Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
https://dailynous.com/2021/11/01/what-philosophers-believe-r...https://philarchive.org/archive/BOUPOP-3Lots to dig in to in here. One thing that caught my eye was the 'no free will' position dropped 5% and the 'free will - compatibilism' position gained that 5%.
"Only 2% thought particles could be conscious"So there is still hope for the human race
How so?Not saying there isn't hope, just that I'm not connecting the dots that you seem to be. I'm not even sure I'm seeing the dots...
I took it as a rejection of panpsychism.
Hmmm.Well, we know that when certain particles arrange in a certain way, and we get enough of them, consciousness arises. What "enough" is, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure an electron isn't conscious. Can't prove it, but don't have any evidence that it is.
"But I'm pretty sure an electron isn't conscious"In quantum physics, have you heard of the two slit experiment. It has been done many thousands of times.In the experiment, small particles, such as molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles are shot at a plate with two slits in it. When the particles go through the slits they separate into two waves which interfere with each other as can be seen with a plate placed behind the two slit plate and illuminates where the waves impact it.If, however, a sensor which can sense the waves/particles is turned on, the two waves become a particle again after coming through the two slits and the second plate doesn't show the wave pattern, but the pattern of particles striking it. Turn off the sensor, and the second plate shows the wave pattern again.Somehow, the particles seem to care whether they are being observed.This works for subatomic particles and very large molecules having a thousand atoms.
Long time, Paul. You apparently have forgotten that I have an MS in physics. So, yes, I'm quite familiar with the two slit experiment.You state: "Somehow, the particles seem to care whether they are being observed."Prove that they "care". You're anthropomorphizing a particle, attributing human traits to it without any basis.Also, you're confusing particle-wave duality. Electrons -for example- exhibit both particle and wave behavior, depending on the apparatus used to observe them. Also photons, for that matter. Einstein got a Nobel prize for his explanation of the photoelectric effect (which relies on the particle behavior of light, rather than the wave behavior of light). The two-slit experiment results in diffraction, which one would not at first glance expect from an electron. But that's what you get.
"Prove that they "care". You're anthropomorphizing a particle, attributing human traits to it without any basis."In a manner of speaking, it isn't unusual to to say that someone or something cares about something.It is a fact that an electron will behave as a wave or a particle on the basis of whether it is or is not being observed. They really do seem to "care" whether they are being observed based on their behavior. Humans often care about whether they are being observed and change their behavior when they are being observed (Dance like nobody is watching). Electrons seem to "care" likewise because they change their behavior when being observed. It does seem that they are "conscious" of being observed and I thought it was an interesting point to make considering what was being discussed.If my explanation is in error, I defer to the following article: https://devdude.me/blog/dblSlit"The modern double slit experiment demonstrates one of the weirdest, and perhaps fundamentally the only weird, phenomenon about quantum mechanics. Do observers affect reality? Are particles "conscious" of what's happening around them?"
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |