Are Electrons Inorganic?

[hazelm]

In Philosophy Now, Aug/Sept 2017, Philip Goff is describing panpsychism (everything has some degree of consciousness).  He has this consciousness fading as we move down to the simpler forms of life but never switching off completely.   And there comes my quandary.  He goes on to say "For the panpsychist this fading-whilst-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities -- perhaps electrons and quarks  --  which reflects their extremely simple nature."

 

My first question was how do electrons become "inorganic" matter?  I cannot say any reason for thinking they are not.  I am just confused.  And then they have "fundamental physical entities", whatever those are.  Somewhere I once read that electrons are sparks but I can't find that any more.  Considering how they act, I can see them as sparks.

 

Second,  Mr. Goff does not address what I know as inorganic:  rocks and minerals, water? other entities that most think have no life.  I truly expected to see him saying that this "point of life" exists there also.  After all, he does say "everything" has some degree of consciousness.

 

Are these questions a physicist can answer?  I hope.   (The underlining is mine.)

Edited October 25, 2017 by hazelm

[davidepcell]

You would be wise to study more physics on Wikipedia.

For purposes of your question, the best answer would be to say that electrons are inorganic.

There is quite a bit of mumbo jumbo and many snake oil salesmen in the "spiritual" "philosopher" world. Be careful.

I have nothing against spiritual desires - in fact seeking God is good. But I don't like snakes or fools who claim to be wise.

It may be reasonable to say that things like beauty, love, frogs, love, evil, and other higher level concepts are linked to the physical world in a way we cannot understand - as Feynman illustrated. But I would recommend another 8 years of studying physics before you attempt any correlation.

Edited October 27, 2017 by davidepcell

[hazelm]

You would be wise to study more physics on Wikipedia.

For purposes of your question, the best answer would be to say that electrons are inorganic.

There is quite a bit of mumbo jumbo and many snake oil salesmen in the "spiritual" "philosopher" world. Be careful.

I have nothing against spiritual desires - in fact seeking God is good. But I don't like snakes or fools who claim to be wise.

It may be reasonable to say that things like beauty, love, frogs, love, evil, and other higher level concepts are linked to the physical world in a way we cannot understand - as Feynman illustrated. But I would recommend another 8 years of studying physics before you attempt any correlation.

Gee!  You saw a lot more in that than I did.  I'll have to re-read it.  I don't think Mr. Goff was making any claims.  He was simply describing what panpsychism is - what panpsychists believe.  Three other writers described three other ideas related to consciousness.   What got my attention also was philosophers writing about science.  I do know how the two fields can overlap but one seldom sees this so well-done - to my mind at least.  

 

At any rate, thank you for answer.  I had already tried Wiki, as I usually do.  The problem with Wiki is that you cannot ask questions.  But I heed your warning. 

[exchemist]

In Philosophy Now, Aug/Sept 2017, Philip Goff is describing panpsychism (everything has some degree of consciousness).  He has this consciousness fading as we move down to the simpler forms of life but never switching off completely.   And there comes my quandary.  He goes on to say "For the panpsychist this fading-whilst-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities -- perhaps electrons and quarks  --  which reflects their extremely simple nature."

 

My first question was how do electrons become "inorganic" matter?  I cannot say any reason for thinking they are not.  I am just confused.  And then they have "fundamental physical entities", whatever those are.  Somewhere I once read that electrons are sparks but I can't find that any more.  Considering how they act, I can see them as sparks.

 

Second,  Mr. Goff does not address what I know as inorganic:  rocks and minerals, water? other entities that most think have no life.  I truly expected to see him saying that this "point of life" exists there also.  After all, he does say "everything" has some degree of consciousness.

 

Are these questions a physicist can answer?  I hope.   (The underlining is mine.)

I did not realise this sort of thinking was still around.

 

I recall encountering Teilhard de Chardin and his "noosphere" when I was at school and briefly thinking it was a rather clever way of squaring science with belief in the soul or spirit, i.e. Cartesian dualism. He too suggested there was a spiritual element to all matter, I think, which , er, somehow, er, became more focused or concentrated in living organisms and especially so in Man. (He was a Jesuit.) 

 

It is a pleasant-enough idea, but as usual the boring scepticism of science demands, "Where is the evidence for this hypothesis?" - and answer comes there none.

 

However, to your question, I don't see a conflict between labelling different structures of matter "organic" and inorganic" and panpsychism. I feel sure the panpsychist would say that "organic" and "inorganic" are labels denoting whether or not a structure is related to living organisms, not whether or not they have this hypothesised "consciousness" component.

 

Electrons are about as "inorganic" as you can get, since they are constituents of all matter in atomic or molecular form. To me, "organic" starts with organic chemistry, i.e. the chemistry of carbon in which it is "catenated", i.e.in which  successive carbon atoms are linked by carbon - carbon chemical bonds. For example ethane: H3C-CH3. 

[hazelm]

I did not realise this sort of thinking was still around.

 

I recall encountering Teilhard de Chardin and his "noosphere" when I was at school and briefly thinking it was a rather clever way of squaring science with belief in the soul or spirit, i.e. Cartesian dualism. He too suggested there was a spiritual element to all matter, I think, which , er, somehow, er, became more focused or concentrated in living organisms and especially so in Man. (He was a Jesuit.) 

 

It is a pleasant-enough idea, but as usual the boring scepticism of science demands, "Where is the evidence for this hypothesis?" - and answer comes there none.

 

However, to your question, I don't see a conflict between labelling different structures of matter "organic" and inorganic" and panpsychism. I feel sure the panpsychist would say that "organic" and "inorganic" are labels denoting whether or not a structure is related to living organisms, not whether or not they have this hypothesised "consciousness" component.

 

Electrons are about as "inorganic" as you can get, since they are constituents of all matter in atomic or molecular form. To me, "organic" starts with organic chemistry, i.e. the chemistry of carbon in which it is "catenated", i.e.in which  successive carbon atoms are linked by carbon - carbon chemical bonds. For example ethane: H3C-CH3. 

Thank you, exchemist, for the answers.  I also read Teilhard de Chardin in college.  I rather enjoyed what he wrote at the time and in the area I was studying because that is where it fit - religion/philosophy as I understood it then.  I may have mentioned - and may not have - that there was close to nothing about science in my education which is why I play "catchup" now.  And, you know what?  In a way, that was good.  It left me something of interest to delve into years later.  A whole new world opening up at a time when people begin to get bored with "been there; done that". 

 

I believe either Prof. Goff or one of the other authors did ask the question "where is the evidence?".  But, how does one provide evidence for this sort of thing?  Would that ever be possible if it were true?  It might help to know the title of the three articles, covering four different theories, is "Can Science Explain Consciousness?"   The four theories covered were panpsychism, neutral monism, IIT (Integrated Information Theory.  That's three.  The fourth did not get a separate article but was talked about:  physicalism. 

 

"Noosphere" - a postulated sphere or stage of evolutionary development.  Interestingly,  Mr. Bury also brought out this idea that man had to pass through various stages, some of which involved superstitions, miracles, stories to explain the unknown, religion.  I would say even laws to control man's thoughts and beliefs as he continued to evolve from simple hunter/gatherer to cosmologist and all the rest.  Mr Bury seemed to think this was a necessary "trip" in man's evolution and that we might never have reached this stage of "freedom of thought." without it having happened.  It made sense to me as man has moved from ignorance to knowledge.  Would you agree?

 

The reason I asked if electrons are organic rather than inorganic is that they are part of organic species.  But then, they are part of everything, aren't they?  I ended up with another idea about the electrons and consciousness but I'm saving that for another day.  I can't seem to explain it so that anyone understands what I am saying.  :-(

 

Thank you again.  Your comments are very helpful. 

[exchemist]

Thank you, exchemist, for the answers.  I also read Teilhard de Chardin in college.  I rather enjoyed what he wrote at the time and in the area I was studying because that is where it fit - religion/philosophy as I understood it then.  I may have mentioned - and may not have - that there was close to nothing about science in my education which is why I play "catchup" now.  And, you know what?  In a way, that was good.  It left me something of interest to delve into years later.  A whole new world opening up at a time when people begin to get bored with "been there; done that". 

 

I believe either Prof. Goff or one of the other authors did ask the question "where is the evidence?".  But, how does one provide evidence for this sort of thing?  Would that ever be possible if it were true?  It might help to know the title of the three articles, covering four different theories, is "Can Science Explain Consciousness?"   The four theories covered were panpsychism, neutral monism, IIT (Integrated Information Theory.  That's three.  The fourth did not get a separate article but was talked about:  physicalism. 

 

"Noosphere" - a postulated sphere or stage of evolutionary development.  Interestingly,  Mr. Bury also brought out this idea that man had to pass through various stages, some of which involved superstitions, miracles, stories to explain the unknown, religion.  I would say even laws to control man's thoughts and beliefs as he continued to evolve from simple hunter/gatherer to cosmologist and all the rest.  Mr Bury seemed to think this was a necessary "trip" in man's evolution and that we might never have reached this stage of "freedom of thought." without it having happened.  It made sense to me as man has moved from ignorance to knowledge.  Would you agree?

 

The reason I asked if electrons are organic rather than inorganic is that they are part of organic species.  But then, they are part of everything, aren't they?  I ended up with another idea about the electrons and consciousness but I'm saving that for another day.  I can't seem to explain it so that anyone understands what I am saying.  :-(

 

Thank you again.  Your comments are very helpful. 

The question about whether science can explain consciousness rather baffles me, I must confess, because I don't understand what the problem is.

 

There was a woman on another science site who pointed out that surely consciousness is not a"thing", but a process.  I think this is a useful insight. I suspect we all subconsciously imbibe Cartesian Dualism with our mothers' milk: it is built into our culture to think of consciousness, or a soul or a spirit, as an immaterial "thing", to be contrasted with material things.  But if you have a computer, you know you have the hardware and you also have the operating system, which is a process carried out by the computer when it is turned on. That process enables the computer to receive information inputs, perform operations on it and produce information outputs. Without it, the computer is lifeless electronics.

 

Having been given this insight, it now seems to me that conceiving of consciousness as a mysterious, immaterial thing is a category error.  It is the operating system of the brain at work.   

Edited October 27, 2017 by exchemist

[hazelm]

The question about whether science can explain consciousness rather baffles me, I must confess, because I don't understand what the problem is.

 

There was a woman on another science site who pointed out that surely consciousness is not a"thing", but a process.  I think this is a useful insight. I suspect we all subconsciously imbibe Cartesian Dualism with our mothers' milk: it is built into our culture to think of consciousness, or a soul or a spirit, as an immaterial "thing", to be contrasted with material things.  But if you have a computer, you know you have the hardware and you also have the operating system, which is a process carried out by the computer when it is turned on. That process enables the computer to receive information inputs, perform operations on it and produce information outputs. Without it, the computer is lifeless electronics.

 

Having been given this insight, it now seems to me that conceiving of consciousness as a mysterious, immaterial thing is a category error.  It is the operating system of the brain at work.   

Hmmm?  I never thought of consciousness as a "thing".  On the other hand, if anyone had asked, they'd have had to supply me with the word "process" and I'd then have recognized how I was thinking of it.  It really is hard to explain.   No matter how you look at it, you have to either bring in an outside power (spirit? soul? atmosphere? life? - some kind of abstraction term - and, sure as you do, someone is going to ask you to explain it.    All I can actually put my finger on is a power of some sort "awakening" the neurons to do their job.  So, with my vivid imagination, I have these electrons firing off sparks that awaken the needed neurons to perform certain jobs (send you a message to get your hand off that hot stove and also make you do just that). 

 

The harder I think about it, the more I think all these theories do is tell the actions that take place.  Do the really explain what consciousness is?  Maybe panpsychism does come the closest.  I know it is the article that I understood best.  The one about integrated information only makes me ask "and from where came the information?  From one's experiences.  And how did your brain manage to experience and store that information. 

 

Isn't that the question everyone asks - everyone who even thinks about it anyway.  Mind?  I came to studying what scientists say about the brain with a believe that brain and mind are two separate things.  So, for me, the mind is that power.  But, I can't defend that.  Can anyone else.

 

I don't understand the problem with the basic question in the magazine, though.  It simply asks are scientists able to explan consciousness by telling what different theories exist.  For me the answer as far as they went is "no".  Not yet. 

 

Speaking of something as a "thing", the same magazine carries a "Question of the Month" column.  This issue's question is "What sorts of things exist?  And how?"  John Tally of N.C. does a wonderful job of making everything exist.  And this includes what you are technically not calling "things".  He divides everything into those that depend on him for existence ( sensations, feelings, and thoughts) and those that do not (the rest of the world as he experiences it:  "other than myself and independent of me". 

 

I must not try to picture the good job that the author does but it certainly allows everything - abstract or not -  to be called "things".  My mind is wandering and I'm going in circles.  I like Mr. Tally's idea that everything from sensations to airplanes and all else are"things" one way or another.  At the beginning of this post, I'd have said "no".  Now I say "yes" if everything that exists is a "thing".

[Vmedvil]

Electrons are inorganic unless around carbon......... being the "Organic" Atom being the only element that generates organic compounds in our biochemistry, which still can be inorganic. This is kind of a flawed way to classify things organic versus non-organic due to just the fact that they create biological machinery is the test for organic, but Silicon could be classified as organic too due to the fact it makes up computers which seem to be just as capable of intelligence as any organic construct being silicon machinery making this distinction flawed in many ways.

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[hazelm]

Electrons are inorganic unless around carbon......... being the "Organic" Atom being the only element that generates organic compounds in our biochemistry, which still can be inorganic. This is kind of a flawed way to classify things organic versus non-organic due to just the fact that they create biological machinery is the test for organic, but Silicon could be classified as organic too due to the fact it makes up computers which seem to be just as capable of intelligence as any organic construct being silicon machinery making this distinction flawed in many ways.

 

Very interesting, Vmedvil.  So, carbon is a changeling.  Now you have me thinking about the other minerals that we need in our bodies and get from food.  But that's another topic.  Best not go there for now.  Thank you very much. 

[pzkpfw]

Very interesting, Vmedvil.  So, carbon is a changeling.  Now you have me thinking about the other minerals that we need in our bodies and get from food.  But that's another topic.  Best not go there for now.  Thank you very much. 

 

All atoms are "changelings". Put 'em together in different combinations and you get different effects. Put sodium and chlorine together (NaCl) and you get common salt. Put hydrogen and chlorine together (HCl) and you get hydrochloric acid. Essentially the same chloride ion of chlorine, one you'd add to food, one you wouldn't.

 

Some of the properties of atoms and molecules are emergent, resulting from their combination (and even orientation).

 

Which is how I see consciousness, it's an emergent property of the brains we've evolved.

 

Grind up a human and you'd have a soup of all the same atoms they had when alive. Is the soup conscious? No. The atoms (carbon or other) are no more conscious than they were when the person was pre-ground. Panpsychism is bunk.