[Panpsychism] is ‘crazy’ and ‘just obviously wrong’. It is thought to be highly counterintuitive to suppose that an electron has some kind of inner life, no matter how basic, and this is taken to be a very strong reason to doubt the truth of panpsychism.
In fact, the only thing we know about the intrinsic nature of matter is that some of it – the stuff in brains – involves experience.
In contrast to the outlook of naturalism, Husserl believed all knowledge, all science, all rationality depended on conscious acts, acts which cannot be properly understood from within the natural outlook at all. Consciousness should not be viewed naturalistically as part of the world at all, since consciousness is precisely the reason why there was a world there for us in the first place. For Husserl it is not that consciousness creates the world in any ontological sense—this would be a subjective idealism, itself a consequence of a certain naturalising tendency whereby consciousness is cause and the world its effect—but rather that the world is opened up, made meaningful, or disclosed through consciousness.
Why is our experience so different that it requires special treatment? — TheMadFool
Panpsychism is somewhat curious because it reveals the incoherence of substance dualism that it's often born trying to defend. — TheWillowOfDarkness
As per your logic we can't know anything — TheMadFool
All things have consciousness or a mental element present — TimeLine
It is why embodied cognition is an interesting model, where the mind is no longer this abstract processor with no connection to the external world and that cognition emerges from the mind-body relationship and our interaction with our environment.That is what is at issue, though. So to assert that it is the case, is to beg the question. — Wayfarer
the only thing we know about the intrinsic nature of matter is that some of it – the stuff in brains – involves experience.
From there the rest of his argument follows just leveraging the desire for consistency which panpsychism offers. — Moliere
"How do the electrons in a rock suddenly become a mind in a different configuration?" being the target question which panpsychism deflates. — Moliere
I don't understand your objection. Can you really not reflect on your own experiences? — hypericin
in one sense we can be very clear about our own experiences - we certainly know what an unpleasant or pleasant experience is, and we know that some experiences have specific attributes, across a vast range of experiences — Wayfarer
We know the "intrinsic nature" of one very specialized, hyper-complex entity — hypericin
Good observation! — Wayfarer
Biology understands living beings as active. Physics understands matter as passive, inert. So philosophical speculations may tend toward contriving ways in which matter could be active, living. — Metaphysician Undercover
If we can only know experiences through having them, then we can't attribute them to others. But clearly we can attribute experiences to others, so why not to electrons? — Philip Goff
But facts about experiences are still perfectly objective facts about reality. — Philip Goff
In fact, the only thing we know about the intrinsic nature of matter is that some of it – the stuff in brains – involves experience. — Philip Goff
In fact, the only thing we know about the intrinsic nature of matter is that some of it – the stuff in brains – involves experience. — Philip Goff
We don't know this at all. — dukkha
If experience is a process to creating habit, then it is quite possible every living form has experiences, since every life form seems to evolve based upon experiences, even the lowly virus. — Rich
Good enough. Then we may have some evidence that non-living life forms evolve based upon experiences. That would make viruses the missing link between living and non-living forms that evolve. — Rich
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.