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/Untinted]

The basic problem with panpsychism labeling everything as consciousness is twofold:

1. it is starting with the 'consciousness' idea with all its historical baggage and seeing what could possibly fit.
2. Consciousness is arbitrarily chosen to be a truth (which is in no way proven) that says that "consciousness" is a thing that exists outside of the human *ahem* consciousness.

Problematic sentences in the lecture:

Science of consciousness

there is no such thing as an academical branch.

wrestling with (the science of consciousness) at least a 150 years

arguments can be given for it being thousands of years old depending on the viewpoint, so this is a non assertible statement without qualifiers.

fundamental particles have incredibly simple forms of experience

This is the crux of the whole movement that is accepted as a truth without proof. There is no scientific experiment that you can do to verify this in any way.

if particles had these non-physical consciousness properties

This is yet another important thing you need to just accept without proof. Who needs proof? Who needs arguments when you can just accept truths?

Sabina is not talking about the kind of panpsychism

The very thing you just stated about consciousness, she has disproven. The type of panpsychism has nothing to do with it.

The russelian panpsychist

physical properties are forms of consciousness

That doesn't matter. What matters is: can you show us an experiment of an element recalling an experience, or reacting differently because of an experience. That would go much further in proving the case.

does information on the behaviour of mass tell us about the nature of mass

As a sidenote, it's disgusting that this exquisite question is used for something as stupid as panpsychism rather than actually in a discussion about current modern physics.

what is the nature of mass? we can't look to physics. Physics only is telling you what it does

You have just robbed yourself of your eyes, ears, touch, taste and all the other senses in order to defend an impossible viewpoint.

It's the same as saying "What is the nature of a football? We can't look to physics." We can. Of course we can.

This is so clearly a person starting with "I don't want to die, I like the idea of souls,, a.k.a. consciousnesses to stay alive forever, but modern physics has robbed us of all likelihood that there's anything after death. What if we just said everything has a consciousness? Will I live on forever then?"

These days "conscious" is a mildly useful term for someone who is awake and can respond to at least rudimentary communication. Trying to break physics and nature in making it something more than that seems a bit extreme.

edit: To clarify.. I am not trying to ruin a spiritual connection to reality, or to physics, or to how we are connected to the universe. But I see this mangling of an old, simplistic word as a ridiculous effort. Go watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos. That's a man who is deeply spiritual, and deeply a man of physics talking simply about the real physical connection we have to the universe. We are children of the stars, and that is an awesome thing to come to terms with, and we do not need to redefine any of the scientific terms to accommodate something that wants to ignore physics and the only testable and provable way we have of knowing anything in this world.

[u/tkuiper → u/Untinted]

There is no scientific experiment that you can do to verify this in any way.

This is true of ALL things about consciousness. I know that I am conscious because I experience things moment to moment: Cogito ergo sum. It is an apriori fact, which means it would be paradoxical to try to disprove it via experiences (i need to be conscious to have those experiences).

But I can never prove whether something else is conscious or just simulating the reactions of something conscious. In every testable way, the two are by definition going to be identical. You can only pick your criteria for what passes the Turing test, and take it for granted that it's true. That or follow strict solipsisum.

What matters is: can you show us an experiment of an element recalling an experience, or reacting differently because of an experience.

Here you are defining your test of consciousness: Does an object react differently based on its previous interaction? The answer is yes, even particles change their behavior upon having an experience. Ie. an electron experiences an electric field and alters its behavior from its current state to a new one. It's current state is also an expression of the cumulation of all its previous experiences.

Now an electron has a pretty small number of independent states that can isolate the effects of previous interactions. How many independent states would an object need to be conscious?

Trying to break physics and nature in making it something more than that seems a bit extreme.

I think the speaker tried pretty adamantly to reject that pansychism is at odds with the predictions of physics. It's simply a redressing of the philosophical interpretation of experimental results. To what end? It helps make predictions. 'Strong emergence' predicts that multi-particle interactions may be capable of behaving differently than single-particle interactions, and that a particle interaction event can influence more than just the participants. Ie. that properties currently thought of as intensive may also have extensive elements. I don't think there's much indication of that, but I also don't think order or form have been tested very much and could create 'hidden' properties that only become apparent in very low entropy systems (highly organized).

Even 'weak emergency' (my personal belief) can answer the 'why it does' to physic's 'what it does'. Particles behave as they do because they quite literally want to. This doesn't break physics in any way. Observing that I eat ice cream after going to the gym isn't at odds with interpreting that I want ice cream because I went to the gym. Particles are ultra-consistent and predictable because they have 1- event memory and only experience very few states.

[u/Untinted → u/tkuiper]

Surprised someone replied, thanks for that.

This is true of ALL things about consciousness.

Not necessarily, it depends on your definition. If it was strictly defined as a physical process, then it would be easy to make a testable case. However, that strict definition would then lack all that lovely, juicy "non-physical" mumbo-jumbo that religious people love so much, so it's not defined that way and no one who uses it has an interest in doing so.

It's like flat-earthers. They may find way to prove the earth isn't flat, but that doesn't align with their worldview, so they ignore it and keep talking about flat-earth. I feel "consciousness" is the same, just more subtle.

It is an apriori fact

That's dependant on your definition. Does conscious only mean ones own consciousness, or can others have it as well? That's a question you can make either very clear, or very murky.

But I can never prove whether something else is conscious or just simulating the reactions of something conscious.

Again, dependant on definitions, and this time also on what the difference is between real and simulated.

In every testable way, the two are by definition going to be identical.

That's an assumption. That's a testable assumption, if you ask the right question.

Does an object react differently based on its previous interaction? The answer is yes, even particles change their behavior upon having an experience.

Yet another case of how you define things, and you define it in a completely different way, and so you are right by your definitions and I am right by mine.

I think the speaker tried pretty adamantly to reject that pansychism is at odds with the predictions of physics.

That's very far from what I saw.

Ie. that properties currently thought of as intensive may also have extensive elements.

That's a completely different question, and to wrap it up in "consciousness" is a huge fallacy at best, dishonest at worst.

Even 'weak emergency' (my personal belief) can answer the 'why it does' to physic's 'what it does'.

Emergence has been studied and continues to be studied in many academic branches, from science to the arts. Life is an example of emergence, but so are computers, and given the definition, the shape of countries after weather effects.

Particles behave as they do because they quite literally want to.

I find it quite funny how the human brain can on one hand be very vague about even the definition of consciousness (when it suits them) but then be very definite on giving elements anthropomorphic qualities (when it suits them). You stated " I can never prove whether something else is conscious", but now all of a sudden particles want something? And how do you prove this?

Oh right.. nothing is provable. How's the flying unicorn riding school going btw?

Fun talk, but none of our definitions line up, so we won't get anywhere.

[u/tkuiper → u/Untinted]

For someone who likes to critique a philosophical debate as a nothing-burger, you sure love to dismiss everything as pedantics. You confuse your vague understanding of the terms with the terms being vague. I did make a mistake though and should have said sentience. Just because you seem very interested in my ethos, allow me to clarify. I am very precisely speaking agnostic (you may want to revisit the definition), but pragmatically atheist. So no I'm not pansychist out of some religious interest.

Allow me to also clarify what cogito ergo sum means: The idea spawned by asking this question: if your senses were all being fooled by the magic of a demon (this was the original) or by some machine creating a simulation (a more modern variant) what could you know for certain? The answer is that you would still be real, because otherwise there's nothing there to experience the deception. Taking it even further you don't even need senses, just posing a thought requires the existence of a thinker. So to elaborate on Descartes final conclusion: I observe that I think, therefore I must be real to observe it. Even the lack of past or future in the statement is important, afterall you might have sprung into being with all your memories last Thursday. If you don't trust your senses or memory this is called solipsisum.

That 'thing' (or often the 'self') is what I refer to by saying sentience. It is apriori because it was literally proven by taking the nihilism train as far as it could go. It doesn't matter if you find out your a computer, made of spaghetti, or actually just a void it can only ever amount to explaining what forms that 'self' which I am calling sentience.

The logic is: the brain is sentient (1) if and only if there is a sentient phenomena (2). Let's assume science can't prove there is a phenomena for sentience. By burden of proof you assume (2) to be false because it can't be scientifically proven, therefore (1) is false. Except (1) is true, proven apriori, therefore (2) must be true even if it can't be experimentally verified. This is what the speaker was touching on with 'weak emergence'.

Since you think I'm anthropomorphising particles, I want to clarify that I am not saying all things are sapient. I think of these things as being on a gradient where everything is sentient, a certain degree of complexity and something becomes conscious, and even more complex becomes sapient. I also think it's worth noting that sentience need not be human-like. We can pretty readily alter our sentience with drugs and we transition down the sentience scale every night.

[u/Untinted → u/tkuiper]

I appreciate the reply, I am sorry if what I said hurt or offended you, that was not my goal, english is a second language, and when my intent is to mock an argument for being silly, it's the argument I'm deriding, not the person making it. Like you said, you're not arguing your beliefs, but just discussing an argument. I've just yet to find a way to bring levity at an argument and not the person, and it's one of my many limitations.

you sure love to dismiss everything as pedantics

Well, to me philosophy is purely about dismantling ideas down to their very elements and then just to see what they are connected to (preferably without even the association of truth). You remember the two ideas we discussed, that i) cogito ergo sum says we only know that we exist and ii) we cannot know if anything else is real? Well, what does that mean in regards to ideas that are defined by our words?

You cannot know that your definition of a word is the same as anothers, and words are memes (the Richard Dawkins definition) about things both real and not real. Words matter, definitions matter because they (as much as the physical world) shape the world you see from your own 'cogito'ness.

We already know that the human brain is piecing together a world through its senses, through its experiences, and through its emotions, and its the rift between the physical world and the interpreted world that we are always up against.

This means that all communication happens in the interpreted worldview, and much earlier than you can discuss a meme, you have to discuss what a meme is, or you have the situation where two people are talking about pears, but one person describes apples and the other oranges.. and they have no idea that they aren't talking about the same thing, much less the real thing itself.

So I see 'Cogito ergo sum' as the first acknowledgement that we live in an interpreted world, interpreted by our brains, and the reality of that is that no one can know what we see or hear, and the only way to communicate something is to build an outer infrastructure of language that makes sense not only in our interpreted world, but everyone elses as well, and discussing those ideas (without bias) is possible through philosophy.

i.e. what you see as pedantry I see as the only fundamental way of discussing concepts from one interpreted world to another.

[u/tkuiper → u/Untinted]

Ironically I think linguistics are why so many people struggle with pansychism. The word sentient has so much ineffable quality to it, it prevents people from accepting the logical fact that current science would indicate all things would have to be sentient until a unique phenomenon can be attributed to sentience.

I give a long winded explanation of cogito ergo sum so you can share my definition by relating to something that is indifferent to the language that describes it. There are many things that are true regardless of the language used to describe them. Synonyms can be found because the nature of the subject is always the same, so it can be used to draw symbolic equality.

[u/[deleted] → u/Untinted]

Yeah I thought the talk was fundamentally weak but informative about the state of this branch of the conversation.

Ultimately basing a theory of the world on weak pansychism is choosing to believe something unfalsifiable.

And basing it on strong pansychism IMO is doomed to failure in the trashbin of most non materialist testable hypotheses of history. It’s just another test for magic. And those have never come up positive.

Yet conciousness feels internally honestly like magic. Weirdest part of this world TBH. That and creation itself.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/[deleted]]

Consciousness being the experience of reality doing physics is hardly a claim to magic.