indication of thought in mass

So I got to thinking and i though how do you tell if something is conscious… or alive… and is it not the case that thinking things are better at producing low predictability outcomes…in other words non-predictable or barely predictable actions… and then we have that electrons move about unpredictably except within a specific range… so is it not possible that the seeming randomness or non-predictability of movement of electrons is indicatory of consciousness or thought?

I don’t think there’s any evidence that electrons behave any differently when they’re inside a brain than when they’re outside of it. I would be IMMENSELY surprised if that were the case. Doesn’t sound very likely.

I wasn’t saying they act differntly outside the brain then in it… just that electrons move within a cloud" which is the specified area in which we can say it is but in truth we can not ever locate the exact position of an electron due to there eradice non-predictable movement… i am saying that non-predictable movement is suggestive of thought.

Anyway, I don’t think the ‘unpredictability’ of intelligent beings would have to be rooted in unpredictable behavior of the atoms that make it up, or electrons or neutrons or anything like that. It’s more likely (incredibly more likely) a result of the complexity of the thing in question. You don’t need unpredictable electrons, just an incredibly complex set of algorithms, which the brain is.

Oh sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were saying things are intelligent because their electrons are unpredictable. You’re saying the electrons are intelligent because the electrons are unpredictable.

There are probably explanations that don’t violate occams’ razor as much as that.

im not saying anything is rooted in the unpredictability of atoms… im am saying that like humans the movement of electrons is unpredictable so in other words electrons are exhibiting behavior that is characteristic of thought.

“in other words electrons are exhibiting behavior that is characteristic of thought.”

I get your point - I think we need to reverse it so as to make it understandable to more people; Thought is characteristic of the unpredictable behavior of electrons. But how unpredictable are electrons, really?

you can predict a general area where they will be nbut not exactly where they will be the same goes for people in that you can predict that a person will do something within x of possible things but not exactly what they will do… most of the time…

Categorical judgment - you ask if something discriminates according to internal-external appropriations of elements belonging to a set. That way, we know something is analytically original without dialectic comparison.

That said, we aren’t necessarily entitled to judge whether or not something is conscious because consciousness decides how to represent itself. For example, abortion is unethical because it projects judgment upon preborns who don’t consent to exist. Just because a preborn doesn’t appear conscious to us doesn’t mean it’s our entitlement to force consciousness to assume the risk of not existing. It would violate the freedom of consciousness to expect it to satisfy our expectations of representation because our expectations are not superior to the preborn’s.

If anything, the preborn comes first because it’s a hostage that was forced into existence, so it’s entitled to accommodation.

Let’s formalize the thought process.
Humans aren’t precisely predictable.
Humans have intelligence.

Electrons aren’t precisely predictable.
Electrons, then, must have intelligence.

I don’t think that works.

But, admittedly, that’s not the entire argument, it’s more like:

Humans aren’t precisely predictable BECAUSE they have intelligence.
Electrons also aren’t precisely predictable, so that must be BECAUSE they have intelligence too.

This argument does sound a bit better than the first one I posted, but it’s still not really satisfying.
In addition to there potentially being MANY sources of unpredictability other than intelligence, it’s a poor explanation that posits something MORE complex to explain something LESS complex.
I think some ILP people, like Chester specifically, but also Abstract in this case, fail to understand how utterly complex thought and intelligence are. Chester talks about thought like it’s what everything is made of. But…thought’s incredibly complicated. If every atom is made of ‘thought,’ that would be like using a super-computer as a soccer ball – why would you use something incredibly complex to make something incredibly simple? Usually complex things are made out of simple things, not the other way around.

Intelligence and thought aren’t simple. They’re incredibly complex. They need explanation, they aren’t the explanation. Intelligence needs to be reduced to simpler pieces, simple pieces don’t need to be reduced to intelligence. That’s backwards.

Complexity is relative.

I did not say this proves anything but it opens a possibility.

It’s not as relative as that. Size is relative, but a whale is bigger than an ant.

I just want to point out that abstract began with electrons possibly being alive and conscious and FJs last main response was focused on intelligence.
Intelligence and consciousness are not the same.
We don’t know how they relate. For example, perhaps the conscousness of very simple organisms is ‘just as big’ as ours. They experience, perhaps as much, but cannot perform the wide range of tasks that we can and cannot think in the ways we can.

I don’t think for example, that a retarded person has less consciousness than a genius.
It might be true, but its pure speculation. (I realize Fj never asserted anything like this, just using it as another way to come at the issue)

If humans are unpredictable, they are unpredictable in a rather large range of ways.
Electrons, it seems to me, are unpredictable in just a few ways.

Perhaps they are vastly less intelligent, for example, or not intelligent in a real sense at all, but are aware and alive. Perhaps they are like passengers in cars who occasionally say, what’s that and the electron, I mean car, veers.

[work in progress]

Let’s try to define consciousness, that would be a helpful beginning point.
Say that consciousness means the capacity to respond to ones environment selectively.

In that case electrons are conscious. It would not require thought to be conscious. In fact consciousness would be required for physical existence.

Now someone try to define consciousness in a way that makes it unnecessary or impossible for electrons to be conscious.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

Other than being superficially about similar topics (both topics relate to electrons, and they both relate to consciousness), that link really has nothing to do with this. That link is about consciousness emerging from Quantum stuff, not quantum stuff having consciousness.

Consciousness requires a specific internal construct.

If you put 3 coins in a bag, are they conscious?
How about 4?
7?

To know if something is conscious, one must understand what it means to be conscious.
Consciousness is a particular internal construct. Coins in a bag doesn’t comply with that construct. Thus you can know that they are not conscious. The same is true of the electrons.

Quantum Consciousness is a whole category of theories linking the indeterminism of quantum phenomena with the indeterminism of consciousness via free will. This is what Abstract is doing. He is linking the seemingly random behavior of electrons with free will and saying quantum indeterminism = free will.