神经科学与心理学2024sheldrake.org
太阳有意识吗？
Is the Sun Conscious? (2021)
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：泛心论基本概念、意识哲学基础
导读
Rupert Sheldrake 的论文探讨太阳等恒星是否可能具有意识，提出自组织系统在包括恒星和星系在内的各个复杂层级上或许都拥有某种体验、觉知或意识。文章属于泛心论式的思辨，而非实验性研究。
HN 关注点：HN 读者对'意识'的定义边界和泛心论这类大胆假设的合理性展开争论，讨论焦点集中在'有意识'到底意味着什么。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 3 补充 1
质疑以幽默方式指出恒星意识假设的悖论：有意识却被物理束缚。
如果星系尺度的实体真的有体验、觉知和意识，却没有自主移动的能力，被困在一条万亿年、无法逃脱的路径上，那一定非常可怕。
andsoitis查看英文原文
> self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity, including stars and galaxies, might have experience, awareness, or consciousness. It must be terrifying if you're a galactic entity and have experience, awareness, and consciousness, but no autonomy w.r.t. movement, trapped in a trillion-year path that you cannot escape.
质疑用光速延迟的物理事实调侃太阳意识的实际沟通问题。
当你向太阳神祈祷时，它要 8 分钟后才能听到，然后再等 8 分钟才能收到回应——这只是基本物理。如果是紧急情况，太阳帮不了你，祈祷月亮运气更好。
visarga查看英文原文
When you pray to the sun god it won't hear for 8 minutes, and then you need to wait for another 8 minutes for the response. Just basic physics. If it's an emergency the sun can't help you, better luck praying to the moon.
补充半开玩笑地把太阳意识与古代神明信仰、祈祷现象联系起来。
如果太阳有意识，或许能解释人类为何信仰能降下洪水的强大神明。也许洪水是由日冕物质抛射煮沸部分海洋、导致某河谷地区极端降雨造成的。设想太阳的意识场涵盖我们所有心智，那么想着它或许就能与它对话，祈祷也可能是真的——太阳也能对我们说话，类似某种恒星版经颅磁刺激。太阳崇拜现在有科学依据了！
barfbagginus查看英文原文
If the sun is conscious, that could explain why humanity believes in a powerful god that can, eg, send floods. Perhaps the flood was caused by a coronal mass ejection that boiled a section of the ocean, causing extreme rains in a valley region. Let's imagine that the consciousness field of the sun encompasses all of our minds.. so thinking about it might let us talk to it. So prayer could be real too. They can probably talk to us too, if they want to. A form of stellar transcranial magnetic simulation. Pov: Sun Cults now have a scientific basis, baby! Let's try to make mental contact with the sun!
质疑质疑'意识'概念定义模糊，认为把主观体验强加于物理系统是前科学式的思路。
抱歉问个可能愚蠢或禁忌的问题：'有意识'到底是什么意思？我们知道很多复杂系统表现出远比其组成部分更复杂、更有目标性的'涌现'行为，但没人说病毒或火有意识——尽管它们消耗能量、繁殖、避障、适应。那细菌？蜘蛛？海豚？然后突然就到'人类肯定有意识'。受精卵、三个月胎儿、出生时呢？这很有争议。这一切是不是有点前哥白尼式？就像哥本哈根诠释：如果放弃把主观人类体验强加给硬数据和严谨数学，突然间除了关于主观体验的深层个人内省，就没有什么真正有争议的东西了。
benreesman查看英文原文
Apologies if this is a dumb question or a taboo question or both, but what the does “conscious” mean? We know about lots of complex systems, and systems that exhibit “emergent” behaviors seeming much more complex and goal-directed than the components of the system (the glider gun, that thing with the computer-modeled birds with like 3 simple rules but then the whole flock does complicated, creative stuff, long list). Because I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone call a virus conscious, or a fire (until this submission I guess) and both of those things consume energy in one way or another, reproduce, avoid obstacles, adapt to situations to reproduce more. Ok so maybe it’s bacteria, or maybe it’s spiders, or maybe it’s dolphins, or maybe it’s primates, and then abruptly it’s “yup, humans for sure, that’s the one thing everyone agrees on, humans are conscious”. But is a fertilized human egg conscious, or a fetus at one trimester, or two, or three, or birth? That seems pretty controversial. Doesn’t this all seem a bit pre-Copernican? It’s like the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of wave function “collapse” via Born amplitudes: if you just give up on trying to force subjective human experience onto hard data and sound math, abruptly there’s nothing really very controversial going on other than some deep, personal introspection about subjective experience. I regard myself as a spiritual person in the sense that I wonder about my own subjective experience and the existence of some greater plane of reality and the possibility of a creator or deity, that seems to be a fairly common if not borderline ubiquitous thing people describe, but it’s not transferable, and it feels like the goalposts on consciousness are just a bunch of post-facto efforts to rationalize why this observable trait of other people likewise describing some subjective experience into science. If describing a subjective experience in compelling natural language is an indicator of consciousness then my MacBook is conscious. I feel like I’m missing something here.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2024Hacker News 讨论帖189 分 · 364 评
同领域还值得读
神经科学家能理解微处理器吗？（2017）
Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (2017)
提出一个思想实验：把神经科学常用的分析方法（损伤实验、电生理、功能定位等）应用到一个我们完全了解其原理的工程系统——6502 微处理器（运行游戏）上，检验这些方法能否真正“理解”…
神经科学与心理学2017 · 411 分 · 135 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选大脑衰老呈现非线性转变，提示中年“关键窗口”
Brain aging shows nonlinear transitions, suggesting a midlife "critical window"
这篇 PNAS 论文研究大脑衰老的非线性变化，发现大脑老化并非匀速进行，而是在中年（约 40-60 岁）存在一个关键的"临界窗口期"，此时干预可能有效。
神经科学与心理学2025 · 295 分 · 159 评进阶 · 约 75 分钟编辑精选社交网络中大规模情绪传染的证据（2014）
Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (2014)
这篇 2014 年发表于 PNAS 的论文研究了 Facebook 上约 70 万用户的信息流中，减少正面或负面内容是否会传染性地影响用户自己发布内容的情绪。
神经科学与心理学2020 · 285 分 · 72 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选裸盖菇素使人类大脑去同步化
Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain
这篇 Nature 研究用个体化的 fMRI 精密成像追踪受试者服用裸盖菇素（psilocybin）前后的脑功能连接变化，发现药物会造成大范围的脑网络「去同步化」，尤其是默认模式…
神经科学与心理学2024 · 273 分 · 259 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选对智力的赞扬会削弱儿童的动机与表现（1998）
Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation (1998)
这篇 1998 年的经典论文（Dweck 等人）通过实验研究表扬方式对儿童动机的影响：夸孩子“聪明”（表扬智力）会让他们回避挑战、害怕失败，而表扬努力则更能培养坚持性。
神经科学与心理学2016 · 253 分 · 155 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选