Death of a single-celled organism

[u/freudian_nipps]

[u/Upper-Project-3072]

Still made me sad, though

[u/AntSilly2802 → u/Upper-Project-3072]

Same. Why do I feel empathy for something without a brain, unable to suffer? I feel the same for dying plants. 

[u/edjumication → u/AntSilly2802]

Well we dont know for sure its unable to suffer. I prescribe to the idea that everything in this universe has some form of consciousness. The caveat is that consciousness is shaped by the complexity of the object. "panpsychism" is the term i believe.

Like basically a rock just exists and barely has an experience. We have a full experience, humanity has a very complex consciousness. This organism is somewhere between the human and the rock.

[u/BroPudding1080i → u/edjumication]

We don't even have a full experience, there are so many phenomenon we have proven to exist, yet cannot perceive ourselves. There are senses other animals have, that we don't. But the senses we do have, combined with our cognition and the ability to imagine, gives us the most complex understanding of ourselves than any other known creature. With the caveat that, the understanding we have is filtered through our senses and imagination, and not a fully accurate measurement of objective reality.

I'd like to ask, if something doesn't have any senses, no inputs or outputs, and no nervous system, how can there be an experience of any kind?

[u/edjumication → u/BroPudding1080i]

True. Maybe I misspoke when saying we have a full experience. Thats subjective and anthropocentric.

With the rock example. It has no nervous system but it physically reacts to its environment so there is a basic input and output. If you think of consciousness like computers, the consciousness in the human brain was always there, it just needed enough processing power to run a display interface.

[u/BroPudding1080i → u/edjumication]

I like that answer, and I think I'm on board with you. Still a little suspicious of the rock thing though, except the individual molecules that it's made of. I guess it's easier for me to comprehend if it has any kind of autonomous function, or functions as part of a larger mechanism.

[u/newyne → u/BroPudding1080i]

I think I can give a more detailed answer, because in my own formulation... Bare with me here, this is gonna take a minute to set up. There are different kinds of panpsychism, but the one I come a subset called cosmopsychism that says that experience is not a quality of physical entities themselves, but it's more field-like, and they inhabit each other. Actually, physical entities aren't fundamental, either, but they emerge out of intra-actions among quantum fields. Where physical stuff remains contiguous with the fields. But I'm still not equating experience to the fields, because I think you end up running into something called the combination problem, which is basically, how do a bunch of simpler entities combine to form a more complex one? Why shouldn't each entity just experience its own direct surroundings? There are related issues like, what's the simplest entity, and why? Why do boundaries exist? If matter can be converted to energy, does that mean that like sound waves are sentient? Etc. Plus, it doesn't make sense that something nonphysical would be limited by physical boundaries, and experience is nonphysical. Because it can't be described in physical terms, can't be observed from the outside. That's why I say "field-like" instead of saying it is a field; it's everywhere by fact of being nowhere by fact of "where" being an emergent property of physical relationality.

The idea is that sentience is "that which experiences," and physical process is "that which is experienced." Although I don't think it's that passive; I do think experience is like the experiential side of physical forces. It's unfalsifiable, but mystics speak to that kind of thing (which, mystic experience speaks to a lot of what I'm talking about, although I got to most of it logically). In the case of the rock: in my formulation, there may be some degree of experience, because it's not totally inert on an atomic level. On the other hand, it's probably not much. You also end up dealing with the question of, does it even have a macro-level experience, or it is it just like individual atoms?

My hunch is that organic process is different because new growth comes out of what was already there; there's an organic relationship among the parts. Whereas if you just smash a bunch of random parts together...

But that, too, is unfalsifiable. There's also still the question of why limitation exists, and I think... It's not so much limitation as, experience is happening at all levels, all the time. Like the cells of my body have their own experience, my experience is emergent from their experience and relationships, and perhaps so up. Sort of like, my experience is not limited to my hand, but also my hand can't see like I'm seeing. I'm down here typing, but I'm also up here looking.

[u/BroPudding1080i → u/newyne]

I find this very interesting, thank you for the detailed reply! I've been given a lot to think about, which is exactly what I wanted.

[u/InMemoryofWPD → u/newyne]

I usually staunchly dislike mysticism type phenomena, but what I do like about this here is it solves the conundrum of how do you experience the "lack of experience" (ie death). Consciousness as an emergent property really sucks because it gets fuzzy trying to figure out where it starts and ends.

Let's go back to your rock example, assuming a group of rocks and minerals somehow became conscious in the form of carbon and abiotically formed amino acids coming together still leaves the question, "where's consciousness here in this system?" Quite frustratingly, that problem carries upstream all the way past single celled organisms all to way to a 1-2 week old human fetus a getting formed that barely has a neural tube.

Its quite a pesky problem because it's a single quality that comes from an enormously emergently complex system that must somehow exist in some capacity throughout different stages of the development of that system, but its only measurable towards to end of that system when things are realistically FAR too complex to figure out where it comes from and how it happens.

I've questioned my own form of "panpsychism" without knowing the word because the belief any one organism can go from "not experiencing" to "experiencing" paradoxically implies "experiencing not experiencing". Which would only not be a problem if "the ability to experience" wasn't a single quality we were trying to apply only to a system of things (cells).

[u/newyne → u/InMemoryofWPD]

Oh, my line about emergent theory of consciousness is that it's logically still-born, because mental qualities do not reduce to physical qualities. Something defined strictly in terms of fundamental properties is never gonna give you something undefinable in those same terms by fact of its intra-action. There are very few things I will claim certainty about, and that's one of them.

Sentience isn't observable, point-blank. We take it for granted that others like us are also sentient like us, and I'm not trying to argue we shouldn't: it stands to reason that others like us are also sentient like us. But if you're looking for hard-and-fast physical proof, all appearances and behaviors could be explained in strictly material terms. Even if we could brain-link and perfectly experience what someone else is experiencing, how do we physically prove there's someone "in there" experiencing, and it's not something more like a computer-feed? I think a lot of people... Well, I used to think like this: acting on "free will" is logical proof of sentience. But then you're faced with the problem of, how do you prove the existence of free will? Which is exactly what I tried to do, and I ended up proving the opposite. I mean, we still have free will in the sense that we literally are the forces that constitute us, so it's not like we're being controlled; I think the entire issue arises from the idea that mind is a separate product of material reality, which, in that case, where the latter is prior to the former... But the point is that that which is without cause is random; the self cannot be independently self-determining because that's circular.

As for mystic experience, what strikes me about it is how it speaks to a lot of the same ideas I got to logically, and there have been instances where I didn't get it at first, only to realize much later, hey wait a minute, that just makes sense. Actually, being familiar with this line of thought is exactly why I've done well with philosophy. I was not expecting this at all based on who'd recommended him to me and why, but when I started reading Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy, it was immediately obvious to me that it was mystic shit. Like there's no missing it if you're familiar. Of course, that happened because Nietzsche was drawing from Schopenhauer, who in term was drawing from like Hindu thought, which, Hinduism is an overtly mystic religion? Philosophy? I dunno, its roots don't have the shit about getting better and better reincarnations based on how well you live your current life, and in fact when you think about it, that idea is totally incompatible with a philosophy focused on accepting and appreciating the present moment and letting go of outcomes.

But anyway, once I grasped these kinds of themes, I started seeing them every-fucking-where in philosophy and mythology. I mean, a lot of the former is basically logical treatments of mystic themes, and as for the latter... I mean, I look at something like the story of creation through the fall through the Christ story in the Bible, and oh my fucking God, the entire thing is about the problem of separation (which is necessary for existence, because relationality is necessary for process is necessary for meaningful experience), the ascent/descent into conscious thought, humans coming into being creators (as opposed to being defined by God/nature), what to do about this God-like/fallen condition... And the imagery in all of it is doing so much work, a lot of is working on multiple levels at once. I think a lot of this kind of myth has its origins in mystic experience, which tends to be in metaphorical terms, but if you analyze it on a literary level... It's way, way more than just, this is how people explained the world before science. It's actually way more sophisticated than anything else I've read or seen.

[u/InMemoryofWPD → u/newyne]

I'm pretty sure we do get each other and I understand you clearly. I would like challege one of your ideas:

"Plus, it doesn't make sense that something nonphysical would be limited by physical boundaries, and experience is nonphysical. "

I believe thats a very rational stance and I don't actually disagree with it, but I contend your mention of cosmopanpsychism can give a work around it in the way you've compared to a 'field". I'm not super well read in philosophy, but as far my views go, I buy heavily into substantivalist naturalist views. Within that view, time itself is an example of an abstract nonphysical field we can 'experience' thats limited by physical boundries.

Perhaps my logic falls apart if we dig deeper into it, but perhaps experience as a "field" could exist just as much as us treating time and history "as a field" thats inherited to every single object and point in the universe- that is - every atom has a innate history and experience of time that nonphysically exists along side it. If that is treated as a part of our field "experience", it could be a nonphysical thing limited by physical boundaries.

To push this idea even further though to address naturalist empiricism, the mystism aspect probably only works for me in the sense that the physical limits of our perception is bound by our inability to observe anything outside of own point of space and time. I argument I am trying to work towards here is to say just because we can't reduce mental aspects into physical ones, that doesn't mean it isn't a fundamental property. Maybe I can compare it to there being something before big bang. If such was the case, that'd mean whether or not we ourselves are limited by the bounds of our 4th-dimensional existence, something would by default have to exist outside it in order for there to be a "before the big bang". That existence would also be an example of a nonphysical thing limited by our own physical boundaries if it happened to be true.

I don't actually believe all of that, maybe only the logic if anything, I just thought itd be worth bringing up in the context of the conversation to see where that goes. Your ideas are just interesting with how they kind of aperfectly fit into my own. I'm not sure just how closely Freud follows along with Nietzsche, but that's where alot of my views are inspired and my understanding is they are similiar- if not, that might be why we differ if we do.

[u/newyne → u/InMemoryofWPD]

Well, when I say field-like, I mean it's ubiquitous and and it and the physical inhabit each other. It really isn't a field, though, because with fields there's something there. Whereas, my position on sentience is that it's exactly what it says on the tin: awareness. So it's not material in any way, shape, or form.

When it comes to time and space... I find myself in agreement with Karen Barad, who, I think I mentioned quantum field theory earlier? I know about it mostly from her, and... Actually, though, she's an outlier in that school of thought, because quantum field theorists tend to assume background space/time. Which is really more typical of those in the quantum loop gravity school, which seemed counter-intuitive to me at first, but then like I guess it makes sense that you would really only need such a thing if you're positing that relations precede relata. As in, if you already have relata, yeah, space/time is easier to conceptualize as emergent. In any case, yeah, that's where Barad and I fall: space/time is emergent from physical intra-action. Because space and time are inherently relational concepts. In fact I might argue that it's specifically the experience/measure of physical intra-action. In my view, sentience is everywhere by fact of being nowhere by fact of where as a concept not really making sense outside physical intra-action.

Well, panpsychism is the school of thought that both mind and matter are fundamental. As for the big bang, one going theory right now is that our universe is actually part of a much bigger one, akin to a cell in our bodies. That actually fits with mystic experience, too, because one idea there is that... The most striking way I've heard it is that existence is fractal in nature: you can keep zooming in and out into eternity.

Oh, yes, I noticed the similarities to Freud when I was reading Nietzsche, and the general consensus is that Nietzsche was absolutely an inspiration on him despite his denial. I was actually familiar with psychoanalytic theory first, and was struck by the similarities in like Buddhist and Hindu thought, and then Biblical myth. It's funny, psychoanalytic thought wasn't intuitive to me at first; I wondered how the thinkers came to these conclusions. It was really when I analyzed the story of Adam and Eve as myth that I saw the logic to it; it especially reminded me of Lacan, the mirror stage and all that. Which I think is still a bit literal, but I think there's something to it. Even postmodern thought, though: they don't want to talk about anything transcendent, but the influence of ideas like not self is loud.

[u/LilMissnoname → u/BroPudding1080i]

You can't really prove that we have a more complex understanding of ourselves than any other creature. We think our consciousness is superior because we have thumbs and can easily communicate with other humans. You have no way of knowing what an elephant thinks and feels. Or a houseplant. Or a lamp.

[u/LilMissnoname → u/BroPudding1080i]

Did Helen Keller have less of a life experience than you're having?

[u/BroPudding1080i → u/LilMissnoname]

Not necessarily, she was able to be told about things she couldn't actually experience, and she understood those things. But to a slight degree, I would say yes, I objectively experience more things than Helen Keller on a day to day basis.