Re: The Case For Panpsychism
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:26 pm
...and hopefully that will be the end of it...the final muffler explosionDalek Prime wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pmTechnically, that's called a fart.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
...and hopefully that will be the end of it...the final muffler explosionDalek Prime wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pmTechnically, that's called a fart.
Nicely put.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.
Hold on a sec. Have you never watched Ren and Stimpy?
No! I generally avoid the classics...without first taking an AdvilDalek Prime wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:28 pmHold on a sec. Have you never watched Ren and Stimpy?
I pine for the loss of culture lol.
It's good stuff. You follow South Park, Dub?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!
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.Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:27 pmNicely put.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pmThere 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.
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.Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 amWhy 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.Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:27 pmNicely put.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:23 pmThere 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.
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 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.Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 amI 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.Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 amWhy 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.
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.Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:53 amIt's good stuff. You follow South Park, Dub?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!
'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.Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:32 amI 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.Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 amI 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.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.
South Park's awesome Dub! I like anything that portrays life accurately, read 'absurdly'.Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:52 amNo, 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.Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:53 amIt's good stuff. You follow South Park, Dub?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!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQhgjl9qk2w
Pulleys and ovens are systems, do you believe they are closer to planets, stars and viruses than to biology?Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:43 pm'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.Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:32 amI 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.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.
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.Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:34 pmPulleys and ovens are systems, do you believe they are closer to planets, stars and viruses than to biology?Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:43 pm'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.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.
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?