Put forth by Roger Penrose (among many others), the guy who conceptualized and drafted MC Escher’s most famous works while still a teenager…
The guy who was “the brains” of a duo consisting of him and Stephen fucking Hawking when they finished up Einstein’s work.
The guy who just over a year ago got to see the discovery that quantum superposition can be maintained in the brain for sustained periods, something that he’s spent decades saying and no one believed.
I didn’t just pull this stuff out of my ass. Shit exists they didn’t teach you in 6th grade science class.
I’m aware of panpsychic theories. I believe you are way overstating Penrose’s position on the subject, my understanding is that he theorized that consciousness may exist in biological structures that are much simpler than human brains, I don’t believe he has ever stated that he believes the universe is conscious.
And note his statement:
“The question is significantly raised, of course, as to whether a paramecium — or, indeed, an individual human liver cell — might actually possess some rudimentary form of consciousness”
“The question is significantly raised” is a million miles from your “likely”. And Penrose’s theories on consciousness in general are very controversial in the scientific community.
The big thing is it doesn’t even need biological structures…
Again, you make this statement with supreme confidence, when the vast majority of the world’s experts on consciousness and physics would strongly disagree with you.
My mind is open, dude. I’m just pointing out that you seem to have seized on particular theories and given them more weight and confidence in your mind than the myriad competing theories.
Like, you’re the one that brought up Penrose as support for your argument, but then when I pointed out that he doesn’t actually support your argument (at least, not as strongly as you claimed) then you completely disregard that. “Learning” doesn’t consist of just grabbing onto whatever theories sound cool or make you feel good. It’s about trying to understand the whole spectrum of information and possibilities. In my mind, the more you learn the less certain you are about what is “true”.
The word “likely” in your statements here sure are doing some heavy lifting.
The universe being conscious has been a theory for over 40 years man…
https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state/
Put forth by Roger Penrose (among many others), the guy who conceptualized and drafted MC Escher’s most famous works while still a teenager…
The guy who was “the brains” of a duo consisting of him and Stephen fucking Hawking when they finished up Einstein’s work.
The guy who just over a year ago got to see the discovery that quantum superposition can be maintained in the brain for sustained periods, something that he’s spent decades saying and no one believed.
I didn’t just pull this stuff out of my ass. Shit exists they didn’t teach you in 6th grade science class.
I’m aware of panpsychic theories. I believe you are way overstating Penrose’s position on the subject, my understanding is that he theorized that consciousness may exist in biological structures that are much simpler than human brains, I don’t believe he has ever stated that he believes the universe is conscious.
And note his statement: “The question is significantly raised, of course, as to whether a paramecium — or, indeed, an individual human liver cell — might actually possess some rudimentary form of consciousness”
“The question is significantly raised” is a million miles from your “likely”. And Penrose’s theories on consciousness in general are very controversial in the scientific community.
XD
The big thing is it doesn’t even need biological structures…
Which is kind of obvious due to viruses being fucking everywhere.
But it doesn’t seem like you’re that interested in learning anything
Again, you make this statement with supreme confidence, when the vast majority of the world’s experts on consciousness and physics would strongly disagree with you.
My mind is open, dude. I’m just pointing out that you seem to have seized on particular theories and given them more weight and confidence in your mind than the myriad competing theories.
Like, you’re the one that brought up Penrose as support for your argument, but then when I pointed out that he doesn’t actually support your argument (at least, not as strongly as you claimed) then you completely disregard that. “Learning” doesn’t consist of just grabbing onto whatever theories sound cool or make you feel good. It’s about trying to understand the whole spectrum of information and possibilities. In my mind, the more you learn the less certain you are about what is “true”.