I think the question remains. As Chalmers respeatedly asks, why is there something it is like to be anything?some pansychists just conceptualize it as "there's something it's like to be EVERYTHING". — flannel jesus
IMO, 'panpsychism' is metaphysically indistinguishable from Stone Age... "panpsychism" is a reductionist yet anti-emergence mystery-of-the-gaps which only compounds 'the mystery of consciousness' with a proposal to substitute a (lower level) harder problem for "the" (higher level) "hard problem". A question begged, not answered. — 180 Proof
why can’t the same be true of consciousness? My point is that we have observed other fundamental qualities “working together” to form a complex system, so it is not farfetched to conclude the same of consciousness.
Please let me know what you think! Any feedback / recommendations for further reading are greatly appreciated. — amber
Not every arrangement of matter is conscious. Do we scoff at the idea of electron shells because not every arrangement is solid?The main problem with panpsychism is that all the non-living objects in the universe including the universe itself, refuse to respond in intelligible manner, when they were interrogated with the questions about them. — Corvus
None of them are.Not every arrangement of matter is conscious. — Patterner
Not scoffing, but would like to hear the more elaborated arguments on the idea why electron shell arrangement is solid.Do we scoff at the idea of electron shells because not every arrangement is solid? — Patterner
I don't know that. I'm saying no explanation is given. We are told that, when Physical Processes X, Y, and Z are present, we find consciousness. But we are not told why. Why do X, Y, and Z not take place without the subjective experience of it? What is taking place - photons hitting retina; signals traveling asking optic nerve; storage of information; etc. - doesn't suggest the presence of consciousness. It's just interactions of different levels of physical entities.How do you know that "how matter becomes conscious ... just is" — 180 Proof
We don't know yet — 180 Proof
Nor do I."We don't know" feels like a comfortable thing to say, I don't see why I would want to propose souls. — flannel jesus
Okay, so (as far as you/we know) our 'theories' are incomplete and data insufficient – but no "magic" involved or assumed as you've suggested. We learn from We don't know yet and not from appeals to ignorance just-so stories like "panpsychism" & other metaphysical fairytales — 180 Proof
Nor do I. — Patterner
What is taking place - photons hitting retina; signals traveling asking optic nerve; storage of information; etc. - doesn't suggest the presence of consciousness. It's just interactions of different levels of physical entities. — Patterner
How do you know that "how matter becomes conscious ... just is" and cannot be explained (even, if only, in principle)? Describe which laws of nature both allow "matter to become conscious" and yet prohibits us from explaining "how matter becomes conscious." — 180 Proof
You are not misreading, if we think we have reached the end of all possible scientific methods. But, as Nagle says in Mind and Cosmos, "The world is an astonishing place, and the idea that we have in our possession the basic tools needed to understand it is no more credible now than it was in Aristotle’s day." Consciousness is not in the perview of our current scientific understanding and methods. That's why it doesn't offer an explanation.The way you've phrased it sounds like you're going to "science can't figure it out", which is possibly a misreading. — flannel jesus
What that's not physical do you suspect?It sounds like you're extremely confident that it's JUST interactions of physical things, — flannel jesus
'panpsychism' is metaphysically indistinguishable from Stone Age
animism — 180 Proof
If the second is true, and physical processes such as energy are also fundamental, it seems that the combination problem is trivial: we have observed that physical processes can form complex objects without human intervention, such as trees: if we assume that another quality is fundamental (ignoring consciousness), and this quality is used to make a complex system like a tree, which seems to have fundamental components working together to form a complex system, why can’t the same be true of consciousness
What that's not physical do you suspect? — Patterner
we have observed that physical processes can form complex objects without human intervention, such as trees — amber
Eliminativism is the thesis that relations are mental abstractions that are not a part of external reality.
In short, the physical processes being described as doing x, y, and z are already doing something. That is, x, y, and z. Yet we are told they are also doing this other thing - producing consciousness. — Patterner
So how about consider that something exists which we cannot detect with our senses or science? — Patterner
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.