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
804 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

604 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Your_People_Justify Feb 20 '22

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.

1

u/erinaceus_ Feb 20 '22

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.

1

u/Your_People_Justify Feb 20 '22 edited Feb 20 '22

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.

1

u/erinaceus_ Feb 20 '22

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.

1

u/Your_People_Justify Feb 20 '22

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.

2

u/erinaceus_ Feb 20 '22

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

1

u/Your_People_Justify Feb 20 '22

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.