RaymondPierreL3, to random
@RaymondPierreL3@aus.social avatar

“The new declaration, signed by biologists and philosophers, formally embraces that view. It reads, in part: “The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles, amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects).” Inspired by recent research findings that describe complex cognitive behaviors in these and other animals, the document represents a new consensus and suggests that researchers may have overestimated the degree of neural complexity required for consciousness.”

https://www.quantamagazine.org/insects-and-other-animals-have-consciousness-experts-declare-20240419/

ninokadic, to philosophy
@ninokadic@mastodon.social avatar

My video on my recent paper 'Monadic Panpsychism' is now available on the New Work in Philosophy YouTube channel!

So, if you're interested in my take on panpsychism, take a look. Make sure to subscribe for more! 🎥

https://youtu.be/zWzDIHvdWsM?si=gWLDtulygSDoqipf

@philosophy @philosophyofmind @academicchatter

ninokadic, to philosophy
@ninokadic@mastodon.social avatar

My paper got published in Synthese! 🥲

“Inspired by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s metaphysics of monads, I will focus on a relational explanation of how simple subjects could constitute complex experiences, without them having to combine in virtue of their subjectivity. I call this view monadic panpsychism.”

You can download it for free here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-023-04464-0

@philosophy @philosophyofmind @academicchatter

ninokadic, to philosophy
@ninokadic@mastodon.social avatar

The opprobrium panpsychists sometimes face is shocking. Yet, on the other end, I rarely see other theories receiving such spirited support. Maybe the fact that it's so polarising speaks volumes of its epistemic value, at the very least as a deep and thorough critique of established mores in literature on consciousness 🧠

@philosophy @philosophyofmind

ninokadic, to philosophy
@ninokadic@mastodon.social avatar

My paper is also available to download, for free, on PhilPapers, so if you're interested in have a look! 📚

Apart from being unaffected by the seemingly insuperable issue of subject combination, I will demonstrate that monadic panpsychism also has tools to address other kinds of the combination problem. That alone justifies the need for a new formulation of panpsychism, one which faces unique difficulties but also offers unique solutions.

Link: https://philpapers.org/rec/KADMPF

ninokadic, to philosophy
@ninokadic@mastodon.social avatar

In the future, I'd like to find myself in something other than because I don't exactly like the sort of attention it's getting, or what the theory is becoming, especially in popular discourse (but also, to a certain extent, in academia). I think I'll delve more deeply into the physicalist and cognitive science side of things when it comes to consciousness 🧠

@academicchatter

nino, to philosophy

Hi everyone, this is my second profile, which I plan to turn into an educational project in the near future. I'm not yet sure on the specifics, so I'm open to suggestions! 🙏🏻

My main profile: https://mastodon.social/@ninokadic

@academicchatter @academicsunite @academiccommunity @philosophy

ninokadic, to philosophy
@ninokadic@mastodon.social avatar

Shhhh… Sneak peek of my video on panpsychism before it's officially out! 👀

If you're interested, here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfXl-xtKjt8

Please let me know what you think! 🙏

@philosophy

ninokadic, to philosophy
@ninokadic@mastodon.social avatar

If anyone still has Twitter and they want to help me out with metrics, apparently they count tweets about papers, sooo... If you find my new paper interesting, insightful or so bad that you can't believe it got publish, please considering tweeting a short review and link to it 😀

Here's the paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-023-04464-0

ninokadic, to philosophy
@ninokadic@mastodon.social avatar
appassionato, to books
@appassionato@mastodon.social avatar

Galileo's Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness

From a leading philosopher of the mind comes this lucid, provocative argument that offers a radically new picture of human consciousness—panpsychism.

@bookstodon





nathanlovestrees, to animism
@nathanlovestrees@disabled.social avatar
persagen, to random
@persagen@mastodon.social avatar

Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?
Physicists and philosophers recently met to debate a theory of consciousness called panpsychism
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-part-of-the-fabric-of-the-universe
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37715145

mdc, to random
@mdc@mstdn.ca avatar

"Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?" - Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-part-of-the-fabric-of-the-universe/

danfalk, to random

Scholars recently gathered to debate the problem of -- and the idea of in particular -- at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
My latest for Scientific American: @sciam_bot https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-part-of-the-fabric-of-the-universe/

yoginho, to random
@yoginho@spore.social avatar

Meanwhile, in the field of neuroscience, people who have no clue what consciousness is are calling out other people who have no clue what consciousness is for not having a clue what consciousness is.

psyarxiv.com/zsr78

yoginho,
@yoginho@spore.social avatar

This is interesting: https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/ambitious-theories-of-consciousness.

I think it is unfair to say is pseudoscience & the letter is a cheap shot at further closing down the scientific mind, especially since people who signed represent views of consciousness which are equally unsupported by evidence.

My bet is that consciousness, whatever it will turn out to be, will have absolutely NOTHING to do with information or information-processing.

Also, of course, is silly. Everybody knows that, right?

WorldImagining, (edited ) to cogsci French
@WorldImagining@mastodon.social avatar

Though dogged in his desire to confirm the below pictured "pseudoscientific" (plain false tbh) model of the solar system, also stuck to the data and thus ended up elaborating three robust laws of planetary motion which paved a significant part of the way towards Newton's later laws.

If I've understood the now (imo) become distasteful dispute between advocates and critics, then I believe this historical example contains important lessons for both.

@cognition @cogsci @neuroscience

WorldImagining,
@WorldImagining@mastodon.social avatar

"We do not know in advance who will discover fundamental new insights."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZOT_xAIWbA

@cognition @cogsci @neuroscience

Private
gimulnautti,

@ewisniowski @Anarchy_How @apublicimage @jlundell @philosophy Thanks for responding!

I guess the argument is whether the hard problem exists or not. My argument is that it doesn’t probably have to.

If I want to find an opposing theory that i guess that comes at the problem from a “materialistic” position, which is most counter to my “virtual” position is . That would put the qualia as deriving from the universe observing itself.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • Durango
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • cubers
  • mdbf
  • ngwrru68w68
  • anitta
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cisconetworking
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • Leos
  • khanakhh
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • modclub
  • tacticalgear
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines