4 ms·
Those are not great reasons. For instance, 2-4 are essentially the same, and are not explained at all. 5 is a joke of some kind, and 1 is not reason enough to b
by vertexFarm 8y ago
Those are not great reasons. For instance, 2-4 are essentially the same, and are not explained at all. 5 is a joke of some kind, and 1 is not reason enough to believe anything. Might be reason enough to form a hypothesis, but how would you even go about testing such a hypothesis?
After all you can cook up multiple self-consistent ideas of how a machine works in your imagination, but until you actually examine the machine you can't say that your idea actually explains how it works. It's a way it might work.
Usually you want to have at least some cursory observation to form a hypothesis, but admittedly it's inherently very difficult to observe something like the nature of how you are able to observe things. That's why I'm so hesitant to believe anyone who says they have objective knowledge about it.
- resource0x 8y agoNormally, 1) is enough. Explanatory power. E.g., evolution driven not by random mutations, but by self-modification of bacteria/cells, based on same engineering principles as we use in programming. There's a rational goal behind all this endeavor, we will get it sooner or later. The alternative is the admission of meaninglessness of everything and total depression (recurrent topic on HN)
- pdonis 8y agoEvolution does not require consciousness, so I have no idea why you think the hypothesis that bacteria are conscious has any "explanatory power".
- resource0x 8y agoThank you for letting me know :)
- vertexFarm 8y agoDon't you see that you're projecting your own needs on the world around you? Physics isn't required to make you comfortable or happy. You aren't finding truth, you're just inventing reassuring delusions.
- resource0x 8y agoWhat is delusion and what is not is in the eye of the beholder until proven experimentally. Randomness is impossible to prove in principle, even for a sequence of 0 and 1, and you know it. But I see you are really interested in the topic :) There are things discovered in recent years that challenge the dogma. E.g. each neuron has its own DNA (like hardware that can rewire itself - not randomly, but for a purpose). Cells communicate using complex language through more than one communication channel. Look for "plant intelligence" on youtube (TED talks). BTW, the idea of single-cell consciousness is not mine - it's Hameroff's idea (derived from his practice of anesthesiology). Bacterial intelligence is an active area of research. The picture gradually emerges. But don't expect anyone to publish a coherent theory anytime soon - simply for fear, b/c for some reason, in US and western countries, any mention of intelligence is perceived as religious belief. But in fact, belief in human exceptionalism and intellectual superiority is a religious belief. My view is that humans are not that smart - we are just average among other species.