While a superficial view of science might lead us to believe there is no evidence for God, a deeper analysis of the phenomenon of consciousness brings us to a striking conclusion: consciousness could be a universal phenomenon.
This conclusion stems from what is known as the “hard problem of consciousness,” which seeks to explain how our first-person experience (or qualia) emerges.
The issue is that science does not currently recognize any known properties in matter from which qualia could arise. We don’t assume a stone has any form of first-person experience or possesses any properties from which such experience could emerge. Similarly, we don’t believe a calculator or computer can experience anything. The problem arises because, according to science, the brain should not possess any form of first-person experience either. Like a computer or a stone, the brain is simply a particular arrangement of matter, behaving mechanically and predictably. However, it’s evident that brains do have first-person experiences, indicating that something is missing in this logic.
This realization leads us to the inevitable conclusion that science has gaps in its understanding of reality, as it fails to explain the most obvious fact about reality—our experience of it.
The problem intensifies when we attempt to explain qualia by adding new properties to matter, which suddenly makes the entire universe conscious, with its own first-person experience, like ours. This is where panpsychism comes into play. If we reject panpsychism, we are left with magical thinking, where specific arrangements of matter inexplicably produce first-person experiences out of nowhere.
From the perspective of panpsychism, it’s a small leap to conclude that the universe itself might have some form of first-person experience, of which we are a part. Just as the cells in our bodies contribute to our qualia, our experiences could be part of a universal qualia.
This conclusion—that there is a higher form of consciousness beyond our own—is far more logical than assuming our first-person experience emerges from nothing. This is why panpsychism is inevitable and the idea of God plausible.
Why is it plausibly a god having the universe’s first person experience? (First god experience? )
Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why not Eric, the Rainbow Farting Unicorn?
Why not my cat, who is simply the latest form of incarnate entity from whose ultimate first feline experience all else in the universe is being experienced?
There is no objective evidence for panpsychism, and even if there were, it does not remotely evidence any deity.
Be a dear and link the peer reviewed research that supports that assertion, as I suspect you just made something up and assigned it to science. I’d bet my house you try and use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, to try and reverse the burden of proof, by insisting someone provide contrary evidence to your claim, be warned if you do I shall be calling that a lie.
Ah it’s a god of the gaps polemic, I suspected as much.
Straight into that gap, how convenient, except it is not supported by any objective evidence.
That’s a risible false dichotomy fallacy. The irony is palpable as it is theists and religious apologists who peddle inexplicable supernatural magic.
And the laughs keep on coming, it’s a large and equally unevidenced assumption.
Something either adheres to the principles of logic or does not, so the word more is hilarious enough, but the fact you have made this rhetorical appeal to logic whilst violating it’s principles by using known logical fallacies is the real comedy gold.
And there’s the cherry on top, you round your rhetorical appeal to logic off with a straw man fallacy. Theists are so funny when they try to invoke logic, and demonstrate they don’t understand it at all.
Based on a straw man, and an argumentum ad ingoranitam fallacy using a god of the gaps polemic, and without demonstrating any objective evidence a deity exists or is even possible, I think not, but you of course are free to believe whatever makes you happy.
Emerges from nothing? This actually made me chuckle.
That you believe panpsychism is inevitable is quite a leap. Please show your work.
It appears you thirst for answers to some rather big questions and provide some that simply cannot be demonstrated. Do you not know that many folks find “I don’t know” a perfectly acceptable answer?
The problem of consciousness has been largely trated by David Chalmers, Daniel Dennet, Thomas Nagel, and others. This is not something i’m inventing.
If you assume that matter possesses the necessary properties for first-person experience to emerge, the first consequence is that you must also assume these properties are present in all matter in the universe. The second consequence is that science has so far failed to detect these properties, as none of the known properties of matter currently allow for first-person experience or suggest the potential for it to emerge.
On the other hand, if you assume that matter does not possess the necessary properties to produce first-person experiences, then you must consider that such experiences are generated from a source other than matter, arising under specific material arrangements.
If there are any other options, I would be interested to know.
So you can’t link any peer reviewed scientific evidence, and you did in fact make up the claim and assign it to science, I shan’t even feign surprise that you lied, or that you’re now deflecting by moving the goalposts. Or that having used a raft of logical fallacies, whilst invoking logic, that you have dishonestly failed to address any of them or the responses pointing them out, yet a-fucking-gain.
Incorrect. I am in no way required to assume that.
Incorrect. I am a known to be of matter. I have first-person experiences.
Incorrect. I am not obligated to consider a fucking thing you assert I must.
All the data available at this time indicates that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. The brain consists of matter.
There is, however, exactly zero testable, repeatable, measurable evidence to indicate the existence of any supernatural being (your god) who 1. exists, or 2. manipulated anything.
Still waiting for you to provide a single credible scientific source on this. I warned you I’d be calling it a lie otherwise, if you want anyone to think otherwise then offer a credible scientific citation, tempus fugit.
Unless you are prepared to argue that the matter composing your brain possesses unique properties distinct from the rest of the universe, which enable it to have first-person experiences, you are compelled to assume that all matter in the universe shares the same fundamental properties as the matter in your brain, allowing for first-person experiences. This is not something you can ignore; this is logic, and refusing to accept logic is irrational.
There are no other options; this is what reason and logic dictate.
Sadly, you failed to notice that what you are observing right now—first-person experience—is NOT predicted by any known property of matter. Therefore, either our understanding of matter is incomplete or fundamentally flawed.
There are no other options according to reason and logic. If you believe there are other possibilities, please present them clearly.
Yes, you are compelled to accept this because it is what reason and logic dictate. This is a straightforward logical problem with only a few options available: either matter produces first-person experiences, and therefore ALL matter possesses this property (or the fundamental properties that produce it), or first-person experiences emerge from something other than matter. There is no alternative. If you believe there are other possibilities, please present them clearly.
Sorry, but you are wrong again. The emergence of first-person experiences raises the issue of “hard emergence,” as discussed by David Chalmers. You cannot argue that first-person experiences emerge from matter without defining the fundamental properties that give rise to them.
You seem to overlook the “hard problem of consciousness,” which is clearly not an invention of mine. Additionally, you seem to ignore the fact that this problem remains unresolved. The most logical conclusion suggests that first-person experiences are a universal phenomenon. However, because we cannot measure first-person experiences—despite the undeniable fact that they exist—we are unable to verify any proposal on this matter.
The inability to measure first-person experiences, in fact, serves as evidence that we cannot measure everything that exists.
False dichotomy fallacy, I can for example not know that “the matter composing your brain possesses unique properties distinct from the rest of the universe”, but until you demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for panpsychism, I can also withhold belief in your claim. I don’t need to make contrary claims, or offer alternatives in order to do this. It’s the same old god of the gaps you tried earlier.
Actually your god of the gaps polemic to attempt again to reverse your burden of proof here, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you keep invoking the word logic, and keeping using logical fallacies to do it, and it is you who keeps ignoring the fact that your arguments are irrational, as everyone can see.
Whoever has claimed to fully understand human consciousness, you seem to have produced another straw man fallacy.
The more you make this fallacious claim, the funnier it appears, your arguments are not logical, as they contain known fallacies in informal logic, these are called common logical fallacies, your posts are littered with them.
Like this argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you keep using to avoid your burden of proof. You made the claim for panpsychism, it is entirely incumbent on you to properly and objectively evidence it, demanded others disprove it is irrational, not as you keep hilariously claiming, logical.
No she is not, and no it is not, funnier and funnier.
False dichotomy fallacy, and human consciousness can be an emergent property of an evolved functioning human brain, as all the objective evidence suggests it is, and it is never observed without a functioning human brain, so there is no objective reason to believe the assumption you tacked on that "all matter possesses this property. The second assertion is again totally unevidenced, you;re simply repeating the same specious claim and fallacious arguments over and over again?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy…“Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence”), is a fallacy in informal logic. The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false”
You keep using the same logical fallacy over and over again, do you imagine anyone here will be swayed by an irrational argument just because you keep repeating it, and ignoring that fact?
We never observe consciousness in the absence of an evolved functioning brain, we always in every single instance see that consciousness disappear when the brain dies, we also see that consciousness impaired when the brain is damaged, that compelling objective evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of an evolved functioning brain.
And no for the gazillionth time, no one need offer an alternative explanation or evidence to your as yet entirely unevidenced claim, to claim this in any way verifies your claim is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, ignore this all you want, but everyone reading can see your argument is irrational, whether you have the integrity to acknowledge it or not.
No one is ignoring that, they’re just not accepting you fallacious attempts to insist not knowing something verifies your unevidenced claim.
What a spectacularly stupid tautology, it would hardly remain a problem if it were solved. And this is a lie, no one is ignoring this, they’re just no making irrational assumptions based on not knowing something.
This is still hilarious, no conclusion can be logical if the argument uses a known logical fallacy.
The overwhelming objective evidence does not support this claim, and you have demonstrated no objective evidence to support it, so your claim is extremely dubious, and endless repletion of that claim won’t change those facts?
Sate clearly and precisely which principle of logic you are claiming her post violated, and why, or again you will be called a liar, and your dishonesty is starting to smack of trolling now.
That’s a lie.
Yet you won’t accept logic, simply because it demonstrates your arguments are irrational. Again this is lookin gmore and more like you’re trolling. As you keep repeating your fallacious and irrational arguments, but refuse to even acknowledge the refutations offered.
My patience is almost exhausted with your dishonesty now.
I’m not compelled to do a fucking thing you think I must do.
I’ll ignore that which you have, thus far, been unable to substantiate with anything other than your personal conjecture. To insist I must do otherwise is, imo, a tad on the egotistical side.
It is what you assert to be logic. If I am irrational for not accepting your assertions of what is logical, then I’m satisfied to be considered as such by you.
His first premise is demonstrably wrong, if matter produces a particular physiological attribute it certainly does not follow that all matter possesses that attribute, last time I look rocks can’t fly, or swim, or eat, so just why would we assume they can possess consciousness?
While flying is an emergent property that can be explained by the known properties of matter, first-person experience is not. This leads us to the “hard emergence” formulated by David Chalmers. Please read about it. We are not discussing a conventional attribute of the mind, but a very special attribute known as qualia. The problem is that matter does not possess any known property from which this specific attribute of consciousness (qualia) could emerge. Attempting to solve this leads to panpsychism, while not solving it creates a gap in our understanding that, without new information, amounts to a form of magical thinking—this is qualia emerging from nothing.
Qualia is undoubtedly real, but it is equally impossible to measure, which is why we are having this discussion. The assumption that only brains experience reality is an indemonstrable one. However, it is less probable than assuming that qualia is a universal attribute. I can substantiate that claim. The fact that you are material and possess qualia demonstrates that matter has at least the fundamental properties from which qualia can emerge. Since the matter that forms you is not different from the matter in the rest of the universe, I can confidently assume that the rest of the universe possesses the fundamental properties that allow for the emergence or presence of qualia.
Irrelevant, it’s still a fact that your premise is demonstrably wrong, and attributes can emerge from matter that are not and need not be present in all matter.
No it doesn’t, since panpsychism isn’t supported by any objective evidence.
Nonsense, this is the same false dichotomy fallacy I called you on earlier, so much for your argument being logical.
Straw man fallacy, no one has assumed this, only disbelieved your claim for panpsychism, disbelieving your claim does not rationally require one make a contrary claim, or offer any alternative.
Please show your calculations on that?
It differs in that the objective evidence demonstrates that the matter I am made off produces consciousness. There is no objective evidence this is possible for all matter, and again endlessly repeating your unevidenced claim is not going to change that fact.
Your confidence is irrelevant, and your assumptions unevidenced.
Still a false dichotomy fallacy, and still irrational.
And, yes, I think there are fundamental properties in the universe that, when able to combine in certain ways, result in the emergence of consciousness. I, for one, am absolute evidence of that. The difference in our stances is that you seem to assert that a supernatural being of some sort is responsible for it and I don’t believe that. I have read some of the information written by biologists and neuroscientists and the data provided indicates that consciousness is an emergent property of biological/neurochemical processes. I just don’t need any gods to be answers for questions.
