Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Consciousness

  1. #1 Consciousness 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2
    Consciousness can interact with matter right? It is pretty obvious that in every moment of our lives we are constantly and spontaneously asserting our will on the matter and energy around us. This tells us that consciousness would have to be included as a variable in any theory dealing with quantum mechanics. If viewed from a mathematical standpoint such spontaneous behavior of energy is illogical and should not be possible? I may be wrong but It seems that Consciousness is the only "force" that we are sure of that is capable of such spontaneity. What if this was the unifying force in the universe? Could this be the force that unifies gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak interactions? Could consciousness be the "strings" in String Theory? If there was a universe out in the middle of space but there was nothing to initiate spontaneous action or force, could said universe really exist? If there was nothing to initiate action and reaction wouldn't everything just cease and blink out of existence, like a dream that was never really substantial? Could consciousness be the fundamental nature of the universe the vibration that allows cause and effect to exist?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    A more cynical interpretation would be say that "consciousness" is merely an illusion created by the unpredictability of quantum events. Perhaps "Free Will" is nothing more than a bunch of photons bouncing around in your brain.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3
    I don't really understand what makes you think that consciousness has something to do with quantum mechanics...

    Sure, some things could be interpreted as it, but when you think about it, nothing can get to the consciousness of someone without having interacted with something, witch changes a lot its quantum state compared to what it would have been without this interaction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by phar0n
    I don't really understand what makes you think that consciousness has something to do with quantum mechanics...

    Sure, some things could be interpreted as it, but when you think about it, nothing can get to the consciousness of someone without having interacted with something, witch changes a lot its quantum state compared to what it would have been without this interaction.




    Sorry, That should have been better clarified in my original post. I formed that part of the idea after learning about wave-particle duality.

    I am hoping to start a discussion about this in order to get some input. I welcome any criticism or ideas that anyone may feel like posting. Even if to just tell me why you feel it is a ridiculous idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Consciousness 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by jakerubio@live.com
    Consciousness can interact with matter right? It is pretty obvious that in every moment of our lives we are constantly and spontaneously asserting our will on the matter and energy around us. This tells us that consciousness would have to be included as a variable in any theory dealing with quantum mechanics. If viewed from a mathematical standpoint such spontaneous behavior of energy is illogical and should not be possible? I may be wrong but It seems that Consciousness is the only "force" that we are sure of that is capable of such spontaneity. What if this was the unifying force in the universe? Could this be the force that unifies gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak interactions? Could consciousness be the "strings" in String Theory? If there was a universe out in the middle of space but there was nothing to initiate spontaneous action or force, could said universe really exist? If there was nothing to initiate action and reaction wouldn't everything just cease and blink out of existence, like a dream that was never really substantial? Could consciousness be the fundamental nature of the universe the vibration that allows cause and effect to exist?
    Your argument is invalid because you are assuming that conciousness means that free will exists. Just because you are concious does not mean that you have "free will", they are totally different. Conciousness is also not a force, because it cannot accelerate matter. The real challenge is understanding how and why conciousness arises from the interactions of matter.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Pain/Pleasure and the Language of God 
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    We [humans] use sensory input and feedback from the environment to interact with it, we have no other available means of doing so. I have no doubt that this is true of the rest of the material world as well! Physics and sentiency may be inseperably coupled in the universe so that one is always associated with the other, with sensation being the driving language of all physical changes and transformational phenomena. Just as we humans and similar organisms use sensation to 'consciously' interact with the environment, all matter probably does too!

    Sensation is probably the language of the universe . . . the pain/pleasure dichtomy and binary code that one piece of the universe uses to communicate with another piece and get it to do something. Sensation is consciousness. It's what allows one thing to be aware of the immediate environment around it. And sensation probably directly corresponds with physics, so that the magnitude of sensation is probably directly proportional to the magnitude of force for whatever force being described, thus sensation invokes accelerative transformation on matter--a change! (If this propostion turns out to be correct, I'm going to buy myself the largest, juiciest pepperoni pizza ever on the day of its discovery!!!)

    I'm of the opinion that our current scientific paradigm is very primitive and very incomplete when compared to the real picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by jakerubio@live.com
    Could consciousness be the fundamental nature of the universe the vibration that allows cause and effect to exist?
    If I understand you correctly, Jake, I believe the answer is "yes!"
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 conciousness 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    19
    Is consciousness Sensation ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    "Consciousness can interact with matter right? It is pretty obvious that in every moment of our lives we are constantly and spontaneously asserting our will on the matter and energy around us. This tells us that consciousness would have to be included as a variable in any theory dealing with quantum mechanics. If viewed from a mathematical standpoint such spontaneous behavior of energy is illogical and should not be possible? I may be wrong but It seems that Consciousness is the only "force" that we are sure of that is capable of such spontaneity. What if this was the unifying force in the universe? Could this be the force that unifies gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak interactions? Could consciousness be the "strings" in String Theory? If there was a universe out in the middle of space but there was nothing to initiate spontaneous action or force, could said universe really exist? If there was nothing to initiate action and reaction wouldn't everything just cease and blink out of existence, like a dream that was never really substantial? Could consciousness be the fundamental nature of the universe the vibration that allows cause and effect to exist?"

    Very original

    jsaldea12
    11.15.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    An interesting discussion, except for a rather essential (missing) detail - that consciousness is certainly NOT the genetic bottom line that seems to be thus far, the consensus here.

    Quote Originally Posted by jakerubio@live.com
    This tells us that consciousness would have to be included as a variable in any theory dealing with quantum mechanics.
    You might have a point, except there is necessarily a variable which underpins, and (in part) GENERATES the consciousness to which you refer, and furthermore is the very genetic source that provides the variable for your consciousness - that is; your emotions!

    Quote Originally Posted by jakerubio@live.com
    Could consciousness be the fundamental nature of the universe the vibration that allows cause and effect to exist?"
    For mine you are much closer than you realise, but again consciousness itself cannot be the answer to your question, for you initially need to investigate into that which comprises consciousness in the first instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight
    We [humans] use sensory input and feedback from the environment to interact with it, we have no other available means of doing so.
    Are you sure about that? In hindsight you might have a look into why you have so mindlessly forgotten about, or otherwise neglected your Intelligence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight
    Sensation is probably the language of the universe . . . the pain/pleasure dichtomy and binary code that one piece of the universe uses to communicate with another piece and get it to do something.
    Pain and pleasure are both part of the same side of the binary code - the variable half - the emotions faction. The other side of your genetic living binary code, which unlike your emotions is not at all variable, is via your (thus far disrespected) INTELLIGENCE!

    It is on the back of these two core genetic inputs - emotions and Intelligence; the living binary code, that comprises and underpins your consciousness.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    No. That's not what I mean at all, Apopohis. I mean that our senses are the only means we have of receiving information from outside our bodies (though sensations are clearly used to tell us what's happening inside as well). Without our senses, we hypothetically wouldn't even know we existed. No sense of touch, smell, taste, sight, or sound and we wouldn't even know we presided in a universe. However, this fact introduces a real paradox that some philosophers have written about for nearly a century now.

    We use sensory faculties to receive information about our environment, in theory, to interact with it. But according to a rigid model of Reductionism in Physics, everything we do is always consistent with the laws of physics, so nothing we do violates the rules of physics, as freedom and choice are not permitted. Sensory information and the awareness this grants us, then, doesn't offer us freedom--it's simply consistent with the known workings of the universe. Our internal anatomy would still work the same and we would still function the same with or without sensory information being experienced. Our nervous system would still relay chemical signals to our brain and we would still function like a mechanical robot in ways synonomous to how we do now. This interpretation suggest sensation is a useless component of living organisms and unnecessary.

    But we do experience sensory information and it does seem to be necessary with our interractions with the world. A needle pricks a finger and we, receiving the sensory information, pull it back!

    Conclusion: Sensory experience is both necessary in obtaining information from the environment but does not grant organisms the freedom to violate the laws of physics from that information, as per the strict model of Reductionism.

    Possible Explanation: Sensory reception and the laws of physics are in harmony because sensory reception is a key component of allowing the laws of physics to take place.

    Fascinating.

    . . . A sentient universe.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    The current Physical model:

    Action -----> Reaction



    A Sentient organism:

    Sensation -----> Reaction



    A Revised Physical model:

    Action/Sensation (coupled) ------> Reaction
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    I respectfully disagree with the sensation analysis.
    Song by Metallica; One.
    Rene Descartes; Cogito ergo sum.
    And; Schrodingers cat; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dingers_Cat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    Just to avoid confusing other readers on this subject, Shrodinger's cat in the box idea: alive or dead, was never intended to promote the idea of the strangeness of consciousness--just the bizarre ambiguous nature of particles in quantum mechanics. He simply used the binary example of life/death to get his point across.

    It has nothing to do with the origins of consciousness and sensation, or how they might fit in with a model of physics.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Yes, exactly. Thinking fantastically doesn't change reality. So what about Metallica and Mr. Descartes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    Let me restate what I mean on simpler terms . . . sometimes that works better.

    Particle A has the capacity to experience sensation. Particle B does not.

    Both the behaivors of Particle A and Particle B are always consistent with the laws of physics and are exactly identical under identical circumstances--even though Particle A is sentient and Particle B is not.

    What purpose does sensory experience serve then if this is the case?

    In the contemporary paradigm of science, some conglomerates of matter are conscious and have the capacity for sensory experience; others do not. Yet both types remain always consistent with the laws of physics and never deviate from it's rules. It is clear then that sensory experience and the awareness that offers does not grant these conglomerates freedom from the rules of physics, but seem to be important in allowing them to function in their environment, for their intended aims.

    Might that be true of all matter, which itself expresses aims (an effect) after a moment of cause?

    I think so.

    The collision of two billiard balls and their subsequent vector trajectories after the collision might be a reflection of a basic awareness (sensory experience) that's fundamentally operating in all matter and is necessary for participation in physics.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    first, how does "sense" work? How do sentient beings "feel" things, "hear" sounds, "see" their environment, "smell" their environment, or "taste" their food? Can you define the functions clearly prior to invoking any kind of physical unification between sensory and physical law please. Because, clearly, there is NO particle that has even an ounce of sentience, in and of itself. This is testable, and will always prove negative. Clumps of matter, Large clumps at that, have sentience, and not individual particles.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    No, it's not testable. It's known how sensory organs work in biological organisms, and what cells are involved--but it's not known how the brain finally translates the info being received into the sensory message we experience. That is to say, we know that the brain sees images, hears sounds, feels touches, taste tastes and smells odors, but, alas, that's ascribing the capacity to sense to matter.

    How the brain turns the sensory reception into what it does is still a fantastic mystery--but obviously involves matter and the forces of matter.

    Nobody yet understands how consciousness emerges or how it even relates to sensory experience, and that might be an important thing to know before we can even fathom how the hell sensory experience is sensed.

    I'm offering up my hypothesis at this point.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    it's all fine to go that far, but biological organisms are the only sentient beings we've been able to observe. Matter, inherently, doesn't necessitate sensory. It's effectively a use of different matter and their interactions, and all the brain does is interpret electrical signals. the real mystery is in the Neurons and their interactions with chemical receptors and electrical signals. On the point of it's exact mechanisms and capabilities I am in full agreement with you on it being unknown, but I disagree that it has anything to do with being integral to the theories purported in physics. It may be an exploitation of QED, but even then, if has no bearing or effect on the QED as a theory. It seemed in one of your posts you wanted to tie theories of physics into the mechanics of the brain in such a way that would change the theories to integrate sentience as a necessity.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 The Language of God 
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    That's exactly what I'm suggesting. After careful thinking on this subject, I've concluded that sentiency is probably a requisite for any type of physics to take place between interacting matter.

    My thinking on this matter is fairly straightforward:

    Humans are conglomerates of matter.

    Humans use the senses to awarily interact with the world around them (and within them)--they have no other means of doing so.

    Humans always obey the laws of physics.

    To interact with the environment and participate in physics, humans require the senses.

    My assertion: All matter requires some kind of sensory faculty to perform physics.



    No, I'm not suggesting that all matter can hear, taste, touch, smell, or see . . . I believe the senses famaliar to humans are elaborate and intricate but founded on a more basic system of sentiency that saturates the cosmos and allows physics to take place, a kind of pain/pleasure dichtomy that motivates matter and is the basis of all matter-force interactions . . . a language.

    I'm currently developing a mechanical model to explain how sentiency (the foundation of consciousness, I believe) arises in an Aether-based model of the universe.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    You'll have a very hard time explaining QED to anyone with any real knowledge on the subject and sound like more than a crackpot, but, that seems to be the route you've taken. Sensory is a convenience of biological entities, not physical entities in general. Rocks do not sense and are not sentient. Atoms do not sense and are not sentient. Quarks do not sense and are not sentient. Yet all of those experience the laws of General Relativity and QED, as well as all theories of physics, without this latent ability to sense, or be sentient. it simply isn't necessary, and as noticed in biological beings, requires more than a few atoms. as a matter of fact, it requires a LOT of atoms to make something even remotely sentient. The smallest virus still has more than a billion billion atoms making it up, and anything smaller is, without doubt to any mind in biology or physics, not sentient and is unable to sense.

    How do you propose to show that an atom has sensory ans sentience, as you assert?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: The Language of God 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight
    To interact with the environment and participate in physics, humans require the senses.
    If I am in a coma and am dropped from an aeroplane I shall likely fall towards the Earth. No sensing of my environment is required.

    Your logic is of the form: Some men are kindly gentlemen. Hitler was a man, therefore Hitler was a kindly gentleman. I am sure you can see that example is flawed logic. I hope you can see your logic is no different.

    However, ten out of ten for having the imagination to contemplate something different. Can you now score ten out of ten for having the insight to recognise you are mistaken and the courage to admit it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    LOL, Ophiolite. An imagination willing to go down a path like this has a responsibility to both attempt to destroy it and support it wherever facts may appear to do either. (And, yes, I know the logic doesn't necessarily suggest my conclusion. But it does point out, that with humans, sensory experience reinforces physics--which is redundant and unnecessary if matter can operate without sensation! [Nature has no need to create something for a purpose it's already accomplishing! No. That's just ludicrous! Either sensation plays a mandatory role in physics or it does not reinforce physics and humans do not strictly obey physical laws. One or the other.])

    I've already dealt with the gravity issue. It's true that we do not appear to "feel" gravity--except when we're on the Earth's surface (we feel the conflict between gravity and the normal force [the counter-force pushing up] as weight). But then again gravity is the weakest of the known forces (and a very weak force it is). If we are to feel any of the forces, my reasoning has been that it should be the forces that are the strongest--and, in fact, we do! We feel the electro-magnetic force in the form of the senses common to our sense organs. After all, it is electro-chemical signals that course between the neurons in our nervous system that are directly associated with all sensory reception familiar to us!

    My reasoning is that the greater the magnitude of the force, the greater the magnitude of sensation (the greater the stress on matter). And gravity, compared to the other forces, is pathetically weak.

    Much of this hypothesis isn't completed, but it is currently under development. Nevertheless, there should also be some sentient experience associated with gravity as well, though it is very tiny, I reason. Very, very, very tiny! (Neglible compared to the electro-magnetic sensations we're more familiar with.)

    As for "biological organisms" being the only things capable of sensory experience . . . that's only a hypothesis at this point. No experiment has ever been performed to deny that rocks have sensory experience or indicate that they do. The current paradigm logically suggest that organisms with sensory organs like ours (or animals similar to us) must have sensory experiences similiar to ours. However, there is no validation anywhere that the lack of biological sensory organs is equivalent to the lack of sensory experience. It's only an assumption and isn't even remotely provable except by making assumptions in logic chains.

    Restricting sensory experience to the realm of organisms (and only some organisms, it turns out [not all living cells have anything even resembling definable sensory organelles]) is a tricky business, as the logician Alfred North Whitehead discovered.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight
    Either sensation plays a mandatory role in physics or it does not reinforce physics and humans do not strictly obey physical laws. One or the other.
    This is just a blatant false dichotomy. Sensory and Sensory organs could also obey the laws of physics as they are, without needing to be a part of them. Sensory is a privilege of lifeforms, specifically relatively advanced life forms, or multicellular organisms complete with dedicated sensory organs. it's a use of the laws of physics, not an integration with them. Physical laws have been in function since the inception of the universe, roughly 13-14 billion years, which is at least 10 billion years without life present on this planet. sentience and sensory aren't a necessity of the universe, they just happened to prevail in the biological world, nothing to do with physical law.

    As for "biological organisms" being the only things capable of sensory experience . . . that's only a hypothesis at this point. No experiment has ever been performed to deny that rocks have sensory experience or indicate that they do. The current paradigm logically suggest that organisms with sensory organs like ours (or animals similar to us) must have sensory experiences similiar to ours. However, there is no validation anywhere that the lack of biological sensory organs is equivalent to the lack of sensory experience. It's only an assumption and isn't even remotely provable except by making assumptions in logic chains.

    Restricting sensory experience to the realm of organisms (and only some organisms, it turns out [not all living cells have anything even resembling definable sensory organelles]) is a tricky business, as the logician Alfred North Whitehead discovered.
    restricting sensory to organisms is easy. In order to sense something, an object must be able to "sense it", classically with a sense organ, and then interpret the signals sent from the sense organ, requiring at least a semblance of a brain. Cognizance is required for meaningful sensory actions. I give way that some plants, without a discernible brain, have basic reactionary sensory, but that isn't exactly indicative or awareness or utilization of said senses.

    A rock, on the other hand, very clearly has NO means of sensory perception or reaction of any type. A rock has no organs, no brain, no signals, nothing that it can utilize in any way shape or form. Rocks are not alive, and clearly do not sense. Same with anything dead (i.e. not alive). The fact that only life can "sense" is very provable.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight
    Either sensation plays a mandatory role in physics or it does not reinforce physics and humans do not strictly obey physical laws. One or the other.
    This is just a blatant false dichotomy. Sensory and Sensory organs could also obey the laws of physics as they are, without needing to be a part of them. Sensory is a privilege of lifeforms, specifically relatively advanced life forms, or multicellular organisms complete with dedicated sensory organs. it's a use of the laws of physics, not an integration with them. Physical laws have been in function since the inception of the universe, roughly 13-14 billion years, which is at least 10 billion years without life present on this planet. sentience and sensory aren't a necessity of the universe, they just happened to prevail in the biological world, nothing to do with physical law.
    Physical laws as we currently know them do not allow sensation as we experience it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    This a ridiculous concept, sorry to say. Matter interacts with each other through the fundamental forces. Period. That explains senses. No sentience is required.

    How are the reactions of plants to its environment different to how we react to it other than the time frame involved?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This a ridiculous concept, sorry to say. Matter interacts with each other through the fundamental forces. Period. That explains senses. No sentience is required.
    No, it doesn't. It explains how the organs physically work, but it can't explain perception.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This a ridiculous concept, sorry to say. Matter interacts with each other through the fundamental forces. Period. That explains senses. No sentience is required.
    No, it doesn't. It explains how the organs physically work, but it can't explain perception.
    Perception is a cascade effect of matter interacting. If I press a key on my keyboard, my computer "senses' it qualitatively in the same way that I sense the light coming from the screen. Plants sense and react to stimuli without cognition. As far as our conscious perception is concerned, it is simply a complex pattern of matter interacting. It only differs from anything else in terms of complexity.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This a ridiculous concept, sorry to say. Matter interacts with each other through the fundamental forces. Period. That explains senses. No sentience is required.
    No, it doesn't. It explains how the organs physically work, but it can't explain perception.
    Perception is a cascade effect of matter interacting. If I press a key on my keyboard, my computer "senses' it qualitatively in the same way that I sense the light coming from the screen. Plants sense and react to stimuli without cognition. As far as our conscious perception is concerned, it is simply a complex pattern of matter interacting. It only differs from anything else in terms of complexity.
    No, it isn't. There is no known way how could matter interaction of any complexity create conscious experience. There is no way how could interacting mater become something else than interacting matter.
    See for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This a ridiculous concept, sorry to say. Matter interacts with each other through the fundamental forces. Period. That explains senses. No sentience is required.
    No, it doesn't. It explains how the organs physically work, but it can't explain perception.
    Perception is a cascade effect of matter interacting. If I press a key on my keyboard, my computer "senses' it qualitatively in the same way that I sense the light coming from the screen. Plants sense and react to stimuli without cognition. As far as our conscious perception is concerned, it is simply a complex pattern of matter interacting. It only differs from anything else in terms of complexity.
    No, it isn't. There is no known way how could matter interaction of any complexity create conscious experience. There is no way how could interacting mater become something else than interacting matter.
    See for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain
    Do you expect me to take metaphysical concepts of consciousness seriously? There is no good reason to do so. Can you provide any? Are you religious?

    Just because we don't know how something works within a framework, does not mean the framework is bunk. That would be a silly reason to reject it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    KALSTER and Arcane Mathematician, Logicians and philosophers have been dealing with the paradox of sentiency (which supposedly grants conscious control of a body to an organism) in a universe of laws. No one--(not any scientist in existence) has been able to explain how sentiency does this or where sentiency orginates and how it emanates in matter! Logicians, mathematicians, philosophers have come to various conclusions based on their own logic chains which happily admit being constructed with the use of significant assumptions--and the vast majority admit to not having a real clue how this happens.

    Either way, sentiency exist and it must be explained. I'm doing my part to construct an explanation.

    By the way, this suggestion isn't anything new (though the exact details of my model are new as far as I understand it). Look up hylopathism (the idea that sentiency is at the heart of interacting matter) or its related concept panpsychism. It's quite old and there are even a few supporters of this view in science and philosophy. Of course there are also those that don't accept it but also admit to not knowing how sentiency orginations from the interaction of matter.

    In the final analysis, sentiency exist. It must be explained.

    And this conclusion is accurate:

    Either (1) sentiency plays a mandatory role in physics, (2) it originates to grant organisms freedom and organisms do not strictly obey physical laws, or (3) sentiency is a redudant and an unnecessary component that allows organisms to accomplish what they would accomplish without it already, simply with the application of physics.

    Either sensation plays a role or it doesn't. This is something that has annoyed a few thinkers for quite some time.

    If sentiency does play a role and humans still stirctly obey physical laws, then my position stands.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    A rock, on the other hand, very clearly has NO means of sensory perception or reaction of any type. A rock has no organs, no brain, no signals, nothing that it can utilize in any way shape or form.
    Rocks have chemistry, and at the heart of chemistry is electric interactions (primarily between valence electrons and the positive charges of the nucleons of atoms). And, as I've suggested before, our [human] sentient experiences are inseperably tied to electro-magnetic interactions.

    The possibility remains that rocks can feel a basic and primitive kind of pleasure and pain, and respond accordingly (thus performing physics and chemistry).
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    ... No. A block of salt can not, in any way, react to stimuli outside of the range expected based on physical law and theory. "pleasure" and "Pain" are descriptors of emotions, which require the ability of the brain to process. "feelings" are inherent of living creatures. There is no non-living matter that can feel, by any respectable meaning of the word. Rocks do not react to stimuli aside from by the physical interactions of matter, at it's basest form.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    In my own interpretation of the way I believe Latin of Delight is trying to explain his hypothesis, I believe I can make his point more clear.

    He's suggesting that sentience is mandatory. This is true if you equate a particle's "sense" of the existence of another particle with the ability of the said particle to interact with the other particle:

    "In order for two particles to interact, the two particles need to be sentient, sensing each other's existence."


    One could flip this around and it would mean essentially the same thing:

    "In order for two particles to be sentient, sensing each other's existence, the two particles need to be able to interact."

    Two particles on a collision course will come into contact with each other if they can sense each other's existence. If neither can sense the existence of the other in any way, shape, or form, the two particles would pass right through each other because neither had the ability to interact with the other one. My example, of course, illustrates the fact that the two different phrases, one of them with a controversial tone, are two different ways to describe the exact same thing.

    Simply stated, Physical Laws are the result of interacting particles. Also, by way of Physics, all particles that can interact with each other will interact with each other. No interaction means no physical law, means that it is not in the realm of Physics, because there is no phenomenon to describe. This does not imply a violation but a lack of necessity for attention since nothing physical takes place.

    Hence, I find the whole idea of "matter needing to be sentient" redundant on an extremely basic level of Physics. It is simply a different wording for what is already known and accepted. The hypothesis provides one thing for interpretation and entirely lacks the same thing for utility, novelty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    I found this website; http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/index.html. Penrose is in on it, and there is numerous resources connected to universities, peer reviewed journals, etc...
    I think I can safely say that consciousness is an open question and nobody has a definitive answer to the phenomena of consciousness. And I can't say any more without delving into a thesis of at least several thousand words, post's which I generally look at and say "Oh" then move on to something else without reading the whole thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    My level of understanding is by any measure basic, but I can't say that I find much resonance with Penrose's idea of consciousness. The guy is brilliant no doubt, but I am not convinced that this is really his field to meddle in.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Yeah... You can safely disregard that link as bullshit.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    My level of understanding is by any measure basic, but I can't say that I find much resonance with Penrose's idea of consciousness. The guy is brilliant no doubt, but I am not convinced that this is really his field to meddle in.
    I think Penrose would agree that he does not understand the origin of consciouseness.

    But I suspect he understands it as well as does anyone.

    IF anyone ever comes to understand it I think it may well be somebody like Penrose.

    I am not holding my breath.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Yeah... You can safely disregard that link as bullshit.
    That link goes to the front page, the more interesting material is here; http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html.
    And then look at this part;
    Anesthesia and Consciousness

    The Entwined Mysteries of Anesthesia and Consciousness Anesthesiology (2006) 105:400-412
    Are Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff nutbags? I'm not saying that their speculations are true, but is it for people who are not physicists or anesthesiologists to arbitrarily dismiss their(Penrose, Hameroff) speculations. It's not as if they are proposing an aether theory, or saying we should talk nice to stones so as not to hurt their feeling's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39 A hylopathistic interpretation of Electric-field interaction 
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    Very good, Dr SPo. But I'm actually indicating a little bit more, and disagree with your final assessment about this being something that's already accepted.

    What I'm suggesting is that particles, like humans, use a sensory language to perform the physics that they do, which I believe is binary (pleasure/pain) and regulates force-matter interaction depending on the mass and charge of the particle type. (I also believe the language has mechanical origins dealing with the stress components in an aether-like medium [space-time medium; whatever term you prefer], but the explanation for this will have to wait until I have it listed on its own post.)

    Humans and their individual, intricate pieces always seem to obey physical laws, without exception. But, consciously, when humans interact with their environment, or "know" something is going on inside of them, they do so through sentience. We feel it (the environment or the event in our body), we taste it, smell it, see it or hear it. And these sensations are biased and motivational. That is to say, when we feel something very hot pressing against our leg, we pull the leg back. When we feel something enjoyable on our arm, we may keep it there to continue experiencing the sensation. When we taste something great and our stomaches are hungry, we are encouraged to eat it. When we taste something disgusting, we stop eating it and may even gag. When we listen to a charming sound, we may continue listening to it. When we hear a horrifically loud noise, we are encouraged to get away from it or find the source to turn it off. The same is true of sight or sound. There are pleasurable sensations and unpleasurable sensations (and also what appear to be neutral sensations) with each type of sense! Our senses are biased and motivate us to do something!

    In the context of evolution, we say that the "bias" associated with these sensations is intended to keep us alive and somewhat healthy, as well as the other people in our living groups we care about. But this doesn't explain the origin of the sensations, only how they cooperate to keep us alive! (You see, the origin of the sensations would be physical and chemical; how and why they cooperate is a consequence of natural selection and evolution in an organism's historical evolutionary pathway.) But these sensations, when we experience them, make us respond a certain way (this is particularly true of newborn babies!)

    Here's the important part:

    Humans use the sensations they experience (sight, sound, taste, touch, smell) to interact with the environment. When they respond to physical and chemical stimuli (from the environment) humans experience it as a sentient experience (sensation) and respond accordingly, which is totally consistent with what is permitted in physical law. Thus the cause and effect each aware human action participates in is associated with sensation.

    Well then, if humans are matter and an orchestra of forces working on it (and I'm assuming nothing more) then particles, too, operate according to the biased and motivational nature of sentient language . . . pleasure and displeasure, or "pleasure and pain"!

    As we know from our own sentient human experiences, pleasure motivates the behaivor to continue, while pain encourages it not to.

    This is it:

    If humans are matter with an orchestra of forces working on it, and matter, like humans, uses a sentient pain and pleasure dichotomic language to perform physics, then:

    when two particles of the same electric charge (but not necessarily the same electric magnitude) approach each other, their increasing repulsion is associated with an increasing sensation of pain (a discouraging sensation), which motivate the two particles to accelerate in the net opposite vector direction with respect to one another.

    and when two particles of opposite electric charges (but not necessarily the same electric magnitude) approach each other, their increasing attraction is associated with an increasing sensation of pleasure (an encouraging sensation), which motivate the two particles to continue to accelerate toward each other.

    This is the way a pain/pleasure dichotomic language would operate with charged particles in an electric field (Electric force interactions); it would also help explain some (if not all) of the biased and motivating nature observed with sentient experiences among organisms and why they're linked with physical and chemical activity. (Sentiency and force-interactions as inseperately coupled.)

    My thinking is that a pain/pleasure dichotomic language should be associated with all force-interactions, for whatever force may be involved (with the possible exception of gravity, which may not be dichotomic), and that the magnitude of the force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the pleasure/plain sensation at the location in the field. Also, near-zero force magnitude in any field is associated with near-zero sensation (thus a preservation in inertia; [sensation, and thus consciousness, is only associated with changes in inertia. Sensation is associated with active forces]). Gravity, being the weakest force, would have the weakest sensation associated with it, and any fields of force experiencing near-zero-magnitudes would experience near-zero sensations.

    I'm also suggesting that the known 5 human senses (and all the senses that exist in organisms) are reducible and can be unified into a single universal sense, that saturates the cosmos in all matter-force interactions, which, in this post, I'm refering to as a pain/pleasure dichotomic (or binary) language. (Though sight is associated with electro-magnetic radiation and not a field of force encompassing matter, and specifically deals with waves in an aether [spacetime] medium directly striking matter and creating a turbulent apparition on the particle being struck. [Color has already been shown to be associated with the frequency of electro-magnetic radiation with visible light, whereas brightness is associated with wave amplitude.] Nevertheless, the impact electro-magnetic radiation has on individual particles should still be experienced as either pleasure/pain, because of radiation's capacity to accelerate particles.)

    This is my hylopathistic hypothesis for matter-force interactions.

    Particles interact with the world and speak a language that is the basis for all sentient experiences in complex biological organisms, as biological organisms are the particles that constitute them--and the language is physically expressed, without knowledge to the particles, as matter-force interactivity!

    --Juan Perezchica, B.Sc. Biochemistry

    (I do request credit for the propositions in this post, should the content of any of it be incorporated into any written, communicated or published works; have fun!)
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    Oh, and this is the way collective consciousness works I think:

    Particles are literally sensing their environments and each other. Greater sensation indicates greater awareness, and in this way two distant particles with forces acting on each other behave as a single-sensing system. (To sense is to be made aware of environment, thus one with it). Obviously increased distance reduces the sentient magnitude a particle has on another (calculatable by how much force is acting on the particle!). It would also be true that all matter in the universe is in apparent sentient communication with each other (as long as an applicable force exist between the material bodies), but sentient magnitude between specific bits of matter would be dependent on physical components that govern force interaction (e.g. distance, mass, charge, the speed of force interaction, c, etc.), so that closer conglomerates of matter would experience greater sensation (and thus greater physical effect) than matter situated at relatively larger distances (unless the force between the respective matter was smaller) thus relieving the apparent conflict between collective consciousness and single consciousness.

    The evolution of a branched, corded nervous system would have allowed for more effective sentient communication between different parts of a large, multi-cellular organism, though a rock should be able to do it too (though nowhere near as elaborate [no signaling cells and no specialized neurotransmitters]).
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Do you expect me to take metaphysical concepts of consciousness seriously? There is no good reason to do so.
    Logically, one of the following must be true:
    1. Some particles or their interactions are conscious
    2. Consciousness is non-physical.

    1. does not seem to be true, so 2. remains.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Do you expect me to take metaphysical concepts of consciousness seriously? There is no good reason to do so.
    Logically, one of the following must be true:
    1. Some particles or their interactions are conscious
    2. Consciousness is non-physical.

    1. does not seem to be true, so 2. remains.
    Assuming the premise of consciousness is true.

    I have heard some neuroscientists speculate that the consciousness is to mind what the soul is to the body; that is meaningless.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Do you expect me to take metaphysical concepts of consciousness seriously? There is no good reason to do so.
    Logically, one of the following must be true:
    1. Some particles or their interactions are conscious
    2. Consciousness is non-physical.

    1. does not seem to be true, so 2. remains.
    Assuming the premise of consciousness is valid.

    I have heard some neuroscientists speculate that the consciousness is to mind what the soul is to the body; that is meaningless.
    Consciosness is not a premise, it's an observation. You can explain it away by claiming it does not exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Do you expect me to take metaphysical concepts of consciousness seriously? There is no good reason to do so.
    Logically, one of the following must be true:
    1. Some particles or their interactions are conscious
    2. Consciousness is non-physical.

    1. does not seem to be true, so 2. remains.
    Assuming the premise of consciousness is valid.

    I have heard some neuroscientists speculate that the consciousness is to mind what the soul is to the body; that is meaningless.
    Consciosness is not a premise, it's an observation. You can explain it away by claiming it does not exist.
    It's a premise based on observation. The observation may be flawed.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    First of all, Twit, logically, it is not required that one or the other of the choices that you have supplied be true. You have not defined what consciousness is and have not explained in what way you mean consciousness to be "non-physical". I am finding more and more often that because of the vagueness which shrouds the concept of consciousness, no one can agree on one definition or description. Sometimes, when two people agree on a definition, they still disagree on interpretation. It turns into a situation that reminds of watching a passerby argue with a curbside evangelist about the biblical story, Jonah and the Whale.

    "The story was symbolic," says the passerby.

    "No, you are wrong, because the bible says that Jonah was in the Whales stomach for three days....," proclaims the evangelist.

    "So you believe that someone named Jonah was actually in the stomach of a whale for three days?"

    "Yes. Absolutely, because that's what the bible says."

    It all sounds utterly ridiculous, but it is happening in discussions about consciousness. The same line of thought from a definition that leads one to state, "Consciousness is entirely physical," leads another to conclude, "Consciousness is entirely non-physical." Consciousness is such a gray-area subject that both are equally correct, in the ways they've been presented here at least.

    I wish to offer some interesting thoughts about consciousness.

    A philosopher, I believe his name was Thomas Metzinger, was exploring a bit into consciousness when he decided to run a peculiar experiment. He sat a subject in a chair in the middle of a room and put goggles on the subject that had a video screen in the them. The goggles were projecting the image of the subject from behind about three feet away from a camera. When he lightly brushed the back of the subject, the subject instantaneously felt as though he was removed from his body and was now sitting three feet behind himself. When they took a hammer and swung it at the camera, the subject jumped with extreme surprise, feeling as though he had to try to dodge the hammer. The subject reported that he felt like the hammer was going to strike him and that he should soon feel the pain due to its impact.

    Metzinger effectively fooled what we perceive as consciousness by physical sensation alone. This may lead one to believe that the consciousness is entirely physical and dependent upon a sum of interpretations of physical sensations. Yet, he created what many deem an "Out-Of-Body Experience", which may strike as being entirely non-physical since the consciousness was being visually experienced from 3 feet behind the subject. But, one must keep in mind that this was done with a camera that projected an image into the eyes of the subject. The subject was experiencing a consciousness inside of the body, yet the subject was, in a sense, intentionally confused. The confusion led to what seemed like an experience outside of the body, which was the point of the experiment.

    My bias pervades the analysis, but I trust that all of you can decipher the pure forms of the important elements.


    Anyway, As for Latin Of Delight:

    From what I gather, are you suggesting that particles are conscious and perceive conditions in which they "know" that they should act a certain way, or react by what we relate as "primal instict" or "reflex", due to the result of either perceiving a condition as pleasurable or painful? This sounds like you're suggesting that particles "behave" by psychological means to produce the effects we observe in physical phenomena. Given the nature of the way you're applying this, it sounds like it may have its place in a philosophical debate. Yet, upon my observation, I will state once again that I see no usefulness in this theory other than a different viewpoint for or interpretation of the reason physical laws are what they are. Unless you have a method for delving into the psyche of particles, revealing that they are, in fact, experiencing pain and pleasure and reacting accordingly to those sensations, there's nothing ground-breaking about it. Outside the realm of philosophy, you've simply provided a creative, new way to describe accepted physics metaphorically and nothing else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    Dr. Spo, now that is intellectual dishonesty on your part. What I'm doing is constructing an explanation for the origins of sentiency--which we all intimately and personally experience and laying down a framework as to how it operates at the realm of particle physics.

    Obviously no one has to believe it; it's only a hypothesis and may not even be provable. But to state that the explanation is nothing more than metaphor is ridiculous and a blatant attempt to reduce and ignore what I'm stating. Sentiency, which is utilized even in empiricism and the scientific process, requires an explanation, both in its origins and with how it effectively communicates the nature of the world around us. Sentiency is at the heart of experiences and the accumulation of knowledge for humans; my model indicates that it plays a vital role for "inanimate" matter as well.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    Sentience, as human beings experience it, is different from the particle level of operations. I see merit in the way you have explained it. It is certainly interesting. Yet, even you have claimed yourself that it may be unprovable. I strongly contend, by speculation of course, that it be a philosophical or metaphorical concept because of the fact that I perceive no possible way to elicit a response from a particle to confirm, "Yes, this is pain that I feel," or, "Yes, this is pleasure that I feel." I mean those quotations as the particle's form of communication of course, not that a particle would literally speak English to someone, Hahaha . We have means to observe the effects of the response, means to find explanations as far as what other influence(s) caused the particle to act in such a way, but no means to be able to know what the particle is "thinking", so to speak.

    For that reason, I ridicule your proposition that your hypothesis has the potential to becomes something of an accepted explanation for what is actually happening on the particle level. I do not discredit the creativity and possible accuracy that your method may contain for explaining physical phenomena in the sense. Nor do I believe the whole thing should be ignored or be put to the intellectual mind as something to not believe. I am merely pointing out that your hypothesis is, as far as my own observation and consideration conclude, untestable and unprovable in any real sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    And you may be right on that final point in the post directly above, Dr. Spo.

    I can't think of a way of how something like this could be tested, without having to first consult significant assumptions.

    I also want to add that particles don't "think"--they "feel". The process of thinking, I believe, is built out of the sentient components (the pain/pleasure dichotomy) that particles use to communicate, but particles only sense.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •