Panpsychism - AgnosticWeb.com

DAVID (under Chimp vs. Human Brain:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/could-the-internet-ever-be-conscious-...-The question asked by this article, and the argument that followed, rather put me off, until suddenly the following paragraph ... totally unconnected to the subject of the internet ... sprang to my attention:-"In the course of the interview, Koch also expressed his personal sympathy with the idea that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe, like space, time, matter and energy. Koch is also open to the philosophy of panpsychism, according to which all matter has some consciousness associated with it, although the degree of consciousness varies enormously, depending on the complexity of the system. He acknowledges, however, that most neuroscientists don't share his views on such matters."-This seems to be very much in line with the concept of the universe that BBella has sometimes put to us. (BBella, I do hope that you are OK, and that my last post on this thread didn't offend you.) Even if I'm about to make everybody yawn, I would like to go back to the analogy of the intelligent cell, which I will summarize in the hope that hyjyljyj as a newcomer (and of course anyone else) might give us his views.-The human body is composed of multiple cell combinations that function in their own intelligent way without ... we assume ... being aware of themselves and without their being controlled by us. They "take their decisions" independently of our consciousness. This may explain the progress of evolution, during which intelligent cells combine to form new organs and organisms, adapted to or exploiting the environment in which they find themselves. If we define the universe as ALL THAT IS as well as ALL THAT EVER HAS BEEN, it may itself also be a vast body whose elements and energies have for ever and ever been combining into new forms, which come and go just as all forms of matter, organic and inorganic, come and go. There is no guiding, controlling superconsciousness, juggling macroscopically with stars and planets and microscopically with bacteria and eukaryotes, but only degrees of consciousness varying from the lowest (primeval but ever changing energy) to inorganic matter (unconsciously conforming to what appear to be the natural laws of formation and disintegration) to organic matter to evolving animals, which certainly have a degree of self-awareness ... a huge step in the evolution of consciousness - to us, with a degree of self-awareness that in our own experience is unique. The key to this concept is eternity (already accepted by theists) and degrees of "intelligence" resulting in combinations that function without being self-aware (as in living bodies as well as in our own solar system). The advantages of the concept lie (a) in dispensing with an inconceivable, divine, uncaused and all-powerful superconsciousness that has been there forever, doing we know not what with its superpowers, (b) in dispensing with total reliance on chance, since we already have known examples of unselfconscious matter forming intelligent combinations, (c) in resolving some of the most puzzling aspects of evolution (e.g. the Cambrian Explosion), since any major change in the environment could cause a flurry of innovative activity within the intelligent (but unselfconscious) cell communities that make up each organism.-If we take chance v. design as the first two options, perhaps panpsychism could be the third, and I will relegate my agnosticism to the fourth way!

dhw:If we take chance v. design as the first two options, perhaps panpsychism could be the third, and I will relegate my agnosticism to the fourth way!-No, there are only two ways and then yours. Design implicitly must contain intelligence and information. Panpsychism implies that. Agnosticism is a third way, which answers noting. That is if you want answers.

dhw: If we take chance v. design as the first two options, perhaps panpsychism could be the third, and I will relegate my agnosticism to the fourth way!-DAVID: No, there are only two ways and then yours. Design implicitly must contain intelligence and information. Panpsychism implies that. Agnosticism is a third way, which answers nothing. That is if you want answers.-You're ignoring the argument that preceded the conclusion you've quoted. The definition of panpsychism given in the Koch article is: "all matter has some consciousness associated with it, although the degree of consciousness varies enormously, depending on the complexity of the system." I am applying this to the evolution (as opposed to the creation) of the universe and life. Theism demands a self-aware creator deliberately designing both, i.e. its starting point is supreme self-awareness that has always been in existence. In my suggested third way of panpsychism, there is no self-aware designer, but only an evolution from the lowest form of intelligence (primeval energy without self-awareness) through inorganic to organic matter, to animals and us, all of which involve an increasing level of intelligence (or consciousness ... in this context it becomes hard to distinguish between the two). To me the distinction between deliberate design by a supremely self-aware superintelligence and evolution from minimal (but not non-existent) consciousness to our own is crystal clear ... in analogy to unselfconscious single cell life through multicellularity to self-aware humans. It's a kind of compromise between the first two options, since intelligently but unselfconsciously combining cells ... and intelligently but unselfconsciously combining energy and materials ... vastly reduce the role played by chance, especially during an eternity of such combinations.-You are right that agnosticism answers nothing, but that does not stop agnostics from seeking answers, just as you yourself continue to do. Those who do not want answers are either apathetic or convinced that they already know the truth!

dhw: You're ignoring the argument that preceded the conclusion you've quoted. The definition of panpsychism given in the Koch article is: "all matter has some consciousness associated with it, although the degree of consciousness varies enormously, depending on the complexity of the system." -This idea is an extension of the concept that consciousness is atg the quantum level. 'Baby consciousness' is what panpsychism seem to propose. Of course I think a UI (universal consciousness) has been around all the time-> dhw:To me the distinction between deliberate design by a supremely self-aware superintelligence and evolution from minimal (but not non-existent) consciousness to our own is crystal clear ... in analogy to unselfconscious single cell life through multicellularity to self-aware humans.-I think the so-called intelligent cells theory is just a representation of the information packed into the genomes from the start of life. Each active molecule in the cell acts intelligently, and there are thousands of them in each cell!

My initial response, since it was specifically requested, is that it seems as though the author has succeeded in postulating an additional definition for the word "intelligence", viz., the action of unselfconscious particles and lower life forms in response to physical laws. Two inorganic substances, e.g., when placed in a beaker together, just know they're supposed to react a certain way and cause purple smoke, and we're labeling that "intelligence". And in writing it this way, I don't mean to imply that this proposed definition is necessarily wrong, defective or in any way deserving of ridicule, merely that it's a novel way to conceive that word. IMHO it's a bit of a stretch and doesn't really apply to such processes, but that alone does not invalidate panpsychism.-What might do is my secondary impression, which is that the author, notwithstanding his announcement to the contrary in conclusion (a), may not have successfully done away with the need for the initial uncaused, infinite (by which I mean also eternal) cause, in simply spreading cosmic consciousness and intelligence to subatomic particles, molecules and bacteria. Even if it is microconsciousness or microintelligence directing atoms to combine in certain ways in response to physical laws of the universe, we still have the question, where did those physical laws come from? If we say they didn't need to come from anywhere, they just always existed, then that's an easy answer that's difficult to prove or disprove, which is why atheists love to use it in regards to matter and energy: we say of God (if we believe he exists) that he didn't need to be created, because he's always existed; and they say, Well, then, the same can just as easily be said of matter and energy, so there. Panpsychism also tastes a little like pantheism, where every rock and worm and atom and quark is a god or God. And that isn't satisfying either. I'd be open to data conveying further understanding of the distinction between panpsychism and pantheism.-My tertiary observation is that the author has not invalidated random chance either, merely by stating that we have known examples of unselfconscious matter forming intelligent combinations. He did not establish that the combinations were actually intelligent; he merely stated as much using our new definition of the term. What if they weren't? Of course, they still could BE intelligent after all; we don't know and probably can't know right now, and indeed possibly never will be able to know. Hence the Greek term....-(Most likely I am committing some flaw in logic or reasoning here, so please fill me in; I remain agnostic and therefore open to further input on the topic.)

Hyjyljyj: What might [invalidate panpsychism] is my secondary impression, which is that the author, notwithstanding his announcement to the contrary in conclusion (a), may not have successfully done away with the need for the initial uncaused, infinite (by which I mean also eternal) cause, in simply spreading cosmic consciousness and intelligence to subatomic particles, molecules and bacteria.-The initial, uncaused, infinite and eternal first cause in this case would be energy with the lowest level of consciousness/intelligence (as opposed to the theist version, which has the highest level). The important aspect here is that there are different degrees of intelligence/consciousness, which we already assume in relation to living things: I think most of us would agree than an amoeba is not as intelligent/ conscious as a dog, and a dog is not as intelligent/conscious as a human. Hyjyljyj: Even if it is microconsciousness or microintelligence directing atoms to combine in certain ways in response to physical laws of the universe, we still have the question, where did those physical laws come from? If we say they didn't need to come from anywhere, they just always existed, then that's an easy answer that's difficult to prove or disprove, which is why atheists love to use it in regards to matter and energy: we say of God (if we believe he exists) that he didn't need to be created, because he's always existed; and they say, Well, then, the same can just as easily be said of matter and energy, so there.-And that is the nub of the matter. There is no first cause that doesn't pose the question of provenance, which is why personally I cannot with any conviction favour one version over another. However, of the three possible first causes ... a superconscious creator/designer versus energy totally void of intelligence/consciousness versus energy with the lowest level of intelligence/consciousness ... i.e. the laws of Nature ... which do you think most likely to pass Occam's razor test?-Hyjyljyj: Panpsychism also tastes a little like pantheism, where every rock and worm and atom and quark is a god or God. And that isn't satisfying either. I'd be open to data conveying further understanding of the distinction between panpsychism and pantheism.-The Wikipedia article on the subject shows that as usual there are umpteen variations on the theme, and they tend to overlap. Both pantheism and David's panentheism figure, as do various proponents of process theology, but as far as I can see, panpsychism itself does not necessarily involve any kind of deity.-Hyjyljyj: My tertiary observation is that the author has not invalidated random chance either, merely by stating that we have known examples of unselfconscious matter forming intelligent combinations. He did not establish that the combinations were actually intelligent; he merely stated as much using our new definition of the term. What if they weren't? Of course, they still could BE intelligent after all; we don't know and probably can't know right now, and indeed possibly never will be able to know. Hence the Greek term....-I don't know how far Koch takes his panpsychism. The main arguments were my own extrapolations from the paragraph I quoted (though I looked up the Wikipedia article afterwards). I have been trying to develop the analogy between the "intelligent" cell (following Lynn Margulis's emphasis on cooperation as a vital force in evolution) and a possible first cause. The point I'm trying to make about the cell is that in its various combinations it is able to take "intelligent" decisions and perform functions without ... as far as we know ... being self-aware. Evolution is driven by innovations, and whether or not God designed the cell in the first place, it has proceeded through different combinations of cells acting in a purposeful, meaningful, functional way (that is roughly what I mean by intelligent) without self-awareness. In the context of evolution, the role of chance is vastly reduced: you no longer have random mutations responsible for all innovations ... instead you have an "intelligent" mechanism responding to the demands or the opportunities created by the environment (whose changes ARE random). I am suggesting a similar process for the evolution of the universe (not just our cosmos but everything that has ever existed). With eternal and "intelligent" but unselfconscious energy and matter, you have an infinite range of combinations, as opposed to the finite range counting from the Big Bang onwards, and again a massive reduction in the role of chance. Obviously nothing like so great as with a totally self-aware and intelligent form of energy (God), but certainly far greater than with an atheist-style blank. Hyjyljyj: (Most likely I am committing some flaw in logic or reasoning here, so please fill me in; I remain agnostic and therefore open to further input on the topic.)-No flaw, as far as I can see. I do not embrace this theory either, but I offer it as a "third way", which for me is no more and no less unbelievable than the first two. ________________________________________

Just passing by ... :-) -This subject begs questions like is anything conscious, a la Susan Blackmore?-What is difference between everything being conscious and nothing being conscious?-Is consciousness anything other than an exchange of energy?-In his book Dennett described the idea, that if a philosopher's zombie could respond exactly like a conscious human being then to all intents and purposes that zombie is conscious. For the life of me the logic then flows backwards too, it becomes difficult to distinguish between a conscious being and a philosopher's zombie!-have fun-rom

rom: Is consciousness anything other than an exchange of energy? > > In his book Dennett described the idea, that if a philosopher's zombie could respond exactly like a conscious human being then to all intents and purposes that zombie is conscious. -Dennett has a nutty idea. Consciousness to me ismuch more than exchanging energy. The brain does not need to maintain energy to preserve it in NDE's. See Eben Alexander's book.

Dennett has a nutty idea. Consciousness to me ismuch more than exchanging energy. The brain does not need to maintain energy to preserve it in NDE's. See Eben Alexander's book.-Does Eben Alexander have nutty ideas?-I would argue fundamentally without energy exchange there is to all intents and purposes nothing. Not even consciousness. As a scientist, this is a fundamental precept to existence never mind consciousness.

Rom. Does Eben Alexander have nutty ideas?- Eben alexandr is a highly respected neurosurgeon who had a complex NDE and wrote a book about it. I suggest you investigate a little. > > rom: I would argue fundamentally without energy exchange there is to all intents and purposes nothing.-I have no idea what you are proposing. A non-functioning cortex does not exchange energy. It can't. Yet is remembers the NDE.-> rom: Not even consciousness. As a scientist, this is a fundamental precept to existence never mind consciousness.-Is there a misprint here?

Rom. Does Eben Alexander have nutty ideas? > Eben alexandr is a highly respected neurosurgeon who had a complex NDE and wrote a book about it. I suggest you investigate a little. -Yes and Daniel Dennett is a highly respected philosopher. But you did not answer my question David.-> > rom: I would argue fundamentally without energy exchange there is to all intents and purposes nothing. > I have no idea what you are proposing. A non-functioning cortex does not exchange energy. It can't. Yet is remembers the NDE. Information is stored in a book as well. A switched off computer remembers information too after being switched off. > > rom: Not even consciousness. As a scientist, this is a fundamental precept to existence never mind consciousness. > Is there a misprint here? I don't think so. Scientists (and doctors) can only study objects after energy has been exchanged between the object and the subject.

rom: Information is stored in a book as well. A switched off computer remembers information too after being switched off.-The book analogy is a non-answer. There is no proof a brain acts like a man-made computer. Alexander's brain was subjected to a severe form of meningo-encephalitis. Several forms of test showed that his cerebrum was entirely non-fuctional for about a week. It is Alexander's opinion that it did not function and could not have functioned during the week when the memories of his NDE were recorded. But where was that recording?...not in his cerebrum.- > rom:. Scientists (and doctors) can only study objects after energy has been exchanged between the object and the subject. -Or observe a lack of energy if nothing is received from the cerebrum as in Alexander's case. -Dennett is as noted as Antony Flew was. So I wonder what his philosophic opinion is worth. Philosophy is all opinion. I prefer the very broad inclusive atheistic philosophic approach of Ed Feser and Raymond Tallis to the obvious bias of Dennett. But that is my opinion.

rom:. Scientists (and doctors) can only study objects after energy has been exchanged between the object and the subject. > > Or observe a lack of energy if nothing is received from the cerebrum as in Alexander's case. ->Just a question here David about detecting energy:-The doctors did not detect fluctuations or a change in energy levels in the cerebrum when the subject was said to be brain dead, right? But the subject obviously has memory about being conscious during that time. The cerebrum is made up of energy just as consciousness is, but they did not see the level of energy normally displayed in a conscious cerebrum, right? Because obviously their machines had to pick up the energy of the brain itself? Is it possible that the machines ability to detect consciousness at this low level is just not powerful enough to detect it? Does it have to be that this persons conscious energy "left" his body or could it possibly be that his consciousness was at such a low level it could not be detected? And while in such a low state of consciousness, the subject dreamed? Because many people learn things unknown to them in the dreamstate all the time, even if they forget when they wake up. -Just thought I'd ask...

bbella: Is it possible that the machines ability to detect consciousness at this low level is just not powerful enough to detect it? Does it have to be that this persons conscious energy "left" his body or could it possibly be that his consciousness was at such a low level it could not be detected? And while in such a low state of consciousness, the subject dreamed? Because many people learn things unknown to them in the dreamstate all the time, even if they forget when they wake up. -As stated, Eben Alexander is a noted neurosurgeon who had a severe meningitis, so severe the bugs were absorbing so much oxygen and glucose any function of his cerebrum could not be detected by any of the standard medical methods. These methods detect celllular/neuronal activity. Whether that activity represents consciousness itself is part of the problem. It is not clear where consciousness resides. Alexander was unconscious for a week! Since being conscious and consciousness seem to be two different aspects of awareness, Alexander doesn't know where his consciousness went to allow it to experience heaven, a guardian angel, who turned out to be a dead sister he never met being adopted at an early age. The experience turned him from atheist to believer. I suggest reading his recently published book, Proof of Heaven.-This was an NDE, not a dream, for there was no functional tissue to dream with. Those folks who accept the reality of NDE and do research into it are generally convinced that this phenomenon is at a quantum level, where things can occur in two places at the same time, all the counterintuitive strangeness of quantum mechanics at work.

rom: This subject begs questions like is anything conscious, a la Susan Blackmore? What is [the] difference between everything being conscious and nothing being conscious? Is consciousness anything other than an exchange of energy? In his book Dennett described the idea, that if a philosopher's zombie could respond exactly like a conscious human being then to all intents and purposes that zombie is conscious. Always nice to hear from you, rom, though I hope you'll stick around long enough to read a response. It seems to me that the first two questions take us onto the epistemological level at which there is no point in discussing anything. Consciousness and intelligence are almost impossible to define and to quantify, which is why philosophers can play word games till we all give up. In order to communicate, we have to accept certain commonsense premises (common sense is a philosophical category, not a made-up term). We simply need to agree on basic premises. I suggest to you that as far as we know, a stone is likely to be less conscious than a dog which is likely to be less conscious than a human. If you disagree, that is the end of the discussion. If you agree, we can discuss panpsychism, of which differing degrees of consciousness are a fundamental aspect. As regards Question 3, I don't know what is meant by an exchange of energy. Between what and what?-As regards the zombie, I would suggest that there are degrees not only of consciousness, but also of self-consciousness. I would argue that a zombie, just like a drunkard, will be less conscious and less self-conscious than a sober, sentient human being. A robot will be less conscious than a human and will have no self-consciousness. All of this can of course be strongly denied by anyone who wants to mount the epistemological high horse. But if those concerned agree on this basic premise, we can then discuss the possibility that just as individual, unselfconscious cells form communities which perform functions such as digestion, fighting illness, pumping oxygen, registering sights and sounds ... all of which require the sort of knowledge and expertise we associate with intelligence ... so too might the unselfconscious energies and materials of an eternal universe have formed communities that also function with the sort of knowledge and expertise we associate with intelligence. Again, I'm not asking anyone to accept the theory ... I don't accept it myself ... but if the God theory and the chance theory are worth serious consideration, why not consider this one as well? Or of course we can ignore the subject entirely and play philosophical games.

My 2Â¢-I, too, find it impossible to engage meaningfully in any discussion wherein our own consciousness is questioned or doubted; it feels like the revocation of our license to question or doubt things, including said consciousness. The circle is a pleasing shape in general, but not as regards logic. -This is almost the RenÃ© Descartes undying classic "Cogito, ergo sum," where my thinking logically requires my existence: in the land where words mean things, doubting something entails the a priori consciousness of what is being doubted. In fact it seems to go even deeper, since I MIGHT really not exist but only be imagined to exist by some other mind; however, can I REALLY not be conscious, if I'm either really considering or imagining I'm considering the question of whether I'm conscious? Am I supposed to accept the possibility that some other mind may be imagining that my mind is doubting my consciousness? And if so, how would I be conscious of accepting that possibility--is that being imagined for me, too? Moreover, how could my so-called acceptance or rejection of the possibility have any validity, if I'm not really even conscious of the two options in the first place and am, therefore, unable to deliberate between them? Anyway, if it's OK for the mind of this hypothetical grand imaginer to have consciousness, why not my own? The questions possess the thought-destroying potential of koans.-I wouldn't necessarily go as far as labeling someone who does undertake to question their own consciousness as being on the "epistemological high horse", regardless of how catchy I might find that phrase--that is, unless they stubbornly stick to it in an apparent gambit to look hip or to effectively make the discussion difficult or impossible. What would be the point? -We're all conscious of having better things to do.

Hyjylyj: I, too, find it impossible to engage meaningfully in any discussion wherein our own consciousness is questioned or doubted; it feels like the revocation of our license to question or doubt things, including said consciousness. The circle is a pleasing shape in general, but not as regards logic.-You proceed to ask a series of philosophical questions which "possess the thought-destroying potential of koans." Yes, indeed. And there is not one mention of the subject that forms the subject of this thread ... namely, panpsychism. Hyjyljyj: I wouldn't necessarily go as far as labeling someone who does undertake to question their own consciousness as being on the "epistemological high horse", regardless of how catchy I might find that phrase--that is, unless they stubbornly stick to it in an apparent gambit to look hip or to effectively make the discussion difficult or impossible. What would be the point? We're all conscious of having better things to do.-And that is exactly the problem here. Instead of discussing the subject ... namely panpsychism as a possible third way to replace the god theory and the chance theory ... the focus has switched to the epistemological impossibility of pinning down the meaning of terms which in normal discourse we are all prepared to accept, and indeed have to accept if discussion is to be possible. I suspect there was a twinkle in Romansh's eye when he wrote his post: his parting shot was "have fun"!

dhw: You proceed to ask a series of philosophical questions which "possess the thought-destroying potential of koans." Yes, indeed. And there is not one mention of the subject that forms the subject of this thread ... namely, panpsychism.-Hyjyljyj: Hope that didn't come off as my blithely derailing a thread; I was merely intending to convey my concurrence that, rather, Romansh was so doing by taking the tangent of calling into question the existence of one's own consciousness, which, if I may just peel off the skin of the onion this time and simply say, is as close to silliness as anything on TV. >:^D)-We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread on panpsychism, something I still don't get.-The purpose of my post was to point out that you and I HAD been diverted from the subject by what I regard as philosophical games. I think Romansh was just having a bit of fun.-Panpsychism as I understand it boils down to the idea that there is a degree of "consciousness" in all things. I'm in no position to lecture on the subject, as it's new to me as well, but my personal slant on it (though long ago BBella offered the same suggestion) is that even a rock, which would probably have the lowest level, will respond to and interact with the environment. Push it over a cliff and it will fall, hammer it and it will flake. You and I might not call this any kind of consciousness at all, but as we move up the scale we come to bacteria which have an astonishing range of interactions, plants which engage with the environment and with one another, animals etc. right up to us with a degree of consciousness that extends into extreme self-consciousness. Until I read the paragraph about Koch which I quoted at the start of this thread, I'd been talking in terms of intelligence, not consciousness, and I still prefer it, though it also demands a reassessment of our normal understanding of the word. My "intelligent cell" creates communities of cells that perform miracles of intelligence without, so far as we know, being self-aware.-Regardless of all the faiths it touches on (pantheism, panentheism, process theology etc.), I am trying to apply panpsychism to the concept of the "first cause". There has to be a first cause ... something that has been there forever, if we agree that nothing can come of nothing, although many atheists disagree. David and I have both accepted that the first cause is energy of some kind. Theism makes that energy superintelligent, superconscious, totally self-aware. Atheism of course rejects that concept entirely, but in both versions this energy HAS to be active. The theist believes that it deliberately creates matter; the atheist thinks that it does so "naturally" (laws of Nature) without awareness. The panpsychist could argue (my interpretation) that the "natural" process of creating matter, and of matter then forming systems, is guided by unselfconscious intelligence. (At this stage, there is no major gap between atheism and panpsychism, but see below.) My analogy for this, as I said above, is the unselfconscious intelligence that forms all the systems through which our bodies function (= communities of "intelligent cells"). In other words, the "creator" is unselfconscious energy which intelligently turns itself into inorganic matter which intelligently forms organic matter which intelligently forms cells which intelligently form organs etc. right through to us. Evolution through unselfconscious to selfconscious intelligence.-Where this could get really interesting is in the matter of OBEs and NDEs. Our human energy is now self-aware, and so if the brain is the container and not the producer (a big IF), this self-aware energy could survive death and bring its own identity ... as well as meeting with other identities ... into the intelligent but impersonal, unselfconscious energy of what BBella calls the ALL THAT IS.-I don't buy it either, but I don't buy selfconscious superintelligent energy at the start, or totally blank energy at the start. For me it's a third option no less and no more likely than the first two. It does away with the father figure, i.e. the personal, all-knowing, all-powerful God, and fits in with what appear to be the random comings and goings of stars in the heavens and species on Earth; but at the same time it does away with the atheist's total dependence on chance: earthly evolution no longer depends on random mutations, and the universe's production of conditions suitable for life no longer depends on a random alignment of heavenly bodies, as there is a never ending process of "intelligent" combination, with natural selection determining what survives. It also leaves open a possible explanation of psychic experiences which atheists would rather ignore as if they never happened. If people weren't so accustomed to concepts like God (theists) and "the laws of nature" (atheists), which they often swallow without a second thought, this third option might be taken seriously.

dhw: In other words, the "creator" is unselfconscious energy which intelligently turns itself into inorganic matter which intelligently forms organic matter which intelligently forms cells which intelligently form organs etc. right through to us. Evolution through unselfconscious to selfconscious intelligence.- My problem with this is that I cannot conceive of intelligence without consciousness. Unconscous intelligence? A non-starter! Intelligence requires self-analysis. Unconscious thought processes? Impossible. I cannot conceive of what you are trying to propose.

dhw: In other words, the "creator" is unselfconscious energy which intelligently turns itself into inorganic matter which intelligently forms organic matter which intelligently forms cells which intelligently form organs etc. right through to us. Evolution through unselfconscious to selfconscious intelligence.-DAVID: My problem with this is that I cannot conceive of intelligence without consciousness. Unconscious intelligence? A non-starter! Intelligence requires self-analysis. Unconscious thought processes? Impossible. I cannot conceive of what you are trying to propose.-I'm surprised you can't conceive of intelligence without self-analysis, as this seems to be the rule rather than the exception with most of our fellow animals. Think of the feats of engineering by spiders, ants, bees, birds, beavers ... all astonishing examples of intelligent design ... the intelligent actions of dogs, crows, dolphins, the list of Nature's Wonders with which you are constantly educating us. Are you now saying that all these creatures are self-aware? Similarly, I suggest that the cell communities which fight disease, digest our food and drink, enable us to keep our species going etc. etc. also perform intelligent actions without self-analysis. In your post, you are equating consciousness with self-consciousness, but in my posts I am distinguishing between DEGREES of consciousness (we assume that a spider/ant/dog etc. is LESS conscious than a man), selfconsciousness being an extreme degree of consciousness. This approach lies at the heart of panpsychism as I understand it. I really can't see why the above examples of intelligence without self-analysis from the world we can actually observe should be inconceivable to you. The rest of the "theory" is an extension of this basis, just as your god theory is an extension of the basis you derive from the complex designs we can actually observe.

dhw: I'm surprised you can't conceive of intelligence without self-analysis, as this seems to be the rule rather than the exception with most of our fellow animals. Think of the feats of engineering by spiders, ants, bees, birds, beavers ... all astonishing examples of intelligent design ... the intelligent actions of dogs, crows, dolphins, the list of Nature's Wonders...Are you now saying that all these creatures are self-aware? Similarly, I suggest that the cell communities which fight disease, digest our food and drink, enable us to keep our species going etc. etc. also perform intelligent actions without self-analysis.-In your post, you are equating consciousness with self-consciousness, but in my posts I am distinguishing between DEGREES of consciousness (we assume that a spider/ant/dog etc. is LESS conscious than a man), selfconsciousness being an extreme degree of consciousness. This approach lies at the heart of panpsychism as I understand it. -This has the rudiments of making sense to me, although I still have this question about cellular metabolism being a de facto indication of intelligence/consciousness belonging to the cell. It could in fact be just that, after all; on the other hand, if something HAS TO function in a certain way due to its form--lesson 1, day 1 of Physiology 101--then need it be intelligent at all? Is it not on auto-pilot? If the cells forming the small intestinal villi, e.g., are shaped and pre-programmed to behave in only one specific fashion when in contact with food particles, cannot refuse to act, and cannot choose or be made to act in some other fashion, then are they not essentially automatons, requiring no actual intelligence to perform their programs? Nobody would claim that the mechanical robots in a car factory that pick up parts, paint them and then assemble them gently are either conscious of it or are doing so out of intelligence; the intelligence lies wholly in the minds that designed them. Why this should automatically cease being the case whenever the molecules comprising the robots themselves are organic ones rather than inorganic is unclear to me. Although, I guess the answer would be that the inorganic and organic robots ARE equivalent in consciousness or intelligence, in that both operate on a more or less similar, subhuman level of it. Maybe we'll never know...

dhw: I'm surprised you can't conceive of intelligence without self-analysis, as this seems to be the rule rather than the exception with most of our fellow animals. Think of the feats of engineering by spiders, ants, bees, birds, beavers ... all astonishing examples of intelligent design ... the intelligent actions of dogs, crows, dolphins, the list of Nature's Wonders...Are you now saying that all these creatures are self-aware? -No this is a mistaken idea, for all you are describing is instinct, with the animals acting as automatons. It is the creation of the automatic responses that are the wonders.- > > hy:This has the rudiments of making sense to me, although I still have this question about cellular metabolism being a de facto indication of intelligence/consciousness belonging to the cell. It could in fact be just that, after all; on the other hand, if something HAS TO function in a certain way due to its form--lesson 1, day 1 of Physiology 101--then need it be intelligent at all? Is it not on auto-pilot? - Auto-pilot!! Of course it is all automatic, just as is the autonomic nervous system, of which we are barely aware, unless we think aobut it.

Hyjyljyj: I still have this question about cellular metabolism being a de facto indication of intelligence/consciousness belonging to the cell. It could in fact be just that, after all; on the other hand, if something HAS TO function in a certain way due to its form--lesson 1, day 1 of Physiology 101--then need it be intelligent at all? Is it not on auto-pilot? If the cells forming the small intestinal villi, e.g., are shaped and pre-programmed to behave in only one specific fashion when in contact with food particles, cannot refuse to act, and cannot choose or be made to act in some other fashion, then are they not essentially automatons, requiring no actual intelligence to perform their programs?-Thank you for this penetrating observation. I've put the idea forward as an alternative to the theist and atheist explanations, and not as a conviction of my own, but I will happily defend it. The key word above is "pre-programmed". I believe in the theory that all living organisms are descended from earlier organisms. At one time there were no intestines, eyes, limbs, penises etc., so how did each new organ come into existence? The Creationist might tell you that God created it separately. A theistic evolutionist might tell you that God pre-programmed the mechanisms for heredity, adaptation and innovation in such a way that the new organ would come into existence when the time/environment was right. An atheist might tell you that it was due to random mutations. I can't believe any of these, but the organs did come into existence, so the potential must have been present in the structures that preceded them. What I'm offering, then, is the idea that within those mechanisms, in the cells themselves, is a form of inventive "intelligence" that gets them to assemble in new formations. This is not human intelligence, or self-aware intelligence, but if you accept that animals can act intelligently without being self-aware (see my reply to David later), you will understand the parallel. Maybe ants and bees would be the nearest analogy, because cells must also create communities in order to build new organs. Hyjyljyj: Nobody would claim that the mechanical robots in a car factory that pick up parts, paint them and then assemble them gently are either conscious of it or are doing so out of intelligence; the intelligence lies wholly in the minds that designed them. -An excellent parallel. The robot is designed by us, and we call it artificial intelligence. The parallel here would be God the Creator preprogramming the original cells so that one day their descendants would produce, say, a light-sensitive nerve which later descendants would be pre-programmed to develop into an eye (Darwin's prime example of a difficult organ to explain). All the generations of cells would then be automata. The alternative is a mechanism (whether created by God or not) within the cells that has no particular aim in mind, but has the potential to produce no matter what. The decision to produce an eye (remember, eyes have never existed before) would then come from the un-pre-programmed cells themselves. No automaton could do this. Of course in your post you are thinking ahead to when the cell community has already formed the eye, and it automatically functions as programmed by that cell community. You can call it artificial intelligence if you like, but it's still intelligence, and unless you believe in God's interfering or God's pre-programming, you will have to accept that the programme itself was set up by the cells. It is the cells (just like the communities of ants and bees) that determine from the outset what function each one is to perform. Innovation doesn't come from robots. -*****-DAVID: No this is a mistaken idea, for all you are describing is instinct, with the animals acting as automatons. It is the creation of the automatic responses that are the wonders.-Animals are not automata. They have emotions, willpower, the ability to take decisions and even to solve problems. But much of their behaviour, just like our own, is indeed governed by instinct, which is a form of intelligence that functions without self-analysis (in some instances, we call it intuition). The creation of these responses, and indeed of every innovation you can think of, is indeed the wonder. Was their creation the result of God interfering, God preprogramming every single detail (which he would have to do if the mechanism itself didn't take the decisions), blind chance (= random mutations), or the innovative but unselfconscious intelligence of the cells forming new combinations? Four hypotheses. Take your pick, or sit on the fence with me.

dhw: The creation of these responses, and indeed of every innovation you can think of, is indeed the wonder. Was their creation the result of God interfering, God preprogramming every single detail (which he would have to do if the mechanism itself didn't take the decisions), blind chance (= random mutations), or the innovative but unselfconscious intelligence of the cells forming new combinations? Four hypotheses. Take your pick, or sit on the fence with me. > > hy: Nice capsule distillation dhw.-I still go back to the observation that all of reality develops by evolutionary processes. The universe from the Big Bang is very different now from plasma. 100 billion galaxies, increasing expansion rate, etc. Our galaxy evolved; when the Earth formed it evolved. After life appeared it evolved. We discover 'rules' or 'laws' that control those evolutions. 20 very dominent ones and 100 minor ones just to provide for a universe that allows life. -The issue for dhw really is does God tinker or set the processes up and watch? There is evidence for both; for example, the asteriod that did in the dinosaurs looks like tinkering, but the other way of looking at it is simply to say that eventually an asteroid would have come along to do the deed. After all we are still worried about a big space rock hitting us now. we can see them out there in the asteroid belt. -As for 'intelligent' cells joining together, my same old question: where did the information come from to make them intelligent? Where are the central controls to organize a proper cooperation? Pansychism is not at a cellular level, but at an organismal level, if it exists at all.

dhw: The creation of these responses, and indeed of every innovation you can think of, is indeed the wonder. Was their creation the result of God interfering, God preprogramming every single detail (which he would have to do if the mechanism itself didn't take the decisions), blind chance (= random mutations), or the innovative but unselfconscious intelligence of the cells forming new combinations? Four hypotheses. Take your pick, or sit on the fence with me.-hy: Nice capsule distillation dhw. [...] The fourth one seems to be least bizarre (just barely)...-DAVID: I still go back to the observation that all of reality develops by evolutionary processes. I agree.-DAVID: The issue for dhw really is does God tinker or set the processes up and watch? That is NOT the issue for me! We agree that the first cause is energy of some kind. The issue for me is whether that energy is self-aware (theism), totally unaware (atheism), or with a degree of intelligence/ consciousness that does NOT include self-awareness. Only if the primeval energy is self-aware does the tinkering/watching option apply. DAVID: There is evidence for both; for example, the asteroid that did in the dinosaurs looks like tinkering, but the other way of looking at it is simply to say that eventually an asteroid would have come along to do the deed. After all we are still worried about a big space rock hitting us now. we can see them out there in the asteroid belt. If an asteroid simply came along WITHOUT God's control, it doesn't say much for his supposed planning of the course of evolution. You can just imagine it: "Damn, after all those millions of years perfecting the dinosaurs, and this happens! Ah well, let's try something different." Alternatively: "Yippee, I knew one would come along sooner or later." One wonders what else was outside his control. DAVID: As for 'intelligent' cells joining together, my same old question: where did the information come from to make them intelligent? Where are the central controls to organize a proper cooperation? Panpsychism is not at a cellular level, but at an organismal level, if it exists at all.-A valid question to which no-one knows the answer (see above for first cause options). But hardly one that invalidates the suggestion that they ARE intelligent. And if they are, they don't need central control ... they organize themselves, though maybe like ants and bees there are decision-makers and followers. As I've tried to make clear, this would be the case whether God created them or not, unless God either interfered or preprogrammed every single innovation. How does one distinguish between cellular and organismal, since organisms are composed of cells? Your distinction simply means that panpsychism operates at the level of cell communities. That's OK with me.

dhw:But hardly one that invalidates the suggestion that they ARE intelligent.-Parts of cells act as if intelligent, but in reality they are under tight feed-back-loop controls-> dhw:And if they are, they don't need central control ... they organize themselves, though maybe like ants and bees there are decision-makers and followers.-They need central control. Ants, etc. are whole independent organisms. That is a giant difference. Whole orfganisms are independent decision makers-> dhw: How does one distinguish between cellular and organismal, since organisms are composed of cells?-I would need to give you a course in basic biology, since you are conjuring up a fantasy. Cells are under tight controls.-> dhw: Your distinction simply means that panpsychism operates at the level of cell communities. That's OK with me.-And OK with me

DAVID: Panpsychism is not at a cellular level, but at an organismal level, if it exists at all.-dhw: How does one distinguish between cellular and organismal, since organisms are composed of cells?-DAVID: I would need to give you a course in basic biology, since you are conjuring up a fantasy. Cells are under tight controls.-You are talking of cell communities that have already taken on a fixed form. But you have not dealt with the crucial subject of innovation, which is the basis of my argument. So let me ask you yet again: do you believe that innovations were caused by (a) God interfering, b) God preprogramming every single innovation into the first forms of life, to be passed down through the billions of generations of billions of species extant and extinct, or c) mechanisms within existing cells/cell communities adapting or innovating in accordance with what was demanded or allowed by the changing environment? If a) and b) seem unfeasible, the initiative for such unprogrammed changes can only come from within existing cells/cell communities themselves. And this applies whether God created the original mechanisms or not. So why is c) more of a fantasy than a) and b)?-dhw: Your distinction [between cellular and organismal] simply means that panpsychism operates at the level of cell communities. That's OK with me. DAVID: And OK with me.-I should add that by cell communities I don't necessarily mean the organism as a whole. Every organ is also a cell community with a defined role to play, although of course any innovation must be integrated within the whole organism. But the invention of a leg, an eye, a nose, a penis still has to take place at the level of an existing cellular community. Your agreement makes me all the more surprised that you dismiss the idea as biological fantasy.

dhw: I should add that by cell communities I don't necessarily mean the organism as a whole. Every organ is also a cell community with a defined role to play, although of course any innovation must be integrated within the whole organism. But the invention of a leg, an eye, a nose, a penis still has to take place at the level of an existing cellular community. Your agreement makes me all the more surprised that you dismiss the idea as biological fantasy.-What you are skipping is the fact that each organism, either single-celled or multicelled is under tight controls by the genome. My liver cells do not make their own decisions outside of that control framework.

dhw: I should add that by cell communities I don't necessarily mean the organism as a whole. Every organ is also a cell community with a defined role to play, although of course any innovation must be integrated within the whole organism. But the invention of a leg, an eye, a nose, a penis still has to take place at the level of an existing cellular community. Your agreement makes me all the more surprised that you dismiss the idea as biological fantasy.-DAVID: What you are skipping is the fact that each organism, either single-celled or multicelled is under tight controls by the genome. My liver cells do not make their own decisions outside of that control framework.-Sadly, we now appear to have abandoned the subject of panpsychism altogether, and have returned to the initial analogy of the intelligent cell, but this subject has so many ramifications that we really do need to sort it out. So on we go. -If every cell in every organism has always been under tight control by the genome, and if early forms of life did not have a liver, an eye, a leg, a penis, and if God did not pre-programme livers, eyes, legs and penises to appear billions of years after he invented the mechanisms for evolution, and if God did not manufacture these organs separately, what part of the existing organisms brought about these new forms?

dhw: If every cell in every organism has always been under tight control by the genome, and if early forms of life did not have a liver, an eye, a leg, a penis, and if God did not pre-programme livers, eyes, legs and penises to appear billions of years after he invented the mechanisms for evolution, and if God did not manufacture these organs separately, what initiated the changes within existing organisms to bring about these new forms?-Changes in the genome either as mutations or epigenetic alterations. The latter appear to be responses to challenges in a changing environment, climate, predators, eetc. The former are accidental in the main. Individual cells have some control over their role in individual organs with changes in their personal DNA, but the organs have to form first under the germ cells' DNA.

dhw: If every cell in every organism has always been under tight control by the genome, and if early forms of life did not have a liver, an eye, a leg, a penis, and if God did not pre-programme livers, eyes, legs and penises to appear billions of years after he invented the mechanisms for evolution, and if God did not manufacture these organs separately, what initiated the changes within existing organisms to bring about these new forms?-DAVID: Changes in the genome either as mutations or epigenetic alterations. The latter appear to be responses to challenges in a changing environment, climate, predators, etc. The former are accidental in the main. Individual cells have some control over their role in individual organs with changes in their personal DNA, but the organs have to form first under the germ cells' DNA.-Thank you. I must say I'm quite shocked by your apparent support for Darwinism with the statement that genetic mutations are accidental in the main. Remember we are talking about innovations. Epigenetic alterations as responses to challenges would suggest adaptation to me rather than innovation, and even if the borderlines there may be blurred, the Darwinian claim that new organs come about through random mutations followed by gradual refinement has always been a stumbling block for both of us. Organs, even in their most primitive state, are simply too complex to have come about by chance, bearing in mind (a) that they must function immediately to be useful, and (b) that they must also be integrated immediately into the rest of the organism. This is why I keep badgering away at the idea that if innovations were not the result of detailed preprogramming or interference by your God (which you clearly reject as well), they can only have come about through some form of inventive intelligence within the cell/cell communities. Are the two of us beginning to converge? I don't NEED this analogy for my wider panpsychic proposal, but it would be useful and in any case, I find it quite intriguing.

dhw: This is why I keep badgering away at the idea that if innovations were not the result of detailed preprogramming or interference by your God (which you clearly reject as well), they can only have come about through some form of inventive intelligence within the cell/cell communities. Are the two of us beginning to converge? I don't NEED this analogy for my wider panpsychic proposal, but it would be useful and in any case, I find it quite intriguing.-Don't get too excited. Remember I have the theory tht we will find a system in DNA to push or guide complexification. And you are still stuck with the issue tht all basic change must be in the DNA of germ cells. Liver cells don't toot their own trumpet.

Don't get too excited. Remember I have the theory tht we will find a system in DNA to push or guide complexification. And you are still stuck with the issue tht all basic change must be in the DNA of germ cells. Liver cells don't toot their own trumpet.-It is now shown that among primates DNA acts differently than in other vertebrate forms. Primates have a great deal more 'alternative splicing' which means genes can make a variety of different proteins, i.e., more complexity. Why should this be? Why is our DNA different than other DNA's when we believe in some form of comment descent? Shouldn't DNA work the same way in everyone? It doesn't:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220144124.htm-"One of the team's major findings is that the alternative splicing process is more complex in humans and other primates compared to species such as mouse, chicken and frog. "Our observations provide new insight into the genetic basis of complexity of organs such as the human brain," says Benjamin Blencowe, Professor in U of T's Banting and Best Department of Research and the Department of Molecular Genetics, and the study's senior author. "The fact that alternative splicing is very different even between closely related vertebrate species could ultimately help explain how we are unique."- "The results from the alternative splicing pattern comparison were very different. Instead of clustering by tissue, the patterns clustered mostly by species. "Different tissues from the cow look more like the other cow tissues, in terms of splicing, than they do like the corresponding tissue in mouse or rat or rhesus," Burge says. Because splicing patterns are more specific to each species, it appears that splicing may contribute preferentially to differences between those species, Burge says. "Splicing seems to be more malleable over shorter evolutionary timescales, and may contribute to making species different from one another and helping them adapt in various ways," he says."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-evolution-alternative-splicing-rna-rewires.html#jCp

"The fact that alternative splicing is very different even between closely related vertebrate species could ultimately help explain how we are unique."- This is the start of findings which will show a complexification drive in DNA that I have predicted in the past:- "The majority of mammalian protein-coding genes have a number of possible transcripts, generated by the variable inclusion of exons. It was thought that these so-called alternative splicing events might be conserved between species, but two studies published today (December 20) in Science reveal that most are not. The researchers even propose that the high degree of alternative splicing variability may be a driving force of species divergence . "It was somewhat generally assumed that splicing differences that you see between brain and muscle in the mouse would be similar between brain and muscle in the human," said Donny Licatalosi, professor of RNA molecular biology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, who did not participate in the studies, "but what both of these studies are showing is that is not the case. There is a large amount of species-specific alternative splicing.'"-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33782/title/Evolution-by-Splicing/

"The majority of mammalian protein-coding genes have a number of possible transcripts, generated by the variable inclusion of exons. It was thought that these so-called alternative splicing events might be conserved between species, but two studies published today (December 20) in Science reveal that most are not. The researchers even propose that the high degree of alternative splicing variability may be a driving force of species divergence . > >...There is a large amount of species-specific alternative splicing.'" > > http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33782/title/Evolution-by-Splicing/- Why is it not surprising that they would claim that unexpected, unpredictable, and directly contradictory findings support their theory....science no longer obeys it's own rules. Make a prediction; if your prediction is wrong, it supports your theory, if it is right, it supports your theory. Bah

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

dhw: This is why I keep badgering away at the idea that if innovations were not the result of detailed preprogramming or interference by your God (which you clearly reject as well), they can only have come about through some form of inventive intelligence within the cell/cell communities. Are the two of us beginning to converge? I don't NEED this analogy for my wider panpsychic proposal, but it would be useful and in any case, I find it quite intriguing.-DAVID: Don't get too excited. Remember I have the theory that we will find a system in DNA to push or guide complexification. And you are still stuck with the issue that all basic change must be in the DNA of germ cells. Liver cells don't toot their own trumpet.-I am excited. It makes no difference whatsoever to my proposal if the vital mechanism is in the DNA of germ cells. The whole point is that whatever the mechanism consists of, and whatever cells it resides in, it has to be responsible for innovation, and without billions of years of preprogramming, or direct intervention by a conscious creator, it has to take its own decisions.

Always nice to hear from you, rom, though I hope you'll stick around long enough to read a response. Well can't promise -> It seems to me that the first two questions take us onto the epistemological level at which there is no point in discussing anything. Consciousness and intelligence are almost impossible to define and to quantify, which is why philosophers can play word games till we all give up. -I have some sympathy here. I think Blackmore suggests that to explore these things we have to some deep personal introspection. I will never experience your perception. I can experience similar causes, eg sudden loud noises, pretty girls etc. Personally I don't divide philosophy and science into separate categories.-> In order to communicate, we have to accept certain commonsense premises (common sense is a philosophical category, not a made-up term). We simply need to agree on basic premises. I suggest to you that as far as we know, a stone is likely to be less conscious than a dog which is likely to be less conscious than a human. If you disagree, that is the end of the discussion. If you agree, we can discuss panpsychism, of which differing degrees of consciousness are a fundamental aspect.-You go up the line - stone,dog, human - but why stop there? Why not continue with family, community, city, country? Does the company have a Searle like consciousness? > As regards Question 3, I don't know what is meant by an exchange of energy. Between what and what? Between objects, agencies, entities etc > As regards the zombie, I would suggest that there are degrees not only of consciousness, but also of self-consciousness. I would argue that a zombie, just like a drunkard, will be less conscious and less self-conscious than a sober, sentient human being. A robot will be less conscious than a human and will have no self-consciousness. All of this can of course be strongly denied by anyone who wants to mount the epistemological high horse. But if those concerned agree on this basic premise, we can then discuss the possibility that just as individual, unselfconscious cells form communities which perform functions such as digestion, fighting illness, pumping oxygen, registering sights and sounds ... all of which require the sort of knowledge and expertise we associate with intelligence ... so too might the unselfconscious energies and materials of an eternal universe have formed communities that also function with the sort of knowledge and expertise we associate with intelligence. Again, I'm not asking anyone to accept the theory ... I don't accept it myself ... but if the God theory and the chance theory are worth serious consideration, why not consider this one as well? Or of course we can ignore the subject entirely and play philosophical games.-Are there degrees of zombiehood? How could I persuade you that I am a zombie? Ultimately are we not pointing to degrees of complexity in responses in the various entities we consider? And the compexity we perceive is an artefact of the boundary we draw around that entity?

dhw: In order to communicate, we have to accept certain commonsense premises (common sense is a philosophical category, not a made-up term). [...] I suggest to you that as far as we know, a stone is likely to be less conscious than a dog which is likely to be less conscious than a human. If you disagree, that is the end of the discussion. If you agree, we can discuss panpsychism, of which differing degrees of consciousness are a fundamental aspect.-ROMANSH: You go up the line - stone,dog, human - but why stop there? Why not continue with family, community, city, country? Does the company have a Searle like consciousness? -My examples were meant only to establish common agreement that there are different degrees of consciousness. ROMANSH: Are there degrees of zombiehood? How could I persuade you that I am a zombie? Ultimately are we not pointing to degrees of complexity in responses in the various entities we consider? And the complexity we perceive is an artefact of the boundary we draw around that entity?-Fair enough, but I'm not trying to pinpoint the degrees or to define consciousness. If we can agree that consciousness exists and that there are degrees of it, we can pursue the argument with which I opened this thread, and which has barely been touched on since. Namely, that what David calls the Universal Intelligence is an infinite and eternal energy that is NOT fully aware of itself. Just as plants, insects and our fellow animals (I'll drop the cell analogy for now, since that has caused another digression) have done throughout evolution, it has constantly come up with new forms which in the course of eternity and an infinite number of combinations have led to life on Earth. I'm proposing panpsychism as a theory midway between theism and atheism, dependent neither on a self-aware Father Creator nor on Chance, but on the same impersonal intelligence that has enabled life to evolve from the more rudimentary to the more complex. I'm not saying I believe it, but I don't think it's any less likely than eternal uncaused Genius or eternally floundering Chance.

ROMANSH: You go up the line - stone,dog, human - but why stop there? Why not continue with family, community, city, country? Does the company have a Searle like consciousness? > My examples were meant only to establish common agreement that there are different degrees of consciousness. I do understand yours were only examples, but dhw, you did not answer my question, about the consciousness of cities. >> ROMANSH: Are there degrees of zombiehood? How could I persuade you that I am a zombie? Ultimately are we not pointing to degrees of complexity in responses in the various entities we consider? And the complexity we perceive is an artefact of the boundary we draw around that entity? > Fair enough, but I'm not trying to pinpoint the degrees or to define consciousness. If we can agree that consciousness exists and that there are degrees of it, we can pursue the argument with which I opened this thread, and which has barely been touched on since. Namely, that what David calls the Universal Intelligence is an infinite and eternal energy that is NOT fully aware of itself. Just as plants, insects and our fellow animals (I'll drop the cell analogy for now, since that has caused another digression) have done throughout evolution, it has constantly come up with new forms which in the course of eternity and an infinite number of combinations have led to life on Earth. I have some sympathy for David's position though I would certainly not express it in his language of deistic/theistic dualism. (In my humble opinion ) I am torn between everything and nothing being conscious. I'll refer back to Dennett's nutty idea that if a philosopher's zombie can respond exactly like a human being then it can to all intents and purposes be considered conscious. How can we discern between this type of zombie and a common garden conscious human being? > I'm proposing panpsychism as a theory midway between theism and atheism, dependent neither on a self-aware Father Creator nor on Chance, but on the same impersonal intelligence that has enabled life to evolve from the more rudimentary to the more complex. I'm not saying I believe it, but I don't think it's any less likely than eternal uncaused Genius or eternally floundering Chance. That may be David's interpretation of panpsychism. This is too close to Deepak Chopra's point of view for my taste. Mine would be a much colder view of consciousness.

rom: That may be David's interpretation of panpsychism. This is too close to Deepak Chopra's point of view for my taste. Mine would be a much colder view of consciousness.-Yes, I am a fan of Chopra. Where does your version of consciousness reside? Is it an emergent phenomenon from the brain? Or how do you favor another explanation of it, since all of us must use guess work?

ROM: You did not answer my question, about the consciousness of cities.-The only answer I can give you is that family, community, city, country are collectives, and so they must be split. The people in them will be conscious to the degree of self-consciousness, the other living creatures will be less conscious, the materials of which the cities are built...hm, well, perhaps a panpsychist would allot them the lowest possible degree of consciousness. If pushed, I'd say that inorganic material has no consciousness of its own. Any apparent consciousness will be the result of association with a different form of (conscious) energy. Dhw: If we can agree that consciousness exists and that there are degrees of it, we can pursue the argument with which I opened this thread, and which has barely been touched on since. Namely, that what David calls the Universal Intelligence is an infinite and eternal energy that is NOT fully aware of itself. Just as plants, insects and our fellow animals (I'll drop the cell analogy for now, since that has caused another digression) have done throughout evolution, it has constantly come up with new forms which in the course of eternity and an infinite number of combinations have led to life on Earth. -ROM: I have some sympathy for David's position though I would certainly not express it in his language of deistic/theistic dualism. -David's opinion is that the UI is fully self-aware.-ROM: I am torn between everything and nothing being conscious. I'll refer back to Dennett's nutty idea that if a philosopher's zombie can respond exactly like a human being then it can to all intents and purposes be considered conscious. How can we discern between this type of zombie and a common garden conscious human being?-Then why not acknowledge that there are degrees of consciousness? A zombie by definition ("someone who is not aware of what he/she is doing"), just like a drunkard, can be considered conscious but not to the degree of self-awareness. If a zombie's behaviour (ordinary humans aren't confined to responses) is EXACTLY like a human's, then of course we won't be able to distinguish it. dhw: I'm proposing panpsychism as a theory midway between theism and atheism, dependent neither on a self-aware Father Creator nor on Chance, but on the same impersonal intelligence that has enabled life to evolve from the more rudimentary to the more complex. I'm not saying I believe it, but I don't think it's any less likely than eternal uncaused Genius or eternally floundering Chance.-ROM: That may be David's interpretation of panpsychism. [He says yes, but he believes in purposeful creation.] This is too close to Deepak Chopra's point of view for my taste. Mine would be a much colder view of consciousness.-What do you mean by "colder"? If we take the uncaused genius as maximum consciousness (= 100), and chance as no consciousness at all (= 0), and if we agree that the first cause is energy of some kind, where on the scale of consciousness would you put first cause energy?-********-Rom, I've copied and pasted your announcement about Agnostics International onto the first entry, as it'll be more prominent there. Sorry you had such trouble!

ROM: You did not answer my question, about the consciousness of cities. > > The only answer I can give you is that family, community, city, country are collectives, and so they must be split. The people in them will be conscious to the degree of self-consciousness, the other living creatures will be less conscious, the materials of which the cities are built...hm, well, perhaps a panpsychist would allot them the lowest possible degree of consciousness. If pushed, I'd say that inorganic material has no consciousness of its own. Any apparent consciousness will be the result of association with a different form of (conscious) energy. I find a few contradictions here dhw. Are you suggesting the potassium, calcium and sodium ions play no part in your consciousness? The various bits of a city are more connected than ever, therefore your observation they are split does not work for me.-> Then why not acknowledge that there are degrees of consciousness? A zombie by definition ("someone who is not aware of what he/she is doing"), just like a drunkard, can be considered conscious but not to the degree of self-awareness. If a zombie's behaviour (ordinary humans aren't confined to responses) is EXACTLY like a human's, then of course we won't be able to distinguish it. Why would i assign something degrees of consciousness when I am not even convinced consciousness even exists. > dhw: I'm proposing panpsychism as a theory midway between theism and atheism, dependent neither on a self-aware Father Creator nor on Chance, but on the same impersonal intelligence that has enabled life to evolve from the more rudimentary to the more complex. I'm not saying I believe it, but I don't think it's any less likely than eternal uncaused Genius or eternally floundering Chance.-I don't buy into panpsychism especially like that proposed by Deepak Chopra-> What do you mean by "colder"? If we take the uncaused genius as maximum consciousness (= 100), and chance as no consciousness at all (= 0), and if we agree that the first cause is energy of some kind, where on the scale of consciousness would you put first cause energy?-If consciousness exists it is simply akin to energy exchange. > > Rom, I've copied and pasted your announcement about Agnostics International onto the first entry, as it'll be more prominent there. Sorry you had such trouble! Thanks dhw

Romansh asked if I thought a city was conscious. I argued that a city was a collective, and I'd have to split it into component parts, but "if pushed I'd say that inorganic material has no consciousness of its own. Any apparent consciousness will be the result of association with a different form of (conscious) energy."-ROMANSH: Are you suggesting the potassium, calcium and sodium ions play no part in your consciousness?-Things that play a part in consciousness do not necessarily have consciousness of their own. My body is approx 60% water. Are now going to ask me whether I think a glass of water is conscious? There is no end to this game! But the answer to your question is no, of course they PLAY A PART. So, I assume, does everything else in the assembly of materials that make up my body.-ROMANSH: Why would I assign something degrees of consciousness when I am not even convinced consciousness even exists?-This was the problem I mentioned earlier on. If you genuinely doubt whether consciousness exists, we cannot discuss panpsychism or the ideas I am trying to extrapolate from the theory. But let me reassure you that your always highly intelligent and probing questions suggest to me that you are not only aware of things around you, but you are even aware of the thoughts in your own mind. I suspect you are even conscious of the fact that you are doubting whether you are conscious.

This was the problem I mentioned earlier on. If you genuinely doubt whether consciousness exists, we cannot discuss panpsychism or the ideas I am trying to extrapolate from the theory. But let me reassure you that your always highly intelligent and probing questions suggest to me that you are not only aware of things around you, but you are even aware of the thoughts in your own mind. I suspect you are even conscious of the fact that you are doubting whether you are conscious.-Funnily enough I too think I am highly intelligent - it's a curse but someone has to bear it -That I am aware of my thoughts does not mean I have to believe hook, line and sinker there is an intrinsic me or that I can perceive thought mean it is consciousness.

Rom: Funnily enough I too think I am highly intelligent - it's a curse but someone has to bear it -I have the same problem > > That I am aware of my thoughts does not mean I have to believe hook, line and sinker there is an intrinsic me or that I can perceive thought mean it is consciousness.-Consciousness is like pornography. Hard to define, but we all experience it. Can you define consciousness as you perceive it, recognizing that no one knows where it resides or how it is formed. I assume you are conscious and self- aware. ;>))

This is assuming that there is an intrinsic self that can be self aware?-Consciousness is like pornograpy? We define pornography into existence so why not consciousness?-> I have the same problem I really don't want you thinking that I am highly intelligent to be a problem for you David. Just think of me as average.

This is assuming that there is an intrinsic self that can be self aware? > > Consciousness is like pornograpy? We define pornography into existence so why not consciousness? > > > I have the same problem > I really don't want you thinking that I am highly intelligent to be a problem for you David. Just think of me as average.-I am thinking you are sidestepping the issue. Do you have conciousness.?

I am thinking you are sidestepping the issue. Do you have conciousness.?-I thought I answered clearly and succinctly that I was not convinced that I am conscious or at least I have severe doubts about what I experience as consciousness.-Now if you would not mind and answer my question, do you believe in an intrinsic self?

rom: I thought I answered clearly and succinctly that I was not convinced that I am conscious or at least I have severe doubts about what I experience as consciousness.-I still wonder what you think you are experiencing. > > Now if you would not mind and answer my question, do you believe in an intrinsic self?-Absolutely. I am me, not someone else. Using a dictionary online:-1- a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself -b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact -c: awareness; especially: concern for some social or political cause -2-: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind - 3-: the totality of conscious states of an individual-I know I have individual thoughts, freedom of thought and I know my emotions. I assume you are a follower of Dennett. He makes presumptions about the source of consciousness that I don't presume to know if they are correct, since a vast majority of scientists have no idea what causes consciousness, except one needs an active brain to experience it. The only exception being the NDE folks and the books I've read on that subject haven't enlightened me. Everyone gets back to quantum mechanics.

A discussion from a professor of religion:

http://nautil.us/blog/the-case-for-cosmic-pantheism?utm_source=Nautilus&utm_campaig...

"in more common versions of the multiverse theory—such as inflationary, quantum, superstring, and ekpyrotic scenarios—the creator becomes an omnipresent, immanent, material-energetic principle, whether it is in the form of inflation, the quantum vacuum, the landscape, or an all-governing dark energy. In these multiverse cosmologies, we find a creative principle that is the ever-evolving universe itself. This sort of theology, which identifies God with the physical universe, is a position historically known as pantheism.

"Although various pantheisms can be found in Hindu philosophy, Buddhist cosmology, and ancient Greek Stoicism, the idea also has its modern scientific precursors. Just before the turn of the 17th century, the philosopher Giordano Bruno proposed that an infinite God could produce nothing less than an infinite universe filled with infinite worlds. Bruno’s universe was the unmediated pouring-out of God—not into the universe, but as the universe. Bruno realized that this infinite universe with its infinite worlds was the source of all things, the life in all things, and the end of all things, or in other words, “God.” For the heresy of equating the creator and creation, Bruno was executed by the Inquisition. A few decades later, the philosopher Baruch Spinoza developed a similar idea, which his critics equated with atheism, that led to his excommunication. Spinoza argued that if God is infinite and self-subsistent, then everything in existence must be an expression of God. Spinoza’s God is nature itself: all pervasive, impersonal, and unmiraculous.

"Pantheism denies an anthropomorphic creator, and so it’s also often accused of rejecting divinity altogether. As 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer charges, “Pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism.” For Schopenhauer, pantheism embraces the scientific worldview while clinging to the niceties of religion, and so ends up saying nothing at all. “To call the world God is not to explain it,” Schopenhauer argues, “it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.” Or as Richard Dawkins recently put it, “Pantheism is sexed-up atheism.”

"Whether theistic or atheistic, these critics assume that the only thing God can be is an extra-cosmic, masculine monarch. Do away with “Him” and you’ve done away with divinity. Under this assumption, the dialogue between religion and science is reduced to little more than a Ping-Pong game: One side says the monarch exists and the other says he doesn’t. But in the pantheist multiverse, I find a more fruitful way to talk about what we might mean by divinity.

"What if God is the creatively emergent order of nature itself? In this case, the difference between pantheism and atheism might be emotional. Einstein, a professed pantheist, wrote that he experienced a “cosmic religious feeling,” a persistent awe at the “sublimity and marvelous order” of the universe. He was not alone. For the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher, religion was a feeling of the whole universe at work in each part of it. Or perhaps the difference between pantheism and atheism is ethical. As neo-pagans, ecofeminists, radical environmentalists, new animists, and even some biologists have suggested, the Western opposition between God and world seems to have endorsed our exploitation of nature. So if God is the world, might we be more inclined to care for it? Or maybe the difference is conceptual: What would it mean to recode divinity as embodied, evolving, multiple, and multiversal? What kinds of new mythologies and spiritual practices might emerge from the unlikely terrain of modern physics?

"Thinking about a pantheist multiverse prompts us to ask a host of psychological, ethical, philosophical, and even theological questions. They may be controversial, and they will certainly be unanswerable in any final sense. But for those who are interested in the history and future of science and religion, such questions should give rise to a far more productive conversation than the tiresome debate over the existence of a supernatural patriarch."

Comment: It seems panpsychism and pantheism are the same concept. Unlike this author I don't think one can explain the existence of the universe by stating it is naturally mental. That is why I embrace the panentheist view: the universe is sourced by the consciousness of God.

DAVID: A discussion from a professor of religion:
http://nautil.us/blog/the-case-for-cosmic-pantheism?utm_source=Nautilus&utm_campaig...

QUOTE: Spinoza’s God is nature itself: all pervasive, impersonal, and unmiraculous.
Pantheism denies an anthropomorphic creator, and so it’s also often accused of rejecting divinity altogether.

QUOTE: Thinking about a pantheist multiverse prompts us to ask a host of psychological, ethical, philosophical, and even theological questions. They may be controversial, and they will certainly be unanswerable in any final sense. But for those who are interested in the history and future of science and religion, such questions should give rise to a far more productive conversation than the tiresome debate over the existence of a supernatural patriarch.

DAVID’s comment: It seems panpsychism and pantheism are the same concept. Unlike this author I don't think one can explain the existence of the universe by stating it is naturally mental. That is why I embrace the panentheist view: the universe is sourced by the consciousness of God.

I can’t find any mention of panpsychism, but I agree that they have a lot in common. However, pantheism as far as I know does NOT entail Nature being conscious. (Reblak’s pantheism does, although for some reason he hasn’t equated his “Mother Nature” with pantheism or with panpsychism.) As far as the article is concerned, I find it somewhat unenlightening, since most of us know that there are lots of unanswerable questions, and in fact “the tiresome debate over the existence of a supernatural patriarch" has probably sparked off most of them! Here’s one: if there is a universal consciousness that is not interested in us, why should we be interested in it?

DAVID’s comment: It seems panpsychism and pantheism are the same concept. Unlike this author I don't think one can explain the existence of the universe by stating it is naturally mental. That is why I embrace the panentheist view: the universe is sourced by the consciousness of God.

dhw: I can’t find any mention of panpsychism, but I agree that they have a lot in common. However, pantheism as far as I know does NOT entail Nature being conscious. (Reblak’s pantheism does, although for some reason he hasn’t equated his “Mother Nature” with pantheism or with panpsychism.) As far as the article is concerned, I find it somewhat unenlightening, since most of us know that there are lots of unanswerable questions, and in fact “the tiresome debate over the existence of a supernatural patriarch" has probably sparked off most of them! Here’s one: if there is a universal consciousness that is not interested in us, why should we be interested in it?

If the UC created us, then we should be interested in it.

Her essay :

http://nautil.us//blog/electrons-dont-think?utm_source=Nautilus&utm_campaign=f5a82d...

"I recently discovered panpsychism. That’s the idea that all matter—animate or inanimate—is conscious, we just happen to be somewhat more conscious than carrots. Panpsychism is the modern elan vital.

"When I say I “discovered” panpsychism, I mean I discovered there’s a bunch of philosophers who produce pamphlets about it. How do these philosophers address the conflict with evidence? Simple: They don’t.

***

"If you calculate how many particles of a certain type are produced in a particle collision, the result depends on how many variants of the produced particle exist. In particular, it depends on the different values the quantum numbers can take. Since the particles have quantum properties, anything that can happen will happen. If a particle exists in many variants, you’ll produce them all—regardless of whether or not you can distinguish them. The result is that you see more of them than the standard model predicts.

"Now, if you want a particle to be conscious, your minimum expectation should be that the particle can change. It’s hard to have an inner life with only one thought. But if electrons could have thoughts, we’d long have seen this in particle collisions because it would change the number of particles produced in collisions.

"In other words, electrons aren’t conscious, and neither are any other particles. It’s incompatible with data.

"As I explain in my book, there are ways to modify the standard model that do not run into conflict with experiment. One of them is to make new particles so massive that so far we have not managed to produce them in particle collisions, but this doesn’t help you here. Another way is to make them interact so weakly that we haven’t been able to detect them. This too doesn’t help here. The third way is to assume that the existing particles are composed of more fundamental constituents, that are, however, so strongly bound together that we have not yet been able to tear them apart.

"With the third option it is indeed possible to add internal states to elementary particles. But if your goal is to give consciousness to those particles so that we can inherit it from them, strongly bound composites do not help you. They do not help you exactly because you have hidden this consciousness so that it needs a lot of energy to access. This then means, of course, that you cannot use it at lower energies, like the ones typical for soft and wet thinking apparatuses like human brains.

"Summary: If a philosopher starts speaking about elementary particles, run."

Comment: Her point is that the elementary particles combine to make atoms which combine to make molecules. Therefore molecules which make up everything don't produce panpsychism in things. But remember panpsychism could be a separate force field, much as I think we are alive in the field of God's consciousness.

DAVID: Her point is that the elementary particles combine to make atoms which combine to make molecules. Therefore molecules which make up everything don't produce panpsychism in things. But remember panpsychism could be a separate force field, much as I think we are alive in the field of God's consciousness.

My personal view is that I don’t need all the rigmarole about particles. I find it impossible to believe that inanimate objects ranging from a grain of sand to a rock to a man-made building to a star have even a rudimentary consciousness. On the other hand, I don’t see how it’s possible to believe in God and not believe in some form of panpsychism, but I also find it impossible to believe that consciousness can simply have existed for ever outside of materials. On the third hand, I don’t think it’s possible to disbelieve in God without believing that some unconscious materials at some point became conscious and evolved ever increasing degrees of consciousness. You have to have blind faith to believe in any of the theories about the origin of consciousness. But one of them must be true or close to the truth! The agnostic’s dilemma!

DAVID: Her point is that the elementary particles combine to make atoms which combine to make molecules. Therefore molecules which make up everything don't produce panpsychism in things. But remember panpsychism could be a separate force field, much as I think we are alive in the field of God's consciousness.

dhw: My personal view is that I don’t need all the rigmarole about particles. I find it impossible to believe that inanimate objects ranging from a grain of sand to a rock to a man-made building to a star have even a rudimentary consciousness. On the other hand, I don’t see how it’s possible to believe in God and not believe in some form of panpsychism, but I also find it impossible to believe that consciousness can simply have existed for ever outside of materials. On the third hand, I don’t think it’s possible to disbelieve in God without believing that some unconscious materials at some point became conscious and evolved ever increasing degrees of consciousness. You have to have blind faith to believe in any of the theories about the origin of consciousness. But one of them must be true or close to the truth! The agnostic’s dilemma!

Of course something in the list is the truth. Like any detective story there are clues to follow. The key is the complexity of life which requires design. Chance cannot work. That means there must be a designer. The next move is yours.

dhw: My personal view is that I don’t need all the rigmarole about particles. I find it impossible to believe that inanimate objects ranging from a grain of sand to a rock to a man-made building to a star have even a rudimentary consciousness. On the other hand, I don’t see how it’s possible to believe in God and not believe in some form of panpsychism, but I also find it impossible to believe that consciousness can simply have existed for ever outside of materials. On the third hand, I don’t think it’s possible to disbelieve in God without believing that some unconscious materials at some point became conscious and evolved ever increasing degrees of consciousness. You have to have blind faith to believe in any of the theories about the origin of consciousness. But one of them must be true or close to the truth! The agnostic’s dilemma!

DAVID: Of course something in the list is the truth. Like any detective story there are clues to follow. The key is the complexity of life which requires design. Chance cannot work. That means there must be a designer. The next move is yours.

I accept the logic of that argument. Unfortunately, however, it raises as many questions as it answers, which is why even you have admitted that ultimately whatever you believe requires a leap of faith. I suspect I shall remain stuck on my agnostic’s fence till the “next move”, which will either be goodbye to everything or – if NDEs are anything to go by – hello to a new world! I can’t lose, though, because the life that I’ve had has been a wonderful experience in itself. Lucky me!

DAVID: Her point is that the elementary particles combine to make atoms which combine to make molecules. Therefore molecules which make up everything don't produce panpsychism in things. But remember panpsychism could be a separate force field, much as I think we are alive in the field of God's consciousness.

dhw: My personal view is that I don’t need all the rigmarole about particles. I find it impossible to believe that inanimate objects ranging from a grain of sand to a rock to a man-made building to a star have even a rudimentary consciousness. On the other hand, I don’t see how it’s possible to believe in God and not believe in some form of panpsychism, but I also find it impossible to believe that consciousness can simply have existed for ever outside of materials. On the third hand, I don’t think it’s possible to disbelieve in God without believing that some unconscious materials at some point became conscious and evolved ever increasing degrees of consciousness. You have to have blind faith to believe in any of the theories about the origin of consciousness. But one of them must be true or close to the truth! The agnostic’s dilemma!

DAVID: Of course something in the list is the truth. Like any detective story there are clues to follow. The key is the complexity of life which requires design. Chance cannot work. That means there must be a designer. The next move is yours.

dhw: I accept the logic of that argument. Unfortunately, however, it raises as many questions as it answers, which is why even you have admitted that ultimately whatever you believe requires a leap of faith. I suspect I shall remain stuck on my agnostic’s fence till the “next move”, which will either be goodbye to everything or – if NDEs are anything to go by – hello to a new world! I can’t lose, though, because the life that I’ve had has been a wonderful experience in itself. Lucky me!

The blessing of having a great life cannot be denied.

RSS Feed of thread