Panpsychism Makes a Comeback (General)

by dhw, Thursday, January 22, 2015, 19:32 (3375 days ago) @ David Turell

George: Possibly I am alone in thinking "consciousness" a non-problem. And it certainly doesn't need absurd ideas like pan-psychism which is a sort of reversion to the homunculus theory of life to "explain" it!-I'm sure you're not alone, but if you can explain how globules of matter can become aware of what is around them, make decisions on how to respond, and even become aware of themselves making those decisions, you will certainly be alone on the platform in Stockholm when you pick up your Nobel Prize.-George: You could say there is a degree of awareness from zero in inanimate matter to greater degrees in higher life-forms, because of increasing complexity, and human consciousness probably has a different feel to it because of increased self-reference.-In my own ruminations on panpsychism, I'm inclined to go along with this, but will echo the all-important question asked by the article: “Where does it stop?” If, for instance, bacteria have a low degree of awareness, what about plants? And where exactly is the borderline between the animate and the inanimate? In my discussions with David, I am focusing mainly on organic life and how it has evolved, and in this context some form of consciousness (an inventive intelligence) all the way down to bacteria is an alternative to his divine preprogramming or intervention, as well as to Darwin's reliance on the pure luck of innumerable random mutations.
 
DAVID: How many other animals than humans have self-reference? dhw's problem with his theory of panpsychism stems from certain researchers inflating the meaning of the word 'sentient' to include molecular responses to molecular stimuli. See my entry re' quorum sensing of earlier today. That is the lowest degree of awareness there is, and as life complexified, that awareness became more astute with each level of higher complexity.-Your final sentence is a good summary of my evolutionary hypothesis: that as the lower forms of awareness enabled cells to combine into ever more complex communities, so these cell communities themselves acquired increasing degrees of awareness. You go on to say you think human self-awareness and abstract thought represent a “break in the progression”, and we shall have to agree to disagree, since I find a perfectly logical sequence from our cave-dwelling, vocalizing animal ancestors, through our cave-dwelling, vocalizing human ancestors, to our house-dwelling, Internet-browsing modern selves.
 
As regards quorum sensing, here is a quote from your article: 
QUOTE: “To date, the best known communication between bacteria occurs via the N-acyl homoserine lactone (AHL): The enzyme Luxl produces signals that are recognised by the LuxR receptor, at which point the bacteria develop certain properties and modulate their behaviour towards one another. Since a certain number of bacteria must be available for this to occur, this process is known as "quorum sensing."”-Our own sensory and mental activities and communications are also bound up with “molecular responses to molecular stimuli”, but what we don't know is how we are able to modulate our behaviour accordingly. That is where degrees of consciousness come in, for us and for other organisms, and that is where the work of eminent researchers clashes with your preconceptions concerning the purpose and course of evolution (see my post under “Pre-preprogramming evolution”).