My Argument for Panpsychism(ish?)

Philosophy of Mind
141

No, in regards to consciousness being physical. It does not have physical properties. Mass, charge, density, hardness, volume, speed, direction, duration… It cannot be measured in any way. It cannot be described mathematically.

Yes, in regards to all primary particles being the source of consciousness. Just as they are the source of mass and charge. (I’m sure an argument could be made that “source” it’s not accurate. Particles may not be the source of mass. I’m not sure science is very clear on that.)

They are not conscious as a unit. All of the particles within them are conscious. (Which doesn’t mean things like aware or thoughtful.) But they are notbsufficiently united by information processing and feedback loops to be united as a single conscious unit.

That is the origin of the word. However, that is not necessarily what the word means. Just as, despite its origin, “Goodbye” does not mean “God be with you”. And we don’t hold it against physicists that atoms are not indivisible, even though that’s what the word means.

I do not think anything is without consciousness. I doubt every macro object is conscious as a unit. I could be wrong about that.

Not as a rule, although it’s certainly possible that some people came to panpsychism via those routes.

I cannot speak for every panpsychist. But I do not equate consciousness with mental abilities. Humans experience mental abilities. But the things we are conscious of are not what consciousness is.

142

Why do they have to be united as a single conscious unit to be conscious? Are humans united as a single conscious unit?

143

I agree. I don’t believe anything physical is conscious. Walls, rocks and trees, most of the animals (living animals are awake, but not conscious) etc are not conscious. If they cannot interact or communicate intelligibly with me, then they are not conscious.

144

I don’t understand this question.

Yes. Thanks to the brain. It unites the body. But not merely physically. It unites the body with information processing systems and feedback loops. So we are a conscious units, not just physical units.

A wall unites many pictures that are hanging on it. But only physically. There is no information processing or feedback loops. So the wall and pictures are a physical unit, but not a conscious unit.

A robot may be a conscious unit. But its information processing and feedback loops are not numerous and/or varied enough for it to be conscious of the same things we are.

145

The question was about what you wrote. Following is what you wrote.

146

To say something is united implies it was in parts before the unification. Hence it can be disassembled into parts. But can it be?

Humans are born as full entities in individual body form, and everyone is a full human being in body and mind, having been living and growing into each individual adults from the birth. Saying it is united with parts sounds not making sense.

147

A human is a conglomerate of particles. A boulder is a conglomerate of particles. The fact that the conglomerate that makes a human is united in ways that the conglomerate that makes a boulder is does not imply that the conglomerate that makes a human was in parts that were then unified.

I still don’t understand what you are saying. However, the particles of things that are not conscious as a unit are still individually conscious. A mountain is not conscious as a unit, because its parts are not united by information processing and feedback loops.

148

Surely a bodymind is more intimately connected than this? Connections — not counting the gazillions of connections to the rest of the Universe — are made via circulatory systems, nerves, muscles+tendons, and so forth.

Perhaps we should be surprised that, with so very many connections, there is room within a human bodymind for the things that are connected? :wink:

149

That argument doesn’t work. Physicalism doesn’t just require the lack of a disembodied mind. It requires that minds are entirely reducible to brains, or entirely explainable in terms of brains. In other words, your observation only establishes a justification for believing that brains are necessary for minds, but physicalism requires that brains are sufficient for minds. That is a much stronger claim, and much harder to defend.

I agree with you the minds cannot exist without brains. I strongly disagree that this supports the conclusion that “minds are physical”. For example, this observation is entirely consistent with a neutral monism where consciousness and classical reality emerge together from a neutral quantum substrate. If that ontology is correct then “minds are physical” is far too simplistic.

150

All of that is part of the information processing and feedback, isn’t it? Information in the blood reaches the brain. The brain does whatever in response by sending signals through the nerves to some part of the body, activating it, which releases something into the blood, changing the situation. Now the blood carries different information, and the brain responds in a different way.

151

That sounds like extreme reduction in describing what human is. A human is a Being-in-the-world with morality, reasoning, rationality, emotions, imagination and passions and self-identity.

A human is far more than the conglomerate of particles. Describing human as a unified parts sounds too simple mechanistic and materialistic view which is not making sense at all.

Consciousness is the essence of human being which is the source of all other mental functions. Body, mind and consciousness are all in one entity, without which a human cannot exist, and function.

Humans are not some assembled dolls with parts and conscious to become information processing loop feedback unit.

Information processing loop feedback unit sounds like some parts in alarm system or computer parts, which has nothing to do with human mind operation or consciousness.

It seems to me that reducing humans into these cheap electronic gadget parts would not help us understanding what human mind or consciousness is, and how they work in any shape or forms.

152

Not sure if body and mind are connected. Something is connected means, they can be disconnected. But connected or disconnected by what? Can we see the link between body and mind? Is the link physical? Could it be connected or disconnected by some switch or buttons?

Connected or unified sounds too physical to be feasible in describing body and mind relation.

That is the reason why I prefer describing consciousness as capacity of a being with both mind and body. Capacity of interaction and communication as a being, rather than the separated mind and body assembled or unified by the bloke in the car repair garage.

A human must be considered as a complete entity with the main elements being body, mind and consciousness without (any of the main elements) which, is not a being.

153

I don’t recall myself being in any of the information processing and feedback at all. My mind was a blank sheet of paper with nothing in it when born. As I have been living, I kept on learning and evolving into a more capable being in interacting and communicating with the world and other beings in the world.

Body, mind and consciousness are all in one in a living being, without (even one) which, is not a living being.

You cannot separate any of the critical elements in a being, and describe them on their own as if they were independent objects, to be able to understand what a being or consciousness is.

A living being is not unified, connected or assembled entity. It is a complete entity itself with mind, body and consciousness all in one, which has the lived and evolved history becoming into a more capable interacting and communicating being.

154

When you take this one aspect of what I’ve been saying in isolation,yes, it sounds like that. But when you consider it along with everything else I’ve been saying, it doesn’t.

If there was no consciousness, all things would be simply mechanistic and materialistic. Nothing but physical events that, ultimately, reduce to the primary particles and the laws that determine their interactions.

However, there is consciousness. So everything is not simply mechanistic and materialistic; not nothing but physical events that, ultimately, reduce to the primary particles and the laws that determine their interactions.

I believe consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe; present in all particles. Just as mass and charge are fundamental properties that are present in all particles. But consciousness is not a physical property. It is the capacity to experience. I believe every particle is conscious, meaning every particle experiences. It experiences whatever kind of particle it is

I believe groups of particles experience/are conscious as a unit when they are components of a system that processes information. While they are processing information, the system experiences. It experiences as that system, processing whatever information it processes, in whatever way it processes the information.

Various molecules and structures read the information in DNA, and synthesize proteins. That’s information processing. DNA and the various molecules and structures are experiencing/are conscious as a unit. That unit experiences the process of synthesizing protein.

Humans have MANY information processing systems. Each of our senses processes the information of the sensory input. Nervous system. Endocrine system. Digestive system. Immunology. On and on.

We also have different body parts. Arms, legs, fingers, nose, etc. Whether talking about the physical body parts or the information systems, the all grew, perhaps more-or-less at the same time, after sperm fertilizes egg.

I hope I’ve cleared up my position sufficiently for you to stop arguing against things that I am not claiming.

155

I don’t believe that I claimed that you claimed what you were not claiming.

I was just pointing out some possible problems in your claims regarding consciousness. I think we agree in that you seem to think consciousness is some sort of capacity of the beings. But from that point, you seem to be going different path to mine.

Here are the parts I don’t agree.

  1. You claim particles are conscious. That statement doesn’t make sense at all. A lump of particles itself cannot be conscious. Particles must be in the form of the biological organ or body for being able to contribute to the life functions.

  2. Even if particles are in the form of biological organs such as brains or hearts, the organs on their own cannot do anything meaningful, but are deemed to decay.

  3. A being can only be conscious, when all the biological organs in the being’s body are functioning normally in healthy state. There is no point of talking about arms, legs, brain without them in a body fully functioning as a healthy being.

  4. You keep talking about information processing systems, but I am not sure why they have anything to do with consciousness. Because information processing systems are computer hardware concept. It is not a biological or philosophical concept.

Information processing is for the computer hardware which accepts the analogue data in the analogue voltage format from the mic, video camera or keyboard input, and convert them into digital format of 0s and 1s in the CPU and store them into HD.

When the request of output is made via CPU, CPU goes into HD, and picks up the relevant digital data, and convert them back to the analogue voltage format which can drive loud speakers, or display the graphics on the monitor, sending them to the relevant output analogue devices in the system. This is a typical information processing system. They have nothing to do with human perception or consciousness.

It didn’t make sense to call information processing system as condition for consciousness at all. Humans don’t need such data conversion system to perceive objects, feel pain or imagine, recollect the past, or to be conscious of something. The bodily organs function as needed with the natural minerals, air and water. Mind works with the objects as perceived from the world.

Human consciousness is the capacity for mental awareness from the state of blank sheet of paper, and having been evolving through living, learning and interacting with the world and other conscious beings.

I still believe panpsychism is a religious belief that all objects in the universe has souls and spirits. Misleading the original idea of panpsychism, and brining in particles, information processing systems imagining they are conscious, seems deep misunderstanding on the idea.

I still believe my phone and books can decide to hide away from me, because that is my panpsychism. I project my own mind into the objects and believe they have minds, emotions and consciousness, and even free will to hide away from me.

They don’t need particles, electrons or information processing systmem for the belief or their hiding.

156

It’s important to note what exactly these “information processing systems” consist of - which is highly complex molecules involved in highly complex chemistry.

I can’t see the reasoning behind accepting that these various chemical systems - this highly evolved chemistry - can be used to explain the functioning of body and brain - all of it it except consciousness.

Why should consciousness be the exception?

157

The highly complex chemistry, and the functioning of the body and brain, are all physical things. Particles interacting. Particles combining to form structures. Structures and particles interacting.

Consciousness doesn’t have any physical properties. No micro properties, like mass or charge. No macro properties, like length, density, volume, or hardness. No characteristics of processes, like speed, duration, or cycles per second/hour/day/etc. It cannot be described mathematically.

Can you give me any physical properties, characteristics, or description of consciousness?

If it is not physical, then why would we think it can be explained by chemistry?

Here are some quotes, in case someone else words it in a way that works better.

Chalmers in Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness:

Chalmers in The Conscious Mind:

In Until the End of Time, Brian Greene wrote:

In this Closer To Truth video, Donald Hoffman days:

In this Closer To Truth video, Paul Davies says:

In
this Closer To Truth video, David Eagleman says:

In this Closer to Truth video, Alex O’Connor says:

158

Consciousness is the word for describing human mental state originally from the 17th century. But for some strange reason, lately, they are trying to use the word to describe particles and chemical reactions, and this seems to the source of the confusion.

The only sign for consciousness is for a human being interacting and communicating in intelligible way, and also manging tasks in rational way for survival and wellbeing of the being in the world.

Bring any type of atoms, particles, electrons, or chemicals. Demonstrate how they can possibly be conscious on their own. Scrape some particles from your toe nails, and tell us if the particles were conscious, and in what way they were conscious.

There will be no sign of consciousness in any physical or chemical matter, unless it is part of a living human body, composing the healthy organs and body, grown from the birth of the being, working for the part of interaction, communication and survival.

It doesn’t matter whatever is written in internet. If they don’t make much sense, then why are they relevant? Isn’t it the same case as the religious folks quoting their bibles claiming whatever is in the bible, must be true?

159

Rebuttals like these demonstrate a lack of understanding of the structure-function metanarrative governing all living organisms, and all parts of them.

Consciousness is a function of the human brain. It does not have physical properties because a function is not a physical thing. Previously, I have used the example of muscles making movement to try to explain. Consciousness is a function, not the underlying physical/chemical works, much like movement is the function of muscles, not the muscles themselves.

Rebuttals like these above show a lack of imagination and in no way refute the possibility that consciousness is a function of a human brain. Neuroscience indeed points to that fact.

160

It was not rebuttals at all. It was just an expression of curiosity on the strange trend, and the intensity of the trend how internet surfing generation folks are brainwashed by whatever internet pages say about it, be it right or wrong, true or false, making sense or downright daft.

Consciousness is not only brain function. I have already described a numerous times on what it is in this thread, hence I wouldn’t repeat it here.