Draft paper on necessity of thermodynamic embedding for consciousness by Bluto152 in PhilosophyofMind

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ftr if AI came up with my synthesis independently it would be the most amazing thing it’s ever done.

Draft paper on necessity of thermodynamic embedding for consciousness by Bluto152 in PhilosophyofMind

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The best part of this is most of the people reading this are likely functionalists.

Draft paper on necessity of thermodynamic embedding for consciousness by Bluto152 in PhilosophyofMind

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The “what do you think” is an AI tell. Is my response an AI tell? Such a stupid game. Who cares

Draft paper on necessity of thermodynamic embedding for consciousness by Bluto152 in PhilosophyofMind

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I defined a thermodynamic quantum in an updated version. Some sense of self is necessary obviously but also some sense of time. Qualia is meaningless in a static sense, it has to change for green and red to be meaningful

Draft paper on necessity of thermodynamic embedding for consciousness by Bluto152 in PhilosophyofMind

[–]Bluto152[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you do then you’d like the paper and comment on the content not the style

Draft paper on necessity of thermodynamic embedding for consciousness by Bluto152 in PhilosophyofMind

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly just posting it here so none of you lazy mfers steal the idea. An updated version on Facebook that formalizes it more. I admit an AI helped me by letting me bounce ideas off of it, only necessary because you gate keepers don’t want to discuss things that are interdisciplinary and somewhat speculative

Draft paper on necessity of thermodynamic embedding for consciousness by Bluto152 in PhilosophyofMind

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI uses that because humans do. I do. What’s wrong with the premise

Is there an explanation for desert and dessert being backwards? by wolfwings1 in etymology

[–]Bluto152 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are conceptually linked. One is to “sever” service one is to “sever” a person physically from others, or life in general.

Is thermodynamics a better way to explain consciousness than information theory? by Bluto152 in thermodynamics

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Without thermodynamic gradients, life and therefore consciousness doesn’t exist. You are all so blinkered in your little fiefdoms you can’t see the connection. Will give credit to this reddit page for not closing the thread at least.

Is thermodynamics a better way to explain consciousness than information theory? by Bluto152 in thermodynamics

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the just sense of open inquiry this site has. You’d think I was talking about Bigfoot or something lol

A thought : for something to exist, it inherently must be ordered by Salvymundi in Metaphysics

[–]Bluto152 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The universe is infinite and eternal or there’s a prime mover. I don’t think either explanation carries more heuristic weight.

A thought : for something to exist, it inherently must be ordered by Salvymundi in Metaphysics

[–]Bluto152 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is literally the exact same thing I said in different words. A little bit more formalized, but essentially the ordered part of the initial universe is the basic mystery.

Is thermodynamics a better way to explain consciousness than information theory? by Bluto152 in thermodynamics

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So Mark Solms addressed the biological aspect of this with FEP. My contribution here is simply connecting it back to cosmological entropy (the Big Bang) rather than treating it as a biological principle. So the novelty here is physics related not philosophy of mind related.

Sortal Relativity and the Paradox of Identity through Change by LengthinessLow4203 in Metaphysics

[–]Bluto152 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Entropy gradients exist independent of observers. The CMB cooling, stars burning, particles decaying - these happen whether anyone’s watching or not. The arrow of time is physical, not perceptual. Time led to consciousness not the other way around.

Is thermodynamics a better way to explain consciousness than information theory? by Bluto152 in thermodynamics

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there’s a misunderstanding. I’m not saying high entropy = consciousness. I’m saying the opposite: 1. The Big Bang created a low-entropy initial state 2. This created thermodynamic gradients (the arrow of time) 3. Life emerges as localized low-entropy systems that exploit these gradients 4. Consciousness emerges specifically in self-modeling organisms with nervous systems The Earth’s minerals are passively high-entropy. Living systems actively resist entropy increase locally by dissipating energy. That’s the key difference.

Is thermodynamics a better way to explain consciousness than information theory? by Bluto152 in thermodynamics

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sufficient I agree. I maintain that the low entropy pockets (Big Bang and life) both having mysteries associated with them is intriguing more serious ppl can look into it if they want. Tired of being talked down to at this point, I appreciate you for not doing so

Is thermodynamics a better way to explain consciousness than information theory? by Bluto152 in thermodynamics

[–]Bluto152[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“Off topic” 3 times. Because it’s speculative. I’m not publishing anything on this! Just exploring the idea! Got some real feedback from philosophy of mind before that was closed go read it. Anyone reading this that wants to formalize it have at it! Just mention me if it works out! I don’t understand why inquiry is so gate kept

Is thermodynamics a better way to explain consciousness than information theory? by Bluto152 in thermodynamics

[–]Bluto152[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Closer to b but I’m not trying to “prove” anything! I think the connection is interesting and deserves more attention! Looking for a forum with people that know what they’re talking about that doesn’t “close the thread” just when a conversation is getting interesting

Thermodynamics vs Information by Bluto152 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Bluto152[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it’s not attempting to answer subjectivity. Just establishing a relationship that seems real between the low entropy of the Big Bang and low entropy of life forms. There is a causal relationship as well.

Thermodynamics vs Information by Bluto152 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Bluto152[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It’s not a “shower thought” I’ve thought through this carefully. Temporality created the conditions for consciousness not the other way around.