Panpsychism: credible or not?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply

Panpsychism is:

Credible/rational
19
43%
Possible
11
25%
Absurd
14
32%
 
Total votes: 44

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Atreyu »

Bohm2 wrote:We don't classify atoms, elementary particles and their properties as ubiquitously "proto-biotic" because they are / can be the components and causes of living cells and bodies. Likewise, there wouldn't seem to be broad justification for using another upper-level end product ("mind", psyche) as part of an identification for any future precursor affairs introduced at the bottom.
Actually, we do classify some elementary particles as "ubiquitously proto-biotic" hence the terms "organic" (having to do with life) and "inorganic" (not having to do with life). And yet no one would consider a pool of organic compounds as "alive".

That argument comes down to basically thus: Because we like to think that life "emerges" from non-living matter, let us also stick with that cognition (true or false) and think that awareness also "emerges" from non-aware matter.

But that was my whole point. It is subjective to draw a fine line between matter possessing the properties of life and matter which does not, hence the virus conundrum. Just as it is subjective to try and draw a fine line between matter which has corresponding awareness and matter which does not. Just because we get it wrong concerning one class of phenomena does not mean we should also get it wrong concerning another class of phenomena as well.
User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Subatomic God »

Atreyu wrote: Actually, we do classify some elementary particles as "ubiquitously proto-biotic" hence the terms "organic" (having to do with life) and "inorganic" (not having to do with life). And yet no one would consider a pool of organic compounds as "alive".

That argument comes down to basically thus: Because we like to think that life "emerges" from non-living matter, let us also stick with that cognition (true or false) and think that awareness also "emerges" from non-aware matter.

But that was my whole point. It is subjective to draw a fine line between matter possessing the properties of life and matter which does not, hence the virus conundrum. Just as it is subjective to try and draw a fine line between matter which has corresponding awareness and matter which does not. Just because we get it wrong concerning one class of phenomena does not mean we should also get it wrong concerning another class of phenomena as well.
This just isn't true. People just don't understand "life", so they see plants, rocks, bacteria and the like, then they see "life"; the spiritual, mysterious beyond-our-imagination concept of "life". and say "there's no way my idea of life came from these things", when that's the point - your idea of "life" is so terribly misconceived, that you still, to this day (in general, not you) think you know what you're talking about because of what you feel, rather than what you think; you react, instead of think.

Using your brain, not your limited senses that are there to contrast the cosmic system for a character simulation, you will see that "life" did emerge from the phenomenon that existed before our own selves, hence why you can see, just by examining the evolution of life, that the Universe was building us since the beginning. Not to mention that our skin contains pores like a rock; lungs and nerves like roots of a plant and we consist of atoms that replace themselves constantly. It's just silly to deny all this, just because you feelings are too small compared to the grandness of the Universe, (again, general).
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Quotidian »

Atreyu wrote: It is subjective to draw a fine line between matter possessing the properties of life and matter which does not, hence the virus conundrum. Just as it is subjective to try and draw a fine line between matter which has corresponding awareness and matter which does not. Just because we get it wrong concerning one class of phenomena does not mean we should also get it wrong concerning another class of phenomena as well.
I don't think the division between life and minerals is subjective in the least. Viruses and prions are on the borderline, but that doesn't really prove anything. I think there are fundemental differences between minerals, plants, animals, and humans which can be demonstrated and described, but that it's a difference for which science doesn't have the appropriate metaphors. Modern scientific culture only allows one fundamental kind of substance, which is matter~energy (whatever that is!) so it is axiomatic that whatever is, must consist of that. From that axiom, it follows that minerals, plants, animals and humans are all basically 'made out of the same stuff'. And I think that's where your model is coming from.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Bohm2 »

Atreyu wrote:Actually, we do classify some elementary particles as "ubiquitously proto-biotic" hence the terms "organic" (having to do with life) and "inorganic" (not having to do with life). And yet no one would consider a pool of organic compounds as "alive".
Elementary particles like electrons, protons, or whatever, etc. are not classified as being pro-biotic. Moreover, common-use terms like "organic"/"inorganic" may not map that well to scientific models of real life distinctions. I studied chemistry and I never considered a Carbon atom to be more alive or proto-alive than some other inorganic atom. Moreover, nobody is claiming that some random "pool" of organic molecules leads to life or consciousness. Essentially there are 2 popular views on explaining the experiential/consciousness: emergence or Panpsychism. I favour the first way, because I find the view that elementary particles have little "micro-awareness", hard to swallow, in the same way that I find the view that elementary particles have little "micro-life" hard to swallow.
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Quotidian »

The Universe seems to be primed for life - that is, where the conditions are right, life will tend to start developing.

I always rather liked 'panspermia' which is the idea that comets carry pro to-organic molecules around the galaxies, and when the fall into suitable conditions, life begins to develop (an idea I was introducted to in Fred Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe.). But that *still* doesn't really come to terms with what 'life' is, in the sense of how it is different from minerals. One book about it is Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life, Robert Rosen, which from the description is anti-reductionistic.

In any case, my tentative view is that higher species develop the capacity for reason, for example, but this comprises the ability to cognise a pre-existent order; in other words, reason doesn't come into existence with living forms capable of reasoning, but until they develop, it is unmanifest.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Atreyu »

Bohm2 wrote:I favour the first way, because I find the view that elementary particles have little "micro-awareness", hard to swallow, in the same way that I find the view that elementary particles have little "micro-life" hard to swallow.
Well, I at least can definitely understand your position. I see where you're coming from.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to agree here because for me, what is harder to swallow is an entirely new order of phenomena like awareness suddenly coming into existence where formerly it was not at all just because "dead matter" happens to interact with itself in a particular way.

I mean sure, I can swallow static electricity being created by rubbing certain materials together because I can understand how it works. Rub matter together and "Poof!" you have static electricity because you have removed or added electrons.

But take some completely and totally "dead matter" and mix it together under certain conditions and "Poof!" -- you have awareness? I can't swallow that one because I have no idea (and apparently neither does anyone else) of how such a process could occur.

Perhaps I'll find it more digestible when someone can explain it to me satisfactorily, as they can with things like static electricity.
User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Subatomic God »

Atreyu wrote:
Well, I at least can definitely understand your position. I see where you're coming from.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to agree here because for me, what is harder to swallow is an entirely new order of phenomena like awareness suddenly coming into existence where formerly it was not at all just because "dead matter" happens to interact with itself in a particular way.

I mean sure, I can swallow static electricity being created by rubbing certain materials together because I can understand how it works. Rub matter together and "Poof!" you have static electricity because you have removed or added electrons.

But take some completely and totally "dead matter" and mix it together under certain conditions and "Poof!" -- you have awareness? I can't swallow that one because I have no idea (and apparently neither does anyone else) of how such a process could occur.

Perhaps I'll find it more digestible when someone can explain it to me satisfactorily, as they can with things like static electricity.
Perhaps you need to look at it another way - your views on life are too "superstitious"; you have misunderstood the concept of "life", in its animated glory. It's not a soul, or an intelligent being - it's the result of many reactions coming together to create light, living and life!
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Atreyu »

Subatomic God wrote:Perhaps you need to look at it another way - your views on life are too "superstitious"; you have misunderstood the concept of "life", in its animated glory. It's not a soul, or an intelligent being - it's the result of many reactions coming together to create light, living and life!
Sorry, but I really don't think my view on life is "superstitious". The phenomena associated with life seems to be of an entirely different order than phenomena associated with non-living objects (physics). And I think that science even finds this view hard to sweep under the rug, although they try to, hence a separate department of biology.
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Bohm2 »

Atreyu wrote:But take some completely and totally "dead matter" and mix it together under certain conditions and "Poof!" -- you have awareness? I can't swallow that one because I have no idea (and apparently neither does anyone else) of how such a process could occur.
I agree and that's why I think we may never have the answer as pointed out by C. McGinn. And part of the problem is we don't even have a complete picture of what "dead matter" is like. Physics hasn't finished. Having said that, I can't see how a future physics/science will alleviate the problem. Physics uses mathematics to construct abstract representations of phenomena but I can't see how any mathematical structure will shed light on the issue, now or in the future. With respect to the neurosciences, again, the more we know about the brain, the less it look like a devise for creating consciousness, as pointed out by a number of authors.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Atreyu »

Bohm2 wrote:I agree and that's why I think we may never have the answer as pointed out by C. McGinn. And part of the problem is we don't even have a complete picture of what "dead matter" is like. Physics hasn't finished. Having said that, I can't see how a future physics/science will alleviate the problem. Physics uses mathematics to construct abstract representations of phenomena but I can't see how any mathematical structure will shed light on the issue, now or in the future. With respect to the neurosciences, again, the more we know about the brain, the less it look like a devise for creating consciousness, as pointed out by a number of authors.
I completely agree. Physics and even neuroscience will never be able to formulate a sufficient explanation, not only because it's based on a false premise (IMO) but also because it's really outside of their boundaries.
User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Subatomic God »

Atreyu wrote:
Sorry, but I really don't think my view on life is "superstitious". The phenomena associated with life seems to be of an entirely different order than phenomena associated with non-living objects (physics). And I think that science even finds this view hard to sweep under the rug, although they try to, hence a separate department of biology.
The phenomena of "non-life" (whatever that is), is simply a simpler design than "life" (animation). As I said before, if you look at our nerves and our lungs, you'll see that our body is based on plant design mixed with a more complicated layer such as electrical stimulation and other factors that plants and other likened forms do not possess, which creates the contrast of being "non-living" and "living". But it's just an illusion, much like we see a pig rolling in the mud, compared to human activity, thinking the pig is stupid - however, they are very smart animals, therefore we're basing the idea of living and non-living based on what we want to see in things compared to ourselves, which draws me to the last point that needs to be made - you squish a bug, nobody cares generally (except those that want to fight for a "cause" and choose bug-slaughter for the cause); you kill a human being or an animal, we react to it mournfully and vengefully. Why? Because life truly is alive based on the relation of our perception, so to us, this world's scale we live on is "life", but we cannot connect with the bug's life, or the cosmic life - however, if we were on that level, it would be a different story. Do you understand the powerful wisdom I have shared yet?
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Atreyu »

Subatomic God wrote:The phenomena of "non-life" (whatever that is), is simply a simpler design than "life" (animation). As I said before, if you look at our nerves and our lungs, you'll see that our body is based on plant design mixed with a more complicated layer such as electrical stimulation and other factors that plants and other likened forms do not possess, which creates the contrast of being "non-living" and "living". But it's just an illusion, much like we see a pig rolling in the mud, compared to human activity, thinking the pig is stupid - however, they are very smart animals, therefore we're basing the idea of living and non-living based on what we want to see in things compared to ourselves, which draws me to the last point that needs to be made - you squish a bug, nobody cares generally (except those that want to fight for a "cause" and choose bug-slaughter for the cause); you kill a human being or an animal, we react to it mournfully and vengefully. Why? Because life truly is alive based on the relation of our perception, so to us, this world's scale we live on is "life", but we cannot connect with the bug's life, or the cosmic life - however, if we were on that level, it would be a different story. Do you understand the powerful wisdom I have shared yet?
Not really, because plants are living organisms. All I've been saying is that the reason why we cannot draw a fine and distinct line between life and non-life, and between matter with or completely without awareness, is not because we lack enough data to definitively do so but because such a procedure is subjective and arbitrary in the first place. It may be a useful cognitive construct to divide matter into "living" and "non-living" and "aware" or "not aware", but when we try to "hone in" and "get technical" as to exactly where the one ends and the other begins, we find that we cannot do it (Is the virus really alive? Do plants and amoebas really have any awareness?)

So we must conclude that while such dualistic cognitive constructs might be useful and practical, in reality they are oversimplifications of the way things really are, as are virtually all of our cognitive constructs. Geometry is a very useful construct in order to understand the properties of space, but in actuality there are no points, lines, or planes in the real world.
User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Subatomic God »

Atreyu wrote:
Not really, because plants are living organisms. All I've been saying is that the reason why we cannot draw a fine and distinct line between life and non-life, and between matter with or completely without awareness, is not because we lack enough data to definitively do so but because such a procedure is subjective and arbitrary in the first place. It may be a useful cognitive construct to divide matter into "living" and "non-living" and "aware" or "not aware", but when we try to "hone in" and "get technical" as to exactly where the one ends and the other begins, we find that we cannot do it (Is the virus really alive? Do plants and amoebas really have any awareness?)

So we must conclude that while such dualistic cognitive constructs might be useful and practical, in reality they are oversimplifications of the way things really are, as are virtually all of our cognitive constructs. Geometry is a very useful construct in order to understand the properties of space, but in actuality there are no points, lines, or planes in the real world.

There's a design that's right there in front of us, that our brain can analyze without bias. The entire evolution of the human experience is observable; you just have to know where to look, that's all.

It's possible to know everything... Especially when 99% water advocates the surreal realities we dream at night - chemicals produced by... amoebas. Why would an amoeba produce chemicals that are changed into another chemical which allow us to dream a world of collective knowledge and correction within that knowledge? A world to self-reflect and self-repair, subconsciously?

Over-simplifications is an absurd term here - if we can recreate it, then it's not over-simplified, now isn't it? It's examplified - because it's examplified, it is now understood by the human brain; that's all it takes to piece together the cosmic puzzle. Our entire experience can feel numbers, shapes, colors, letters and all the elements of the Universe - there's no excuse; all can be known, but to know all, you must let go of yourself, which thinks it knows, but it feels.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Bohm2 »

Atreyu wrote:Not really, because plants are living organisms. All I've been saying is that the reason why we cannot draw a fine and distinct line between life and non-life, and between matter with or completely without awareness, is not because we lack enough data to definitively do so but because such a procedure is subjective and arbitrary in the first place. It may be a useful cognitive construct to divide matter into "living" and "non-living" and "aware" or "not aware", but when we try to "hone in" and "get technical" as to exactly where the one ends and the other begins, we find that we cannot do it (Is the virus really alive? Do plants and amoebas really have any awareness?)

So we must conclude that while such dualistic cognitive constructs might be useful and practical, in reality they are oversimplifications of the way things really are, as are virtually all of our cognitive constructs. Geometry is a very useful construct in order to understand the properties of space, but in actuality there are no points, lines, or planes in the real world.
That is very insightful and it is exactly what some scientists in Cogntive science, like Chomsky, have been arguing for quite a while. He basically argues, like yourself, that trying to delineate such boundaries of living/non-living or mental/non-mental is on par with delineating the boundary of the “chemical”/non-chemical, "electrical”/non-electrical, etc. From a naturalistic perspective, it’s pointless:
I will be using the terms "mind" and "mental" here with no metaphysical import. Thus I understand "mental" to be on a par with "chemical", "optical", or "electrical". Certain phenomena, events, processes and states are informally called "chemical" etc., but no metaphysical divide is suggested thereby. The terms are used to select certain aspects of the world as a focus of inquiry. We do not seek to determine the true criterion of the chemical, or the mark of the electrical, or the boundaries of the optical. I will use "mental" the same way, with something like ordinary coverage, but no deeper implications. By "mind" I just mean the mental aspects of the world, with no more interest in sharpening the boundaries or finding a criterion than in other cases.

...It is not that ordinary discourse fails to talk about the world, or that the particulars it describes do not exist, or that the accounts are too imprecise. Rather, the categories used and principles invoked need not have even loose counterparts in naturalistic inquiry. That is true even of the parts of ordinary discourse that have a quasi-naturalistic cast. How people decide whether something is water or tea is of no concern to chemistry. It is no necessary task of biochemistry to decide at what point in the transition from simple gases to bacteria we find the "essence of life", and if some such categorization were imposed, the correspondence to common sense notions would matter no more than for the heavens, or energy, or solid. Whether ordinary usage would consider viruses "alive" is of no interest to biologists, who will categorize as they choose in terms of genes and conditions under which they function. We cannot invoke ordinary usage to judge whether Francois Jacob is correct in telling us that "for the biologist, the living begins only with what was able to constitute a genetic program", though "for the chemist, in contrast, it is somewhat arbitrary to make a demarcation where there can only be continuity"
Language and Nature
http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org ... xt_095.pdf
User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: Panpsychism: credible or not?

Post by Subatomic God »

Bohm2 wrote: From a naturalistic perspective, it’s pointless
It's pointless? How is it pointless? I can see that it's not pointless, by the sole fact that we have a drive to question in the first place. That "science" is philosophy at heart.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021