slimboyfat

Joined

• started 536 topics
• posted 17,573 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I skimmed a book that argued octopuses may be as, or nearly, or differently but equally intelligent as humans.

  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Other-Minds-Octopus-Evolution-Intelligent/dp/0008226296/

  I thought the Philosophy Now article on panpsychism was pretty good. If it doesn't convince you fair enough.

  What I meant to say is that the idea that consciousness arises from unconscious matter is just as unprovable as panpsychism. This may be difficult to grasp because reductive materialism is pretty much taken for granted in our culture. But just because it's taken for granted doesn't mean it's true, or that it should be let off the hook in terms of requiring evidence.

  Some of the resistance to panpsychism may be a suspicion that it aims to create a space for God or the supernatural. But there is no reason panpsychism should necessitate belief in God. In fact, in some sense materialism's "hard problem" of consciousness is one of the best arguments for God, and panpsychism tends to defuse that problem. So it's not entirely clear what the implications of panpsychism are for God or the supernatural.

  All I know is that reality appears increasingly mysterious to me. And as Krauthammer once quipped, atheism appears to be the most unlikely of the theologies on offer. There is a deep mystery at the heart of existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why are we uniquely equipped to perceive the world as it really is? Reductive materialism offers no answer to these questions. In fact it doesn't make much sense as a view of reality when all its perameters, including the mystery of existence and consciousness, are taken into account.
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Support for panpsychism continues to grow.

  https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/The_Case_For_Panpsychism
  
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  A basic argument for panpsychism, as Strawson presents it, is that we know we are personally conscious. It's the one thing in the world we can be absolutely sure about. If we also agree that we are made of matter, and that we are conscious as material beings, without the aid of "spirit", then the question arises as to how consciousness comes about from our corporeal bodies. Logically there seems to be two possible explanations: 1) at a certain level of complexity consciousness "radically emerges" from matter where previously there was nothing, or 2) awareness is already a property of matter itself to begin with, so that consciousness does not "radically emerge" at a certain point of complexity, but is the extreme end of a continuum of awareness.

  If you say there is no evidence for option 2, it's fair to point out that there is no evidence for option 1 either. It's commonly taken for granted that awareness is a special property of some beings, and it's postulated this property somehow emerges from dull matter. There is no prooof for these assertions either.

  Some scientists are now devising ways of testing panpsychism, including David Chalmers. Sam Harris seems to find his ideas more compelling that those of Daniel Dennett who once argued that "consciousness is an illusion". They comment that Dennett seems to have modified that extreme position. They talk about panpsychism at around 45 minutes.

  https://youtu.be/1bmHL1sbntw
  
• 
  11

  stupid questions

  by road to nowhere in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  paragraph 4 today: "what are we gonna consider?

  " maybe that is the article title?

  the other is: "what will we consider next week?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Next week we're going to consider the lilies of the field. As if.
• 
  19

  2018 Memorial and Special Talk Speculation

  by SplaneThisToMe in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so we all know that the special talk titled "who really is jesus christ?

  " will be given before the memorial next year which is very new.

  also new this year is that the special talk will be prerecorded and given by a branch committee member rather than a brother from the local congregation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I reserve judgment on whether they will publish the partaker number, or the rest of the statistics in full online, as promised.

  The GB always seem to take the easy way out. When faced with disconfirmation over the "generation", instead of having a fundamental reevaluation, they came up with the most ridiculous fudge.

  Dropping the literal 144,000 teaching would be the brave but rational thing to do. But my guess is they'll go with an easier option. They may simply stop publishing the number and assert that the "real" anointed are declining in number without giving specifics. They've demonstrated they can tell JWs just about anything and they'll take it. JWs might not like it, but what are they going to do? Not much they can do. They have no power. They can shut up and accept it, or else speak out and be shunned. That's the rules of the game among JWs, as currently constituted.
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  As I understand it, panpsychists don't typically argue that "rocks are conscious". Galen Strawson, for example says it's a misconception that he "thinks the chair is conscious".

  https://youtu.be/ZCo9fJ9EP_k
  

  Rather what we're talking about is whether matter is experiential in some sense, so that awareness is a continuum rather than a special property of some beings.

  So for example we can agree that humans are conscious. And most can probably agree that cats and dogs possess some form of consciousness. Probably the same with mice. But where do you draw the line? Are spiders and flies conscious? We might say they probably have a very low level of awarenss, but not consciousness as such. What about tad poles? Single cell animals? Plants? They are not conscious but do they have any level of awareness? And obviously when we talk about plants or even rocks having "awareness" we are not talking about high order "thinking". The basic point is that awareness is a property of all matter, not that all matter has the same level of awareness. Like how a candle and the sun are both combusting, but the gulf between the two is unimaginably huge. This might illustrate the difference in awareness between a human and an ant. The gulf between an ant and a rock may be larger still. But the point is that consciousness isn't something that arises magically when matter reaches a certain order of complexity. Rather awareness is a property which is already present in matter to begin with, so that the potential for consciousness is already there, and we need not invoke mysterious notions of "spirit" as in dualism, or "radical emergence" as in materialism.
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Some very senior scientists and philosophers now support the idea, including British scientist Roger Penrose, and America philosopher Thomas Nagel. They may still be a minority, but the idea is getting more popular - because it makes sense.

  https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956

  http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state

  Sam Harris said it is an interesting idea and discussed it with David Chalmers.

  https://youtu.be/ZCo9fJ9EP_k
  
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  At one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things. This idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  What does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes). But in order to believe there is a distinction between things that experience the world and things that don't, you either need to believe in dualism (the idea that spirit enables experience outside of the material world) or that experience and consciousness emerge from unconscious matter. Many increasingly find neither of these explanations satisfactory, which is why many, including prominent scientists and philosophers are now endorsing varieties of panpsychism.

  Panpsychism is the idea that experience is a property of all matter, and that human consciousness is different in degree rather than kind from the rest of the universe.

  Philosophers such as Galen Stawson and Thomas Nagel endorse varieties of panpsychism. Scientists are also beginning to support the idea, such as the neuroscientist Stefan Koch, who gives his reasons in this video.

  https://youtu.be/QHRbnNwIg1g
  
• 
  36

  Why does God allow animals to suffer? Does God care about animals? What does the Watchtower teach about this?

  by defender of truth in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following article will address these questions, and attempt to answer them.. after helping jwfacts with his page on animal suffering, i decided to write this article.. it is mainly aimed at helping jehovahs witnesses and other believers in god to think about the issue, as well as the apparent contradictions in watchtower teaching.. thanks must go to jwfacts for the encouragement, and giving me permission to use an image from his page and to use some of the quotes.. also, thankyou to cofty for general moral support.. please let me know what you think everybody, and feel free to reproduce any part or all of the article on any other website, just post and let me know that you've used it on your site please.. (i'd appreciate it if anyone could post to tell me they found a point in here useful, it would encourage me to keep going).. okay, here it is:.

  why does god allow animal suffering?.

  does it trouble you to see animals in pain?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  It's a difficult issue. Many Christians find the answer in Romans 8 where Paul says that all creation has been subject to a curse, but awaits salvation from God. JWs have trouble with this passage because they interpret "creation" to fit their "two hopes" doctrine. But the plain meaning of the passage seems clear:

  Romans 8:18 Yet what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later. 19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are.20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. 22 For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us.
• 
  17

  Bad experiences in waking someone up?

  by Fred Flintstone in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i mean, is it advisable to try to wake a friend up?

  what about the risk of he/she falling into depression?

  anger?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  It's a dilemma, whether to yabba dabba do, or yabba dabba don't.