I think there are other ways to recognize the primacy of consciousness other than by objectifying it in this way.
— Wayfarer
such as? are you seriously saying that you know a way that can better rectify the problem of consciousness than panpsychism yet still keep a subjective/objective or purely subjective dichotomy in place? — intrapersona
I don't know, man. I've only ever seen people arguing over the existence/non existence of altruism use arguments that are riddled with biases and objectively inapplicable. — Weeknd
However, in spite of how "ugly" I find the egoist position, I've seen absolutely no good counter arguments, and any example of altruism can be explained away by an egoist as a counter example. This is what forced me into my current position.
IMO a good reason for the illusion of altruism is the innate human desire for socialization and companionship, which were most definitely necessary for survival as well as satisfaction earlier but arguably are somewhat less necessary nowadays, so we now "see", due to self reliance and isolationism, that what we used to call altruism were just means of fulfillment of one's own desires, securities and moral contentment — Weeknd
Why would pansychism derive egoist organisms? It would be more intuitive to think the opposite, that all organisms are one and therefor have no need to serve a segregated and individualized egoist motive.
It seems "positive experience" is hard wired in to every single living thing on earth. For trees, the sunlight is positive experience because it provides energy. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But you are the one talking about inert matter needing to have "positive inner experiences".
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.