Philosophy Now Forum

Nick wrote:
No thing is pure consciousness outside of time and space replete with conscious potential. Nothing is the void absent of conscious
potential. Existence is the process taking place between no thing and nothing. They sound alike but are on opposite ends of the spectrum

There is no such thing as outside of time and space. Because if space does not exist then time cannot exist either. Time is defined as the
passing of an event or the distance between events but events can only happen inside of space not outside of it. So if no thing only exists
outside of space then it does not exist at all. Nothing does exist within space but only at the quantum level. Existence is simply ALL THAT
IS and includes nothing but not no thing. They therefore cannot be at opposite ends of the spectrum. For only one of them actually exists

Is panpsychism “consciousness of the gaps”? Something for which there is no actual evidence and is proposed because of a failure of physical explanations?

I think Panpsychism is something as well supported as Hegel's definition of surface.

It's negating consciousness conceding that there is consciousness.

Look at surface nach Hegel:

The surface is indeed the limiting of space, yet it is not the free limit itself, like a negative, but rather the union of the negative and space, the synthesis of both. In other words, it is the opposite of space placed in relation to space itself, as the negation of space, so that this is only divided – there are two spaces, but in such a way that space is indifferent in this negation and remains equal to itself, and its negation is nothing at all.

Can you say this in English?

I think it's already clear enough. Crystal clear indeed.

You have a very strange view of what crystal clear English is.

It's Hegel's words that are crystal clear, not my English, which I hope anyway it's clear enough.

I couldn't be clearer than showing you the very words of Hegel.

That's already translated into English. Am I supposed to retranslate them into English?

PauloL:

That's already translated into English. Am I supposed to retranslate them into English?

Sometimes difficult and complex ideas need to be “unpacked” or broken down in order to show how it all fits together and how it relates to panpsychism. Perhaps you could be of some assistance and explain it?

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:45 pm Consciousness is a noun. What consciousness does are verbs. Without verbs consciousness is something other than conscious. What state is it? Call it that.

Agree. The word I'd use is "reactive".

1. Reactions. Most stuff in the universe.

2. Then responses. Proto-life, plants and relatively simple life.

3. Then reflexes. Animals, some plants.

4. Then consciousness. Chordates.

5. Then sentience. Intelligent mammals that are aware of other minds.

6. Then self awareness. Humans and maybe AI/collective intelligence in the future.

There is a good case to make case for panreactivity, with all ensuing dynamics being a small subset of the preceding one.

If we are to empathise with the ostensibly non-sentient or make claims about general consciousness via quantum mysticism, we need to first consider our past. We know what it is like to be a microbe because that's what we each once were - a 0.1mm blastocyst. What did you think of your experience as a blastocyst? Did you have a ... blast? <groan>. How about as a zygote or foetus? The lights aren't on.

Consider your "consciousness" even as a newborn infant. Not even a sense of identity - just raw nerves twanging, muscles twitching, mostly involuntarily, and a desperate need for energy, warmth, safety and connection. You remember nothing of it. I have one unusually early memory at around age one, sitting in a pram by the door, holding a pen dagger-style, going around and around, drawing a messy circle on the wall, both enjoying and irritated by the bumpiness of the wall's rendering. Then came a sense of shock and a body moving quickly towards me and chaos (probably a shout or smack).

It's consciousness but, without the potential of maturity, it's a consciousness that is far less sentient, valuable and impressive than that of my old dog. So, if we are to, as per the Michio Kaku hypothesis, assign one unit of consciousness to a thermostat switch which can respond to one thing, temperature, and work up from there, then consciousness in itself would not seem special, and only certain degrees of consciousness would seem to be rare and special in the universe.

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:53 pm Sometimes difficult and complex ideas need to be “unpacked” or broken down in order to show how it all fits together and how it relates to panpsychism. Perhaps you could be of some assistance and explain it?

Sure. Those are Hegel's words and I don't feel competent enough to "unpack" them. Maybe someone in the forum can do that for you.

My explanation is that the concept of panpsychism is as clear as Hegel's concept of surface.

That's my point. I hope I made it crystal clear now and wish my English won't muddle that.

PauloL:

Sure. Those are Hegel's words and I don't feel competent enough to "unpack" them. Maybe someone in the forum can do that for you.

My explanation is that the concept of panpsychism is as clear as Hegel's concept of surface.

That's my point. I hope I made it crystal clear now and wish my English won't muddle that.

Excuse my obtuseness, but are you saying that neither makes sense to you? That Hegel’s concept is not clear to you and neither is panpsychism?

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:10 am

Don't worry. Surface makes sense to me. Neither panpsychism nor Hegel's definition of surface are clear to me. The difference perhaps is that Hegel's definition of surface isn't clear for anyone either.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:27 am

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:10 am

Don't worry. Surface makes sense to me. Neither panpsychism nor Hegel's definition of surface are clear to me. The difference perhaps is that Hegel's definition of surface isn't clear for anyone either.

Got it!

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:27 am

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:10 am

Don't worry. Surface makes sense to me. Neither panpsychism nor Hegel's definition of surface are clear to me. The difference perhaps is that Hegel's definition of surface isn't clear for anyone either.

Do you have the original German version available by any chance?

UPDATING

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:45 am Do you have the original German version available by any chance?

Here is the first and last parts only:

The surface is indeed the limiting of space, yet it is not the free limit itself, like a negative, but rather the union of the negative and space, the synthesis of both. In other words, it is the opposite of space placed in relation to space itself, as the negation of space, so that this is only divided – there are two spaces, but in such a way that space is indifferent in this negation and remains equal to itself, and its negation is nothing at all.

Sie ist zwar Beschränken des Raumes, aber sie ist nicht die freie Grenze selbst als Negatives, sonder vielmehr die Einheit des Negativen und des Raumes, die Synthese beider.

[...] nur geteilt, es sind zwei Räume, aber so daß er gegen diese Negation ganz gleichgültig, und in ihr der Tat ist selbst gleich bliebt, und seine Negation ein Nichts ist.

Maybe a few folks here have Hegel Gesammelte Werke in their shelves by any chance and might help a lot completing original version.