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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Seriously, are we out of real scientific problems to study?
Seriously - uh we don't understand consciousness so it must be in particles. No probably not. Someday we will understand it and we won't think it's the universe or particles but an emergent property of complex systems not some semi-religious drivel relegating us to handwaving about "things beyond our understanding".
So many weasel phrases. "increasingly being taken seriously by credible" . Nope. It's a fringe view, and for good reason. Pure speculation, a kind of god of the gaps, no mechanism proposed, no explanatory or predictive power.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
"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"
Total bokum, consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes in the brain. As in a sufficiently powerful computer can create simulated entities moving about within it. No need to invoke some non corporal essence to explain the behavior of such entities.
The nature of consciousness is a very interesting problem to study. The question in the headline is not asked seriously, but for a purpose in the larger discussion.
Pay attention to what the scientists involved in the discussion are talking about (and ignore the philosophers... they need to learn some more math and quantum mechanics). Is the universe deterministic? How many independent decision makers can co-exist simultaneously? In physics, we understand the bounds of these questions, but can't answer them yet. The concept of particles as independent actors is an extension of allowing multiple interacting consciousnesses to an absurd limit. It's presented by physicists as a mathematically impossible situation, to demonstrate that there will be some limit or law on what can be conscious. Having one consciousness in the universe is appealing to the way physicists think.
Orson Scott Card actually dug into this a bit in the later part of the Ender's series with the philotic twining and aiuas as the fundamental core of the universe, that particles essentially willed themselves into existence in an increasingly hierarchical way, and that they could be called into existence by others. Base matter was a certain kind of aiua possessed of a will that could bond and bind energy into a material form, while consciousness was an aiua that could govern and rule over other aiuas. That theory always seemed to resonate a bit well as a universal kind of spirituality intertwined with physics. In any case, it made for great reading.
"...the "panpsychist" view is increasingly being taken seriously by soon to be considered less-credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.."
From the article:
"Consciousness is a fundamental feature of physical matter; every single particle in existence has an âoeunimaginably simpleâ form of consciousness, says Goff. These particles then come together to form more complex forms of consciousness, such as humansâ(TM) subjective experiences."
Logically the larger the object, the "more" consciousness it has. A 200t pile of sand would be "more conscious" than a person or a dog?
Essentially, they can't explain how consciousness arises from physics, so they claim all the constituent parts 'have consciousness'. Just admit you don't know something and then try to figure it out; handwavy intellectual caulking slobbed into whatever gaps exist in your understanding don't make it smooth: it simply shows you're lazy.
It seems a pretty long, awkward, and torturous way to just desperately try to avoid actually calling it animism and religion.
-Styopa
I've never understand why people even believe in "consciousness"
Because we each know that we individually have consciousness.
It's a thing, a not very well deifned thing, but a thing nonetheless. No reason to believe it' unique to hu-mons though.
We don't even have free will.
Don't we? Before saying we don't have it, would you mind defining what on earth free will is meant to be?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
First, the materialist view demands that whatever consciousness is, it must merely emerge from matter. For various reasons, this materialist position runs into brick walls and is a dead end. This is Descartes’ point: if you are faced with consciousness and matter, and are wondering which one might be the illusory one, you are going to have to pick matter as the illusory one. All the materialist positions run into this simple fact, that if you just close your eyes and wonder what is truly real, all you can say is that you are existing, you have a sence of existing, and that experience would not be present without your consciousness - - meanwhile, what arises in your awareness, lights and souds, you cannot know if they are real or a dream or the matrix or whatever - - every night we wake from dreams which we had no idea at the time were merely dreams, as they felt real whist you were dreaming (and sometimes you notice and have a lucid dream) so who is to say what you will decide about this life, should you wake up to a higher level after you leave this body? Nobody knows, but the problem remains, a consistent world with physical laws is no guarantee that this world of matter is the true reality, and after all, mathematics is extremely rigorous and consistent and yet all in the mind, so the mind can generate extremely complex and rigorous phenomena yet 100% mind-stuff - - meanwhile, you are always certain of consciousness - - even at night dreaming, you have proof of consciousness - - so consciousness would win, if you had to pick one. So what to do? We cannot pick materialist beliefs. The answer is that consciousness and matter are both real, forever. Trying to explain one in terns of the other always causes problems.
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/...
For awhile I tried voting on the firehose, but I found myself getting both far dumber and far more angry.
Dumber because of all of the fucking stupid shit submitted, and angry because the "editors" of the site posted that shit even if it got well downvoted to make sure there was shit to post angrily about to drive ad revenue.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
That's because it is easily-dismissible bunkum.
We don't know what consciousness is with any certainty at all, other than many animals seem to exhibit what most of us would agree upon as calling "consciousness."
It's at least wildly premature (and very likely completely absurd) to decide that it is now a component of the inanimate.
The thinking here — and I'm being very generous with the term — is so muddy as to be utterly opaque and pointless.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The responses here to this article not surprisingly run the gamut from hokum and bunk to contemplative science and philosophy. This is to be expected because this is a speculative subject for which there is no patent answer, so one can assess or react to it in any number of legitimate and respectable ways, from doctrinaire belief to dismissive skepticism. There are however a few points worth considering before adopting too strong of an opinion either way.
1) The world has always been full of charlatans and phony philosophers promulgating ridiculous beliefs meant to beguile and defraud the intellectually weak and unwary, purveyors of fud (fear-uncertainty-doubt), self-serving false prophets who seek power or recognition through the intimidation of retarded ideas. Any sensible person who is not cognizant of that reality of history and human nature risks succumbing to the worst nightmares that mankind has ever produced. Thus, kudos to the skeptics who keep us honest and prevent intellectual derailments.
2) However, the universe is also full of rich wonders awaiting our discovery. We only know what we know today because of the efforts and insights of scientists and philosophers before us, and we in turn are the intellectual stepping stones to the generations that follow. Unanswered questions seek their solutions, and we, the stewards of finding and preserving new knowledge, must not become complacent with what we already know, but must seek the new knowledge that awaits around the corner of the next experiment or observation. Thus, kudos to those dreamers and believers with the enthusiasm to seek the answers to the next question.
Consider the evolution of discovery in human society up until this point. Flip a wall switch and we can see at night without first gathering wood and rubbing two sticks together. Would that not have seemed like magic to a neolithic citizen? We can talk to each other around the world in real time, audio, video, and data. Even Marconi and Morse, who could have understood the technologies perfectly well, would probably have marveled where we have come since their innovations, yet for much of history prior to them, such technologies would have been magic, the work of god or the devil. People in the times of Cleopatra, Constantine, and Charlemagne might have explained flying machines and human flight as the work of divine endowment, yet we hop planes as easily as a chariot, and even the Montgolfier and Wright brothers would have marveled at the pictures that come to use from Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto. Our science was the magic and mysticism of prior generations. There is a vast universe of unknown knowledge that awaits discovery, so we must keep open eyes and minds not to overlook what to future generations might seem so obvious.
Even when an idea, a postulate, a hypothesis, a theory proves to be wrong, just a fantasy, it may often light the way to real discovery. We debase the alchemists of prior times because they are perceived as being on a fool’s quest to transform base metals. Yet in their times, they did not know that gold could not be made by simple mixing and stirring of common items. We only know that because they discovered and proved that for us smug people from the future. While they never found the philosopher’s stone and the secret of transformation, they discovered the properties of materials and chemistry. Our modern chemical sciences and technologies were not born in an intellectual big bang at the end of the 18th century. They are the formalization of vast chemical and metallurgical knowledge gained by empiricism and limited scientific experimentation garnered over millenia before.
Copernicus was not successful because of a metaphysical epiphany, but because, trying to first work the numbers from the church doctrine point of view, he could not account for the motion of the planets. he was brave enough to buck society and take a fresh look. How many meritorious grants from promising post docs have been buried because t