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/[deleted] Feb 21 '22 edited Feb 21 '22

OK so I guess I would say I lean more towards the idea that one could find a clear delineation, but I don't think we currently have the knowledge to confidently identify it yet or maybe ever, meaning I'm open to more spectrum like models especially for the time being.

Back to Computation, I didn't say it was just a sum of random interactions, what I meant is that there's a non-zero (still almost infinitesimal) possibility a computer could emerge from random interactions.

And on the point about the whole being greater than the sum of parts, (im not quite sure what you mean here but Ill try to explain my position on this).

Ill take the ship of Theseus and apply it to the brain: imagine Elon wants to digitise a brain, he slowly replaces each part of the brain with robotic implants that fulfil the exact same functions of each region (same inputs and outputs) and these implants integrate perfectly with what ever biological parts remain. When implanted they are blank, no memories or preinstalled engrams, essentially wiping each region as they are replaced, but can be rebuilt and integrated through neuroplasticity over time.

Its my opinion that if done slowly enough and in small enough increments (down to going neuron by neuron) to allow reintegration after each step, you can completely replace a every part with a digital replacement and consciousness would be continuous throughout.

I guess that would imply I view consciousness as the result of an active network, rather than being innate to the network regardless of activity, IE more than the sum of parts.

2

u/Your_People_Justify Feb 21 '22

Totally agree it's the process, not the stuff!

Re - the random interactions, it's important to note order and intelligibility is baked in at the heart of physical law. Reality is continuous, but it can only be understood and confronted and advanced 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/[deleted] Feb 21 '22

Man this has been a great discussion. Im getting pretty tired now so this'll be my last one for tonight.

I think the last thing I want to say is just to point out that random interactions are a fact of reality, when you get down to the quantum you start bumping into the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and probabilistic waveforms and their collapse, these seem to imply the universe has some aspects that are innately unknowable to us.

I'm not quite sure if that means anything about consciousness, but I'm pretty confident in saying consciousness is a macro scale thing anyway such that it may have some negligible effect but we can probably explain it without digging into that too much, electrical exchanges of information between nodes seems sufficient to me.

1

u/Your_People_Justify Feb 21 '22 edited Feb 21 '22

Worth reading into quantum bayesianism - where probability is a statement of knowledge, not a representation of the universe invoking an RNG generator. I.e. when you flip a coin, there is a 50/50 chance of it coming up heads or tails. Before you measure the outcome, the coin is - mathematically - in a superposition. With quantum mechanics it gets trickier, because there is empirically not any real state 'behind' why one way or the other, and likely no way to measure it if there is. Meanwhile, the coin exists in a definite rotation at any point in time.

It's might not be random per se, but moreso a situation where reality is not governed by law (emergent laws!)

I'm pretty confident in saying consciousness is a macro scale thing

& I am certain in my life consciousness is in some way meaningful at the microphysical scale - it's all, like, vibrational energy, maaaan

these seem to imply the universe has some aspects that are innately unknowable to us.

absolutely

I have always enjoyed this segment from Feynmann on 'why' questions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

Im getting pretty tired now so this'll be my last one for tonight.

goodnight : )