No, really—consciousness is worth thinking about - <AUTHOR> http://duncancarroll.tumblr.com/post/57994245946/no-really-consciousness-is-worth-thinking-about <comment><USER3> Everybody keeps getting the Schrödinger's cat experiment 100% backwards. It was created by Schrödinger to highlight how absurd the interpretation of quantum mechanics was at that time.

Since then, even the Copenhagen interpretation basically says that the "observation" happens already at the Geiger counter: "Analysis of an actual experiment found that measurement alone (for example by a Geiger counter) is sufficient to collapse a quantum wave function before there is any conscious observation of the measurement" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat#Copenh...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat#Copenhagen_interpretation)

Consciousness might be worth thinking about. If it exists independently of the brain, it still must have effects on the brain, to have effects on human actions. These effects on the brain could be measurable. "This voltage here went up for an unknown reason".

Further, it pushes the question to another unobservable "magical" world. So, the consciousness exists in another world which is not directly measurable. Can we measure it indirectly? What is the structure of consciousness in the astral plane or however you are going to call it? If the whole goal of arguing that the consciousness exists in the astral plane is that "we can't study it", then that sounds a bit non-serious.

<comment><USER4> The cat experiment is a simplification. It doesn't matter that it was created to show the absurdity. People are not getting it wrong.

All you need to know at the end is that the bigger / more energy a system has, the less time it can stay superimposed before collapsing by itself into one state. For anything macro-scale this timeline is basically zero.

<comment><USER3> "For anything macro-scale this timeline is basically zero." People don't get this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So my comment got quoted. Neat. I'd like to respond to:

> My response: who said anything about metaphysical?

Well, the original author did. The entire article is, at its core, an argument for dualism. Dualism is a metaphysical theory.

As for the accusation that I intended to imply that consciousness was a _solved problem_ , all I can say is "What?" Seriously, how did you get that from what I said?

The problem with the article, and the reason that people responded negatively (although, I think, for the most part thoughtfully), is not that everybody thinks the problem of consciousness is easy, or that it has been solved. It's that the arguments presented were weak and not particularly interesting or novel.

I agree that discussion on HN should be thoughtful and polite. But I don't think that means we should be constantly patting each other on the back and blowing up each other's egos.

I also don't really think the quote mining here was helpful. Here's the comment that was quoted simply as "Not a useful concept": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6195854](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6195854)

Huh, it actually looks like that comment went on to bring up the concept of zombies, and linked to further reading. I guess quoting that part of the comment wouldn't have supported your indignant outrage though.

Finally, the position that consciousness is not a useful concept _is an important part of this discussion_. How can we even have a meaningful conversation about consciousness without first addressing whether what we're talking about is _real_?

</comment><comment><USER6> I upvoted the original article not necessarily because I thought it was particularly well-written, but because I looked forward to seeing what the HN comments about the article would say. Nevertheless, I left to go somewhere before I had a chance to peruse them.

I think in a conversation about consciousness, it's very important to define exactly what it is you're talking about. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I get the impression that within the field, "consciousness" refers to specific patterns of brain activity. (Some neuroscientist on here can correct me if I'm wrong.) These patterns can be be studied experimentally, simulated computationally, or theorized about mathematically. All fall well into the modern definition of what science encompasses. Testable predictions about reality can be made and understood.

Then the author of the first piece uses a different word a little later in the article:

> Experience - "why does the feeling which accompanies awareness of sensory > information exist at all?"

This, in my opinion, is a whole different idea. As a scientist myself (my research is in molecular-dynamics and quantum monte carlo), "experience" is not something that can be assessed at all by the scientific method. Many people argue that "experience" doesn't even exist (see the concept of p-zombies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie)). As for me personally, I'm certain that it does, for if you removed all of my faculties and senses with the exception of leaving my mind intact, I would still experience existence. The curious thing about this is that there's no way for me to tell whether other people (you all) exist in the same way that I do, not even in theory. How do I know if you actually experience existence or are simply a collection of particles following the same rules of physics that everything else does? For then if I was you, I wouldn't be me anymore. One prerequisite for something being scientific is that it must be testable, and this sort of thing is not. So it's not science and I don't waste time conflating it with what actually _is_ science. It's an interesting philosophical question. It's been debated for centuries, and it will continue to be debated for centuries (along the same lines as qualia - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia)) but there will never be any kind of resolution to the issue.

<comment><USER7> Neuroscience hasn't been able to produce a single theory on the origin of consciousness, unless one accepts "it emerges from neural activity" as an explanation.

Consciousness appears to be the ultimate mystery. There is something very fundamental about it that we don't understand at all. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially the type of people that would like to turn Science into a religion. We just don't know, and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

<comment><USER8> And what is wrong with 'it emerges from neural activity'?

really, it is quite an adequate solution for a species with our current level of philosophical and scientific understanding.

That doesn't mean it is right, and doesn't discount potentially other options such as something that, despite my own strong scientific background, I have a fondness for through buddhism and meditation - and which is mentioned in the original article - that there is just one consciousness we all share in.

despite my fondness for this, the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of a complex neural network is supported by the evidence that shows that damage to the brain will impair an entity's level of consciousness.

Therefore, the idea that consciousness in LIFE doesn't require the brain, or vice versa, is simply mysticism and denying the truth that we all experience

I agree with you that consciousness is quite a mystery, but in terms of the ultimate mystery I feel very strongly that the question of life, consciousness and why there is something instead of nothing is a question that goes together and that they are all intricately linked

<comment><USER7> I am aware of this line of reasoning, but it contains a subtle problem: there is no way to measure consciousness. We assume a correlation between consciousness and human-like intelligent behaviour. We assume that we are unconscious when in deep sleep, for example, but we have no way of knowing for sure. It could just be that we are not recording any memories for later reference. Long story short, no, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that damage to brain will impair an entity's level of consciousness -- only of intelligent behaviour.

It turns out that it is precisely the claim that consciousness emerges from the brain -- given our present state of knowledge -- that is mysticism. The only possible scientific position here is to say "I don't know".

<comment><USER9> > there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that damage to brain will impair > an entity's level of consciousness

There is loads of evidence from studying states that alter the brain.

For example, damage to certain parts of the brain produces hemispatial neglect. The person loses awareness of not just one half of the universe but the _concept_ of that half. This is not consistent with an incorporeal soul, which would continue to make judgements about the full universe albeit with hemispatial blindness.

Then there are dissociative states, as with some migraine auras, where some aspect of self-awareness is lost, leaving the person with the sense that they are watching their own actions in the third person, but with otherwise intact behavior.

There are the dissociative anesthetics like nitrous oxide and ketamine, which create a solipsistic disconnection from the outside world without abolishing self awareness.

The memory function can become disconnected while consciousnes remains, as with some sleep disorders and drugs.

There are delirious states, seen in illness and with some drugs, where the person is conscious but experiencing imagination on the same footing as reality.

The corpus callosum connecting the two halves of the cerebrum can be severed, leaving each side with an independent partially-disconnected consciousness.

<comment><USER10> In a few sentences you brought more of value to the table than that entire article. I'm all for alternate theories, but the wilder the theory, the more evidence is required. At the very least a thorough look at the existing evidence and how it can be better explained under the banner of the new theory is required.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > "What discourages me here is that the overall tone of the HN commenters is: > Get with the program. Instead of acknowledging that it is an open question > and saying something like, "Interesting hypothesis, my own thoughts are that > X, Y, Z, but have you read A, B, or C, which indicate Q…", the response is: > (chuckle) Consciousness? We solved that, didn't you get the memo?"

Amen. We need to stop letting the comments devolve into such a miasma and use each story as a jumping off point for intelligent conversation -- why can't we be friends?

Continuing on the meta-topic at hand... A flaw that seems to occur in many intelligent people's minds is that as soon as we're able to form an opinion on a particular subject, we assume everyone else has too. Let's take a moment to appreciate that we don't all have state-of-the-art knowledge on every single topic. Our aim should be to help each other move further along, not shoot down attempts to learn.

<comment><USER12> > _why can 't we be friends?_

Indeed. Here, have an upvote to counteract the downvotes. It looks like this thread is heading to be derailed just as much as the last one unfortunately. HN is cool when it's about concrete subjects like tech/programming/business, but anything more abstract than that is really unnerving to watch unfold around here, and I'm sure we both wish it wasn't so. Honestly, the only reason I even comment on HN is to try and invoke these sorts of underrepresented viewpoints into conversation, but it's quite overwhelming to even try sometimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you believe in the existence of consciousness, what would prove to you that your qualitative experience is fundamentally no different to the state of a Turing machine? What would persuade you that what is called "consciousness" is of no special interest?

OP states that "[consciousness is] a situation where a root cause is murky and escapes testability", which is simply special pleading. If you cannot test your hypothesis, what is more likely - that you have discovered a completely unique and mysterious phenomenon, or that your hypothesis is inadequate?

It appears to me that the whole argument is predisposed upon that sort of special pleading. We have no clear evidence for the existence of consciousness, but it _must_ exist because my subjective perception tells me it does. That perception different from the subjective perception of god or auras or the buddha-nature because... it just is.

Bluntly, go away and come back when you have a null hypothesis.

<comment><USER14> Some people get so used to the idea that science explains everything, that they became completely blind to opposing views. It's hardwired deeply into their brains. That's how I explain to myself this kind of blindness I witness in every discussion about consciousness.

Why do I feel pain when the atoms in my brain are in a specific configuration? Current state-of-the-art physical models can't possibly explain that. And it's even impossible to describe what feeling of pain is in physical terms. (No, I don't mean neural activity during pain, I mean the feeling of pain.)

Every physical theory is based solely on consciouss experience. Everything we know about the world is through consciousness.

<comment><USER15> Science is not an opinionated entity that "explains" things. Rather, it is a method for learning more about the world around us while attempting to minimize influence from bias and other sources of human error.

It's not that we can _only_ discover things via science. It's just that we shouldn't trust discoveries made via flashes of insight, clairvoyance, intuition, guesswork, divine inspiration, etc.

<comment><USER16> "It's not that we can only discover things via science. It's just that we shouldn't trust discoveries made via flashes of insight, clairvoyance, intuition, guesswork, divine inspiration, etc."

If we can't trust discoveries through non-scientific means, than it seems to me you are saying we can only discover things via science. So if I have continuing experience of something so far yet to be confined within an ordered model of falsifiable hypotheses, what am I to do?

<comment><USER15> I don't understand your question, exactly, so forgive me if my response seems off. But what are you to do? Nothing special. Just refrain from jumping to conclusions. Instead, say, "I don't know." Which is the same thing the ancient Greeks should've done when asked why the sun travels across the sky, rather than assuming that Apollo drags it behind his magical chariot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Since we are doing another meta-discussion on how supposedly nasty the comment section is sometimes, I'd like to say I don't have a problem with the tone of the comments at all, and I for one would be really sad if people started pulling their punches. The extremely high degree of criticism found in the comments is actually something I value very highly about this community.

One of the things I love about the comment section is that people treat each other like adults who are capable of handling criticism. This isn't the office, this is HN.

Not being able to handle criticism is a debilitating personality trait for someone who wants to achieve a high level of success in any sort of intellectual pursuit; and that is the reason why I strongly disagree with the desire on the part of some to change this aspect of the community.

<comment><USER14> I think what you're saying is quite stupid.

I often find HN discussions... not sure how to describe it... I guess I just don't like many of the commenters for some unconscious reason. It could be: passive-agressiveness, people who are not emotionally mature (pg), overall negativity, stupid people who try to sound smart. Or something else.

The atmosphere on other online communities is more positive, which is a good thing. You can disagree without being negative.

I also noticed that for some strange unconsciouss reason, I really dislike people who use cliché phrases like: "Just to play devil's advocate." or "X and Y are orthogonal".

(This comment is intentionally quite negative because you sound like an adult capable of taking criticism.)

<comment><USER17> > I think what you're saying is quite stupid.

I'm assuming this is meant to be ironic and to try and prove something. But I challenge you to find a serious comment on HN that is this over the top negative and backs it up with as little as you do. It really doesn't bother me to be told I'm wrong, if I'm saying something stupid I want to be told that in no uncertain terms so that I don't repeat the same mistake again. But most of all, I want to know _why_ what I said was wrong.

>The atmosphere on other online communities is more positive, which is a good thing. You can disagree without being negative.

I don't disagree that HN comments are different from places like reddit, but you haven't really explained why it's "a good thing". I personally don't find a lot of value in being praised, because I don't learn anything and the danger is I might get a big ego. However, I do find enormous value in constructive criticism. When I have a young student without a ton of self-confidence, then I am generous with giving praise; but when a colleague who I respect comes to me with a bad idea, I treat them with respect by telling them why I think they are wrong.

<comment><USER14> Interacting with positive people is simply much more pleasant. At least for me. I recently heard about experiment suggesting that positive feedback is much more effective than negative one.

I absolutely agree that if you think people are wrong, it doesn't make sense to lie to them and say that you think they're right.

But the problem is when poeople _focus_ on the negatives – ie, someone made a pretty cool product and half of HN is complaining about some small insignificant issue. Very often, critticism is not motivated by a genuine attempt to help the person. Instead, it's motivated by the pleasant feeling some people get from correcting other people and finding problems in their arguments ([http://xkcd.com/386/](http://xkcd.com/386/)).

I like the atmosphere on Quora much more. It's more positive and the people are more diverse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think David Chalmers would agree with you wholeheartedly:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)

Even Patricia Churchland thinks there is a lot here. Philosophers of the mind have dedicated their whole professional careers and lives to thinking about this.

<comment><USER5> I think David Chalmers might also notice that this poster is tearing apart a straw man. The "Sophomoric philosophy" quote, for example, was not someone saying "it's sophomoric to think that consciousness is worth thinking about". S/he was saying that _the arguments given by the OP were sophomoric_.

In fact, a tiny minority of the comments in that thread were dismissive of consciousness as an interesting topic of thought. Only _one_ of the comments quoted in this post could reasonably be interpreted as dismissive, but even that one had interesting points to make.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Personally I lean towards the idea of consciousness as an emergent phenomenon, ie closer to Hofstadter than Searle (for anyone who has wondered exactly what _Godel, Escher, Bach_ is about, it's essentially a long argument for strong AI). However, I'm not sure about this; the main reason I can't subscribe to Searle's point of view is that he's trying to prove a negative, and I'd rather not know the answer than handwave one. I thought Carson's article was a bit fluffy and lacking focus, but then it was meant to provoke discussion and debate rather than offer a final answer.

By far the most intriguing counter-proposal to the conventional wisdom is the late Julian Jaynes' _The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind_ which is such a monumentally good book that it's worth reading even if it is entirely wrong.

<comment><USER20> I never came across _The Origin of Consciousness_ \- what makes it "monumentally good" in your opinion?

<comment><USER19> Oh dear, I can't easily sum it up in a couple of sentences. It's just a completely different way of thinking about how the mind works, the construction of personal identity, and the interaction between the individual and the rest of the world as to induce an acute sense of vertigo if you've grown up taking the Cartesian model for granted.

There's a summary at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind) but relying on the summary is like me telling you that Beethoven's 5th symphony is in C minor, opens with a distinctive motif, and is generally quite dramatic sounding...all true, but absolutely nothing like the experience of actually listening to it.

The book provided me with a completely different model for examination of the world, which is pretty unusual. While I don't feel wholly committed to Jaynes' model, I've found it enormously useful, in the same way as _Understanding Media_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't know why people don't think about this topic more, especially if you are curious person. A very interesting line of research that could have profound implications on science and our understanding of consciousness is being done by Radin et al. Specifically he's looking deeper at the possible role of consciousness and the collapsing of the wave in quantum theory with some really interesting repeatable experiments. He's taken the classic double slit experiment and has been testing to see whether conscious observers can affect the results merely by focusing their attention. So far the results are positive. Here's one paper: [http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20f...](http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER22> I tend to be dismissive of the philosophical conversation. I think what will resolve the question is scientific (biological) study. Maybe math/cs theorists (AI) will get there first. But I am almost certain that no philosophical conversation we can have will give me an insight about our cognition.

</comment><comment><USER23> I personally don't spend a large amount of time thinking about consciousness because I question the practicality. The subject matter is so dense, and like other(s) have stated, philosophers have dedicated their entire lives to pondering the issue.

Frankly it sometimes upsets me when I do put an extensive amount of time into it and don't end up coming up with anything conclusive; it is depressing. There is (obviously) a incredible amount of ambiguity surrounding the subject, and there is something about this particular issue that is unnerving.

On the other hand if you can stomach the subject matter it is very stimulating, unfortunately it does not lead to concrete conclusions.

</comment><comment><USER24> I didn't come across the HN post when the original article was posted. I think the original article has many warning signs of "sophomoric" thinking to warrant rapid dismissal.

The first big bold warning sign is this -

        "After reading and listening to David Chalmers, I came
        to realize that there is an intelligent argument that
        supports the idea that consciousness does not emerge
        from the brain.

        <big-n-bold>Quantum Mechanics</big-n-bold>"

Invoking the "magic" and "mysterious" quantum mechanics to understand and explain something that isn't even defined in the article is, indeed, "sophomoric philosophy".

In the original article, you'll also find this regarding the Schrodinger's cat "paradox" -

        "Many physicists today think the many-worlds theory
        resolves this paradox by stating that there are actually
        infinitely many universes, some in which you are dead and
        some in which you are living, and that once the quantum
        trigger is measured/observed, a specific universe is
        followed."

Plain wrong. The "many worlds" is not a "theory", but an _interpretation_ of quantum mechanics. It does not add any new physical mechanisms over and above what we already have in quantum mechanics - i.e. there is no "once a quantum trigger is measured/observed" in the many worlds interpretation. All these universes exist. Period.

The problem of "observation" in quantum mechanics is being discussed here without even a mention of "decoherence". AFAIK, the unexplained part of quantum mechanics to date is the Born probabilities - i.e. why does the likelihood of observing an event correspond to the _magnitude square_ of the amplitude we calculate for it. There are some recent insights into this, but I believe this is still unexplained.

The original thing that the article sought to explore is whether it is possible that consciousness does not come from the brain. If that is indeed the primary point to be explored in this essay, the question to be asked is what does "come from the brain" mean? When a current passes through a memory circuit, it toggles from 0 to 1. What does it mean to say this "comes from the circuit"? Does is not also "come from the current"?

We thus reach a point where all we can say is "shut up and compute", for we've fallen into the trappings of everyday language.

edit: typos.

</comment><comment><USER25> I agree to some extent with your assessment, however, I also had some issues with the original post and could understand the anger of people that delved (much) deeper into the subject. I am not expecting a blog post to be a well- thought and rigorous scientific article, but expect strength in argumentation when extraordinary or broad statements are made. Specifically, he used

* lots of hand-waving arguments (something along "that is contradictory", even though it is not clear why it should be contradictory) * the evocation of quantum mechanics. Whenever I see someone mention quantum mechanics as an explanation without explaining its association any further, a red flag is raised. Somehow the weirdness of parts of quantum mechanics has lead it to be used as an all-encompassing explanation for all other sorts of phenomena. Homeopathy being a prime example. * the fact that current, "mainstream" research into consciousness has been so easily dismissed without knowing something about it (beyond a youtube video).

Some works that I found particularly inspiring (and well-thought) are Thomas Metzinger's work, e.g., Being No One [http://www.amazon.com/Being-No-One-Self- Model-Subjectivity/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Being-No-One-Self-Model- Subjectivity/dp/0262633086), for the layman Antonio Damasio's work, Christof Koch, Francisco Varela, just to mention a few.

</comment><comment><USER26> Some very bright people, notably Chomsky, Minsky and Kurzweil are advocating utilitarian, "mechanical" nature of the mind, which is much more useful than any religious/mysterious crap.

Very crudely, language is just neural network training (due to repeated exposure) and pattern matching on what what was trained. This oversimplified model nevertheless could explain the whole phenomena very well. We do not memorizing grammars, for example, but we are able to distinguish well-formed sentence form nonsense just because it doesn't match the common structure we were trained.

People who started to study their second language as adult would tell you that sentences are not deliberately "constructed" according to the memorized rules as it is when we begin to getting familiar with a new language, but "emerge by itself" after some training. So we have no grammars inside our brain, but a mechanism to train to build up one.

The consciousness, according to the same views, is nothing but a "current working buffer" for ongoing processes, and as some "activity" exceeds some threshold it acquires a "focus" , as if we are "switching" to it.

Minsky have stated many times, that it will require years until people will start using such vocabulary from the world of complex systems in attempts to describe what's going instead of Froidian or common-sense memes.

There is a course based on his Society of Mind book on MIT Open Courseware - very nice talks to listen.

</comment><comment><USER27> I suspect that we cannot define what consciousness is because we _are_ consciousness. Only an observer outside a system can say what that system is. An entity cannot observe itself.

The expression "experiencing consciousness" makes as little sense as "seeing vision" or "tasting flavor". Experiencing _is_ consciousness, seeing _is_ vision and tasting _is_ flavor.

<comment><USER28> Thank You. I'm glad someone said this.

Edit:

Alan Watts talks in depth about these matters. Although these explanations are not scientific or falsifiable -- it's an interesting attempt at understanding our own views of consciousness.

Just because the feelings of love are not falsifiable, does not mean that it does not weave a great story that one tells themselves to keep sane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> For anyone interested in quantum mechanics and consciousness, I recommend Scott Aaronson's book _Quantum Computing Since Democritus_ ; the chapters on Penrose are worth the price of admission. His blog, Shtetl-Optimized[1], is also a good read (and I think the book appeared there first).

On a different subject, recently there were a spasm of interest in fMRI studies that showed that "free" choices could be predicted based on neural activity well before a "conscious choice" was made.[2][3][4]

The general consensus seemed to be "Hah! Take that, free will!"

My take on the results were that they were hardly a surprise, if consciousness is an activity of the brain. You should no more expect to make a conscious decision prior to displaying brain activity relating to the decision than you should expect to perceive a flash of light before the light bulb is lit. It would not necessarily have _any_ negative implications for the existence of free will; those experiments are simply exploring the mechanism of free will.

On the other hand, I believe they do kind of imply that consciousness is a product of the jello in your noggin. Either that or there are some funky delays involved.

Now, as for the third buttock: if consciousness doesn't come from the brain, how does it work, exactly? I'd like some mechanism with my philosophy, thanks. Presumably, if I'm waving my arms around, you can trace the motor neuron activity from my appendages, up my spinal cord, and into my brain. But "and then a miracle occurs" is a pretty uninteresting way to connect that with the universe deciding that jazz hands are necessary.

[1] [http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/)

[2] [http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_d...](http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision)

[3] [http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html)

[4] [http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/09/03/free- choic...](http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/09/03/free-choice-may- not-be-as-free/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Russians have kept dog heads alive and reacting with nothing attached by medical support machines. French have chopped off heads and had the person react to voice commands. Plenty of people have broken their neck and still been mentally there.

Claiming consciousness does not come from the brain is just silly nonsense from before we had modern biology. Early philosophers thought the brain was for cooling blood. Even if you want to make up quantum superposition nonsense or whatever other big words you can find the place it is occurring is still inarguably the brain.

It's OK to go talk about useless, meaningless, non-diagnostic bullshit after that. But you should realize you are just being religious and not talking about anything worthwhile that then has meaning toward physical structures. You should no longer talk about the brain after that because you are just throwing in physical terms to try to get people who would otherwise dismiss you to pay attention.

</comment><comment><USER31> On my mobile so haven't had time to read all the comments or finish original article, but I agree, consciousness is worth thinking about, and trying to understand scientifically/rigorously. Many people are doing so but in particular in my research this one known as Integrated Information Theory[1] is a strong candidate, or precursor to such a candidate, and I'd encourage anyone intereated in the question or in advancing discussion of this proposed language and theory to do so[2]. Maybe I'm using the citation brackets wrong there though, apologies, I'm on a bus and it's dark and I'm tired :-)

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory) [2][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197184](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197184)

</comment><comment><USER32> For a theory to be good science, it must fit a very large number of observations and not contradict any a single one. Here's my attempt.

We must get a tight definition of consciousness to begin with. Are animals conscious as well (and to what degree)? What about amoeba and plants? If you classify "living" things as conscious, and "dead" things as unconscious, what is your definition of "life"? In their work, various people (notably, Metzinger) have isolated certain characteristics that make up various degrees of consciousness.

The "conscious experience" is a product of evolution: clearly, "self-aware decision makers" have better chances of survival than "hard-coded automatons". In recent evolution, the part that has changed most significantly is the neocortex. Scientifically speaking, it's very easy to figure out what is responsible for a high degree of consciousness: removing neocortex consistently leads to a lower degree of consciousness => the neocortex is responsible for a large part. Dissect, stick electrodes, and get unbiased data: then do a best fit.

Quantum mechanics is quite misunderstood: if you separate out the observer from what is being observed, it looks like humans are operating the universe (because their "observation" causes "collapse", right?). Highly egotistical and inelegant. If you exclude M-theory (because it's not able to make verifiable real-world predictions), a lot of people subscribe to quantum decoherence as an alternative to the classical Copenhagen interpretation.

On conscious computer programs. Essentially, I think of consciousness as a higher degree of interaction with its surroundings (it "learns" from its surroundings and adapts more quickly than it would normally take for natural selection to pick a genetic mutation). Aren't we just describing computer programs that interact with humans via a high-level language?

</comment><comment><USER33> My opinion is that consciousness is an aspect of self-aware thought, and arises from the physical operation of the brain. There's no reason to think that a computer couldn't be conscious, given the right programming, and perhaps far more conscious than a human, since it could be aware of every aspect of its own operation.

Since consciousness is an aspect of thought, it ceases to exist when thought stops, such as when you go to sleep or when you die. A new consciousness will be created if you wake up.

A corollary is that I don't think science fiction ideas such as teleportation or mind transfer into a machine give any philosophical problems. A new consciousness is created when the newly created body/software starts to think, the same way that it's created when you wake up in the morning.

</comment><comment><USER34> it's so exciting to me that this community has some interest in consciousness. my background is 'hacker', but looking forward, I think consciousness is highly relevant (soon, we really _will_ be able to hack our own brains, and when that happens, I think we'll care a lot about consciousness theory).

anyway, I've written some blog posts with some thoughts on this topic that I'll throw into the mix:

[http://realgl.blogspot.com/2012/12/consciousness.html](http://realgl.blogspot.com/2012/12/consciousness.html)

[http://realgl.blogspot.com/2012/06/dimension-of- interpretati...](http://realgl.blogspot.com/2012/06/dimension-of- interpretation.html)

(note that these posts were written maybe six months ago)

<comment><USER35> Interesting reading. I like your writing style it's very clear and easy to understand even though these are complex concepts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> For argument's sake: [http://youtu.be/JTN9Nx8VYtk](http://youtu.be/JTN9Nx8VYtk) take on multiple perspectives and we can enjoy some fruits of the discussion

</comment><comment><USER37> What's most interesting to me is how every few years (and every few decades sometime back) we're able to rationalize away certain kinds of subjective phenomena.

Will we eventually reach a point where we completely STOP considering pure awareness as a problem...don't know...I guess nobody knows. But this kind of thing happens every so often where a large amount of people stop taking something seriously. At this point e.g. existence of an anthropomorphic god.

</comment><comment><USER38> This article is attacking a strawman. The original article was dismissed not for merely discussing consciousness but for doing it nonsensically.

</comment><comment><USER39> If all my memories are copied over to a humanoid robot, and that robot claims to be me, given access to all my memories. Is he really me? What if the actual me is standing right next to it? Are there now two me? Or is the robot just faking it? But if it's the latter, how do we know I am not faking someone else's consciousness (i.e. not the robot, but I is the one faking)?

</comment><comment><USER40> Great post.

I personally think that people that reply indicating that anyone who doesn't believe in the traditional sciences, not including Philosophy but rather using our "accepted body of Physiological and Psychiatric knowledge" as truth, are one step away from Asperger's. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense, since many with Asperger's are highly functioning, but their tendency to clinch onto mathematics and incomplete (but widely accepted) science and use it as the answer for everything is childish. I believe that our universe (the entirety, beyond what we experience) is not completely "rational", but some just cannot accept that. We would not be where we are today without Philosophers like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. However, if a conservative talk show host came along saying the same thing as these philosophers, they would attempt to beat him/her down for being an idiot.

There is much to be learned by thinking outside of the box and trying to understand others' points of view. I'm a conservative-leaning moderate and independent (U.S.). I actually listen to both sides of the story (or more if possible), and then make up my mind which works with my existing belief system and where I can improve, knowing that both of them are biased and probably neither are completely right or wrong.

I'm not _better_ than anyone else, but I get frustrated, as it is farcical how one-sided conversations here can be, and how little people give and come to terms with each other.

<comment><USER40> Not sure why I'm surprised I got -1'd, but I'm guessing it is because someone wanted to prove my point?

<comment><USER41> Well making sweeping generalizations about groups of people is usually seen as offensive. Then again, I say that as a person diagnosed with aspergers so my opinion of what is and isn't offensive is obviously suspect ;). I didn't downmod you though and i wouldn't have even if i had the karma. Negative stereotypes regarding aspergers are too prevalent to really blame on individuals at this point.

I agree with you about the world not _necessarily_ being entirely rational. I see rationality as a subjective position from which to perceive reality. Another is the self and its intrinsic interests. This is where I seem to fail in my communication with others. This may be a wildly arrogant assertion but I think most people are insanely self obsessed. From this I can understand why empathy is seen as being absolutely necessary. Frankly, I think most people with autism spectrum disorders actually lack the self obsession that would normally be redirected onto others via empathy. This causes a failure to appropriately acknowledge others and with tragic irony a typical individual will ascribe their behavior to self-obsession. Anyway, you mention the learning acquired from considering others points of view. The thought process I've found most rewarding in this regard is to first build up the person's opinion as much as I can and then to attack any weaknesses. The attack is intended to elicit a defense which I cannot conceive. The ultimate aim being to fully understand their position and its legitimacy. Needless to say, this often becomes unpleasant. Likely stemming from my pathological lack of tact :(. The important thing to note is that there are people (at least one person) who are detail oriented. If you want them to "give and come to terms with each other" then you're going to have to endure some ostensible pettifogging. All that being said, there's some straight up nastiness here on HN and much of it is exactly the condescending appeal to immature sciences that you describe.

Oh also, just a note: it's likely that Socrates had aspergers or something similar.

<comment><USER40> I hope you found no offense in my earlier comment. Please understand that I am sorry.

I'm going to try to respond to your response, but know that other than having been diagnosed myself with slight Asperger's like tendencies, I really have no idea what it is like to be you. I _really_ don't understand what it is like to be autistic, but neither do either of us. I still hope that you can better understand my position with this, if it matters.

> I think most people are insanely self obsessed. From this I can understand > why empathy is seen as being absolutely necessary. Frankly, I think most > people with autism spectrum disorders actually lack the self obsession that > would normally be redirected onto others via empathy.

I believe you are right about most people having a love of self and/or selfish needs. In fact the feeling of love and the ability to do more than just try to simulate love involves what is called a "soul" in religion. That is not to say those more into the autism spectrum have less love. Those just that sometimes they know it is there, but they have to work much harder to be able not to ignore conscience since they do not have what others call empathy- because it is not chemical/"feeling". This conscience should not be defined by someone else or others (this is my ultimate point, btw), but it must belong to the person as a very quiet voice (not those in our heads- in fact you will almost never actually hear it as a voice or even a thought- it is what you just know is right when you eliminate the rational calculations/logic and all of the voices).

A completely rational human that tends to good but has no feeling or understanding of self will tend to utilitarianism, eventually. This is NOT conscience. Let's see why...

BTW- I know this is annoying, but as a quick detour, if unfamiliar with the fallacies of communism or socialism or pure capitalism for that matter, they may tend to one of those, but eventually they realize the goal they seek is utilitarianism- which is a goal only reachable by rules and management that cannot be carried out by those that can be corrupted. Ok, now back to utilitarianism...

The only thing capable of instituting pure utilitarianism that has the highest chance of working are altered, non egotistic, fully altruistic humans or non- humans.

We can't get there to start with, so in the short-term we as would-be utilitarians for the non-egotistic fully altrustic good of society institute an electronic/real democracy. Heck, I would.

But this just means the lobbyists have to lobby everyone. This is called marketing. It is already done. Problem solved for the elite that wish to rule rather than be overrun by the people.

So the people rebel again, replacing with a system that learns and manages humanity, if it does not intentionally or unintentionally destroy it in the process, of course.

So, then (long after we die when they institute it), we would have pure utilitarianism, which is a paradox- it is "perfection in survival and existence", but, in its pure form, it abhors the self (the "ego") to a fault, leading to some very nasty things that "must be done for the good of humanity". There is no conscience here, because any voice, quiet or not, belonging to an individual is _wrong_ utilitarian "utopian" (really dystopian) world if it conflicts with the majority of others.

I very much appreciate the rest of what you said. I think your sense of self is stronger than you are giving yourself credit for, as you are certainly self-aware. Please don't take that as an afront to asperger's- I think it is a benefit to have self-understanding, no matter how your mind works.

Good luck in your future, and feel free to shoot any of this down if you must.

<comment><USER40> Hope you were able to make some sense of this. Didn't have time to clean it up last night...

<comment><USER41> Thanks for the comment.

I tend toward utilitarianism myself but I agree with the inadequacy of any rigidly executed system. I'm aware of conclusions supported by utilitarianism that make me uncomfortable. I assume this feeling is an aspect of what you're calling soul. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll try to summarize the relevant portion of my world view: There are certain personality temperaments which lend themselves to the acquisition of power and ultimately to "actualizing" themselves and receiving social recognition. People tend to select subordinates they can see themselves in. This creates a feedback effect and over time we've seen certain temperaments receive the dominant share of social attention. This warps the perspective we all have on the behavior of others. Temperaments which have been adversely affected by this are experiencing the negative side of the feedback loop. Everyone is forced to repress their true selves a bit to meet this ideal. Some much more than others unfortunately. This explains so many of the "losers" we've disposed of in society (of which I am not, but only by the extreme fortune of being particularly intelligent). Advancements in science and social policy are bringing a number of marginalized temperaments into mainstream awareness. Women and the LGBT community apparently got first dibs. Aspergers will get more attention sooner or later (other than it's present infamy that is). Hopefully in the future people will stop hazing aspies into the compensatory narcissism you see in characters like Sheldon Cooper. It's not an essential component of aspergers. It's a reflection of modern social arrogance. It's just so hard to assert that everyone else is wrong... and so tragic when it's true.

Now, it is from this perspective that I very deeply agree with your statements toward the end of your response. The voice of the individual must be allowed to assert itself. For instance, I have a large family that enjoys loud family gatherings. It took a full on melt down when I was a child for them to understand that they were _hurting_ me by being so loud. When I asked them nicely they just ignored me. When I kept nagging at them they thought I was just being bitter and trying to spoil their fun (On some level they knew they didn't treat me so well and then they'd throw stuff like this at me as some sort of victim shaming; It likely wasn't deliberate but it was still infuriating and hard to defend against at 8). In utilitarianism it may have made sense to displace their collective annoyance onto the upset child. We'd have to measure the utils (love that word) but it may have served the "greater good". Some part of me just knows this is wrong.

I'm almost positive I don't lack empathy. I can see where many aspies would fall prey to personality disorders at a greater rate than the general population and consequently lose empathy. Additionally most people just can't identify with me and that is fundamental to empathy. I'm left to do all the work since most people gain little from learning to accommodate 1-2% of the population. Society needs some outlet for progress. The "soul" (however we intellectualize it so we can communicate) deserves more respect than a purely intellectual system is capable of. If aspies seem overly inclined towards such a system it's only because they desperately fear the Lord of the Flies alternative.

I'd be happy to have any of this criticized. You seem like you've thought about things and I'd value your opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I think it's worth adding to this thread that Buddha in his teachings said, eye has eye consiousness, ear, tongue, mind.. has their consiousness. He described consiousness as one of the five aggregates of human state. I never could wrap my head around the concept that awakening means also to see consciousness as empty.

<comment><USER28> Beautiful. Thanks for linking in Buddha's teachings.

</comment></comment><comment> test-it OK, what's your definition of consciousness?

Most animals, even single celled, need to have some way to handle the separation between "me" and "the rest of the world". I look at say my cat - <USER2> definitely has this concept somewhere in its brain circuitry. What human has is just more neurons.

<comment><USER43> If single-cell organism is conscious, and each cell of our body is a "single cell", it immediately follows from here that "our" consciousness is in fact consciousness of a certain, very specialized, cell which resides somewhere in our body. Maybe it lives in the brain, maybe elsewhere, but it's a single cell nonetheless.

<comment><USER44> It doesn't follow - the type of consciousness we experience could be different. Though if you were saying that it's absurd to call single cell 'conscious' in the sense that human brains are, then I agree.

<comment><USER43> I really think every cell is conscious, and whatever we believe to be "our" consciousness comes from a single cell. I am not alone in this opinion: [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/awnew.htm](http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/awnew.htm) (though I came up with this trivial idea independently, and later found the article by googling) This ME-cell gets inputs from other cells obvioously.

<comment><USER4> What happens when that cell dies? Lots of neurons die, it must happen all the time.

<comment><USER43> Do you know that MANY cells in our body are not replaceable? E.g. those that control muscles. If this cell dies, the man dies, it's that simple. BTW, bacteria (=~cell) intelligence is an active area of research (google it, you will be surprised). That's the only form of intelligence we know. Apparently, we are not familiar with the most intelligent ones yet - they (certain species) may have very developed knowledge of things, including the art of DNA manipulation, which goes far beyond everything ME-cell (=human) knows. Why assume we are the brightest ones? It's laughable.

<comment><USER45> As someone with a modicum of biological knowledge, I am not aware of any single cell that is critical to human survival in the way you describe.

As for your analogy, it is true that microorganisms can perform wonderful feats, but it is a bit misleading to equate that to general intelligence. It is like saying a compiler is smarter than a programmer, because its design incorporates tricks the human may not know. (The bacteria being "designed" by the trial-and-error process of natural selection, rather than an intelligent entity, of course.)

<comment><USER43> Of course? It's the same kind of "of course" as heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Because Aristotle said so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Getting to this discussion late, but I'd like to add this visualization on different theories of consciousness:

[http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/what-is- conscious...](http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/what-is- consciousness/)

</comment><comment><USER12> > _I respectfully submit that this attitude should be considered harmful, for > several reasons, not the least of which is that it stifles intellectual > curiosity into a subject that is still an open book_

Indeed. It is quite discerning to see smart people fighting against what they believe to be anti-intellectualism with a fair share of anti-intellectualism of their own. I believe it might have more to do with a lack of exposure to varied subjects rather than a definite lack of intellectual curiosity in general however. Because many hackers are quite intellectually curious in their own domain, yet can still be susceptible to being as cynical and myopic as religious fundamentalists in other areas for some reason. The quality of thinking critically doesn't always seem to transcend domains, so I'm guessing it's a side-effect of living in a filtered environment beyond some developmental milestone of a person's curiosity. The string of comments in this other recent thread showcases this type of odd adherence to lack of understanding quite nicely: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6194276](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6194276)

It really is odd how when philosophy is _explicitly_ brought up, it is generally labeled as a useless endeavor, yet in most other discussions you see philosophical questions being raised all the time with the intention of using them as 'appeals to ambiguousness', when (as you mentioned) most of these questions have already been asked and thoroughly answered by philosophers ages ago. Not that there's anything wrong in not knowing about this, but clearly there's an interest to know these types of answers that arises organically, which makes the dismissal of philosophy an ultimately misguided exercise in cognitive dissonance. Throw in all the (literally ancient) logical fallacies you see being thrown around amongst smart, well-educated people, and it just makes the whole situation even more confusing.

While I admittedly haven't read deeply enough into the psychology behind the Meyer-Briggs personality types, they do define and elaborate on types of people that could logically lead to these kinds of odd views. The easiest example is of the classic INTP vs INTJ types, both of which are strikingly similar, yet supposedly differ in one general crucial area. INTP's take all the input they can about the world and evolve their framework of understanding around it, while INTJ's supposedly form their elaborate framework of understanding first, then explore their inputs that correspond to it. I'm only somewhat partial to this explanation because I line up as a perfect INTP on all counts, but it honestly might as well be astrology at this point for all I know. Still a fun thought experiment though.

EDIT: I realize that most on HN like speaking in more concrete terms, such as about the neurological basis for the notions of 'consciousness' and all that, however abstract argumentation and analysis does have use when talking about the act of argumentation itself. So I hope those who downvoted me at least provide an explanation within that context, because I am admittedly curious about what other perspectives there are on this matter.

<comment><USER5> I really don't think this is about anti-intellectualism at all. It's about the arguments in the article being poor ones, and in many cases ones that we've seen before. Saying that an argument is sophomoric does not imply that you think the subject isn't worth thinking about.

The top comment that was disingenuously quoted as only as "Sophomoric philosophy", was actually a well thought out dissection of several of the arguments presented. The poster of this rant has been shamefully dishonest in misrepresenting the comments he quoted, cherry picking phrases from them to put them in the worst possible light.

As a side note, you might want to know that Myers-Briggs is pretty much pseudoscience. It has low retest reliability, meaning that people who take are tested more than once often show different results. In addition, the Myers- Briggs profiles are similar to astrological readings in that each of them could apply to almost anybody.

<comment><USER12> > _It has low retest reliability, meaning that people who take are tested more > than once often show different results._

That's good to know. I still think the term 'pseudoscience' is thrown around a bit too loosely though. There's falsifiability as a criterion for scientific _theories_ sure, but building to a full out 'theory' requires quite a bit of maturity on the part of the 'science'. Some ideas fail at the onset like homeopathy, but others might have to be investigated more thoroughly before knowing for sure. The only thing I generally have against the 'pseudoscience' label is the effect it has on people that dissuade them from following anything approaching a certain line of reasoning sometimes. As with personality types, the Myers-Briggs framework might be bunk, but the underlying idea could be feasible, thinking of it as the emergence of certain patterns and algorithms from genetics and neurological connections; after all, we are seeing something that might end up being quite like this in the realm of IQ. But I digress.

The point is that we are approaching a future that is going to need more and more cross-disciplinary knowledge and approaches to really figure things out, and the loud belittlement and stigmatization of general approaches is a bit discerning to see around circles of intellectual people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> You cannot reduce or hand-wave consciousness away by calling it illusory, or by reducing it to neural activity. You can try, but you'll just be stringing words together to make nonsense.

Every one of us experiences consciousness - subjectivity, qualitative awareness, 'what it is like to be a me' \- directly. We gain one type of knowledge about consciousness by studying and poking the brain, and by observing people with abnormal brains. But that can only take us part of the way.

We gain another kind of knowledge about consciousness by _making subjectivity into an object_. We can do that via means such as meditation, LSD, DMT, mushrooms, marijuana, some types of physical exertion, and perhaps more esoteric means like astral travel, or involuntarily by near-death experiences. These give insights by allowing us to become aware of awareness, to perturb, or to side-step normal consciousness.</comment>


How to build a 'distraction-free' iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.tuaw.com/2013/07/22/how-to-build-a-distraction-free-iphone/ <comment><USER2> Link to the actual article: [https://medium.com/life- hacks/80f8d525b0d8](https://medium.com/life-hacks/80f8d525b0d8)</comment>


Re-Print of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' Unleashes Row in Germany - at-fates-hands http://in.reuters.com/article/us-germany-hitler-idINKBN0U61AB20151223 <comment><AUTHOR> "German authorities have made clear anyone reprinting an unedited version will be subject to incitement laws."

Nothing has changed. The Strafgesetzbuch § 86a exempts academic study from the ban on Nazi propaganda, and now Mein Kampf is eligible for the same.</comment>


Working in compilers / dev tools development is a good career - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/graydon_pub/status/1039597413936160768 <comment><USER2> It may be that "Working in compilers / dev tools development is a good career" is true, but the number of tools and compilers needed is small, much smaller than the number of people who would like to have this "good career". Better to focus elsewhere if you are not exceptionally skilled and/or exceptionally motivated.</comment>


Ask HN: What would be the Internet like without cookies? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Cookies are for web browsers. With no cookies we will use local storage?</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best way to get my iOS app developed? - <AUTHOR>

Like so many, I have an app idea that I know would be incredibly useful and popular BUT I have no money and can't dev for iOS.  I am not really sure where to get started.  Any tips for those who have been in my shoes?  Thanks <comment><USER2> If you can't build it yourself and you don't have the money to pay someone to build you will need to find someone that can build it or has the money to have it built.

A good place to do that is at an event like 3 Day Startup ([http://3daystartup.org](http://3daystartup.org)). I'm a iOS developer, but one of the 3 co-founder on our 3DS team isn't a developer and our company wouldn't be where it is now without him.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this info. Your non-dev founder sounds like myself and an event like 3DS sounds very beneficial.</comment></comment>


GoDaddy ends support for Ruby as of 23/01/2014 - <AUTHOR> http://support.godaddy.com/help/article/1406/ruby-on-rails-troubleshooting

<comment><USER2> Hi everyone, Product Manager from GoDaddy here. A lot of you have made the correct assumption. We simply host very few Ruby sites. We are radically improving our hosting, and with all the great offerings like Heroku (kicks ass) it doesn't make much sense to continue to invest in what will be a less than great user experience for Ruby developers. I'm happy to answer any more questions here!

<comment><USER3> Any chance you can clean up the UI on the domain management and purchase order flow? It's a mess.

<comment><USER4> Hey... I'm a dev over at GoDaddy. While that area isn't my direct area of development, I work with those guys -- we're cleaning all that stuff up very dramatically. I think you'll be pleased...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe this is just broad stereotype, but I don't see a huge overlap in "Ruby people" and "GoDaddy people"

<comment><USER6> My thoughts exactly. Most people cringe at using GoDaddy as a registrar.

Using them for _hosting_ your site? Double-cringe.

<comment><USER7> Ok, naive question, what would make one registrar better or worse than another. They all do the same thing, no?

<comment><USER8> GoDaddy supported SOPA, their advertising campaigns are notoriously sexist, their CEO once posted a "white man's burden" video of him "saving some poor Africans" by killing an elephant, and they're constantly in the news for sleazy anti-consumer business tactics that add up to an awful, socially irresponsible corporation.

They've since recanted their SOPA support, but I think it'll take more than a calculated business move to regain any consumer trust. Personally, I'd advise being familiar with the organizations that have _ever_ supported SOPA, and cutting ties with them for any future endeavors:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_offi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_official_stances_on_the_SOPA_and_PIPA)

Here are some previous mentions of GoDaddy/SOPA on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3381822](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3381822) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3393477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3393477)

<comment><USER9> SOPA Was the biggest misstep for me, and was the breaking point for me to migrate all my domains elsewhere. I ended up at Namecheap because I liked the way they addressed the situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Rails version 1.1.6 is supported in the default directory

So yes, I doubt anyone is still using GoDaddy for Rails hosting.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is hilarious:

"If you have Java enabled for your hosting account, it will conflict with Rails."

"Currently, Rails version 1.1.6 is supported in the default directory, while Rails 2.2.2 is considered an alternate "development" environment"

etc...

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I mean, that's not really "supporting" Rails in any meaningful sense to start with, so its hardly significant that they are ending "support".

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is like someone breaking up with you on Facebook when you left them 2 years ago hahaha. I think we'll get through this tough time! _sniff_

</comment><comment><USER14> I dunno. This is probably better for both communities. Better to offer no support than offer terrible support anyway.

<comment><USER2> We (GoDaddy) agree. We are radically improving our hosting and focusing on fewer areas helps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Maybe this post exists only to convince us that there actually are Ruby devs using GoDaddy. Never underestimate the value of counter-intel!

</comment><comment><USER16> I had the pleasure of trying to get a Rails site running on GoDaddy, primarily because my client had already purchased their hosting plan. This was circa 2009, and it was the first and last time I'd ever attempt such a thing.

I don't really blame GoDaddy, since their shared hosting infrastructure is just not built for long-running processes. For rails, CGI is laughably slow, and FastCGI, while faster, still wasn't performant enough and was causing intermittent 500 errors.

I ended up converting the entire project to static HTML (getting rid of the rails CMS component) and it was smooth sailing from there. Thankfully the client required very few updates to the site after that (otherwise I might have tried to move it onto Drupal or something).

</comment><comment><USER17> It seems like a lot of the ruby community would use PAaS solutions. Even if they wanted to run their own server It's highly unlikely that they would be using a shared godaddy server. Not really that big of a deal.

<comment><USER12> Even if they wanted a shared server, I suspect that the number of people who'd want a shared server with primary support for Rails 1 and alternate, "development" support for Rails 2 is vanishingly small.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Feels like GoDaddy tried desperately to gain mind-share of ruby/rails developers, realised it was costing more than it was making and hence shutting it down.

</comment><comment><USER19> "GoDaddy ends support for Clojure as of null"

</comment><comment><USER20> Yet another sign that Ruby's popularity is waning.

<comment><USER21> I suspect the downvoters need to have more of a sense of humor.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, I don't know what's most predictable about some Hacker News readers, the fact that they are in love with Ruby or that they are not good at detecting sarcasm.</comment></comment></comment>


How Yahoo Blew It (Story behind Inktomi and Overture acquisitions, Project Panama) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/yahoo_pr.html

<comment><USER2> I don't think its mentioned in the version of the article you linked (good choice on the printed version to link, though): this article is from February 2007. It also focuses on the failures of ex-CEO Terry Semel, not Jerry Yang's current predicament.

Closing argument for the lazy: "At Yahoo, the marketers rule, and at Google the engineers rule. And for that, Yahoo is finally paying the price."

<comment><USER3> Though it sounds catchy. I dont think the last statement is true. Google is(was) known for its less marketing budget, comparing it with any company would seem the company overspends on marketing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just a note: linking to the print version is annoying. The print version is harder to read (in FF anyway) as the lines are longer and there is no border.

So yes I know you think you are being all cool and anti-corporate and stuff but you're not doing us any favors.</comment>


How The Guardian is pioneering data journalism with free tools - <AUTHOR> http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/08/how-the-guardian-is-pioneering-data-journalism-with-free-tools/

<comment><USER2> They're also doing some very sloppy journalism in general. They had Gerry Adams do a piece about civilian killings in Afghanistan by the British army.

Gerry Adams was for some time head of the IRA and responsible for many civilian murders(amongst other things) during "the troubles".</comment>


Snowden banned from flying to UK - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22902098

<comment><USER2> Why on earth would he want to come to the UK?

It's [edit] certainly not the place to be if you want privacy.

RIPA (regulation of investigatory powers act) has been abused by local council staff spying on public to see if they live within a school catchment area or within an area qualifying for cheap parking. There are other abuses too.

We're bringing in a "snooper's charter" \- this is just traffic data and not content of calls, but still, it's pretty unpleasant.

We had / have "Phorm" \- deep packet inspection of customer internet traffic in order to serve ads.

The idea of national ID cards had a small number of opponents, but was mostly met with "meh". The thing that actually killed it was the cost to the individual. I'm sure that if they had kept the cost to £30 per person we'd all have ID cards today.

In theory GCHQ have strict regulatory oversight. I do know people who work for GCHQ. I never talk to them about work, and they never talk to me about work, but they do say that regulatory oversight is real and true.

But we don't have the US concept of "fruit of the poisoned tree" \- in the US a wiretap needs a court order, and without that any evidence gained cannot be used in court. That forces cops to actually get the court order, or risk losing cases. In the UK we allow spies to gather this stuff, and police to take action on it, but we don't want it used in court because then it's a matter of public record and thus subject to scrutiny and we leak information about capabilities. I see the benefit in both approaches, but I can appreciate that some people would be horrified with the English approach.

We were complicit in torture of innocent, untried, uncharged, soldiers / terrorists / combatants.

We have detention without charge ([http://www.liberty-human- rights.org.uk/human-rights/terroris...](http://www.liberty-human- rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrorism/detention-without-charge/index.php)).

The UK has about 1% of the world population, but about 20% of the installed CCTV base.

Cheshire has a population of 700,000 people ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire)) but has over 12,000 CCTV cameras, of which about 500 - 600 are run by public authorities.

([http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/02/cctv-cameras- watchi...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/02/cctv-cameras-watching- surveillance))

We happily ship people to the US under our unbalanced extradition treaty.

tl;dr: He'd be nuts to want to come here.

{EDIT: _Strikethrough_ [a horrible place to live, and] _in response to people below_ }

<comment><USER3> To be fair, all the 14 CCTV cameras on my street (!) have been sprayed, burned or shot.

That's the only crime going on around where I live.

People aren't putting up with this shit any more.

<comment><USER2> I think this graffiti project is quite funny. ([http://www.irational.org/heath/cctv_sabotage/](http://www.irational.org/heath/cctv_sabotage/))

<comment><USER3> That is pretty cool.

The only problem being that you're probably going to get caught doing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> He'll be fine if he can get to the Ecuadorian Embassy quick enough :)

I live in the UK and am utterly disgusted at the pieces of shit that act in our name.

You can't vote them out as it's a bipartisan system with two sets of the same ideals.

You can't revolt because everyone is too busy staring at Simon Cowel's nefarious trash pumped through our telescreens.

You can't speak up because it's illegal.

Sit, obey, conform.

<comment><USER4> I came up with a crazy idea this morning for an internet based political party that allows its members to vote on all ideas and actions the party will take. I think now is the time for something like this. We need to make it happen.

<comment><USER5> Be careful on what you wish for.

"The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps we should give people a proportional vote weighted by their intelligence?

<comment><USER6> that sounds like a formula for a true intellectually elitist society. The people's opinions should be heard equally if at all.

<comment><USER3> My point entirely. There was a degree of sarcasm in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _the notice was not supposed to be seen by the public_

I am starting to think the people on the other side of "the public doesn't need to know" enjoy their little fantasy world a little too much.

<comment><USER8> What do they have to hide, if they've done nothing wrong? I think we should ask them this question everytime they try to keep something secret from the public.

I don't remember who said it recently, but it's the people who need to know everything their government is doing at all times, not the other way around, with the government knowing everything their citizens do, but keeping everything they do secret. We need to turn this around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> He'd be foolish to come to the UK anyway, we'd extradite him before he'd left the airport.

<comment><USER10> "liable to costs relating to the individual's detention and removal'' should they allow him to travel. According to the Home Office's website that charge would be £2,000"

Being a little bit cynical, but 2000 GBP seems closer to the cost of shipping him to the US than the cost of detaining him.

<comment><USER11> Even if they just denied him entry and/or deported him, it would probably would be back to either where he flew from or where his passport's from. And Hong Kong might not want him back once he's been denied entry to the UK, so to the US he would most likely go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _" There is no suggestion that he has any intention to try to travel to the UK."_

Says it all really. Don't waste your time reading this hypey article.

</comment><comment><USER13> Surely Snowden knows that there isn't safe harbour in the UK after what happened to Assange?

<comment><USER14> Though I do agree with your main point, nothing happened to Assange until Sweden asked to have him extradited to complete the charging process.

<comment><USER15> Which is what the US is already doing with Snowden. It shows what the UK would already do with Snowden if he did go to the UK.

<comment><USER14> I'm a bit confused here, even Schneier said that Snowden undoubtedly broke the law, what did you think the U.S. was going to do, especially now that he is talking about leaking details of NSA hacking activities over to China? It's comparatively easy to grant a pardon after extradition for PRISM alone, he's making the rest more difficult.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I imagine that Snowden is well aware of the UK's 'poodle' relationship.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is known as the highest honour you can get just above knighthood.

</comment><comment><USER18> Could this not be them acting in his best interests? Giving a warning that they will be unable to help him while still looking strong to the Americans?

</comment><comment><USER19> I hope Edward Snowden is well wherever he goes, even if the UK, but according to "news" reports, he was making a lot of money, so he is probably in a beach somewhere. In any case, hopefully bring the NSA problem to the public eye will encourage the world to be more private and to demand privacy from their govs.

<comment><USER20> Being on the run is _incredibly_ expensive. You will burn money at 10x the rate of normal life. And he's not getting a salary any more (and even so, that salary wasn't too dissimilar from what a sysadmin in SF would get).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> As always, the UK merely acts as a vassal to the US.

</comment><comment><USER22> Remember when radio host Michael Savage was banned from the UK? I get the feeling it's not hard to get banned from the country.

<comment><USER23> Michael Savage is still banned apparently. He was raging about it the other day.

<comment><USER24> I remember when that decision first came down, and his show was playing The Kinks "Living on a Thin Line" into and out of break (the first part: "All the stories have been told / Of kings and days of old, / But there's no England now.")

Within a few days, if I recall correctly, he was asking the audience to buy copies of his new book and mail them to whoever it was in England that set the rules in this regard, to send her a message.

I'm on the left edge of the political spectrum, assuming that's 2D, but every time Michael Savage was on and I was doing something where I could listen to talk radio I'd tune in. Guy knows how to put on an entertaining show.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> At one time America was England's colony, fancy that.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm not sure if this is a clever or pathetic attempt to try and manipulate the courts in HK, but that's pretty clearly what it is. They are a former English colony, whose courts are based on English law and who presumably hold the opinions of England in very high regard.</comment>


Ovis self-driving carry-on luggage - <AUTHOR> https://www.forwardx.com <comment><USER2> Do you have to turn your luggage on when you go through security?</comment>


Survey: Americans Spent $1.4B on Credit Freeze Fees in Wake of Equifax Breach - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/survey-americans-spent-1-4b-on-credit-freeze-fees-in-wake-of-equifax-breach/ <comment><USER2> And articles such as this one only perpetuate the problem, continuing to push this broken paradigm where people should engage with these surveillance bureaus any more than suing them for libel when appropriate.

> _Fundera said the percentage of people who froze their credit in response to > the Equifax breach incrementally decreases as people get older... Thirty-two > percent of millennials_

This is truly sad. I'll give older people a pass for clinging on to a system that they remember as having worked, but younger eyes should see through the nonsensical status quo. Unfortunately, they're still naive and apparently doing what nebulous authority tells them to avoid marks on their "permanent record".</comment>


David Lee departs SV Angel - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2015/05/19/david-lee-departs-sv-angel/ <comment><USER2> It's refreshing to see honest assessments like, "I am honestly not sure what it means — VC machinations escape me.", particularly from as high a profile a journalist as Kara Swisher.

<comment><USER3> It might be honest, but it's also frustrating. I want to read honest, insightful news written by people who have an understanding about what they're writing about.

Put another way, if you were reading about a scientific development, would you feel the same way about the writer saying "I am honestly not sure what this development means -- science escapes me." or something else along those lines?

<comment><USER2> This is Kara Swisher. It's hard to imagine who might have more of an understanding of this industry. She's been up on stage intelligently interviewing the various luminaries of the startup industry, both at AllThingsD, and now Re/Code.

What she's communicating, is that "VC machinations" are inherently unknowable, and anyone who claims otherwise _in general_ is spinning a line. For this situation, it's going to require fairly detailed reporting - which she goes on to do, by reproducing the letter sent out to the LPs and SV companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> By far David Lee and SV Angel have been one of our best angel investors at Comprehend! Sorry to see him go, wish him the best!

</comment><comment><USER5> Effective immediately to spend more time with family is never good. It could be a termination or a health issue he's not comfortable disclosing.

<comment><USER6> > It could be a termination or a health issue he's not comfortable disclosing.

Or it could be that he really does want to spend more time with his family. Gasp.</comment></comment>