Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I know I may get downvoted for this - and I know pre-emptively whining about downvotes is incredibly lame and deservedly frowned upon - and I know self-awareness of that fact doesn't make it any better - but: I'm sorry, this is just woo-woo. A replier linked Donald Hoffman, who also espouses a woo-woo theory about root reality being the realm of consciousness.

There're not only no empirical but no theoretical grounds to believe anything like this. The mind is almost certainly wholly defined by the physical processes of the brain, in the same spacetime realm all other known physical processes reside in.



I think you‘re digging into a philosophy question with the wrong shovel. You‘re not wrong, but OP is debating something that is fundamentally unmeasurable (as I understand them). Science can only help us understand things within spacetime. Anything beyond that is philosophy.

I believe this is basically just the dualism vs. materialism debate on consciousness. Consciousness is a fascinating topic. There‘s plenty of paradoxes or thought experiments to fry your brain on. It‘s not just about the electrochemical processes in the brain. It‘s about identity, the continuity thereof, etc.


Science can help us understand things within spacetime. Mathematics and logic within abstract, but rigorously defined spaces. Anything beyond that is philosphy, asthetics, politics, religion, ...


There‘s plenty of paradoxes or thought experiments to fry your brain on

Is there a good collection of these in one place?


This is just more woo woo.

Just because something is unmeasurable doesn’t mean it cannot be proven wrong.

Just because something is derived from philosophy doesn’t mean it cannot be proven to be wrong in the real world.

> Science can only help us understand things within spacetime. Anything beyond that is philosophy.

Even if one takes this statement to be correct, it doesn’t imply that any specific philosophical idea about “beyond space time” is correct.

And frankly even the “philosophy” of an after life can easily be dispensed with. There’s absolutely no reason to suggest an after life, or a duality between the body and “identity” exists other than “we would like to believe so”.

It’s not just awful science but also bad philosophy.


If not theoretical grouds, surely there are hypothetical grounds? Now to find a way to falsify, and thus prove them…


Why would you be downvoted for speaking facts?

Also why should you restrain from pointing out weaknesses in other people's comments due to the fear of negative karma? Karma is meant to be burned.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: