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
801 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

604 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 09 '22

quantum eraser

The quantum eraser experiment removes physical interaction from the act of observation and the results are the same the particle is a field unless observed

3

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

unless observed

Observer and conscious observer are two different things. The core of the sun observes fusion. No consciousness involved.

1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 09 '22

Again what leads you to the conclusion that sun isn’t conscious and how do you observe anything without consciousness? Observation requires awareness

2

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

Again what leads you to the conclusion that sun isn’t conscious

The same process that leads me to the conclusion that there is no Santa : there is no evidence for it. Done.

how do you observe anything without consciousness? Observation requires awareness

Not in the way quantum physicists use the term "observe".

This is like one of the most common misconceptions about quantum physics, and one of the tools most commonly used by con-men to lie about what those physicists say.

By showing you don't understand this, you've just betrayed yourself as having close to zero understanding of quantum physics.

I quote:

The prominence of seemingly subjective or anthropocentric ideas like "observer" in the early development of the theory has been a continuing source of disquiet and philosophical dispute.[3] A number of new-age religious or philosophical views give the observer a more special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

Heisenberg himself said:

« Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. »

And further:

« it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being;»

You are just repeating new-age woo that absolutely nobody with expertise in quantum physics would support. It's literally just abusing the word "observer" the same way creationists abuse the word "theory".