Pansychism

[humbleBumble1]

In philosophy of mind, there is a problem called the mind/body problem, also known as the Hard Problem. The reason it’s called that, is because no one has been able to solve it, and it may be unsolveable.

The issue is this one: if we are compromised solely of physical material, what is the precise interplay between the “stuff” of consciousness, and that physical material?

We understand that processes in the brain provoke changes in awareness - we know that electric signals in the brain cause experiences, that damage to the brain causes various neuropathies, but that only explains various relationships between the brain and our consciousness. It still does not explain what consciousness actually is.

So, how can we attempt to do that?

In the material world, if we want to explain what a rock actually is, we usually dissect its elements so that we have a full breakdown of its molecular, atomic, energetic properties. We seek to divide it into its constituent parts. That, with consciousness, is impossible. Where, amongst our brain process and our brain matter, is that single, indivisible, point of awareness. In short, where are you?

One explanation that I could buy into, is that consciousness is actually present, to varying degrees, in all things - humans, animals, fish, insects, trees, plants, bacteria, viruses, molecular structures, atoms, particles.

This idea is pansychism, and I think many of us would agree we’ve had some experience of this feeling of awareness being everywhere on psychedelics. It’s an idea that has some traction in contemporary philosophy. I’d love to know people’s thoughts!

 

[Madness]

I haven't taken philosophy classes or know much about the theories, but I consider "consciousness", "perception", and "understanding" to all be distinctly different.

Definitely related, as is everything if we think about it enough, but identifying a specific point of change I don't think is possible. Or if it is, I am not sure how to discern them from each other.

Hopefully this follows. No need to reply to me if you don't think it's relevant. Sort of just trying to add in hopes that it can be used or argued.

 

[humbleBumble1]

Yeah I think those are very interesting distinctions to try and draw!

So I could (very) arguably say that a camera has perception, but it doesn’t have consciousness. Ultimately though, I think nothing is really perceived unless some being is conscious of it.

I don’t think you could have consciousness without some degree of perception. I think you have to be able to perceiving something, if it is is just that you are yourself thinking, to be conscious.

I think I could (again, very arguably), say that a computer has understanding, in that it by some measure it understands an input, does something with it, and gives you an output. But ultimately does it really understand anything? Is it just a series of processes which are working properly, and we use the word “understanding” because it is easy to describe what has happened?

 

[snmfmy]

In philosophy of mind, there is a problem called the mind/body problem, also known as the Hard Problem. The reason it’s called that, is because no one has been able to solve it, and it may be unsolveable.

The issue is this one: if we are compromised solely of physical material, what is the precise interplay between the “stuff” of consciousness, and that physical material?

We understand that processes in the brain provoke changes in awareness - we know that electric signals in the brain cause experiences, that damage to the brain causes various neuropathies, but that only explains various relationships between the brain and our consciousness. It still does not explain what consciousness actually is.

So, how can we attempt to do that?

In the material world, if we want to explain what a rock actually is, we usually dissect its elements so that we have a full breakdown of its molecular, atomic, energetic properties. We seek to divide it into its constituent parts. That, with consciousness, is impossible. Where, amongst our brain process and our brain matter, is that single, indivisible, point of awareness. In short, where are you?

One explanation that I could buy into, is that consciousness is actually present, to varying degrees, in all things - humans, animals, fish, insects, trees, plants, bacteria, viruses, molecular structures, atoms, particles.

This idea is pansychism, and I think many of us would agree we’ve had some experience of this feeling of awareness being everywhere on psychedelics. It’s an idea that has some traction in contemporary philosophy. I’d love to know people’s thoughts!

Well I think a lot of people over complicate the mind body problem.

Damage to the brain explicitly effects consciousness because damage causes an unconscious vegetative state.

Damage to the brain explicitly affects consciousness because it causes a multitude of personality changes. Memory loss. Basically the person is somebody else.

Recreational and non-recreational psychoactive substance use and abuse explicitly changes cognition and consciousness.

What we call cognition and consciousness is the result of an extremely complex biological difference engine.

Fundamentally, there's no difference between our brain and a machine and our consciousness is probably the best example of complexity of operation and effects from simplistic mechanisms.

The metaphysical lobby will tell you that no consciousness isn't based solely on the physical matter in your brain and I say bullshit. It absolutely is. If you change the physical substrate of the brain, you fundamentally change consciousness and cognition.

 

[humbleBumble1]

Well I think a lot of people over complicate the mind body problem.

Damage to the brain explicitly effects consciousness because damage causes an unconscious vegetative state.

Damage to the brain explicitly affects consciousness because it causes a multitude of personality changes. Memory loss. Basically the person is somebody else.

Recreational and non-recreational psychoactive substance use and abuse explicitly changes cognition and consciousness.

What we call cognition and consciousness is the result of an extremely complex biological difference engine.

Fundamentally, there's no difference between our brain and a machine and our consciousness is probably the best example of complexity of operation and effects from simplistic mechanisms.

The metaphysical lobby will tell you that no consciousness isn't based solely on the physical matter in your brain and I say bullshit. It absolutely is. If you change the physical substrate of the brain, you fundamentally change consciousness and cognition.

So I think I’d have to respectfully disagree I guess that makes me part of the metaphysical lobby! Sounds like a cool club to me.

Whilst I totally agree that interactions/disruptions of brain-matter result in changes to the mind/consciousness, I don’t think you have thereby explained away the problem itself by demonstrating that there clearly is a relationship between brain and mind. If it was as simple as that, then there wouldn’t be a problem at all. And, maybe you think there isn’t a problem at all, which is fine, it just means that you see no distinction between matter and consciousness. They are the same thing, and there is no reason at all to even consider the question.

If you see no distinction between matter and consciousness, then I guess what I would expect you to be able to answer is some of the following:

• How much does consciousness weigh?
• What elements of the periodic table comprise its structure?
• Does it have properties of color, sound, heat, smell, taste?

You might say “well, consciousness is made of electricity and brain matter”. But I think that’s side-stepping the issue. We know that those things are probably needed to create “a consciousness”, but at what point exactly does that happen in their configuration? It feels like that’s a pretty vague approach to the question. I just don’t think you can accurately say “consciousness IS this” in the same way you can say “a rock IS this”.

I would argue that every material thing in the universe could have some or most of these questions answered against it. I would argue that none of these can be honestly answered in relation to consciousness, and what you are doing is describing a process, not the actual “stuff” of experience.

 

[Denisovan]

In philosophy of mind, there is a problem called the mind/body problem, also known as the Hard Problem. The reason it’s called that, is because no one has been able to solve it, and it may be unsolveable.

The issue is this one: if we are compromised solely of physical material, what is the precise interplay between the “stuff” of consciousness, and that physical material?

We understand that processes in the brain provoke changes in awareness - we know that electric signals in the brain cause experiences, that damage to the brain causes various neuropathies, but that only explains various relationships between the brain and our consciousness. It still does not explain what consciousness actually is.

So, how can we attempt to do that?

In the material world, if we want to explain what a rock actually is, we usually dissect its elements so that we have a full breakdown of its molecular, atomic, energetic properties. We seek to divide it into its constituent parts. That, with consciousness, is impossible. Where, amongst our brain process and our brain matter, is that single, indivisible, point of awareness. In short, where are you?

One explanation that I could buy into, is that consciousness is actually present, to varying degrees, in all things - humans, animals, fish, insects, trees, plants, bacteria, viruses, molecular structures, atoms, particles.

This idea is pansychism, and I think many of us would agree we’ve had some experience of this feeling of awareness being everywhere on psychedelics. It’s an idea that has some traction in contemporary philosophy. I’d love to know people’s thoughts!

I think you MAY be confusing panpsychism partially with animism or pancognitivism? I cannot entirely tell with this post.

I study 17th century literature (working on a book right now!) and panpsychism was huge back then among some of the most progressive of scientific thinkers. (not that "science" was a thing back then).

It is not about the inanimate having 'consciousness' necessarily, though I know it is often described this way. I think it is easy to attribute human-like qualities to inanimate objects when you think of it in this way. I much prefer to say that panpsychism is the belief that the universe (though not necessarily all of it) has 'mind-like quality'.

The idea back in the 17th century was that everything was comprised of monads, the smallest unit in the universe. These monads were parts, or grouped to form parts of the universe, and these parts 'communicated' or 'had agreements' with other parts. This was not 'awareness' or 'consciousness' necessarily as many believed these agreements happened at the behest of a creator (see: God) and could, for the most part, be treated as (mostly) static laws of the universe.

For instance, the 'parts' of water agreeing to flow a certain way. They are not necessarily talking, thinking, or aware of this, they are just doing it because that is what they do. You have to understand that the idea of Panpsychism came about in a time when we did not know about electricity/energy, and had no concept of chemistry. People recognized there had to be SOME system by which the universe operated, since the rules seemed to be unchanging.

In essence, with this system, the universe can be treated as one big mind with lots of different parts working simultaneously, and in 'agreement' to stick to the rules set out by God. This is very different from animism where parts of the universe have more human-like qualities, such as souls, or emotions, or kingdoms, etc. Panpsychism is almost mechanical.
Interestingly, many believed in an increased level of mentality for things which moved, which they called self-moving matter. Like humans, a flowing river, animals, bugs, wind, fire, etc. This is because they had 'more agreements' to work a certain way. The more parts, and the more complex they are, the more 'consciousness' they had. Humans were considered the ultimate conscious creature (as in, a creation of a supreme being) as they were seen as more complex and more independent than pretty much everything else. After all, you don't see geese debating philosophy or building castles, and you don't see wind wagging its tail all happy when you walk in the door, like you would with a dog.

The way I see it, panpsychism is much more of a precursor to our modern understanding of science. It doesn't really hold up to our modern understanding of science. While someone may believe that, say, water is conscious, it's hard to argue that water is deciding, consciously, to act in certain ways, because we understand the properties of physics that make it act as it does, and it seems unlikely that there is any decision making involved.

Remember where I said "(mostly) static laws of the universe." This was how people used to explain what they couldn't understand. Sometimes, self-moving matter would break the rules and create things like monsters (like, scary ones that live in the woods) or miracles or other strange phenomena that didn't fit into their understood rulebook of the universe.

But now we can explain a lot of that stuff. We know that things like animals being mutated is due to DNA. We know that the Aurora Borealis is just radiation from the sun. It's not 'nature changing its mind' there are rules, and we know a lot of them. The fact that I'm able to type all of this and send it to anywhere in the world is evidence of how far we have come in understanding the rules of the universe. A lot of panpsychist claims are easily disproven because of this.

I think with things like animism, or pancognitivism, or panexperientialism, the claims are much more unfalsifiable. Like, how are you going to prove we can't be reincarnated as toads and that some toads have souls as a result? How are you going to prove rocks don't have a rock king who rules over the rock kingdom? How are you going to prove that ravens aren't messengers from Odin? How are you going to prove that your toilet isn't horrifically, vividly aware of what you do to it after eating 3 Gordita Crunches from Taco Bell, back to back?

This is why I don't think panpsychism really has a place in modern philosophy. It's fun to think about, but most people are more educated nowadays and are much more empiricist when it comes to questions like "How does fire work?" or "What's this weird growth on my foot?" or "Where do mosquitos come from?"

Personally, what I've experienced on psychedelics is much more accurately described as animism, or pancognitivism, or panexperientialism. I remember petting a plant once because 'it felt lonely'.

Though, I do think the universe is an interconnected system of sorts. I just prefer to think of that system as run by logical rules rather than a mind or a bunch of minds.

edit: I just remembered this while out vaping some fine flower---A good phrase to remember the flavor of consciousness described in the word panpsychism is 'cause and impact understanding'.

 

[humbleBumble1]

Thank you very much for the long post! Really illuminating points. So cool that you’re writing a book about 17th century literature, what are you focusing on.

I’ll try to address some of what you mentioned, you could well be right that I’m mixing things up but what you’ve described doesn’t totally align with my understanding. I probably explained myself badly.

I wouldn’t say that panpsychism meant that “water is conscious” or “my toilet is conscious”. The way I believe it to work as an idea is that there is some amount of awareness which is ultimately indivisible. So in the same way that we currently think that a quark is likely the smallest particle in the universe, at the level of the quark there is some degree of awareness.

Now, that is definitely not to say that the quark is thinking in the same way that humans think. It just means that there could be a sliding scale of awareness, from humans down to particles. This doesn’t mean that configurations of particles always form bigger consciousnesses - like the toilet or water, it means that perhaps, at the smallest level, awareness is a property of indivisible particles.

I agree that perhaps the idea is currently unverifiable - however maybe one day that won’t be the case! However I do disagree that the idea has no place in modern philosophy or science, as it is certainly taken seriously and debated in that respect. It’s taken up by people like neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose, as well as philosophers like Philip Goff. It’s seen as a response to David Chalmer’s introduction of the Hard Problem (which I previously mentioned) in 1994.

Here’s a good quote that maybe lays it out better than I could:

Panpsychism doesn’t necessarily imply that every inanimate object is conscious. “Panpsychists usually don’t take tables and other artifacts to be conscious as a whole,” writes Hedda Hassel Mørch, a philosophy researcher at New York University’s Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness, in an email. “Rather, the table could be understood as a collection of particles that each have their own very simple form of consciousness.”

 

[Mjäll]

I think panpsychism is a good starting point. Most things in reality appear in gradients and interrelations, rendered discrete only by a wager of our practical faculties. Something interesting and worthwhile is often to be found by challenging pre-existing classification - if we have the time and power to do so.

 

[Madness]

Aren't atoms constantly moving? Could there be just a mere consciousness of being? Perhaps not understood by the laws we know from our perception?

 

[snmfmy]

So I think I’d have to respectfully disagree I guess that makes me part of the metaphysical lobby! Sounds like a cool club to me.

Whilst I totally agree that interactions/disruptions of brain-matter result in changes to the mind/consciousness, I don’t think you have thereby explained away the problem itself by demonstrating that there clearly is a relationship between brain and mind. If it was as simple as that, then there wouldn’t be a problem at all. And, maybe you think there isn’t a problem at all, which is fine, it just means that you see no distinction between matter and consciousness. They are the same thing, and there is no reason at all to even consider the question.

If you see no distinction between matter and consciousness, then I guess what I would expect you to be able to answer is some of the following:

• How much does consciousness weigh?
• What elements of the periodic table comprise its structure?
• Does it have properties of color, sound, heat, smell, taste?

You might say “well, consciousness is made of electricity and brain matter”. But I think that’s side-stepping the issue. We know that those things are probably needed to create “a consciousness”, but at what point exactly does that happen in their configuration? It feels like that’s a pretty vague approach to the question. I just don’t think you can accurately say “consciousness IS this” in the same way you can say “a rock IS this”.

I would argue that every material thing in the universe could have some or most of these questions answered against it. I would argue that none of these can be honestly answered in relation to consciousness, and what you are doing is describing a process, not the actual “stuff” of experience.

So are you arguing that all abstract ideas have to have a weight?

What does happiness weigh? See that's kind of a silly question.

Just like proposing what does consciousness weigh?

One of the easiest ways to start discussion on this process is to look at infants and toddlers. Infants and toddlers have no sense of self for many, many months up to over a year in some cases. Of course they have cognition, but they don't necessarily perceive the idea of self. That's because the brain is still making connections and maturing enough to allow the thought of self -identification.

 

[humbleBumble1]

I’m not arguing that at all! In fact, I’m saying the exact opposite. None of those things have physical properties.

And yeah, I completely agree that what does happiness weigh is a silly question. That’s why I say it

Happiness is predicated on there being a consciousness to be happy. All the things you mention are predicated on consciousness. As are dreams, thoughts, ideas, memories, etc.

And so, if it is a silly question to ask how much does consciousness weigh, then you have to concede that consciousness is something separate from the material world, and therefore, accept something of a dualist perspective.

 

[snmfmy]

I’m not arguing that at all! In fact, I’m saying the exact opposite. None of those things have physical properties.

And yeah, I completely agree that what does happiness weigh is a silly question. That’s why I say it

Happiness is predicated on there being a consciousness to be happy. All the things you mention are predicated on consciousness. As are dreams, thoughts, ideas, memories, etc.

And so, if it is a silly question to ask how much does consciousness weigh, then you have to concede that consciousness is something separate from the material world, and therefore, accept something of a dualist perspective.

No, I don't have to concede that.

What we call "Consciousness" is the result of neurochemical processes in our brain.

Even internal self-talk doesn't include words that you haven't learned yet. When you talk to yourself and your mind or have thoughts, it's almost always in a voice of someone you know. It's simply an extension of stimulus action.

Think about artificial intelligence. At some point a computer program will be complex and trained enough to be indistinguishable from a person. At that point it would be representing consciousness.

We humans like to make it seem that we're special in some way. We're not. We're just reasonably evolved hominids.

 

[humbleBumble1]

Again, I agree that it is a result of processes happening in the brain. But you cannot simply point to those processes and say that’s what consciousness is.

That’s what causes consciousness, but not what it is. In the same way that heat, fuel and oxygen cause fire. Heat, fuel and oxygen are not fire, they are simply prerequisites for it to exist.

I disagree that computers will one day become so complex that it will, at some point, magically become conscious. The complexity of a system which presents as being conscious does not mean that it is conscious, or experiencing anything at all. It is merely mimicking a conscious being.

I agree that we’re not special. We have awareness in the same way that any animal does. It’s not a matter of human vs non-human. It’s a matter of awareness itself, which certainly exists in all sentient life.

Again, respectfully, it seems that you might have to concede something here. If, as you say, consciousness is purely material, then what material is it?

If it is not material, then it is something other than material. Therefore, it sits outside the material world.

I just want to ay that I’m really enjoying this discussion and I think your points are absolutely salient and intelligent. This is a really fun philosophical dialogue and I’m finding my own position clarified by this experience, and I hope it’s the same for you.

 

[Denisovan]

Thank you very much for the long post! Really illuminating points. So cool that you’re writing a book about 17th century literature, what are you focusing on.

I’ll try to address some of what you mentioned, you could well be right that I’m mixing things up but what you’ve described doesn’t totally align with my understanding. I probably explained myself badly.

I wouldn’t say that panpsychism meant that “water is conscious” or “my toilet is conscious”. The way I believe it to work as an idea is that there is some amount of awareness which is ultimately indivisible. So in the same way that we currently think that a quark is likely the smallest particle in the universe, at the level of the quark there is some degree of awareness.

Now, that is definitely not to say that the quark is thinking in the same way that humans think. It just means that there could be a sliding scale of awareness, from humans down to particles. This doesn’t mean that configurations of particles always form bigger consciousnesses - like the toilet or water, it means that perhaps, at the smallest level, awareness is a property of indivisible particles.

I agree that perhaps the idea is currently unverifiable - however maybe one day that won’t be the case! However I do disagree that the idea has no place in modern philosophy or science, as it is certainly taken seriously and debated in that respect. It’s taken up by people like neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose, as well as philosophers like Philip Goff. It’s seen as a response to David Chalmer’s introduction of the Hard Problem (which I previously mentioned) in 1994.

Here’s a good quote that maybe lays it out better than I could:

Panpsychism doesn’t necessarily imply that every inanimate object is conscious. “Panpsychists usually don’t take tables and other artifacts to be conscious as a whole,” writes Hedda Hassel Mørch, a philosophy researcher at New York University’s Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness, in an email. “Rather, the table could be understood as a collection of particles that each have their own very simple form of consciousness.”

Right now I'm actually working on a book about Margaret Cavendish's "The Blazing World", a 17th century sci-fi. This woman is the coolest and I could gush about her all day. In this book she talks about panpsychism and other (now considered) pseudo-science.

The problem with panpsychism is that it just doesn't hold up to our modern understanding of science, which is why it is no longer a popular school of thought. I know it is still talked about in academic circles (hell, I'm going to a conference where it will be discussed in a few months) but the idea of "Cause and impact understanding" doesn't make sense when we have "Cause and impact rules" that are so well understood we can utilize them for things like digital clocks, computers, videogames, cellphones, even quantum computers. I don't believe the people you mentioned are panpsychists themselves.

In a world where monads act in expected and understood ways, where is the room for mentality? Matter can't make decisions. It behaves mechanically.

If you want to say that matter has feelings or experiences or thoughts or souls, then okay, I can't disprove that. But it isn't panpsychism and there are other terms to describe that way of thinking. Panpsychism is at its core, a pre-science philosophy.

 

[Denisovan]

Again, I agree that it is a result of processes happening in the brain. But you cannot simply point to those processes and say that’s what consciousness is.

That’s what causes consciousness, but not what it is. In the same way that heat, fuel and oxygen cause fire. Heat, fuel and oxygen are not fire, they are simply prerequisites for it to exist.

I disagree that computers will one day become so complex that it will, at some point, magically become conscious. The complexity of a system which presents as being conscious does not mean that it is conscious, or experiencing anything at all. It is merely mimicking a conscious being.

I agree that we’re not special. We have awareness in the same way that any animal does. It’s not a matter of human vs non-human. It’s a matter of awareness itself, which certainly exists in all sentient life.

Again, respectfully, it seems that you might have to concede something here. If, as you say, consciousness is purely material, then what material is it?

If it is not material, then it is something other than material. Therefore, it sits outside the material world.

I just want to ay that I’m really enjoying this discussion and I think your points are absolutely salient and intelligent. This is a really fun philosophical dialogue and I’m finding my own position clarified by this experience, and I hope it’s the same for you.

The argument that anything can sit outside the material world relies on the presupposition of the existence a non-material world/realm/dimension/etc.

Lets explore a different presupposition.

What if you are wrong, and everything is material? Would you still believe in matter containing a 'consciousness' of sorts, like 16th-18th century materialists did?

 

[Madness]

I think the beauty of conversations like this, is that there's even a conversation about it.

The fact that we are engaging each other about something beyond everyone (let's be honest), is fascinating in and of itself.

I'm just listening at this point, don't mind me

 

[Denisovan]

Song is Panpsychism by Kat Wilson.

 

[humbleBumble1]

Right now I'm actually working on a book about Margaret Cavendish's "The Blazing World", a 17th century sci-fi. This woman is the coolest and I could gush about her all day. In this book she talks about panpsychism and other (now considered) pseudo-science.

The problem with panpsychism is that it just doesn't hold up to our modern understanding of science, which is why it is no longer a popular school of thought. I know it is still talked about in academic circles (hell, I'm going to a conference where it will be discussed in a few months) but the idea of "Cause and impact understanding" doesn't make sense when we have "Cause and impact rules" that are so well understood we can utilize them for things like digital clocks, computers, videogames, cellphones, even quantum computers. I don't believe the people you mentioned are panpsychists themselves.

In a world where monads act in expected and understood ways, where is the room for mentality? Matter can't make decisions. It behaves mechanically.

If you want to say that matter has feelings or experiences or thoughts or souls, then okay, I can't disprove that. But it isn't panpsychism and there are other terms to describe that way of thinking. Panpsychism is at its core, a pre-science philosophy.

Maybe the issue here is a semantic one, but the people I mention all write specifically about what they call panpsychism. Perhaps they don’t call themselves “panpsychists”, but that is certainly the area they are concerned with.

Christoph Koch writes about it here: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/is-consciousness-everywhere/

Quote: “With the modern devaluation of metaphysics and the rise of analytic philosophy, the last century evicted the mental entirely, not only from most university departments but also from the universe at large. But this denial of consciousness is now being viewed as the “Great Silliness,” and panpsychism is undergoing a revival within the academe.”

Roger Penrose is mentioned here: https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state/

Quote: “U.K. physicist Sir Roger Penrose is yet another supporter of panpsychism. Penrose in the 80’s proposed that consciousness is present at the quantum level and resides in the synapses of the brain. He is famous for linking consciousness with some of the goings on in quantum mechanics.”

Philip Goff writes about it in a really good article here. https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/The_Case_For_Panpsychism

“What then is the intrinsic nature of matter? Panpsychism offers an answer: consciousness. Physics describes matter ‘from the outside’, that is to say, physics gives us rich information about the behaviour brought about by mass, spin, charge, etc. But there must be more to what something is than what it does; and according to panpsychism, mass, spin, charge, etc, are, in their intrinsic nature, forms of consciousness.”

As you say, the roots of this idea go back to ancient philosophy, however it does seem that this idea is gaining at least some traction in contemporary circles, and all I dispute is that it isn’t being taken seriously.

I don’t think I”m saying that matter “wants” or “decides” anything. My understanding of the idea is that the “consciousness” in question is much more basic than that - it’s a matter of awareness or perception being an element of the basic building blocks of reality, not anything remotely like a sentient experience of being alive, like an animal. It could be an almost unfathomably different type of experience to ours.

Totally willing to accept this is not provable given current scientific technologies. It’s just a theory, but I think it’s a fascinating one to discuss!

And Margaret Cavendish sounds awesome, I will definitely check her out!

 

[humbleBumble1]

No, I don't have to concede that.

What we call "Consciousness" is the result of neurochemical processes in our brain.

Even internal self-talk doesn't include words that you haven't learned yet. When you talk to yourself and your mind or have thoughts, it's almost always in a voice of someone you know. It's simply an extension of stimulus action.

Think about artificial intelligence. At some point a computer program will be complex and trained enough to be indistinguishable from a person. At that point it would be representing consciousness.

We humans like to make it seem that we're special in some way. We're not. We're just reasonably evolved hominids.

Again, I agree that it is a result of processes happening in the brain. But you cannot simply point to those processes and say that’s what consciousness is.

That’s what causes consciousness, but not what it is. In the same way that heat, fuel and oxygen cause fire. Heat, fuel and oxygen are not fire, they are simply prerequisites for it to exist.

I disagree that computers will one day become so complex that it will, at some point, magically become conscious. The complexity of a system which presents as being conscious does not mean that it is conscious, or experiencing anything at all. It is merely mimicking a conscious being.

I agree that we’re not special. We have awareness in the same way that any animal does. It’s not a matter of human vs non-human. It’s a matter of awareness itself, which certainly exists in all sentient life.

Again, respectfully, it seems that you might have to concede something here. If, as you say, consciousness is purely material, then what material is it?

If it is not material, then it is something other than material. Therefore, it sits outside the material world.

I just want to ay that I’m really enjoying this discussion and I think your points are absolutely salient and intelligent. This is a really fun philosophical dialogue and I’m finding my own position clarified by this experience, and I hope it’s the same for you.

 

[humbleBumble1]

The argument that anything can sit outside the material world relies on the presupposition of the existence a non-material world/realm/dimension/etc.

Lets explore a different presupposition.

What if you are wrong, and everything is material? Would you still believe in matter containing a 'consciousness' of sorts, like 16th-18th century materialists did?

Yeah I definitely agree, I would have to concede that, if I take a dualist position, that there is some “thing” outside of the material world as we understand it. And I think I probably could accept that’s what I believe! But, only because I feel like the logic of the situation dictates that I have to accept that.

If I was wrong, and everything was material, then I guess I would be believing something that was wrong! I’m not sure what to draw from that.

Also we could go back further than that to Thales and his idea that all things contain “little gods” which explained how bodies could move at all in space! As I understand it, the idea that consciousness is fused into all things goes back thousands of years. It’s only started to be taken seriously again recently. Maybe it will soon be dismissed and disproved as total bunkum, but I think I’m in pretty comfortable company at the moment accepting that it seems to me to be a somewhat reasonable explanation to the problem itself.