Panpsychism (Evolution)

by romansh , Monday, December 17, 2012, 01:01 (4149 days ago) @ dhw

Always nice to hear from you, rom, though I hope you'll stick around long enough to read a response. 
Well can't promise -> It seems to me that the first two questions take us onto the epistemological level at which there is no point in discussing anything. Consciousness and intelligence are almost impossible to define and to quantify, which is why philosophers can play word games till we all give up. -I have some sympathy here. I think Blackmore suggests that to explore these things we have to some deep personal introspection. I will never experience your perception. I can experience similar causes, eg sudden loud noises, pretty girls etc. Personally I don't divide philosophy and science into separate categories.-> In order to communicate, we have to accept certain commonsense premises (common sense is a philosophical category, not a made-up term). We simply need to agree on basic premises. I suggest to you that as far as we know, a stone is likely to be less conscious than a dog which is likely to be less conscious than a human. If you disagree, that is the end of the discussion. If you agree, we can discuss panpsychism, of which differing degrees of consciousness are a fundamental aspect.-You go up the line - stone,dog, human - but why stop there? Why not continue with family, community, city, country? Does the company have a Searle like consciousness?
 
> As regards Question 3, I don't know what is meant by an exchange of energy. Between what and what?
 
Between objects, agencies, entities etc
 
> As regards the zombie, I would suggest that there are degrees not only of consciousness, but also of self-consciousness. I would argue that a zombie, just like a drunkard, will be less conscious and less self-conscious than a sober, sentient human being. A robot will be less conscious than a human and will have no self-consciousness. All of this can of course be strongly denied by anyone who wants to mount the epistemological high horse. But if those concerned agree on this basic premise, we can then discuss the possibility that just as individual, unselfconscious cells form communities which perform functions such as digestion, fighting illness, pumping oxygen, registering sights and sounds ... all of which require the sort of knowledge and expertise we associate with intelligence ... so too might the unselfconscious energies and materials of an eternal universe have formed communities that also function with the sort of knowledge and expertise we associate with intelligence. Again, I'm not asking anyone to accept the theory ... I don't accept it myself ... but if the God theory and the chance theory are worth serious consideration, why not consider this one as well? Or of course we can ignore the subject entirely and play philosophical games.-Are there degrees of zombiehood? How could I persuade you that I am a zombie? Ultimately are we not pointing to degrees of complexity in responses in the various entities we consider? And the compexity we perceive is an artefact of the boundary we draw around that entity?