Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Latest news of Philosophy Now

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
RickLewis
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Post by RickLewis » Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:09 pm

Hi folks,

If you are on your summer vacation, then I hope you are having a wonderful time. No doubt as you lie upon your sunlounger gazing up at the azure sky, even the swaying trees and the golden sun itself seem to smile benevolently down upon you.

What better than to repay their kind interest by reading in the Aug/Sept issue of Philosophy Now magazine about panpsychism, the theory that EVERYTHING is conscious?

Our issue on radical theories of consciousness has been guest edited by Dr Philip Goff, who has also contributed a piece arguing for panpsychism. Other philosophers he has rounded up for this issue include Sam Coleman on neutral monism; Hedda Hassel Mørch on the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness (IIT); and Kelvin McQueen on whether consciousness can cause quantum collapse. We also have a courteously sceptical response to panpsychism by Prof. Raymond Tallis. Philip Goff's editorial is here:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Ca ... sciousness

I would like to record my sincere thanks to Philip Goff and his colleagues for their fascinating contributions. The editorial board thanks them too; so does the magazine itself, and so even does the paper that forms its material substrate. So do the individual cellulose molecules, though obviously in a very basic fashion.

Elsewhere in this issue we have pieces on Leibniz and the Big Bang (Eric Kincanon); on what philosophy of language can tell us about Trump's speeches (Gavaler & Goldberg), on the further history of sexuality (Benson) and on Luther and Feurerbach (Van Harvey).

I won't introduce a vulgarly commercial note into this posting by telling you how ludicrously cheap Philosophy Now subscriptions are, as you can see that from our website. I'll merely mention that individual print subscriptions include website access to more than 2,500 articles from our past issues. That ought to give you enough light reading for the rest of this vacation!

https://philosophynow.org

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3422
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Post by attofishpi » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:51 am

Philip Goff wrote:The mystery of consciousness is not what consciousness is, but why it is.
Interesting that Phillip used WHY instead of HOW.

'Why' suggests there is a purpose - an extension of reason, for the universe, and ultimately our consciousness.
'How' purely resonates with reason, 'as to?'

To suggest everything has consciousness, such as a grain of sand, then implies, that there is an intelligence behind the very makeup of what we experience as our reality, this grain of sand is made up of millions perhaps billions of atoms which are comprised of subatomic particles all doing their bit to construct this grain of sand such that the other atoms, those within our brains and bodies can sense that it exists...dare I go further?
If I do - then I will talk about the 'digital universe' and the backbone 'algorithm' to IT.

Philip Goff wrote:..many scientists and philosophers maintain optimism that materialism will prevail, and that the Holy Grail of a purely physical explanation of consciousness is just around the corner.
What is purely physical? Sure in our reality, we use mathematics and mathematical models formulas to denote what we can experience into a logical framework. But as Philip mentions, what IS the taste of paprika and how can such a thing be modelled by such methods?

Philip Goff wrote:..And if sensory qualities can’t be captured in a mathematical vocabulary, it seemed to follow that a mathematical vocabulary could never capture the complete nature of matter.
Perhaps because (and not purely restricted to) we are missing a HUGE part of the equation in Dark Energy\Matter.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4062
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Post by Harbal » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:51 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:51 am
dare I go further?
Well I hope you find the courage, Fishy. The further you go the better. Don't forget to wave goodbye.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3422
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Post by attofishpi » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:48 am

Harbal wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:51 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:51 am
dare I go further?
Well I hope you find the courage, Fishy. The further you go the better. Don't forget to wave goodbye.
No, I think i'm a WIMP at the core of my consciousness...and this fish is sick of waves, currents, sultanas, r.ai.sins.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:14 pm

I have very little interest in speculations unless they are new material and help me think in new and interesting ways.

Panpsychicism is old hat and has no evidence. It is not a theory. Theories require facts to back them up. Debating the consciousness of rocks is uninteresting to me.

1x0
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:22 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Post by 1x0 » Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:16 pm

A thought about consciousness...

God is the first conscious physical entity appeared in the physical zero state. A very simple will of existence with space and time.

The originally presented consciousness, have evolved in/with the physical reality for at least 13.8 billion years.

I think God is this consciousness, which evolved intelligently in the past 13.8 billion years. I recognize that we are part of God as an atom is part of our physical appearance.

I suppose that everything is conscious as every physically determined entity will behave related to the information it physically carries.

Theoretically on a certain level, every physical entity (any atom in any spacetime) can operate with any other physical entity as they exist in the same reality regulated by the common Laws of Nature.

The question is does our consciousness exist beyond our physical appearance. In other words, does our consciousness is a physical entity (a different kind)

I would say yes. If I inspect it from the physical point of view yes, because during our lifetime(physical appearance) we change basically every atom several times. Our consciousness and metaphysical values evolve through and exit with this chemical reorganization of matter.

As an intelligent physical entity if I look back to my origin I see the smallest possible physical state (nothing) at my origin.

I am able to make sense that I am the result of a 13.8 billion years long conscious physical and biological evolution.

God is evolving with us...

PeteJ
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Post by PeteJ » Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:10 pm

Is there a theory of consciousness that is not radical?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Post by -1- » Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:50 am

RickLewis wrote:
Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:09 pm
Hi folks,

If you are on your summer vacation, then I hope you are having a wonderful time. No doubt as you lie upon your sunlounger gazing up at the azure sky, even the swaying trees and the golden sun itself seem to smile benevolently down upon you.

What better than to repay their kind interest by reading in the Aug/Sept issue of Philosophy Now magazine about panpsychism, the theory that EVERYTHING is conscious?

Our issue on radical theories of consciousness has been guest edited by Dr Philip Goff, who has also contributed a piece arguing for panpsychism. Other philosophers he has rounded up for this issue include Sam Coleman on neutral monism; Hedda Hassel Mørch on the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness (IIT); and Kelvin McQueen on whether consciousness can cause quantum collapse. We also have a courteously sceptical response to panpsychism by Prof. Raymond Tallis. Philip Goff's editorial is here:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Ca ... sciousness

I would like to record my sincere thanks to Philip Goff and his colleagues for their fascinating contributions. The editorial board thanks them too; so does the magazine itself, and so even does the paper that forms its material substrate. So do the individual cellulose molecules, though obviously in a very basic fashion.

Elsewhere in this issue we have pieces on Leibniz and the Big Bang (Eric Kincanon); on what philosophy of language can tell us about Trump's speeches (Gavaler & Goldberg), on the further history of sexuality (Benson) and on Luther and Feurerbach (Van Harvey).

I won't introduce a vulgarly commercial note into this posting by telling you how ludicrously cheap Philosophy Now subscriptions are, as you can see that from our website. I'll merely mention that individual print subscriptions include website access to more than 2,500 articles from our past issues. That ought to give you enough light reading for the rest of this vacation!

https://philosophynow.org
2,500 articles is a staggering number to read. Especially when I consider that I read altogether two articles, no less, no more, in the lot which impressed me greatly. They were both written by UWOT, who goes by the publishing name Will Bowman. He is good. The rest? I don't know. I found they were trying to push theories or opinions that were, what is the best way to describe, forced? They were obviously the authors' B material, or worse.

I have to admit that there is hardly any new ideas that emerge in philosophy these days; I have my own, which I can't get published due to a lack of academic training in my background, and maybe also due to my idea being crap, way below the level of the B material I read in Philosophy Now. It's hard for me to see how well my paper would rate when compared to the others in this publication. Only thing that it has going for it is that it has new ideas, valid, spanking brand new ideas, which may be so minuscule in scope and impact, that they are not worth reading, either.

I showed my manuscript to two philosophers, professional philosophers, both of whom said, "...Whatttt?" They criticized me for not having references to enough thinkers in the past, which shows they completely missed my point. I showed it to a Ph.D. and currently practicing clinical psychologist, and she understood it immediately, and she liked it. And no, she was not my therapist (I met her at a social picnic), and no, she is not my grandmother, either.

I dunno. Maybe people in their own fields are so immersed in re-hashed and constantly re-iterated old theories, that they can't see the merit in a new one, even if it bites them on the leg?

jayjacobus
Posts: 891
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Issue 121 - Radical Theories of Consciousness

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:49 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:50 am
RickLewis wrote:
Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:09 pm
Hi folks,

If you are on your summer vacation, then I hope you are having a wonderful time. No doubt as you lie upon your sunlounger gazing up at the azure sky, even the swaying trees and the golden sun itself seem to smile benevolently down upon you.

What better than to repay their kind interest by reading in the Aug/Sept issue of Philosophy Now magazine about panpsychism, the theory that EVERYTHING is conscious?

Our issue on radical theories of consciousness has been guest edited by Dr Philip Goff, who has also contributed a piece arguing for panpsychism. Other philosophers he has rounded up for this issue include Sam Coleman on neutral monism; Hedda Hassel Mørch on the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness (IIT); and Kelvin McQueen on whether consciousness can cause quantum collapse. We also have a courteously sceptical response to panpsychism by Prof. Raymond Tallis. Philip Goff's editorial is here:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Ca ... sciousness

I would like to record my sincere thanks to Philip Goff and his colleagues for their fascinating contributions. The editorial board thanks them too; so does the magazine itself, and so even does the paper that forms its material substrate. So do the individual cellulose molecules, though obviously in a very basic fashion.

Elsewhere in this issue we have pieces on Leibniz and the Big Bang (Eric Kincanon); on what philosophy of language can tell us about Trump's speeches (Gavaler & Goldberg), on the further history of sexuality (Benson) and on Luther and Feurerbach (Van Harvey).

I won't introduce a vulgarly commercial note into this posting by telling you how ludicrously cheap Philosophy Now subscriptions are, as you can see that from our website. I'll merely mention that individual print subscriptions include website access to more than 2,500 articles from our past issues. That ought to give you enough light reading for the rest of this vacation!

https://philosophynow.org
2,500 articles is a staggering number to read. Especially when I consider that I read altogether two articles, no less, no more, in the lot which impressed me greatly. They were both written by UWOT, who goes by the publishing name Will Bowman. He is good. The rest? I don't know. I found they were trying to push theories or opinions that were, what is the best way to describe, forced? They were obviously the authors' B material, or worse.

I have to admit that there is hardly any new ideas that emerge in philosophy these days; I have my own, which I can't get published due to a lack of academic training in my background, and maybe also due to my idea being crap, way below the level of the B material I read in Philosophy Now. It's hard for me to see how well my paper would rate when compared to the others in this publication. Only thing that it has going for it is that it has new ideas, valid, spanking brand new ideas, which may be so minuscule in scope and impact, that they are not worth reading, either.

I showed my manuscript to two philosophers, professional philosophers, both of whom said, "...Whatttt?" They criticized me for not having references to enough thinkers in the past, which shows they completely missed my point. I showed it to a Ph.D. and currently practicing clinical psychologist, and she understood it immediately, and she liked it. And no, she was not my therapist (I met her at a social picnic), and no, she is not my grandmother, either.

I dunno. Maybe people in their own fields are so immersed in re-hashed and constantly re-iterated old theories, that they can't see the merit in a new one, even if it bites them on the leg?
I suppose there is no merit in the old philosophers. The new philosophers seek all the accolades.

But don't get me wrong. I know what you mean. You write a very well thought out article but after you do, you must pepper your article with references, not because they were needed in your thinking but you MUST follow the pedagogical mandates. The article goes and the references are for show.

It's like putting vinegar on ice cream. You think it is stupid but you have to do it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests