This place is like the leftist X

  • 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: October 21st, 2023
  • K0W4L5K1@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyz•double slitEnglish
    2·
    8 months ago

    I can obviously ponder it. I’ve shown that. It’s just that there’s no reason to believe it’s any more real than Harry Potter is. It may make you feel nice, but it doesn’t do anything. If consciousness can’t be defined by whoever is positing the idea then it’s not useful to consider.

    You thought about it for a second and actually thought yeah living things having a conscience is fiction? What I don’t really know how to respond to that If consciousness is just derived from the activity in our brain it’s not hard to assume that animals atleast are aware of their conscious being on some small way. That is most definitely more believable then god or Harry Potter.

    Just because something can’t be defined yet doesn’t mean we won’t eventually be able to. But you know we gotta get there and again I am not saying these theories are right I commented on a meme.

    I love what you said about string theory I would agree but you said it’s wrong and maybe this is too and maybe something useful will come out of it but maybe not.

  • K0W4L5K1@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyz•double slitEnglish
    2·
    8 months ago

    Nothing here has anything to do with consciousness. You can recreate this experiment with no one in the room and it will behave exactly the same, and has a sound (if very confusing conventionally) mathematical cause.

    First I was commenting on a meme wasn’t expecting these comments lol. but we are active in the experiment that is the point to show that it changes states because we observe Why does that happen and why don’t we don’t know it’s position til observed. It doesn’t matter if we are in the room or not we could be 1000 miles away watching on webcam and the same thing happens because we observed it and my side note QM is fucking magic dude

  • K0W4L5K1@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyz•double slitEnglish
    2·
    8 months ago

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

    Idk why that is so hard for you to even ponder

    Science requires testable and verifiable hypothesis. If they can’t be falsified they aren’t a part of science. They’re a belief system. That’s fine to have, but don’t mix it with science. All you’ll do is end up not accepting more data as we learn it because you’re filtering it through faith.

    So string theory isn’t science either show me where string theory has been proven in any sort of way

  • K0W4L5K1@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyz•double slitEnglish
    34·
    8 months ago

    Sure I agree it could be that as well but there is no actual way to prove that. Since we don’t actually understand what it is or how it works we can’t remove it, therefore with materialism at this point it’s not provable either way. it’s also another theory and why I started my original comment with maybe. It’s better to explore that data in my opinion then outright deny it without any actual evidence proving it’s not. Occams razor is a cop out here