Thread

1. _alternator_ · 1789739305 · focus · HN ↗

   Materialism implies Panpsychism. Not a surprise, but this is put forward in a confrontational way.

   The real question for Panpsychism is not whether something is or is not conscious, but conscious of what. If everything is aware, what is this thing we have that a rock doesn't seem to have (but LLMs might have)? I'm basically sold on the premise of Panpsychism, but we do have to recognize that when we say "consciousness", we aren't always talking about the same thing.

   1. mysecretaccount · 1789740585 · focus · HN ↗

      Panpsychism doesn't mean "everything is aware", it means the capacity for consciousness is material and common. Put my brain in a blender and the atoms are the same but I am no longer conscious.

      1. _alternator_ · 1789746316 · focus · HN ↗

         I really think the right way to look at this is as a matter of degree ('what is it conscious of) rather than whether it is conscious or not. The crux: if the capacity exists in all material but "something else" makes it conscious, then consciousness is outside of the material, right?

         The argument that consciousness suddenly arises due to a particular configuration of atoms is also suspect; all forms of consciousness we routinely accept are fairly robust to many configuration changes. It seems to me that consciousness hinges on the discussion of degree or content, not on the material form. A soup of atoms certainly could be aware, but not aware of in the same way that "I" am aware.

         1. mysecretaccount · 1789760614 · focus · HN ↗

            > The argument that consciousness suddenly arises due to a particular configuration of atoms is also suspect; all forms of consciousness we routinely accept are fairly robust to many configuration changes.

            Not true at all - consciousness appears to rely on an extremely limited set of configurations, relative to all possible.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.