Comment

Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

There’s no reason to prove that any god(s) exist or not either. It doesn’t mean we should waste our time with their explanations. The hand of God could be reaching down to set things up just in time for us to see them and that’s exactly as reasonable of an explanation as the universe is aware we’re conscious so sets things up just in time for us to see them. The explanation that requires adding the least number of new things is that interactions for a collapse of the waveform and it happens then, not waiting for a “conscious” observer.

If the conscious observer thing were true, what would it decide is consciousness? Would it require sapience? Sentience? Does it happen for dolphins? Apes? Monkeys? Mice? Tardigrades? What level of synapse connections is it waiting for to decide that’s enough? What about humans born without a brain? Can they not see anything? This hypothesis requires so many weird assumptions that it’s less than useless. A god existing makes more sense.

source

Sort:hotnew top

K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

If the conscious observer thing were true, what would it decide is consciousness? Would it require sapience? Sentience? Does it happen for dolphins? Apes? Monkeys? Mice? Tardigrades? What level of synapse connections is it waiting for to decide that’s enough? What about humans born without a brain? Can they not see anything? This hypothesis requires so many weird assumptions that it’s less than useless. A god existing makes more sense.

Idk why that is so hard for you to even ponder

Science requires testable and verifiable hypothesis. If they can’t be falsified they aren’t a part of science. They’re a belief system. That’s fine to have, but don’t mix it with science. All you’ll do is end up not accepting more data as we learn it because you’re filtering it through faith.

So string theory isn’t science either show me where strong theory has been proven in any sort of fashion

source
- Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Idk why that is so hard for you to even ponder
  
  I can obviously ponder it. I’ve shown that. It’s just that there’s no reason to believe it’s any more real than Harry Potter is. It may make you feel nice, but it doesn’t do anything. If consciousness can’t be defined by whoever is positing the idea then it’s not useful to consider.
  
  So string theory isn’t science either show me where string theory has been proven in any sort of way
  
  String theory is not really, no. It’s theoretical physics. There are experiments that were designed to test it and they all have failed. String theory is a useful mathematical model to predict some results, but it’s not more than that. It’s also almost certainly wrong, but it can still be useful. It’s also almost certainly wrong, because it fails to make new predictions that come true. It can just adapt to give the correct result after we know what it should be. It’s useful, but it doesn’t make it true.
  
  source
  - K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    I can obviously ponder it. I’ve shown that. It’s just that there’s no reason to believe it’s any more real than Harry Potter is. It may make you feel nice, but it doesn’t do anything. If consciousness can’t be defined by whoever is positing the idea then it’s not useful to consider.
    
    You thought about it for a second and actually thought yeah living things having a conscience is fiction? What I don’t really know how to respond to that If consciousness is just derived from the activity in our brain it’s not hard to assume that animals atleast are aware of their conscious being on some small way. That is most definitely more believable then god or Harry Potter.
    
    Just because something can’t be defined yet doesn’t mean we won’t eventually be able to. But you know we gotta get there and again I am not saying these theories are right I commented on a meme.
    
    I love what you said about string theory I would agree but you said it’s wrong and maybe this is too and maybe something useful will come out of it but maybe not.
    
    source
K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
philosophynow.org/…/The_Case_For_Panpsychism
There is a case for even the most fundamental particles having a basic form of consciousness. And there is studies and theories being created this is just new science and extremely hard for materialists to wrap their heads around I understand that. here are some other sources you can check out for data that I posted on another comment as well Donald Hoffman Ted talk Papers from bernardo

And I want to finish off I do not fully believe these theories. They are that just theories just like most things in science start off and still are today.

source
- Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  What does it even mean for particles to have consciousness? What would that even mean for that term anymore? How can they be conscious without any ability to think? If you stretch it to particles (so essentially everything) to just say they interact with things, then the term is meaningless.
  
  It’s similar to the god of the gaps argument. You can always push an idea into further unknowns when previous beliefs are disproven. Just because the thing that’s left can’t be disproven doesn’t mean it’s any more valid. I can make up any number of equally valid hypotheses that cant be tested, but I don’t expect you to entertain them. We don’t entertain the idea that the majority of gods exist (or, in many of our cases, any of them). If we took the time to entertain every possible idea we could have we’d sit around all day and do nothing else. There’s literally infinite ways to explain this if you allow every supernatural explanation in.
  
  you can check out for data that I posted on another comment as well
  
  Data means facts and statistics, not just people talking about things. The data we have is things like the double slit experiment. You can have different hypotheses to explain the data, but hypotheses themselves aren’t data. Also, pedantic, but a theory is something that’s been tested and withstood scrutiny, and a hypothesis is a potential explanation that hasn’t withstood scrutiny yet).
  
  source
space_comrade@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

If the conscious observer thing were true, what would it decide is consciousness? Would it require sapience? Sentience? Does it happen for dolphins? Apes? Monkeys? Mice? Tardigrades? What level of synapse connections is it waiting for to decide that’s enough? What about humans born without a brain? Can they not see anything? This hypothesis requires so many weird assumptions that it’s less than useless.

What’s so weird about any of those questions/assumptions? A consciousness-based interpretation of quantum mechanics would need any conscious observer, that would include dolphins since we’re pretty sure they’re having conscious experiences.

source
- Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Why it’s weird is because it’s assuming the universe is choosing what level is conscious. As you say, we’re pretty sure they’re conscious. How do we know that? Brain scans and watching their behavior. What happens to something without a brain but still with sensors? Is that somehow conscious? What about a brain but much less complex? Why is the universe deciding how to behave based on this? It’d be really outlandish to expect this behavior from the universe, which isn’t a creature and just following a set of rules.
  
  It’s a much simpler explanation that interactions that require information force that information to collapse. We don’t need any strange justifications or anything deciding what level becomes conscious, which is just a word we made up several hundred years ago and is meaningless to the universe. Consciousness is just a series of impulses in a system, a system which can go wrong in many ways and is not a fundamental thing.
  
  source
  - space_comrade@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Consciousness is just a series of impulses in a system, a system which can go wrong in many ways and is not a fundamental thing.
    
    You can claim that all you want but you can’t really back that up. Nobody has anywhere near a coherent account of how a physical system produces (or equates to) subjective conscious experience. If your answer now is “well science will figure it out one day for sure” then you have a belief system and you aren’t actually thinking scientifically.
    
    source
    Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    You aren’t conscious when you’re in a coma, correct? That’s a measurable way the system can mess up and we can detect. You also aren’t conscious when you’re dead, right? Yet another measurable thing. We can detect brain activity and see certain regions are used for certain things. We can also detect anomalous behavior in the brain. We can tell when the system isn’t working as expected.
    
    Nobody has anywhere near a coherent account of how a purely physical system produces (or equates to) subjective conscious experience.
    
    We can easily explain how a physical system produces consciousness. We may not be able to point to exactly what it is, but we can describe it and describe how that can happen. It’s not mystical. It’s just complex. We can’t reproduce it yet, but that doesn’t mean we don’t understand how the brain functions.
    
    Why should science be forever married to a reductive physicalist account of the universe?
    
    Because that’s literally a basic requirment of science. It relies on falsafiability. You can believe whatever you want, but science relies on stuff being measurable. It doesn’t mean it’s right, but that’s how it functions.
    
    Also, you call it reductive. I don’t think it’s reductive. I think it’s more reductive to just say “consciousness exists” than to say “consciousness is a complex system that can develop in nature”. Just because it’s physical doesn’t mean it’s reductive. Saying “it just is because it is” seems much more reductive.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  that would include dolphins
  
  This is literally the closest form of consciousness to our own - the easiest and most obvious case. They weren’t actually asking if dolphins would count, they’re asking at what point it counts as consciousness. The ones you need to answer are things like tardigrades, bacteria and viruses, or nonphysical forms of consciousness. After all, you’re seriously claiming that the scientific definition of observation is observation by a conscious mind, not interaction with another aspect of the universe, so why don’t we consider all the nonfalsifiables? Do ghosts collapse the quantum superposition?
  
  source
  - space_comrade@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I’m not sure where you’re going with this really. Why do I need to analyze if every single thing in the universe is conscious or not? Physicalism also doesn’t really have a general answer to the question “is this physical system conscious”.
    
    source
    ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    A consciousness-based interpretation of quantum mechanics would need any conscious observer
    
    If you’re going to claim that consciousness is the influencing factor in quantum mechanics you need to define consciousness. You need to define the point at which consciousness starts. You saying “yes a dolphin is conscious” only tells me you think humans and dolphins are conscious, and nothing about what you think consciousness is, what things you think are conscious, or why consciousness would influence particles. So either you give a real answer to their question of what you think consciousness is or you start listing the things you think are conscious until smarter minds can work out what connects the dots.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments