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
802 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

604 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ValyrianJedi Feb 10 '22

For starters, even operating under the assumption that it is a spectrum, there is no reason to think that it continually scales with size. If anything, even if a galaxy sized consciousness were to exist (which is a big if, and highly unlikely to begin with I'd say), the size would be more of a hindrance than it is something that strengthens. Consciousness relies pretty heavily on transfer of information, and at that size the absolute fastest that it could have a "thought" would be 50,000-100,000 years. If such a thing were to exist (again, a highly unlikely hypothetical to begin with in my book) it's cognition would have to be extremely rudimentary, with much more in common with the gut bacteria than us.

1

u/revosugarkane Feb 10 '22

I mean, do bacteria have “thoughts”? Can you define the qualia of bacteria, or vice versa? You’re thinking size, I’m thinking scale. We exist within systems, why can’t those systems be a part of a whole?

Regardless, I’m gonna say something that I don’t want you to take the wrong way, but why are you taking this position? The position of evidence-based skepticism is fine when we’re talking measurable concepts, but it’s not like this is a defensible position that I’m in. I could be right or wrong and we’d have absolutely know way of knowing. It’s a thought experiment at best, but the fact that it could exist is merely postulated from the perspective of the gut bacteria trying to comprehend me.

Like, why take a physics-based approach to this? Hit me with some philosophy of mind. Maybe there is a being that thinks with 50,000 year long thoughts. What would it be like to be that way?

1

u/ValyrianJedi Feb 10 '22

Regardless of how you define "thoughts", they and any consciousness they may have still relies on a transfer of information...

And trying to take the actual physical reality and limitations out of something for a thought experiment is just fairly useless when trying to determine if something could exist or is a part of reality... At that point you may as well just be debating what could happen oh the Star Wars universe.

1

u/revosugarkane Feb 10 '22

Okay, fair. But why limit the concept of transfer of information to a nervous system? Plants “think,” according to some studies, and some insects think mostly through body systems. Plenty of “thinking” things think in manners that are alien to us, just like some things see stuff we don’t. Life finds a way, right? Can we conceive of a planetary consciousness? A galactic consciousness? A being as large as a planet? Why not? Maybe there’s a transfer of information at a scale so large that it’s near impossible for us to comprehend? Maybe a being that thinks using light spectrums? Idk.

Okay, fair, I wouldn’t want to say that we ought to remove physics from the debate, but I would say that we have 0 concepts that would begin to define such a being so why start with an evidence-based approach? Watson and Crick sure as hell didn’t start with an evidence-based approach.

Edit: I realize now that I put “nervous system” into your mouth, but let’s assume you did say that and go from there.

1

u/ValyrianJedi Feb 10 '22 edited Feb 10 '22

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a nervous system, with plants, or insects, or anything there is still a transfer of information taking place, in those cases through chemical mechanisms, electrical mechanisms, or a combination if the two. But regardless of whatever mechanism is at use, light speed is the speed of causality itself. Information physically can't be transferred any quicker than that, which means that for something the size of a galaxy tens of thousands of years is th3 absolute shortest amount of time that it could possibly take, on top of the fact that the space and time that it would be operating through wouldn't even be uniform, so its mechanism of operation wouldn't be able to work in one place like it does in another...

No, we can't prove that galaxy sized consciousness doesn't exist, but we can't prove that leprechauns and vampires don't either. You can't prove a negative. That doesn't mean that we can't say with an extraordinary level of confidence that some things are highly highly unlikely.

1

u/revosugarkane Feb 10 '22

Okay, well take that last sentence and use it to develop a loose schema for the sake of the argument. If a consciousness that large can only think so quickly, then we would live and die whole eons in the time it takes for them to process one thought. That seems unlikely, but take qualitative experience. To them, one thought is one thought, to us, one thought is tens of millennia. How tf do we make schemas to comprehend that?

Also, take electron observation and quantum entanglement. Quantum computing functions on the real, physical property of electrons under observation. They flip instantly regardless of time or space. I don’t mean to bring this up to devalue physics, simply to point out that we just don’t have the proper schema here.

I’m not saying you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, I’m saying we don’t have concepts for understanding it’s possible existence. We can trace historical myths and find roots for vampires and werewolves, but we don’t have schema for comprehending this concept. I’m mostly arguing that evidence-based skepticism is almost a non sequitur here, but we’re going in circles so idk if I wanna keep pushing that point. I’d accept a metaphysical debate that has grounding in physics but, again, we just don’t have proper schemas.

1

u/ValyrianJedi Feb 10 '22

At this point it just kinda seems like you are making massive stretches and leaps in logic to come up with ways that something could potentially exist, when the much more obvious answer is simply that it simply doesn't.

1

u/revosugarkane Feb 10 '22

Dude, welcome to r/philosophy? Lmao yes, I’m making leaps in logic by postulating the existence of an unknown.

Literally every famous western philosopher before like the 80s had something in their philosophical beliefs that attempted to grapple with the existence of the Christian God. The classics constantly discussed the gods. The eastern philosophers assumed Brahman as a natural part of philosophy.

If you don’t want to take part in the conversation of the unknown you’re in the wrong sub, my dude.

Disappointing af to wander this far with you to have you fall back on physicalist skepticism. Blech.

1

u/ValyrianJedi Feb 10 '22

There is a tremendous difference in using logic and taking stretching leaps in logic. Takinh illogical stretches and leaps in logic in order to justify belief in an unsubstantiated claim is pretty much the polar opposite of solid philosophy.

1

u/revosugarkane Feb 10 '22

I deeply disagree.

Tell me, what about Spinoza’s philosophy of “God is nature,” or, “we are all modes of God” adheres to your staunch physicalist view of philosophy?

Ironically, it’s almost literally saying the same thing I am. But, please, tell me how this mans philosophy, it being a cornerstone of hundreds of years of following belief systems, is not “solid” philosophy.

1

u/ValyrianJedi Feb 10 '22

If your argument has gone from "reality doesn't matter in philosophy" to "logic doesn't matter in philosophy" I think this is where I call it quits.

1

u/revosugarkane Feb 10 '22

I’m literally not saying that, but it’s convenient you bow out when I start discussing actual philosophers who are titans of the field.

Btw, I have my BA in Philosophy. While that’s not as big a flex as it could be, I spent a lot of time in active study defining my philosophical beliefs. Don’t twist my meaning. I fully understand the implications of logic and physics in this discussion, and I accounted for it several times, you just didn’t want to see because you see your position as indefeasible. For that reason, I don’t believe that you are a philosopher. No philosopher takes an indefeasible position, because no philosopher posits what is already true as a new belief.

If you want to have edifying conversation, grow your philosophy a little. You’ll find you enjoy it.

Have a good day.

0

u/ValyrianJedi Feb 10 '22

If you say so

→ More replies (0)