4 ms·

The science of “vibes” shows how everything is connected

13 points by akeck 8y ago

lbj 8y ago
A lawyer/philosopher team up with a psychologist to provide a physical theory of how everything is connected. tl;dr: speculation
- MPSimmons 8y ago
  Yeah, there's absolutely no science in this article.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> [L]iterally every life form and every speck of dust down to the smallest subatomic particle is influenced by the world through the various forces that act upon it. An electron is influenced by charged particles close enough to have an impact, and from objects that exert a gravitational pull—and the electron behaves accordingly. To exist, to be in the universe, means that every particle in the universe feels some pull and push from the various forces around it—otherwise it simply doesn’t exist. Thus, the electron perceives, as I have defined this term, and the electron is a subject. I once came to the conclusion that the only true statement I could make is that "there is something", or that "something is going on"... other than that, it's very hard to say where one "thing" starts and another ends, if there even are separate things. At the very least, that even just gravity affects everything (that is affected by it at all, that is), at any distance (so far as we know?), no matter how weakly, always struck me as quite the underrated fact. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18689562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18689562 For some reason, Nneka comes to my mind. And because everything is everything, I'll just post it. Maybe it'll save someone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BvvLGoZHs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BvvLGoZHs8
kstenerud 8y ago
This is so hand-wavey, I'm a bit disappointed to see it on hn. To the article in question, yes, things can adopt sympathetic vibration, but extrapolating that to high level consciousness is a Herculean stretch. That they haven't even come up with neural imaging experiments is very telling.
based2 8y ago
http://cleamc11.vub.ac.be/MACRBOOK.html http://cleamc11.vub.ac.be/MACRBOOK.html
carapace 8y ago
Old wine in a new bottle. And a bit of tail-chasing. Reading Hunt's paper it seems he's not even trying to address the Hard Problem of Consciousness: > But why, sceptics will object, is all matter inherently experiential? Some facts are simply brute facts. There are no additional answers below the level of brute facts and we just accept this and see where these brute facts take us. I postulate, based on the arguments fleshed out here, that the stuff of the universe is inherently experiential. This theory leads to an intellectually satisfying world-view as well as greater compassion for the universe around us and all of its inhabit- ants. In this case, it is no tragedy, by any means, to accept that all things are inherently experiential and that experience complexifies as form complexifies. It is, rather, a very satisfying path between the dogma of traditional theism and the more recent dogma of crude materialism. So, what's the point?[1] Here's Albert Einstein: "A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." [1] Will this help me build a GAI robot? Will it help me be more compassionate? - - - - Do a video search for "metronome synchronization"... E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5eBf2KwF8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5eBf2KwF8 Sooooooo satisfying......

13 points by akeck 8y ago

lbj 8y ago

A lawyer/philosopher team up with a psychologist to provide a physical theory of how everything is connected. tl;dr: speculation

MPSimmons 8y ago
Yeah, there's absolutely no science in this article.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

> [L]iterally every life form and every speck of dust down to the smallest subatomic particle is influenced by the world through the various forces that act upon it. An electron is influenced by charged particles close enough to have an impact, and from objects that exert a gravitational pull—and the electron behaves accordingly. To exist, to be in the universe, means that every particle in the universe feels some pull and push from the various forces around it—otherwise it simply doesn’t exist. Thus, the electron perceives, as I have defined this term, and the electron is a subject. I once came to the conclusion that the only true statement I could make is that "there is something", or that "something is going on"... other than that, it's very hard to say where one "thing" starts and another ends, if there even are separate things. At the very least, that even just gravity affects everything (that is affected by it at all, that is), at any distance (so far as we know?), no matter how weakly, always struck me as quite the underrated fact. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18689562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18689562 For some reason, Nneka comes to my mind. And because everything is everything, I'll just post it. Maybe it'll save someone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BvvLGoZHs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BvvLGoZHs8

kstenerud 8y ago

This is so hand-wavey, I'm a bit disappointed to see it on hn. To the article in question, yes, things can adopt sympathetic vibration, but extrapolating that to high level consciousness is a Herculean stretch. That they haven't even come up with neural imaging experiments is very telling.

based2 8y ago

http://cleamc11.vub.ac.be/MACRBOOK.html http://cleamc11.vub.ac.be/MACRBOOK.html

carapace 8y ago

Old wine in a new bottle. And a bit of tail-chasing. Reading Hunt's paper it seems he's not even trying to address the Hard Problem of Consciousness: > But why, sceptics will object, is all matter inherently experiential? Some facts are simply brute facts. There are no additional answers below the level of brute facts and we just accept this and see where these brute facts take us. I postulate, based on the arguments fleshed out here, that the stuff of the universe is inherently experiential. This theory leads to an intellectually satisfying world-view as well as greater compassion for the universe around us and all of its inhabit- ants. In this case, it is no tragedy, by any means, to accept that all things are inherently experiential and that experience complexifies as form complexifies. It is, rather, a very satisfying path between the dogma of traditional theism and the more recent dogma of crude materialism. So, what's the point?[1] Here's Albert Einstein: "A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." [1] Will this help me build a GAI robot? Will it help me be more compassionate? - - - - Do a video search for "metronome synchronization"... E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5eBf2KwF8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5eBf2KwF8 Sooooooo satisfying......