AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Towards the end of a very long article in today's Guardian on the unsolved and maybe insoluble mystery of the source of consciousness, comes the following paragraph:-...........in the last few years, several scientists and philosophers, Chalmers and Koch among them, have begun to look seriously again at a viewpoint so bizarre that it has been neglected for more than a century, except among followers of eastern spiritual traditions, or in the kookier corners of the new age. This is panpsychism, the dizzying notion that everything in the universe might be conscious, or at least potentially conscious, or conscious when put into certain configurations. Koch concedes that this sounds ridiculous; when he mentions panpsychism, he has written, I often encounter blank stares of incomprehension. But when it comes to grappling with the Hard Problem, crazy-sounding theories are an occupational hazard. Besides, panpsychism might help unravel an enigma that has attached to the study of consciousness from the start: if humans have it, and apes have it, and dogs and pigs probably have it, and maybe birds too - well, where does it stop?-Of course some of us would argue that there are different degrees of consciousness, and that the consciousness, say, of a dog is not as many-layered as that of a human. But numerous scientists have studied the behaviour of bacteria and concluded that they too are sentient, intelligent beings, and so the question where does it stop? should certainly be taken seriously. In terms of living organisms and the course of evolution, I think it should be taken very seriously indeed!

8158 views

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!-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.

--
GPJ

8002 views


> 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.-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. It is the jump to acute self-awareness and abstract thought that I consider a major jump beyond the requirements of the mutation and natural selection portion of Darwin theory. I view it as a break in the progression.

8007 views

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).

8041 views


> dhw: 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 state that this could have happened through 'awareness' even though what we see is molecular reactions and responses, nothing more. You are claiming to have solved one of the great mysteries of evolution, multicellularity. The great experts, like the ones you love to quote about sentience, have no answer as to how this developed.-> dhw: 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.-Here let me use an analogy for my view. Each step of evolutionary progress through early primates to apes and chimps was as if evolution stepped over a small dividing brook. To get to human consciousness, it required a flight over the Atlantic Ocean
> 
> Dhw: 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).-Sorry, but I can't follow your line of thought. I'' try the other post.

8010 views

dhw: 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.
DAVID: You state that this could have happened through 'awareness' even though what we see is molecular reactions and responses, nothing more. You are claiming to have solved one of the great mysteries of evolution, multicellularity. The great experts, like the ones you love to quote about sentience, have no answer as to how this developed.-No claim - just a hypothesis, like your own challenge to the great experts with your hypothesis that there is a supercolossal, eternal intelligence that planned multicellularity. As for awareness, even when studying humans, all that neuroscientists can see is a mass of chemical reactions. The problem is fitting what we see to what happens - i.e. how do chemical reactions explain intelligent behaviour, as in humans AND bacteria? You want to claim that humans have some special invisible faculty whereas bacteria and other organisms are merely chemistry. And yet you believe that some organisms do have that invisible faculty - i.e. you believe that animals have souls - but somehow, although they use it to feel, think, reason, make decisions etc., it's a different kind from ours.
 
DAVID: Here let me use an analogy for my view. Each step of evolutionary progress through early primates to apes and chimps was as if evolution stepped over a small dividing brook. To get to human consciousness, it required a flight over the Atlantic Ocean.-You don't need analogies. I am well aware of the difference in scale. But I see a clear link between apes and early humans using sticks for tools and modern humans using drills; between caves and houses; between grunts and words. In other words, I see no need for special creation, because I see human intelligence as an extension of animal intelligence, though it has evolved to such a degree that perhaps you have lost sight of its roots. -Dhw: 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).
DAVID: Sorry, but I can't follow your line of thought. I'' try the other post.-The first part is explained above. When dealing with bacteria, you insist on disregarding the mystery of their apparently autonomous behaviour (observed by eminent researchers) and focusing purely on the chemistry. I am suggesting you do so because you cannot bear the thought that organisms might possess the means (possibly God-given) to advance evolution their own way. That goes against your vision of God as planning every step of evolution so that it would produce humans.

7962 views

dhw: As for awareness, even when studying humans, all that neuroscientists can see is a mass of chemical reactions. The problem is fitting what we see to what happens - i.e. how do chemical reactions explain intelligent behaviour,....-The human brain is not just chemical reactions. It is a very complex network of axons, changing synaptic transmissions, crowd sourcing of neurons for certain tasks, and plasticity when it invents networks to handle new habits, new tasks, and new muscular coordination in athletic training. Train an ape to do a spinning jump hook shot in basketball, or pitch a cricket ball on the bounce. You can't. only the human brain can. Animals have a complex brain also and it has plasticity, but only a minuscule ability of the human brain. ->dhw: And yet you believe that some organisms do have that invisible faculty - i.e. you believe that animals have souls - but somehow, although they use it to feel, think, reason, make decisions etc., it's a different kind from ours.-The Jewish religion differentiates the two souls as different. I follow that tradition: Nefesh and Neshama-> dhw: I see no need for special creation, because I see human intelligence as an extension of animal intelligence, though it has evolved to such a degree that perhaps you have lost sight of its roots.-I know the roots just as well as you do. I see the gap you won't agree to see. 
> DAVID: Sorry, but I can't follow your line of thought. I'' try the other post.
> 
> dhw: When dealing with bacteria, you insist on disregarding the mystery of their apparently autonomous behaviour (observed by eminent researchers) and focusing purely on the chemistry. I am suggesting you do so because you cannot bear the thought that organisms might possess the means (possibly God-given) to advance evolution their own way. That goes against your vision of God as planning every step of evolution so that it would produce humans.-No, I've said that God may had implanted an IM. Your paragraph is a twisted interpretation of my thoughts. Either way, with complete pre-programming in the beginning, with dabbling, or with a semi-autonomous IM evolution reaches the production of humans.

7985 views

dhw: As for awareness, even when studying humans, all that neuroscientists can see is a mass of chemical reactions. The problem is fitting what we see to what happens - i.e. how do chemical reactions explain intelligent behaviour,....DAVID: The human brain is not just chemical reactions. It is a very complex network of axons, changing synaptic transmissions, crowd sourcing of neurons for certain tasks, and plasticity when it invents networks to handle new habits, new tasks, and new muscular coordination in athletic training. Train an ape to do a spinning jump hook shot in basketball, or pitch a cricket ball on the bounce. You can't. only the human brain can. Animals have a complex brain also and it has plasticity, but only a minuscule ability of the human brain.-You are still focusing on the material brain as if it provided an explanation for intelligent behaviour, and yet you regard the human brain and some animal brains as receivers whose activity is governed by the soul! My point is that other organisms behave intelligently, and if you are convinced that intelligence in humans and other animals has a source other than the materials (I'm happy to substitute that for chemicals), I see no reason why you should insist that the intelligence of other organisms is purely material.
 
dhw: And yet you believe that some organisms do have that invisible faculty - i.e. you believe that animals have souls - but somehow, although they use it to feel, think, reason, make decisions etc., it's a different kind from ours.-DAVID: The Jewish religion differentiates the two souls as different. I follow that tradition: Nefesh and Neshama.-I'm surprised at your dependence on the tenets of an established religion when you so pride yourself on the independence of your thinking. I don't know if we and our fellow animals have a soul, but again I see no reason to assume that when a dog takes a decision or works out a problem, it is using a different mechanism from that which we use.
 
dhw: When dealing with bacteria, you insist on disregarding the mystery of their apparently autonomous behaviour (observed by eminent researchers) and focusing purely on the chemistry. I am suggesting you do so because you cannot bear the thought that organisms might possess the means (possibly God-given) to advance evolution their own way. That goes against your vision of God as planning every step of evolution so that it would produce humans.
DAVID: No, I've said that God may had implanted an IM. Your paragraph is a twisted interpretation of my thoughts. Either way, with complete pre-programming in the beginning, with dabbling, or with a semi-autonomous IM evolution reaches the production of humans.-My apologies if I am twisting your thoughts. I have great difficulty finding any coherence in them, other than the belief that whatever is must be the result of your God's deliberate planning. At least we agree that evolution has produced humans! (As regards the intelligence of bacteria, I am opening a new thread.) I find the concept of a semi-autonomous IM extremely unsatisfactory, unless we confine the non-autonomous area to its possible source being your God, and to the fact that it cannot exceed its own natural limitations or those imposed by the environment - a restriction that applies to all intelligences including ours. Otherwise, either organisms can make changes to themselves (autonomy) or they can't (preprogramming/dabbling), or they are at the mercy of chance (random mutations). I see no way in which an organism can take its own decisions but at the same time be preprogrammed to take those decisions. (That, incidentally, is the dichotomy that underlies the debate on free will.)

8058 views

dhw: You are still focusing on the material brain as if it provided an explanation for intelligent behaviour, and yet you regard the human brain and some animal brains as receivers whose activity is governed by the soul! My point is that other organisms behave intelligently, ....I see no reason why you should insist that the intelligence of other organisms is purely material.-My position is that only animals with a central nervous system, a brain or ganglia may have some limited form of intelligence mainly at the instinct level. However, there is a gradation of intelligence based on how advanced they are: lobsters, insects, worms, etc. show less intelligent activity than ,say, crows, apes, whales, or dolphins. 
> 
> dhw: And yet you believe that some organisms do have that invisible faculty - i.e. you believe that animals have souls - but somehow, although they use it to feel, think, reason, make decisions etc., it's a different kind from ours.
> 
> DAVID: The Jewish religion differentiates the two souls as different. I follow that tradition: Nefesh and Neshama.-I don't know if Jewish tradition is correct, but from my experiences with dogs and horses, I think they have an animal soul
> 
> dhw: I don't know if we and our fellow animals have a soul, but again I see no reason to assume that when a dog takes a decision or works out a problem, it is using a different mechanism from that which we use.-I agree with you. It is a matter of a great gap in our processes and theirs.
> 
> dhw: At least we agree that evolution has produced humans! .. I find the concept of a semi-autonomous IM extremely unsatisfactory, unless we confine the non-autonomous area to its possible source being your God, and to the fact that it cannot exceed its own natural limitations or those imposed by the environment - a restriction that applies to all intelligences including ours. Otherwise, either organisms can make changes to themselves (autonomy) or they can't.-I can conceive of an IM which has inventive limits, in which it can only go so far in self-modification from the original form or process. That is what I have always meant as semi-autonomous. Sorry to have been obtuse.

7996 views

DAVID: My position is that only animals with a central nervous system, a brain or ganglia may have some limited form of intelligence mainly at the instinct level. However, there is a gradation of intelligence based on how advanced they are: lobsters, insects, worms, etc. show less intelligent activity than ,say, crows, apes, whales, or dolphins.-And indeed that gradation continues upwards to human beings, who have a far greater degree of intelligence! But your position seems vulnerable to me. We need to define our terms, as do the participants in the bacteria discussion. If by intelligence we mean cognition, sentience, processing information, ability to communicate and act upon the exchange of information, decision-making, problem-solving, individuality even to the point of self-awareness (and Shapiro uses that very term, which you say is Just fine with me), there can scarcely be any justification for excluding bacteria from the ranks of the intelligent.
 
dhw: I find the concept of a semi-autonomous IM extremely unsatisfactory, unless we confine the non-autonomous area to its possible source being your God, and to the fact that it cannot exceed its own natural limitations or those imposed by the environment - a restriction that applies to all intelligences including ours. Otherwise, either organisms can make changes to themselves (autonomy) or they can't.-DAVID: I can conceive of an IM which has inventive limits, in which it can only go so far in self-modification from the original form or process. That is what I have always meant as semi-autonomous. Sorry to have been obtuse.-That is what I mean by it being unable to exceed its own natural limitations, and it's an important step in our discussion. Perhaps we can now do away altogether with the idea of your God giving half a set of instructions to the weaverbird on how to build its nest. Once we accept the proposal that organisms have their own form of intelligence and can take their own decisions accordingly, we can move on to the question of how evolution functions. Evolution is Chapter 2 in life's history, and here I am not trying to solve the problem of Chapter 1 (the origin of life and whatever mechanisms it entails). Nobody knows how single cells managed to combine into multicellularity or how multicellular organisms managed to produce the colossal array of innovations that have led to the different forms of life we now know. For some reason, innovation appears to have ceased for the time being. All we can observe is adaptation. Adaptation leaves life forms more or less as they were and fits in perfectly with the condition you have stipulated: in other words the mechanism for adaptation is autonomous (self-modification does not go beyond the original form).-Now, however, comes the key phrase in your definition. The IM can only go so far in its self-modification. If we believe in common descent, ALL innovations must take place in existing organisms, and since even single cells are believed by some experts to be intelligent (see above for a list of the attributes required), the inventive mechanism MAY go so far as to produce its own innovations. A finned organism may decide to go on land, and its fins may become legs. A legged organism may decide to climb trees, and its top pair of limbs may become arms. An armed organism may decide to pick fruit, and its paws may become hands. These changes will happen quickly, because otherwise they won't be effective, but they can be improved on and varied by the intelligent mechanisms of succeeding generations. Does this sound too magical? What are the alternatives? Random mutations; God preprogramming the first living cells with every single mutation to be passed down through billions of organisms; God intervening to manipulate each change in each individual organism. Since we have no explanation, evolution does seem like a kind of magic - and it's not just humans but life itself and all its different forms that are against all odds. As an explanation of the events in Chapter 2 of life's history, I don't see an autonomous IM as being any more "magical" than those alternatives.

8069 views

dhw:there can scarcely be any justification for excluding bacteria from the ranks of the intelligent.-But as I view it. they use intelligent information in their genomes and they are relatively automatic in their responses under that type of guidance.-> 
> dhw: in other words the mechanism for adaptation is autonomous (self-modification does not go beyond the original form).-Yes it does. Back to the fish flipper. It follows the pattern of bones already set in the flipper. The same with the bat wing. Bones are modified from the basic pattern that we clearly see in comparative anatomy. I feel an IM can accomplish this under a semi-automatic mechanism as I have described allowing limited changes. What is not explained is multicellularity and the Cambrian Explosion. Those enormous jumps in complexity are way beyond organismal capacity to transform themselves. Multicellularity brought neurons! How did that happen? No one knows.
> 
> dhw: The IM can only go so far in its self-modification. If we believe in common descent, ALL innovations must take place in existing organisms, and since even single cells are believed by some experts to be intelligent, the inventive mechanism MAY go so far as to produce its own innovations.-Not multicellularity all by themselves. Amoebas do form some multicellular structures with some differences in function in different areas, but they are not sponges, sea anemones, hydras, etc. with some neural functions.-> dhw: A finned organism may decide to go on land, and its fins may become legs. A legged organism may decide to climb trees, and its top pair of limbs may become arms. An armed organism may decide to pick fruit, and its paws may become hands. These changes will happen quickly, because otherwise they won't be effective,-No you don't! That is exactly the problem with Darwinism. Paws to hands is a huge jump. Ape hands to human hands is an enormous gulf of change. Try to teach an ape how to play the piano. I'm not talking brain here, just the dexterity they don't have. The hands may have some overall resemblance but the fine movements are light-years apart. Darwin appealed to gradualism, but the fossils don't show that.-> dhw: they can be improved on and varied by the intelligent mechanisms of succeeding generations. Does this sound too magical? -Enormously magical. Mental sleight of hand.-> dhw: What are the alternatives? Random mutations; God preprogramming the first living cells with every single mutation to be passed down through billions of organisms; God intervening to manipulate each change in each individual organism. Since we have no explanation, evolution does seem like a kind of magic - and it's not just humans but life itself and all its different forms that are against all odds. As an explanation of the events in Chapter 2 of life's history, I don't see an autonomous IM as being any more "magical" than those alternatives.-And that is your problem just as it encapsulates my dilemma. Since it looks so magical it brings me to accept God guiding the whole process. He may well have given the organisms some ability to modify, but the giant leaps can only be explained by God doing it. It is the 'how' that I can only guess at.Darwin fudges over the problems. They are hidden in his assumptions and they depend on chance.

8028 views

dhw: ...there can scarcely be any justification for excluding bacteria from the ranks of the intelligent.
DAVID: But as I view it. they use intelligent information in their genomes and they are relatively automatic in their responses under that type of guidance.-See under Bacterial Intelligence for your use of woolly terms like relatively automatic.-dhw: ...in other words the mechanism for adaptation is autonomous (self-modification does not go beyond the original form).-DAVID: Yes it does. Back to the fish flipper. It follows the pattern of bones already set in the flipper. The same with the bat wing. Bones are modified from the basic pattern that we clearly see in comparative anatomy. I feel an IM can accomplish this under a semi-automatic mechanism as I have described allowing limited changes. What is not explained is multicellularity and the Cambrian Explosion. Those enormous jumps in complexity are way beyond organismal capacity to transform themselves. Multicellularity brought neurons! How did that happen? No one knows.-I deliberately chose examples in which existing organisms might change their existing structures which in turn would lead further and further away from the original species. Later you leap on the transition from paws to hands, but my point is that if organisms are capable of adapting autonomously, and since no-one can explain the major jumps, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the SAME mechanism is responsible when conditions allow for or demand even greater changes.-dhw: The IM can only go so far in its self-modification. If we believe in common descent, ALL innovations must take place in existing organisms, and since even single cells are believed by some experts to be intelligent, the inventive mechanism MAY go so far as to produce its own innovations.-DAVID: Not multicellularity all by themselves. Amoebas do form some multicellular structures with some differences in function in different areas, but they are not sponges, sea anemones, hydras, etc. with some neural functions.-Once again, nobody knows. We are talking about an ongoing process whereby intelligent cell communities form an endless variety of combinations, with new generations building on the developments of their predecessors. That is how evolution has proceeded, whether it is powered by random mutations, your God's preprogramming or dabbling, or my intelligent inventive mechanism. If you don't know how it works, how can you claim you know how it DOESN'T work?-dhw: A finned organism may decide to go on land, and its fins may become legs. A legged organism may decide to climb trees, and its top pair of limbs may become arms. An armed organism may decide to pick fruit, and its paws may become hands. These changes will happen quickly, because otherwise they won't be effective,-DAVID: No you don't! That is exactly the problem with Darwinism. Paws to hands is a huge jump. Ape hands to human hands is an enormous gulf of change. Try to teach an ape how to play the piano. I'm not talking brain here, just the dexterity they don't have. The hands may have some overall resemblance but the fine movements are light-years apart. Darwin appealed to gradualism, but the fossils don't show that.-Yet again, we don't know how ANY innovations happened, but they did, and if you believe in common descent, they must have taken place in existing organisms, from one generation to the next, though with the following proviso:-dhw: they can be improved on and varied by the intelligent mechanisms of succeeding generations. Does this sound too magical? 
DAVID: Enormously magical. Mental sleight of hand.-As magical as a single eternal mind from nowhere that can encompass and create universes and manipulate the genome of a bacterium?
 
dhw: What are the alternatives? Random mutations; God preprogramming the first living cells with every single mutation to be passed down through billions of organisms; God intervening to manipulate each change in each individual organism. [...] As an explanation of the events in Chapter 2 of life's history, I don't see an autonomous IM as being any more "magical" than those alternatives.-DAVID: And that is your problem just as it encapsulates my dilemma. Since it looks so magical it brings me to accept God guiding the whole process. He may well have given the organisms some ability to modify, but the giant leaps can only be explained by God doing it. It is the 'how' that I can only guess at. Darwin fudges over the problems. They are hidden in his assumptions and they depend on chance.-We are not arguing over Darwin, and while I accept the POSSIBILITY of your God's existence, I'm surprised that despite not knowing 'how' he could have done it, you feel able to dismiss the POSSIBILITY of his designing an autonomous inventive mechanism, instead of having to preprogramme every single innovation from the very beginning, or handle each one personally.

8096 views


> dhw: I deliberately chose examples in which existing organisms might change their existing structures which in turn would lead further and further away from the original species. ... it is not unreasonable to speculate that the SAME mechanism is responsible when conditions allow for or demand even greater changes.-Still sounds to me you are stickling with Darwin's itty-bity theory. We have large jumps to explain: neurons, multicellularity, the Cambrian, the human brain. Minor variations and adaptations are certainly possible with an IM in organisms.
> 
> dhw: We are talking about an ongoing process whereby intelligent cell communities form an endless variety of combinations, with new generations building on the developments of their predecessors. That is how evolution has proceeded,-You don't really know that is how evolution works. We have agreed that life looks as though it evolved. Beyond that supposition is all we have. I like God-guided, and you don't.-> dhw: If you don't know how it works, how can you claim you know how it DOESN'T work?-Because specified complexity requires planning, and does not arise by chance. It takes an intellect.
> 
> dhw: Yet again, we don't know how ANY innovations happened, but they did, and if you believe in common descent, they must have taken place in existing organisms, from one generation to the next, though with the following proviso:
> 
> dhw: they can be improved on and varied by the intelligent mechanisms of succeeding generations. Does this sound too magical? 
> DAVID: Enormously magical. Mental sleight of hand.
> 
> dhw: As magical as a single eternal mind from nowhere that can encompass and create universes and manipulate the genome of a bacterium?-It is a better explanation than chance.
> 
> dhw: I accept the POSSIBILITY of your God's existence, I'm surprised that despite not knowing 'how' he could have done it, you feel able to dismiss the POSSIBILITY of his designing an autonomous inventive mechanism, instead of having to preprogramme every single innovation from the very beginning, or handle each one personally.-I do accept the possibility of an IM as long as it is viewed as semiautonomous. I'm as stubborn as you are.

7964 views

dhw: ... it is not unreasonable to speculate that the SAME mechanism [i.e. for adaptation] is responsible when conditions allow for or demand even greater changes.
DAVID: Still sounds to me you are stickling with Darwin's itty-bity theory. We have large jumps to explain: neurons, multicellularity, the Cambrian, the human brain. Minor variations and adaptations are certainly possible with an IM in organisms.-It sounds that way to you because despite your awareness of your own dilemma, you can't accept that it might indicate a flaw in your beliefs. For instance, you can accept autonomy from fin to flipper to leg, but not from paw to hand. And if the human brain is a large jump, are you saying the IM was able autonomously to develop, say, worm brains to bird brains to chimpanzee brains, but then God had to step in to change the chimp brain to the human brain?
 
dhw: We are talking about an ongoing process whereby intelligent cell communities form an endless variety of combinations, with new generations building on the developments of their predecessors. That is how evolution has proceeded...
DAVID: You don't really know that is how evolution works. We have agreed that life looks as though it evolved. Beyond that supposition is all we have. I like God-guided, and you don't.-You left out the rest of my sentence, which was: ...whether it is powered by random mutations, your God's preprogramming or dabbling, or my intelligent inventive mechanism. I have problems with all these scenarios, but what I don't have a problem with is the fact that all organisms consist of cells/cell communities in different combinations. You claim to believe that evolution happened, so how else could it have happened, if not through an accumulation of innovations and variations within cell communities? 

dhw: If you don't know how it works, how can you claim you know how it DOESN'T work?
DAVID: Because specified complexity requires planning, and does not arise by chance. It takes an intellect.-Why an intellect? Why not the billions of intellects or intelligences contained within the billions of organisms that extend from bacteria to humans? Please don't revert to first cause, because this discussion concerns Chapter 2 - how evolution might work - and allows for the possibility that your God started it all off.-DAVID: I do accept the possibility of an IM as long as it is viewed as semiautonomous. I'm as stubborn as you are.-Ah, how true! But I am stubborn in my appeal for open-mindedness, whereas you are stubborn in your defence of your opinions, regardless of the dilemmas they cause you! I would like to think the clash is good for both of us, though if your God or anyone else is listening in, I suspect the response will be a loud yawn!

8019 views

dhw: And if the human brain is a large jump, are you saying the IM was able autonomously to develop, say, worm brains to bird brains to chimpanzee brains, but then God had to step in to change the chimp brain to the human brain?-No, I'm not saying that at all. Those brain jumps are too large for IM work.-> dhw:You claim to believe that evolution happened, so how else could it have happened, if not through an accumulation of innovations and variations within cell communities? -Of course cell communities were modified if evolution happened as it appears. The issue is how and none of us know or sure. Your idea of cogitating cells is beyond my reasoning to imagine. The informational background for planning is too large. Information cannot be invented unless mental activity is at work. It is the same problem as how did life get started unless supplied with planning information?-
> 
> dhw: Why an intellect? Why not the billions of intellects or intelligences contained within the billions of organisms that extend from bacteria to humans? Please don't revert to first cause, because this discussion concerns Chapter 2 - how evolution might work - and allows for the possibility that your God started it all off.-Agreed. Chapter 2: And where did all those intellects/brains come from? In evolution there has to be a first intellect/brain for the rest to evolve from. Here again my point is that the bacteria work from intelligent information is their genomes. They do not have the mental capacity to be inventive. 
> 
> DAVID: I do accept the possibility of an IM as long as it is viewed as semiautonomous. I'm as stubborn as you are.
> 
> dhw: Ah, how true! But I am stubborn in my appeal for open-mindedness, whereas you are stubborn in your defence of your opinions, regardless of the dilemmas they cause you!-You view them as dilemmas because you won't accept my reasoning. My only true dilemma is not problem, just an open question.

7968 views

dhw: And if the human brain is a large jump, are you saying the IM was able autonomously to develop, say, worm brains to bird brains to chimpanzee brains, but then God had to step in to change the chimp brain to the human brain?
DAVID: No, I'm not saying that at all. Those brain jumps are too large for IM work.-So the worm brain, bird brain, chimp brain also had to be specially preprogrammed or dabbled. But the human brain was extraspecially preprogrammed or dabbled, because although the worm, bird and chimp are special, humans are extraspecial. And the weaverbird's nest was also far too special for the weaverbird to design. Or at least half of it was. We're going backwards again.-DAVID: Your idea of cogitating cells is beyond my reasoning to imagine. The informational background for planning is too large. Information cannot be invented unless mental activity is at work. -And yet your imagination can conceive of cogitating energy that already has all the information even before the information has come into existence. -dhw: Why an intellect? Why not the billions of intellects or intelligences contained within the billions of organisms that extend from bacteria to humans? -DAVID: And where did all those intellects/brains come from? In evolution there has to be a first intellect/brain for the rest to evolve from. -I agree that there has to be a first intellect (or first intellects) for the rest to evolve from. Your hypothesis is a first intellect that comes from nowhere but knows everything, and mine is basic awarenesses evolving from ever changing materials into ever greater complexity through multiple experiences - or through an accumulation of information, if you prefer it.-dhw: I am stubborn in my appeal for open-mindedness, whereas you are stubborn in your defence of your opinions, regardless of the dilemmas they cause you!
DAVID: You view them as dilemmas because you won't accept my reasoning. My only true dilemma is not problem, just an open question.-Your reasoning seems to me to be dislocated: the purpose of evolution is humans; in order to achieve humans, God created a colossal variety of organisms which have nothing to do with humans, and most of which died out anyway; God preprogrammed or separately created every innovation and strange lifestyle, whether it was relevant to humans or not, because it was necessary for the balance of nature, although nature would not have been unbalanced without many of the innovations and strange lifestyles; we don't know how much control God had over environmental changes and apparent accidents, but humans would have appeared anyway because God had it all under control; we don't know how God guided evolution from bacteria to humans, but it was either through preprogramming or dabbling, and it can't have been by giving organisms the wherewithal to innovate because somehow you know that organisms don't have the wherewithal to innovate. However, I'm sure it all makes sense to you.

8016 views

dhw: So the worm brain, bird brain, chimp brain also had to be specially preprogrammed or dabbled. But the human brain was extraspecially preprogrammed or dabbled, because although the worm, bird and chimp are special, humans are extraspecial. And the weaverbird's nest was also far too special for the weaverbird to design. Or at least half of it was. We're going backwards again.-Remember I don't belive in itty-bitty. Those jumps are big enough to req
> 
> DAVID: Your idea of cogitating cells is beyond my reasoning to imagine. The informational background for planning is too large. Information cannot be invented unless mental activity is at work. 
> 
> And yet your imagination can conceive of cogitating energy that already has all the information even before the information has come into existence. 
> 
> dhw: Why an intellect? Why not the billions of intellects or intelligences contained within the billions of organisms that extend from bacteria to humans? 
> 
> DAVID: And where did all those intellects/brains come from? In evolution there has to be a first intellect/brain for the rest to evolve from. 
> 
> I agree that there has to be a first intellect (or first intellects) for the rest to evolve from. Your hypothesis is a first intellect that comes from nowhere but knows everything, and mine is basic awarenesses evolving from ever changing materials into ever greater complexity through multiple experiences - or through an accumulation of information, if you prefer it.
> 
> dhw: I am stubborn in my appeal for open-mindedness, whereas you are stubborn in your defence of your opinions, regardless of the dilemmas they cause you!
> DAVID: You view them as dilemmas because you won't accept my reasoning. My only true dilemma is not problem, just an open question.
> 
> Your reasoning seems to me to be dislocated: the purpose of evolution is humans; in order to achieve humans, God created a colossal variety of organisms which have nothing to do with humans, and most of which died out anyway; God preprogrammed or separately created every innovation and strange lifestyle, whether it was relevant to humans or not, because it was necessary for the balance of nature, although nature would not have been unbalanced without many of the innovations and strange lifestyles; we don't know how much control God had over environmental changes and apparent accidents, but humans would have appeared anyway because God had it all under control; we don't know how God guided evolution from bacteria to humans, but it was either through preprogramming or dabbling, and it can't have been by giving organisms the wherewithal to innovate because somehow you know that organisms don't have the wherewithal to innovate. However, I'm sure it all makes sense to you.

8003 views

dhw: So the worm brain, bird brain, chimp brain also had to be specially preprogrammed or dabbled. But the human brain was extraspecially preprogrammed or dabbled, because although the worm, bird and chimp are special, humans are extraspecial. And the weaverbird's nest was also far too special for the weaverbird to design. Or at least half of it was. We're going backwards again.
 
 Remember I don't belive in itty-bitty. Those jumps are big enough to require pre-programming or dabbling help. ->
> dhw: And yet your imagination can conceive of cogitating energy that already has all the information even before the information has come into existence. 
 
> dhw: Why an intellect? Why not the billions of intellects or intelligences contained within the billions of organisms that extend from bacteria to humans? -It is the only thing that fits. You haven't told me where bacteria get their intelligence from.
> 
> DAVID: And where did all those intellects/brains come from? In evolution there has to be a first intellect/brain for the rest to evolve from. 
> 
> dhw: I agree that there has to be a first intellect (or first intellects) for the rest to evolve from. Your hypothesis is a first intellect that comes from nowhere but knows everything, and mine is basic awarenesses evolving from ever changing materials into ever greater complexity through multiple experiences - or through an accumulation of information, if you prefer it.-Where does the information come from to accumulate? I agree there is a first intellect to start everything off.
> 
> dhw: Your reasoning seems to me to be dislocated: the purpose of evolution is humans; in order to achieve humans, God created a colossal variety of organisms which have nothing to do with humans, and most of which died out anyway; God preprogrammed or separately created every innovation and strange lifestyle, whether it was relevant to humans or not, because it was necessary for the balance of nature, ...; we don't know how much control God had over environmental changes and apparent accidents, but humans would have appeared anyway because God had it all under control; we don't know how God guided evolution from bacteria to humans, but it was either through preprogramming or dabbling, and it can't have been by giving organisms the wherewithal to innovate because somehow you know that organisms don't have the wherewithal to innovate. However, I'm sure it all makes sense to you.-Thank you for summarizing what we see has happened and describing my position to explain it. I'm quite comfortable with it, since no one knows how it happened anyway.

7966 views

dhw: So the worm brain, bird brain, chimp brain also had to be specially preprogrammed or dabbled. But the human brain was extraspecially preprogrammed or dabbled, because although the worm, bird and chimp are special, humans are extraspecial. And the weaverbird's nest was also far too special for the weaverbird to design. Or at least half of it was. We're going backwards again.
DAVID: Remember I don't believe in itty-bitty. These jumps are big enough to require preprogramming or dabbling help.-I don't believe in itty-bitty either, since non-functioning innovations would not survive. Improvements, yes, but innovations, no. See under Bacterial Intelligence? for what I regard as the big flaw in your reasoning re jumps.-dhw: Why an intellect? Why not the billions of intellects or intelligences contained within the billions of organisms that extend from bacteria to humans? 
DAVID: It is the only thing that fits. You haven't told me where bacteria get their intelligence from.-I have offered the unlikely alternatives at least 100 times: your God, some sort of panpsychist evolution, and atheistic chance. Just as you have told me at least 100 times that although intelligence must come from somewhere, your God didn't have to get his from anywhere, because he's always had it, which means intelligence doesn't have to come from somewhere after all. (You didn't put it quite like that, though!)-Dhw: Your reasoning seems to me to be dislocated....(No need for me to repeat the long list of contradictions.) 
DAVID: Thank you for summarising what we see has happened and describing my position to explain it. I'm quite comfortable with it, since no one knows how it happened anyway.-An atheist might say the same thing, and so long as you are both aware of the blinkered reasoning that buttresses your respective faiths (in a nebulous God or in blind chance), who am I to criticize? I'm an agnostic because no one knows how it happened anyway.

7961 views

dhw:Just as you have told me at least 100 times that although intelligence must come from somewhere, your God didn't have to get his from anywhere, because he's always had it, which means intelligence doesn't have to come from somewhere after all.-Exactly. God is an eternal intelligent consciousness with all the information He needed. -> DAVID: Thank you for summarising what we see has happened and describing my position to explain it. I'm quite comfortable with it, since no one knows how it happened anyway.
> 
> dhw: An atheist might say the same thing, and so long as you are both aware of the blinkered reasoning that buttresses your respective faiths (in a nebulous God or in blind chance), who am I to criticize? I'm an agnostic because no one knows how it happened anyway.-I think we have to leave it at that. We can not convince each other.

8037 views

The idea has popped up again:-http://www.livescience.com/53791-what-is-consciousness.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2016-2-22-"Philosophers have put forward many notions of consciousness. The materialist notion holds that consciousness can be fully explained by the the firing of neurons in the human brain, while mind-body dualism argues that the soul or mind is distinct from, and can potentially outlive, the body. Under the notion of panpsychism, a kind of re-boot of ancient animistic ideas, every speck of matter has a kind of proto-consciousness. When aggregated in particular ways, all this proto-consciousness turns into a sense of inner awareness. And other, Eastern philosophies have held that consciousness is the only real thing in the universe, Kuhn said.-"Neuroscientists and many philosophers have typically planted themselves firmly on the materialist side. But a growing number of scientists now believe that materialism cannot wholly explain the sense of "I am" that undergirds consciousness, Kuhn told the audience.-"One of those scientists is Christof Koch, the president and chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle. At the event, he described a relatively recent formulation of consciousness called the integrated information theory. The idea, put forward by University of Wisconsin-Madison neuroscientist and psychiatrist Giulio Tononi, argues that consciousness resides in an as-yet-unknown space in the universe.-"Integrated information theory measures consciousness by a metric, called phi, which essentially translates to how much power over itself a being or object has.-"'If a system has causal power upon itself, like the brain does, then it feels like something. If you have a lot of causal power upon yourself, then it feels like a lot to be you," Koch said.-"The new theory implies a radical disconnect between intelligence and consciousness, Koch said. AI, which may already be intelligent enough to beat the best human player of the Go board game, may nevertheless be basically subconscious because it is not able to act upon itself-"One critic in the audience noted that there is currently no way to test this theory, and that integrated information theory fails some common-sense tests when trying to deduce what things are conscious. (A thermostat, for instance, may have some low-level consciousness by this metric.) But Koch said he was not troubled by this notion. Many objects people think of as conscious may not be, while some that are considered inanimate may in fact have much greater consciousness than previously thought, Koch said.-"If Koch and others are correct that strict materialism can't explain consciousness, it has implications for how sentient a computer might be: A supercomputer that re-creates the connectome, or all the myriad connections between neurons in the human brain, may be able to simulate all the behaviors of a human, but wouldn't be conscious.-"'You can simulate the mass of the black hole at the center of our universe, but space-time will never twist around the computer itself," Koch said. "The supercomputer can simulate the effect of consciousness, but it isn't consciousness."-Comment: Presented just for dhw. My own theory is that there is a universal consciousness just as in Eastern religions.

7736 views

DAVID: The idea has popped up again:
http://www.livescience.com/53791-what-is-consciousness.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2016-2-22 - QUOTE: Under the notion of panpsychism, a kind of re-boot of ancient animistic ideas, every speck of matter has a kind of proto-consciousness. When aggregated in particular ways, all this proto-consciousness turns into a sense of inner awareness. 
QUOTE: "Integrated information theory measures consciousness by a metric, called phi, which essentially translates to how much power over itself a being or object has. - I like the description of panpsychism, and I like the notion of power over itself, which ties in with the idea that certain materials may have developed sufficient inner awareness to cooperate with one another. I don't believe that all materials have this power, and the theory appears to allow for the mixture of order and disorder that seems to me to characterize the history of the universe as we know it.
 
QUOTE: The new theory implies a radical disconnect between intelligence and consciousness, Koch said. AI, which may already be intelligent enough to beat the best human player of the Go board game, may nevertheless be basically subconscious because it is not able to act upon itself. - Artificial intelligence is just that - a copy of natural intelligence. But I don't think intelligence and consciousness (this does not mean self-awareness) can be separated. I would say that intelligence is the power that uses information, and it cannot do so unless it is conscious of the information. However, in AI the computer has been programmed to process the information - its intelligence AND its consciousness are in fact the creations of its known designer(s). And this is where it gets really interesting: with natural intelligence/consciousness, there is no known designer. But according to you, David, the intelligence/consciousness of the simplest living forms must have been designed, and so obviously the same would apply to the intelligent/conscious materials which first came together to make them. The alternative is that those materials developed an intelligence/ consciousness spontaneously, and that is the basis of a possible third way to explain the origin of life. - The obvious objection that will now be raised to the latter suggestion can also be raised to the former. How can materials possibly become intelligent/conscious? How can a universal intelligence/consciousness possibly just be intelligent/conscious? There is of course no answer to this, and please don't say first cause, which is just as likely to be unconscious as it is to be conscious. That is why I myself find all three hypotheses (the other being sheer luck) equally difficult to believe in. - David's comment: Presented just for dhw. My own theory is that there is a universal consciousness just as in Eastern religions. - Thank you for a very interesting piece. Panpsychism basically means universal consciousness, but since you constantly talk of God, your version is a single conscious being, which is not at all in keeping with many Eastern religions (e.g. Buddhism and Jainism) but is common, as you know, to all the monotheistic or Abrahamic religions of the west. Unless you are secretly striving to break the cycle of samsara over there on your Texan ranch, I think you are far more Westerner than Easterner!

7716 views

dhw: How can materials possibly become intelligent/conscious? How can a universal intelligence/consciousness possibly just be intelligent/conscious? There is of course no answer to this, and please don't say first cause, which is just as likely to be unconscious as it is to be conscious. That is why I myself find all three hypotheses (the other being sheer luck) equally difficult to believe in. - I understand your problem. First cause, if it is unconscious, then how did consciousness appear on a rocky planet. I strongly feel consciousness had to precede conscious organisms.
> 
> David's comment: Presented just for dhw. My own theory is that there is a universal consciousness just as in Eastern religions.
> 
> dhw: Thank you for a very interesting piece. Panpsychism basically means universal consciousness, but since you constantly talk of God, your version is a single conscious being, which is not at all in keeping with many Eastern religions.....Unless you are secretly striving to break the cycle of samsara over there on your Texan ranch, I think you are far more Westerner than Easterner! - You are welcome, a good piece. Of course I am Western, but each of us can have our own example of the universal consciousness.

7644 views

dhw: How can materials possibly become intelligent/conscious? How can a universal intelligence/consciousness possibly just be intelligent/conscious? There is of course no answer to this, and please don't say first cause, which is just as likely to be unconscious as it is to be conscious. That is why I myself find all three hypotheses (the other being sheer luck) equally difficult to believe in.

DAVID: I understand your problem. First cause, if it is unconscious, then how did consciousness appear on a rocky planet. I strongly feel consciousness had to precede conscious organisms. - I know all about your strong feelings. Just to clarify: the panpsychist hypothesis I am suggesting (also suggested in the article you quoted) is that the materials themselves have a degree of consciousness which, when aggregated in particular ways...turns into a sense of inner awareness. Interestingly, there is a similar idea in the article you have offered us on Theoretical origin: - QUOTE: Carl Woese, a renowned biologist who gave us the modern tree of life, believed that the Darwinian era was preceded by an early phase of life governed by very different evolutionary forces. Woese thought it would have been nearly impossible for an individual cell to spontaneously come up with everything it needed for life. So he envisioned a rich diversity of molecules engaged in a communal existence. Rather than competing with each other, primitive cells shared the molecular innovations they invented. Together, the pre-Darwinian pool created the components needed for complex life, priming the early Earth for the emergence of the magnificent menagerie we see today. - But I'd better repeat that I find all this as difficult to believe as your own theory that consciousness appeared on a rocky planet because a conscious designer never appeared but somehow just existed.

7595 views


> dhw: QUOTE: Carl Woese, a renowned biologist who gave us the modern tree of life, believed that the Darwinian era was preceded by an early phase of life governed by very different evolutionary forces. Woese thought it would have been nearly impossible for an individual cell to spontaneously come up with everything it needed for life. So he envisioned a rich diversity of molecules engaged in a communal existence. Rather than competing with each other, primitive cells shared the molecular innovations they invented. Together, the pre-Darwinian pool created the components needed for complex life, priming the early Earth for the emergence of the magnificent menagerie we see today.
> 
> But I'd better repeat that I find all this as difficult to believe as your own theory that consciousness appeared on a rocky planet because a conscious designer never appeared but somehow just existed. - Someone who could think had to come first. A rocky planet does not have the wherewithal to invent consciousness, does it?

7594 views

dhw: QUOTE: Carl Woese, a renowned biologist who gave us the modern tree of life, believed that the Darwinian era was preceded by an early phase of life governed by very different evolutionary forces. Woese thought it would have been nearly impossible for an individual cell to spontaneously come up with everything it needed for life. So he envisioned a rich diversity of molecules engaged in a communal existence. Rather than competing with each other, primitive cells shared the molecular innovations they invented. Together, the pre-Darwinian pool created the components needed for complex life, priming the early Earth for the emergence of the magnificent menagerie we see today.
But I'd better repeat that I find all this as difficult to believe as your own theory that consciousness appeared on a rocky planet because a conscious designer never appeared but somehow just existed. - DAVID: Someone who could think had to come first. A rocky planet does not have the wherewithal to invent consciousness, does it? - Nobody knows the origin of consciousness, and the mystery is not solved by saying it was invented by someone who was conscious enough to think.

7685 views


> dhw: Nobody knows the origin of consciousness, and the mystery is not solved by saying it was invented by someone who was conscious enough to think. - Materialism offers no way to explain why consciousness exists.

7645 views

dhw: Nobody knows the origin of consciousness, and the mystery is not solved by saying it was invented by someone who was conscious enough to think. - DAVID: Materialism offers no way to explain why consciousness exists. - Theism claims that something conscious explains consciousness. Not much of an explanation, is it? Since nobody knows the origin of consciousness, no  - ism can explain it!

7646 views

dhw: Nobody knows the origin of consciousness, and the mystery is not solved by saying it was invented by someone who was conscious enough to think.
> 
> DAVID: Materialism offers no way to explain why consciousness exists.
> 
> dhw: Theism claims that something conscious explains consciousness. Not much of an explanation, is it? Since nobody knows the origin of consciousness, no  - ism can explain it!-Chance, design or Nagel's wish for a third way which is nebulous wishful thinking

7670 views

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... - "Is consciousness everywhere? Is it a basic feature of the Universe, at the very heart of the tiniest subatomic particles? Such an idea - panpsychism as it is known - might sound like New Age mysticism, but some hard-nosed analytic philosophers have suggested it might be how things are, and it's now a hot topic in philosophy of mind. - "Panpsychism's popularity stems from the fact that it promises to solve two deep problems simultaneously. The first is the famous hard problem' of consciousness. How does the brain produce conscious experience? How can neurons firing give rise to experiences of colour, sound, taste, pain and so on? In principle, scientists could map my brain processes in complete detail but, it seems, they could never detect my experiences themselves. Somehow, it seems, brain processes acquire a subjective aspect, which is invisible to science. - "The second problem concerns an apparent gap in our scientific picture of the world. Physics aims to describe the fundamental constituents of the Universe - the basic subatomic particles from which everything is made, together with the laws that govern them. Yet physics seems to leave out something very important from its picture of the basic particles. It tells us, for example, that an electron has a certain mass, charge and spin. But this is a description of how an electron is disposed to behave: to have mass is to resist acceleration, to have charge is to respond in a certain way to electromagnetic fields, and so on. Physics doesn't say what an electron, or any other basic particle, is like in itself, intrinsically. - *** - " Perhaps phenomenal properties, are the fundamental intrinsic properties of matter we're looking for, and each subatomic particle is a tiny conscious subject. This solves the hard problem: brain and consciousness emerge together when billions of basic particles are assembled in the right way. The brain arises from the particles' dispositions to interact and combine, and consciousness arises from what the particles are like in themselves. They are two sides of the same coin - or, rather, since on this view consciousness is the fundamental reality underlying physical reality, brains are manifestations of consciousness. As it holds that there is a single reality underlying both mind and matter, panpsychism is a form of monism. - *** - "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, just as the brain emerges from the organisation of billions of subatomic particles. But how do these tiny consciousnesses combine? We understand how particles combine to make atoms, molecules and larger structures, but what parallel story can we tell on the phenomenal side? How do the micro-experiences of billions of subatomic particles in my brain combine to form the twinge of pain I'm feeling in my knee? - ***
"A related problem concerns conscious subjects. It's plausible to think that there can't be conscious experience without a subject who has the experience. I assume that we and many other animals are conscious subjects, and panpsychists claim that subatomic particles are too. But is that it? Are there any intermediate-level conscious subjects (molecules, crystals, plants?), formed like us from combinations of micro-subjects? It's hard to see why subjecthood should be restricted to just subatomic particles and higher animals, but equally hard to think of any non-arbitrary way of extending the category. - *** - "I remain unpersuaded, ... Even if we accept that basic physical entities must have some categorical nature (and it might be that we don't; perhaps at bottom reality is just dispositions), consciousness is an unlikely candidate for this fundamental property. For, so far as our evidence goes, it is a highly localised phenomenon that is specific not only to brains but to particular states of brains . It appears to be a specific state of certain highly complex information-processing systems, not a basic feature of the Universe. - *** - "Panpsychism offers no distinctive predictions or explanations. It finds a place for consciousness in the physical world, but that place is a sort of limbo. Consciousness is indeed a hard nut to crack, but I think we should exhaust the other options before we take a metaphysical sledgehammer to it. - *** - "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." - Comment: I find this a rather narrow discussion, which leaves out evidence of species consciousness, NDE research and quantum delayed choice evidence.

7479 views

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.

7427 views

dhw: 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.'-Correct possibilities, but since consciousness is so unusual, I feel it came from God.

7410 views

An essay of support:

https://aeon.co/ideas/panpsychism-is-crazy-but-its-also-most-probably-true?utm_source=A...

"According to panpsychism, the smallest bits of matter – things such as electrons and quarks – have very basic kinds of experience; an electron has an inner life.

"The main objection made to panpsychism is that it is ‘crazy’ and ‘just obviously wrong’. It is thought to be highly counterintuitive to suppose that an electron has some kind of inner life, no matter how basic, and this is taken to be a very strong reason to doubt the truth of panpsychism.

***

"No doubt the willingness of many to accept special relativity, natural selection and quantum mechanics, despite their strangeness from the point of view of pre-theoretical common sense, is a reflection of their respect for the scientific method. We are prepared to modify our view of the world if we take there to be good scientific reason to do so. But in the absence of hard experimental proof, people are reluctant to attribute consciousness to electrons.

***

"I maintain that there is a powerful simplicity argument in favour of panpsychism. The argument relies on a claim that has been defended by Bertrand Russell, Arthur Eddington and many others, namely that physical science doesn’t tell us what matter is, only what it does. The job of physics is to provide us with mathematical models that allow us to predict with great accuracy how matter will behave. This is incredibly useful information; it allows us to manipulate the world in extraordinary ways, leading to the technological advancements that have transformed our society beyond recognition. But it is one thing to know the behaviour of an electron and quite another to know its intrinsic nature: how the electron is, in and of itself. Physical science gives us rich information about the behaviour of matter but leaves us completely in the dark about its intrinsic nature.

"In fact, the only thing we know about the intrinsic nature of matter is that some of it – the stuff in brains – involves experience. We now face a theoretical choice. We either suppose that the intrinsic nature of fundamental particles involves experience or we suppose that they have some entirely unknown intrinsic nature. On the former supposition, the nature of macroscopic things is continuous with the nature of microscopic things. The latter supposition leads us to complexity, discontinuity and mystery. The theoretical imperative to form as simple and unified a view as is consistent with the data leads us quite straightforwardly in the direction of panpsychism.

"In the public mind, physics is on its way to giving us a complete picture of the nature of space, time and matter. While in this mindset, panpsychism seems improbable, as physics does not attribute experience to fundamental particles. But once we realise that physics tells us nothing about the intrinsic nature of the entities it talks about, and indeed that the only thing we know for certain about the intrinsic nature of matter is that at least some material things have experiences, the issue looks very different. All we get from physics is this big black-and-white abstract structure, which we must somehow colour in with intrinsic nature. We know how to colour in one bit of it: the brains of organisms are coloured in with experience. How to colour in the rest? The most elegant, simple, sensible option is to colour in the rest of the world with the same pen.

"Panpsychism is crazy. But it is also highly likely to be true."

Comment: In quantum theory experiments we see particles changing their 'minds' and doing something different in late choice experiments. We can think our universe is conscious through God's consciousness, which means the essayist's proposal may be correct.

7251 views

QUOTE: “Panpsychism is crazy. But it is also highly likely to be true."

DAVID's comment: In quantum theory experiments we see particles changing their 'minds' and doing something different in late choice experiments. We can think our universe is conscious through God's consciousness, which means the essayist's proposal may be correct.

Or we can think our universe contains billions and billions of individual consciousnesses, which also means the essayist’s proposal may be correct.

7174 views

QUOTE: “Panpsychism is crazy. But it is also highly likely to be true."

DAVID's comment: In quantum theory experiments we see particles changing their 'minds' and doing something different in late choice experiments. We can think our universe is conscious through God's consciousness, which means the essayist's proposal may be correct.

dhw" Or we can think our universe contains billions and billions of individual consciousnesses, which also means the essayist’s proposal may be correct.

Or God's consciousness my pervade everything.

7189 views

Another essay of support:

http://nautil.us//issue/47/consciousness/is-matter-conscious?utm_source=Nautilus&ut...

"The nature of consciousness seems to be unique among scientific puzzles. Not only do neuroscientists have no fundamental explanation for how it arises from physical states of the brain, we are not even sure whether we ever will.

***

"But perhaps consciousness is not uniquely troublesome. Going back to Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, philosophers of science have struggled with a lesser known, but equally hard, problem of matter. What is physical matter in and of itself, behind the mathematical structure described by physics? This problem, too, seems to lie beyond the traditional methods of science, because all we can observe is what matter does, not what it is in itself—the “software” of the universe but not its ultimate “hardware.” On the surface, these problems seem entirely separate. But a closer look reveals that they might be deeply connected.

***

"How and why does a system that integrates information, broadcasts a message, or oscillates at 40 hertz feel pain or delight? The appearance of consciousness from mere physical complexity seems equally mysterious no matter what precise form the complexity takes.

***

"We take it for granted, however, that physics can in principle tell us everything there is to know about the nature of physical matter. Physics tells us that matter is made of particles and fields, which have properties such as mass, charge, and spin. Physics may not yet have discovered all the fundamental properties of matter, but it is getting closer.

"Yet there is reason to believe that there must be more to matter than what physics tells us. Broadly speaking, physics tells us what fundamental particles do or how they relate to other things, but nothing about how they are in themselves, independently of other things.

***

"What are physical things like in themselves, or intrinsically? .... But what could this stuff that realizes or implements physical structure be, and what are the intrinsic, non-structural properties that characterize it? This problem is a close descendant of Kant’s classic problem of knowledge of things-in-themselves. The philosopher Galen Strawson has called it the hard problem of matter.

***

"The hard problem of matter would arise even if we had answers to all such questions about structure. No matter what structure we are talking about, from the most bizarre and unusual to the perfectly intuitive, there will be a question of how it is non-structurally implemented.

***

"The hard problem of matter calls for non-structural properties, and consciousness is the one phenomenon we know that might meet this need. Consciousness is full of qualitative properties, from the redness of red and the discomfort of hunger to the phenomenology of thought. Such experiences, or “qualia,” may have internal structure, but there is more to them than structure. We know something about what conscious experiences are like in and of themselves, not just how they function and relate to other properties.

***

"This suggests that consciousness—of some primitive and rudimentary form—is the hardware that the software described by physics runs on. The physical world can be conceived of as a structure of conscious experiences. Our own richly textured experiences implement the physical relations that make up our brains. Some simple, elementary forms of experiences implement the relations that make up fundamental particles.

***

"The possibility that consciousness is the real concrete stuff of reality, the fundamental hardware that implements the software of our physical theories, is a radical idea. It completely inverts our ordinary picture of reality in a way that can be difficult to fully grasp. But it may solve two of the hardest problems in science and philosophy at once."

Comment: Just accept the idea that we are all a result of God's consciousness. Read full article. Giant sections skipped.

7161 views

Some of the skipped material:

http://nautil.us//issue/47/consciousness/is-matter-conscious?utm_source=Nautilus&ut...

"This view, that consciousness constitutes the intrinsic aspect of physical reality, goes by many different names, but one of the most descriptive is “dual-aspect monism.” Monism contrasts with dualism, the view that consciousness and matter are fundamentally different substances or kinds of stuff. Dualism is widely regarded as scientifically implausible, because science shows no evidence of any non-physical forces that influence the brain.

"Monism holds that all of reality is made of the same kind of stuff. It comes in several varieties. The most common monistic view is physicalism (also known as materialism), the view that everything is made of physical stuff, which only has one aspect, the one revealed by physics. This is the predominant view among philosophers and scientists today. According to physicalism, a complete, purely physical description of reality leaves nothing out. But according to the hard problem of consciousness, any purely physical description of a conscious system such as the brain at least appears to leave something out: It could never fully capture what it is like to be that system. That is to say, it captures the objective but not the subjective aspects of consciousness: the brain function, but not our inner mental life.

"Russell’s dual-aspect monism tries to fill in this deficiency. It accepts that the brain is a material system that behaves in accordance with the laws of physics. But it adds another, intrinsic aspect to matter which is hidden from the extrinsic, third-person perspective of physics and which therefore cannot be captured by any purely physical description. But although this intrinsic aspect eludes our physical theories, it does not elude our inner observations. Our own consciousness constitutes the intrinsic aspect of the brain, and this is our clue to the intrinsic aspect of other physical things. To paraphrase Arthur Schopenhauer’s succinct response to Kant: We can know the thing-in-itself because we are it.

***

"The most radical version of dual-aspect monism takes the intrinsic aspect of reality to consist of consciousness itself. This is decidedly not the same as subjective idealism, the view that the physical world is merely a structure within human consciousness, and that the external world is in some sense an illusion. According to dual-aspect monism, the external world exists entirely independently of human consciousness. But it would not exist independently of any kind of consciousness, because all physical things are associated with some form of consciousness of their own, as their own intrinsic realizer, or hardware.

***

"Dualism looks implausible on scientific grounds. Physicalism takes the objective, scientifically accessible aspect of reality to be the only reality, which arguably implies that the subjective aspect of consciousness is an illusion. Maybe so—but shouldn’t we be more confident that we are conscious, in the full subjective sense, than that particles are not?

"A second important objection is the so-called combination problem. How and why does the complex, unified consciousness of our brains result from putting together particles with simple consciousness? This question looks suspiciously similar to the original hard problem. I and other defenders of panpsychism have argued that the combination problem is nevertheless not as hard as the original hard problem. In some ways, it is easier to see how to get one form of conscious matter (such as a conscious brain) from another form of conscious matter (such as a set of conscious particles) than how to get conscious matter from non-conscious matter. But many find this unconvincing. Perhaps it is just a matter of time, though. The original hard problem, in one form or another, has been pondered by philosophers for centuries. The combination problem has received much less attention, which gives more hope for a yet undiscovered solution.

"The possibility that consciousness is the real concrete stuff of reality, the fundamental hardware that implements the software of our physical theories, is a radical idea. It completely inverts our ordinary picture of reality in a way that can be difficult to fully grasp. But it may solve two of the hardest problems in science and philosophy at once."

Comment: Simplest resolution is that we are living in a universal consciousness, God's. Still much not covered.

7342 views

A new article supporting a panpsychism comeback:

https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-...

"Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

"This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the “panpsychist” view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.

***

"Panpsychism doesn’t necessarily imply that every inanimate object is conscious. “Panpsychists usually don’t take tables and other artifacts to be conscious as a whole,” writes Hedda Hassel Mørch, a philosophy researcher at New York University’s Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness, in an email. “Rather, the table could be understood as a collection of particles that each have their own very simple form of consciousness.”

"But, then again, panpsychism could very well imply that conscious tables exist: One interpretation of the theory holds that “any system is conscious,” says Chalmers. “Rocks will be conscious, spoons will be conscious, the Earth will be conscious. Any kind of aggregation gives you consciousness.”

***

"One of the most popular and credible contemporary neuroscience theories on consciousness, Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory, further lends credence to panpsychism. Tononi argues that something will have a form of “consciousness” if the information contained within the structure is sufficiently “integrated,” or unified, and so the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Because it applies to all structures—not just the human brain—Integrated Information Theory shares the panpsychist view that physical matter has innate conscious experience.

***

“'Physical science tells us a lot less about the nature of matter than we tend to assume,” says Goff. “Eddington”—the English scientist who experimentally confirmed Einstein’s theory of general relativity in the early 20th century—“argued there’s a gap in our picture of the universe. We know what matter does but not what it is. We can put consciousness into this gap.”

"In Eddington’s view, Goff writes in an email, it’s “”silly” to suppose that that underlying nature has nothing to do with consciousness and then to wonder where consciousness comes from.” Stephen Hawking has previously asked: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Goff adds: “The Russell-Eddington proposal is that it is consciousness that breathes fire into the equations.”

"The biggest problem caused by panpsychism is known as the “combination problem”: Precisely how do small particles of consciousness collectively form more complex consciousness? Consciousness may exist in all particles, but that doesn’t answer the question of how these tiny fragments of physical consciousness come together to create the more complex experience of human consciousness.

"An alternative panpsychist perspective holds that, rather than individual particles holding consciousness and coming together, the universe as a whole is conscious. This, says Goff, isn’t the same as believing the universe is a unified divine being; it’s more like seeing it as a “cosmic mess.” Nevertheless, it does reflect a perspective that the world is a top-down creation, where every individual thing is derived from the universe, rather than a bottom-up version where objects are built from the smallest particles. Goff believes quantum entanglement—the finding that certain particles behave as a single unified system even when they’re separated by such immense distances there can’t be a causal signal between them—suggests the universe functions as a fundamental whole rather than a collection of discrete parts.

"Such theories sound incredible, and perhaps they are. But then again, so is every other possible theory that explains consciousness. “The more I think about [any theory], the less plausible it becomes,” says Chalmers. “One starts as a materialist, then turns into a dualist, then a panpsychist, then an idealist,” he adds, echoing his paper on the subject. Idealism holds that conscious experience is the only thing that truly exists. From that perspective, panpsychism is quite moderate."

Comment: I still think God is universal consciousness. It fits this duscussion nicely.

6779 views

DAVID: A new article supporting a panpsychism comeback:
https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-...

QUOTE: "Such theories sound incredible, and perhaps they are. But then again, so is every other possible theory that explains consciousness. “The more I think about [any theory], the less plausible it becomes,” says Chalmers. “One starts as a materialist, then turns into a dualist, then a panpsychist, then an idealist,” he adds, echoing his paper on the subject. Idealism holds that conscious experience is the only thing that truly exists. From that perspective, panpsychism is quite moderate."

DAVID’s comment: I still think God is universal consciousness. It fits this discussion nicely.

I share Chalmer’s view that so far every theory sounds incredible. Bottom-up panpsychism is the alternative that I have been defending in our discussions as an alternative to your top-down form. I do not regard dualism as incompatible with either, and I have already offered a hypothesis that reconciles dualism and materialism to a certain degree.

6766 views

DAVID: A new article supporting a panpsychism comeback:
https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-...

QUOTE: "Such theories sound incredible, and perhaps they are. But then again, so is every other possible theory that explains consciousness. “The more I think about [any theory], the less plausible it becomes,” says Chalmers. “One starts as a materialist, then turns into a dualist, then a panpsychist, then an idealist,” he adds, echoing his paper on the subject. Idealism holds that conscious experience is the only thing that truly exists. From that perspective, panpsychism is quite moderate."

DAVID’s comment: I still think God is universal consciousness. It fits this discussion nicely.

dhw: I share Chalmer’s view that so far every theory sounds incredible. Bottom-up panpsychism is the alternative that I have been defending in our discussions as an alternative to your top-down form. I do not regard dualism as incompatible with either, and I have already offered a hypothesis that reconciles dualism and materialism to a certain degree.

What is incredible is that we are consciously here trying to figure out why we are here. All of reality sitting on a base of quantum mechanics which our consciousness tells us is counterfactual. No wonder we struggle to understand it. But we keep struggling because we are driven to find answers.

6812 views

dhw: I share Chalmer’s view that so far every theory sounds incredible. Bottom-up panpsychism is the alternative that I have been defending in our discussions as an alternative to your top-down form. I do not regard dualism as incompatible with either, and I have already offered a hypothesis that reconciles dualism and materialism to a certain degree.

DAVID: What is incredible is that we are consciously here trying to figure out why we are here. All of reality sitting on a base of quantum mechanics which our consciousness tells us is counterfactual. No wonder we struggle to understand it. But we keep struggling because we are driven to find answers.

For once we are in total agreement! And for ten years, you and I have accompanied each other in the struggle. L’chaim, dear friend!

6763 views

dhw: I share Chalmer’s view that so far every theory sounds incredible. Bottom-up panpsychism is the alternative that I have been defending in our discussions as an alternative to your top-down form. I do not regard dualism as incompatible with either, and I have already offered a hypothesis that reconciles dualism and materialism to a certain degree.

DAVID: What is incredible is that we are consciously here trying to figure out why we are here. All of reality sitting on a base of quantum mechanics which our consciousness tells us is counterfactual. No wonder we struggle to understand it. But we keep struggling because we are driven to find answers.

dhw: For once we are in total agreement! And for ten years, you and I have accompanied each other in the struggle. L’chaim, dear friend!

We shall drive together.

6712 views

A new article supporting a panpsychism comeback:

https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-...

Here is an answer that explains God's mind's role:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-why-evil-shows-that-the...

"The universe is not a Mind. It is a manifestation of a Mind, the creation of a Mind, but it has no mind itself. A mind is an aspect of a soul, and what characterizes a mind is its ability to hold the form of another substance in it without becoming that substance. For example, my mind can grasp the idea of a tree or of justice, but I do not therefore become a tree or justice. The universe certainly has forms, but those are substantial forms, which make the universe and the component parts what they are. There is no reason to impute “mind” to what is clearly an assemblage of material substances.

"Furthermore, the universe is contingent. Its essence — what it is — does not include the necessity that it is. Nowhere in a physical description of the universe or of its laws is there any necessity of its existence. When we describe a distant galaxy or the Big Bang, it is possible that we are engaging in fantasy or error. But the ground of existence must have necessary existence — its essence must be existence. What it is must be that it is. That is clearly not true of the physical universe.

"Furthermore, the universe is contingent. Its essence — what it is — does not include the necessity that it is. Nowhere in a physical description of the universe or of its laws is there any necessity of its existence. When we describe a distant galaxy or the Big Bang, it is possible that we are engaging in fantasy or error. But the ground of existence must have necessary existence — its essence must be existence. What it is must be that it is. That is clearly not true of the physical universe.

"Furthermore, because the universe is contingent and is changing, we must posit a Cause that is not contingent and not changing, and Whose existence is necessary and not derived. That is God, Whose existence is necessary and from Whom the intelligence and good of the universe are derived. The universe is a reflection of a Mind and of Goodness, but is not Mind and Goodness itself.

"Goff is on the right track when he agrees with Eddington that the universe manifests a Mind, but he errs in his subsequent inference to cosmopsychism. There is most certainly a Mind manifest in nature, but that Mind is reflected in nature, not embodied in nature. The ubiquitous directedness of natural processes, the elegant design of living things, the mathematical beauty of the laws of nature all speak to a Mind of unfathomable subtlety and power. But that Power is the Creator of the universe, reflected, but not embodied, in the universe itself.

Comment: I can carry this over to consciousness. My manifestations of mind, as I write this, is not my mind. I can express my mind's thoughts through physical activity of my fingers, but the thoughts are still immaterial. But only works if my mind is intimately interfaced with an active brain capable of inducing the activity of eyes and fingers at the keyboard to give expression to those current thoughts. In the universe the manifestations of God's mind are in complete parallel with my manifestations as a human.

6630 views

Sabine Hossenfelder says no way at the particle level:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-think.html

"Now, look, I know that physicists have a reputation of being narrow-minded. But the reason we have this reputation is that we tried the crazy shit long ago and just found it doesn’t work. You call it “narrow-minded,” we call it “science.” We have moved on. Can elementary particles be conscious? No, they can’t. It’s in conflict with evidence. Here’s why.

***

"Now, if you want a particle to be conscious, your minimum expectation should be that the particle can change. It’s hard to have an inner life with only one thought. But if electrons could have thoughts, we’d long have seen this in particle collisions because it would change the number of particles produced in collisions.

"In other words, electrons aren’t conscious, and neither are any other particles. It’s incompatible with data.

"As I explain in my book, there are ways to modify the standard model that do not run into conflict with experiment. One of them is to make new particles so massive that so far we have not managed to produce them in particle collisions, but this doesn’t help you here. Another way is to make them interact so weakly that we haven’t been able to detect them. This too doesn’t help here. The third way is to assume that the existing particles are composed of more fundamental constituents, that are, however, so strongly bound together that we have not yet been able to tear them apart.

"With the third option it is indeed possible to add internal states to elementary particles. But if your goal is to give consciousness to those particles so that we can inherit it from them, strongly bound composites do not help you. They do not help you exactly because you have hidden this consciousness so that it needs a lot of energy to access. This then means, of course, that you cannot use it at lower energies, like the ones typical for soft and wet thinking apparatuses like human brains.

"Summary: If a philosopher starts speaking about elementary particles, run."

Comment: Her blog is lots of fun. She always tells it like it is. I think God's consciousness runs the universe. Panpsychism simply steals from that idea.

4880 views

"Summary: If a philosopher starts speaking about elementary particles, run."

DAVID's comment: Her blog is lots of fun. She always tells it like it is. I think God's consciousness runs the universe. Panpsychism simply steals from that idea.

As far as I know, Whitehead’s process theology is a mixture of panpsychism and pantheism and panentheism, and there is absolutely no reason why panpsychism in itself should exclude God. However, the atheistic version that I would propose for my bottom-up evolution of consciousness is that particles are forever forming new combinations, and in the course of eternity it is conceivable that eventually they will form one or more that will give rise to the most rudimentary forms of awareness. From these evolve all the stages of consciousness that we know of. So there isn't just one consciousness, but billions of individual consciousnesses. Far-fetched? Yes, and I don’t believe it. But not believing is different from disbelieving. An alternative is an immaterial conscious mind that was never formed but has always existed and created all the combinations of material particles (which it somehow created out of its immaterial self) that gave rise to untold billions of stars and galaxies and suns and solar systems and planets, including our own, and this sourceless mind fiddled with a number of particles to create a combination which could reproduce itself and evolve into all the stages of consciousness that we know of. Far-fetched? Yes, and I don’t believe it. But not believing is different from disbelieving.

4853 views

"Summary: If a philosopher starts speaking about elementary particles, run."

DAVID's comment: Her blog is lots of fun. She always tells it like it is. I think God's consciousness runs the universe. Panpsychism simply steals from that idea.

dhw: As far as I know, Whitehead’s process theology is a mixture of panpsychism and pantheism and panentheism, and there is absolutely no reason why panpsychism in itself should exclude God. However, the atheistic version that I would propose for my bottom-up evolution of consciousness is that particles are forever forming new combinations, and in the course of eternity it is conceivable that eventually they will form one or more that will give rise to the most rudimentary forms of awareness. From these evolve all the stages of consciousness that we know of. So there isn't just one consciousness, but billions of individual consciousnesses. Far-fetched? Yes, and I don’t believe it. But not believing is different from disbelieving. An alternative is an immaterial conscious mind that was never formed but has always existed and created all the combinations of material particles (which it somehow created out of its immaterial self) that gave rise to untold billions of stars and galaxies and suns and solar systems and planets, including our own, and this sourceless mind fiddled with a number of particles to create a combination which could reproduce itself and evolve into all the stages of consciousness that we know of. Far-fetched? Yes, and I don’t believe it. But not believing is different from disbelieving.

Your problem about particles is that is the knowledge we have that the particles we know are in fixed relationships and you are proposing they were free to roam before assuming there roles in this universe. Are you referring to 'before' the Big bang? Being conscious and consciousness arise from standard molecules made from standard elements, which are the basic combinations of the 25 particles.

I suspect God did not have to fiddle with particles, but was very direct.

4815 views

"Summary: If a philosopher starts speaking about elementary particles, run."

DAVID's comment: Her blog is lots of fun. She always tells it like it is. I think God's consciousness runs the universe. Panpsychism simply steals from that idea.

dhw: As far as I know, Whitehead’s process theology is a mixture of panpsychism and pantheism and panentheism, and there is absolutely no reason why panpsychism in itself should exclude God. However, the atheistic version that I would propose for my bottom-up evolution of consciousness is that particles are forever forming new combinations, and in the course of eternity it is conceivable that eventually they will form one or more that will give rise to the most rudimentary forms of awareness. From these evolve all the stages of consciousness that we know of. So there isn't just one consciousness, but billions of individual consciousnesses. Far-fetched? Yes, and I don’t believe it. But not believing is different from disbelieving. An alternative is an immaterial conscious mind that was never formed but has always existed and created all the combinations of material particles (which it somehow created out of its immaterial self) that gave rise to untold billions of stars and galaxies and suns and solar systems and planets, including our own, and this sourceless mind fiddled with a number of particles to create a combination which could reproduce itself and evolve into all the stages of consciousness that we know of. Far-fetched? Yes, and I don’t believe it. But not believing is different from disbelieving.

DAVID: Your problem about particles is that is the knowledge we have that the particles we know are in fixed relationships and you are proposing they were free to roam before assuming there roles in this universe. Are you referring to 'before' the Big bang? Being conscious and consciousness arise from standard molecules made from standard elements, which are the basic combinations of the 25 particles.
I suspect God did not have to fiddle with particles, but was very direct.

I thought you were a dualist and believed that consciousness arose directly from your immaterial, non-particled God. I also thought that everything in the material universe consisted of particles. My science dictionary gives two definitions of the word, and I am using this one: “A general term broadly applied to atoms, molecules, ions, or whatever is being considered; ‘entity’ is another suitable term." In your scenario, I presume your eternal God created material particles out of himself and then put them together to create the material universe. I neither believe nor disbelieve it. In the atheistic scenario I have summarized, material particles have existed forever, and have forever been doing precisely what you think your God has been doing: putting themselves together to form different material combinations. If the Big Bang did take place, it would have been an event in an eternity of events. If your God can be eternal, so can an ever changing universe. I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

4800 views

DAVID: Your problem about particles is that is the knowledge we have that the particles we know are in fixed relationships and you are proposing they were free to roam before assuming there roles in this universe. Are you referring to 'before' the Big bang? Being conscious and consciousness arise from standard molecules made from standard elements, which are the basic combinations of the 25 particles.
I suspect God did not have to fiddle with particles, but was very direct.

dhw: I thought you were a dualist and believed that consciousness arose directly from your immaterial, non-particled God. I also thought that everything in the material universe consisted of particles. My science dictionary gives two definitions of the word, and I am using this one: “A general term broadly applied to atoms, molecules, ions, or whatever is being considered; ‘entity’ is another suitable term." In your scenario, I presume your eternal God created material particles out of himself and then put them together to create the material universe. I neither believe nor disbelieve it. In the atheistic scenario I have summarized, material particles have existed forever, and have forever been doing precisely what you think your God has been doing: putting themselves together to form different material combinations. If the Big Bang did take place, it would have been an event in an eternity of events. If your God can be eternal, so can an ever changing universe. I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

As far as particles are concerned, Hossenfelder was referring to the basic 25 particles of the standard model, nothing larger. You should have used her definition to understand my reply. I still do believe that the universe is an invention of God's mind and His consciousness fills it. Particles from the LHC have no volition but do as we tell them to do. The charges of the basic particles attract each other automatically but don't create designs. That was her point.

4797 views

DAVID: Your problem about particles is that is the knowledge we have that the particles we know are in fixed relationships and you are proposing they were free to roam before assuming there roles in this universe. Are you referring to 'before' the Big bang? Being conscious and consciousness arise from standard molecules made from standard elements, which are the basic combinations of the 25 particles.
I suspect God did not have to fiddle with particles, but was very direct.

dhw: I thought you were a dualist and believed that consciousness arose directly from your immaterial, non-particled God. I also thought that everything in the material universe consisted of particles. My science dictionary gives two definitions of the word, and I am using this one: “A general term broadly applied to atoms, molecules, ions, or whatever is being considered; ‘entity’ is another suitable term." In your scenario, I presume your eternal God created material particles out of himself and then put them together to create the material universe. I neither believe nor disbelieve it. In the atheistic scenario I have summarized, material particles have existed forever, and have forever been doing precisely what you think your God has been doing: putting themselves together to form different material combinations. If the Big Bang did take place, it would have been an event in an eternity of events. If your God can be eternal, so can an ever changing universe. I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

DAVID: As far as particles are concerned, Hossenfelder was referring to the basic 25 particles of the standard model, nothing larger. You should have used her definition to understand my reply. I still do believe that the universe is an invention of God's mind and His consciousness fills it. Particles from the LHC have no volition but do as we tell them to do. The charges of the basic particles attract each other automatically but don't create designs. That was her point.

If we are trying to delve into the secrets of the universe, why must we confine ourselves to Hossenfelder’s definition? What is wrong with the one I offered? I know what you believe, and I am simply offering an alternative, which I find no more and no less believable than your own. And I am still surprised that as a dualist you believe that “consciousness arises from standard molecules made from standard elements, which are the basic combinations of the 25 particles”. However, that would fit in with the atheistic version of panpsychism that I have suggested.

4812 views

DAVID: Your problem about particles is that is the knowledge we have that the particles we know are in fixed relationships and you are proposing they were free to roam before assuming there roles in this universe. Are you referring to 'before' the Big bang? Being conscious and consciousness arise from standard molecules made from standard elements, which are the basic combinations of the 25 particles.
I suspect God did not have to fiddle with particles, but was very direct.

dhw: I thought you were a dualist and believed that consciousness arose directly from your immaterial, non-particled God. I also thought that everything in the material universe consisted of particles. My science dictionary gives two definitions of the word, and I am using this one: “A general term broadly applied to atoms, molecules, ions, or whatever is being considered; ‘entity’ is another suitable term." In your scenario, I presume your eternal God created material particles out of himself and then put them together to create the material universe. I neither believe nor disbelieve it. In the atheistic scenario I have summarized, material particles have existed forever, and have forever been doing precisely what you think your God has been doing: putting themselves together to form different material combinations. If the Big Bang did take place, it would have been an event in an eternity of events. If your God can be eternal, so can an ever changing universe. I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

DAVID: As far as particles are concerned, Hossenfelder was referring to the basic 25 particles of the standard model, nothing larger. You should have used her definition to understand my reply. I still do believe that the universe is an invention of God's mind and His consciousness fills it. Particles from the LHC have no volition but do as we tell them to do. The charges of the basic particles attract each other automatically but don't create designs. That was her point.

dhw: If we are trying to delve into the secrets of the universe, why must we confine ourselves to Hossenfelder’s definition? What is wrong with the one I offered? I know what you believe, and I am simply offering an alternative, which I find no more and no less believable than your own. And I am still surprised that as a dualist you believe that “consciousness arises from standard molecules made from standard elements, which are the basic combinations of the 25 particles”. However, that would fit in with the atheistic version of panpsychism that I have suggested.

I'm a dualist . The sentence you quoted refers to the universe as based on the standard particles plus the ones we don't know know about for lack of power in the LHC. From that beginning of particles we find we have consciousness in humans and conscious animals, managed by God's design. For me your panpsychism is God's consciousness pervading the universe. The particles themselves are not conscious, but combined into matter act as receivers.

4856 views

dhw: If we are trying to delve into the secrets of the universe, why must we confine ourselves to Hossenfelder’s definition? What is wrong with the one I offered? I know what you believe, and I am simply offering an alternative, which I find no more and no less believable than your own. And I am still surprised that as a dualist you believe that “consciousness arises from standard molecules made from standard elements, which are the basic combinations of the 25 particles”. However, that would fit in with the atheistic version of panpsychism that I have suggested.

DAVID: I'm a dualist . The sentence you quoted refers to the universe as based on the standard particles plus the ones we don't know know about for lack of power in the LHC. From that beginning of particles we find we have consciousness in humans and conscious animals, managed by God's design. For me your panpsychism is God's consciousness pervading the universe. The particles themselves are not conscious, but combined into matter act as receivers.

Thank you for the clarification. Consciousness in your view, then, does NOT “arise from standard molecules etc.” The materialist view is that consciousness DOES arise from standard molecules etc. And nobody knows which version is true. As for panpsychism, it can fit in with your panentheism, or with an atheistic form of pantheism.

4907 views

dhw: If we are trying to delve into the secrets of the universe, why must we confine ourselves to Hossenfelder’s definition? What is wrong with the one I offered? I know what you believe, and I am simply offering an alternative, which I find no more and no less believable than your own. And I am still surprised that as a dualist you believe that “consciousness arises from standard molecules made from standard elements, which are the basic combinations of the 25 particles”. However, that would fit in with the atheistic version of panpsychism that I have suggested.

DAVID: I'm a dualist . The sentence you quoted refers to the universe as based on the standard particles plus the ones we don't know know about for lack of power in the LHC. From that beginning of particles we find we have consciousness in humans and conscious animals, managed by God's design. For me your panpsychism is God's consciousness pervading the universe. The particles themselves are not conscious, but combined into matter act as receivers.

Thank you for the clarification. Consciousness in your view, then, does NOT “arise from standard molecules etc.” The materialist view is that consciousness DOES arise from standard molecules etc. And nobody knows which version is true. As for panpsychism, it can fit in with your panentheism, or with an atheistic form of pantheism.

Agreed

4872 views

This approach generally describes a conscious universe in action:

https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life?u...

" In The Life of the Cosmos (1999), the physicist Lee Smolin has estimated that, taking into account all of the fine-tuning examples considered, the chance of life existing in the Universe is 1 in 10229, from which he concludes:
In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.

***

"If we combine holism with panpsychism, we get cosmopsychism: the view that the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself. This is the view I ultimately defend in Consciousness and Fundamental Reality.

***

The Canadian philosopher John Leslie proposed an intriguing explanation of the fine-tuning, which in Universes (1989) he called ‘axiarchism’. What strikes us as so incredible about the fine-tuning is that, of all the values the constants in our laws had, they ended up having exactly those values required for something of great value: life, and ultimately intelligent life. If the laws had not, against huge odds, been fine-tuned, the Universe would have had infinitely less value; some say it would have had no value at all. Leslie proposes that this proper understanding of the problem points us in the direction of the best solution: the laws are fine-tuned because their being so leads to something of great value. Leslie is not imagining a deity mediating between the facts of value and the cosmological facts; the facts of value, as it were, reach out and fix the values directly.

***

"But the cosmopsychist has a way of rendering axiarchism intelligible, by proposing that the mental capacities of the Universe mediate between value facts and cosmological facts. On this view, which we can call ‘agentive cosmopsychism’, the Universe itself fine-tuned the laws in response to considerations of value. When was this done? In the first 10-43 seconds, known as the Planck epoch, our current physical theories, in which the fine-tuned laws are embedded, break down. The cosmopsychist can propose that during this early stage of cosmological history, the Universe itself ‘chose’ the fine-tuned values in order to make possible a universe of value.

"Making sense of this requires two modifications to basic cosmopsychism. Firstly, we need to suppose that the Universe acts through a basic capacity to recognise and respond to considerations of value. This is very different from how we normally think about things, but it is consistent with everything we observe. The Scottish philosopher David Hume long ago noted that all we can really observe is how things behave – the underlying forces that give rise to those behaviours are invisible to us. We standardly assume that the Universe is powered by a number of non-rational causal capacities, but it is also possible that it is powered by the capacity of the Universe to respond to considerations of value.

***

"It is no less parsimonious to suppose that the Universe has a consciousness-involving nature than that it has some non-consciousness-involving nature. If anything, the former proposal is more parsimonious insofar as it is continuous with the only thing we really know about the nature of matter: that brains have consciousness.

***

"The idea that the Universe is a conscious mind that responds to value strikes us a ludicrously extravagant cartoon. But we must judge the view not on its cultural associations but on its explanatory power. Agentive cosmopsychism explains the fine-tuning without making false predictions; and it does so with a simplicity and elegance unmatched by its rivals. It is a view we should take seriously. (my bold)

Comment: I'm with my bold. To me this is ludicrously extravagant thesis to get rid of simply accepting that we have a conscious universe thru the agency of God's mind. Also I read Leslie differently. I think he is a theist. His conclusion was "much evidence exists that God is real and/or there exist vastly, many, very varied universes".

4712 views

QUOTE: "The idea that the Universe is a conscious mind that responds to value strikes us a ludicrously extravagant cartoon. But we must judge the view not on its cultural associations but on its explanatory power. Agentive cosmopsychism explains the fine-tuning without making false predictions; and it does so with a simplicity and elegance unmatched by its rivals. It is a view we should take seriously. (David’s bold)

DAVID: I'm with my bold. To me this is ludicrously extravagant thesis to get rid of simply accepting that we have a conscious universe thru the agency of God's mind. Also I read Leslie differently. I think he is a theist. His conclusion was "much evidence exists that God is real and/or there exist vastly, many, very varied universes".

This post rattles on about “value”. Perhaps there is a definition somewhere else in the article. Other authors talk of “meaning” or “purpose”. Without a definition, the first sentence containing your bold could be taken as a total dismissal of the concept of a God. If, however, “agentive cosmopsychism” is a euphemism for “God”, I would agree that so long as you shut your eyes to the problem of how an immaterial universal conscious mind can simply have been there for ever and ever, it is indeed simple and elegant, and I agree absolutely that it should be taken seriously. So, in my view, should the equally simple and elegant explanation that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses.

4686 views

QUOTE: "The idea that the Universe is a conscious mind that responds to value strikes us a ludicrously extravagant cartoon. But we must judge the view not on its cultural associations but on its explanatory power. Agentive cosmopsychism explains the fine-tuning without making false predictions; and it does so with a simplicity and elegance unmatched by its rivals. It is a view we should take seriously. (David’s bold)

DAVID: I'm with my bold. To me this is ludicrously extravagant thesis to get rid of simply accepting that we have a conscious universe thru the agency of God's mind. Also I read Leslie differently. I think he is a theist. His conclusion was "much evidence exists that God is real and/or there exist vastly, many, very varied universes".

dhw: This post rattles on about “value”. Perhaps there is a definition somewhere else in the article. Other authors talk of “meaning” or “purpose”. Without a definition, the first sentence containing your bold could be taken as a total dismissal of the concept of a God. If, however, “agentive cosmopsychism” is a euphemism for “God”, I would agree that so long as you shut your eyes to the problem of how an immaterial universal conscious mind can simply have been there for ever and ever, it is indeed simple and elegant, and I agree absolutely that it should be taken seriously. So, in my view, should the equally simple and elegant explanation that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses.

I like to present all sorts of views in areas of thought that we do not fully understand. Granted this was a nutty one. But I find your bolded response just as unreasonable, assuming the immaterial (consciousness) can arise all by itself from the material. There has to be agency of some sort in the background. I've chosen God.

4669 views

dhw: This post rattles on about “value”. Perhaps there is a definition somewhere else in the article. Other authors talk of “meaning” or “purpose”. Without a definition, the first sentence containing your bold could be taken as a total dismissal of the concept of a God. If, however, “agentive cosmopsychism” is a euphemism for “God”, I would agree that so long as you shut your eyes to the problem of how an immaterial universal conscious mind can simply have been there for ever and ever, it is indeed simple and elegant, and I agree absolutely that it should be taken seriously. So, in my view, should the equally simple and elegant explanation that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses. (David's bold)

DAVID: I like to present all sorts of views in areas of thought that we do not fully understand. Granted this was a nutty one. But I find your bolded response just as unreasonable, assuming the immaterial (consciousness) can arise all by itself from the material. There has to be agency of some sort in the background. I've chosen God.

Of course you find it unreasonable. But it is just as simple and elegant as the (in my view) equally unreasonable claim that there is an unknown immaterial universal consciousness that has been there for ever and ever…

4697 views

dhw: This post rattles on about “value”. Perhaps there is a definition somewhere else in the article. Other authors talk of “meaning” or “purpose”. Without a definition, the first sentence containing your bold could be taken as a total dismissal of the concept of a God. If, however, “agentive cosmopsychism” is a euphemism for “God”, I would agree that so long as you shut your eyes to the problem of how an immaterial universal conscious mind can simply have been there for ever and ever, it is indeed simple and elegant, and I agree absolutely that it should be taken seriously. So, in my view, should the equally simple and elegant explanation that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses. (David's bold)

DAVID: I like to present all sorts of views in areas of thought that we do not fully understand. Granted this was a nutty one. But I find your bolded response just as unreasonable, assuming the immaterial (consciousness) can arise all by itself from the material. There has to be agency of some sort in the background. I've chosen God.

dhw: Of course you find it unreasonable. But it is just as simple and elegant as the (in my view) equally unreasonable claim that there is an unknown immaterial universal consciousness that has been there for ever and ever…

Coming out of inorganic matter, life seems to be a miracle. The appearance of human consciousness is another miracle. " an unknown immaterial universal consciousness that has been there for ever and ever…" is not unreasonable to explain the miracles.

4662 views

dhw: This post rattles on about “value”. Perhaps there is a definition somewhere else in the article. Other authors talk of “meaning” or “purpose”. Without a definition, the first sentence containing your bold could be taken as a total dismissal of the concept of a God. If, however, “agentive cosmopsychism” is a euphemism for “God”, I would agree that so long as you shut your eyes to the problem of how an immaterial universal conscious mind can simply have been there for ever and ever, it is indeed simple and elegant, and I agree absolutely that it should be taken seriously. So, in my view, should the equally simple and elegant explanation that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses. (David's bold)

DAVID: I like to present all sorts of views in areas of thought that we do not fully understand. Granted this was a nutty one. But I find your bolded response just as unreasonable, assuming the immaterial (consciousness) can arise all by itself from the material. There has to be agency of some sort in the background. I've chosen God.

dhw: Of course you find it unreasonable. But it is just as simple and elegant as the (in my view) equally unreasonable claim that there is an unknown immaterial universal consciousness that has been there for ever and ever…

DAVID: Coming out of inorganic matter, life seems to be a miracle. The appearance of human consciousness is another miracle. "an unknown immaterial universal consciousness that has been there for ever and ever…" is not unreasonable to explain the miracles.

In that case it is not unreasonable to argue that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses.

4674 views

dhw: This post rattles on about “value”. Perhaps there is a definition somewhere else in the article. Other authors talk of “meaning” or “purpose”. Without a definition, the first sentence containing your bold could be taken as a total dismissal of the concept of a God. If, however, “agentive cosmopsychism” is a euphemism for “God”, I would agree that so long as you shut your eyes to the problem of how an immaterial universal conscious mind can simply have been there for ever and ever, it is indeed simple and elegant, and I agree absolutely that it should be taken seriously. So, in my view, should the equally simple and elegant explanation that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses. (David's bold)

DAVID: I like to present all sorts of views in areas of thought that we do not fully understand. Granted this was a nutty one. But I find your bolded response just as unreasonable, assuming the immaterial (consciousness) can arise all by itself from the material. There has to be agency of some sort in the background. I've chosen God.

dhw: Of course you find it unreasonable. But it is just as simple and elegant as the (in my view) equally unreasonable claim that there is an unknown immaterial universal consciousness that has been there for ever and ever…

DAVID: Coming out of inorganic matter, life seems to be a miracle. The appearance of human consciousness is another miracle. "an unknown immaterial universal consciousness that has been there for ever and ever…" is not unreasonable to explain the miracles.

dhw: In that case it is not unreasonable to argue that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses.

Wishful thinking. Life must appear first for consciousness to occur, and you assume it was spontaneous. You have faith in the powers of infinity. Fine tuning looks certainly like a designed process.

4661 views

DAVID: Coming out of inorganic matter, life seems to be a miracle. The appearance of human consciousness is another miracle. "an unknown immaterial universal consciousness that has been there for ever and ever…" is not unreasonable to explain the miracles.

dhw: In that case it is not unreasonable to argue that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses.

DAVID: Wishful thinking. Life must appear first for consciousness to occur, and you assume it was spontaneous. You have faith in the powers of infinity. Fine tuning looks certainly like a designed process.

"Life must appear first for consciousness to occur", and yet consciousness created life. And you assume that consciousness was always there but it wasn’t there until consciousness created it. You have faith in the powers of topsy-turvy. But yes, fine tuning looks like a designed process, and I do not have faith in the powers of infinity. I consider both “first causes” to be equally reasonable/unreasonable. For some reason you keep forgetting that I am an agnostic.

4717 views

DAVID: Coming out of inorganic matter, life seems to be a miracle. The appearance of human consciousness is another miracle. "an unknown immaterial universal consciousness that has been there for ever and ever…" is not unreasonable to explain the miracles.

dhw: In that case it is not unreasonable to argue that in an eternity and infinity of matter and energy forming new combinations, eventually there will be one that engenders rudimentary consciousness from which may evolve greater and greater consciousnesses.

DAVID: Wishful thinking. Life must appear first for consciousness to occur, and you assume it was spontaneous. You have faith in the powers of infinity. Fine tuning looks certainly like a designed process.

dhw: "Life must appear first for consciousness to occur", and yet consciousness created life. And you assume that consciousness was always there but it wasn’t there until consciousness created it. You have faith in the powers of topsy-turvy. But yes, fine tuning looks like a designed process, and I do not have faith in the powers of infinity. I consider both “first causes” to be equally reasonable/unreasonable. For some reason you keep forgetting that I am an agnostic.

I fully remember you are an agnostic. An ever-present God with consciousness as a starting point is only topsy-turvy if God is impossible to accept as the originator, which is your implacable position

4660 views

DAVID: Wishful thinking. Life must appear first for consciousness to occur, and you assume it was spontaneous. You have faith in the powers of infinity. Fine tuning looks certainly like a designed process.

dhw: "Life must appear first for consciousness to occur", and yet consciousness created life. And you assume that consciousness was always there but it wasn’t there until consciousness created it. You have faith in the powers of topsy-turvy. But yes, fine tuning looks like a designed process, and I do not have faith in the powers of infinity. I consider both “first causes” to be equally reasonable/unreasonable. For some reason you keep forgetting that I am an agnostic.

DAVID: I fully remember you are an agnostic. An ever-present God with consciousness as a starting point is only topsy-turvy if God is impossible to accept as the originator, which is your implacable position.

I do not have an implacable position. I find both “first causes” equally reasonable/unreasonable, but one of them must be right. I can't decide which one. Topsy-turvy refers to your argument that life must appear first for consciousness to appear, but consciousness created life.

4645 views

DAVID: Wishful thinking. Life must appear first for consciousness to occur, and you assume it was spontaneous. You have faith in the powers of infinity. Fine tuning looks certainly like a designed process.

dhw: "Life must appear first for consciousness to occur", and yet consciousness created life. And you assume that consciousness was always there but it wasn’t there until consciousness created it. You have faith in the powers of topsy-turvy. But yes, fine tuning looks like a designed process, and I do not have faith in the powers of infinity. I consider both “first causes” to be equally reasonable/unreasonable. For some reason you keep forgetting that I am an agnostic.

DAVID: I fully remember you are an agnostic. An ever-present God with consciousness as a starting point is only topsy-turvy if God is impossible to accept as the originator, which is your implacable position.

dhw: I do not have an implacable position. I find both “first causes” equally reasonable/unreasonable, but one of them must be right. I can't decide which one. Topsy-turvy refers to your argument that life must appear first for consciousness to appear, but consciousness created life.

You will remember my contention that consciousness cannot appear from nothing. Human consciousness requires the appearance first of a human brain that can contain it or have the ability to receive it. I do not think that our human brain invented consciousness. You may consider a first cause God as topsy-turvy but I don't

4661 views

dhw: I find both “first causes” equally reasonable/unreasonable, but one of them must be right. I can't decide which one. Topsy-turvy refers to your argument that life must appear first for consciousness to appear, but consciousness created life.

DAVID: You will remember my contention that consciousness cannot appear from nothing. Human consciousness requires the appearance first of a human brain that can contain it or have the ability to receive it. I do not think that our human brain invented consciousness. You may consider a first cause God as topsy-turvy but I don't.

I do not consider a first cause God as topsy-turvy! Please reread what I said was topsy-turvy (now bolded). I agree that consciousness cannot appear from nothing, and that is why it is so difficult to conceive of consciousness that never had a source (= your God). I suspect most of us would agree that human consciousness is difficult to imagine without there being a human brain – but that is precisely where the dualism versus materialism debate begins; is the brain the receiver/container, or is it the source of our consciousness? I don’t have an answer. But I would regard it as patently absurd to say that the human brain invented consciousness, because in my view there were millions of life forms before us that possessed a degree of consciousness and, as you well know, there are some highly reputable scientists who are convinced that these include bacteria. (NB: The meaning of "consciousness" should not be confined to the degree of self-awareness attained by humans.)

4637 views

dhw: I find both “first causes” equally reasonable/unreasonable, but one of them must be right. I can't decide which one. Topsy-turvy refers to your argument that life must appear first for consciousness to appear, but consciousness created life.

DAVID: You will remember my contention that consciousness cannot appear from nothing. Human consciousness requires the appearance first of a human brain that can contain it or have the ability to receive it. I do not think that our human brain invented consciousness. You may consider a first cause God as topsy-turvy but I don't.

dhw: I do not consider a first cause God as topsy-turvy! Please reread what I said was topsy-turvy (now bolded). I agree that consciousness cannot appear from nothing, and that is why it is so difficult to conceive of consciousness that never had a source (= your God). I suspect most of us would agree that human consciousness is difficult to imagine without there being a human brain – but that is precisely where the dualism versus materialism debate begins; is the brain the receiver/container, or is it the source of our consciousness? I don’t have an answer. But I would regard it as patently absurd to say that the human brain invented consciousness, because in my view there were millions of life forms before us that possessed a degree of consciousness and, as you well know, there are some highly reputable scientists who are convinced that these include bacteria. (NB: The meaning of "consciousness" should not be confined to the degree of self-awareness attained by humans.)

I didn't say God was topsy-turvy. You understand my position full well as your further discussion shows. God (consciousness) first. Life next. Then a brain to receive consciousness. In my discussions of human consciousness that is the self-aware, conceptual consciousness of most importance. Other organisms have conscious awareness but not that deeper layer that makes the 'hard problem" for human consciousness to be fully understood as to its origin. In our discussions why do you constantly try to skirt around it? Humans are different in kind! And that concept bothers you!

4667 views

DAVID: I didn't say God was topsy-turvy.

Of course you didn’t. You said I regarded a first cause God as topsy-turvy. I don’t. I wrote: Topsy-turvy refers to your argument that life must appear first for consciousness to appear, but consciousness created life.

DAVID: You understand my position full well as your further discussion shows. God (consciousness) first. Life next. Then a brain to receive consciousness. In my discussions of human consciousness that is the self-aware, conceptual consciousness of most importance. Other organisms have conscious awareness but not that deeper layer that makes the 'hard problem" for human consciousness to be fully understood as to its origin. In our discussions why do you constantly try to skirt around it? Humans are different in kind! And that concept bothers you!

Yes, I understand your position. A counter position is life and brain or brain equivalent first, with the latter engendering consciousness. I have no trouble accepting that HUMAN consciousness is the self-aware conceptual consciousness, and that is why I wrote: NB: The meaning of "consciousness" should not be confined to the degree of self-awareness attained by humans.) That is hardly “skirting round” anything. As you already know, I accept that we are different species (“in kind”) from the rest, but I believe that although human consciousness has reached a vastly higher level than that of our fellow animals, it has still evolved from consciousnesses of lesser degree. I don't know why you have switched the subject away from the reasonableness/unreasonableness of the alternative first causes to a subject we have already discussed ad nauseam.

4658 views

DAVID: I didn't say God was topsy-turvy.

dhw: Of course you didn’t. You said I regarded a first cause God as topsy-turvy. I don’t. I wrote: Topsy-turvy refers to your argument that life must appear first for consciousness to appear, but consciousness created life.

DAVID: You understand my position full well as your further discussion shows. God (consciousness) first. Life next. Then a brain to receive consciousness. In my discussions of human consciousness that is the self-aware, conceptual consciousness of most importance. Other organisms have conscious awareness but not that deeper layer that makes the 'hard problem" for human consciousness to be fully understood as to its origin. In our discussions why do you constantly try to skirt around it? Humans are different in kind! And that concept bothers you!

dhw: Yes, I understand your position. A counter position is life and brain or brain equivalent first, with the latter engendering consciousness. I have no trouble accepting that HUMAN consciousness is the self-aware conceptual consciousness, and that is why I wrote: NB: The meaning of "consciousness" should not be confined to the degree of self-awareness attained by humans.) That is hardly “skirting round” anything. As you already know, I accept that we are different species (“in kind”) from the rest, but I believe that although human consciousness has reached a vastly higher level than that of our fellow animals, it has still evolved from consciousnesses of lesser degree. I don't know why you have switched the subject away from the reasonableness/unreasonableness of the alternative first causes to a subject we have already discussed ad nauseam.

I do not accept your contention our consciousness "has still evolved from consciousnesses of lesser degree." What preceded our 'consciousness' were 'conscious' beings without introspection. That is what difference in kind means although you say you accept the different in kind concept. The two words present the reality of the vast gulf of function between them. I view this 'gap' as equivalent to the Cambrian explosion gap.

4642 views

DAVID: You understand my position full well as your further discussion shows. God (consciousness) first. Life next. Then a brain to receive consciousness. In my discussions of human consciousness that is the self-aware, conceptual consciousness of most importance. Other organisms have conscious awareness but not that deeper layer that makes the 'hard problem" for human consciousness to be fully understood as to its origin. In our discussions why do you constantly try to skirt around it? Humans are different in kind! And that concept bothers you!

dhw: Yes, I understand your position. A counter position is life and brain or brain equivalent first, with the latter engendering consciousness. I have no trouble accepting that HUMAN consciousness is the self-aware conceptual consciousness, and that is why I wrote: NB: The meaning of "consciousness" should not be confined to the degree of self-awareness attained by humans. That is hardly “skirting round” anything. As you already know, I accept that we are different species (“in kind”) from the rest, but I believe that although human consciousness has reached a vastly higher level than that of our fellow animals, it has still evolved from consciousnesses of lesser degree. I don't know why you have switched the subject away from the reasonableness/unreasonableness of the alternative first causes to a subject we have already discussed ad nauseam.

DAVID: I do not accept your contention our consciousness "has still evolved from consciousnesses of lesser degree." What preceded our 'consciousness' were 'conscious' beings without introspection.

Agreed. They have consciousness too, but ours has reached “a vastly higher level”.

DAVID: That is what difference in kind means although you say you accept the different in kind concept. The two words present the reality of the vast gulf of function between them. I view this 'gap' as equivalent to the Cambrian explosion gap.

My “vastly higher level” means the same as your “vast gulf of function”, but I see it as a level, and you see it as a gap. I contend that our consciousness has evolved from earlier consciousnesses, and although you claim to believe in common descent, you contend that your God specially designed our advanced consciousness (or specially designed the H. sapiens brain to receive and contain it). We established our different views long ago, so why are you still flogging the dead horse? The subject of this thread is panpsychism, and the relative reasonableness or unreasonableness of the alternative “first causes”.

4664 views

DAVID: You understand my position full well as your further discussion shows. God (consciousness) first. Life next. Then a brain to receive consciousness. In my discussions of human consciousness that is the self-aware, conceptual consciousness of most importance. Other organisms have conscious awareness but not that deeper layer that makes the 'hard problem" for human consciousness to be fully understood as to its origin. In our discussions why do you constantly try to skirt around it? Humans are different in kind! And that concept bothers you!

dhw: Yes, I understand your position. A counter position is life and brain or brain equivalent first, with the latter engendering consciousness. I have no trouble accepting that HUMAN consciousness is the self-aware conceptual consciousness, and that is why I wrote: NB: The meaning of "consciousness" should not be confined to the degree of self-awareness attained by humans. That is hardly “skirting round” anything. As you already know, I accept that we are different species (“in kind”) from the rest, but I believe that although human consciousness has reached a vastly higher level than that of our fellow animals, it has still evolved from consciousnesses of lesser degree. I don't know why you have switched the subject away from the reasonableness/unreasonableness of the alternative first causes to a subject we have already discussed ad nauseam.

DAVID: I do not accept your contention our consciousness "has still evolved from consciousnesses of lesser degree." What preceded our 'consciousness' were 'conscious' beings without introspection.

Agreed. They have consciousness too, but ours has reached “a vastly higher level”.

DAVID: That is what difference in kind means although you say you accept the different in kind concept. The two words present the reality of the vast gulf of function between them. I view this 'gap' as equivalent to the Cambrian explosion gap.

dhw: My “vastly higher level” means the same as your “vast gulf of function”, but I see it as a level, and you see it as a gap. I contend that our consciousness has evolved from earlier consciousnesses, and although you claim to believe in common descent, you contend that your God specially designed our advanced consciousness (or specially designed the H. sapiens brain to receive and contain it). We established our different views long ago, so why are you still flogging the dead horse? The subject of this thread is panpsychism, and the relative reasonableness or unreasonableness of the alternative “first causes”.

I have always followed the Kalem principal: the universe appears from the Big Bang theory to have been created. What is created must have a first cause. I chose God.

4674 views

dhw: The subject of this thread is panpsychism, and the relative reasonableness or unreasonableness of the alternative “first causes”.

DAVID: I have always followed the Kalem principal: the universe appears from the Big Bang theory to have been created. What is created must have a first cause. I chose God.

I know you did. And I find your choice of an eternal, sourceless, all-knowing, conscious, top-down creative mind no more reasonable/unreasonable than the choice of an eternal and infinite universe (something must have preceded the Big Bang, if it happened) eternally producing energy and matter in an infinite number of combinations until there is one that leads to a rudimentary consciousness which develops bottom-up into life and evolution. I guess that sums it up!

4622 views

dhw: The subject of this thread is panpsychism, and the relative reasonableness or unreasonableness of the alternative “first causes”.

DAVID: I have always followed the Kalem principal: the universe appears from the Big Bang theory to have been created. What is created must have a first cause. I chose God.

dhw: I know you did. And I find your choice of an eternal, sourceless, all-knowing, conscious, top-down creative mind no more reasonable/unreasonable than the choice of an eternal and infinite universe (something must have preceded the Big Bang, if it happened) eternally producing energy and matter in an infinite number of combinations until there is one that leads to a rudimentary consciousness which develops bottom-up into life and evolution. I guess that sums it up!

Yes.

4628 views

Plants to not think, they just grow:

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-dont-case-consciousness.html

"'Feinberg and Mallatt concluded that only vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods possess the threshold brain structure for consciousness. And if there are animals that don't have consciousness, then you can be pretty confident that plants, which don't even have neurons—let alone brains—don't have it either," says Lincoln Taiz, Professor Emeritus of molecular, cell, and developmental biology at University of California at Santa Cruz.

***

"'The biggest danger of anthropomorphizing plants in research is that it undermines the objectivity of the researcher," Taiz says. "What we've seen is that plants and animals evolved very different life strategies. The brain is very expensive organ, and there's absolutely no advantage to the plant to have a highly developed nervous system."

"Plant neurobiology proponents draw parallels between electrical signaling in plants and nervous systems in animals. But Taiz and his co-authors argue that the proponents draw this parallel by describing the brain as something no more complex than a sponge. The Feinberg-Mallatt model of consciousness, by contrast, describes a specific level of organizational complexity of the brain that is required for subjective experience.

"Plants use electrical signals in two ways: to regulate the distribution of charged molecules across membranes and to send messages long-distance across the organism. In the former, a plant's leaves might curl up because the movement of ions resulted in movement of water out of the cells, which changes their shape; and in the latter, an insect bite on one leaf might initiate defense responses of distant leaves. Both actions can appear like a plant is choosing to react to a stimulus, but Taiz and his co-authors emphasize that these responses are genetically encoded and have been fine-tuned through generations of natural selection.

"'I feel a special responsibility to take a public position because I'm a co-author of a plant physiology textbook," he says. "I know a lot of people in the plant neurobiology community would like to see their field in the textbooks, but so far, there are just too many unanswered questions.'"

Comment: I agree. Consciousness is not everywhere. Plants have intelligently designed responses to stimuli, just as bacteria do.

3292 views

Another similar review:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/these-scientists-don-t-think-plants-think?utm_source...

"The idea that plants might be conscious has found renewed vigour since a 2006 paper heralded the arrival of a new subfield of botany known as plant neurobiology (PN).

"PN researchers have argued that there are parallels between electrical signalling in plants and the nervous systems of animals, and even for a botanical equivalent of the nervous system based around hormones belonging to the auxin class acting like neurotransmitters. They hold that plants have intelligence, intention and can even learn. Some have revived Darwin’s idea that a root tip is a “brain-like command centre”.

"But these ideas have not been received enormously well. Indeed, one of the authors of the current paper was among the many scientists to sign a letter published in 2007 arguing that plant neurobiology was a field without a subject of study: that is, plants simply don’t have neurobiology.

"That author, Lincoln Taiz of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, along with seven other colleagues from various international institutions, has now published a critical review of the state of play of the field of plant neurobiology. And the title says it all: “Plants neither possess nor require consciousness.”

"Taiz and colleagues survey several problems with PN, from the philosophical to the experimental. They argue that plant behaviour, initiated by internal electrical signalling, which is used, in part, for messaging across the large distances of the organism, are genetically preprogramed.
Recommended

"For plants, constant vigilance comes at reproductive cost

"These behaviours have been mistakenly anthropomorphised, understood by projecting human traits on to non-human organisms, by PN researchers. In seeing something human in a plant’s reactions, advocates of PN have erroneously concluded that plants must have intention, intelligence and consciousness. The danger of this, says Taiz, “is that it undermines the objectivity of the researcher”.

"Similarly, they dismiss, or more carefully parse, the significance of a number of key experimental findings in the field, concluding that much of PN’s empirical backing is far more equivocal that advocates admit.

***

“'Recently,” write Taiz and his co-authors, “Todd E. Feinberg and Jon M. Mallatt conducted a broad survey of the anatomical, neurophysiological, behavioural, and evolutionary literature from which they were able to derive a consensus set of principles that allowed them to hypothesise how and when primary consciousness, the most basic type of sensory experience, evolved.”

"Based on their research “Feinberg and Mallatt concluded that the only animals that satisfied their criteria for consciousness were the vertebrates (including fish), arthropods (e.g., insects, crabs), and cephalopods (e.g., octopuses, squids).”

"Plants, notably, do feature on this list.

"This leads Taiz to conclude that “if there are animals that don't have consciousness, then you can be pretty confident that plants, which don't even have neurons – let alone brains – don't have it either.'”

Comment: Same conclusion: consciousness comes with a brain.

3292 views

QUOTE: "'The biggest danger of anthropomorphizing plants in research is that it undermines the objectivity of the researcher," Taiz says. "What we've seen is that plants and animals evolved very different life strategies. The brain is very expensive organ, and there's absolutely no advantage to the plant to have a highly developed nervous system."

DAVID: I agree. Consciousness is not everywhere. Plants have intelligently designed responses to stimuli, just as bacteria do.

QUOTE: "This leads Taiz to conclude that “if there are animals that don't have consciousness, then you can be pretty confident that plants, which don't even have neurons – let alone brains – don't have it either.'”

DAVID: Same conclusion: consciousness comes with a brain.

The biggest danger to objectivity is the assumption that human consciousness is the only form of consciousness. (I prefer the term “intelligence”, as it avoids confusion with human self-awareness.) If we take consciousness to be a synonym of awareness, and if our criteria for awareness include sentience, communication, decision-making, then it is clearly absurd to assume that plants and bacteria are NOT conscious. Your own explanation for the appearance of consciousness is that your God preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single manifestation of these attributes. I wonder where these researchers think the “programmes” came from. Meanwhile, you yourself believe it to be possible that your God is plasma, or pure energy. Do plasma/pure energy have a brain? If we rid ourselves of our prejudices, and judge solely by the behaviour of plants and bacteria, there is no way we can exclude the possibility that they have their own particular, non-human form of intelligence. But that does NOT mean anthropomorphizing them.

QUOTE (FROM “LIVER STUDY”): "Our results suggest that liver cells and sinusoids, which are the smallest blood vessels in the body, communicate with each other in both directions: The blood vessels instruct the hepatocytes and the hepatocytes send signals back to the blood vessels to establish and preserve the liquid-crystal order. This bi-directional communication is a central part of the self-organization of liver tissue."

Communication and self-organization are attributes of intelligence. As always, I propose that these processes are now automatic (until things go wrong), but the cell communities themselves would have used their perhaps God-given intelligence to set up the system in the first place.

3291 views

QUOTE: "'The biggest danger of anthropomorphizing plants in research is that it undermines the objectivity of the researcher," Taiz says. "What we've seen is that plants and animals evolved very different life strategies. The brain is very expensive organ, and there's absolutely no advantage to the plant to have a highly developed nervous system."

DAVID: I agree. Consciousness is not everywhere. Plants have intelligently designed responses to stimuli, just as bacteria do.

QUOTE: "This leads Taiz to conclude that “if there are animals that don't have consciousness, then you can be pretty confident that plants, which don't even have neurons – let alone brains – don't have it either.'”

DAVID: Same conclusion: consciousness comes with a brain.

dhw: The biggest danger to objectivity is the assumption that human consciousness is the only form of consciousness. (I prefer the term “intelligence”, as it avoids confusion with human self-awareness.) If we take consciousness to be a synonym of awareness, and if our criteria for awareness include sentience, communication, decision-making, then it is clearly absurd to assume that plants and bacteria are NOT conscious.

The absurdity is your changing the definition of consciousness to intelligence. True human consciousness implies self-awareness as part of the concept of human awareness. Non-human aware states of reality are conscious, but do not have consciousness.

dhw: Your own explanation for the appearance of consciousness is that your God preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single manifestation of these attributes. I wonder where these researchers think the “programmes” came from. Meanwhile, you yourself believe it to be possible that your God is plasma, or pure energy. Do plasma/pure energy have a brain? If we rid ourselves of our prejudices, and judge solely by the behaviour of plants and bacteria, there is no way we can exclude the possibility that they have their own particular, non-human form of intelligence. But that does NOT mean anthropomorphizing them.

Apparent 'intelligence' can be automatic intelligently designed programs as Taiz notes.

QUOTE (FROM “LIVER STUDY”): "Our results suggest that liver cells and sinusoids, which are the smallest blood vessels in the body, communicate with each other in both directions: The blood vessels instruct the hepatocytes and the hepatocytes send signals back to the blood vessels to establish and preserve the liquid-crystal order. This bi-directional communication is a central part of the self-organization of liver tissue."

dhw: Communication and self-organization are attributes of intelligence. As always, I propose that these processes are now automatic (until things go wrong), but the cell communities themselves would have used their perhaps God-given intelligence to set up the system in the first place.

God gave them intelligent instructions to follow. They do not have their own innate intelligence.

3293 views

dhw: The biggest danger to objectivity is the assumption that human consciousness is the only form of consciousness. (I prefer the term “intelligence”, as it avoids confusion with human self-awareness.) If we take consciousness to be a synonym of awareness, and if our criteria for awareness include sentience, communication, decision-making, then it is clearly absurd to assume that plants and bacteria are NOT conscious.

DAVID: The absurdity is your changing the definition of consciousness to intelligence. True human consciousness implies self-awareness as part of the concept of human awareness. Non-human aware states of reality are conscious, but do not have consciousness.

I have defined consciousness as awareness, not as intelligence (which includes consciousness but includes other attributes as well), and you have fallen into the very trap which I wished to avoid! Human consciousness includes self-awareness. My point is that there are other forms and levels of consciousness/awareness. I cannot see any distinction between being conscious/aware and having consciousness/awareness. There are massive distinctions, however, between levels of consciousness/awareness.

dhw: Your own explanation for the appearance of consciousness is that your God preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single manifestation of these attributes. I wonder where these researchers think the “programmes” came from. Meanwhile, you yourself believe it to be possible that your God is plasma, or pure energy. Do plasma/pure energy have a brain? If we rid ourselves of our prejudices, and judge solely by the behaviour of plants and bacteria, there is no way we can exclude the possibility that they have their own particular, non-human form of intelligence. But that does NOT mean anthropomorphizing them.

DAVID: Apparent 'intelligence' can be automatic intelligently designed programs as Taiz notes.

Though he doesn’t say where the programmes come from. Thank you for using “can be”. My point is that apparent intelligence can be real intelligence, and many scientists believe that it is.

QUOTE (FROM “LIVER STUDY”): "Our results suggest that liver cells and sinusoids, which are the smallest blood vessels in the body, communicate with each other in both directions: The blood vessels instruct the hepatocytes and the hepatocytes send signals back to the blood vessels to establish and preserve the liquid-crystal order. This bi-directional communication is a central part of the self-organization of liver tissue."

dhw: Communication and self-organization are attributes of intelligence. As always, I propose that these processes are now automatic (until things go wrong), but the cell communities themselves would have used their perhaps God-given intelligence to set up the system in the first place.

DAVID: God gave them intelligent instructions to follow. They do not have their own innate intelligence.

Stated with absolute authority, but many scientists disagree with you.

3275 views

dhw: The biggest danger to objectivity is the assumption that human consciousness is the only form of consciousness. (I prefer the term “intelligence”, as it avoids confusion with human self-awareness.) If we take consciousness to be a synonym of awareness, and if our criteria for awareness include sentience, communication, decision-making, then it is clearly absurd to assume that plants and bacteria are NOT conscious.

DAVID: The absurdity is your changing the definition of consciousness to intelligence. True human consciousness implies self-awareness as part of the concept of human awareness. Non-human aware states of reality are conscious, but do not have consciousness.

dhw: I have defined consciousness as awareness, not as intelligence (which includes consciousness but includes other attributes as well), and you have fallen into the very trap which I wished to avoid! Human consciousness includes self-awareness. My point is that there are other forms and levels of consciousness/awareness. I cannot see any distinction between being conscious/aware and having consciousness/awareness. There are massive distinctions, however, between levels of consciousness/awareness.

I do not believe in your definitions. Human consciousness would not be the'hard problem' under your approach if applied to humans. Animals are conscious and aware at various levels but there is a vast difference in the two levels.

dhw: Your own explanation for the appearance of consciousness is that your God preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single manifestation of these attributes. I wonder where these researchers think the “programmes” came from. Meanwhile, you yourself believe it to be possible that your God is plasma, or pure energy. Do plasma/pure energy have a brain? If we rid ourselves of our prejudices, and judge solely by the behaviour of plants and bacteria, there is no way we can exclude the possibility that they have their own particular, non-human form of intelligence. But that does NOT mean anthropomorphizing them.

DAVID: Apparent 'intelligence' can be automatic intelligently designed programs as Taiz notes.

dhw: Though he doesn’t say where the programmes come from. Thank you for using “can be”. My point is that apparent intelligence can be real intelligence, and many scientists believe that it is.

And my point is from the outside they look intelligent, but are simply programmed.

QUOTE (FROM “LIVER STUDY”): "Our results suggest that liver cells and sinusoids, which are the smallest blood vessels in the body, communicate with each other in both directions: The blood vessels instruct the hepatocytes and the hepatocytes send signals back to the blood vessels to establish and preserve the liquid-crystal order. This bi-directional communication is a central part of the self-organization of liver tissue."

dhw: Communication and self-organization are attributes of intelligence. As always, I propose that these processes are now automatic (until things go wrong), but the cell communities themselves would have used their perhaps God-given intelligence to set up the system in the first place.

DAVID: God gave them intelligent instructions to follow. They do not have their own innate intelligence.

dhw: Stated with absolute authority, but many scientists disagree with you.

You have three/four on your side. ID has hundreds.

3286 views

dhw: The biggest danger to objectivity is the assumption that human consciousness is the only form of consciousness. (I prefer the term “intelligence”, as it avoids confusion with human self-awareness.) If we take consciousness to be a synonym of awareness, and if our criteria for awareness include sentience, communication, decision-making, then it is clearly absurd to assume that plants and bacteria are NOT conscious. […] Human consciousness includes self-awareness.My point is that there are other forms and levels of consciousness/awareness[...] There are massive distinctions, however, between levels of consciousness/awareness.

DAVID: I do not believe in your definitions. Human consciousness would not be the'hard problem' under your approach if applied to humans. Animals are conscious and aware at various levels but there is a vast difference in the two levels.

You do not believe that consciousness = awareness? Then please give us your own definition. The rest of your comment is a direct repetition of my own (now bolded). Thank you for your agreement.

dhw: If we rid ourselves of our prejudices, and judge solely by the behaviour of plants and bacteria, there is no way we can exclude the possibility that they have their own particular, non-human form of intelligence. But that does NOT mean anthropomorphizing them.

DAVID: Apparent 'intelligence' can be automatic intelligently designed programs as Taiz notes.

dhw: Though he doesn’t say where the programmes come from. Thank you for using “can be”. My point is that apparent intelligence can be real intelligence, and many scientists believe that it is.

DAVID: And my point is from the outside they look intelligent, but are simply programmed.

I know that is your belief. And you believe your God personally dabbled every new action of plants and bacteria, or preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago. And all the time, his one and only aim was to specially design H. sapiens! Maybe he simply gave them the intelligence to work it all out for themselves,

dhw: (re “Liver study”) Communication and self-organization are attributes of intelligence. As always, I propose that these processes are now automatic (until things go wrong), but the cell communities themselves would have used their perhaps God-given intelligence to set up the system in the first place.

DAVID: God gave them intelligent instructions to follow. They do not have their own innate intelligence.

dhw: Stated with absolute authority, but many scientists disagree with you.

DAVID: You have three/four on your side. ID has hundreds.

ID does not propose that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed all plants and bacteria to adapt and innovate in response to every single environmental change in the history of life, or that he popped in to dabble each one. Please stop pretending that ID offers anything beyond the argument for Intelligent Design. Many scientists believe that bacteria and plants have their own form of intelligence. This is not an argument against ID. It can be argued that their intelligence was designed by your God.

3280 views

dhw: The biggest danger to objectivity is the assumption that human consciousness is the only form of consciousness. (I prefer the term “intelligence”, as it avoids confusion with human self-awareness.) If we take consciousness to be a synonym of awareness, and if our criteria for awareness include sentience, communication, decision-making, then it is clearly absurd to assume that plants and bacteria are NOT conscious. […] Human consciousness includes self-awareness.My point is that there are other forms and levels of consciousness/awareness[...] There are massive distinctions, however, between levels of consciousness/awareness.

DAVID: I do not believe in your definitions. Human consciousness would not be the'hard problem' under your approach if applied to humans. Animals are conscious and aware at various levels but there is a vast difference in the two levels.

dhw: You do not believe that consciousness = awareness? Then please give us your own definition. The rest of your comment is a direct repetition of my own (now bolded). Thank you for your agreement.

Awareness is just one aspect of consciousness as experienced by humans. I will only accept that animals are conscious and therefore are aware. Complete consciousness which means the ability to conceptualize, to have abstract thoughts and to be aware that they are aware is only found in human consciousness. You are trying to smudge Adler's point that we are different in kind!

dhw: (re “Liver study”) Communication and self-organization are attributes of intelligence. As always, I propose that these processes are now automatic (until things go wrong), but the cell communities themselves would have used their perhaps God-given intelligence to set up the system in the first place.

DAVID: God gave them intelligent instructions to follow. They do not have their own innate intelligence.

dhw: Stated with absolute authority, but many scientists disagree with you.

DAVID: You have three/four on your side. ID has hundreds.

dhw: ID does not propose that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed all plants and bacteria to adapt and innovate in response to every single environmental change in the history of life, or that he popped in to dabble each one. Please stop pretending that ID offers anything beyond the argument for Intelligent Design. Many scientists believe that bacteria and plants have their own form of intelligence. This is not an argument against ID. It can be argued that their intelligence was designed by your God.

You are correct that ID declares there is a designer. I have never discussed my extrapolations with any of them, but mine are based on the need for and the existence of a designer.

3264 views

dhw: The biggest danger to objectivity is the assumption that human consciousness is the only form of consciousness. (I prefer the term “intelligence”, as it avoids confusion with human self-awareness.) If we take consciousness to be a synonym of awareness, and if our criteria for awareness include sentience, communication, decision-making, then it is clearly absurd to assume that plants and bacteria are NOT conscious. […] Human consciousness includes self-awareness.My point is that there are other forms and levels of consciousness/awareness[...] There are massive distinctions, however, between levels of consciousness/awareness.

DAVID: I do not believe in your definitions. Human consciousness would not be the'hard problem' under your approach if applied to humans. Animals are conscious and aware at various levels but there is a vast difference in the two levels.

dhw: You do not believe that consciousness = awareness? Then please give us your own definition. The rest of your comment is a direct repetition of my own (now bolded). Thank you for your agreement.

DAVID: Awareness is just one aspect of consciousness as experienced by humans. I will only accept that animals are conscious and therefore are aware. Complete consciousness which means the ability to conceptualize, to have abstract thoughts and to be aware that they are aware is only found in human consciousness. You are trying to smudge Adler's point that we are different in kind!

You keep repeating what I say as if I hadn’t said it. Humans have a vastly greater level of conscious/awareness than other life forms. That does NOT mean that other organisms do not have their own degree of consciousness/awareness. There is no disagreement between us! But you are, of course, welcome to disagree with the many scientists who believe that plants and bacteria have a degree of awareness.

3271 views

dhw: The biggest danger to objectivity is the assumption that human consciousness is the only form of consciousness. (I prefer the term “intelligence”, as it avoids confusion with human self-awareness.) If we take consciousness to be a synonym of awareness, and if our criteria for awareness include sentience, communication, decision-making, then it is clearly absurd to assume that plants and bacteria are NOT conscious. […] Human consciousness includes self-awareness.My point is that there are other forms and levels of consciousness/awareness[...] There are massive distinctions, however, between levels of consciousness/awareness.

DAVID: I do not believe in your definitions. Human consciousness would not be the'hard problem' under your approach if applied to humans. Animals are conscious and aware at various levels but there is a vast difference in the two levels.

dhw: You do not believe that consciousness = awareness? Then please give us your own definition. The rest of your comment is a direct repetition of my own (now bolded). Thank you for your agreement.

DAVID: Awareness is just one aspect of consciousness as experienced by humans. I will only accept that animals are conscious and therefore are aware. Complete consciousness which means the ability to conceptualize, to have abstract thoughts and to be aware that they are aware is only found in human consciousness. You are trying to smudge Adler's point that we are different in kind!

dhw: You keep repeating what I say as if I hadn’t said it. Humans have a vastly greater level of conscious/awareness than other life forms. That does NOT mean that other organisms do not have their own degree of consciousness/awareness. There is no disagreement between us! But you are, of course, welcome to disagree with the many scientists who believe that plants and bacteria have a degree of awareness.

Our disagreement is your use of equating awareness with consciousness. Awareness only means the animal is conscious

3263 views

dhw: You keep repeating what I say as if I hadn’t said it. Humans have a vastly greater level of conscious/awareness than other life forms. That does NOT mean that other organisms do not have their own degree of consciousness/awareness. There is no disagreement between us! But you are, of course, welcome to disagree with the many scientists who believe that plants and bacteria have a degree of awareness.

DAVID: Our disagreement is your use of equating awareness with consciousness. Awareness only means the animal is conscious.

You have just equated awareness with consciousness, and yes the animal is aware, which means it is conscious. Consciousness does not mean self-awareness. There are different levels of awareness/consciousness. Humans have a vastly greater level of consciousness/awareness than our fellow animals. There is no disagreement.

Transferred from the “plasma” thread:

DAVID: As for panpsychism, I view it as a far out substitute for our reality actually being within God's consciousness.

dhw: […] As for panpsychism, as I understand it, the term is open to any number of interpretations, including your own panentheism (God’s consciousness permeates but also transcends our reality). This a top-down version. I like to consider an atheistic possibility of a bottom-up version, in which energy and materials (or at least some of them) have their own rudimentary mental components, from which physical life and mental complexity have evolved to the forms we know today.

DAVID: I think bottom up is a stretch. The only mental activity I recognize along with most scientists is related to neurons, especially in brains.

How very strange. I thought you thought your God was mentally active. Now he’s not just pure energy, but he also has neurons. And I also thought you were a dualist, and firmly believed in an immaterial soul which was capable of mental activity. And I also thought you said most scientists now agree that brainless bacteria are intelligent, i.e. mentally active. You even accept a bottom-up view of evolution in so far as it starts with comparatively simple forms of life and evolves into ever increasing complexity. But I accept all your reservations concerning the mental capacity of all materials. I find that as difficult to believe in as a universal mind that has simply always been there.

3262 views

dhw: You keep repeating what I say as if I hadn’t said it. Humans have a vastly greater level of conscious/awareness than other life forms. That does NOT mean that other organisms do not have their own degree of consciousness/awareness. There is no disagreement between us! But you are, of course, welcome to disagree with the many scientists who believe that plants and bacteria have a degree of awareness.

DAVID: Our disagreement is your use of equating awareness with consciousness. Awareness only means the animal is conscious.

dhw: You have just equated awareness with consciousness, and yes the animal is aware, which means it is conscious. Consciousness does not mean self-awareness. There are different levels of awareness/consciousness. Humans have a vastly greater level of consciousness/awareness than our fellow animals. There is no disagreement.

I disagree with your smudging together animal awareness with the attributes of human consciousness. Adler made a great point about the importance of the difference.

Transferred from the “plasma” thread:

DAVID: As for panpsychism, I view it as a far out substitute for our reality actually being within God's consciousness.

dhw: […] As for panpsychism, as I understand it, the term is open to any number of interpretations, including your own panentheism (God’s consciousness permeates but also transcends our reality). This a top-down version. I like to consider an atheistic possibility of a bottom-up version, in which energy and materials (or at least some of them) have their own rudimentary mental components, from which physical life and mental complexity have evolved to the forms we know today.

DAVID: I think bottom up is a stretch. The only mental activity I recognize along with most scientists is related to neurons, especially in brains.

dhw: How very strange. I thought you thought your God was mentally active. Now he’s not just pure energy, but he also has neurons.

You are having fun: God does not have neurons, only animals do.

dhw: And I also thought you were a dualist, and firmly believed in an immaterial soul which was capable of mental activity. And I also thought you said most scientists now agree that brainless bacteria are intelligent, i.e. mentally active.

You are pipe-dreaming. I have never said bacteria are intelligent. They act under intelligently implanted instructions

dhw:You even accept a bottom-up view of evolution in so far as it starts with comparatively simple forms of life and evolves into ever increasing complexity. But I accept all your reservations concerning the mental capacity of all materials. I find that as difficult to believe in as a universal mind that has simply always been there.

I fully understand all of your difficulties, especially your uncontrolled tendency to humanize god

3247 views

DAVID: Our disagreement is your use of equating awareness with consciousness. Awareness only means the animal is conscious.

dhw: You have just equated awareness with consciousness, and yes the animal is aware, which means it is conscious. Consciousness does not mean self-awareness. There are different levels of awareness/consciousness. Humans have a vastly greater level of consciousness/awareness than our fellow animals. There is no disagreement.

DAVID: I disagree with your smudging together animal awareness with the attributes of human consciousness. Adler made a great point about the importance of the difference.

There is no smudging. Animals share our awareness/consciousness of external conditions, and are sentient, communicative, decision-making etc., just as we are. But they do not have the additional levels of consciousness that enable us to do all the extras that mark us out as being very different from them. In other words, “we have a vastly greater level of consciousness/awareness than our fellow animals.” Why do you keep trying to manufacture a disagreement?

dhw: […] As for panpsychism, as I understand it, the term is open to any number of interpretations, including your own panentheism (God’s consciousness permeates but also transcends our reality). This a top-down version. I like to consider an atheistic possibility of a bottom-up version, in which energy and materials (or at least some of them) have their own rudimentary mental components, from which physical life and mental complexity have evolved to the forms we know today.

DAVID: I think bottom up is a stretch. The only mental activity I recognize along with most scientists is related to neurons, especially in brains.

dhw: How very strange. I thought you thought your God was mentally active. Now he’s not just pure energy, but he also has neurons.

DAVID: You are having fun: God does not have neurons, only animals do.

Yes, I am pointing out various discrepancies in your thinking. You do recognize mental activity that is not related to neurons, e.g. in God and, as below, in souls.

dhw: And I also thought you were a dualist, and firmly believed in an immaterial soul which was capable of mental activity. And I also thought you said most scientists now agree that brainless bacteria are intelligent, i.e. mentally active.

DAVID: You are pipe-dreaming. I have never said bacteria are intelligent. They act under intelligently implanted instructions.

You are not reading what I wrote, which relates to what most scientists agree on. I know you disagree with most scientists. That is why I query your statement that “The only mental activity I recognize along with most scientists is related to neurons, especially in brains.” (My bold)

dhw: You even accept a bottom-up view of evolution in so far as it starts with comparatively simple forms of life and evolves into ever increasing complexity. But I accept all your reservations concerning the mental capacity of all materials. I find that as difficult to believe in as a universal mind that has simply always been there.

DAVID: I fully understand all of your difficulties, especially your uncontrolled tendency to humanize god

I’m glad you understand that I am torn between two hypotheses, each of which seems to be equally unlikely. Nothing to do with humanizing. See “unanswered questions”.

3275 views

DAVID: I disagree with your smudging together animal awareness with the attributes of human consciousness. Adler made a great point about the importance of the difference.

dhw: There is no smudging. Animals share our awareness/consciousness of external conditions, and are sentient, communicative, decision-making etc., just as we are. But they do not have the additional levels of consciousness that enable us to do all the extras that mark us out as being very different from them. In other words, “we have a vastly greater level of consciousness/awareness than our fellow animals.” Why do you keep trying to manufacture a disagreement?

I disagree with your giving animals any part of consciousness other than awareness. They are simply conscious as I view it.

DAVID: You are having fun: God does not have neurons, only animals do.

dhw: Yes, I am pointing out various discrepancies in your thinking. You do recognize mental activity that is not related to neurons, e.g. in God and, as below, in souls.

Remember: Souls and God are supernatural, not requiring neurons.

dhw: And I also thought you were a dualist, and firmly believed in an immaterial soul which was capable of mental activity. And I also thought you said most scientists now agree that brainless bacteria are intelligent, i.e. mentally active.

DAVID: You are pipe-dreaming. I have never said bacteria are intelligent. They act under intelligently implanted instructions.

dhw: You are not reading what I wrote, which relates to what most scientists agree on. I know you disagree with most scientists. That is why I query your statement that “The only mental activity I recognize along with most scientists is related to neurons, especially in brains.” (My bold)

"Most" scientists are not the few you keep repeating.

dhw: You even accept a bottom-up view of evolution in so far as it starts with comparatively simple forms of life and evolves into ever increasing complexity. But I accept all your reservations concerning the mental capacity of all materials. I find that as difficult to believe in as a universal mind that has simply always been there.

DAVID: I fully understand all of your difficulties, especially your uncontrolled tendency to humanize god

I’m glad you understand that I am torn between two hypotheses, each of which seems to be equally unlikely. Nothing to do with humanizing. See “unanswered questions”.

I do.

3277 views

DAVID: I disagree with your smudging together animal awareness with the attributes of human consciousness. Adler made a great point about the importance of the difference.

dhw: There is no smudging. Animals share our awareness/consciousness of external conditions, and are sentient, communicative, decision-making etc., just as we are. But they do not have the additional levels of consciousness that enable us to do all the extras that mark us out as being very different from them. In other words, “we have a vastly greater level of consciousness/awareness than our fellow animals.” Why do you keep trying to manufacture a disagreement?

DAVID: I disagree with your giving animals any part of consciousness other than awareness. They are simply conscious as I view it.

I have defined consciousness as awareness, but you persist in ignoring my statement that there are different levels of awareness/consciousness, although that is precisely what you keep saying yourself! You seem to be desperate to define consciousness as human self-awareness and to manufacture a disagreement out of that.

DAVID: You are having fun: God does not have neurons, only animals do.

dhw: Yes, I am pointing out various discrepancies in your thinking. You do recognize mental activity that is not related to neurons, e.g. in God and, as below, in souls.

DAVID: Remember: Souls and God are supernatural, not requiring neurons.

Yes again, I am pointing out that you do recognize mental activity that is not related to neurons. You simply refuse to recognize it in bacteria and plants.

dhw: And I also thought you were a dualist, and firmly believed in an immaterial soul which was capable of mental activity. And I also thought you said most scientists now agree that brainless bacteria are intelligent, i.e. mentally active.

DAVID: You are pipe-dreaming. I have never said bacteria are intelligent. They act under intelligently implanted instructions.

dhw: You are not reading what I wrote, which relates to what most scientists agree on. I know you disagree with most scientists. That is why I query your statement that “The only mental activity I recognize along with most scientists is related to neurons, especially in brains.” (My bold)

DAVID: "Most" scientists are not the few you keep repeating.

It was you who acknowledged that most scientists now accept bacterial intelligence, but I can’t find the reference now.

3251 views

A claim we must add mind to science:

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/04/new-scientist-offers-a-sympathetic-account-of-panpsychism/

"Thomas Lewton tells us about his own journey at his site: “Studying physics, I thought telescopes and particle colliders would offer firm answers, but instead they raised more questions.”

"It can seem as if there is an insurmountable gap between our subjective experience of the world and our attempts to objectively describe it. And yet our brains are made of matter – so, you might think, the states of mind they generate must be explicable in terms of states of matter. The question is: how? And if we can’t explain consciousness in physical terms, how do we find a place for it in an all-embracing view of the universe?

"It can seem as if there is an insurmountable gap between our subjective experience of the world and our attempts to objectively describe it. And yet our brains are made of matter – so, you might think, the states of mind they generate must be explicable in terms of states of matter. The question is: how? And if we can’t explain consciousness in physical terms, how do we find a place for it in an all-embracing view of the universe?

"That’s an admirably blunt statement of the central problem, the failure of physicalism, the view that the mind is merely what the brain does. That, as philosopher David Papineau puts it, consciousness is just “brain processes that feel like something.”

"A surprising number of physicists are rethinking all that, “convinced that we will never make sense of the universe’s mysteries – things like how reality emerges from the fog of the quantum world and what the passage of time truly signifies – unless we reimagine the relationship between matter and mind.” Which, they realize, can’t be done simply by eliminating the mind from science thinking.

"Lewton sounds prepared to deal: “Modern physics was founded on the separation of mind and matter.” Indeed, it was. And if that doesn’t work, materialism is dead. His approach is shorn of the “any minute now, science will explain… ” that characterizes so much popular science writing in this area.

***

"Philip Goff explains, “The irony is that physicalism has done so well and explained so much precisely because it was designed to exclude consciousness.” But excluding something in principle does not cause it to cease to exist.

"However, what if…

"One option is to suggest that some form of consciousness, however fragmentary, is an intrinsic property of matter. At a fundamental level, this micro-consciousness is all that exists. The idea, known as panpsychism, rips up the physicalist handbook to offer a simple solution to the hard problem of consciousness, says Goff, by plugging the gap between our inner experiences and our objective, scientific descriptions of the world. If everything is to some extent conscious, we no longer have to account for our experience in terms of non-conscious components.

"So panpsychism is an effort to rescue naturalism (the view that nature is all there is, often called “materialism”) by including the mind in nature rather than attempting to disprove its existence.

***

"Fundamentally, the scientists Lewton writes about acknowledge that neuroscience does not smooth everything over by explaining how or why the brain produces conscious experiences. And naturalism cannot indefinitely get away with “just around the corner” talk (promissory materialism).

"If efforts to rid science of the human mind are widely seen to be failing, the world will hardly be the poorer. But panpsychism takes science into unknown territory. We must wait to see what unfolds."

Comment: it is much easier to accept that design is obviously present in our reality. Only a mind can design. Therefore mind is at work in our reality. The struggle is the fight to save pure materialism. The struggle is obviously illogically foolish.

1231 views

Feser comments against it:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/07/goffs-gaffes.html#more

For another thing, and as I also pointed out in my earlier post, panpsychism creates new problems of its own. As common sense and Aristotelianism alike emphasize, conscious experience in the uncontroversial cases is closely linked to the presence of specialized sense organs, appetites or inner drives, and consequent locomotion or bodily movement in relation to the things experienced. It is because human beings, dogs, cats, bears, birds, lizards, etc. possess these features that few people doubt that they are all conscious. And it is because trees, grass, stones, water, etc. lack these features that few people believe they are conscious.

The point is in part epistemological, but also metaphysical. Aristotelians argue that there is no point to sentience in entities devoid of appetite and locomotion, so that (since nature does nothing in vain) we can conclude that such entities lack sentience. Some philosophers (such as Wittgensteinians) would argue that it is not even intelligible to posit consciousness in the absence of appropriate behavioral criteria. Naturally, all of this is controversial. But the point is that a theory that claims that electrons and the like are conscious faces obvious and grave metaphysical and epistemological hurdles, and thus can hardly claim parsimony, of all things, as the chief consideration in its favor!

So, Goff’s defense fails – and again, most of the problems are of Goff’s own making, because they have to do with parts of his position being inadvertently undermined by other parts. His exposure of the limits of Galileo’s mathematization of nature, his rejection of reductionism, his affirmation of external world realism, his call for parsimony – all of these elements of Goff’s position are admirable and welcome. But when their implications are consistently worked out, they lead away from panpsychism, not toward it.

Comment: this is an ongoing discussion in Feser. For more background read Feser's blog. Other interesting comments from his readers:

"as you say, panpsychists understand panpsychism as a solution to a metaphysical problem.

"And as you have nicely shown, this "problem" is a pseudo-problem, an illusory problem.

"I think the panpsychists do not understand what the real and actual metaphysical problem is for them, for which panpsychism is a solution.

"The real problem for them and the real motivation for or behind their theory is how to explain the appearance of consciousness in natural history and in the individual development of the animal in the face of a godless, material world.

"For without God, the appearance of consciousness in an unconscious material world is a true miracle. And miracles can be explained better with God.

"Or consciousness lies virtually or potentially hidden in matter, but then we have a kind of design which needs a designer.

"But if one makes matter conscious in all its forms, as panpsychism does, then God indeed becomes superfluous.

"So panpsychism at its deepest core is a strategy to get rid of God. Philip Goff may not be aware of this core."

Another comment:

"Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche are among the greatest atheists in intellectual history. And it is no coincidence that they have inclinations and sympathies towards panpsychist ideas.

"So how do you become a panpsychist. One is first an atheist and a materialist and a physicalist. This is the modern default position. Then, however, the occurrence of consciousness cannot be reconciled properly with that position. So the logically consistent physicalist must let the physical get permeated with the mental."

Comment: it is thus no surprise dhw, as an agnostic, favors considering panpsychism

1107 views

QUOTE: "But if one makes matter conscious in all its forms, as panpsychism does, then God indeed becomes superfluous.”

If one believes in a single conscious mind that had no source but has always simply been there, and is somehow present throughout the universe, then panpsychism does indeed become superfluous.

QUOTE: "So panpsychism at its deepest core is a strategy to get rid of God. Philip Goff may not be aware of this core."

So God “at its deepest core” is a strategy to get rid of panpsychism.

DAVID: it is thus no surprise dhw, as an agnostic, favors considering panpsychism.

Dhw as an agnostic does not favour considering panpsychism any more or any less than he favours considering an unknown and unknowable and sourceless source of consciousness, or an infinite, eternal, sourceless and mindless combination of energy and material which chanced to form a rudimentary consciousness that eventually evolved into living materials. I find all three theories equally difficult to believe.

1117 views

QUOTE: "But if one makes matter conscious in all its forms, as panpsychism does, then God indeed becomes superfluous.”

dhw: If one believes in a single conscious mind that had no source but has always simply been there, and is somehow present throughout the universe, then panpsychism does indeed become superfluous.

QUOTE: "So panpsychism at its deepest core is a strategy to get rid of God. Philip Goff may not be aware of this core."

dw: So God “at its deepest core” is a strategy to get rid of panpsychism.

DAVID: it is thus no surprise dhw, as an agnostic, favors considering panpsychism.

Dhw: as an agnostic does not favour considering panpsychism any more or any less than he favours considering an unknown and unknowable and sourceless source of consciousness, or an infinite, eternal, sourceless and mindless combination of energy and material which chanced to form a rudimentary consciousness that eventually evolved into living materials. I find all three theories equally difficult to believe.

We know.

1104 views

dhw: But numerous scientists have studied the behaviour of bacteria and concluded that they too are sentient, intelligent beings, and so the question where does it stop? should certainly be taken seriously.-Look at my note today: Wednesday, January 21, 2015, 16:27 on quorum sensing and you see it is all molecule activity. Lots of sentience those molecules have! It starts and stops with automatic molecules.

7942 views

Guardian: "Besides, panpsychism might help unravel an enigma that has attached to the study of consciousness from the start: if humans have it, and apes have it, and dogs and pigs probably have it, and maybe birds too - well, where does it stop?[/i]
> 
> dhw: Of course some of us would argue that there are different degrees of consciousness, and that the consciousness, say, of a dog is not as many-layered as that of a human. But numerous scientists have studied the behaviour of bacteria and concluded that they too are sentient, intelligent beings, and so the question where does it stop? should certainly be taken seriously. In terms of living organisms and the course of evolution, I think it should be taken very seriously indeed!-You left out some interesting parts of the article which I finally found:-> Article: "Or maybe it is: in the last few years, several scientists and philosophers, Chalmers and Koch among them, have begun to look seriously again at a viewpoint so bizarre that it has been neglected for more than a century, except among followers of eastern spiritual traditions, or in the kookier corners of the new age. This is panpsychism, the dizzying notion that everything in the universe might be conscious, or at least potentially conscious, or conscious when put into certain configurations. Koch concedes that this sounds ridiculous: when he mentions panpsychism, he has written, I often encounter blank stares of incomprehension. But when it comes to grappling with the Hard Problem, crazy-sounding theories are an occupational hazard. Besides, panpsychism might help unravel an enigma that has attached to the study of consciousness from the start: if humans have it, and apes have it, and dogs and pigs probably have it, and maybe birds, too - well, where does it stop? (my bold)-Note the animals mentioned have nervous systems. To be animate I think that is necessary.-> Article: "The argument unfolds as follows: physicists have no problem accepting that certain fundamental aspects of reality - such as space, mass, or electrical charge - just do exist. They can't be explained as being the result of anything else. Explanations have to stop somewhere. The panpsychist hunch is that consciousness could be like that, too - and that if it is, there is no particular reason to assume that it only occurs in certain kinds of matter.-> "Koch's specific twist on this idea, developed with the neuroscientist and psychiatrist Giulio Tononi, is narrower and more precise than traditional panpsychism. It is the argument that anything at all could be conscious, providing that the information it contains is sufficiently interconnected and organised. The human brain certainly fits the bill; so do the brains of cats and dogs, though their consciousness probably doesn't resemble ours. But in principle the same might apply to the internet, or a smartphone, or a thermostat. (The ethical implications are unsettling: might we owe the same care to conscious machines that we bestow on animals?(again, my bold)-Note the requirement for organized information (that pesky stuff I keep indicating is a part of life and evolution). And that necessity has been fully recognized and tested!:-> Article: "Unlike the vast majority of musings on the Hard Problem, moreover, Tononi and Koch's integrated information theory has actually been tested. A team of researchers led by Tononi has designed a device that stimulates the brain with electrical voltage, to measure how interconnected and organised - how integrated - its neural circuits are. Sure enough, when people fall into a deep sleep, or receive an injection of anaesthetic, as they slip into unconsciousness, the device demonstrates that their brain integration declines, too. Among patients suffering locked-in syndrome - who are as conscious as the rest of us - levels of brain integration remain high; among patients in coma - who aren't - it doesn't. Gather enough of this kind of evidence, Koch argues and in theory you could take any device, measure the complexity of the information contained in it, then deduce whether or not it was conscious."-And remember I think humans and animals have species consciousness! Required receiver for consciousness is a nervous system with ganglia, if not a brain, all of which appeared well after bacteria.

8036 views

DAVID: You left out some interesting parts of the article which I finally found:

Article: "Or maybe it is: in the last few years, several scientists and philosophers, Chalmers and Koch among them, have begun to look seriously again at a viewpoint so bizarre that it has been neglected for more than a century, except among followers of eastern spiritual traditions, or in the kookier corners of the new age. This is panpsychism, the dizzying notion that everything in the universe might be conscious, or at least potentially conscious, or conscious when put into certain configurations. Koch concedes that this sounds ridiculous: when he mentions panpsychism, he has written, I often encounter blank stares of incomprehension. But when it comes to grappling with the Hard Problem, crazy-sounding theories are an occupational hazard. Besides, panpsychism might help unravel an enigma that has attached to the study of consciousness from the start: if humans have it, and apes have it, and dogs and pigs probably have it, and maybe birds, too - well, where does it stop? (my bold)-DAVID: Note the animals mentioned have nervous systems. To be animate I think that is necessary.-Not sure why you say animate instead of conscious. This is the paragraph I quoted in its entirety, including the section you have highlighted. Please see James Shapiro on nervous systems under Intelligent bacteria?. I'll answer your other comments without repeating the passages.-DAVID: Note the requirement for organized information (that pesky stuff I keep indicating is a part of life and evolution). And that necessity has been fully recognized and tested!-I don't recall ever disputing the need for organized information. Our great conundrum is how the organization and interconnection began. You say it had no beginning - somehow it was always there in the form of an eternal mind. I offer the alternative that somehow it evolved through interaction between matter and energy.-DAVID: And remember I think humans and animals have species consciousness! Required receiver for consciousness is a nervous system with ganglia, if not a brain, all of which appeared well after bacteria.-Jeffry Stock (a microbiologist) suggests that bacteria are possessed of what he calls a nanobrain. (Again see the discussion I've quoted under Intelligent Bacteria?.) You are of course talking of human and animal consciousness, but perhaps here we have a genuine case for saying that bacterial consciousness is different in kind from our own and that of our fellow animals.

7974 views


> dhw: I don't recall ever disputing the need for organized information. Our great conundrum is how the organization and interconnection began. You say it had no beginning - somehow it was always there in the form of an eternal mind. I offer the alternative that somehow it evolved through interaction between matter and energy.-Planning information for specified complexity requires mentation. How do matter and energy do this without an organized mind?
> 
> dhw: Jeffry Stock (a microbiologist) suggests that bacteria are possessed of what he calls a nanobrain. (Again see the discussion I've quoted under Intelligent Bacteria?.) You are of course talking of human and animal consciousness, but perhaps here we have a genuine case for saying that bacterial consciousness is different in kind from our own and that of our fellow animals.-Where do I find Stock? Searched without luck.

7912 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum