There seems to be a bit of a resurgence of interest recently in Panpsychism, the idea that everything has an aspect of psyche
or mind to it. I've been reading Galen Strawson and others on the subject and would like to discuss the topic here. I have written a summary of some of the arguments in favor, too long to post on this forum, here: http://www.bmeacham.com/blog/?p=568
. I invite your reasoned discussion.
OK, it seems to me that this is what your link as saying:
there is apparently mind and there is appearnelty matter.
So, how do we reconsile these?
what is apparent must be true.
there is real matter, and there is real mind.
so there must be some aspect of what is real that links the two.
the real then can be translated a 'mind/matter' elemental particle or aspect of what is real.
If I am correct in this summary then I say this:
The Real here is the pivotal element. and so the argument look into the Real for something that can mediate the apparent duality. It does this by a transmuting of terms. it takes 'real' and divides it up by some sort of logical surgery. and I think this is what Chaz is getting at (Im not toally sure though):
1.There is not evididence (factual-actual science) which has found such link. It is pure speculation (metaphysics).
2. if such evidence is found is would not make sence, or it would only make sense in this same type of metaphysical way.
Suppose we found such a particle (I use this term for ease)/ qualia. Is it matter? or is it mind?
You can use all the physics analogies you want but such item cannot exist except as pure math, or knowledge. It can only exist as movement or position. Which mimics and parallels you thesis. there is not in between. the descriptopns of mathemetical equasion is a colloquialism; it does not explain the event in such a way that we can take the explanations and ring them through a philosophical grinder and come to truths. it is the difference between clasical or convnetional and quantum mechanics
If it is both, how am I knowing this?
Thus the whole basis of your argument is merely a thought experiment.
It is taking a term and chopping it up into other terms as if the chopping is finding something more true or essential.
motion and position in your synthesis becomes motion/position. Mind or matter becomes mind/matter. What ever terms you use the resultant idea is merely an idea; the only truth it reflects is that the mind is capable of using logic in strange ways: metaphysics.
there is no way to overcome the mind aspect. The mind cannot know something that is not itself knowledge. It cannot know of an essential 'matter', and it cannot come to know that there must be something which joins mind and matter except as if is mind knowing it.
thus i ask you: how do you overcome existance sufficiently enough to know of something essentially 'other'?
this is how: you positon yourself as a priviledged entity, ordained or established by something essentially not of this existance. this is the only way that you can assert that there is a knowlable matter that is not mind. Or the converse: that everything has an aspect of mind is really saying the same thing, since you are still relying upon some 'real' matter of which 'mind' is linked to.
The only way to avoid seeing the inherent priviledge is to contain oneself in mind, to deny the aspect i have above explained, and shot out the notion that it is really all 'mind'.
the problem is not solved by inventing new 'things' or 'qualia' (a thing that is not a thing due to the defining of it as 'more than quality of a thing', which is positin an essential thing), it is solved by understanding what the world is in a different manner.
It is not 'if mind is the universe then how do we explain other minds and matter'; it is 'what is it about my knowing of the condition of reality that is informing me of what reality is'? How does my condition of knowing allow me what reality is?
Panpsychism appears to completely avoid this question, and inso is a reality of 'bad faith', but faith nonetheless. A metaphysical religion.
The other way ( which is the same way) to avoid the 'hard' question, is to confine oneself to a scheme that grants one truth, the proper basis and method one may use to see reality. To block out what contradicts this truth through: faith.
If one is going to claim philosphy, it helps if they are thourough.
(PS: Im such a great speller and typer)