• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

On Consciousness

Is consciousness physical or metaphysical?

  • Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in othe

    Votes: 81 86.2%

  • Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectabl

    Votes: 3 3.2%

  • On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines

    Votes: 10 10.6%
  • Total voters
    94
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zeuzzz said:
It rules the basic governing laws, but works differently.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Mechanical entropies arrow of time is in effect reversed by living systems, for example.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

We do not know why.
Click to expand...
IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. YOU ARE WRONG.

The only real way we could model consciousness with physics is by using quantum physics and quatum mind/body properties, but you immediately dismiss them as woo and 'quantum mysticism' (you have at least every time, up to now)
Click to expand...
Because it us unnecessary, unevidenced, impossible, and explains nothing.

The universe is basically in a flux with mechanical systems decaying and getting more complex with time via entropy vs life evolving into ever more structured systems
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
Zeuzzz said:
It's sometimes called negative entropy. Here is the wiki.




Why should quantum theory be banished from biology or consciousness? Just because it's weird ... a bit like consciousness is. Odd that ;)

Quantum biologyWP
Click to expand...

The point is that the biological systems are in contact with the rest of the universe, so that their local reduction in entropy in their own system or locality is achieved by shovelling the overall increase in entropy outwards to the larger system of the universe, thereby increasing the total sum of entropy in the universe as a whole. So the decrease in entropy observed in the local system is paid for by an increase in total entropy for the system of the universe.

This is so obvious (and is clear in the quoted passage you provided) that your slippery special pleading about "negative entropy" appears to be mere argument for argument's sake. You lose credibility every time you try to pass off this amateurish mistake as something profound and mysterious.

You are pushing the notion of "life force", a notion outmoded at least a hundred years ago.

In fact, it's the fact that our bodies are participating in the universal increase in entropy which is closer to a New Age notion than the 19th century notion of "life force", since it shows that the whole universe really is a "holistic" phenomenon! Surprised you haven't tried to make more of that, given your proclivities.

:rolleyes:
 
asydhouse said:
In fact, it's the fact that our bodies are participating in the universal increase in entropy which is closer to a New Age notion than the 19th century notion of "life force", since it shows that the whole universe really is a "holistic" phenomenon! Surprised you haven't tried to make more of that, given your proclivities.
Click to expand...


I just haven't gotten to it yet. I'm not sure whether to in this thread or the Sheldrake one :)
 
PixyMisa, that was a pretty uninformative post. Even if panpsychism is completely false, it would still be nice to understand the position so I can at least explain to other people why it is flawed rather than just saying 'panpsychism isn't true' and then make a faulty analogy between it and Santa Claus.

So would you care to explain to me why it isn't true, and more specifically why panexperientialism isn't true (if you are familiar with it)?

Thanks.
 
Reivax said:
PixyMisa, that was a pretty uninformative post. Even if panpsychism is completely false, it would still be nice to understand the position so I can at least explain to other people why it is flawed rather than just saying 'panpsychism isn't true' and then make a faulty analogy between it and Santa Claus.

So would you care to explain to me why it isn't true, and more specifically why panexperientialism isn't true (if you are familiar with it)?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

You expect someone to study your particular interest in order to refute it? Why don't you explain what you think it is and we'll discuss that.
 
Reivax said:
PixyMisa, that was a pretty uninformative post. Even if panpsychism is completely false, it would still be nice to understand the position so I can at least explain to other people why it is flawed rather than just saying 'panpsychism isn't true' and then make a faulty analogy between it and Santa Claus.

So would you care to explain to me why it isn't true, and more specifically why panexperientialism isn't true (if you are familiar with it)?
Click to expand...
Panpsychism is the belief that matter, at a fundamental level, has mental properties as well as physical ones, and that this is the explanation for minds.

This is nonsense.

First, fundamental particles have limited and precisely defined sets of properties, their quantum numbers. If they had any other properties, mental or otherwise, they would behave differently; it would be immediately obvious. Fundamental particles do not exhibit mental properties, and cannot have them in the first place.

Second, minds are the activity of complex arrangements of matter. They do not occur otherwise, nor do we need to postulate anything other than matter to explain our observations of mental activity.
 
PixyMisa said:
Panpsychism is the belief that matter, at a fundamental level, has mental properties as well as physical ones, and that this is the explanation for minds.

This is nonsense.

First, fundamental particles have limited and precisely defined sets of properties, their quantum numbers. If they had any other properties, mental or otherwise, they would behave differently; it would be immediately obvious. Fundamental particles do not exhibit mental properties, and cannot have them in the first place.

Second, minds are the activity of complex arrangements of matter. They do not occur otherwise, nor do we need to postulate anything other than matter to explain our observations of mental activity.
Click to expand...


Ahhhhhhh….the old ‘fundamental level of matter’ argument. Presumably…this would be referring to quantum physics….or does it get more ‘fundamental’ than that?

Why don’t we see what the physicists and mathematicians have to say about… ‘fundamentals’.

At a recent conference on quantum physics and the nature of reality (attended, not surprisingly, by a wampum of physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers) various polls were taken.

Why don’t we consider….Pixy’s first point…that “fundamental particles have limited and precisely defined sets of properties”.

…survey says…

“Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?” 48 per cent replied “no”, while 52 per cent replied “yes, in some cases”. A further 3 per cent said “yes in all cases” and 9 per cent were undecided (respondents were able to select more than one answer).

Is it reasonable to conclude that ‘precisely defined’ is closer to ‘yes in all cases’ than ‘yes…in some cases’. The latter sounds so….not precise. Pixy, it would seem, is amongst the whopping 3%!!!!
 
annnnoid said:
Why don’t we consider….Pixy’s first point…that “fundamental particles have limited and precisely defined sets of properties”.
Click to expand...
Which is true.

“Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?” 48 per cent replied “no”, while 52 per cent replied “yes, in some cases”. A further 3 per cent said “yes in all cases” and 9 per cent were undecided (respondents were able to select more than one answer).
Click to expand...
If you actually understood anything about quantum mechanics, you would realise that this is not in any way responsive to my point.

There are certain properties fundamental particles have. Some have definitive values (an electron always has charge -1, by definition). Others have values only when they are measured, and may also be limited in how they can be measured, even in principle (momentum vs. position).

But they do not and cannot have arbitrary other properties assigned to them. Fundamental particles by definition have no memory, no internal state. Thus panpsychism is impossible. It is also in direct contradiction with our observations, and fails to explain anything. The combination of these three factors is what makes panpsychism nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom