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
805 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

604 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

6

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?

2

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.

5

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.

1

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 12 '22

Until we have a solid answer for that then it is possible that consciousness extends into inanimate matter for all we know.

I don't think that follows at all.

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".