• K0W4L5K1@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-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

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Idk why that is so hard for you to even ponder

      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.

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

      String theory is not really, no. It’s theoretical physics. There are experiments that were designed to test it and they all have failed. String theory is a useful mathematical model to predict some results, but it’s not more than that. It’s also almost certainly wrong, but it can still be useful. It’s also almost certainly wrong, because it fails to make new predictions that come true. It can just adapt to give the correct result after we know what it should be. It’s useful, but it doesn’t make it true.

      • K0W4L5K1@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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.