panpsychism/cosmopsychism

[S. Kelly]

Is it possible for a human to exist, without any ability to ask questions? Internally, externally or both. Even when I try to ‘not think,’ I must be internally checking that whichever ‘storage unit,’ let’s call it ‘short term memory,’ for want of anything better/more accurate that I use to hold a thought, is currently, ‘empty.’ Such internal checking would be based on the question ‘am I thinking?’
If I concentrate on the number 2 or the colour blue or a cabbage or a king then surely I have to have previously-stored answers to the questions what is 2, blue, cabbage, king etc. It seems to be that it's all about asking and answering questions, from the moment of birth.
Is the main function of a lifeform such as a human, therefore, to ask and answer questions? and if so, then what would be the final goal of this?

Is panpsychism /cosmopsychism therefore an emergent property of the Universe? 
Panpsychism was supported by plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Bertrand Russell etc

The philosopher, Phillip Goff discusses panpsychism here:
http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/uploads/1/4/4/4/14443634/routledge_panpsychism.pdf

And he discusses the subterm cosmopsychism here:
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life

Dr Richard Gault (History and the philosophy of Science) discusses panpsychism here:
http://besharamagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Panpsychism-Richard-Gault.pdf

I have not read every word in these links but I am not currently convinced by either panpsychism or cosmopsychism yet but I do find the following idea very interesting:
The digital era has resulted in an ‘information at our fingertips’ situation due to the internet and the general advances in communication technology. This has also created an explosion of fake news and a global ability to fool ‘more of the people more of the time.’ However, I am more interested in the consequential, ‘the world is a smaller place,’ idea. It is feasible that as technology advances and if we do become more transhuman, in the future that we will become more of a collective (not in the Star Trek Borg sense of centrally controlled automatons) in our ability to share thoughts and could this result (at some point in the future) in the creation of some form of world, and then eventually, a universal, intellect, where we would still be individuals but also be capable of ‘connecting and collectivising’ our brain power.

[Peterkin]

39 minutes ago, S. Kelly said:

It seems to be that it's all about asking and answering questions, from the moment of birth.

Long before birth, at about 6 weeks after conception, the foetal brain is receiving input and making neural connections, learning to operate body parts, interpret sensations and store memories. By the time it is able to formulate a question, the brain already has a great deal of information to ask questions about.

 

44 minutes ago, S. Kelly said:

Is the main function of a lifeform such as a human, therefore, to ask and answer questions?

No. It's main function is to stay alive. That's the goal toward which the most important questions are directed. Once survival is assured for a reasonably foreseeable period, it has the leisure to pursue secondary, then peripheral and finally frivolous lines of inquiry. 

 

47 minutes ago, S. Kelly said:

and if so, then what would be the final goal of this?

Whether so or nay, there can never be a final goal - only the next goal.

 

48 minutes ago, S. Kelly said:

It is feasible that as technology advances and if we do become more transhuman, in the future that we will become more of a collective (not in the Star Trek Borg sense of centrally controlled automatons) in our ability to share thoughts and could this result (at some point in the future) in the creation of some form of world, and then eventually, a universal, intellect, where we would still be individuals but also be capable of ‘connecting and collectivising’ our brain power.

The only application I can see for such a technology is to achieve a specific, limited result. Like harnessing a team of 6 or 8 horses to a particularly heavy wagon, I can imagine linking a team of human brains to control machines that carry out some very complicated task far away -  like building a space ship on an orbiting platform, while the human "construction crew" remains safely (and cheaply) on Earth. Kind of like Borg, except they all return to Unimatrix Zero at the end of their shift.        

[Buai]

↑↑↑thats incorrect it's all in the blood. Tie a noose around your arm, a 'noose' doesn't slip like a 'hitch'

YouTube video removed by moderator

And you will now know that when blood flow is cut off, now you know that is what animates the body. Red & white go with redshift and 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Phi for All
No advertising, please.

[Peterkin]

Is this last post connected in some way to the first two? Or did you post in the wrong topic?

[TheVat]

I sense a translation difficulty with Buai.

I think Russell's neutral monism was one of the clearest definitions of a panpsychist theory.  I recall Dave Chalmers, perhaps the best known current supporter of panpsychism, much admires Russell.

If, as the Russellian view would have it, consciousness is structurally intrinsic to matter, then it would not be a big leap to posit that a universal mind (or some ground of being) already exists.  When we ask a question with our curiosity driven neural nets, we are focusing that universal mind.  The universe is looking at itself.  

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

The universe is looking at itself.  

Why does the universe need our puny little questions (What if I get caught? How many calories in that cupcake? Does this baby need changing? What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?) to learn about itself? If it was one big mind, it would already know. If it's made up of zillions of little tiny mind, such as a spoon, bacterium or asteroid might have, wouldn't they all be asking their individual puny little questions? I suppose all of those input as a vast cacophony of answered and unanswered questions could  inform the universe about its own multifoliate outward appearance. 

OTOH, I wonder about the difference between mind and mind-like aspect. It seem to me the latter is more akin to a soul than a reasoning, questioning mind. I'm okay with a universal soul; can provisionally accept monads of consciousness (not the sleeping animals or hive-minds) - but not one big computer whose ultimate task is to arrive at either 42 or "Let there be Light!"   

Edited February 24, 2022 by Peterkin
prep not conj

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Buai said:

↑↑↑thats incorrect it's all in the blood. Tie a noose around your arm, a 'noose' doesn't slip like a 'hitch'

YouTube video removed by moderator

And you will now know that when blood flow is cut off, now you know that is what animates the body. Red & white go with redshift and 

!

Moderator Note

If you post again to explain what you mean, please do so without advertising your YouTube channel, and please provide much more detail than "it's all in the blood". Your posts need to make sense so others can respond and a conversation forms. Assume people want to know what you're talking about.