Our disagreement is not blind, several of us have repeatedly compared your ideas with science and the scientific method and have explained to you that your ideas have nothing to do with it. Science is not blind. It is the only way known to understand nature.
You are not science. You do not speak for science. 'Explaining' that
an idea is not scientific is not the same as explaining why
an idea is not a potential source of truth (scientific, philosophical, or otherwise). Anyone can say 'you have no evidence' or 'what you say doesn't make any sense'.
As you claimed they do not openly reject your ideas. I came up with some possible ideas why they don't.
Rather than accept the reality that my friends are normal, highly intelligent people such as yourself who do accept the possibilities of my ideas, you come up with some derogatory ideas about people you've never met...and you still see nothing wrong with that.
That's not relevant in that situation. I do no need to care about my or their friends. We are anonymous to each other.
We are anonymous here too, penkie. We don't need to care about our friends here either.
They will only evaluate my ideas. And if they reject them, I won't whine to them that my friends DO like my ideas and that they're too arrogant not to. See the difference?
There is no difference. I only brought up the fact that there are other people who are receptive to these ideas to counter the perception that the vocal members on my threads constitutes a typical reaction.
But we'll see how you behave in the future.
Is that your personal condescension/threat or are you speaking for science?
Order and disorder are basically equivalent terms. Entropy is a measure. Your 'idea' is similar to entropy. The principles of entropy have been discovered. I call your ideas no discovery, because you do not derive them from facts, but just make them up.
Entropy applies to physical measurement, not awareness subjectivity. My view of order encompasses all pattern, coherence, or identification, exterior or interior, subjective or objective. Order is not just a quantitative measure, it's qualities of experience.
What is the relation between them? And how could we know if a certain relation indeed does exist or doesn't?
The relation that I suggest is that physical phenomena are the exterior aspects of objects while subjective phenomena are experienced within the interiors of objects. We know that the brain is made of molecules and that it's electrochemical behaviors can be mapped to subjective experience but we also know that this subjective experience cannot be accessed directly or predicted from the electrochemical behaviors. The brain could behave the exact same way without there necessarily being a conscious person there at all, just as a computer could function just as it does with or without a monitor/keyboard/mouse.
Further, I suggest that this dualism is itself dualistic, such that brain behavior and subjective experience are essentially linked, but existentially separate. Like a tree has roots that go into the ground and it has branches and leaves that go into the air. They are two ends of the same phenomenon. The trunk is neither root nor branch but it unites and separates them.
Psychologically, I can observe in myself and in others, that attention to one side of the tree or the other can become habitual and shape a person's expectations about the world, and that categories of experience and observation make sense when organized along a continuum from purely physical to purely experiential.
There is no real duality or paradox, it's just hard to put it into words what the QM formulas mean.
I think it's just moving the paradox to reality so that the formulas make sense. The formulas do make sense, it's just that the reality they describe doesn't fully make sense of the reality we experience, and that's why they are hard not only to put into words, but to conceptualize at all.
But QM is not exactly baseless, it has been predicting many phenomena that have been countlessly verified to be correct. It flawlessly models every micro-scale experiment we can come up with. What is there to reject about that, what is there not to fit with reality?
You act as if I'm rejecting QM. I'm not. QM is critical to understanding the exterior behavior of matter. Matter does behave as if these things exist when we observe them certain ways, I'm just saying they can be interpreted just as well and maybe more accurately and meaningfully without the necessity of a substance-like energy conductor.
What does your everyday macro life has to do with it?
My everyday macro life is made of matter. Why would scale alone change the ontology completely?
The fact that you don't intuitively understand GM reality doesn't matter in the least. Reality doesn't care. Just coming up with some explanation, without mathematical framework, that just 'sounds right' doesn't mean that it is right. Actually, usually that sort of explanations are very very wrong.
That's fine, but someone has to tell me what I'm very very wrong about and not just state how improbable it is that I'm right. I know that it's improbable that I'm right. So what?
Groups of bacteria are cooperating, just like the entire human body consists of cooperating cells. This doesn't say they are 'aware' or that their behavior cannot be precisely modeled.
Just because something can be precisely modeled doesn't mean it has no capacity to detect. The cells of the human body have awareness too - that's where our awareness comes from. We are a logical abstraction layer that arises from the awareness of the cells of parts of our central nervous system. Why is that so noxious to entertain? Where else would our consciousness reside but inside of our brain?
Similarly atoms and quarks are interacting via the four known forces and in that sense coordinated. That doesn't attribute any 'awareness' to them either, and does not subscribe subjectivity to them either in a psychological sense.
It doesn't rule it out either. You really think that before life evolved there was no awareness in the entire cosmos? Just intangible silent processes in the dark for eons until suddenly out of nowhere, awareness happens to appear, along with, for the very first time, the entire rest of the cosmos? You take awareness for granted. I don't.
Small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity? Could you please define what subjectivity is, according to you?
I don't do definitions but how about 'Subjectivity is the ability to experience'.
Properties of complex systems need not come from any of their parts, but can be part from their configuration alone.
Only if there exists the possibility for the configuration to yield the particular property in the first place. You can't get lasagna from a diamond and you can't get self-replicating, conscious, living organisms from a universe of tiny billiard balls.
Might be. But truth does not equal whatever makes the most sense to you.
That's all I'm asking for. 'Might be'. I'm under no delusion that the few weeks I've been tossing this idea around constitutes truth, but no matter how many times I try to express that, I get slammed for trying to outwit every genius put together. 'Might be' is all these ideas deserve, but it's also all that they need to be to warrant further exploration.
I don't believe that. You seem to purposely construct your ideas so that nothing much can be said about them, or measured by them. That was the reason you originally placed them outside the scientific field. I don't think that anything can change your mind. I've already said many times that without experimentation and validation your ideas about the universe are completely useless and senseless.
I don't purposely construct my ideas at all. I didn't originally place them anywhere. I agree that it's hard to experimentally validate or measure them, but that's part of what I'm saying - subjectivity is hard to experimentally validate. Prove your beliefs exist. Does the fact that you can't make them useless and senseless?