Philosopher of science Peter Vickers puts forward his take on the recent IAI News standoff between panpsychism and idealism.
It is absolutely accepted that the philosopher should have a great respect for science, as an epistemological endeavour. On the face of it, both science and philosophy search for truth: scientists ask ‘big’ questions such as “Where did human beings ultimately come from?”, and philosophers similarly ask ‘big’ questions such as “What is the relationship between the mind and the brain?”. But whereas scientists sometimes actually reach truth (human beings evolved from more primitive mammals, which themselves evolved from amphibians, etc.), philosophers seemingly never do, and are doomed to forever go round in circles.
Looking back at the history of philosophy, it is usual to speak of ‘fashions’; for example, when we ask about the relationship between mind and matter, there was a time when dualism was in fashion, a time when idealism was in fashion, and another time when physicalism was in fashion. More recently, panpsychism is enjoying a great deal of attention. But it would be bold indeed to claim that philosophers are on the way to definitively solving the mind-matter problem, in the way scientists have definitively solved a huge number of epistemological problems. Of course, some Kuhnians would try to push back, saying that science is punctuated by revolutions. But this is a fallacy: only radicals on the fringe think the evolutionary theory of mankind’s origins will one day be overturned in a Kuhnian revolution. Similarly, scientists really do know where stars come from, how viruses and bacteria cause illness, and a hundred other things. (Open questions concerning the details remain, naturally.)
In light of this thought, what should we make of the recent debate between Philip Goff and Bernado Kastrup, concerning the mind-matter problem and the nature of consciousness? Two solutions are offered: panpsychism (‘mind is everywhere’), and idealism (‘everything is mind’). Even before we look at the arguments, it seems clear that these can only be suggestions, or hypotheses. What we find is that the two authors sometimes state explicitly that we ought to believe in their favoured proposal. But given that these are philosophical proposals this seems like an exaggeration. Whilst it might be agreed that – considered in isolation – there are some quite persuasive philosophical arguments for Goff’s panpsychism, or Kastrup’s idealism, we must always bear in mind that the very nature of the evidence for these proposals is the kind of evidence that, historically, has never been able to definitely establish something as a ‘fact’. Consider, for example, arguments for panpsychism appealing to ‘simplicity’.
Two solutions are offered: panpsychism and idealism. Even before we look at the arguments, it seems clear that these can only be suggestions.
This isn’t to say that there is an absolutely clear dividing line between what might be called ‘philosophical evidence’, and scientific evidence; scientists, in addition to experiments and observations, also make use of arguments akin to philosophical arguments, for example. Sometimes they even appeal to ‘simplicity’. So we should think of a spectrum, running from ‘fully scientific’ evidence on the one extreme, through to ‘fully philosophical’ evidence on the other extreme, with a substantial grey area in the middle. The crucial point is this: when one tries to place the evidence put forward for panpsychism and idealism on this spectrum, it certainly comes much closer to the ‘fully philosophical’ end of the spectrum. And that makes it ill-suited to settling a dispute.
Issue 93, 2nd December 2020
Join the conversation
Amelie Carter 11 December 2024
Idealism and panpsychism are fascinating perspectives that challenge traditional views of consciousness and matter. In science, exploring such ideas can open new ways of understanding reality. Similarly, platforms like crazy games provide innovative experiences, blending creativity and engagement, much like how these philosophical concepts aim to expand our understanding.
Adam Sara 1 10 December 2024
good
Ry Suraski 7 July 2024
Is metaphysics speculative????? If a bear shits in the woods, does it make a sound?
"The reasons [to find panpsychism reasonable] are ‘philosophical’ and so of limited persuasive power". I mean, yes, in the sense that literally every belief, including that scientists exist, or that the world has existed for longer than one second, or the experiments of empirical science ever occurred, are ALL mere philosophical propositions. Tell me, in scientific terms: why are some unfalsifiable, non-empirical philosophical beliefs "more sciencey" than others? Because they're culturally popular right now? Metaphysics can only use so much science. The issue with these metaphysical worldviews isn't that they aren't "based enough in science" because they literally have the aim of accounting for modern physics generally. That cannot be done via science. It's not logically coherent. If you hold the only confirmed-real camera in the entire universe, would you say it's impossible to know whether cameras exist because so far there's been no direct photographic evidence?
This whole article is a strawman. Dismissing metaphysical perspectives for not being empirical is like dismissing psychotherapy for having practical aspects that predate/are not based on the principles of neuroscience, which would limit psychology to whatever neuroscience has and could achieve. Or maybe more like dismissing all ethics that aren't codified into law as invalid.
Nobody has claimed that metaphysical worldviews are "based in science"- they are interpretations of the science, just like physicalism (also 0% empirical). Is this a weird, long-winded proposal that the entire field of philosophy must present a disclaimer before every statement that defines what philosophy is and carefully explains that it is not a natural science...?
Pooja Sharma 28 April 2023
Hi am pooja sharma accompanies relative which gives you best to best assistance with accompanies. Administration is constantly given on our site, at whatever point you need, you can get it on our site.
alisha kihn 6 April 2023
hi
Shreveport Masonry 15 November 2021
Idealism has got to be where we are right now!
ida sanka 2 September 2021
i really liked your article. Thanks for sharing such a wonderful post. [url="https://pestcontrol-spokane.com"]pest control near me[/url]
killer smile 2 September 2021
I really enjoyed reading your article. I found this as an informative and interesting post, so I think it is very useful and knowledgeable. [url=https://cabinetsoxnardca.com]Open here[/url]
killer smile 2 September 2021
Thanks a lot for sharing us about this update. Hope you will not get tired on making posts as informative as this.
[url=https://bathroomremodelingamarillo.com]bath remodeling amarillo[/url]
Rip Dip 29 August 2021
Each consumer is assigned a specific number on their credit report, coasttradelines.com which is known as a credit score.
Rip Dip 29 August 2021
An ugly and deteriorating concrete driveway could put a potential buyer off of your property, www.stlucieconcretecontractors.com or embarrass you in front of family and friends.
Rip Dip 29 August 2021
Needless to say, www.stluciepoolinstallers.com you can focus on more important things than this.
Rip Dip 29 August 2021
"Sample":https://example.com/
Rip Dip 25 August 2021
Newborns are always so nice, www.portlandbabyphotographer.com soft and cuddly.
Horea Kaii 3 August 2021
This question also gets me to think about what philosophers think too. This has gotten me.
[url=https://www.lipowiczlaw.com/]Dayton criminal attorney[/url]
alo max 13 July 2021
nice post [url=https://test.com/]test[/url]
bella rose 7 July 2021
This is such a great blog. Thank you for sharing your talent with everyone. You are an inspiration.
https://poolbuildersnewcastle.com/
Duncan Hemsworth 29 June 2021
Definitely never thought of it like this before but sure deserves some research. [url=https://www.towingwinnipeg.com/]https://towingwinnipeg.com[/url]
Markus Padilla 28 June 2021
This discussion should be based only on confirmed facts, and not on philosophical speculation and scientific assumptions.
[url=https://www.grandrapidsductcleaning.co]Grand Rapids Duct Cleaners[/url]
william pulley 12 June 2021
Idealism, panpsychist and science is still a great topic
[url=https://chappelleroofing.com/location/punta-gorda/]punta gorda roofers[/url]
Bobby Rencher 9 June 2021
Thanks to Peter Vickers for the distinction. It was clearly explained. [url=https://www.fortmcmurraycarpetcleaning.com/area-rug-cleaning]Carpet Cleaning Fort Mcmurray[/url]
Lucas Abbe 4 June 2021
It's quite difficult to awaken from a state of non-consciousness. The structure is all there is to physics. It can explain biology, but there is one missing piece: consciousness. <a href="https://abizlisting.com/">Local Business Listings</a>
Patsy Moore 2 June 2021
Do your research at [url=https://www.google.com]Google[/url]
Patsy Moore 2 June 2021
Do your research at <a href="https://www.google.com">Google</a>
Markus Padilla 2 June 2021
I believe we should not define consciousness, which is something that individuals are certain of, by theories about which we are not certain. (I mean, theories about which we can't be certain due to their nature.)
[url=https://www.cantordanielpincus.com/]Cantordanielpincus.com[/url]
geometry dash 28 May 2021
I'm so happy to be a part of this event. Learned a lot from the most influential people and brightest minds within the community as well as countless opportunities for networking, code sprints, and informal conversations.
[url=https://geometrydashfree.com/] geometry dash[/url]
Ryan Leonard 4 May 2021
This is the kind of content I'm looking for, It encircles my curiosity and finds it really really interesting! I dreamed to become a psychiatrist.
Ryan | https://www.junkremovalnorthaurora.com/
Carter Julian 28 March 2021
It is the dynamic process of science because science is growing day after day with the hard work of scientists who are working for it. The structures of https://artdaily.com/news/131321/Writing-as-a-kind-of-art#.X-HGWWgzaUm might get the importance. The scientists may think about it and make a search plan because it is possible to do it by heart.
Bob Edward 27 March 2021
This article gives me peace of mind and i am impressed with the information. Thank you for sharing this mind-blowing info.
[url=https://www.saclifecoach.com/contact-us]life coach[/url]
Bob Edward 27 March 2021
This article gives me peace of mind and i am impressed with the information. Thank you for sharing this mind-blowing info.
<a href="https://www.saclifecoach.com/contact-us">life coach</a>
Joe Anderson 19 March 2021
I learned a lot from this site. Perfect and detailed information about idealism. I'll definitely back here to read more articles after I fix my [url="https://www.roofbaltimore.com"]leaking roof[/url].
Jane Jones 1 8 March 2021
I think this is one of the best source idealism plus science. I have found what I was looking for, this [url=https://www.carrysmartmoving.com]house movers Ottawa[/url] have all the services I need.
tetris game 24 December 2020
Thanks for sharing this information. I really like your blog post very much. You have really shared an informative and interesting blog post with people.
<a href="https://cookie-clicker.io/">cookie clicker</a>
goalken highlight 19 December 2020
I really enjoyed this site. This is such a Great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. [URL=https://templerun3.co]temple run 3[/URL]
vicp 8 December 2020
What this argument points to is the epistemic ontological explanatory gap "of" or The Hard Problem". To the idealist there is the appearance of fundamental mind or consciousness. To the biologist all cell functions are underlined by the physical laws of nature. To a neutral physicalist it should make no difference whether we name this mind consciousness physics....For the philosopher the highest domain above the mammalian brain which evolved to operate the most complex sensorimotor system in nature is the human brain and system of social interaction or human language. Languages which share and direct the inner brain states or how nature solved the other minds problem. For the philosopher this highest domain claims metaphysics as the gauntlets of speculation which he hurls down like Zeus at the scientists. The scientists and engineers deal in a world of convenient language and concepts which enable their work. Galileo, Newton, Hume and others may have freed the scientist from the world of an appeared supernatural of gods and spirits. A world of language which socialized and directed humans for centuries. Galileo may have tried to isolate science and free us from the gap by landing us in the gap. Inside the gap we watch those neurons fire under a microscope and like the computationalist theorize that a philosophical zombie or computer can perform the same mind function without experience. Galileo may have solved a tree falling in the forest and nobody hears it, but what if the forest burned and nobody entered, would they feel heat? Heat and energy can be dismissed as Hume's billiard balls or neurons acquiring unique physical states by precise molecular interactions. The highest state of nature or consciousness as the lowest entropy organized states or informational states....fundamental feelings in organisms of hot and cold which evolve into higher mammals with multilayered neocortical structures which can extract metadata or metalanguage from more fundamental states.
Johnny O'Neill 7 December 2020
Without diving into the validity of panpsychism, I would point out that, as far as the ‘a tree falling in the forest’ thought experiment, a conclusion stating that since no one was there to experience ‘sound’ there then was no ‘sound,’ but only vibrating air, is logically incorrect for the simple reason that by that logic, there was no tree that fell, either, and indeed, no forest which contained a tree. If no experience of sound, no sound; if no experience of electromagnetic light waves, no sight. Indeed, the basis of the thought experiment itself is only valid if we assume an objective reality existing independently of experience, and which admits of the falling tree making a ‘sound,’ such assumption thus rendering the question itself moot.
Taking that further, Schrödinger's famous cat in the box thought experiment is the same thought experiment as the tree in a forest. If there is a cat in a box (the falling tree) that no one can see or hear or directly experience, is it alive (meowing)?
Lacking experience of the cat, there is no ‘cat in a box,’ so again, it’s a moot question. The experience of a ‘cat in a box’ is, at best, the memory of a cat being placed in a box. It’s analogous to René Magritte’s famous painting of a pipe with the words, ‘This is not a pipe,’ painted underneath the ‘pipe.’
It’s a painting, not a ‘pipe.’ It’s a memory of a cat, not a ‘cat.’ It’s the assumption that a tree is falling, somewhere, not a ‘falling tree.’
While questions such as ‘is it a pipe’ are curiosities in our everyday dealings, when applied to things like the interactions of subatomic particles, they can be of profound importance. What is ‘it’ that we are actually ‘experiencing’? ‘Subatomic particles’? Or, perhaps, “an ‘awareness’ of what is ‘termed’ an ‘interaction’ ‘between’ what we ‘call’‘subatomic particles’”? Or, perhaps, some ’thing’ else entirely…?
Hugh Manbeing 6 December 2020
.... I mean, let's face it, when you leave university with your philosophy degree, you've acquired the wisdom that the Marxists, the right wing press and the home secretary will allow you to have - and I don't think these people really know what the depths of human wisdom are.
For really exploring philosophy, there were better universities in India a thousand years ago. £27,000 for a modern philosophy degree - when there are mushrooms growing all over for free ? No thanks :-)
Vyacheslav Dianov 5 December 2020
Too much confusion and idle talk.
This discussion should be based only on confirmed facts, and not on philosophical speculation and scientific assumptions.
I suggest starting the discussion with the fundamental question - is the world objective or not?
This question raises the need for a rational explanation of the spirit world. Does the spirit, the soul really exist or not?
Hugh Manbeing 5 December 2020
....I should add that the relevance of extreme happiness is that it often is an aspect of non-dual experiences, but not always. Either way, if you were to survey scientists compared to people declaring an interest in non-duality or psychedelics, I think you would, generally, find a difference in depth of wellbeing both experienced and sought. A hunch.
Hugh Manbeing 4 December 2020
When they teach exploration of, and experimentation in, non-dual experience in universities we may get some clarity on these matters.
Hugh Manbeing 4 December 2020
...in fact, in this matter, academics have been hobbled by the superstitious prohibition on psychedelics and a cultural prejudice against extreme happiness, and so what we really have is a politically correct, socially obedient version of science and philosophy, with the real business being conducted off campus.
Ethan Bills 4 December 2020
Given the job of science - i.e., understanding the objective causal properties of physical systems - science is, by definition, not metaphysics. Indeed, unlike science, Idealism is a metaphysical ontology intended to answer what reality is, that is, the essential, underlying nature of existence; therefore, by definition, Idealism is not science. Peter, instead of merely dismissing Bernardos views and calling them unscientific, how about you actually address them based on their philosophical merit. From what I can tell, Idealism is by far the most parsimonious, explanatory description of reality, especially when considering that Physicalism can't answer for the sole datum of existence itself - phenomenal consciousness - and to survive as an accurate ontological description of reality must postulate an infinite multiverse. Perhaps it's time for you to take these views a little more seriously.
Vic P 3 December 2020
Very good article. I think what underscores the idealist and panpsychist position is a starting point. What "really" needs to be done is refine mind and consciousness as the reality problem. If in reality mind and consciousness exist at the levels of panpsychism or idealism, then how do our minds create our reality at this scale of objects, space, time, feelings, smell, sight....The physicalist approach may yield the proper data but the gap to explain this scaled reality still points towards the panpsychist idealist.