•
•

Zen master on consciousness in electrons (youtu.be)

Apiperofhades が 投稿

全 39 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]khalnivorous 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (2子コメント)

He should probably stick to the 5 pounds of flax.

[–]ScrithWire 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

?

[–]khalnivorous 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Tozan was asked by a monastic, “What is Buddha?” Tozan replied, “Three pounds of flax.”

There's a few interpretations of the meaning of that Koan. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's a meaningless answer for a question that can't be properly answered. Some speculate that it's the amount of flax required to make a robe and from there ponder the distinction between Buddha as a man or as a symbol.

Either is better than mysticism applied to physics.

[–]greenfunkman 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (28子コメント)

I always feel that pseudoscience really diminishes the message that religious leaders are trying to convey.

[–]Salted_cod 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think you watched the video...

[–]Zooicide86 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (22子コメント)

There was an actual logical proof recently that's showed, for humans to have free will, the most elementary particles in the universe must also have free will.

[–]naasking 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's called the strong free will theorem, and you've conveyed it mostly backwards if I recall correctly: if humans have free will, which they define as the freedom to set experimental parameters independent of the system they're measuring, then particles also have free will.

Which isn't necessarily the same kind of free will as discussed in philosophy which is about moral responsibility. This is a mistake a lot of people make.

[–]belovedeagle 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

if humans have free will, which they define as the freedom to set experimental parameters independent of the system they're measuring, then particles also have free will.

That is literally exactly what /u/Zooicide86 stated... "for X [to hold], Y [must hold]" is just a rephrasing of "If X, then Y".

[–]kilopeter 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No. /u/Zooicide86's claim is "for X to hold, Y must hold." This means that Y is necessary for X to hold, but not the other way around: Y can hold whether or not X holds. This is equivalent to "if Y, then X", not "if X, then Y."

[–]stolendoorknobs 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

There was a "free will theorem" by John Conway and Simon Kochen. It showed that if people's choices are indeterministic then so is the behavior of elementary particles.

But that indeterminism isn't actually free will in any interesting or robust sense. The name's a bit of poetic license.

[–]TheManInTheShack 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Just because we can't determine with 100% accuracy a person's choices, doesn't mean they have free will. You could define free will as the choices a person makes. But all you are doing is saying that this set of choices were made by that person's brain. That person's neurons and synaptic connections in their brain made the choices based upon their current state. They no more made the decisions because of free will than a computer does.

I don't see how free will, the way most people think of it - that they really can choose between A and B independent of their brain state, can even exist based upon our current understanding of physics.

[–]stolendoorknobs 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

that they really can choose between A and B independent of their brain state

I don't think that's what most people think free will is.

[–]TheManInTheShack 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When I ask people, the overwhelming majority think they really do have a choice. I can educate them about how the brain works and then they start to see that perhaps they don't really have a choice. At that point they either accept it or become quite uncomfortable and start back pedaling.

Once you accept that there is no you independent of your brain and that your decisions are just the result of your genetics and current brain state, you then have to realize that the term free will doesn't make much sense and that it's all really an illusion.

At that point, there are two things that become quite clear:

1) Getting angry at anyone because they didn't meet your expectations is pointless. They are just doing what they are programmed to do.

2) Our system of justice is extremely inefficient and nonsensical. We should be treating crime as a mental disorder rather that assuming that locking someone away for several years will somehow cure them. And sentences are so arbitrary. We should treat them and only release them when we are reasonably convinced they are no longer a threat.

[–]littlebobbytables9 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel like defining "free will" as "behavior is not completely determined by the past" is kinda clickbait. The particles aren't choosing anything, it's just that quantum mechanics is probably nondeterministic, which is something that we've known since the early 20th century.

[–]thebenson 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Link?

I'm not sure you can prove such a thing but I'm interested to dissect the "proof."

[–]Zooicide86 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Link

[–]thebenson 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hm. Interesting. But we know that our current understanding of elementary particles is incomplete ... how can we base a "proof" on an understanding that we know is already incomplete?

It seems more like a thought experient than a proof.

[–]the_real_trebitsch 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even if particles are free, that doesn't necessarily establish the freedom of humans, for a number of reasons.

I think a better shot at good pseudoscience about free will would be some proposal to the effect that stars or galaxies are actual Epicurean Gods (isolated beings that have no environment to influence or constrain their actions, hence totally free and content). With panpsychism already accepted, that idea would be an obvious next step.

[–]Apiperofhades[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

He's espousing a view that is technically known as panpsychism, and one argument i have heard is there's nothing special about our body that has consciousness, that causes consciousness. Our body is made up of matter. We are matter. But we have consciousness, we know this. Why do we assume we have consciousness but not other forms of matter? All material could have consciousness as a natural property. It seems the matter of our bodies have it and we are fundamentally material, so material has it as well. I'm not making the argument very well but I hope you get it. The roshi above in passing references something like this.

[–]rawrnnn 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you arrange 3 balls into a triangle, are you similarly led to conclude the truth of pantrianglism? There's nothing special about the triangle - it's merely three balls arranged in a certain way. So the triangle-ness must be in the balls right?

I don't see why you should look at consciousness as this ontologically distinct essence - that theory doesn't add or explain anything. It's just like the philosophical notion of "elan vital", which became irrelevant when biochemistry got good enough to peer down there and realize that no, it's just regular stuff doing it's thing.

[–]thebenson 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I get the argument but I don't see a very good way to prove the argument.

Logically it makes sense. But a simple syllogism isn't adequate proof.

[–]Apiperofhades[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You asked for an argument. I didnt say it proved this view true.

[–]thebenson 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair. I was just thinking out loud.

[–]FlamingMax 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oy gevalt. Show me this proof, please?

[–]khalnivorous -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the concept of free will has always sort of been considered in the context of an immortal soul that's unbound by the physical world but somehow still interacts with it.

From a materialist perspective how could this supernatural free will be anything but nonsense?

[–]Apiperofhades[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I dont think hes spouting pseudo science. He's taking panpsychism, which is a legitimate philosophical view point and philosophers have affirmed it in he past, and a few eastern religious concepts, and applying them to electrons, which is a scientific concept.

[–]FlamingMax 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Define 'legitimate'?

[–]WaddleWaddle_Dee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You just stated that it's a scientific concept, but before said that it was affirmed by philosophers and Eastern religion s, neither of which are science. I haven't watched the video, but I've brief interaction a with panpsychism and all it is psuedo-scientific crap made up in order to comfort new agers and the like. It does not belong to philosophy.

[–]austward1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What? That dude is wise as hell. Thats not pseudoscience

[–]ItsQuietTime 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If using the mind for discrimination to judge and organize creates suffering, does it not also create suffering to make the judgment that non-discrimination is better than discrimination?

[–]littlebobbytables9 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel like the argument that just because we rely on the existence of electrons or "mother earth" to think necessarily implies that those thoughts are not ours but belong to the electrons and mother earth doesn't make very much sense.

[–]TheManInTheShack 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He says, "I don't think a dog's consciousness is the same as a man's consciousness." I read recently that scientists have determined that pretty much all mammals experience consciousness the same way. We may have different levels of intelligence, but we experience consciousness the same.

[–]FartsGetMeHigh -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He could use the mind of discrimination when choosing a better dentist.

[–]DaBrokenMeta -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The first law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed.

As a Chemist, scientist, who also believes in Jesus's sacrifice and also believes the Christian God is the same as the God of Islam. I approve of this guys message 100%

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”? - Werner Heisenberg

[–]hamandiali 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a tall order progressing from empirical observation of the natural world to the conclusion that Islam's/Christianity's message is true, and that Islam's/Christianity's God is the God of all creation.

Could you please go over what your train of thought is like?

[–]microdosethekids -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Existence is the divine love living. Mother Earth, God, One Love.