6 ms·

The physical realm as you call it is the entire reality, it's the only thing you can interact with in an empirical manner. You don't need anything else to creat

The physical realm as you call it is the entire reality, it's the only thing you can interact with in an empirical manner. You don't need anything else to create consciousness, it's 100% physics, and would work quite differently if it wouldn't be. It's actually thermodynamics. As it turns out there is a selection for information-processing structures due to the connection between energy efficiency and prediction. Any system interacting with it's environment has a state that's changed by the interaction, and some of that state happens to be predictive of the future. Turns out how much of that state is predictive is exactly how energy efficient the system is. It's called the thermodynamics of prediction. https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3271 https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3271 But wait, there is more. Thermodynamics actually favors the creation of a hierarchy of dissipating structures. Lightning and fire and both such structures, and also stars that feed other dissipative structures, which feed other structures and so on, as entropy keeps increasing from minimum to maximum. Dissipating a star's energy all at once, going straight to heat death is not possible, instead dissipative structures help the system move from one meta-stable state to another. There is however a minimal cost to maintaining a dissipative structure, it's not free, so the feeding stops at structures that are barely left with enough potential energy to take care of themselves. In fact the cost increases the further away the structure is from the initial disequilibria, the star in this case. And yet these bottom feeders are still thermodynamically favored, there is free energy left to do something. Now however things are different, because the bottom feeders that are thermodynamically efficient, structures that only create a minimum amount of entropy tend to survive and dissipate another day, however slowly. These bottom feeders then tend to evolve toward information-processing, because they wouldn't be able to be efficient without predictive inference. Biology from molecular machines to the human brain are all such bottom feeders, their central tenet is efficiency, in energy and information processing. Information itself is physical, it's like heat, in fact it has the same properties, it requires a medium to propagate and so on, and you can use the same statistical mechanics to describe it. In fact we are capable of experimentally demonstrating an information engine, an engine that converts information instead of energy to work. Physics now can be used to understand information-processing too. Metaphysics is only interesting if you are a philosopher and you are trying to speculate about things we don't understand yet. But it's not an excuse for dismissing reality, which is much more interesting than any metaphysical nonsense. Yes, physics can create minds, but that doesn't mean that minds are mundane, material things, it means that physics is more awesome and powerful than we thought. It creates black holes, stars, planets, human brains and all thoughts and dreams we have in them. What's not to like?

mistermann 4y ago
> The physical realm as you call it is the entire reality, it's the only thing you can interact with in an empirical manner. An opinion, stated in (and perhaps perceived as) a fact. And as the saying goes: you may not be interested in metaphysics, but metaphysics may be interested in you (the poor folks in Ukraine are getting a lesson in this as we speak). > You don't need anything else to create consciousness, it's 100% physics, and would work quite differently if it wouldn't be. ...the instance of human consciousness confidently exclaimed. > It's actually thermodynamics. Consciousness "is" thermodynamics? (And also 100% physics?) It isn't only that physics is known to be involved (necessary), but it is known[1] to be sufficient[2]? > As it turns out there is a selection for information-processing structures due to the connection between energy efficiency and prediction. Any system interacting with it's environment has a state that's changed by the interaction, and some of that state happens to be predictive of the future. Turns out how much of that state is predictive is exactly how energy efficient the system is. It's called the thermodynamics of prediction. And you're saying that it is scientific consensus that this is the solution to The Hard Problem of Consciousness[3]? > But wait, there is more. Thermodynamics actually favors the creation of a hierarchy of dissipating structures. Lightning and fire and both such structures, and also stars... If the topic of discussion was stars, this would be more convincing. > Information itself is physical, it's like heat, in fact it has the same properties, it requires a medium to propagate and so on, and you can use the same statistical mechanics to describe it. It can be stored physically, but whether this is the only way in which it manifests is another matter. > Physics now can be used to understand information-processing too. In 2022, can physics perfectly reverse engineer and emulate the human mind? > Metaphysics is only interesting if you are a philosopher... Why do people complain about metaphyscal phenomena then, constantly? COVID, Iraq, religion, wealth inequality, Trump supporters, etc etc etc - the whining never ends. >...and you are trying to think about things we don't understand yet. It may seem like you have knowledge of what myself and others have knowledge of, but science suggests that this is an illusory side effect of consciousness[4], and on that particular matter I tend to agree with science. > But it's not an excuse for dismissing reality... Agreed - that responsibility tends to fall to culture, The Science, and consciousness, and I strongly recommend against it. > ...which is much more interesting than any metaphysical nonsense. Said the instance of consciousness, describing the flawed model of something within his mind, thinking he is talking about the thing itself[5]. > Yes, physics can create minds... It certainly plays a role, but is it sufficient? [1][2] > ...but that doesn't mean that minds became mundane, material things... Culture is what does that, imho. Culture, propaganda, non-democratic power structures, etc - lots of things. > ...it means that physics is astonishingly awesome and powerful. And, perhaps, misleading. So impressive that it blots out other subtleties that we are surrounded by. > It creates black holes, stars, planets, human brains and all thoughts and dreams we have in them. What's not to like? The harm that comes when people come to believe that it is the answer to all, due to growing up in a culture that abhors logic and epistemology, while simultaneously worshipping disciplines that derive their power from these skills. I suspect it is unlikely that you and I will see eye to eye on any of this, but I am ever curious and always enjoy such conversations. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency [3] https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/ https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

mistermann 4y ago

> The physical realm as you call it is the entire reality, it's the only thing you can interact with in an empirical manner. An opinion, stated in (and perhaps perceived as) a fact. And as the saying goes: you may not be interested in metaphysics, but metaphysics may be interested in you (the poor folks in Ukraine are getting a lesson in this as we speak). > You don't need anything else to create consciousness, it's 100% physics, and would work quite differently if it wouldn't be. ...the instance of human consciousness confidently exclaimed. > It's actually thermodynamics. Consciousness "is" thermodynamics? (And also 100% physics?) It isn't only that physics is known to be involved (necessary), but it is known[1] to be sufficient[2]? > As it turns out there is a selection for information-processing structures due to the connection between energy efficiency and prediction. Any system interacting with it's environment has a state that's changed by the interaction, and some of that state happens to be predictive of the future. Turns out how much of that state is predictive is exactly how energy efficient the system is. It's called the thermodynamics of prediction. And you're saying that it is scientific consensus that this is the solution to The Hard Problem of Consciousness[3]? > But wait, there is more. Thermodynamics actually favors the creation of a hierarchy of dissipating structures. Lightning and fire and both such structures, and also stars... If the topic of discussion was stars, this would be more convincing. > Information itself is physical, it's like heat, in fact it has the same properties, it requires a medium to propagate and so on, and you can use the same statistical mechanics to describe it. It can be stored physically, but whether this is the only way in which it manifests is another matter. > Physics now can be used to understand information-processing too. In 2022, can physics perfectly reverse engineer and emulate the human mind? > Metaphysics is only interesting if you are a philosopher... Why do people complain about metaphyscal phenomena then, constantly? COVID, Iraq, religion, wealth inequality, Trump supporters, etc etc etc - the whining never ends. >...and you are trying to think about things we don't understand yet. It may seem like you have knowledge of what myself and others have knowledge of, but science suggests that this is an illusory side effect of consciousness[4], and on that particular matter I tend to agree with science. > But it's not an excuse for dismissing reality... Agreed - that responsibility tends to fall to culture, The Science, and consciousness, and I strongly recommend against it. > ...which is much more interesting than any metaphysical nonsense. Said the instance of consciousness, describing the flawed model of something within his mind, thinking he is talking about the thing itself[5]. > Yes, physics can create minds... It certainly plays a role, but is it sufficient? [1][2] > ...but that doesn't mean that minds became mundane, material things... Culture is what does that, imho. Culture, propaganda, non-democratic power structures, etc - lots of things. > ...it means that physics is astonishingly awesome and powerful. And, perhaps, misleading. So impressive that it blots out other subtleties that we are surrounded by. > It creates black holes, stars, planets, human brains and all thoughts and dreams we have in them. What's not to like? The harm that comes when people come to believe that it is the answer to all, due to growing up in a culture that abhors logic and epistemology, while simultaneously worshipping disciplines that derive their power from these skills. I suspect it is unlikely that you and I will see eye to eye on any of this, but I am ever curious and always enjoy such conversations. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency [3] https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/ https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics