I don't know if most people would dismiss the sentence "all matter has a sort of proto-subjectivity very different from ours but which gives rise to ours". And it solves some problems (introducing others).

▲

doctoboggan 11 days ago | parent [-]

Panpsychism is certainly an interesting idea but I wouldn't consider it a popularly held view.

▲

trick-or-treat 11 days ago | parent [-]

That's because Panpsychism is silly.

▲

IsTom 11 days ago | parent [-]

I don't think it's any more silly than the alternatives.

▲

trick-or-treat 11 days ago | parent [-]

You don't think it's sillier than "rocks don't have consciousness"?

▲

IsTom 11 days ago | parent [-]

Potential for consciousness. To have a working mind you need to have a way to gather, process and store information. In case of rocks it would be very empty, static, timeless experience.

	▲	plastic-enjoyer 11 days ago \| parent [-]
		If I believe that machines or neural networks can develop consciousness, then I also believe in some kind of substrate independence which presupposes some kind of panpyschism imho because as you say things would have a potential for consciousness, some more and some less.