3 ms·

Going from "we can't explain it" to "might be new Physics" is quite a stretch. When doing path integrals for predicting particle interactions, we have to consi

Going from "we can't explain it" to "might be new Physics" is quite a stretch. When doing path integrals for predicting particle interactions, we have to consider ALL possible paths and QED matches very, very well its predictions. So any new force has to either require huge amounts of energy or interact very, very rarely. So in a nutshell, you'll have to explain how this fifth force of nature powering consciousness in our brain fits with this understanding. Given that we know consciousness can be altered or turned off by drugs, and that it is linked to the chemical and biological processes of life, it's very hard to justify the invocation of whole new Physics to explain it.

mihaitodor 4y ago
While obvious, it never occurred to me to argue that we probably don’t need new physics to explain consciousness in this manner. Thanks for that!
mistermann 4y ago
Consciousness plausibly plays a substantial role in causality though, something that was being discussed higher in the thread.
- an-honest-moose 4y ago
  There's nothing about consciousness that even suggests that it might break causality - it's as bound by causality as everything else.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    >> There’s still consciousness left in the space of things we can easily observe on nature but can’t yet explain. > When doing path integrals for predicting particle interactions, we have to consider ALL possible paths and QED matches very, very well its predictions. So any new force has to either require huge amounts of energy or interact very, very rarely. Is consciousness, and the causal role that it plays in reality, fully understood by QED theory? It has high predictive power of future states in a system where consciousness is present? I see elsewhere you deploy: > Honestly, it just sounds like human exceptionalism and God of the gaps all over again. I find it pretty hard to justify "we don't know exactly therefore I can invoke magic". This is a rhetorical technique that can be used in both directions, it would be not difficult to put silly words into your mouth also - the neat thing about reality is that it fully supports describing and perceiving it other than it really is. Typically, people tend to dislike when others do this (if they describe it in a way inconsistent with how they experience it), but enjoy doing it themselves.
nicoburns 4y ago
> any new force has to either require huge amounts of energy or interact very, very rarely. That or it completely breaks the rules of physics as we know it. Given that physics has zero explanation for consciousness that hardy seems unlikely.
- doliveira 4y ago
  We can't explain it, but we do have some constraints: consciousness acts on the physical world and is definitely affected very directly by it. At some point it has to interact with the plain old boring Physics governing literally everything about our neurons and our bodies. And yeah, it's hard to explain how our puny brains can interact with this mysterious non-Standard-Model-Physics while particle accelerators, cosmic rays and neutron stars cannot. Honestly, it just sounds like human exceptionalism and God of the gaps all over again. I find it pretty hard to justify "we don't know exactly therefore I can invoke magic". And not that I'm particularly skilled in philosophy, but AFAIK even Descartes wasn't able to go too far with dualism (which seems to be what you're arguing for).

mihaitodor 4y ago

While obvious, it never occurred to me to argue that we probably don’t need new physics to explain consciousness in this manner. Thanks for that!

mistermann 4y ago

Consciousness plausibly plays a substantial role in causality though, something that was being discussed higher in the thread.

an-honest-moose 4y ago
There's nothing about consciousness that even suggests that it might break causality - it's as bound by causality as everything else.
- mistermann 4y ago
  >> There’s still consciousness left in the space of things we can easily observe on nature but can’t yet explain. > When doing path integrals for predicting particle interactions, we have to consider ALL possible paths and QED matches very, very well its predictions. So any new force has to either require huge amounts of energy or interact very, very rarely. Is consciousness, and the causal role that it plays in reality, fully understood by QED theory? It has high predictive power of future states in a system where consciousness is present? I see elsewhere you deploy: > Honestly, it just sounds like human exceptionalism and God of the gaps all over again. I find it pretty hard to justify "we don't know exactly therefore I can invoke magic". This is a rhetorical technique that can be used in both directions, it would be not difficult to put silly words into your mouth also - the neat thing about reality is that it fully supports describing and perceiving it other than it really is. Typically, people tend to dislike when others do this (if they describe it in a way inconsistent with how they experience it), but enjoy doing it themselves.

nicoburns 4y ago

> any new force has to either require huge amounts of energy or interact very, very rarely. That or it completely breaks the rules of physics as we know it. Given that physics has zero explanation for consciousness that hardy seems unlikely.

doliveira 4y ago
We can't explain it, but we do have some constraints: consciousness acts on the physical world and is definitely affected very directly by it. At some point it has to interact with the plain old boring Physics governing literally everything about our neurons and our bodies. And yeah, it's hard to explain how our puny brains can interact with this mysterious non-Standard-Model-Physics while particle accelerators, cosmic rays and neutron stars cannot. Honestly, it just sounds like human exceptionalism and God of the gaps all over again. I find it pretty hard to justify "we don't know exactly therefore I can invoke magic". And not that I'm particularly skilled in philosophy, but AFAIK even Descartes wasn't able to go too far with dualism (which seems to be what you're arguing for).