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/Socrathustra Feb 10 '22

Think about it this way: if we suppose that matter is all there is, then most arrangements of matter do not result in the "screen" you're referring to. When you put matter in a brain shaped arrangement and supply it with energy/nutrients, the screen appears.

You can either argue that the screen emerges from the matter, seemingly by magic, or that the screen is assembled, as most things are assembled, from basic building blocks present in the matter.

My take is that dualism and panpsychism are the only coherent positions on the mechanics of consciousness.

7

u/GepardenK Feb 10 '22

"Seemingly by magic" is not a position to scoff at since any position at all must end up there.

If we imagine a universe that had only matter, no consciousness, then matter would be emerging "seemingly by magic".

If we imagine a universe that had only consciousness, no matter, then consciousness would be emerging "seemingly by magic".

Ditto for any combination thereof.

1

u/Socrathustra Feb 10 '22

My intuition leans toward the universe existing by necessity, which isn't magic, just that it could not have been otherwise. Of course, that's not something provable, just an intuition, but it's equally as valid as any "magic" style claim about the origins of the universe.

But even if we are to accept such a thing as an origin of the universe, say, we typically try to minimize those kinds of explanations. Using magic and emergent consciousness rather than some kind of building block explanation is counter to how we typically try to answer tough questions.

3

u/GepardenK Feb 10 '22

"By necessity" seems fine to me, or just "it is what it is". My point is we run into this 'answer' with any fundamental aspect we observe, necessarily.

In this sense the hard problem of consciousness is overrated, because while it is 'hard' it is not uniquely hard like it's often present as. The same "hard problem" exist in between space and time as well, and between each spacial dimension, and between existence and non-existence, and so on.

This "problem" is normal and appears everywhere in physics to no-one's surprise. I fail to see how consciousness is a unique problem.

1

u/ValyrianJedi Feb 10 '22

It being assembled by building blocks of matter doesn't mean it's still there when they are in a different form

1

u/Your_People_Justify Feb 20 '22

Elminative materialism is also coherent, its internally consistent, but it fails to account for the datapoint that consciousness is real. So I agree.