Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism. by Galen Strawson

[Citizenschallenge]

@prothero

It is only by carefully examining what modern physics tells us the nature of “matter” or the “physical” really is that we can overcome the bifurcation of nature that has made “consciousness” the hard problem. It is a problem of our own making by making false assumptions about the true nature of reality.

Nice read someone spelling it out.
I would add that requires getting to know that physical and biological reality via an evolution appreciating lens.

[Citizenschallenge]

@Wayfarer

Isn’t the point rather that organisms are not fully determined by physics?

“Something” is physical.
It’s our interactions that create a “Someone”.

[Patterner]

@Andr1an0

But he correctly puts the question very sharply, in the sense that if matter does not originally possess subjective experience — that is, does not possess it at all, meaning a complete absence of this experience — then, by strict logic, it could not simply arise out of complete absence.

Yes, I have asked this question several times. Consciousness does not have have physical properties or characteristics, and the physical properties and characteristics of the universe, in the words of Brian Greene, “seem completely disconnected from anything remotely like subjective experience.” If consciousness is not present at all times, in all things, and nothing is guiding physical evolution toward configurations that produce it, it seems difficult to explain the fact that a physical configuration came to be from which this new thing arose, which did not exist until the configuration, is so very different in nature from the configuration, and was never the point or purpose of the configuration.

[j_j]

@Patterner

Consciousness does not have have physical properties or characteristics, and the physical properties and characteristics of the universe, in the words of Brian Greene, “seem completely disconnected from anything remotely like subjective experience.”

Right. So for me the problem is that the sign “physical” is allowed to pass unquestioned. Basically scientific models are read “metaphysically” as “the view from nowhere of an objective reality.” But consciousness is associated with perspective. So the problem is baked into to a naive conception of the physical, which I’d associate as tacitly inspired by mathematical platonism.

If one just accepts “the view from nowhere” and an “external objective reality,” the hard problem emerges. Most don’t go back and rethink the physics. They put all of their weight on this foot. “This is obvious.” But that’s the problem. It’s always the “obvious” that leads us into confusion.

Science is about the empirical perceptual world. This is “obvious” if one approaches it with a pragmatic attitude. Why does anyone give a fuck about science ? Because it proves itself to our sense organs. To our needs. It’s that simple.

In other words, science is about the quality of the shared world. It steers this quality toward what we prefer ( it sucks to freeze or go hungry or die from smallpox.) A model is a tool designed to work for the generic user, whether or not they believe in it ( expect it to work.)

So we can find scientists who are phenomenalists, because they are stubbornly empirical and anti-metaphysical. They don’t confuse science and metaphysics. Science is great because it leaps over metaphysics. But philosophers rightly want to integrate a vision of science with a total understanding of the world. So many of them make the mistake of starting from dualism, as if this is a scientific starting point. No. It is a counter-empirical starting point. But this is hard to see if Everyone is locked into the same trendy prejudice of a century.

[prothero]

@j_j

So we can find scientists who are phenomenalists, because they are stubbornly empirical and anti-metaphysical. They don’t confuse science and metaphysics. Science is great because it leaps over metaphysics. But philosophers rightly want to integrate a vision of science with a total understanding of the world. So many of them make the mistake of starting from dualism, as if this is a scientific starting point. No. It is a counter-empirical starting point. But this is hard to see if Everyone is locked into the same trendy prejudice of a century.

Well you do not have to resort to phenomenology to realize there is more to reality than can be subjectively experienced or perceived by humans. It is also apparent that empirical, mechanistic and scientific descriptions do not give us a satisfactory or complete explanation of human or any other form of experience.

I don’t think one can ever provide an explanation for experience or consciousness if one goes down the path of the skeptics (Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, etc.) who think the deeper reality (if there is one) is completely inaccessible to us. I don’t see how questioning time, space, causality and other: what one might call hard core common sense assumptions that we assume and which are required to function in the world: is helpful.

Yes science can function just fine without metaphysical assumptions, a sort of version of the quantum mechanics advice: don’t try to understand it, just calculate, it works: functionalism.

Alfred North Whitehead defines speculative philosophy as “the endeavor to frame a coherent, logical, and necessary system of general ideas that interprets every element of conscious experience. [1]” This is the philosophers task to create a worldview which includes human experience and scientific “knowledge”. To heal the so called “artificial bifurcation of nature”. To avoid the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” mistaking models and mathematical formulas for nature itself.

[j_j]

@prothero

Well you do not have to resort to phenomenology to realize there is more to reality than can be subjectively experienced or perceived by humans.

I’m not human-centric in my phenomenalism. I believe that my cat loves me. Voltaire’s early sci-fi featuring aliens is one of my influences.

@prothero

I don’t think one can ever provide an explanation for experience or consciousness if one goes down the path of the skeptics (Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, etc.) who think the deeper reality (if there is one) is completely inaccessible to us. I don’t see how questioning time, space, causality and other: what one might call hard core common sense assumptions that we assume and which are required to function in the world: is helpful.

I am unequivocally anti-dualist. For me, philosophy does not explain.

So consciousness is not “explained.” The goal, for me, is to “cough up” what we already belief below the neck. I approach phenomenology as the the sibling of positivism. Philosophy is getting a better grip on our fundamental terms.

I am on the side of Reid rather than Hume. And Eddington was being silly. There is just the one table.

@prothero

Alfred North Whitehead defines speculative philosophy as “the endeavor to frame a coherent, logical, and necessary system of general ideas that interprets every element of conscious experience. [1]” This is the philosophers task to create a worldview which includes human experience and scientific “knowledge”. To heal the so called “artificial bifurcation of nature”. To avoid the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” mistaking models and mathematical formulas for nature itself.

Yes. That roughly describes my own anti-dualist project. It’s possible that you really just don’t yet see what I am up to over here.

@prothero

I don’t see how questioning time, space, causality and other: what one might call hard core common sense assumptions that we assume and which are required to function in the world: is helpful.

Respectfully, I don’t see this not seeing as a good thing. Counter-empirical prejudices about time, inspired by crude metaphysical readings of scientific mathematical models, look to me to drive much of the dualist confusion about our basic situation.