Talk:Consciousness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleConsciousness has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
October 31, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Untitled[edit]

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

new link[edit]

http://www.sciencealert.com/human-consciousness-could-be-a-result-of-entropy-study-science

Erroneous definition of "philosophical zombie"[edit]

The first section includes this passage:

"the philosophical zombie, which is defined as a being whose behavior and function are identical to one's own yet there is "no-one in there" experiencing it."

Philosophical zombies are not about whether or not there is "anyone in there". It is not even clear if this means anything.

A philosophical zombie is defined as a being whose behavior appears identical to a normal human being from the outside, but who has no experiences. (Not whether there is "anyone in there".)

I hope someone who is expert on the subject will fix this.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:EC07:25F3:43AA:4398 (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right, and my solution is to simply get rid of that sentence. It was added by an IP editor in 2016, and I never thought it was very helpful for explaining the concept of consciousness. In any case zombies are dealt with in other parts of the article in a way that I hope you will think is more valid. Looie496 (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Observer[edit]

From the article: "Consciousness may have a determinative role in quantum mechanics. Since consciousness is the primary aspect of an observer"

Even wikipedia page Observer (quantum physics) says: In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement [...] A number of new-age religious or philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims. Observer is not a conscious human, it's a measuring device. Humans cannot even possibly directly observe micro-level quantum effects without mechanical help. Machine does the measuring which causes a wave function to collapse. Then, say, it can print the results of observations for you if you wish. And only then you, a conscious human, will finally see them. But clearly a function collapsed long before that.

Let alone the fact that the very statement "consciousness is the primary aspect of an observer" is wrong. I can stare blankly but still be an observer (in its common meaning). My eyes will still receive beams of light and process them into signals, it's just these signals won't be immediately analyzed since the brain is busy thinking about something else.