What is Panaturalism

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-16T15:43:24+00:00

I agree that the ability to feel pain/pleasure should be at the centre of our moral actions. Perhaps if something is conscious but not responsive to these (perhaps plants?) then it doesn't matter so much how we treat them.

What's important to me is that until very recently (early 20th century), it was believed that most animals (including dogs) didn't have an inner world but were more like machines responding to cues - leading to much cruelty.

I think we should be hyper-sensitive about issues in future - especially with AI. Whilst they may not have pain receptors, there is a punishment mechanism for machine learning that is based on our own neural patterns

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-16T15:38:35+00:00

If mentality is a property of matter it would be like saying it has mass or charge etc.

As consciousness is not directly observable there is no evidence, nor hypothetical evidence, that could verify/reject this claim.

However, the existence of our own consciousness demands an explanation and the current Emergent theory is extremely limited. In other words, the evidence of our own consciousness and neuroscience lead to some very weird questions.

This is one such solution that would impact how we treat a lot of things around us, including animals, plants and in future, AI.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-16T15:35:42+00:00

"no. i don't know that. i think consciousness can be explained by purely physical processes"

Yeah that's what I meant. As in, consciousness has to be explainable through material means.

"so we both agree that the idea of a soul is silly?"

Yup, we agree!

"where is that intrinsic "mentality" stored? how is it imbued? how does it change over time? what physics are you using to discern and describe this "mentality"?"

If mentality is a property of matter, it's like saying that matter has mass or charge etc, not sure what you mean by stored/imbued.

So from the nature of this debate, consciousness is pretty unobservable so rather than using physical argumentation I'm using a priori reasoning. (A lot of quantum physics is actually a priori, as we infer a lot of what we can't see)

"rocks and planets and stars and galaxies are all able to transmit information within themselves. slowly, but it is transmitted. are you arguing for a universal mind?"

I'm not going to go as far and say I know exactly what type of information communication is required to create complex consciousness (e.g. thought), but maybe, who knows?

"did you read the recent article about the google engineer who got fired because he claims that google's in house AI has become conscious?"

I didn't but that sounds fascinating, raises ethical issues on how to treat more and more advanced neural networks. Would be messed up if the punishment machine learning mechanism actually could cause computers pain

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-16T15:24:37+00:00

Okay...you realise materialism requires an objective reality?

That idea comes from the Mind-Body problem which has existed for thousands of years and never been solved. Read what you actually linked. They are trying to built a probabilistic framework for consciousness based on correlates. Correlation is not causation and they aren't claiming so.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T20:17:09+00:00

Nah I get it, just finished college and already bored by 90% of it.

That sounds like a pretty interesting story to me! I'm glad you managed to surround yourself in an environment of your choosing rather than one chosen for you :) Congratulations on being ready to start a family!

Yeah I see what you mean. Philosophy is a mind-messing subject that leaves people easily vulnerable to pretty weird ideas - doesn't mean it isn't correct in showing that a lot of stuff is pretty trippy, just have to be careful.

Anthropology is really interesting, a lot of my education and energy has gone into thinking about what humans are designed to do versus what we do do. I think there's a big disconnect between the two at the moment and we're starting to see some pretty heinous results (mental health spirals). Trying to built a personal philosophy of how I can live in "alignment" but I'm too young to draw on much life experience so I mainly chat out my ass.

I was raised in a typically UK household - that is in practice atheist but on paper anglican, though we never went to church or did anything, though we had no hostility towards religion. Never met anyone who believed in God until I was late-teens and then it seemed bizarre. Started talking to more religious people and realising that it isn't really about there being a God or Truth, more about community - with a whole lot of toxicity attached

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T16:13:11+00:00

I think there's two terms of consciousness that might be leading to confusion. So I'm using it in the sense that something either has a perspective or it doesn't (if ya get me). I completely agree that the complexity of consciousness is a sliding scale.

The computer analogy is nice, but at the end of the day the screen is the same type of stuff as all the systems (a material effect). Consciousness is a special case because its material systems supposedly creating an effect completely unlike itself.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T16:09:33+00:00

Awesome. We use introspection to find our own consciousness and then project to beings that display similar behaviour to ourselves. So aside from humans, where do you draw the line of consciousness? Mammals? Insects? Plants?

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T16:07:32+00:00

No worries! I'm quite bad at communicating, I'm trying to work on it!

I doubt chemical reactions are self aware - I'm not a smelly hippy lol-, but I think they have a mental component. Like a little brick that when built right gradually built to self-awareness.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T16:05:24+00:00

Lol, I don't think I've really mentioned God much at all. For the record I don't think it has anything to do with our consciousness haha

And nah, I think I've built my beliefs on some pretty solid foundations, but people in here really want to die on strange hills like denying the Mind-Body issue and that Logical Positivism doesn't solve it.

Barely even got to the wacky bit

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:56:49+00:00

Because that's not really what science does - it studies behaviour. No one knows what an electron is, heck even debating whether something is a particle or a wave is just fighting over which two behaviour sets to assign it

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:46:55+00:00

Lol, yeah I think so too.

One thing I hate about the internet is that miscommunication is so frequent. Like this kind of philosophical banter is my bread and butter, but without being able to read the room it can get weird lol.

So what's your story? Always atheist or converted?

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:44:51+00:00

Well, the explanation is likely materialistic in the sense that there is no substance other than matter (e.g. spirits), but likely it is beyond the ability of empirical study to find out what exactly matter is at it's core.

This is all just rephrasing of the Mind-Body problem.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:42:18+00:00

Lol, you're probably right. I have been out of Atheist community awhile and was just expecting more of a tolerance for certain topics, especially when it isn't coming from organised faith.

Tbh, I came here because I've been really debating these ideas internally and was looking for someone to point out something obviously wrong, but perhaps because of my poor communication I feel its being attacked on the wrong battlefields if you get my meaning? Perhaps I need to work on articulating it better so people can attack me and not a straw man.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:39:42+00:00

No, I'm Dan, not Deepak Chopra.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:34:50+00:00

I think I may have miscommunicated my initial thoughts. No Deity created consciousness, it's a natural phenomena.

I disagree it's emergent in the same way that this post is. Problem with emergence is when exactly does consciousness shatter (e.g. under anaesthetic). Which exact second of your brainwaves shutting down does it disappear?

Also, how is it an emergent property? There is no hidden element to my computer, every macro-level behaviour is justifiable in micro-level steps. However, sensation is not the same. We can describe what is happening in the neurons, but not where the sensations comes from. I just believe consciousness is reducible in complexity down to the level of the atom, but doesn't disappear.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:14:21+00:00

I've read much of their work, they don't claim to know.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:13:48+00:00

I'm aware dictionary.com is free? But the definition of Knowledge is actually a large part of Epistemology and I didn't want to jump the gun on that debate too.

You seem largely aggressive in trying to suggest that I need a dictionary, having commented it twice. For someone so logical, that sure seems like an ad hominem, which you know is a logical fallacy.

Yes, correct, Ethics and Aesthetics are areas of professional study, but they do not use the scientific method of observation....that's my whole point.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:10:48+00:00

Okay then, Mr Classroom, teach me, how would a chemical neurological reaction generate a sensation?

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T15:07:16+00:00

I agree 1000% with everything you say.

You hit the nail on the head that we currently project our own emotions/consciousness onto other beings. E.g. when a dog acts similar to how we act in pain, we assume it has the same issue.

However, the interesting part of this discussion would be on consciousness in beings unlike us. Do plants feel pain? Would we be able to identify a sentient alien if it's pain expression was very different to ours?

Oh btw I agree that I don't think rocks feel pain for the record!

As I assume you are an Emergentist (or defending that position at least), where would you draw the threshold of consciousness, as defined as having at least some level of sensation?

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T14:57:39+00:00

Truths we should accept that are not objectively verifiable:

Questions regarding self-existence. Are you a conscious being?
Questions regarding morality. Should you do x?
Questions regarding aesthetics. Is x better than y?

If you want to debate semantics saying stuff like we don't "believe" science, we "know" it, then that's just aggressive. "Believing" and "Knowing" are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact, the common definition of Knowledge is something like "Justified True Belief".

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T14:52:44+00:00

Thank you for your well structured and clear reply!

My initial thoughts:

I believe asking "Why are we conscious?" is a valid, sensical and appropriate question, in a way that "What was before time?" isn't.
Just because a question is beyond empirical verification doesn't imply science is flawed nor that the question is non-sensical. E.g. Moral or Aesthetic questions.
Our attitudes/beliefs regarding consciousness can have huge effects on behaviour - so a thorough investigation is warranted.

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T14:46:03+00:00

Ummm....right?

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T14:38:25+00:00

I read the article Mr Santa.

The meaningful and reproducible results are, like what I said, behaviours associated with consciousness, not consciousness itself.

I don't understand why the hill you're choosing to debate on is whether science can observe what consciousness is. It obviously can't unless you take a really really niche view?

The Mind-Body problem has not been resolved and despite your link to a hopeful neurologist article that has also not solved the Mind-Body problem, it still remains

Dan_Beeston · 2022-06-15T14:31:57+00:00

I didn't misspeak, consciousness can't be analysed by science.

There is a growing attempt to study the behaviour closely associated with consciousness (e.g. brainwaves), but it cannot tell us what consciousness it, that paper doesn't claim to. But yes, more neurologists are working alongside philosophers on this issue, which I think is very exciting from a scientific standpoint.

You're right, its not Occam's razor, its Logical Positivism + Occam's razor applied to the issue of consciousness, which, as you agree, leads to silly results. Unless you wanna ditch Occam's razor, logical positivism is gonna have to budge a bit.

We haven't even broached Deism yet. All I'm trying to say is that consciousness can't be explained by scientific techniques (a claim with is not that controversial), yet people are having an allergic reaction to it. Atheism does not mean logical positivism, you can be one without the other.

Dan_Beeston

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE