Exactly so, but it gets worse for @Quim’s rationale here, because we can observe that this is true of other human beings as well, Stick a pin in someone and they will likely react, this suggest that though our experience of pain is subjective, we can observe objective markers that this experience exists in humans and other animals.
So while @quimmight have a point that we can’t measure subjective experience, we can objectively measure it’s existence, but only in conjunction with functioning brains.
Panpsychism posits that all things possess a primordial mental state, as it is an inherent quality of matter itself. In this view, our capacity to experience is an emergent property of particles that possess a fundamental quality enabling the emergence of such experiences.
When matter aggregates to form structures like a brain, these individual experiences somehow amalgamate into a unified experience. Naturally, our personal experience surpasses that of fundamental particles, necessitating the fusion of these experiences into a singular one. This implies that experiences have the potential to fuse together, resulting in larger-scale experiences.
Considering that our brain consists of numerous particles that fuse their experiences to form our subjective experience, what prevents these minuscule particles, along with their experiences, from continuing to aggregate above us and forming an even grander experience known as the universe?
While it is important to note that this speculation cannot be directly investigated due to the impossibiliy of measuring experiences within particles, the possibility remains. Perhaps one day we will develop methods to measure and ascertain the existence (or non-existence) of a larger experience, potentially referred to as the universal mind.
Okay, but I’m genuinely curious to know what the threshold number of people performing calculations with an abacus would be to consider that they are collectively generating a subjective experience as a group. Ultimately, this parallels the process occurring in our brain. Although not identical, there is a theoretical possibility that consciousness could emerge in both scenarios.
Okay, what if two individuals, each equipped with their own abacus, engage in coordinated calculations, Would this collaborative endeavor lead to an enhanced collective experience that encompasses both participants? From my perspective, this scenario appears to be a highly simplified representation of our brain, and the emergence of a shared experience is a completely unexpected outcome.
As I stated at the beginning of this debate, it does not directly prove the existence of a god; it simply demonstrates that the possibility is real and it is up to each individual to decide what to believe.
Perhaps experiences accumulate, forming a larger experience, or perhaps they do not. However, there is no valid reason to label someone as irrational for believing that they do accumulate. Similarly, individuals have the freedom to explain reality using different theories, such as string theory or alternative theories, and it is considered normal. It is only when sufficient evidence emerges to establish a consensus that someone’s beliefs may be deemed irrational.
Is there enough consensus that the story of Hercules is hundreds of years older than the story of Jesus, to conclude that you are an irrational person?
How so? Bear in mind the two expert philosophers on panpsychism that you cited don’t agree.
A belief is simply the affirmation of a claim that something exists or is true. Whereas something is deemed rational if it is in accordance with the principle of logic, and it is a fundamental principle of logic that nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational.
HERE is a master list of common logical fallacies.
And Heisenberg doesn’t agree with atheism, but it’s not necessary to believe in God in order to use quantum physics as an argument.
I’m saying that when you embed states of mind in fundamental particles, you are opening up the possibility of a universal God. I explained how it could be understood.
Can you explain why you think this idea makes a deity possible?
Well you cited two experts on panpsychism, and they were both atheists, it’s not plausible they didn’t understand the idea, so I think you need to be very clear and explicitly explain why you think it “opens up the possibility of a universal God”? Does this mean you’re not a theist but a deist?
I have read that several times, and see no explanation of how it suggests any deity is possible? The word deity is not even mentioned once in there? Maybe if you accurately and simply define what you mean by deity it would help?
I will define it as a sentient being that encompasses the entire universe, rather than just a part of it like humans. It possesses subjective experiences, feelings, and includes us within its awareness. Therefore, we are unable to directly experience it, but it can perceive us because we are part of its sentience.
An analogy can be drawn to a cell in your arm, which is unaware of what occurs in the other arm, but you as a whole are aware of both arms.
A plausible perspective arises if we accept panpsychism and the idea that experiences can accumulate through material interactions.