mothra wrote on Apr 7
th, 2024 at 1:25am:
Polyphemus wrote on Apr 7
th, 2024 at 12:39am:
As I said earlier, panpsychism is nothing new. It gets a wardrobe adjustment from to to time.
You, and any of us, might also find comfort in or an appreciation for Dualism, Idealism, Monads, the Simulation theory or Physicalism etc.
They ALL have their pitfalls. Panpsychism bleeds on the combination problem.
But it seems to me that the best tool we have for finding out about the universe or deciding what true about it is the scientific method. It wasn't Panpsychism that gave us enough understanding of the universe for the computers we're using to have this conversation.
Why are you holding panpsychism up to of the modality that created computer science? One may just as easily and correctly say that the exploration of dark matter has nothing to do with me buying incense on eBay.
Strawman.
The interesting point is that you are relegating Goff's work to a concept you've already come across. Not particularly "scientific" of you. Science is about asking questions and setting about trying to answer them. Agreed? Perhaps there is a reason "panpsychism" doesn't go away? Perhaps that is explained in Goff's expanding of it?
The "combination problem". Please, by all means expand. But from what you've said, it's no refutation. Simply another question.
Ok, it seems that you think Panpsychism is resolving something about the universe in contrast to science. It hasn't. You like it, great but that isn't enough, is it?
And you've dodged my earlier questions. For example you didn't distinguish between "scientific verification and the verification principle of the positivists. You seem to have confused Super Nova's appeal to scientific processes with logical positivism. That's why asked you further explanation but none was really given. You then said that scientific verification was reproducibility, even though it's more...
Anyway, with respect to the combination problem, I addressed this briefly in my initial posts. But let me repeat in other words here.
In panpsychism, the combination problem refers to the challenge of understanding how individual elements of consciousness, which according to panpsychism are present in all things, combine to form unified, complex conscious experiences such as those found in humans and other higher animals. This problem arises because panpsychism posits that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, existing even in the smallest elements of matter, yet it's not immediately clear how these individual consciousnesses combine to create the rich and integrated experiences that we perceive.
For instance, if we accept that even elementary particles possess some form of consciousness according to panpsychism, how do these individual consciousnesses aggregate and interact to produce the unified, coherent experiences that we observe in organisms like humans? This question remains a significant challenge for panpsychist theories of consciousness.
I don't know, Mothra, you put up Panpsychism as some kind of challenge to science- well, that's how the argument between you and Super Nova seemed to go. But it really isn't.
At the end of the day, it's the scientific method that separates the wheat from the chaff. It is the best way we have to understand this universe. And it has proven itself over and over again.
In as far as you see Panpsychism as giving us an understanding of the universe, then my example was no straw man.