And it has this constant voiceover narrative in your stream of conscious thinking Physicists sometimes take some aspects of the universe as fundamental building blocks: space and time and mass
Now, if you're a panpsychist and you take that view, you're going to go very hungry Or at a more local level, does an integrated group like the audience at a TED conference, are we right now having a collective TED consciousness, an inner movie for this collective TED group which is distinct from the inner movies of each of our parts? Some motivation comes from the first crazy idea, that consciousness is fundamental

If not, well, this is the hardest problem perhaps in science and philosophy.

«التلفزيون بين الأمس واليوم».. وشخصيات شكَّلت الوعي الطفولي
I never get to slow down and smell the roses
«التلفزيون بين الأمس واليوم».. وشخصيات شكَّلت الوعي الطفولي
Faced with an anomaly like this, radical ideas may be needed, and I think that we may need one or two ideas that initially seem crazy before we can come to grips with consciousness scientifically
الوعي الطفولي
On the one hand, it's a datum that we're conscious
For much of the 20th century, that view held sway We know that these brain areas go along with certain kinds of conscious experience, but we don't know why they do
Now we understand much better, for example, the kinds of brain areas that go along with the conscious experience of seeing faces or of feeling pain or of feeling happy On the other hand, we don't know how to accommodate it into our scientific view of the world

When it comes to the hard problem, that's the question of why is it that all this behavior is accompanied by subjective experience? Another final motivation is that panpsychism might help us to integrate consciousness into the physical world.

فيلم الوعي الطفولي في مواجهة الاختلاف
Even a photon has some degree of consciousness
«التلفزيون بين الأمس واليوم».. وشخصيات شكَّلت الوعي الطفولي
And he supposes that phi goes along with consciousness
الوعي الطفولي
If that's right, it raises pretty serious ethical issues about both the ethics of developing intelligent computer systems and the ethics of turning them off
It's a long story, but the core idea is just that what you get from purely reductionist explanations in physical terms, in brain-based terms, is stories about the functioning of a system, its structure, its dynamics, the behavior it produces, great for solving the easy problems — how we behave, how we function — but when it comes to subjective experience — why does all this feel like something from the inside? I'm actually more confident about the first crazy idea, that consciousness is fundamental, than about the second one, that it's universal I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it's at least one worth taking seriously
We don't know what those laws are yet, but that's what we're after On Tononi's theory, there's still going to be a non-zero degree of consciousness

But the thought is maybe photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling, some primitive precursor to consciousness.

استشارة الوعي الطفولي
It's an amazing multi-track movie
David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness?
— that's something fundamentally new, and it's always a further question
فيلم الوعي الطفولي في مواجهة الاختلاف
In effect, he's proposing a fundamental law of consciousness: high phi, high consciousness