Panpsychism (Evolution)

by hyjyljyj , Saturday, December 08, 2012, 23:07 (4165 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Saturday, December 08, 2012, 23:17

My initial response, since it was specifically requested, is that it seems as though the author has succeeded in postulating an additional definition for the word "intelligence", viz., the action of unselfconscious particles and lower life forms in response to physical laws. Two inorganic substances, e.g., when placed in a beaker together, just know they're supposed to react a certain way and cause purple smoke, and we're labeling that "intelligence". And in writing it this way, I don't mean to imply that this proposed definition is necessarily wrong, defective or in any way deserving of ridicule, merely that it's a novel way to conceive that word. IMHO it's a bit of a stretch and doesn't really apply to such processes, but that alone does not invalidate panpsychism.-What might do is my secondary impression, which is that the author, notwithstanding his announcement to the contrary in conclusion (a), may not have successfully done away with the need for the initial uncaused, infinite (by which I mean also eternal) cause, in simply spreading cosmic consciousness and intelligence to subatomic particles, molecules and bacteria. Even if it is microconsciousness or microintelligence directing atoms to combine in certain ways in response to physical laws of the universe, we still have the question, where did those physical laws come from? If we say they didn't need to come from anywhere, they just always existed, then that's an easy answer that's difficult to prove or disprove, which is why atheists love to use it in regards to matter and energy: we say of God (if we believe he exists) that he didn't need to be created, because he's always existed; and they say, Well, then, the same can just as easily be said of matter and energy, so there. Panpsychism also tastes a little like pantheism, where every rock and worm and atom and quark is a god or God. And that isn't satisfying either. I'd be open to data conveying further understanding of the distinction between panpsychism and pantheism.-My tertiary observation is that the author has not invalidated random chance either, merely by stating that we have known examples of unselfconscious matter forming intelligent combinations. He did not establish that the combinations were actually intelligent; he merely stated as much using our new definition of the term. What if they weren't? Of course, they still could BE intelligent after all; we don't know and probably can't know right now, and indeed possibly never will be able to know. Hence the Greek term....-(Most likely I am committing some flaw in logic or reasoning here, so please fill me in; I remain agnostic and therefore open to further input on the topic.)