I have noticed with respect to Peirce, that whenever I bring up his categorisation as an objective idealist, you find ways to deprecate that or explain it away as not being what is important about his work. — Wayfarer

You have yet to demonstrate that understand you semiotics. You have only seized on two words you think you understand - objective and idealism.

You have only seized on two words you think you understand - objective and idealism. — apokrisis

Condescension. I'm not here to pass tests set by you.

As in any well constructed argument, I was offering a particular example in support of my general case.

Condescension. I'm not here to pass tests set by you. — Wayfarer

You seem to want to tell me what Peirce really argued. And I happily call bullshit on that pretension.

I have noticed with respect to Peirce, that whenever I bring up his categorisation as an objective idealist, you find ways to deprecate that or explain it away as not being what is important about his work. — Wayfarer

Are we obliged to accept every aspect of a philosopher's work or worldview? We can't think for ourselves?

Plainly I've been born in the wrong century, although we all have to learn to cope. — Wayfarer

Some are ahead of the times and others behind them. Or if you like:

"The Harlots cry from Street to Street
Shall weave Old Englands winding Sheet
The Winners Shout the Losers Curse
Dance before dead Englands Hearse
Every Night & every Morn
Some to Misery are Born
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight
Some are Born to sweet delight
Some are Born to Endless Night
We are led to Believe a Lie
When we see not Thro the Eye
Which was Born in a Night to perish in a Night
When the Soul Slept in Beams of Light
God Appears & God is Light
To those poor Souls who dwell in Night
But does a Human Form Display
To those who Dwell in Realms of day"

From 'Auguries of Innocence' by William Blake

I have fond memories of Gould's various takes on sociobiology - albeit with some disagreements in some of the details. — javra

Gould is one of my favorite writers. I learned a lot about science and writing from him. I still pull down his books of essays and read them and I've given them to all my children. It's hard to believe he's been gone for more than 20 years.

Gould is one of my favorite writers. — T Clark

It's easy to understand why.

It's hard to believe he's been gone for more than 20 years. — T Clark

I don't mean to suggest that I knew him personally; I didn't; still: “Only the good die young,” comes to mind in thinking about him. (different ways to interpret this; but in this context I interpret it as “pass away while yet being young at heart”) Or so it seems to me, at least.

Over at Vox Future Perfect. — Srap Tasmaner

One Amazon review of Goff's book, boils it down to a competition between theories for the origin of consciousness in a material world : "The book identifies three possible explanations for consciousness: dualism, materialism, and panpsychism".

Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. Dualism just accepts that we tend to think of Mind & Matter as two completely different things, and never the twain shall meet : hyle + morph = real matter + ideal form. Monistic Panpsychism assumes that Matter is an illusion generated by the inherent mental processes of nature (a priori Cosmic Consciousness), hence matter does not matter.

Global Workspace Theory is merely a Cartesian Theater metaphor that does not attempt to answer the Origin question. Integrated Information Theory assumes that Consciousness is a summary (integral) product of fundamental mathematical essence : number. Again, these alternative definitions of Consciousness presume that some kind of mind essence "just is", with no further elaboration on its original source.

Pragmatic here & now science has no need for hypotheses about ultimate origins. But over the millennia, theoretical philosophy has produced a proliferation of possible ontologies. Which include the three noted above, plus one more that was once the leading candidate, but is no longer considered a viable option : intelligent intentional creation by divine fiat. Hence it was omitted from the "round-up". Ironically, due mostly to the quandaries of quantum science, the ancient notion of fundamental/essential Mind*1 seems to be making a comeback to fill the gaps in those other theories. :smile:


*1. Panpsychism :
Though it sounds like something that sprang fully formed from the psychedelic culture, panpsychism has been around for a very long time. Philosophers and mathematicians Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, physicists Arthur Eddington, Ernst Schrödinger, and Max Planck, and psychologist William James are just a few thinkers who supported some form of panpsychism. The idea lost traction in the late 20th century, but recently, philosophers and scientists such as David Chalmers, Bernardo Kastrup, Christof Koch, and Philip Goff have revived the idea, making strong claims for some form of panpsychism.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

This is intended for one and all:

*1. Panpsychism :
Though it sounds like something that sprang fully formed from the psychedelic culture, panpsychism has been around for a very long time. — Gnomon

Though my current conviction makes me partly dogmatic about the two being equivalent, I’m at the same time curious to discover how my understanding could be wrong – hence the question:

In what conceivable way is panpsychism not a reclothing (i.e., re-branding or re-veiling) of the quite ancient and, back then, basically ubiquitous notion of animism?

In other words, what can possibly be rationally different between panpsychism and animism as metaphysical understandings of reality?

----

As a reminder, to say that “everything is endowed with anima” is equivalent to saying that “everything is endowed with psyche” - first term being Latin and the second Greek, with both terms having the same underlying meaning.

And if animism needs to be made more palatable, the Stoic notion of an “anima mundi” is basic animism conceived of in stratified layers of efficacy in relation to the cosmos / whole.

If you're having problems with multiple people here, perhaps the problem is not the other people?

If you're having problems with multiple people here, perhaps the problem is not the other people? — RogueAI

If you call being qualified to speak to the OP a problem, then you’re probably right. I’m probably the only one to have discussed all this with Chalmers, Koch, Friston, etc.

If you call being qualified to speak to the OP a problem, then you’re probably right. I’m probably the only one to have discussed all this with Chalmers, Koch, Friston, etc. — apokrisis

OK, Mr. I'm-so-qualified :razz: Riddle me this:

According to your theory of mind/consciousness, are insects conscious? Do they have minds?
https://www.noemamag.com/the-surprisingly-sophisticated-mind-of-an-insect/

And keep your answer as free from jargon as possible, for all the stupid people here. Good philosophy is clear and concise.

he book identifies three possible explanations for consciousness: dualism, materialism, and panpsychism".

Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. — Gnomon

You might consider me a materialist, depending on the time of day and the weather. I'm certainly not a dualist or a panpsychist. There is nothing in materialism that requires belief that the mind is not real. I certainly believe it is and I believe it matters. Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with.

I don't mean to suggest that I knew him personally; I didn't; — javra

No, I didn't think you suggested you knew him. I didn't either, but he was important to me. He seemed like a cool, albeit prickly and pugnacious, person.

And, perhaps most importantly, he was on an episode of "The Simpsons."

And, perhaps most importantly, he was on an episode of "The Simpsons." — T Clark

:lol:

According to your theory of mind/consciousness, are insects conscious? Do they have minds? — RogueAI

I could address this in detail. I’ve spent time in labs where they investigate the neurobiology of jumping spiders. Cockroaches and wood lice are the stuff of introductory classes.

But I have no patience for you because you can’t stop harping on about “consciousness” when I’ve carefully explained my position on that and why it is such a confused term.

At best, consciousness = attention + reporting. A jumping spider has something that is primitively like what we would call attentional processing. But it doesn’t speak so can’t report or introspect.

And now you go back to bleating about whether insects are conscious in whatever muddled way you understand that term.

At best, consciousness = attention + reporting. — apokrisis

Can machines be conscious?

At best, consciousness = attention + reporting. A jumping spider has something that is primitively like what we would call attentional processing. But it doesn’t speak so can’t report or introspect. — apokrisis

Speaking and/or reporting are necessary conditions for consciousness and/or introspection??? Is a jumping spider conscious or not?

A newborn cannot speak or report. Is it conscious?

At best, consciousness = attention + reporting. — apokrisis

Are you offering this more as a definition or a theory? Or perhaps more of a conceptual clarification (which I guess is closer to definition)? Or something else?

In what conceivable way is panpsychism not a reclothing (i.e., re-branding or re-veiling) of the quite ancient and, back then, basically ubiquitous notion of animism?

In other words, what can possibly be rationally different between panpsychism and animism as metaphysical understandings of reality? — javra

Materialists will dismiss both Panpsychism and Animism as primitive religious superstitions. But the 21st century quantum physicists (see my post above), who openly admit to accepting Universal Mind as a valid philosophical interpretation of their empirical work, cannot be described as "primitive" or "superstitious". Yet, more conventional scientists will still interpret the evidence in terms of their matter-is-fundamental Naturalistic worldview*1. And that's OK, for scientific purposes. Yet, for philosophical purposes, that view has an explanatory gap at the inception of Matter itself.

I do think of the ancient writings about universal Mind as prescient-but-primitive guesses about how mental phenomena could emerge from material substrates. Quantum Physics is not as definitive about such enigmatic questions, but it does point in the same direction : Mental Potential is intrinsic in the universe, but emerges in stages ; as postulated several thousand years ago in Hindu philosophy*2.

Likewise, instead of presuming that essential Potential was fully-formed into Consciousness at the beginning, some 21st century thinkers interpret that power-to-evolve-both-matter-&-minds in terms of both Evolutionary Theory and Information Theory*3. The same essential "stuff" animates Matter and informs Brains. From that non-mainstream perspective, the potential to change Possibility to Actuality, Inanimate to Animate, and Neurons to Awareness, is closer to our modern notion of causal Energy, than to fully-evolved homo sapiens Consciousness. :smile:

To Inform : implies the imparting of knowledge https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inform
Note --- Knowledge presumes Consciousness

*1. Why Panpsychism Is Probably Wrong :
Perhaps phenomenal properties, or ‘proto-phenomenal’ precursors of them, are the fundamental intrinsic properties of matter we’re looking for, and each subatomic particle is a tiny conscious subject. This solves the hard problem: brain and consciousness emerge together when billions of basic particles are assembled in the right way.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/panpsychism-is-wrong/500774/

*2. Hindu Mind Evolves :
In this theory, mind is an emergent entity, but this emergence requires the presence of the Self. The mind may be viewed to be constituted by five basic components: manas, ahamkara, citta, buddhi and atman, which cannot be reduced to gross elements. Manas is the lower mind which collects sense impressions.
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/understanding-the-vedic-model-of-the-mind

*3. Is energy a form of information? :
Information is a distinct form of energy, just as electricity, magnetism, steam, nuclear, or solar radiation are also alternate forms of energy. To illustrate this, consider that information behaves similarly to other energy types. Many physicists agree that information is conserved, especially at the quantum level.
https://jumpthespark.com/2017/02/06/information-is-energy/
Note --- Information is like Energy in its Cause & Effect functions : to convert incoming photons into mental images, and mental images into language.

I would attempt to start the deflation of the confused use of "consciousness" by first pointing to the conflation of neurobiological levels of semiosis and sociocultural levels of semiosis.

The human species has the further advantages of language and logic to structure its modelling relation with its world.

The animal kingdom just has its neurobiology ... although ants and termites are arguably an example of ultrasociality as well. They use a system of sign – pheromones – to "think" as a colony organism in a similar structural way to how humans use words to coordinate their group thinking social order.

So get the story about "consciousness" right and all the more interesting scientific questions start to flow. You don't get locked into the plaintive bleat from the back seat that is the Hard Problem being repeated over and over as the end to intelligent discussion.

If you call being qualified to speak to the OP a problem, then you’re probably right. I’m probably the only one to have discussed all this with Chalmers, Koch, Friston, etc. — apokrisis

What do you think of Koch losing his bet to Chalmers? Do you think Koch is ever going to win that bet (assuming he lives long enough)?

Thanks for the reply. Yes, there is the connotative issue of modernity vs. primitivity at play, and all that this might imply.

Likewise, instead of presuming that essential Potential was fully-formed into Consciousness at the beginning, ... — Gnomon

Only want to here point out that most ancient perspectives - such as that of Stoicism - in no way held such a view of an animistic world. This turn of events emerged with Abrahamic perspectives.

I was just asking, because I'm interested, if you intended your statement to be chiefly conceptual, or emprical, or something else. I can't quite see an answer to that. You don't have to answer if you don't want to of course. I didn't intend to go on about the hard problem again, although no doubt I will again at some point.

So get the story about "consciousness" right and all the more interesting scientific questions start to flow. — apokrisis

When do you think that will happen?

You might consider me a materialist, depending on the time of day and the weather. I'm certainly not a dualist or a panpsychist. There is nothing in materialism that requires belief that the mind is not real. I certainly believe it is and I believe it matters. Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with. — T Clark

I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone's beliefs. Just to be descriptive of a pertinent contrasting interpretation of the Materialistic belief system*1, in a thread on the topic of the ontological status of Mind. Besides, some of the matter-first Materialists on this forum do mis-represent the beliefs of mind-first Panpsychists as primitive, superstitious, and gullible. But they are just trying to show the superiority of their own modern & scientific worldview over ancient spooky-woo. This, despite some scientific evidence to support a mind-first view.

Personally, I'm not a Panpsychist, in any formal sense. So, I don't have a dog in the race between true believers on both sides. As I've stated before : for all practical purposes, I am a Materialist; but for philosophical reasons, I am an Idealist. So, I agree with you : ideas matter, but not literally. :smile:

*1. Does eliminative materialism regard consciousness as an illusion? :
There is a relatively new position in philosophy of mind called illusionism.
https://www.quora.com/Does-eliminative-materialism-regard-consciousness-as-an-illusion

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/Win2005/entries/materialism-eliminative/

You don't have to answer if you don't want to of course. — bert1

I did answer. It was how I would start to deflate an over-inflated term.

You can class that under clarification if you like. You could class it under theory if you noticed that biosemiosis was the theoretical framework I employed. You could class it under definition if you wanted to note how I somewhat sarcastically used dictionary style conventions of defining a whole in terms of its component parts.

What's so hard to understand here?

When do you think that will happen? — RogueAI

For you, never. But thanks for asking. :up:

What do you think of Koch losing his bet to Chalmers? Do you think Koch is ever going to win that bet (assuming he lives long enough)? — RogueAI

What's so hard to understand here? — apokrisis

Your views. Thanks for explaining further.

What's so hard to understand here?
— apokrisis

Your views — bert1

I see I'm not the only one.



Can you explain, in words of as few syllables as possible, what you think consciousness is?