forum.panpsychism.net

The definition of consciousness is very important here. Of course, it is usually important. But I think moreso here. I know many will always think the idea I'm championing is nonsense. But the definition of consciousness needs to be clear for those willing to consider the idea.

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. I have heard that wording more than any other, but I prefer Annaka Harris' "felt experience". I think feeling is what it all means. When Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?", the question is really: "What does it feel like to be a bat?" Not how it feels physically, although that may be a part of it. Not how it feels emotionally, although that may be a part of it. It's the overall feeling of being.

Really, that's it. If you want detail, then you don't understand this idea. There is no detail to consciousness. Let's see if some quotes help...

In this article, Goff writes:

Panpsychism is sometimes caricatured as the view that fundamental physical entities such as electrons have thoughts; that electrons are, say, driven by existential angst. However, panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts.

Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing, involving subtle and complex emotions, thoughts and sensory experiences. But there seems nothing incoherent with the idea that consciousness might exist in some extremely basic forms. We have good reason to think that the conscious experiences a horse has are much less complex than those of a human being, and the experiences a chicken has are much less complex than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler perhaps at some point the light of consciousness suddenly switches off, with simpler organisms having no subjective experience at all. But it is also possible that the light of consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba, and bacteria. For the panpsychist, this fading-whilst-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities – perhaps electrons and quarks – possessing extremely rudimentary forms of consciousness, which reflects their extremely simple nature.

In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says:

Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness.

In Panpsychism in the West, Skrbina writes:

Minds of atoms may conceivably be, for example, a stream of instantaneous memory-less moments of experience.

The consciousness of different things is not different. Not different kinds of consciousness, and not different degrees of consciousness. There's no such thing as higher consciousness. The differences and details are in the nature of the things experiencing their own existence. Let me try an analogy. Think of consciousness like vision. I can look at a blank sheet of paper. I can look at the Grand Canyon. I can look at my wife. I can look at a Monet painting. I can look at a bolt of lightning racing across the sky. I can look at a blade of grass. My vision does not change depending on what I'm looking at. The things being looked at are what's different.

It's the same situation with consciousness. When we compare two different things, it's not the consciousness of the things that's different; it's the nature of the conscious things that are different.

We think of consciousness from a human perspective. It's the only perspective we have, after all. But our mistake is we have decided that what we are conscious of is what consciousness is. We think; we are aware, we are self-aware; etc. So we decided consciousness means thinking, awareness, self-awareness, etc. And we try to figure out which other things are conscious, meaning do they have enough thinking, awareness, and self-awareness to be considered conscious.

That is all wrong thinking.

Let's start at the beginning, with particles. What is the nature of a particle? Well, it's the most basic thing there is. Just simple existence. Mass, charge, spin, whatever the specific particle has. Those things are what a particle subjectively experiences. It does not know it is experiencing these things, because it does not have mental capacities.

Humans are conscious. What are we conscious of? We take in sensory data. Photons hit the retina, and information of the event goes to the brain. Not only the information that the event took place, but specific information of the event. Vibrations in the air hit the ear, and information of the event goes to the brain. These physical processes are all joined together as one entity. Which means they are conscious - they have felt experience - as one entity. And that entity experiences photons hitting retina and sending signals to the brain as vision. It experiences vibrations in the air hitting the ear as hearing.

I have jumped quite a distance from particles to humans. Let me go back and explain some things.

Every group of particles does not experience as a group. A rock does not experience as a rock. A rock has... quite a few particles. All of which are experiencing their instantaneous memory-less moments. They are all experiencing the same thing, which isn't anything to write home about. There's not much going on. Particles on the surface might experience more light, warmth, physical contact with things that are not part of the rock, and other things, than particles in the interior of the rock experience. But they aren't doing anything. There Is not even any movement relative to each other. There's nothing there to make the group experience as a group.

Physical proximity isn't enough. Even particles that are working as a unit are not necessarily experiencing as a unit. Not if it's only brute, physical activity. Tools with multiple parts that only do physical work are not experiencing as a unit. A windmill grinding grain. An internal combustion engine. A Rube Goldberg Machine. It's all just physical interaction.

So what is needed to make a group of particles conscious - subjectively experience - as a group?

INFORMATION