Live data from Hacker News

Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

scientificamerican.com

281–290 of 356 posts

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#281

I'm trying to be open-minded and make sense of the position. The first big leap is considering experience to be a continuum from humans down to inorganic matter. This is stretching the meaning of 'experience'. If I walk on snow, does it experience deformation, or does it just deform? The second leap is saying science only tells us what matter does and not "the intrinsic nature of matter: what matter is, in and of its…

> The first big leap is considering experience to be a continuum from humans down to inorganic matter.

Why is that a leap, while considering it to be discontinuous is not?

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#282

No, consciousness can only appear in self-replicating systems, unless it is artificially supported (as in AI). Without self-replication there is no genetic evolution, and without evolution there can be no consciousness.

Why? Why does evolution have something to do with consciousness?

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, Searle's Chinese Room, for which the widely accepted response is the system reply: the system as a whole, and not one element of it, is conscious. Consider performing the algorithm of Alpha Go Zero through a million people equipped with pen and paper. One can hardly argue against this being possible in principle, but what is playing the game? This is not proof that AGI will automatically be conscious, or even jus…

There are two distinct meanings of consciousness being used here: my own experience of consciousness in me (it's always first person), and the conclusions people make about consciousness in other people or animals - that they're conscious because they're like them in important ways. The Chinese Room argument is confusing because it conflates intelligence (understanding Chinese) with consciousness (knowing what it's l…

I'm not sure I understand what your link has to do with consciousness. Yes, people experience the world differently. Someone with Tetrachromacy will see the world different than us, but that hardly invalidates our much less capable experience. Perception organs differ somewhat between individuals. I'd see little reason to make a distinction between those organic we are born with and those humans managed to invent.

So yes, the guy in your room can experience colors by using the sheets (though in a different and much less capable way than most of us, thus him not wanting to equate this with our common understanding of experiencing color), and is color blind without. And I kind of get deaf when plugging my ears, though that experience is vastly different from someone who never had hearing to begin with.

That doesn't answer what it is like "seeing red" and "feeling blue". I don't know what it's like for you. I can only look at your behavior, see it being similar to mine under the same circumstances and thus assume your internal state to be similar. Until your behavior tells me it being different... like someone blind running into a wall or someone approaching a chasm with no signs of fear.

ps: had to google "feel blue", as it meaning "depressed" isn't really a thing in my native language. Translating (color based) idioms is actually kind of telling... it seems only possible directly if both cultures had shared aspects / experiences.

So yeah, while conflating consciousness with intelligence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But I'm not sure equating it with perception is getting us anywhere better (hope idiom didn't get lost in translation).

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#284
post #250

Another point to make on panpsychism: how do people who reject the theory explain hierarchical life? To what level is a human conscious if its component cells aren't? Are ant colonies "conscious" due to the complexity of the behavior of the ants? Does that make ants less conscious? To an alien visitor, ant colonies can be considered single organisms, because they act with intent toward a specific goal and react to sp…

That's a good point. One things aliens have that we don't is the ability to merge and divide consciousnesses (like Vulcans do). This has been explored in science fiction but not so much in the real world. Although some siamese twins share a consciousness: https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/the-hogan-twins-share... Within the next 10 or 20 years, we'll have the technology to connect brains to computers, and eventu…

> One things aliens have that we don't is the ability to merge and divide consciousnesses (like Vulcans do).

We should ask them to teach us. Or maybe they could license their technology to us for a small price.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#285
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he/she wants something that isn't circular and therefore meaningless.

Again, you put restriction of meaningful answer. But why not beautiful answer? Or poetic answer? Or funny one? Ultimately you still decided what you want first and then trying to find what fits.

"you put restriction of meaningful answer"

I know, pretty crazy of me there. Meanwhile I annoy car dealers by going in with an expectation of a vehicle that can actually get me from one place to another, rather than just sit there and amuse me.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#286
post #270
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take: consciousness is an emergent property of the system as a whole as it becomes sufficiently complex. Yes, that million people (you'd probably need more) working with pen and paper create, in combination, an additional new consciousness, albeit an absurdly slow-thinking one.

I totally agree with consciousness being an emergent property. But can a bigger system have consciousness when individual parts of it are already conscious? I don't see why this should necessary follow. I'm sure there are somewhat similar and interesting emergent properties, but we'd probably call it something different. Probably closer to the kind of group identities we already have with lots of humans interacting.…

I think a better way of putting panpsychism is to say: what you are doing with your science is describing how consciousness behaves. So when you describe a simple system with maths, you are describing the consciousness of that simple system. Describe a complex system with mathematics and you are describing the consciousness of a complex system. You don't need to describe the transition from simple consciousness to complex consciousness with anything other than mathematics because mathematics already describes the transition that arises from the composition of simple objects. What it feels like to be a simple object vs a complex object is outside of the scope of science.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#287
post #250

Another point to make on panpsychism: how do people who reject the theory explain hierarchical life? To what level is a human conscious if its component cells aren't? Are ant colonies "conscious" due to the complexity of the behavior of the ants? Does that make ants less conscious? To an alien visitor, ant colonies can be considered single organisms, because they act with intent toward a specific goal and react to sp…

Thought experiment 1

We all start as a single cell. What biological event starts consciousness? Keep in mind you can't be half conscious — that's still conscious.

Thought experiment 2

Look at this random symbol: #. What are you conscious of? Chances are, conscious of things, of objects, of elements, of concepts. Things that have some unity to them. But, things are mental constructs, typically socially shared. So, much of the content of consciousness arrived after birth, once we could learn these mental constructs.

Thought experiment 3

What is more complex: a single neuron (with thousands of mitochondria and other organelles, thousands of synapses) or a worm, with only a few hundred synapses? Similarly, what is more complex, your own body or the company you work for?

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#288
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for the simple reason that it gives no way to explain why humans act on their conscious experience and have it modelled internally as a conscious experience. The theory doesn't purport to explain internal models nor awareness in any sense that we're used to it. That is a separate question. If you are looking for those answers, they will be found in how the machination of "conscious" behavior accumulates sufficient…

You're right, but only in the sense that panpsychism doesn't answer any questions. Literally any. The only thing it does is split the question of ‘where does human consciousness come from?’ into ‘how does human consciousness reduce to proton awareness?’ and ‘where does proton awareness come from?’ But you'll note that this is a harder question than the original, since it postulates more and conflicts with more eviden…

Indeed. If we accept panpsychism, then the "hard problem" of consciousness morphs into the hard problem of how awareness arises, and what degree of awareness and understanding is present in a given individual.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#289
post #250

Another point to make on panpsychism: how do people who reject the theory explain hierarchical life? To what level is a human conscious if its component cells aren't? Are ant colonies "conscious" due to the complexity of the behavior of the ants? Does that make ants less conscious? To an alien visitor, ant colonies can be considered single organisms, because they act with intent toward a specific goal and react to sp…

The best case against panpsychism I believe was advanced by complexity theorist Joe Norman: it's not unreasonable to believe that "consciousness" emerges at some levels of a complex system and not at others. No, we can't explain _why_ this is - since we hardly understand complex systems - but we do understand that phenomena exists (emergence) at some scales and not at others. Consciousness could be one of them.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#290
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot experimentally decide if atoms experience anything, the fact that they do or don't doesn't change any prediction for how they behave over time. It's meaningless, like wondering if magic exists but is actively hiding from us. Paranoia is that way. This has so much potential to become a semantic death trap - but let me ask if you think even human experience could be experimentally tested? If you put me in…

> What does "non-experience" even mean? Indeed, that's why putting meaningless arbitrarily defined touchy-feely words in physics is a bad idea. But I'll try. Experience = event that changes the model of the world you have in your brain. We can verify it experimentally by for example: - testing if you associate a loud buzz with food before the experiment (either by looking at neurons that activate when you think of fo…

Maybe not stones, but what about plants?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/12...

Post reply on HN