H2O's macro physical characteristics, under any conditions, are explained by how's it's micro physical properties behave under those conditions. Every physicist, website, and book that explains its characteristics, under any conditions, including why ice floats on water, will say the same. It's because of the properties of its molecules, like its weak hydrogen bonds, and the angle of the arrangement of its atoms in the molecules. These things, in turn, due to the nature of electron shells. — Patterner
Or point me to any other macro characteristic that is not explained by how the micro properties of its constituents behave under the conditions it is in. — Patterner
Of course it's under the conditions it is in. I said that back in this post:You argue that the macro is nothing other than a composite of the parts in an arrangement, but now you qualify with "under the conditions it is in", — Metaphysician Undercover
That's what i have in mind.And when i use the word consciousness, I'm not talking about higher order thinking, or complex thought, or things that we think of in terms of human consciousness. But when I use the word consciousness I'm talking about consciousness in the most fundamental sense. Um, this, this bare fact of felt experience. — Annaka Harris
This is one if the reasons I started this thread. Whether or not my thinking agrees with Harris', I'm sure she's not a substance dualist, so didn't want to further derail MoK's thread.Thoughts are not the same.
— Patterner
Yes, describing things from the outside seems so far removed from what it feels like to be inside. Experience does seem drastically different, hence the hard problem.
I've been listening to a new audio book, a so called "audio documentary" that touches on this. It's called Lights On by Annaka Harris. Perhaps not up your street because she's an unabashed physicalist, but she explores concepts of fundamental consciousness because she's become increasingly convinced that that's more the right approach to talking about experience. — flannel jesus
But then we could also suggest that mass is a pervasive, fundamental field, and that's why all particles have mass. — Patterner
Well it will be interesting to hear how she thinks of space-time if it's not fundamental!Although as you get later (spoiler alert), you discover that she DOESN'T think mass is fundamental, primarily because she doesn't think space-time itself is fundamental (and mass is itself defined in relation to space time) — flannel jesus
Depending on definitions, many or all species are intelligent, though none with our abilities. So there can be consciousness without our intelligence on par with ours.
I think intelligence and consciousness are different things. I think all conscious things are conscious of whatever intelligence they possess. — Patterner
An AI program could well be argued to be of greater intelligence than a human, to at least have the capacity to simultaneously apprehend far more information than a human, and so forth … but, until it obtains the faculty of understanding, if it ever will, it will not be defined by consciousness. Thereby making the human of a far greater higher consciousness than the AI program, despite having a lesser intelligence, etc. — javra
Yes, that is my thought. Consciousness is always the same. It's just the subjective awareness of the thing in question. A rock's consciousness is extremely limited. Certainly no understanding/comprehension. Nothing I would even know how to discuss. Skrbina's "instantaneous memory-less moments of experience." But it's there; the basis of all, including human, consciousness.Are you then maintaining that "consciousness in its most fundamental sense" can well be fully devoid of all understanding/comprehension - irrespective of how minuscule - regarding that of which it might be aware/conscious of? — javra
I have some quotes in my OP. They are at the end here. The idea is that understanding isn't intrinsic to all consciousness. I think that idea is a mistake.OK, but then you might want to explain what “subjective awareness” can possibly mean when completely devoid of any kind of tacit understanding*. — javra
Long to explain...I’m not antithetical to panpsychism, btw, but if it were to be real, I don’t so far deem it possible that a rock, for example, would have a subjective awareness of its own and thereby be endowed with subjectivity - this for reasons previously mentioned. — javra
You and everybody else in the world. :grin: All speculation.(Not that I currently have any informed understanding of how panpsychism might in fact work.) — javra
Panpsychism is sometimes caricatured as the view that fundamental physical entities such as electrons have thoughts; that electrons are, say, driven by existential angst. However, panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts.
Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing, involving subtle and complex emotions, thoughts and sensory experiences. But there seems nothing incoherent with the idea that consciousness might exist in some extremely basic forms. We have good reason to think that the conscious experiences a horse has are much less complex than those of a human being, and the experiences a chicken has are much less complex than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler perhaps at some point the light of consciousness suddenly switches off, with simpler organisms having no subjective experience at all. But it is also possible that the light of consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba, and bacteria. For the panpsychist, this fading-whilst-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities – perhaps electrons and quarks – possessing extremely rudimentary forms of consciousness, which reflects their extremely simple nature.
Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness.
Minds of atoms may conceivably be, for example, a stream of instantaneous memory-less moments of experience.
Sez you :grin: I'll tell you what I think about causality asap. Hopefully tomorrow. And everyone reading this who already thinks I'm off my rocker will want to call the men in the white coats after that.The property dualism although it can explain bottom-up causation, the existence of experience for example, cannot explain top-bottom causation, for example, how a single experience like a thought you have can lead to you typing the content of your thought. — MoK
(Not that I currently have any informed understanding of how panpsychism might in fact work.) — javra
You and everybody else in the world. :grin: All speculation. — Patterner
Put aside?? Seems like important stuff to me! :smile: Not sure it's anything we could describe. But I think it's there because, a) I think human consciousness needs to be explained by the properties of the particles that we are made of, but none of the physical properties fit the bill, and b) if the primary particles that we are made of are interchangable with any other primary particles anywhere else in the universe, then all particles must have the property in question.Still have my questions about what proto-experience or else proto-consciousness might be (this having read the OP's quotes - thanks for reposting them) - such as when devoid of any sense of self (which, as a sense of self, would then proto-experience or else be proto-conscious of that which is not self). But I'll here put those questions aside. — javra
Still have my questions about what proto-experience or else proto-consciousness might be — javra
"Less heat" means the conditions have changed. The degree of heat is a condition. Initially, I described liquid water. Then I mentioned different conditions - less heat - under which the hydrogen bonds don't break as easily. — Patterner
I think, though, that I can imagine there is something it is like to be, let's say, a worm, but that the worm has no sense of self. Does a worm know it is not the dirt through which it digs? I'm not saying it thinks it is the dirt through which it digs. I'm saying maybe it doesn't have any concept of itself, the dirt, or anything else. — Patterner
There you go. Automatons. What's the line between automatons and ... not automotive?In short, the worm, just like any other organism (even prokaryotic ones), does have a (non-conceptual) sense of self. This as is empirically verifiable (at least when granting that no lifeform is an automaton). — javra
There you go. Automatons. What's the line between automatons and ... not automotive? — Patterner
How about single-celled organisms? I don't think archaea or bacteria have a sense of self. — Patterner
Microbial intelligence (known as bacterial intelligence) is the intelligence shown by microorganisms. This includes complex adaptive behavior shown by single cells, and altruistic or cooperative behavior in populations of like or unlike cells. It is often mediated by chemical signalling that induces physiological or behavioral changes in cells and influences colony structures.[1]
[...]
Even bacteria can display more behavior as a population. These behaviors occur in single species populations, or mixed species populations. Examples are colonies or swarms of myxobacteria, quorum sensing, and biofilms.[1][3]
[...]
Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacob research group at Tel Aviv University which developed a fractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle.[4] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
But I really don't know what you mean by "non-conceptual sense of self", so not sure where we agree and disagree. — Patterner
Only if consciousness equals psyche. I think they are different things.Under panpsychism, nothing would be an automaton, right? - for everything would in one way or another be endowed with psyche (rather than being a psyche-less mechanism). — javra
Only if experience equals understanding. I think they are different things.If one entertains some form of proto-experience for subatomic particles and the like (this proto-experience being a something which we hardly can comprehend) why then necessarily exclude the possibility of a "proto-understanding" which would be innate to this very proto-experience? — javra
Not sure if I expressed myself well. What I meant is, just joining things together doesn't mean the larger physical unit will have consciousness as a unit. A physical unit isn't necessarily a conscious unit. Most of the universe is physical units that aren't conscious units. They're just a bunch of particles, each with the experience of being a particle, even though joined together physically with other particles. Yes, the first level, and any particle might become part of a conscious unit at some point. But at the moment, not much going on.Physical connections aren't enough.
— Patterner
Perhaps it's more like "some, or even most, kinds of physical connections aren't enough". — Janus
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.