Human consciousness, and most life, seems to be a mix of classical and quantum behaviour (microtubules for example), but no one is doubting that something as simple as radioactive particles can be in superposition. Why did you bring up that one?NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:09 pmMaybe the second "type" of consciousness is in the superposition...lolAtla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:01 pmFirst we need understand the depth of the Hard problem of consciousness. (except for Nick, no hope there)Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 6:20 am It would partly depend on what you regard as an explanation; what you think it means to explain something.
If (as it seems reasonable to suppose) our brains are made from elementary particles - the same ones that non-conscious things are made from - then it should in principle be possible to put those elementary particles together to make a conscious brain.
Consciousness as in human consciousness (human consciousness / organism consciousness / AI consciousness), and consciousness as in the 'what it is like' phenomenological consciousness, may be two different things that co-occur in humans. The question isn't simply how they are the same thing, but also whether they are the same thing.
So to be conscious of your self and your experiences as a human is a different type of "what it is like ". Oh boy.
The same pseudo philosophical deepities reproduced by people who have zero understanding about the science of the field.
BTW I am still waiting for your evidence for the ..."superposition of consciousness, toxicity, radioactivity, combustion"
Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Superposition will tell....Atla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:37 pmHuman consciousness, and most life, seems to be a mix of classical and quantum behaviour (microtubules for example), but no one is doubting that something as simple as radioactive particles can be in superposition. Why did you bring up that one?NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:09 pmMaybe the second "type" of consciousness is in the superposition...lolAtla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:01 pmFirst we need understand the depth of the Hard problem of consciousness. (except for Nick, no hope there)Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 6:20 am It would partly depend on what you regard as an explanation; what you think it means to explain something.
If (as it seems reasonable to suppose) our brains are made from elementary particles - the same ones that non-conscious things are made from - then it should in principle be possible to put those elementary particles together to make a conscious brain.
Consciousness as in human consciousness (human consciousness / organism consciousness / AI consciousness), and consciousness as in the 'what it is like' phenomenological consciousness, may be two different things that co-occur in humans. The question isn't simply how they are the same thing, but also whether they are the same thing.
So to be conscious of your self and your experiences as a human is a different type of "what it is like ". Oh boy.
The same pseudo philosophical deepities reproduced by people who have zero understanding about the science of the field.
BTW I am still waiting for your evidence for the ..."superposition of consciousness, toxicity, radioactivity, combustion"
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
And in addition to that, there's Schrödinger's cat, in other words there's no known reason why anything couldn't be in superposition. The only problem is that we already seem to have a huge classical-behaviour environment here on Earth, and as the size of the quantum system increases, it becomes impossible to avoid decoherence with this environment. Our technology is advancing and we are putting bigger and bigger things into superposition, but we will probably never reach the size of a human brain. But that's a technical limit, not a fundamental limit. As I said, according to current science, scale is not a fundamental factor to reality. Get over it already.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 3:40 pmSuperposition will tell....Atla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:37 pmHuman consciousness, and most life, seems to be a mix of classical and quantum behaviour (microtubules for example), but no one is doubting that something as simple as radioactive particles can be in superposition. Why did you bring up that one?NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:09 pmMaybe the second "type" of consciousness is in the superposition...lolAtla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:01 pm
First we need understand the depth of the Hard problem of consciousness. (except for Nick, no hope there)
Consciousness as in human consciousness (human consciousness / organism consciousness / AI consciousness), and consciousness as in the 'what it is like' phenomenological consciousness, may be two different things that co-occur in humans. The question isn't simply how they are the same thing, but also whether they are the same thing.
So to be conscious of your self and your experiences as a human is a different type of "what it is like ". Oh boy.
The same pseudo philosophical deepities reproduced by people who have zero understanding about the science of the field.
BTW I am still waiting for your evidence for the ..."superposition of consciousness, toxicity, radioactivity, combustion"
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
The Schroedinger's cat lol.....right.....Or you can study physics and learn what the "cat" is all aboutAtla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 3:53 pmAnd in addition to that, there's Schrödinger's cat, in other words there's no known reason why anything couldn't be in superposition. The only problem is that we already seem to have a huge classical-behaviour environment here on Earth, and as the size of the quantum system increases, it becomes impossible to avoid decoherence with this environment. Our technology is advancing and we are putting bigger and bigger things into superposition, but we will probably never reach the size of a human brain. But that's a technical limit, not a fundamental limit. As I said, according to current science, scale is not a fundamental factor to reality. Get over it already.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 3:40 pmSuperposition will tell....Atla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:37 pmHuman consciousness, and most life, seems to be a mix of classical and quantum behaviour (microtubules for example), but no one is doubting that something as simple as radioactive particles can be in superposition. Why did you bring up that one?NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:09 pm
Maybe the second "type" of consciousness is in the superposition...lol
So to be conscious of your self and your experiences as a human is a different type of "what it is like ". Oh boy.
The same pseudo philosophical deepities reproduced by people who have zero understanding about the science of the field.
BTW I am still waiting for your evidence for the ..."superposition of consciousness, toxicity, radioactivity, combustion"
https://youtu.be/GerzZ6GDe-0
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Next time try to link a video that disagrees with what I wroteNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 4:24 pmThe Schroedinger's cat lol.....right.....Or you can study physics and learn what the "cat" is all aboutAtla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 3:53 pmAnd in addition to that, there's Schrödinger's cat, in other words there's no known reason why anything couldn't be in superposition. The only problem is that we already seem to have a huge classical-behaviour environment here on Earth, and as the size of the quantum system increases, it becomes impossible to avoid decoherence with this environment. Our technology is advancing and we are putting bigger and bigger things into superposition, but we will probably never reach the size of a human brain. But that's a technical limit, not a fundamental limit. As I said, according to current science, scale is not a fundamental factor to reality. Get over it already.
https://youtu.be/GerzZ6GDe-0
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
This new agy stuff are not part of Philosophy, plus you need to post them in the forum of " Religion, Theism and Mythology".Atla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 4:36 pmNext time try to link a video that disagrees with what I wroteNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 4:24 pmThe Schroedinger's cat lol.....right.....Or you can study physics and learn what the "cat" is all aboutAtla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 3:53 pmAnd in addition to that, there's Schrödinger's cat, in other words there's no known reason why anything couldn't be in superposition. The only problem is that we already seem to have a huge classical-behaviour environment here on Earth, and as the size of the quantum system increases, it becomes impossible to avoid decoherence with this environment. Our technology is advancing and we are putting bigger and bigger things into superposition, but we will probably never reach the size of a human brain. But that's a technical limit, not a fundamental limit. As I said, according to current science, scale is not a fundamental factor to reality. Get over it already.
https://youtu.be/GerzZ6GDe-0
Try watching the video of a real physicists explaining what Schrodinger's cat is really for.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
See my last commentNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 5:30 pmThis new agy stuff are not part of Philosophy, plus you need to post them in the forum of " Religion, Theism and Mythology".Atla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 4:36 pmNext time try to link a video that disagrees with what I wroteNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 4:24 pmThe Schroedinger's cat lol.....right.....Or you can study physics and learn what the "cat" is all aboutAtla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 3:53 pm
And in addition to that, there's Schrödinger's cat, in other words there's no known reason why anything couldn't be in superposition. The only problem is that we already seem to have a huge classical-behaviour environment here on Earth, and as the size of the quantum system increases, it becomes impossible to avoid decoherence with this environment. Our technology is advancing and we are putting bigger and bigger things into superposition, but we will probably never reach the size of a human brain. But that's a technical limit, not a fundamental limit. As I said, according to current science, scale is not a fundamental factor to reality. Get over it already.
https://youtu.be/GerzZ6GDe-0
Try watching the video of a real physicists explaining what Schrodinger's cat is really for.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
If you think that the video agrees with your new age beliefs...then we finally found the problem .Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 1:30 amSee my last commentNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 5:30 pmThis new agy stuff are not part of Philosophy, plus you need to post them in the forum of " Religion, Theism and Mythology".Atla wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 4:36 pmNext time try to link a video that disagrees with what I wroteNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 4:24 pm
The Schroedinger's cat lol.....right.....Or you can study physics and learn what the "cat" is all about
https://youtu.be/GerzZ6GDe-0
Try watching the video of a real physicists explaining what Schrodinger's cat is really for.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Yes we found the problem, you didn't understand the video you linked. Whether we interpret quantum behaviour as superpositions, or we go for more fringe interpretations like Pilot waves, or whatever, that doesn't change the fact that scale is not a fundamental factor to reality. How 'collapse' or however we want to view it occurs, is not relevant to the discussion either.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 3:52 amIf you think that the video agrees with your new age beliefs...then we finally found the problem .Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 1:30 amSee my last commentNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 5:30 pmThis new agy stuff are not part of Philosophy, plus you need to post them in the forum of " Religion, Theism and Mythology".
Try watching the video of a real physicists explaining what Schrodinger's cat is really for.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Strawman, Scale can't be fundamental (whatever that deepity means). It's an observer relative term. Properties on the other hand are contingent to large scale processes(molecular , chemical biological).Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 4:23 amYes we found the problem, you didn't understand the video you linked. Whether we interpret quantum behaviour as superpositions, or we go for more fringe interpretations like Pilot waves, or whatever, that doesn't change the fact that scale is not a fundamental factor to reality. How 'collapse' or however we want to view it occurs, is not relevant to the discussion either.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 3:52 amIf you think that the video agrees with your new age beliefs...then we finally found the problem .Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 1:30 amSee my last commentNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 5:30 pm
This new agy stuff are not part of Philosophy, plus you need to post them in the forum of " Religion, Theism and Mythology".
Try watching the video of a real physicists explaining what Schrodinger's cat is really for.
Yes collapse is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with larger scales of observations, so stop bringing superposition and it's collapse in the molecular scale and stop assuming that "superposition" is a characteristic of classical world properties.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Every claim in this comment is either factually wrong, or contradicts what you said earlier, or is a strawman. LOLNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 5:21 amStrawman, Scale can't be fundamental (whatever that deepity means). It's an observer relative term. Properties on the other hand are contingent to large scale processes(molecular , chemical biological).Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 4:23 amYes we found the problem, you didn't understand the video you linked. Whether we interpret quantum behaviour as superpositions, or we go for more fringe interpretations like Pilot waves, or whatever, that doesn't change the fact that scale is not a fundamental factor to reality. How 'collapse' or however we want to view it occurs, is not relevant to the discussion either.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 3:52 amIf you think that the video agrees with your new age beliefs...then we finally found the problem .
Yes collapse is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with larger scales of observations, so stop bringing superposition and it's collapse in the molecular scale and stop assuming that "superposition" is a characteristic of classical world properties.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
and how would you know?Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 5:41 amEvery claim in this comment is either factually wrong, or contradicts what you said earlier, or is a strawman. LOLNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 5:21 amStrawman, Scale can't be fundamental (whatever that deepity means). It's an observer relative term. Properties on the other hand are contingent to large scale processes(molecular , chemical biological).Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 4:23 amYes we found the problem, you didn't understand the video you linked. Whether we interpret quantum behaviour as superpositions, or we go for more fringe interpretations like Pilot waves, or whatever, that doesn't change the fact that scale is not a fundamental factor to reality. How 'collapse' or however we want to view it occurs, is not relevant to the discussion either.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 3:52 am
If you think that the video agrees with your new age beliefs...then we finally found the problem .
Yes collapse is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with larger scales of observations, so stop bringing superposition and it's collapse in the molecular scale and stop assuming that "superposition" is a characteristic of classical world properties.
....according to your claims...my comments may describe a superposition of your belief...lol
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Since its your tactic to derail conversations I will try to bring it back on track by pointing out the problem why your reasoning is problematic without taking in to account your sophistries.
Our current scientific paradigm ,a product of ~600 years of continues systematic work and observation, states that high level features (properties) of mater are the product of lower level mechanisms(mechanisms, not single particles).
This is why we no longer assume or search fundamental elements/substances in nature as the source of advanced properties.
We NO longer accept or search for Alkahest,Caloric, Coronium, Elan vital, Elixir of life,Luminiferous Aether, Miasma, Odic force, Panacea, Miasma, Phlogiston, ID, Universal Consciousness etc.
A deeper look in the microscopic scale of QM revealed an uncertainty in our measurements about the states of particles. QM particles can only display kinetic properties(weird but kinetic fueld by forces and their relations). Superposition describes the probable states of particles.i.e. Location,spin. There isn't a "superposition" for the probabilities of toxicity,combustion,liquidity etc of particles.
Your actual statement was :"There is no known reason why we should think that all those more complex things can't be in superposition."
-That is a nonsensical and factually useless statement. There are reasons NOT to use or assume superposition, because such properties are not found in particles but only in molecular structures. We don't have a formulation to calculate the superposition of itchiness of a particle lol because itchiness (or digestions or mind or wetness) is not part of the Quantum world.
The more complex they get the more advanced are the emergent properties.
There is also logic and the principle of the Null Hypothesis capable to identify the Default Position (rejection of the connection between A.(i.e. particles and b.(advanced physical properties) UNTIL we are able to falsify our initial rejection through objective empirical evidence
I find it really amazing that individuals in 2021 can even say such scientifically illiterate things...
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Yes that is the kind of strong emergence (in the philosophical sense) / magical thinking, that I refuted by showing that there are no such fundamental scales to reality. You don't get that big things are the sum of small things. You also confuse scientifically measurable properties like spins with subjective properties like itchiness, that's nonsense. You also don't seem to realize that elementary particles have properties. You also have no idea what superposition is. What a trainwreck both scientifically and philosophically.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 6:14 amSince its your tactic to derail conversations I will try to bring it back on track by pointing out the problem why your reasoning is problematic without taking in to account your sophistries.
Our current scientific paradigm ,a product of ~600 years of continues systematic work and observation, states that high level features (properties) of mater are the product of lower level mechanisms(mechanisms, not single particles).
This is why we no longer assume or search fundamental elements/substances in nature as the source of advanced properties.
We NO longer accept or search for Alkahest,Caloric, Coronium, Elan vital, Elixir of life,Luminiferous Aether, Miasma, Odic force, Panacea, Miasma, Phlogiston, ID, Universal Consciousness etc.
A deeper look in the microscopic scale of QM revealed an uncertainty in our measurements about the states of particles. QM particles can only display kinetic properties(weird but kinetic fueld by forces and their relations). Superposition describes the probable states of particles.i.e. Location,spin. There isn't a "superposition" for the probabilities of toxicity,combustion,liquidity etc of particles.
Your actual statement was :"There is no known reason why we should think that all those more complex things can't be in superposition."
-That is a nonsensical and factually useless statement. There are reasons NOT to use or assume superposition, because such properties are not found in particles but only in molecular structures. We don't have a formulation to calculate the superposition of itchiness of a particle lol because itchiness (or digestions or mind or wetness) is not part of the Quantum world.
The more complex they get the more advanced are the emergent properties.
There is also logic and the principle of the Null Hypothesis capable to identify the Default Position (rejection of the connection between A.(i.e. particles and b.(advanced physical properties) UNTIL we are able to falsify our initial rejection through objective empirical evidence
I find it really amazing that individuals in 2021 can even say such scientifically illiterate things...
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
You can not refute a term that is used by an observer to classify levels of causality...Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 6:43 amYes that is the kind of strong emergence (in the philosophical sense) / magical thinking, that I refuted by showing that there are no such fundamental scales to reality. You don't get that big things are the sum of small things. You also confuse scientifically measurable properties like spins with subjective properties like itchiness, that's nonsense. You also don't seem to realize that elementary particles have properties. You also have no idea what superposition is. What a trainwreck both scientifically and philosophically.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 6:14 amSince its your tactic to derail conversations I will try to bring it back on track by pointing out the problem why your reasoning is problematic without taking in to account your sophistries.
Our current scientific paradigm ,a product of ~600 years of continues systematic work and observation, states that high level features (properties) of mater are the product of lower level mechanisms(mechanisms, not single particles).
This is why we no longer assume or search fundamental elements/substances in nature as the source of advanced properties.
We NO longer accept or search for Alkahest,Caloric, Coronium, Elan vital, Elixir of life,Luminiferous Aether, Miasma, Odic force, Panacea, Miasma, Phlogiston, ID, Universal Consciousness etc.
A deeper look in the microscopic scale of QM revealed an uncertainty in our measurements about the states of particles. QM particles can only display kinetic properties(weird but kinetic fueld by forces and their relations). Superposition describes the probable states of particles.i.e. Location,spin. There isn't a "superposition" for the probabilities of toxicity,combustion,liquidity etc of particles.
Your actual statement was :"There is no known reason why we should think that all those more complex things can't be in superposition."
-That is a nonsensical and factually useless statement. There are reasons NOT to use or assume superposition, because such properties are not found in particles but only in molecular structures. We don't have a formulation to calculate the superposition of itchiness of a particle lol because itchiness (or digestions or mind or wetness) is not part of the Quantum world.
The more complex they get the more advanced are the emergent properties.
There is also logic and the principle of the Null Hypothesis capable to identify the Default Position (rejection of the connection between A.(i.e. particles and b.(advanced physical properties) UNTIL we are able to falsify our initial rejection through objective empirical evidence
I find it really amazing that individuals in 2021 can even say such scientifically illiterate things...
You cannot refute that low level mechanisms do not display high level features(since it is an objective observation), without offering a verified example where advanced properties are observable as a fundamental property of its parts.
-"You also confuse scientifically measurable properties like spins with subjective properties like itchiness, that's nonsense."
-Itchiness has a physical underpinning interpreted by your brain as that. That underpinning demands the existence of the molecular structure of your skin.....
-" You also don't seem to realize that elementary particles have properties."
-You don't seem to realize that they only display energetic/kinetic properties. You also need to provide objective evidence for those additional properties you have faith on.
-" You also have no idea what superposition is."
-Well who claimed that ...toxicity, elasticity, hardness, liquidity etc etc.....are superpositions of particles (like location) lol, so you do understand the irony in that statement of yours, right!!!!?
-"What a trainwreck both scientifically and philosophically."
-Sure, I will accept your self critique....
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023