I don't actually know what the latest biological definition of life is — bert1
My view could perhaps be: before x can be conscious, there has to be a conscious p, q and r. — bert1
-No that is what provides credibility and to each competing position in a debate. Objective evidence that are accessible to everyone.But that's to prejudice the debate. — bert1
-Not really. Unfortunately for us only empirical experimentation can provide Objective facts for verifying or falsifying a statement. We can logical prove or disprove a claim to but that is not possible for unfalsifiable through methodological means claims.Unfalsifiable by an empirical experiment, perhaps, but there are other ways to falsify claims. It's true that it's not a typical scientific hypothesis. — bert1
-Then not only Panpsychism denies an observable fact of the world, that's emergence (i.e. two explosive molecules when combined produce a substance with the emergent fire extinguishing property) it also makes a medieval claim for a substance being responsible for a phenomenon (like Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone energy etc).It would be odd to expect it to. The idea that conscious states arise is emergentism. Panpsychism is typically a denial of emergentism. — bert1
How and why mental content is what it is, and what entities have what content and why, these are still open and difficult questions, and I agree panpsychists have not really got many good answers to these yet. I think various functionalist theories could be re-purposed to this end, perhap — bert1
_yes this is something that you need to demonstrated not assume. Demonstrated contingency to brain functions and metabolic molecules and external stimuli and a period of learning (new born) don't really leave any room for a competing hypothesis .Panpsychists generally do not think consciousness is an advanced property, it's a primitive, simple property, of the kind that could be fundamental. — bert1
No it can't The default position is always founded on objectively demonstrated facts. We can demonstrate the necessary and sufficient role of a functioning brain for thinking agents to interact and be aware of their environment. We can not establish such criteria for supernatural ideology.What should be the default position is an interesting question. Arguments could be made either way it seems to me. — bert1
-So they actually don't make predictions since they can not be tested.Some versions of panpsychism do make predictions, but not empirically testable ones. — bert1
These are gradations in what we are conscious of. They are not gradations between being conscious of nothing at all, and being conscious of something. — bert1
Here you have used the word 'conscious' in your definition of 'consciousness'. You could means several different things, and I'm not sure which one. — bert1
Panpsychism is a conclusion, not an assumption. Consider:
Either panpsychism, emergentism or eliminativism
Not emergentism
Not eliminativism
Therefore, panpsychism.
That's a valid argument. It might be unsound (one or more promises might be false), but that's another conversation. Panpsychism is the conclusion, not an assumption. — bert1
OK, thanks. Why can't all that happen without there being an emotion, meaning or feeling? — bert1
Prescientific concepts of life might well have included an element of consciousness — bert1
Assuming thoughts can be reduced to an electric current as biologists claim (re neural action potential) and given that atoms, thought net neutral, possess charged particles (protons and electrons) and that too in motion, panpsychism doesn't seem that far-fetched an idea. We can play around with this rough outline of panpsychism's mechanism to refine it further. :chin:
Is lightning a thought? Are storm chasers aware of something we're not? I dunno! — Agent Smith
You speak as if you're 100% certain. Are you? Probably not. So, yeah. — Agent Smith
Of course not - I can only speak from my limited experience and knowledge, and all statements are open to dispute if you have an experience that contradicts. This is what discussions are for, aren’t they? To draw attention to possible errors? — Possibility
Objective evidence that are accessible to everyone. — Nickolasgaspar
Then not only Panpsychism denies an observable fact of the world, that's emergence (i.e. two explosive molecules when combined produce a substance with the emergent fire extinguishing property) — Nickolasgaspar
it also makes a medieval claim for a substance being responsible for a phenomenon (like Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone energy etc). — Nickolasgaspar
yes this is something that you need to demonstrated not assume. — Nickolasgaspar
We can demonstrate the necessary and sufficient role of a functioning brain for thinking agents to interact and be aware of their environment. — Nickolasgaspar
Of course there are objective metrics that allow us to identify conscious states in other agents, from our interactions to necessary brain functions to our ability to decode complex conscious thoughts by watching the fMRI scan of a patient. — Nickolasgaspar
You are responding to my conscious states....by consciously processing what they have produced. — Nickolasgaspar
I have evidence of my consciousness that no one else can have, because no one else is me. — bert1
What..................? That is a binary position mate...you can use it as an argument for nothing. You are either right or not right, you are either guilty or not guilty.
That is a tautology based on the Logical Absolutes.
There is gradation on what we can be conscious of many reasons and that proves that our physiology and conditions affect the quality of our conscious states.
Again there is no value saying that one can be conscious or not. It offers zero meaningful information to the discussion or your position. — Nickolasgaspar
But I have evidence of my consciousness that no one else can have, because no one else is me. — bert1
-Cherry picking? Special Pleading...are you ok with the use of fallacies in your arguments? I am not, I tend to dismiss such arguments without second thought.When I say panpsychism is a denial of emergentism, that's only with regard to the emergence of consciousness specifically. — bert1
Pansychism has nothing to do with Philosophy. Its an unfalsifiable metaphysical worldview and it is direct conflict with the available scientific facts of reality.I'm only talking about the philosophy of mind. — bert1
-Again Special pleading. What do you mean "consciousness" is very unusual, what is unusual about a biological sensory system arousing specific areas of the brain allowing the organism to be conscious about things in his environment????? You don't get to declare something unusual, you need to demonstrate it. You must point to the science that proves external stimuli can not be collected by our biological sensors (eyes,ears) and they can not be converted to electric pulses, can't arouse a specific area of the brain responsible for visual consciousness and the image can't be compared with a previous input providing info on what we look at etc etc etc etcOf course, the vast majority of properties in the world are emergent. But consciousness isn't one of them. Consciousness is very unusual like that. — bert1
No I only point out that making up magical answers was a common practice in our medieval philosophy. The example was random.I think you might be confusing panpsychism with substance dualism. Panpsychism is typically a monistic view. — bert1
Again....you need to demonstrate that the alternatives are false......The evidence we have don't favor your ideology.It isn't assumed. Panpsychism must be true if the alternatives are false. — bert1
-You converted the induced conclusion of neuroscience....to a tautology. Great!Of course a functioning human brain in a human body is necessary and sufficient for a functioning human being, that's pretty much true by definition. — bert1
-Obviously you were not paying any attention. Neuroscience has located the areas responsible for our conscious states, for the introduction of the content of our thoughts and how by manipulating those areas we can affect our states.You haven't told me anything interesting about consciousness. — bert1
And there is a reason for that......its because the brain mechanisms responsible for our conscious states....are irrelevant to those things you mentioned.This says nothing about the consciousness of, say, a snail, thermostat, or lawnmower. — bert1
- Well what it matter is what it tells to experts, not to us. Our brain has the hardware that allows it to be conscious, it is hooked on a sensory system that provides information about the world and the organism, it has centers that process meaning,memory, symbolic language, pattern recognition.A combustion engine....burns fuel and its censors provide information for that process.It doesn't tell me why a functioning human brain is conscious, and why, say, an internal combustion engine isn't. — bert1
-I am not sure you understand what it means for a brain to conscious....It helps to be aware of where you can find resources, avoid predators and obstacles, make choices of your behavior and actions in your society, adjust it according to other people's behavior.Why can't a brain do all the things it does in the dark, without consciousness? We know it doesn't, but why not? — bert1
OK, that's good. OK, so we look at an fRMI scan and what? See consciousness there? Or do we infer consciousness? Or what? If we infer it, what is the inference? Can you spell it out? — bert1
-Actually the correct quote should be "I feel , I am ". The evidence are not the same but the are more than sufficient to meet any objective standard.I agree with you, I think I am. But the evidence I have for your consciousness is not the same evidence I have for my own consciousness. — bert1
Yes, I can use it as an argument for something. Consciousness is an unusual concept. The vast majority of concepts do admit of degree. That's why I mentioned the example of baldness. It's a perfectly good concept, but it is not binary. — bert1
of course there is. You just choose not to admit it. Here are the extremes for both cases(Again)There is no sharp cut-off point between being bald and non-bald — bert1
You should also agree with me on this one.Well, for the vast majority of properties in the world, I completely agree with you. But consciousness is different. — bert1
There is of course, plenty of degree about what we experience once we have got consciousness 'booted up' as it were, — bert1
-And there are many degrees to baldness when we get/or loose our first hair.There is of course, plenty of degree about what we experience once we have got consciousness 'booted up' as it were, to use an emergentist metaphor, but if there is a 'booting up', there has to be a binary transition from non-conscious to conscious. — bert1
Neither consciousness or baldness is binary........But nature generally lacks such binary transitions, especially when you get the microscope out and look closely. So that presents a problem for the emergentist. — bert1
To be clear, you have evidence of something. You can't possibly have private evidence of consciousness, how would you know what the word meant if your only evidence of it was private? How would your language community have taught you how to use the word, what it referred to? — Isaac
I have evidence of my consciousness that no one else can have — bert1
I can instinctively infer that they probably feel something roughly similar to what I felt — bert1
we have have gathered a large number of such experiences — bert1
one thing they all have in common — bert1
we can nevertheless both perform this abstraction and reasonably share the concept. — bert1
I'm pretty sure the experience isn't shared because when I stub my toe my friend doesn't say ouch. — bert1
I've been reading and watching lectures about "What Is Life?". Living organisms are described by the biologists as "bounded entities". Identity then is something a bacterium has, without being conscious.
This kind of non-conscious identity is a prerequisite for consciousness.
I think bounded entities developed, by chance, perhaps around deep sea vents. I think consciousness developed out of non-conscious sensory mechanisms in those bounded entities. — Daemon
I'm not imagining that a sea sponge is conscious. It has the non-conscious sensory mechanisms from which I think consciousness developed. — Daemon
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.