4 ms·
Urgh. Do you really have this much trouble differentiating between "We don't understand X" and "We don't understand X therefore anything is on the table"?
by macspoofing 12y ago
Urgh. Do you really have this much trouble differentiating between "We don't understand X" and "We don't understand X therefore anything is on the table"?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- collyw 12y agoAs I pointed out already, consciousness is not something we measure or observe. It (doesn't seem to) have a mass or energy (actually I a not sure about that either). As such, there is no reason to believe it follows the normal laws of physics. There is no reason to doubt it follows these laws of physics either. We are talking about something entirely different (well you seem to be under the assumption that brain activity = conscious self, I am talking about the "soul" or something deeper. Like the difference between a "book" and the "story" in that book. The story can be told in different ways - verbally, written, in a film. The book remains a book). The fact is we are dealing with something which physics can't describe. So trying to shoehorn the model into classic physics is kind of dumb. A bit like trying to describe subatomic physics using the model where the atom was indivisible. We can't observe "a consciousness". How can you apply science with something you can't observe or measure? Those are fundamental parts of science.