3 ms·
There isn't any proof – of course – because any non-sentient macroscopic system couldn't testify this to us. Otherwise we would call it sentient. However, I ha
by GolDDranks 9y ago
There isn't any proof – of course – because any non-sentient macroscopic system couldn't testify this to us. Otherwise we would call it sentient.
However, I have the premise here that sentient systems are fundamentally similar to non-sentient systems. That is, there isn't any "special sauce" – such as soul or midi-chlorians – that causes sentient systems behave differently on micro-physical level. Instead, sentience is an emergent property, that shouldn't have effect in "low-level" details of how the universe works. This comes basically back to Occam's razor, like the other comment said.
- resource0x 9y ago> That is, there isn't any "special sauce" Well, this is a big claim. In fact, no one knows. My premise is that there is special sauce, but we know nothing about it at the moment. In any case, it's just my word against your word :)
- GolDDranks 9y agoTo elaborate: I don't claim to know if there is or isn't anything like that and I'm not interested of arguing about that here. What I am saying is that if a phenomenon is explainable with less "special casing", we should buy into that explanation rather than a more complicated one. Quantum physics is explainable without the concept of sentience; it's just ABC's of philosophy of science that we shouldn't try to include anything more into our theory than is needed.
- resource0x 9y agoI don't feel qualified to judge whether it's explainable or not. But 2 guys familiar with the matter believe it is not :) Not that I appeal to authority, it's just to demonstrate that the jury is still out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_int...