Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Headline: "Panpsychism, the idea that inanimate objects have consciousness, gains steam in science communities." Article: it hasn't   (salon.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, Consciousness, Mind, Philosophy of mind, Cartesian question, philosopherRen Descartes, conscious beings, lot of regular people, physical object  
•       •       •

261 clicks; posted to STEM » on 24 Jul 2021 at 2:26 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2021-07-24 1:01:31 PM  
6 votes:
Thank god they don't. Otherwise I've irreversibly traumatized most objects around my house.
 
2021-07-24 3:12:27 PM  
3 votes:

Ishkur: The idea of an "object" is kind of funny to me. At the molecular level there is no real distinction between the atoms that make up an object and the atoms that surround it. There is no official border or boundary that separates the two. It's kind of fuzzy to determine at the atomic level exactly where you end and the air around you begins. Or what exact atoms make up you.

Moreover those atoms are moving all the time, and some are leaving the object and others are joining it. The constitution of objects is constantly changing. The first principle of logic, Aristotle's A is A, is useful only as a thought exercise, or could be approximated to certain things at certain dimensions and resolutions moving at certain velocities, but it has no real application or utility to things that are really small (quantum), really large (universe), or moving really fast (speed of light). In other words: Extremities that we cannot innately observe do not obey our fuzzy rules of logic.

Moreover: What defines the consciousness in an object? Do larger objects have larger consciousnesses? What happens to the consciousness of an object when it's changed or merged with other objects? If a rock has consciousness, and you break it in two, does it then become two rocks with two consciousnesses? If you glue two rocks together, do they become one rock with one consciousness? If so, what happened to one of the consciousnesses? Where did it go? What if you tethered two rocks with a string? Is it still two consciousnesses or does it become one consciousness? How close do they have to be to merge consciousnesses?

These are the things that keep me up at night.


Watch How it's Made, and drift off to the soothing strains of extrusion
 
2021-07-24 4:38:51 PM  
3 votes:
Theoretical physicists either took too much or not enough this time.
 
2021-07-24 9:55:13 PM  
3 votes:

Ishkur: The idea of an "object" is kind of funny to me. At the molecular level there is no real distinction between the atoms that make up an object and the atoms that surround it.


I always use the Ship of Thesus for this. Or the grandfather's axe: this is my grandfather's axe- my dad replaced the handle, I replaced the head, and this is my grandfather's axe. In reality, the axe doesn't exist- there's no element of axeness inherent in the object, no continuity of identity. We impose that, because that's how our brains understand the world.
 
2021-07-24 12:51:41 PM  
2 votes:
Ikea "Lamp" Commercial - Hi Res
Youtube dBqhIVyfsRg
 
2021-07-24 4:54:15 PM  
2 votes:
To be fair, I've seen it discussed that consciousness is just an attribute of mass. Like color. I can't remember the philosopher's name but he rejected the idea that consciousness evolves. His proof posited that no increase in computing power would ever permit the computer to be actually conscious. I can't imagine consciousness as attribute of mass existing due to the overhead. Some thing would have to be the locus of my consciousness and it would have to have some kind of I/O mechanism. Even if memory were distinct from consciousness. Etc.

Sorry for drifting off there. [sound of reboot]
 
2021-07-24 11:08:11 PM  
2 votes:

Ishkur: t3knomanser: Ishkur: The idea of an "object" is kind of funny to me. At the molecular level there is no real distinction between the atoms that make up an object and the atoms that surround it.

I always use the Ship of Thesus for this. Or the grandfather's axe: this is my grandfather's axe- my dad replaced the handle, I replaced the head, and this is my grandfather's axe. In reality, the axe doesn't exist- there's no element of axeness inherent in the object, no continuity of identity. We impose that, because that's how our brains understand the world.

And every time you use the transporter in Star Trek, you are destroyed while a perfect clone of you is constructed on the other side and goes on to live the remainder of your life.

Wall Around a Star

by Pohl and Williamson had a more realistic version. You were copied, the information was sent to the destination where it was rendered, but the original remained. A lot less risky than Star Trek's instant death machine.
 
2021-07-25 1:00:53 AM  
2 votes:
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size


If you want to research the subject...
 
2021-07-25 10:23:42 AM  
2 votes:

American-Irish eyes: This appears to be the thread where graduate level philosophical bullshiat is revived.


It isn't necessarily bullshiat. It's just above our paygrade.
 
2021-07-24 2:51:15 PM  
1 vote:
The idea of an "object" is kind of funny to me. At the molecular level there is no real distinction between the atoms that make up an object and the atoms that surround it. There is no official border or boundary that separates the two. It's kind of fuzzy to determine at the atomic level exactly where you end and the air around you begins. Or what exact atoms make up you.

Moreover those atoms are moving all the time, and some are leaving the object and others are joining it. The constitution of objects is constantly changing. The first principle of logic, Aristotle's A is A, is useful only as a thought exercise, or could be approximated to certain things at certain dimensions and resolutions moving at certain velocities, but it has no real application or utility to things that are really small (quantum), really large (universe), or moving really fast (speed of light). In other words: Extremities that we cannot innately observe do not obey our fuzzy rules of logic.

Moreover: What defines the consciousness in an object? Do larger objects have larger consciousnesses? What happens to the consciousness of an object when it's changed or merged with other objects? If a rock has consciousness, and you break it in two, does it then become two rocks with two consciousnesses? If you glue two rocks together, do they become one rock with one consciousness? If so, what happened to one of the consciousnesses? Where did it go? What if you tethered two rocks with a string? Is it still two consciousnesses or does it become one consciousness? How close do they have to be to merge consciousnesses?

These are the things that keep me up at night.
 
2021-07-24 3:17:46 PM  
1 vote:
"Panpsychists all accept dog-consciousness, but some might not want to accept chair-consciousness"


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2021-07-24 3:34:27 PM  
1 vote:

Ishkur: The idea of an "object" is kind of funny to me. At the molecular level there is no real distinction between the atoms that make up an object and the atoms that surround it. There is no official border or boundary that separates the two. It's kind of fuzzy to determine at the atomic level exactly where you end and the air around you begins. Or what exact atoms make up you.

Moreover those atoms are moving all the time, and some are leaving the object and others are joining it. The constitution of objects is constantly changing. The first principle of logic, Aristotle's A is A, is useful only as a thought exercise, or could be approximated to certain things at certain dimensions and resolutions moving at certain velocities, but it has no real application or utility to things that are really small (quantum), really large (universe), or moving really fast (speed of light). In other words: Extremities that we cannot innately observe do not obey our fuzzy rules of logic.

Moreover: What defines the consciousness in an object? Do larger objects have larger consciousnesses? What happens to the consciousness of an object when it's changed or merged with other objects? If a rock has consciousness, and you break it in two, does it then become two rocks with two consciousnesses? If you glue two rocks together, do they become one rock with one consciousness? If so, what happened to one of the consciousnesses? Where did it go? What if you tethered two rocks with a string? Is it still two consciousnesses or does it become one consciousness? How close do they have to be to merge consciousnesses?

These are the things that keep me up at night.


I need a nap so this might be way off base, but it seems to me that the way you describe how things exist at a molecular level would indicate there's only one actual consciousness, shared by all.

Pleasant dreams.
 
2021-07-24 3:58:25 PM  
1 vote:

lilistonic: Ishkur: The idea of an "object" is kind of funny to me. At the molecular level there is no real distinction between the atoms that make up an object and the atoms that surround it. There is no official border or boundary that separates the two. It's kind of fuzzy to determine at the atomic level exactly where you end and the air around you begins. Or what exact atoms make up you.

Moreover those atoms are moving all the time, and some are leaving the object and others are joining it. The constitution of objects is constantly changing. The first principle of logic, Aristotle's A is A, is useful only as a thought exercise, or could be approximated to certain things at certain dimensions and resolutions moving at certain velocities, but it has no real application or utility to things that are really small (quantum), really large (universe), or moving really fast (speed of light). In other words: Extremities that we cannot innately observe do not obey our fuzzy rules of logic.

Moreover: What defines the consciousness in an object? Do larger objects have larger consciousnesses? What happens to the consciousness of an object when it's changed or merged with other objects? If a rock has consciousness, and you break it in two, does it then become two rocks with two consciousnesses? If you glue two rocks together, do they become one rock with one consciousness? If so, what happened to one of the consciousnesses? Where did it go? What if you tethered two rocks with a string? Is it still two consciousnesses or does it become one consciousness? How close do they have to be to merge consciousnesses?

These are the things that keep me up at night.

I need a nap so this might be way off base, but it seems to me that the way you describe how things exist at a molecular level would indicate there's only one actual consciousness, shared by all.

Pleasant dreams.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-ele​c​tron_universe
 
2021-07-24 4:29:20 PM  
1 vote:
I am a stick.
 
2021-07-24 5:15:57 PM  
1 vote:
^You're doing lucid dreaming wrong
 
2021-07-24 7:35:33 PM  
1 vote:

turboke: lilistonic: Ishkur: The idea of an "object" is kind of funny to me. At the molecular level there is no real distinction between the atoms that make up an object and the atoms that surround it. There is no official border or boundary that separates the two. It's kind of fuzzy to determine at the atomic level exactly where you end and the air around you begins. Or what exact atoms make up you.

Moreover those atoms are moving all the time, and some are leaving the object and others are joining it. The constitution of objects is constantly changing. The first principle of logic, Aristotle's A is A, is useful only as a thought exercise, or could be approximated to certain things at certain dimensions and resolutions moving at certain velocities, but it has no real application or utility to things that are really small (quantum), really large (universe), or moving really fast (speed of light). In other words: Extremities that we cannot innately observe do not obey our fuzzy rules of logic.

Moreover: What defines the consciousness in an object? Do larger objects have larger consciousnesses? What happens to the consciousness of an object when it's changed or merged with other objects? If a rock has consciousness, and you break it in two, does it then become two rocks with two consciousnesses? If you glue two rocks together, do they become one rock with one consciousness? If so, what happened to one of the consciousnesses? Where did it go? What if you tethered two rocks with a string? Is it still two consciousnesses or does it become one consciousness? How close do they have to be to merge consciousnesses?

These are the things that keep me up at night.

I need a nap so this might be way off base, but it seems to me that the way you describe how things exist at a molecular level would indicate there's only one actual consciousness, shared by all.

Pleasant dreams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-elec​tron_universe


_Surely You/re Joking Mr Feynman_

Dude took some GREAT drugs.
 
2021-07-24 7:36:43 PM  
1 vote:

yakmans_dad: To be fair, I've seen it discussed that consciousness is just an attribute of mass. Like color. I can't remember the philosopher's name but he rejected the idea that consciousness evolves. His proof posited that no increase in computing power would ever permit the computer to be actually conscious. I can't imagine consciousness as attribute of mass existing due to the overhead. Some thing would have to be the locus of my consciousness and it would have to have some kind of I/O mechanism. Even if memory were distinct from consciousness. Etc.

Sorry for drifting off there. [sound of reboot]


Not so much mass as the complexity of the mass.
 
2021-07-24 7:42:48 PM  
1 vote:

johnny_vegas: There is one consciousness and, unfortunately, it allows me to see what ishkur does at night when he can't sleep


So you're the guy who keeps criticizing my Detroit Techno mixes.
 
2021-07-24 10:09:30 PM  
1 vote:

Ishkur: The idea of an "object" is kind of funny to me. At the molecular level there is no real distinction between the atoms that make up an object and the atoms that surround it. There is no official border or boundary that separates the two. It's kind of fuzzy to determine at the atomic level exactly where you end and the air around you begins. Or what exact atoms make up you.

Moreover those atoms are moving all the time, and some are leaving the object and others are joining it. The constitution of objects is constantly changing. The first principle of logic, Aristotle's A is A, is useful only as a thought exercise, or could be approximated to certain things at certain dimensions and resolutions moving at certain velocities, but it has no real application or utility to things that are really small (quantum), really large (universe), or moving really fast (speed of light). In other words: Extremities that we cannot innately observe do not obey our fuzzy rules of logic.

Moreover: What defines the consciousness in an object? Do larger objects have larger consciousnesses? What happens to the consciousness of an object when it's changed or merged with other objects? If a rock has consciousness, and you break it in two, does it then become two rocks with two consciousnesses? If you glue two rocks together, do they become one rock with one consciousness? If so, what happened to one of the consciousnesses? Where did it go? What if you tethered two rocks with a string? Is it still two consciousnesses or does it become one consciousness? How close do they have to be to merge consciousnesses?

These are the things that keep me up at night.



I was just thinking about this last night.  We are literally swimming in a sea of atoms and our body is a composite of so many different things, bacteria, cells, etc.   Where does the line get drawn?
 
2021-07-24 10:25:33 PM  
1 vote:

t3knomanser: Ishkur: The idea of an "object" is kind of funny to me. At the molecular level there is no real distinction between the atoms that make up an object and the atoms that surround it.

I always use the Ship of Thesus for this. Or the grandfather's axe: this is my grandfather's axe- my dad replaced the handle, I replaced the head, and this is my grandfather's axe. In reality, the axe doesn't exist- there's no element of axeness inherent in the object, no continuity of identity. We impose that, because that's how our brains understand the world.


And every time you use the transporter in Star Trek, you are destroyed while a perfect clone of you is constructed on the other side and goes on to live the remainder of your life.
 
2021-07-24 11:09:12 PM  
1 vote:
It's funny how consciousness can't be defined but people are going to take it as given anyways. Might as well talk about souls for all the science explaining them.
 
2021-07-24 11:48:26 PM  
1 vote:

hissatsu: So it's "Begging the question, the article"?

/The real meaning of begging the question. You know, the one nobody uses.


Begging the question is my favourite informal fallacy because it is the one I like the best.
 
2021-07-25 12:17:43 AM  
1 vote:
Even the simple photons thru the slit experiment shows that there's something akin to consciousness at the quantum level.
 
2021-07-25 1:53:32 AM  
1 vote:

Nurglitch: It's funny how consciousness can't be defined but people are going to take it as given anyways. Might as well talk about souls for all the science explaining them.


Just because something can't be defined doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is plenty of evidence for consciousness even though its nature is not well understood.

It's like dark matter in physics, they don't really know what it is, but our current knowledge necessitates it in some way

Anyway there isn't even any legit evidence for souls so your comparison is flawed there as well
 
2021-07-25 2:54:39 AM  
1 vote:

luidprand: by Pohl and Williamson had a more realistic version. You were copied, the information was sent to the destination where it was rendered, but the original remained. A lot less risky than Star Trek's instant death machine.


Star Trek even had this plot, cf. Thomas Riker.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.