The main reason panpsychism is invalid?

Article:  

"....several philosophers have suggested panpsychism as a solution to the mind–body problem.....Their view is not entirely crazy, or at least it’s a bit less crazy than materialism.

However:

Consciousness always has an object, something to which it points. Thoughts are always about something. Thinking things (animals, humans) have the power to think about things. This property of “aboutness,” called intentionality by philosophers, is the hallmark of consciousness. Inanimate things have no inherent power of intentionality; they are never about anything. They merely exist.
...........................
...(Thus) to have a mind, an object must have sense organs. Animals with eyes and ears can grasp forms and think about them. Objects without sense organs have no access to forms and thus cannot think. Interestingly, this implies that living things with rudimentary sensation (photoreceptors on plants, chemoreceptors on bacteria) do have the potential for rudimentary thought.

That raises interesting questions about the nature and quality of thought in lower forms of life. But it is at least reasonable to infer that thought is possible for any living thing that has the ability to sense the environment. In fact, “sensation” implies experience of some sort, however rudimentary. So particles like electrons and larger inanimate things aren’t conscious because they have no sense organs, and thus have no access to forms external to themselves. They cannot think about anything because they cannot sense their environment and cannot access information external to them. Consciousness presupposes content and subatomic particles, like all inanimate things, lack access to content."

Another reason:
Electrons and other elementary particles don't have the informational substructure (bit-holders) needed to take in and process the information needed for consciousness. In other words, they don't have any sort of brain whatsoever. At least living cells have a rudimentary ability to sense and respond to their environment, undoubtedly traceable to complex subcellular organelle-like structures.

Article:  


Another reason:
Electrons and other elementary particles don't have the informational substructure (bit-holders) needed to take in and process the information needed for consciousness. In other words, they don't have any sort of brain whatsoever. At least living cells have a rudimentary ability to sense and respond to their environment, undoubtedly traceable to complex subcellular organelle-like structures.

So a (human) brain is a prerequisite for (human) consciousness?

So a (human) brain is a prerequisite for (human) consciousness?

I have to admit I had the same thought - it sounded as much an argument against human souls as it did panpsychism.

So a (human) brain is a prerequisite for (human) consciousness?

The meaning is that both sense organs and brain structures are necessary for consciousness to manifest in the physical.

The meaning is that both sense organs and brain structures are necessary for consciousness to manifest in the physical.

But the argument does call into question the necessity of the organs if there is a soul.

After all, if the soul doesn't need sensory organs - why does the electron? Because it is instantiated in the world? But then what is the relationship of the soul to the body & the world?

I mean one can say the Form is the Soul that provides shape to matter...but even this becomes a challenge - when the the body dies why does the Form persist as a kind of "subtle body"? And if the Form holds the immaterial aspects of Mind including Intentionality, why can't the electron possess a "lower grade" Intentionality with its Form given every material thing under this classic philosophy needs Form to hold/shape/distinguish substance (the material cause)?

I mean one can say the Form is the Soul that provides shape to matter...but even this becomes a challenge - when the the body dies why does the Form persist as a kind of "subtle body"? 

Oh my. I have been mulling over starting a thread on this very topic for a while now but my thinking is still a tangled mess. In short, it was all to do with the nature of the afterlife and why, according to various accounts, we continue in human form in a non-physical environment.

It seems to me that the particular restrictions of physical life require a physical vehicle. The fact that this form persists into another realm may have more to do with identification with the form rather than necessity. But, as I said, my thinking is not clear yet.

Oh my. I have been mulling over starting a thread on this very topic for a while now but my thinking is still a tangled mess. In short, it was all to do with the nature of the afterlife and why, according to various accounts, we continue in human form in a non-physical environment.

It seems to me that the particular restrictions of physical life require a physical vehicle. The fact that this form persists into another realm may have more to do with identification with the form rather than necessity. But, as I said, my thinking is not clear yet.

This thread might be of interest to you.

This thread might be of interest to you.

Thanks. I don't always have time to follow all the links and that thread slipped past my attention anyway but I'll certainly take a look at the essay.

So a (human) brain is a prerequisite for (human) consciousness?

Yes. That is why being a human is a unique experience and is so valuable to the edification of the universal hive mind. And that is why ghosts always seem a bit off in their mannerisms and that's why aliens and angels have to get on a waiting list, go through pre-life counseling, and put down a $50 deposit to incarnate here.

Yes. That is why being a human is a unique experience and is so valuable to the edification of the universal hive mind. And that is why ghosts always seem a bit off in their mannerisms and that's why aliens and angels have to get on a waiting list, go through pre-life counseling, and put down a $50 deposit to incarnate here.

I've seen and heard this said so often but never so succinctly nor amusingly.