In some circles, Panpsychism has recently become a popular philosophical worldview, due in part to suggestive but questionable interpretations of Quantum Mechanics : observation collapses superposition. Even neuroscientist Christof Koch finds the notion of atomic awareness congenial to his scientific worldview. But computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup prefers a slightly different interpretation of the QM/observer concept*1.My understanding of panpsychism is that consciousness is a fundamental quality of the universe. I am unsure on whether panpsychists believe that consciousness is the ONLY fundamental force of the universe, or if consciousness is fundamental alongside other commonly held fundamental forces, like energy, electromagnetism, etc.. If the second is true, and physical processes such as energy are also fundamental, it seems that the combination problem is trivial: we have observed that physical processes can form complex objects without human intervention, such as trees: if we assume that another quality is fundamental (ignoring consciousness), and this quality is used to make a complex system like a tree, which seems to have fundamental components working together to form a complex system, why can’t the same be true of consciousness? My point is that we have observed other fundamental qualities “working together” to form a complex system, so it is not farfetched to conclude the same of consciousness. — amber
Beating us at chess is x, y, and z. One process or another is looking at what is possible given there current position of the pieces. Another is comparing all the possibilities with what happened in past games whose details it has been programmed with, and had the same possibilities. One process to calculate which of the current possibilities had worked out best. On and on.We are told the physical processes in a computer are doing x, y, z. Yet we are told they are also doing this other thing - beating us at chess.
Things can do multiple things. — flannel jesus
I have never even hinted that we should give up on what's been done that has accomplished so much. We should certainly continue all of that. I think there is room for discussion of all manner of approaches.So do we continue to follow the one single avenue of investigation for consciousness, as being the result of physical brains following physical processes, or... do something else? What would the 'something else' be? And, knowing about the massive achievement of AI from neural nets, why even consider giving up on the physical idea? We can literally *talk to a simulation of physical neurons*, for free right now. — flannel jesus
Calling what I'm talking about as "magic," and referring of the "soul realm," otoh, smacks of ridicule. What is the goal? — Patterner
We can duplicate, in a different medium, a lot of the physical processes — Patterner
Without an explanation (whether panpsychism or something else), the question of how matter becomes conscious is "it just does." Which is magic without an attempt at an explanation. — Patterner
But they are only duplicating physical processes like those that let us perceive a certain range of the electromagnetic spectrum, distinguish different wavelengths within that range of the spectrum, and store representations of what has been perceived. They are not duplicating consciousness. What would that even mean? Which part of which neurons are adding the experience of vision to the perception of parts of the spectrum? What chip design do they need to manufacture to duplicate that? Or what specific wiring do they need in order to make the consciousness circuit?We can duplicate, in a different medium, a lot of the physical processes
— Patterner
That's what a model is. Or rather, you need a model to be able to do that — flannel jesus
They are not duplicating consciousness — Patterner
Beats me. Just considering possibilities. I don't think it's the best idea to rule out entire fields of thought when we can't find any evidence that it's purely physical. — Patterner
we have observed that physical processes can form complex objects without human intervention, such as trees: if we assume that another quality is fundamental (ignoring consciousness), and this quality is used to make a complex system like a tree, which seems to have fundamental components working together to form a complex system, why can’t the same be true of consciousness? — amber
when someone finally develops the very first ever model of how a soul might work, — flannel jesus
Agreed, but that's not my assumption. That's a strawman.It is an unfounded assumption that the only things that exist in our reality are things we can find with our physical senses and science. — Patterner
You can rely on wikipedia for information and I will keep on thinking through the presuppositions and implications of philosophical topics (e.g. 'panpsychism = animism'). — 180 Proof
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.