has been around for centuries. As part of an approach to answering the hard problem, it has gained ground in recent years. What accounts for this shift? Is it related to confusion about quantum theory? — frank
think it's a lot to do with conceptual difficulties around the emergence of consciousness from what has been presumed to be severally non-conscious things. — bert1
If one opts for reductionism, it is incumbent upon one to explain how the reduction happens. On the other hand, if one opts for the panpsychist view that mind is an elemental feature of the world, then one must account for the apparent lack of mental features at the fundamental level." --SEP — frank
Dualism has been seriously beaten down in modern times, so it is rejected out of prejudice, and this leaves panpsychism as the favourable option. — Metaphysician Undercover
Deacon had stated that it's "mostly" to do with quantum theory. I hadnt heard that claim before. — frank
I think it's a lot to do with conceptual difficulties around the emergence of consciousness from what has been presumed to be severally non-conscious things. — bert1
This is a strange quote. What do mental features look like compared to physical features at any level, fundamental or not?The Presocratics were struck by a dilemma: either mind is an elemental feature of the world, or mind can somehow be reduced to more fundamental elements. If one opts for reductionism, it is incumbent upon one to explain how the reduction happens. On the other hand, if one opts for the panpsychist view that mind is an elemental feature of the world, then one must account for the apparent lack of mental features at the fundamental level." --SEP — frank
This is a strange quote. What do mental features look like compared to physical features at any level, fundamental or not? — Harry Hindu
Emergence is logically incoherent at a fundamental level. Rejection of emergence seems to leave two basic approaches, dualism and panpsychism. Dualism has been seriously beaten down in modern times, so it is rejected out of prejudice, and this leaves panpsychism as the favourable option. — Metaphysician Undercover
The question is, how does what they see with their skin integrate with what they see with their eyes, smell with their nose, feel with their skin, taste with their tongue, hear with their ears, and the intent to tease out useful information from this sensory data, into a whole that we refer to as a conscious experience? — Harry Hindu
do the various layers integrate? — Harry Hindu
On the other hand, if one opts for the panpsychist view that mind is an elemental feature of the world, then one must account for the apparent lack of mental features at the fundamental level." --SEP — frank
Emergence becomes tricky when moving from a third-person view of forces and matter to a first person perspective. Emergence can inadvertently become dualistic when trying to remain monistic. Panpsychism kind of says "fuck it" if we want to be monistic, ditch the emergence of mental events and keep it from the beginning. — schopenhauer1
In other words, it's an easy way out of the problem
— Olivier5
That's good isn't it? — bert1
It works wonders. Should be used more often if you ask me, on scores of other problems. Whence art? Panaesthetism is the answer: atoms love beauty too, you know. Whence morality? Panmoralism of course! Electrons followed rules too, after all. Whence politics? Panpolitism, what else? Quarks know how to spin. Etc. — Olivier5
In other words, it's an easy way out of the problem, which avoids dealing with emergence. — Olivier5
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.