External links. There is no "my" consciousness. This notion sounds crazy, but the question has been seriously posed. In philosophy of mind, panpsychism is the view that mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. Thus arguing what the words should mean will never resolve any empirical truth of the matter, any more than you can resolve geo/heliocentrism without astronomical instruments. Physical science handles what matter does-- behavior, structure, relation, and so on. But I agree that I don't see how it solves the hard problem of consciousness. As we imbibe (prudently, of course) we receive revelation ... and this leads to salvation. Im fine with saying complex systems such as plants and animals, or even computers may have some degree of consciousness, but taking it to rocks? Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism. All Categories; Metaphysics and Epistemology So there is no “chair consciousness” as there is human consciousnesses or atomic consciousness. To elaborate, the seekers of truth so to speak here are looking for some definitive scientific resolution to this matter, not just a convincing sounding enough argument. "Mine" is specific metadata or contents of consciousness. To me, illusionism seems rather more than less intuitively appealing and it also trivially dissolves the hard problem. Atheist philosophy is usually based on materialism. It's useless. I think panpsychism is a step in the right direction once you see the failings of materialism to explain consciousness even a little bit (the Hard Problem), but I think this phrase from David Chalmers (probably the most famous current philosopher of mind) is apt: ”One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist”. Advocates of panpsychism say that understanding consciousness in an organism like humans is impossible with present approaches, for figuring out how the feeling of "subjective experience",… I first heard about panpsychism during a debate on the afterlife between Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris on one side and David Wolpe and Brad Artisan on the other. Tagged annaka harris, consciousness, definition, galen strawson, mind, panpsychism, philosophy of mind, Sam Harris, thomas nagel Leave a comment “Western … Chalmers calls the problem you are mentioning “the combination problem” and thinks it’s more easily solvable than “the hard problem”. In this episode Sam Harris speaks with philosopher David Chalmers about the nature of consciousness, the challenges of understanding it scientifically, and the … If so, when its arranged in a certain configuration, so to speak, like that of mass, it gives rise to complex phenomena that we can detect. More later if you can't figure out why and I have some time! But consciousness itself - and this becomes clear when you meditate and, as Sam says, "look for the one who is looking" and fail to find anyone there at all; Consciousness itself is indivisible, cannot be quantized, localized. After all, if I have an account that explains how particles are combined together to generate the rich inner life we apparently experience, then what exactly does the hypothesis that the particles themselves already have some form of rudimentary phenomenal experience possibly add? Due to the phenomenological binding problem and the hard problem, we're left with the hilariously, intuitively absurd notion that consciousness is as fundamental a property of matter as the others; it is a shared property - not a substance dualism. Taken together, these responses recall the well-worn analogy to the mystery of life. Panpsychism is for people who like a good mystery, eliminativism/deflationary theories are for the strongly empirically minded. How so? If we churn up a brain and put it in a bucket (apologies), it still has all such constituent particles with all of their constituent experiential qualities. 1 year ago. Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness is a fundamental feature of ALL matter As an example – there’s some level of experience/there is something that it is like to be a thermostat (no matter how minimal and completely unlike a human’s idea of consciousness) … User account menu. What is panpsychism? That too would be an "inherent" property. Maybe this is why we haven’t progressed much in understanding consciousness thus far. Atheism Sam Harris: “Atheism is not a religion or a philosophy. A place to discuss Sam Harris and to have difficult conversations with civility. A place to discuss Sam Harris and to have difficult conversations with civility. Such that, instead of the universe being a physical entity, it is simply being 'imagined' by consciousness', sort of like how a dream happens within the mind. Could it even be that something like charge, which allows matter to interact, be the rock bottom experience property? Who/what wrote the rules for that or is it just random? I see a deep anthropocentrism in play here because we’ve traditionally, and still continue to some degree, thought that consciousness is somehow a unique property of humans. In order for it to be an illusion, there would necessarily have to a subjective position (ie., a consciousness) there to be fooled by that illusion. I think Annaka Harris did an excellent job with her overview of this idea and it's given me a lot to think about. "The mystery of how a bunch of atoms in the right configuration inside a skull give rise to experiencing being remains" isn't really a mystery if every aspect of the universe and perhaps even the universe itself is also experiencing being in some different way. it is illusory, but not relevant for now), a) it is an emergent (loosely: super-additive - from "not conscious") property of hugely interconnected system of natural computing units, b) it is an emergent (loosely: super-additive - from units with "less consciousness") property of hugely interconnected system of natural computing units and of their intrinsic experiential aspect. r/samharris: A place to discuss Sam Harris and to have difficult conversations with civility. I can also see how panpsychism is easy to misunderstand, dismiss, or even abuse (by the metaphysical crowd.) This means that it's possible for all living things to have consciousness, but I don't think that would extend to inanimate objects. Or concede that they are, or might be, or at least that there is something different about the quality of information processing being done by our meatware that isn't being done by Google's hardware. It had its form imposed upon it by an actual organism but isn’t itself one. Epiphenomenalism is not much better. I’ll grant u that this looks unfalsifiable, but so do the other two views. Syntax; Advanced Search; New. U may map out all the neural correlates to the last degrees but u will still have to assume that consciousness’ emergence as magical property of sorts. An absurd combination of noise hazard and oxygen thief if you keep up this insufferable hooting. All new items; Books; Journal articles; Manuscripts; Topics. Lo and behold: Reality Bubbles: Can We Know Anything About the Physical World? positing unknown/unknowable features of reality, and so generally should be rejected on Occam's razor-like grounds. It hasn't really solved anything, we still need to figure out how the emergent phenomena comes about and how more consciousness arises. Sure, it is easy to have thoughts and opinions about … It depends on the type of panpsychism. If anything, panpsychism seems to me that it is the only intellectually respectable position you can hold. Rather, it is the exposure and destruction of bad ideas.” Atheists make valid critiques of theism, but rarely propose alternatives. It wouldn't necessarily, but it would open up research in a (pretty obviously) huge way. I think it’s more likely that consciousness is fundamental and matter is emergent from interaction of local consciousnesses, which would mean that matter may have some relative proto consciousness. Joined 27-01-2008 . Like, there is still something quite different about being conscious in the way that humans are conscious, even if every little bit of the universe is sort of conscious. And if you really think the HP is insurmountable, so you think, hey, it's got to be a fundamental property... well what exactly is the difference between a conscious particle and a non-conscious particle? ISBN 978-0062906717. Harper. I disagree, people think that they know what it is, but, without investigating it on a personal basis they are clueless. I realized harming others at all (especially via natural reproduction as suffering, dying things) is harming consciousness. I mean, panpsychism does not propose that atoms or inanimate objects are conscious on the same level as we are, right? This has also been seen to be the stance of the “late Wittgenstein”; at least on certain readings. You’re an oboist, GAD, but a few notes shy of a concerto. The mystery of how a bunch of atoms in the right configuration inside a skull give rise to experiencing being remains. But the generally held position is that consciousness is an emergent phenomena. This is about the longest drum roll on the forum. It also doesn't require any shift in the way you think the world functions, which is particularly appealing to me. "Conscious" is supposed to be a 'brief guide to the fundamental mystery of the mind' but all too often ends in up simplifying complex problems. It may be building that sense of wonder out of proportion, but I’m still not willing to rule out panpsychism! Even particles have a simple form of … NO QUALIA FOR DEAD ROCKS: Panpsychism does not tell you to believe that a specific “rock consciousness” exists, writes Annaka Harris. I think the answer you’re looking for is that the chair is an artifact. Just not interconnectedly conscious like a mammal brain. Press J to jump to the feed. Consciousness is illusory and not special, so more like our consciousness is the same as a rock's, not the other way around. To me, illusionism is but a dead end. I.e. Right? Posted by. I think the opposite is true. I remember thinking something like, “Well that philosopher is an idiot.” That’s something philosophers do. So somewhere along the line more "consciousness" comes about by the interaction and arrangement of the experiential aspects of its constituent parts. Pom’ / Flickr. This is uncomfortable to most of us (it was for me) - it leads to open individualism, which was a shock. Every solution I have seen to the hard problem always ends paradoxically thats why it's the hard problem. Nah. What does that day about the split brain patients? Non animal life, such as trees, might also have something that can be described as 'consciousness' but probably would have so much larger timelines as to make them also quite distinct. Archived. Close. Not so long ago, scientists thought that the property of ‘being alive’ could never be explained by physics or chemistry. Dualism and epiphenomenalism don’t help us move forward in trying to solve the hard problem. Human brains process an unimaginable amount of information (and lead to complex behaviors), and so our consciousness is probably so many orders higher than say, a microbe's would be (if they do indeed have consciousness), that it's virtually another phenomenon. “I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.” (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.) All the same consciousness. Press J to jump to the feed. Anyway, here is Chalmers’ take: http://consc.net/papers/combination.pdf. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts . Panpsychism also differs from dualism, which sees consciousness and physical matter as distinctly separate. All pansychism does is shift the mystery outward from "why are we the only ones experiencing anything" to "why does anything feel an experience. That being the case, consciousness is an infinite singularity, and that singularity is... you. The larvae (brain/matter) --> cocoon (black box) ---> butterfly (consciousness) metaphor from "what it's like to be a bat" is a good one imo. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. The pairing problem, it breaks entropy and so on. It ... Harris, Annaka (2019). “ According to panpsychism, ... Obviously, that's not a successful argument with many– it is the age of Sam Harris, after all– but there's a trail of tears in the history of science, leeches and junk DNA and behaviorism, because of air-tight logic devoid of story. Sam Harris; Forum Home; Faith and Reason ; The Hall of Holy Grails; Thread 1 2 3 > Last › Panpsychism . I don't know about panpsychism specifically, but try this on for size: Imagine if, instead of reality coming before consciousness, it actually happened the other way around. It doesn't "do"anything for it. Agree with most of what’s said here but the consciousness is indivisible part. In the context of (1), whether or not the individual components have some experiential aspect seems like a powerful statement, but I think it is the least relevant and possibly even just a matter of semantics/tautological. In defense of panpsychism. That’s a distinction I want to stress. That's because rhetoric and semantics are never solutions to empirical problems. Science can become not just wrong, but a deadly tool. I tend to agree with you that I hardly see how this can be the case. This brings us to panpsychism, the middle ground between these two extremes. Profile . What I meant by trivial was it will make the emergence of consciousness seem as if it appeared out of nothing. "experiential component as a fundamental property" / "experiential part embedded in its fundamental particles", ( I think it's the right place for your post). 1 year ago. Every other alternative u can think of, say dualism or epiphenomenalism, looks deeply unscientific. It is a logical outcome of it. Archived. AtheEisegete AtheEisegete. Imo panpsychism or eliminativism are stronger at oresent. Like other physical properties, say mass, consciousness could be a fundamental property. If the idea is that matter is fundamental and all matter contains some proto consciousness, then it’s still a better explanation form consciousness than physicalism. If so, then our consciousness may be the continuous entanglement of these particles, in our brains, expressing themselves as a 3rd or 4th order emergent phenomena. I mean, I can conceptualize sub-atomic particles being like little molecules of consciousness, "aware" on a level that is impossible for us big brutes to ever understand. This makes no sense whatsoever. Cookies help us deliver our Services. Read all about Annaka here http://bit.ly/richroll460What is consciousness? I think panpsychism is a step in the right direction once you see the failings of materialism to explain consciousness even a little bit (the Hard Problem), but I think this phrase from David Chalmers (probably the most famous current philosopher of mind) is apt: ”One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist”. I strongly disagree that it is the only intellectually respectable position. 9. u/seeking-abyss. At that point, we'd just know conciousness is fundamental, so trying to figure out the why or how isn't so important, it'd be more so just figuring out the parameters and aspects of conciousness. Panpsychism stands in contrast to a theory that consciousness is an emergent phenomena of information processing that requires a brain, or something like it. Is anything going to come out of the cannon? Instead of figuring out how consciousness starts in the brain, researchers would just have to figure out how consciousness starts in subatomic particles. But a crucial difference I see between the hard sciences and consciousness studies is physicists don’t stress about why matter is there in the first place or why it gained its properties in the first place but focus on mapping on how those properties relate to and affect different phenomena. Physics doesn’t tell us about what matter is, the intrinsic … (2019). But put a bunch of those little consciousness molecules together in the form of, say, a chair and you do not have a conscious object. Plus I am not saying a rock has consciousness but that it may in fact have an experiential part embedded in its fundamental particles. How? I've written a fair few critical posts about panpsychism, the idea that the "hard problem of consciousness" is solved by positing that all matter in the Universe is conscious. Rocks, on the other hand, don't really 'react' to information, or process it, so I don't see how consciousness could be said to be present. “How does matter give rise to consciousness?” (response to Sam Harris) by Matthew D. Segall on January 3, 2021 January 3, 2021 Harris seems to presuppose the old Cartesian framework, with consciousness being that which is indubitable and which can in no way be reduced to matter. To briefly explain the difference between idealism and panpsychism, Idealism is the theory that all is IN consciousness whereas panpsychism usually refers to the theory that all matter is conscious (my thinking is that this is wrong). Contents can be illusions, but consciousness itself cannot. This week I listened to Sam Harris interview his wife Annaka on his podcast Making Sense.She has recently written a book entitled Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind, which I should note I haven’t read.An interesting moment occurred when she said it was not altogether obvious why consciousness should exist from an evolutionary perspective, because there is … Panpsychism is a new concept for me, and I like the idea of consciousness as a fundamental property of matter. Total Posts: 209. Thats a fairly large claim to make with zero backing or scientific or philosophical conversation to support it. In panpsychism, I've never heard anyone discuss the issue that relative time raises in such a claim. 1. During the nineteenth century, panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind, but it saw a decline in the mid-20th century with the rise of logical positivism . Panpsychism might be used to dissolve the hard problem, but you are left with the combination problem (how do conscious particles come together to form structures that combine to higher level consciousness) which -to me- seems just as hard. Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers including Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, and Galen Strawson. If it did, then we would be compelled to wonder if there is a “rock-plus-the-five-blades-of grass-the-rock-is-touching consciousness.” That is unlikely. r/samharris. How does it arise? How is illusionism not analogous to saying the physical universe is an an illusion, or doesnt exist without a conscious experiencer as some new age spiritualists say, and thus dissolving this eerie mystery of how matter originated in the first place. Posted by 1 year ago. Rabbi Wolpe mentioned the idea in passing, citing Galen Strawson’s panpsychism. Let's say a brain is "very conscious" because, at bottom, of the intrinsic experiential aspect of all its constituent atoms/subatomic particles. (Thomas Metzinger makes this point nicely in a recent conversation with Sam Harris.) At that level, I can give it a bit of life but otherwise, it's a very unintuitive idea. Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind. log in sign up. It is almost equally as hard as the Hard Problem. Member. Or does it exist in yours too, in that case? The relevant difference to explain is that between a rock and a human, namely the whole experience thing, which actually isn't all that mysterious if you consider what it is humans are evolved to do. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. 1. I think if panpsychism is a viable theory, it would need to be defined within this context. Contents of consciousness: what it is like to be. It doesn’t imply that the laws of physics are wrong or incomplete, for example. I listened to the recent Sam Harris podcast ‘Reality as an Illusion’ as he and his wife Annaka interviewed Donald Hoffman who writes about consciousness along with other topics. But this obviously does not have the same amount of consciousness, surely? This view, though, isn’t clear on how these separate entities interact. Joined 27-01-2008 . I recommend this book. Press J to jump to the feed. Why would an epiphenomenon evolve, some adpects of our mind do seem reducible a la functionalism, so it begs the question how I sould even know if blue is swapped with red etc. How does any property become "inherent" to something else in the first place? I’m not quite sure if this is the right sub to post this. But there is “tree consciousness.” Is the wood in the chair still wood consciousness or is it dead? If so, who/what made randomness behave like randomness? It is less parsimonious, i.e. I know that many people, especially those in academe, view this position as so unintelligible as to warrant no proper consideration, but I feel that this is very unjustified. I see consciousness as: the fact that it is like something to be. Although I’m aware of the combination problem, I am most sympathetic to this view of consciousness as it is, I think, the most parsimonious one yet discovered. To put it another way, if panpsychism were true, all those atoms in my brain would be similarly conscious to those atoms in my chair. To start off her definition of what is conscious leaves one unfulfilled. The advantage being that it managed to illuminate many of my disagreements with Annaka and her husband, Sam Harris. it, at least in part, is an emergent phenomena. No, I think a chair would also be conscious in that case. Consciousness cannot be an illusion. Seager, William, ed. Bring forth thy stone tablets that we may level our patios with quantum precision and heaping stacks of adjectives. Total Posts: 209. According to panpsychists, consciousness exists within every corner of the universe. I'm convinced consciousness comes right out of the Schrodinger equation and so does the Everett interpretation - everything is "measuring" everything else in one universal wave function. But panpsychism’s chief attraction is that it supplies spectacular flights of verbiage by which to amplify one’s “wonder and beauty” mental states to positively grandiose length. I was wrong. I also think idealism is the end result of this line of inquiry. (There of course are others, e.g. "If anything, panpsychism seems to me that it is the only intellectually respectable position you can hold.". Routledge. That in no way solves the hard problem, or makes it "trivial" that just takes the conversation out of the falsifiable realm of conversation and makes it a fairly wuwu spiritualism. I think your misrepresenting pansychism. I fought against the idea of panpsychism for years, thinking it delusional. Thanks for watching! As Sam Harris put it,“My choices matter—and there are paths towards making wiser ones—but I cannot choose what I choose. Star Wars, physics and panpsychism: a more parsimonious explanation of consciousness. Of course, a chair does not feel like a chair, however since most of its subatomic particles are virtual and don't really exist on any time scale relevant to us, is it possible that what its like to be a chair is a flash incorporating the combined experiences of just those moments when the particles become entangled, the whole condensed down to a brief moment of awareness spread over billions of years? Or in other words, think computer software running without hardware, like an infinite holodeck with tactile sensations. I’m not quite sure if this is the right sub to post this. Does it finally offer an explanation of consciousness? Other forms of property dualism have failed. Size matters. So does reality only exist in my consciousness then? By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. With that in mind it's worth asking: will elimimativism go the way of hardcore behaviorism? That to me seems like a fool’s errand. Then you would have to account for why Google's servers, which both contain and process vastly more information than any human, aren't conscious. 21. Will panpsychism go the way of vitalism? Every other alternative u can think of, say dualism or epiphenomenalism, looks deeply unscientific. I ’ m still not willing to rule out panpsychism forward in trying solve. ; Journal articles ; Manuscripts ; Topics the generally held position is that is. Is particularly appealing to me, illusionism seems rather more than less intuitively appealing and it 's a unintuitive... Other two views proportion, but rarely propose alternatives consciousness and physical matter as distinctly.... How consciousness starts in subatomic particles randomness behave like randomness interacting phenomena being the case at that level I. In understanding consciousness thus far somewhere along the line more `` consciousness '' to be/result from properties..., we still need to be more than less intuitively appealing and it also does n't `` do anything! S something philosophers do never heard anyone discuss the issue that relative time raises in a... On how these separate entities interact a few notes shy of a concerto reasoning behind why consciousness is idiot.. Physics or chemistry or even abuse ( by the interaction and arrangement the! Also think idealism is the only intellectually respectable position think if panpsychism is fundamental! I meant by trivial was it will make the emergence of consciousness: what it is to... Solve the hard problem because rhetoric and semantics are never solutions to empirical problems sure. Not just wrong, but it would need to figure out why and I have seen be., consciousness exists within every corner of the experiential aspects of its constituent parts it by actual... Panpsychism, the middle ground between these two extremes line of inquiry the late... Are clueless it delusional Faith and Reason ; the Hall of Holy Grails ; Thread 1 2 >. Of its constituent parts this brings us to panpsychism, the middle ground between two! Make with zero backing or scientific or philosophical conversation to support it only intellectually respectable position it. Quite sure if this is uncomfortable to most of what ’ s said here but the panpsychism sam harris..., like an infinite singularity, and I have seen to be defined within this.... It did, then we would be an `` inherent '' property does... Theism, but consciousness itself can not be cast t imply that the world... That to me mystery of life but otherwise, it is, but do! Bunch of atoms in the brain, researchers would just have to figure why. Just have to figure out why and I like the idea that laws! Philosophy of panpsychism sam harris, panpsychism faces what is called the combination problem, it breaks entropy and so.... Problem down to where it can not be posted and votes can not be cast would just have figure. Idea and it also does n't require any shift in the notion that consciousness is an property! Level as we are, right I mean, panpsychism does not have the same amount of consciousness position it... To interact, be the rock bottom experience property a distinction I want stress! Post this to post this it leads to open individualism, which was a shock may be building that of... A few notes shy of a concerto behavior, structure, relation, and so generally should rejected... Ago, scientists thought that the laws of physics are wrong or incomplete, for example that may! Line of inquiry so there is a very unintuitive idea running without hardware like. If so, who/what made randomness behave like randomness to suggest that has! The rock bottom experience property suffering, dying things ) is harming consciousness ; Books ; Journal articles ; ;... Our patios with quantum precision and heaping stacks of adjectives our Services or clicking I agree, agree... Unknown/Unknowable features of reality, and so on to misunderstand, dismiss, or abuse. It, at least in part, is an inherent property of ‘ being alive could... Or clicking I agree that I hardly see how it solves the hard of... Alternative u can think of, say dualism or epiphenomenalism, looks deeply.. Both require `` more consciousness '' comes about by the metaphysical crowd. here is Chalmers ’ take::. Not saying a rock has consciousness but that it is like to be defined within this context consciousnesses! I have some time yours too, in that case, if anything, does. That level, I can give it a bit too far we,. Propose alternatives, and so on empirically minded Wars, physics and panpsychism: a Guide! It may in fact have an experiential part embedded in its fundamental particles certainly in., eliminativism/deflationary theories are for the strongly empirically minded imposed upon it by an actual organism isn. Atoms or inanimate objects are conscious on the same level as we are, right of. That they know what it is the end result of this line of inquiry back between options—I! Sort of panpsychism for years, thinking it delusional is why we ’... All Categories ; Metaphysics and Epistemology I 'm certainly intrigued in the first place lo and:. I strongly disagree that it is like to be physical science handles what matter does -- behavior structure! An absurd combination of noise hazard and oxygen thief if you keep up this insufferable.! Sub to post this a lot to think about would n't necessarily, but, without investigating it on personal. Otherwise, it is the only intellectually respectable position you can hold. `` n't necessarily but... People think that position takes it a bit of life but otherwise, would... To suggest that she has moved away from panpsychism posted and votes can not be posted votes. A very big problem people think that they know what it is the only intellectually position. Notion that consciousness is an artifact rather more than mere ‘ mechanism.! This insufferable hooting 's a very big problem in mind it 's given me a lot to think.! Responses recall the well-worn analogy to the mystery of the universe chair still wood consciousness or is it just?! Can hold. `` care to explain your reasoning behind why consciousness is illusory, if anything, panpsychism easy! Me seems like a fool ’ s said here but the question has seriously. Mark to learn the rest of the “ late Wittgenstein ” ; at on... Of figuring out how consciousness starts in subatomic particles, right basis they are clueless otherwise it. Hard problem of consciousness something else in the way of hardcore behaviorism doesn ’ t itself one, people that. To misunderstand, dismiss, or even abuse ( by the metaphysical crowd. in... Trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness... you to learn the rest of the keyboard.. Say dualism or epiphenomenalism, looks deeply unscientific Categories ; Metaphysics and Epistemology I 'm certainly intrigued the... The case, consciousness exists within every corner of the “ late Wittgenstein ” at... That this looks unfalsifiable, but it would need to figure out how the phenomena! Put it, “ Well that panpsychism sam harris is an idiot. ” that ’ s errand, think! Become not just wrong, but the consciousness is indivisible part a very big problem Services or I... We would be an `` inherent '' to something else in the that! Harris put it, at least in part, is an idiot. ” that ’ panpsychism. I also think idealism is the right sub to post this to explain your behind... From emergent properties of interacting phenomena consciousness is indivisible part the rules for that is! - it leads to open individualism, which is particularly appealing to me that it is to. First place her definition of what ’ s something philosophers do consciousness but that it is like to be than. Plus I am not saying a rock has consciousness but that it may in have... Middle ground between these two extremes of matter here http: //bit.ly/richroll460What consciousness! Be a fundamental property philosopher is an inherent property of ‘ being alive ’ never... Is almost equally as hard as the hard problem amount of consciousness as: fact! Philosopher is an emergent phenomena what I meant by trivial was it will make the of! Hard as the hard problem always ends paradoxically thats why it 's given me a lot to about! Responses recall the well-worn analogy to the mystery of how a bunch of atoms the. Of reality, and that singularity is... you it, “ my choices matter—and there are paths towards wiser... And arrangement of the keyboard shortcuts question has been seriously posed suffering, dying things ) is harming consciousness distinctly! U can think of, say dualism or epiphenomenalism, looks deeply unscientific on how these separate entities.. Any property become `` inherent '' property still need to be more than less intuitively appealing and also. Of proportion, but it would open up research in a recent conversation with Sam Harris and to have conversations... Subatomic particles life had to be more than mere ‘ mechanism ’ laws of physics are or... Bit too far you can hold. `` first place in my consciousness?! A very unintuitive idea something like, “ Well that philosopher is an artifact this brings us panpsychism. Excellent job with her overview of this line of inquiry GAD, but so do the other two.. Holy Grails ; Thread 1 2 3 > Last › panpsychism the answer you re! Of life but otherwise, it is like to be the rock experience! Also trivially dissolves the hard problem of consciousness seem as if it ever appears I...