Why being "not emotionally" against it? Isn't just "not against" it enough? :smileI'm not emotionally "against" Panpsychism ; it serves a purpose. I just consider it a primitive way of understanding how immaterial Life/ Consciousness*1 could exist in a material world. — Gnomon
Most probably not. I hate Materialism. (Ooops! Here's myself feeling emotional about a philosophical system! :grin:)The other ancient worldview, Materialism (Atomism), had no answer for that metaphysical question. — Gnomon
This is true. Only I wouldn't reduce Spiritualism to "divine". It holds that spirit exists separately from the body and that it is the only reality. But this is not new and it is not only Spiritualism that believes it, but a lot of philosophers, who hold, e.g. that consciousness is the only reality and that everything exists in it. And no one of them uses the term "Spiritualism" or even use the very common word "spirit". Most probably because they are both regarded with contempt. Yet, the word "spirit" refers actually to the "non-physical" part of a human, and "spiritual" to a "non-physical" nature, attributes, elements, etc. Things about which a lot of philosophers talk. See, that's why I avoid using "isms". They are connected with misconceptions and biases.Panpsychism (all sentient) is similar to Spiritualism (all divine), in that it assumes that matter emerged from a mind-like or life-like progenitor, instead of the other way around. — Gnomon
This is an interesting concept and worldview. I only know a little about it.Enformationism updates all of those pre-scientific postulations, with inputs from Quantum & Information Theories. — Gnomon
Not glad about it, but I can accept it.Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". — Gnomon
I see here some invalidation of personal views. Because in here we are all amateurs and it seems that our personal views are not good or enough. And why a professional or expert vew is necessarily better? Do you agree with all the philosophers or known personalities about what they say? Of course not. Most probably with only few of them. Isn't it true?But, if you are willing to slog through an amateur philosophical thesis ... — Gnomon
Footprints mean feet, dinosaur footprints mean dinosaur feet. The Earth holds memory of the past as much as any brain. the information is there just as this post is here, but it is first in the writing, and later across the world in the reading that it becomes conscious. Or rather, a post is firstly a product of consciousness, and secondly an object of consciousness, or a content of consciousness. And to the extent that something of this is understood by another, we are 'of one mind'. This is called communication. There is a sameness produced when you see what I mean or I see what you mean. And, "where is this sameness or when is it?" are misleading, foolish questions.
I thought I knew me yesterday, because all knowledge is memory, but whoever writes this post is conscious, and that is not knowable, because it is presence, not the past. — unenlightened
I don't think rocks have consciousness. I think they may have proto-consciousness.The reasoning is this..
— Patterner
Totally agree with what you’re saying, but it seems to miss the point that it was intended to address, i.e. whether it makes any sense to say that ‘rocks have consciousness’. I for one think it doesn’t. — Wayfarer
If I understand you, I disagree with your premise. I believe you are insisting consciousness be explained by the physical. I believe it can't be, so I'm looking for something from which it can be built.To argue that consciousness exceeds all possible physical description is not to argue in favor of an extrapolation of consciousness over the rest of what exists. That is, what I am asking for is a type of inference or deduction according to which an inanimate being would have any kind of consciousness. — JuanZu
The information was born from your relation with the foot print, the relation of interpreter-interpreted. — JuanZu
Well, the only evidence of information you have is not the footprint, but something that you represent to yourself and assign more or less a truth value to. That is, information is the content that you have in your head (so to speak) and which you could transmit to another person. — JuanZu
Ah. Ok. I am but an egg.I'm stating the opposite. Most of the contents of consciousness cannot be described in physicalist terms. But it doesn't follow from this that inanimate objects possess consciousness (whether to a greater or lesser degree). It's a non-sequitur. — JuanZu
The information is there in the sand, literally imprinted as a record of the shape of the foot that trod there. — unenlightened
Footprints mean feet, dinosaur footprints mean dinosaur feet. The Earth holds memory of the past as much as any brain. the information is there just as this post is here, but it is first in the writing, and later across the world in the reading that it becomes conscious. Or rather, a post is firstly a product of consciousness, and secondly an object of consciousness, or a content of consciousness. And to the extent that something of this is understood by another, we are 'of one mind'. This is called communication. There is a sameness produced when you see what I mean or I see what you mean. And, "where is this sameness or when is it?" are misleading, foolish questions.
I thought I knew me yesterday, because all knowledge is memory, but whoever writes this post is conscious, and that is not knowable, because it is presence, not the past. — unenlightened
Actually, — JuanZu
Have you noticed that my posts usually have two or more parts? The first part is my abbreviated "personal view", and the second part is other people's views (often experts & professionals). If you're not interested in the views of those who are more qualified than yours truly, no one forces you to click on the links. The third part is to provide a path to deeper discussions and technical data. If you are not interested in that expanded view of the topic, you are free to pass over the links without clicking.Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". — Gnomon
Not glad about it, but I can accept it.
See, the reason why I'm often asking about more personal views and less external references, is because 1) I believe that if someone's reality on a subject is well established, independently of where one has built it from or how, one does not need to refer to external sources in a discussion. Otherwise, it may be considered even "appeal to authority", which used to persuade the intended others of one's statements or views. 2) In the majority of the cases in which I do read external references proposed by someone in a discusstion, the result is wasted time. — Alkis Piskas
The footprint can only become information if there is a mind — RogueAI
The mindless rock preserves the information until the curious ape evolves to think about it. — unenlightened
I'm glad that my posts challenge you to consider ideas that may not have occurred to you independently. That's the basic purpose of this forum. :smile:↪Gnomon
Of course I like to know what you say. I keep coming back. Things turn up here that I wouldn't think up on my own. — Mark Nyquist
Speaking of challenges : You would be smart to consider what says about Information & Consciousness. He's one of the wisest & best-informed posters on this forum. Since his background in Philosophy is different from mine, I am often challenged to see the world from a different perspective. :nerd:↪Wayfarer
Your brain is projecting "information" on DNA.
It'snot real. — Mark Nyquist
I usually do. But this one was only a scroll up several posts. Nevertheless, I will do better in the future.You make my life difficult, Patterner. :smile: Couldn't you give me just the link of that post? — Alkis Piskas
I'm making your life difficult?? :DAnyway #2, I have "filtered" that post, keeping only what you youself are stating. — Alkis Piskas
Indeed. I often quote others when they say something I agree with. I believe the more ways a thought is expressed, the more likely it is someone else will understand it. Something I think I've worded well doesn't always make it clear to someone else. Different wordings are often helpful.But you are bringing up extrenal referenses there too (Skrbina, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, "Journey of the Mind" book). — Alkis Piskas
My apologies, but I don't know which post of yours provides a specific definition. (Feel free to tell me how many posts upstream it can be found. :D) But, regardless, I have never seen a definition of panpsychism, or even consciousness, that I think is absolute. I may or may not agree with someone else's definition. If someone else's definition says all things, animate or inanimate, have a mind, I disagree. I do not consider what I am calling proto-consciousness to be a mind. I think a mind must have characteristics/abilities that proto-consciousness does not.But I just gave you a reference about that, the definition of "Panpsychism". Do you reject it, as well as all references with a similar description, on the ground that you have not heard any panpsychist say that any inanimate object has a mind? Or do you have another definition of P according to which objects are not conscious or do not have consciousness? — Alkis Piskas
A couple possibilities come to mind. First, a solid building may contain running, or a pool of, water. So just because it's solid doesn't mean every aspect of it is solid. Likewise, physical things may have non-physical aspects.OK, but how can something physical have a property that is not physical, call it "mind" or whatever else?
I believe you start with a hypothesis that cannot stand, it's not grounded. You are trying to build a theory on the air or from air. Anyway. — Alkis Piskas
Greene emphasizes the words "I don't know" in the two sentences.If you’re wondering what proto-consciousness really is or how it’s infused into a particle, your curiosity is laudable, but your questions are beyond what Chalmers or anyone else can answer. Despite that, it is helpful to see these questions in context. If you asked me similar questions about mass or electric charge, you would likely go away just as unsatisfied. I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do. In the same vein, perhaps researchers will be unable to delineate what proto-consciousness is and yet be successful in developing a theory of what it does—how it produces and responds to consciousness. For gravitational and electromagnetic influences, any concern that substituting action and response for an intrinsic definition amounts to an intellectual sleight of hand is, for most researchers, alleviated by the spectacularly accurate predictions we can extract from our mathematical theories of these two forces. Perhaps we will one day have a mathematical theory of proto-consciousness that can make similarly successful predictions. For now, we don’t.
No, it's not doubt. I'm saying that, either way, we couldn't tell the difference. If there is no proto-consciousness, then particles do not have any degree of subjective experience. If one somehow did, it would be indistinguishable from the rest. And vice-versa. At the level of one particle, there's no outward measure that could tell us which is which.Re "A particle with proto-consciousness (if there is such a thing) would be indistinguishable from one without it (if there is such a thing). It’s just a building block.":
Now, you doubt about your basic assumption, i.e. the existence of something you have initially postulated as existing. — Alkis Piskas
It's an expression. A Lego is a building block. An atom is a building block. A single singer is a building block of a chorus. a tree is a building block of a forest. Proto-consciousness is the building block of consciousness.And what do you mean by a "building block"? Is that something physical or non-physical? Is the particle with proto-consciousness such "building block"? — Alkis Piskas
Not Right. That's one of the quotes you removed. In this case, Skrbina's. That's why I had it in quotes. It is part of the whole hypothesis of proto-consciousness. Particles do not have memory. Their subjective experience is of "instantaneous memory-less moments."Re "A rock has... quite a few particles. All of which are experiencing their instantaneous memory-less moments.":
What do you mean by "memory-less moments"? I suppose you are implicitly, silently adding another hypothesis or postulate, which is the existence of something called "memory-less moments" and which is experienced by particles. That is, you postulate that particles have a memory but there are moments that this is absent. Like a person who suffers from amnesia after a hard blow on the head. Right? — Alkis Piskas
The idea is that the proto-consciousness of all the particles of an entity in which enough different things are happening, particularly (according to my hypothesis) processes involving information, actual consciousness comes about. The potential of what I might call the "raw material" is realized.Re "all in all, there's not enough going on to raise "instantaneous memory-less moments" up to something more.":
How is "instantaneous memory-less moments" raised? — Alkis Piskas
Hopefully, I have made clear that I am not positing any sort of memory in regards to particles. Their subjective experiences are memory-less. I believe Skrbina used, and I am definitely using, that wording so people won't think there is any memory at the level of particles.I believe, the whole scheme lacks something very basic: A definition or description of "memory" in the context or level of a particle. That is, what does memotry mean for a particle? What kind of "memory" do particles have? Do you see what I mean? — Alkis Piskas
As for information in DNA, that is your burden to defend. I think it's just your mental projection. It might be an abstraction but not physically fundamental as brain state is. — Mark Nyquist
I just like to start with physicalism/materialism because it keeps us /me personally from believing things that just aren't true. — Mark Nyquist
Shortly after our dialog in this thread, on the distinction between "Perception" & "Conception", I came across the Quora article linked below*1. The author takes an "enactivist approach" to such contentious questions. I was not previously aware of that particular philosophy of Consciousness, but it may agree with my thesis in principle, if not in detail. Enactivism seems to be an attempt to bypass the implicit Dualism of the notion that they are two incompatible entities, as in Brain/Mind and Body/Soul or Oil & Water doctrines, while avoiding the implication problems of Panpsychism.How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? — Gnomon
I have absolutely no problem with that. :smile: — Alkis Piskas
That's much better! Why didn't you talk about that in the first place? — Alkis Piskas
Now, I don't know what does sentience mean to you. You can tell me next time — Alkis Piskas
Certainly. But my comment was certainly not meant to invalidate your references. I never said or hold in general that references are useless. That would be totally silly. And I often consult them. Only that in some subjects, e.g. related to consciousness and mind, about which I have read and listened to tons of descriptions and views, and which I know very well --I have worked with and on mind for years-- I only need to hear and discuss about another member's own opinion and views. See, I don't care about nor do I have the time to read what other persons think about the subject, even if these persons are considered "experts". (Notice the quotation marks, they mean something.) I can read about them, in my own time, if needed. So, I prefer spend my time in fruitful exchanges with other people. Besides, I believe this is the main purpose of TPF. Reading and discussing books, references and articles is also included of course, but I consider it of secondary importance. I may be wrong, I don't know. Maybe it's only what I expect from it ...If you are not interested in that expanded view of the topic, you are free to pass over the links without clicking. — Gnomon
You are right. Esp. because it certainly applies to me. "smile:Some people would consider all posts on this forum "wasted time", because they have little or no interest in Philosophy or Science. — Gnomon
"grin" It may sound difficult but my "filtering" is an automatic process: it means just ignoring external refs, thus actually simplifying things. "smile:Anyway #2, I have "filtered" that post, keeping only what you youself are stating.
— Alkis Piskas
I'm making your life difficult??:grin: — Patterner
I'm not sure about that. If the external source talks about concepts and theories and has no practical value, it might even be worse as far as undersnading is concerned. As I see it, if one wants to make one's points clear and well understood, one must off practical values for them, how they are applied to reality and life, things with which one can identify, recognize as actually existing or happening or functioning, etc. And this can be achieved mainly through practical examples.Indeed. I often quote others when they say something I agree with. I believe the more ways a thought is expressed, the more likely it is someone else will understand it. — Patterner
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859927I don't know which post of yours provides a specific definition. — Patterner
Of course, there are no absolute definitions for anything. One has to look in the various definitions what is the central element, point or characteristic. In the case of Panpsychism, this is that "matter posseses a mind" . In some others, it's that "matter is conscious", and so on.I have never seen a definition of panpsychism, or even consciousness, that I think is absolute. — Patterner
OK. So, you have your own definition of P, connected to the idea of "proto-consciousness". But you must realize that it is not what traditional P and panpsychists believe. (I just googled "proto-consciousness" and I found seome special references about it. I might.)If someone else's definition says all things, animate or inanimate, have a mind, I disagree. I do not consider what I am calling proto-consciousness to be a mind. — Patterner
Most probably, but I can't really tell, since I don't know enough about proto-consciousness.I think a mind must have characteristics/abilities that proto-consciousness does not. — Patterner
I really appreciate your endeavor in describing your theory. However, I can't follow it, since you are walking on hill and I my lungs and feet don't help me any more to accompany you. :smile:Second, calling particles "physical" is problematic. When we call a particle "physical," we are only referring to its physical properties. ... — Patterner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.