sschepis t1_j0hvzka wrote
Reply to comment by kougabro in A deluge of fake articles threatens research on human genes -- Review: Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills by spontaneous_igloo
I have not heard of him! I will check his work out.
I am more than open to being wrong! My interest is in discovering the truth and if I am unable to discard disproved theory, even mine, then I am not doing science.
I came to my conclusions about entropy from making the following suppositions:
Your recognition of consciousness is purely subjective, thus unfalsifiable and true from your position, which is always what matters.
If you perceive a system as conscious, then it is, to you, and since nobody can disprove this perception, it is true
Because you can observe the quality of consciousness in the objects in your environment, then that consciousness must already exist in the environment as an inherent field.
But we also notice consciousness as an active principle in objects - some consciousness can act.
What is the fundamental difference then, between consciousness that is passive, and consciousness that can act?
The fundamental difference is the action part of it - so what characteristic can I use to identify that system from the perspective of the quality of what it does?
The answer is found in how that system handles the constantly-growing entropy within itself.
We can apply this filter into our perception and recognize living systems purely by how they handle the entropy in their bodies, and we can define the activity of life as an activity that seeks to maintain low entropy.
The minute that the system has achieved equilibrium with its environment, it can no longer act. It is dead.
This is my straight line from consciousness to entropy. I came to the realization of the nature of entropy through this mechanism of deduction, not through classical science.
This is the reason why I think there is something there, there. My logic, in the context of how consciousness works, is sound. Except that no scientific theory, except for quantum mechanics, provides a reasonable explanation - ant it only requies modfying some basic presumptions about quantum mechanics to make it all work together.
Could it be all BS? Sure. But I am very proactive about tossing out theories that don't work, so here I am.
Thanks again for your time.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments