A physicalists view of panprotoexperientialism

Captain Kremmen said:
There are two choices. Either:

A. We, as conscious beings, are the chance outcome of a random universe.

or

B. The universe must generate conscious life.

If you want to choose A, then either:
1. Yes, we are an incredibly unlikely outcome but here we are, or
2. This universe is one of many.

If you want to choose B, then either:
1. The universe was created by a God, or
2. The universe requires eventual consciousness in order to begin.
Click to expand...

B can be formulated differently. First of all, I wouldn't say that the universe must generate conscious life, only that it's emergence is, perhaps, inevitable, given enough time and opportunity, which the universe provides an abundance of.

Further, I don't see how a universe that requires consciousness in order to begin is the only alternative to a creator god in this context. Why should consciousness come first? Why not simply explore the idea that there is something about the fundamental fabric of the universe that is simply inherently conducive to the eventual generation of phenomena such as cognition and conscious awareness?
 
Techne said:
Penrose and Hamerhoff have a new paper trying to link quantum physics and consciousness and it is particularly compatible with a panprotoexperientialist view.

Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory
Click to expand...

I've read it once. I'm probably going to have to read it another 5 times, at least, before I understand all of it. But I've been able to grasp the basic principles enough to become very intrigued. I've encountered brief outlines of some of Penrose's earlier work (which was referenced) before, but it's great to see those ideas being refined and expanded in the light of our more considerable knowledge in the field of neuroscience today.
 
Gustav said:
what is that? a fancy way of saying we have to consider hurt feelings?
Click to expand...

The personal is philosophical.

It is rather common for people's feelings to be hurt when presented with particular physicalist views.
As such, physicalists need to explain these hurt feelings too.
 
Gustav said:
what is that? a fancy way of saying we have to consider hurt feelings?
Click to expand...
I would say the lack of reaction on the part of those who have ideas that hurt feelings is oddly telling. Usually this gets couched by such people as 'i have the courage to face the truth whatever it is'. But that is not generally my experience with chronic reductionists. It seems to me they do not, generally, have such a confrontation and are not really bothered. (I am not going by public discourse here, but rather through more intimate in person relations).

There is something strange going on here.
 
Signal said:
It seems to me that the core issue here seems to be that treating something like conscious awareness as an entirely emergent phenomena
is demoralizing or demeaning somehow.
Click to expand...

I guess that either mind-body dualism or full-frontal idealistic reduction are elements in many people's hopes of surviving their own deaths. The philosophies are also associated with beliefs about what human beings are and about what our human place is in the overall scheme of things.

So physicalistic derivation of the mental from the physical doubtless threatens many people's religious assumptions, and some people don't like that.

That's what motivates some (but certainly not all) idealistic, dualist and panpsychist philosophy. It's quite literally, a way to save the spiritual in a seemingly cold and clock-work world of science.

I don't see that as the core issue of the thread though.

The central issue appears to be the question of whether subjective experience can be explained in terms of, and hence be reduced to, the objective world of physics.

Panpsychism seems to be one of the possible responses to a 'no' answer to that question.
 
Last edited:
Gustav said:
what is that? a fancy way of saying we have to consider hurt feelings?
Click to expand...

I think that it's the humane thing to do in ordinary every-day discourse.

But if the message is that people shouldn't be discussing physicalism at all, even in a philosophy forum here on what is ostensibly a science discussion board, then I couldn't disagree more strongly.

I don't believe that the truth or falsity of factual propositions is governed by whether or not people emotionally like the ideas. Sometimes the truth can turn out to be something that we really don't want to hear. And when that's the case, telling the truth isn't always an act of unkindness and denial is rarely the best response.
 
Pineal said:
Though then one wonders why physicalists cling to a term that has no meaning. What is considered physical is now a set that includes things that are hardly physical by the terms original meanings. So we have a set that now includes things like fields and massless particles, and by most physicalists admissions there will be future additions to this set and we do not know what their qualities will be like. The word really means - determined to exist via experimentation following processes accepted in scientific methodology.

But the term continues to get used as if it was a metaphysical term - iow revealing something about substance.
Click to expand...

There is still a distinction between what we might call metaphysical physicalism and, for example, something like monistic idealism. The former would hold that no matter how far the true scope of physicality extends, consciousness is ultimately an emergent phenomenon. The latter is pretty much entirely the opposite, holding that it is consciousness that creates matter.
 
Rav said:
There is still a distinction between what we might call metaphysical physicalism and, for example, something like monistic idealism. The former would hold that no matter how far the true scope of physicality extends, consciousness is ultimately an emergent phenomenon. The latter is pretty much entirely the opposite, holding that it is consciousness that creates matter.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is that simple. I mean, what is matter? It's not really matter.
 
Pineal said:
Though then one wonders why physicalists cling to a term that has no meaning. What is considered physical is now a set that includes things that are hardly physical by the terms original meanings. So we have a set that now includes things like fields and massless particles, and by most physicalists admissions there will be future additions to this set and we do not know what their qualities will be like. The word really means - determined to exist via experimentation following processes accepted in scientific methodology.

But the term continues to get used as if it was a metaphysical term - iow revealing something about substance.
Click to expand...


Massless particles and fields are physical at least in the sense that they have 'quantity' and 'size' because they have quanta from QM. They are neither in continua nor are they infinite.
 
Big Chiller said:
Massless particles and fields are physical at least in the sense that they have 'quantity' and 'size' because they have quanta from QM. They are neither in continua nor are they infinite.
Click to expand...
Well even quantity gets tricky in QM with particles in superposition or particles that are also single waves. I am not arguing that these things don't exist, simply that the words 'matter' and 'physical' really mean detectable. And what we will be able to detect in 10 years or a 100 years may have even less to do with 'matter' as once understood. The terms are place fillers.

Though wouldn't fields be potentially infinite, just getting to small at distance to be detectable? If we go by say the gravity formula, for example.
 
Pineal said:
What about gauge bosons?
So the formula for gravity is incorrect at a certain distance?
Click to expand...


Pineal said:
And aren't photons massless?
Click to expand...



Massless particles are 'immaterial' but still physical because they have quanta.
The formula for gravity is not incorrect at a certain distance because potentially infinite is finite in the sense that it's a negation of infinite, also if the sun were to suddenly disappear from it's location we wouldn't immediately detect it's disappearance, the earth wouldn't "realize" the sun's disappearance instantly as gravitons (quanta of gravity) are hypothesized to travel constantly at c.
 
Last edited:
Big Chiller said:
Massless particles are 'immaterial' but still physical because they have quanta.
Click to expand...
My point was they were had no mass.
And 'physical' has gone way past its original meanings also.

It's as if the old dualism was reconciled in favor of something, but what we now include in that something are 'things' that are not like what was originally included in that set.

And anything that scientists decide exists will be considered physical and matter - given the trends as they are now.

The formula for gravity is not incorrect at a certain distance because potentially infinite is finite in the sense that it's a negation of infinite, also if the sun were to suddenly disappear from it's location we wouldn't immediately detect it's disappearance, the earth wouldn't 'realize' the sun's disappearance instantly as gravitons (quanta of gravity) are hypothesized to travel constantly at c.
Click to expand...
That's not quite the point. The point is we do not know it ends, so we cannot say for sure it is finite. In practical terms -now at least- this does not matter, but that is another issue. We don't know.
 
Pineal said:
My point was they were had no mass.
And 'physical' has gone way past its original meanings also.

It's as if the old dualism was reconciled in favor of something, but what we now include in that something are 'things' that are not like what was originally included in that set.

And anything that scientists decide exists will be considered physical and matter - given the trends as they are now.
Click to expand...


I think the philosophical meaning of 'physical' is still retained since the ancient times.

That's not quite the point. The point is we do not know it ends, so we cannot say for sure it is finite. In practical terms -now at least- this does not matter, but that is another issue. We don't know.
Click to expand...


I agree however we also don't know that it's infinite that's why we think it's potentially infinite, finite and infinite are basically categorical oppositions of each other.
 
Big Chiller said:
I think the philosophical meaning of 'physical' is still retained since the ancient times.
Click to expand...
It come from things having bodies or being matter. It also meant qualities that were not affected by detection - which also causes problems. No one was thinking of neutrinos passing through the earth - that would have sounded more like tiny angels.

I agree however we also don't know that it's infinite that's why we think it's potentially infinite, finite and infinite are basically categorical oppositions of each other.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it is infinite. I am just saying we cannot say it is finite. I don't think we have a definition of physical and material anymore beyond that it means stuff exists as determined by detection - hell, it seems even deduction, though the difference gets tricky with some kinds of experimentation.

And I am not trying to just be annoying - not that you've accused me of this. The original context was this:

“
Originally Posted by Rav
One of the implications that should have emerged from my ramblings thus far is that physicalism is not necessarily incompatible with the idea that there is much more to the universe than meets the eye.
Click to expand...
Me:
Though then one wonders why physicalists cling to a term that has no meaning. What is considered physical is now a set that includes things that are hardly physical by the terms original meanings. So we have a set that now includes things like fields and massless particles, and by most physicalists admissions there will be future additions to this set and we do not know what their qualities will be like. The word really means - determined to exist via experimentation following processes accepted in scientific methodology.

But the term continues to get used as if it was a metaphysical term - iow revealing something about substance.
Click to expand...

Go back 150 years and these terms have since expanded to include things most scientists, let alone most people would have thought sounded non-material.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top