{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreihtzuntfz6apchfpbpausruszdqnoxc7fu2vqf73ap6w7h7giz7oe",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjh2r4dztxa2"
  },
  "path": "/t/consciousness-as-a-puzzle-the-observer-as-a-mirror-and-ais-place-in-this-circle/174468?page=3#post_55",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-14T07:33:12.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "textContent": "closerh:\n\n> the observer does not exist as a separate entity — he is between\n\nWhat you and most of the thread’s commentators are struggling with is the logical fallacy of trying to pin down or locate consciousness in some discrete place, or as the result of a system, or through interactions between sub-systems, or as an emergent _property_( (emphasis on the word property), etc. All of those attempts ultimately breakdown when you start analyzing the components of any definition concocted for it. Just ask “what is ____” for every piece of the definition and it will fall apart quickly.\n\nConsciousness may just be an illusion, or a delusion to be more precise, useful in some sense to human evolution and survival (I don’t _feel_ so alone because I can hear myself think) but ultimately vacuous and empty, having no locus, no inherent objective existence, a fantasy, like most of of the things the average person believes “exist.”\n\nWhat can be said to exist in any meaningful sense? Name one thing that has no cause nor any certain perpetual future. Protons, electrons, and photons? They require space/time to exist _in_ , so they ultimately depend upon there even _being_ space/time, and we still don’t know if a big crunch is coming or infinite expansion and heat death as the long-tail result of this universe.\n\nYou can play the tape forward and end up in a situation where everything returns to an infinite point of condensed and pure energy/photons, which cannot itself be observed from the outside (who would be positioned to observe it?), or alternatively if proton decay is real, an extremely dilute, cold bath of radiation. Where is a “thing” called “consciousness “ to be found in that scenario?\n\nOr you can rewind the tape to the early moments of the big bang, when all that existed was extreme high-energy/temperatures. And by energy I don’t mean the foo-foo feel-good kind, I mean no life exists too hot for anything to be structurally stable, not even a _place_ for things _to_ exist, just an unimaginably hot expanding “everywhere at once” energetic vacuum-like field that birthed space/time itself. Where is consciousness to be found in that scenario, much less _any_ thing whatsoever.\n\nThat means there was no consciousness at begin with, and there will be no consciousness at the end. So then you say “but what about about _now_ ” and suddenly we’re no longer discussing _what_ consciousness is but _when_ consciousness is. To answer that, you now have to ask “what is time? what is now?” and that leads down a rabbit hole that has no easy answers either. A fly’s experience of time is vastly different from a human’s experience. That’s why you can’t swat a fly very easily with your hands. It sees them coming in slow motion and can easily move away. If a photon could “experience” time, which it can’t since “experience” is a vague fuzzy abstract term humans use to sum up sensory illusions/delusions, even if the photon travels millions of light years taking billions of years in human-equivalent time, the photon begins and ends its journey in the same instant, as though no time passed whatsoever. So trying to say consciousness is here _now_ , is a property that has emerged _now_ , is also problematic, if _now_ is relative to the arbitrary being or locus within that being (e.g. the brain and it’s neurons) for which this relative temporal phenomenon is supposed to be taking place.\n\nThe best you can hope to say is that there is some fleeting, largely illusory, almost certainly _conventional_ human convention that we call consciousness which tries and largely fails due to our limited current scientific knowledge to sum up what it means to be a vaguely normal human being going about life. And as long as you admit it’s a convention, that we’re not speaking in some kind of ultimate objective sense, then sure, discuss consciousness and enjoy the meaning that comes from such discussions. Just be wary of falling too deep into the illusion that AI, philosophy, religion, and even leading cognitive neuroscience theories can explain it all well enough for you feel certain you have a firm, objective, ultimate grasp on it.\n\nThe safer standpoint is to just put most human (and our tool-based) knowledge and descriptions of experience into the territory of conventional truth, and let some things like mathematics and physics get you nearer and nearer to the ultimate/objective side of truth. It may not feel good to lack certainty, but uncertainty has power. It keeps you asking questions. It prevents you from falling prey to fanciful stories and illusions. It makes you _work_ for your hard-earned truths.\n\nCheers.",
  "title": "Consciousness as a puzzle, the observer as a mirror, and AI's place in this circle"
}