- June 8th, 2019, 1:57 pm
#331983
"If we want to understand consciousness and its basis, we should study its source—neural activity at its most rudimentary level, and then track the phenomenon, step by step, through to its more advanced manifestations, ultimately to us humans. So the approach would be the same as the one we have taken in addressing the problem of abiogenesis—start simple. A fascinating scientific journey awaits us."
(Pross, Addy. What is Life? How Chemistry becomes Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 178)
Good idea, but you shouldn't start too simple and look for consciousness in nonbiological systems (nonorganisms) lacking a nervous system: single subatomic particles, atoms, or molecules; or pebbles, stones, rocks, mountains, puddles, ponds, lakes, oceans, dunes, deserts; or planets, stars, galaxies, the cosmos (as a whole).
"Panpsychism is surely one of the loveliest and most tempting views of reality ever devised; and it is not without its respectable motivations either. There are good arguments for it, and it would be wonderful if it were true—theoretically, aesthetically, humanly. Any reflective person must feel the pull of panpsychism once in a while. It’s almost as good as pantheism! The trouble is that it’s a complete myth, a comforting piece of utter balderdash. Sorry Galen [Strawson], I’m just not down with it (and isn’t there something vaguely hippyish, i.e. stoned, about the doctrine?)."
(McGinn, Colin. "Hard Questions: Comments on Galen Strawson." Journal of Consciousness Studies 13, no. 10/11 (2006): 90–99. p. 93)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars