I hope I have made clear to regular readers of this humble mind that I am not a believer in panpsychism. My own view of the mind-body relation, on the other hand, is a form of emergentism, which ends up in a place quite similar to old-fashioned mind-body dualism and interactionism.
But I did find of interest a recent paper's breakdown of the three broad arguments for panpsychism: the continuity argument, the Hegelian argument, and the Agnostic argument. In brief that means:
1) Continuity. All matter must have some element of mind in it because otherwise there would be a radical and incomprehensible discontinuity in the history of matter in the world.
2) Hegelian. Panpsychism offers a sort of dialectical synthesis between materialism and dualism with the upside of each and the downside of neither.
3) Agnostic. No idea of the intrinsically non-experiential [something neither mental nor proto-mental] could even be intelligible to us.
The overall point of the paper is that the sort of panpsychism with which one ends up depends upon how one gets there, and these three arguments do not lead to the same place.
The author, Jacek Jarocki, says "I hold that there are reasons to prefer panpsychism based on the Agnostic Argument" to the other sorts. If one follows that sort of argument, then, one gets a panpsychism he calls Russellian, after Bertrand Russell.
I suppose broad arguments are fine. Philosophy must have had those from the get, and because of doubt and uncertainty, philosophers can, sometimes do, argue until the proverbial * cows come home*. Some of those sacred bovines never get on their homeward path. I am a pragmatist, ergo, I prefer fact to argument and/or conjecture. James has always held a sacred place in MY heart. And justly so. Argument is often made for its' own sake, and also so, I think, that is good enough for many---it keeps minds active and lives interesting. For my part, there needs be a point, beyond that of mental exercise and an active life. Settlement of an argument needs to lead to some useful outcome. If not, it is mostly hot air. I have no interest in panpsychism, and have said so before, though not here, as best I can recall. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteJames actually did care about the issue of panpsychism, though he was quite ambivalent about it. He raised the issue of the "compounding of consciousness" in a way that complicates some panpsychic arguments. For example, if I believe that separate neurons are themselves conscious, [and, if I'm a panpsychist, why not?] I may want to see my own consciousness as the "compounding" of that of the consciousnesses of each neuron in my brain. But, as James noted, this isn't even remotely plausible. One can have five people in a room. Person 1 may be thinking of the name "Mary" -- person 2 of the word "had" and so forth ... person 5 of the word "lamb". But they don't compound by themselves. The sentence "Mary had a little lamb" exists nowhere in that room!
DeletePost Note(s): Several would-be philosophy intellectuals have gotten their toes chewed in the shallow piranha pond of panpsychist malarkey. I won't name names, because anyone who needs or wants to know who these folks are, already knows. Uh, as Dennett might have said: ding! People change their minds. "People" includes philosophers, old, young, smart, dumb. It is contextual, because contexts change, about every ten years. And that, amigos, is the result, of re-invention founded upon change, essentially epistemology. Cheers to Chalmers; Goff and Kastrup. Oops...lo siento, pero, no muy mucho, mes amis. My feet don't bleed---or hurt much---yet. No worries, mates It depends on context. Constantly changing see... A friend, in the Netherlands agrees: it is complicated. Thanks, Henk!
ReplyDeleteInteresting, Chris. Meaning gets foggy in statements such as "Mary had a little lamb". Oh, I know: it is straight forward enough, insofar as if one is an English speaker, Mary having a little lamb means Mary is in custody of, has protection rights/privileges over custody of a young animal, with thick, white, wool, and, sub-human. Of course, we all know this. Because it is assumed and, contextual (ding!), within our understandings of Mary and lamb(s). But, if I am from planet Xenon, all such bets are off, possibly even bets on panpsychism. I am not from Xenon, and, you are not, I assume, either, so the Mary/lamb relationship is a no-brainer. I am probably missing the point here. But, that is part
ReplyDeleteof my reasoning for thinking about the contextual reality thing. That position is, in my opinion, big trouble for everyone: war and ensuing death emerge from it---consistently. Things are happening now that are morally and ethically abhorrent. This is not new, no. But, it is worse to what was once the case.
One more remark and I will be quiet on this. Mary had a little lamb can also mean she sat down to a dinner of lamb chops, garlic-seasoned mashed potatoes and rutabaga and asparagus. Dessert, optional...
ReplyDelete