Yeah. QFT doesn't capture the consciousness behind the actions.
QFT does not entail consciousness at that level because there is absolutely no reason to do so.
Because there isn't one. If there was, we would have found it by now.
QFT doesn't entail consciousness because consciousness is not required to explain nature. Including consciousness in the theory would add unneccessary complexity to the theory without any justification whatsoever.
Not necessarily. You assume that there is no consciousness at the smallest level without any evidence. It's more likely that consciousness is a property of everything, except laws and patterns followed.
You provide no evidence at all as to why consciousness is more likely to be a property of everything. You also fail to define what you mean by everything; my best guess is that by everything you are referring to energy, or perhaps matter which is just one form of energy.
It's not an assumption; It's an observation.
It's a claim made without evidence, not an observation. You think that there is no consciousness behind the actions at the smallest level without any evidence whatsoever. The fact is, energy is aware of energy, and reacts to energy- energy is conscious. This isn't new-age bullshit, it's a simple fact.
Here, you base your assertion that energy is conscious on two premises:
1. Energy is aware of energy, and
2. Energy reacts to energy.
Despite talking about physics using laymen's terms, you fail to define your terms so one must guess at your meaning. When you talk about energy reacting, you are presumably talking about things like nuclear reactions, particle decay, fields etc. - reactions that have been observed and for which there is evidence. However when you talk about the awareness or energy, the is no readily apparent observed phenomenon that I might guess you are talking about. You assert it without evidence.
Quantum Field Theory explains everything that happens on scales that affect human beings. There is no room, and no need, for any Gods.
Quantum field theory explains certain regular actions- it does not explain the motivation for regular actions, which is to create regular actions on larger scales.
Now you are making two more claims without evidence:
1. That some 'regular actions' have motivations, and
2. That the motivation of these 'regular actions' is to create larger 'regular actions'.
'Regular actions' is a term you have made up and not defined. If you are referring to natural phenomena, then the claims you make here are asserted without evidence. Just like your claim about the awareness of energy.
If you have evidence, present it. If you have no evidence, then you don't know, any more than I do, and all you are doing is disregarding parsimony.
If we throw out parsimony, then literally anything goes; and that which explains anything explains nothing.
Yeah. So a consciousness that attributes non consciousness to other forms of the exact same stuff that it is made of is applying the law of parsimony. Riiigggghhhhtt..
As far as I can tell, you are making the following argument:
1. Humans have consciousness, and
2. Humans are made of energy, therefore
3. All energy has consciousness.
Perhaps the problem here is that you are ignorant of neuroscience. Human consciousness is a phenomenon created by the interaction of cells in the human central nervous system. The human consciousness only exists for a particular configuration of energy, i.e. the human central nervous system.
In other words, the existence of human consciousness is not merely contingent on the existence of energy, it is contingent on the existence of the configuration of energy called the the human central nervous system. So no human, CNS, no human consciousness. Same goes for other animals in which we have observed consciousness.
We have not observed consciousness in other configurations of energy, such as rocks. Our observations are fully in line with the theoty that a thing must have a naervous system in order to have a mind, let alone a consciousness. And since energy at a subatomic level is not observed to have a nervous system, there is no reason to think that quanta of energy have consciousness at that level, either.
If science had not already established that consciousness is a phenomenon produced by a nervous system, then you would have a valid point that Bilby is the one violating the law of parsimony. However since scince already knows at least that much, the burden now rests with you to prove that a nervous system is not required for a consciousness to exist.
And if you think of claiming that there exists a nervous system within a subatomic particle, then you are violating the law of parsimony by flat out making things up.
Let's add non-conscious behaviors to the mix. Whenever I calculate 2+2 and get 4, the numbers are doing the regular behaviors, not a consciousness. Ohh, wait a second, even these regular behaviors are done by a consciousness following specific patterns of behavior- so these behaviors do not exist without a consciousness doing them.
This is a category error. Numbers are not 'things'; they are ideas.
Tell you what, I'll just make up a mythological property of stuff and call it "non-conscious" because, ya know, as a consciousness it's totally parsimonious to postulate the existence of other actors that are not conscious.
Don't bring up parsimony when you add the entity of a non-conscious actor, when you haven't ever witnessed one directly. You have absolutely no reason to think that any non-conscious actor exists anywhere. Conscious actors can engage in regular behaviors (1+1=2) but this does not indicate that the behaviors are done by someone who lacks consciousness.
Based on the current evidence, the most parsimonious explanation is to only expect a consciousness where there is the physical configuration to generate it. For example, a human CNS.
The rocks are comprised of particles behaving in certain ways. It doesn't mean that the particles are non-conscious.
That is correct, but only because the mere existence of a rock says nothing either way about its consciousness or non-consciousness.
The rain falls due to physical law; the erosion occurs due to physical law, and the rock falls due to physical law. No consciousness needs to be involved at any stage, and it is pointless and foolish to assume that one is.
Sure... riiiigggghhhttt.
Your lack of refutation is noted.
A bunch of beings acting as a rock are not going to have the same effect as a bunch of beings acting as a brain. Doesn't mean that any of the actors involved are non-conscious.
A (living) brain has an observable consciousness; a rock does not. There is no reason to think that the rock has an unobservable consciousness, as it is indistinguishable from the rock having no consciousness at all.
Parsimony requires that you don't make up new types of actors- so all actors must be conscious, since the only actor you have ever directly witnessed first hand (you) is conscious. So anything that acts is conscious, unless you propose another type of actor without any evidence that non-conscious actors exist.
The law of parsimony is not limited to whatever it is that Kharakov defines as 'actors'. When there are multiple hypotheses describing a phenomenon, the simplest is best. Given the choice between ascribing consciousness to brains and ascribing consciousness to brains, rocks and individual quanta of energy, the former is preferable.
Regular behaviors do not indicate non-consciousness- they indicate regularity of behavior (which, in a conscious being, is generally an indication of discipline or preference).
You fail to define 'regular behaviors' in this context, let alone irregular behaviours. For instance, how these terms apply to rocks.
bilby said:
Parsimony requires that you do not assume characteristics that are not needed for a system to behave as observed.
Exactly. It is not necessary to attribute non-consciousness to the actors in the system, so the assumption of non-consciousness needs to be proven.
The lack of observable consciousness is reason enough to consider rocks to lack consciousness.
Consciousness is a characteristic displayed by a small subset of all entities - all of which are living things. Only conscious entities are reasonably described as 'actors'.
Ok, right there you are assuming that subatomic particles, and spacetime itself, lack consciousness, without any evidence.
If the behaviors of subatomic particles do not create another consciousness (like ours) this does not mean that they are not conscious. It just indicates that their behaviors do not always support subordinate consciousnesses.
There are at least thress reasons not to conclude the existence of consciousnesses at a subatomic level:
1. They are not observed.
2. They are not predicted by quantum field theory, the theory that represents our best understanding of subatomic physics.
3. The metaphysical arguments for their existence are groundless.
Categories that contain all things are useless; if all things are conscious, consciousness is meaningless; if all things are actors, then 'actor' is meaningless.
Yeah. A rock is a bunch of conscious beings acting in unison. This doesn't mean the rock is conscious. There are many things that are not conscious- however there is nothing that causes without being conscious. The rock, itself, is not the cause. The cause is the conscious beings acting as a rock.
Asserted without evidence.
Really, you need to show that these actors (subatomic level, which do act, and cause many things- atoms are always doing stuff) do not have consciousness if you are going to claim that something can act without consciousness.
Quantum field theory has already done this: it explains the natural phenomena we observe without requiring consciousness to exist below the atomic level. The burden is on you to argue your need to complicate the theory.
Keep in mind that regular action in a conscious being indicates discipline and/or preference, it does not indicate that a being is not conscious.
Once again, you're using made-up terminology that you haven't stipulated a definition for.
What evidence do you have that atoms are not like rocks, in terms of the two entities possession (or otherwise) of consciousness?
Well, subatomic particles act as different things. So, since they act, and the only first hand experience you have of anything acting is of your consciousness, you need to show that they are acting as stuff without consciousness.
Your argument is a non-sequitur:
1. Humans are conscious,
2. Humans are aware of things that act, and
3. Subatomic particles act, therefore
4. Subatomic partiicles are conscious.
None of the premises lead to the conclusion.
You are making claims about stuff without any evidence.
There is evidence: consciousness is observed in humans, but not observed in rocks. Therefore it is most likely that humans have consciousness and rocks do not. Consciousness is observed in very large configurations of billions of atoms (as in one consciousness for each configuration of billions of atoms), but not in single subatomic particles.
The thing is, energy reacts to energy, and everything is energy in some form or another. You need to show that energy is not conscious, since the form that is your consciousness is the only form of energy that you have ever directly perceived, and it is in the form of consciousness now.
Your claim here is utterly false: Humans do not perceive their own consciousness any more directly than they perceive the input from their senses. In fact, humans infer their own consciousness from their interaction with the outside world. It is also completely irrelevant.
Subatomic particles don't 'act as different things'; they are what they are, just as rocks are what they are.
No. Rocks are formed by the actions of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are the smallest level of being. We are mid level, and spacetime is the largest being.
What makes you think that subatomic articles are the smallest level of being? They are an indivisible quanta in quantum field theory, but only because that is what is required for the model to work. On what basis have you chosen to describe those particular quanta to be conscious, and to be the 'smallest level of being'?
You also appear to be using 'subatomic particle' interchangeably with 'energy'. That is also unsubstantiated.
I don't know why you are so obsessed with other forms of what your consciousness is made of being non-conscious. It's not like they are out to get you or anything.
Resorting to personal attacks is an admission that you have no argument.
Nah. You're making assumptions based on incorrect assumptions. When many consciousnesses act to form another consciousness, it requires complexity. You do not know the complexity of a single quark.
You don't know that the 3 quarks that form a proton are not each massively intelligent. You don't know that they are all not part of a single hive mind that is distributed across the whole universe. You just assume they are non-consciously acting without any evidence whatsoever. Kudos- you've reached creationist rationality level- making claims of stuff that you have absolutely no evidence for.
Now you are introducing a new concept: a hive mind, which is presumably your god. Something that you have zero evidence for.
But it does mean that they are unable to manifest that consciousness in any way, if it existed; which renders its existence moot - a mere multiplication of needless entities; a simple and pointless violation of parsimony.
No. Calling their reactions non-conscious is introducing a new type of reactor. There is no reason to postulate non-conscious actors- it violates parsimony to do so, and you know it, although you of course need to bullshit about it, because the implications point all the way back to God, which an atheist cannot allow. Hahahah... atheists have to create new entities to postulate God doesn't exist, however when atheists do it, it's completely all right. I made up non-conscious reactors to avoid knowing that God exists, because I'm an atheist!
Any yet, there is not a single observable phenomenon that requires subatomic particles to be conscious in order to be explained. Quantum field theory doesn't require it, and quantum field theory is the best representation of nature below the atomic level that we have. The onus on on you to explain how QFT is deficient and why our understanding of nature must include the claim that subatomic particles are conscious.
I am confident that you are not going to be proven right; what you say may appear obvious to you; but it is not true - and to me, it isn't obvious either.
So, you are just going to claim non-conscious reactors exist because you need them to hold onto your precious lack of belief in God. Energy is not conscious, because it is magic, and forms consciousness only in humans! When it is outside of humans, it magically turns into a non-conscious reactor! riiiiggghhhtt. Hold onto your wishful thinking if you want. All it looks like is that you want to pretend that energy is not conscious because it will ruin the beliefs you hold so dear.
Personal attacks = massive fail.
If you were right, then knowing that you are right would mean absolutely nothing - nothing is effected in any way by this presumed consciousness of energy, so it is easier just to disregard it - the results of disregarding it are identical to the results of including it in our hypotheses.
Au contraire mon frere, it would explain my experiences quite well if energy itself was conscious. It would explain a lot of things.
It is also possible that you are the victim of any number of human faults of perception, just like all many other people who claim to have personal experiences with god. And such a hypothesis does not require the existence of a subatomic hive mind or any other hypothetical deity.
atheism is the best option in this case, as it achieves the exact same result as theism, with none of the effort.
Sure. Unless God likes it when someone knows that God is doing something for them. You know... instead of crediting random coincidence. Ohh, wow, another randomly nice coincidence, how nice. God doesn't exist!! People who believe in God are stupid idiots!
That's not a very nice thing to say about theists. It's not always their fault.
What are all these coincidences that Kharakov says are evidence that God is taking care of him? Why does he believe that the energy that exists is a conscious being instead of a mechanical thing like atheists do? Why do more things happen for him than for atheists?
The special treatment you perceive is probably just in your imagination.
Energy is not conscious; Energy is not some 'woo' magic stuff that does all sorts of weird things; Energy is a well understood aspect of physical law.
Nahh. Energy is the fundamental being of the universe. It forms other beings out of itself. It formed spacetime, the first particles, atoms, then stars, heavier elements.... and then you, who believes that it magically turns to consciousness only when it is in your brain.
Energy formed spacetime? You claim to know this when the formation of spacetime is not even known by scientists. You have also deviated from your previous claim, that subatomic particles are the 'smallest level of being', and now claim that 'energy is the fundamental being of the universe'.
God is real. Energy is conscious. You've got no proof that energy reacts without consciousness. You have no evidence. You've got nothing. Atheism is a complete sham, dependent upon woo thinking about the existence of non-conscious reactions of energy which becomes magically conscious when it is in an atheist's woo soul.
Previously you claimed that subatomic particles were conscious; you even specifically mentioned quarks. Now you say that 'energy' is conscious. You do realise that the two concepts are not interchangeable?
