a) emergentism has no observer, just added clutter to the simples. — schopenhauer1
Well, no, it produces the observer. That's rather the point. — Banno
How does the observer come out of the arranging of simples? — schopenhauer1
We don't know. Nevertheless, that is the thesis. — Banno
The "jump" to the next level is the magical part. So take your pick, the magic of emergence or the magic of proto-experiential processes. — schopenhauer1
Ofcourse Windows 7 was a decent operating system. — turkeyMan
The plastic bottle to my left is partially Windows 7? I don't think so brah.
If panpsychism logic is true, follows that the components and materials of computer hardware must themselves have desktop interfaces. — dex
Looks more like you were equivocating and that the argument in the OP falls apart if required to define its terms and then stick to them. Either the proposition is trivial and uninformative, or just factually incorrect as to how evolution works (i.e. its ability to generate and select for novel traits and abilities). — Enai De A Lukal
"And consciousness, however small, is an illegitimate birth in
any philosophy that starts without it and yet professes to explain all facts by continuous evolution._______________________________________________________________________ If evolution is to work smoothly, consciousness in some
shape must have been present at the very origins of things." -William James
William James believed in Pan-psychism just as many modern scientists believe in Pan-psychism.
Are there any flaws in the logic of this quote? — turkeyMan
emergentism has no observer — schopenhauer1
If you mean emergence is not observed, and observation is the keystone, the fact that nothing consistent with consciousness has ever been observed in rocks suffices to reject pan-psychism. — Kenosha Kid
Emergentism is the thesis that things doing what they do produces an observer. — Banno
Except that rocks are not conscious. — Banno
Notice I said nothing about consciousness here. Nor did I earlier. You asserted that. — schopenhauer1
I sorta goes with the OP. — Banno
Sure, like I said, depending on how broadly the terms are defined here the proposition can be fairly uncontroversial: "awareness", if defined as the ability to react to (i.e. be "aware" of) external stimuli is part of the biological definition of life and so common to all living organisms, presumably even the very first ones. If that's all that's meant- no problem. But not much interesting follows from this, as it is trivial/tautologous (true as a matter of definition, rather than as a matter of fact), and it certainly doesn't entail that pan-psychism in any robust sense is true. On the other hand, a far stronger concept- i.e. of "consciousness", as normally defined in the philosophy of mind- renders the OP's proposition (that consciousness was present "in some shape from the very origin of things") false as a matter of fact: the earliest organisms lacked many traits and abilities, including consciousness no less than flight or sight or bipedalism or plenty of other things besides (so far as the evidence tells us, at any rate).
For what its worth, I'm "open" to pan-psychism in the sense that I don't reject it out of hand and that I'd always be willing to consider new evidence or arguments in its favor.. I just think that the OP's isn't a good or sound argument for it, since its either trivial (and its conclusion non-sequitur) or just wrong about how evolution works. — Enai De A Lukal
The difficulty here, for William James, is that, unlike the body, used here as a stand-in for the physical aspect of life, the mind/consciousness doesn't leave behind a footprint à la fossils which [mind] archaeologists can dig up , study, and prove William James right.
Now that I think of it, do fossils of ancient life, specifically those known to be truly primitive as in representing the first batch of living organisms to appear on earth, show any evidence of mental phenomena? — TheMadFool
What occurs to me is that 'mind/consciousness' seems to be implicitly defined as a footprintless ghost. Language must always be mere clothing, a mere sheet draped over this ghost.
But what if language is only a dead sheet because we insist that it 'must' be?
Can't our words here be footprints? Or --better --the feet themselves? — Yellow Horse
I don't see how words can be evidence of mind/consciousness. — TheMadFool
What would be? And if there is no evidence and there even can't be evidence, why are you so sure about this mind/consciousness stuff?
How can it have any function at all in a rational/critical conversation?
One could make a similar point about denying this consciousness-stuff to rocks. What is being denied? What are we checking for and not finding? — Yellow Horse
if we make an effort to avoid the point of view that leads to solipsisim and confine ourselves to common sense, there is little doubt — TheMadFool
The mind/consciousness, the common sense take on it, is what's missing in rocks and other non-sentient objects. — TheMadFool
True, but then that's just ignoring the issue, which is that a certain conception of consciousness threatens us with its solipsistic implications.
You mention common sense, or common meaning, or...meaning in common. That's it. Meaning is public, conventional.
Perhaps 'my' toothache is ineffably 'mine' or 'private' because 'around here' we don't ask people to prove they have a toothache. — Yellow Horse
I do know what you mean, more or less, so the issue is really just challenging this all-too-automatic take on it. If we zoom in on it, we see that it can't work the way it's supposed to, IMO — Yellow Horse
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.