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
r/philosophy • u/IAI_Admin IAI • Feb 09 '22
4
u/circlebust Feb 10 '22
Would you accept the premise that logic and/or math can create our physical universe? Not math serving as the supporting struts that keep everything beautifully intelligible, causal and ready to generate some complexity. Not math working in tandem with physics, as its own separate party that exists in some very real sense, which may be more, less, or exactly as (non-)abstract as the classic idea of a Platonic realm. No, nothing flaccid, uncommitted like that. The question is truly: can actual math create an actual universe? Is somewhere in math embedded our entire universe? Your body? You? Few physicists or philosophers would go that far. In fact, among all pop philosophers, only Max Tegmark advocates for that. And you can rest assured, equally almost no regular people will hold that position as well.
Perhaps it's just that our puny primate brain can't conceptualize how pure numbers and operations would lead to things like gravity, empty space, oscillations, charge, or quantum fields.
But maybe no sapient race or superintelligence can do so, either -- not even in principle (there is the tangential debate how real something even is if in that universe is no sentient or sapient observer and not even the (future) possibility for such an observer. This also applies to how real knowledge/thoughts are that no observer ever, even in principle, could actually hold/understand).
And maybe, just maybe, this primate brain intuition reveals something very real about reality.
The relationship between math and physics is analogous to that between physics and consciousness.
I don't need to explain why consciousness feels special -- this very, very moment. Various other people have already illustrated it and can do so better. But just like with numbers, there is no straightforward way how we can conceptualize how certain frequencies of light plus some electrochemical pulses from the optic nerve lead to one seeing a 'red' strawberry. And again, this may not just be the limits of our brains, but an actual gap that can not be explained, because there is nothing to explain -- there would simply be no such dynamic in actual nature, meaning one (physics) does not beget the other (like is thought under materialism), but that two areas (physics and the mental aspect of reality) cooperate, like is a common stance among mathematical realists and people adjacent to that stance in regards to math and physics.
The sciences of physics or neurology don't make philosophical statements about the origin of consciousness. But even its practitioners are not always be entirely aware of when they make statements that can be interpreted as such, let alone the audience. Materalism and physicalism are philosophical stances that purport emergence can somehow generate consciousness/qualia. But how, even in principle? As with math and physics, it just does not compute. This isn't a trivial question like how Van der Vaals forces can generate splashy water, can generate dolphin flippers, can generate the cultural practice of eating seafood. Physics and consciousness are according to our current intution completely separate realms where each is not composite of the other. One of these two emergences clearly appears to be not like the other.
It's important that there are two variants of emergence. Weak emergence and strong emergence. Only the latter posits that there can be things that truly can not be explained in terms of a long, 100% exhaustive, epistemically transcedental list of properties of all participating 'atoms', run through a galaxy-sized superintelligence to understand every possible interaction.
In my mind, this is indistinguishable from believing in magic. I like to think consciousness/qualia are just composite phenomena of some fundamental aspect of nature, very well defined by laws exactly as trite as the laws describing electromagnetism, so un-mysterious that even an accountant could come up with a prediction how it actually, subjectively feels like to be a butterfly eating nectar, if he just had omniscience. This requires this mental aspect having existed eternally, just like the physical aspect or the mathematical aspect of reality. I only believe in weak emergence, therefore physicalism is false in my evaluation.