Search results for query: *

Look, I'm with you all the way on how the neuroscience works, how neuro nets creates algorithms and behaviors. But it's exactly from that knowledge I go further to ask what key aspects of that system that creates an inner subjective experience. It's easy to imagine a robot that has an equally...

Biological processes. So not for example the electrical processes in the computer of a self driving car? Because that car has also awareness in a sense. Does that mean the car has consciousness? From your reasoning, yes. "Try reading a basic text on cognitive psychology instead of videos." What...

In that case it sadly becomes clear you're not reading. "Nowhere is the concept made into something real or something that might be studied. It is not even something that can be discussed. It is found nowhere." WRONG. It's clearly proposed if you would read. "These [proto conscious] events are...

Ok, good thing you brought this up. Because then we are talking about different stuff when referring to consciousness. You seem to refer to the easy problem of consciousness, how we function behaviorally, logically, etc. How the neural networks creates algorithms. That's easy, as you said, we...

I know. It's quite a philosophical word at this point, but the future will tell. I've heard it from David Chalmers, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. A philosopher, a physicist, and a biologist/doctor. "Consciousness arrives after a certain level of complexity" How do you know that? What is...

Of course I am able to grasp that. That's been my view all my life. That consciousness is created in the brain, and that without a brain, no consciousness exists. Until now when I'm playing with the idea that there might be proto-consciousness outside of the brain. But remember that. I'm playing...

Ok well, you're way out of topic. This isn't about the supernatural. This is about trying to understand how the laws of physics can lead to consciousness. What objective physical process or processes that leads to subjective experience. So really this comes from naturalistic materialism.

At this point I have no idea what you think I think. I oppose Deepak Chopra all the way, I don't think he makes sense at all. What I've been clear with also, during this thread, is that I am agnostic about all of this. Coming from a materialistic atheistic background, playing with different...

Ok well, if you don't want to watch then you don't know what you're criticizing. To me THAT seems pointless. One of the persons behind the hypothesis is Roger Penrose, he won the nobel prize in physics recently. All I'm saying is that they are putting forward a very interesting hypothesis. If...

I'm sorry, you're just repeating yourself. You didn't adress what I asked you about that hypothetical experiment. Pseudoscience... is this pseudoscience in your mind? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGbgDf4HCHU

No, no spirits. No emotions, no intentions. I'm I'll side with Roger Penroses theory, which I think is the best formulated one, then just a little proto consciousness for every collapse of the wave function. Consciousness is built when enough of these are quantumly entangled. Like...

No. More like: Computers are processing information, and are made of atoms. The universe is made of atoms. Therefore information can also be found at the atomic scale. No one is claiming that the universe is alive and has consciousness. But some proto-conscious element has to be found somewhere...

No, the total opposite. It's the view that mind-body connection is not only an aspect of the brain but the universe as well. Because the brain involves physics, and whatever consciousness might be, it has to be present at a proto level of the physics involved.

That is exactly why I said "if the many worlds interpretation is right, then[...]". All I can do? We're in the philosophy forum. Anyone is allowed to have a philosophical discussion as a fun activity in the wait for actual evidence. I'm not saying this will lead so any progress but it can at...

Well, people who argues for the many worlds interpretation are also physicists. But interesting non the less.

I interpret that reply as you reject the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

They are all very good questions. Last one, would be collapse of the wave function, but I assume you take a more hard-problem approach to the question? But let me ask you, since you argue for consciousness as a survival tool, do you think that my last reply made sense at all, that there might be...

If there are no metaphysical laws, then you're right, the universe does not care if anything notices it. I think it's possible to propose the idea because I don't think the problem of proto-consciousness is as hard as the "hard problem" of consciousness. Anyway, speaking from pure physics you're...

Oh yes, that's a very good point. Since we're in the metaphysics and the philosophy part of the forum... I can think of one philosophical/metaphysical argument why proto consciousness is needed. I mentioned it briefly before. Maybe a subjective property is needs for existence to make sense at...

They also responded to Tegmark: I don't know if Tegmark or anyone else responded back, however I found this debate between Tegmark and Hameroff that I will listen to now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXBfXNW6Bxo No. That's like saying physics is based around biology because biology...