3 ms·
The author misses the point. Panpsychism is in part a response to the hard problem of consciousness, the question of how subjective experience arises from non-e
by jf- 8y ago
The author misses the point. Panpsychism is in part a response to the hard problem of consciousness, the question of how subjective experience arises from non-experiencing matter. If consciousness at some basic, low level is instead a property of matter, the issue stops being a difference of kind and starts being one of degree: consciousness is an organisation of a property that already exists in the components, so it need not arise at all.
Consciousness and thought are also separate things. The seeing of the colour red or touching a rough surface are experiences, though neither could be described as thoughts.
- empath75 8y agoAny macroscopic property doesn't exist in single elementary particles. Why single out consciousness?
- rebuilder 8y agodoes subjective experience arise from matter? By which I mean, does it exist? I realize that seems like a completely bananas question to ask. But any theory of consciousness seems to get into absurd territory very quickly. The only proof we have that consciousness even exists is that each of us (or me, anyway, who knows what you guys are) vehemently professes to experience it. Other than that, all we seem to find is complex web of deterministic reactions. So what if the question is wrong? When we parse "I think therefore I am", we look at "am" as the insight, but it seems to me the "I" is left undefined. edit: I'm sorry, I jumped the gun on this a bit, you were saying it doesn't arise. But nevertheless, I'm left uncomfortable declaring something exists that we can not actually perceive from the outside.