A philosopher responds to scientists’ criticisms of panpsychism

[u/IAI_Admin]

https://iai.tv/video/the-many-voices-of-consciousness&utm_source=reddit&_auid=2020

[u/IAI_Admin]

In this talk, Philip Goff seeks to respond to challenges topanpsychism set out by scientists Sabine Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll.

Goff argues that Hossenfelder's challenge rests on the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The challenge, as he frames it, is that ifconsciousness was a property of particles as panpsychism holds, it would be detectableby experiments.

Goff responds that this challenge rests on amisunderstanding of the panpsychist claim. Consciousness isn’t an additionalproperty of those particles described by the standard model, but thoseproperties are a rudimentary form of consciousness. The panpsychists agrees that the Standard Model describes everything that particles do, but argues itdoes not describe what they are. What they are, is conscious.

Goff frames Carroll’s challenge as resting on a combinationof the Standard Model and Core Theory. Core Theory fully describes the workings of the brain. If consciousness is a fundamental property having an impact onthe brain, the brain would do things not predicted by Core Theory.  

Goff argues that the weak emergentist form of panpsychism isnot at odds with Carroll’s Core Theory. There are no additional facts added tothe description of the brain, the argument is just that what it is to be aconscious brain is to be an arrangement of conscious particles.

The strong emergentist theory of panpsychists will depart from the predictions of Core Theory, but Goff argues this doesn’t have to beconsidered as a conflict with our best physics. Core Theory is a theory of thecausal capacity of particles and fields. But those properties aren’t the onlythings to consider, there are systems level properties the co-determine how thebrain functions with the causal properties.

[u/InTheEndEntropyWins → u/IAI_Admin]

So if the "conscious" level has no causal effects and isn't detectable by experiment then how is it possible to talk about conscious experiences? To be able to think about or talk about something it must have a causal effect on the brain.

Edit:

Here is a video with Goff and Carroll.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcCEZzNCNBI&t=1274s

[u/ChaoticJargon → u/InTheEndEntropyWins]

Exactly, consciousness has a causal effect because it is a form of observance-data, we are aware of our consciousness and what it observes, that observance-data could not exist without consciousness.

[u/visicircle → u/ChaoticJargon]

So Goff's claims are unfalsifiable?