chaz wyman wrote:
No I have grasped you point. But it is wrong and your theory does no work, only deferring a problem to a place where it cannot be solved.
I think we are done here.
It is very difficult for me to believe that you have grasped my point when you consistently insist I am claiming something that I continually insist I never have.
The theory of panpsychism may be wrong and may not work, but nothing you have posted seems remotely relevant to countering the argument for it other than than the fact they are simply contradictions based on an unargued assumption that it is the brain which produces consciousness - the very assumption that panpsychism questions.
The problem is: how is the mind - given that it is the product of the living brain - conscious? Just saying that the brain creates this property of consciousness is not a very satisfactory explanation, given how radically different the property of consciousness is from the properties of the brain. Panpsychism simply offers the suggestion that the brain does not create consciousness because it is already a fundamental property of reality - like mass and electic charge etc. All the brain does is merge the primitive conscious attributes of its active consituents into a more complex whole we call the conscious mind. Of course this will be difficult to explain itself, but it is far more tractable that trying to explain how the firings of neurons can produce the conscious sensation of redness.
To criticise the suggestion that consciousness is already a property of matter by claiming it just defers the problem is like claiming the property of mass and the law of gravity are not solving the problem of why things seem to be attracted to each other, but just deferring the problem elsewhere.
As it is very difficult to discuss a subject where it can't even be agreed what one party is claiming I for once agree with you that there is very little to be gained from continuing. As you quite rightly said: I think we are done here.