RE: Why not deism?
September 15, 2019 at 6:09 pm
(This post was last modified: September 15, 2019 at 6:20 pm by GrandizerII.)
(September 15, 2019 at 2:02 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote:(September 15, 2019 at 1:49 pm)Grandizer Wrote: As for reason and volition, these are products of the nervous system and need not be explained by any sort of phenomena external to the human biology. We have very good explanations for how we come to produce reasoned responses, and we can appeal to computer AIs as good analogies to the human mind (except perhaps for the awareness part, which still has naturalistic explanations anyway ... such as panpsychism which I'm still not really sure about but it's there as an option).
Panpsychism is really interesting. I wonder how it is practically different from pantheism, though. If the universe is eternal and possesses psyche, it's like, the universe is a great cosmic mind.
There are many flavors of panpsychism. But not all flavors of panpsychism involve a cosmic mind.
Read this:
https://aeon.co/ideas/panpsychism-is-cra...bably-true
This one I am very very provisionally leaning to, so not very confidently. But nevertheless the exact type of panpsychism I am weakly adhering to is one where tables and rocks are not necessarily conscious (so slight disagreement with the article there), but one in which the basic elements of existence may have the starting point of consciousness (whatever that is).
And naturalism explains the origin of life pretty well actually, since life is simply a biological process explicable in terms of physical factors and processes. Even if we don't yet know the specifics of how life arose. Keep in mind life is not the same as consciousness. Bacteria are living organisms, but they are not counted as conscious entities.
As to why "something rather than nothing", we can say that something has to exist because absolute nothingness cannot be. Therefore, something necessarily exists. But that something could easily be in line with naturalism.