Panpsychism Makes a Comeback (General)

by David Turell , Saturday, January 24, 2015, 00:36 (3373 days ago) @ dhw

Guardian: "Besides, panpsychism might help unravel an enigma that has attached to the study of consciousness from the start: if humans have it, and apes have it, and dogs and pigs probably have it, and maybe birds too - well, where does it stop?”[/i]
> 
> dhw: Of course some of us would argue that there are different degrees of consciousness, and that the consciousness, say, of a dog is not as many-layered as that of a human. But numerous scientists have studied the behaviour of bacteria and concluded that they too are sentient, intelligent beings, and so the question “where does it stop?” should certainly be taken seriously. In terms of living organisms and the course of evolution, I think it should be taken very seriously indeed!-You left out some interesting parts of the article which I finally found:-> Article: "Or maybe it is: in the last few years, several scientists and philosophers, Chalmers and Koch among them, have begun to look seriously again at a viewpoint so bizarre that it has been neglected for more than a century, except among followers of eastern spiritual traditions, or in the kookier corners of the new age. This is “panpsychism”, the dizzying notion that everything in the universe might be conscious, or at least potentially conscious, or conscious when put into certain configurations. Koch concedes that this sounds ridiculous: when he mentions panpsychism, he has written, “I often encounter blank stares of incomprehension.” But when it comes to grappling with the Hard Problem, crazy-sounding theories are an occupational hazard. Besides, panpsychism might help unravel an enigma that has attached to the study of consciousness from the start: if humans have it, and apes have it, and dogs and pigs probably have it, and maybe birds, too - well, where does it stop? (my bold)-Note the animals mentioned have nervous systems. To be animate I think that is necessary.-> Article: "The argument unfolds as follows: physicists have no problem accepting that certain fundamental aspects of reality - such as space, mass, or electrical charge - just do exist. They can't be explained as being the result of anything else. Explanations have to stop somewhere. The panpsychist hunch is that consciousness could be like that, too - and that if it is, there is no particular reason to assume that it only occurs in certain kinds of matter.-> "Koch's specific twist on this idea, developed with the neuroscientist and psychiatrist Giulio Tononi, is narrower and more precise than traditional panpsychism. It is the argument that anything at all could be conscious, providing that the information it contains is sufficiently interconnected and organised. The human brain certainly fits the bill; so do the brains of cats and dogs, though their consciousness probably doesn't resemble ours. But in principle the same might apply to the internet, or a smartphone, or a thermostat. (The ethical implications are unsettling: might we owe the same care to conscious machines that we bestow on animals?(again, my bold)-Note the requirement for organized information (that pesky stuff I keep indicating is a part of life and evolution). And that necessity has been fully recognized and tested!:-> Article: "Unlike the vast majority of musings on the Hard Problem, moreover, Tononi and Koch's “integrated information theory” has actually been tested. A team of researchers led by Tononi has designed a device that stimulates the brain with electrical voltage, to measure how interconnected and organised - how “integrated” - its neural circuits are. Sure enough, when people fall into a deep sleep, or receive an injection of anaesthetic, as they slip into unconsciousness, the device demonstrates that their brain integration declines, too. Among patients suffering “locked-in syndrome” - who are as conscious as the rest of us - levels of brain integration remain high; among patients in coma - who aren't - it doesn't. Gather enough of this kind of evidence, Koch argues and in theory you could take any device, measure the complexity of the information contained in it, then deduce whether or not it was conscious."-And remember I think humans and animals have species consciousness! Required receiver for consciousness is a nervous system with ganglia, if not a brain, all of which appeared well after bacteria.