If you accept some versions of panpsychism, then you think
that everything in the Universe contains a latent grain of consciousness. So is
Colin the Rock conscious? If so, can you think of a test to empirically
demonstrate this? In other versions of panpsychism, such as the variant proposed by
Alfred North Whitehead, Colin is not conscious because he’s an aggregate object
and not a true individual, but the atoms of which he’s composed can be said to
be individuals and therefore be composed of ‘moments of experience.’ Therefore, Colin's atoms can have crude experiences. Again, how
might this be empirically demonstrated?
If, on the other hand, you think that Colin does not or
cannot have even the dimmest spark of consciousness, how could you demonstrate
that? One might say that the burden of proof lies with those who claim that
Colin has experiences, and that the principle of parsimony suggests that, all
things being equal, one shouldn’t assume something has invisible attributes without a
good reason. But if you think this, how do you respond to Galen Strawson’s
arguments that physicalism entails panpsychism?
Or you might decide to use Popper and the positivist’s principle
of falisifiability i.e. claim that a theory can only be scientific if it is
falsifiable. Since we cannot falsify the claim that Colin is dimly conscious
(or that Colin entirely lacks consciousness, for that matter), both theories
are, according to the positivists, essentially meaningless.
But if this is so, then this places a strict limit on the
scientific search for consciousness. If a bacterium possesses conscious
awareness, but we also cannot prove it, then that’s surely an important fact about
nature we’re neglecting. We should also recall that this sort of reasoning is
exactly what led a number of behaviourists to ignore human minds and consciousness for half a century….
This is where logic and metaphysics comes in. You'd use philosophy to get to the bottom of whether or not panpsychism is coherent or not. Scienticians (not to be confused with "scientists") can't seem to comprehend that where physics ends metaphysics takes up.
ReplyDeleteMoi -- You're absolutely right that it's up to philosophy to decide whether an underlying metaphysic is coherent or not. In practise, of course, this is often easier said than done -- there are volume upon volume of books arguing for and against the relative merits of virtually all the positions on the mind-body problem, or the consciousness-brain problem, etc.
ReplyDeleteMetaphysics is often rejected by those of an empricial bent as being too vague/inconclusive/useless to be of any use. This stems from the enlightenment rejection of metaphysics -- as in Hume's dismissal of it as 'pure sophistry,' and also the positivists rejection of any statement that couldn't be directly tested as being meaningless. But of course, as has often been observed, metaphysics often slips in by the back door, and is often used even when no-one realises they're being metaphysical.
Claims that 'everything is pointless,' for example, seem to me to be completely metaphysical, in that one can't really test this statement one way or the other, but it has been claimed to follow from empirical science. So you're also right about there being confusion in this area too.
HI Matt, in looking through the blogs I follow, one titled Physicalism is Dead features your paper Pluralism and the Mind which I have just read and really enjoyed! One strange question, before I go on---In your paper you speak of the 'hero thinker' I hate, Descartes, and say how it was his main emphasis on there being an objectified meaningless 'out there' which influenced the 'mind body problem', and how his theory was reacting to the more occultist theories which DID see inner essences--as it were:
ReplyDelete"At this point,
it’s worth recalling just how arbitrary was Descartes decision to create a fundamentally mechanical universe."
But howeverrr, if you are to Google 'Descartes and the occult' you will find some sources saying he WAS into the occult, and there is also that story of his vision of an 'angel' from whence he got his horrible ideas from? So what do you think is going on here with this possible contradiction?
Some other thoughts--I have a book by Malidome Some titled The Healing Wisdom of Africa, and he says how it is so that the plants, trees, etc CAN live without us, and yet we cannot live without the plants which we depend on for all our needs, and YET treat them with such utter disrespect and even fear and hatred
have you read The Cosmic Serpent? its author Jermy Narby claims that healers in the Amazon told him they received their knowledge of healing and so on from 'plant teachers, and Narby reminds us that the idea that we can learn from 'hallucinations'--which the psychedelic brews many of these healers ingest inspires visions--is the very definition of the western medical meaning of "psychosis".
Matt, in my own way, I am on the same journey as you, trying to explore how it is that we are --in the modern civilized 'west'--so technically smart and so on, and yet are destroying the biosphere, and I see it comes down to this massive sense of separation from nature, including our bodies and natures, and so I am more so interested in mythologies/stories that are told us and we tell ourselves, and In include the myth of physicalism.
I intend to bo a blog exploring this, and may tile it 'questioning', because I see the very PROCESS of questioning as a verb, which can be understood as cyclic as a means to undermine rigid structures which become conclusions and traditions and authoritarian and often do not welcome questioning, and/or see some questions as taboo, like how you say current official science has a "fierce antipathy' towards parapsychological questions, etc.
I LOVED how you said there may be many solutions to the 'mind-body problem' and maybe hundreds, and maybe the very question is BEYOND understanding. I see modern culture as MONO-culture. I see how it treats nature as it treats animals and humans, and this would include their science which demands MONO-answers, and statements such as 'all is matter!' and 'spirit' is dismissed.
I once had an email conversation with the Head of Psychology of my hometown. I had read his book Deconstructing Psychopathology, and would have assumed he would have something to say about the 'spiritual', and he actually said "it is dangerous to talk about spirit"--meaning of course in academia .
So I like you think that this mindset, or these mindsets--because this split precedes science---first conceptually CREATE categories, and then see a problem without knowing they created it in the first place because of the limited way they are thinking.
The other day, I tried to find the opposite meaning of 'measure'--couldn't find, so I googled 'what is the opposite of to measure?' and again I didn't find any relevant info, and then it occured to me it is FEELING! And that this, like light and dark, male and female, life and death, etc creates a dynamic process, but the offical measurers who have decided that nature is without feeling suppress their own feelings and call 'it' illusion.
Muzuzuzus --
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your enthusiastic, in depth and encouraging response to my work.
1. Descartes; Thank you for pointing out the magical/mystic strains in Descartes' thought. It's important to remember that many of the enlightenment figures were interested in magic, alchemy and of course religion. I've recently been reading Michael White's 'The last sorceror' on Newton, which examines his obsession with alchemy, and his theological bent. It's an oversimplification (on my part, probably!) to assume that Descartes comes in and suddenly every aspect of occult/magical thought gets swept away in a tidal wave of science and reason; it didn't happen that way.
What I wrote in the paper was an (over) simplification of what can basically be seen as a long-term process of 'disenchanting the world' which didn't begin with the enlightenment but gathered pace with the first scientific revolution. And enlightenment figures often had a very ambiguous attitude towards what we'd term the 'paranormal;' see the c18th debate on vampires, for instance. Remember also that one often works with the materials one has, and the world in which Descartes lived was one where religious visions were far more accepted than they are now.
Hating Descartes; I'm not sure it's helpful to demonize a particular tradition, even one that's causing problems (Well, I'd perhaps make an exception with things like Nazism...). Traditions just are, and often have good and bad bits. There are lots of parts of the enlightenment project that still seem very positive to me (e.g. freedom of thought, equal rights for all peoples, freedom from mindless superstition, use of logic and reason, etc.) A good book on this period in Steven Toulmin's 'Cosmopolis,' which is about the what the founders on modernity, including Descartes, were up to. Remember that he was writing at a time when clashes over faith had torn Europe apart for about a century.
2. The same journey; it's great to know that someone else is asking similar questions, and to have sparked tuch enthusiasm. Many thanks again. you might like to look at my sister blog cosmic citizen (link above) for some of my thoughts in an SF/futurological/ecological context.
3. Blog: Go for it! you can obviously write clearly and well! I'd read it!
Cheers!