Does electronics have their own consciousness? Bizarre but reasonable “pan-minded”

Beijing time on May 20, according tomedia reports, “New Scientist” this month’s cover of the title is “The universe has its own consciousness?” “The mathematical definition of “consciousness” may mean that the universe is full of subjective experiences, “which may be the beginning of a scientific revolution.” “

Photo from Pixabay

Johannes Kleiner, a mathematician and physicist at the Centre for Mathematical Philosophy in Munich, Germany, points out that focusing on the theory of integrated information in consciousness is one of the most mainstream theory of consciousness today, and that the theory of integrated information is a downright general theory, because all integrated information is at least a little conscious.

Some may see the rise of panothest as part of the “Copernicus trend”. The idea is that we have nothing special, that the earth is not the core of the universe, and that humans are not the precious work of the Creator, or even the pinnacle of biological evolution. That being the case, why do we think that only what has the brain is conscious? In fact, pantheon ism has been used for thousands of years as one of the solutions to the “mind-body problem”.

There are many different versions of the theory, one of which is called “compositional panpsychism”. Simply put, it believes that all matter has some kind of “thought” or “consciousness” associated with it, which in turn. Where there is thought, there is material, where there is material, there is thought. The two are inextricably linked. As modern pan-minded ists have pointed out, all matter has a certain ability to feel, but most of the material’s ability to feel is quite low.

The pan-minded theorists examined every rung on the natural ladder and found that there was no clear line between “thought” and “no thought”. The philosopher Thomas Nagel famously asked in 1974: What does it feel like to be a bat? What is it like to fly freely using echolocation? We can’t yet come up with definitive answers, but we can make a well-founded inference from the complex behavior of bats and the close kinship between mammals and humans: bats have a rich inner world. Using this logic, we can gradually reduce the complexity of the behavior of the observed object and deduced that all types of matter have some kind of thought associated with it, even the lowest level of electrons.

Although inanimate matter does not evolve like life matter, they also have their own behavior and can react when forced. The way electrons move varies under different experimental conditions, leading physicists to think that electrons may also have some very low-level thinking. For example, the famous American physicist Freeman Dyson, in his 1979 book The Cosmic Waves, points out that “the difference between the process of human consciousness and the process of electronic choice of quantum state is only in degree, not type.” Another prominent American scientist, David Bohm, made a similar point: “The ability to move is the most iconic feature of thought, and electrons have shown a similar expression to thought.” “

Many biologists and philosophers agree that there is no clear line between living and non-living. Holdan, a prominent British biologist, also supports this claim: “We have not found visible signs of life or thinking in so-called inactive substances … But if the scientific point is correct, sooner or later we will find at least the lowest form of thinking, and such signs are all over the universe. “

The founder of quantum theory, The Danish physicist Niels Bohr, points out that “the definition of life and mechanics … is a very important one.” It’s just for convenience… If we extend the concept of life to all natural phenomena without making a strict distinction between living and non-living organisms, the limitations of physics in biology will be meaningless. “

Has there ever been a moment in Earth’s history that suddenly changed from an inanimate state to a state of life, like a switch? The answer is “probably not.”

The theoretical physicist Sabina Hosenfeld takes the opposite view. “To make particles conscious, they must at least have the ability to change. In a post called “Electronics Don’t Think,” she points out, “It’s hard to have an inner world if your mind stays the same.” But if electrons can think about it, we should have observed this phenomenon in particle collision experiments long ago, because it would change the number of particles produced in a collision. “

However, “change” can have many different meanings, including changes in spatial position over time. In his commentary on electron and quantum theory, Dyson notes that the probability distribution results of quantum experiments are best interpreted as the product of a choice made by an electron at some point rather than a mere coincidence (another term, “we don’t know what’s going on”).

The theory of universalism reimagines the essence of matter at the basic level, believing that all entities, such as electrons, atoms, and molecules, have at least a little experience and a little consciousness. At first glance, this view may seem odd, but it makes a lot of sense.

Electrons are not just things that move in stone, but a series of repeated electrons, each of which is very similar, but not exactly the same, with a slight change in each repetition. There is no completely static, static electron. Each time an electron repeats, the difference with the previous electron is determined by the choice and thinking of the particles. In the course of biological evolution, this choice accumulates upward, eventually forming the complex thinking and selection power that humans and other mammals possess.

Many modern thinkers have accepted Witheide’s ideas and generalism to varying degrees. Others want to turn these pure philosophical thinking into experimental tests, so that the generalism of philosophy is more firmly rooted in the field of science.

Therefore, in modern physics, electrons have a lot of room to “think”.