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
Unfortunately I don’t think so.
This is the issue I think. Bsit was making coherent philosophical arguments about the mind’s relationship to matter. As I read it (or she) was saying something along the lines of:
That is, I think, a charitable interpretation of Bsit’s arguments.
The pattern recognition I was talking about was, basically, you say talk about consciousness that sounded vaguely new-age, and you saw Bsit was saying this isn’t a scientific matter, and you thought, ah, here we have another anti-intellectual crank who must be making some logical errors (at least that’s how it seems, judging by your comments).
But that’s not a fair characterization. Because reason why it’s not a scientific matter is not because Bsit is an anti-intellectual, but because he/she is dealing with a metaphysical matter, one that examines the fundamental assumptions of science itself (this is not the same as questioning the scientific method; it is just examining what we take for granted we perform experiments and construct theories etc). Maybe you don’t think we should question these assumptions and so you don’t like metaphysics. That’s fine. But you at least have to admit that the arguments are complex enough to warrant more than a simple dismissal
Well this is a shame as we seemed to be in agreement on the comment thread above. I didn't even pick you up of the fact that none of the papers you linked were evidence for panpsychism, just exploring where consciousness is located in the brain and potential mathematical frameworks for it.
bsit wasn't making coherent arguments, they were putting out unfalsifiable theories and then linking things like the Hard Problem of Consciousness which doesn't support their point, it's just an ongoing problem yet to be explained by science. You mentioned yourself that one possible way to do this would be via further research into IIT.
I see no paths to evidence for idealism myself and asked for some but received none. So yes, I'm afraid I will dismiss a theory which doesn't make any predictions and can't be proved/disproved. Doubly so if the advocate starts comparing my scientific understanding to the Bible then starts abusing logical fallacies.
To address your extremely charitable interpretation... What does matter being an interpretation of consciousness even mean to you? To me it would mean that we are some kind of Boltzmann brain imagining the universe into existence. If that's the the case then it's basically solipsism which bsit flat out rejected multiple times.
I didn't use the word anti-intellectual but if we can't agree on definitions and the fundamental axioms of a shared reality then we really are in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Hey I'm still all for the good vibes here. We're still on the same page, I shouldn't have phrased it like that. I'm just saying that our understanding of what Bsit was saying differs. I would also like to add, for the sake of goodwill, that I've really enjoyed chatting with you here.
I know, I wasn't trying to provide evidence for panpsychism, I was just trying to show that IIT makes predictions (something that the guy I was talking to was denying).
This is I think where the fundamental disagreement lies. Bsit was making a philosophical claim, so the apparatus of science doesn't really work here. We can't really prove or disprove the idea using experiments, we can only discuss how coherent the idea is. In this sense philosophy is more like math than science.
I think this is the fundamental issue. It's easy to miss, but you're framing of it is still implicitly putting matter first by assuming that, in order for there to be experience, there would need to be Boltzmann brains. But in idealism, everything, even Boltzmann brains, would be happening within consciousness. Consciousness comes first, brains come second (the two happen to be coupled, but even this experience of them being coupled is happening within consciousness). Consciousness is like a giant container that contains everything else within it. Consciousness is like a canvas, and the material world is like the paint on that canvas. We construct stories about how the changes in the brain cause changes in consciousness, and those stories are true (there are clear correlations here), but they themselves are happening on the canvas.
A good way to think of this is like 3D space, or extension. Except for a point, every shape is within space (ie it has length, width, height) and is within space. It doesn't make sense to ask which of the shapes cause space (is it the spheres? the trapezoids?), or which shapes come before space (maybe its the cubes), because shapes by necessity cannot exist unless they are immersed in space. In the same way, under idealism it wouldn't make sense to think about Boltzmann brains (or any kind of brains) causing experience; that would be like asking which shapes cause space. Instead, consciousness is just the dimension brains and all other physical objects exist within. They cannot exist without consciousness in the same way that shapes cannot exist without three-dimensional space.