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

  He funny that you included trees!
• 
  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

  just because some questions can be formulated and stacked in sequence does not bestow merit to most of them.

  Well indeed. What I am asking is if there is any logical or empirical reason for assuming matter is unaware, rather than the opposite. Not assuming that any particular stance has merit merely because it can be formulated into a statement or a question.

  Simply asserting that matter is unaware and that any other view is ridiculous is not an argument. It involves neither logic nor evidence. It's simply an appeal to tradition or bias, and an exercise in rhetoric.
  
  
• 
  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

  jp

  a materialist asks: how can you know that matter is aware?

  a panpsychist asks: how can you know that matter is unaware?

  You seem to think the first question is reasonable but the second question is not. Which is your privilege. But my question is why you think the first question has any more merit than the second one? Materialism may be ascendant and have tradition and popularity on its side. But is there any actual logical or empirical reason to priorotise the first question over the second?
• 
  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

  That is like asking what colour is love?

  Not really, because love doesn't have a colour, but a crystal has existence.

  You assume it's a stupid question because you assume that non-living matter has no awareness. But that's the very thing under discussion. What is the basis for the assumption that most things are unaware?

  Sam Harris didn't seem to think it was a stupid question. Did you listen to his discussion?
• 
  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

  Thomas Nagel's approach to the issue, as I understand it, is widely regarded among analytic philosophers, and used as the basis for discussion in the philosophy of mind.

  Notice that the point is not the specific answer to the question; "what is it like to be a bat?" The point is that if there is an answer to the question (even though we don't know what the answer is) then we are dealing with some sort of awareness.
• 
  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

  There is nothing wrong with the point Russell was making. It's not applicable here.

  If anything, panpsychism is a simpler and more economic explanation of consciousness than meterialism. Because materialists think the universe consists mainly of dull matter, that in a few rare instances comes together to form brains that experience consciousness. This phenomenon is said to emerge from matter somehow in a process that is not understood.

  Panpsychists say it's simpler than that. Awareness is a property that is fundamental to all matter. In some entities it is more complex than others because of the structure, but it doesn't "radically emerge" at any point. It's always there. It's a simpler and more elegant explanation of consciousness.

  Thomas Nagel offers the definition of awarenss that it satisfies the question: "what is it like to be a bat... or something else?"

  What is it like to be a human?

  What is it like to be a dog?

  What is it like to be a bat?

  What is it like to be a spider?

  What is it like to be a tree?

  What is it like to be a crystal?

  What is it like to be an atom?

  If the answer, from the inside, is something more than "nothing" then that is "awareness".
• 
  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

  That's not a good analogy. We are not postulating the existence of imaginary entities.

  The fact is that things exist and they either have awareness or they don't. Materialists assume that things don't have awarenss unless it's proved that they do. But why make that assumption? Simply throwing arms in the air shouting "ridiculous" and "teapot" and "Thetans" is not an argument.

  The only "thing" we have experience of being is ourselves. And we know that we are aware. So we know that at least some things are aware. We don't know for certain that there are things that exist that at unaware.

  We have direct proof that a thing can be aware. (Ourselves)

  We have no direct proof that a thing can be unaware.

  Simply making the assertion that most things are unaware, and any other view is ridiculous, is not an argument.
• 
  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

  It's not my argument. It's an argument made by Galen Stawson, an academic philosopher who's taught at Reading, Rutgers, MIT, Princeton, Oxford and elsewhere.

  Why assume that things are unaware? The "thing" we have direct experience of being is ourselves, and we are aware. So we know that things can be aware, for certain. We don't know for certain if things can be unaware because we have no direct experience of being a thing which is unaware. We can speculate and guess that it is possible to be a thing that is unaware but it's difficult to prove.
• 
  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

  The distinction seems to be that awareness is simply a lower level of mental state than consciousness. For example while many conceive of monkeys or dogs as conscious, in that they appear to have "thoughts", it's doubtful that ants or slugs are conscious in that sense. But they may have some sort of mental state, or "awareness", that we would stop short of describing as conscious.

  Panpsychists simply make the point that materialists make the assumption that things don't have awareness unless proved otherwise. But why make that assumption? Why not make the opposite assumption: that things have awareness unless it's proved that they don't? You can say that's ridiculous or whatever else. But is there actually any good reason for loading the question in favour of materialism?

  In fact panpsychists go further and point out that we only have experience of being aware. We don't know what it's like to be a thing that isn't aware. In fact, can we even be sure that it's possible to exist and be unaware? We have direct evidence that a thing can exist and be aware (because we exist and we are aware). But obviously we could never have direct evidence that it's possible to exist and be unaware. So why assume that most things in the universe are unaware when in fact we can't prove that anything is unaware. On the other hand we can prove that we are aware, and therefore that at least some things are aware. So maybe our assumptions should be loaded in favour of awareness rather than against it.
• 
  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

  LoveUni, you think everything is clear cut. It seems to be your starting point. I am the opposite. I agree with Derrida who said the inside is always infected by the outside, in any duality you care to interrogate.

  On the specifics the of the grey areas between life and non-life I found an interesting longish quote on this web page on the topic, including:

  "Evolutionary history suggests that life involves a range of co-evolving hierarchies, and that non-life and life share a huge and biologically significant territory that buffers and makes more complex any account of either."

  https://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/between-living-and-non-living/