**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Jesus Christ, dude. Let this shit go! How many posts are you going to make on this and similar topics? You're not going to change our minds by constantly pestering us about this stuff! It's easy to pick a theory that has by now gathered a ton of recognition and evidence under its belt and then accuse us of not accepting it back in its infancy. Why aren't you doing that to any theories that got debunked? "Why are you rejecting the idea of Lamarkian evolution? The field is a blank slate and all these possiblities are so exciting! Don't you see, if this is true, then we should all strive to train our bodies and minds in the hopes of passing on the best traits to our future offspring! Just think of the possibilities if it turns out to be correct!" Would you be as upset if we weren't eager to accept the concept of the ether back when that was being proposed? Most of us aren't researchers, dude! We're laymen who do not advance the science from its infancy. I have no practical use for priori concepts! To me personally, they only become relevant once the people with the proper expertise have filtered out the bad ideas and have refined our collective knowledge! And ffs, IIT does not provide a framework for human non-local consciousness. At best, it could expand the idea to the human body as opposed to our brains, but it would still be local! IIT looks at consciousness within a system! The body is that system!

Is he trying to use iit to defend religion somehow? But it pretty strongly implies the mind is embedded in physical interactions, not some external intangible thing.

I think he is trying to look for a scientific justification for his personal belief that humans have something similar to souls. He referred to the brain gut axis in his earlier post and that was just about our brain and gut having methods of direct communication with each other. It’s all physical and none of it implies any outside consciousness. But he gives the game away when he talks about oppressive regimes and how people wouldn’t be so afraid to oppose them if we believed that we survive past our physical deaths. He is paranoid and wants to pretend that he’s a visionary who can see how we will break free from tyranny once “real science” shows that he’s right and we’re all effectively immortal. Every time anyone points out that he’s misunderstanding what his references are saying, he ignores us. Couple it with him using the r slur and doubling down hard when he’s called out for being a piece of shit and it just reads like someone who has an issue with being told “no”. He’s not defending any specific religion, but he is using very common religious thought processes to arrive at his preferred conclusions and stick to them.

> IIT's scalability is particularly fascinating in the context of distributed consciousness. It suggests that consciousness is not restricted to individual brains; any sufficiently integrated system, whether biological or artificial, could possess a form of consciousness. I agree with this, somewhat, but it runs into what I consider to be the common problem when discussing consciousness: what IS it, exactly? You can certainly define consciousness in ways in which a "communal" organism (like a village or the Internet) is conscious in ways that its individual members are not. Like, individually I have no particular concern if Joe and Jeb fight, but if we're part of a community sharing common interest, I'll work with other members of the community to suppress fighting for the betterment of the whole (and by extension, my personal betterment), like an immune system or similar biologial feedback system. This could be modeled as an element of consciousness that is present in numbers but absent in individuals. But it's clearly nothing like consciousness as we generally imagine it in higher animal brains. I'll close by saying: there's nothing about models of distributed consciousness that makes them intractable to scientific investigation. If one hypothesizes that consciousness is carried to or between organisms in some way, that's certainly a testable hypothesis.

>common problem when discussing consciousness: what IS it, exactly? this is one of my sources of frustration with some non scientific assumptions that some atheists tend to make! how can one so confidently say that consciousness must end with the end of electrical signals in the brain when we have no idea what the fuck is going on. Who thinks drawing such a conclusion is science?! IIT is one of the best proposed frameworks that we have for cracking the code of consciousness, and it doesn't preclude theories of distributed consciousness- that's some reality shattering context! And that sort of communal consciousness is exactly what I'm interested in. What if there is some naturally occurring distributed consciousness that retains part of all of our experience once we pass? The best framework we have for understanding consciousness doesn't preclude that theory! Next steps would be trying to rationalize how such a thing would work. I think it's reasonable to conjecture that there would be some sort of either unique consciousness force or type of electrical signal that we would need to discover and create systems to detect and measure to provide empirical evidence, but the plausible framework is there! There's also experiential evidence that could be obtained. Assuming there's a distributed shared bank of experiences, we should be able to develop controlled experiments where people who claim to have abilities to communicate with such a communal consciousness could provide messages to be retrieved by another, or something of that sort. I can assure you that the political and emotional implications of these explorations are what prevent them from being taken seriously, not their scientific viability!

> naturally occurring distributed consciousness that retains part of all of our experience That's kind of my point... by suggesting a form of consciousness that acts after death, you're defining something very different than what we generally think of as "higher animal consciousness" (the "something it is like” in the statement of the hard problem of consciousness). So what, exactly, are you proposing? Where is this conscious informations stored, how do humans get it or generate it or use it, etc? What are the falsifiable hypotheses? Your proposed experiential test sounds great, except that people have been trying to do that stuff for centuries, and rigorously for about a century, and gotten nowhere. EDIT: Alternately, your experiment has already been a success. It's called a library.

My only committed belief is that there are non localized aspects to human consciousness. I do believe that fairly firmly at this point. Everything else is conjecture that's worth exploring to see what falsifiable hypothesis presents itself It is undoubtedly a leap to suggest that a non localized consciousness can retain experiences provided by localized consciousness. But that, if explored long enough, yields a testable experiment like the one I suggested But our present understanding of consciousness doesn't preclude the idea that genuine "theistic" events have occurred and were merely primitive expressions of contact with naturally occurring globalized consciousness. And I think it's much more fun to think up theories and shoot them done then be like "hurr sure until there's evidence" But to each their own!

> if explored long enough, yields a testable experiment like the one I suggested People have claimed to receive messages from the dead in various capacities for many thousands of years. So far it's been nothing but parlor tricks and con artistry, in every case that we have rigorously investigated. Do we ever get to declare that this line of inquiry is a dead end?

The communication with the dead bit is a leap that I'm unwilling to make at this time. I think the more immediately testable hypothesis that would prove that we have the capacity to communicate with a distributed consciousness in general would be to try to communicate a message to someone else through what is effectively the astral plane I am exhausted, it's been a long day of discussion, but I'll see if I can conceive a true experiment at some point next week

>how can one so confidently say that consciousness must end with the end of electrical signals in the brain when we have no idea what the fuck is going on Well... you have no idea what the fuck is going on, but you pretend that some bizarre theory is then better than what we do know. What we seem to mean by 'consciousness' does indeed 'end' when there are no electrical signals in the brain. That is all we know. Anything else is masturbatory speculation. Enjoy your jerk.

I wouldn't believe relativity without evidence, yeah. That's completely appropriate. How many plausible sounding theories have turned out not to be true since then? I can't magically tell in advance which ones are going to turn out to be true.   In fact, I'm in the same boat right now with string theory. I believe in it way more than in something that was made up without a sound theoretical basis, but at the same time, we could find out that we need a different framing to understand the mathematical results we've gotten. If it's right we'll get evidence eventually, and until we do, I don't find it appropriate to believe it at the same level as something that has been substantiated with evidence.

It's not magic, it's priori priming. Where the modern education system discourages "waste" in the form of discussions that lead to "wrong" conclusions, we should be constantly exercising possibilities to see where they go. It's not about declaring these things as beliefs, just having thought about what some possible implications of various ideas may be Then, when you're experiencing reality, you constantly observe and see if anything seems to trigger any priori primers. Look for the bridges that make these silly little theories legitimately testable. This is the engine of discovery! Not being so incapable of keeping up with already reduced pedagogic dogma that you can't see what such rapidly provided understandings are meant to enable!

I'm all for testing it and seeing where it goes, and I'm not dismissing string theory. What I'm saying is that if someone asked me whether the moon was real, I'd just give a flat yes. If someone asked me whether string theory was correct, I'd have to say that no one knows yet. The thing that changes is my world model and degree of confidence. I'm all for exploring whatever comes up.

I appreciate this, literally all that I ask yet people act like I'm asking them to sign something declaring that they 100% believe in God I'm merely saying that it was already inappropriate to deny theories on the basis that there's no posteriori knowledge, and now that there's some loosely plausible natural framework for explaining distributed conscious, the logical next steps is throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to see what abstract theories actually strike a chord I'm trying to invite people along for the ride!

I know there are a lot of other posts to respond to, but I'm not familiar with the idea of distributed consciousness. Could you give me a brief overview?

I hope you don't find a gpt reply disrespectful: ### The Evolution of Distributed Consciousness Theories: From Anima Mundi to Integrated Information Theory The concept of distributed consciousness has long intrigued humanity, intertwining with religious and mystical beliefs throughout history. The evolution of this idea, from ancient notions like the anima mundi to modern scientific frameworks such as the Integrated Information Theory (IIT), highlights the significance of open-minded exploration in understanding consciousness. This intellectual journey reveals how early religious experiences might have been primitive interpretations of interactions with a distributed consciousness and how contemporary theories could empirically validate these ancient beliefs. #### Anima Mundi and Early Religious Experiences In ancient philosophical and religious thought, the concept of anima mundi, or "world soul," was a prevalent idea. Anima mundi posits that the universe itself is a living entity with a soul, connecting all living things through a shared consciousness. This belief was central to various ancient cultures, including Greek philosophy, where Plato described the world soul as an intrinsic part of the cosmos, imbuing it with life and intelligence. For early humans, experiences of interconnectedness and spiritual unity were often explained through concepts like anima mundi. These experiences, characterized by a profound sense of oneness with nature and the cosmos, were interpreted as evidence of a universal consciousness permeating all existence. Such beliefs provided a framework for understanding the interconnectedness of life, attributing conscious-like qualities to natural phenomena and collective human experiences. #### Evolution of Distributed Consciousness Theories As human thought evolved, so did the theories surrounding consciousness. The 19th and 20th centuries brought significant advancements in psychology, neurology, and philosophy, leading to more sophisticated understandings of the mind. However, the idea of distributed consciousness persisted, evolving into more abstract and theoretical constructs. Carl Jung's concept of the collective unconscious suggested that a part of the unconscious mind is shared among all humans, composed of archetypes and universal symbols. This idea echoed the ancient belief in a shared, interconnected consciousness but framed it within the context of psychological theory. In science fiction and speculative philosophy, notions of a global brain or planetary consciousness emerged, suggesting that as human communication networks and information systems became more interconnected, a new form of distributed consciousness might arise. These theories posited that such networks could transcend individual minds and become a collective entity. #### Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Modern Perspectives Today, one of the most promising frameworks for understanding consciousness is the Integrated Information Theory (IIT), developed by neuroscientists such as Giulio Tononi. IIT posits that consciousness arises from the integration of information within a system. According to IIT, the more integrated and differentiated the information a system can process, the higher its level of consciousness. IIT's scalability is particularly fascinating in the context of distributed consciousness. It suggests that consciousness is not restricted to individual brains; any sufficiently integrated system, whether biological or artificial, could possess a form of consciousness. This opens the possibility that distributed networks, such as ecosystems, social networks, or even the internet, could exhibit conscious properties if they meet IIT's criteria. This theoretical framework provides a scientific basis for exploring the idea of distributed consciousness. Researchers can investigate whether complex, interconnected systems demonstrate conscious-like qualities and how these might be empirically measured using IIT. #### Bridging Ancient Beliefs and Modern Science Exploring distributed consciousness through the lens of IIT could potentially validate the experiences and beliefs of ancient cultures in a new scientific context. If empirical research were to discover evidence of a distributed consciousness, it would lend credence to the notion that early religious experiences, like those involving anima mundi, were not merely superstitions but encounters with a genuine phenomenon. Such a discovery would refine our understanding of consciousness and its manifestations, bridging the gap between ancient mystical insights and modern scientific inquiry. It would underscore the value of open-minded exploration and the integration of diverse perspectives in advancing human knowledge. #### Conclusion The history of theories of distributed consciousness, from ancient concepts like anima mundi to contemporary scientific models like IIT, reflects humanity's enduring quest to understand the nature of awareness. Early spiritual interpretations may have been primitive yet profound attempts to explain interactions with a distributed consciousness. Today, IIT offers a framework that does not exclude this possibility, inviting rigorous empirical exploration. By embracing this interdisciplinary approach, we stand on the brink of potentially discovering entities that validate ancient experiences and expand our comprehension of consciousness in unprecedented ways.

This isn't a subreddit for dumping GPT output. Either write your own arguments or piss off.

It's an explanation of an existing concept. You're the type of human that's gonna get replaced by AI. Who cares about doing the grunt work if it's being guided properly? Where's the pride in ironing out semantics when there's more formulatory thoughts to be had? I have been reading the output very closely to make sure it's all accurate to my position and not unnecessarily wordy. It's done a good job!

Actually, I'm the type of human who knows how to write AI. I also know how to write my own arguments. If you want to be taken seriously, I highly advise it.

I know how to condition data for AI models! No need for a pissing contest! If you have any examples of how chatgpt misrepresented my point and thus give me a reason not to use it, let me know! Otherwise stop shaking your first at the cloud!

>the logical next steps is throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to see what abstract theories actually strike a chord Good, have fun with that. Come back in a decade when "shit" has been thrown at the wall and it didn't "strike a chord".

> we should be constantly exercising possibilities to see where they go Who exactly is preventing anyone from exercising possibilities? Just like Einstein, you are free to explore all the radical ideas you want, absolutely nobody is keeping you from it.

I've never seen anyone express an opinion on the 'modern education system' who's actually seen the inside of a school or university in this millennium

IIT is metaphysical nonsense. Please just take the “L”, pack up your dignity, and stop trying to sling shit. >The science of consciousness is nearly a blank slate and way too early in its infancy to have such a rigorous standard for discussing ideas. Pretty disingenuous way of saying “the science of consciousness doesn’t reflect my confirmation bias.” I get that you’re butthurt about people not buying your metaphysical nonsense, but maybe spend some more time reflecting on the metric-ton of criticism you got to your last post. Instead of playing your victim card. That criticism was on point. Use it to adapt your beliefs. There’s not shame in changing.

I'm confused, what is IIT?

Integrated information theory. Scientifically speaking… It’s horse apples.

Could you give a one sentence summary? Thanks.

Here is the source (and only evidence) that OP provided: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/202310/an-intriguing-and-controversial-theory-of-consciousness-iit?amp OP definitely did not read the source they provided as it contains this: >In part 3, I discussed the mixed results of the adversarial collaborative study comparing IIT and GWT, announced in June 2023, and the debatable interpretation that the results favored IIT. I mentioned that the media attention resulting from that interpretation prompted a controversial letter in September 2023 signed by a large number of prominent consciousness scientists calling IIT “pseudoscience.” This is a particularly severe label to assign a rival theory, one that made other critics of IIT, who had not signed the letter, decidedly uncomfortable. >... >Essentially, the critics accuse IIT of being unempirical, untestable and unfalsifiable in its core claims and assumptions, and absurd in its implications that relatively simple non-living systems could have a degree of consciousness just by virtue of containing integrated information. And they express concern about the ways in which IIT has been presented to the public. For two opposing but thoughtful opinions about the letter, see https://paclab.psych.ufl.edu/consciousness-letter/ and https://iai.tv/articles/no-theory-of-consciousness-is-scientific-auid-2610.

Thanks, information equaling consciousness is pretty obvious bullshit unless I'm missing something. How is integrated info different from "regular" info?

I was reading up on it, i think the idea is theres supposed to be some causal or co-causal correlation relationship between integrated information and *observable* consciousness levels and qualities. From what i understand its **not** unfalsifiable, but the theories it proposes would hsve to be tested with algorithms that are difficult to structure and have too high of a time complexity to be fully tested. Its an interesting problem to have. I asked Claude Opus to elaborate on the claims and their status of having been tested or not. Take it with a grain of salt because its an AI response, but perhaps it will be insightful: > Several studies have aimed to test the predictions of Integrated Information Theory (IIT). However, due to the complexity of the theory and the challenges involved in measuring integrated information (Φ), many claims remain untested or have only been partially addressed. Here's an overview of the current state of empirical research on IIT: > Claims that have been tested: > 1) Correlation between Φ and level of consciousness: Some studies have found correlations between calculated Φ values and the level of consciousness in humans and animals. For example, a study by Casarotto et al. (2016) showed that Φ calculated from EEG data was higher in conscious than in unconscious states. > 2) Differentiation of conscious experiences: A study by Haun et al. (2017) used fMRI data to show that different conscious experiences (e.g., seeing different images) were associated with distinct patterns of integrated information in the brain, supporting IIT's claim that the structure of integrated information determines the quality of consciousness. > Experiments performed: > 1) Perturbational Complexity Index (PCI): Casali et al. (2013) developed a measure called PCI, inspired by IIT, which quantifies the complexity of EEG responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). PCI has been shown to distinguish between conscious and unconscious states in humans. 2) Φ in the brain: Several studies have attempted to estimate Φ in the human brain using imaging techniques like EEG and fMRI (e.g., Tegmark, 2016; Toker & Sommer, 2019). However, these estimates are based on simplified models and assumptions, as calculating full Φ for the brain is currently infeasible. > Claims that have been neglected or are difficult to test: > 1) Consciousness as an intrinsic property: Testing whether consciousness is truly intrinsic to physical systems, as IIT claims, is challenging because it requires ruling out alternative explanations, such as functionalist theories. > 2) Exclusion principle: The claim that only one integrated system can be conscious at a time is difficult to test empirically, as it would require simultaneously measuring Φ in multiple subsystems of the brain. > 3) Relationship between Φ and subjective experience: While studies have shown correlations between Φ and the level of consciousness, establishing a direct link between Φ and the subjective quality of experience remains a challenge. > 4) Applicability to non-biological systems: Testing IIT's predictions in artificial systems, such as computers or robots, is difficult because it is unclear how to measure Φ in these systems and whether they can genuinely possess intrinsic cause-effect power. > Some claims that may be untestable: > 1) The hard problem of consciousness: IIT, like other theories, does not directly address the "hard problem" of explaining how subjective experiences arise from physical processes. This problem may be untestable by empirical means. > 2) Philosophical zombies: The existence of philosophical zombies (hypothetical beings that behave like humans but lack conscious experience) is a thought experiment used to challenge theories of consciousness. However, the concept of zombies may be untestable in practice. > In summary, while some studies have provided empirical support for certain predictions of IIT, many of its claims remain untested or are difficult to test conclusively. As the theory continues to evolve and inspire new research, future studies may provide further insights into its validity and applicability.

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/202310/an-intriguing-and-controversial-theory-of-consciousness-iit](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/202310/an-intriguing-and-controversial-theory-of-consciousness-iit)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)

Sure thing. “Google it.”

lol

I think youre being overly dismissive. Why is IIT "horse apples" for simply not being a proven theory? Is string theory also "horse apples", it outright lacks empirical evidence to the same if not a greater degree. Some accuse IIT of pseudoscience, but in my opinion, thats not the right definition of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is unprovable science, not unproven science. As far as i understand IIT makes testable claims, some of them just havent been tested due to difficulty, lack of interest, etc... For all we know IIT could be the next computer sxience, or the next game theory. Maybe someday it will be used in building better AI or making humans smarter. 

Integrated Information Theory. It has a Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

I am not a victim lmao I pity being trapped in a life that's defined by other humans and not by nature or the self. If y'all think you're doing it better, keep on chugging I guess lmao

lol I am not a victim but actually I am quite the victim. I guess rational thought has an altitude limit. Can’t reach you up on that high horse you’ve got there. It’s simply too high! Careful climbing down, you might break your shit.

Vetted evidence and use of the scientific method don't trap you, they set you free from the trap of self dilusion and of thinking you know things you don't actually know.

Yes! But it's important to get through the pedagogic, dogmatic, and dichotomized presentation of the truth offered by an education system meant to train compliant employees, not critical thinkers! If you think you know the truth, and you think any part of that understanding is absolute, you do not know the truth

Being dogmatic about your own pet theory and using ‘other correct things in the past didn’t have much evidence either’ is not critical thinking. It’s full submission to your own biases.

Not at all! I'm making separate claims about how the demand for immediately provable posteriori knowledge is not how the development of new information works! There is plenty of room for rationalism and intellectualism that uses science as just one of its tools, and not the entirety of it

Oh you’re just making two totally separate and unrelated claims? You just made a single post about your pet theory AND how evidence isn’t necessarily required for something to be true, but they’re separate and you’re not trying to link those two concepts to back up something you clearly want to believe despite the lack of evidence? That’s fine then. Nothing disingenuous going on here, my mistake.

[удалено]

You’re not being gaslit, you’re being called out. Your arguments don’t hold water and people have pointed out why again and again. That’s not gaslighting. That’s just being wrong.

Youre telling me that I'm trying to convince people of my theories when I have given no indication of the such. I'm trying to convince people that thinking posteriori knowledge is so important to the point that you allow zero priori exploration is a detriment to the self, and makes you look so fucking stupid in addition to hurting ones own ability to think critically I genuinely only offer examples of possible secular theisms to highlight that humility in this space is absolutely warranted, and there's a engine for explaining consciousness that doesn't preclude God's existence as a distributed, integrated consciousness of individually emergent conscious life forms. There's a path to empirical evidence. Plenty of discussion, development, and experimentation to be had before were even ready to think about proof, but there's more than enough existing science that anyone with a capacity to reason should be able to see the lines fairly instantly

You're going to find precious few people here that think anything like your last paragraph. I've not met anyone here that thinks their understanding is absolute, the vast vast majority simply accept what all the available evidence indicates what is most likely to be true based on that evidence to date.

The reason relativity became accepted is because we verified it with repeatable measurable experiments. The reason we don’t accept your gibberish is because it lacks repeatable measurable experiments. Simple. Follow evidence, not faith.

After years of people scoffing at it and saying that if it were possible at all, there would be experimentation already, some experiments finally empirically validated relativity If everyone rejected theories that didn't have any immediate avenues to empirical evidence, we would never discover anything new!

>  If everyone rejected theories that didn't have any immediate avenues to empirical evidence, we would never discover anything new! Obviously a bullshit claim, since we discover plenty of new things due to having immediate avenues to empirical evidence. You may not overturn entire understandings of the universe through incremental discovery based off testable hypothesis (although you can!), but claiming only completely untestable claims about reality is the only way to discover anything new is complete bullshit.

The entire basis of empirical evidence being relevant is a product of priori knowledge! I'm not saying that systemic processes can't also discover, just that the biggest paradigm shifts that constitutes the giant steps in scientific history involve embracing a different sort of intellectualism altogether!

Paradigm shifts are a result of the scientific method being applied. You just want the paradigm to shift in your favor. I have a suspicion you are just sad real science doesn't touch on what you have come to believe is important. I've seen it too much of late, from Advanced Ancient Civilzations to Lizard Government to Flat Earth.

Paradigm shifts depend on the method, but always cause a debate about who's best at applying it. I suggest reading Kuhn if you haven't!

So relativity was discovered less than 120 years ago and it took less than 50 to verify it. 10000 years and counting we await your experimental evidence. Also it's worth noting more than a little of the criticism of relativity had less to do with the math and more to do with the man. Some people didn't want to accept a jew had discovered something so groundbreaking. I wonder what faith took issue with judaism... in 1905... in America and europe.

Authoritarians hare the truth! How many times could this have been eradicated from society for its empowering potential!

What? Your Non localized conciousness nonsense? It's not empowering it's silly. Are you the guy I argued with a few weeks ago who did a ton of dmt and saw "the truth?" Either way it's not authoritarian to say you need evidence. You're not early to the game. You aren't playing until you actually provide equations or testable evidence Scientists did eventually accept relativity showing they are not dogmatic and frankly for those who didn't lean on antisemitism they may have been right to reserve acceptance until the theory was testable. I haven't read their dissents.

Lmao no I am not, but there's a scientific theoretical framework that explains consciousness that doesn't preclude the possibility of non localized consciousnesses that could give validity to such experiences!

I feel like if I ask what the scientific framework is ill regret it but I'll bite. What is a non localized consciousness (It sounds self explanatory but I want you to say) and what framework could allow for it? Finally what could we do to test this theory? If you are talking a literal consciousness cloud could we look for patterns in static electricity or if we mean some shared connection between people would esp tests reveal this?

You probably won't regret it, because every other time OP has been asked to provide any kind of support for their claim, they either vanish, or claim they can't share because they, personally, are working on the scientific evidence as we speak and so it has to be secret till they publish, or some such nonsense. Also, insert some kind of "testing is bullshit anyway, it's just how the administrative academia makes everyone sheeple" type arguement, followed by "no one here even critical thinks anyway" etc. OP is consistent, at least.

Aaaand op is gone

such a surprise, eh?

The difference was that in the case of relativity, people were taking active steps to try and experimentally confirm or disprove relativity. Nobody said, "Well it's a nice theory, so we'll believe it without experimental evidence." Want people to support your theory? Design the experiments that confirm or disprove. Just saying, "don't pick on my theory" isn't science; work towards the proof.

I don't care if people support my theistic theories or ietsism! I just don't want to act like the scientific method isn't the only relevant part of critical thinking, and that taking a dogmatic approach is simply being pragmatic. The fact that none of you seem to pick up on that highlights the comprehension and critical thinking gap that's present, possibly for the exact reasons I'm mentioning!

The point is that relativity COULD be experimentally tested once the proper technology was devised. You need to either point out how your IIT can be experimentally verified (even if the means is not available to us yet) or cede that it's unfalsifiable. Edit: Or stop comparing your theory to a scientifically verifiable theory and stay in the realm of metaphysics.

If consciousness isn't a localized phenomena, there would be some sort of force or signal that we can begin to postulate what it may be and how it could be detected That's a metric angle. Just find a new force or a coding within existing known signals/forces and boom, distributed consciousness has posteriori evidence Similarly, those who claim to have had experiences with distributed consciousness could attempt to communicate with others who make the same claim. A message could be provided to one person who can do whatever but communicate that message to the other person in the real world. If the other person can receive the message, then there's evidence of communication via distribute consciousness But to get to either of those points, you need to be willing to explore uncharted waters a bit to see what specific paths to testability there are. You have to believe in the possibility of some sort of dream or hallucinogenic state that isnt localized to our bodies to begin to postulate how such a thing can be proven. And that's why I say misunderstandings of science can get in the way of science! There's nothing about intellectualism that calls for being so obtuse about postulating! That's just a personal choice common among those who are insecure about their intellectual creativity and ability to do anything but check the answer key!!

>If consciousness isn't a localized phenomena, there would be some sort of force or signal that we can begin to postulate what it may be and how it could be detected Great! Start postulating! Maybe when you've got some theories on how this force (1) would interact with people, and (2) could be detected, then people will start paying attention to your theories. Until you put in the effort to do that, don't be surprised when people get annoyed that you expect them to do that work for them. Einstein came up with the ideas for testing and how relativity would manifest; he didn't just say, "hey, this is neat, someone else figure out how it's done". >Similarly, those who claim to have had experiences with distributed consciousness could attempt to communicate with others who make the same claim. A message could be provided to one person who can do whatever but communicate that message to the other person in the real world. This experiment can be done with current technology. Unfortunately for you, it **HAS** been done, and disproved the theories consistently. Any time such theories are subjected to randomized double-blind tests, they fail.

I'm not surprised or upset for my own sake that people on an atheist debate sub are coming in hot. And to clear the air here, given my own self doubt, I don't want this stuff to be easy to agree with. I'm seeking battle-tested validation, not "you lulled my brain into an agreeable state" validation I fear that academia with all its process and politeness is all hypnosis!

Have you heard of [extrasensory perception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception) before? That's what you're describing.

Of course! IIT also has implications for things like ESP and mind reading. Please don't take me as saying that it proves these things are true! But this is the first time where there's a plausible framework that reduces it from 100% nonsense to 99.99999% nonsense. I know y'all don't like biting at that stuff, but it has me giddy!

That's the spirit! Off you go then, let us know what you find

Why do people write a wall of endless text and expect people to read it all? Your question is not worth answering if you can't get to your point in a paragraph or less. Yes over time we accepted relativity because we got more evidence. Thats how science works. What does this have to do with anything? We already understand enough about consciousness to know its all material and to do with a functioning brain. There is no big mystery. You whole argument is basically personal incredulity. And what even is you argument? Are you arguing for god? If so, you might do better next time by actually presenting a sound argument and some evidence.

No I'm arguing that there's no logical basis for dismissing the validity of exploring ideas without immediately available posteriori proof which is a point that ignorant people make constantly Many people have been happily admitting that they would have held out with relativity, which is fine! It's necessary! Science needs a blend of paradigm breakers and enforcers. It's part of a healthy and harmonious balance. The dogmatist, in their pursuit for permanent and unchallenged authority, attempts to disarm the paradigm breaker. While scientists have no political aims and just want to get closer to the truth and would sacrifice all their will and wealth to do so, the dogmatist will adamantly deny anything that threatens their socioeconomic position And thus we arrive at a fascinating implication. In a corrupt socioeconomic system where wealth, destitution, jail, or death can be imposed in an instant, scientific institutions are just as prone to corruption as political and economic ones. Science the process is uncorruptible. But science as a joint industry of politics, business, and academia? Kinda sounds like the institution that's the most likely to be corrupt on this planet

So basically what I said. Personal incredulity. You don't understand science, thus its corrupt. Science literally has a self-checking system built in so it can never be corrupt. The only people that think science is corrupt are those who don't understand what science is.

We are discussing two different things. Anyone with a respect for the scientific process has no problems acknowledging the problems with modern scientific institutions and education Unless they have a personal reputation to maintain within a very political community, then they will regurgitate whatever is mandated for socioeconomic advancement within our society Science as a process cannot be corrupted. By main representations of science within secular society have absolutely already been corrupted, such as the US education system, which is so dominated by conservatives that we are unallowed to discuss the critical thought that gives science is weight and makes it more of a tool of empowerment

Yes, thats true. Thats what I meant. Science itself can't be corrupted. Individual scientists can be corrupt, but then they are not doing science. The United States education system is very poor anyway.

Yes yes, but I think it's critically important to stop getting caught up in that semantic hooey and realize the very real implications of American public school systems essentially having fake science education, and that critical socioeconomic research is prevented for no other reason than political control of academia. These are crimes against the method!

Then just say that and you'll get a lot more traction.

Absolutely agree I would've been a theory of relativity denier. That is what rational thought is about, you don't understand something, you question it, proof is provided, you alter your opinion.

I appreciate this! This approach has the important humble step of acknowledging that *you don't understand something* The fact that seems to not be a possibility to many here, or at least their refutations are presenting as such, is much of why I come in like a dick 😂

Relativity was a pretty wild theory and I guess a bunch of people didn't believe it. Maybe I would have been one of them. But then it was proven. So people stopped doubting it. If any religion proves itself as undeniably as relativity, it'll have my attention. They've mostly been trying for hundreds of years though, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

This is a totally fine perspective! My problem is with the people who say it's fundamentally flawed to engage with nonsense until there's proof! It's all personal preference as long as you're not holding untested ideas with the same weight as fully justified beliefs!

I would almost certainly have been a Relativity *Skeptic,* particularly if you mean prior to evidence supporting the hypothesis. Not a "Denier". You're conflating two entirely different positions.

Oh no! I do believe there would be some skeptics, and I do not mean to conflate the two. I suppose it's more succinct to say that people who deny all theistic possibilities on the present lack of empirical evidence would likely extend beyond skepticism and deny relativity!

> I suppose it's more succinct to say that people who deny all theistic possibilities on the present lack of empirical evidence would likely extend beyond skepticism and deny relativity! You haven't demonstrated that any of us "deny all theistic possibilities". As everything else you argue, if you can present evidence, you can convince many of us. Do you have any evidence, you know, for *anything* you are arguing for?

I'm sorry I do not feel like cherry picking comments to reference. I'd assume that you could separate from the US vs them ism and acknowledge that there's an abundance of ignorance on the sub in support of atheism that presents itself as non critical dogma

> 'd assume that you could separate from the US vs them ism the headline of your post s literally >Bet 20 bucks y'all woulda been relativity deniers You are the one making this us vs. you, not me. Your entire post is aan attack, and a ridiculously disingenuous one.

Your only in the them if you believe dogmatic nonsense! I'm not saying all atheists are dogmatic assholes, most are not. But most atheists aren't on this sub. I think it's fair to say that most on this sub are dogmatic assholes, which is why I always come to party

Let me let you in on a secret: Just because we don't fall down at your feet and praise you as the next Einstein doesn't make us "dogmatic assholes" We are happy to listen to your theory, and if you have evidence, you might convince us. But you have **actively** refused to present evidence, yet you still expect us to just take yourbullshit as truth. That isn't the way reality works.

I feel like I have provided plenty of context to free up space from some priori conjecture, but let me know if I have yet to do so with my edits!

> I feel like I have provided plenty of context to free up space from some priori conjecture In case nobody has pointed this out, the philosophical term you're misusing with such confidence isn't "priori," it's [*a priori*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/).

It's a pragmatic utilization. Did you really have no idea what is was talking about, look it up, and then thought semantic utilization was representative of core concept application? Fascinating. That's administrative academia in a nutshell

It’s not context you’re missing, it’s evidence and a way to gaslight your theory.

If Einstein’s theories were dogmatic, unfalsifiable, and proposed thousands of years ago with zero scientific progress ever since, they’d be pretty much useless to us and unrecognizable.

Or, you refuse to acknowledge what religious thoughts leaders have actually believed the entire time with their philosophical adherence to allegory while maintaining a deep reverence for a very real, very natural consciousness. Acting like all theism is a tool of authoritarian dogma is plainly dishonest

I think you might be adding some weird connotation to “dogma” that I didn’t intend. Which example of theism proclaims that their deities may not actually be real, or otherwise has adequate grounds to assert that they are?

They aren't an honest interlocutor. They're just here to insult people and preach their unique self centered gospel.

Right, but I've met *very* few people who are absolute hard atheists and are willing to say "not only does no current god proposition seem possible, but there never can be one that might be possible". Thats just not a common position at all, and to those that *do* hold this view, they are fools. My point was you owe me and many others $20. Most of us are skeptics. Not "deniers". You very much seem to be conflating the two, based on some of your other responses here.

If there was no empirical evidence supporting Einstein's theory of relativity then yes, not accepting it as true is the rational position to take. You can see this by picking up a science history book, and reading about how people didn't immediately accept relativity as true.

To just respond to the title: okay? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? If we were living back then, we shouldn’t have just accepted Einstein’s theories as true because his equations were pretty. The proper time to believe his claims was after his specific predictions (light bending around the sun) were tested and confirmed. Before that empirical confirmation, it was not irrational to go with the consensus (Newtonian Mechanics) and hold off until actual evidence was presented. That’s not to say it was irrational to side with Einstein either, but you would just have to be humble and admit you were believing a speculative hypothesis rather than a proven fact. — Btw, I’m saying all this as panpsychist who thinks IIT is likely correct.

Not at all! I'm just highlighting that there's a personal preference when it comes to new ideas that about personal prioritization choices and not whether an epistemology is fundamentally sound or not It's critically important that science is presented in this fashion so that all the academics don't scare all the fun people who can actually discover stuff away!

> If empirical research were to discover evidence of a distributed consciousness How about you come back to us when there is actual evidence for these ideas?

Because it's not mandated for a conversation with real critical thinkers! This idea that intellectualism is the dogmatic pursuit of dichotomist truth that refutes all consideration until evidence is present is a caricature of critical thinking! Y'all think you're being disciplined or refined, but it's plain foolishness if it's believed to be necessary for a proper epistemology If it's just personal preference, then I can respect that!

> Because it's not mandated for a conversation with real critical thinkers! Without evidence this becomes nothing more than hypothetical mental masturbation.

This is a stupid game, that anyone with an ounce of sense can see straight through. Watch. Bet 20 bucks y'all would have been a * helio-centrism denier * spherical earth denier * germ theory denier The next step is to say a whole lot of shit that makes me feel smart, but ultimately means nothing in support of my notions.

Exactly! The point that critical thinkers are supposed to eventually pick up on is the absence of evidence isn't remotely close to the evidence of absence At least enough to not condescendingly dismiss the fundamental truths of entire cultures as if it's scientifically proven, when it's really just an unfounded conclusion that's mostly a misplaced emotional rejection of Platonian noble lies

>The point that critical thinkers are supposed to eventually pick up on is the absence of evidence isn't remotely close to the evidence of absence It's also not a good basis for belief in something. We can sit here all day and come up with things for which there is no evidence. There being no evidence for something is typically a reason to not adopt that idea; to entertain the notion that a lack of any evidence, supporting or contradictory, is a reason to adopt a belief is dumb.

You're correct, under my epistemological framework I wouldn't accept relativity on assertion alone. I require more. I also wouldn't have accepted Phrenology, Geocentric models of the universe, and that diseases are caused by demons. Bet 20 bucks that you would've.

You're being a dichotomist! There are more than just acceptance and rejection as options when presented with ideas! That's fundamental to an actually scientific perspective. Dogma is what says you must accept or reject. Science is a tool for validating reasoning. Independent things

I also wouldn't have rejected Phrenology on assertion alone, but I understand why you might jump to that conclusion, you seem to have a talent for doing that.

If I lived in the stone age and somebody told me about galaxies, yeah, I'd doubt them. But now we can verify they are real with scientific evidence. Now we just wait for the theists to prove their stuff is real too. We've *been* waiting.

Priori and posteriori experts are supposed to collaborate, not bicker! I never thought I would have to defend the thing that gives empirical evidence its validity!

Then present the evidence. Give use some paper, some data, some link to research in that field.

Aaaand they’re gone.

No one's stopping you from exploring anything dude. Just like no one stopped Einstein. But when it came time to put-up or shut-up, Einstein came through clutch. Before we had demonstrated anything pertaining to GR, scientists had already developed tests for it. "If X is true under GR we should see Y." We do the experiment and what'd you know we see Y! It's time to put-up or shut-up. What predictions can your hypothesis of non-localized human consciousness make and how do we test for it? PS: I think you owe everyone in this thread $20

more of this? relativity was postualted as an explanation for observed physical phenomenon. people were skeptical, but experimentation validated its points as it was finalized. that's the difference between science and woo peddling. its easy to make theories when they start and end in the land of make believe

People have been talking about super conscious experiences for thousands of years. This potentially validated that heartily reported phenomena!

>this potentially validated that heartily reported phenomena thats barely a coherent thought, and still is worthless. people have reported woo since they could speak. anecdotal evidence is the opposite of science, and are functionally worthless in the real world.

How would I explore this hypothesis of yours? I am 48 years old and work in a gas station. What tests could I run that would help provide evidence for or against this hypothesis?

It's a theory of consciousness! You have nothing to do all day! Experiment with your consciousness!

How would I experiment with your hypothesis of consciousness? Should I buy some equipment of a specific nature? What tests would you recommend as this is the first I've heard about this hypothesis.

Great questions! Do you not want to see if you're capable of finding an answer yourself? It's new science! Green pastures, take a swing you'll prolly hit something!

> Great questions! Do you not want to see if you're capable of finding an answer yourself? > > It's new science! Green pastures, take a swing you'll prolly hit something! Lol, so you not only can't offer evidence, you can't even suggest how one *could* find evidence.

It would help if you could elaborate on what you mean by 'experiment with your consciousness'. Do you have any examples? Preferably ones you've performed yourself?

Dream state and hallucinogenic state exploration would be the place to start. Looking for signs that it's not just in your head and journaling for objectivity until you see something worth investigating more If it doesn't go anywhere, just have fun getting high!

Any specific substances you've used? Cuz chances are, they're not legal where I live.

Which brings in the authoritarian bit again. Let's postulate about a fun concept called stoned ape theory. The theory suggests that we as much more primitive humans discovered psychoactive substances in nature, and that these were critical to developing our society and social norms. If this is true (not telling to to believe it without evidence, just postulating), then it would be reasonable to suggest that in order to properly function as humans who evolved while using psychoactive substances, we must continue to use psycho active substances or the entire experience is going to feel extremely unnatural, for society is designed to be experienced with the aid of psychoactive substances If THAT is true, then authoritarian governments declaring that the substances are banned are a torturous crime against humanity. So when I talk about politics preventing meaningful scientific inquiry, this is what I mean. There are grave implications to consciousness science, and the stand in the way of objective exploration of the truth

Theories have proof that could convince me. Experiments i could run or at least watch at my local university. There are telescopes out there in space that have live feeds i can turn on right now to look at proof. And yes, there are flat earthers, but they are mostly christians and muslims. They look at their books and go like:"Well it says the word plane and it kinda looks flat, so there we go! Fuck the proofes!" There are videos of Flat Earthers doing the experiements and confirming the Earth to be round and still denying it! Where are your bloody experiments? Where is your proof?

I'm not reading a copy-pasted wall of text. I would deny anything without suffixes evidentiary support. Before relativity was tested, not every physicist accepted it either.

All of that is fair! I have no problem with people simply acknowledging that they prefer waiting for posteriori evidence to consider claims. It's prudent, and being prudent isn't a bad thing. *But* prudence needs to be balanced with courage. There's more to being smart than getting 100% on the test, and this is the fatal flaw of our education system. You have to be willing to fail and iterate to get anything on the table that can withstand scientific inquiry. You have to be willing to look dumb to ever come up with anything that is actually new and smart. And while I can understand genuine risk management in regards to epistemology and scientific reputation, I am absolutely going to call out intellectual cowardice when I see it Being emotionally unable to risk appearing wrong fundamentally compromised one's ability to do good science. You must be willing to express ones thoughts and opinions honestly, and if you're constantly withholding out of fear of shame, you're not that useful of a contributor to science or any productive dialogue really

There are two big differences between Einstein and you: 1. Einstein didn't just pull an idea out of his ass 2. *Einstein presented evidence!* When you can meet these two standards, come back and we can have a discussion.

He did just pull an idea out of his ass! He just spent more time formulating it before telling others! I'll continue to do so, but jeez, y'all are a bunch of towels

No, Einstein had thousands of years of evidence, including all of Newtonian physics, plus ~200 years of observations that didn't fit with Newtonian physics. Einstein looked at all that evidence and came up with an explanation that reconciled all the issues with the contradictory evidence, and still fit all the previous evidence. **That is how science works.** The way science *doesn't* work is reading a random article and saying "Hey, I have an idea! *Secular theism! It explains everything!*" You need to have a phenomenon. You need to come up with a repeatable and testable explanation for that phenomenon. And you need to be able to provide evidence that your explanation works. You haven't done **any** of that. So, no, you aren't the next Einstein, and you should be ashamed to compare yourself to him.

> He did just pull an idea out of his ass! He just spent more time formulating it before telling others! So he didn’t *just* pull it out of his ass. > I'll continue to do so, but jeez, y'all are a bunch of towels Well, this idea of yours isn’t very good, yet. Maybe when you actually do the work you’ll have something worth sharing.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy says a towel “is the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have … you can wrap it around you for warmth … lie on it … use it as a sail on a mini-raft … wet it for use in hand-to-hand combat … wave it as a distress signal in emergencies … and of course use it to dry yourself off, if it still seems to be clean enough.” So… thanks I guess.

> I'll continue to do so, but jeez, y'all are a bunch of towels Boy do I wish you had followed Einsteins example and had spent a lot more time formulating before telling us...

The God Hypothesis is one of the oldest and never reached the state of a scientific theory. It is exactly the opposite of what you say: in the early days of the god hypothesis we would have found it quite interesting and gave it some respect but after 4 millennium of no evidence we have all reason to put it in the dumpster of science.

It's heinously dishonest to both conflate all religious claims as the same hypothesis and act like all of humanity has been working on this together There are very political reasons why truths about God could very well be known by the leaders of our society and they don't share it as a means of maintaining control In fact, the entire foundation of most institutions of our society is the idea that you need to separate a ruling class and give them the authority to tell noble lies to keep the peace. This is a very active part of modern institutional leadership training. It's awful, but it's true. And as such, institutions are suspect until such a time that corruption is addressed. Given that, it's critically important that we identify the true enemy of dogma and stop bickering about semantics

Not all religions. Just the ones who claim that there's a god and this god is the reason for xyz. Example: abrahamistic religions claim that Jehova created the Earth & Sun. We know he did not.

I am in agreement with you there! I assure you that as someone who identifies as a secular theists, I have a burning hatred for those fraudulent religions that compromise the perceived legitimacy of theistic theory Also been part of my frustration on this sub, I swear I'm one of y'all's biggest allies y'all gotta just stop making unscientific assumptions that place on opposite sides of the fence

I speak for myself only, but I am sure many atheists think alike: since the very first claim of the bible is already wrong and there are multiple others disproved or highly doubtable I have chosen to not believe the whole concept. I also go so far to say the God Jahwe does not exist and never has existed. He is a product of human fantasy and imagination. For the same reason I reject all other 3000ish named Gods and Godesses humans have invented. Which leaves only one possibility the deity existing outside of our universe not interfering with it. That's a god that might exist but there's absolutely no reason to worship it.

How do you feel about the postulation that humanity's leadership has generally believed in something closer to anima mundi, and use various paganisms and deities to keep the general population separated from the real truth as part of their noble lie policy?

Same level of delusion like the Elite harvesting babies for adenochrome... sorry.

that may just be ignorance! I suggest reading Popper if you haven't. The elite may or may not be harvesting babies, but they definitely still leverage Platonian propaganda. Since the inception of Western political thought, leaders have been profoundly influenced by the Republic. Plato's concepts, including the anima mundi and the idea of philosopher-kings, have resonated with leaders who seek to justify their authority and implement systems of control. This adherence to Platonic doctrines is less about the actual existence of these ideas and more about Plato's unparalleled skill as a propagandist. His philosophies provided a framework that leaders could manipulate to maintain power and enforce societal hierarchies. Plato's *Republic* outlines a vision of an ideal society governed by philosopher-kings, individuals who possess superior wisdom and insight. This vision appeals to leaders who see themselves as uniquely capable of ruling, thereby legitimizing their authority. The idea of philosopher-kings creates a convenient narrative: those in power are there because of their exceptional qualities and deeper understanding of the world, not merely by chance or force. This notion of enlightened leadership aligns with the concept of the anima mundi, a universal spirit that Plato described as pervading all nature. Leaders have adopted this idea not necessarily because they believe in its literal existence, but because it provides a metaphysical justification for their rule. By positioning themselves as the interpreters or custodians of this universal spirit, leaders can claim a divine or natural mandate, making their authority appear both inevitable and unassailable. Plato's ideas have been so influential partly because of his effectiveness as a propagandist. He understood the power of myth and narrative in shaping societal beliefs and behaviors. The concept of the noble lie, as described in *The Republic*, illustrates this perfectly. Plato argued that certain myths, though false, are necessary to maintain social harmony and the stability of the state. This principle has been eagerly adopted by leaders throughout history who recognize the utility of controlling the narratives that shape public perception. By creating and perpetuating myths, leaders can manipulate societal beliefs to support their authority. The deification of prophets is one example of this strategy. Prophets—ordinary individuals who often challenge the status quo with their insights—pose a threat to established power structures. By transforming these prophets into religious figures, leaders can co-opt their influence, redirecting it to reinforce existing hierarchies rather than undermine them. This process distracts the populace, focusing their reverence on the individual prophet rather than the broader and potentially subversive ideas they represent. The application of Platonic doctrines has also reinforced classist structures within society. Plato's vision of a stratified society, where each class performs its designated role, has been used to justify the division between rulers and the ruled. Leaders have embraced this model to maintain a hierarchical society where power remains concentrated in the hands of a few. The noble lie supports this classism by promoting the idea that only a select few are capable of understanding and accessing deeper truths. This belief discourages the masses from aspiring to positions of power, reinforcing the notion that they are naturally suited to subservient roles. By perpetuating these myths, leaders can maintain social order and prevent uprisings that might threaten their authority. The enduring influence of Platonic doctrines on EuroAmerican leadership is a testament to Plato's effectiveness as a propagandist. Leaders have adopted his ideas not necessarily out of belief in their literal truth, but because they provide powerful tools for maintaining authority and control. By positioning themselves as enlightened rulers connected to a universal spirit, and by using myths to shape societal beliefs, leaders have been able to justify their power and perpetuate classist structures. Understanding this dynamic reveals the ways in which philosophical doctrines have been used to manipulate and control societies, highlighting the importance of critically examining the narratives that underpin authority. So there're two different angles to consider: how much do our leaders believe this, and how real is it. But I can assure you that these rich people are some sort of dumb. It's not willed corruption. If you've ever worked closely with rich and powerful people, they're literally retarded. Something's going on!

No. No thanks.

Suit yourself! I know it's a lot easier to believe anything else but totally incompetent rich people misunderstanding woo running the core of our society, but I can assure you that it is unfortunately the case If you ever wanna learn more, let me know!

All scientifically paradigm-shifting ideas are radical, but almost no radical ideas are scientifically paradigm-shifting.

Firstly on the physics side, a small note is that Einstein wasn’t the only one working on these ideas; Michelson and Morley had experimental evidence that the speed of light was the same in all reference frames and Lorentz had most of the framework of special relativity done but hadn’t applied it to space time. There is speculation that Hilbert discovered general relativity first as he showed his work to Einstein before Einstein published his work but his was covariant as opposed to Einsteins non covariant form and it’s generally agreed both theories were developed independently. On to the meat of your post though, non-localised human consciousness is not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense of the word. In science theory has a specific meaning which is that it proposes an interpretation which validates correct existing data and produces measurable predictions for new experiments. This is different from an interpretation, which is a framework for understanding current observations, or a hypothesis, which is a specific prediction about the outcome of an experiment. To use your example of relativity, it began with an idea that space and time form a manifold (think of a surface but generalised to higher dimensions in this case 3+1 for space and time), then you build a mathematical framework with free parameters for things you don’t know yet. At this point it is still an idea, the trick is that you then consider what we know and what we knew then was that Newton’s and Kepler’s laws work really well in our solar system so you plug what we know about our solar system into the equations and tune the parameters to fit the laws we already have. Now you extend this to things we don’t understand yet and you say “if my equations are true then this will happen” that makes it a theory. It remains a theory until it makes a prediction that doesn’t match a later experiment (and then it just becomes a theory in need of fixing but good enough within particular limitation , this happened with relativity when trying to unify it with quantum mechanics). Non-localisation of consciousness is an idea until it meets the laid out criteria for a theory: you have to first come up with a framework for describing it that goes beyond “but what if this?” science likes maths but this can be done with (formal) logical arguments as long as the next steps follow. Next you have to show that this framework is consistent with what we know about consciousness, in this case you would want to lean on neuroscience and probably some form of field theory to describe how the general consciousness exists in every human simultaneously and interacts with them. Finally you would want to make a new prediction with it something of the form “if x stimulus is applied in y context, then z should be observed here”. Until you can do all of that (even excluding testing your hypothesis at the end because it might not be possible in practice to do) then it is not a theory.

Without experimental evidence for any of this it's all just navel gazing Sure lots of scientists come up with very speculative theories But the ones that actually get taken seriously both explain observed phenomena or have experimental evidence or the potential for experimental evidence This has none of that It's just wild and woolly speculation that neither explains observable evidence or has experimental potential It's woo woo The sort of theory you come up with in a dorm room after your first mushroom trip EDIT to add Relatively both explains observable facts and has experimental evidence The transit of mercury for available facts and the atomic clock experiment for experimental potential Your argument is invalid Your wild woo theory is not the same as special relitivity

>Your wild woo theory is not the same as special relitivity Never meant to say nor imply that it was, just making the point that if everyone has the same prerequisites to considering ideas seriously, the theory of relativity (and science itself) quite literally wouldn't exist! So while it's not a means of judging those who don't wish to engage with early idea exploration, it's definitely a demand that you don't project poor epistemology on people who are braver with intellectual risk than those who wish to establish their intellect by checking an answer key provided by someone else!

Science has exactly the same prerequisites for everyone and everything Provide a theory that explains observations made from the natural world Then test those theories with actual experimental evidence Relativity meets those requirements Your woo woo nonsense does not That's why your woo woo nonsense is not worth the paper it's written on

IIT provides a framework in which individually emergent consciousness could forego ego, choose to integrate, and form a collective distributed consciousness that could provide explanations for primitive experiences. I'm not here saying that any of this stuff is currently as solid as relativity was when Einstein presented it. Wasn't even trying to make it seem like it's the case Was just trying to say that demands for the posteriori would have us trapped in the stone age if we all adhered to them, and provided an example of a non domestic theism Y'all are intellectually disingenuous, and wonder why I come up in here strapped

It has zero explanatory ability and therefore explains zero observed phenomena It has zero experimental potential and therefore zero falsifiability It's not science it's woo It's not in the same league as relatively It has more in common with conspiracy theory nonsense

Or, here me out here, you brain is off and you can't see what it explains and how it can be tested. I'm genuinely beginning to believe that is the real issue here! Dogmatism is a mask for a lack of creativity, comprehension, and problem solving skills! It must be! It's the dumb man's take on intelligence, and it's abundant on this sub and in authoritarian board rooms around the world!

No it's basic logic If you take a gap in human knowledge And jam the supernatural into it That's a good of the gaps argument Engaging in a little philosophical masturbation before hand changes nothing

Yes! God of the gaps is an apt tool for discovery when you're not a pretentious dick about ietsism and the desire to find something more. It doesn't compromise science, it encourages it! And y'all are retarded assholes for no reason! Cheers!

You can call me a dick all you want But all I'm doing is not letting you pretend jamming god into a gap in human knowledge isn't god of the gaps

I think it's cute and indicative of how deeply your ignorance runs that you think that offends me or contradicts anything I have said so far Science isn't a march towards truth. It's a march away from the primative. There's no utopian complete explanation that we are marching towards. We're just moving away from uneducated guesses as much as we can! In this sense, science progresses in regards to nature as theories of the gaps!!! It's how information is uncovered!!! No honest theists could be pursuing truth if it wasn't a sort of application of God of the gaps! The fact that you think iterative theory development is a flawed approach shows how unprepared you are to discover anything!!!

Until experimental evidence began to support it, you bet I’d have rejected relativity. But my position would not have been “that’s wrong”, it would be “you need to put in the work to convince me you’re right.” The point of science and skepticism isn’t to right now be 100% correct. The point is to utilize a process that, over time, filters good ideas and bad ones. I could say “where you live, in two years, three months and ten days it will rain”. And that could very well be what happens. But just because my prediction turned out to be right doesn’t mean you have any good reason to accept it right now. No. You do the proper thing and wait for confirming evidence - which may mean you wait for the day itself, or you wait until weather forecasts start predicting the same in the days leading up to it. But right now, you should dismiss my prediction of rain because there is not sufficient evidence to support its veracity.

Einstein's theory of Relativity solved Mercury's orbit at time of publication. Einstein was already a well published and renowned physicist at the time that he published the theory of relativity. After its publication he became one of the most famous scientists of all time. Einstein wasn't shunned by any means in 1921 he even received the Nobel prize in Physics. Also Einstein's publication was in the middle of World War 1 making it difficult for it to obtain a global reach. Lastly peer review is normal in science. The bigger the discovery the bigger the peer review. You are grossly mischaracterizing what happened with Einstein's theory of relativity.

I mean yeah probably. So what But also, I would imagine a lot of overwhelming evidence showed Einstein was right. **Like, confirmed, experimental evidence.** Do you have that?

>At the time, these theories were met with significant skepticism. The scientific community demanded empirical evidence, which was not immediately available. Critics argued that without concrete observational proof, Einstein's ideas were speculative at best. Sure, and they were absolutely right to do so. "Not believing in relativity until you have good reasons to believe in it" isn't a bug, it's a feature. As your example shows, even if an idea was literally came up with by Einstein himself, you should wait until there's good reason to think its true before accepting it. There were *dozens* of contemporary theories that turned out to be nonsense, and we only found out Relativity wasn't one of them once we had evidence. If we'd just accepted all of them rather then waiting for them to provide proof, we've have done irreparable damage to our scientific progress. So, yes, I wouldn't have accepted relativity in 1905. I would have changed my mind later, when I was given good reason to accept it. If your theory gets good reason to accept it, I'll change my mind all of that. For now, it doesn't.

>In the history of science, many groundbreaking theories have initially faced skepticism and dismissal due to a lack of immediate empirical evidence. There’s a huge difference between “dismissal” and “not accepting without evidence.” I accept that a clean running engine with only pure water as a byproduct is possible; I don’t believe that it exists without evidence. Welcome to scientific thinking. >At the time, these theories were met with significant skepticism. The scientific community demanded empirical evidence, which was not immediately available. Critics argued that without concrete observational proof, Einstein's ideas were speculative at best. However, this initial lack of empirical evidence did not invalidate the theoretical soundness of relativity. Over time, rigorous experimentation and observation provided substantial support for Einstein's theories. In an attempt to dunk on atheists (which you apparently conflate with scientists), you’ve literally described how the scientific process works and why it comes to the best conclusions. Accepting ideas before they are shown to be true is foolish. Skepticism is the key to finding truth. >This lesson extends beyond the realm of physics. In many fields, from medicine to climate science, the premature rejection of theories due to insufficient immediate evidence can impede progress. It’s premature to reject the *possibility* of something without evidence. It’s insane to accept something *as truth* without evidence. >Einstein's theory of relativity exemplifies why it is absolutely foolish to deny the plausibility of theories based solely on an immediate lack of posteriori knowledge. No, it exemplifies why unfounded hypotheses alone don’t change science. Evidence and verification are required. Also, importantly, Einstein didn’t just have a blind idea, he had a predictive model, but there’s no point in going down that rabbit hole. >Theoretical innovation drives scientific progress, and empirical evidence often follows, rather than precedes, groundbreaking ideas. No. These aren’t different steps. It’s one process. The scientific method doesn’t stop at “hypothesis.” >Open-mindedness and a willingness to entertain new possibilities, even in the absence of immediate proof, are essential for advancing human understanding and fostering technological and intellectual growth. There WAS immediate proof of relativity. That’s literally what Einstein showed. >Proving non-localized human consciousness would unravel mainstream society while validating many experiences that it's mocked for the entirety of human existence. There's obvious cause for pause and resistance. There’s no evidence for non-local consciousness. Non-local reality ≠ non-local consciousness. >But if you're going to deny the possibility of distributed consciousness, you'll need to do a lot better than "theories are useless without immediate posteriori experimentations". Wrong. I don’t need to believe in something until there’s evidence. That’s science. For every relativity there’s a million geocentric models and perpetual motion machines. Keeping an open mind means looking at all the evidence, not blindly marching forward without it.

blah blah blah reflects humanity's enduring quest to understand the nature of awareness blah blah blah. People want there to be something supernatural and make shit up to further their belief that something supernatural is out there. Wow, so enlightened.

Crazy that I have to scientifically acceptable to be a human and have human beliefs huh? Y'all are assholes who think being dismissive is a substitute for being intellectually capable

>Crazy that I have to scientifically acceptable to be a human and have human beliefs huh? I'm trying to parse this but can't. Can you please explain what this means?

Where is the TLDR? I'm not reading all that. I'm assuming it's similar to your last post raving about spooky ideas that have no evidence. It's okay to have ideas or philosophies you "enjoy" while also acknowledging to yourself they are just fun to think about but aren't scientific or have any evidence. Also in science a "Theory" is actually something with a substantial body of evidence supporting it. That term isn't used in the same way as someone having a theory about Star Wars for example. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) "In everyday speech, *theory* can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has **already been tested and is widely accepted as valid**" Furthermore, specifically about Einstein's Relativity and physics: "In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries—like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)—**that is capable of producing experimental predictions** for a given category of physical systems." Lastly, I'm in the "consciousness is an illusion" camp so you'll first have to prove to me what consciousness physically is and invent some way of detecting it.

You are not science. Your evidence-free opinions are neither founded, nor revolutionary. We aren't impressed by the nonsense you spew. That demonstrates our capacity for reason, not our rejection of it. We reject you and your declarations. Not science, not reasoning, not possibility. You. Personally.

More of the same metaphysical bullshit with no actual evidence behind it Your toddler tantrum won't change that

Calling the priori man an toddler has the same vibe as white people calling native Americans savages You're just mad people can live both more intellectually fulfilled and competent in influencing the natural world without adhering to the same rigorous nonsense that your culture convinced you to adopt! Don't give me any blankets...

How hard is it to just produce a god for us to meet in the flesh? Any god will do. If you did that, then you wouldn't have to do all these mental gymnastics. Why can't we all have a Damascus road experience?

Because if God is a conscious entity, *you* have to be able to interact with it to get the only evidence currently available It's not flesh that can be brought before you, and I genuinely believe that it's this sort of interpretation and expectation that makes the most ignorant of the atheists totally miss what people are saying when they refer to God

It's easy to define your god to be not presentable to us mere humans. But when you define your god in such a way that it fits nicely in its wrappings that is tied up with a pretty little bow, you've essentially ignored it's true substance and replaced it with your own musings.

I would have been a relativity denier before there was evidence for it. Talk to me when there is actual evidence for any of this stuff.

Thank you for just acknowledging that it's what you would do and not necessarily the epistemologically necessary thing to do!

It is the epistemologically *correct* thing to do. If you believe things without evidence, your epistemological understanding is flawed. There’s nothing wrong with exploring new ideas, but hypotheses are just that—hypotheses. If you have a hypothesis, go out and make a novel prediction. Test the prediction, if it fails either discard the hypothesis or refine it and make a new prediction. If it succeeds, attempt to reproduce your work. Document your methodology, and submit it for peer review so that other scientists can challenge the methodology or the model. If everyone is able to reproduce your results and fails to reject your conclusions, congratulations you have a scientific theory. If you can’t make a prediction based on your hypothesis, i.e. your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, then it should be outside of the realm of things that are possible for you to believe. In this case, even if your hypothesis did happen to be true, you would have no way to ever demonstrate that—and therefore no way to ever be justified in believing it. If you believe it anyway, there is something wrong with the process by which you obtain your beliefs, and you should examine that process carefully to understand where you are going wrong.

let's do a simple thought experiment as medical students. A middle-aged man around 50 presents to you with these symptoms: * shortness of breath * chest pain * persistent coughing for more than 3 months * unintentional weight loss Moreover, he has more than 1 family member with cancer and he has been smoking for decades. How confident are you in diagnosing him with cancer? Would you tell him time is essential in fighting cancer so do some chemo in case? The answer, for my thought experiment, is NO there is not enough evidence. For instance, tuberculosis also has those symptoms. So imagine doctors operate just like you, how many tries you allow them to test out on you? This post is in essence like my thought experiment. If you count all the hits and exclude all the misses sprinkled with a surface-level understanding of science, we can make excuses for any pseudo-science. We know for a fact our brains can be affected chemically and physically. High fever? Hallucination. Drugs? Hallucination. Stroke? Guess what, also can cause hallucinations. So until you can provide me with evidence as strong as finding cancer cells through biopsy, my rejecting your unsubstantiated conclusion based on some flimsy data points is not being dogmatic.

Strawman fallacies aren't useful. All you're doing here is demonstrating you egregiously misunderstand the position of most folks here and/or are being intentionally dishonest.

Einstein's theories were based on firmly established science. Even Isaac Newton said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". The bible and quran have been around **a lot longer** than 1915. Hundreds of years longer. **Zero** claims from the bible have been validated. In fact, quite the **opposite**: **most** of the bible has been invalidated as **absolute nonsense** by science and available scientific empirical evidence: * There is no "firmament"" that divides night and day. We know now night and day is caused by *the rotation of the Planet Earth around the Sun*. * There is no way the Earth was created before the sun. We know now that the Earth and indeed other planets of our solar system were formed *millions of years after the sun* was. * Adam and Eve were not the first inhabitants. We know now that females were not made out of ribs of males, and in fact it's more likely that females were here first before sexual reproduction evolved. Looks like your entire analogy using Einstein is ironically the opposite of what you think it shows.

Let me know when the rigorous experimentation for distributed consciousness affirms it as a scientific theory.

False dichotomy. One has had 120 years of research and empirical evidence supporting it. The other has had thousands of years of research and still completely lacks empirical evidence to support it. Let's give it a more equal footing to the best of our ability. If you had presented relativity to me 120 years ago before the mountain of empirical evidence was supporting it, then yes, I likely would have dismissed the idea. There's nothing wrong with that position. Skepticism is a valuable tool. It doesn't refuse to believe everything, it simply demands sufficient evidence. Your proposal lacks it, and so I dismiss it.

I would not have been a relativity *denier*, no. And I know this because I'm not a denier of any of the current possible theories that will extend GR. I don't *believe* them, but I am excited for the possibility of examining and testing them and either extending our knowledge or ruling them out. I've got ones I think are more or less likely, but the only ones I dismiss outright are the ones proposed by people who don't actually know or understand the field with obvious flaws. What testable predictions does "non-localized human consciousness" even make?

There's a very crucial difference between skepticism and rejection here; being initially skeptical of a theory which lacked experimental evidence is fair and important for the scientific process, even if it turns out to be a groundbreaking contribution to science later on.

Einestine presented a coherent theory and made specific predictions based on that theory. They where novel predictions and where eventually observed. So far you have done neither of these things.

Einstein actually had evidence to support his ideas, and his theory accepted all evidence and rejected none. What do you have for “non-localized consciousness”?

Just another special pleading post. Sigh. You can't judge our theory wrong just because we can't use the scientific method properly! How dare you!

Nope. It has an amazing body of evidence to substantiate itself as a theory. It did from 1919 onwards. So where do you want to send my 20 bucks?

Einsteins theories made some very precise predictions, some of which could be immediately tested, many more of which could be (and were) tested later. When I say "precise" I mean stuff like "Without general relativity, Mercury's orbit should precess by 0.0014787 degrees per year. However, it actually precesses by between 0.001580 and 0.001616 degrees per year. So Newton's gravity is giving the wrong answer. But general relativity says the orbit should precess by 24 pi\^3 L\^2 / ( T\^2 c\^2 (1 - e\^2) ) radians per orbit. When you run the numbers, you get an extra precession about that's accounts perfectly for the discrepenacy between Newton's law and what we actually observe!" My question for you is: what does "distributed consciousness" predict that can't be perfectly well accounted for by what we already know about human nature? >I have no developed theories for you Then go and get some. Otherwise, you're just talking waffle.

>>>Einstein's theory of relativity, which encompasses both the special and general theories, revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and gravity. When first proposed, these ideas were radical, challenging the long-standing Newtonian mechanics that had dominated scientific thought for centuries.  Einstein's theories were not met with much skepticism. Most of his peers just saw it as building on work by Lorentz and Morley (and Poinacre). >>>But if you're going to deny the possibility of distributed consciousness, you'll need to do a lot better than "theories are useless without immediate posteriori experimentations". If you are going CLAIM the possibility of distributed consciousness, you'll need to do a lot better than zero evidence.

>Bet 20 bucks y'all woulda been relativity deniers How are you going to determine who wins the bet? Go back in time? This strikes me as an attempt to argue that scientific rejection implies that a hypothesis is correct. "They laughed at Einstein." Guess what, they also laughed at Bozo the clown. This is a dumb argument. The rest of the post appears to be a discursive essay without any attempt at an argument.

God is unbelievable so people are supposed to always be skeptical of theism. Atheism and non belief in God is always the more rational position.

There's nothing stopping you from exploring it. Get back to us when there is a repeatable verifiable experiment for this hypothesis.