@jacksonsprat22

You haven't done any philosophy here. Philosophy is about argument and rational justification for beliefs.

Why are you a panpsychist? Banno is very annoying in many ways, but his request for philosophy, far from being trolling, is exactly appropriate for this forum, while your avoidance of argument is why you will get banned and not him.

I'm a panpsychist too by the way. I am because of the fact that consciousness does not admit of degrees. What's your reason? You don't have to have one, but then you should be quiet, or perhaps ask people about their reasons for or against.

Banno is very annoying in many ways — bert1

One does what one can.

I am because of the fact that consciousness does not admit of degrees — bert1

In humans, partial consciousness occurs frequently. The fundamental concept of consciousness may not, however.

In humans, partial consciousness occurs frequently — jgill

Could you give an example or two?

Coming out from under anesthesia one may be partially conscious for a period, recognizing a friend but unable to put thoughts together. Emerging from a deep sleep there may be a short period of partial consciousness, an inability to synchronize sensory input or think clearly. Before my daily two cups of coffee I am only partly conscious, unable to dredge up names to match faces, etc.

but they want you to explain your position that intelligence is a component of the universe. — schopenhauer1

Intelligence must be a component of the universe because 1) intelligence exists 2) there is nothing apart from the universe.

They way I see it is intelligence is created out of the pattern and arrangement of particles. The whole is literally greater than the sum of its parts. It's like magic: If you put 3 apples together in a circle then an additional pear will appear in the middle.

There can also be additional forces and dimensions in the universe that we cannot detect easily. Right now, the brain is one such device which bridges the gap between mental and physical. But you could possibly also build some kind of sensor that can pick up on mental energy. Elementary particles may have a mental energy field around them which is not easy to see without sufficiently advanced tools.

That ten-minute period between waking up and first coffee is indeed a period of partial consciousness. The confusion that ensues if one finds that he coffee pot is not here it ought be; the inability ot cope with conversation and other social niceties.

intelligence exists — bizso09

Have you evidence for this?

...the gap between mental and physical. — bizso09

People keep assuming this. Bloody Descartes' fault.

By gap between mental and physical, I meant an aspect of physical which we cannot detect easily.

...an aspect of physical which we cannot detect easily. — bizso09

Like Covid 19?

Wiki: Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. — jgill

Why do people keep citing wikipedia? Most philosophers use the SEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

You haven't done any philosophy here. Philosophy is about argument and rational justification for beliefs. — bert1

No. That's for undergrads who think they're masters because they know some names.

You don't have to have one, but then you should be quiet, — bert1

Seriously, are there any adults who use this forum? Is this place just for kids?

Why do you think panpsychism is true?

Coming out from under anesthesia one may be partially conscious for a period, — jgill

So one is aware of something hazy and indistinct? That's still awareness of something, which entails consciousness, no? One is conscious when one is aware, even if the object of awareness is fuzzy.

...recognizing a friend but unable to put thoughts together.

But this failure to put a name and memories to a face is still an experience of sorts. And the fact that there is experience, no matter how messed up, still entails consciousness.

Emerging from a deep sleep there may be a short period of partial consciousness, an inability to synchronize sensory input or think clearly. Before my daily two cups of coffee I am only partly conscious, unable to dredge up names to match faces, etc.

Again, your examples are of fuzzy content of consciousness, not examples of states which are in-between consciousness and non-consciousness. All your examples are examples of conscious experience, and fall fully under that definition.

There can be no intermediate ground between consciousness and not-consciousness (I suggest), but there is plenty of middle ground between being conscious of vague fuzzy things, and consciousness of sharply defined things, as you have pointed out. Do you see the difference?

No. That's for undergrads who think they're masters because they know some names. — jacksonsprat22

What do you think philosophy is about?

The Universe a sceptic ironist? Who'd of thunk it?

Might be nice to know what matter is, or "basic matter," for the purposes of this discussion. Anyone?

From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/#ArguForPanp
"Nagel takes these premises to imply that there must be non-physical properties of basic matter that, when combined in the right way, intelligible imply the existence of mental states."

The only problem I have here is the idea of properties. Properties then themselves need to be explained because it would seem a property itself is something observed in something else. Does a property exist "in itself"? I know that Locke had the idea of primary and secondary qualities, but that seemed possibly arbitrary. What a measurement represents might be "real" at some level, but the properties we observe that come from these measurements? I don't know. It almost assumes experience/consciousness in the picture before it explains itself.

There can also be additional forces and dimensions in the universe that we cannot detect easily. Right now, the brain is one such device which bridges the gap between mental and physical. But you could possibly also build some kind of sensor that can pick up on mental energy. Elementary particles may have a mental energy field around them which is not easy to see without sufficiently advanced tools. — bizso09

Then what is it about brain stuff that supposedly bridges this gap that other matter doesn't have? More physical stuff like axons and dendrites and bio-chemical carriers doesn't seem to get at it. quantum theory just seems like imagining there's a realm that can do anything. Quantum theory represents statistical uncertainty at a certain level. I don't know if it implies much more in terms of larger brain states or mental states.

If you want to be a panpsychist, the best way to do so is to attack emergentism as hard as you can. If you can say that emergentism isn't true, and that consciousness is real, then you can say that consciousness is fundamental.

If you want to be a panpsychist, the best way to do so is to attack emergentism as hard as you can. If you can say that emergentism isn't true, and that consciousness is real, then you can say that consciousness is fundamental. — Pneumenon

This does make sense. Emergence is its own inexplicable alchemy. The reason is the next level is assumed in the previous one.

No argument from me.

But there is an historic aspect of all this barely touched on. The ancient Greeks attributed such order as they found in nature to "mind." To go further would require some understanding of what they meant by "nature" and by "mind." But even without that we can observe that these were presuppositions of Greek thinking. That is, their presuppositions grounded there suppositions enabling them to think and theorize about both nature and mind.

We the heirs of Greek thinking do not think Greek thoughts. Our presuppositions differ, and so our suppositions, thinking, and theorizing. But some people don't get the memo, and do not understand the function of presuppositions. They make the errors of supposing them true, compounding that by thinking that once true always true, and then casting about for modern argument to keep an ancient idea inflated.

For the rest of us to indulge that is therapy.

But there is an historic aspect of all this barely touched on. The ancient Greeks attributed such order as they found in nature to "mind." To go further would require some understanding of what they meant by "nature" and by "mind." But even without that we can observe that these were presuppositions of Greek thinking. That is, their presuppositions grounded there suppositions enabling them to think and theorize about both nature and mind. — tim wood

Are you saying anywhere they saw order, they thought mind was involved? Is this like matter and form?

What do you think philosophy is about? — bert1

An interest in how the world is. Arguing is for sophomores.

Are you saying anywhere they saw order, they thought mind was involved? Is this like matter and form? — schopenhauer1

When speaking of thinking remote from your own - or at least my own - with modern words, I find it prudent sometimes to put those words in quotes. Or the use the Greek itself, νούς, as a warning to think with care. Is it matter and form? No.

Greek thought is a subject of its own. My point is that from ancient philosophy and ancient religion, and ancient laws, customs, practices we inherit all kinds of things that made sense to them in their world as they knew it, and indeed some of their thinking conditioned some of their other thinking. When we fail to grasp the entire dynamic of that (and even in modern thinking this failure occurs), and thus understand things wrongly, then we think and argue nonsense.

And it is just here where the history of thought becomes especially valuable, when we can properly lay out just what their thinking was, how it worked, and what it was for. None of this concerned with the truth of this or that thought, but rather that it was thought, and functioned as the ground for what was deduced and became accepted thereby as true.

An interest in how the world is. Arguing is for sophomores. — jacksonsprat22

You last year? You're a junior now? A poem for you:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/52706/when-i-was-one-and-twenty-56d2316642304

If you want to be a panpsychist, the best way to do so is to attack emergentism as hard as you can. If you can say that emergentism isn't true, and that consciousness is real, then you can say that consciousness is fundamental. — Pneumenon

Panpsychism is the idea that the universe is structured as intelligent. Intelligence is not derived from anything.

But there is an historic aspect of all this barely touched on. The ancient Greeks attributed such order as they found in nature to "mind." — tim wood

Nous can be translated as mind, but also intelligence.
For Aristotle, intelligence is as fundamental to the world as physical objects.