains are magical because I say so", but yes, it does.
That our perceptions are a process that involves our consciousness (however you want to define that) is, technically, a fact about the universe, but only in the same way "my cat's breath smells like cat food" is a fact about the universe.
The perceptions fact (insofar as it is a fact) is more of a statement about human cognition than it is about the universe. It may very well be the statement he finds most astounding about the universe, but it's not the core of the paradigm-busting central theory of everything he purports it to be.