〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

Great point, but I see both sides and to rule out consciousness playing a role definitevely would be claiming you've resolved the many conflicting but valid interpretations of quantum mechanics. Ie. The Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation posits a need for consciousness.

Also there is and probably never will be a "consciousness" variable despite the fact that we experience it permanently. It's likely a complex emergent phenomena arising from the actions of trillions of more simple information processing units and the particles theyre made of.

The term emergence is a cop out. Temperature comes from jostling around of molecules. We have models for this and simulations that take us from the microscopic to macroscopic. Therefore just because it’s emergent doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be able to describe that emergence.

id agree with that idea. emergence, despite being a synthesis of parts that appears to be greater than the whole, can still be objectively and empirically documented and ascertained

Documented != a complete description of the "emergent" phenomena. I agree w the Temperature analogy, but even that's bound to be an approximation of the underlying micro and macroscopic properties. Consciousness may be approximated w a var but it is not the way nature does it

@Deepneuron all you can deduce from that negative statement is that consciousness is not well approximated with emergence.. You certainly cant conclude that consciousness affects measurements ..

I'm arguing different things at once haha. That statement has nothing to do with consciousness playing a role in measurement. Like you, I think the problem is significantly deeper. Nature doesn't know that we differentiate between atoms/biology/language/abstract info.

Okay how’s that relevant ? There are differences between all those things just like there are similarities. It’s just different level of abstraction but still consistent and sometimes gives us a deeper understanding of the system.