/lit/ - Literature

>>17492939
ur gay

>>17492939
This book is garbage. That is what I think. The Deepak Chopra recommendation at the top should tell you everything you need to know.

>>17492939
I'm not a cosmist, but pic related is one of my inspirations
his ideas about reevaluation the relationship between science, ecology, and christianity are truly beautiful
his rationale was condemned by the Church, and his philosophy fell into some occult and theosophical discourse I disagree with, but honestly fedorov was a visionary
you can find a file of his book "what was man created for" pretty easily

OP, you might enjoy "Mind and Cosmos" by Thomas Nagel.

I like it

is panpsychism just the sciencey version of Neoplatonism/Vedanta?

>>17494792
yes, and that's a good thing

>>17492939
I’d consider myself to be a panpsychist. If you are looking for a philosophically serious book, this one is excellent.

I don’t personally buy the notion of a universal mind. If you are looking for a philosopher who defends something like that, Philip Goff is making a career of developing that sort of position.

As for your pic related, I just downloaded it and read the first two chapters and it’s not looking promising. So far it’s mostly taking issue with the contemporary state of physics, but it’s just not convincing me even a little bit.

Like I get there point that a lot of the canned answers to the big questions in cosmology arent very satisfying, but that’s not because they are wrong, it’s because the full answer is well beyond the scope of random high school students.

And the criticism that quantum mechanics can’t possibly be true because ‘it makes no logical sense’, well it just seems like a case of ‘there exists more on Heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy’. Quantum mechanics is aggressively counter intuitive, but it seems to be astonishingly predictive, so the problem is with our intuition.

>>17494838
That something can predict consistently doesn't mean the mechanic given is correct.

>panpsychism
ultra mega cringe, bro. How the fuck are you going to tell me that a rock thinks? What possible evidence, observation, or theory do you have that isn't just some wishful thinking that helps patch up a botched substance metaphysics?

Too reductionist. Look into cosmopsychism

might want to check out panentheism OP

>>17495179
we knows rocks think because shamans have been talking to them for thousands of years

>>17495262
and all they got was an echo. Lay off the psychedelics, brother.

spinoza’s ethics, tielhard de chardin, matter and memory- bergson

>>17494892
Sure, but the case that book presents it nothing more than ‘it’s weird therefore it can’t be true!’

>>17495179
For me it was the only possible result remaining if you take the China Brain and the Knowledge Argument straight.

Consciousness is real. Functionalism is false. If consciousness dorsnt arise from functional organization alone, it must be that at least some component matter as a proto-mental aspect.

My own panpsychism is extremely modest. All I’m saying is that at least some fundamental particles must have a proto mental aspect as a basic property.

It's nice, I guess, but I just can't buy his arguments. Panpsychism is okay in that it would provide answers to a lot of things if it was true, but there's absolutely no way to prove it.

>>17492939
Read >>17494838 instead.
But honestly panpsychism is hard to believe for the same reason reductive materialism is hard to believe.

>>17495380
Doesn't Jackson himself now reject the knowledge argument? And what's your position on china mind and why?

And how do these lead to panpsychism?

>>17494838
>>17495672
Isn't Brünetrup a hardcore evangelical?

>le klages title

>>17495179
>How the fuck are you going to tell me that a rock thinks?
>consciousness = thinking

What is /lit/'s opinion on Stoljar?

>>17495179
>a rock thinks
boy howdy are you retarded lol

>>17497026
yup

>>17497465
yeah panpsychists are pretty silly, right?

>>17495870
I have no idea. If he is it doesn’t show in the book. It’s just an anthology of papers on panpsychism and I think it covers the subject pretty well.

>>17495782
I think he does but I don’t really understand his reason for doing so. The main thing that argument demonstrates to me is that phenomenal consciousness is real. I take it as defeating elimativism basically.

My position on the China mind is that it wouldn’t be conscious. Although I admit that’s basically just intuition. But when you imagine a person rolling a rock around in a field according to the rules of logic gates, if functionalism is true, then that activity in principle could also produce a conscious experience.

You can instantiate computation in such bizarre and abstract things, I just couldn’t imagine as having conscious experience. When faced with the choice between saying there is something that it is like to be a billion men waving flags at each other in the right way versus there is something that it is like to be a proton, I find the latter a smaller leap.

If you think about a proto-mental property as being akin to something like having an electrical property it becomes not so counter intuitive in my option. All matter has some relationship to the electromagnetic force, be it positive, negative, or neutral. But it’s only in certain circumstances that that force aggregates to some macroscopic property. A rock is functionally electrically inert, even if all its atoms have electrical properties. But copper on the other hand is very different, and when formed into a wire it have specially electrically macroscopic behaviour. Similarly most matter might have some extremely insignificant proto-mental aspect, but it’s only when the right matter gets put in right form that something like real consciousness appears.