C=hf refers to any possible minimum unit of spacetime that makes up your consciousness,
should he have read any philosophy of mind, starting with Descartes, he'd know that the fundamental impasse between mind and brain is what Descartes described as
res extensa (objects) and
res cogitans. (of course i'm pretty sure Descartes is just an ancient idiot in this guys eyes bearing absolutely no relevance to anything going on today and that he is way smarter). which means: objects are extended in space and time (literally 'extended things/business'); mind is
not extended into spacetime, it is not spatiotemporally located. brian is, mind is not. saying a minimum unit of consciousness is a certain amount of spacetime is a show of your total lack of understanding regarding your subject matter. in order to have a breakthrough in the hard problem of consciousness,
that is exactly what you need to explain: how is consciounsness a matter of space and time. you don't simply say it is, because this
does not correspond with our observations. tell me where in spacetime exactly is your exerience of the color red? not the color red itself, but
your experiencing it. somewhere in the neurons firing? i see neurons firing, but i don't see your experience of the color red. it might very well be that they have something to do with it, certainly, but they
are not 'your experience of the color red'. moreover, someone else may experience the same wavespectrum as you did, yet he describes his experience different from yours. he might reproduce the color in a different shade when asked. he may even say he saw green.
the
experience of space-time does not equal the spacetime
in which the experience took place. where in space-time do you find the
concept 'time' or 'space'? (Kant) it is not something you percieve empirically in spacetime, rather, it is the very structure
by which you are percieving and as such, it is an
a priori requisite for any perception at all. spacetime is a structural aspect
of the mind, and not of objective reality. if one even has an inkling of understanding what the theory of relativity actually means it is that in objective reality, our
perception that is space-time does not correspond to it, and so when explaining this didactically, we have to refer to such formulations as 'the 'bending' of spacetime by gravity'; 'the compression of space by speed'. it is the exact reason why a perceptual imagination of what relativity means is so difficult: because it does not correspond to the structuralization of spacetime by the mind.
a diffrent, more quantifiable, example of this difference which this formula fails to distinguish is the following observation: when two flashes of light are under x amount (don't remember the exact amount) of millseconds apart, an observer consciously experiences only one flash. which means the smallest unit of conscious experience obviously
does not correspond to the amount of protons or energy emitted, which can be manipulated into a much larger degree of seperation then consciousness is capable of. as such, this measurement, as it is proposed as a minimum unit of
experience, is again an utterly empty box.
And the formula certainly doesn't imply that there is some magical quantized 'consciousness particle', it just creates an obvious starting point for a theory of everything: quantized particles behave in a certain way, the ones that make up our consciousness behave the same way and this has certain implications. That is all."
now this is just one example where logically speaking, the guy is swaying all over the place. i mean, how can you read over that?
a) there is no (magical) consciousness particle(s)
b) quantized particles behave in a certain way
c) consciousness particle(s) behave the same way.
?????? i thought there weren't any ?
if this guy is not simply decieving himself through his own logical fallacies, he really needs to learn how to describe something in an exact, fleshed-out and disambiguated manner. of course, when one does that, you are actually being critical about an initial idea, which may have sounded very promising, it may even have given you 'the chills' when you thought of it; but you can and will suddenly find yourself into heaps of problems your quick intuitive overview/idea did not see. this is called
'actual, substantial work' only in doing this, over and over again (and you will fail, over and over in the beginning) you will come to cultivate an intuition that actually has some substance to it, and more importantly, you will come to understand your own capacities and limitations. you will come to understand and be genuinely appreciative of the (what you may now think of as 'small') work your collegues have done and are doing. and perhaps the most difficult part of all, is that your failures will cultivate a basic humility, by which you will sharpen your ability to actually
listen to your subject matter instead of your own self-absorbed babbeling of how you
want or
wish things to be. if you are interested in doing genuine research, this is what you have to go through. it is called training and learning to apply any talent you may possess. even naturals, such as Einstein are not exempt from this. and
that is the origin, and the intention, of the sentence
'shut up and calculate' of which our beloved Athene is rather contemptuous of.
i must admit that he does show talent to become a cult-leader though
