Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The scientific method has never proved anything ever. It just fails to disprove, and the theory gets stronger every single time.
I would posit that you (and Plato) are just wildly defining undisprovable concepts that serve no purpose and can neither be proven nor disproven. Which makes your hypothesis more like a religion.
I wouldn’t be so dismissive. This is a very active area of research, and sometimes philosophical ideas like this can be the launchpad from which new scientific theories can be constructed.
An example of this is panpsychism (the idea that all matter has some level of consciousness). Many consider this a woo-woo theory. But now we have Integrated Information Theory, which is probably the most popular theory of consciousness right now. And it is a panpsychist theory: if its mathematical measure of consciousness is correct, then all matter would have some nonzero level of consciousness.
Now, I don’t subscribe to this theory, but thats not the point. My point is that with immature fields of research like this, we have to tolerate philosophical speculations (we have to start from somewhere, right?). So though you may not like these speculations right now, there is a really real chance they may the groundwork for an innovative scientific theory.
So let’s not immediately shut down these ideas by labelling them as “religion”. Lets give these ideas room to breathe, grow and mature, because thats how we make progress when we’re just starting out.
Well, like with all ~~religions~~ speculative fields with zero evidence back it, I'll consider it further when they present some empirically testable claims. Right now, it rests on the same level as "The rock-god Unk-Amun who lies in backyard created the universe via timetravel, which can be shown by the number of atoms in Unk-Amun".
Or possibly "The number of peas on my dinnerplate shows the level of my household's Runath". What is Runath? Well, it's obviously the thing that's measured by the number of peas on my dinnerplate.
That does not speak in it's favor.
If you want to be that guy who dismisses the most well respected theory from a field you know nothing about, then okay. Just know that this makes you sound very stupid.
It's an untestable "theory" that has no predictive power and explains nothing. It could be entirely true or entirely false and it would make no difference. It's literally useless.
This is false, it makes a number of concrete predictions and the theory is mathematically precise.
🪨🧠🙏 Unk-Amun 🙏🧠🪨
I mean, he doesn't demand worship, but you will get an extra burger during grilling if you say a prayer.
🙌 O' mighty Unk-Amun, may you forever bestow double burgers alongside our Runath. 🙌
Scientific thought demands proof of consciousness using matter as the base assumption, yet matter itself is only ever observed through consciousness. It’s a circular trap: the method assumes what it’s supposed to prove.
Would it? I'd say that would depend on the theory being defended at the moment. Which one are you talking about, and how does it define consciousness?
I don't need to defend the idea with the ideas of a system that hasn't first proven itself.
To say anything about the world, you blatantly obviously need consciousness first. That's the status quo. The burden of proof is on materialists.
I already gave definitions in my first post.
Burden of proof for what? That you need a brain to make observations of the world? That's not a hard claim to support.
You, however, seem to assert some form of magical super-consciousness that seems utterly undisprovable
What would you know about brains if not for consciousness?
Ohhhhhh, its solipsism in a trenchcoat.
Indeed, I can't solve the problem of hard solipsism, but neither can you. I can only say that we've made a pretty successful run at things by just assuming we all share an objective reality.
And if that reality doesn't exist outside my brain, I'm a pretty fucking impressively smart girl, with some really fucked up issues.
It’s not solipsism he’s describing a view known as idealism
It's not solipsism, as I specifically said in my first post. It's idealism. There's a significant difference. I suggest you read on it before throwing around terms.