What If the World Is Arranged Differently Than We Think?
Some scientific conclusions, theories and hypotheses are so incredible that they seem absurd fictions. However, until they are disproved, we cannot know for sure that they are false.
Imagine you are walking on the beach, pick up a stone and throw it. For this, the stone took offense at you, because... it has consciousness. It sounds silly. Of course, I deliberately added to the absurdity of the situation, but there are quite serious studies by respected scientists who suggest that even inanimate matter can have some elementary level of consciousness. What led scientists to such an opinion?
Each of us has a brain. Scientists have learned to analyze the work of the cerebral hemispheres, measure electrical impulses, and the intensity of mental activity. However, they could not understand how matter, that is, the brain, is connected to our consciousness. The mystery of how our minds relate to the material world is known as the "mind-body problem." Many philosophers have fantasized about this topic to their heart's content, and just as many scientists have tried to get even a little closer to understanding this complex issue.
During the last ten years, an innovative approach called "resonance theory of consciousness" has become widespread among scientists. It was developed by a group of scientists from the University of California, Santa Barbara, headed by Jonathan Schooler.
The theory is based on the concept that when different vibrating objects come into contact, they often begin to oscillate in unison. This phenomenon, known as spontaneous self-organization, has been observed in various natural systems. German neurophysiologist Pascal Friese and colleagues discovered a similar synchronization in the human brain, where neurons that work at the same frequency can lead to different states of consciousness.
Schooler's team suggests that consciousness may be a fundamental property of matter. According to this view, all matter has some degree of consciousness, and more complex interactions lead to higher forms of conscious experience. In their study, they argue that biological organisms, with their fast and dense networks of bioelectrical and biochemical signals, have a richer and more powerful form of consciousness compared to non-biological structures such as rocks or sand.
Resonance theory attempts to bridge the gap between neuroscience and philosophy of consciousness, but beyond that it offers a holistic view of our universe as a fundamentally interconnected system. She suggests that the evolution and manifestation of consciousness may be a natural result of the basic vibrational nature of existence itself, which in itself may open up a whole new layer of research.
Well, I realize there's a lot we don't know, but it's very hard to accept the idea that rocks and sand have some level of consciousness. Nevertheless, the theory itself, as well as research, seemed interesting to me.
Source: theconversation.com
You will be surprised to know that my paternal grandmother (dadi), may her soul rest in eternal peace, always emphasized walking gently on the earth. I used to not listen much to her advice back then, but now I realize its wisdom. Whenever I climbed up or down the stairs, I did so hastily and sometimes took those steps a little forcefully. Dadi always said, "Be gentle on the earth, for it will also tell Allah that you were not gentle enough."
Didn't understand it back then. But I think we should treat everything with respect. Allah says in Quran:
English translation:
"And do not walk on the earth arrogantly. Surely you can neither crack the earth nor stretch to the height of the mountains."
Maybe once upon a time, people knew more than we do with all our devices and the Internet 🙂.
I agree. Very interesting. This ties in with two of my articles:
Both of those articles reference work by another researcher from the University of California (Irvine, though, not Santa Barbara), Donald Hoffman. Hoffman takes it a step further and argues that matter is a fundamental property of consciousness. If I understand his argument, he'd say it's not that rocks "have" consciousness, but rather that consciousness constructs the rocks as abstractions during the act of perception.
I clicked through to your source at The Conversation. It's funny how almost every article that anyone ever writes about consciousness opens with a reference to David Chalmers.
From that article,
I think this is especially interesting in the context of Neuralink implants, and it leads to a question that I have wondered about for a long time. What happens when you can use implants to directly link two or three or 100 brains? Do they gain no improvement, additive improvement, or multiplicative improvement (or something else)?
Just finished reading your post Useful beats truthful: Survival and repetition of ideas in the information ecosystem. I never thought about it, but it really is. Now Ukraine is not only a battlefield of two armies, but also an informational battlefield. Every day we are bombarded with thousands of informational messages, most of which are false or not entirely true. Everyone tries to tell his own truth, which is beneficial to him. We even have organizations that specialize in refuting fakes. It is a very difficult job to look for evidence of the falsity of certain reports. But despite the refutation, false information often lives for years if it is very beneficial to someone.
It is worth noting that now some regions of the country actually live in a different reality, since their information field supports only one point of view. It can also be an example that our reality can be different if we imagine it differently.
Yes, at one time his ideas gained considerable popularity. He is like a pop star in science.
A very interesting question. Could it become something like a biological supercomputer?
Exactly. In the video I linked to, even the woman doing the introduction called him, "a rock star".
I intentionally dodged controversial topics in the article, but it's that way in the US too. Many people seem to live in "information bubbles" where they are totally unaware that alternate points of view even exist. True or not, they only receive and spread the information that is believed to be useful to their own political point of view.
This is something that I have long suspected, but only time will tell. I am definitely curious to see the results.