Consciousness is more like gravity or electrical charge than a cognitive state. It permeates space and is an inherent property of matter and energy. I think the narrow definition we have had for it is in need of expanding, and the science keeps going in that direction.

[–] Miller@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Sounds a little hippy to me but 'there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy' so if it is the case we will still need a word for what consciousness did mean. Why not leave consciousness alone and find a new word to mean the interconnectedness of grifting ideas to make a living.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

if it is the case we will still need a word for what consciousness did mean

awareness

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sounds a little hippy to me

Yeah...

Because it is?

Quantum physics has been proposed to be part of the solution for the mystery of consciousness. In particular the holistic character of quantum entanglement might provide an answer to the binding problem14. In the 1990s, Penrose and Hameroff proposed a theory of consciousness based on quantum computations in MTs15,16,17,18. Computational modeling suggested that electron resonance transfer among aromatic amino acid tryptophan (Trp) rings in tubulin (subunits of MTs) in a quantum electronic process could play roles in consciousness19. Craddock et al. showed that anesthetic molecules might bind in the same regions and hence result in loss of consciousness20. In a recent experiment, Zhang et al. observed a connection between electronic states and vibrational states in tubulin and MTs21. However, quantum electronic coherence beyond ultrafast timescales demands more supporting evidence and has been recently challenged experimentally22. In contrast, quantum spin coherence could be preserved for much longer timescales23. For example, Fisher has proposed that phosphorus nuclear spins could be entangled in networks of Posner molecules, , which could form the basis of a quantum mechanism for neural processing in the brain24. However, this particular spin-based model also requires more supporting evidence and recently has faced experimental challenges25.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10068-4

Most people just can't understand that shit, so when someone talks about it in easy to use terms, it sounds "a little hippy".

Like, that's where the hippies got their words from in the first place bro...

"Vibing" is an accurate scientific description of two consciousnesses that are agreeable with each other. The people saying it don't always understand it, but most of what "hippies" say about consciousness is pretty fucking accurate.

Why not leave consciousness alone

Why keep insisting the people who always used the term correctly stop because it doesn't match the simplified version you were taught decades ago in jr high?

[–] Miller@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The forced degradation of words is unhelpful, a word will still be needed to differentiate the unparalleled state of mind from the emerging properties of complex systems. Concepts like consciousness and God are often commandeered to peddle tenuous ideas to the great unwashed and it is ultimately unsustainable. And while we are about it computational modelling is a license to find what you want to find.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago

The forced degradation of words is unhelpful

Then stop doing it...

You're trying to make people who use the word correctly stop, because you never knew what it meant.

And of fucking course youre plugging chat it's now.

[–] Elting@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Science isn't a philosophy, its a process for approaching the truth. Yes, I can't prove what I am saying and it is based more on a strong feeling than direct proof. I think the question of consciousness is a particularly important one, and we know very little about it still.

[–] Miller@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Your first line is science is a means to find truth, your second line is I have no proof I just feel it.

Edit. I did not mean for that to sound so aggressive, I disagree with some of what you said but you are genuine.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The science is the means, not the truth.

Well, the scientific method is, not sure if that also applies to the definition of science as s singular word.

[–] Elting@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You treat science/knowledge as a philosophy when it is inherently incomplete and always will be.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Source?

[–] Elting@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There isn’t enough hard science to prove it either way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Then I choose to support the way that isn't woowoo space magic.

[–] Elting@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What is it about non-materialism that you guys seem to find so upsetting? Is it that it decenters your experience of the self? Is it the idea of unknowable truth? Its like I have attacked you personally by suggesting another way of looking at reality.

Edit: One of the reasons I have rejected materialism/physicalism is that you can’t have free will under it. Its deterministic. I think most people, even those that turn to that way of thinking for comfort, find the idea of no free will disturbing.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I reject it for the same reason I am staunchly anti-religious: I think the acceptance of magical thinking is a net negative for society.

Free will is overrated. It feels like we have it and whether it's real or not has no impact on our actions. You've traded one illusion for another.

[–] Elting@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would contend that believing all can be known is magical thinking on its own.

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 1 points 29 minutes ago

That's why it's not a scientific theory, not since quantum physics is a thing.