The Physics of Will

this is why I want to talk about Orch OR or any other scientific theory of consciousness. The only one in the running is the computational people and their position is that when computers get fast enough, it'll happen and we'll see then. As if reproducing the number of connections is enough, and the design doesn't matter. Nevertheless the computational people are designing things, they have their neural networks, their genetic algorythms and their case based reasoning, and they figure with that an a fast enough computer, what... suddenly a subjective experience fires up in the computer?

remember, we have a subjective experience. If you believe in the real world, but know a subjective experience exists in it, then that needs a direct explanation to count as physics/science.

cheers

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• natural
• philosophy
• relativistic
• skepticism
• will
• power
• utilitarianism
• politics
• social

[neons99]

No one says it's just a matter of the number of connections. The pattern of the wiring matters. I think it's ultimately totally illusion and the only measurement you could make is of speed and bandwidth, how fast and to what degree you can inform the machine about its own reality, and have this information coalesce and 'reflect' into memory, computers will surely be able to outpace biological systems in terms of speed, thus be more 'acutely' self-aware?

[pyrrho314]

@neons99 : I don't see how speed of computation or any data structure can create a subjective self awareness. Do you?

[Hythloday71]

This has to be the worst video you have ever made ! Will comes from dark energy or something .. lol. This phenomena u talk about, that you say u have, that u say i have, that needs investigating is FULLY explained with current physics !

[pyrrho314]

@Hythloday71 : I didn't say that. However, you are confused, you must now explain consciousness in terms of classical physics... or rewatch the video. It was only classical physics I said clearly could not explain it. This is due to it being "objective" only, it does not answer subjective questions. But I said we could use modern physics to investigate it... the point being it's physically explainable.  It's like you listen to only every tenth word and then think you got it.

[Hythloday71]

@pyrrho314 - Go do the intellectual work and re-watch your own video i just quoted you exactly, as I did go and re-watch your video, and noted the sentences carefully ! Your so funny, your doing exactly what I said you would do .. LOL. Now your trying to come across .... like. .. it's so explainable man ! ... You hold that its mysteriously beyond current 'physics', right, then your a douche-bag ! Tell me what aspect is contrary to current theoretical physics ! !! !!! ? ? ?

[pyrrho314]

@Hythloday71 : I didn't say it was contrary... I said we don't explain IT. And current theoretical physics includes QM, which I said we should look too. AGAIN, I said classical physics "has no explanation for it" and that "classical physics cannot explain it". Well, ok, what about neurology can't classical physics explain. Well, there's ALL OF CHEMISTRY that it doesn't explain. You totally misunderstand. I say in the video we must investigate the physics of it. You're lame.

[blackcrow6667]

@pyrrho314 Not sure if you've heard of Dean Radin. He's been involved in the Global Consciousness Project at Princeton for quite awhile, if it's still going, which conducts interesting consciousness experiments using random number generators. Hard to know really what consciousness is but, it does seem to have a collective component to it.

[Internalexpansion]

I'm excited to see where this goes. I've had some experiences of will which seem spontaneous (which I suspect it is). Our thoughts seem to try to put things in order after the fact which meshes with the current scientific research on the illusion of choice.

[Barklord]

@hristoitchov Yeah, "What it IS" uses metaphorical, inaccurate equivalences."How it IS" follows from a projection of our experience of before and after and implies first causes limited by linguistic constructs. "*That* it IS" seems true and unnecessary.

My comment above was just a rant on one of my frustrations about "the creation of the universe" proposed by some science vids on youtube. First saying that there IS an hypothetical eternal quantum foam, then saying everything came from Nothing.

[hristoitchov]

@Barklord You may dress it in words to describe it, but in the end it's just theories, creations of imagination, bound to limits created by our own minds, and in fact we don't know what it is, we just think we know what it is. We're just circling within our own limited knowledge and never actually getting in touch with the actual fact, so we don't KNOW what it actually is, by our own experience. Or if you do, it would be impossible to put it into words or be explained, because it's beyond that.