Hacker News Reader

Comment by yongjik | Hacker News Reader

Well, computers are ultimately matter, but nobody calls, say, a microkernel architecture a "state of matter".

Granted my knowledge of physics is nil compared to that paper's writer, but as far as I know, a "state of matter" doesn't mean "Duh, it's made of matters." It has a (more or less) well-defined meaning. Liquid or plasma is a state of matter. "Having a pleasant smell", "moving on its own", or "with a rounded edge" isn't.

So, you can't just say it's made of matter. You need to justify that "being conscious" is more like the former than the latter.

View on HN

That's why I used the word collective. Computers are not conscious. But let's go a step further. What is being conscious? Sensory input, electrical signals working on memories and imagination pushing the unknown. I don't think there's any magic in being conscious. Having said that, I do accept my knowledge and understanding of this subject is limited. But I am not going to fall to 'if it can't be explained it must be divine' trap.

I think you misunderstood. I'm not objecting to the idea that mind is ultimately made of matter. I'm objecting to labeling it as a "state of matter", which has an entirely different meaning. (It does NOT mean "here's a bunch of matter that interacts in an interesting way.") The paper's abstract even explicitly states:

> We explore five basic principles that may distinguish conscious matter from other physical systems such as solids, liquids and gases: ...

So it seems clear that the author argues "being conscious" is parallel to "being liquid", but this better have a really solid (no pun intended) justification.

I agree with you. And I don't think "being conscious" is like "being liquid". Liquidity is a description of physical attributes. Consciousness is an existential state of being (whatever that means).

I think it would be nice if we could explain everything we observe in the universe in terms of physical laws and mathematical formulae. But I don't think we're there yet.

And why not a possible divine explanation? Last I checked, we haven't completely ruled it out. It's not a trap. At the very least, materialists should be able to counter divine arguments, not just ignore them.

Ruling out the divine because that thought thread stops the need for further exploration. And may be, thought is metaphysical and have physical and meta connotations which I/we can't even imagine. But I would like to stay ignorant, knowing that I don't know rather than accepting an unexplainable explanation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com