4 ms·
It's absurd to believe that consciousness is in any way responsible for decision making. There's no plausible scientific model that would allow for that to take
by armitron 2y ago
It's absurd to believe that consciousness is in any way responsible for decision making. There's no plausible scientific model that would allow for that to take place without breaking causality. Instead, we have strong evidence that points to consciousness being an epiphenomenon of brain activity, completely detached from action.
- kbrkbr 2y agoWhat about this conclusion then: It's absurd to believe quantum physics can in any way be the right theory of the world at a small scale. Why? > There's no plausible scientific model that would allow for that to take place without breaking causality. Indefinite causal structures show up quantum theory [1]. All hinges on what is meant by the opaque "breaking causality". [1] e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2930 https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2930
- achillesheels 2y agoWhat a dangerous thought, so mathematical learning is predetermined what biological factors? Is not the conservation of the body’s metabolism in the utility of communication served more physically? The ability to fast and ascetic rituals are self-evident demonstration of human motor neural control away from baseline biological processes. Unless you can please explain a hypothesis for the development of motor control habits, e.g. for healthy socializing? I suppose better group balance by controlling the body’s autonomic nerves is an adaptive response, but who is the one to get the chain of being started? To the conscious activity the answer is: through random genetic assortment?
- cwillu 2y agoAt the very least, consciousness causes enough impact on reality to result in the concept of “consciousness” to make it into dictionaries. If it was truly an epiphenomenon, such real-world impacts would be acausal.