4 ms·

Not only is the theory seeming a bit too large fitting but the article tries to stuff some cool 'vibe' nonsense.. if the original problem is Hard and you have s

Not only is the theory seeming a bit too large fitting but the article tries to stuff some cool 'vibe' nonsense.. if the original problem is Hard and you have some insight into a solution you have a ton of value already. But then maybe you dont have that insight and want to sell some snake oil level article. for something so important it just ends up looking like bad satire or onion type material. what are you trying to convey? sand is concious.. okay, thankyou. that was very helpful. the original paper probably has more sense in it.

saalweachter 8y ago
I wouldn't be so sure. There are a ton of people who get taken seriously who really, really don't like the "consciousness is what the brain does" consensus of modern neuroscience, and they say a lot of stupid things trying to come up with an alternative.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  That's not a concensus of modern neroscience, that's a philosophical consensus that perhaps neuroscientists have. Consciousness is not eligible for science because it can't be observed. For example you might think someone under deep anethesia is not conscious, but how do you know that they aren't completely conscious while not experiencing anything, doing anything or forming memories?
  - goldenkey 8y ago
    You can't observe consciousness in even living beings. Consciousness can't actually be verified for anyone but yourself. And that is actually a point of contention. Some people believe that their consciousness is an illusion too...
- ghthor 8y ago
  It's less of consensus, more of an IOU. Materialist science just says, we can't explain it now, but we will explain it in the future. Materialist biology is saying the same about the forms of plants being caused by the DNA, we can't explain it now but we will in the future. There are some scientists that aren't materialists, Rupert Sheldrake, that dont expect materialistic science to be able to explain consciousness or why life has complex forms.
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    Exactly how consciousness arises from the brain is still a work in progress, sure. But that's just the classic moving goalpost we see any time someone doesn't like what's objectively pretty solid evidence. The overwhelming evidence against any form of dualism -- either the classical Decartes-style or the modern quantum-magic style -- and in favor of consciousness being what the brain does is how damned easy it is to produce altered states of consciousness through physical manipulations of the brain. Psychotropics, anesthetics, TMS, direct electrical stimulation of the brain, and the removal of brain tissue due to accident or as treatment for an underlying condition all paint a pretty solid picture that you can alter the mind, the subjective experience of being, by altering the brain. Any alternate hypothesis that consciousness doesn't reside in the electrochemical behavior of neurons faces an uphill battle; you're demonstrating the identity of the brain and consciousness every time you go out drinking.
phkahler 8y ago
>> Not only is the theory seeming a bit too large fitting but... But it's not even a theory. That's the problem with these types of people, they confuse the term "hypothesis" with the term "theory". One is simply a proposition - possibly a wild-ass guess about something - the other is backed up by observations and can be used to make meaningful predictions.
ghthor 8y ago
Materialism, the scientific doctrine that describes the world as a machine of particles, is a fairly new way to think about the universe, 16th century. It's been very successful in producing machines, repeatable machines. But it's not the only way to think about how the universe is organized. Rupert Sheldrake is a very interesting scientist who's re-introducing an much older model for how the universe is organized, called panpsyicism, where all matter is considered conscience. Conscience is defined as having a probabilistic future,and maybe being able to make choices about that future. He has some other interesting hypotheses that build on top of this, such as morphic resonance as which is like a memory for conscience. He doesnt expect materialist science to be able to explain the forms of plants, believing that DNA is not going to be able to account for how the plant is shaped. I find that a very interesting idea, that there we are something more then our DNA

saalweachter 8y ago

I wouldn't be so sure. There are a ton of people who get taken seriously who really, really don't like the "consciousness is what the brain does" consensus of modern neuroscience, and they say a lot of stupid things trying to come up with an alternative.

whatshisface 8y ago
That's not a concensus of modern neroscience, that's a philosophical consensus that perhaps neuroscientists have. Consciousness is not eligible for science because it can't be observed. For example you might think someone under deep anethesia is not conscious, but how do you know that they aren't completely conscious while not experiencing anything, doing anything or forming memories?
- goldenkey 8y ago
  You can't observe consciousness in even living beings. Consciousness can't actually be verified for anyone but yourself. And that is actually a point of contention. Some people believe that their consciousness is an illusion too...
ghthor 8y ago
It's less of consensus, more of an IOU. Materialist science just says, we can't explain it now, but we will explain it in the future. Materialist biology is saying the same about the forms of plants being caused by the DNA, we can't explain it now but we will in the future. There are some scientists that aren't materialists, Rupert Sheldrake, that dont expect materialistic science to be able to explain consciousness or why life has complex forms.
- saalweachter 8y ago
  Exactly how consciousness arises from the brain is still a work in progress, sure. But that's just the classic moving goalpost we see any time someone doesn't like what's objectively pretty solid evidence. The overwhelming evidence against any form of dualism -- either the classical Decartes-style or the modern quantum-magic style -- and in favor of consciousness being what the brain does is how damned easy it is to produce altered states of consciousness through physical manipulations of the brain. Psychotropics, anesthetics, TMS, direct electrical stimulation of the brain, and the removal of brain tissue due to accident or as treatment for an underlying condition all paint a pretty solid picture that you can alter the mind, the subjective experience of being, by altering the brain. Any alternate hypothesis that consciousness doesn't reside in the electrochemical behavior of neurons faces an uphill battle; you're demonstrating the identity of the brain and consciousness every time you go out drinking.

phkahler 8y ago

>> Not only is the theory seeming a bit too large fitting but... But it's not even a theory. That's the problem with these types of people, they confuse the term "hypothesis" with the term "theory". One is simply a proposition - possibly a wild-ass guess about something - the other is backed up by observations and can be used to make meaningful predictions.

ghthor 8y ago

Materialism, the scientific doctrine that describes the world as a machine of particles, is a fairly new way to think about the universe, 16th century. It's been very successful in producing machines, repeatable machines. But it's not the only way to think about how the universe is organized. Rupert Sheldrake is a very interesting scientist who's re-introducing an much older model for how the universe is organized, called panpsyicism, where all matter is considered conscience. Conscience is defined as having a probabilistic future,and maybe being able to make choices about that future. He has some other interesting hypotheses that build on top of this, such as morphic resonance as which is like a memory for conscience. He doesnt expect materialist science to be able to explain the forms of plants, believing that DNA is not going to be able to account for how the plant is shaped. I find that a very interesting idea, that there we are something more then our DNA