Snazz said:

nameless1 said:

viktor said:

There used to be great materialist vs. idealist debates on here, but the champions of the materialist side (OC, Icelander, Ped) have all gone.

Did the materialists lose?

---

Actually, the theory of 'materialism/physicalism' has long been obsolete.
Debating it amounts to debating flat Earth vs spherical.
Old news.

---

Agreed!  Bell's Theorem

---

There are alternatives to Quantum theory, and we're all allowed to have our views. 


From 6:00 on it's an interesting discussion.

Quote:

After publishing a popular textbook on Quantum Mechanics that adhered entirely to the Copenhagen orthodoxy, Bohm was persuaded by Einstein to take a critical look at von Neumann's theorem. The result was 'A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables" I and II' [Bohm 1952]. It was an independent origination of the pilot wave theory, and extended it to incorporate a consistent theory of measurement, and to address a criticism of Pauli that de Broglie did not properly respond to; it is taken to be deterministic (though Bohm hinted in the original papers that there should be disturbances to this, in the way Brownian motion disturbs Newtonian mechanics). This stage is known as the de Broglie–Bohm Theory in Bell's work [Bell 1987] and is the basis for 'The Quantum Theory of Motion' [Holland 1993].

This stage applies to multiple particles, and is deterministic.

The de Broglie–Bohm theory is an example of a hidden variables theory. Bohm originally hoped that hidden variables could provide a local, causal, objective description that would resolve or eliminate many of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as Schrödinger's cat, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wavefunction. However, Bell's theorem complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. The Bohmian interpretation is causal but not local.

Bohm's paper was largely ignored or panned by other physicists. Albert Einstein, who had suggested that Bohm search for a realist alternative to the prevailing Copenhagen approach, did not consider Bohm's interpretation to be a satisfactory answer to the quantum nonlocality question, calling it "too cheap", while Werner Heisenberg considered it a "superfluous 'ideological superstructure' ". Wolfgang Pauli, who had been unconvinced by de Broglie in 1927, conceded to Bohm as follows:

'I just received your long letter of 20th November, and I also have studied more thoroughly the details of your paper. I do not see any longer the possibility of any logical contradiction as long as your results agree completely with those of the usual wave mechanics and as long as no means is given to measure the values of your hidden parameters both in the measuring apparatus and in the observe [sic] system. As far as the whole matter stands now, your ‘extra wave-mechanical predictions’ are still a check, which cannot be cashed.'

He subsequently described Bohm's theory as "artificial metaphysics".

According to physicist Max Dresden, when Bohm's theory was presented at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, many of the objections were ad hominem, focusing on Bohm's sympathy with communists as exemplified by his refusal to give testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee.

In 1979, Chris Philippidis, Chris Dewdney and Basil Hiley were the first to perform numeric computations on the basis of the quantum potential to deduce ensembles of particle trajectories. Their work renewed the interests of physicists in the Bohm interpretation of quantum physics.

Eventually John Bell began to defend the theory. In "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" [Bell 1987], several of the papers refer to hidden variables theories (which include Bohm's).

The trajectories of the Bohm model that would result for particular experimental arrangements were termed "surreal" by some. Still in 2016, mathematical physicist Sheldon Goldstein said about Bohm's theory: “There was a time when you couldn’t even talk about it because it was heretical. It probably still is the kiss of death for a physics career to be actually working on Bohm, but maybe that’s changing.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

---

teknix said:

As to the question of sentience, I think it comes down to the ability to affirm ones physical existence.

---

sudly said:

People can dream up amazing dreams and scenarios like nothing else I've seen on earth, at least in my experience of them. The tragedies, the lust, the dreamous joy is a beautiful thing, I think we've all had it. Mine has been in many a thousand form.

---

Peyote Road said:

teknix said:

As to the question of sentience, I think it comes down to the ability to affirm ones physical existence.

---

Why do you think that? It's questionable whether many animals can affirm their own existence, with possibly only the higher animals being able to, but I would still consider lower animals like fish to be sentient.

The first definition of sentient I get from google is "able to perceive or feel things". I definitely think fish can feel and perceive things.

---

teknix said:

A cat might think, "ouch, that hurt", but it wouldn't think "ouch, that hurt me" for example.

---

Quote:

How would you define sentient?

---

Peyote Road said:

teknix said:

A cat might think, "ouch, that hurt", but it wouldn't think "ouch, that hurt me" for example.

---

It doesn't need to think that in order to be sentient. Like I said in my last post, babies don't think in those terms either until they reach a certain age. I don't think babies are considered insentient.

---

Peyote Road said:

Babies and cats can certainly feel pain and other emotions. This makes them sentient regardless of how sophisticated their idea of themselves is. In my opinion cats have a very basic, rudimentary idea of themselves. My cat for example, knows her name and will come when you call her, IF she wants to. But I don't think she is capable of thinking abstractly about herself.  That's why the mirror test is difficult. She doesn't have a strong enough idea of herself as a separate thing, to equate her reflection with her self concept. This however does not mean she is incapable of feeling or perceiving. On the contrary she is very sensitive and will let you know verbally (she has many different "meows") exactly how she wants you to pet her. If you pet her in a manner she does not like, she instantly tells you by making a sound. To suggest she is incapable of feeling would be absurd in my opinion.

---

Quote:

Babies are capable of conscious thought and of storing memories from as early as five-months-old, according to new research.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2311630/When-babies-really-conscious-Researchers-say-early-months.html

---

Quote:

Your cats behavior is trained behavior. What is the point in the word sentience if it applies to all animals?

---

Quote:

A human baby isn't fully developed like an adult cat is. They aren't even comparable.

---

Quote:

I don't think we have a fair test to determine the exact moment a human child becomes sentient.

Would you suggest we show a fetus a mirror and observe it's reaction?

Tests that I know of require certain motor skills that babies don't have yet.

---

Quote:

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which otherwise commonly collectively describes sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.

Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism". They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained. Other philosophers (such as Daniel Dennett, who also argues that non-human animals are not sentient) disagree, arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually be explained by science

---

teknix said:

Show an adult cat a mirror and it will always think it is another cat. (Unless we change it's DNA or it evolves sentience)

The same is not true with a baby, it will grow to know that it is itself, when that occurs doesn't really matter.

Bad analogy.

---