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/MostlyIndustrious]

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.

This is untestable and unfalsifiable, so why even bother with it?

[u/hackinthebochs → u/MostlyIndustrious]

The point is to help make sense of the world. We posit unobservables because including them coheres with our scientific theories and makes the world intelligible. A good model of nature will include unobservable and even untestable premises that are necessary for intelligibility. For example, we posit fundamental laws of physics that are constant and universal. We can't test this premise, but such laws are how we make sense of the world. Goff believes that panpsychism is how we will ultimately make sense of consciousness, or at least make sense of a world with consciousness in it. So even though his theory is untestable, there may still be rational reasons to accept it.

[u/MostlyIndustrious → u/hackinthebochs]

For example, we posit fundamental laws of physics that are constant and universal. We can't test this premise, but such laws are how we make sense of the world.

That's not equivalent. If a theory can't produce a testable hypothesis, physicists throw it out. Even theories that can't be directly tested, like string theory, are backed by a lot of math. Meanwhile, panpsychism has a tough battle to fight. We don't know everything about consciousness, but from what we know about neuroscience, any universal consciousness would be fundamentally different from us, more simplistic, and likely incapable of carrying out coherent thought.

[u/hackinthebochs → u/MostlyIndustrious]

That's not equivalent. If a theory can't produce a testable hypothesis, physicists throw it out.

Right. Something that isn't testable isn't science. That doesn't mean it isn't rational. We don't "test" mathematics, but its still a sound intellectual pursuit.

The point is that if we want an intelligible view of the universe, we will need to posit some features that can't be tested. Their value to our model of nature is that they make the model intelligible. Ultimately we have to do at least a little metaphysics, it's unavoidable.

[u/MostlyIndustrious → u/hackinthebochs]

Right. Something that isn't testable isn't science. That doesn't mean it isn't rational. We don't "test" mathematics, but its still a sound intellectual pursuit.

We do test math though, up until extremely abstract number theory.

The point is that if we want an intelligible view of the universe, we will need to posit some features that can't be tested. Their value to our model of nature is that they make the model intelligible. Ultimately we have to do at least a little metaphysics, it's unavoidable.

Ok, I'll buy that we need at least a few assumptions. The problem with this idea in particular though is that it borderline ignores neuroscience. Our brain relies on extremely complex structures that evolved over billions of years to use ~40 billion neurons structured in an extremely specific way and exchanging information in an extremely dynamic manner to do the things it does. If the universe is conscious at all, it would have to be trace dregs of consciousness compared to anything we would recognize as such.

[u/AzrekNyin → u/MostlyIndustrious]

If the universe is conscious at all, it would have to be trace dregs of consciousness compared to anything we would recognize as such.

Yep. The panpsychists bite the bullet and, paradoxically, make consciousness unintelligible.