I'm sorry If this is not strictly science but I think some of you would find this topic interesting

I'm sorry If this is not strictly science but I think some of you would find this topic interesting.
Here's why I think "Panpsychism" is the most logical conclussion to life:

-Philosophy (Solipsism and Descartes' "cogito ergo sum") tells us that we can only be sure about just one thing being 100% real: our consciousness. We can't know If God is real, If our universe is the way we perceive it or If we are a computer simulation. You can't be sure about anything. You only know for sure that you (your consciousness) exist.

-Science tells us that there's no distinction between "alive matter" or "dead matter", everything is made up of the same particles and governed by the same forces (and laws). It just happens that Carbon can form strong bonds in our environment and can form incredibly big molecules that has lead to the insane complexity of the systems that we call "life forms". We are not different from rocks.

Therefore, If we have "consciousness", everything in this universe also has.

Other urls found in this thread:

quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
phys.org/news/2015-08-iron-bar-capable-decision-making.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

> Therefore, If we have "consciousness", everything in this universe also has.

lel, Come on man. Please tell me where I am missing something (not being an idiot, just want feedback)

2potato4me

>everything is made of lego blocks
>therefore cars are buildings

For starters, consciousness is an unquantifiable subjective experience. You can't even prove anybody that you yourself have consciousness by scientific means.

Second of all, your claim "Therefore, If we have "consciousness", everything in this universe also has." Was not supported by any of the things you stated previously. They don't even have anything to do with it.

You did not provide any argument to WHY matter is what is conscious. What if consciousness is for example created by a chemical process?

>consciousness is an unquantifiable subjective experience
completely agree.
>You can't prove anybody that you have consciousness by scientific means
Also agree.
But "you" know "you" exist. Any form of experience you have is a proof of this.

Why don't you think the conclusion is correct? If consciousness is not a feature at a "primary level" or subatomic or however do you want to picture it, then: it comes with a specific molecule? Do all living forms have it? If not, only pluricellular beings? If not, only mammals? If not, just a specific kind of ape? Where do we draw the line?

I get what you are saying.
But where do we draw the line there? It's just our neurons? Or the nervous system of an insect also implies consciousness? What about when we are just a cell (a zygote), do we have consciousness there? How many cells untill we have consciousness?

Yes, that's the question. Right now, we don't know. Since we have no idea where to draw the line we may as well believe all matter is conscious for now.
I also believe in panpsychism.

What Im trying to tell you is that there is a spectrum of chemical complexity in the universe:
In one end there are the huge molecules of an animal or a plant (maybe we humans are at the very end of the spectrum, altough I'm sure some biochemists wouldn't agree).
And on the other end there are H and He atoms, maybe an O2, N2, etc...

I feel like placing a mark on that spectrum and saying "from here to that end there is consciousness and from here to the other end there is not" is something kind of stupid.

there are good arguments against extreme skepticism man
>We can't know If God is real
nigga descartes whole point was to prove god

also no this is not science, go to Veeky Forums

I think it can be considered science. It's pure empirism: every experience (or experiment) that you have proves that you exist.

And Descartes also believed that animals were machines without feelings

Go to /x/

nah, I think this belongs here

not really, if anywhere it belongs to Veeky Forums

There is mounting hard evidence that supports panpsychism.

quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

The conclusion is a non sequitur.
You could use your argument to "show" that rocks are alive, if you think about it.

And in fact they may be:

phys.org/news/2015-08-iron-bar-capable-decision-making.html

Decision making is a strong word for what is happening there.

double slit experiment

your mom's and your sister's?

Ha, it's also a strong word for us humans and every other life form

What do you mean?

how does that exactly prove panpsychism? I don't understand

Shit thread.

>all living beings are made of DNA
>all living beings are the same

We're all just energy bro. Now pass the joint.

Who said that?

What if consciousness is an emergent property from physical systems in a certain class? Then your ideas go die.
Also, define "consciousness" rigorously.

Hey OP, if you're still here, just wanted to let you know, I agree with you. Although I've never phrased it Panpsychism.

But clearly we are different from rocks. Where do people get the idea that Same Components->Same Thing?

Whats the fluctuation going on there? How is the slot machine causing the fluctuation?
This just sounds like complete and utter bullshit.

All those things you said you can't be sure about are subsets of consciousness. You can be sure they exist as they inherit that property from thinking therefore existing.

I'm pretty sure thinking is a sign of intelligence, being is what you do, and thinking therefore being is a way of showing your smarts. The meaning of the epistemological statement only points to your lack of intelligence. But maybe I've been reading too much Veeky Forums posts.... The domain of pure ontology: spirit, God, soul, etc often interacts with the domain of science; I can objectively pray, meditate, interpret etc...
This is an integration and a transcendation of the derivative ontological basis. I think therefore I'm smart/have intellectual faculties, is a better way of saying something. I definitely function, though, unless I'm mentally ill. That's the > meaning I get, anyways.

actually, the interpretation and soul simile is definitely higher order yet. but maybe i'm being prideful.

death.silence
(God)

God is definitely dead, unless you're hearing voices.

I'm suprised the thread hasn't exploded into the usual autism that Veeky Forums tends to when discussing anything related to consciousness.

Even if we manage to map out the entire brain and figure out where consciousness is formed, the hard problem of consciousness still persists. And that is, why are all those physical chemical operations accompanied by subjective expereince. Why doesn't it all just happen without "you" being there to experience it? I think this is a very baffling question, and it amazes me how some people just can't see the problem. It's almost as if they're not conscious themselves and can't comprehend the scope of it.

But what about the alternative interpretation of non-duality?

Which is what exacly?

Either you don't know what non-dualism is in which case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
or you're not interpreting it.
The latter argument has two cases, either you disagree with non-dualism in which case you should explain why, or you're not thinking about non-duality in which case this discussion is pointless.

>You can't be sure about anything.
>Therefore, If we have "consciousness", everything in this universe also has.

I'm not sure exacly how my post relates to non-duality, so I guess I'm not talking about it. Maybe I could easier respond if you explain how the "alternative interpretation of non-duality" ties into what I said in my post.

Non-duality would make the hard problem a soft problem.
>linguistics

...

why cant we say human consiousness is only possible with a human brain and body?
Its like saying everything is a chair because you cant draw a line between chairs and tables and tables and counters and counters and glasses and glasses and human beings..
Is everything reducible to subatomic particles? Why? Why cant human beings be the "basis" while molecules and atoms are whats built upon it?
Sometimes atoms break down into humans and sometimes humans build up into molecules and sometimes into atoms..

>Philosophy (Solipsism and Descartes' "cogito ergo sum") tells us
Philosophy is much more than that, I am afraid

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

What are your thoughts on this, Veeky Forums? The thought of consciousness as an electromagnetic field somehow feels more intuative to me than the integrated information theory.

>What if consciousness is an emergent property from physical systems in a certain class?
It's pretty obvious that is the case, given the alterability of conscious experience and function through drugs, surgery or injury. Conscious arises from the physical brain. Alter the brain and you alter consciousness. Destroy the brain and you destroy consciousness.

We already know the brain has a part in creating consciousness. The question is how subjective experience is created and how it can even exist. It feels like most people kind of dance around the hard problem when discussing this.