Panpsychism/cosmopsychism
Just a flying visit to this site.
I have posted the following (or a version of it) on two other discussion forums.
I thought that getting a philosophy-based overview would be useful along with my attempt at getting a more scientific-based and generalised overview.
Is it possible for a human to exist, without any ability to ask questions? Internally, externally or both. Even when I try to ‘not think,’ I must be internally checking that whichever ‘storage unit,’ let’s call it ‘short term memory,’ for want of anything better/more accurate that I use to hold a thought, is currently, ‘empty.’ Such internal checking would be based on the question ‘am I thinking?’
If I concentrate on the number 2 or the colour blue or a cabbage or a king then surely I have to have previously-stored answers to the questions what is 2, blue, cabbage, king etc. It seems to be that it's all about asking and answering questions, from the moment of birth.
Is the main function of a lifeform such as a human, therefore, to ask and answer questions? and if so, then what would be the final goal of this?
Is panpsychism /cosmopsychism therefore an emergent property of the Universe?
Panpsychism was supported by plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Bertrand Russell etc
The philosopher, Phillip Goff discusses panpsychism here:
http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/uploads/1/4/4/4/14443634/routledge_panpsychism.pdf
And he discusses the subterm cosmopsychism here:
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life
Dr Richard Gault (History and the philosophy of Science) discusses panpsychism here:
http://besharamagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Panpsychism-Richard-Gault.pdf
I have not read every word in these links but I am not currently convinced by either panpsychism or cosmopsychism yet but I do find the following idea very interesting:
The digital era has resulted in an ‘information at our fingertips’ situation due to the internet and the general advances in communication technology. This has also created an explosion of fake news and a global ability to fool ‘more of the people more of the time.’ However, I am more interested in the consequential, ‘the world is a smaller place,’ idea. It is feasible that as technology advances and if we do become more transhuman, in the future that we will become more of a collective (not in the Star Trek Borg sense of centrally controlled automatons) in our ability to share thoughts and could this result (at some point in the future) in the creation of some form of world, and then eventually, a universal, intellect, where we would still be individuals but also be capable of ‘connecting and collectivising’ our brain power.
I have posted the following (or a version of it) on two other discussion forums.
I thought that getting a philosophy-based overview would be useful along with my attempt at getting a more scientific-based and generalised overview.
Is it possible for a human to exist, without any ability to ask questions? Internally, externally or both. Even when I try to ‘not think,’ I must be internally checking that whichever ‘storage unit,’ let’s call it ‘short term memory,’ for want of anything better/more accurate that I use to hold a thought, is currently, ‘empty.’ Such internal checking would be based on the question ‘am I thinking?’
If I concentrate on the number 2 or the colour blue or a cabbage or a king then surely I have to have previously-stored answers to the questions what is 2, blue, cabbage, king etc. It seems to be that it's all about asking and answering questions, from the moment of birth.
Is the main function of a lifeform such as a human, therefore, to ask and answer questions? and if so, then what would be the final goal of this?
Is panpsychism /cosmopsychism therefore an emergent property of the Universe?
Panpsychism was supported by plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Bertrand Russell etc
The philosopher, Phillip Goff discusses panpsychism here:
http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/uploads/1/4/4/4/14443634/routledge_panpsychism.pdf
And he discusses the subterm cosmopsychism here:
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life
Dr Richard Gault (History and the philosophy of Science) discusses panpsychism here:
http://besharamagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Panpsychism-Richard-Gault.pdf
I have not read every word in these links but I am not currently convinced by either panpsychism or cosmopsychism yet but I do find the following idea very interesting:
The digital era has resulted in an ‘information at our fingertips’ situation due to the internet and the general advances in communication technology. This has also created an explosion of fake news and a global ability to fool ‘more of the people more of the time.’ However, I am more interested in the consequential, ‘the world is a smaller place,’ idea. It is feasible that as technology advances and if we do become more transhuman, in the future that we will become more of a collective (not in the Star Trek Borg sense of centrally controlled automatons) in our ability to share thoughts and could this result (at some point in the future) in the creation of some form of world, and then eventually, a universal, intellect, where we would still be individuals but also be capable of ‘connecting and collectivising’ our brain power.
Comments (43)
Except as idle speculation – no. "Panpsychism / cosmopsychism" (is) just woo-of-the-explanatory-gaps.
I'm only interested in Spinoza – tell me what textual evidence from Spinoza's writings (or correspondances) corroborates his alleged "panpsychism ... support". I think you're quite mistaken about him (& Russell too).
I agree that both panpsychism and cosmopsychism are pure conjecture but I do find them intriguing.
Quoting 180 Proof
I wish I was more 'well read' on Spinoza and on many others but I am not.
I merely copied the claim that Spinoza supported panpsychism from wikipedia's offering on panpsychism
The main quote is:
"It is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers including Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, William James,[3] Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, and Galen Strawson"
Your first clue that you're not onto something rational.Quoting universeness
Let's hope not.
Quoting universeness
It already has numerous times, they call that religion. Which is really just hatred of self, and love of non-self in a way that seems coherent. Which is why it has always pursued the death of people who were accepting the nature of what they actual were, which was a singular self.
I prefer the new fangled philosophy of pan-fuckoffism, which holds that I must be able to verify claims and assertions, before voluntarily incorporating it into my neural network of understandings.
I don't think that collectivism always results in a religious outbreak that becomes a controlling doctrine of the collective. As a socialist, I fully support the necessity of the democratic freedom of the individual but this must be balanced with the equally necessary security and well-being of all. Getting that balance correct is the most complex part of any socialist agenda and it has never been achieved so far by any national political system.
The god concept is normally rejected as intelligence levels increase and fear levels reduce.
I think that's why few scientists are religious. If 'question asking and answering' becomes more and more networked in the future and if future transhumans demonstrate abilities to communicate in advanced ways then we will answer questions at an increasing pace. This will surely produce the technologies we need to move into the big space outside of this pale blue dot.
I don't subscribe to many of the current tenets of pan or cosmo psychism, but they have aspects, which I think are valid when the history of the pace of the discovery of new knowledge is considered.
Perhaps we will have to survive WW3 first, based on the current brinksmanship being played out between Russia, China, USA and Europe.
What's that?
Quoting universeness
This is a contradiction. Individuals are not free, if they are "granted" access to participate in a social contract that they didn't agree to. Democracy is antithetical to freedom, always has been, always wiil be by definition.
Quoting universeness
This is also a contradiction. My well-being consists of 100% self-determination. If your "security" involves violating my basic need of 100% self-determination to provide "well-being" for people who are not me, then you're a dictator.
Quoting universeness
No, it is an impossibility for any tyrant, that's why socialists won't stop murdering people, just like the rest of the religious. The "balance" is you fucking off, and tending to your own affairs within your own purview. My purview is not your business, property, responsibility, nor are welcome in my sphere of influence on this basis of intereaction.
Quoting universeness
Yes, because "politics" means murder, nothing else. All politics are anti-human. It is a slave-driving organization. It hasn't been "achieved" because what it "achieves" is death, it is an organization predicated on forcing humans to perform labor it wants it to perform, and will never be anything else. All political action is reprehensibile immorality, and anti-human.
Quoting universeness
No, it isn't. The vast majority of humans are either committedly religious, or adherents of bastardized, contorted, plagiarised, derivatives of its 2000 year influence over the intellect, like socialism. Socialism is just a pagan adaptation of concepts, all faith-based, pulled directly from Christianity, that Christianity usurped through murder and perverted from actually peaceful societies that were predicated on anti-god and anti-state, the only peaceful and thriving communities in history. You've been duped, brother.
Quoting universeness
Most scientists and academicians are religious in their thinking, even if they reject one god over another. Any blind faith in any non-material phenomena is religious thought.
Quoting universeness
Don't make me laugh.
Quoting universeness
Name one, then show me some evidence for its support.
Quoting universeness
So the Fascist-Socialist-Christian-Relatvist WW3, nothing has changed at all. I wonder when people will learn.
Thank you for your frank reply. I understand your true position much more clearly now.
I am glad you do. That all being forcefully said, I kindly invite you to read the post I just issued on the main page.
Panpsychism is verifiable
Okay, then it should be easy for you to get me the evidence?
No, that's just objective material phenomena. I mean evidence for your claim of: the mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality.
Where do you see this mind? Any evidence of this mind that 1. cannot be attributed to natural processes, and 2. can be attributed to mental processes? You'll need both to make this claim, if you don't have both, you are playing make-believe.
You know more about the academic subject of philosophy than I do in the same way that I know more about the academic subject of Computing Science than you do. Career choice and qualifications, obviously influence expertise.
On the issue of politics, typings such as:
What's that? as your response to my 'as a socialist.'
Quoting Garrett Travers
Quoting Garrett Travers
Quoting Garrett Travers
Quoting Garrett Travers
Quoting Garrett Travers
Sound like angry words based on some kind of bitter and twisted, personal, irrational emotions you have towards all things political.
There is a political chasm between us based on the viewpoints you typed above.
If your philosophical conclusions have informed your political viewpoints then I think you should disconnect the two.
I can only hope you never hold political office or become able to influence politicians.
No, it's just accurate descriptions. Instead of characterizing my words, argue against them.
Quoting universeness
I know that, that's because everything you've been taught to believe about politics is a lie.
Quoting universeness
Yes, human freedom and politics are contradictory.
Quoting universeness
I.... Don't believe in politics.... I regard politics as evil.... Evil people aren't influenced by ethics, nor do ethical people take part in politics. That's what I was conveying to you. It's a shame that politics isn't registering to you as the single greatest source of homicide in human history. That leads me to hope YOU never take office or influence such an evil institution, as you don't realize it is evil. Don't know how you must a conclusion this bad.
And a society run by me, just for kickers, would be characterized by a moratorium on anything that could be conceived of as a political institution.
Accurate, only in your opinion. It is natural for me to categorise that which I consider an 'extreme' viewpoint to be just that, extreme. I find to argue against such 'chiseled' viewpoints, over a discussion forum, pointless. Face to face, yes, I would make the effort. On this forum, no, not worth the energy investment.
Quoting Garrett Travers
You do not know everything I have been taught about politics. You do not normally make such irrational statements. Perhaps you are just 'stressed' due to exchanges you have had recently on other threads.
On reading some of them I felt exasperated for you but you fight your corner very very well.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Don't confuse politics and some evil politicians. Do you have no political role models? Dead or alive? Are all politicians evil? Please don't say yes because that would just be IRRATIONAL!
The human race needs good people in positions of power. Politics are a reality within the human experience. Use your impressive philosophical knowledge to help make and maintain better politicians.
If you do and you stop making the misguided political comments you have made in this thread, then I for one would change from hoping you never have political power, to voting for you, because WE NEED GOOD PEOPLE IN POLITICAL POSITIONS OF POWER!
For my opinion to be extreme, you will have to provide more examples of politics not clearly being used to murder people, enslave people, or otherwise violate human consciousness than what I can provide you in the opposite direction. Who do you think is going to provide more evidence in such a case?
Quoting universeness
No, this is you recognizing that you are unable to argue it. Which is okay, this is a hard pill to swallow, but you will never be able to argue against it. So, henceforth you will be forced to believe something on 10000 years of contradictory evidence.
Quoting universeness
I bet I hit the nail on the head, though. You've been told enough to not realize that political organizations are the humans most prolific murderer.
Quoting universeness
I haven't said anything irrational. I have described the overt behavior of political organizations. Do you need sources? I'll show them to you if you need.
Quoting universeness
Exchanges online don't stress me out. Especially not the ones I've had here.
Quoting universeness
Thank you, I have a lot of fun dispelling irrational conclusions.
Quoting universeness
Okay. Find me someone that belongs to a political party that has never killed someone, and I will call those specific ones by another name forevermore, truly.
Quoting universeness
No. Not so far in history. James Madison did more for anyone in history, politically by, establishing the country and limiting it with the 1st Amendmendment, which was inspired by Jefferson, who got his ideas from Epicurus, who founded the most peaceful societies in history, which were apolitical to the core. Stateless, voluntary communes, the first in history. The U.S. is founded on protecting the ethical principles of Epicurus. Go have a look, you'll like it.
Quoting universeness
It seems that way, friend. But, 90% of human history is characterized by stateless, agrarian communes of ideologically homogenous people. Only our ignorance, lack of philosophy, presence of mystic fear, and inclination toward agression in our primitive history, is what gave rise to politics about 10000 years ago, which have always been murderous.
Quoting universeness
I can't, if those politicians cannot grasp the inviolability of the human being. That the initiation of force against humans can never breed anything but evil. But, don't worry. I'm working on a life-long philosophical project of establishing that ethical principle in an objective way. I cannot do it alone. It falls on everyone who can help to spread this standard henceforth, everywhere it can be spread, for the sake of our future generations.
Quoting universeness
I know we do, man. And I want you to know that such a statement means a great deal to me. And if I have offended you, know I didn't mean to, I'm just passionate about philosophy in a way that is.... strange. But, politics is an offshoot of ethics. Unless this fundamental principle can be established, the inviolability of the human, in the mind of the average person, no such thing will ever be possible, and our only hope will be to split into communities.
If you doubt me, you need only look East. On this very day in the 21st century, post world war, all one has to do is to turn their gaze and see what I have told them made manifest, and how your politicians let it happen knowing it was coming. I'm so ashamed of these people, and they will be made to answer for what they've done, and continue to do. Just as Hitler is made to eternally.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Hah! I don't fall for 'loaded' questions like this. I name a politician and you reply with something like "how do you know that none of the policies they championed, 'caused the death' of someone, somewhere?"
I have been a member of political parties and I have not killed anyone but did I vote for a policy that caused the death of someone somewhere? We are all potential voters. Is this 'philosophical' evidence that we are all potential killers. More so than being a potential killer by being born?
Anyway! I still think the human experience is all about asking and answering questions and I am still intrigued by how the increasing pace of gaining new true and/or fake knowledge might decide/influence our future (possibly transhuman, possibly interstellar) fate.
Thank you for at least being able to check it out. And no, I would never do such a thing, ethics demands the absence of such interactions between people, by the vary nature of ethics itself. But, I'd like you to think of something. Have you ever considered the nature of how different practices, or art forms kind of call out to certain personality types? For example, I grew up with a very loose household, and got into a lot of trouble. I really fell in love with making music for years, but I hate the idea of playing golf, or shuffleboard. I've noticed the same phenomenon with people who pursue roles in politics, they all have a similar tone, background, personality type. Have you noticed what I'm highlighting, by chance?
Quoting universeness
A loaded question describes a question that is posed to someone, that has a premise that is already assumed for the person being asked the question who has not agreed with the premise. For example, if I asked you : "So, when did you stop beating your child?" This question is predicated on a premise that I assumed was true for you, which you did not verify for me, which means you can't answer the question. It's also called a complex-question. What I actually stated, was a request from you to provide me an example of a good politician from a polity that wasn't responsible for being evil, like murdering someone, or a great deal of people. Not a complex question.
Quoting universeness
Yes. When you vote, you are voting for your power to force people to live as you wish, at base principle, with volition. I genuinely don't see a work around.
Quoting universeness
Being born doesn't involve choice. And I have never known of a killer who wasn't the victim of exactly the kind of violation, or a number of them, of which I have described is the source of evil. Namely, violating Human Consciousness.
Quoting universeness
The unexamined life, is a life not worth living. I am interested too, friend. I hope we come through one day.
There are generalities, that can be used, to identify such inaccurate categories as 'personality types.'
It is true that your life experiences will affect your 'personality' but individual human nature is malleable and can be massively affected by new knowledge (education) regardless of previous experience or previous nurture. You say you used to get into a lot of trouble. What changed?
I got into trouble in the past but mainly due to standing on picket lines or fighting against abusive employers. I am mostly 'proud' of the trouble I caused. I come from a financially poor background and I am sure there is some truth in the argument that I have been influenced by my background and my nurture but that's only some aspects of who I am. There is much more to me than the influence of early background and nurture.
I concluded you must be asking me a loaded question, as the question:
Quoting Garrett Travers
is in the worse case 'silly' and in the best case 'poorly structured.' If you are seriously asking me to name a politician who has never personally killed someone then that's a silly question as the vast majority of politicians have never killed anyone. No human is perfect but I have many political role models from Keir Hardie to Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner and there are many others, none of my role models killed anyone.
I think you conflate politics with the nefarious behavior of individual politicians.
If the leaders of a tribe decide to attack another tribe because members of the second tribe took water from their well and 'game' from their land without permission, Do you blame politics or the political decision made by the leaders of the first tribe?
Quoting Garrett Travers
You claim you require 100% personal freedom and you offer only your personal code of ethics as a guarantee that you will never infringe upon the personal freedom or well-being of anyone else.
Consider a person who has the exact same ethical standards as you do but they have one difference. They thought it was perfectly ethical (let's say they are 22 years old) to have sex with my consenting 14 year old daughter. I do not agree. I want this man severely punished. You are the arbiter, your decision will become political policy for the tribe. What would you decide to do?
You like the Epicurial commune. I prefer Epicurus and Democritus to Plato as I prefer the atomists Greeks (although in truth I don't much value early Greek or Roman culture) to those associated with god/religious fables but I bet the commune of Epicurus had a political overview and that its politics would have developed had the commune been sustained over a significant time frame and the size of the commune grew and grew. Perhaps Epicurus would have named his political system communism.
Your political viewpoint would mean the humans could only exist in very tiny groups that hardly ever cooperated. We would stagnate and be easily conquered by the first group of maniacs that came along.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I don't agree that a 'source of evil' exists. Is it evil for a Lion to kill and eat a lamb?
Is it evil for a human to kill and eat a chicken? I assume vegetarians think it is.
To me, there is just 'human behavior' and the political systems we decide to create to control it.
I don't mind the labels 'good' and 'evil,' they are useful but if you need a source then they are simply potential human behaviors, nothing more exciting than that, no supernatural aspects at all.
I want to see the human race leave this planet and start to create off-planet colonies so I have no interest in your, in my opinion, regressive and misguided view of politics.
The thing about this description, is that I agree with you on an emotional level, inaccuracy as a correct descriptor. But, the more I study neuroscience, the more that amorphus concept seems to apply only to conditions of neurological disease, functional issues, trauma. I need more analysis before I can discount it as an applicable term.
Quoting universeness
Now, this is the funny stuff. I'll leave you a reseach article on it. Human nature is not malleable, adaptive, but not malleable in enough ways to use that term. Knowledge is the most malleable thing in the universe as far as I know of. The brain operates on recurrent data networks of analysis and integration at all times, when active. Thus, personality is an amorphus term by definition, because data is what informs your personality outside of not-so-malleable genetics and genetic predisposition. Check out this paper, it explains what I mean without getting too into minutia:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333802932_The_Unfolding_Argument_Why_IIT_and_Other_Causal_Structure_Theories_Cannot_Explain_Consciousness?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=0ZjtsYJprdK1bH9EoagNAyoovYSOUvmFyTFP&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=RzhiKwrRXAPA79hV3Pr1UhjDr0zYXOMJe1xl&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=publication&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountLessEqual20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition5%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BwithoutEnrichment%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=5&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle
Quoting universeness
Philosophy.
Quoting universeness
Me too. And yes, that's kind of the point I'm making. Personality types build over time. And there are certain personality types that have inclinations. One of those inclinations is a desire for power. And the people that develop those personality types are the last people you want in office, and the first people to run off to get elected.
Quoting universeness
No, I'm asking you to provide me an example of a politician, that either hasn't killed someone, or belongs to a polity or ideological group that has never been known to.
Quoting universeness
No, they do that for me. The entire political apparatus is predicated on an assumed monopoly on force, justified only by force. It is nefarious as an organization and is the cause to all of the worlds societal issues.
Quoting universeness
Attacking a tribe is political action, and what gives rise to political bodies of greater power. The first tribe should definitely not just walk up on peoples established boundaries, but nothing calls for homiced in such actions. Only primitives think along those lines.
Quoting universeness
Yes. I owe nothing else. I owe you that respect, and that respect alone. You have no other entitlement to the contents of my consciousness. But, that, you will receive from me and my people. And if I see yours being violated with force, I will assist you in ending that threat, if you are in my purview of influence.
Quoting universeness
You're 14 year old daughter is not a consenting being. Humans are altricial. We have a rearing period of 20 years, or more. Our Prefrontal Cortex wich covers executive function is not even fully developed until after rearing years. Consent only applies to people who understand coherently what they are consenting to, and to those whose current development has allowed them to move beyond the confines of your purview as a parent in a manner that is homeostatic- disregarding personal catstrophes that might require one to return home.
Quoting universeness
This is the very moment you have begun exiting the ethical domain. Punishment is not your entitlement. You are not the owner of another's consciousness, nor will punishment stop him from doing what you wish him to stop. It will only appease your aggression impulses. It will solve nothing. Punishing someone for something you don't like is everybit as immoral as the whatever it is you think you had a right to punish.
Quoting universeness
In accordance with the principle of the Primacy of the Human Consciousness of all involved parties, the offending person is hereby ordered to avoid contact with the father's child, until, or unless he has determined that fostering an understanding relationship between the two people, over the course of however much time is required for the child to understand the full impact of interpersonal relationship and potential child rearing and the responsibilities therein contained are reasonably understood and agreed to between all parties, and once the child reaches the age of independent proficiency of productive skill needed to remain homeostatically apart from the father's purview of responsibility. Failure to comply with this recognition of the value of the conscious state of all parties involved will result first in an issued utimatum of expulsion for continued violation, and in expulsion from the tribe for an indeterminate period of time as needed for recourse to achieve understanding and correction of violation if such is conduct is continued thereafter. As the original violation is on the part of the person outside of the father's purview, the offender, he will accept primary responsibility for pursuing this path to win the father's favor, or cease interaction with the father and his child in a manner satisfactory to him. Are the terms understood?
Quoting universeness
No, they were anti-political in principle, and only ever engaged in politics as a means to ensure they would be generally left alone. No reason to conclude otherwise. Epicurus' communism is the only legitimate example of such in history because they understood that ethics is philosophy, and political action is philosophy's antithesis. You'll understand that when you realize that your views on politics are murderous by nature, as all political views have been shown to be for 1000's of years without exception.
Quoting universeness
Kind of. More like independent communities that operate only a voluntary basis through mutual respect of individual consciousness of fellow humans, just as the Epicureans showed us is not only possible, but a thriving model of society. My political view is: politics are evil and so are its participants by the very definition of what states are.
Quoting universeness
Human Consciousness. Lions aren't conscious, they operate on instinct. They do not operate in the ethical domain of existence.
Quoting universeness
Yes, which is exactly the problem. Human behavior is informed and refined by sensory data, not through the application of force upon eachother. "Human behavior" is a pure reduction fallacy, nothing more. The human brain is the most complex system of computation in the known universe.
Quoting universeness
Plenty more exciting, no supernatural aspects. Again, human brain is the most sophisticated and complex system of computation we know of, most exciting thing there is. Again, read that paper.
Quoting universeness
You don't have an opinion, you have what other people have told you to think. You're political views are run-of-the-mill, tribal human violations as means to achieve whatever ends you declare are important, predicated on no ethics, and barrowed from talking heads. This is your standard for "politics," : "To me, there is just 'human behavior' and the political systems we decide to create to control it." This is exactly the mentality of every murderous dictator in history. Putin is showing you right now what exactly this philosophy of ethics produces inevitably.
Yes, something happening. The only causes we know about are psychological, I suggest. |We know we do things because of how we feel. Laws of nature, if reified at all are inferred. Or else identified with what just happens.
I only 'see' my own mind. The problem of other minds is ubiquitous in philosophy and not just an issue for panpsychists. Indeed panpsychism might be a conclusion resulting from an examination of the problem of other minds.
Mind cannot sustainably be 'attributed to' natural processes, in the sense of 'fully explained by' or 'reduced to' or even 'emerge from', in my view. The 'hard problem', which exists for emergentists, has yet to be solved, or dissolved. The difficulties are conceptual rather than empirical.
[/quote2. can be attributed to mental processes? You'll need both to make this claim, if you don't have both, you are playing make-believe.[/quote]
I take it as self evident that mental process can be attributed to mental processes. I suspect I have not grasped your point.
[quote=]Except as idle speculation – no. "Panosychism / cosmopsychism" (is) just woo-of-the-explanatory-gaps[/quote]
I love the mysterious brackets around 'is'.
Made up assertion.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333802932_The_Unfolding_Argument_Why_IIT_and_Other_Causal_Structure_Theories_Cannot_Explain_Consciousness?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=kIPDJTnFJ1jtMG391GeRJBJ0XILeoGNXFMbS&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=xPTKXCJDhxoUdEQTTs0NbH0ptyvbHWXKpdG8&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=publication&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountLessEqual20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition5%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BwithoutEnrichment%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=5&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle
Quoting bert1
No it isn't, just to mystics.
Quoting bert1
It doesn't matter what your view is, dude. The evidence is present. Read the above research.
Quoting bert1
Solved has nothing to do with anything, it's about what all evidence suggests, which is that the brain controls all functions of the body. It is not conceptual. Conceptual views are what is stopping people from understanding what the evidence blatantly, and exclusively suggests. This is an argument from igorance. It is precisely the conceptual views that have solved no problem and provided no evidence, that is who you should be making claims of "solving" to. To do otherwise is completely dishonest, and you're just living in make-believe because you want to.
There is no philosophy in this post. Nor any indication of any awareness of the philosophical issues involved.
Sure there is, empiricism, logic, and requests for evidence that contradicts the current scientific body of data that is present on the subject, which you have in no manner produced. But, I have. That's how philosophy works, bud.
Those are interesting ideas. We are finding out empirical stuff about the mind at an accelerating rate. One example I like is our ability to plant false memories in the minds of mice by interfering with individual neurons. Is it not reasonable to say that mind can be attributed to natural processes like that?
We don't know all the details, we don't know which biological mechanisms are fundamental, but it seems to me that the Hard Problem could in principle be resolved empirically.
We want to know how we can feel stuff. One day soon somebody may discover the mechanism. Why not?
This is true. But, it is through the empirical verification of truth from whence we start. To dismiss that which is established as truth with the evidence to support it, is anti-philosophical. And anti-philosophical as a matter of established standards within philosophy.
Cowards? You have to imagine that such a decision to vote for a lesser of two evils, is done out of what you fear could be the outcome. We sure we're analyzing cowardice thoroughly? Furthermore, if I'm right about that- which I think I am for most people- then that would imply that a a decision is made in a completely irrational manner. Abstaining in such case is doing what the ethical thing, irrespective of what one thinks of the possible outcomes. Something to ponder.
I keep getting this strange feeling while studying neuroscience, that the ability for us to ever understand how consciousness actually arises from the brain, is actually not achievable because its ours. You know what I mean? It's like some fucked up neurological situation similare to that meme of all the spiderman's pointing at eachother. A self emergent system of such complexity may in fact not be able to be understood through conceptual metrics that the system itself produced for understanding the reality that itself was produced to understand through perceptions produced by itself ...... See where I'm going with this? Kind of like an infinite regression?
If the ethics committees and the court would only let me go ahead with my experiments I'm sure we would be a lot further forward. I'll just have to try again when I am released at the end of my sentence.
It seems to be important to you to catergorise each human being as a perfect fit to a personality type.
You and neuroscience will never achieve it. I predict that such categorisations will always be 'inaccurate.'
Quoting Garrett Travers
"....Some have power foisted upon them." Not every person who has political power, desired it.
I was a union shop steward for many years, I never wanted to be such but It was requested of me from my fellows at the time. It took a long time to convince me but I think I stopped a good few attempts by the employers to abuse employees.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I gave you three.
Quoting Garrett Travers
No, attacking a tribe is a human action. How did these boundaries become established. First to arrive? If you think so then I hope you campaign in the USA to give it back to the indigenous tribes it was stolen from. How are you going to stop those who want what you have? Appeal to their ethics?
We have been fighting each other since we left the wild. It will not stop until we unite as a single species and that will only happen through political discourse and the acceptance that the alternative is extinction.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Typed like a true politician! This is a political dictate, a political policy to control a behavior that you dont approve of. So when the girl reaches say 18, she will understand so much more than when she was 17 and 11 months? Such rules can only ever be approximations but we do have to draw lines somewhere or we will be back to the times when Islamic prophets can have sex with 9 year old girls. You even use terms like 'the offender.' Looks like you would make rules to control the behaviour of a population after all. You would also enforce consequences if they are not complied with. Sounds like politics to me!
Quoting Garrett Travers
I did not ask you about the consciousness of lions. I was discussing your concept of 'source of evil.'
Evil is subjective, an evil act to some is a justified act to others. This will always be true. Evil only exists in the judgement of others it has no other existance.
Quoting Garrett Travers
This kind of comment is best responded to with RIGHT BACK AT YA!
Quoting Garrett Travers
This is just nonesense. I advocate for the ethical politics of socialism and I advocate for one united human species. I also advocate for real solutions and I suggest that you try to see that mere philosophical rhetoric is never going to deliver what is needed.
You'll notice I'm the one doing the de-categorization. Hence: amorphus concepts. People are too complex to really categorize like that. It can work a good deal of the time, but not consistently.
Quoting universeness
That's not power. Power is politics and is a chosen pursuit in this kind of society, and in most others. You're talking about hierarchical leadership in the context of a non-force based organization. Unless of course you're talking about a state union, in which case there's a point to be made here.
Quoting universeness
There were two clauses.
Quoting universeness
No, it's political. It means one is going to handle things through threat of death, that politics.
Quoting universeness
It was your hypothetical, that's on you to clarify.
Quoting universeness
Those people don't exist anymore. Land does not belong to "tribes," it belongs to be people using it, having claimed such in an uncontested manner, or gained such via mutual interaction with a previous occupier. Noone alive today either establish, or had an establishment of land stolen from the within this context. We are all innocent. I will say this, though, I hate all states. So, don't take that as a defense of anything other than individual people.
Quoting universeness
With force. It is the initiation of a violation of the human consciousness that is evil, my friend. Not its forceful, and self-righteous protection from violation. If you seek to enter my home and parlay with me by force, prepare yourself for the possibility that you will die in such a pursuit. However, I'd like better to simply have you go away and to never return.
Quoting universeness
No, to mine.
Quoting universeness
I've told the only way we can do such a thing. And as long as you understand what that means, then you and I will be alright no matter our differences. But, I agree with this statement. Humans seem to possessed by whatever is in Putin's head right now.
Quoting universeness
You asked me to do so. There you go.
Quoting universeness
No, because it is, once again, force being employed only to protect from violation, and only to remove the violating force from society. Not steal his labor, not kill him, not enslave him in a barracks or an army, and I never said anything about any sort of institutionalized body of force. And I also only used what aspects you provided, so that's on you.
Quoting universeness
No, if you read my statement, if the child desires such, since desire is not a violation, it will be the father's duty to inform her of the necessary details of the subject while under his auspices. Once she is of a proficiency level to be independent of his purview, the choice will be on her to make.
Quoting universeness
No, only force that violates consciousness will ever be justified, or justified to declare as an independent group the use of by a tribes-person(s).
Quoting universeness
Yes, my tribe will enforce the non-violations of consciousness. Proudly, and with lethality if need be.
Quoting universeness
Except I know of nobody who shares this opinion, or very few. Most people aren't able to see past the lies to catch a glimpse of the evil that guides the world, as has been for too long.
Quoting universeness
The Epicurean principles here that you are plagiarising and calling socialism, have only ever worked within voluntary communes that were distinguished by practices that would place them under the banner of the modern term "anarcho-capitalism," and from whence that term was developed by the Austrain School. If you advocate for a state administered socialism, you are an advocate for the mass murdering institutions of the past century, whose body count demands that you, as a representative, make a clear case for the kind of society you wish to see erected, and how wish to do so. Other wise, there can be no mistake of ethics being present in your "politics."
Quoting universeness
Lol, you seem to forget that socialism IS the plagiarised and perverted philosophical rhetoric of Epicurus, who founded socialism under the pretenses of mutual respect for property and happiness, and employed such in communes that had clear ethical standards for entry that one had to voluntarily swear, and could voluntarily opt-out of, however rarely, at any time. In other words, my friend, it is the force that makes your "socialism" untenable. So, to quote a famous "capitalist," I'm on your side.. but you're not.
You know, if you just worked with me instead of against me for just a few minutes, I could show you what I'm talking about. Something to consider.
Socialism (no matter when it was labeled as such) existed long before Epicurus and long before Greek culture existed.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Overall, I think some of your conclusions are an aid to improving the current state of the human race
and I am sure we have a lot of common ground but I would fight tooth and nail against your political viewpoints. Anyone who makes statements such as 'all politics is evil' should never be given any position of authority. I will leave our exchange there.
No, we just existed in primitive, agrarian tribes. There was nothing that was an established framework of thought on the subject, that was an Epicurean development, and he is to this day the most successful implementer of such a model. The only ones that even compare, are the Chrsitian variations of the modern world that stole their model directly from Epicurean Gardens, after the Christians turned them into monastaries placing them in the history of that aweful tradition to develop later. Please go familiarize yourself with this history, man. There's even a page up on Marxists.org about it that is mostly accurate. Marx himself did a thesis on the subject when he was a student, it's direct adaptation from Epicurus, no kidding.
Quoting universeness
What are my political view points that you think you would have to fight against? I have only one: that nobody has any justifable, ethical, logically consistent, or intellectually conceivable right to violate the consciousness of another. That's my only political view point. What would you need to "fight" against?
Quoting universeness
I don't.... Want it.... And that's the most backwards conclusion one could come to. The guy who thinks politics are evil, shouldn't have power, because he may use it for non-evil......?? Huh?
Quoting universeness
I'd maybe suggest that, you're not being very consistent here. But, I'll be around if you want to strengthen up your position.
hehaha!
I suggest that you are not being very consistent here, especially when you say politics is evil and then you offer political guidelines when you are asked to play arbiter in a hypothetical. If you fear politics so much you should decline such requests.
Quoting Garrett Travers
No, the guy shouldn't have power because he does not believe in politics so he is incapable of wielding power in any useful way.
It seems to me that your main political stance is that the freedom of the individual is more important than the well-being of the majority. A regressive and misguided viewpoint.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Ditto!
Nothing I said was political. There's nothing about having rules for co-existence within a given domain of space that implies an institutional monopoly on the use of force. You asked me from the perspective of making a decree, that's my decree. Politics is statecraft, not rules.
Quoting universeness
There's no such thing, and when you realize that you'll realize why you openly swear allegiance to a mass murdering group of psychopathic ideologues. Also something you haven't addressed, and you won't either. Because you've been completely fooled into thinking that somehow they don't apply to you, they do. And it's as appalling as swearing fealty to the Khmer Rouge, or Ba'ath party. It's worse than swearing fealty to Nazi's, they haven't butchered half as many people, and hell they called themselves socialist too, imagine that. But, don't worry, I know you mean well. There are many many of you who will not address any of this for the same damn reasons.
And I will gladly take on any number of challengers who want to debate this topic, you, or anyone on this site. However many of you want to do the body count with me, and count the statist-socialist variants who have done the butchering. It's a gleeful challenge.
Quoting universeness
The first is required for the second. My consciousness, nor any other's, belongs to you to implement the "well-being" (dictatorship) of any other person with. It is a task that is impossible, because there are too many people in the world, and well-being isn't even something you can define between individuals. I don't want your well-being, keep your well-being to your self. I didn't want it when I was homeless and hungry with my wife, and I don't want it now, and you couldn't give it if you tried. The same is true for everyone else. Collectivism is the misguided view that's been being implemented for thousands of years. There have never existed individualist societies, other Epicurean ones, which the Christian collectivists, from whom your pagan leaders adapted their collectivist plagiarisms of his ideas from, murdered and oppressed. Yet another point you won't address. Next.
Quoting universeness
Oh, I'm still waiting on you to actually address anything I've said.
This is an example of your naive understanding of politics. Politics exist at all levels of society, from family politics to the politics of relationships to state politics. Force is a tool we all possess. It only becomes a monopoly when a combined force is the strongest in the playground but such forces are normally always, eventually overthrown.
Quoting Garrett Travers
This is just the ramblings of unfettered emotion. Bitter and twisted, I have no idea which traumas in your life have brought you to such bizarre conflations.
If you apply a label such as socialist to yourself then you must be able to demonstrate its tenets. No member of the khmer Rouge, Ba'ath party, Nazi's etc have demonstrated socialism. The labels of socialism and communism(a label you like to associate with Epicurus, try calling yourself a commie in America) has been abused in America since Castro terrified them and even before then. Do you think McCarthyism was justified? Was that an example of your 'rules of co-existence?
You have made inane and ridiculous comments on this thread such as:
Quoting Garrett Travers
Do you not see Americans or Russians or Brits or French as just big tribes?
Go tell the communities listed below that their 'tribes' don't exist anymore.
This is only a very small part of the list of existing communities of the indigenous peoples in that particular landmass, named by those who had no right to seize it, through the murder of its then inhabitants, named after a map maker!
[b]List of U.S. communities with Native American majority populations:
Alaska. Utqiagvik (57.2%) Bethel (61.8%) Dillingham (52.6%) Hooper Bay (93.7%) Kotzebue (71.2%) ...
Arizona. Canyon Day (98.5%) Chinle (91.3%) Cibecue (96.0%) Dilkon (97.0%) First Mesa (96.1%) ...
California.
Colorado. Towaoc (94.4%).
Idaho. Fort Hall (65.4%) Lapwai (81.4%)[/b]
You just swipe their history and their human consciousness that should never be violated away.
As a politician, you would cause wars all over the place because you seem to have no skill at diplomacy at all.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Do you see debate always as a 'challenge'? Can it not be a dialogue? You can offer measured dialogue, I have read you doing so. I am not suggesting every word of mine is non-inflammatory but I try not to throw down gauntlets like you have done above. If you keep pushing such buttons then I for one will simply conclude that you are no longer worth the effort of debate. Only of course on the topic of politics.
Quoting Garrett Travers
The importance of individual freedom is not lost on socialists. I do accept and have stated so many times that finding the correct balance between individual freedom and the well-being of the majority is very hard to achieve but socialists will achieve it. That's why amongst socialists, socialism is often called 'inevitable.' All poor people on the planet have experienced what you and your wife experienced to some degree or another. Did that experience contribute to your current view of politics? My own experiences of being poor afforded me a different view. I am glad of that at least.
I would rather be homeless and hungry on the streets of the UK than on the streets of any so-called 3rd world country. I would rather neither possibility existed and therefore as a socialist, I demand global UBI. Do You?
Quoting Garrett Travers
In my opinion, On the issue of politics and socialism, I do so and have done so. I dont seek or require your conformation that this is so as I consider your political views and your understanding of socialism, skewed and misguided. So I apply the old adage of 'well, you would say that wouldn't you'. Feel free to apply the same to me. Panto exchange is very common on this and most other discussion websites.
A sad epilogue to this comment is that in my opinion, if socialism was the controlling politics of your country at the time this happened, it would not have happened. True socialism has yet to be employed anywhere.
Just look at a chemical process, or things being repelled from each other or moving towards each other. They possess an inherent longing to or aversion for each other.
I note you are asking this of Garrett and I am sure he will give you a good answer, but can I ask you if you project the concept of attraction and repulsion such as we see in natural magnetism with say, the human tendency to be attracted to those who agree with us and repulsive towards those who disagree with us? Can any human action which could be labeled an 'act of attraction' or an 'act of repulsion' be associated with attraction/repulsion as viewed in the natural world. Is this, in your opinion, at best, anecdotal evidence for the panpsychist or is it at worse, just a result of anthropocentric conflation?
Good question! It seems a magnet excerts the same force on me (when I hold another magnet) as my dog pulling on the leash longing to run between the trees. The force of the magnet is constant and simple, without a sophisticated emotion, memory, seeing, barking, jumping, etc. But they both pull. :wink: