The Case For Panpsychism

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Viveka » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:48 pm

I do not see why we cannot take the basic dimensions of life and apply them psychically to the same type of being. Refer to my earlier post in this thread about Mass and it's experience. So far, there are only five basic dimensions of existence: mass, charge, time, length, and geometry. So far, all of these can carry 'feelings' of different types. Time itself, is Wisdom. Mass, Justice. Length, Temperance. And Charge, Strength. Thus, through virtues, which are broadly applied as and qualia and quanta, we get a ''feeling universe' without the need for saying 'well an ameoba feels such and such.' The earliest we can go in reality, that is, the most deep we search, we find that it is the dimensions at the beginning, and from there who knows what... maybe even God?

Dubious
Posts: 1719
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dubious » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:31 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:44 pm

What's wrong with dynamic system?
...they make one fart!

Put on a pair of lubricated roller-skates and you'll see what dynamic is all about according to Newton's 3rd law of motion. What's wrong with it is that there's no steering wheel...or brakes!

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Greta » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:36 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
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


'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.
"Dynamic system" is practical but it maintains the actual fiction of our classifications clearly reflect reality.

After all, what is wrong with "living system"? The Earth and Sun must be living at least to some extent because we critters are part of the solar system. Hence the question about our stomachs. Life doesn't have to be impressive. The difference between simple life and complex organic chemicals is not great in many ways.

Also, are the free bacteria inside us and our total self the only aspects of us that are alive while other cells are just dead biological machine structures? Yet each eukaryotic cells is vastly more sophisticated than any bacterium, just that it is more captive than most. Consider the evolution of organs in eukaryotes. Each organ was originally a colony of eukaryotic cells that occupied an environmental niche, with certain needs in terms of inputs and outputs, that integrated into a larger living system. Now we are a collection of these colonies - the heart is a pump "organism" like a jellyfish, livers and kidneys are filters like sponges, and brains are akin to any dominating bastard organism or group (or power bloc) that takes far more than its share, dominates and controls anything around it, and takes the credit for the whole shebang :)

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4340
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Canuckistan

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:46 pm

Greta, I am a big fan of that bully-organ brain. It contains the me. The whole shebang is just a life-support system for this single consciousness, which is how I identify before I even identify as a human or animal. And in a way I prefer it that Way, as it gives me a sense of peace and detachment in this otherwise overwhelming universe. I'd also feel a sense of sadness if I ever found out that these other systems approached anything like awareness, because I consider it a pointless curse. In their case, also a semi-permanent one.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4340
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Canuckistan

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:07 pm

Viveka wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:48 pm
I do not see why we cannot take the basic dimensions of life and apply them psychically to the same type of being. Refer to my earlier post in this thread about Mass and it's experience. So far, there are only five basic dimensions of existence: mass, charge, time, length, and geometry. So far, all of these can carry 'feelings' of different types. Time itself, is Wisdom. Mass, Justice. Length, Temperance. And Charge, Strength. Thus, through virtues, which are broadly applied as and qualia and quanta, we get a ''feeling universe' without the need for saying 'well an ameoba feels such and such.' The earliest we can go in reality, that is, the most deep we search, we find that it is the dimensions at the beginning, and from there who knows what... maybe even God?
:/

Err, no.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Viveka » Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:08 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:07 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:48 pm
I do not see why we cannot take the basic dimensions of life and apply them psychically to the same type of being. Refer to my earlier post in this thread about Mass and it's experience. So far, there are only five basic dimensions of existence: mass, charge, time, length, and geometry. So far, all of these can carry 'feelings' of different types. Time itself, is Wisdom. Mass, Justice. Length, Temperance. And Charge, Strength. Thus, through virtues, which are broadly applied as and qualia and quanta, we get a ''feeling universe' without the need for saying 'well an ameoba feels such and such.' The earliest we can go in reality, that is, the most deep we search, we find that it is the dimensions at the beginning, and from there who knows what... maybe even God?
:/

Err, no.
Um, yeah.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:49 pm

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?
The Word of Warcraft episode is EPIC.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 pm

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.
Exactly! Bacteria do not have consciousness either.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4340
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Canuckistan

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:03 pm

Viveka wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:08 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:07 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:48 pm
I do not see why we cannot take the basic dimensions of life and apply them psychically to the same type of being. Refer to my earlier post in this thread about Mass and it's experience. So far, there are only five basic dimensions of existence: mass, charge, time, length, and geometry. So far, all of these can carry 'feelings' of different types. Time itself, is Wisdom. Mass, Justice. Length, Temperance. And Charge, Strength. Thus, through virtues, which are broadly applied as and qualia and quanta, we get a ''feeling universe' without the need for saying 'well an ameoba feels such and such.' The earliest we can go in reality, that is, the most deep we search, we find that it is the dimensions at the beginning, and from there who knows what... maybe even God?
:/

Err, no.
Um, yeah.
Nuh-uh...

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Viveka » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:06 pm

Yes-huh!

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Greta » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:10 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 pm
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.
Exactly! Bacteria do not have consciousness either.
I would also not put microbes on a level playing field with nonliving chemicals. Nor would I consider chemicals to be on a level playing field with neutrinos or other WIMPs, with the former being far more reactive to their surrounds.

At these levels we are talking about reactivity rather than consciousness. So one might say the the universe is pan-reactive (especially if recent Chinese studies into "dynamical dark energy" are on the right track). While this assumes far less than panpsychism, even pan-reactivity is only an assumption; if anything exists in the universe that does not react to anything else at all then we can never know.

So the universe is seemingly pan-reactive. Those reactions can range from a neutrinos' occasional weak encounters with atoms to intelligent biology.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:04 pm

Greta wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:10 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 pm
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.
Exactly! Bacteria do not have consciousness either.
I would also not put microbes on a level playing field with nonliving chemicals. Nor would I consider chemicals to be on a level playing field with neutrinos or other WIMPs, with the former being far more reactive to their surrounds.

At these levels we are talking about reactivity rather than consciousness. So one might say the the universe is pan-reactive (especially if recent Chinese studies into "dynamical dark energy" are on the right track). While this assumes far less than panpsychism, even pan-reactivity is only an assumption; if anything exists in the universe that does not react to anything else at all then we can never know.

So the universe is seemingly pan-reactive. Those reactions can range from a neutrinos' occasional weak encounters with atoms to intelligent biology.
"Reactive" means, like everything else, part of the determined universe of cause and effect.
"Psychic" implies soul, an immaterial energy beyond or beside reality.
Stop changing the goalpost, and stop conflating "Panpsychism" with "Pan-reactive"

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4340
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Canuckistan

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:27 pm

Viveka wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:06 pm
Yes-huh!
Huh? Yes.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Greta » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:19 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:04 pm
Greta wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:10 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 pm
Exactly! Bacteria do not have consciousness either.
I would also not put microbes on a level playing field with nonliving chemicals. Nor would I consider chemicals to be on a level playing field with neutrinos or other WIMPs, with the former being far more reactive to their surrounds.

At these levels we are talking about reactivity rather than consciousness. So one might say the the universe is pan-reactive (especially if recent Chinese studies into "dynamical dark energy" are on the right track). While this assumes far less than panpsychism, even pan-reactivity is only an assumption; if anything exists in the universe that does not react to anything else at all then we can never know.

So the universe is seemingly pan-reactive. Those reactions can range from a neutrinos' occasional weak encounters with atoms to intelligent biology.
"Reactive" means, like everything else, part of the determined universe of cause and effect.
"Psychic" implies soul, an immaterial energy beyond or beside reality.
Stop changing the goalpost, and stop conflating "Panpsychism" with "Pan-reactive"
My argument in favour of pan-reactivity was clearly providing the reasoning for my rejection of panpsychism. There is no other logical way to interpret my post.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Case For Panpsychism

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:06 am

Greta wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:19 am
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:04 pm
Greta wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:10 pm

I would also not put microbes on a level playing field with nonliving chemicals. Nor would I consider chemicals to be on a level playing field with neutrinos or other WIMPs, with the former being far more reactive to their surrounds.

At these levels we are talking about reactivity rather than consciousness. So one might say the the universe is pan-reactive (especially if recent Chinese studies into "dynamical dark energy" are on the right track). While this assumes far less than panpsychism, even pan-reactivity is only an assumption; if anything exists in the universe that does not react to anything else at all then we can never know.

So the universe is seemingly pan-reactive. Those reactions can range from a neutrinos' occasional weak encounters with atoms to intelligent biology.
"Reactive" means, like everything else, part of the determined universe of cause and effect.
"Psychic" implies soul, an immaterial energy beyond or beside reality.
Stop changing the goalpost, and stop conflating "Panpsychism" with "Pan-reactive"
My argument in favour of pan-reactivity was clearly providing the reasoning for my rejection of panpsychism. There is no other logical way to interpret my post.
Then we agree that pan-reactive could be applied to a completely non conscious world, cold, hard, with utterly deterministic and indifferent.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest