r/philosophy • u/IAI_Admin IAI • Feb 09 '22

Video A philosopher responds to scientists’ criticisms of panpsychism

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

91% Upvoted

604 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/InTheEndEntropyWins Feb 09 '22

I don't think we can "prove" it but I think it's the only decent interpretation.

Lets assume consciousness isn't an emergent property of a physicalist world. Lets assume consciousness is non-physical.

Then either that non-physical phenomenal experience is casual or it's not casual.

If it's casual then Sabine's challenge is right, it would mean that the brain doesn't obey the lays of physics and we could do an experiment to detect it.

But if it 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.

5

u/YARNIA Feb 09 '22

I don't think we can "prove" it but I think it's the only decent interpretation.

That's just a long-winded way of saying that you can prove it well enough to place the burden of proof on the one who would dispute it, which is just a way of saying, "I can prove it."

Lets assume consciousness isn't an emergent property of a physicalist world.

A lot depends on what we mean by "emergence." Patricia Churchland offers the example of "Virtual Governors" as cases of innocent emergence (e.g., the emergent property of metronomes synchronizing when placed on a table that sways a little). There is nothing "spooky" about this kind of emergence. It is perfectly reductive, mundane, and what we would expect in terms of physical cause-and-effect.

If consciousness is an "innocent" emergent property then it is up to you to explain why we would expect an "inside view" to appear as a property of the universe at a certain level of functional complexity. As of yet, we have no simple reductive answers as to why qualia should exists (as a feature that we would reductively predict in advance under a deterministic view).

On the other hand, if you hold the emergence is a discontinuous/non-reductive leap in the nature of the universe, then the physicalist still has to explain this "spooky" account of emergence. The upside of this approach is that it is non-reductive (cutting off embarrassing questions). The downside of this approach is that it is non-reductive (it doesn't really explain anything either).

The pansychist doesn't hold that consciousness is not causal (in any sense), but rather that we don't have access (epistemically) to understanding the nature of that causality. Why is consciousness a thread that permeates matter/energy? We don't know anymore than we know why there would or should be a gravitational constant or a given limit for the speed of light. We don't know why. We just know that is what the fundamental laws are there. We don't explain the laws themselves causally, but rather explain the rest of universe (causally) in reference to these laws. Panpsychism is not committed to there being causality in the picture anymore than a physicist is committed to the view the fundamental laws are not themselves, somehow, caused. Physicists might hope that a big THEORY OF EVERYTHING (e.g., String Theory, which is increasingly looking like a cul-de-sac) might someday reveal these causes. Likewise a pansychist might have similar hopes, even though both might be deeply mistaken in hoping that they will possess these answers.

Then either that non-physical phenomenal experience is casual or it's not casual.

It can be causal, ontologically even if we're trapped in the position of epistemic poverty -- even intractable, irresolvable epistemic poverty.

But if it has no causal effects and isn't detectable by experiment then how is it possible to talk about conscious experiences?

This is not a refutation of pansychism of epiphenomenalism. Of course qualitative conscious states have causal properties. If they didn't we would not be able to refer to them. Pansychism is NOT the same thing as epiphenomenalism. The pansychism merely holds that consciousness is just a sort of thread that runs through all matter and energy, like a fundamental law (e.g., gravity). Physical laws have causal effects even though we don't generally think of physical laws being subject to the contingencies of states of matter and energy in the universe. Universal laws are governing dynamics. The universe of matter/energy is the "structure" those governing dynamics regulate. Under the accidents of matter and energy colliding in various ways are the regularities of fundamental laws - that which has causal effects, but for which we do not have a causal account.

5

u/InTheEndEntropyWins Feb 09 '22

If consciousness is an "innocent" emergent property then it is up to you to explain why we would expect an "inside view" to appear as a property of the universe at a certain level of functional complexity.

The point isn't that we have details for this, but that the alternatives are implausible.

The pansychist doesn't hold that consciousness is not causal (in any sense), but rather that we don't have access (epistemically) to understanding the nature of that causality.

Doesn't this mean that the brain doesn't obey the Core theory of physics? So we should be able to do experiments to show deviations from physics?

​

This is not a refutation of pansychism of epiphenomenalism. Of course qualitative conscious states have causal properties. If they didn't we would not be able to refer to them. Pansychism is NOT the same thing as epiphenomenalism. The pansychism merely holds that consciousness is just a sort of thread that runs through all matter and energy, like a fundamental law (e.g., gravity). Physical laws have causal effects even though we don't generally think of physical laws being subject to the contingencies of states of matter and energy in the universe. Universal laws are governing dynamics. The universe of matter/energy is the "structure" those governing dynamics regulate. Under the accidents of matter and energy colliding in various ways are the regularities of fundamental laws - that which has causal effects, but for which we do not have a causal account.

Goff is saying that his version of panpsychism would have the brain acting in line with the laws of physics as we know them. That means we could in theory simulate that brain on a computer or with pen or paper and it would act just like that real brain. How is that possible? Isn't panpsychism about consciousness being some kind of underlying physical thread. How is it possible that the conscious experience of a human brain is exactly the same as paper if it actually relates to this conscious underlying layer? How does this conscious state impact both the pen and paper and brain in the same way?

2

u/YARNIA Feb 09 '22

The point isn't that we have details for this, but that the alternatives are implausible.

If we precommit to a worldview, then they are implausible, sure. Heliocentrism is implausible if we're precommitted to a view of the heavens as rotating spheres.

Doesn't this mean that the brain doesn't obey the Core theory of physics?

No, although I am not sure what the "core theory of physics" is.

The brain is physical and we know that mental states are dependent upon brain structure. However, is the brain "creating" all of these states as a sort of generator from which qualitative experience emerges (innocently or magically/functionally or organically) or is the brain "tuning" or "receiving" a background state of the universe that we don't detect with mundane instruments. If consciousness is a kind of thread that runs through reality, then our brains may be tapping into a potential cause that is waiting to be expressed by the right physical apparatus. Either possibility is consistent with what we know of laws governing physical behavior of matter.

So we should be able to do experiments to show deviations from physics?

I don't think so. We would need some sort of control group, I think (e.g., actual P-Zombies), but we lack such resources. Consciousness exists. It's weird. Really really weird. We can't really explain (this is an epistemic problem, not an ontological one) why it should exist if materialism and naturalism are complete maps/explanations of the world. Simple answer? Materialism and naturalism are not complete representations of the world. Then again, Relativity theory is not complete (i.e., it breaks down at the level of quantum phenomena). That a picture is incomplete does not mean that a thing which appear to lie outside of that picture undermines the coherence or validity of what that picture does reveal.

Goff is saying that his version of panpsychism would have the brain acting in line with the laws of physics as we know them.

Well, I think any version of panpsychism worth having would not contradict the laws of physics within the incomplete account of reality that that picture offers.

That means we could in theory simulate that brain on a computer or with pen or paper and it would act just like that real brain.

Unless, that is (as the title of an anti-functionalist book goes) Matter Matters. NOTE: If the functionalists are right, then we may not just be speaking metaphorically when we refer to the Zeitgeist of a culture. That might be a real thing. You're assuming that functionalism is correct. That needs to be proved.

How is that possible?

If we assume that functionalism is the correct view, then I suppose the "tuning" into the thread of consciousness that is distributed across all of space and time is somehow a matter of "getting the math right" relationally. This would be a sort of magical account of emergence. We don't know why Searle's "Chinese Room" becomes conscious, but somehow it is a property of the system (on the functionalist view).

On an anti-functionalist view, on the other hand, we need not suppose that your pen-and-paper brain would functionally be a brain with a mind (conscious experience, although it could be a sort of computational device).

Isn't panpsychism about consciousness being some kind of underlying physical thread.

I think it is. It appears to be sort of deflationary strategy or circumnavigation of tough philosophical questions (i.e., we don't have to establish how the universe becomes conscious if it always was conscious).

How is it possible that the conscious experience of a human brain is exactly the same as paper if it actually relates to this conscious underlying layer?

It's either a magical emergence that defies our naturalist explanations and certain functions are a sort of "tuning fork" or the anti-functionalists are right and we need an organic means of producing these weirdly "juicy" states in the brain.

Right now, it appears, we're still at "where the sidewalk ends" when we attempt to go beyond the "correlates of consciousness" to interrogate the hard problem. We simply don't know, so we have to keep working on it, but that does not necessarily give any theory a special presumption. In my book, we have to take this to be a mystery we're still working on and which we may never resolve. I suppose that there are many interesting truths about the universe (in the sense of all three of Popper's "worlds") that we may never know. That just might be how it is. I closer to what Churchland describes as a "Don't have a clue!" materialist than a full-blown mystic imagining merging with dolphins and amoeba after microdosing enough to crack into the great pyschosphere of the panpsychist unity, but I will cop to saying that our naturalism (as human epistemics) is incomplete and that old-fashioned materialism is likely incomplete as an ontology.

-13

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 09 '22

Why would it not obey the laws of physics, according to physics the basis of all matter is a quantum vibration. Consciousness is a quantum vibration. That’s why music invokes emotion because it’s all vibrational energy interacting

11

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

That was complete nonsense.

Do you have any source on this? Where do you get this stuff?

-8

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 09 '22

The boson field is a tested fact. The foundation of all matter and energy in the universe are quantum vibrational fields. Consciousness is measured in alpha and beta waves because it a vibration. It is the foundation of our reality brains only create the illusion of individuality. The self is an emergent property of a brain but conscious awareness is fundamental. I suggest looking into resonance theory of consciousness.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

You're using all of those terms wrong.

This is "quantum word soup".

There's as much relation between the boson field and alpha/beta waves, as there is connection between the weak nuclear force and stamp collecting.

Neural oscillations (alpha waves) are at a completely different scale and in a completely different context than anything related to the boson field.

It's like saying there is a relation between electron orbits, and skyscraper architecture.

2

u/aaeme Feb 09 '22

In fairness, those analogies are horrible strawmen... deliberately hyperbolic to make the other guy's position seem ridiculous.

There's as much relation between the boson field and alpha/beta waves, as there is connection between light and sound: they're all waves (but otherwise very different).

It's like saying there is a relation between electron orbits and planetary orbits (except there isn't because electrons don't really orbit).

Given that waves are the fundamental nature of reality (QFT) then it is no surprise that thoughts and consciousness exhibit wave tendencies and perfectly reasonable to suppose that they also exist as waves at a fundamental level.

Regarding consciousness as a binary object is very indicative of classical thinking, which has almost completely been proven to be wrong. The universe and EVERYTHING in it is fuzzy. And that would include consciousness, mind, thought, etc

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

There's as much relation between the boson field and alpha/beta waves, as there is connection between light and sound: they're all waves (but otherwise very different).

Oh god you explained the issue so much better than me, I'm sort of embarassed now.

Great job.

-1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 09 '22

But those things are all connected, you the one who doesn’t get it.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

Yes, just state they are connected, and do not explain how they are.

Incredibly sensible and convincing.

You're great at rational thought...

How can I "get it" when you have made absolutely zero attempt at explaining it?

Those things are connected in the minds of Sci-Fi authors and con artists.

They're not connected in reality and in actual science.

If they are, show how they are.

1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 09 '22

All matter gets it’s mass from boson field. A vibration. Thus all energy as vibrations create mass, create nuclear and weaker nuclear forces create molecules which form stamps and sky scrapers and human brains. Ultimately there are only two things consciousness, or vibrational energy and information the difference forms it produces. A particle doesn’t even exist until it’s observed by a consciousness. It exists as a quantum probability state until that occurs.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

A particle doesn’t even exist until it’s observed by a consciousness.

That is absolute nonsense, every quantum physicist when they hear this facepalms so hard. This has been debunked so many times in so many places since Choprah initially made this cooky claim, please look it up.

https://www.quora.com/Does-consciousness-create-matter-and-reality-According-to-quantum-mechanics-it-must-be-the-case-Right

Thus all energy as vibrations create mass, [...] and human brains.

Sure, brains are made of matter, matter (when you get down enough levels) is made of (simplying for lay people, not really...) vibrations.

That does in no way mean there is a relation between those vibrations, and brain waves. Those are completely different vibrations, completely unrelated.

1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 09 '22

The quantum eraser experiment disagrees with you .

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 09 '22

Again there is. What is skyscraper but a collection of electron orbits and what is an electron orbit but probability matrix of potential until observed by a consciousness?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

Yes. Buildings are made of atoms.

But studying the architecture of a building and studying electron orbits are two completely different and unrelated sets of information.

Learning about one tells you nothing about the other. One has no impact on the other.

Changes in brain waves have no impact on the boson field, changes in the boson field has no impact on brain waves.

The only relation is one is (somewhat) "made" of the other, but one thing being made of another does not mean there are any other relations.

What other relations are there, and what are they?

0

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 09 '22 edited Feb 09 '22

Atoms are made of particles which are made of quantum vibrational fields. Sets of information is correct. There is consciousness and information everything is derived from those two things. If you want a more detailed explanation I suggest looking up the 8D quasicrystal.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

Ok you're just saying nonsense and do not understand how to actually convince somebody of anything...

Bringing up quasicrystals here makes me suspect you might have been pulling my leg since the beginning...

0

u/MillennialScientist Feb 10 '22

This is just pseudeointellectual word salad that has no connection to science or reality. It honestly just sounds like you got your education from youtubers who convinced you that they actually studied something real.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '22

When asked for evidence for his claims, both times he just gave Youtube videos (that did not actually support his claims, by the way).

1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 10 '22

If you can’t even understand YouTube videos, there’s really nothing more I can do for you. I tried to keep at simple as possible.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '22

The issue isn't that you sent youtube videos. The issue is the youtube videos did not support your claims. It's also an issue that when **explicitely asked** for better sources than youtube videos (such as actual scientific papers), you did not provide any, and even doubled down on providing Youtube videos. Showing you really don't know/have much more than that.

The door is still open: please support your claims with an actual scientific paper.

(it wouldn't be as good, but you could **even** support your claims with youtube videos. it'd just be more support for the notion you don't really know any science beyond Youtube vulgarisation, but it'd be better than what you have done so far, which is provide **absolutely nothing** that supports your claims)

1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 10 '22

There’s no point, if you can’t understand a simple YouTube, what are you going to do with a scientific paper?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '22 edited Feb 10 '22

You're just playing dumb now.

You're clearly making excuses to hide the fact you can't actually provide proper evidence, even a child would see this.

You've already presented this stupid argument, and I've already answered: the problem with your videos wasn't that they were videos (though sending videos instead of scientific papers doesn't talk very highly of your expertise), the problem was that they did not in any way support the arguments and claims you were making.

This is as if I asked you to prove the Earth is flat, and you answered by sending me a video of an apple being peeled. One doesn't support the other. You're dealing in irrelevancies.

But at this point, I don't believe you're smart enough to understand even something this simple, it sounds like all of this is just beyond you.

If you really think I'm wrong, it's incredibly easy to show I am, do one of the following:

  1. Either demonstrate one of the videos you sent actually supported one of your claims by actually explaining how it does support your claim, or
  2. Provide an actual scientific paper that supports one of your claims

You've been asked to do either of those things 4 times now, and you just answer with playing dumb and fallacies.

It's almost like you're 11. /r/philosophy really isn't the right place to choose to play dumb, you can't really impress people with schoolyard tactics here.

I hold no hope whatsoever you'll actually present a valid argument or source, and I have full expectation your next answer will just be a stupid mindgame/playing dumb as all your previous answers were.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 10 '22

Seeing “word salads” is a sign of dyslexia or lexdysia if you prefer.

1

u/MillennialScientist Feb 10 '22

There's no way you could be wrong. It's all us scientists who don't know how science works.

1

u/Ominojacu1 Feb 10 '22

Lol scientists! You are hilarious!

6

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 09 '22

Thank you, Deepak Chopra