/lit/ - Literature

>>11468896
>which we have no evidence of whatsoever
this is a weird statement.
We have a phenomenon: subjective experience.
There is no good reason to assume it arises from matter or energy. Maybe panpsychism is true and all matter is conscious, but that still doesn't explain HOW subjectivity could be created by matter.
Indeed, the very thought that we could study and research and determine the mechanisms that give rise to consciousness is absolute poppycock. Our conscious experience is an island. We can't even detect consciousness in other people!
So having eliminated matter and energy, we postulate that this phenomenon lies elsewhere, exists by some other means.
In a sense you're right, there is no evidence — other than subjectivity itself — but I didn't arrive at this position through evidence, but by process of elimination.
>which combines, through some completely a unknown mechanism
you misread me, I said consciousness ISN'T a combination of smaller parts. There's no reason to assume that it is.
>in some arbitrary configuration
If panpsychism is true, it's not just our arbitrary configuration, it's all possible configurations, and we just happen to be experiencing these full human bodies. Other consciousnesses might be experiencing smaller individual parts of our bodies, others yet might be experiencing inanimate objects, etc.
> This is literally animism.
We don't have a science of consciousness. (Neurology, for one, is the science of the brain, not to be conflated with consciousness) So Animism is as good as any other explanation. You can go ahead and call this theory any name you like.