Slashdot Mirror
Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Quartz:
Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it's the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter. This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the "panpsychist" view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose...
"Physical science tells us a lot less about the nature of matter than we tend to assume," says Philip Goff, a philosophy professor at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary. "Arthur Eddington" -- the English scientist who experimentally confirmed Einstein's theory of general relativity in the early 20th century -- "argued there's a gap in our picture of the universe. We know what matter does but not what it is. We can put consciousness into this gap"...
An alternative panpsychist perspective holds that, rather than individual particles holding consciousness and coming together, the universe as a whole is conscious. This, says Goff, isn't the same as believing the universe is a unified divine being; it's more like seeing it as a "cosmic mess." Nevertheless, it does reflect a perspective that the world is a top-down creation, where every individual thing is derived from the universe, rather than a bottom-up version where objects are built from the smallest particles. Goff believes quantum entanglement -- the finding that certain particles behave as a single unified system even when they're separated by such immense distances there can't be a causal signal between them -- suggests the universe functions as a fundamental whole rather than a collection of discrete parts. Such theories sound incredible, and perhaps they are. But then again, so is every other possible theory that explains consciousness.
"Physical science tells us a lot less about the nature of matter than we tend to assume," says Philip Goff, a philosophy professor at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary. "Arthur Eddington" -- the English scientist who experimentally confirmed Einstein's theory of general relativity in the early 20th century -- "argued there's a gap in our picture of the universe. We know what matter does but not what it is. We can put consciousness into this gap"...
An alternative panpsychist perspective holds that, rather than individual particles holding consciousness and coming together, the universe as a whole is conscious. This, says Goff, isn't the same as believing the universe is a unified divine being; it's more like seeing it as a "cosmic mess." Nevertheless, it does reflect a perspective that the world is a top-down creation, where every individual thing is derived from the universe, rather than a bottom-up version where objects are built from the smallest particles. Goff believes quantum entanglement -- the finding that certain particles behave as a single unified system even when they're separated by such immense distances there can't be a causal signal between them -- suggests the universe functions as a fundamental whole rather than a collection of discrete parts. Such theories sound incredible, and perhaps they are. But then again, so is every other possible theory that explains consciousness.
Sorry. I really have enough of this. As somebody who worked for 10 years in Quantum Science (experimental), I already know that when the word consciousness appears in a physics context, 5 lines later there will a reference to entanglement.
Let me express that *obviously* most physicists are unhappy with Quantum Mechanics and Kopenhagen Interpretation not being emergent from a known appropriately local theory of the universe, but this frustration should not lead to shit like this.
Let me state my view on this:
* Entanglement does not allow to transmit information fast than light
* In the meantime, we understand the observer/measurement problem much better than let's say 30 years ago. It is acceptable for people being educate before 1981-1990 in quantum mechanics not to have knowledge about dephasing by a coupled bath, but this doesn't make it good science to push everything which we don't understand to consciousness
* We can calculate decoherence rates of quantum states for given coupling strengths and temperatures. These rates are, in aqueous solution quite high, which clearly expresses that information processing in the brain will not happen by quantum processes which can not be described by reaction rates of molecules/ions.
* Assuming that particles have consciousness is not a scientific theory, since it is not falsifiable. (All the particles in your experiment *wanted* to fly that way today, and the day before and the day before, but maybe they change their mind)
* Experiments like mind-matter unification project and other tests of esoteric theories going in this direction never showed any result beyond what could be expected.
The last quote should really be: "Shut Up, Wesley!".
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/...
I thought you had a poor understanding of physics. Now I realize you don't know what emergent phenomena are.
Emergent phenomena aren't magic. They're properties or behaviour of complex systems that depend on that complexity. That behaviour is usually difficult to predict from the properties of individual system constituents.
One of the simplest examples is electricity. We know that electrons carry unit negative charges and we think they're real physical particles. When you look at the behaviour of electricity in bulk materials, it is convenient to think of electrons (actual particles) and holes (pseudoparticles that are actually the absence of an electron). Holes, movement of holes, etc. are all emergent phenomenon.
The idea that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon is precisely the opposite of suggesting it's some kind of magic. It's the idea that consciousness is a very non-magical property of a complex system of interacting parts that is difficult to predict by extrapolating knowledge of the individual constituents.