https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/11/115319/3372193/Universal-consciousness-as-foundational-field-A?utm_source=chatgpt.comSo a legit materials scientist (Maria Strømme, Uppsala University) just published a paper in AIP Advances arguing that consciousness isn’t produced by the brain, but is a fundamental field of the universe — like spacetime or electromagnetism — and that matter and mind emerge from the same underlying substrate.The paper tries to merge quantum physics + non-dual philosophy.Claims include:>consciousness is the ground state of reality>the brain “interfaces” with this field rather than generating consciousness>subjective experience arises from local “perturbations” in the field>physical laws emerge from constraints within this substrate>the model is supposedly testable (though the tests seem borderline impossible rn)It’s peer-reviewed and was the “featured paper” of the journal issue. But the whole thing reads halfway between theoretical physics and Vedanta metaphysics.Is this legit frontier science or just high-IQ woo woo wrapped in equations?Does /sci/ think a “universal consciousness field” is even in principle falsifiable?
>>16861291I don't even need to look at it to tell you it's reddit schizophreniaAlso I think we read the same science aggregator anon, saw this as well the other day
>>16861291maybe
>>16861291It's telling that these people need to jump straight to idealism instead of seriously considering any materialist pre-geometric physics.
>>16861291It's time to admit that Acadummia Inc. is FUBAR when the average word salad from this board is now competitive with a so-called "peer-reviewed" "science" journal.
>>16861291I'm a physicslet, so I can't comment on the math. I think the spirit of the paper is going in the right direction. These are old ideas. Physicists will tell you that the physical world is devoid of color, sound, taste, odor etc. very much like Locke would say the material world is devoid of secondary qualities. Neuroscientists seem to agree and say that these things are constructed by your mind. I think monism is preferable to dualism for simplicity if it can be made to work. And something seems fishy about observation. QBism and other perspectival variants of quantum mechanics are thriving right now among foundationalists working between the physics and the philosophy. QBism is being closely tied to William James's neutral monism, Neo-Kantianism, and Husserl's and Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological philosophy. Which are all closely related to idealism. The article references Schrodinger who was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer, too. Though it might be closer to Whitehead's philosophy.
>>16861291>Is this legit frontier scienceConsciousness studies both is, and isn't. It's one of the genuine great unknowns we have yet to explore. We're not even CLOSE to formulating any coherent idea about what it is, any reliable set of in-depth measurements.But that is also the problem, there are aspects of consciousness that can't be measured, there is a disconnect between subjective experience and reductable measurements/models. So in a way, any idea about consciousness is always going to be a bit "pseudo-science.I have long viewed consciousness from a lens similar to this researcher. I've always described it as something akin to gravity. The heavier the mass of an object, the more gravity. It's an intrinsic property of the universe. I believe consciousness behaves similarly in regards to coherent clusters of matter with self-referencing information. The more quantity and/or complexity of self-referencing information, the more conscious that entity is.
>>16861291The water molecule is dipole antenna.
>>16861291HOT
>>16861291It's woo woo with copy-pasted quantum mechanics undergrad equations.That said I'm sympathetic to idealism but not when it's done like this. I'm getting E = mc^2 + AI vibes
>>16861291>As systems increase in complexity—e.g., through biological evolution—localized consciousness ψ becomes more differentiated and self-aware, consistent with theories that link increased neural complexity to higher-order consciousness.4In not sure how true that is. I saw recently that there's a Mirror Test that they use to test animals self awareness. Dolphins, chimps, some pigeons, even some ants pass the test. Yet dogs, cats, pandas, baboons and other large animals failhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test#Animals_that_have_passedI don't think neuronal complexity or density alone explains how self aware or conscious something is
What a dumb bitch
>>16861291>the tests seem borderline impossible rnThen I don't care. Throw it in the huge pile of untestable theories about consciousness (which basically includes every consciousness theory). Especially these physicalism-flavored, science-wannabe takes are safe to ignore. In addition to being unverifiable, they have no philosophical substance. Consciousness is always outside the empirical scientist's grasp, so he will always look for it in the current scientific frontier. (currently it's quantum nonsense). It's fashion, basically.
>>16861291>?utm_source=chatgpt.comStop asking ChatGPT to give you scientific papers that agree with you retard.>Figure 2This is literally a figure in the paper. Yep, she is also retarded.
>>16862293Yeah, thats about it. If you are super interested then its basically only Micheal Levin for this (and if you already digested his body of work then me, there wont be other that can track Psychoanalysis down to the Atomic scale, its my specialty; >>16862043 .)She is a Physicist entering Biology through Philosophy, she literally needs to go back to school and get at minimum of one more PhD to achieve her goal, if not multiple since she didnt realize her cognitive blindness in this. Amaturish attempt, albeit a safe one.>?utm_source=chatgpt.comHeh.
