Ah, in that case you’re right - there is no dualism. But that kind of extreme idealism is as abhorrent to me as solipsism, and raises if anything more questions: why do these dreams and phantasms seem like they are solid objects made of matter which consistently obey physical laws even to the very limits of our experimental ability to test them? If we are to be deceived by Descartes Devil I might as well give up, since even logic and reason might be nonsense fed into our jars.
As I understood it, panpsychism is not equivalent to pure idealism: it proposes a fundamental duality of physical entities and mental entities (which, incidentally, no cognitive scientist I know of ascribes to, only a few philosophers of mind - and even they don’t like to come right out and say it!)
Could be. I can’t definitely prove you’re wrong. Merely asserting it without giving any arguments in its favor isn’t very useful. If you want to start a thread expounding such a view I salute your courage.
If there is anything behind the curtain here in the world of appearances, I’ve been unable to get a peek. This world provides confusion enough for me.
Let’s back up. You quoted Theologue’s initial observation, and my response to you, but you did not quote your response to Theologue to which my response was directed. The reason I posted at all was that it seemed to me that you missed his point about encasement. He wrote: To be a Christian, to any extent that connects with the historic faith of the church, is to believe in the supernatural; that there is something beyond this system in which we are encased; the universe is not completely sealed. In which we — we — are encased. He did not suggest that God is encased here.
You then drew an inference that I believed was a non sequitur: It seems like waffling – if the universe is not completely sealed, then we are not encased – the supernatural is natural. The consequent, “we are not encased”, does not follow from the antecedent, “the universe is not completely sealed”, because it may well be sealed to us but open to someone or something else.
That was the point that I was making to you with respect to dimensional perspectives. It was offered as a counter-example. While circles may be encased in Flatland, spheres (as whole objects) are not. Just as hyperspheres are not encased in our universe. (Or dodecohyperspheres, depending on the cosmological theory du jour.)
This debate is fine and interesting and all that, but it rather misses both his point and mine. Incidentally, this is sort of the opposite debate of the one we had before Sentient and I left in which I contended that the universe is not real.
It seems you missed my point. Irrespective of whether the chair on which I sit “really” exists, the only interactions with, and knowledge of the chair I have, are within my consciousness. If you do peek behind the curtain, it’s still an experience of your consciousness*. This holds, irrespective of whether panpsychism or physicalism is true. So Sentient’s objection seems to derive from an aversion to non-physicalism rather than a real wedge.
*Maybe peeking behind the curtain involves a new modality which doesn’t conform to the constraints inherent in our existing modalities. But beliefs in such transcendence, so far, just signify wishful speculation…
Maybe I’m confused by what I take to be a spatial metaphor. Within my consciousness? The objects before me don’t seem to be in my head. Am I “all in your head”?
Welcome, Liberal! I’ll do some review and reflection before replying.
Nature (the Cosmos) is All. There exists only Nature (or Cosmos, or Universe, or All, or The One, or “God” [because “God” can be understood to mean “The Cosmos” as per pan-theism]).
That is my understanding of the concept of Nature/Universe/etc. If you wish, you can posit that there are many different Universes, or Planes, or A Super-Nature that is seperate from Nature. But it gets rather messy at that point because what will you now call the sum of the two (or more) parts?
I believe that if there is a God it is either part of, or all of, Nature and that “Supernatural” exists only as one of many human concepts within the physical (natural) realm.
As I have stated in numerous threads here, I believe that the Supernatural is simply the part of Nature that we can’t conceive yet (like “God” or the actions attributed to this “God” if it doesn’t in fact exist). It seems seperate only because we can’t fathom it (yet).
Therefore Iwould agree with the OP with a slight qualification: there is no such thing as Supernatural as a seperate entity from the Natural.
Do we agree that for billions of years those objects behaved in exactly the same manner? If so, whose consciousness were they part of for those aeons?
If I may ask: what’s yours?
And my aversion derives from the explanatory power of the Computational Theory of Mind, whereby consciousness emerges from physical processes in the same way that programs emerge from electronics. Could you provide the panpsychic explanation for how, say, stellar nucleosynthesis in the early universe emerge from your “primary consciousness”: why should carbon 14 have the resonance it does, rather than another one, if it “resides within my consciousness”?
I don’t know. Physicists certainly assume they did, courtesy the Razor.
Every entity that exists possesses consciousness. Not to be confused with the form of that consciousness.
The analogy doesn’t hold. Programs don’t emerge from electronics. We perceive them. Just like the Computational Theory, at best, correlations and consistency of structure can be held. The CToM depends on consciousness being a privileged phenomenon. Since one can’t know whether it is, it assumes so, beforehand. At best, behaviour and physical processes may be correlated. Panpsychism has no trouble with that.
I was teasing Hoodoo about solipsism, not advocating it. Besides, like i said, I don’t know whether the nucleosynthesis was a ‘real’ event or not. It is simply a logical consequence of a temporal antecedent derived from assuming consistency of structure throughout time and space.
Well, stars certainly went on emitting characteristic spectral lines and going supernova and the like, since we’re seeing them as they were when we (or indeed, life on Earth) didn’t exist. I’ll rephrase my question: how does panpsychism account for this? Just coincidence?
So a photon, an electromagnetic variation in spacetime, is conscious? My fingernail? My dead brain?
What do they run on, then? How come Sonic the Hedgehog didn’t appear in those 13.7 billion years before he did?
What is the altternative explanation which panpsychism puts forward for the diversity of elements beyond simple hydrogen and helium?
Ah, but there is nothing illogical about it not happening. Again, why is the resonance frequency of carbon the number is is rather than a slightly different number: logic surely doesn’t dictate a preference of one number over another?
Except that this is an assumption. We see something when we point telescopic lens. Based on experimental observations of phenomena locally, we assume that similar conditions exist ‘everywhere’ and then deduce the characteristics of what comes through those lenses. Maybe the universe is homogenuous, maybe it isn’t. At best, consistency and coherence of incoming observations can be tested, and that’s all.
Here’s where solipsism becomes more attractive. Identity is an ephemeral concept. According to materialism, this lump of cells that’s me presumably didn’t exist as an organization a few decades ago, and won’t exist in a few decades hence. Throughout, the underlying constitution is ever fluid, and the structures and processes are quasistatically changing. The same’s true for fingernails. Yet, the brain’s supposedly priviledged to an unfragmented continuous narrative of experience that is sure as hell unitary in perceived identity. There’s no difference in essence between a fingernail - an agglomeration of cells expressing some coherence - than the aggregrate of nuclei, ganglia and cortices that’s the human brain. We attribute a difference solely due to perceived complexity & familiarity of behaviour. That’s an assumption. I don’t know if other coherent identities exist, but I assume so. When I say I’m a panpsychist, all I mean is that consciousness is a primary arising that does not supervene on the physical plane. What qualifies as an entity? I don’t know.
Maybe, he did, and does, on Ulan Bator 9, in the galaxy Phraedus 3 :).
Who knows? I don’t see a logical necessity for just those 2 or 100s of elements.
In context, it probably does. If something is A, something must be B to establish coherence and consistency. But why A in the first place? Je ne sais pas.
Yes, but I’m not too hung up on duality.
If there’s an identity associated with it, it might have.
However, on reflection, I must agree with you, that if God, or some part of Him, is absolutely never manifested in the natural world, that might properly be termed supernatural. (However, anyone who claims knowledge of these aspects of him is blowin’ smoke.)
Have I broken some Great Debates Rule by so admitting? Will I now be obligated to argue with those who agreed with me?
And physicalism accounts for that something. It explains it. It provides a causative mechanism for it. I ask again: what is panpsychism’s equivalent? Coincidence?
You’re speaking solely in tautologies: of course there’s a difference in behaviour, perceived or not. What explanation are you putting forward for the different behaviour of a live brain and a dead one, or a live brain and a fingernail or a photon? If photons are conscious then surely lots and lots of photons will be very conscious, in which case, why doesn’t the sun have a conversation with us by encoding non-random data in its light (or, at least, doing something uncharacteristic of a non-conscious entity)? I’ll tell you why: because it is not conscious: it has no neural or electronic means of processing sensory input or accessing memory unlike, say, an insect.
Have you not just Reductioed your own Absurdans? What is the point of drawing such an arbitrary distinction if you don’t know how or why it should be applied?
If programs don’t need hardware, why specify a planet? Why could he not have appeared anywhere?
ie. Pansychism hasn’t got one.
Two elements is (largely) all that non-stellar nucleosynthesis produces. What is logically necessary or unnecessary about that nucleosynthesis? Appealing to logic here is as much a non sequitur as answering “non-stellar nucleosynthesis only produces elements beginning with the letter H”.
But there you are just tautologically describing what happens, rather than explaining it. Logic provides no explanatory mechanism and, as far as I can tell, neither does your particular version of panpsychism: what use is it?
One, by heart, Jesus didn’t mean “[t]he chambered muscular organ in vertebrates that pumps blood received from the veins into the arteries, thereby maintaining the flow of blood through the entire circulatory system” (American Heritage 1A). Rather, He meant “[the] vital center and source of one’s being … [the] most important or essential part” (American Heritage 3A and 9).
Two, a manifestation of a thing is not the thing itself. If A is one entity, then the manifestation of A is some other entity. A is A, and manifestation is manifestation. Therefore, it is metaphysically possible for the supernatural to become manifest in the natural world without itself being natural.
How can I tell otherwise?