News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about by EGreg on Sunday August 11, 2013 @09:00PM (#6197095)
How do you know that there are no other components besides the brain that cause there to be subjective experience? One might very well suspect that there is something more, considering that no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience.

Your soul could be observing your body and being affected by it. While your memories and feelings are in the body, your subjective experience of them may not be.

Re:No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about by seiji on Sunday August 11, 2013 @09:34PM (#6197188)
no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience.

This isn't a one time affair. Every human carries DNA explaining exactly how to create more intelligent conscious creatures. It doesn't take "special conditions." It happens in squalor, mud huts, ice, desert, famine, over excess—everywhere. We are self-replacing nanomachines looking like individual discrete entities on a macro scale.

Your soul could be observing your body and being affected by it.

Nope. Not possible. You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about by foobarbazqux on Sunday August 11, 2013 @11:52PM (#6197572)
> You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less.

Clearly I am only a portion of my brain since if you remove some of it I am still me. But then, if you start killing the neurons in my brain one by one, at what point do I stop being me?

Re:No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about by stianan on Sunday August 11, 2013 @09:57PM (#6197265)
Nope. Not possible. You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less.

You cannot reasonably claim to know this. Of course, your parent comment cannot know that "no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience" either, as long as he only has access to his own subjective experience.

Re:No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about by mcguire on Sunday August 11, 2013 @10:41PM (#6197379)
How does your soul observe and affect your body? (I'm assuming you mean a two-way path there; "observing your body and being affected by it" would be one-way, and would be problematic. "A difference that makes no difference", and all.)

Can this connection be distorted or interrupted? What are the effects of doing so?

If you accept that a drug-induced solipsistic, out-of-body effect[1] is an alteration of subjective experience, are you then going to argue that "While your memories, feelings, and subjective experience are in the body, your X may not be." What would X be?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197315

Re:No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about by EGreg on Sunday August 11, 2013 @11:50PM (#6197566)
Imagine looking out the window and seeing stuff that is happening outside. If the window gets foggy, you don't experience everything that's happening outside the window. That doesn't disprove that you are observing stuff outside the window.

On the other hand, having "uncaused effects" has been found in quantum mechanics, but it's too much of a leap to suppose that your consciousness controls your body through quantum mechanical probability. Although there's something eerie about the waveform collapse having to do with conscious observers.

Re:No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about by Xcelerate on Monday August 12, 2013 @01:25AM (#6197797)
> Although there's something eerie about the waveform collapse having to do with conscious observers.

Fortunately, it doesn't. Any measurement of a system constitutes an "observer", conscious or not.

Re:No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about by EGreg on Monday August 12, 2013 @01:48AM (#6197852)
So does the wavefunction collapse when Schrodinger's cat observes it? Or when the detector observes the radioactivity?
Re:No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about by lmm on Monday August 12, 2013 @07:01AM (#6198594)
Yes - from the subjective perspective of Schrodinger's cat. Yes - from the subjective perspective of the detector. From the outside we observe the cat's state becoming entangled with that of the radioactive sample, but from the cat's perspective it made the observation, collapsed the state, and either died or didn't.

It's exactly the same for us, making the observation - from our perspective we observed one result or the other, collapsing the wavefunction. But to an outside observer we entangled our own state with that of the cat and the sample, and we're in a superposition of (observed cat dead, observed cat alive) - and will be until they observe us, at which point our wavefunction will collapse to one or the other. And so on.