Or research that examine brain activity in an MRI, after offering different subjective stimuli (qualia) for example pain stimuli or different emotional stimuli. Or as I said a lifetime ago to @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU, if one sticks a pickaxe through a human brain and it dies, that consciousness disappears, every single time. Yet he (@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU ) refuses to acknowledge this objective evidence, or offer any for any level of consciousness in plants, by now I thought at least he’d have made the obvious false equivalence they react to stimuli, just to move his tedious repetition along a bit.
It might turn a man to drink, but this man has turned in that direction long ago…
Your mind is a material process, right? You experience the effects of dopamine in your brain, correct? Maybe you don’t know the exact quantity, but you can feel it, right?
I’m just asking if you think a plant can also experience the different processes that take place inside its body.
“The problems with panpsychism are at least fourfold: the theory is 1) untestable, 2) there’s no evidence for consciousness of inanimate matter, 3) there’s no explanation how the “rudimentary” consciousness of molecules and atoms can combine to produce to the complex consciousness of humans and (surely) other mammals, 4) and we have made no progress in understanding consciousness by considering or adhering to panpsychism. It seems to be a view that, ultimately, will not help us understand consciousness.”
I shall let others decide why…
…but apply those objections to anyone asking if plants (for example), are capable of having subjective experience. Their question is moot if they can’t answer…
If I say “no,” then a plant could possess some form of feelings, as it produces and reacts to chemicals in the same way our brain does. But this also implies that any inorganic structure that produces and reacts to chemicals would also have ¿¿feelings??. I think this is a logical implication of that assumption, and it certainly presents a problem.
But if I say “yes,” there is a difference, then what exactly distinguishes your brain producing and reacting to chemicals from a plant doing the same?
I don’t have the answer to this, and I’m not expecting you to reach a specific conclusion. But… come on, there’s a valid question here, right?
No, there is not a valid question without specific definitions of the words used in said question.
I suspected you would evade provisioning detailed meanings to the words you were using because you have demonstrated in some of your prior posts that by being elusive with language, you seemed to give yourself permission for dishonest debate.
"the theory is 1) untestable, 2) there’s no evidence for consciousness of inanimate matter, 3) there’s no explanation how the “rudimentary” consciousness of molecules and atoms can combine to produce to the complex consciousness of humans and (surely) other mammals, 4) and we have made no progress in understanding consciousness by considering or adhering to panpsychism. It seems to be a view that, ultimately, will not help us understand consciousness.”
It’s funny how you are pretending this hasn’t been answered, like a small child hiding its face, in the mistaken impression it can’t be seen, funnier each time you ignore it as well.
So we can’t speak about good and bad because we can’t define those terms?
Qualia is a complex concept, and we can’t define it in a way that leads to unequivocal understanding, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It only means that language has its limits.
Why should I be dishonest about a limitation that lies within language itself?
What qualia? I just did it with Google, it took less than 5 seconds?
How many times will you peddle this irrational lie? Disbelieving your claim that plants have subjective experience, is not a claim subjective experience don’t exist, anymore than it’s a claim plants don’t have subjective experience.
“In scientific research, the null hypothesis (often denoted H0)[1] is the claim that the effect being studied does not exist.”
“The statement being tested in a test of statistical significance is called the null hypothesis. The test of significance is designed to assess the strength of the evidence against the null hypothesis, or a statement of ‘no effect’ or ‘no difference’.”
Yes, it’s super easy. For example, let’s look at an unequivocal definition of green, such as ‘Green is light that has a frequency range of 540 THz to 600 THz.’ That’s a perfect definition of the phenomenon, yet it tells you nothing about what it truly is because we are talking about an experience that is impossible to communicate using words. The same applies to qualia.
Look
Qualia is undeniably real, just like material reality. And here we come to the point again: not only does qualia tell us nothing about physical processes, but the reverse is also true—physical processes tell us nothing about qualia. Yet both are equally real.
This is clear evidence that there are real phenomena that can’t be fully addressed by studying material things. This is undeniably true, as none of you, despite knowing all the physical processes in a simple plant, can tell me whether a plant has any qualia. Qualia is real, and therefore, it is not material (or not entirely material, or perhaps something in between).
Unless you are going to argue that qualia is not real, as Daniel Dennett tried to do, you won’t find a way out of this dilemma. Once you accept qualia as real, you are acknowledging the reality of something that cannot be understood by investigating material reality according to our current knowledge.
I don’t see any dishonesty, irrationality, or mythology in what I’m saying. This seems pretty straightforward and logical to me.
Why do you keep ignoring the objections offered, and repeating the same straw man? No one has denied the existence of subjective experience, at least in the abstract anyway.
Now are you going to stop repeating your straw man claims about qualia, and address the objections to panpsychism, which is where there are objections.
You used a straw man fallacy, see my response to it below, which is irrational, and of course dishonest as it does not address the objections made.
You didn’t address this at all, how is that honest?
You didn’t address my answer to your questions at all, again I ask, how is that honest rational debate?
You failed to offer a sound syllogism to support your claim, when you can’t offer a sound argument to support such a claim when asked, in the form of simple syllogism, what then must one infer about your bare assertion it is logical?
You didn’t address my post about a null hypothesis either, in response to your claim qualia were an important scientific idea. Yet this scientific idea has clear implications for your claims about qualia.
Lastly I have asked if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for panpsychism, or for any deity, or that a deity is possible, or why you believe panpsychism evidences any deity, or which deity and why?
All those questions remain unanswered, again that does not suggest honest debate to me, rather you subvert the conversation back to a repetition of your original claims, and pepper them with straw man claims no one has made?
This is still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, to make clear how poor such reasoning is, invisible mermaids, that are undetectable in any empirical, or material way, “can’t be fully addressed by studying material things”
I ask again, do you imagine this is a compelling reason to imagine invisible mermaids are real?
You keep dodging this (and many other) questions, and whatever you think, objective readers know why.
Oh really? Funny how every time a mythology fanboy has asserted that his favourite choice of cartoon magic man is purportedly “necessary” for x, y and z, scientists have subsequently demonstrated that testable natural processes are SUFFICIENT to account for x, y and z, and that cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Just because science hasn’t yet completed this task for all observables, doesn’t mean for one moment that “Magic Man did it”. Science has completed this task for tens of millions of observables, and shows no sign of grinding to a halt in this endeavour.
Oh, and since the so-called “immaterial” has only ever been asserted to exist, and has never been accompanied by genuine evidence (hint: made up shit apologetics do not count as “evidence”), all assertions on the subject are safely discardable.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … Please explain how you know something that has no way of affecting, being observed, or measured in any way, in the physical world, can be known to exist. What magical tool are you using to see, observe, witness, or experience in any way, the existence of this thing that has no existence in the physical world? Curious Chimpanzees want to know.
The problem with many “learned” people is that they construct a perfect model of reality, then they close themselves off to it. It is so perfect that they can’t escape, not because it lacks flaws or errors, but because the individual is unable to break free from the prison they have created for themselves. This applies to everyone, to a greater or lesser extent.
Qualia is undeniably real; I think we all agree on this. Therefore, the subject has not been asserted to exist—it simply exists. And qualia, based on our current knowledge, is considered immaterial because neither you nor anyone else can measure it by studying physical reality (e.g., the plant example). Notice the difference between observing something that produces qualia (like brain activity) and qualia itself, which I believe you have failed to distinguish.
The future will tell.
The worst form of mythology is the kind based on “evidence,” because, in reality, it is based on an interpretation of that evidence. You believe you are following reality, when in fact, you are following your interpretation of reality. There are so many fallacies here that it is impossible to address them all. You are victims of your own intellect, not its masters.
I understand there are many questions to answer, and I could easily respond to them. However, the real issue lies elsewhere. You cannot wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.
Except no one is closed off to anything, they just don’t base credulity on hypothesis and assumption, when no objective evidence can be offered of to support it.
That sounds like the closed minded bias of religious indoctrination to me, not setting a reasonable and unvarying standard for credulity, that treats all claims the same, and sets them to the same standard.
That wouldn’t get you anywhere near objectively evidencing panpsychism, which in turn would not evidence any deity, and even then you’d be no closer to your chosen version of the christian deity, than you would to Thor or Zeus.
"The theory is 1) untestable, 2) there’s no evidence for consciousness of inanimate matter, 3) there’s no explanation how the “rudimentary” consciousness of molecules and atoms can combine to produce to the complex consciousness of humans and (surely) other mammals, 4) and we have made no progress in understanding consciousness by considering or adhering to panpsychism. It seems to be a view that, ultimately, will not help us understand consciousness.”
Points 1 and 2 in those 4 objections to panpsychism, Cleary demonstrate the difference. Having asked the question, are you going to acknowledge the answer?
Care to offer a sound syllogism to support that claim? If it is as you say logical, then this should be easy.
There’s you answer, chimp. Geez, do you even rationalism much?
@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU is taking an unresolved and hotly debated subject in philosophy and not only using it to troll, and not only demonstrating contempt because we can’t produce a solution that even professional philosophers can’t yet offer, but also using that unresolved debate to squeeze in the notion that a god exists.
I, for one, am not amused and will now cease following the thread.
