Is Panpsychism evidence for God?

My dear, this problem goes in both directions.

If you read the title, you will see that I’m not asking “Did God create consciousness?” but rather “Is Panpsychism evidence for God?” In this debate, to make it easier for you, I’m not positioning God as the cause but as a necessary consequence of what we observe.

You make a very interesting point when you say that all evidence points to the fact that our consciousness is the result of “biological/neurochemical processes.” However, chemical processes are occurring throughout the entire universe, not just in your brain; in fact, there is even more happening in the universe than in your brain. What is happening inside your brain is also happening outside it. But you only perceive consciousness inside yourself, not outside of you. This is the problem: you don’t understand that consciousness could extend beyond you simply because you can’t see it.

But it’s even more intriguing than that. Even if the most conservative interpretation is correct and only the brain possesses “qualia” (which is somewhat analogous to saying that only brains have mass), the problem remains the same. We have no explanation for how it emerges. Qualia should not exist because no known property in the universe accounts for it, and if we introduce new properties, we enter the realm of panpsychism.

As I see that neither of you fully understands the problem of “hard emergence,” I will explain it to you.

Imagine you have blue and yellow bricks. If you alternate them to build a wall, the wall will appear green from a distance. In this example, green is an emergent property that results from the combination of the blue and yellow bricks. Flying is an emergent property, processing information is an emergent property, and all physical properties can be explained in this manner.

Now, imagine you assume that only blue and yellow bricks exist, and yet you observe an orange wall. This presents a problem because it is impossible to construct an orange wall from only blue and yellow bricks—orange cannot emerge from yellow and blue. This is known as the problem of “hard emergence.” In this case, there is a red component that is impossible to explain. This is exactly what is happening with “qualia.” None of the known properties of matter should produce “qualia,” whether as a fundamental property or as an emergent property.

This is why calling “qualia” an emergent property solves nothing—it merely shifts the problem to a new level. You would have to introduce a new fundamental property (red bricks in the example) to explain how qualia emerges, and these new fundamental properties would need to originate at the atomic level, from which all other physical properties emerge. If atoms have properties that allow for the emergence of qualia, these properties likely do not manifest solely in the brain, nor do they combine to form new emergent properties solely in the brain. This is why Panpsychism is not just a theory, but a logical conclusion that is very difficult to evade.

If you are so proud of reason and logic, try to understand that nothing I say is my own invention. The problem is that when reason and logic lead to certain conclusions, you stop following them.

I imagine the words “I don’t know” are anathema to @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU, as it so often is with religious apologists.

I’ve seen no evidence he’s thought any of the things he says through, even when his arguments are torn apart like warm bread, all he’s managed is blinkered repetition.

We don’t the condescending misogyny, and you made the initial claim that they exist, disbelieving that claim does not carry any burden of proof.

No it isn’t obviously as you went from that to a deity with pure unevidenced assumption, we could replace god with Harry Potter and your argument loses nothing, and there is no objective evidence to support panpsychism either, and your arguments for it are relentlessly irrational. Yet you lied and said we should accept logic, even while making illogical arguments. The fact you don’t have the integrity to admit this, doesn’t change, the fallacies and the explanations are there for anyone to read.

It’s not a debate, honest reciprocity would be necessary for that, and you have failed to demonstrate a deity is necessary or even possible. Again it’s just risible bare assertions and irrational arguments.

False equivalence fallacy, all all chemical reactions the same champ, do they all produce the same results champ, is organic life present in every chemical reaction champ?

Laughable nonsense, please do demonstrate that you understand everything that is occuring in the universe or the human brain, what spectacularly stupid claim.

I don’t believe you, objective evidence to support that please.

No, the problem is you want to believe that, as you mistakenly think your clownish arguments evidence the deity you want to believe is real, I can’t see any objective evidence for mermaids or unicorns, this doesn’t make my disbelief of them unreasonable, you on the other set one standard for the belief you are emotionally invested in, and another standard for other claims, this kind of bias is defined as closed minded.

Problem for what, or whom, why is this a problem? Are you going back to your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy?

Easily the stupidest claim you’ve made thus far, so when we knew nothing of the natural world, none of it should have existed, priceless.

No, that’s another straw man, we can objectively measure mass, we only observe human consciousness with a functioning human brain. We can even see that brain reaction to emotional stimuli and pain, using an MRI scan. You could try and stimulate a rock whilst scanning it, do please come back, when you’re nominated for a Nobel prize.

Neither of those claims is true, unless like you one is prepared accept unevidenced and fallacious arguments. Not only have you not addressed this at all, you simply keep repeating them over and over.

Your word salad is moot, as no one here would deny that we currently don’t fully understand human consciousness or how the brain produces it. You on the other hand, clearly don’t understand if you think you can blithely claim something is impossible just because we currently don’t fully understand it. I was inclined to believe you were trolling, not I think you might actually believe that irrational nonsense is a compelling claim, if that’s the case then it explains a lot.

Consciousness is considered an emergent property of the brain as all the overwhelming objective evidence supports this, and this was already explained to you, of course you ignored it, and now you’re creating this straw man fallacy, as no e claimed these facts solved anything. As an atheist I am n honest enough to accept when we don’t know, but unlike you I don’t base assumptions and then beliefs on not knowing something, as this is irrational.

Only if one accepted your risible caricature as a reasonable analogy, and even then not knowing how something happened (read carefully) that has demonstrably happened, human consciousness emerging from an evolved brain, is not evidence that it requires inexplicable supernatural magic from an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, none of which can be demonstrated is possible, Occam’s razor applied, slash.

You don’t even apply that idiotic rationale to your own beliefs, for example no one can offer evidence or explanation of how a deity exists, where it come from, or how it created anything, yet you don’t rule it out as impossible, and the difference here of course, as you’re struggling I will help you understand, we know human consciousness is possible, we know an evolved human brain is possible, we have no objective evidence panpsychism or any deity is possible, and you have failed to offer any after being asked repeatedly.

NB No one is rejecting your nonsensically biased and irrational argument through a lack of understanding, they are rejecting them because they are unevidenced irrational woo woo.

Sigh, atoms exist, consciousness exists, do you know what Occam’s razor is? Not only is that claim not logical, it is again an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, the same one your arguments have used from the very first, no one here will accept any argument when it is demonstrably irrational, why is this so hard for you to understand?

Straw man fallacy, I have made no such claim, try again champ.

I couldn’t give care less that you lack the imagination or the ability to critically examine the arguments you’re parotting, this doesn’t make them any less irrational or unevidenced.

Now where are we on you evidencing your lie about science here:

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.

One thing I despise in debates is dishonesty, so that’s not going away champ. Either offer a credible scientific source for that, or have the integrity to admit you made that up, or I will post it everytime so everyone can see you lied.

Nope, that’s a straw man fallacy, and again this just illustrates that you don’t have the most basic understudying of what logic is or what it’s for, but those who do will be smiling quietly at that claim, especially as you keep using a god of the gaps polemic to make unevidenced assertions using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

So firstly your use of this “hard problem” has only produced unevidenced assumptions and demonstrably irrational arguments, but here is some research that is tackling that very subject, with scientific research, and not subjective philosophical arguments.

“modern neuroscience has introduced a theoretical framework in which also the apparently non-structural aspects of consciousness, namely the so called qualia or qualitative properties, can be analyzed in structural terms. That framework allows us to see qualia as something compositional with internal structures that fully determine their qualitative nature. Moreover, those internal structures can be identified which certain neural patterns. Thus consciousness as a whole can be seen as a complex neural pattern that misperceives some of its own highly complex structural properties as monadic and qualitative. Such neural pattern is analyzable in fully structural terms and thereby the hard problem is solved.”

CITATION

Chemical reactions are the same whether they occur in your brain or in a nebula; they follow the same laws, consist of the same matter, and exhibit the same properties. Of course, they can occur in different structures, just as electrical currents can happen in your brain or in the sun. But the fundamental phenomena are the same. While you don’t assume physical phenomena to produce any kind of “qualia” except in our brain, this is an arbitrary assumption since we can’t directly observe “qualia.” Therefore, we can’t definitively say whether other objects possess some form of “qualia” or not.

But considering qualia as solely a brain function is, at the very least, questionable: First, because it has no observed function. Someone experiencing qualia does not behave differently than someone who does not. This is the issue of the “philosophical zombie”; I encourage you to explore this concept.
Second, as I mentioned, considering it an emergent property poses the problem of “hard emergence.”

However, considering qualia as a fundamental property or a byproduct of unknown fundamental properties aligns more closely with our observations because it plays no function, it’s just there. This perspective suggests that qualia is a universal phenomenon, making panpsychism the most probable and viable theory at the moment.

But as I told you, and as you acknowledged, we don’t know, which does not mean that there are more probable explanations than others and panpsychism seems more probable than “brain centered” perspective. But even in the “brain centered” perspective, you still face the same challenge of explaining qualia.

This is not true, for example in the case of Martin Pistorious, which failed every possible brain activity tests and was aware of everything that happened around him for years while in coma proves that our measurements of brain activity does not perfecty match our experiences.

But again, even if i concede that brain activity produces qualia we are in the same point, we can’t explain it.

That’s not correct. We know that qualia exists, and it directly contradicts the materialistic view because, according to materialism, it should not exist. And no, that’s not just my opinion—Daniel Dennett spent many years trying to demonstrate that qualia does not exist.
Do you believe that qualia exists?

According to Roger Penrose, consciousness is not computational. I hope you understand the implications of this, but I’ll explain it anyway. Brain computational activity does not produce consciousness, which explains why qualia has no function—it’s not a byproduct of brain computation.

This paper has 39 citations, while David Chalmers has over 5,000 citations, not to mention Thomas Nagel. Please understand that one paper wrongly assuming it has solved the hard problem of consciousness is not evidence of anything. In fact, this argument essentially claims that because qualia match neural activity, they are neural activity. If we applied the same logic to colors, we’d end up with something like, “because plants are green, green is a plant.” This is why it has 39 citations and not 5,000.

And produce different results, obviously, so no they are not all the same.

Still a straw man fallacy, I have not assumed this, nor have I claimed to, stop lying please, and learn the difference between disbelieving a claim and making a contrary claim.

We can’t definitively say invisible unicorns that are undetectable in any empirical way don’t exist, what’s your point? Do you think I don’t know what an unfalsifiable concept is, or why religious apologists love them, and wrongly think they are compelling arguments for their chosen superstition?

No it’s not, and this has been thoroughly rinsed several times, go back read the responses carefully, and stop lying.

Another straw man, since I never said brain activity perfectly matches our experiences in every case, did I? Try and grasp that a) he did in fact have a functioning brain, and still does, b) that just because it was impaired doesn’t mean it wasn’t functioning at all, and c) this is one (albeit unusual) case, compared to literally countless examples of human brains dying and consciousness disappearing the exact same time.

We once couldn’t explain lightning, and religious apologists insisted just as you are doing here that it must therefore be a supernatural phenomena sent by a deity. For fuck’s sake please go and learn what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is, or you;re doomed to repeat this same irrational claim over and over, it’s painful to watch you fuck it up like this every time.

Yes it is, don’t tell me what I fucking think lease.

We know no such thing.

  1. Now can you address your many uses of known logical fallacies please?

I am not going to keep offering the same expansive rebuttals to your irrational claims, as you repeat them ad infinitum, and ignore the fact your arguments are fallacious.

Panpsychism is not supported by any objective evidence, and even if it were it does not evidence any deity.

1 Like

Nice try.

We may not currently understand where consciousness comes from, and/or what the mechanisms are that support it . . . but just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean that we should automatically invoke God.

If we invoke God every time that we don’t understand something, then women would still be dying from infection after childbirth because it’s “God’s will” . . . instead of obstetricians washing their hands.

Invoking God as an explanation just because we don’t understand something can have awful consequences.

As an example, lighting was considered to come from God. It even says so in The Bible.

So . . . this is why the Brescia church (in Italy) was considered the safest place for the military to store all the gunpowder, as the people of Brescia were very pious and deeply religious.

So, almost 90 metric tons of it were stored in the building and in the catacombs beneath it.

Well, the steeple is usually the highest place in town, and the explosion that occurred when lightning hit the steeple killed almost 2,000 people and destroyed about 15% of the town.

This was after Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, as he had been using his influence to try to get churches to put lightning rods on their steeples to protect the bell ringers from getting electrocuted. The churches refused, because it would have been sacreligious.

My point is that invoking God to explain consciousness accomplishes nothing, and may even be dangerous. Questions about human consciousness are important in medical discussions about coma, and also in legal discourse when we discuss things like child marriage, or the age of sexual consent. Consciousness is important in discussions about abortion, or animal suffering.

To say that “it comes from God” makes light of these important topics, and can be interpreted as being dismissive and/or offensive.

1 Like

A reminder of another straw man used to create a false dichotomy, since no one here has claimed it emerged from nothing, and we are not faced with just those two choices, obviously.

3 Likes

I’m not treating God as a cause but as a consequence. Panpsychism, which has nothing to do with faith or religion, can very easily lead to the idea of God—rather than the other way around, as you suggest.

1 Like

Panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is part of every physical entity, has been criticized for several reasons, including:

Falsifiability
Some say that panpsychism is not empirically testable.

Mental causation
Philosophers like David Chalmers argue that theories of consciousness should provide insight into the mind and brain to avoid the problem of mental causation.

Combination problem
This is perhaps the most significant criticism of panpsychism, and is the question of how the conscious minds of fundamental physical entities, like quarks and photons, combine to create human consciousness.

Explanations
Some say that panpsychism doesn’t offer any distinctive explanations or predictions. For example, physics and other physical sciences can explain the behavior of subatomic particles and the systems they form, so panpsychism doesn’t provide a unique explanation for consciousness.

“John Searle has alleged that panpsychism’s unfalsifiability goes deeper than run-of-the-mill untestability: it is unfalsifiable because “It does not get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless because no clear notion has been given to the claim”.[68] The need for coherence and clarification is accepted by David Skrbina, a proponent of panpsychism.”

CITATION

2 Likes

Only through unevidenced wishful thinking, so far anyway.

3 Likes

I guess I’m lost.

I–flat out–don’t understand this point.

Are you suggesting that the Universe created God?

I might actually get on board with this. Read a very famous short story by Isaac Asimov called “The Last Question” . . . which tackles this exact idea in a very elegant manner.

2 Likes

To make the idea of God easier for some people to digest, I treat it as a byproduct of natural laws, similar to the ones that give rise to qualia in us.

This inevitably leads to the debate about “the hard problem of consciousness,” which highlights serious inconsistencies in a materialistic approach to the mind. These inconsistencies can only be addressed by introducing new properties into matter. However, this approach complicates the issue because it turns the concept of qualia into a universal phenomenon.

If you need references or authors for any of the ideas I’m presenting here, please let me know.

First, qualia have no known function. Unless you propose a specific function for qualia, it is difficult to explain how they could have evolved. Please provide a proposed function for qualia if you have one.

Second, no one in this debate is denying that the brain has evolved over time.

No it doesn’t, that’s just a subjective opinion.

Yet it is objective fact that brains evolved and exist, and that consciousness exists, and that brains evolved through entirely natural processes, the unevidenced assumptions violating Occam’s razor are all coming from you.

You could stick a pickaxe through your head, and see if your consciousness remains, that sounds pretty definitive to me.

You failed to address the rest, so I’ve posted it below, if you need a link to any authors let me know, there is widespread criticism of the philosophical idea your peddling, and from your posts, I’d bet my house you’ve not bothered reading them.

Mental causation
Philosophers like David Chalmers argue that theories of consciousness should provide insight into the mind and brain to avoid the problem of mental causation.

Combination problem
This is perhaps the most significant criticism of panpsychism, and is the question of how the conscious minds of fundamental physical entities, like quarks and photons, combine to create human consciousness.

Explanations
Some say that panpsychism doesn’t offer any distinctive explanations or predictions. For example, physics and other physical sciences can explain the behavior of subatomic particles and the systems they form, so panpsychism doesn’t provide a unique explanation for consciousness.

“John Searle has alleged that panpsychism’s unfalsifiability goes deeper than run-of-the-mill untestability: it is unfalsifiable because “It does not get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless because no clear notion has been given to the claim”.[68] The need for coherence and clarification is accepted by David Skrbina, a proponent of panpsychism.”

CITATION

Straw man fallacy.

Straw man fallacy, you really need to read more carefully.

Straw man fallacy.

Straw man fallacy.

Not true, it might have added a survival benefit to our ancestors, this would be enough for natural selection to “favour” it.

The panpsychism model makes the same prediction. This experiment does not provide evidence for either model.

So if you stick a pickaxe through a rock, and then through a human brain you get the same result, hilarious fair play, but nonsense of course. The consciousness we see in humans can be impaired or ended by damaging the brain or when it dies. you can do what you like to a rock, and there is no discernable change, hence scientists and philosophers objecting to it in my link because it is unfalsifiable. The same cannot be said for the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning human brain.

1 Like

This is not what panpsychism predicts. Panpsychism does not claim that everything has the same level of consciousness. Instead, panpsychism refers to the origin of qualia and suggests that certain fundamental properties in matter make it possible for qualia to emerge as an emergent property.

As I mentioned before, panpsychism is similar to the materialistic explanation of consciousness but adds the necessary properties to matter for qualia to emerge.

Please take some time to read about what panpsychism truly is.