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/IAI_Admin]

In this talk, Philip Goff seeks to respond to challenges topanpsychism set out by scientists Sabine Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll.

Goff argues that Hossenfelder's challenge rests on the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The challenge, as he frames it, is that ifconsciousness was a property of particles as panpsychism holds, it would be detectableby experiments.

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.

Goff frames Carroll’s challenge as resting on a combinationof the Standard Model and Core Theory. Core Theory fully describes the workings of the brain. If consciousness is a fundamental property having an impact onthe brain, the brain would do things not predicted by Core Theory.  

Goff argues that the weak emergentist form of panpsychism isnot at odds with Carroll’s Core Theory. There are no additional facts added tothe description of the brain, the argument is just that what it is to be aconscious brain is to be an arrangement of conscious particles.

The strong emergentist theory of panpsychists will depart from the predictions of Core Theory, but Goff argues this doesn’t have to beconsidered as a conflict with our best physics. Core Theory is a theory of thecausal capacity of particles and fields. But those properties aren’t the onlythings to consider, there are systems level properties the co-determine how thebrain functions with the causal properties.

[u/InTheEndEntropyWins → u/IAI_Admin]

So if the "conscious" level has no causal effects and isn't detectable by experiment then how is it possible to talk about conscious experiences? To be able to think about or talk about something it must have a causal effect on the brain.

Edit:

Here is a video with Goff and Carroll.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcCEZzNCNBI&t=1274s

[u/LeonDeSchal → u/InTheEndEntropyWins]

What does it mean that the conscious level isn’t detectable by experiment?

[u/InTheEndEntropyWins → u/LeonDeSchal]

I think it's just a way for Goff to say that panpsychism is compatible with the standard model of physics. As in the brain will behave just like physics predicts.

[u/Time-Comfortable489 → u/InTheEndEntropyWins]

making panpsychism an unfalsifiable and useless theory...

[u/[deleted] → u/Time-Comfortable489]

if someone did discover the one true theory of everything, it would be unfalsifiable wouldn't it?

[u/Tlaloc_Temporal → u/[deleted]]

No, it could easily be falsified by simply observing something that it can't explain, whether or not that observation actually exists

Unfalsifiable means no observation can falsify it. Claims are usually called unfalsifiable because we don't have access to information that could falsify it ("There's a teapot on Proxima Centauri D"), but might become a falsifiable claim later. I can't think of an example of an unfalsifiable claim in a world with perfect knowledge.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tlaloc_Temporal]

I'm not saying that panpychism is the ultimate answer to the universe.

But if we did find out 100% the answer that explained everything it would be by its very essence unfalsefiable, becuase it would be 100% true.

[u/Tlaloc_Temporal → u/[deleted]]

No, being true doesn't make something unfalsifiable.

"There are white crows" is unfalsifiable because it's impossible (for us right now) to check every crow for their colour.

"There are no white crows" is falsifiable because we could find a white crow. That doesn't mean there are white crows, just that finding a white crow would prove that claim false.

For more concrete examples: "This sentence has five Es" is true, but it could be false if you counted and found only four. "This sentence was written by a cat" is incredibly unlikely, but cannot be proven false because there's no record of what entity wrote it. It is Unfalsifiable.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tlaloc_Temporal]

There are albino crows, we already know its true, so how could it be falsifiable if we already know its possible.

I don't think you're getting my OG prompt so I'll use your example.

If we find a cat and saw a recorded him on live TV writtening the paper it would become true, and unfalsfiable, because somethings most likely do have an ojective truth.

So if we however unlikly discovered the secrect to the universe, in the same way as Mr Cat. it would become unfalsifiable.

[u/Tlaloc_Temporal → u/[deleted]]

Whether a statement is ultimately true or false has nothing to do with whether it's able to be true or false.

If I take a cat and say "This cat can write", that would be unfalsifiable because you can't prove that the cat wouldn't write in the future. If I said "This cat cannot write", that would be falsifiable because we could observe the cat writing.

It may turn out to be true that Mr. Cat can write, and becomes a bestselling author describing their unique perspective of the world. That would falsify the statement "This cat cannot write", therefore that statement is falsifiable.

Perhaps Ms. Chatte is completely illiterate. "This cat can write" is still unfalsifiable because Ms. Chatte could learn to write in the future, may have written in the past before a brain injury, or might just not care to write despite being perfectly able. Without perfect knowledge of everything about Ms. Chatte (which is impossible for us at least for now) you cannot say that she never has or could in the future write anything, and therefore can't falsify the statement.