3 ms·

> For example, when you tell me something is conscious, I expect that I can teach that thing certain things, like how to sing or how to fetch. Since a photon ha

> For example, when you tell me something is conscious, I expect that I can teach that thing certain things, like how to sing or how to fetch. Since a photon has a wavefunction, by your definition I would expect to be able to teach a photon to do things. The possible futures for a photon, given the laws of physics, are much simpler than for you or I. Its wavefunction is known. The usual (classical) Maxwell field is the quantum wave function for a single photon. > Similarly, I expect conscious things to be able to interact with the world and have feelings about it. Do you beleive a photon admires an electron more than a proton, or anything similar? You are confusing consciousness with reactiveness. Deterministic rules can cause reactions. Your refrigerator for example, reacts to temperature changes. It however, is not exercising free will or any kind of quantum randomness to do so. > Until you can show any experiments where anything that is known to be described by a wavefunction is shown to have all of the properties we associate with the word 'consciousness' in everyday usage, your assertion that all wavefunctions have a corresponding 'consciousness' doesn't really mean anything. I could just as easily say that all wavefunctions have an associated music, and that music is all there actually is. It's a definition, so it's not wrong, but it's not illuminating. There is no rule-based construct for random number generation except for PRNG[1]. It follows that, if true randomness is exhibited by the universe, one that is not generated by rules, then it must be the leftover ingredient. Consciousness is the only leftover ingredient. Everything else we know about physics is deterministic and rule-based. Now, you know very well, things like this are likely not able to be proven given the hard consciousness problem and the other proximal issues. So I'm making an argument. Some things in life are arguments, not proofs. Like political views. Get used to it instead of being cliche and resorting to Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator

tsimionescu 5y ago
Consciousness has a specific meaning, even though we can't formally define it so far. That includes reactiveness, feelings, curiosity and other traits, which elementary particles obviously do not possess. So, it is obvious that elementary particles are not conscious. Now, you could say that consciousness is a quantity that humans possess a lot of, while photons possess a tiny little amount of, like the Integrated Information Theory people claim. But there is no proof (or even indication, in my opinion) that the IIT 'consciousness' actually captures what we mean by human consciousness. > It follows that, if true randomness is exhibited by the universe, one that is not generated by rules, then it must be the leftover ingredient. Consciousness is the only leftover ingredient. Everything else we know about physics is deterministic and rule-based. Randomness is not necessarily a part of QM. For example, in MWI, there is no randomness in the universe - it is perfectly deterministic, as every state of the wave function is realized. In pilot-wave theory, the only randomness is classical - errors in knowing the initial state with absolute precision. Even if CI or other fundamental randomness interpretations of QM are correct, there is no obvious connection between consciousness and randomness. There are other unknowns in the universe - you could just as easily say that dark matter is consciousness or dark matter is the source of randomness, or dark energy etc. And only since you briefly mentioned it, free will (as in conscious choice affecting the next state of the universe) is incompatible with QM, as QM is a linear theory, where the next state is uniquely determined by the previous state, especially in MWI.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  Essential consciousness is the self appearance of free will. MWI still has randomness - how do you think you reside in one universe versus a different one? You keep sidestepping with erroneous statements. Rules are not a source of real randomness and there is a consensus among physicists that quantum randomness is actually true randomness. Even if you put the source of randomness into some other thing like dark matter, you cannot explain its construct..because all you have is rules. You must forfeit and concede to nature a black box RNG library. This is clearly ludicrous. The more obvious and consistent view is that conscious beings (that feel they have willful decisions) are the manifestation of nature's RNG for quantum mechanics IIT is an entirely different beast related to self attention, a different kind of definition for consciousness, that has little to do with will. Unrelated... QM is unitary, but it is one to many. It's a giant branching rooted tree. This is irrelevant, it is not deterministic like general relativity. Please step back in the element. These refutations are becoming exhausting.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    No, MWI has no randomness. All versions of you exist and are as real. The moment after the Big Bang, the fact that we would be having this conversation in the year 2021 on Earth was certain. This is an absolute requirement from the linearity of the Schrodinger's equation, which means that every state is uniquely determined by the states that came before. If you could measure the state of the universe with enough precision, you could tell today what I will feel tomorrow. And sure, each copy of you may experience a different comment, but they are indistinguishable, and all possible comments will be experienced. In CI there is indeed true randomness, since only one 'branch' of the wavefunction is actually happening.
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      The randomness in MWI is observer-centric. It's trivially obvious. You reside in one world of many. The theory doesn't explain why your consciousness follows a specific bifurcation. The supposed copies of you are irrelevant.

tsimionescu 5y ago

Consciousness has a specific meaning, even though we can't formally define it so far. That includes reactiveness, feelings, curiosity and other traits, which elementary particles obviously do not possess. So, it is obvious that elementary particles are not conscious. Now, you could say that consciousness is a quantity that humans possess a lot of, while photons possess a tiny little amount of, like the Integrated Information Theory people claim. But there is no proof (or even indication, in my opinion) that the IIT 'consciousness' actually captures what we mean by human consciousness. > It follows that, if true randomness is exhibited by the universe, one that is not generated by rules, then it must be the leftover ingredient. Consciousness is the only leftover ingredient. Everything else we know about physics is deterministic and rule-based. Randomness is not necessarily a part of QM. For example, in MWI, there is no randomness in the universe - it is perfectly deterministic, as every state of the wave function is realized. In pilot-wave theory, the only randomness is classical - errors in knowing the initial state with absolute precision. Even if CI or other fundamental randomness interpretations of QM are correct, there is no obvious connection between consciousness and randomness. There are other unknowns in the universe - you could just as easily say that dark matter is consciousness or dark matter is the source of randomness, or dark energy etc. And only since you briefly mentioned it, free will (as in conscious choice affecting the next state of the universe) is incompatible with QM, as QM is a linear theory, where the next state is uniquely determined by the previous state, especially in MWI.

goldenkey 5y ago
Essential consciousness is the self appearance of free will. MWI still has randomness - how do you think you reside in one universe versus a different one? You keep sidestepping with erroneous statements. Rules are not a source of real randomness and there is a consensus among physicists that quantum randomness is actually true randomness. Even if you put the source of randomness into some other thing like dark matter, you cannot explain its construct..because all you have is rules. You must forfeit and concede to nature a black box RNG library. This is clearly ludicrous. The more obvious and consistent view is that conscious beings (that feel they have willful decisions) are the manifestation of nature's RNG for quantum mechanics IIT is an entirely different beast related to self attention, a different kind of definition for consciousness, that has little to do with will. Unrelated... QM is unitary, but it is one to many. It's a giant branching rooted tree. This is irrelevant, it is not deterministic like general relativity. Please step back in the element. These refutations are becoming exhausting.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  No, MWI has no randomness. All versions of you exist and are as real. The moment after the Big Bang, the fact that we would be having this conversation in the year 2021 on Earth was certain. This is an absolute requirement from the linearity of the Schrodinger's equation, which means that every state is uniquely determined by the states that came before. If you could measure the state of the universe with enough precision, you could tell today what I will feel tomorrow. And sure, each copy of you may experience a different comment, but they are indistinguishable, and all possible comments will be experienced. In CI there is indeed true randomness, since only one 'branch' of the wavefunction is actually happening.
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    The randomness in MWI is observer-centric. It's trivially obvious. You reside in one world of many. The theory doesn't explain why your consciousness follows a specific bifurcation. The supposed copies of you are irrelevant.