6 ms·
Oh please suppress your ad hominem "crank" attack. The post you linked gets so many things wrong, its as if they are battling an entirely different entity. Ele
by goldenkey 8y ago
Oh please suppress your ad hominem "crank" attack. The post you linked gets so many things wrong, its as if they are battling an entirely different entity.
Electrons don't need to think to be conscious because thinking != consciousness. Experiencing their state is all that needs to occur to satisfy consciousness.
The idea is that consciousness experienced is 1:1 with the state of the matter producing the consciousness.
Also, the randomness in quantum behavior could actually be how conscious entities think. Electrons may only have a couple states but they get to roll the dice, fairly, on those states. Just like we think we do, even though our decisions are random..not actually "willed."
- Ste_Evans 8y agoThe point is that the author of the Nautilus article is not just wrong (reason provided), she is ignoring well-known current knowledge which makes her idea facilely wrong i.e. she's a crank. It's a fact, not ad hominem. The physicist simply states that the only properties of matter that can be appealed to in explaining consciousness are those described in the Standard Model. Or the Standard Model is wrong. Are you saying the observations of the Standard Model are wrong?
- cam_l 8y agoExcept you were not replying to the nautilus article, you were replying to the one i posted by Grosz. You might like to have a read of it, it does not makes the claims you are suggesting.
- acqq 8y ago> by Grosz. You might like to have a read of it, it does not makes the claims you are suggesting. I have read it. That article cites others, so you can wiggle out that it doesn't make claims alone, but what is inside is the same worthless "idea": "sub-atomic particles have a primary consciousness, an immediate self-perception or self-survey, an overflight without distance, immediately in touch with itself and its Umwelt, which in the case of the particle, includes not only the other particles comprising the atom but perhaps the entirety of all particles, the universe itself. Like the embryo, the brain or any living thing, sub-atomic particles act their being, perceive themselves, form and maintain themselves" Of course that idea is supported by... nothing but the trick that if we redefine consciousness as the interaction of anything with its environment (and call the environment Umwelt to sound more clever), then everything is conscious. Duh. However, scientifically, most of the animals have to be self aware, at least enough to survive: they have to differently handle their own body and their own situation in the environment compared to the surroundings. And that is the real limit: consciousness as we know it is a product of the evolution.
- cam_l 8y ago1. I was specifically replying to the flagged poster (flagged for good reason as they are being derisive without warrant), who let on that they did not actually mean to reply to my post. 2. Not wiggling, fuck i am not saying anything at all apart from that it does not make the claims they were suggesting—which it does not. I just said I liked the article. I like that it navigates a coherent path through a concept which is often quite.. far fetched. Gives framework around how to see consciousness differently without making any claims about consciousness than that which is observed. But seriously, the idea that you must take on the entirety of a cannon if you make reference to it (even when expressly arguing against it) is, how shall I put this nicely.. just fucking ridiculous. 3. You seem to suggest we should rest on our current conceptual understanding of various types of consciousness rather than trying to figure out how break them down into their constituent parts. Very scientific. >to sound more clever Really, why the snark? seems you don't understand how philosophy (or language for that matter works). The terms are used to maintain a meaning explained and argued previously, and to avoid common language meanings unrelated to the concept. What you said would be like chiding a mathematician for using esoteric terms like 'imaginary numbers'. edit: In the best humor, despite my better judgement, edited structure for clarity.