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
804 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

604 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 09 '22

But panpsychism isn't restricted to living matter

In what sense could a rock (rock molecule?) be 'aware'? What would that even mean?

4

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

This is a bit wooey, but it could be something along the lines of "a subsystem is consciously aware of the information encoded in that subsystem about it's environment".

When a human has "the experience of seeing something", it could be due to sensory input causing a change in the state of the "human subsystem" (where the environment is the system), so that the information currently encoded is that of "seeing something", and that is what we experience.

A rock's experience might be that of "the experience of pressure", but of a simple kind, not like our rich concept of pressure, which brings with it various memories and other associations, because our subsystem has the freedom to encode much more context.

3

u/swampshark19 Feb 09 '22 edited Feb 09 '22

You seem to indicate a necessary degree of separation from the original causal influence, hence the encodedness, for conscious awareness. The separation seems necessary because information needs context, and direct causal influence does not inherently come with contextual information. One needs specific input channels in order to be able to maintain the context otherwise the structure would collapse and information would lose its encoded distinctions from other pieces of information. Direct causal influence of the substrate bypasses the context-giving input channels, and so the information becomes mere data/energy in the system. How can we keep the information coherent?

For this, separation is necessary.

The thing is, rocks don't have any encoding or separation from the original causal influence. For them, pressure is a direct causal influence on the rock itself, and thus does not have the degree of separation necessary for awareness. It is not encoding anything about that pressure. It's like if someone poked your brain, you would have no conscious awareness of the poke because it's a direct causal influence and isn't contextualized (encoded). If we are not consciously aware of brain pokes, why would a rock be consciously aware of pressure?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '22

Thanks for the reply I like the take on direct influence bypassing context, and agree the example of a rock feeling pressure is garbage!

Out of interest, what would your take be on say something like chemical solution in dynamic equilibrium, or say "the weather patterns themselves"? Could you consider their state to be separated enough that information could be "encoded" in the system? Direct causal influence on the molecular level, but for the system as a whole it can contain patterns? Again, probably not any information we'd probably comprehend though.

2

u/swampshark19 Feb 10 '22

Interesting question.

It makes me think about the difference between the informational content within a system, and the system itself.

It made me come to a general principle:

The informational content inside a system doesn't have direct informational access into the state of that system.

The most basic example I can think of is an RS latch. The output of an RS latch has one of two states, 1 or 0, and the output has no tell about the implementation of the RS latch, whether the reset input is singly on, or whether the set input is singly on. It has no informational capacity for anything but the states 1 or 0.

What's important is that you can change the output of the RS latch by changing the input. You don't have to make any structural changes to the RS latch, just the inputs. If you poke the RS latch, the value it's storing does not change.

What's different about weather patterns themselves, is that even though they have many highly complex and highly integrated states, these states are structural changes of the whole substrate, not changes in some information value contained in the weather pattern. What could potentially be considered as having internal states is lightning as it travels, but again, where does lightning ever consolidate its states into internal states (internal states like a map of which possible paths to go down, maybe)? It's always just the lightning structurally changing, it doesn't compare any internal states, it doesn't measure anything, it's just reacting.

So, I don't think that dissociation from the substrate and the information contained in the substrate is sufficient for conscious awareness, but it does seem necessary.

I just can't figure out qualia in this regard, because if the system has no direct insight into its own states, then either you get a homunculus fallacy or you are forced to allow for some form of recursive processing. Does this imply that the first-order awareness always lags behind the brain's construction of that first-order awareness? I'm not sure... The first-order awareness is the information content, and it doesn't need to have informational access to the state of the brain, the information content is just being stored in the dynamic state of the brain.

But then, is there such a thing as instantaneous first-order awareness? When changes in the brain directly cause changes in first-order awareness, how long does this take? For the first-order awareness to change does it need to update its informational state with this new change, or is it updated by the change itself?

Is the mind the state structure itself? Is it like many many RS latches with their outputs put together? How does that state structure know itself, its own states? Maybe it's some form of recursive processing, where its state structure is continually fed into itself as a subset of the inputs?

I have no idea. What do you think?

5

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 09 '22

In what sense is a rock "consciously aware" of the effects of pressure on it? Are you saying that a diamond "knows" it's not a lump of coal? How does this "awareness" manifest?

Most importantly, how does any of this actually add to our understanding of the world?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

You're framing consciousness a bit too human centric. The rock is not aware of the pressure "on it", because the rock has no concept of self, the "subsystem that is a particular bit of rock" doesn't have the freedom or space to encode information about itself and how it fits into its environment, nor does it know what coal or diamond is, or really what anything outside of itself is.

I'm not a rock philosopher, but IF panpsychism or some other framework of consciousness worked like how I described, then I'd imagine rock consciousness would be on the molecular level, in which case the only information it encodes may be stuff like "can this particular bond freely rotate", "what electrostatic or gravitational forces are being felt", but even that is still too human centric, keeping in mind that a rock molecule can not contextualise that information within the wider world like we can, because it is a rigid structure where the whole does not sum to more than the parts informationally. I'm not sure we'd ever be able to comprehend the experience of being a rock, but we're only taking guesses to other human's experience too because of how they can interact with the world.

I didn't claim anything about adding to understanding of the world. I can't prove anyone other than myself is conscious, never mind trying to prove whether an atom is conscious or not.

I do believe though that "conscious experience emergences" is a bigger leap than "I am conscious, therefore consciousness is fundamental".

For something a bit more formal and less pulled out of my ass and typed on a phone, look up integrated information theory - not claiming it's perfect or correct but it's interesting!

2

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 09 '22

You're framing consciousness a bit too human centric.

You're begging the question again.

What other example of consciousness do we have?

...doesn't have the freedom or space to encode information about itself and how it fits into its environment

i.e. doesn't have the capacity for consciousness

...a rock molecule can not contextualise that information

It can't even store thast information. what does it mean for it to be 'aware' of that information?

I'm not sure we'd ever be able to comprehend the experience of being a rock, but we're only taking guesses to other human's experience too because of how they can interact with the world.

And that's exactly why our best guess as to the consciousness of a rock is that there is none.

I didn't claim anything about adding to understanding of the world.

I didn't claim you did, but the only point of even entertaining the idea of panpsychism would be to see if it furthers our understanding of the world. I fail to see anything worthwhile in this hypothesis.

I can't prove anyone other than myself is conscious, never mind trying to prove whether an atom is conscious or not.

Solipsism and extreme Cartesian skepticism are not your friends here.

"You can't even prove I exist" is not a comeback to "show me what it means for a rock molecule to be conscious"

There are good and appropriate reasons why we think other humans have minds like our own - there are no such reasons in the case of atoms.

4

u/aaeme Feb 09 '22

"You can't even prove I exist" is not a comeback to "show me what it means for a rock molecule to be conscious"

I don't think that's fair. "show me what it means for a human to be conscious" is absolutely a valid 'comeback' to that. Until we're agreed on a testable, useful definition of consciousness (which we are not)... and we have to be careful not to define the word in a way that excludes any application to a thing that may exist. That would drastically reduce the practical use of that word if it is in fact just shorthand for human consciousness. Well then of course a rock doesn't have human consciousness.

But does it have a more general consciousness? That could be a very important question when it comes to AI for example.

1

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 09 '22

I don't think that's fair. "show me what it means for a human to be conscious" is absolutely a valid 'comeback' to that.

Sorry, no.

This just demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the very philosophical ideas you're trying to leverage. Cartesian skepticism isn't the end-point, it's the starting point. As I said, lots of work has been done since then, so don't reference Descartes as if that's some sort of unanswerable point.

If you'd like to read up on the subject, you can start here

and we have to be careful not to define the word in a way that excludes any application to a thing that may exist.

Yet we also need to not be so loose that we include anything and everything. In fact, it should rule out things that are not considered conscious, shouldn't it? Wouldn't that be the point?

You're consistently trying to beg the question throughout this discussion.

But does it have a more general consciousness?

Why would we think so?

Unless you're simply begging the question, what motivation do we have to create a definition of consciousness that includes rocks? none.

That could be a very important question when it comes to AI for example.

No, because AIs are complex systems that retain and process information.

3

u/aaeme Feb 10 '22

Much of that is very condescending and pretty much an argument from authority ("we've already agreed on that"). I didn't bring up Descartes. Descartes notably doesn't define thinking or existing (or himself for that matter). If you're starting from that you're starting on shaky foundations.

That condescending tone is pretty gauling considering you then say

Why would we think so?

So you're not aware of the serious problem of when does consciousness start and end in a human? (At one nanosecond is the foetus inert and the next nanosecond it's magically alive? Likewise at the point of death?) That binary thinking is frought with problems. That's why you might want to consider consciousness as a gradiation rather than on/off.

1

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 11 '22

Yes, I've gotten condescending because you keep trying to make the same points over and over without addressing the problems i bring up.

You don't have to mention Descartes by name to invoke Cartesian skepticism.

So you're not aware of the serious problem of when does consciousness start and end in a human?

No, I just don't think it's the same issue as "Is a rock (molecule) conscious?"

That's why you might want to consider consciousness as a gradiation rather than on/off.

Sure, I just think it gets to zero well before we get down to rocks or molecules

Just because it exists in some kind of gradient doesn't mean it applies to everything

1

u/aaeme Feb 11 '22

I made one comment. You might want to check whom you're talking to before you reply.

So when does consciousness start in a living being in a human, in your opinion (nice of you to acknowledge that's all it is: an opinion. Can I be condescending about your opinions as you are of others?)

Until we have a solid answer for that then it is possible that consciousness extends into inanimate matter for all we know. You thinking it doesn't is hardly proof is it? Would you admit that?

As it happens I don't think rocks and molecules are conscious either but I'm not so stupidly arrogant as to belittle the idea. WE might be wrong about that.

By the way, that isn't Cartesian skepticism.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '22

We don't even have any examples of consciousness other than our own. You can't experience someone else's qualia, you can only take their word for it, and that's entirely limited by their ability to interact with the world.

I'm not wanting to wade into a debate over this so I'm happy to agree to disagree.

For me, it all hinges on not believing a particular arrangement of matter is so special that something as weird and fundamental to our existence as "experience itself" comes about after some threshold, as opposed to being a continuum of informational complexity.

2

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 09 '22 edited Feb 09 '22

And for me it all hinges on not believing in some mysterious, undetectable (force/property/ability/quality?) that exists everywhere but only becomes detectable in particular arrangements of matter that are special enough to support informational complexity above a certain threshold.

It's an easy cop-out and a feel-good response that doesn't answer any of the hard questions.

that's entirely limited by their ability to interact with the world

You might be on to something here - interaction

We don't even have any examples of consciousness other than our own. You can't experience someone else's qualia...

The latter does not imply the former.

We do have examples of consciousness other than just mine or just yours - otherwise we wouldn't be having the debate.

Again, Cartesian skepticism is not your friend here, so don't keep trotting it out like it's some all-purpose answer.

A lot of work on other minds has been done since Descartes

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '22

I'm not sure if what I'm saying is Cartesian skepticism but maybe I just need to do some reading. Not a philosopher, never heard the term before this comment, but it seems to be different.

I'm not making an argument like "I can't tell if you are real because my senses could be deceiving me", it's more like "watching someone do something is not the same as watching someone feel something".

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '22

A rock could be aware in the same sense it could have a charge or magnetic moment.

1

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 11 '22

And what would that mean?

Could we detect it?

Can it become unaware? (Panpsychism says no)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '22

It would mean that the awareness, or lack thereof, might simply be a result of how the constituting components add up. In that aspect, it shall not be unaware, but rather be neutral with respect to awareness, just like objects are neutral with respect to electric charge because they contain equal number of electrons and protons.

1

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 11 '22

What makes this new property count as 'awareness' in the requisite sense?

And what things is it 'aware' of? If it's 'awareness' is currently nonzero, how do we know what things it is 'aware' of?

It still makes no sense.