this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
65 points (81.0% liked)
Asklemmy
45956 readers
1835 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm partial to pan-psychism. Consciousness is a property of matter.
I never knew there was a name for this idea! I came up with a silly science fiction idea based on this a few years ago.
I'm with this one. It feels less magical than "brains make consciousness happen."
Yeah it just makes sense. Everything has a little bit of consciousness in it, even subatomic particles would have a non-zero amount. But the consciousness of these particles then combine in complex and nonlinear ways. Something like, IDK, the combined consciousness of a collection of particles is proportional to their individual level taken to the n power, where n is equal to the number of particle interactions. Totally guessing on the actual math, but it would be something complex and nonlinear like that. If you could quantify consciousness, and humans had a measure of 1 consciousness unit, then the consciousness of an electron would be something like 1/Googolplex consciousness units. Something insane like that. Technically nonzero, but so small as to make an amoeba look like a intellectual giant.
I would agree depending on how you see physics. I think there is no smallest unit, no fundamental, infinite big and small. So though size comparisons make relative sense, they don't describe relative complexity.