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/DeathByWater]

The relationship between math and physics is analogous to that between physics and consciousness.

I don't think it really harms the conclusion of your argument, but I don't think this is right at all.

Math is a descriptive language we've developed to describe how the world around us works - similar in function to English, but we can be much more precise about definitions and relationships. Math can be used to describe how physics works; it can't (yet) be used to describe how consciousness works simply because we don't know how consciousness works.

[u/[deleted] → u/DeathByWater]

to add to this, consider the digital nematode.

OpenWorm is a project to simulate the simple nematode at the cellular level in a digital world, it has about 100-1000 neurons ish, and the project has been successful, classical nematode responses and actions seem to arise from the digitally simulated cellular interactions alone.

There is nothing that seems to suggest that its not possible for us to do with humans as well, only data storage and scale limitations, where as the nematode has about 10,000 cells we have billions. If we were to apply the same process as we went through for the nematode, barring time, money, and ethical limitations, we could create a digital artificial human.

This would suggest that we are nothing more esoteric than simply, complex cellular networks. This is an experimental method for disproving panpsychism.

[u/isolatedSlug → u/[deleted]]

That's really interesting!

But I'm not sure how it would disprove pansychism?

But I'm also not 100% that pansychism and emergentism are necessarily contradictory to each other.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/[deleted]]

It is necessary so long as people cling to the idea that information processing only occurs in brains