swansont Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Consciousness is basically a story of scaling. As matter scales up into more complex creatures, the degree of consciousness shoots up, too. No aha emergence magical appearance of mind with panpsychism and hard problem bypass You still have the problem. All you’ve done is redefine things. It’s like Syndrome says in The Incredibles - when everyone is super, nobody is. It would be like redefining “rich” to mean having at least $1000, and then giving everyone $1000. Nothing really is changed all that much, and there’s a huge disparity in wealth because billionaires still exist. But hey, we’re all rich. Saying everything is conscious is a semantics issue. It doesn’t really address any science. You don’t know any more than you did before. You still have to figure out why there are different levels of consciousness, and why, unless you think humans and other animals are just exhibiting stimulus/response behavior, in which case we’re done. Problem solved. And you’re going to have the issue of having to accept and defend inanimate objects being conscious when they fit into this suddenly very broad definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 6 Author Share Posted July 6 3 hours ago, swansont said: You still have the problem. All you’ve done is redefine things. It’s like Syndrome says in The Incredibles - when everyone is super, nobody is. It would be like redefining “rich” to mean having at least $1000, and then giving everyone $1000. Nothing really is changed all that much, and there’s a huge disparity in wealth because billionaires still exist. But hey, we’re all rich. Saying everything is conscious is a semantics issue. It doesn’t really address any science. You don’t know any more than you did before. You still have to figure out why there are different levels of consciousness, and why, unless you think humans and other animals are just exhibiting stimulus/response behavior, in which case we’re done. Problem solved. And you’re going to have the issue of having to accept and defend inanimate objects being conscious when they fit into this suddenly very broad definition. If I understand correctly your point, if everything has cognition (because this one is measurable, but consciousness is not), then I would not be able to differentiate between the have's from the have not's. However, I could still be able to differentiate between those that have a lot from those that have not so much. $1 to the atom, $10 to the cell, $100 to simple organism, etc. Is that not the work of science of determining this? Or finding if all indeed have cognition, not also the purview of science? Saying everything is conscious changes everything; from a mechanistic to a consciousness driven worldview. It puts into question where we came from, where we are at and where we are going. From soulless to soulful world. To you, it might not be scientifically relevant, for which I disagree, but philosophically-psychologically, it changes much. Experience, a lot of it, and evidence tells us that humans and other animals exhibit more than stimulus/response behaviours, in which case we are not done. And agree that I do have to begin accepting and defending inanimate objects as being conscious; a tall order indeed. However, consciousness at the atomic level would look like physics. Soul as in purspose not divinity. Are we witnessing the beginning of the age of immaterialism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: If I understand correctly your point, if everything has cognition (because this one is measurable, but consciousness is not), then I would not be able to differentiate between the have's from the have not's. However, I could still be able to differentiate between those that have a lot from those that have not so much. $1 to the atom, $10 to the cell, $100 to simple organism, etc. Is that not the work of science of determining this? Or finding if all indeed have cognition, not also the purview of science? Yes, and AFAICT it’s completely unaffected by the label you hang on it. If I call a rose a floofernurg, what actually changes about the biology or the aesthetics? 37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Saying everything is conscious changes everything; from a mechanistic to a consciousness driven worldview. It puts into question where we came from, where we are at and where we are going. Nope. You’ve not shown that anything changes. 37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: From soulless to soulful world. To you, it might not be scientifically relevant, for which I disagree, but philosophically-psychologically, it changes much. Much like being able to say you’re rich. There’s a psychological shift. Not a scientific one. There’s a bias that occurs because of the view that humans are special, but that’s driven by religion and perhaps philosophy (the article touches on this) so that spilled over into biology (scientists are human, after all). There are people who insist that humans aren’t animals, but that’s not driven by science. 37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Experience, a lot of it, and evidence tells us that humans and other animals exhibit more than stimulus/response behaviours, in which case we are not done. And agree that I do have to begin accepting and defending inanimate objects as being conscious; a tall order indeed. However, consciousness at the atomic level would look like physics. Soul as in purspose not divinity. Purpose would be your burden to show, but I don’t see how expanding the scope of what is considered conscious gets you there. As the article points out, you have a tough job explaining why some things are conscious and others are not. Like a lot of biology, that demarcation is going to be fuzzy and shifting that line doesn’t eliminate the problem, but likely makes it harder. e.g. an atom is conscious, but certain collections of them are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Saying everything is conscious changes everything; from a mechanistic to a consciousness driven worldview. It puts into question where we came from, where we are at and where we are going. It does none of these things. What it does is give you a way to claim you know more than people who've studied this their entire lives. It gives you the ability to sit on the fence about any bit of science you refuse to study rigorously. It gives you an excuse to claim the giants who went before you don't have broad enough shoulders to stand on. It gives you an unearned reason to question without understanding. You'll probably just keep throwing things at the wall, hoping something sticks, wasting the time you might have spent studying more than popular science on the internet. You have a good mind, you should at least try to formally study the knowledge humans have accumulated over centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 The whole “we don’t know where the mind resides” narrative reminds me of discussion of ufo/aliens, where “it’s unidentified” is erroneously equated to “it’s aliens” and creationism, where “we don’t definitively know how life arose” is erroneously equated to “goddidit” It’s a bad script to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 6 Author Share Posted July 6 2 hours ago, swansont said: Yes, and AFAICT it’s completely unaffected by the label you hang on it. If I call a rose a floofernurg, what actually changes about the biology or the aesthetics? Nope. You’ve not shown that anything changes. Much like being able to say you’re rich. There’s a psychological shift. Not a scientific one. There’s a bias that occurs because of the view that humans are special, but that’s driven by religion and perhaps philosophy (the article touches on this) so that spilled over into biology (scientists are human, after all). There are people who insist that humans aren’t animals, but that’s not driven by science. Purpose would be your burden to show, but I don’t see how expanding the scope of what is considered conscious gets you there. As the article points out, you have a tough job explaining why some things are conscious and others are not. Like a lot of biology, that demarcation is going to be fuzzy and shifting that line doesn’t eliminate the problem, but likely makes it harder. e.g. an atom is conscious, but certain collections of them are not. 1 - is your labeling point about naming it cognition rather than consciousness? If so, the difference is the former is measurable and the other is not. If not, please explain. 2- scientifically, the method would have to consider cognition as an effect on what is being studied. Science would have to study matter and cognition, but not consciousness as it is not possible to study it with the scientific tools currently at hand 3- humans are not special, consciousness might be. It might be a fundamental property of the univers worthwhile being studied, scientifically or not. 4- yes, purpose needs to be shown and issues to be overcome like in all scientific endeavour. Again, Tables are not conscious because the parts are not interacting together - no unity going on with the table, whereas with a plant, there really is clear unity. A plant is a goal-directed system with unity of purpose 1 hour ago, Phi for All said: It does none of these things. What it does is give you a way to claim you know more than people who've studied this their entire lives. It gives you the ability to sit on the fence about any bit of science you refuse to study rigorously. It gives you an excuse to claim the giants who went before you don't have broad enough shoulders to stand on. It gives you an unearned reason to question without understanding. You'll probably just keep throwing things at the wall, hoping something sticks, wasting the time you might have spent studying more than popular science on the internet. You have a good mind, you should at least try to formally study the knowledge humans have accumulated over centuries. I do not claim to know more. I only claim that consciousness was ignored for so long out of the claim that it did not exist or was not the purview of science. I claim that cognition, a part of consciousness, is now being studied with surprising results. I claim that all the materialistic work done is sound, but missing a fundamental part. I studied for very long the knowledge of humans, just not in a formal way. Those in the field know more than those in buildings 54 minutes ago, swansont said: The whole “we don’t know where the mind resides” narrative reminds me of discussion of ufo/aliens, where “it’s unidentified” is erroneously equated to “it’s aliens” and creationism, where “we don’t definitively know how life arose” is erroneously equated to “goddidit” It’s a bad script to follow. So, are you saying that the myriad of scientists chasing after it are like ufologists? Not the same league. did I bring up god even once in the conversation? No, but you did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 1 - is your labeling point about naming it cognition rather than consciousness? If so, the difference is the former is measurable and the other is not. If not, please explain. No the point is that labels don’t matter; they don’t change how things work, or look. 18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- scientifically, the method would have to consider cognition as an effect on what is being studied. Science would have to study matter and cognition, but not consciousness as it is not possible to study it with the scientific tools currently at hand You can’t study consciousness? If I Googled for scientific studies of consciousness, I would find nothing? Surely you jest. 18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 3- humans are not special, consciousness might be. It might be a fundamental property of the univers worthwhile being studied, scientifically or not. If everything is conscious, then no, it is not. That was a point I made not long ago. 18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 4- yes, purpose needs to be shown and issues to be overcome like in all scientific endeavour. Again, Tables are not conscious because the parts are not interacting together - no unity going on with the table, whereas with a plant, there really is clear unity. A plant is a goal-directed system with unity of purpose The parts are not interacting? How does it stay intact? If atoms are conscious, how can a table not be? The same interactions are present. What is the “clear unity of purpose” that a plant has? What is its goal? Again, these sound like creationist talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 7 Author Share Posted July 7 5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Those in the field know more than those in buildings Correction- those in the field know things differently than those in buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 7 Author Share Posted July 7 14 hours ago, swansont said: No the point is that labels don’t matter; they don’t change how things work, or look. You can’t study consciousness? If I Googled for scientific studies of consciousness, I would find nothing? Surely you jest. If everything is conscious, then no, it is not. That was a point I made not long ago. The parts are not interacting? How does it stay intact? If atoms are conscious, how can a table not be? The same interactions are present. What is the “clear unity of purpose” that a plant has? What is its goal? Again, these sound like creationist talking points. 1- Labels don't change how things work, or look....unless you are not looking at the whole picture and need extra labels for these parts. Materialistic science is not looking at the whole picture. It restricts itself to the objective side of reality, which is also comprised of a subjective nature. 2- You can study consciousness, but not in a measurable-objective way. How can you measure empirically what if feels like to be someone from that someone's own perspective? Does science do the subjective? I have argued in past posts that consciousness can be indirectly measured. Does that count as being part of the scientific approach? 3- Is not what? special? fundamental? worthwhile being studied? I am still missing the point here. 4- Can I say that atoms are attracted to one another, but do not interact with one another? Materialism and biopsychism have the hard problem to deal with (how brain creates mind), but not the combination one (how atoms combine to produce a more complex thing). Panpsychism does not have the hard problem to deal with, but has the combination one. 5- Survival is the "clear unity of purpose" that plants have, but not tables. Do creationists talk about survival of the fittest? Did the laws of thermodinamics require a creator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 1- Labels don't change how things work, or look.... But it's a handy way to describe ones general impression, we didn't invent the dictionary in order to smell a rose called Dennis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 7 Author Share Posted July 7 2 hours ago, dimreepr said: But it's a handy way to describe ones general impression, we didn't invent the dictionary in order to smell a rose called Dennis. undisputable! or indisputable? Need a dictionary 😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 1- Labels don't change how things work, or look....unless you are not looking at the whole picture and need extra labels for these parts. Materialistic science is not looking at the whole picture. It restricts itself to the objective side of reality, which is also comprised of a subjective nature. Yes, it does. Science requires objective results and rigor (falsifiability, repeatability, etc.) If you think there is something non materialistic going on, you’re doing religion. 7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- You can study consciousness, but not in a measurable-objective way. How can you measure empirically what if feels like to be someone from that someone's own perspective? Does science do the subjective? I have argued in past posts that consciousness can be indirectly measured. Does that count as being part of the scientific approach? You can study it in a measurable, objective way, too. 7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 3- Is not what? special? fundamental? worthwhile being studied? I am still missing the point here. I responded to something I quoted (“humans are not special, consciousness might be”) so your confusion is…confusing. If everything is conscious, then consciousness is ordinary. Not special. 7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 4- Can I say that atoms are attracted to one another, but do not interact with one another? Nope. 7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 5- Survival is the "clear unity of purpose" that plants have, but not tables. Do creationists talk about survival of the fittest? Did the laws of thermodinamics require a creator? Creationism is religion, not science. I have no interest in diving into this quagmire. It doesn’t belong in a science discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 7 Author Share Posted July 7 1 hour ago, swansont said: Yes, it does. Science requires objective results and rigor (falsifiability, repeatability, etc.) If you think there is something non materialistic going on, you’re doing religion. You can study it in a measurable, objective way, too. If everything is conscious, then consciousness is ordinary. Not special. Nope. Creationism is religion, not science. I have no interest in diving into this quagmire. It doesn’t belong in a science discussion. 1- Would a field being projected onto and having an effect upon matter qualify for a non materialistic label? I believe not! So, I am not doing religion. 2- How can you directly and objectively study something that is fundamentally subjective. You can image the brain with scanners, prod it with electrodes, you can see it’s effect, you can circle around it, but can you truly get to the core of what it really is? The question remains, how can you measure empirically what it feels like to be someone from that someone's own perspective? 3- ok ordinary yes, but maybe fundamental 4- Then this is a quagmire for me. Need to read more and think more on this one. 5- I too have no interest whatsoever in creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: How can you directly and objectively study something that is fundamentally subjective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science Fortunately for us, we humans have language with which to report on our subjective mental states, and inter-subjectively compare them with others. This allows an empirical approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 7 Author Share Posted July 7 17 minutes ago, TheVat said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science Fortunately for us, we humans have language with which to report on our subjective mental states, and inter-subjectively compare them with others. This allows an empirical approach. I persist in saying that “Cognition (functional abilities we can observe from a third-person perspective); consciousness (what it feels like to be a creature from that creature's own perspective) The former can be explored by science while the latter cannot.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 6 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I persist in saying that “Cognition (functional abilities we can observe from a third-person perspective); consciousness (what it feels like to be a creature from that creature's own perspective) The former can be explored by science while the latter cannot.” Repeating it doesn’t make it true. We can study how much pain someone is in and effectiveness of drugs, even though it’s subjective. As TheVat notes, we have language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 11 hours ago, swansont said: Repeating it doesn’t make it true. We can study how much pain someone is in and effectiveness of drugs, even though it’s subjective. As TheVat notes, we have language. I redact myself from stating that consciousness cannot be measured. Measuring consciousness – from the lab to the clinic https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/follow-hbp/news/2023/08/30/measuring-consciousness-from-the-lab-to-the-clinic/#:~:text=For%20this%2C%20a%20weak%20magnetic,this%20pulse%20is%20simultaneously%20measured. A Theoretically Based Index of Consciousness Independent of Sensory Processing and Behavior With the following caveat: Theories and measures of consciousness: An extended framework A recent theoretical emphasis on complex interactions within neural systems underlying consciousness has been accompanied by proposals for the quantitative characterization of these interactions. In this article, we distinguish key aspects of consciousness that are amenable to quantitative measurement from those that are not. We carry out a formal analysis of the strengths and limitations of three quantitative measures of dynamical complexity in the neural systems underlying consciousness: neural complexity, information integration, and causal density. We find that no single measure fully captures the multidimensional complexity of these systems, and all of these measures have practical limitations. Our analysis suggests guidelines for the specification of alternative measures which, in combination, may improve the quantitative characterization of conscious neural systems. Given that some aspects of consciousness are likely to resist quantification altogether, we conclude that a satisfactory theory is likely to be one that combines both qualitative and quantitative elements. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0604347103 And the combination problem in panpsychism is indeed a really big problem From “The Combination Problem for Panpsychism by David J. Chalmers “Nevertheless, panpsychism is subject to a major challenge: the combination problem. This is roughly the question: how do the experiences of fundamental physical entities such as quarks and photons combine to yield the familiar sort of human conscious experience that we know and love.” “What, then, are the prospects for solving the combination problem? On my view, the avenues that seem to be perhaps the most worth exploring are phenomenal bonding or quantum holism (to solve the subject combination problem), small qualitative palettes (to address the quality combination problem), principles of informational composition (to address the structure combination problem), and a somewhat deflationary account of awareness of qualities to tie all these aspects together. It is not at all clear whether these ideas can work together in such a way that all of the combination problems are solved at once, however. After a close analysis of the many aspects of the combination problem and the limited resources for solving them, it is easy to be pessimistic about the prospects for a solution. What emerges is that panpsychism and panprotopsychism, at least in their constitutive Russellian form, 34 are subject to extraordinary constraints in finding a theory of consciousness. It is hard enough to find a theory of consciousness that works on dualist terms, where we are allowed to take macrosubjects and macrophenomenal properties as primitive and appeal to numerous contingent psychophysical laws. The Russellian monist is constrained to find a theory whereby macroexperience is constituted by a tiny range of underlying primitive properties and without any further contingent fundamental laws. This is a little like trying to juggle seven balls in the air with both hands tied behind one’s back. It may be that the constraints imposed by the combination problem are so strong that the challenge cannot be answered. Or it may just be that trying to satisfy the constraints will point someone toward the correct form for a fundamental theory of consciousness.” https://consc.net/papers/combination.pdf Missing reference to A Theoretically Based Index of Consciousness Independent of Sensory Processing and Behavior https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scitranslmed.3006294 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 Another article on panpsychism: Here is a summary: Integrated Information Theory of consciousness, one of the more prominent theories of consciousness today is thoroughly panpsychist because all integrated information has at least one bit of consciousness. A mathematically precise definition of consciousness could mean the cosmos is suffused with subjective experience. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution [2002.07655] The Mathematical Structure of Integrated Information Theory (arxiv.org) Constitutive panpsychism – where there is mind there is matter and where there is matter there is mind. Freeman Dyson – “the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind form the processes of choice between quantum states which we call “chance” when made by electrons.” J.B.S. Haldane – “we do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in so-called inert matter…; but if the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least rudimentary forms, all through the universe." Bruce Jakosky – “was there a distinct moment when earth went from having no life to having life, as if a switch were flipped? The answer is probably not Sabine Hossenfelder – If you want a particle to be conscious, your minimum expectation should be that the particle can change” “It’s hard to have an inner life with only one thought. But if electrons could have thoughts, we’d long have seen this in particle collisions because it would change the number of particles produced in collisions.” Alfred North Whitehead – electrons, atoms and molecules are “drops of experience” in that they enjoy at least a little bid of experience, a little bit of awareness….particle like electrons as a chain of successive iteration of a sing electron that bear a strong likeness to each other in each iteration, bbut are not identical to each other…..”concrescence”, the oscillating nature of entities like electrons moment to moment. · https://nautil.us/electrons-may-very-well-be-conscious-237818/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 29 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Alfred North Whitehead – electrons, atoms and molecules are “drops of experience” in that they enjoy at least a little bid of experience, a little bit of awareness….particle like electrons as a chain of successive iteration of a sing electron that bear a strong likeness to each other in each iteration, bbut are not identical to each other…..”concrescence”, the oscillating nature of entities like electrons moment to moment. · https://nautil.us/electrons-may-very-well-be-conscious-237818/ The notion that electrons are not identical has experimental ramifications; the Pauli Exclusion principle is based on them being identical. Atoms would not work as we know they do if electrons were distinguishable. Other parts of this are philosophy, like interpretations of quantum mechanics. If you want to think that electrons going through a double slit are thinking about what to do but still follow the rules of QM you can do that, but make no mistake, there’s no science in it. For it to be science you’d have to be able to quantitatively predict some result, and something better than (or not covered by) existing science. So, as I said, it’s philosophy, and to my mind, a rather useless implementation of it. It’s Oprah-Winfrey-ism. “You get consciousness! And you get consciousness!” and an illusion of progress while nothing at all is different with actual understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, swansont said: The notion that electrons are not identical has experimental ramifications; the Pauli Exclusion principle is based on them being identical. Atoms would not work as we know they do if electrons were distinguishable. Other parts of this are philosophy, like interpretations of quantum mechanics. If you want to think that electrons going through a double slit are thinking about what to do but still follow the rules of QM you can do that, but make no mistake, there’s no science in it. For it to be science you’d have to be able to quantitatively predict some result, and something better than (or not covered by) existing science. So, as I said, it’s philosophy, and to my mind, a rather useless implementation of it. It’s Oprah-Winfrey-ism. “You get consciousness! And you get consciousness!” and an illusion of progress while nothing at all is different with actual understanding. I too am sceptical of atoms being conscious after reading the article on the combination problem by David Chalmers. As you indicated, electrons could technically go through one of the two slits by choice while following QM rules, but there is no evidence of this. Also, " if electrons could have thoughts, we’d long have seen this in particle collisions because it would change the number of particles produced in collisions." - Sabine Hosenfelder. I remain a “bi psychist” (only living organisms are conscious) to avoid the notion that atoms are conscious and to steer away from the "combination problem" (how do particles combine to produce a more complex thing with its own conscious experience), but accept that I still have, as materialists, the "hard problem"(how does brain create mind) to contend with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 17 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I too am sceptical of atoms being conscious That's good, since if you thought atoms were conscious I would question if you were conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 59 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: That's good, since if you thought atoms were conscious I would question if you were conscious. Because only an unconscious person could come up with particles being conscious? or for a more sophisticated reason than this? There is logic in believing that atoms are conscious.- living matter is conscious; life comes from matter; then matter could very well be a more primitive form of consciousness. There is also no appearance of a "break point" between the living and non-living. However, there is no evidence, at least for me, of atoms being conscious. And there is ample evidence that all living matter show some form of cognition that scales up from lower to higher life forms. I remain open to the idea, but based on evidence (lack of), I will camp on the side of non-conscious-non-living matter. In coming days, I will investigate further the notion of atoms being conscious, but remain sceptical that I will find anything convincing. correction: that scale "somewhat" from lower to higher life forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 13 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Because only an unconscious person could come up with particles being conscious? I guess stupid or insane could also apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 55 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: I guess stupid or insane could also apply. There is a lot of intelligent - stupid or insane people in the world. I named a few of them. I do know what your comment brings to the discussion though, not much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: A mathematically precise definition of consciousness could mean the cosmos is suffused with subjective experience. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution [2002.07655] The Mathematical Structure of Integrated Information Theory (arxiv.org) Just curious following the discussion from the sidelines; What is the connection between cosmos, scientific revolution and the linked article? I can't find such a quote in the arXiv paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts