tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post4916254441246088254..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Electrons don’t thinkSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger728125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38760042034374285652021-05-02T11:47:15.678-04:002021-05-02T11:47:15.678-04:00I am of course familiar with the free will theorem...I am of course familiar with the free will theorem, which you would know if you'd be familiar with my work, which evidently you are not. Neither, for that matter, do you seem to understand the free will theorem, which -- as pretty much everyone who understands it agrees -- has absolutely nothing to do with free will. If you were trying to demonstrate your utter lack of comprehension, Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20802069763938985112021-05-02T10:50:58.424-04:002021-05-02T10:50:58.424-04:00Yes, it's clear that the simplistic version of...Yes, it's clear that the simplistic version of panpsychism described here is a straw man. I admire many things about her thinking, but Hossenfelfer's willingness to attribute nonsensical claims to intelligent people is almost contemptuous. Is she not aware, for example, that John Conway has developed mathematical theorems with implications along these lines? Had she not heard of the free Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16927250649725245142021-01-09T03:40:25.055-05:002021-01-09T03:40:25.055-05:00Post modernism is so 90s. Post modernism is so 90s. Jakob Virgilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508538609077333325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82692874498659584672021-01-08T01:25:51.252-05:002021-01-08T01:25:51.252-05:00The electrons consciousness is in the hidden varia...The electrons consciousness is in the hidden variables silly.<br />Joking aside I don't even understand what electron consciousness would mean or why it would be meaningful. I cam here because a philosopher friend of mine was very angry about this post. Jakob Virgilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508538609077333325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39725439778681942512020-07-13T10:52:55.853-04:002020-07-13T10:52:55.853-04:00Electrons and other such subatomic particles can&#...Electrons and other such subatomic particles can't change and their behaviour is highly predictable. Yet, it has no definite position until it's subjected to an interaction (observation) that causes its waveform to collapse. I'd interpret that as a change. First, it's all over the place in the electron cloud and then it suddenly appears to have decided where to be, because of a Fedor Steeman https://www.blogger.com/profile/08053729061377123780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-51162350651702343282020-05-20T14:22:01.847-04:002020-05-20T14:22:01.847-04:00So, does Chalmer's view mean that consciousnes...So, does Chalmer's view mean that consciousness is about human feelings? Those unpleasant hurts and joys that are stimulated by chemicals.<br />Plants and animals also react to chemicals when suffering damage and also can transmit differing chemicals via fungi threads for different types of damage.anngiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08182464335200536996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43229422564349362242020-05-19T02:57:10.820-04:002020-05-19T02:57:10.820-04:00Yes, I can change, witness that now I type an &quo...Yes, I can change, witness that now I type an "A" and now I type a "B". That's not the same thing, hence change. An electron cannot do that. Before you submit further comments, please think about what I am saying. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47733184065722842492020-05-18T21:34:49.172-04:002020-05-18T21:34:49.172-04:00"Now, if you want a particle to be conscious,..."Now, if you want a particle to be conscious, your minimum expectation should be that the particle can change."<br /><br />Can you (change) ?<br />Can you change into an ant or a Lion or simply somebody else ?<br />Can change and stop eating ?yoanandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02779079766938488026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46972310864824298882020-04-27T02:43:17.040-04:002020-04-27T02:43:17.040-04:00This argument risks another fallacy for it is not ...This argument risks another fallacy for it is not proven anywhere that awareness is like thinking or that both be complex. While thinking is inherently complex since it equals some form/s of logical calculus/i, the same cannot safely be said of certain forms of awareness. Think of Zen as awareness in the absence of thinking. It could be Buddhas all the way down! Theophanes Raptishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01269614280130174555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1418031442675055012020-04-26T10:40:44.019-04:002020-04-26T10:40:44.019-04:00anngie: A car seat will not take you to the store....anngie: A car seat will not take you to the store. Nor will a steering wheel, or an accelerator pedal. But a car in good repair with fuel can take you to the store, and bring you and your groceries back home. The car can do something no individual component of the car can do by itself.<br /><br />Your mistake is called the fallacy of decomposition; that what is true for the WHOLE must be true of Dr. A.M. Castaldohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17988116835722393503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10536448953994478282020-04-25T07:40:08.497-04:002020-04-25T07:40:08.497-04:00Hi, Sabine,
I studied Mathematical Physics many ye...Hi, Sabine,<br />I studied Mathematical Physics many years ago and am completely out-of-touch with modern attitudes. Yet your headline attacted me. <br /><br />I don't know exactly how humans think. Animals appear to think in a more primitive way. I, personaly don't believe that single-celled animals such as virus' and bacteria think. However, I do wonder how thinking managed to anngiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08182464335200536996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-41609030474839360252020-01-09T11:36:29.660-05:002020-01-09T11:36:29.660-05:00Again. Why single out spin and disregard mass and ...Again. Why single out spin and disregard mass and charge? For that matter why the emphasis on electrons? What have you against protons, neutrons, pions etc? <br /><br />Add for quibbling about what spin is versus does, this sound much like Clinton's argument about the meaning of the word "is" itself. Lamberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16737349870060789322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13776767501015930932020-01-09T11:28:32.295-05:002020-01-09T11:28:32.295-05:00And why pick spin as the analogue of consciousnes...And why pick spin as the analogue of consciousness? Why not charge our mass?Lamberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16737349870060789322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91655054506804510902020-01-09T11:13:42.638-05:002020-01-09T11:13:42.638-05:00What we fo know is that it is associated with stru...What we fo know is that it is associated with structures we call neurons. i don't hear any claim that hair follicles or feet age involvedLamberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16737349870060789322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45214059257774094062020-01-09T10:58:48.406-05:002020-01-09T10:58:48.406-05:00Hydrogen is hydrogen. Not water. Oxygen is oxygen...Hydrogen is hydrogen. Not water. Oxygen is oxygen. Not water. We're known that the two will combine to make water. <br /><br />"how do elementary particles, which have no degree of freedom for consciousness in your criticism, assemble to form consciousness in human and animal brains?" As of now we do not know, but that is no reason to invoke oogitty boogy.Lamberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16737349870060789322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57823732299121991222019-12-02T06:40:55.035-05:002019-12-02T06:40:55.035-05:00'John Bell's work that seems to finally va...'John Bell's work that seems to finally validate "spooky action at a distance."'. What I am about to say is not true in some interpretations like DBB - but it is true in the majority. Please remember an entangled state of two particles is a single quantum state - you cant say that it can be considered as one particle and another particle. You can only talk of two Bill Hobbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338177722812452753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73906055870749988942019-12-02T06:16:39.137-05:002019-12-02T06:16:39.137-05:00'Summary: If a philosopher starts speaking abo...'Summary: If a philosopher starts speaking about elementary particles, run.' Even some Mathematicians. When people ask me about the Free Will Theorem I go oh no - not again. I cant fob them off by saying its rot because its a legit theorem. If anyone doesn't know it look it up. See if you can spot its flaw - hint - garbage in garbage out.Bill Hobbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338177722812452753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16705117558924453832019-10-02T11:39:26.126-04:002019-10-02T11:39:26.126-04:00👏👏👏👏👏❗️👏👏👏👏👏❗️Eberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537371970199836067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-58353373342695583422019-02-05T17:56:17.490-05:002019-02-05T17:56:17.490-05:00Tim Maudlin,
Your “free will” is not free will, ...Tim Maudlin, <br /><br />Your “free will” is not free will, it is causal determinism. I would like to explain the difference between free will and causal determinism:<br /><br />Physical outcomes, for living things or particles, can (ideally) be represented by a set of variables and associated numbers. <br /><br />Causal determinism, i.e. where a thing can have no free will over outcomes, is Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64015742318694056522019-02-04T20:20:38.833-05:002019-02-04T20:20:38.833-05:00Tim Maudlin,
Re your 3:16 PM, January 03, 2019 co...Tim Maudlin,<br /><br />Re your 3:16 PM, January 03, 2019 comment:<br /><br />With your definition of “free will”, even a billiard ball has “free will” [1]. You are talking about situations that have only one possible outcome, and where that outcome is determined by laws of nature. I.e. you are talking about situations that are constrained by necessity or fate.<br /><br />Actual free will [2] canLorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15830060749506297902019-02-03T17:50:15.439-05:002019-02-03T17:50:15.439-05:00Tim Maudlin,
Re your reply of 1:39 AM, January 2...Tim Maudlin, <br /><br />Re your reply of 1:39 AM, January 27, 2019:<br /><br />You haven’t said what you think carries information in the universe: <br />“Law of nature” relationships (which we represent as equations, variables and numbers), might be thought of as primitive information, i.e. what there was to know in the universe before complex molecules and living things came on the scene. So, Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-12453227664890992492019-01-29T10:27:00.043-05:002019-01-29T10:27:00.043-05:00Tim Maudlin,
Pain and other experiences have noth...Tim Maudlin,<br /><br />Pain and other experiences have nothing to do with coded messages, or calculations made in connection with coded messages: i.e. experience has nothing to do with Shannon information. Messages use strings of symbols, but pain etc. is like a message <i>before</i> it was represented as a string of symbols. Pain and other experiences are not messages, though people might Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88354246274467021402019-01-28T17:22:58.007-05:002019-01-28T17:22:58.007-05:00@ Tim Maudly, Dr. A.M. Castaldo:
Feeling pain ma...@ Tim Maudly, Dr. A.M. Castaldo: <br /><br />Feeling pain may be a perfectly valid example to explain what "qualia" means, but "strategically" it is probalby not be the best choice. Because pain is usually a complex experience involving cognitive, emotional, and physiological components, most of which may be amenable to reductionist explanation. This gives deniers of a specialAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13149724909857794158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42271246251404341872019-01-28T15:46:33.713-05:002019-01-28T15:46:33.713-05:00Tim wrote: The point is a conceptual one.
That...Tim wrote: The point is a conceptual one.<br /><br />That's how I understood it. I don't think you're proposing "an incredibly simple replacement" for consciousness. When you refer to "dynamical simplicity," I don't take that to mean simple in any absolute sense. In fact, you stated explicitly that you don't think it's possible to build a p-zombie. <br Steven Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05140374687362624448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-58832051801776667272019-01-28T08:55:56.752-05:002019-01-28T08:55:56.752-05:00Dr A. M. Castaldo,
The point is a conceptual one....Dr A. M. Castaldo,<br /><br />The point is a conceptual one. Any deterministic system of any kind underwrites an inout-output map. For the human brain, think of it as a map from the nerve stimulus coming into the brain to the motor-control nerve outputs. Let the "input" be the sum total nerve inputs from your birth until now, so for a conversation the "input" is not just the Tim Maudlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13405889075711711332noreply@blogger.com