I have no idea what motivates people to extend that notion to everything else in the world. Why do you think that helps explain anything. — Saphsin
In other words, the assumption that there are these physical objects that have no mental properties that somehow come together and suddenly have mental properties has gotten us nowhere, so people are starting to reject it. — khaled
Well no, emergence doesn't have to be dealt with, it just needs to be rejected as illogical. That's very simple, and it doesn't really require any substitute or anything like that unless the person is inspired to seek reality. But when people reject emergence it's usually because they are inspired to seek reality, then an alternative to emergence is required. — Metaphysician Undercover
n other words, the assumption that there are these physical objects that have no mental properties that somehow come together and suddenly have mental properties has gotten us nowhere, so people are starting to reject it.
— khaled — Pfhorrest
Whatever emergentist theory is proposed, the question "Yes, but why can't all that happen without consciousness?" is often not satisfactorily answered. — bert1
Panpsychism holds that mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. — wikipedia
To cut to the chase, panpsychists have to prove that their thesis doesn't commit the fallacies of composition and division. — TheMadFool
Now, take the panpsychist assertion that everything has a soul/mind in the context of a car. The car has parts. Every part is a thing and since everything has a soul/mind, every part must have a soul/mind but to draw the conclusion that the car itself, the whole, has a soul/mind is the fallacy of composition. — TheMadFool
Coming at it from the opposite direction (a more relatable point of view I'm sure), most people will find it easier to think that a car, as a whole, has a soul. If so, according to the panpsychist, since everything has a soul, each and every part of a car should have a soul. That's the fallacy of division. — TheMadFool
The things that we are most familiar with, ourselves, are conscious. We're generous enough to at least extend that to other things that look like us "from the outside" (third person); we suppose they're also like us "on the inside" (first person). Some of us are also willing to extend that to things that are similar enough to us, like other animals. But really, the big assumption being made is not by those who just say "sure, and the less like us on the outside, the less like us on the inside, but there's still some 'on the inside' all the way down", but those who say "...and then at some point there stops being any 'from the inside'", or worse yet, those who say "there's no such thing as 'from the inside', even for you or me". — Pfhorrest
Now, take the panpsychist assertion that everything has a soul/mind in the context of a car. The car has parts. Every part is a thing and since everything has a soul/mind, every part must have a soul/mind but to draw the conclusion that the car itself, the whole, has a soul/mind is the fallacy of composition. — TheMadFool
In addition it is also because deflationary accounts of consciousness that don't involve emergence are also taken to not be treating consciousness seriously enough.
By the process of elimination that would lead to a substantive theory of non-emergent consciousness, which panpsychism seems to fit the mold of. — Mr Bee
Why would by big toe be conscious when my brain is conscious of the state of my big toe? Is it my brain that is conscious or my neurons? Are you the consciousness of your whole brain or just one neuron? Panpsychism is just another type of anthropomorphic projection. — Harry Hindu
Because for the longest time we thought that by coming up with the right physics or chemistry or biology we could find the "equation for consciousness". That eventually concsiousness will be consumed by the sciences and be regarded as mundane as temperature. That one day we may develop a "consciousness-o-meter" which measures consciousness the same way a thermormeter measures temperature. But we've slowly given up on that view, it seems that consciousness is not approachable by scientific method. Heck I can't tell if YOU'RE conscious, or if my couch is conscious, much less come up with a theory for consciousness. So the simplest explanation then is to attribute it to everything, so that you no longer need to explain how it arises from "inanimate matter"
In other words, the assumption that there are these physical objects that have no mental properties that somehow come together and suddenly have mental properties has gotten us nowhere, so people are starting to reject it. — khaled
That one day we may develop a "consciousness-o-meter" which measures consciousness the same way a thermormeter measures temperature. But we've slowly given up on that view, it seems that consciousness is not approachable by scientific method. Heck I can't tell if YOU'RE conscious, or if my couch is conscious, much less come up with a theory for consciousness. — khaled
No. There are other theories other than "everything is mental' and "everything is physical".If panpsychists are anthropomorphic, everyone else is anthropocentric, or at least neurocentric. — bert1
The ultimate question that needs to be addressed by any "substantial" theory would be, "why is the evidence that I have for my consciousness different than the evidence others have for my consciousness?".Your questions are all good ones and need answers from the panpsychist. — bert1
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.