The Case For Panpsychism

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dubious
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dubious » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:26 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pm
Dubious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:20 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:00 pm


Great. I don't.
Neither do I. I don't need my tail wagging when what it's attached to has come and gone!
Technically, that's called a fart. ;)
...and hopefully that will be the end of it...the final muffler explosion
Last edited by Dubious on Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:27 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pm
There is no case for this.
A theory that puts Bob Evenson on a level playing field with a rock..... oh wait a minute!

Start again.....

There is no case for this.
A theory that puts a geologist on a level playing field with the rock he examines is absurd.
Nicely put.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:28 pm

Dubious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:26 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pm
Dubious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:20 pm


Neither do I. I don't need my tail wagging when what it's attached to has come and gone!
Technically, that's called a fart. ;)
...and hopefully that will be the end of it.
Hold on a sec. Have you never watched Ren and Stimpy?

Plot summary

When Stimpy farts, he believes that he has given birth. He tells Ren about the incident, but Ren won't believe him. Stimpy pines for "Stinky" and relentlessly tries to find him. He eventually finds his fart and joins Ren for Christmas.
Last edited by Dalek Prime on Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dubious
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dubious » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:30 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:28 pm
Dubious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:26 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pm


Technically, that's called a fart. ;)
...and hopefully that will be the end of it.
Hold on a sec. Have you never watched Ren and Stimpy?
No! I generally avoid the classics...without first taking an Advil

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:35 pm

Dubious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:30 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:28 pm
Dubious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:26 pm


...and hopefully that will be the end of it.
Hold on a sec. Have you never watched Ren and Stimpy?
No! I generally avoid the classics...without first taking an Advil
I pine for the loss of culture lol.

Hey, I just realised this has everything to do with this thread. The fart was aware.

Damn. I hate it when I'm inadvertently on topic.

Dubious
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dubious » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:40 pm

Finally something worthwhile on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fckmEWPr4nc

...must investigate this new cultural landscape. Will start from the top and work my way down, my usual direction. When there's no more "down" left, I hope to disprove the case for Pansychism.

Appreciate the heads-up! :mrgreen:

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:53 am

Dubious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:40 pm
Finally something worthwhile on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fckmEWPr4nc

...must investigate this new cultural landscape. Will start from the top and work my way down, my usual direction. When there's no more "down" left, I hope to disprove the case for Pansychism.

Appreciate the heads-up! :mrgreen:
It's good stuff. You follow South Park, Dub?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Greta » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:27 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pm
There is no case for this.
A theory that puts Bob Evenson on a level playing field with a rock..... oh wait a minute!

Start again.....

There is no case for this. A theory that puts a geologist on a level playing field with the rock he examines is absurd.
Nicely put.
Why would they be on a level playing field? We don't put bacteria, or any other life form, on a level playing field with humans either. Panpsychism does not assume equalness or homogeneity of consciousness, it just claims that proto-consciousness exists where consciousness does not.

Personally, I prefer panvitalism, giving due respect to the complexity of non biological living systems such as galaxies, stars, planets, moons, viruses, prions, storms etc, while acknowledging that what looks chaotic to us may simply be part of a larger living systems that we cannot discern to prove or disprove.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 am

Greta wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 am
Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:27 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pm
There is no case for this.
A theory that puts Bob Evenson on a level playing field with a rock..... oh wait a minute!

Start again.....

There is no case for this. A theory that puts a geologist on a level playing field with the rock he examines is absurd.
Nicely put.
Why would they be on a level playing field? We don't put bacteria, or any other life form, on a level playing field with humans either. Panpsychism does not assume equalness or homogeneity of consciousness, it just claims that proto-consciousness exists where consciousness does not.

Personally, I prefer panvitalism, giving due respect to the complexity of non biological living systems such as galaxies, stars, planets, moons, viruses, prions, storms etc, while acknowledging that what looks chaotic to us may simply be part of a larger living systems that we cannot discern to prove or disprove.
I always run on the notion that the more complex theory is the one that requires the proof, for lack of certainty on either side. So, until the planets, moons, stars or gods begin to communicate their consciousnesses to me, I'll go with the simpler theory that the do not have them.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Greta » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:32 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 am
Greta wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 am
Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:27 pm
Nicely put.
Why would they be on a level playing field? We don't put bacteria, or any other life form, on a level playing field with humans either. Panpsychism does not assume equalness or homogeneity of consciousness, it just claims that proto-consciousness exists where consciousness does not.

Personally, I prefer panvitalism, giving due respect to the complexity of non biological living systems such as galaxies, stars, planets, moons, viruses, prions, storms etc, while acknowledging that what looks chaotic to us may simply be part of a larger living systems that we cannot discern to prove or disprove.
I always run on the notion that the more complex theory is the one that requires the proof, for lack of certainty on either side. So, until the planets, moons, stars or gods begin to communicate their consciousnesses to me, I'll go with the simpler theory that the do not have them.
I didn't say they were conscious. What would they do with consciousness - get bored? However, even if they are not formally classified as life, the Sun, Earth, Io, Enceladus, Titan, Europa, the Milky Way, viruses and prions are living systems and I doubt that any astronomer or cosmologist would disagree.

Dubious
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dubious » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:52 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:53 am
Dubious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:40 pm
Finally something worthwhile on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fckmEWPr4nc

...must investigate this new cultural landscape. Will start from the top and work my way down, my usual direction. When there's no more "down" left, I hope to disprove the case for Pansychism.

Appreciate the heads-up! :mrgreen:
It's good stuff. You follow South Park, Dub?
No, I didn't follow that either. My old standbys used be Duckman and Tripping the Rift, somewhat late night. The most sophisticated comedy based mostly on the interplay of language was this English political farce from long ago. You may have seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQhgjl9qk2w

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:43 pm

Greta wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:32 am
Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 am
Greta wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 am

Why would they be on a level playing field? We don't put bacteria, or any other life form, on a level playing field with humans either. Panpsychism does not assume equalness or homogeneity of consciousness, it just claims that proto-consciousness exists where consciousness does not.

Personally, I prefer panvitalism, giving due respect to the complexity of non biological living systems such as galaxies, stars, planets, moons, viruses, prions, storms etc, while acknowledging that what looks chaotic to us may simply be part of a larger living systems that we cannot discern to prove or disprove.
I always run on the notion that the more complex theory is the one that requires the proof, for lack of certainty on either side. So, until the planets, moons, stars or gods begin to communicate their consciousnesses to me, I'll go with the simpler theory that the do not have them.
I didn't say they were conscious. What would they do with consciousness - get bored? However, even if they are not formally classified as life, the Sun, Earth, Io, Enceladus, Titan, Europa, the Milky Way, viruses and prions are living systems and I doubt that any astronomer or cosmologist would disagree.
'Dynamic systems', or just 'systems', would be more palatable to me. A cell becomes cancerous in my system, it will impact other cells to change. A star explodes in the Milky Way, doesn't make all the other stars want to do the same.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:47 pm

Dubious wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:52 am
Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:53 am
Dubious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:40 pm
Finally something worthwhile on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fckmEWPr4nc

...must investigate this new cultural landscape. Will start from the top and work my way down, my usual direction. When there's no more "down" left, I hope to disprove the case for Pansychism.

Appreciate the heads-up! :mrgreen:
It's good stuff. You follow South Park, Dub?
No, I didn't follow that either. My old standbys used be Duckman and Tripping the Rift, somewhat late night. The most sophisticated comedy based mostly on the interplay of language was this English political farce from long ago. You may have seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQhgjl9qk2w
South Park's awesome Dub! I like anything that portrays life accurately, read 'absurdly'.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Greta » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:34 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:43 pm
Greta wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:32 am
Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 am

I always run on the notion that the more complex theory is the one that requires the proof, for lack of certainty on either side. So, until the planets, moons, stars or gods begin to communicate their consciousnesses to me, I'll go with the simpler theory that the do not have them.
I didn't say they were conscious. What would they do with consciousness - get bored? However, even if they are not formally classified as life, the Sun, Earth, Io, Enceladus, Titan, Europa, the Milky Way, viruses and prions are living systems and I doubt that any astronomer or cosmologist would disagree.
'Dynamic systems', or just 'systems', would be more palatable to me. A cell becomes cancerous in my system, it will impact other cells to change. A star explodes in the Milky Way, doesn't make all the other stars want to do the same.
Pulleys and ovens are systems, do you believe they are closer to planets, stars and viruses than to biology?

Living systems have an origin in nature with tempestuous beginnings and rapid change, then the changes slow and the entity develops and becomes stable with incremental increases in complexity over a long period, then there is gradual breakdown of the system, and then death.

Putting aside the technicalities such as the agreed features of life, life carries a semantic that implies complexity and sophistication. Then things that are not alive are assumed to have none of that. This has little to do with nature's operations and everything to do with definitions of convenience. The above list is of "dynamic" systems that have some qualities of biological life but not all.

Consider the seven attributes of life:
- composed of cells
- metabolism / use of energy
- responsiveness
- regulation / homoeostasis
- growth and development
- reproduction and hereditary inheritance.

It seems we do not have adequate to properly parse between the living, the dead, and non-biological entities that process energy, are self regulating and that grow and develop over predictable life cycles over time. That's why I call them "living systems" but not "life" ('cos I'd be in trouble with the biologists :).

A question - is your stomach alive or dead?

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:44 pm

Greta wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:34 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:43 pm
Greta wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:32 am

I didn't say they were conscious. What would they do with consciousness - get bored? However, even if they are not formally classified as life, the Sun, Earth, Io, Enceladus, Titan, Europa, the Milky Way, viruses and prions are living systems and I doubt that any astronomer or cosmologist would disagree.
'Dynamic systems', or just 'systems', would be more palatable to me. A cell becomes cancerous in my system, it will impact other cells to change. A star explodes in the Milky Way, doesn't make all the other stars want to do the same.
Pulleys and ovens are systems, do you believe they are closer to planets, stars and viruses than to biology?

Living systems have an origin in nature with tempestuous beginnings and rapid change, then the changes slow and the entity develops and becomes stable with incremental increases in complexity over a long period, then there is gradual breakdown of the system, and then death.

Putting aside the technicalities such as the agreed features of life, life carries a semantic that implies complexity and sophistication. Then things that are not alive are assumed to have none of that. This has little to do with nature's operations and everything to do with definitions of convenience. The above list is of "dynamic" systems that have some qualities of biological life but not all.

Consider the seven attributes of life:
- composed of cells
- metabolism / use of energy
- responsiveness
- regulation / homoeostasis
- growth and development
- reproduction and hereditary inheritance.

It seems we do not have adequate to properly parse between the living, the dead, and non-biological entities that process energy, are self regulating and that grow and develop over predictable life cycles over time. That's why I call them "living systems" but not "life" ('cos I'd be in trouble with the biologists :).

A question - is your stomach alive or dead?
What's wrong with dynamic system? Anyway, I have stomach issues, so it's living dead... But meh, call it what you will. I do.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests