Panpsychism is True
“Panpsychism is the view that consciousness is a fundamental feature of all matter” (Goff, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/theforum/goff-do-electrons-dream/ ).
Bertrand Russell called this “Neutral monism”, “that the things commonly regarded as mental and the things commonly regarded as physical do not differ in respect of any intrinsic property possessed by the one set and not by the other, but differ only in respect of arrangement and context” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/#RNM).
Whatever we call it, I think it is true that intelligence is as natural and fundamental to the universe as its physicality.
Bertrand Russell called this “Neutral monism”, “that the things commonly regarded as mental and the things commonly regarded as physical do not differ in respect of any intrinsic property possessed by the one set and not by the other, but differ only in respect of arrangement and context” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/#RNM).
Whatever we call it, I think it is true that intelligence is as natural and fundamental to the universe as its physicality.
Comments (70)
There's nothing special about neutral monism which is why it's neutral and unknowable.
I think they're similar. But my point is not to equate the two, But I never read about this "third ingredient" from Russell.
Perhaps it would be best to assume we're all mindless zombies before we assume atoms have minds?
Panpsychism is closer to the qbit. As Wheeler described it, no physical particle exists without information.
Well, I gotta admit, I was sceptical. But with an argument like that, what more is there to say? I'm convinced.
Right. I want to stay away from what having a mind is and simply describe it as the principle of intelligence.
This is wonderful stuff. How could we not all have seen it before?
I find your childish insulting annoying. Do I need to report you to the moderators?
Already did.
Do you have an argument, @Jacksonsprat22?
2.1 The Definition of Panpsychism
The word “panpsychism” literally means that everything has a mind. However, in contemporary debates it is generally understood as the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. Thus, in conjunction with the widely held assumption (which will be reconsidered below) that fundamental things exist only at the micro-level, panpsychism entails that at least some kinds of micro-level entities have mentality, and that instances of those kinds are found in all things throughout the material universe. So whilst the panpsychist holds that mentality is distributed throughout the natural world—in the sense that all material objects have parts with mental properties—she needn’t hold that literally everything has a mind, e.g., she needn’t hold that a rock has mental properties (just that the rock’s fundamental parts do).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/
Banno is right, you aren’t making an argument. Lets hear it.
Banno is a troll.
That might be the issue.
As in, there's folk as think that philosophy is just making shit up. I don't understand their mentality.
Yep. So was Socrates.
Have you an argument, or are you just going to spend this thread telling us what panpsychism is?
I'm comfortable with sweeping this aside and assuming we're extremely weird biological computers who are somehow puzzled by our ability to do our job and who think we can compare ourselves to a non-self.
Right. I wanted to shift the discussion from consciousness to intelligence. Consciousness is an aspect of intelligence.
Your opinion about Banno is noted. How about that argument you have yet to make? Why should I accept Panpsychism is true?
The place Panpsychism might have a point is embodied cognition.
(THis by way of helping @jacksonsprat22 towards an argument...)
Don't believe it. I have no patience for smart alecks.
You don’t believe in what? Who do you think is a smart aleck, me?
Im being sincere, I want to hear your argument. What is it?
Go back and read what I wrote. I stated my thesis. Go outside for a walk if you have excess nervous energy.
Jackson, you seem sincere so I want to help. What Banno and the others might be saying is that you have made a claim, but you are not providing reasoning for it. They want to understand your reasoning. They are doing it in a somewhat taunting manner, but they want you to explain your position that intelligence is a component of the universe. Why is this the case? Once you have made your argument, then it can be evaluated one way or the other.
I reported Banno to moderators.
Ah. I see, youre a moron. No, you have no thesis and made no argument. You made two references, failed to connect them and then stated a conclusion with nothing to support it. Now you’re getting pissy with me, when its you who have failed on every level. I can forgive stupid, but not aggressive stupidity. Good day to you sir.
Here: Arguments for Panpsychism
Pick one.
Maybe not. Perhaps the other way around?
Wiki: Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
For example, growing and adapting plants. :chin:
You haven't done any philosophy here. Philosophy is about argument and rational justification for beliefs.
Why are you a panpsychist? Banno is very annoying in many ways, but his request for philosophy, far from being trolling, is exactly appropriate for this forum, while your avoidance of argument is why you will get banned and not him.
I'm a panpsychist too by the way. I am because of the fact that consciousness does not admit of degrees. What's your reason? You don't have to have one, but then you should be quiet, or perhaps ask people about their reasons for or against.
One does what one can.
In humans, partial consciousness occurs frequently. The fundamental concept of consciousness may not, however.
Could you give an example or two?
Intelligence must be a component of the universe because 1) intelligence exists 2) there is nothing apart from the universe.
They way I see it is intelligence is created out of the pattern and arrangement of particles. The whole is literally greater than the sum of its parts. It's like magic: If you put 3 apples together in a circle then an additional pear will appear in the middle.
There can also be additional forces and dimensions in the universe that we cannot detect easily. Right now, the brain is one such device which bridges the gap between mental and physical. But you could possibly also build some kind of sensor that can pick up on mental energy. Elementary particles may have a mental energy field around them which is not easy to see without sufficiently advanced tools.
Have you evidence for this?
People keep assuming this. Bloody Descartes' fault.
Like Covid 19?
Why do people keep citing wikipedia? Most philosophers use the SEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
No. That's for undergrads who think they're masters because they know some names.
Seriously, are there any adults who use this forum? Is this place just for kids?
So one is aware of something hazy and indistinct? That's still awareness of something, which entails consciousness, no? One is conscious when one is aware, even if the object of awareness is fuzzy.
But this failure to put a name and memories to a face is still an experience of sorts. And the fact that there is experience, no matter how messed up, still entails consciousness.
Again, your examples are of fuzzy content of consciousness, not examples of states which are in-between consciousness and non-consciousness. All your examples are examples of conscious experience, and fall fully under that definition.
There can be no intermediate ground between consciousness and not-consciousness (I suggest), but there is plenty of middle ground between being conscious of vague fuzzy things, and consciousness of sharply defined things, as you have pointed out. Do you see the difference?
What do you think philosophy is about?
The only problem I have here is the idea of properties. Properties then themselves need to be explained because it would seem a property itself is something observed in something else. Does a property exist "in itself"? I know that Locke had the idea of primary and secondary qualities, but that seemed possibly arbitrary. What a measurement represents might be "real" at some level, but the properties we observe that come from these measurements? I don't know. It almost assumes experience/consciousness in the picture before it explains itself.
Then what is it about brain stuff that supposedly bridges this gap that other matter doesn't have? More physical stuff like axons and dendrites and bio-chemical carriers doesn't seem to get at it. quantum theory just seems like imagining there's a realm that can do anything. Quantum theory represents statistical uncertainty at a certain level. I don't know if it implies much more in terms of larger brain states or mental states.
This does make sense. Emergence is its own inexplicable alchemy. The reason is the next level is assumed in the previous one.
Are you saying anywhere they saw order, they thought mind was involved? Is this like matter and form?
An interest in how the world is. Arguing is for sophomores.
Panpsychism is the idea that the universe is structured as intelligent. Intelligence is not derived from anything.
Nous can be translated as mind, but also intelligence.
For Aristotle, intelligence is as fundamental to the world as physical objects.
I teach college. I would ask you to leave my class.
Not interested in kiddy stuff. Mostly undergrad punks trying to be competent. Might not be the right forum for me.
I find you worthless. Maybe time to move on.
What the hell is the point of the petty squabbling. Stop trying to be assholes or clever and state your case. Sometimes I think people just want to have fun at the expense of others and get a rise out of it rather than legitimately trying to philosophize or state an argument or discuss a subject.
Jacksonsprat22, you got to realize people are willing to engage so just ignore the dismissive comments and just continue your discussion. tim wood, I don't know what you're trying to do.
I did state my case. You clearly have nothing to say or you would have said something already.
I am but with other posters at this point because I found something of interest.
Uh huh.