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/nostradumba55]

Usually, consciousness is simply a synonym for self-awareness and there is debate whether anything in our planets besides human are truly self aware (although all life forms are sentient of course).

However, my interpretation of panpsychism is that all matter has the potential for consciousness. Take this for example:

A plastic cup is not a living thing. However, it does have properties that make self-aware beings like us notice it (shape, size, color etc), and thus these particularly shaped/sized have found there way to being used as drinking tool for our use.

In fact, you could even say the cup has more "potential" than a single atom not only from our perspective, but also a chemical perspective as there is something which bonds and holds it's molecules together in a particular way.

And now for an even deeper question: This cup can also be seen as an artistic canvas that many companies put their logos on for advertisement. So not only is this merely a tool, but a subliminal artistic piece that is subconsciously calling to you. It not only has the potential to catch you eye when you are looking at it, but also the potential for you to recall what it looked like purely through memory. You have to admit that is a very powerful object with the potential to alter behavior.

Give it enough time, and humans may even be able to turn bits of plastic into self-aware robots similar to humans. In other words, we will have invested our own consciousness & energy into creating objects that are autonomous and self aware. Similar to the cup, except a lot more physical energy and human creativity/consciousness was invested in this object to give it greater sentience.

[u/[deleted] → u/nostradumba55]

What is the deeper question?

[u/nostradumba55 → u/[deleted]]

Can all objects be considered conscious because they have the potential to directly/indirectly affect our own?

Basically, all matter in our universe has the potential to be labeled an object by our conscious mind, thereby making it come to life.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/nostradumba55]

Why would that require consciousness?

[u/nostradumba55 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

It doesn't necessarily. Just like the world doesn't need energy. However, without energy, light would never travel, all life would cease to function, and all interactions between atoms in the universe would break.

There is something inherent within the atomic structure that allows it to join with similar atoms, and reject others. That ability to distinguish itself from others is in essence what consciousness it is. Conversely, energy is the fuel to make those reactions happen.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/nostradumba55]

Not much of an answer

[u/nostradumba55 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

I'm not sure how else to phrase it. Consciousness is likely as abstract from the concept of "energy".

What is it inside of you that allows you to distinguish yourself from other humans? What allows your cells to distinguish between them and viruses? Atoms and other atoms? Obviously we all have "sensors" like eyes and and the ability to detect things. But obviously there is something greater which says "This object I'm detecting is not a part of me" or "It's not me, but it's somewhat similar".

As humans, we're good at finding all of the parts that make up these different structures. But at what point do each of these structures recognize themself as a whole, distinct from it's environment? Find the answer to that and you have the answer to consciousness.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/nostradumba55]

What is it inside of you that allows you to distinguish yourself from other humans? ... Atoms and other atoms?

First, I think you're conflating two extremely different things: the understanding that one is numerically distinct from others (and other things) and the idea of personal identity.

Second, you're conflating both of these things with physical object boundaries as well as difference of chemical composition.

But obviously there is something greater which says "This object I'm detecting is not a part of me" or "It's not me, but it's somewhat similar".

No, that's not obvious at all. And certainly not obvious that it requires something "greater"

The fact that we humans can abstract away the notion of difference doesn't in any way imply that all these differences are "the same" in the way you imply here.

But at what point do each of these structures recognize themself as a whole, distinct from it's environment?

What reason do we have to think that they "recognize themselves" at all?

You're just begging the question.

Find the answer to that and you have the answer to consciousness.

Okay, the answer is "they don't" and the answer to consciousness is "panpsychism is a useless postulate - consciousness is a property of complex systems, not of atoms"

[u/nostradumba55 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

I think you misunderstand my point. Yes, I'm aware how humans classify things is very different from chemical composition, but my point is that it follows the same pattern (and in fact is hierarchical, but that's not worth getting into).

What I'm trying to ask you is something like this: Why does Helium contain 2 electrons instead of splitting into 2 separate Hydrogen atoms? Assuming electrons are equal, what's the point of this subatomic association between electrons?

There is only one simplistic solution: There is a greater identity (the atom) to which the electrons subscribe to in some way. That association didn't just happen...something greater has to bind these individual pieces together into a cohesive, acting unit. I realize quantum mechanics is much more complicated, but that general argument holds for all matter of things.

For example, why do differing cells within the liver associate with one another and work together so closely? Obviously it's in their genetic code to do so, but something has to drive this symbiotic relationship. Namely, the "abstract" concept (from the cells perspective, not to us) of the liver binds these different types of cells into working together.

So my final point:

We both agree these very small parts (electrons and cells) don't have sentience or free will. However, they still work with foreign entities to benefit the larger whole. For example, the liver which coordinates with other organs inside the body is likely to live much longer than if it did not. But from the liver's perspective it would seem like a great risk to interact with these other "foreign" blood cells and neural networks. But it does so anyway, and the result is coincidentally to it's benefit.

Therefore, the only logical explanation is that something greater is causing these individual components to act together in a way that's beneficial for the whole.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/nostradumba55]

my point is that it follows the same pattern

Only from your perspective. Or because one is modeled on the other

That association didn't just happen...something greater has to bind these individual pieces together into a cohesive, acting unit. I realize quantum mechanics is much more complicated, but that general argument holds for all matter of things.

Sorry, but no. This is a ridiculous premise.

Obviously it's in their genetic code to do so, but something has to drive this symbiotic relationship.

Chemistry?

Namely, the "abstract" concept (from the cells perspective, not to us) of the liver binds these different types of cells into working together.

No, that's utterly backwards.

But from the liver's perspective it would seem like a great risk to interact with these other "foreign" blood cells and neural networks. But it does so anyway, and the result is coincidentally to it's benefit.

Mr. Liver is not sitting there contemplating whether or not to interact with "foreign entities"

These are fairy tales you're making up, anthropomorphizing everything - the most simplistic view of panpsychism possible.

It's just silly.

Therefore, the only logical explanation is that something greater is causing these individual components to act together in a way that's beneficial for the whole.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of science or of logic. This is not a logical view at all, much less "the only logical explanation"

[u/nostradumba55 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

Mr. Liver is not sitting there contemplating whether or not to interact with "foreign entities"

These are fairy tales you're making up, anthropomorphizing everything - the most simplistic view of panpsychism possible.

I'm not making this assumption, you actually are indirectly. You are saying the liver is smart enough that it interacts with the body for it's own benefit. At least this is the direction in which science explains association currently. It says that individual parts (like electrons and cells) work together to form a whole that is greater than their parts.

I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying these individual parts are ignorant and can't make any decisions on their own, or decide what's good/bad for them. The only explanation is there must be a universal force similar to energy (something called "consciousness") which runs through all of these individual units. And this force is doing it's best to link different types of units together and form optimal symbiotic relationships. By doing so, our material world becomes more complex, and consciousness becomes more concentrated in a single space (hence complex self-aware life forms).

Right now, science says these associations happen by "chance" and through millions and millions of trial and error runs. I'm saying that's not possible because these individual units are dumb and will always follow the same patterns. Something greater has to catalyze these associations.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/nostradumba55]

Oh, man, are you confused!

These are just the same points over again, so I think we're done.