Panpsychism (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, December 09, 2012, 20:32 (4365 days ago) @ hyjyljyj

Hyjyljyj: What might [invalidate panpsychism] 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.-The initial, uncaused, infinite and eternal first cause in this case would be energy with the lowest level of consciousness/intelligence (as opposed to the theist version, which has the highest level). The important aspect here is that there are different degrees of intelligence/consciousness, which we already assume in relation to living things: I think most of us would agree than an amoeba is not as intelligent/ conscious as a dog, and a dog is not as intelligent/conscious as a human. 
 
Hyjyljyj: 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.-And that is the nub of the matter. There is no first cause that doesn't pose the question of provenance, which is why personally I cannot with any conviction favour one version over another. However, of the three possible first causes ... a superconscious creator/designer versus energy totally void of intelligence/consciousness versus energy with the lowest level of intelligence/consciousness ... i.e. the laws of Nature ... which do you think most likely to pass Occam's razor test?-Hyjyljyj: 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.-The Wikipedia article on the subject shows that as usual there are umpteen variations on the theme, and they tend to overlap. Both pantheism and David's panentheism figure, as do various proponents of process theology, but as far as I can see, panpsychism itself does not necessarily involve any kind of deity.-Hyjyljyj: 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....-I don't know how far Koch takes his panpsychism. The main arguments were my own extrapolations from the paragraph I quoted (though I looked up the Wikipedia article afterwards). I have been trying to develop the analogy between the "intelligent" cell (following Lynn Margulis's emphasis on cooperation as a vital force in evolution) and a possible first cause. The point I'm trying to make about the cell is that in its various combinations it is able to take "intelligent" decisions and perform functions without ... as far as we know ... being self-aware. Evolution is driven by innovations, and whether or not God designed the cell in the first place, it has proceeded through different combinations of cells acting in a purposeful, meaningful, functional way (that is roughly what I mean by intelligent) without self-awareness. In the context of evolution, the role of chance is vastly reduced: you no longer have random mutations responsible for all innovations ... instead you have an "intelligent" mechanism responding to the demands or the opportunities created by the environment (whose changes ARE random). I am suggesting a similar process for the evolution of the universe (not just our cosmos but everything that has ever existed). With eternal and "intelligent" but unselfconscious energy and matter, you have an infinite range of combinations, as opposed to the finite range counting from the Big Bang onwards, and again a massive reduction in the role of chance. Obviously nothing like so great as with a totally self-aware and intelligent form of energy (God), but certainly far greater than with an atheist-style blank.
 
Hyjyljyj: (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.)-No flaw, as far as I can see. I do not embrace this theory either, but I offer it as a "third way", which for me is no more and no less unbelievable than the first two.
________________________________________