This may not count as an actual explanation, but I have a hypothesis based on physics, but also including a role for metaphysics (non-physical Information). Without an understanding of the Enformationism thesis though --- that Mind & Matter are both emergent forms of Generic Information --- this brief synopsis may sound like speculative non-sense. Yet, it's a combination of sensable Realism & knowable Idealism, of Physics & Metaphysics.Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? — RogueAI
↪bert1 ↪Eugen
I'll try again. I get that you folks feel that materialism does not - and will never - offer an explanation of consciousness. But beyond that I'm not getting what your positions actually are - and please don't say it's obvious - or toss out words like "feeling" and "experience". — EricH
I am not rejecting your ideas out of hand. I am not criticizing you personally or attacking you for not being able to express your ideas clearly. These are difficult topics. What I am asking for is some reference. Is there some philosopher and/or some philosophical school of thought out there who you agree with?
Just for example, here is someone who talks about how Idealism explains consciousness. In this discussion he makes it clear that he does not agree with the Idealists but he gives a clear explanation of their thinking.
https://thepsychedelicscientist.com/2017/02/13/solving-the-hard-problem-with-idealism/
Please read this - it's a quick read - and get back. Does the author give a good explanation of your thoughts? if not, can you supply a link that gives a reasonably accurate summary of your position?
My worldview is also related to ancient Idealism and Panpsychism, but I try to express those valid concepts in more modern terminology. That's because they retain a lot of historical baggage, which doesn't hold-up in light of modern science. Here's a note from my blog.I might be an idealist, but it's more informative to say I'm a panpsychist. — bert1
In popular usage, this term is taken to mean that even stones and atoms are conscious in the same sense that humans are. But that’s nonsense. In my theory it only means that the potential for emergent consciousness is included in the energy & information that constitutes those elementary Objects. — Gnomon
That is what I call the "New Age" notion of Consciousness, which it seems to equate with Spiritualism and with magical powers (e.g healing). It's essentially a religious belief system with myths about the spiritual powers of stones, that would formerly be attributed to conscious agents (shaman) in ancient religions. They sometimes adopt technical sounding terminology, like "energy", to make their myths sound scientific. I have a pretty crystal on a shelf, but I don't try to communicate with it.I part company with you there Gnomon. I think everything is conscious in exactly the same way, according one sense of the word. — bert1
That is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis and the BothAnd philosophy. Panpsychism probably evolved from the ancient "superstition" of Animism. The shamen & sages, who tried to explain mysterious signs of Causation in the material world, used their own personal experience of Intentional Action (agency) as a metaphor for whatever was causing inanimate things to move and change (spirits, gods).I can anticipate that your objection to this is that science is locked into a materialistic paradigm and thus is incapable of performing any such inquiries. If this is the case, then it is up to you and your fellow panpsychists to lead them in a new direction. — EricH
Conscious Crystals : It's the dictionary definition of human consciousness that is metaphorically attributed to non-human and inanimate objects. We seem to enjoy our metaphors, without regard for facts, such as cartoons with talking animals. Sponge Bob is obviously conscious and sentient.I call it the 'dictionary' notion of consciousness. — bert1
Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? — RogueAI
If we (mankind that is) can succeed in not destroying civilization, then perhaps 100s or 1000s or millions of years from now we will get to the bottom of things (that's a metaphor of course). — EricH
Panpsychism in all of it's variants seems like a religion to me. — EricH
I think the ancient metaphors of Animism were good guesses in pre-scientific times, but we now have a better understanding of how the world works, and how unique Consciousness is to living things, and Self-consciousness to reasoning things. — Gnomon
panpsychism has to move fast and come up with more well-defined theories, theorems, experiments, and some proofs. I personally see panpsychism being in its infancy and very different from what it will be in 30 years from now. — Eugen
I think it highly unlikely, but if the panpsychists can come up with some experiments & proof? That would be very cool.
But once you have theorems, experiments, and reproducible proof - then you are following the scientific method. — EricH
Descartes expressed his opinion that only humans are conscious, while animals only appeared to be sentient. But modern science has discovered signs of consciousness in almost all animate (self-moving) organisms. Unfortunately, we still have no way to detect consciousness directly, so we rely on inference from behavior. Even primitive bacteria seem to interact with their environment as-if they are sentient beings. But, since inanimate objects have no observable self-propelled behavior, they are presumed to be non-conscious. Therefore, it appears that Life is a necessary precursor to Mind.Cool! I'm clearly out of date. What are the latest findings on which things are conscious? — bert1
But modern science has discovered signs of consciousness in almost all animate (self-moving) organisms. — Gnomon
As I said before, in physical Science, the "signs" of consciousness are limited to overt behavior, which must be interpreted by analogy to the activities of conscious humans. For example, in mice, intentional behavior must be discriminated from automatic or reflexive actions. But some minimal level of consciousness has been assumed in vegetative or comatose humans, even when they are unable to make voluntary movements.I'm intrigued. What are the "signs" that "modern science" has discovered with regard to consciousness in non-human organisms? — ChrisH
Descartes expressed his opinion that only humans are conscious, while animals only appeared to be sentient. But modern science has discovered signs of consciousness in almost all animate (self-moving) organisms. Unfortunately, we still have no way to detect consciousness directly, so we rely on inference from behavior. Even primitive bacteria seem to interact with their environment as-if they are sentient beings. But, since inanimate objects have no observable self-propelled behavior, they are presumed to be non-conscious. Therefore, it appears that Life is a necessary precursor to Mind. — Gnomon
I don't know why some Panpsychists believe that crystals are conscious. — Gnomon
Consequently, my Enformationism thesis assumes that Sentience is not a fixed property of the universe, but instead an emergent evolutionary process. My guess is that It began as something like a mathematical algorithm (information) in the pre-big-bang Singularity, and has gradually complexified over the eons into Energy, Matter, Life & MInd. If so, then we can assume that Self-Consciousness, as found in humans, is the current pinnacle of Evolution. Who knows what comes next --- artificial consciousness? Of course, this is a philosophical hypothesis, not a proven scientific theory. :nerd: — Gnomon
Yes. The links I referred to are talking about scientifically observable signs of consciousness. Philosophical Consciousness is not observable via the senses, but hypothetical via reasoning. The basic concept of Consciousness is simply awareness of the environment : Sentience. But theologians & philosophers have posited a variety of shades of mental activity --- sensation, thought, feelings, inner-source-of-truth, conscience, etc --- with Self-consciousness at the top of the hierarchy. But, at this moment, no one is certain of what makes the difference between Conscious and Non-conscious beings. My own theory is that Consciousness is an emergent property of energized matter (living organisms), and that abstract Information is common to all phases of sensing & knowing. :smile:If I understand correctly, the 'consciousness' you're talking about (assumptions based on neural activity) is not the same as the philosophical sense of consciousness (as in the 'hard problem' and p-zombies). — ChrisH
Yes & no. It's not that simple. In order to understand my theory of Consciousness, you'd need to start with a fundamental "fact" discovered by Quantum theorists : that matter, energy, & mind are all emergent forms of mathematical Information. That's my summation of the concept, but few scientists have made that connection. Paul Davies, physicist & cosmologist, is one of those few, who conceive a new paradigm of Science based on expanded Information theory. As for my personal worldview, it is expressed as a non-academic thesis in my website : Enformationism. As a new paradigm, though, it will puzzle or offend both Materialists and Spiritualists. :joke:I'd need more information to understand this properly. Do you think consciousness is identical with a certain kind of information processing? — bert1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.