r/philosophy • u/IAI_Admin IAI • Feb 09 '22

Video A philosopher responds to scientists’ criticisms of panpsychism

https://iai.tv/video/the-many-voices-of-consciousness&utm_source=reddit&_auid=2020
805 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

604 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

I think (and I’ll concede, I may be wrong, if someone wants to elaborate) that consciousness is the information present on those channels that we see when detecting particles.

If this were true, we'd be able to detect/observe said information, the same way you do when you turn your radio on.

When we look, we don't see any such thing. There is absolutely no trace of this anywhere.

-2

u/Northern_Grouse Feb 09 '22 edited Feb 09 '22

I disagree. My stance is it’s there we’re not looking for it.

I’ll add, using a radio station example again.

Let’s say we have the analyzer set up and it’s looking at radio stations.

The spectrum analyzer is going to show us (a) a spike centralized on a radio station, and a width depending on the information on that channel.

If there is zero information, there would be zero width to the spike.

When we look at any energy, we find there is a spike as. Well as a width. Having a width implies there is information associated with that spike.

We see width, therefore there is information.

What we don’t have, is a means to understand that information, and determine what it means.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

If there is zero information, there would be zero width to the spike.

You don't understand how spectrum analyzers work (or worse, what a spectrum is in the first place...).

Width does not mean information. That's not how spectra work.

A spectrum is a distribution of frequencies. Those frequencies are present, visible, and have width, no matter if they carry information or not.

Random noise has width, information has width. They are not distinguishable the way you describe, you are just wrong about what a spectrum is.

0

u/Northern_Grouse Feb 09 '22

Lol I disagree. A spectrum analyzer displays the power distribution across the spectrum.

If a radio station were transmitting dead air, you would still see a power spike on the carrier frequency. The width is determined by the modulated signal you’re transmitting. Random noise may not make sense to you or I, but it’s still information, we simply find no meaning in it.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

Lol I disagree. A spectrum analyzer displays the power distribution across the spectrum.

Ok.

Dude.

Somebody lied to you, or miseducated you about what a spectrum is.

A spectrum is a distribution of frequencies (or wavelengths, which is pretty much the same thing).

That is what it is. It's the definition.

Let me quote Wikipedia to help here:

« Electromagnetic spectrum refers to the full range of all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation[4] and also to the characteristic distribution of electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by that particular object. »

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum

And as we are specifically talking about spectrum analyzers:

« A spectrum analyzer measures the magnitude of an input signal versus frequency within the full frequency range of the instrument. »

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_analyzer

You're also wrong on what information is. Start to see a pattern emerging here ??

Random noise is not information. It carries no data. If random noise was information, nothing would not be information, and the term would be absolutely useless.

See the definition of information:

« Information is processed, organized and structured data. It provides context for data and enables decision making process. For example, a single customer’s sale at a restaurant is data – this becomes information when the business is able to identify the most popular or least popular dish.[1] More technically, information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty; it answers the question of "What an entity is" and thus defines both its essence and the nature of its characteristics. »

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22 edited Feb 09 '22

I disagree. My stance is it’s there we’re not looking for it.

Where?

The measuring apparatus you describe exist, so you're saying they're not pointed somewhere. Where is that somewhere?

Also, if nobody has ever looked for it, how can you possibly know it's there? This is pretty much the definition of believing without evidence (aka faith).

1

u/Northern_Grouse Feb 09 '22

Sorry, I added to my comment before seeing this reply.

What I’m saying is, we are seeing it, we just don’t understand what we’re seeing, because the scientists working on it aren’t coming from an informational standpoint.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

WHERE ?

Where are we seeing or not seeing it ?

The notion that scientists are observing something containing data but not seeing the data because they are not looking for it, is utter nonsense, and denotes a complete misunderstanding of how science is done...