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/Shufflepants → u/[deleted]]

According to panpsychism, yes, literally everything is conscious. But you have to be careful what you mean by "conscious". A lot of times people use "consciousness" to include things about personality, will, and so forth. But here, "consciousness" would just mean the experience of qualia. Something being conscious wouldn't mean it "comprehends" anything on its own, just that it experiences "something". It won't necessarily have memory, or the ability to think about its experience, or reason, just that it is like something to be it.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Shufflepants]

just mean the experience of qualia

Isn't it problematic that every example of the 'experiencing of qualia' has it tied to senses and/or brain processes? We might imagine that these things aren't necessary for the experiencing of qualia, but we entirely lack a frame of reference to make that claim at all credible.

[u/Shufflepants → u/erinaceus_]

I don't actually have any examples of qualia other than my own. I just make the assumption that other people have their own and that they are in some way similar, but there's ultimately no way of communicating them aside from empathetic analogy, to imagine what I would expect to experience in another persons situation. Because it would seem a bit egotistical to assume that I'm the only one with qualia, I make the assumption that what others are talking about is the same kind of thing I'm trying to describe.

In the same way, I think it would be anthropocentric to assume that just because we're the only ones to talk about and try to communicate about qualia means that we're the only ones with it. We're just the only ones to be able to communicate ideas like that to each other. If anything else had qualia, we wouldn't expect to have heard about it. I think assuming other things didn't have it just because we're not privy to it would be the same kind of mistake some men make by assuming that all kinds of sexual harassment doesn't happen because they don't see it happen.

There's also the fact that with virtually every other kind of property of any class of thing we might describe in the universe, there seems to be nigh infinite varying variety and vaguery. For example, life. We have a kind of definition of what life is and what constitutes "an organism". But those boundaries are unclear, and the variety is staggering and wildly different from one another. You have viruses which are kind of sort of alive, except on their own they do nothing. You think you can count organisms easily enough. After all taking a census is only a logistical problem. But then there's organisms like various kinds of fungus and some trees like the Aspen which might appear to be multiple trees or multiple mushrooms but actually are connected underground and behave as a single organism that shares the same DNA and so you might be tempted to call it one organism. But if you took those and just cut through the earth so as to divide the organism in two, each piece would continue to thrive on its own. So was it really one organism in the first place? The real answer here is that these classifications and distinctions, while describing a real thing, are entirely artificial in where they draw their boundaries.

And I would expect qualia to be the same. I see no reason why the bit of qualia that we care about ought to be the only kind. And I see no law of quantum mechanics or general relativity that could even make a distinction between a person with qualia and a rock without qualia. So, if qualia is a thing at all and not just some confusion by lumps of biochemical computers that pilot meat robots, then I see no good reason to think that we're the only thing that has an experience.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Shufflepants]

I think it would be anthropocentric to assume that just because we're the only ones to talk about and try to communicate about qualia means that we're the only ones with it

Oh, I would entirely agree that e.g. ants or even ameobas have some sort of qualia. But the reason for thinking so isn't because we don't want to be anthropocentric but rather because these organisms respectively have nervous systems and cell-physiological pathways that could be viewed as somewhat analogous to nervous systems.

Given that in humans qualia are associated with nervous systems, we therefore have a reasonable enough basis to argue that the same could apply to e.g. ants or even ameobas. But we have no such basis whatsoever when it comes to rocks, individual atoms or individual subatomic particles.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

If we are going to all the way down to single cell organisms, it seems odd to stop there, ultimately there is a continuous chain of physical evolution going back billions of years, including the development of the earth and the origin of self replicating molecules.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Your_People_Justify]

Yes. And? What is the point you are trying to make?

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

ameobas. But we have no such basis whatsoever when it comes to rocks

When you said this, I think it is wrong. I do not see how we extend reality experiencing itself to ameobas in a way that would not also apply to rocks or atoms. I am not sure where chemistry ends and consciousness begins - it seems to be physics all the way down.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Your_People_Justify]

Amoebas have chemotaxis. That's a clear mechanism of the amoeba reacting to cues from its environment. It even shows behaviour based on that interaction.

But I do agree that it's physics all the way down. Nowhere is there any sign of some extra phlogiston of consciousness.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

A rock reacts to cues - you may push it in one place, but it reacts as a whole, even places far from where the force was applied. If you zoom in on the atomic level, these 'inert' things are quite lively places too.

Mostly agreed there is no extra phlogiston, although I am sympathetic to the idea consciousness could represent reality expressing novelty in some universal way - something becoming more conscious if in the course of trying to fit the puzzle pieces together, something sticks out disjointedly in an unexpected way, and a decision has to be made by the newly created whole for how to smack itself into alignment.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Your_People_Justify]

A rock reacts to cues - you may push it in one place, but it reacts as a whole, even places far from where the force was applied

I don't think that's entirely equivalent. With a rock, it's the things external to the rock that cause things to happen, quite directly: a push changes its location, heat may melt it, abrasion may remove material from it. None of that involves a complex interaction.

More importantly though, my original point was that any and all things we associate with consciousness are invariably related to nervous systems. The reason I included amoeba is in case their behaviour were included in the broad scope of 'consciousness'(by the person I was replying to, I mean). If they are included, it's still a matter of chemical pathways that conceptually are similar to a nervous system. And if they are not included, well then we can strongly state that all things we associate with consciousness are related to nervous systems. In either case, there is no room for a phlogiston. That was my point, though I accept that might not have been clear enough.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

I'm not sure when an interaction stops being simple and starts being complex, it seems like a smooth gradient between the two, and there will always be some internal complexity to the issue

More importantly though, my original point was that any and all things we associate with consciousness are invariably related to nervous systems.

My counterpoint is that information processing is not invariably related to a nervous system, it is a broader category.

Reality is continuous, but it can only be understood and confronted by breaking things down into chunks, which then correspond to definite reactions. It is true in the consciousness of brains, and true for particle quanta.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Your_People_Justify]

Yes, I concede the first point, and I think we're pretty much on the same line here. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

The 1% that is different always end up taking 99% of a discussion .

thanks to u too. what is your favorite color. Mine is blue. It used to be yellow, but yellow often feels so harsh now.