Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
No one has ever made me feel horror and despair like Peter Watts. His books stare directly into the abyss. I think it's what makes the hope you feel at the end seem earned.

If you haven't read his work but you spend time thinking about HCI, you should.

I see people differently after reading Blindsight; The picture is much darker, concretely more accurate, with what light is there geared to all hell and so much brighter. I'm better for it and at a greater peace.
I quite enjoyed Blindsight, but that was not my takeaway at all :P How do you see people differently after reading it?
Hard to pin into words!

We're unconscious of how unconscious we are?, and it's good to… what's the term, suffer gladly and give gladly? To own one's unconsciousness and raise it, and expect and see others' unconscious going about major things in life - to see it coldly as well as warmly.

I find this is more accurate and safer than assuming consciousness in everyone, and it also reveals so clearly people who do cast that light; and see.

It's less desolate! I promise! Sounds like it's worse but it's not. That's the tricky-get-into-words part, you know?

loading story #48492110
loading story #48491905
loading story #48490539
Eh, I love blindsight, but I really think it oversold the case against consciousness and for belligerent intelligent life.
I agree with you on that point. It seems to me that people who read Blindsight and get all existential are not thinking things through all the way.

Blindsight poses the question, in essence, "What if consciousness is a competitive disadvantage, in which case non-consciousness would be Better™?"

I can't make a conclusive case one way or the other w/r/t the premise—it may perhaps be the case that consciousness is a competitive disadvantage. I don't know how we could test that without something to compare ourselves against (which is why the book resorts to introducing vampires and aliens—this question is untestable otherwise). But the conclusion, that non-consciousness is somehow "Better™," falls absolutely flat for me. "Better™" is a value judgement. Values and Judgements are both features of consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no such thing as "better" or "worse", there is only "is" and "is not."

So: speaking as a conscious being (you'll have to take my word for that), I'm quite comfortable saying that I like being conscious. And with unconscious living organisms—like, I don't know, coral reefs or whatever?—it's not so much that they like being unconscious as that they don't "like" anything at all.

So I think I'm quite comfortable continuing on being a "competitively disadvantaged" thing (supposing that's even the case, which it just as plausibly is not), that is at least able to conceive of questions like this one and make value assessments of its own, rather than despair over the alleged competitive disadvantage inherent in the fact that I experience myself and the world.

A computer can beat me at chess, sure, but it cannot care that it has done so.

How do you know that values and judgements have anything to do with being conscious? A machine can act like it has values and judgements and we wouldn't attribute any consciousness to it. Or if you've seen a dog tear up a garbage can every time it's owner leaves, I wonder if you're watching an expression of dog values. Is the dog conscious?
loading story #48490891
loading story #48490629
Better here is purely in evolutionary terms, i.e. would a sub- or non non-conscious life form out-compete conscious life forms in its niche.
I have no conscious awareness of what I wrote, I just tried to be Peter Wattsy, haha

(kidding!

It's oversold, or beautiful artistic expression of something. Bleak, yes; Stark; Also beautiful.

The thing it expresses is… a thing. We're not at all as conscious as… we think?, as we portray ourselves?, to others and/or ourselves? And it's magical to view people as… partially unconscious to a significant degree while also loving them and with respect.)

And knowing that another person sees you clearly and still loves you, that is magical. As well as useful since you can have discussions and make decisions based on the realities of your self without having to achieve some mythical self awareness.
It wasn't a competition though just mutual incompatibility: aliens so alien that we can barely comprehend their motives and are implicitly regarded as hostile by our manner of existence.

I'd say the case it was making has only become more relevant with the chatbot age.

> I'd say the case it was making has only become more relevant with the chatbot age.

Exactly. The central thesis, consciousness not being necessary for intelligence, is very relevant today.

Of course, the existential horror background in the book was also quite well done.

loading story #48490611
He's very proud of having been rejected by a Russian publisher for being "too dark".
loading story #48491311
Have you tried contacting Google for customer service? I’ve found that to be a sure-fire cure for whenever I catch a case of optimism.