Science comfortable with panpsychism!

[Sriram]

Hi Everyone,

WHY IS SCIENCE GROWING COMFORTABLE WITH PANPSYCHISM? (Except for guys on this board  )

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/05/why-is-science-growing-comfortable-with-panpsychism-everything-is-conscious/

***********

At one time, the idea that “everything is conscious” was the stuff of jokes. Not any more, it seems.

A recent article at New Scientist treats panpsychism as a serious idea in science. That’s thanks to the growing popularity of neuroscientist Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT):

"Not least, what they are uncovering seems to suggest that if we are to achieve a precise description of consciousness, we may have to ditch our intuitions and accept that all kinds of inanimate matter could be conscious – maybe even the universe as a whole. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution,” says Johannes Kleiner, a mathematician at the Munich Centre for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany.

But it’s not just New Scientist. In recent years, Scientific American has been sympathetic to panpsychism as well.

"We know empirically from DID that consciousness can give rise to many operationally distinct centers of concurrent experience, each with its own personality and sense of identity. Therefore, if something analogous to DID happens at a universal level, the one universal consciousness could, as a result, give rise to many alters with private inner lives like yours and ours. As such, we may all be alters—dissociated personalities—of universal consciousness".

But dropping physicalism likely entails some changes. Panpsychists need not be Darwinists, for example. That is, they need not account for human consciousness either as a trait that evolved to help ancestors of humans survive on the savannah or as a byproduct of such a trait. Bernardo Kastrup has argued explicitly, in response to Darwinist Jerry Coyne, that human consciousness cannot be a mere byproduct of human evolution because it cannot even be measured in traditional science terms.

If IIT continues to gain a sympathetic hearing, panpsychism could become, over time, a part of normal science.

***********

A good beginning.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Outrider]

The 'Open-access paper' launches its preamble with 'Integrated Information Theory is one of the leading models of consciousness'. Notwithstanding this... let's be charitable and call it an exagerration, IIT is not, scientifically speaking, a theory at all. It's barely an hypothesis, given that I don't see any of them offering a methodology for testing the claim. It's a mathematical game to try and describe an hypothetical set-theory notation for describing how IIT might work, if it could be shown to exist.

It's the mathematical equivalent of the Catholic church inventing limbo to explain what happens to the souls of dead innocents - it's internally logical, after a fashion, but it's still not based on anything.

Panpsychism remains, therefore, a fringe idea for science - it's not impossible, but there's nothing being provided that actively supports the notion which is competing against well-established fields which can demonstate at least some of the phenomena they suggest are responsible for consciousness.

O.

[Stranger]

A good beginning.

The way you approach science really is rather comical. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what science is supposed to do. You've clearly already made up your mind about the answers to many questions, so anything you think supports your conclusion (and you're also rather comically wrong about what does, sometimes) is 'good' and things that go against it get treated to one of your silly stock phrases, like "two boxes" or the absurd "blind man" analogy.

It's all rather sad really.

IIT is a conjecture that's been around for some time. There maybe something in it, but any way to properly test it is lacking. It's calculating something, but whether it's at all related to consciousness is entirely unclear at this stage. I also find it a bit odd that people call it panpsychism since the measure of consciousness for a system, Φ, can be zero for simple systems.

It also, of course, even supposing it's correct, doesn't give you most of what your superstitions demand: minds outside of brains, reincarnation, a universal consciousness, intelligently guided evolution, and so on.

 ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯

[jeremyp]

At one time, the idea that “everything is conscious” was the stuff of jokes. Not any more, it seems.

It still is. Labelling everything as conscious doesn't solve anything. If you say a rock is conscious, the question then becomes why is human consciousness so different to rock consciousness?

[Sriram]

There are lot of questions no doubt, just as there are lot of questions in cosmology QM and evolution and everywhere else. The point is to move step by step.

An idea in the right direction is what is important. A breakthrough concept.

[Sriram]

"minds outside of brains, reincarnation, a universal consciousness, intelligently guided evolution, and so on".

Yes...absolutely!  These are the ideas (along with an after-life) that will complete our understanding.....to a large extent.   

[Outrider]

"minds outside of brains, reincarnation, a universal consciousness, intelligently guided evolution, and so on".

Yes...absolutely!  These are the ideas (along with an after-life) that will complete our understanding.....to a large extent.

No, not 'will'... 'might'. They might be correct, in which case they will help to move our understanding forward, but equally they might not be right, and with no apparent method to test them it doesn't seem likely that they might be able to help us any time soon.

O.

[Stranger]

"minds outside of brains, reincarnation, a universal consciousness, intelligently guided evolution, and so on".

Yes...absolutely!  These are the ideas (along with an after-life) that will complete our understanding.....to a large extent.

There you go again the Sriram 'opposite of science' comical parody show...   

What you don't seem to get with regard to this is, that if IIT is the correct explanation for consciousness, then all these things (minds outside of brains, reincarnation, a universal consciousness, intelligently guided evolution..) will have been shown to be false.

You are supporting a conjecture that would rule out the things your superstition demands, and you appear to be too clueless to even realise it.

[Sriram]

There you go again the Sriram 'opposite of science' comical parody show...   

What you don't seem to get with regard to this is, that if IIT is the correct explanation for consciousness, then all these things (minds outside of brains, reincarnation, a universal consciousness, intelligently guided evolution..) will have been shown to be false.

You are supporting a conjecture that would rule out the things your superstition demands, and you appear to be too clueless to even realise it.

No it doesn't. It may not by itself support my philosophies, but it is a step forward towards bridging the gap. A step away from hard physicalism....which is important.

[ProfessorDavey]

"minds outside of brains, reincarnation, a universal consciousness, intelligently guided evolution, and so on".

Yes...absolutely!  These are the ideas (along with an after-life) that will complete our understanding.....to a large extent.

It would only 'complete our understanding' if these things are true and if they are true then surely we'd be able to verify this with evidence. If, on the other hand, they aren't true these ideas will take us further away from understanding.

As with so much, the key here is evidence.

[Sriram]

It would only 'complete our understanding' if these things are true and if they are true then surely we'd be able to verify this with evidence. If, on the other hand, they aren't true these ideas will take us further away from understanding.

As with so much, the key here is evidence.

Being open to the possibilities is the key.  Once we are through that barrier...the evidence will follow. You'll be surprised how much evidence there is all around us....but we didn't notice!

[Outrider]

No it doesn't. It may not by itself support my philosophies, but it is a step forward towards bridging the gap. A step away from hard physicalism....which is important.

It's only important if it's right, and neither you nor anyone else has offered anything to support that.

O.

[Stranger]

No it doesn't. It may not by itself support my philosophies, but it is a step forward towards bridging the gap. A step away from hard physicalism....which is important.

  Things don't become true just because you assert them. You obviously haven't bothered to find out much about the conjecture before concluding that it supports your views. This is why you are so comical.

Being open to the possibilities is the key.

This is also hilarious! You have one of the most closed minds on science subjects that I've ever encountered.

I'm totally open to possibilities - all I ask is for evidence. I'd be perfectly happy to accept IIT or any ideas of genuine panpsychism, for that matter, just as soon as somebody provides a proper, testable, falsifiable hypothesis and that hypothesis has been tested and found to give accurate results.

You, on the other hand, seem to be totally convinced that you already have access to the 'truth' of the matter despite a total lack of evidence. Your mind is shut tight.

Once we are through that barrier...the evidence will follow. You'll be surprised how much evidence there is all around us....but we didn't notice!

And this just shows, yet again, that you don't understand what evidence is.