3 ms·
Your comment enticed me to actually read the first few paragraphs of the article, skim the rest, and ctrl+f for "conscious" and "brain". In my humble opinion, y
by EForEndeavour 7y ago
Your comment enticed me to actually read the first few paragraphs of the article, skim the rest, and ctrl+f for "conscious" and "brain". In my humble opinion, your rule has raised a false positive here. The post is extremely well written and sourced, weaving a story straight from highly technical research papers. I'd suggest judging this article by itself, not a string-matching filter.
Besides, isn't discussion of brains and consciousness perfectly relevant in the context of QM, given the requirement for rigorous definitions of observation, observers, etc.?
- Igelau 7y agoSure. Relevant insofar as pointing out that brains and consciousness aren't required for a quantum measurement to take place.
- mdemare 7y agoFollowing your suggestion, I’ve read it now in its entirety and I’m considering adding “subjective experience” to my axiom, but that might be too aggressive.
- lisper 7y agoIt is the nature of subjective experience that is the source of all the trouble with interpreting QM. If you ignore subjective experience, there is no problem at all: the universe is quantum, and that's all there is to it. But most people want to know why, if the universe is quantum, does it present such a convincing illusion of being classical.