jp1692

Joined

• started 45 topics
• posted 2,020 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by jp1692

• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  Oops, too late to edit:

  “More subtle reactions on atomic OR quantum levels ... “
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  This thread has had a great deal of speculation as to whether or not things such as rocks or atoms or quarks could be aware on any level. In the OP, Slimboy fat framed the debate by stating that "Panpsychism is the idea that experience is a property of all matter."

  It has been put forth that this idea is a suggested solution to the problem of consciousness: "We don't know how consciousness arises so maybe it's an innate quality of everything!"

  That, to my mind at least, seems to be the philosophical equivalent of a "God of the Gaps" argument. It lacks a logical foundation and any rigor. It is not based on any direct evidence. It is not falsifiable. In short, it is a completely unscientific proposition.

  Notably absent has been any serious discussion as to how things, including "all matter," could possibly experience awareness. This is why I linked, (way back on page 2 of this thread), the statement from The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.

  Whether you agree with the assessment and conclusions of the esteemed panel of scientists involved in this statement, you should carefully consider their methods.

  Part of their criteria of determining consciousness involved a thing having the appropriate apparatus to be aware and to experience that. This includes:

  • Sensory Input Device(s) - To experience awareness, an entity or thing must have some way to receive information (data) from its surroundings. For us, these are our eyes, ears, skin, etc. Bats have echolocation and some fish are believed to be able to sense magnetic fields. (See the NatGeo article: "Animal Superpowers" for more.)
  • Processing Apparatus - A thing must then have some kind of neural network or substrate--some kind of apparatus or equipment--to process the data input received. This generally results in a response of some kind.
  • Response - While we can't directly know what it's like to be a bat, we can definitely observe their responses to outside stimuli.

  Applying this methodology to non-living things does not even begin to suggest that inanimate matter experiences awareness.

  Sure, if I hit a rock with a hammer there will be a response. But this can all be explained by Newtonian physics. More subtle reactions on atomic are quantum levels are also explainable by physical, chemical and/or mechanical explanations, none of which involve any alleged "awareness," or data processing resulting in an inwardly motivated response from the item in question as opposed to a reaction caused by an outward force.

  That rock I see outside in my backyard isn't going to get up and move on its own. Never. Ever.

  A review of Newton's Three Laws is useful here methinks.
• 
  26

  "In a human moment before Jehovah grabbed her"

  by truthseeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i often wondered how far back the witnesses had been involved with my family.

  my grandmother died at the end of 2013 and while going through her photos we found some of my great-grandmother, dora, who was born in 1901 and died in 1994. there is a photo of dora dated 1946 standing outside her house in east riding, yorkshire.

  on the back of the photo her husband had written "in a human moment before jehovah grabbed her".. my great grandfather, who died before i was born, did not like the witnesses.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  Great pics and photos. Thanks for sharing!
• 
  28

  Should I stay or should I go?

  by BlackWolf in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello everyone, i haven't posted anything on here for a while and today i just really felt like i needed to get my thoughts together.

  (if you don't know me please read some of my previous posts).

  so pretty much not much has changed in my life, i'm still living with my parents and going to all the meetings and service.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  Ultimately, the most important relationship we have in this life is the one that we have with our self.

  Continuing to live a fake life is soul-crushing. Living an authentic life is difficult but liberating.

  Begin to build relationships with people that love you for WHO YOU ARE and not for WHAT (you pretend) YOU BELIEVE.

  You don’t need to change everything all at once but you need to begin moving in the direction you want to go or you’ll always remain stuck where you are.

  Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire wrote: “we make the road by walking.”

  Get moving. Best wishes!
• 
  32

  The Noble Fir

  by Oubliette in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  the noble fir.

  the fir tree stands silently in the corner of our living room: proud, erect, strong.

  even unadorned, it is beautiful.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  Bumpin' it for the Holidays.

  Seasons Greetings y'all!
• 
  65

  What is the benifits to living forever?

  by Jayk in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone give me a valid reason for it?

  growing old is a drag.

  the witnesses idea of ever lasting life, that you will come back to your most youthful state is such a bs answer..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  Jayk, Apparently you lack both curiosity and imagination.

  That’s too bad. You’re missing out on so much of life.

  Life is good for most of us. No need or desire for it to end.

  You could (try to) learn to enjoy it.
• 
  65

  What is the benifits to living forever?

  by Jayk in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone give me a valid reason for it?

  growing old is a drag.

  the witnesses idea of ever lasting life, that you will come back to your most youthful state is such a bs answer..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  Learning a lot and getting really good at things.

  Maybe finally figuring out what women really want.

  Plus finally getting to try each and every single malt whiskey there is.

  Duh!
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  SBF: My question is why [do] you think the first question has any more merit than the second one?

  I already addressed that. The first question demands evidence for an assertion raised. The second question merely attempts to turn it around on those demanding evidence thereby shifting the burden of proof.

  That is intellectually dishonest.

  If I assert a belief in ghosts, you are justified in asking for evidence for my claim. It is not scientific or even rhetorically fair for me respond, “No. You need to prove they don’t exist.”

  Again, “the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others."

  And "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  Cofty: what colour is love?

  I can answer that!

  When I was dating my wife I wrote her a serious of poems each of which began with the opening line:

  • Love is (insert color here) ...

  After that I explored the romantic notions and associations of each color. I ran through all the basic colors, included a few more "colorful" shades and even ended with "clear."

  Of course this won her heart, which was of course my goal.

  But I was writing poetry, not doing rigorous, analytical thought. ... LOL!
• 
  142

  Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

  by slimboyfat in

  1. social
  2. current

  at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

  this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

  what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jp1692

  SBF: The point is that if there is an answer to the question (even though we don't know what the answer is) then we are dealing with some sort of awareness.

  I understand the point of the question.

  My point, which I apparently did not clearly articulate, is this: not only can we NOT know the answer, we cannot even know if there is one for all of the cases you cited: dogs to atoms.

  But there is evidence for some, particularly what we call living things. There is no evidence for non-living things.

  So again, it is an assertion for a belief or idea that could be true but for which there is absolutely no evidence other than we cannot explain how consciousness arises so maybe it's innate in everything, at least at some level.

  That's a weak argument at best. It reminds me of many non-answers that the WTBTS would put forth for questions that they couldn't or wouldn't answer. "Well we don't know, but since we don't know this, then maybe that ..."

  Trust in Jehovah is now replaced with trust in Nagel.

  I'm not buying what he's not selling.