M. U. Dalmis, PhD
@memtufuk.bsky.social
AI scientist
Interests: Philosophy of Science / AI / Mind / Consciousness, I and Cosmos
Interests: Philosophy of Science / AI / Mind / Consciousness, I and Cosmos
Not necessarily. For monist panpsychism, the relationship between physical and mental is an identity relationship. In other words, matter is mental.
September 10, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Not necessarily. For monist panpsychism, the relationship between physical and mental is an identity relationship. In other words, matter is mental.
quantum-level randomness is deliberately raised to the macro level, resulting in the “free will” of the organism. Therefore a brain is actually just the opposite of what a machine is.
(I assume “randomness” in the quantum world is actually a kind of “will” at a very basic level)
(I assume “randomness” in the quantum world is actually a kind of “will” at a very basic level)
August 13, 2025 at 2:57 PM
quantum-level randomness is deliberately raised to the macro level, resulting in the “free will” of the organism. Therefore a brain is actually just the opposite of what a machine is.
(I assume “randomness” in the quantum world is actually a kind of “will” at a very basic level)
(I assume “randomness” in the quantum world is actually a kind of “will” at a very basic level)
Not that I am convinced of all the hypothesis he brings. But a very good read to be inspired about the possibilities once we go beyond the dogmas of materialism.
August 13, 2025 at 12:33 PM
Not that I am convinced of all the hypothesis he brings. But a very good read to be inspired about the possibilities once we go beyond the dogmas of materialism.
Vajina sözcüğü kullanmaktan çekinilmiş :)
Neticede de, doğal olan mı normal doğumdur, yoksa normal olan mı doğal doğumdur, karışmış :))
Neticede de, doğal olan mı normal doğumdur, yoksa normal olan mı doğal doğumdur, karışmış :))
April 14, 2025 at 7:36 AM
Vajina sözcüğü kullanmaktan çekinilmiş :)
Neticede de, doğal olan mı normal doğumdur, yoksa normal olan mı doğal doğumdur, karışmış :))
Neticede de, doğal olan mı normal doğumdur, yoksa normal olan mı doğal doğumdur, karışmış :))
It is hard for me to distinguish this from idealism.
April 10, 2025 at 9:46 AM
It is hard for me to distinguish this from idealism.
Açıkça bir darbe ortamı bu..
April 5, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Açıkça bir darbe ortamı bu..
It might also be possible to assign such unity to other physical things such as atoms as there is also a strong integration there (again, IIT). For other non-living things (like table), having no integrated information, assigning consciousness to the whole is problematic.
March 3, 2025 at 5:41 PM
It might also be possible to assign such unity to other physical things such as atoms as there is also a strong integration there (again, IIT). For other non-living things (like table), having no integrated information, assigning consciousness to the whole is problematic.
What we call "table" is a collection of atoms that we bring together, and the part-whole relationship is brought together in our own minds. But for a living thing, that part-whole relationship is established in a way that we necessarily consider the whole organism to have a unit consciousness. ++
March 3, 2025 at 5:41 PM
What we call "table" is a collection of atoms that we bring together, and the part-whole relationship is brought together in our own minds. But for a living thing, that part-whole relationship is established in a way that we necessarily consider the whole organism to have a unit consciousness. ++
I think IIT might give a good perspective there. For example, "is a table conscious?" sounds like a legitimate question from a panpsychist perspective, but there is a nuance: you can also ask "is the leg of the table conscious?". You can go further: "is this wood fibre in the leg conscious"? ++
March 3, 2025 at 5:41 PM
I think IIT might give a good perspective there. For example, "is a table conscious?" sounds like a legitimate question from a panpsychist perspective, but there is a nuance: you can also ask "is the leg of the table conscious?". You can go further: "is this wood fibre in the leg conscious"? ++
Materialism is the only implausible metaphysical viewpoint.
February 21, 2025 at 7:13 AM
Materialism is the only implausible metaphysical viewpoint.
If there happens a voting today, they will vote for Trump again.
February 14, 2025 at 8:12 AM
If there happens a voting today, they will vote for Trump again.
Yet similar to black holes having a huge mass which doesn't allow denying their existence, consciousness is primal to us; we cannot say it doesn't exist. So, the existence of consciousness seems a bit paradoxical. But I think it is because the way we define the epistemological space is incomplete.
February 13, 2025 at 2:21 PM
Yet similar to black holes having a huge mass which doesn't allow denying their existence, consciousness is primal to us; we cannot say it doesn't exist. So, the existence of consciousness seems a bit paradoxical. But I think it is because the way we define the epistemological space is incomplete.
I think consciousness in epistemological space is similar to the black holes in physical space. Similar to black holes occupying no physical space, consciousness occupies zero epistemological space as knowledge is always on something other than the knower. ++
February 13, 2025 at 2:18 PM
I think consciousness in epistemological space is similar to the black holes in physical space. Similar to black holes occupying no physical space, consciousness occupies zero epistemological space as knowledge is always on something other than the knower. ++
This is in fact similar to what Federico Faggin defends in his book "Irreducible".
February 13, 2025 at 2:05 PM
This is in fact similar to what Federico Faggin defends in his book "Irreducible".
This part is consistent with the quantum physics which assign probabilities to the events, but not predict hard deterministic outcomes. And what comes later, the random outcome of the event (within the probabilities) can be seen as the conscious mind's "free decision within limits". ++
February 13, 2025 at 2:05 PM
This part is consistent with the quantum physics which assign probabilities to the events, but not predict hard deterministic outcomes. And what comes later, the random outcome of the event (within the probabilities) can be seen as the conscious mind's "free decision within limits". ++
I am not sure if I understand this criticism. We all know that even if we have free will, it is limited. For example I can choose to eat or not, but my body produces signals that signifies hunger which pushes me towards deciding to eat, increasing the probability of that decision. ++
February 13, 2025 at 2:05 PM
I am not sure if I understand this criticism. We all know that even if we have free will, it is limited. For example I can choose to eat or not, but my body produces signals that signifies hunger which pushes me towards deciding to eat, increasing the probability of that decision. ++
One limitation of this view as explained by Goff (@philipgoff.bsky.social) in his book Galileo's Error is that it is a very minimalistic view: mind only determines the moment of decision. The probability of the decision and the final outcome is purely determined by physical laws and randomness. ++
February 13, 2025 at 2:05 PM
One limitation of this view as explained by Goff (@philipgoff.bsky.social) in his book Galileo's Error is that it is a very minimalistic view: mind only determines the moment of decision. The probability of the decision and the final outcome is purely determined by physical laws and randomness. ++
In short, the argument is that non-physical mind is interacting with the physical brain through "observation" which causes the wave function to collapse, ending the superposition state, which we observe as conscious decisions. ++
February 13, 2025 at 2:05 PM
In short, the argument is that non-physical mind is interacting with the physical brain through "observation" which causes the wave function to collapse, ending the superposition state, which we observe as conscious decisions. ++
There is one exception to this: the observer effect in #quantum physics. Chalmers and McQueen discuss this in terms of dualism in their article " #Consciousness and the Collapse of the Wave Function" (arxiv.org/pdf/2105.02314). ++
arxiv.org
February 13, 2025 at 2:05 PM
There is one exception to this: the observer effect in #quantum physics. Chalmers and McQueen discuss this in terms of dualism in their article " #Consciousness and the Collapse of the Wave Function" (arxiv.org/pdf/2105.02314). ++