(February 20, 2021 at 1:35 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(February 20, 2021 at 1:07 pm)Apollo Wrote: You do realize that physics is the fundamental discipline of science and other sciences like chemistry and subsequently, biology emerge from it.
Fundamental is not synonymous with comprehensive. The cognitive sciences debate the nature and definition of consciousness to the same or greater degree that the biological sciences debate the nature and definition of life. For a physicist to add anything of value to these conversations he should first give a physics-derived definition of life and consciousness.
"Physicist" here is just a flashy way of saying "trust him he's a scientist." News outlets love to report on fMRI studies for the same reason, despite most cognitive scientists considering them of limited insight.
You are missing the point—at the end of the day everything has to interact with matter and four (so far) forces of nature—whether or not there is something called “conscious” as an entity besides the point. It must be able to interact with particles and forces to exist with our reality. The information he is talking about in the article is the very basic mechanism how interactions produces reality.
Neurons, synapses, blood, veins, all are matter made up of the same particles he’s talking about. You can talk of soul, conscious, what have you all you like but at the end of the day interaction gotta happen. Information gotta emerge.