Are you saying that things are determined prior to the biological state, and then not necessarily determined after that? But then if not for an additional non-physical thing like the soul, how can things go from being determined to non-determined? — Samuel Lacrampe

Hello,
For instance: we can assume there is consciousness at the subatomic level, but it cannot manifest itself unless it is integrated in a more complex and proper system, like DNA. So as long as there is no proper combination of atoms to create that ''independent'' circuit, atoms just obey the laws. But when DNA is created, than those atoms obey both the physical laws and the purpose-driven consciousness/life/soul inside them.
Of course, this may be wrong, but nonetheless is a possibility. It's a panpsychist-like view, which states that actually matter and the reality itself is more than materialists think it is. This view is getting more and more popular among thinkers nowadays.

A friend once asked me if jellyfish sleep. My reply was that you can't sleep if you are never quite awake. — Banno

And your friend was never the same again. :lol: I truly admire your style of being simple in bringing arguments, I am a simple man myself. But sometimes I really think you intentionally hide things in order to make your arguments plausible.

The jellyfish can be conscious without going to sleep and without having the characteristics of a sleeping creature.

I see you have had a great debate here. Sorry I've missed it!
Let me bring an argument for panpsychism:
No, a robot wouldn't have more consciousness than a rock. No, my own hand isn't conscious.
In my opinion, panpsychism want to say this: elementary particles have a very small degree of consciousness, but only certain combination of atoms can ''conduct'' consciousness and unite the consciousness of particle with that of another particle forming a stronger consciousness. So, if there's no connectivity inside a rock due to the property of atoms forming that rock, than the rock, as a conscious entity doesn't exist.

I would say that if the notion of having states of ‘less consciousness’ exists, then the notion of having states of ‘more consciousness’ exists. But, you are right I think. Trying to quantify something mental like consciousness does feel awkward. I would say we could make sense of it with an ad hoc definition such as x has states of more consciousness if it displays more a) self awareness and b) comprehension indicating intelligent behavior. Criteria (a) might be hard to measure though. — Kmaca

But isn't this like saying there is a potential for ''infinite consciousness''? I mean I know about my own existence, I know that there is a huge universe there, maybe infinite or even an infinite number of different multiverses. I can imagine less than that, for example just feeling primary needs like hunger but having no idea about the universe and not even about the implications of my own existence. On the other hand, it is hard for me to contemplate ''more'' could mean. Is there more to be conscious of?

So it's not necessarily the number of senses but the degree by which some sense is more sensitive than some other? Dogs' ears and noses are more complex than humans', but we have bigger brains. Some birds can sense the Earth's magnetic field, but humans can't without the aid of technology. So are these birds more or less conscious of the Earth's magnetic field than humans, or could it be said that we are equally conscious, just not in the same way, or by the same method, or the same senses.

The way that birds use their sense of the magnetic field would be different. They use it to navigate, but we can use it to determine the state of Earth's resistance to solar radiation and the state of Earth's core. So does the fact that humans can establish much larger and longer causal relationships with what we are sensing (we seem to have a better grasp of time at least in the long run as most animal's attentions spans are very short) mean that we are more conscious than they? Are humans more conscious of the threats facing this planet and our survival as a species from impending asteroid impacts, nearby supernovas, etc. than other animals? Why or why not? And in this sense is not consciousness just another word for awareness? — Harry Hindu

Very heavy! And in my opinion this raises the following question: CAN THERE BE CONSCIENCE WITHOUT SENSES? Maybe consciousness is the sense of your existence?

Very complex. So I deduce the following: there is a paradigm shift between humans and animals: from a potential limited to a finite number of concepts to unlimited potential. So from now it is not about quantity anymore, it's about quality. Am I correct?

But nobody insulted. I made a mistake using a term I didn't know it was a slur. I am not native and I really didn't know. Other than that, I think the discussion was civilized.

I listened to your advice and I did some research on this topic. I read about Chruchland's view. I think that unlike Dennett he didn't have any agenda other than disproving dualism and I think he actually did a decent job. The problem with his view is that he wasn't able to fix the problems of materialism and he ended up in the exact trap of contradicting himself.

Curious guy: Mr. Churchland, is the 1st person experience something true?
Mr. C.: Of course it is.
C.g.: So can you explain it?
Mr.C: Of course, everything can be reduced to the moving of the particles in the brain = this is not a correlation, it is the same thing = moving particles is the same with 1st person experience.
Well, this is very hard to grasp, and it basically denies experience.
So he basically contradicts himself.

Setting out arguments always makes them seem more complicated than they are. I just quite like doing it. My point is just that in the sense of 'consciousness' used in this thread, it is not necessary that conscious things must be able to be knocked out. — bert1

Yes, exactly. If panpsychism is right and consciousness is fundamental, there's no way you could make a basic element unconscious. The only way is to make it dissapear, if that's possible.

share your perception/intuition. I don't think it does make sense. To my mind, nothing is any more conscious than anything else. Consciousness does not come in degrees, just as, (arguably) existence does not come in degrees. For example, we don't say a car has more existence than a rock. They are very different things, but in terms of their existence, they are equal. One does not exist more than the other. — bert1

Makes sense.

Let's set out the reductio:

1) Quarks are conscious (panpsychist thesis as target for reductio) (assumption)
2) If quarks are conscious then they can be knocked out, put to sleep (assumption)
3) NOT quarks can be knocked out, put to sleep (assumption)
4) NOT Quarks are conscious (MTT 2.3)
5) Quarks and conscious AND NOT quarks are conscious (& introduction 1,4)
6) NOT Quarks are conscious (RAA 1,5) — bert1

Too complicated for me :))

That is an excellent piece of writing by Nagel. He's always been a great writer. He's also right. Dennet tries to dress it up, but he's essentially denying consciousness, which is stupid and a non-starter with anyone who's not emotionally invested in materialism. Any "ism" that ends up denying conscious experience is doomed from the start. — RogueAI

OOOO that was a really strong one! But I don't believe Dennett is denying it, I just believe he wants to convince people there's nothing special about it or about anything in this reality. So he simply reduced it to banal elements that come up together and form something... banal. I need to read more about this Nagel guy.

I can't find the full context in which you used the word "fags" (even from our changelog). — Baden

I said it indeed and I did a more detailed research on google, and it is indeed a bad word, especially in North America. So I need to accept I made a mistake and I apologize! But I am not a native, I didn't know it's slur, I thought it is simply a synonym for gay, and I didn't have the intention to offend.

Neither the dictionary, nor the admins help you, so I guess it is time to admit you were wrong. Calling me homophobe was very insulting and some excuses will be welcome. Thank you!

ooo, that's cool. By the way, my question wasn't about the validity of panpsychism, but some of the answers were concerned more with denying panpsychism rather than answer my question. Other answers though were super- cool. Thank you for helping!

I don't understand.

Thank you for your interesting answer. I have thought about this complicated issue myself.

Makes sense.

Something could be "conscious of more" than we are. — jorndoe

I find that to be a true moment of inspiration. Great point!

Hmmm... I know I realise stuff that I didn't before. But is this process infinite? I mean yeah, I am more conscious than I was when I was a child, but I would say I am not more than I was 10 years ago. I know more stuff in the fields I am interested in, but I am not sure if that is the equivalent of being more conscious.

You wake up, don't you? From zero to conscious — Banno

Exactly because the matter that my brain is made of has conscious properties. My consciousness is a sum of many irreductible conscious elements, so my consciousness is a state or a combination of those elementary things. When I sleep, that state is no longer there and it re-emerges when I wake up.
Of course, this is definitely just a scenario, but what am I trying to say is that your argument does not exclude the existance of elementary conscious elements, your assumption does. It's like saying "my castle is a pile of bricks, but the bricks lack bricks properties."

Not that I want you banned, or anything. :cool: — Wheatley

0 warnings in 3 years. You're worrying too much for me, let the moderators do their job. If they warn/ban me, it means I did something wrong. If they don't, it means those who accused me were wrong. :)

IF quarks are conscious, do they sleep? Can they be anaesthetised? Can they be knocked unconscious by a blow to the... string? — Banno

1. IF quarks are conscious, do they sleep? - no
2. Can they be anesthetized? - no
3. Can they be knocked unconscious by a blow to the... string? - that yes! Kidding.

Maybe there is a ''minimum'' degree of consciousness that cannot be reduced to ''unconsciousness''. Case in which panpsychism is absolutely true.

I think they should be treated as part of a reductio ad absurdum. Hence, Panpsychism fails. — Banno

I actually find your argument pretty reasonable. But we can apply this vice-versa as well: how come elements with 0 consciousness can form something conscious? I have heard the ''emergent'' theory, but I don't believe in magic.

IF quarks are conscious, do they sleep? Can they be anaesthetised? Can they be knocked unconscious by a blow to the... string? — Banno

Good questions!

Thank you, I have read them, I find them very reasonable, and so far I think I've done a good job in respecting them. This is why I haven't been warned or banned. Cheers!

You're probably getting way more out of this forum than you are putting into it. — Wheatley

Is there a rule in this sense?

I don't know. I am here to understand these things, not to provide answers haha

A healthy and awake baby is just as conscious as a distinguished PhD performing surgery. Right? — Outlander

No, but I think a normal person is just as conscious as a distinguished PhD performing surgery.

What are quarks conscious about? — Wheatley

.....? I have absolutely no idea.

And people shouldn't need to actively ignore or avoid threads with no philosophical content or that contain extremely offensive bigoted language — Enai De A Lukal

Keep accusing people left and right they are being racist and homophobes and one day you will have a huge majority tired of being accused for no reason. I wish you good luck with a huge mad crowd!
And remember: your opinion regarding a word is completely irrelevant as long as the English dictionarydoesn't agree with you. So go check it!

The part of us that possesses free will is not physical.
• This non-physical part is what is typically referred to as the Soul. — Samuel Lacrampe

Not necessarily, you should also assume P1 as being true. Maybe everything is determined goes for every structure before reaching the biological state.

Using "fag" as a pejorative is offensive to the group of people to whom it apples - gay folk. — Banno

I am not a native speaker, but I searched the Eglish dictionary and this is what I found: https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03X1xjc7bfjXW-czrnQzzq469LZWA%3A1593501079604&ei=l-X6Xvm0JLGSrgTmgrzoBA&q=fag+meaning&oq=fag+meaning&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECAAQR1DPPFj9QWCeR2gAcAJ4AIABdYgBmAWSAQM1LjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi53LGO_qjqAhUxiYsKHWYBD00Q4dUDCAw&uact=5
The term ''offensive'' or any other synonyme was missing.

On the other hand, for the word ''nI**&r'', I found this: ''a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person.'' Contemptuous is indeed offensive, so if I had used the word ''n%**%r'', that would have been racist indeed. But as long as the English dictionary doesn't mention ''fag'' being offensive in any way, you shouldn't consider it this way and even if you do, you cannot force other people to think that way.

I think they might be going to have a word with you. — Banno

- too bad, exactly when I was becoming so popular. I guess I'll never be as popular as Dennett :(.

You used it at as a pejorative- — Enai De A Lukal

You are an ignorant:
1. You accused me of posting a question related to Dennett.
2. You didn't bother to go check the English dictionary.
3. You accused me of admitting the word is offensive, without mentioning the ''if'' part, which changes radically the whole point.

Ok so not just willfully ignorant and unserious, but a homophobe to boot. Yikes. Mods could probably go ahead and trash this one... — Enai De A Lukal

1. You are ignorant: I didn't mention Dennett when I posted the question. Moreover, I said he doesn't deny consciousness.
2. Regarding your other accusation, I don't even bother responding to such a silly accusation.
Please ignore this thread!

We are evolved to model everyday, — Kenosha Kid

I think we are at the begining, in that romantic infancy of the process when quarks move their positiom when we look at them, when things are in 2 places at one and when we curve time

But common sense has nothing to do with it. — Kenosha Kid

I think it has. Things function in this reality because it has.

These are technicalities and I cannot get into them because it is not my field, but I can only say I did a research and I haven't found flaws with pilot wave. I did find many with GR though. My point is that there are many different opinions, but at the end of the day common-sense and logic will prevail. GR or probabilistic QM are very against common-sense and logic.

It did. And of course a thing cannot be in 2 places at once and it doesn't "care" about being observed or not.

It is an exceedingly simple theory, derived exactly from two postulates:
1. The empirically-verified observer-independence of the speed of light;
2. The empirically-verified invariability of physical law to inertial motion.
Without finding a flaw in its postulates or its derivation, it is illogical to dismiss its conclusions. — Kenosha Kid

Pilot wave has no empirical flaws and it contradicts both GR and probabilistic QM.

I am not a scientist, therefore my language is very limited. But time will eventually tell GR is wrong.

Where's Banno? — Wheatley

At church.

This is SR. If you wish to travel for 5 minutes to get to Mars for 9 am, you have to leave before 8:55 Martian time because of time dilation. Moving clocks run slow, as has been demonstrated by the velocity-dependence of particle decays. — Kenosha Kid

I am sure it is a case where many mistakes bring you to the correct answer. It is simply illogic and against common sense and reality cannot be like this.