Kastrup, a philosopher and computer scientist, does not accept a Darwinian account of the evolution of consciousness and is is also sympathetic to the basic intuitions behind the idea that there is design in nature (intelligent design theory).
Panpsychists in science believe that nature is all there is but, they say, it includes consciousness as a fundamental fact of nature.
If consciousness is intrinsic to the nature of the universe, to say that consciousness evolved would be like saying that photons evolved: “The photon has the characteristics it does in order to maximize its chances of survival and passing on its genes.” Um, let’s go back to the top of the page, shall we? …
For a long while, Darwinians have been able to get away with claiming that human consciousness evolved to increase our chances of survival. The trouble is, that’s unlikely. The relationship between intelligence and survival is unclear. Or that it is some kind of a “spandrel,” an accidental byproduct of useful qualities. But that’s merely a statement of faith in Darwinism as the total explainer. It’s evening and the chickens are coming home.
Electrons cannot be conscious Sabine Hossenfelder’s view because they cannot change their behavior. Hossenfelder’s impatience is understandable but she underestimates the seriousness of the problem serious thinkers about consciousness confront.
Wow. This will be interesting to watch. Remember when AI pioneer David Gelernter bid Darwin goodbye? So far as we know, nothing bad happened to Gelernter. If nothing awful happens to Kastrup, we might have more reasonable discussions in the future of what consciousness even is.
In 2012, Italian theoretical biologist Marcello Barbieri resigned as editor of the journal Biosemiotics because he felt that research in this area had become unscientific.
Can you imagine that years ago? But the fact is, materialists are out of ideas about consciousness and don’t know where to go.
So did Coyne not give Goff the right of reply? Apparently, he would need a beaker of antacid to read the guy’s book…
Michaael Egnor: There is no doubt that consciousness is a fundamental property of animal and human existence. As philosopher Philip Goff notes, a philosophy that cannot plausibly account for it cannot be correct.
If you believe that nature is all there is and you can’t otherwise explain the mind, the mind must be part of nature and therefore electrons are conscious. Unless you want to say that the mind is an illusion.
Some prominent physicists and neuroscientists who cannot accept the idea of a separate immaterial reality (dualism) turn to the simplest alternative, that the whole universe participates in consciousness (panpsychism).
It’s the basic problem of the coffee mug. If naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” is true, either you and the mug are both conscious or neither of you is. The comments at BackRe(Action) illustrate the difficulty many have grasping that that is a serious problem.
Otherwise how do we explain this? From Matthew Olson at Digg: This Collaborative Map Of The Paranormal In Seattle Is The Best Thing Online This Week Founded by Seattleites Garrett Kelly (@boontdustie) and Jeremy Puma, the Liminal Seattle map is the region’s new go-to tool for tracking “fairies, ghosts, bigfoot, time travelers, extraterrestrials, ultraterrestrials, crow Read More…