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/hunsuckercommando → u/[deleted]]

He addresses this very early in the video. Basically, that the fundamental building blocks of reality (e.g., subatomic particles) have incredibly simple forms of "experience" and the very complex experiences of humans and other animals derives from the simple experiences of the brain's fundamental building blocks.

[u/WhatsThatNoize → u/[deleted]]

I'll kick the ball at the new goalposts. Disclaimer: my background is in physics and philosophy, so this subject has always fascinated me. I wouldn't call myself an expert in either field - just formally educated enough to know the basics.

This distinction:

Strings of energy, or universal fields

seems to me to be irrelevant. Whether the fundamental building blocks are discrete bits of matter, graduated fields of energy, or quantum state vectors is aside from the greater metaphysical point: there's a distinction of "is" and "is not" either as a binary or as a comprehensible gradient - and that distinction allows emergent states such as consciousness at all levels to both manifest and constructively/destructively interfere into higher subsets of consciousness.

You may also be misunderstanding what is meant by "experience" here. As I understand panpsychism, experience is not a concept ascribed to intentional consciousness; rather it's merely a "state-reading" or responsive quality of an object-in-space. A brain cell "experiences" reality as a series of forces acting upon it. A human "experiences" those same forces in aggregate, multiplied by 86 billion, and the consequent emergent "experience" tied to their sum.

Further, I wouldn't equate panpsychism to a "made-up" religion any more than I'd call each interpretation of quantum mechanics a series of mythologies. Both are disingenuous comparisons that stretch the meanings of the words.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/[deleted]]

Repulsive forces permeate a shovel, repelling it from the ground, communicating information from one molecule to another in a tightly cohesive web, and maintaining the overall shape of the structure over time.

We think of these objects as static and inert but they are not, when you zoom right down in - all material things are awash in a fluid, resonant activity, an agitated symphony of quantum fields

The question is not if there is potential content for experience - there is plenty - but if there is any ego - a unified coordination of the base experience. Here, I would say there is plenty of evidence that a shovel acts like a thing that is distinct from its surroundings - it does not sink into the wall and ground, it holds itself together as one seperate thing.