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

[Jimmy Higgins]

No... it is about on par as being completely baseless. Rating it "highly speculative" is giving it way too much credit as having a single reasonable basis for being taken remotely seriously. If things have a natural order and occur within that order, there is no suggestion at all that any thinking is occurring.

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

Quoting Carroll doesn't carry much weight.

Me, I entirely believe that everything that a human does has a "natural order" and "occurs within that order", and I will guess that's also what you believe. Me, I still think that not only do I think on a routine basis but I also believe that nearly all people around me do a bit of thinking here and there in between what they're more interested in doing.

So are you saying that I'm somehow deluding myself? Do you yourself actually believe that human beings don't think? Or that they're somehow escaping the natural order of the universe?
EB

Not certain how you think this demonstrates any evidence of consciousness of inanimate objects. Animals can act arbitrarily to situations. Show me an astronomic entity acting arbitrarily.

 

[Malintent]

Oh DEFINATELY

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

Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cognition

Plant cognition is the study of the mental capacities of plants.[1] It explores the idea that plants are capable of responding to and learning from stimuli in their surroundings in order to choose and make decisions that are most appropriate to ensure survival. Over recent years, experimental evidence for the cognitive nature of plants has grown rapidly and has revealed the extent to which plant perceptual awareness of environmental information directs many behavioural feats and associated cognitive abilities.[2] Some research claims that plants have physical structures functioning in the same way as the nervous systems of animals.

BTW I know plants ain't planets or stars or universes. Nor believe the last three are guided by superbrains to perform what they perform, not even NoGods' superbrains. But Malintent's tone here grated on my nervous system, even though not directed at me, so I thought I would reply. This does not mean that I agree with all or any of the stuff in the article quoted.

If you look hard enough (I wasn't willing to, so I don't expect anyone else to either), you can find my thread here on the topic of Plant "feelings" as it relates to Vegetarianism - The point being that Vegetarians are "evil" against plants, equal to the "evil" of carnivores to animals... but that is a side point...

I congratulate you on the point well made... agreed that "brains" are not the required structure for 'sensation'. the better phrase would have been "neurological structures".. that is, "Consciousness has never been observed outside of complex neurological structures".

I, however, would also point out that you are conflating "sensation and reaction" with "cognition and consciousness".. but I refine my statement nonetheless.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

Quoting Carroll doesn't carry much weight.

Me, I entirely believe that everything that a human does has a "natural order" and "occurs within that order", and I will guess that's also what you believe. Me, I still think that not only do I think on a routine basis but I also believe that nearly all people around me do a bit of thinking here and there in between what they're more interested in doing.

So are you saying that I'm somehow deluding myself? Do you yourself actually believe that human beings don't think? Or that they're somehow escaping the natural order of the universe?
EB

Not certain how you think this demonstrates any evidence of consciousness of inanimate objects. Animals can act arbitrarily to situations. Show me an astronomic entity acting arbitrarily.

And where is it, would you say, I pretended in any way that what I said was as good as exhibiting evidence of consciousness in inanimate objects?

Are you actually bothering to read what I say or is it that you feel it's just so much more convenient to make up stuff as you go?
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Quoting Carroll doesn't carry much weight.

Me, I entirely believe that everything that a human does has a "natural order" and "occurs within that order", and I will guess that's also what you believe. Me, I still think that not only do I think on a routine basis but I also believe that nearly all people around me do a bit of thinking here and there in between what they're more interested in doing.

So are you saying that I'm somehow deluding myself? Do you yourself actually believe that human beings don't think? Or that they're somehow escaping the natural order of the universe?
EB

Not certain how you think this demonstrates any evidence of consciousness of inanimate objects. Animals can act arbitrarily to situations. Show me an astronomic entity acting arbitrarily.

And where is it, would you say, I pretended in any way that what I said was as good as exhibiting evidence of consciousness in inanimate objects?

You seemed to object to such a concept being called "completely baseless".

Are you actually bothering to read what I say or is it that you feel it's just so much more convenient to make up stuff as you go?
EB

I'm starting to understand you just like to type.

 

[Peez]

ryan:
A very important part of science is that there are some very fundamental particles (elementary particles) and their physical properties,

You seem to be confusing one particular conclusion of science with the practice of science. There is nothing in the practice of science that requires reductionism.

...and they have to be conserved if we are going to successfully make any predictions (except for strangeness in the weak interactions).

Scientific predictions were made before fundamental particles were studied (even assuming that we now know what the fundamental particles are). One need not know anything about fundamental particles to make certain successful predictions.

No matter how these particles are positioned in space or when they decay from one elementary particle to another, the properties must stay conserved.

The only thing that changes are their mathematical values. For example, ten electrons will equal a total charge of 10-, or 7 electrons and 4 protons will equal a total charge of 3-. It's that simple.

But with the brain, if we were to add up all of the charges, spins, masses, etc. and apply the net scalar values we would get something like q charge, p spin, m mass, etc.

The processes, functions, mechanisms are all reducible to the particles/properties and only these particles/properties - nothing new should emerge.

That would depend on what you mean by “nothing new” in this context. Clearly certain arrangements of particles can display properties that are not found in individual particles. Even if we can distill the properties of molecular oxygen and hydrogen and water and the reactions involving these molecules, oxygen and hydrogen have different properties than water. The fact that a functional human brain can be made of protons, neutrons, and electrons does not imply that protons, neutrons, and electrons have some part of consciousness.

But the consciousness emerges, something that is not reducible to spin, charge, etc. for any particular brain.

If science is going to explain the consciousness, they must figure out which particle, could be all, add together to give a net total time of consciousness.

This is an assertion for which you have provided no evidence.

Peez

 

[Peez]

Speakpigeon:
Yeah, sure... Ah, the beauty of being carried away with one's opinions.

Don't worry, I understand that you are being carried away with your opinions and I don't hold it against you.

Only we surely all know ourselves and so we all actually know one thing in the universe that is effectively a thinking thing. So, you, too, must know yourself as a thinking thing.

Descartes would be proud.

Now, could you also say you similarly know any angel-like thing? No, probably not.

I can say with certainty that I know as many 'angel-like' things as I know 'thinking-rock-type' things.

Do you think anybody does? Hmm, probably you don't.

Actually I know quite a few people who claim that they do, but that is another topic.

If so, you shouldn't claim that the two speculations are on a par.

Funnily enough, you didn't ask me 'Now, could you also say you similarly know any thinking rock? No, probably not. Do you think anybody does? Hmm, probably you don't.' Yes, I know you did not refer specifically to thinking rocks, but I am hoping that my point is clear.

Presumably, if you didn't know that humans existed you would be one to claim they would be as unlikely as angels to exist.

No, actually I would not. If I didn't know that sentient beings in the Andromeda Galaxy existed (I don't) I would not claim they would be as unlikely as angels to exist (I don't).

And how wrong would that be, do you think?

I think your line of argument is very wrong indeed.

So, yes, my speculation is very, very unlikely to be correct but that's only as far as we know so it doesn't mean we know it's wrong.
EB

I did not actually say that we know that it is wrong, but I still have no more reason to think it is right than the suggestions that angels exist. That's just me, I do not claim any special insight.

Peez

 

[Bomb#20]

A very important part of science is that there are some very fundamental particles (elementary particles) and their physical properties, and they have to be conserved if we are going to successfully make any predictions (except for strangeness in the weak interactions).

Elementary particles are a hypothesis; they aren't any sort of assumption science depends on. Emil Wiechert hypothesized that there are no elementary particles -- that the pattern of "objects contain molecules contain atoms" continues forever. He lived to see his theory's prediction of protons confirmed; sadly, he died before quarks were discovered. Anybody who says there's nothing inside a quark has burden of proof.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That would depend on what you mean by “nothing new” in this context. Clearly certain arrangements of particles can display properties that are not found in individual particles. Even if we can distill the properties of molecular oxygen and hydrogen and water and the reactions involving these molecules, oxygen and hydrogen have different properties than water. The fact that a functional human brain can be made of protons, neutrons, and electrons does not imply that protons, neutrons, and electrons have some part of consciousness.

Their claim would be akin to saying the alphabet has consciousness because books exist.

 

[ryan]

A very important part of science is that there are some very fundamental particles (elementary particles) and their physical properties,

You seem to be confusing one particular conclusion of science with the practice of science. There is nothing in the practice of science that requires reductionism.

Science uses its conclusions to make more conclusions, in practise. It uses what it finds to extend its conclusions until there needs to be a correction or not.

Think about what I am saying without trying to find a way to interpret it so that it seems wrong (we all tend to do this). One might say that the discoveries of particles that make up the Standard Model are important to science. This isn't saying that it's perfect, true, complete, etc. It's just saying that the SM is important. It is important because we can reduce theories to make sure they are consistent with the SM, or we can discover particles that the SM predicts.

...and they have to be conserved if we are going to successfully make any predictions (except for strangeness in the weak interactions).

Scientific predictions were made before fundamental particles were studied (even assuming that we now know what the fundamental particles are). One need not know anything about fundamental particles to make certain successful predictions.

Now think about what I am really saying here. I did not say that we need to know about any fundamental particles; I am saying that if they exist they/(their properties) need to be conserved. Without conservation, we would not see experiments being reproduced as they have been. Conservation of properties are important for today's science, and they are the ultimate example of reductionism being required for science to make predictions as it does today.

No matter how these particles are positioned in space or when they decay from one elementary particle to another, the properties must stay conserved.

The only thing that changes are their mathematical values. For example, ten electrons will equal a total charge of 10-, or 7 electrons and 4 protons will equal a total charge of 3-. It's that simple.

But with the brain, if we were to add up all of the charges, spins, masses, etc. and apply the net scalar values we would get something like q charge, p spin, m mass, etc.

The processes, functions, mechanisms are all reducible to the particles/properties and only these particles/properties - nothing new should emerge.

That would depend on what you mean by “nothing new” in this context. Clearly certain arrangements of particles can display properties that are not found in individual particles. Even if we can distill the properties of molecular oxygen and hydrogen and water and the reactions involving these molecules, oxygen and hydrogen have different properties than water. The fact that a functional human brain can be made of protons, neutrons, and electrons does not imply that protons, neutrons, and electrons have some part of consciousness.

Here is what I meant by reductionism as it relates to science. From the page Scientific Reductionism from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

"The term ‘reduction’ as used in philosophy expresses the idea that if an entity x reduces to an entity y then y is in a sense prior to x, is more basic than x, is such that x fully depends upon it or is constituted by it. Saying that x reduces to y typically implies that x is nothing more than y or nothing over and above y."

But the consciousness emerges, something that is not reducible to spin, charge, etc. for any particular brain.

If science is going to explain the consciousness, they must figure out which particle, could be all, add together to give a net total time of consciousness.

This is an assertion for which you have provided no evidence.

Peez

Evidence for what?

 

[ryan]

A very important part of science is that there are some very fundamental particles (elementary particles) and their physical properties, and they have to be conserved if we are going to successfully make any predictions (except for strangeness in the weak interactions).

Elementary particles are a hypothesis; they aren't any sort of assumption science depends on. Emil Wiechert hypothesized that there are no elementary particles -- that the pattern of "objects contain molecules contain atoms" continues forever. He lived to see his theory's prediction of protons confirmed; sadly, he died before quarks were discovered. Anybody who says there's nothing inside a quark has burden of proof.

By "depends on" or "assumes", I meant that we base much of new science on the Standard Model, even though it may be wrong.

In physics, if I want to know a more fundament makeup of a pure substance of say Oxygen, I must compare the properties to possible combinations of all that can exist given by the Standard Model. If there is a mass, then I know that I must have something more than just gluons or photons; if the oxygen molecules repel or attract easily, I know I must have electromagnetic forces cause by charges, etc.

 

[Peez]

That would depend on what you mean by “nothing new” in this context. Clearly certain arrangements of particles can display properties that are not found in individual particles. Even if we can distill the properties of molecular oxygen and hydrogen and water and the reactions involving these molecules, oxygen and hydrogen have different properties than water. The fact that a functional human brain can be made of protons, neutrons, and electrons does not imply that protons, neutrons, and electrons have some part of consciousness.

Their claim would be akin to saying the alphabet has consciousness because books exist.

Good comparison, or perhaps that letters have part of the meaning of words.

Peez

 

[Peez]

ryan:
Science uses its conclusions to make more conclusions, in practise.

In science we often base further research on the conclusions we have already made, absolutely. However, we do not generally make more conclusions only on the basis of previous conclusions, we look for new evidence that we can use to build on our previous conclusions.

It uses what it finds to extend its conclusions until there needs to be a correction or not.

Sorry, I do not understand this.

Think about what I am saying without trying to find a way to interpret it so that it seems wrong (we all tend to do this).

”We” may, but I do my best to try to find a way to make sense of what you are posting. So far I have not been able to find a way to make your point about “A very important part of science is that there are some very fundamental particles (elementary particles)...” make sense.

One might say that the discoveries of particles that make up the Standard Model are important to science.

The discovery of subatomic particles associated with the “Standard Model” of particle physics was certainly important to particle physics.

This isn't saying that it's perfect, true, complete, etc. It's just saying that the SM is important.

Agreed, I have not suggested otherwise.

It is important because we can reduce theories to make sure they are consistent with the SM, or we can discover particles that the SM predicts.

No, it is important because it helps us to understand particle physics. It does not indicate, imply, or suggest that all things can be reduced to particle physics.

Now think about what I am really saying here.

I did.

I did not say that we need to know about any fundamental particles;

I did not suggest that you did.

I am saying that if they exist they/(their properties) need to be conserved.

I don’t see how what I have (or anyone else has) posted that would suggest that the properties of subatomic particles would not be conserved. Really, your statement seems pretty meaningless: if they were not conserved then one could not really call them properties of those particles.

Without conservation, we would not see experiments being reproduced as they have been.

You will have to be more specific.

Conservation of properties are important for today's science, and they are the ultimate example of reductionism being required for science to make predictions as it does today.

No, this does not follow (or, perhaps, I simply do not understand what you mean by subatomic particles conserving their properties).

Here is what I meant by reductionism as it relates to science. From the page Scientific Reductionism from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

"The term ‘reduction’ as used in philosophy expresses the idea that if an entity x reduces to an entity y then y is in a sense prior to x, is more basic than x, is such that x fully depends upon it or is constituted by it. Saying that x reduces to y typically implies that x is nothing more than y or nothing over and above y."

If you wish to discuss philosophy, you will have to find someone who is interested in philosophy.

Evidence for what?

The statement that immediately preceeded my statement: “If science is going to explain the consciousness, they must figure out which particle, could be all, add together to give a net total time of consciousness. “

Peez

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Their claim would be akin to saying the alphabet has consciousness because books exist.

Good comparison, or perhaps that letters have part of the meaning of words.

Peez

Yeah, I think your remix is a better analogy.

 

[ryan]

In science we often base further research on the conclusions we have already made, absolutely. However, we do not generally make more conclusions only on the basis of previous conclusions, we look for new evidence that we can use to build on our previous conclusions.

I agree. That's why I did not say that science only uses its conclusions to make more conclusions.

Think about what I am saying without trying to find a way to interpret it so that it seems wrong (we all tend to do this).

”We” may, but I do my best to try to find a way to make sense of what you are posting. So far I have not been able to find a way to make your point about “A very important part of science is that there are some very fundamental particles (elementary particles)...” make sense.

When you break up something sentence for sentence, you will lose some of the coherence that the context helps provide. Comprehension on peoples' ideas and arguments is hard as it is; don't make it harder by disconnecting the structure of the exposition.

Read everything that I wrote, and then try to see if what I was talking about is more clear.

One might say that the discoveries of particles that make up the Standard Model are important to science.

The discovery of subatomic particles associated with the “Standard Model” of particle physics was certainly important to particle physics.

Right, and isn't particle physics also science???

It is important because we can reduce theories to make sure they are consistent with the SM, or we can discover particles that the SM predicts.

No, it is important because it helps us to understand particle physics. It does not indicate, imply, or suggest that all things can be reduced to particle physics.

There is a lot of rich phenomena that reduces to 4 fundamental forces, or the particles that carry them (assuming the graviton). Some examples of what emerges in this universe are largely due to these 4 forces are: all structures, accelerating bodies, decay, tension, etc. Everything else is reduced to these and other properties of the particles of the SM the same way.

I did not say that we need to know about any fundamental particles;

I did not suggest that you did.

So then why did you say, "Scientific predictions were made before fundamental particles were studied (even assuming that we now know what the fundamental particles are). One need not know anything about fundamental particles to make certain successful predictions."?

I am saying that if they exist they/(their properties) need to be conserved.

I don’t see how what I have (or anyone else has) posted that would suggest that the properties of subatomic particles would not be conserved. Really, your statement seems pretty meaningless: if they were not conserved then one could not really call them properties of those particles.

Properties are not always conserved, especially extrinsic properties. Like an elastic is stretchy in only certain conditions. But strangeness in the weak interacting particles is not conserved.

Without conservation, we would not see experiments being reproduced as they have been.

You will have to be more specific.

So if the particles that constitute a piece of gold, for example, were to keep changing their properties, we would likely get different results when testing the properties of it, and it wouldn't compare well with other samples of gold.

Here is what I meant by reductionism as it relates to science. From the page Scientific Reductionism from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

"The term ‘reduction’ as used in philosophy expresses the idea that if an entity x reduces to an entity y then y is in a sense prior to x, is more basic than x, is such that x fully depends upon it or is constituted by it. Saying that x reduces to y typically implies that x is nothing more than y or nothing over and above y."

If you wish to discuss philosophy, you will have to find someone who is interested in philosophy.

Like math, philosophy is practically inseparable from science. Explaining how something is science is not actually performing science.

Evidence for what?

The statement that immediately preceeded my statement: “If science is going to explain the consciousness, they must figure out which particle, could be all, add together to give a net total time of consciousness. “

Peez

What I said there depends on whether or not you are buying my argument.

 

[Peez]

ryan:
I agree. That's why I did not say that science only uses its conclusions to make more conclusions.

Fine, I just wanted to clarify this point.

When you break up something sentence for sentence, you will lose some of the coherence that the context helps provide. Comprehension on peoples' ideas and arguments is hard as it is; don't make it harder by disconnecting the structure of the exposition.

Read everything that I wrote, and then try to see if what I was talking about is more clear.

I did read everything you wrote, only then did I go back and try to address individual points. I would appreciate if you would stop assuming that you know what I am thinking and doing.

Right, and isn't particle physics also science???

Of course it is, but science is not necessarily particle physics. Something being important to particle physics does not make it important to, say, neuropsychology.

There is a lot of rich phenomena that reduces to 4 fundamental forces, or the particles that carry them (assuming the graviton). Some examples of what emerges in this universe are largely due to these 4 forces are: all structures, accelerating bodies, decay, tension, etc. Everything else is reduced to these and other properties of the particles of the SM the same way.

I disagree.

So then why did you say, "Scientific predictions were made before fundamental particles were studied (even assuming that we now know what the fundamental particles are). One need not know anything about fundamental particles to make certain successful predictions."?

I said that in response to your statement: “A very important part of science is that there are some very fundamental particles (elementary particles) and their physical properties, and they have to be conserved if we are going to successfully make any predictions (except for strangeness in the weak interactions). “ To spell it out: no, not only do the physical properties of “very fundamental properties” not have to be conserved in order for us to make successful predictions, we don’t even have to be aware of these “very fundamental particles” or their properties. Of course if these particles were different, then things would be different. In any event this is quite irrelevant to the issue that I was trying to address.

Properties are not always conserved, especially extrinsic properties. Like an elastic is stretchy in only certain conditions. But strangeness in the weak interacting particles is not conserved.

The issue here is perhaps one of semantics.

So if the particles that constitute a piece of gold, for example, were to keep changing their properties, we would likely get different results when testing the properties of it, and it wouldn't compare well with other samples of gold.

Right, so if the “properties” (intrinsic properties?) of particles changed, then brains would not work the way they do. Is that what you are getting at? This was never in doubt. The problem I have is with suggesting that because a brain is "conscious" then each particle that makes up a brain has part of that "consciousness".

Like math, philosophy is practically inseparable from science. Explaining how something is science is not actually performing science.

Yes and no. Math is certainly separable from science, though it is a very useful tool in science. Philosophy is quite separable from science, being a very different discipline. The practice of science certainly does not involve the study of philosophy at all. In any event the quoted text about X and Y does not seem to be relevant to the practice of science.

What I said there depends on whether or not you are buying my argument.

lol!

OK, that pretty much sums it up. I will leave the last word to you.

Peez

 

[ryan]

There is a lot of rich phenomena that reduces to 4 fundamental forces, or the particles that carry them (assuming the graviton). Some examples of what emerges in this universe are largely due to these 4 forces are: all structures, accelerating bodies, decay, tension, etc. Everything else is reduced to these and other properties of the particles of the SM the same way.

I disagree.

Could you give an example of something in science that isn't fully explained by its parts?

To spell it out: no, not only do the physical properties of “very fundamental properties” not have to be conserved in order for us to make successful predictions, we don’t even have to be aware of these “very fundamental particles” or their properties.

Without conservation everything would be constantly changing. Gold might just turn into a turkey and then into water. Energy/EM could increase in value to more energetic photons or just turn into 3 electrons instead of an electron and positron, why not?

Properties are not always conserved, especially extrinsic properties. Like an elastic is stretchy in only certain conditions. But strangeness in the weak interacting particles is not conserved.

The issue here is perhaps one of semantics.

Actually, this is very important for this topic of discussion. It must be understood what properties are required for a substance in a given space and what properties are not. The extrinsic properties are the properties that many people will claim emerge (just to refresh, your weight is an extrinsic property because it depends on how massive the object you are on is, something not intrinsic to you.).

But these emerging properties are not ontologically real; they do not logically exist in addition to the ontological properties (fundamental properties) that are actually there. This becomes clear when we try to see if they both exist at the same time. The apple exists or the particles that make up the apple, but both are not actually there. It's called a category error. Wiki does a good enough job explaining here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake . An easy way to prove this is if I have an apple that weighs 1.5 kg's, we could not say that I have an apple that weighs 1.5 kg's and particles that collectively weigh 1.5 kg's because then I would have a total of 3 kg's!

So if the particles that constitute a piece of gold, for example, were to keep changing their properties, we would likely get different results when testing the properties of it, and it wouldn't compare well with other samples of gold.

Right, so if the “properties” (intrinsic properties?) of particles changed, then brains would not work the way they do. Is that what you are getting at? This was never in doubt. The problem I have is with suggesting that because a brain is "conscious" then each particle that makes up a brain has part of that "consciousness".

Building off of my last paragraph where the apple or its constituting particles exist, we have to make a tough decision now. We have to ask ourselves if the consciousness is a substance or just a property (substance dualism or property dualism).

Let's use the more commonly accepted choice and call the consciousness a property.

Here's my attempt to put this all together.

Let's assume for a moment that the consciousness is an extrinsic property. But, we can quickly see that your consciousness does not depend on its environment or how other observers are viewing you; you are always going to have a consciousness as long as your brain is working properly. So we ruled out an extrinsic property.

Nooooow here is the conclusion.

We are left with the consciousness being an intrinsic property (by a reasonable assumption using elimination). (Again, just to clarify, a square is not an intrinsic property of a chain of molecules forming it because it depends to the observer, curvature of space, definition, etc.) But how can that be since the brain itself has its own intrinsic properties from the particles that constitute it?

We are left with 2 options that I think are quite easy to choose from. One, the consciousness is itself a fundamental particle that is attracted to only brains but somehow leaves no physical "footprint"; or more commonly the brain is a receiver for a field of consciousness. Two, and quite fitting with the rest of science, the consciousness is an intrinsic property of one, some or all kinds of particles WITH the necessary unification from entanglement. The second option is good and is the simplest choice (Occam's razor) because it does not need one-way or two-way physical interactions like the first option does.

I know entanglement in the brain is still in its early stages, but there is some evidence and more and more scientists are finding working models that allow entanglement in decision making processes and other brain processes correlating to the consciousness.

Like math, philosophy is practically inseparable from science. Explaining how something is science is not actually performing science.

Yes and no. Math is certainly separable from science, though it is a very useful tool in science. Philosophy is quite separable from science, being a very different discipline. The practice of science certainly does not involve the study of philosophy at all. In any event the quoted text about X and Y does not seem to be relevant to the practice of science.

I, for one, have never read a published scientific paper without at least some math as part of its reasoning and without some critical thinking that attempts to raise a justified true belief in the conclusion, the latter being in the set of philosophy.

What I said there depends on whether or not you are buying my argument.

lol!

OK, that pretty much sums it up. I will leave the last word to you.

Peez

 

[bilby]

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

Quoting Carroll doesn't carry much weight.

Certainly Lewis doesn't. Sean probably carries a bit of weight in this context though.

 

[Kharakov]

I have a related question: Can misunderstanding quantum mechanics cause people to attribute agency to inanimate objects?

 

[bilby]

I have a related question: Can misunderstanding quantum mechanics cause people to attribute agency to inanimate objects?

There is no apparent limit to the stupidity that can arise from misunderstanding quantum mechanics. So yes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have a related question: Can misunderstanding quantum mechanics cause people to attribute agency to inanimate objects?

Can having a good understanding in quantum mechanics help me fix my car quicker?