Panpsychism Makes a Comeback; denied (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 21, 2016, 12:40 (2767 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A philosophers take on panpsychism and why he does not accept it as he discusses its relationship to the hard problem of consciousness: - https://aeon.co/ideas/why-panpsychism-fails-to-solve-the-mystery-of-consciousness?utm_s... - QUOTE: "Rather than thinking that this [consciousness]is a fundamental property of all matter, I think that it is an illusion. As well as senses for representing the external world, we have a sort of inner sense, which represents aspects of our own brain activity......It is a powerful impression, but just an impression. Consciousness, in that sense, is not everywhere but nowhere. Perhaps this seems as strange a view as panpsychism. But thinking about consciousness can lead one to embrace strange views." - The sort of “inner sense” is what makes us aware of what we sense outwardly, and it is what is known in some circles as consciousness! It seems to me that anyone who says he regards consciousness as an illusion or “just an impression” is simply playing games: we can't solve the mystery of consciousness, so let's say there is no mystery because consciousness doesn't exist. As if it was actually possible to write such things without being aware of what one is writing.
 
Keith Frankish says: “There are problems for panpsychism, perhaps the most important being the combination problem. Panpsychists hold that consciousness emerges from the combination of billions of subatomic consciousnesses.” That is a contradiction in terms. If each subatomic consciousness is conscious, it is not consciousness that emerges from the combination, but a more complex consciousness. That is precisely how evolution works, no matter what mechanism drives it: new combinations of small units produce new and more complex forms. - I can well believe that there are degrees of consciousness (not to be confused with human self-awareness) in all living things, including plants and bacteria. However, the theories that the first cells were the original chance generators of consciousness, or themselves sprang from the consciousness of inanimate matter, or were created by an original sourcelesss consciousness called God, are all beyond the limits of my credulity, though one of them must be far nearer to the truth than the others.