Consciousness

[Disagreeable]

Here is my argument:

P1) Everything is physical
P2) Consciousness certainly exists
C1) Therefore consciousness is physical
P3) There can be no radical emergence
P4) If there can be no radical emergence then consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness.
C2) Therefore, consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness
P5) If Consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness, and consciousness certainly exists and is physical, then physicality must fundamentally be experiential
C3) Therefore, physicality must fundamentally be experiential
P6) If physicality must fundamentally be experiential then panpsychism is true
C4) Therefore, Panpsychism is true

[Alan V]

P3) There can be no radical emergence

First, the word "radical" is apparently meaningless in this assertion. Consciousness is not some separate substance. It is an evolved brain function.

Second, the assertion "There can be no emergence" is contradicted by the evidence.

For instance, life emerged from complex combinations of non-living matter. None of the elements which make up our bodies are alive by themselves.

Does that mean all non-living matter is really living? No it obviously does not.

Consciousness emerges from life, not directly from non-living matter. Non-living matter has no use for consciousness at all.

Consciousness emerges from non-consciousness every time we wake from deep sleep, a coma, or an anesthetic.

[Paleophyte]

P1) Everything is physical
...
C4)  Therefore, Panpsychism is true

Your conclusion contradicts your premise; therefore, you've done something wrong.

[Disagreeable]

First, the word "radical" is apparently meaningless in this assertion.  Consciousness is not some separate substance.  It is an evolved brain function.

So if there is only one kind of substance, then is that substance conscious or non-conscious?

Second, the assertion "There can be no emergence" is contradicted by the evidence.

We only have evidence of the experiential.

For instance, life emerged from complex combinations of non-living matter.  None of the elements which make up our bodies are alive by themselves.

But life can be explained in terms of non living parts. But subjective experience can't be explained in terms of non-subjective experience. Life from non-life isn't radical in terms of its emergence. Consciousness from non-consciousness is radical.

Does that mean all non-living matter is really living?  No it obviously does not.

Again, we can explain life in terms of things that are not alive. But we can't explain consciousness in terms of things that are not conscious.

Consciousness emerges from life, not directly from non-living matter.  Non-living matter has no use for consciousness at all.

Life doesn't have a use for consciousness either. We could react as if we were in pain, for instance, without actually having to feel it.

Consciousness emerges from non-consciousness every time we wake from deep sleep, a coma, or an anesthetic.

The consciousness emerges from the brain which is consciousness-involving. And just because we don't remember being conscious isn't evidence that we weren't or aren't conscious.

P1) Everything is physical
...
C4)  Therefore, Panpsychism is true

Your conclusion contradicts your premise; therefore, you've done something wrong.

That's not a contradiction. Under monism there is one kind of stuff and there is nothing stopping that stuff from being both physical and mental. Galen Strawson is an example of a panpsychist physicalist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but p3 and p4 are actually one premise, no? Radical emergence being the emergence of consciousness from total-non consciousness. If I have that right, all of the rest before and after is non operative, and thus not necessary to the conclusion. -If consciousness cannot emerge from total non consciousness then some form of panpsychism is true.

Does "total non consciousness" contain information, information processing, and information processing systems? I ask because that, in general, is what theorists believe consciousness arose from (and continues to arise from).

[Angrboda]

[Thumpalumpacus]

P1) Everything is physical
...
C4)  Therefore, Panpsychism is true

Your conclusion contradicts your premise; therefore, you've done something wrong.

The problem lies in the unsupported claim in P3.

[Paleophyte]

Your conclusion contradicts your premise; therefore, you've done something wrong.

That's not a contradiction. Under monism there is one kind of stuff and there is nothing stopping that stuff from being both physical and mental. Galen Strawson is an example of a panpsychist physicalist.

Ah, I see my mistake. You're simply assuming your conclusions in your premises. That isn't an improvement.

But subjective experience can't be explained in terms of non-subjective experience.

You're a pattern recognition engine that can recognize itself.

[Deesse23]

Everything is physical
The number one exists
Therefore the number one is physical

Consciousness is a process, an emergent pattern of the brain

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Here is my argument:

P1) Everything is physical
P2) Consciousness certainly exists
C1) Therefore consciousness is physical
P3) There can be no radical emergence
P4) If there can be no radical emergence then consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness.
C2) Therefore, consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness
P5) If Consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness, and consciousness certainly exists and is physical, then physicality must fundamentally be experiential
C3)  Therefore, physicality must fundamentally be experiential
P6) If physicality must fundamentally be experiential then panpsychism is true
C4)  Therefore, Panpsychism is true

Since P1 is false, C4 is false (or at least suspect enough not to be taken seriously).

Boru