Consciousness

[ryan]

In other words: Is consciousness an effect that arises due to the activity of the brain?

In terms of (1) which is the physicalist point of view, the effect is just what happens next in the system. What happens next and "arises" would just be the same thing.

2) Or is it something in of itself, something else, something extra?

What else could use it and how could it use it?

We know what advantages in survival hearing the bear has. Animals trying to survive have a use for a consciousness, if that consciousness has the ability to do something.

But if we were just zombies and aliens were watching us, the physical interactions may be all that is required to explain what happens with an acoustic energy input like that of a bear's roar.

If the consciousness does nothing, can do nothing, can make no changes, then like anything that does nothing it is not needed.

It doesn't necessarily do nothing. And if it does do nothing physically, it at least changes, it runs in tandem, it exists as another thing, etc.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh I am well aware of that post. I pulled my hair out reading it because a philosophy is not necessarily going to have evidence. This means that it may not be probable or even close to probable; it's a "rational possibility".

We don't usually start with "its within the realm of possibilities" without positing how and why one believes it is there based on some evidence. A rational possibility needs rest on some rational basis. When one pulls something out of one's excretory orifice we usually look away. Face it, something pulled from there is neither rational nor a possibility because its a self evident waste of another's time. Just like that we've gone from rational possibility to self evident waste of another's time. BTW your inference that panpsychism and  integrated information theory have any relation to  information theory,  Claude Shannon, is not true on its face.

One would do better looking bases of consciousness if one looked at Chaos theory and the consequences of feedback in deterministic systems. Think of the situation this way: Consciousness is an awareness of one's situation in ones social world being processed as response to those conditions.

 

[ryan]

There are the 3 questions the what, how and why, but I think the how is what we should focus in on which is really what led me to panpsychism. With physical phenomena it is pretty easy to understand these questions like how/why does a cloud produce rain (condensation) or what is a cloud (H2O molecules).

Here's how strange the how question gets using an all physical analogy instead of a physical and mental example.

In the case of a cloud, the evaporated water, from say puddles, makes the cloud. There is a change in the density of water molecules, likely more dense than the evaporation but much less dense than the puddles. Such differences are only because the water molecules changed positions in space. The water goes from water to water to water. (In more detail, if we assume an isolated system, we won't lose any mass or energy from the transition of puddles to clouds). Everyone is happy; everything makes sense.

Hold that thought, and let's try to split the how question into two different parts.

1) Does the brain (or a part of the brain) make up this consciousness the same way that water makes up clouds (simply by changing the brain particles in space)?

2) Or is it something in of itself, something else, something extra?

If it's (1), that would be so easy. There would be nothing to talk about. The mental image of green is equivalent to some goo in the brain. But nobody is satisfied with that.

So now we are left with (2) and dare to answer "how".

Now remember the puddles-to-cloud story. Think about what the consciousness would mean in a strictly physical world where the consciousness is physical too. Using an analogy, the clouds would form, but a big plane would also form and just float there with clouds. The number of water molecules did not change but there is a plane there too now. And this happens only because the water molecules changed their position in space. Nothing was added to the molecules to produce this plane and nothing was taken away from the molecules.

In this analogy, the cloud is the brain, and the plane is the consciousness. How did the plane/consciousness get there?

Are you with me? One more post to go.

I think you're setting up a strawman/false dichotomy. No physicalist, as far as I understand, believes that the sensation of seeing something green is literally identical to a bunch of particles arranged in a certain way. It's not quite so simple. A better analogy might be the screen on an iPhone. I have the experience of swiping icons back and forth, pinching to zoom, and navigating around a colorful symbolic environment, but despite the fact that everything on the screen is being generated by the internal processor, I will not find any of these elements if I break open the iPhone and look inside it. It's true that the images can be reduced to pixels with a defined color and position, but the same can be said of photons on the surface of a retina; the point is that a user interface is not identical to any of the parts that are required to generate it, and that's all consciousness is, a user interface for the world of experiences we evolved to regard as important. I still have my suspicions about strict eliminativism/physicalism, but I don't think the cloud analogy is being charitable.

The point of (2) was to drive home the idea that once brains/matter is in a particular state/arrangement something else appears into existence. Something in addition to the processes/atoms/particles thus the hard problem. The hard problem is not just about finding out what state exactly correlates to consciousness but rather why/how it's there and what it is.

 

[ryan]

Gotcha ryan. Well I sense that the cloud doesn't show up until the plane does. Plane is a good enough analogy. Cloud and whatnot. Easy to relate. But the cloud doesn't exist without the plane. Planes actually do make clouds, too. Why would there be a cloud there? There is only the plane. And it may be a toy plane sitting motionless in the first place, ya know. Who says it is going somewhere? Someone glued it together and sat it on a desk. Model planes don't make clouds. They just sit there. Why does there have to be a cloud again? I got what you're saying but the plane is pretty much all you need in my opinion.

The cloud is meant to be the brain, and the plane is meant to be the consciousness that pops up out of nowhere. Why/how does the plane exist is the question of the "Hard Problem".

You don't have to take my word for it which is why I linked you to the how, why and what concerns of the consciousness.

What you believe is what you believe. What I am trying to do is explain to you the problems of the consciousness so that you will know better what "they" are talking about. And that is needed so you know why panpsychism appeals to me/people.

We are about to enter the good/fun stuff. Are you ready, or do you have more questions?

 

[ryan]

Oh I am well aware of that post. I pulled my hair out reading it because a philosophy is not necessarily going to have evidence. This means that it may not be probable or even close to probable; it's a "rational possibility".

We don't usually start with "its within the realm of possibilities" without positing how and why one believes it is there based on some evidence. A rational possibility needs rest on some rational basis. When one pulls something out of one's excretory orifice we usually look away. Face it, something pulled from there is neither rational nor a possibility because its a self evident waste of another's time. Just like that we've gone from rational possibility to self evident waste of another's time.

BTW your inference that panpsychism and  integrated information theory have any relation to  information theory,  Claude Shannon, is not true on its face.

What the hell are you talking about??????

One would do better looking bases of consciousness if one looked at Chaos theory and the consequences of feedback in deterministic systems. Think of the situation this way: Consciousness is an awareness of one's situation in ones social world being processed as response to those conditions.

But you just used awareness to explain awareness; they are practically interchangeable there. What is awareness/consciousness and why is it there?

 

[George S]

https://youtu.be/xRel1JKOEbI?t=40m17s

Consciousness

[Its] content [is the] brain's "best guess" of the causes of its sensory input.
Normal perception is a fantasy constrained by reality.

 

[another1]

Gotcha ryan. Well I sense that the cloud doesn't show up until the plane does. Plane is a good enough analogy. Cloud and whatnot. Easy to relate. But the cloud doesn't exist without the plane. Planes actually do make clouds, too. Why would there be a cloud there? There is only the plane. And it may be a toy plane sitting motionless in the first place, ya know. Who says it is going somewhere? Someone glued it together and sat it on a desk. Model planes don't make clouds. They just sit there. Why does there have to be a cloud again? I got what you're saying but the plane is pretty much all you need in my opinion.

The cloud is meant to be the brain, and the plane is meant to be the consciousness that pops up out of nowhere. Why/how does the plane exist is the question of the "Hard Problem".

You don't have to take my word for it which is why I linked you to the how, why and what concerns of the consciousness.

What you believe is what you believe. What I am trying to do is explain to you the problems of the consciousness so that you will know better what "they" are talking about. And that is needed so you know why panpsychism appeals to me/people.

We are about to enter the good/fun stuff. Are you ready, or do you have more questions?

Yes good stuff please. One thing before you continue. You can skimp on a lot of the feather written philosophy garbage because I only want a few things. I do believe what I believe, you're right. I think I'm right because I'm me. Who are the "they" you mention? The ones with hard problems? There are no clouds. I think I'm docked in a hangar. In fact I know I am. Why should there be anything but a plane? Doubt I'm budging on that but I would like to know why other people are so ignorant. Not a direct insult, just living in reality and expressing things as I experience them. You aren't completely disconnected from your own body at times, and then left wondering hm why does this feel so natural? I ask because most people inside teh intrnet will answer yes. That isn't a crazy thing to think. Putting it into words is where crazy happens.

I'll learn to explain my entire model without losing eye contact. My own ideas. It will be mine and that is all that matters because I am me. God itself says those very words in the Bible. I'm me. that makes me wonder WHY would you ever expose yourself to a book that was intentionally written about exactly what you want to know? I don't know, but do you get me? These people I'm learning, from staring into that black hole... the ones what laid the philosophies people depend on.. ryan I have bad news. They were completely insane. Not peculiar. Not eccentric. They were undeniably and inapproachably coo-coo fucking puff crazy BASTARDS. And for the most part, they have been dead for a very long time. It is the language that pisses me off see. The old stuff I could do without. You can hear how stupid the stuff sounds right? It isn't just me? I don't know but thank you and continue. -17% on the dumbdown knob please. Use some toy analogies. Toy sailboats and oceans vs volcanos = palm tree type stuff.

 

[ryan]

The cloud is meant to be the brain, and the plane is meant to be the consciousness that pops up out of nowhere. Why/how does the plane exist is the question of the "Hard Problem".

You don't have to take my word for it which is why I linked you to the how, why and what concerns of the consciousness.

What you believe is what you believe. What I am trying to do is explain to you the problems of the consciousness so that you will know better what "they" are talking about. And that is needed so you know why panpsychism appeals to me/people.

We are about to enter the good/fun stuff. Are you ready, or do you have more questions?

Yes good stuff please. One thing before you continue. You can skimp on a lot of the feather written philosophy garbage because I only want a few things. I do believe what I believe, you're right. I think I'm right because I'm me. Who are the "they" you mention? The ones with hard problems? There are no clouds. I think I'm docked in a hangar. In fact I know I am. Why should there be anything but a plane? Doubt I'm budging on that but I would like to know why other people are so ignorant. Not a direct insult, just living in reality and expressing things as I experience them. You aren't completely disconnected from your own body at times, and then left wondering hm why does this feel so natural? I ask because most people inside teh intrnet will answer yes. That isn't a crazy thing to think. Putting it into words is where crazy happens.

I'll learn to explain my entire model without losing eye contact. My own ideas. It will be mine and that is all that matters because I am me. God itself says those very words in the Bible. I'm me. that makes me wonder WHY would you ever expose yourself to a book that was intentionally written about exactly what you want to know? I don't know, but do you get me? These people I'm learning, from staring into that black hole... the ones what laid the philosophies people depend on.. ryan I have bad news. They were completely insane. Not peculiar. Not eccentric. They were undeniably and inapproachably coo-coo fucking puff crazy BASTARDS. And for the most part, they have been dead for a very long time. It is the language that pisses me off see. The old stuff I could do without. You can hear how stupid the stuff sounds right? It isn't just me? I don't know but thank you and continue. -17% on the dumbdown knob please. Use some toy analogies. Toy sailboats and oceans vs volcanos = palm tree type stuff.

Right, I should have put problems in quotes. If I say problems again, and note that these are present-day problems for science and philosophy, it is because that is how people describe what they think is a problem.

Judging from your philosophy of only a plane existing, I take it you are an idealist?

On with it, the plane provides us with the how-did-it-get-there problem.

Panpsychism explains this quite elegantly. It says that the plane and the cloud are just two properties of the same object. Every water molecule carried a little piece of the plane. There is simply a mental quality to all or some kinds of the fundamental particles of the universe.

So the good thing about this explanation is that there doesn't need to be an emergence or genesis of consciousness. As Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it, "This form of the genetic argument turns on the assumption that evolution is a continuous process that moulds pre-existing properties into more complex forms but which can not produce “entirely novel” properties.". In other words, why would such a novel thing like the consciousness suddenly appear from just more of the same kinds of stuff/matter?

So instead of pushing it and getting it all done in one post like I was going to do, do you have any questions at all? Ask if you are even slightly unsure about something because there are some leaps being made there.

 

[fromderinside]

One would do better looking bases of consciousness if one looked at Chaos theory and the consequences of feedback in deterministic systems. Think of the situation this way: Consciousness is an awareness of one's situation in ones social world being processed as response to those conditions.

But you just used awareness to explain awareness; they are practically interchangeable there. What is awareness/consciousness and why is it there?

There are many attendings, several awarenesses and just one, if any at all, consciousness. As to why one might believe consciousness is there I suggest you read on the social man, Chaos, and feedback in the context of evolution. Oh, and those conditions are the social aspects of which one is aware. Chaos out of deterministic, even mechanistic behavior, comes from feedback. Humans, maybe other life forms, are trying to interpret feedback on the fly. Don't hurt yourself.

Oh, by the bye, one needn't resort to faeries or quanta to find source(s) of consciousness.

Keep up.

 

[another1]

Yes good stuff please. One thing before you continue. You can skimp on a lot of the feather written philosophy garbage because I only want a few things. I do believe what I believe, you're right. I think I'm right because I'm me. Who are the "they" you mention? The ones with hard problems? There are no clouds. I think I'm docked in a hangar. In fact I know I am. Why should there be anything but a plane? Doubt I'm budging on that but I would like to know why other people are so ignorant. Not a direct insult, just living in reality and expressing things as I experience them. You aren't completely disconnected from your own body at times, and then left wondering hm why does this feel so natural? I ask because most people inside teh intrnet will answer yes. That isn't a crazy thing to think. Putting it into words is where crazy happens.

I'll learn to explain my entire model without losing eye contact. My own ideas. It will be mine and that is all that matters because I am me. God itself says those very words in the Bible. I'm me. that makes me wonder WHY would you ever expose yourself to a book that was intentionally written about exactly what you want to know? I don't know, but do you get me? These people I'm learning, from staring into that black hole... the ones what laid the philosophies people depend on.. ryan I have bad news. They were completely insane. Not peculiar. Not eccentric. They were undeniably and inapproachably coo-coo fucking puff crazy BASTARDS. And for the most part, they have been dead for a very long time. It is the language that pisses me off see. The old stuff I could do without. You can hear how stupid the stuff sounds right? It isn't just me? I don't know but thank you and continue. -17% on the dumbdown knob please. Use some toy analogies. Toy sailboats and oceans vs volcanos = palm tree type stuff.

Right, I should have put problems in quotes. If I say problems again, and note that these are present-day problems for science and philosophy, it is because that is how people describe what they think is a problem.

Judging from your philosophy of only a plane existing, I take it you are an idealist?

On with it, the plane provides us with the how-did-it-get-there problem.

Panpsychism explains this quite elegantly. It says that the plane and the cloud are just two properties of the same object. Every water molecule carried a little piece of the plane. There is simply a mental quality to all or some kinds of the fundamental particles of the universe.

So the good thing about this explanation is that there doesn't need to be an emergence or genesis of consciousness. As Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it, "This form of the genetic argument turns on the assumption that evolution is a continuous process that moulds pre-existing properties into more complex forms but which can not produce “entirely novel” properties.". In other words, why would such a novel thing like the consciousness suddenly appear from just more of the same kinds of stuff/matter?

So instead of pushing it and getting it all done in one post like I was going to do, do you have any questions at all? Ask if you are even slightly unsure about something because there are some leaps being made there.

Idealist is an icky word and btw are you talking about an airplane, or just a plain plane? My personal feelings on the matter would go with both. I don't feel any how problems because here I am. Like... after you have masturbated (sorry I have run out of ways to express myself), you put your sex organ away. But what this seems to lead to is just smacking it over and over for no reason. Mindless smacking. The sex organ is obviously there. It needn't be abused like that. Oh now I see what you meant by clouds, I just had to reframe it.

There is info in everything, basically. Yes? That you mean? And it may make a perfect copy of itself, every step of the way. So much that separate yet identical parts may become unrecognized. A mental quality of being completely unaware of itself, other than within itself, which isn't what it is at all, but may as well be. The eloquence (as you say) in panpsychism is that it makes a hard problem even harder but offers an out, without actually saying anything.

I don't care about evolution but nice of you to offer. You think consciousness evolves? It may, but I doubt it is in the same way animals evolve. Entirely novel is probably the case. The universe is said to be the quest for novelty, or something like that. Should be easy enough to find the quote and put it here ___ for me. Novelty is getting to be an overused word. I'd rather you use something more childish.

Words don't work. Somehow I feel they're limited for a reason. Doesn't it seem like there are so many limitations in thinking, that sabotage comes to mind? Fishy. Very fishy. Good job, thank you, and next please.

 

[Juma]

Yes good stuff please. One thing before you continue. You can skimp on a lot of the feather written philosophy garbage because I only want a few things. I do believe what I believe, you're right. I think I'm right because I'm me. Who are the "they" you mention? The ones with hard problems? There are no clouds. I think I'm docked in a hangar. In fact I know I am. Why should there be anything but a plane? Doubt I'm budging on that but I would like to know why other people are so ignorant. Not a direct insult, just living in reality and expressing things as I experience them. You aren't completely disconnected from your own body at times, and then left wondering hm why does this feel so natural? I ask because most people inside teh intrnet will answer yes. That isn't a crazy thing to think. Putting it into words is where crazy happens.

I'll learn to explain my entire model without losing eye contact. My own ideas. It will be mine and that is all that matters because I am me. God itself says those very words in the Bible. I'm me. that makes me wonder WHY would you ever expose yourself to a book that was intentionally written about exactly what you want to know? I don't know, but do you get me? These people I'm learning, from staring into that black hole... the ones what laid the philosophies people depend on.. ryan I have bad news. They were completely insane. Not peculiar. Not eccentric. They were undeniably and inapproachably coo-coo fucking puff crazy BASTARDS. And for the most part, they have been dead for a very long time. It is the language that pisses me off see. The old stuff I could do without. You can hear how stupid the stuff sounds right? It isn't just me? I don't know but thank you and continue. -17% on the dumbdown knob please. Use some toy analogies. Toy sailboats and oceans vs volcanos = palm tree type stuff.

Right, I should have put problems in quotes. If I say problems again, and note that these are present-day problems for science and philosophy, it is because that is how people describe what they think is a problem.

Judging from your philosophy of only a plane existing, I take it you are an idealist?

On with it, the plane provides us with the how-did-it-get-there problem.

Panpsychism explains this quite elegantly. It says that the plane and the cloud are just two properties of the same object. Every water molecule carried a little piece of the plane. There is simply a mental quality to all or some kinds of the fundamental particles of the universe.

So the good thing about this explanation is that there doesn't need to be an emergence or genesis of consciousness. As Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it, "This form of the genetic argument turns on the assumption that evolution is a continuous process that moulds pre-existing properties into more complex forms but which can not produce “entirely novel” properties.". In other words, why would such a novel thing like the consciousness suddenly appear from just more of the same kinds of stuff/matter?

So instead of pushing it and getting it all done in one post like I was going to do, do you have any questions at all? Ask if you are even slightly unsure about something because there are some leaps being made there.

Conciousness isnt a thing like a plane is a thing.
Conciousness is in the DYNAMICS. If you take a snapshot of the brain you cannot see the conciousness, just the current state of the brain.

 

[bilby]

If everything is made from the particles of the Standard Model, then what particles is computer software made from?

 

[Juma]

If everything is made from the particles of the Standard Model, then what particles is computer software made from?

<ryanesque>Since we can describe software as the position of a helluva lot of quarks it is REDUNDANT to talk about software. Thus it doesnt exist at all....</ryanesque>

Sorry...

 

[Juma]

If everything is made from the particles of the Standard Model, then what particles is computer software made from?

Ah! Killing ryans cloud-metaphor:Its like clouds. A cloud isnt made if specific drops of water, it is a (moving) volume where the water condenses.

 

[ryan]

Right, I should have put problems in quotes. If I say problems again, and note that these are present-day problems for science and philosophy, it is because that is how people describe what they think is a problem.

Judging from your philosophy of only a plane existing, I take it you are an idealist?

On with it, the plane provides us with the how-did-it-get-there problem.

Panpsychism explains this quite elegantly. It says that the plane and the cloud are just two properties of the same object. Every water molecule carried a little piece of the plane. There is simply a mental quality to all or some kinds of the fundamental particles of the universe.

So the good thing about this explanation is that there doesn't need to be an emergence or genesis of consciousness. As Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it, "This form of the genetic argument turns on the assumption that evolution is a continuous process that moulds pre-existing properties into more complex forms but which can not produce “entirely novel” properties.". In other words, why would such a novel thing like the consciousness suddenly appear from just more of the same kinds of stuff/matter?

So instead of pushing it and getting it all done in one post like I was going to do, do you have any questions at all? Ask if you are even slightly unsure about something because there are some leaps being made there.

There is info in everything, basically. Yes? That you mean? And it may make a perfect copy of itself, every step of the way. So much that separate yet identical parts may become unrecognized. A mental quality of being completely unaware of itself, other than within itself, which isn't what it is at all, but may as well be. The eloquence (as you say) in panpsychism is that it makes a hard problem even harder but offers an out, without actually saying anything.

Panpsychism answers the how question of consciousness the same way that science answers the how question of a puddle to a cloud using the changing positions of particles. But, like every other answer, there will be a new question like how does the unity of consciousness exist (or the "binding problem" as they call it) if there are just separate particles of consciousness; I will get to that.

I don't care about evolution but nice of you to offer. You think consciousness evolves? It may, but I doubt it is in the same way animals evolve. Entirely novel is probably the case. The universe is said to be the quest for novelty, or something like that. Should be easy enough to find the quote and put it here ___ for me. Novelty is getting to be an overused word. I'd rather you use something more childish.

Just think of the consciousness in this context and for the purposes of this kind of panpsychism as "along for the ride" with matter as it evolves as life and other non-living things. It doesn't affect matter, and matter doesn't get affected by it. It literally goes with the flow.

Words don't work. Somehow I feel they're limited for a reason. Doesn't it seem like there are so many limitations in thinking, that sabotage comes to mind? Fishy. Very fishy. Good job, thank you, and next please

But there still is the binding problem.

Now this is where science actually helps panpsychism. It turns out that under certain conditions, they can entangle particles into an emergently whole phenomena. It's not like a plane appearing, but it does cause the particles to have a "wholeness" about them that they didn't have before. This is not like entangling two substances together like with a chemical bond, but rather it is a much more intimate entanglement of two particles/objects. It is so intimate that affecting one particle does not causally affect the other but it is as if you affected them both simultaneously. They are said to act as one object. Anyways, it's the kind of "singleness/whole/unity" that we need to correlate to whole thoughts, feelings, statements, etc.

So the problem of emergence of "whole" concepts, feeling, thoughts etc. can at least be embodied by (or the other way around) these "whole" entangled systems. The brain might have this. There is at least one peer-reviewed piece of evidence of entanglement in the brain.

Here are some papers regarding this topic:

https://www.elsevier.com/about/pres...roversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

http://cogprints.org/2923/

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162312

That's it! That's why I like panpsychism.

 

[ryan]

Conciousness isnt a thing like a plane is a thing.
Conciousness is in the DYNAMICS. If you take a snapshot of the brain you cannot see the conciousness, just the current state of the brain.

It's a physical analogy assuming a strictly physical universe. That's why hard emergence is not very popular.

 

[DBT]

It was you who claimed ''It's mentioned everywhere in academic libraries,'' not me.

I can't prove a negative, I can only point out that I don't see it being 'mentioned everywhere'

That's better than when you said, " Virtually nobody working in the field of neuroscience considers Panpsychism and its relatives a contender for explaining consciousness".

Not really. It still remains that virtually nobody working in the field of neuroscience considers Panpsychism and its relatives a contender for explaining consciousness.

'Virtually nobody' isn't actually ''Nobody''

Obviously there is always a small percentage who have their own Axe to grind.

Integrated information theory is everywhere, and it is a relative of panpsychism.

Everywhere? Really?

Depends on the version and how far into fantasy someone want to take it.

The basics may be quite reasonable, and not necessarily related to the concept of universal consciousness.

For example;

''Integrated information theory (IIT) attempts to explain what consciousness is and why it might be associated with certain physical systems. Given any such system, the theory predicts whether that system is conscious, to what degree it is conscious, and what particular experience it is having (see Central Identity). According to IIT, a system's consciousness is determined by its causal properties and is therefore an intrinsic, fundamental property of any physical system.[1]'' - Wiki

So prove IIT false.

The absence of evidence to support your claim is evidence against your claim. Absence of evidence proves you wrong.

You have no case to argue. You assert your claims.

Okay, but you did say that I was supporting agency because I supported panpsychism. You can still have a dual and non-causal relationship between the body and mind with panpsychism.

Assuming universal consciousness is assuming the agency of universal consciousness...which exists prior to individual versions of consciousness, which come and go.

Oh I am well aware of that post. I pulled my hair out reading it because a philosophy is not necessarily going to have evidence. This means that it may not be probable or even close to probable; it's a "rational possibility".

I hope there is still a bit of hair left on your head, but philosophy without evidence to back the validity of its assumptions, arguments and conclusions may be interesting, but ultimately futile as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

 

[another1]

There is info in everything, basically. Yes? That you mean? And it may make a perfect copy of itself, every step of the way. So much that separate yet identical parts may become unrecognized. A mental quality of being completely unaware of itself, other than within itself, which isn't what it is at all, but may as well be. The eloquence (as you say) in panpsychism is that it makes a hard problem even harder but offers an out, without actually saying anything.

Panpsychism answers the how question of consciousness the same way that science answers the how question of a puddle to a cloud using the changing positions of particles. But, like every other answer, there will be a new question like how does the unity of consciousness exist (or the "binding problem" as they call it) if there are just separate particles of consciousness; I will get to that.

I don't care about evolution but nice of you to offer. You think consciousness evolves? It may, but I doubt it is in the same way animals evolve. Entirely novel is probably the case. The universe is said to be the quest for novelty, or something like that. Should be easy enough to find the quote and put it here ___ for me. Novelty is getting to be an overused word. I'd rather you use something more childish.

Just think of the consciousness in this context and for the purposes of this kind of panpsychism as "along for the ride" with matter as it evolves as life and other non-living things. It doesn't affect matter, and matter doesn't get affected by it. It literally goes with the flow.

Words don't work. Somehow I feel they're limited for a reason. Doesn't it seem like there are so many limitations in thinking, that sabotage comes to mind? Fishy. Very fishy. Good job, thank you, and next please

But there still is the binding problem.

Now this is where science actually helps panpsychism. It turns out that under certain conditions, they can entangle particles into an emergently whole phenomena. It's not like a plane appearing, but it does cause the particles to have a "wholeness" about them that they didn't have before. This is not like entangling two substances together like with a chemical bond, but rather it is a much more intimate entanglement of two particles/objects. It is so intimate that affecting one particle does not causally affect the other but it is as if you affected them both simultaneously. They are said to act as one object. Anyways, it's the kind of "singleness/whole/unity" that we need to correlate to whole thoughts, feelings, statements, etc.

So the problem of emergence of "whole" concepts, feeling, thoughts etc. can at least be embodied by (or the other way around) these "whole" entangled systems. The brain might have this. There is at least one peer-reviewed piece of evidence of entanglement in the brain.

Here are some papers regarding this topic:

https://www.elsevier.com/about/pres...roversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

http://cogprints.org/2923/

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162312

That's it! That's why I like panpsychism.

Well you obviously like it. Good to like things I guess. I'll never be able to incorporate panpsychism. Thought I could use it but I don't even like how it sounds when I say it. I listened to part of a book and read dozens of pages that were honestly more informative than the Goddamn book. It is too much. You can't know this. I'm not saying you can't know this. I'm saying that you can't know this.

Asking why you can't is probably more important than thinking that you can. You need a whole new language and a thousand years of thinkers typing into little boxes. By then I guess typing would be irrelevant. Alas they figure out consciousness completely... and immediately destroy their work, because the truth of the matter destroys all supposed matter. Do you get my point?

 

[ryan]

That's better than when you said, " Virtually nobody working in the field of neuroscience considers Panpsychism and its relatives a contender for explaining consciousness".

Not really. It still remains that virtually nobody working in the field of neuroscience considers Panpsychism and its relatives a contender for explaining consciousness.

'Virtually nobody' isn't actually ''Nobody''

Obviously there is always a small percentage who have their own Axe to grind.

So did you do a poll or something?

Integrated information theory is everywhere, and it is a relative of panpsychism.

Everywhere? Really?

Depends on the version and how far into fantasy someone want to take it.

The basics may be quite reasonable, and not necessarily related to the concept of universal consciousness.

For example;

''Integrated information theory (IIT) attempts to explain what consciousness is and why it might be associated with certain physical systems. Given any such system, the theory predicts whether that system is conscious, to what degree it is conscious, and what particular experience it is having (see Central Identity). According to IIT, a system's consciousness is determined by its causal properties and is therefore an intrinsic, fundamental property of any physical system.[1]'' - Wiki

So prove IIT false.

The absence of evidence to support your claim is evidence against your claim. Absence of evidence proves you wrong.

You have no case to argue. You assert your claims.

It's more than virtual. Here are some links.

http://cognet.mit.edu/book/panpsychism-west

https://www.wired.com/2013/11/christof-koch-panpsychism-consciousness/

Okay, but you did say that I was supporting agency because I supported panpsychism. You can still have a dual and non-causal relationship between the body and mind with panpsychism.

Assuming universal consciousness is assuming the agency of universal consciousness...which exists prior to individual versions of consciousness, which come and go.

The mind element does not have to affect matter in panpsychism. It can just be epiphenomenal (epiphenomenalism) or parallel (parallelism).

Oh I am well aware of that post. I pulled my hair out reading it because a philosophy is not necessarily going to have evidence. This means that it may not be probable or even close to probable; it's a "rational possibility".

I hope there is still a bit of hair left on your head, but philosophy without evidence to back the validity of its assumptions, arguments and conclusions may be interesting, but ultimately futile as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

Welcome to philosophy. It's all we have at the frontiers of science.

 

[WAB]

Do you guys and/or gals bother to click on the links Ryan is providing? L O T S of good stuff to read there, and not just from some hacks, but from scientists.

Click this one here:

https://www.wired.com/2013/11/christ...consciousness/

Neuroscientist Christof Koch, chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science...

Not just some quack armchair theorist, ey? It seems like all you guys and/or dolls want to do is handwave and deny, rather than investigate.

WTF are you people afraid of?

THAT's the thing that I wonder about the most.


***


Someone will type:

"Ignorance", or some such, as if that answers anything.

***

Thinking, and even (Oh heaven forbid!) speculating, are what got humans where they are today, not sitting back, being convinced you know all you need to know, and pooh-pooing anyone with a bit of audacity, imagination, and courage.

Cowardice got humanity exactly nowhere.