4 ms·
Mmmmm, no, the Standard Model is hard science. Even if you assumed that matter was "made of consciousness" you cannot make use of that assumption in explaining
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
Mmmmm, no, the Standard Model is hard science. Even if you assumed that matter was "made of consciousness" you cannot make use of that assumption in explaining consciousness arising from matter in a brain. As only the properties of matter observed in the Standard Model can be appealed to at the energy levels in a brain. According to a professional physicist. Not my argument.
Are you saying the Standard Model is not empirically true???
- goto11 8y ago> According to a professional physicist. This is your fallacy right there. Science is a process and method. If a professional scientist performs philosophy it does not automatically become science due to the persons job title. And vice versa.
- Ste_Evans 8y agoEmpirically verified physics, not philosophy, does not allow any properties of matter to be appealed to when trying to explain consciousness in the human brain other than those described in the Standard Model. You can assume that matter is made of consciousness or chocolate or whatever you like, but you cannot use that assumption in trying to explain consciousness in a brain according to the results of the Standard Model. Got it??? If you think this physical fact is not true, then explain why. Though I think your time would be better spent familiarising yourself with McDonald's menu for your future career rather than pondering difficult questions about consciousness...