|
|
|
|
|
|
by krapp
989 days ago
|
|
|
Chemistry has its roots in alchemy, but that doesn't mean alchemy deserves to be treated with the same respect and seriousness as chemistry. Medicine has its roots in witchcraft but that doesn't mean witchcraft deserves to be treated with the same respect and seriousness as medicine. Astronomy has its roots in astrology, but that doesn't mean astrology deserves to be treated with the same respect and seriousness as astronomy. Philosophy isn't physics, and philosophy doesn't deserve to be treated like physics. The premise that panpsychism - which is essentially the basis for all animist and shamanic religions (the belief that all things have an innate mind or will) should be treated as a peer to relativity or quantum mechanics is absurd. I mean, quoting directly from TFA: Part of the appeal of panpsychism is that it appears to provide a workaround to the question posed by Chalmers: we no longer have to worry about how inanimate matter forms minds because mindedness was there all along, residing in the fabric of the universe. Chalmers himself has embraced a form of panpsychism and even suggested that individual particles might be somehow aware. He said in a TED Talk that a photon “might have some element of raw, subjective feeling, some primitive precursor to consciousness.”
We're to take seriously, as a scientific claim, that individual particles are aware and have feelings. That when a ball rolls downhill, it's because the ball wants to roll downhill. That when it rains, it's because Mother Earth weeps. It isn't gatekeeping to reject such nonsense, it's simply garbage collection. |
|
|