Panpsychism: Can Quantum Indeterminacy Give Rise to Consciousness in Inanimate Objects?

[SLD]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956

I'd post this in pseudoscience but apparently this is being proposed by serious scientists who are looking to show that maybe the universe as a whole is a conscious being. The story explains how maybe stars can guide themselves around the galaxy.

To say the least, I am extremely skeptical. But QM creates some weird results.

SLD

 

[Bronzeage]

Imagine a golf ball which wants to land in the hole. This would be a great boon to golfers, if the golf ball can remember anything after being slammed by a club that's moving over 100 mph.

 

[skepticalbip]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956

I'd post this in pseudoscience but apparently this is being proposed by serious scientists who are looking to show that maybe the universe as a whole is a conscious being. The story explains how maybe stars can guide themselves around the galaxy.

To say the least, I am extremely skeptical. But QM creates some weird results.

SLD

It would probably be better in the philosophy forum since the question is "consciousness" which must first be understood and defined before the question can be addressed.

However, since phrases such as “proto-consciousness field” is being proposed, maybe pseudo-science would be more appropriate. Just because someone is a physicist does not mean that they can not engage in pseudo-science speculation.

 

[Speakpigeon]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956

I'd post this in pseudoscience but apparently this is being proposed by serious scientists who are looking to show that maybe the universe as a whole is a conscious being. The story explains how maybe stars can guide themselves around the galaxy.

To say the least, I am extremely skeptical. But QM creates some weird results.

SLD

First, we need to make clear the distinction between consciousness as subjective experience and consciousness as integrated cognitive capabilities.

Only the first one is really a mystery. We have just no idea whatsoever how our supposedly physical universe could give rise to subjective experience.

Consciousness as integrated cognitive capabilities is much better understood. We can broadly understand how cognitive capabilities increase with a bigger brain, from flies and bugs to cats and dogs to monkeys, apes, dolphins and then to humans. We don't know all the relevant details but we already get the big picture and lots and lots of details.

What the link is about is really consciousness as cognitive capabilities: a star that would emit a jet of plasma to alter its course, for example. So, the problem to investigate here isn't subjective experience. Instead, we would want to see if it's at all possible for a range of material things to have integrated cognitive capabilities by taking advantage of various physical properties in ways that wouldn't have to be similar to how the human brain does it. We already know from evolution it's possible for different animal species to realise the same function using different biological solutions, in terms of organs etc. Why not realise integrated cognitive capabilities using something other than a brain? Ok, the odds look very long to me but why not in principle?



It doesn't really belong to the philosophy forum except if it were to discuss what I've just said.

It's for the science forum if the method is scientific. It's pseudo-science if the method isn't scientific.

I guess the method considered is scientific so it belongs here alright.

Still, the details provided by the linked article are sketchy and there's not much to discuss even for the scientists around here I think.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

So, the problem to investigate here isn't subjective experience. Instead, we would want to see if it's at all possible for a range of material things to have integrated cognitive capabilities by taking advantage of various physical properties in ways that wouldn't have to be similar to how the human brain does it. We already know from evolution it's possible for different animal species to realise the same function using different biological solutions, in terms of organs etc. Why not realise integrated cognitive capabilities using something other than a brain? Ok, the odds look very long to me but why not in principle?

Because stars don't reproduce. There's no way for stars to evolve goal-oriented behavior by mutation and natural selection of their parents' more primitive behavior.

 

[PyramidHead]

So, the problem to investigate here isn't subjective experience. Instead, we would want to see if it's at all possible for a range of material things to have integrated cognitive capabilities by taking advantage of various physical properties in ways that wouldn't have to be similar to how the human brain does it. We already know from evolution it's possible for different animal species to realise the same function using different biological solutions, in terms of organs etc. Why not realise integrated cognitive capabilities using something other than a brain? Ok, the odds look very long to me but why not in principle?

Because stars don't reproduce. There's no way for stars to evolve goal-oriented behavior by mutation and natural selection of their parents' more primitive behavior.

/thread pretty much. Unless we're leaving open the possibility that an advanced alien species designed some stars that could think, for whatever reason.

 

[skepticalbip]

Because stars don't reproduce. There's no way for stars to evolve goal-oriented behavior by mutation and natural selection of their parents' more primitive behavior.

/thread pretty much. Unless we're leaving open the possibility that an advanced alien species designed some stars that could think, for whatever reason.

Then there is the possibility that angels are pushing the stars and planets around and stirring galaxies to make them spin.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, the problem to investigate here isn't subjective experience. Instead, we would want to see if it's at all possible for a range of material things to have integrated cognitive capabilities by taking advantage of various physical properties in ways that wouldn't have to be similar to how the human brain does it. We already know from evolution it's possible for different animal species to realise the same function using different biological solutions, in terms of organs etc. Why not realise integrated cognitive capabilities using something other than a brain? Ok, the odds look very long to me but why not in principle?

Because stars don't reproduce. There's no way for stars to evolve goal-oriented behavior by mutation and natural selection of their parents' more primitive behavior.

You seem a little short on imaginative power. The idea is of course that integrated cognitive capabilities outside brains could be obtained in various ways and definitely outside evolution.
EB

 

[Malintent]

Because stars don't reproduce. There's no way for stars to evolve goal-oriented behavior by mutation and natural selection of their parents' more primitive behavior.

/thread pretty much. Unless we're leaving open the possibility that an advanced alien species designed some stars that could think, for whatever reason.

Well that's sort of the premise behind the invention of the planet Earth.... It was created for the purpose of finding the question to the answer to the universe (which is 42, as you should know). Now, as for the question... that's what we need Stars and Planets for!

 

[Malintent]

Because stars don't reproduce. There's no way for stars to evolve goal-oriented behavior by mutation and natural selection of their parents' more primitive behavior.

You seem a little short on imaginative power. The idea is of course that integrated cognitive capabilities outside brains could be obtained in various ways and definitely outside evolution.
EB

Oh DEFINATELY

but "OF COURSE" cognition is found outside of brains.. for example... um... gimme a quick example so I can help ya out....

the GENIUS of this idea is all in the INTEGRATION... cross-functionality... cloud supported... CAPABILITIES.... totally OPex'ed and outsourced.

- - - Updated - - -

/thread pretty much. Unless we're leaving open the possibility that an advanced alien species designed some stars that could think, for whatever reason.

Then there is the possibility that angels are pushing the stars and planets around and stirring galaxies to make them spin.

You can't prove there aren't, therefore whatever you want!

 

[Kharakov]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956

I'd post this in pseudoscience but apparently this is being proposed by serious scientists who are looking to show that maybe the universe as a whole is a conscious being. The story explains how maybe stars can guide themselves around the galaxy.

They're idiots. It's IST (Intelligent Space Time), intelligent falling's more real cousin.

Stars don't pick paths. Spacetime does, based on predictions of where the stars want to be next, based on what the stars are already doing. So if you're going in a certain direction, IST is going to preserve your inertia, and maybe glom you up into glumps.

 

[DBT]

There are something like ten interpretations of QM, rather than probabilistic, several of these are deterministic, Bohm, etc.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You seem a little short on imaginative power. The idea is of course that integrated cognitive capabilities outside brains could be obtained in various ways and definitely outside evolution.
EB

Oh DEFINATELY

but "OF COURSE" cognition is found outside of brains.. for example... um... gimme a quick example so I can help ya out....

the GENIUS of this idea is all in the INTEGRATION... cross-functionality... cloud supported... CAPABILITIES.... totally OPex'ed and outsourced.

???

Are you medications or something, Sir?
EB

 

[Peez]

Oh DEFINATELY

but "OF COURSE" cognition is found outside of brains.. for example... um... gimme a quick example so I can help ya out....

the GENIUS of this idea is all in the INTEGRATION... cross-functionality... cloud supported... CAPABILITIES.... totally OPex'ed and outsourced.

???

Are you medications or something, Sir?
EB

It is possible that the poster is suggesting that before one tries to explain 'cognition found outside of brains', one should perhaps consider whether or not any such 'cognition found outside of brains' exists to need explaining.

Peez

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Consciousness arises as an operation of complex brains. Objects without such well organized brains or equivalent cannot be conscious, quantum weirdness or no. It took nature 3 1/2 billion years or so to create brains capable of being conscious. And it has been 650 million years since we had multicellular animals capable of having a brain.

 

[Malintent]

???

Are you medications or something, Sir?
EB

It is possible that the poster is suggesting that before one tries to explain 'cognition found outside of brains', one should perhaps consider whether or not any such 'cognition found outside of brains' exists to need explaining.

Peez

Indeed.. but since it is only POSSIBLE that was my suggestion, any other explanation is EQUALLY valid. I might have been ordering Pizza... no one can possibly know 100% for sure with absolute proof... therefore whatever you want to believe is so.

 

[Peez]

It is possible that the poster is suggesting that before one tries to explain 'cognition found outside of brains', one should perhaps consider whether or not any such 'cognition found outside of brains' exists to need explaining.

Peez

Indeed.. but since it is only POSSIBLE that was my suggestion, any other explanation is EQUALLY valid. I might have been ordering Pizza... no one can possibly know 100% for sure with absolute proof... therefore whatever you want to believe is so.

The pizza is both ordered and not ordered until you open the door:

"Hi, I would like to order a large Schrödinger's pizza please, all dressed or not."

Peez

 

[Malintent]

"all dressed"... I'm assuming that's the Canadian method of ordering a Pizza "with everything on it", which is how we say it in the capital city of Pizza - NYC.. I love learning about those differences in idioms.

I just got back from Amsterdam two weeks ago... something with nothing on it (a joint with no tobacco added, a scotch - neat), they call, "pure". "I'll a have a whisky, pure"... I'll take a gram of your Purple Haze, pure".

Funny, though, was ordering coffee... They see an American and assume we want our coffee watered down with a full cup of hot water... I learned from my travels in the southern hemisphere years ago that a proper coffee is called a "Long Black".. but in the Netherlands, they never heard of a "long black"... it's just called "coffee". It took a few days for me to catch on that when I described a long black for them, they were just preparing the usual. It was nice to just say, "coffee, black", and get a great coffee served.... which is a double shot of espresso brewed directly over 6 ounces of hot water (sorry, that's 2 Deciliters.. lol).

Oh, and there is NO SUCH THING as a "Royal with Cheese". I went into both a McDonnalds and a burger King to check the menu (I wanted a picture - not the "food"). I even asked someone working there if it was ever a real thing... they said there used to be a place called Mr. Burger that had that, but they were copying the movie, not the other way around.

 

[Bronzeage]

"all dressed"... I'm assuming that's the Canadian method of ordering a Pizza "with everything on it", which is how we say it in the capital city of Pizza - NYC.. I love learning about those differences in idioms.

I just got back from Amsterdam two weeks ago... something with nothing on it (a joint with no tobacco added, a scotch - neat), they call, "pure". "I'll a have a whisky, pure"... I'll take a gram of your Purple Haze, pure".

Funny, though, was ordering coffee... They see an American and assume we want our coffee watered down with a full cup of hot water... I learned from my travels in the southern hemisphere years ago that a proper coffee is called a "Long Black".. but in the Netherlands, they never heard of a "long black"... it's just called "coffee". It took a few days for me to catch on that when I described a long black for them, they were just preparing the usual. It was nice to just say, "coffee, black", and get a great coffee served.... which is a double shot of espresso brewed directly over 6 ounces of hot water (sorry, that's 2 Deciliters.. lol).

Oh, and there is NO SUCH THING as a "Royal with Cheese". I went into both a McDonnalds and a burger King to check the menu (I wanted a picture - not the "food"). I even asked someone working there if it was ever a real thing... they said there used to be a place called Mr. Burger that had that, but they were copying the movie, not the other way around.

In my neighborhood, you order your po-boy "dressed," or "nutin' on it." Coffee is assumed to be black, but southern hospitality requires we offer cream and sugar. Cafe au Lait, made with coffee and milk, was originally a drink for ladies who might have nervous conditions.

I've never developed a taste for espresso. On an average day, I might drink 15 to 20 cups of coffee, so I'm not worried a caffeine deficiency.

 

[Peez]

Malintent:
"all dressed"... I'm assuming that's the Canadian method of ordering a Pizza "with everything on it"...

Yup, or "touts garnie" en francais.



Peez