3 ms·
His arguments are based on the assumption of "we are biological computers made out of atoms flying in spacetime". Authors of this conference argue precisely ag
by kozikow 5y ago
His arguments are based on the assumption of "we are biological computers made out of atoms flying in spacetime".
Authors of this conference argue precisely against this assumption - e.g. they explore alternatives in the "beyond physicalism" book.
He claims that we figured all the physics relevant for the brain, so there is nothing potentially there. Penrose and Hammerhof theory of quantum processing inside the neuron is still under heavy debate. We still weren't able to simulate a single biological neuron - see blue brain project. Donald Hoffman presents solid arguments that spacetime and "atoms" are projections from some more complex reality underneath.
- oogetyboogety 5y agoThis. The assumption that we know how atoms work in the brain is absurdly reductionist. I would ask a physicist well versed in information theory to validate the holographic principle's validity. Once they make this breakthrough in physics, then I would use that result to begin to put faith into Sean Carroll's assumption. "Afterlife" isn't even well defined in this argument. What decisions and experiences are the ones that define you as a conscious individual in the physical sense? Based on your answer to this, I could recreate an "afterlife" decision matrix for you matching your personality to varying degrees by reprogramming the relevant constructs that exist in your brain. For a physicist, this is not a scientific argument at all. It all sounds very philosophical.