If that conscious periphery gave us enough information about the body I’m sure consciousness wouldn’t be a such a mystery — NOS4A2
In my own personal philosophical worldview, that "organization factor" is called EnFormAction*1, and the "creative" trend of evolution is Enformy*2. Both terms are derived from an Information-Centric philosophy*3, in which Generic Information works like a computer program in the physical world. It's a combination of Causal Energy and Logical Information. And it assumes that Enformation (power to transform) is more essential than Matter. Hence, Consciousness is an emergent quality, and not fundamental as Panpsychism postulates.Theories of morphic resonance or memes also do not explain shifts in the different kingdoms in evolution, such as the shift from.mineral to vegetable, or animal to human. They require a higher organisation factor beyond mere memory.
It is about creativity inherent in nature. The shifts in the emergence of the kingdoms is of significance in the evolution of both sentience and knowledge, with the animal and human kingdom both having sentience and the human having consciousness of knowledge, especially through language for the development of ideas. — Jack Cummins
Perhaps the subjective experience of information processing systems of sufficient number and/or complexity is awareness. And when sufficient feedback loops are also present, the experience is self-awareness. — Patterner
I don't know if I'm understanding you. Are you thinking there is a physical mechanism for consciousness within us, and we would be able to see it if our physical senses pointed inward?The illusory aspects of consciousness is the result of how little information it gives about ourselves, the body. For instance our senses largely point outwards, towards the world, so I am unable to see what is going on behind my eyes. The periphery is so limited that I am completely unaware of what is going on inside my body save for the few and feint feelings it sometimes offers.
If that conscious periphery gave us enough information about the body I’m sure consciousness wouldn’t be a such a mystery, and ideas like panpsychism wouldn’t even be entertained. — NOS4A2
I can see Strawson's argument because experience is the central to being alive. A chair or a rock doesn't experience the person sitting on it, even though the person may have an effect on the chair, such as scratching it. Ideas about objects having experiences are human projections. — Jack Cummins
I don't know if I'm understanding you. Are you thinking there is a physical mechanism for consciousness within us, and we would be able to see it if our physical senses pointed inward?
I'm sure that Panpsychism has always been a serious attempt to understand how such imperceptible phenomena as Life & Mind can exist in an obviously material world. But it's based on an ancient notion of Psyche as a wandering Spirit or embodied Soul. Generally, Spirit was added to Matter to animate it. And Soul was added to matter to produce sentient Mind. Together those ghostly essences were supposed to explain the creativity of the living & thinking world, as contrasted with a universe of dull dead Matter. Modern scientists who advocate All-Mind are more sophisticated than primitive animists. But they still find it difficult to reconcile immaterial Mind with substantial Matter, without relying on spooky ghost-stuff.Panpsychism may be an attempt to understanding creativity in the universe, or consciousness in the unconscious. — Jack Cummins
Since a tree is so very different from us, its subjective experience of itself is very different from our subjective experience of ourselves. Which is my position on consciousness - simply the subjective experience of the given subject.It is not possible to say how much consciousness a tree has. It experiences weather and may store some memory, such as rings but it is unlikely that it has consciousness as we know it. — Jack Cummins
Is there a reason that our technologies cannot detect the physical mechanism of consciousness? We know about all kinds of things going on the brain, after all. Neurotransmitters are a great example.I don't know if I'm understanding you. Are you thinking there is a physical mechanism for consciousness within us, and we would be able to see it if our physical senses pointed inward?
Not only that but all mental and physical phenomena. — NOS4A2
Our main thesis is that plant behaviour takes place by way of a process (active inference) that predicts the environmental sources of sensory stimulation. This principle, we argue, endows plants with a form of perception that underwrites purposeful, anticipatory behaviour.
Several years ago, I came to the conclusion that the universe is a living entity and that people are akin to single brain cells within that living entity. And just as our entire body is considered to be alive, even though it is composed of material which would normally be considered lifeless (for e.g. water), everything in the universe as can be considered to be as alive as every aspect of our bodies. Is this belief a form of panpsychism? — Kevin Andrew
Theoretically, if objects were seen as having consciousness it could be argued that they need to be treated with greater respect. — Jack Cummins
Whitehead described his God as both transcendent and immanent. So any divine actions in the physical world are Natural, not supernatural interventions from heaven. His theology was labeled, by his associate, as Panentheism. But I prefer to spell it PanEnDeism, in order to avoid the doctrinal associations of Theism.I haven't read Whitehead but would like to, in order to consider the idea of 'God' as imminent or transcendent. Of course, it does go back to debate ranging from Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. The idea of pantheism is relevant to this. — Jack Cummins
If the "One" you mean the mind, then we are on the same page.The 'unity of experience' raises questions because it involves so much. Plotinus's idea of the 'One' is useful though. That is because it links the nature of subjective experience to the wider sense of consciousness as a source. — Jack Cummins
Some of it comes down to differentiating subjective and objective aspects of consciousness, such as Nagel's question of 'What is it like to be a bat?' We make assumptions and there is probably a lot of sense in common sense, especially in what it means to be alive. I know that Russell, my teddy bear, doesn't have consciousness other than what I project onto him. — Jack Cummins
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.