By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
And you were meant to, it was a frivolous idea. However, I've since discovered this podcast... and the idea pf Panpsychism.
Essentially, the idea is that EVERYTHING has a form of consciousness, just that some things have it on a much more complex level (i.e. humans) than other things (i.e the molecules in a brick). It's a fundamental property of everything, at a molecular level.
It makes sense - because if you trace life all the way back to its origins, then consciousness MUST'VE been on a very small, very basic level. As with life, consciousness must've emerged from non-life, and it must've been very very basic (initially), evolving over millions of years (in some things) to a point where you're experiencing this sentence. The fact that it emerged at all suggests it could be a basic property of everything.
That's what I took from it, anyway. Any of you science buffs know more on the subject?
It's a long podcast but very interesting.
[Post edited 16 Feb 2022 16:54]
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
1
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 08:35 - Feb 17 with 940 views
I'm currently a philosophy student at LSE completing a dissertation on this topic (funnily enough, my supervisor himself studied under Phillip Goff, who has been kind enough to help me with my work).
There's recently been an explosion of interest in panpsychism in both the philosophical and scientific (particularly neuroscientific) communities. In philosophy, it's beginning to be seen as perhaps the most promising way to overcome the problems associated with the two other main metaphysical positions in the field, physicalism and dualism. It's also seen as one way of addressing the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness, which is the need to explain how conscious mental states can emerge out of seemingly inert, physical matter. There is a great deal of debate about whether science can ever do this successfully, or whether we need recourse to a metaphysical theory such as panpsychism.
In neuroscience, there has been a resurgence of interest in panpsychism partly because it is tightly connected with the integrated information theory of consciousness (IIT). IIT is probably the leading contemporary theory of consciousness, and implies we should ascribe consciousness to a wide variety of physical systems that have some capacity for integrating information.
If anyone's interested, I think the most interesting form of panpsychism is Russellian panpsychism. It basically says that classical physics characterises matter purely in terms of its structural and relation properties. This tells us what entities like mass and charge do. The description of the entities themselves, however, are ultimately circular: for an object to have mass is simply for it to resist acceleration, and to attract other objects with mass. Russellian panpsychism says that the intrinsic nature of these entities, which is never described to us by science, is a certain kind of consciousness.
4
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 09:12 - Feb 17 with 916 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 09:04 - Feb 17 by scandiblue
This is brilliant to see on TWTD.
I'm currently a philosophy student at LSE completing a dissertation on this topic (funnily enough, my supervisor himself studied under Phillip Goff, who has been kind enough to help me with my work).
There's recently been an explosion of interest in panpsychism in both the philosophical and scientific (particularly neuroscientific) communities. In philosophy, it's beginning to be seen as perhaps the most promising way to overcome the problems associated with the two other main metaphysical positions in the field, physicalism and dualism. It's also seen as one way of addressing the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness, which is the need to explain how conscious mental states can emerge out of seemingly inert, physical matter. There is a great deal of debate about whether science can ever do this successfully, or whether we need recourse to a metaphysical theory such as panpsychism.
In neuroscience, there has been a resurgence of interest in panpsychism partly because it is tightly connected with the integrated information theory of consciousness (IIT). IIT is probably the leading contemporary theory of consciousness, and implies we should ascribe consciousness to a wide variety of physical systems that have some capacity for integrating information.
If anyone's interested, I think the most interesting form of panpsychism is Russellian panpsychism. It basically says that classical physics characterises matter purely in terms of its structural and relation properties. This tells us what entities like mass and charge do. The description of the entities themselves, however, are ultimately circular: for an object to have mass is simply for it to resist acceleration, and to attract other objects with mass. Russellian panpsychism says that the intrinsic nature of these entities, which is never described to us by science, is a certain kind of consciousness.
Thanks. And yet a couple on here reckon scientists aren't interested in this stuff!
I'm currently reading Self by Barry Dainton, who talks a fair bit about Russellian stuff towards the end (although not panpsychism as yet). Very interesting to those with an open mind (although I must admit, quite hard going at points later on in the book).
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 09:14 - Feb 17 with 902 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 09:12 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
Thanks. And yet a couple on here reckon scientists aren't interested in this stuff!
I'm currently reading Self by Barry Dainton, who talks a fair bit about Russellian stuff towards the end (although not panpsychism as yet). Very interesting to those with an open mind (although I must admit, quite hard going at points later on in the book).
Scientists have an open mind to anything for which there is evidence - that's what science is. Anything for which there is no evidence is not science. Sorry if you don't like the definitions!
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 10:22]
1
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 10:26 - Feb 17 with 853 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 09:12 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
Thanks. And yet a couple on here reckon scientists aren't interested in this stuff!
I'm currently reading Self by Barry Dainton, who talks a fair bit about Russellian stuff towards the end (although not panpsychism as yet). Very interesting to those with an open mind (although I must admit, quite hard going at points later on in the book).
Generally, scientists are interested in stuff which there is evidence for....
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 10:26 - Feb 17 by BlueBadger
Generally, scientists are interested in stuff which there is evidence for....
He asks for scientist's opinions, gets them, doesn't like them, chooses the philosopher's answer instead, claims it's science, insults the scientists. He should work in academia.
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 09:12 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
Thanks. And yet a couple on here reckon scientists aren't interested in this stuff!
I'm currently reading Self by Barry Dainton, who talks a fair bit about Russellian stuff towards the end (although not panpsychism as yet). Very interesting to those with an open mind (although I must admit, quite hard going at points later on in the book).
"that have some capacity for integrating information."
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 10:21 - Feb 17 by Cotty
Scientists have an open mind to anything for which there is evidence - that's what science is. Anything for which there is no evidence is not science. Sorry if you don't like the definitions!
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 10:22]
Again, I didn't say it was science. It's a theory. Your opening sentence is wrong as well - if scientists only had an open mind to things that already have evidence they'd get very few things done!
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
-1
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:22 - Feb 17 with 770 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 10:29 - Feb 17 by Cotty
He asks for scientist's opinions, gets them, doesn't like them, chooses the philosopher's answer instead, claims it's science, insults the scientists. He should work in academia.
I HAVE NOT CLAIMED IT'S SCIENCE.
Were you dropped on your head as a kid? Where have I claimed it's science? I also asked for more info from science BUFFS. People interested in sciencey stuff. I never asked for actual scientist's opinions!
Instead of desperately trying to trip me up on semantics, why not engage with the topic as an interesting concept (not science) instead of desperately trying to get your ego massaged?
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
-1
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:29 - Feb 17 with 763 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:29 - Feb 17 by DanTheMan
The way it's supposed to work is you start with a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it, hence it needing to be testable in some way.
They have a hypothesis. I don't know how you'd go about testing it but it's not my area of expertise.
Look, I made a jokey post that sun might be conscious - completely made up by me... then I came across this interesting idea where some people think everything has a form of consciousness, or latent consciousness, at an atomic level. So this thread was a jokey way of validating my previous jokey post!
If people would rather I don't post interesting (or jokey) ideas, because they're not based in science and it threatens them in some way, I'll stop. It's nae bother.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 11:37]
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:39 - Feb 17 with 743 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:36 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
They have a hypothesis. I don't know how you'd go about testing it but it's not my area of expertise.
Look, I made a jokey post that sun might be conscious - completely made up by me... then I came across this interesting idea where some people think everything has a form of consciousness, or latent consciousness, at an atomic level. So this thread was a jokey way of validating my previous jokey post!
If people would rather I don't post interesting (or jokey) ideas, because they're not based in science and it threatens them in some way, I'll stop. It's nae bother.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 11:37]
Don’t stop.
It is interesting philosophical stuff, but can also be funny.
On a more serious note, what would you do if there was a measure of consciousness, and you had the same level of consciousness as an AI program, and a Squirrel.
What would that change, or how would you use that in your interactions with AI programs and Squirrels?
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:44 - Feb 17 with 734 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:36 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
They have a hypothesis. I don't know how you'd go about testing it but it's not my area of expertise.
Look, I made a jokey post that sun might be conscious - completely made up by me... then I came across this interesting idea where some people think everything has a form of consciousness, or latent consciousness, at an atomic level. So this thread was a jokey way of validating my previous jokey post!
If people would rather I don't post interesting (or jokey) ideas, because they're not based in science and it threatens them in some way, I'll stop. It's nae bother.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 11:37]
I don't think I've been that rude or anything, I was just answering your question.
I'm not even sure you have a hypothesis there, you're saying everything might have some form of consciousness. For starter we're going to have define consciousness which is an absolute minefield by itself and then after that we're going to have to find someway of testing the consciousness of atoms or even smaller particles potentially.
I don't think anyone is threatened but you specifically asked for "science buffs" views on something that is much more akin to a philosophical debate than it is anything to do with science really. It's way too broad.
To be clear, I'm not saying this stuff isn't interesting to people. I can't say it is for me though.
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 00:20 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
Are you suggesting there was consciousness before living things? In what?
What I'm saying is there may be other places in the universe where consciousness may have developed in a completely different way to how it's appeared on Earth...
You are the obsolete SRN4 to my Fairey Rotodyne....
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:39 - Feb 17 by eireblue
That is sort of what philosophy is about.
E.g. Greek philosophers had a philosophical idea that everything was made up of fundamental indivisible components.
But, at that time, there wasn’t much they could do or test, to prove or make use of that philosophical view.
One Hadron Collider later, scientists are looking into it still.
When you can actually test, confirm, characterise, and use that idea, then it is science.
Your OP did ask for a scientific view point on consciousness.
Therefore your answers will be along the lines of what is the definition, and what can I test, what can I use that for?
But to answer your question in my simple terms.
Philosophers start with ideas. Scientists start with observed repeatable phenomenon.
Some scientists start with ideas, surely?
The observed repeatable phenomenon in this instance is consciousness - it exists. So now you test theories as to where it comes from. There must be LOADS of observed repeatable phenomenon that no-one knew what it was/where it came from initially... so they had some ideas... and then they tested those ideas. If scientists always started with the facts already solved there'd be no need for them!
What I actually asked was "Any of you science buffs know more on the subject?" Not scientists, people interested in cerebral stuff, is what I meant. Maybe I should've put that instead of science buffs and people wouldn't have got so hung up on it and actually discussed the idea.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:49 - Feb 17 with 717 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:44 - Feb 17 by DanTheMan
I don't think I've been that rude or anything, I was just answering your question.
I'm not even sure you have a hypothesis there, you're saying everything might have some form of consciousness. For starter we're going to have define consciousness which is an absolute minefield by itself and then after that we're going to have to find someway of testing the consciousness of atoms or even smaller particles potentially.
I don't think anyone is threatened but you specifically asked for "science buffs" views on something that is much more akin to a philosophical debate than it is anything to do with science really. It's way too broad.
To be clear, I'm not saying this stuff isn't interesting to people. I can't say it is for me though.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 11:45]
Fine, I'll be more careful how I word things in future so as not to upset the science buffs.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:56 - Feb 17 with 710 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:43 - Feb 17 by eireblue
Don’t stop.
It is interesting philosophical stuff, but can also be funny.
On a more serious note, what would you do if there was a measure of consciousness, and you had the same level of consciousness as an AI program, and a Squirrel.
What would that change, or how would you use that in your interactions with AI programs and Squirrels?
I'm not sure my interactions with squirrels would change.
The AI one is interesting, and is discussed in the podcast in the OP. It's possible in the far future that AI would get so good there would be a point where it's hard to distinguish it from real intelligence/consciousness. If you could manufacture consciousness, so it's to all intents and purposes the same as ours (as a cloned sheep now is essentially the same as a non-cloned one), then I guess AI would have rights just like a human would.
There's also a very real chance that many humans would see their AI counterparts as inferior, and the issues of persecution we've seen in humans could play out again.
It's definitely an interesting topic IMO.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:58 - Feb 17 with 707 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:46 - Feb 17 by Ewan_Oozami
What I'm saying is there may be other places in the universe where consciousness may have developed in a completely different way to how it's appeared on Earth...
True. However, there is still a point where the universe began, when presumably there was no consciousness (of any kind).
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 12:07 - Feb 17 with 696 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:36 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
They have a hypothesis. I don't know how you'd go about testing it but it's not my area of expertise.
Look, I made a jokey post that sun might be conscious - completely made up by me... then I came across this interesting idea where some people think everything has a form of consciousness, or latent consciousness, at an atomic level. So this thread was a jokey way of validating my previous jokey post!
If people would rather I don't post interesting (or jokey) ideas, because they're not based in science and it threatens them in some way, I'll stop. It's nae bother.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 11:37]
Not a ridiculous discussion by any means, and the process of scientific inquiry is maybe a little bit more diverse across various disciplines than some are suggesting in this thread (in terms of the way hypotheses are formed etc).
An important question though is whether an assertion something like 'every electron in the universe possesses the quality of consciousness' could be empirically testable - i.e. if it were true or false, would there be any way of anyone ever finding out? The answer would probably be not really, and so it just wouldn't be falsifiable or testable, and thus not be a scientific hypothesis.
That isn't to say that the idea or concept wouldn't be of interest to scientists, though - the best example of a similar concept is probably multiverse type ideas, which are probably unprovable and untestable, because we are stuck in this universe, so can never test them so they can't be considered scientific hypotheses, but they are still reasonably plausible and relevant nonetheless.
[Post edited 17 Feb 2022 12:08]
3
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 12:12 - Feb 17 with 676 views
You all laughed when I suggested the sun could be conscious on 11:56 - Feb 17 by The_Flashing_Smile
I'm not sure my interactions with squirrels would change.
The AI one is interesting, and is discussed in the podcast in the OP. It's possible in the far future that AI would get so good there would be a point where it's hard to distinguish it from real intelligence/consciousness. If you could manufacture consciousness, so it's to all intents and purposes the same as ours (as a cloned sheep now is essentially the same as a non-cloned one), then I guess AI would have rights just like a human would.
There's also a very real chance that many humans would see their AI counterparts as inferior, and the issues of persecution we've seen in humans could play out again.
It's definitely an interesting topic IMO.
If an AI and a Squirrel have the same level of consciousness, and you would suggest that the AI should have rights like a human would, why shouldn’t the Squirrel have the same rights as a human?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
