>>12121371>Consciousness can be fundamental to the Universe without any human significance. I don't get why materialist can't grasp that.Fair, my criticism was very weak and overgeneralized. The panpsychists are actually typically saying the opposite of what I said - believing human consciousness isn't exceptional.
So you're completely right, there, and I regret including that part in my post.
>I defend the idea that a single cell amobea is consciousI acknowledge it's not impossible. But first, even if it's true, it doesn't at all imply any kind of panpsychist theory. Amoebae are simple compared to us but still extremely complex lifeforms that evolved over billions of years across all of the kingdoms. So if any are conscious at all, it still would much more strongly support the conventional materialist view of consciousness as something that gradually emerged through natural selection.
But, also, where's your evidence? Where's a reliable test you could perform to at least try to find some hints of conscious behavior. I know it's not easy to prove, but there should be ways to detect some indications.
The part of the panpsychist view that I think may be right is that there is a gradient nature to it and that it might exist in forms we don't fully perceive. For example, speeding up a tree's growth can give an impression of conscious-like or conscious behavior.
But, again, this just means slightly loosening the boundaries of the definition of consciousness. It has no implications of throwing out materialism. It's completely consistent with materialism, and is most simply and reasonably explained by materialism. If there's an immaterial origin, the onus is on you to identify and demonstrate it. It's just like claiming miracles exist: first, point to an actual verifiable miracle, and then we can start talking.
