slimboyfat

Joined

• started 536 topics
• posted 17,582 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 think it’s possible for humans not to feel hungry (with medical conditions that interfere with digestion and/or appetite) but doesn’t mean the person isn’t conscious.
• 
  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

  Is awareness synonymous with consciousness? I’d say it’s like green and turquoise: similar but not identical.

  Even if they were lexically identical it’s not the point. Strawson says matter may be minimally aware rather than conscious. Or have a “mental” quality, or some other formulation.

  Is an ant conscious, or aware in the same way as a dog? Many would probably say there is a significant difference. Whether you want to describe that difference as between consciousness and awareness, or some other linguistic distinction, the underlying point seems clear enough.
• 
  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

  We can only be sure that living things have consciousness? How can we be sure they have consciousness? Or that nothing else has awareness?

  Consciouness necessitates hunger and feeding? Maybe, I don’t know. How can you prove that?

  Like I said above, it seems panpsychists like Strawson make a distinction between. consciounesss and awareness. Beetles, flies, and plants may not be conscious, but have different kinds of awareness. Then crystals and atoms different kinds still, who knows?
• 
  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'm not sure the same can be said of crystals or rocks.

  I’m not sure either. But the idea is not ridiculous. Is it part of a spectrum, or is there a clear cut off point? Some would place the cut off before trees, or before insects, or some other creatures, for that matter.

  The fact is that the only thing we can be absolutely certain about is that we exist. In that sense the experiential precedes the physical. We can be surer that we exist as thinking beings than we can be about the existence of the external world.

  The existence of the external world, and its nature as either experiential in character or without awarensss, are matters for speculation.

  Plus there’s something a bit troubling about the coherency of materialism taken to its reductionist extreme. Have you ever read Daniel Dennett on consciousness? He argues that consciousness is purely a physical process and consciousness is a sort of illusion. But if we are suffering from an illusion that we exist, then who is suffering the illusion? If we want to talk about nonsensical philosophical positions that would be a better example.
• 
  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".