News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Electrons May Well Be Conscious by blacksqr on Sunday May 17, 2020 @08:52PM (#23217048)
Spoiler: if you redefine "conscious" to whatever an electron is.
Re:Electrons May Well Be Conscious by notaphilosopher on Sunday May 17, 2020 @10:06PM (#23217449)
I think I read that somewhere on the side of a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap in the shower. Although, every permutation of writing that could ever be written by a million monkeys at typewriters is on the side of a Dr. Bronner's too. Even this comment. #meta

Entities with too much consciousness can't handle their own consciousness and either go Warhol, invent the atom bomb, or make a startup selling silicone girlfriends because their bulging brains get in the way of their more fundamental drives.

Mental onany isn't as good as reality.

Re:Electrons May Well Be Conscious by 6gvONxR4sf7o on Sunday May 17, 2020 @09:21PM (#23217209)
More like, consciousness is a matter of degree, rather than a binary yes/no.
Re:Electrons May Well Be Conscious by Analemma_ on Sunday May 17, 2020 @10:13PM (#23217497)
Even materialists agree that consciousness is a matter of degree; panpsychists don't have a monopoly on that position. Humans are more conscious than mammals who are more conscious than fish who are more conscious than insects. But the materialist position is that any non-zero degree of consciousness requires a substrate capable of computation, and so you bottom out to zero long before you get to electrons.
Re:Electrons May Well Be Conscious by 6gvONxR4sf7o on Monday May 18, 2020 @01:28AM (#23218708)
So if I'm getting this right, the usual materialist position is that thinking is a matter of degree for stuff that can think, and just a straight no for everything else. While the panpsychists think it's just a matter of degree, full stop? No 100% unthinking allowed?
Re:Electrons May Well Be Conscious by dvsfish on Monday May 18, 2020 @01:59AM (#23218874)
Great explanation. My thoughts approximately (but more eloquently).