It is a very poorly outlined term that appears to something brains attached to bodies do.

In terms of brain states consciousness takes on many forms including wakefulness and dream states.

To me it is a bit like the problem of defining god. We can only talk about things in the terms we have. At the moment I don’t think we have the kind of concepts needed to get to it properly just like talk of quantum to Aristotle would be beyond his comprehension - due to a lack of modern concepts we take for granted.

Depends what you mean by ‘exist’. In some ways ‘matter’ doesn’t exist and in others it does. Semantics can be pointless trap though.

We know that atoms are mostly ‘empty space’ and what we call ‘solid’ is actually not exactly ‘there’. Either way the experience on the macro level is convincing enough for me to run away from people trying to hack me with axes.

So? What is your point. I am not going to discuss where life begins thanks! Consciousness is enough for now :D

Also, if insects are conscious, then we're getting pretty close to panpsychism. — RogueAI

Yes, that is why I think it is a reasonable idea. We are limited in what we can and cannot say. When it gets stretched out to atoms though I just see that as a stretch too far (to say the least!).

Of course the whackiest ideas in the world may produce fruit. If evidence in the future gives more and more people a reason to explore it so be it.

I don’t know. I do know that everything displaying qualities I relate to consciousness possesses a brain (in order to ‘feel’).

I generally view a body as a requirement for consciousness too, but that is a whole other area.

Because you asked (was it you?) why panpsychism is a reasonable idea so I tried to show that it reasonable to state that multicellular organisms are ‘living’ one a different level compared to single cells.

Panpsychism is more or less like this but it far more difficult to discern what is or is not in possession of consciousness.

Yes? But I don’t regard a singular cell as anything like myself. Is that hard to understand? I am far more expansive in terms of living and interacting with the environment. I am a collection of singular cells in communion not merely an isolated single cell.

I'm not clear what point you're making with the talk of "rudiments", or your remarks about language. — Daemon

In the cognitive neurosciences studies have been done that show markedly similar functions in communication in some species that can be seen in humans. Birds have one ‘component’ (we will call it) whilst other species have others (components such as melodies, learning, and grammatical structures) and we have them all.

A bacterium is a single-celled organism which I regard as being alive. — Daemon

Me too.

Given that neurons seem damn important for thinking I’d rule out bacteria. Ants … they certainly do not appear to be conscious like I am and nor do dogs for that matter. Maybe they can be said to be ‘conscious’ in some rudimentary fashion and even have processing that could be called ‘thinking’ in some fashion? Who knows? Bees appear to be quite clever in some ways, btu appearances can be deceiving.

First you have to explain what you mean by ‘conscious’.

He literally set out to create a ‘science of consciousness’. That is all. He was not dismissive of science merely critical of the physical sciences encroaching upon psychology and such - rightly so imo.

Just read the first line and it is wrong. Predictions are based on the assumptions that there are features of nature common and repetitive enough to allow for accurate readings.

The ‘Laws of Nature’ are based on the assumption that they exist. This assumption just happens to have produced fruitful results, but at the end of the line it might just be that the said ‘Laws’ are in a constant state of flux and that our finite and minuscule perspective merely makes our predictive models seem more reliable than they are.

That said, we seem to have done pretty well as a species in terms of understanding in part the ‘machinations’ of nature :)

I cannot comprehend anyone in the distant future ever looking back at Newton and saying ‘What an idiot!’ (in terms of gravity) yet for those that believed in a flat Earth on the back of a giant turtle I can.

I admit it probably means something to you. All I can say is you need to push yourself harder if you wish to express it further and wider.

I can only suggest trying to talk more and explain more. Refinement will come in fits and starts at first but that shouldn’t discourage you I hope.

I won’t bother anymore because I seem to have bothered you.

Good luck. Genuinely.

That does not mean anything.

That is rather garbled. Science relies on predictive and explanatory models. We don’t suddenly state Newton’s Laws are ‘not true’ in the colloquial sense because they are still capable of giving highly accurate results.

True in mathematics is a matter of abstract truths. Such absolute truths exist only in abstraction NOT in nature (or if they do it seems impossible to me that they could be shown as absolute truths).

At the base level the grounding for all experimentation is not utterly solid. Descartes tried to reach for such and Husserl did too. Husserl basically came to admit to himself that there is not reaching any ultimate grounding but reaching for it is nevertheless a worthwhile task - he was not fond of ‘conclusions’.

I am assuming that you accept the fact that you are made up of multiple living cells. I assume that you don’t regard a single cell as ‘being alive’ in the same manner that multicellular organisms are alive.

It is not a huge leap from there to suggest something similar for consciousness given that we know so very little about consciousness and that it may just be that the rudiments of consciousness exist in a singular neuron just like a single cell it rudimentary to a living organism.

Maybe a combination of emergence and panpsychism makes more sense than either alone? I would put the idea that ‘atoms’ possess consciousness as reaching the realms of fantasy simply because to say such is to equate animal consciousness not merely with a neuron but with fantasies.

Inexplicably consciousness arises. We know that much. It seems pretty clear than not all life possesses ‘consciousness’ like we do, so to call anything different ‘consciousness’ to me seems misleading.

As another comparison we could look at how human language functions compared to simple organisms that have a means of communication. In fact many other animals possess elements of what we call ‘language’ yet humans appear to be fairly unique in that they possess these elements in a combination that allows for complex communication.

Panpsychism is an interesting idea that I believe some people take way too far, or misuse the term ‘consciousness’ when talking about atoms being conscious. It is not even a theory in its current state just an idea that could potentially open up other ideas that are more applicable.

If someone puts forward a model of panpsychism I’d be interested to look at it. As is it is just philosophical speculation with some people taking it into the realms of fantasy.

Okay smart arse … if life is ‘fantasy’ then all we know is ‘fantasy’ therefore the ‘fantasy’ is reality.

Understand?

There is no evidence that a spaghetti monster did not creat the universe either … so fucking what?

There is a difference between pure fantasy and highly speculative ideas. Sadly it seems some think the line is somewhere I don’t.

Pure fantasy.

What are you talking about? It is an idea as a means to approach a better understanding of consciousness. That is it.

You may as well ask what motivates anyone to want to understand anything.

I never said life was everywhere?

My point was simply to compare a single cell to multi-cellar organisms (both being ‘life’). To view these drastically different items of ‘life’ is kind of like viewing ‘consciousness’ as being made up of smaller parts that are conscious just like living organisms are made up of singular living cells.

This is not a view I find convincing I am just answering why panpsychism is a fairly reasonable point to suggest - it doesn’t necessarily have to mean every atom in the universe possesses an ‘element’ of consciousness; but some like to believe that.

Consciousness, as far as I can reasonably tell, is something that happens in brains. How? Not really sure, and no one else is sure either so there is no harm in thinking outside the box and proposing something like panpsychism really … it is just not something that anyone can offer up a testable hypothesis for right now so it is mostly a speculative idea.

Humans are creatures of habit. Memory is applied to to the mundane making it sacred. Be this a football stadium, church, house or a simple rock.

The story we apply to lived experiences creates a narrative that can be passed on and repeated. Needless to say such a ‘habit’ is kind of useful in terms of evolution as it helps us adapt to the environment and approach it from different angles rather than as a mere set of lifeless variables.

Without value there is nothing there for us to pay attention to. Without a means of applying or removing value we are not anything as stagnation of value is just as dead as having no value at all.

It is a reasonable step if you think about it. An animal cell can be alive yet it is not an ‘animal’ nor an ‘organ’. I think we can all agree that an animal requires animal cells and that animal cells, organs and full animals are alive.

Panpsychism is following this train of thought because ‘consciousness,’ like ‘life,’ is not exactly easy to pinpoint in a discrete way. Life just happens to be more easily outlined than consciousness on a more tangible level.

Would it be just to come to the aid of people in one nation where the powers that be are systematically killing/torturing/raping them?

In simple terms it is a just cause to stop such acts even if it meant going to war.

So you are just saying using intuition and scientific thought helps us to understand things? What is this ‘intuition’ you speak of? Is it Kantian or just regular kinda ‘instinct’ talk?

As a concept if there is no mind there is no ‘universe’ to speak of … as there is nothing to speak. I will grant you that. What I cannot see is an intelligible way to talk about ‘consciousness’ existing a few seconds after the big bang when there were no ‘conscious beings’ around. If there was a ‘being’ of sorts around it was most certainly not ‘conscious’ in any way we could begin to understand.

We only have one point of reference for ‘consciousness’. Anything else in some other time/space is not ‘conscious’ in any reasonably comparable manner unless such a being possesses a host of common features to humans.

Science doesn’t understand anything because science isn’t a conscious being.

To say that the universe is a medium for consciousness is no different than saying conscious being exist in the universe … which they do. That is not panpsychism it is just agreeing that conscious beings exist.

A major concern I have for both deism and panpsychism is talk of ‘other forms of consciousness’ existing outside if human conscious comprehension. I don’t see why we would call this ‘consciousness’ at all.

I know this. Unlike many here I do know how to look up definitions of terms.

My view was based on the premise that the ‘average joe’ takes propaganda as something more strongly attached to patriotism than anything else. I may be completely wrong about this, which is fine.

My thought was whether or not ‘propaganda’ (as in the real meaning) would be more or less of a problem if nationhood wasn’t a thing? I played with this idea as it seems to me that a lack of patriotism/nationhood would reduce tribalism to some degree, and that ‘propaganda’ relies on a sense of tribalism at some level. If the general population of the planet abstained from ‘patriotism’ then I suggesting that maybe ‘propaganda’ would not be as much of a problem. Not that patriotism is the singular driving force of propaganda but I do believe that tribalism is and that patriotism is a more substantial form of tribalism - even though there is some ‘good’ within it.

Very nice post. EVERYONE should read this one.

Those are ideological assertions.

An example might help?

He believes those concepts to be the ultimate truth and is very combative against anybody questioning their validity. — stoicHoneyBadger

If that is nothing to do with ‘ideals’ or an ‘ideology’ I have literally not idea what you are talking about.

I thought this was well known? The motivation is bound up in the problem of understanding ‘consciousness’. That there are many different people taking up the idea of panpsychism with various other motivations attached is secondary to the original point of trying to understand consciousness right?

Try reading Husserl on this subject. He was very much aware of the ‘foundations’ science stood on (or rather, the lack of solidity).

His main approach was to create a ‘science of consciousness’ and make firmer the ground upon which the more traditional ‘sciences’ stand.

“The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology”

I think it does and I think the term/s you are looking for are ‘ideals’ or ‘ideology’. If not tell me how what you are talking about differs.

Note: It is generally a bad idea in philosophy to keep making up new terms. That many terms are not exactly absolute/precise does not necessarily mea we need to keep remaking them (eg. ‘love,’ ‘war’ etc,.)

In terms of ‘concepts’ and how we develop said concepts through growth - from infancy onwards - we do not have hard and fast concepts at all. We build them over time gradually then extend them into other areas and see if they hold or not.

As an example when a small child saw a horse for the first tome she pointed at it and said ‘big dog?’. She understood that it was like a dog in some ways but she had no knowledge, and no concept to apply, to the animal she saw.

If we are talking about this in later years of life we still come across new words and often fumble with how to use them correctly. Again, we begin with a gist then refine it over time.

Compared to ‘ideals’ and ‘ideology’ that fits more with your stages. An ‘ideal’ is obviously taken for granted and not really so readily open to questions like a ‘concept’ is. Furthermore, as I have outlined, it might even be reasonable to suggest that ‘ideals’ and ‘ideologies’ are made up of ‘concepts’?

Would it be better to say what you are talking about is ‘ideals’ and ‘ideology’ rather than beliefs and concepts?

If not what is the difference?

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??). — Gnomon

Are you not interested in a well-established philosophical concept, that was taken for granted by some of the smartest people on the planet for thousands of years? — Gnomon

What is this concept of ‘god’? That is my starting question if the OP is asking about possible proof.

To say I am not interested in this couldn’t be much further from the truth. Religion and religious traditions have fascinated for a long time.

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??). — Gnomon

This is evidence of a sort. Someone believing something does not make it true (obviously). I have stated that I have experienced something that I regard as being what people refer to as ‘experiencing god,’ but the issue is that I am fairly aware how one experience can be viewed differently from different perspectives. All I can say is that there is something acutely important and powerful in the experience.

Such experiences happen to many people from all walks of life. The underlying theme is how difficult it is to express this to someone who has not experienced anything similar whilst simultaneously having the deep desire to do so because no one in their right mind would want to keep it to themselves.

I think the best way to talk about it would be something like how art can appeal to someone in such a powerful manner. Dawkins, as someone else mentioned, is moved to tears when listening to music. The experience I am talking of is something like that but it is universal.

I do not call it ‘god’ but I can easily see how someone else would. My first thought at having the most vivid and intense experience of my life was ‘why me? Surely someone else has had this, but if they have then why the hell are they not shouting about it?’. It was then I realised something along what I experienced had clearly been experienced by many others and that was why religions existed - some had the ability to express the experience more fully than others and people could not help but listen (as happened to myself briefly where everyone I met I seemed so easily able to connect with).

There is something about virtue, but no clear cut question or point.

Just looks like a half-formed thought with a heading that suggests there is an interesting discussion to be had.

yes. Do you a have a point? Spit it out