-2

If consciousness is essential to the universe then there is no problem. Integrated information theory posits that consciousness and its causal properties are identical. Leibniz's principle of indiscernibles indicates that when the difference between two things is indiscernible then the two things are identical. This would apply to consciousness and the illusion of consciousness.

Meanach
  • 2,337
  • 7
  • 36
  • 1
    The hard problem of consciousness, in its formulation for physicalism, is to explain what distinguishes conscious from non-conscious states of matter. Making all states conscious, as in panpsychism, resolves this formulation, but only shifts the problem elsewhere. It becomes to explain how undetectably "conscious" chemicals "assemble" into unified conscious mammals instead of keeping their individual "consciousnesses" separate. This is called the combination problem for panpsychism. Hard problems are not solved so easily. – Conifold Oct 29 '23 at 10:22
  • 1
    This isn't a question; it is an invitation for a debate. – David Gudeman Oct 29 '23 at 11:40
  • doesn't make any sense. A and B are identical. if they are indiscenrable, then they are identical. so they are identical. what? –  Oct 29 '23 at 20:41
  • I am sorry but I do not understand. If the difference between two things is indiscernible, according to Leibniz, then they are identical. So it makes no sense to say that something is something other than what is is apart from an indiscernible difference. This seems to me to be the argument about the difference between consciousness and the illusion of consciousness. – Meanach Oct 30 '23 at 09:35
  • There is a question, but I take your point. It is unarguable that philosophy is a subject of debate. – Meanach Oct 30 '23 at 09:36
  • @Conifold Dual consciousness can arise in human by splitting the hemispheres of the brain. The person had one consciousness before surgery and if the surgery were somehow reversed the two consciousnesses would presumably combine. I cite the quasi-neural characteristics of slime moulds. Slime moulds can combine to produce a multicellular entity with brain-like behaviour and activity. To clarify, there is no dichotomy between conscious and non-conscious matter. This begins at the quantum level. – Meanach Oct 30 '23 at 09:45
  • This is just a description of what happens, not an explanation of how and why it happens. Physicalists can similarly say that some material organisms are known to display what is called "consciousness". This observation no more solves the hard problem than yours solves the combination problem. – Conifold Oct 30 '23 at 10:10
  • @Conifold I have provided scientific evidence casting doubt on the combination problem. This is a scientific argument, not a description. In that case, the combination problem does not support the hard problem. To say that physicalists have noticed consciousness in organisms is merely an observation. Panpsychism posits that consciousness is universal. Therefore, how and why it occurs in humans, for example, is self-evident. Panpsychism provides a theoretical framework for this. It appears counter-intuitive to physicalists. This is not an argument against it, any more than Einsteinian physics. – Meanach Oct 30 '23 at 11:13
  • One cannot cast doubt on problems, only on claims, and evidence only helps once there is a theory. A panpsychist theory should tell us when consciousnesses combine, when they do not, and how it happens, just as a physicalist theory should tell us when and how it emerges out of matter. At present, neither side has much to offer. "Positing" that consciousness is universal is as superficial as "positing" that it is an illusion. We need less "positing" of stale ideas that have been around for a century with endless debates that go nowhere, and more nuts and bolts outside the old boxes. – Conifold Oct 30 '23 at 11:34

1 Answers1

6

Yes, it's a problem because we don't have a satisfactory explanation for how consciousness arises from the physical events in our brains. Saying that consciousness is essential for the Universe comes no closer to providing an explanation than saying motion is essential for the Universe as an explanation for how my car works.

Marco Ocram
  • 20,914
  • 1
  • 12
  • 64
  • Thank you. With respect, your first sentence is irrelevant to my question. Panpychism is not peculiar to human brains. A rebuttal of the proposition requires evidence, not an invalid analogy. I made no assertion. I simply proposed a subject for debate. In terms of physical evidence, I urge you to research quantum entanglement as a possible example of consciousness at the quantum level. – Meanach Oct 29 '23 at 09:26
  • 2
    Marco's first sentence directly addresses your question. Perhaps you should rephrase your question if you're looking for a substantially different type of answer. The 'hard problem of consciousness' is 'the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious' (IEP). It is a 'hard' problem, largely because we're not sure yet how to go about solving it. We have ideas via neuroscience, but - a Marco says - no sufficient explanation as yet. He never stated panpsychism 'is peculiar to human brains' (which would be a contradictory statement). – Futilitarian Oct 29 '23 at 09:59
  • 1
    For a decent debate about panpsychism, see Sean Carroll & Philip Goff Debate Is Consciousness Fundamental?(if you haven't already). See also What is hard about the hard problem of consciousness?, an earlier SE question. – Futilitarian Oct 29 '23 at 10:12
  • 3
    @Meanach with the greatest possible respect, the vague possibility that quantum entanglement might be associated with consciousness, is nowhere near a satisfactory explanation of why I see what I call yellow when I look at a daffodil, or why a particular set of chemical activities in my brain helps me understand general relativity. We are nowhere near having an explanation for such things, which is why consciousness is an unsolved problem. – Marco Ocram Oct 29 '23 at 10:48
  • +1 good answer. The fact that experience exists at all is a deep mystery. – Annika Oct 29 '23 at 16:48
  • Fair enough. I merely posit the possibility. Integrated information theory posits that consciousness is identical to its causal properties. Leibniz's principle of indiscernibles indicates identity between indiscernible properties, for example consciousness and the illusion of consciousness. Quantum entanglement was just an example. My interest is in the possibility of universal consciousness, not human consciousness in particular. – Meanach Oct 29 '23 at 18:06
  • Thanks for helpful suggestions. I agree that qualia are hard to explain, but essentially it is all we can know for sure. – Meanach Oct 29 '23 at 18:59
  • 1
    @Meanach "I simply proposed a subject for debate." That is not how this site functions. It's a Q&A site like all the other SE sites, not a debating forum. – Hokon Oct 29 '23 at 19:41
  • @Hokon I take your technical point about this site. Philosophy is certainly a subject for debate. – Meanach Oct 30 '23 at 09:47