Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Papus79]

I'd be curious on what it is that would have them see rocks as sentient. I'm probably more accepting of ideas that something has to be a self-organizing system for sentience to have a management role and to that end there might be 'something that it's like to be' most of organic life and perhaps plenty of systems that we didn't even know had it (ie. multiple realizability, even overarching canopies like egregores come to mind).

As for reincarnation, it seems like something has to be pretty well stapled together, which again in almost a Gurdjieff direction that it has to be an intensely integrated system for that integration to outlast a physical vehicle which might have scaffold it to begin with in which case those relationships still 'stick'. That's where, with rocks, I'm not sure you'd have reason for that sort of interconnection in simple amalgams, almost like when people flog panpsychism with 'are chairs conscious?' at which point you have to say not unless we've genetically engineered a plant to grow them fully formed.

[UniversalAlien]

Sentience

"What makes you think human beings are sentient and aware? There's no evidence for it. Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told-and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity, and the characteristic result is religious warfare. Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their 'beliefs.' The reason is that beliefs guide behavior which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion. Next question."
- Michael Crichton
{"Michael Crichton" (Quotes, The Lost World (1995))



"The important thing is: how much less you think of the body, of yourself as matter—as dead, dull, insentient matter;
how much more you think of yourself as shining immortal being".

- Swami Vivekananda

[Sculptor1]

Sentience

"What makes you think human beings are sentient and aware? There's no evidence for it....

The evidence is that you think you are sentient.

[Pattern-chaser]

General comment, not personally aimed at Sculptor1, but at him and all others who voice similar views regularly.

Why is it that philosophers have such huge difficulties when asked to generalise and broaden their thinking? Is flexibility of thought so difficult, or is it that this flexibility is considered ideologically unsound, I wonder?

Rather than pretend that you were not making a "personal comment"...

I wasn't. I meant exactly what my words convey; nothing more, nothing less. I communicate explicitly, without implication.

why do you not just say how a "rock is conscious" is demonstrable in some way?

The term used previously was "sentient". Now you choose "conscious", although you might've chosen "living", or another similar term. The trouble is, they all mean something a little bit different from the others. In this case, I think the idea is that the universe is a living thing, and a rock being part of it is therefore living too. [N.B. I'm a follower of Eastern philosophy, religion and mysticism, but I'm very far from an expert, and might well have this all wrong.]

[Sculptor1]

General comment, not personally aimed at Sculptor1, but at him and all others who voice similar views regularly.

Why is it that philosophers have such huge difficulties when asked to generalise and broaden their thinking? Is flexibility of thought so difficult, or is it that this flexibility is considered ideologically unsound, I wonder?

Rather than pretend that you were not making a "personal comment"...

I wasn't. I meant exactly what my words convey; nothing more, nothing less. I communicate explicitly, without implication.

why do you not just say how a "rock is conscious" is demonstrable in some way?

The term used previously was "sentient". Now you choose "conscious", although you might've chosen "living", or another similar term. The trouble is, they all mean something a little bit different from the others. In this case, I think the idea is that the universe is a living thing, and a rock being part of it is therefore living too. [N.B. I'm a follower of Eastern philosophy, religion and mysticism, but I'm very far from an expert, and might well have this all wrong.]

What is sentient??

"In June of 2016, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in favor of a dog named Juno, declaring that while animals can be legally considered property, they are still “sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear.” google

So if it takes a court of law to determine that a dog is sentient, in order to protect dogs against cruelty; does a court of law need to prpotect rocks from being smashed in a quarry too?
To say the universe is alive is an abuse of language. I'm all for having an open mind as long as your reason does not fall out of the hole.

[popeye1945]

Sentience. a shot in the dark, sentience is the mind's experience through a body of the physical world, in an effort to correlate experience with apparent reality, thus to react appropriately.

[Pattern-chaser]

To say the universe is alive is an abuse of language. I'm all for having an open mind as long as your reason does not fall out of the hole.

I would say it's the use of metaphoric language, not abuse. Reason does not evaporate just because we fail to stick to the literal use of words.

[Papus79]

So if it takes a court of law to determine that a dog is sentient, in order to protect dogs against cruelty; does a court of law need to prpotect rocks from being smashed in a quarry too?
To say the universe is alive is an abuse of language. I'm all for having an open mind as long as your reason does not fall out of the hole.

I think what's politically pragmatic here and what's actually true might be slightly different things (and I'm not sure where we'd get the ground assumption that the universe cares about our moral comfort with the rules of our set and setting as higher primates).

I think we'd be getting absurd if panpsychism catching on turned into a discussion over whether basalt should have UN rights. I'd worry more if we'd emancipated factory-farmed chickens and put them at the top of the intersectional hierarchy but I see no sign of that happening anytime soon and probably for good reason - we aren't in evolutionary competition (that we know of at least) with chickens so our attitude toward them is largely indifferent other than as food source and thus a raw material to process for food.

If anything we'd be looking at how our Manichaean philosophies on the universe helped give us a Bostrom paperclip maximizer for an economy, and perhaps we'd be paying more attention to James Lovelock on his complex systems Gaia hypothesis and slipping neoliberalism a valium.

I notice as well that a lot of the upstart physics 'Theory of Everything' types who are coming out as the credible final contestants are heading more IIT-like directions as well, for example listening to a recent Stephen Wolfram interview on Curt Jaimungal channel Curt asked him, after his processing the evolution of the universe through cellular automata rules, whether the universe was 'conscious' and Wolfram admitted that he thought it was 'intelligent' but that consciousness was actually a step down from consciousness (not 100% sure what he meant by that, my guess is something like that it's a processor perhaps more so than being the important stuff).

There's just a lot to chew on this territory and it seems like over the past five to ten years the amount of high-end content in this direction has been increasing rather than decreasing. It's also somewhat agnostic to physicalism albeit things are getting fuzzy enough that the definition of what physicalism means seems to need regular updating.

[3017Metaphysician]

Sentience

"What makes you think human beings are sentient and aware? There's no evidence for it. Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told-and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity, and the characteristic result is religious warfare. Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their 'beliefs.' The reason is that beliefs guide behavior which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion. Next question."
- Michael Crichton
{"Michael Crichton" (Quotes, The Lost World (1995))



"The important thing is: how much less you think of the body, of yourself as matter—as dead, dull, insentient matter;
how much more you think of yourself as shining immortal being".

- Swami Vivekananda

I realize that was a great work of satire , but just as a rhetorical exercise, or just for some plain old fun, most of us would say to Mr. Crichton;

"What makes you think you are" un-aware and not sentient? Human beings think for themselves because they are subjective beings. What are subjective feelings? Animals, primarily have emergent instinct. Humans, primarily have will; the will to live, have choices and be happy/sad, and have purpose. Yet as suggested by Mr. Crichton, another irony would be that if we are "stubborn", it's precisely because of that sentient existence and self-awareness. What makes a human have stubbornness you may wonder? Can we escape that "stubbornness"? Should we escape it, or accept it it for what it is? No pun intended, but next question(s).

1. Love
2. Wonder
3. Aesthetics; beauty/ugliness, colors, etc..
4. Intention
5. Happiness/sadness/joy/curiosity
6. The Will/live/die/exist/purpose
7. Ad nauseum

Do any of those things provide for human purpose? Is purpose driven by some level of sentience? What happens when humans are without purpose or have no reason to live? Is that instinct or self awareness? Human volition and love; why should one choose to love or not love, and are they aware of their own need for same? Why raise a family? Why choose to live and not die? Do other animals choose to live/die because they are sad?

...I don't see any "un-awareness" there Mr. Crichton

Carry on sentient Beings!

[Sculptor1]

To say the universe is alive is an abuse of language. I'm all for having an open mind as long as your reason does not fall out of the hole.

I would say it's the use of metaphoric language, not abuse. Reason does not evaporate just because we fail to stick to the literal use of words.

Why not just say what you mean~? Afterall is said and done all langauge is metaphor. Just choose a better word.

[Sculptor1]

So if it takes a court of law to determine that a dog is sentient, in order to protect dogs against cruelty; does a court of law need to prpotect rocks from being smashed in a quarry too?
To say the universe is alive is an abuse of language. I'm all for having an open mind as long as your reason does not fall out of the hole.

I think what's politically pragmatic here and what's actually true might be slightly different things (and I'm not sure where we'd get the ground assumption that the universe cares about our moral comfort with the rules of our set and setting as higher primates).

I think we'd be getting absurd if panpsychism catching on turned into a discussion over whether basalt should have UN rights.

Why not? Please answer!

I'd worry more if we'd emancipated factory-farmed chickens and put them at the top of the intersectional hierarchy but I see no sign of that happening anytime soon and probably for good reason - we aren't in evolutionary competition (that we know of at least) with chickens so our attitude toward them is largely indifferent other than as food source and thus a raw material to process for food.

If anything we'd be looking at how our Manichaean philosophies on the universe helped give us a Bostrom paperclip maximizer for an economy, and perhaps we'd be paying more attention to James Lovelock on his complex systems Gaia hypothesis and slipping neoliberalism a valium.

I notice as well that a lot of the upstart physics 'Theory of Everything' types who are coming out as the credible final contestants are heading more IIT-like directions as well, for example listening to a recent Stephen Wolfram interview on Curt Jaimungal channel Curt asked him, after his processing the evolution of the universe through cellular automata rules, whether the universe was 'conscious' and Wolfram admitted that he thought it was 'intelligent' but that consciousness was actually a step down from consciousness (not 100% sure what he meant by that, my guess is something like that it's a processor perhaps more so than being the important stuff).

There's just a lot to chew on this territory and it seems like over the past five to ten years the amount of high-end content in this direction has been increasing rather than decreasing. It's also somewhat agnostic to physicalism albeit things are getting fuzzy enough that the definition of what physicalism means seems to need regular updating.

Panpsychism is a theory that does no work. It seems little more than a bit of wished for magic in your life.
If panpsychism was false everything would appear exaclty as it does.
What's the point?

[Consul]

To say the universe is alive is an abuse of language. I'm all for having an open mind as long as your reason does not fall out of the hole.

I would say it's the use of metaphoric language, not abuse. Reason does not evaporate just because we fail to stick to the literal use of words.

I agree. For instance, when we speak of the birth and death of stars we're speaking metaphorically, since stars aren't literally living beings. (I'm talking about astrophysical stars, not about human stars such as pop stars, who literally are living beings.)

However, panvitalism/panbiotism—the view that everything has life/is alive—does use the concept of life literally, doesn't it?

[Consul]

Two different questions:
1. What is it to be sentient? (What does "sentient" mean?)
2. What is sentient? (What things are sentient?)

[Consul]

"The important thing is: how much less you think of the body, of yourself as matter—as dead, dull, insentient matter;
how much more you think of yourself as shining immortal being".
- Swami Vivekananda

The cemeteries are full of "shining immortal beings"!

[UniversalAlien]

"The important thing is: how much less you think of the body, of yourself as matter—as dead, dull, insentient matter;
how much more you think of yourself as shining immortal being".
- Swami Vivekananda

The cemeteries are full of "shining immortal beings"!

Not true - the cemeteries are full of dead bodies - "shining immortal beings" never die

In fact some pagan {Hopi Indians} and religious {Christian} mystic theology postulates "ascended masters" who may interact with the physical World even if they are no longer in it