4 ms·

Why is it beyond the scope of science? No experiments have shown that consciousness can violate the laws of physics and steady progress has been made in explain

Why is it beyond the scope of science? No experiments have shown that consciousness can violate the laws of physics and steady progress has been made in explaining consciousness from neuroscience.

monktastic1 9y ago
In another sense, no progress has been made. We may have explained why consciousness is experiencing sadness as opposed to happiness right now, or red instead of blue, but not why "it is like something" to be conscious in the first place (i.e., the "hard problem").
placebo 9y ago
You are referring to the soft problem of consciousness, which is not what the argument is about. I too am convinced that the hard problem of consciousness is beyond the scope of science. It is beyond science not in the sense that it violates the laws of physics but because when you get right down to it, your consciousness is the only "real" thing that you can ever know about. Everything else you supposedly "know" - every concept, every derived "laws" of physics are thought models which you only know by being conscious of them. A very crude analogy would be to say that consciousness is like a camera that enables science to be done, but the camera can't take a picture of itself.
- RivieraKid 9y ago
  Finally a consciousness-related opinion I can 100% agree with. The camera analogy is spot on. How did you develop this opinion / way of looking at things?
  - placebo 9y ago
    Decades of struggling with the question and scrutinizing what others came up with :) Nothing I've mentioned though is original or new - just took some time to filter out the noise, look carefully and honestly and connect the dots.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  The camera can in fact take a picture of itself - if there's a mirror. (But it can never take a picture of the mirror - just what the mirror reflects!) So, what would be a mirror for consciousness? Is there one?
  - lefnire 9y ago
    AI
psyc 9y ago
I don't know whether it's actually beyond the scope of science, but it's currently extremely premature for restricting all thought and discussion about it to narrow hard science.
- maverick_iceman 9y ago
  What's an example of "broad soft science"? Astrology? Telekinesis?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
RivieraKid 9y ago
Physics and science is basically a description of what we perceive through consciousness.
cr0sh 9y ago
> Why is it beyond the scope of science? I don't know if this is what the parent meant, but I interpreted that statement to mean that the concept and explanation of consciousness is beyond our current scientific frame of reference. Think about past frames of reference which "science" attempted to utilize, to some effect and failure. I put quotes around science for a reason, because I have a specific example, to wit: Think about alchemy. To a certain extent, a form of scientific process was used by these early - for lack of a better word - proto-chemists. They pondered, came up with ideas, experimented, took notes, compared results, etc. They discovered new substances and compounds we use to this day; they created the prototypes of some of the lab equipment still used. Their methods ultimately led to our current "scientific method" of inquiry. But despite their successes and failures, despite their best attempts and experiments, in many ways they were hampered by the framework of "science" they were investigating. For instance, they knew little to nothing about atoms or elements - instead grouping things into the "classical" elements of earth, fire, water, and air (and in some cases "spirit"). They still had a mindset of "like for like", meaning that their experimentation led to them using substances or similar that had some nature which was like what they were attempting to perform or gain the result of. I won't belabour this point - only to say that because their framework of reference limited them, they couldn't make the "giant leap" forward that was needed to really understand and do what it is they were trying to do (let's not dwell on the philosophical/spiritual aspects of the so-called Philosopher's Stone quest). So perhaps that's where we are today, in regards to science and trying to explain and understand consciousness? That isn't to say we won't eventually be able to explain and explore the topic; our nature of asking questions, trying experiments, coming at the problem from a myriad of different angles, and the collaboration between these disparate fields will likely lead us to the knowledge (and also it will open up many more questions, as it always has and does). As noted in the article, we are taking more steps even today - and I am also pleased to see that there is a greater collaboration going on between the fields and people who deal with this at a basic level - the physicists, the neuroscientists, computer science, biologists, etc. This kind of cross-fertilization is absolutely needed in order to understand this problem.

Why is it beyond the scope of science? No experiments have shown that consciousness can violate the laws of physics and steady progress has been made in explaining consciousness from neuroscience.

monktastic1 9y ago

In another sense, no progress has been made. We may have explained why consciousness is experiencing sadness as opposed to happiness right now, or red instead of blue, but not why "it is like something" to be conscious in the first place (i.e., the "hard problem").

placebo 9y ago

You are referring to the soft problem of consciousness, which is not what the argument is about. I too am convinced that the hard problem of consciousness is beyond the scope of science. It is beyond science not in the sense that it violates the laws of physics but because when you get right down to it, your consciousness is the only "real" thing that you can ever know about. Everything else you supposedly "know" - every concept, every derived "laws" of physics are thought models which you only know by being conscious of them. A very crude analogy would be to say that consciousness is like a camera that enables science to be done, but the camera can't take a picture of itself.

RivieraKid 9y ago
Finally a consciousness-related opinion I can 100% agree with. The camera analogy is spot on. How did you develop this opinion / way of looking at things?
- placebo 9y ago
  Decades of struggling with the question and scrutinizing what others came up with :) Nothing I've mentioned though is original or new - just took some time to filter out the noise, look carefully and honestly and connect the dots.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
The camera can in fact take a picture of itself - if there's a mirror. (But it can never take a picture of the mirror - just what the mirror reflects!) So, what would be a mirror for consciousness? Is there one?
- lefnire 9y ago
  AI

psyc 9y ago

I don't know whether it's actually beyond the scope of science, but it's currently extremely premature for restricting all thought and discussion about it to narrow hard science.

maverick_iceman 9y ago
What's an example of "broad soft science"? Astrology? Telekinesis?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

RivieraKid 9y ago

Physics and science is basically a description of what we perceive through consciousness.

cr0sh 9y ago

> Why is it beyond the scope of science? I don't know if this is what the parent meant, but I interpreted that statement to mean that the concept and explanation of consciousness is beyond our current scientific frame of reference. Think about past frames of reference which "science" attempted to utilize, to some effect and failure. I put quotes around science for a reason, because I have a specific example, to wit: Think about alchemy. To a certain extent, a form of scientific process was used by these early - for lack of a better word - proto-chemists. They pondered, came up with ideas, experimented, took notes, compared results, etc. They discovered new substances and compounds we use to this day; they created the prototypes of some of the lab equipment still used. Their methods ultimately led to our current "scientific method" of inquiry. But despite their successes and failures, despite their best attempts and experiments, in many ways they were hampered by the framework of "science" they were investigating. For instance, they knew little to nothing about atoms or elements - instead grouping things into the "classical" elements of earth, fire, water, and air (and in some cases "spirit"). They still had a mindset of "like for like", meaning that their experimentation led to them using substances or similar that had some nature which was like what they were attempting to perform or gain the result of. I won't belabour this point - only to say that because their framework of reference limited them, they couldn't make the "giant leap" forward that was needed to really understand and do what it is they were trying to do (let's not dwell on the philosophical/spiritual aspects of the so-called Philosopher's Stone quest). So perhaps that's where we are today, in regards to science and trying to explain and understand consciousness? That isn't to say we won't eventually be able to explain and explore the topic; our nature of asking questions, trying experiments, coming at the problem from a myriad of different angles, and the collaboration between these disparate fields will likely lead us to the knowledge (and also it will open up many more questions, as it always has and does). As noted in the article, we are taking more steps even today - and I am also pleased to see that there is a greater collaboration going on between the fields and people who deal with this at a basic level - the physicists, the neuroscientists, computer science, biologists, etc. This kind of cross-fertilization is absolutely needed in order to understand this problem.