4 ms·

Consciousness being quantum would at least explain qualia. It would be easy to say feeling is simply a new quantum field unbeknownst to us instead of an (as of

Consciousness being quantum would at least explain qualia. It would be easy to say feeling is simply a new quantum field unbeknownst to us instead of an (as of yet unexplained) emergent property of the currently known fields and their fluctuations.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
We haven't come to an agreement on the meaning or interpretation of quantum effects, so I'm not sure it would explain much at this stage of physics.
- robwwilliams 3y ago
  And many doubts about qualia. A mystery if you insist, but to someone like Dennett it is not a conundrum worth anymore than the concept of ether is in modern physics.
colanderman 3y ago
I don't buy it. Quantum fields aren't magical, they follow rules the same as EM fields and chemical interactions. If N physical domains aren't sufficient to explain qualia, how will N+1 change things?
- hnfong 3y ago
  Make the science complicated enough that it could be confused for another complicated thing that we don’t fully understand.
- anon291 3y ago
  If the new field is the one that creates feeling than it would indeed be a better explanation. To prove this, you would have to create a physical process that could excite the 'feeling field', use that process to create a region of non zero charge in the feeling field and then determine if humans placed in this area of elevated feeling charge felt different. If they did, then that's proof of some kind of feeling charge. As for the 'why would n+1 explain it'.. it's the same reason we invented the strong force... To explain things that cannot be explained. Qualia is inexplicable, thus it would seem to be a straightforwards application of the same principle
  - colanderman 3y ago
    We can already induce various feelings and qualia through the use of chemicals (drugs) and EM fields (tDCS). There's no evidence or proof that these physical domains are insufficient to explain qualia. Likewise, demonstrating that feelings and qualia can be induced via quantum interactions doesn't reveal anything deeper about their nature than does the fact that we can induce happiness or hallucinations with drugs.
    - anon291 3y ago
      > There's no evidence or proof that these physical domains are insufficient to explain qualia Law of excluded middle does not apply in general, only in certain systems. The real world is not one of them. There is also no evidence that physical domains are sufficient to explain qualia. To do that you would have to show that you can make an inanimate / non-living object feel something. Qualia has a very different sensation than simple observation. Do you claim, for example, that a Camera feels red? How? Why? This is a very valid question, for which we have no physical explanation.
mewpmewp2 3y ago
How would that explain that?
- anon291 3y ago
  It would make feeling an intrinsic property of the universe rather than an emergent phenomenon.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

We haven't come to an agreement on the meaning or interpretation of quantum effects, so I'm not sure it would explain much at this stage of physics.

robwwilliams 3y ago
And many doubts about qualia. A mystery if you insist, but to someone like Dennett it is not a conundrum worth anymore than the concept of ether is in modern physics.

colanderman 3y ago

I don't buy it. Quantum fields aren't magical, they follow rules the same as EM fields and chemical interactions. If N physical domains aren't sufficient to explain qualia, how will N+1 change things?

hnfong 3y ago
Make the science complicated enough that it could be confused for another complicated thing that we don’t fully understand.
anon291 3y ago
If the new field is the one that creates feeling than it would indeed be a better explanation. To prove this, you would have to create a physical process that could excite the 'feeling field', use that process to create a region of non zero charge in the feeling field and then determine if humans placed in this area of elevated feeling charge felt different. If they did, then that's proof of some kind of feeling charge. As for the 'why would n+1 explain it'.. it's the same reason we invented the strong force... To explain things that cannot be explained. Qualia is inexplicable, thus it would seem to be a straightforwards application of the same principle
- colanderman 3y ago
  We can already induce various feelings and qualia through the use of chemicals (drugs) and EM fields (tDCS). There's no evidence or proof that these physical domains are insufficient to explain qualia. Likewise, demonstrating that feelings and qualia can be induced via quantum interactions doesn't reveal anything deeper about their nature than does the fact that we can induce happiness or hallucinations with drugs.
  - anon291 3y ago
    > There's no evidence or proof that these physical domains are insufficient to explain qualia Law of excluded middle does not apply in general, only in certain systems. The real world is not one of them. There is also no evidence that physical domains are sufficient to explain qualia. To do that you would have to show that you can make an inanimate / non-living object feel something. Qualia has a very different sensation than simple observation. Do you claim, for example, that a Camera feels red? How? Why? This is a very valid question, for which we have no physical explanation.

mewpmewp2 3y ago

How would that explain that?

anon291 3y ago
It would make feeling an intrinsic property of the universe rather than an emergent phenomenon.