Daniel from Earth

🌎👈 Engineer, self-proclaimed philosopher-artist. I write books and music about the meaning of life. New book coming soon about how everything is conscious. 👁

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

I'm gonna start using this app again. Let's talk about how the whole universe is probably conscious. Cells, atoms, empty space - all conscious. It's the more plausible explanation for how we're conscious as humans, as opposed to our brains somehow creating experience. 👁

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@paraschopra It's good to recognize that electrons don't have complex feelings like we do. They don't have brains.
With idealism, they have pure awareness only, and there is only very simple comfort vs discomfort, which drives their behavior.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@hicasamadim You multiply the top two and then double it to get the bottom number. It's 72.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@ElementalReason @Philip_Goff They all have experience, most likely.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@Philip_Goff It doesn't make sense to fully believe something that isn't 100%. That would just be lying to yourself. It's best to have a working theory and update it as you go.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@rstallie @Philip_Goff It is symmetrical.
The metaphysical question (physicalism vs idealism) is about the nature (intrinsic properties).
Everyone agrees about the observable behavior.
Physicalism posits a physical intrinsic property and non-conscious forces that cause the behavior.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@AnnaCiaunica @carlorovelli @NoemaMag The cat example also reveals a misunderstanding. A cat's shape actually does exist physically - colors don't!
The wavelength of light that we call red, isn't red qualia. It's just a wave. And same inside the brain: there's no red qualia in your neurons.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@AnnaCiaunica @carlorovelli @NoemaMag Qualia is not a process in the brain - the error is clear right here.
Red qualia is what's it's like to see red, which is not a wavelength of light, not a neural activity, nothing physical at all.
It's not about why red looks red - it's why we see red when it doesn't exist!

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@AnnaCiaunica @carlorovelli @NoemaMag This statement just isn't true though. There's no fact of science that tells us experience is reducible to brain activity - that's an unfounded assumption. I would challenge you to pin point this "contradiction" without just assuming the physicalist conclusion.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@HighSignal_AI Humans don't just "magically" think. I learned this from meditation and watching my brain. It's just a suggestion machine, a tool that creates a thought, tracks whether I engage with it or not, and then learns to provide more thoughts that I engage with. It's like an AI.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@WanderingThoug @keithfrankish However, the world seems physical to us. That's how our brains present reality, objective structure, that's our bias. It's true we need to be skeptical of our intuitions, but doesn't that mean questioning physicalism - the way the world appears to us?

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@AaronKheriatyMD Yeah its advantage over us is just being really fast and having wide knowledge base. Even if we progress to make it work just like a human brain, it will still need a conscious subject to guide it. Otherwise it won't really have "desire" or "preferences", just programmed goals.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@ai_sentience Lol it's not possible to prove something is conscious. So asking for an argument is already wrong.
The only way to know is to be one- I'm a human so I know humans are conscious.
Figuring out what else is conscious, besides yourself & others like you, requires science and reason.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@swombat AI can only be conscious if it interfaces properly with the existing universal consciousness (like our brains do). If not, then it's just a brain with no one inside.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

I've noticed those of us with science backgrounds sometimes are consumed by science only, and overlook the importance of reasoning after the science is done, to interpret the data correctly.
I used to do it myself.
Logic and reason aren’t branches of science, they're philosophy.

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@IAI_TV Oneness is the key. It's not just that particles are conscious, it's that particles are excitations within the single field of consciousness. When they behave in organized ways, they cause a larger scale experience to emerge in the field.
👁

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@SimsYStuart Lol, bold statements on something that we're still figuring out. This view comes from completely ruling out all metaphysical possibilities other than physicalism... if you're interested in the truth, why would you do that?

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

New video - will understanding consciousness be the next giant breakthrough in understanding the universe?
👁️👁️
The Next Big Breakthrough in Science and Philosophy!?
https://t.co/KnlDNfBuBB

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@Philip_Goff @CosmicSkeptic Looks like a super interesting conversation, when/ where can we watch it?

[Daniel from Earth @danielfromearth]

@LensScientific Not in the sci-fi sense - there is no timeline to travel on.

Things change and we call that the passing of time, but there's no actual physical timeline.

Time can be thought of as a dimension like space in physics, but that isn't the actual nature of reality.