• space_comrade [he/him]
    ·
    9 months ago

    If the conscious observer thing were true, what would it decide is consciousness? Would it require sapience? Sentience? Does it happen for dolphins? Apes? Monkeys? Mice? Tardigrades? What level of synapse connections is it waiting for to decide that's enough? What about humans born without a brain? Can they not see anything? This hypothesis requires so many weird assumptions that it's less than useless.

    What's so weird about any of those questions/assumptions? A consciousness-based interpretation of quantum mechanics would need any conscious observer, that would include dolphins since we're pretty sure they're having conscious experiences.

    • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]
      ·
      9 months ago

      that would include dolphins

      This is literally the closest form of consciousness to our own - the easiest and most obvious case. They weren't actually asking if dolphins would count, they're asking at what point it counts as consciousness. The ones you need to answer are things like tardigrades, bacteria and viruses, or nonphysical forms of consciousness. After all, you're seriously claiming that the scientific definition of observation is observation by a conscious mind, not interaction with another aspect of the universe, so why don't we consider all the nonfalsifiables? Do ghosts collapse the quantum superposition?

      • space_comrade [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I'm not sure where you're going with this really. Why do I need to analyze if every single thing in the universe is conscious or not? Physicalism also doesn't really have a general answer to the question "is this physical system conscious". Shouldn't you do the same work before declaring you know consciousness is fully physical?

        • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]
          ·
          9 months ago

          A consciousness-based interpretation of quantum mechanics would need any conscious observer

          If you're going to claim that consciousness is the influencing factor in quantum mechanics you need to define consciousness. You need to define the point at which consciousness starts. You saying "yes a dolphin is conscious" only tells me you think humans and dolphins are conscious, and nothing about what you think consciousness is, what things you think are conscious, or why consciousness would influence particles. So either you give a real answer to their question of what you think consciousness is or you start listing the things you think are conscious until smarter minds can work out what connects the dots.

          • space_comrade [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            So either you give a real answer to their question of what you think consciousness is or you start listing the things you think are conscious until smarter minds can work out what connects the dots.

            You haven't given a real answer either though and neither has anybody else in the history of science, which is what I'm trying to say, nobody has a coherent answer but you're pretending as if you do. You're literally just asserting your claims without backing anything up.

            • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]
              ·
              9 months ago

              No, you dumb fuck, I don't need to define consciousness for my explanation of observability in physics to make sense - my interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't mention consciousness at all. You have to define it because your interpretation of quantum superpositioning claims that it only collapses when a conscious mind observes it, so you have to define what conscioussness is.

              • space_comrade [he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                No, you dumb fuck,

                Thanks comrade, very nice of you.

                You have to define it

                No, everybody has to define it actually since it clearly exists and nobody really knows what it is. If you believe with certainty it doesn't have anything to do with quantum collapse then you also must have a good idea what it actually is, and you just plain don't.

                Personally I'm agnostic about the whole thing and I don't think any particular idea needs to be dismissed a priori because of entrenched beliefs.

                • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  No, I don't have to define it, because I'm talking about observability in quantum mechanics, not some philosophical metaphysical bollocks about what consciousness is. My definition of observation does not in any way include consciousness, so defining consciousness adds nothing to my definition. Your definition of observation is being seen by something with consciousness, so you have to define what consciousness is. I have to define things like interactions and particles, I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.

                  • space_comrade [he/him]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.

                    Damn you're a feisty one.

                    In fact you do have to provide definitions, an "observation" in the context of quantum mechanics does not have a consensus definition and the definition heavily relies on your particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. One of these interpretations also includes consciousness, and if you want to be completely certain this particular interpretation is false you need your own coherent definition of consciousness that doesn't call upon quantum mechanics. You don't have such a thing, nobody does.

                    You're locked in a belief system and you don't even realize it.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      ·
      9 months ago

      Why it's weird is because it's assuming the universe is choosing what level is conscious. As you say, we're pretty sure they're conscious. How do we know that? Brain scans and watching their behavior. What happens to something without a brain but still with sensors? Is that somehow conscious? What about a brain but much less complex? Why is the universe deciding how to behave based on this? It'd be really outlandish to expect this behavior from the universe, which isn't a creature and just following a set of rules.

      It's a much simpler explanation that interactions that require information force that information to collapse. We don't need any strange justifications or anything deciding what level becomes conscious, which is just a word we made up several hundred years ago and is meaningless to the universe. Consciousness is just a series of impulses in a system, a system which can go wrong in many ways and is not a fundamental thing.

      • space_comrade [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Consciousness is just a series of impulses in a system, a system which can go wrong in many ways and is not a fundamental thing.

        You can claim that all you want but you can't really back that up. Nobody has anywhere near a coherent account of how a purely physical system produces (or equates to) subjective conscious experience. If your answer now is "well science will figure it out one day for sure" then you have a belief system and you aren't actually thinking scientifically.

        Why should science be forever married to a reductive physicalist account of the universe?

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          You aren't conscious when you're in a coma, correct? That's a measurable way the system can mess up and we can detect. You also aren't conscious when you're dead, right? Yet another measurable thing. We can detect brain activity and see certain regions are used for certain things. We can also detect anomalous behavior in the brain. We can tell when the system isn't working as expected.

          Nobody has anywhere near a coherent account of how a purely physical system produces (or equates to) subjective conscious experience.

          We can easily explain how a physical system produces consciousness. We may not be able to point to exactly what it is, but we can describe it and describe how that can happen. It's not mystical. It's just complex. We can't reproduce it yet, but that doesn't mean we don't understand how the brain functions.

          Why should science be forever married to a reductive physicalist account of the universe?

          Because that's literally a basic requirment of science. It relies on falsafiability. You can believe whatever you want, but science relies on stuff being measurable. It doesn't mean it's right, but that's how it functions.

          Also, you call it reductive. I don't think it's reductive. I think it's more reductive to just say "consciousness exists" than to say "consciousness is a complex system that can develop in nature". Just because it's physical doesn't mean it's reductive. Saying "it just is because it is" seems much more reductive.

          Edit: Also, despite people believing mystical things for most of history, they were never right. Why should this be any different?

          • space_comrade [he/him]
            ·
            9 months ago

            We can easily explain how a physical system produces consciousness.

            We literally can't do that at all though, not even close.

            Because that's literally a basic requirment of science.

            How? Science is based on making models from empirical observations about the world and yourself, one of these empirical observations is the observation that your phenomenal consciousness actually exists, seemingly in opposition to the physical world, maybe we should perhaps include that fact in our models?

            Also, you call it reductive. I don't think it's reductive.

            It's literally how that category of metaphysical thought is called, it's an actual philosophical term.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              ·
              9 months ago

              How? Science is based on making models from empirical observations about the world and yourself

              Science requires falsafiability. It's fine to belive other things, but science it a method, not a belief system.

              one of these empirical observations is the observation that your phenomenal consciousness actually exists, seemingly in opposition to the physical world, maybe we should perhaps include that fact in our models?

              Nothing I've seen seems to imply it's outside of our models. You haven't explained why that's the case. We know how the humans brain and nervous system functions. It isn't magic anymore.

              • space_comrade [he/him]
                ·
                9 months ago

                Nothing I've seen seems to imply it's outside of our models.

                It literally is tho. There is no mention of consciousness anywhere in either quantum mechanics or general relativity.