Panpsychism Makes a Comeback (General)

by dhw, Saturday, January 24, 2015, 18:31 (3374 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As for awareness, even when studying humans, all that neuroscientists can “see” is a mass of chemical reactions. The problem is fitting what we see to what happens - i.e. how do chemical reactions explain intelligent behaviour,....DAVID: The human brain is not just chemical reactions. It is a very complex network of axons, changing synaptic transmissions, crowd sourcing of neurons for certain tasks, and plasticity when it invents networks to handle new habits, new tasks, and new muscular coordination in athletic training. Train an ape to do a spinning jump hook shot in basketball, or pitch a cricket ball on the bounce. You can't. only the human brain can. Animals have a complex brain also and it has plasticity, but only a minuscule ability of the human brain.-You are still focusing on the material brain as if it provided an explanation for intelligent behaviour, and yet you regard the human brain and some animal brains as receivers whose activity is governed by the “soul”! My point is that other organisms behave intelligently, and if you are convinced that intelligence in humans and other animals has a source other than the materials (I'm happy to substitute that for chemicals), I see no reason why you should insist that the intelligence of other organisms is purely material.
 
dhw: And yet you believe that some organisms do have that invisible faculty - i.e. you believe that animals have souls - but somehow, although they use it to feel, think, reason, make decisions etc., it's a different “kind” from ours.-DAVID: The Jewish religion differentiates the two souls as different. I follow that tradition: Nefesh and Neshama.-I'm surprised at your dependence on the tenets of an established religion when you so pride yourself on the independence of your thinking. I don't know if we and our fellow animals have a soul, but again I see no reason to assume that when a dog takes a decision or works out a problem, it is using a different mechanism from that which we use.
 
dhw: When dealing with bacteria, you insist on disregarding the mystery of their apparently autonomous behaviour (observed by eminent researchers) and focusing purely on the chemistry. I am suggesting you do so because you cannot bear the thought that organisms might possess the means (possibly God-given) to advance evolution their own way. That goes against your vision of God as planning every step of evolution so that it would produce humans.
DAVID: No, I've said that God may had implanted an IM. Your paragraph is a twisted interpretation of my thoughts. Either way, with complete pre-programming in the beginning, with dabbling, or with a semi-autonomous IM evolution reaches the production of humans.-My apologies if I am twisting your thoughts. I have great difficulty finding any coherence in them, other than the belief that whatever is must be the result of your God's deliberate planning. At least we agree that evolution has produced humans! (As regards the intelligence of bacteria, I am opening a new thread.) I find the concept of a “semi-autonomous” IM extremely unsatisfactory, unless we confine the non-autonomous area to its possible source being your God, and to the fact that it cannot exceed its own natural limitations or those imposed by the environment - a restriction that applies to all intelligences including ours. Otherwise, either organisms can make changes to themselves (autonomy) or they can't (preprogramming/dabbling), or they are at the mercy of chance (random mutations). I see no way in which an organism can take its own decisions but at the same time be preprogrammed to take those decisions. (That, incidentally, is the dichotomy that underlies the debate on free will.)