2 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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 agoYeah, 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.