3 ms·

This is the key sentence from the underlying letter: Given its panpsychist commitments, until the theory as a whole — not just some hand-picked auxiliary compo

This is the key sentence from the underlying letter: Given its panpsychist commitments, until the theory as a whole — not just some hand-picked auxiliary components trivially shared by many others or already known to be true — is empirically testable, we feel that the pseudoscience label should indeed apply It seems like a less confrontational label would be "philosophical". Dismissing by implication a venerable and respectable philosophical theory like panpsychism with such terms gives the impression of arrogant scientism which undermines any criticism that might be useful.

tgv 3y ago
Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory, unless you want to give ether, a divine soul, idealism, and flat earth the same treatment. > Dismissing [it] undermines any criticism that might be useful. If that's your greatest worry...
- antonvs 3y ago
  See https://philpapers.org/browse/panpsychism https://philpapers.org/browse/panpsychism for some recent philosophical papers on panpsychism. To quote Prof. Galen Strawson from one of those papers: > "Panpsychism is a plausible theory of the fundamental nature of reality. It is fully compatible with everything in current physics, and with physicalism."
  - tgv 3y ago
    That list of recent papers doesn't help your argument. The consciousness problem is not going to be solved by wishy-washy creative writing. Very few, if any, of those authors seem to have seen an experiment up close. The quote from Strawson continues to assume consciousness is present in every particle in the universe. It presupposes an extraordinary force of nature, unlike any of the others, to escape a relatively small problem, and it's not based on any observation. No form of consciousness has ever been observed outside animals with a (reasonably large) brain (and even those are rare). There's no explanation for that. If there is one, it will include something like "you need a lot of consciousness particles in a particular structure for it to emerge." Panpsychism is based on the rejection of the possibility that physical processes can explain consciousness. Which makes it all the weirder that they need an extra physical force to explain it.
    - antonvs 3y ago
      You claimed that "Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory". The existence of recent papers, from people that include reasonably prominent philosophers, seems to refute this. Unless by "respectable" you're trying to say something about the validity of the theory. A theory can be respectable, taken seriously by an academic community, without being correct. Perhaps you just used the wrong word.
      - tgv 3y ago
        Yeah, we differ about what "respectable" means, but in that case, your beef is with the original top comment. It argued "Dismissing ... a ... respectable philosophical theory like panpsychism ... gives the impression of arrogant scientism". If respectable means nothing more than a bunch of academics write papers about it, that argument is moot. Since Sokal, it must be clear to everybody that that kind of respectability isn't enough for a theory to be discussed as meritorious. Hence, you can't defend a theory by calling it respectable in that sense. Somehow, that seems to be more damning than what I called it.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  You are the one making that grouping to discredit it. Nobody else is. I can do the same, String Theory is not respectable, it is as provable as having a soul or there is a flat earth. Does me saying this now undermine String Theory? That's just some guy on the internet that doesn't understand it. Like you don't understand Panpsychim.
  - tgv 3y ago
    I agree, string theory isn't very respectable. It looks like an attempt to piggyback a convoluted mathematical structure on existing theories, without much benefit. > Like you don't understand Panpsychim. It posits the existence of some force of nature to explain consciousness. It can't explain what consciousness is, it can't explain why consciousness has never been observed outside animals with a (reasonably large) brain (and even those are rare) .There's no explanation for that. If there is one, it will include something like "you need a lot of consciousness particles in a particular structure for it to emerge." Panpsychism is based on the rejection of the possibility that physical processes can explain consciousness. Which makes it all the weirder that it needs an extra physical force to explain it.
    - cf141q5325 3y ago
      >It can't explain what consciousness is, it can't explain why consciousness ... You are stating the obvious. Its not a science but philosophy. You looking at is as if it were science explaining reality misses the point. That perspective does not apply here. You are doing the exact same thing you are concerned about, treating a philosophy like a science. Just that you are worried about it being applied and relied on like as science while at the same time trying to verify or discredit it like a science. Your initial idea of it not being a science was quite right, you just havent applied that insight throughout your model. This includes what standards you apply and how you look at it. Or to put it differently, Plato didnt loose anything when we figured out that matter wasnt just a combination of fire, water, earth and air. That wasnt the relevant point, it was a reference allowing you to think about something else in a specific way. Trying to look at details of that story from a scientific perspective is not much different from trying to build a physical model of the solar system from the bible. Its just not a sensible thing to do. It corrupts your reality model and lets you do not very sensible things based on not very sensible convictions and judgements.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory Says who, The Science? Is "respectable" a purely objective term, or might there be some subjectivity in play? How would one determine, with perfection? > unless you want to give ether, a divine soul, idealism, and flat earth the same treatment. This is the one and only possible way, is it? And you have a proof of that? If not, this is called belief, but belief without philosophy can easily appear as knowledge. For this situation, I think an even better word than philosophical is blasphemous.
  - tgv 3y ago
    > Is "respectable" a purely objective term, or might there be some subjectivity in play? That's exactly why I included flat earth in the list. If you're going to argue like that, why is flat earth not a respectable theory? Astrology? Or that thunder is caused by Orko?
    - mistermann 3y ago
      This is a good resource: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th... Most fundamentally, it is a combination of set/category theory and ~linguistics, but culture and consciousness play very big roles too.

tgv 3y ago

Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory, unless you want to give ether, a divine soul, idealism, and flat earth the same treatment. > Dismissing [it] undermines any criticism that might be useful. If that's your greatest worry...

antonvs 3y ago
See https://philpapers.org/browse/panpsychism https://philpapers.org/browse/panpsychism for some recent philosophical papers on panpsychism. To quote Prof. Galen Strawson from one of those papers: > "Panpsychism is a plausible theory of the fundamental nature of reality. It is fully compatible with everything in current physics, and with physicalism."
- tgv 3y ago
  That list of recent papers doesn't help your argument. The consciousness problem is not going to be solved by wishy-washy creative writing. Very few, if any, of those authors seem to have seen an experiment up close. The quote from Strawson continues to assume consciousness is present in every particle in the universe. It presupposes an extraordinary force of nature, unlike any of the others, to escape a relatively small problem, and it's not based on any observation. No form of consciousness has ever been observed outside animals with a (reasonably large) brain (and even those are rare). There's no explanation for that. If there is one, it will include something like "you need a lot of consciousness particles in a particular structure for it to emerge." Panpsychism is based on the rejection of the possibility that physical processes can explain consciousness. Which makes it all the weirder that they need an extra physical force to explain it.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    You claimed that "Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory". The existence of recent papers, from people that include reasonably prominent philosophers, seems to refute this. Unless by "respectable" you're trying to say something about the validity of the theory. A theory can be respectable, taken seriously by an academic community, without being correct. Perhaps you just used the wrong word.
    - tgv 3y ago
      Yeah, we differ about what "respectable" means, but in that case, your beef is with the original top comment. It argued "Dismissing ... a ... respectable philosophical theory like panpsychism ... gives the impression of arrogant scientism". If respectable means nothing more than a bunch of academics write papers about it, that argument is moot. Since Sokal, it must be clear to everybody that that kind of respectability isn't enough for a theory to be discussed as meritorious. Hence, you can't defend a theory by calling it respectable in that sense. Somehow, that seems to be more damning than what I called it.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
You are the one making that grouping to discredit it. Nobody else is. I can do the same, String Theory is not respectable, it is as provable as having a soul or there is a flat earth. Does me saying this now undermine String Theory? That's just some guy on the internet that doesn't understand it. Like you don't understand Panpsychim.
- tgv 3y ago
  I agree, string theory isn't very respectable. It looks like an attempt to piggyback a convoluted mathematical structure on existing theories, without much benefit. > Like you don't understand Panpsychim. It posits the existence of some force of nature to explain consciousness. It can't explain what consciousness is, it can't explain why consciousness has never been observed outside animals with a (reasonably large) brain (and even those are rare) .There's no explanation for that. If there is one, it will include something like "you need a lot of consciousness particles in a particular structure for it to emerge." Panpsychism is based on the rejection of the possibility that physical processes can explain consciousness. Which makes it all the weirder that it needs an extra physical force to explain it.
  - cf141q5325 3y ago
    >It can't explain what consciousness is, it can't explain why consciousness ... You are stating the obvious. Its not a science but philosophy. You looking at is as if it were science explaining reality misses the point. That perspective does not apply here. You are doing the exact same thing you are concerned about, treating a philosophy like a science. Just that you are worried about it being applied and relied on like as science while at the same time trying to verify or discredit it like a science. Your initial idea of it not being a science was quite right, you just havent applied that insight throughout your model. This includes what standards you apply and how you look at it. Or to put it differently, Plato didnt loose anything when we figured out that matter wasnt just a combination of fire, water, earth and air. That wasnt the relevant point, it was a reference allowing you to think about something else in a specific way. Trying to look at details of that story from a scientific perspective is not much different from trying to build a physical model of the solar system from the bible. Its just not a sensible thing to do. It corrupts your reality model and lets you do not very sensible things based on not very sensible convictions and judgements.
mistermann 3y ago
> Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory Says who, The Science? Is "respectable" a purely objective term, or might there be some subjectivity in play? How would one determine, with perfection? > unless you want to give ether, a divine soul, idealism, and flat earth the same treatment. This is the one and only possible way, is it? And you have a proof of that? If not, this is called belief, but belief without philosophy can easily appear as knowledge. For this situation, I think an even better word than philosophical is blasphemous.
- tgv 3y ago
  > Is "respectable" a purely objective term, or might there be some subjectivity in play? That's exactly why I included flat earth in the list. If you're going to argue like that, why is flat earth not a respectable theory? Astrology? Or that thunder is caused by Orko?
  - mistermann 3y ago
    This is a good resource: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th... Most fundamentally, it is a combination of set/category theory and ~linguistics, but culture and consciousness play very big roles too.