To What Extent is Panpsychism an Illusion?
I am asking this after a conversation with a friend about energy, causation and consciousness with a friend. During the discussion I became aware that I have mixed thoughts on pansychism, the notion that objects have some rudimentary consciousness.
One clear example of possible panpsychism is 'sick building syndrome', in which it as if the energy fields seem disturbed. Here, it would suggest that matter has some inherent consciousness.
Saying that, I am not a dualist but am aware of the difference of objects and human consciousness, even though some even see human consciousness itself as an illusion. But, it is to speculate on different degrees of consciousness, ranging from minerals, plants animals and humans (possibly AI as a further development). The belief in objects having rudimentary consciousness goes back to animism.
I am asking about illusory appearance as a basis of belief and it is a little different from. the idea of delusion, which is a falsehood. But, of course, some may regard it as a delusion in the realm of magic and superstition. On the other hand, it is possible to think that it is an illusion in the sense of not being real in the literal sense but symbolic, rather like the nature of synchronicity. Or, it is possible to see panpsychism as 'real' in the sense of being about the ongoing evolution of consciousness in its myriad forms. What do you think?
One clear example of possible panpsychism is 'sick building syndrome', in which it as if the energy fields seem disturbed. Here, it would suggest that matter has some inherent consciousness.
Saying that, I am not a dualist but am aware of the difference of objects and human consciousness, even though some even see human consciousness itself as an illusion. But, it is to speculate on different degrees of consciousness, ranging from minerals, plants animals and humans (possibly AI as a further development). The belief in objects having rudimentary consciousness goes back to animism.
I am asking about illusory appearance as a basis of belief and it is a little different from. the idea of delusion, which is a falsehood. But, of course, some may regard it as a delusion in the realm of magic and superstition. On the other hand, it is possible to think that it is an illusion in the sense of not being real in the literal sense but symbolic, rather like the nature of synchronicity. Or, it is possible to see panpsychism as 'real' in the sense of being about the ongoing evolution of consciousness in its myriad forms. What do you think?
Comments (90)
Quoting Jack CumminsI do not see it this way. My thinking is that consciousness is always the same. It is subjective experience. Nothing has rudimentary consciousness. What really counts is the thing having the subjective experience. What is the subjective experience of crystals? How does the subjective experiences of a crystal, an archaea, a plant, a mouse, a chimpanzee, a human?
:up:
from 2019 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/355107
I wonder if you are seeing consciousness as being about the processes of being alive, as in that respect it is the same. However, rocks and crystals are not alive in the way we understand it. Differences vary according to the complexity of a lifeform. Part of this determines how we see inherent value in its right to life. Most people don't feel guilty killing weeds and bedbugs.
Of course, such a perspective is anthropocentric but capacity to feel pain is an important criteria. With humans, the nature of consciousness is dependent on ego- consciousness, which is bound up with personal identity and the significance of language. We don't know about the nature of communication of some beings, such as dolphins. But, a rock doesn't have a sense of self, or inner life. Crystals may have an energy field, which is why they are used for healing. But, this is a likely projection of the human imagination.
Assuming you can deal with those issues, the next stage is to define "energy field". Presumably this is something supernatural or metaphysical? How is it defined, and what is the evidence for its existence?
In my understanding, this is not an example of what most people would call panpsychism. I dont think it includes actual behavior by or changes in inanimate objects. A rock is just a rock sitting there being conscious. Clearly, that is a different meaning for the word than what we normally use. Perhaps Im wrong about this.
:up: :up:
Panpsychism is a currently popular philosophical worldview, even among scientists. So, the notion that mental phenomena are inherent in the natural world has some validity. But to imagine that a brick & mortar building can feel sick is pretty far-out.
Therefore, to explain "sick building syndrome" with mental energy fields seems to be an anthro-morphic analogy with a "sick human" whose problem is mental instead of physical. Years ago, when Investigators couldn't find a physical cause, they sometimes concluded that the "syndrome" was hysterical or viral memes in people, instead of fumes or germs*1 in buildings. Eventually, fungal mold became a common culprit because it was often hidden behind sheetrock walls where rain or plumbing leaks kept things damp. Consequently, insurance companies began to pay-out millions of dollars for mold remediation. I suppose you could imagine that's like a doctor treating a sick patient.
Perhaps, those predisposed to spiritual themes could easily imagine that an inanimate material object could be possessed by an energy/mind field. For some, such mysteries evolved into conspiracy theories, involving invisible agents. But pragmatic & skeptical investigators*2 are likely to view such mysteries more as a problem with human minds than with spirit-possessed buildings. Ironically, even practical scientists are mystified by brainless slime molds that can navigate mazes, as-if they possessed rational minds*3. Ooooh, spooky! :naughty:
*1. 6 Things That Cause Sick Building Syndrome
Mold is the leading cause of Sick Building Syndrome and can have dire effects on your health. In fact, in about 80% of sick building syndrome cases, mold infestations (black mold and other types) are the main cause of illness.
https://rtkenvironmental.com/health/sick-building-syndrome/
*2. SKEPTIC Magazine :
In the absence of toxins or pathogens, investigators look to behavior patterns for clues.
https://www.skeptic.com/article/mystery-illness-strikes-boston-choir-but-was-it-all-in-their-heads/
*3. How Brainless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence
Single-celled amoebae can remember, make decisions and anticipate change, urging scientists to rethink intelligent behavior.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/
But, I also agree with Patterner that it's going to be one or the other. Then again, I feel the same about sense data, so perhaps I'm missing a trick..
i don't think rocks or crystals are conscious as a unit. Just a huge number of particles that are each subjectively experiencing their own existence. I don't think the conditions for a group consciousness exist in such things.
Defining consciousness is not a simple task for a dictionary definition. That is because apart from different usage of the term it involves so much in way of understanding. A few years ago there was a thread on 'What is consciousness' by @TClark and this showed how it is a big question. Some see it in a clinical sense, like being able to identify signs of life in basic life support, some see it as self-awareness and others see consciousness as something to develop by humans, as in the nature of 'cosmic consciousness' (Bucke). I see all as important as consciousness is multifaceted. Cosmic consciousness is about training one's consciousness or fine tuning, the path of self-mastery.
'Sick building syndrome' is an unusual example of panpsychism and only works if one accepts the idea of energy fields, as opposed to issues of maintenance. In speaking of energy fields I am referring to electromagnetic forces and the Eastern idea of the 'subtle body' may arise from awareness of the electromagnetic field. The idea of 'Gaia' by James Lovelock is also relevant because it conceives of the planet earth as a living being.
Yes, I agree that objects, including buildings, are different from a rock. That is because objects include human interventions in design. However, everything in the universe exists in relationships rather than isolation. Nature is not separate. Weather and bacteria influence all objects, including rocks and buildings.
The reason I referred to sick building syndrome is that I have lived in a number of such buildings. Part of the issue is maintenance but it can be of repeated problems. When one is fixed a new one occurs. I have wondered if buildings have a life cycle, as maintaining older buildings is difficult and complete renovations are often needed. It could be that the organic parts are prone to aging. Even rocks erode and change, just like foods decay. I always seem to have dead lettuce in my fridge. Also, most organic forms need care and I am not good at looking after plants as they die if I have them. This may be my lack of skill or I have wondered if my own 'energy' is not conducive for their thriving.
I like your detailed post. Mold is certainly an issue with sick building syndrome, related to damp. It can lead people to become sick physically. Similarly, bed bugs are on the rise in many developed countries and while not necessarily a major source of physical health problems can affect mental state so much.
Yes, suggesting that buildings are sick is anthropomorphic, an example of the 'pathetic fallacy' and metaphorical. It is an interpretation conjured by the human imagination.
What would change in our way of being if we were to think of things as possessing consciousness?
We would have to take into consideration all things that we otherwise consider inanimate. We would have to know what would be pleasant or unpleasant for things (e.g., a stone).
Let's say I enjoy tickling a pebble. But will that stop a person from grinding a thousand cute pebbles into powder to obtain a chip for an iPhone?
He will say that the pebbles like being part of an iPhone.
Since everyone can define it however they want, panpsychism is devaluated.
Theoretically, if objects were seen as having consciousness it could be argued that they need to be treated with greater respect. There is the question as to how AI should be treated if it is viewed as conscious. Is destroying it a form of murder?.
However, what may also be happening in the digital age is some tendency to treat humans like objects and machines. Human consciousness is being seen as of lesser value and people treated as numbers and insignificant.
Some sober scientists are taking the notion of Panpsychism seriously. But I think their definition is too broad. I prefer to make a clear distinction between Conscious Awareness and Causal Forces. FWIW, here's a recent relevant post on my blog. :smile:
Enformationism vs Panpsychism :
[i]The notion of an incorporeal Idea as the cause of real-world effects on palpable matter is not commonly held by Physicalists & Materialists. . . .
In his book on the philosophy of Panpsychism, Peter Ells makes an affirmation of belief in a sensuous cosmos : "To actually or concretely exist . . . is precisely to be an experiential entity, or to be composed of experiential entities"
The language of that assertion is my primary disagreement with Panpsychism : the term experiential implying that everything in the universe is sentient (sensing + knowing). But, in what sense is a rock sentient? How does it know? It exchanges abstract Energy/Entropy with its environment. But does a rock remember the experience of flowing in the form of homogeneous red-hot magma inside the Earth, then at a later time, the thrill of being spewed-out onto the surface of a cooling planet, where new experiences as dis-aggregated fragments await? . . . . [/i]
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page7.html
The issue of experiential sentience (sensing and knowing) is important in considering the idea of panpsychism. Both sensory experiences and development of knowledge are separate but may come together in the emergence of consciousness.
There is the question of how much sentience and knowledge exists in forms such as rocks. Can a rock experience any sensation at all by factors like weather or if it is crushed? Also, does it have any memory as a basis for the organisation of future rock formation? With the memory aspect there is the possibility of Rupert Sheldrake's notion of morphing resonance, although this is more of a 'fringe' concept within science than pansychism. What makes it so 'fringe' may be because it is invisible and hard to test empirically. It is equivalent to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious at a biologically level.
Theories of morphic resonance or memes also do not explain shifts in the different kingdoms in evolution, such as the shift from.mineral to vegetable, or animal to human. They require a higher organisation factor beyond mere memory.
It is about creativity inherent in nature. The shifts in the emergence of the kingdoms is of significance in the evolution of both sentience and knowledge, with the animal and human kingdom both having sentience and the human having consciousness of knowledge, especially through language for the development of ideas. Also, humans are able to reflect on sentience itself and upon the existence of pain itself.
Humans experience is the possibility of being able to integrate experience of pain and suffering as a basis for consciousness as understanding, as opposed to the other extreme of the rock. The rock is passive whereas conscious awareness as human know it involves active participation in the synthesis of experience.
A being self-aware would be capable of both reaction, and response.
From a 3p perspective, one of those first beings does still experience. But none of them have an experience if you see the difference there...
Awareness is a term which is used in many different ways, like consciousness. What a too wide use of the term misses is the capacity for reflective awareness. The ability to develop reflective awareness is what enables active processes of consciousness.
Now, how does this relate to your question? If all things are made of the One, and if their existence depends solely on their relevance and relation to other things, then the only true and ultimate reality is the One itself - that from which all things arise. Panpsychism, in this light, is not an illusion but a symbolic reflection of the Ones internal multiplicity. What we call consciousness in objects may be a glimpse of the relational fabric that binds all things within the One.
Here I can say a few things, as my dissertation was based in large part on Galen Strawson's panpsychism. Granted that's only one person and there are many types of panpsychism.
For Strawson, the argument goes something like this: there is experiential phenomena (consciousness) and there is non-experiential phenomena (phenomena that lack consciousness).
Either things at bottom are completely and utterly non-experiential, which would make the arising of experiential phenomena a miracle. Or, completely non-experiential stuff does not exist, meaning there is something about the "ultimates" (fundamental features of reality) that are either experience-involving or experience-realizing.
If there is something about matter that gives rise to experience, then matter cannot be completely and utterly non-experiential.
There are important nuances I won't get into now, because this will become too long. But the gist for him is that we have no good reason to believe completely non-experiential stuff to exist.
To be clear, I do not agree with him on important aspects. So this is not my view, just presenting it to others. Is this an illusion? I don't think so. We only have so many options we can appeal to that make some sense to us. This is one of those options.
The illusory aspects of consciousness is the result of how little information it gives about ourselves, the body. For instance our senses largely point outwards, towards the world, so I am unable to see what is going on behind my eyes. The periphery is so limited that I am completely unaware of what is going on inside my body save for the few and feint feelings it sometimes offers.
If that conscious periphery gave us enough information about the body Im sure consciousness wouldnt be a such a mystery, and ideas like panpsychism wouldnt even be entertained.
:up: :up:
That's a big if. It may the most any creature may be able to have.
That argument could go either way.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. As if a person had thousands of diagnostic lights on their phenomenal user interface, where the pancreas can call up the conscious user to say 85% of the insulin cells are off line, why would that make consciousness less of a mystery?
One can imagine a future of augmented reality, where everything we need to know about what is happening in our body occurs to us. The sky isn't the limit in this regard. But maybe we wouldn't know what kinds of new experience this technology of networks could be giving rise to.
In my own personal philosophical worldview, that "organization factor" is called EnFormAction*1, and the "creative" trend of evolution is Enformy*2. Both terms are derived from an Information-Centric philosophy*3, in which Generic Information works like a computer program in the physical world. It's a combination of Causal Energy and Logical Information. And it assumes that Enformation (power to transform) is more essential than Matter. Hence, Consciousness is an emergent quality, and not fundamental as Panpsychism postulates.
Working together, these physical (energy) & meta-physical (logic) forces are responsible for creating a complex Cosmos from an initial explosion of Energy (Big Bang) and Information (Natural Laws). Materialists tend to ignore or misinterpret the directional guidance of those laws, including Thermodynamics [hot vs cold = change] and Dialectic [sequential Logic is directional]. Absent those taken-for-granted Laws, the BB would be a pop & poof flash-in-the-pan followed-by-a-fizzle, like fireworks --- instead of the orderly organizing system we now observe.
The source of those original logical & limiting laws in the initial conditions of our universe is a mystery. Some think an eternal mechanical-yet-creative multiverse would explain the explosion of bounded something from unbounded nothingness. Others, prefer to imagine an eternal God, with a human-like Mind, to design & program a statistical Singularity into a burst of let-there-be-light. I have seen no hard evidence for either, so both are hypothetical scenarios. Hence, my thesis begins after the Beginning. :smile:
PS___ Panpsychism is not an illusion. It's just an incomplete explanation.
*1. EnFormAction :
Energy + Form + Action = Information
Directional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law [or force] of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. Its the creative force (aka : Divine Will or Schopenhauer's Will) that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite pool of possibility (un-actualized Potential). AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. Mislabeled in science as Negentropy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*3. An information-centric philosophy, in its broadest sense, views information as a fundamental aspect of reality, potentially even more fundamental than matter or energy. This perspective suggests that the universe, including consciousness and human existence, can be understood as expressions or patterns of information. It challenges traditional, human-centered or matter-centric views of the world and proposes that information processing is key to understanding phenomena like consciousness and the nature of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information-centric+philosophy
BANG, FLASH, & FIZZLE
Whitehead pointed out that any object is "subject" to effects from its environment. So cliffs are weathered, are subject to sunlight, wind and water erosion for example. But we don't usually think of inanimate objects as possessing internally maintained structural integrity. We might think that way about cells and even microphysical particles, though.
So, along with the idea of internally maintained structural integrity comes the biological phenomenon of homeostasis, and this requires the ability to respond to the external and internal environments appropriately, something that a rock responding to the sunlight, wind and rain by being eroded could hardly be said to be doing.
Of course even the most complex organisms, even we humans, are " weathered", "eroded" by the internal and external environments, so we are "subjects" in that sense as well.
I can see Strawson's argument because experience is the central to being alive. A chair or a rock doesn't experience the person sitting on it, even though the person may have an effect on the chair, such as scratching it. Ideas about objects having experiences are human projections.
Some panpsychist views are of a spirit in an object, like the idea of a ghost in a machine understanding of a human. This rests on an assumption of disembodied spirits.
Belief in disembodied spirits is central to the idea of the supernatural. Graham Hancock points to the way in which ancient people saw spirits, often under trance states induced by hallucinogenic plants. They took these spirits to be 'real' in the sense of having independent consciousness of human beings. Panpsychism works more in that context.
Panpsychism is a way of trying to understand connections and the source of that which is not a sentient form. Objects have a role in the world and universe as they are part of the material fabric. They may be affected by so much but the presence of the spark of life is what makes it animate. The rock does not have a spark and doesn't die, although plants and trees grow and die. It is not possible to say how much consciousness a tree has. It experiences weather and may store some memory, such as rings but it is unlikely that it has consciousness as we know it. Panpsychism may be an attempt to understanding creativity in the universe, or consciousness in the unconscious.
Yes that's what we think and it's very likely true. Strawson's point is different, he's not claiming a tree is alive or thinks, but rather that our interaction with anything is experience-involving or experience-realizing. The chair at very bottom, is made of the same things our brains are made of at bottom.
I don't know of many panpsychists, who would say that a chair thinks or that a rock has consciousness. There may be outliers, but it is a very bizarre view.
Not only that but all mental and physical phenomena.
I'm sure that Panpsychism has always been a serious attempt to understand how such imperceptible phenomena as Life & Mind can exist in an obviously material world. But it's based on an ancient notion of Psyche as a wandering Spirit or embodied Soul. Generally, Spirit was added to Matter to animate it. And Soul was added to matter to produce sentient Mind. Together those ghostly essences were supposed to explain the creativity of the living & thinking world, as contrasted with a universe of dull dead Matter. Modern scientists who advocate All-Mind are more sophisticated than primitive animists. But they still find it difficult to reconcile immaterial Mind with substantial Matter, without relying on spooky ghost-stuff.
However, modern science has given us a much more complete understanding of how the world works. Unfortunately, the 17th century model of a mechanical world is still common today. So, those who advocate All-Mind seem to be reacting to the dullness & deadness of an All-Matter universe. But Materialists deny & decry the religious & anti-science backlash against mechanical Science, that resulted in the Spiritualism of the 19th century. So, who's right and who's wrong?
Maybe both worldviews are partly correct and part erroneous. For example, A.N. Whitehead proposed a 20th century worldview that incorporated some aspects both ancient Religion and modern Science*1. His notion of the Will of God, acting in the world, is closer to Schopenhauer's Will & Idea than to the Holy Spirit of the Bible. And his updated notion of Spirit & Soul is closer to modern Energy, than to ancient Animism*2, with body-hopping ghosts that convert dead matter into living & thinking organisms.
If you are inclined to think that Spiritualist seances actually call-up ghosts from a parallel spirit-realm, you won't like Whitehead's version. The 21st century variety of All-Mind includes another century of scientific development since Whitehead. Modern scientists who advocate Panpsychism are imagining Consciousness as-if it is something like Causal Energy : invisible, but effective. And some try to dissociate their definition of Consciousness from spooky Spiritualism, and to avoid dealing with the notion of sentient Atoms --- which do input & output Energy, but show no signs of Sentience.
Therefore, I see no need to wrestle with the contradiction of "consciousness in the unconscious". Even rocks play the thermodynamic game with Energy. And plants go a step further by evolving life-nurturing metabolism, converting Energy into structure & maintenance. But only the most recent stages of evolution display evidence of Awareness and knowing-that-you-know. Some even seem to possess Self-Awareness (Soul) as the pinnacle of emergent Consciousness. :smile:
*1. 20th Century Spirituality :
Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, often called Process Philosophy, offers a unique perspective on spirituality that moves away from traditional, static views of reality and God. Instead of focusing on fixed substances or a transcendent, uninvolved deity, Whitehead emphasizes the dynamic nature of reality as a process of becoming, with God being both immanent and transcendent, actively involved in the world's evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+spiritualism
*2. Animism & Spiritualism :
Animism is a belief system that attributes a spiritual essence or soul to all living and non-living things, including plants, animals, objects, and natural phenomena. It's not a formal religion itself, but rather a worldview that can be found within various cultures and religions. Animism emphasizes relationships and interactions between humans and the spiritual world, often involving rituals and practices to connect with or appease spirits.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=animism
*3. Experiential Energy :
In Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy, energy is not just a physical property, but a fundamental aspect of all reality, interwoven with experience and becoming. Whitehead views energy not as inert substance, but as dynamic activity, with subjective feeling or potential for experience at all levels. This means even seemingly inanimate objects have a degree of experience or feeling associated with their energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+energy
Note --- His Experiential Energy is similar to my notion of EnFormAction. It's primal energy that had the innate potential to produce matter, and to organize it into living & thinking systems. I suppose you could call it Panpsychism without wandering ghosts & suffering rocks.
PS___ Contra Frankenstein, you can't animate a dead body with pure energy (lightening). Instead, you need enformed (programmed) Energy : EnFormAction. The secret ingredient is encoded Information. And, yes, that implies a Big Bang Programmer similar to Whitehead's transcendent/immanent "God".
I don't think I would say a tree's rings are memories, though. Because I don't think the tree pulls up any memories because of the rings.
Indon't even think the rings are information. We can figure out various things because of them. But the rings don't actually mean those things. The information we can glean from them is not processed. Not even in a simplistic way like photons hitting eyespots, leading to the twitching flagellum.
Quoting NOS4A2Is there a reason that our technologies cannot detect the physical mechanism of consciousness? We know about all kinds of things going on the brain, after all. Neurotransmitters are a great example.
Apparently, there is a field of plant neurobiology, ha!
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.2017.0096?__cf_chl_tk=EnNihJj2VrCqoJY2sK39jDo75tEsHCXRvnIbXj6piEo-1755233088-1.0.1.1-hwG6qkhXRhpNzX1sA2p0De1fz9QOQx0R02eiQSs4ALE
But, notice, this pertains to plants, living organisms. I don't think the same can be said of anything non-living.
Quoting Kevin Andrew
:100: As someone remarked, panpsychism is really just the current version of an ancient idea: that the Cosmos is 'ensouled'. 'All things are full of gods' ~ Thales of Miletus
Panpsychism cannot explain the unity of experience.
The unity of experience isnt just a special riddle for consciousnessits mirrored by the unity of life itself. Just as an organism isnt literally built by stitching cells together but emerges as a whole with its own integrity, consciousness may be the subjective expression of this same principle of organismic unity.
In philosophy the question of the subjective unity of experience was considered by Kant, but the unity of organisms goes back to Aristotle. It is also a major focus of enactivism and phenomenology.
I was a little unsure of the description of Strawson's ideas. It would be too simplistic if any panpsychist thought that rocks were alive in a similar way to human beings' experience. Some of it comes down to differentiating subjective and objective aspects of consciousness, such as Nagel's question of 'What is it like to be a bat?' We make assumptions and there is probably a lot of sense in common sense, especially in what it means to be alive. I know that Russell, my teddy bear, doesn't have consciousness other than what I project onto him.
It is also a matter for physics as well as consciousness. I only understand physics in the questions it raises about philosophy (or metaphysics). However, from what I have read the issue of quantum entanglement has some bearing on the nature of consciousness and to the idea of panpsychism.
The 'unity of experience' raises questions because it involves so much. Plotinus's idea of the 'One' is useful though. That is because it links the nature of subjective experience to the wider sense of consciousness as a source.
In thinking about the comparison between panpsychism and ancient ideas of 'ensoulment' I am wondering about its comparison with paganism.
I have also done some reading of theosophy and this has some bearing on the issue of what is spirit in relation to the life force. One idea which I came across was in connection with souls and spirits. That was the suggestion that ghosts are not 'soul' itself but memory traces in energy fields, especially in cases of traumatic experiences. Theosophy encompasses the view of various levels of spiritual reality, including embodied experience, but not seeing the embodied as all and everything.
Yes, it is a good question as to whether everything being seen as cells, like brain cells, is equivalent to panpsychism. I do think that James Lovelock's idea of Gaia touches upon this. Consciousness, in terms of self-awareness, may be the experience of human consciousness but it all relates to larger systems beyond the human. The earth and other planets are not human, with a sense of personal self, but they have their own organisational capacity.
I haven't read Whitehead but would like to, in order to consider the idea of 'God' as imminent or transcendent. Of course, it does go back to debate ranging from Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. The idea of pantheism is relevant to this.
I have known people who believe in spiritualism. I am not sure what people are tapping into exactly and that is why I find Jung's notion of the collective unconscious to be useful.
In my post above I referred to a view within theosophy of ghosts not being 'soul' itself but traces of energy disturbances. This goes hand in hand with the belief that fragments of a person break down. This is compatible with ideas of rebirth but is not dependent on there being a rebirth necessarily.
In his book 'Supernatural', Graham Hancock describes the way in which the development of belief in the gods was the basis of for the development of the symbolic realm. Whether beings such as gods and angels have independent life and experience is open to question. This would be about the disembodied, so is different from panpsychist ideas about matter, but it does involve the underlying issue of whether experience is dependent on the principle of sentience itself.
Dogs clearly have consciousness and even will, as they can follow human commands, sometimes against their own desires, as some studies have shown. However, people who consume animal meat, for example, rarely consider or respect the consciousness of animals. If we often disregard the consciousness of animals for practical purposes, what are the chances that we would respect the hypothetical consciousness of rocks or other objects?
Whitehead described his God as both transcendent and immanent. So any divine actions in the physical world are Natural, not supernatural interventions from heaven. His theology was labeled, by his associate, as Panentheism. But I prefer to spell it PanEnDeism, in order to avoid the doctrinal associations of Theism.
Whitehead's philosophy was also labeled as Panpsychism. But he typically reserved the term "Consciousness" for humans, and used generic "Experience" to refer to other dynamic-but-meaningless interactions, such as exchanges of Energy. I think that term still sounds absurd, implying sentient atoms. So, I use different terminology, that is intended to be less spooky or strange. :smile:
PS___ My first attempt to read his book left me feeling inadequate to the task. I eventually got a better understanding from third-person accounts of Process Philosophy.
*1. Whitehead's panpsychism, or more accurately, his process-relational philosophy, posits that mentality is a fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of reality, not just a characteristic of humans or animals. His view differs from traditional panpsychism by emphasizing the "experiential" nature of all entities, rather than just consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+panpsychism
If the "One" you mean the mind, then we are on the same page.
Yes.
It has to do with how we access and interact with objects that allows us to reason about its nature. But in so far as someone is going to say a teddy bear or a particle has very very primitive consciousness, there is no evidence for the claim.
To be fair, there is no evidence against that claim, only common sense. But I think it is more reasonable to assume these things lack mind than have mind. It becomes a virtually meaningless semantic quibble.
With the interaction between humans and objects, while the objects don't have consciousness in their own right, I do wonder if human consciousness permeates objects, at an influential level beyond action itself. Projective forces come into play but it is possible that human thoughts actually interact with physical objects. For example, I know that my room.gets in a mess and things fall over when I am in a negative state of mind. To some extent it may be symbolic but I do wonder if objects are influenced by thoughts.
There is also the strange phenomena of statues shedding tears. Of course, this may be a hoax of some kind.
Thank you for the summary of Whitehead's philosophy relating to panpsychism. I will try to explore his ideas further because immanence and transcendence seem both important. I am not convinced that transcendence and the experience of the numinous can be reduced to the physical completely.
Even if rocks were seen as having some consciousness, it is unlikely that human beings would care. Generally, ecology been dismissed and human beings have seen themselves as being at the top of the hierarchy, as 'special' and to use nature for benefiting human need and greed.
The idea of the existence of 'the soul' was often a way of justifying this. Some thinkers in the past thought that men had souls but women didn't. Similarly, certain people were looked down upon as if 'primitive'. Such hierarchical thinking can be a means of justification of exploitation.
By the 'One' I am referring to 'mind' although I am not a dualist. I don't think that body and mind are separate with the body as container. It is far more complex, especially with mind not being located in the head alone in the brain itself, just as the self is not an entity to be contained in the physical being.
If you think that the mind exists on its own and the body exists too, then you are a substance dualist! What is your definition of mind, by the way?
Transcendent & Numinous experiences are not real phenomena. but ideal imaginary models of unseen things. So, they are obviously not out-there in the Real world. Philosophers like to explore such exotic possibilities, but our material bodies necessarily remain behind in the physical world that sustains their life functions. For me, I treat such explorations of the un-mapped territories like going to the movies : at the end of the Platonic shadow-show, I always go home to my immanent abode. :wink:
PS___ When you die in the real world, you don't survive to make another movie. Unless, you believe --- without evidence --- in reincarnation. Your living body does depend on stuff that, for practical purposes, can be reduced to the physical. For the life of the Mind though, some people can live on fantasies. That's why they go to rom-com and super-hero movies.
I am still grappling with the label and ideas of substance dualism. I have had a number of discussions with @180 Proof about it and how Spinoxa's philosophy is important. However, this is probably dependent on how one interpretats Spinoza. At this point, I would say that I I have some sympathy/ empathy with substance dualism. However, as for the naming of the theory, this is complex, especially the clear distinction between conceptual frameworks of substance dualism or non-dualism.
I do struggle with the clear distinction between life/ death and mind/matter. Prior to interaction on this forum, I definitely believed in disembodied consciousness. Now, I see the idea of disembodied consciousness as problematic, especially in the absence of sentience. Nevertheless, I am aware of the way in which some models of consciousness, Including some perspectives on artificial intelligence challenge the role of sentience in consciousness itself.
I see it as a big philosophy quandary. I used to think that Plato's idea of immortality, as disembodied made sense, but do see this as extremely questionable in my present understanding of its connection with matter/ mind. The idea of reincarnation (and resurrection) overcome this duality. However, so much is speculative and comes down to the notion of justified belief as opposed to clear empirical arguments.
Well, as I've said elsewhere, I read Spinoza's conception of dual-property parallelism as a logical implication of 'non-transcendent (or monist), eternal, infinite substance' acosmism.
Quoting Jack Cummins
"Reincarnation" presupposes the duality of souls and bodies insofar as it is the soul that is jumping (via death) from body to body. "Resurrection" is dualist too, though less explicitly, since the dead body regenerates itself and not the soul that's "eternal".
What I wonder about most in reading ideas of Spinoza, and others, including Shopenhauer; is to what extent ideas like reincarnation and resurrection are symbolic primarily. That is, whether they go beyond individual identity or personal identity as such. This would be more about a cosmic recycling process in the larger scheme of the evolution of consciousness.
Of course, it is hard to know how it works exactly and what the symbolic stands for. Panpsychism, going back to Its roots in animism, may involve the nature of the perplexity of issues of the evolution and emergence of consciousness in varying degrees through the vehicle of matter.
I ask you, are any of the facets of consciousness unexpected? (Vision is from the eyes, Smell is from the nose, etc etc). None of it is an illusion.
IIRC, neither thinker argues for "reincarnation and resurrection" symbolically or otherwise. And "consciousness" is not "fundamental" in either philosophy, so "panpsychism", like individual/personal survival after death, is excluded as a speculative possibility.
So much of human understanding is concrete as opposed to symbolic. Part of this dilemma comes down to the question of what the human imagination stands for. It goes back to qualia and issues of metaphysics, as a dilemma in the sciences and arts. Which is more 'real' in descriptive understanding? Likewise, it could be questioned is panpsychism is a metaphorical analogy or an epistemological model of underlying processes of nature?
Tye labels himself a physicalist/representalist, but proposes there to be some aspect of consciousness present in all things (he labels this "consciousness*").
Full consciousness (without the "*") requires a physical structure - like the brain. Consciousness* is unmeasurable/undetectable, but it's presence is sine qua non for consciousness in humans and some other animals.
I'm pretty skeptical, but for those inclined toward panpsychism, it's at least a relatively minimal form of it. I could rationalize it based on the fact that we're all composed of quanta of the same quantum fields- so there is a direct relation between any 2 objects that exist.
The duality of body/brain is inherent in nature. There is the problem of seeing consciousness in the brain alone, as opposed to the nervous system and its distribution in the body. Toenails may experience pain and have some form of consciousness. This would explain the underlying varying degrees of consciousness, including diverse forms of bedbugs and crystals.
Quantum.fields may be important in understanding of consciousness and panpsychism. It is this aspect which may be significant, or dismissed, in the debate of the significance of panpsychism. So much of consciousness has been located in brain in the Cartesian- Newtonian picture of reality.
I am sure that being sceptical is also important to avoid wild flights of fantasy but so much goes back to issues of how 'reality' is constituted and works. There has idealism and materialism, as well.ad theism.and idealism. What if all such ideas and models are inadequate? Panpsychism may not be complete but it may further ongoing partiality in models of understanding..Just as consciousness itself is evolving, the human models and descriptions of it, are evolving too.
I don't understand the question.
Imo, it's a (poor) "analogy".
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1006207
I am sorry if you don't understand my argument. Part of this may come down to how 'objects'are understood. Are they as real as conscious beings; or more real, if one takes a materialist stance.
As you may be aware, I have sympathy with Jung's idea of synchronicity, which is about patterns as opposed to causality, in the strictest sense. So, seeing what happens in nature in life is about patterns and the realm of metaphors. Objects may have 'life' in so far as they have significance in human meaning. It is hard to know how this compares to the idea of objects, such as in the mineral kingdom have consciousness in their own right. I don't know how the independent consciousness of objects could be measured by human consciousness.
I am not sure to what extent this reply answers your query about my perspective on the issue of pansychism. I welcome further questioning because I am wishing to understand and think about this area of philosophy in a sympathetic but critical point of view. Intimately, I am not sure how significant the philosophy of panpsychism is but have some intuition that it of importance at this particular time in understanding consciousness and its processes.
What do you mean by "adequate"? Logically possible? Absence of explanatory gaps? Having rational justification to accept?
The creative human mind can imagine "disembodied consciousness", just as it can imagine big-headed Klingons from a distant galaxy. But, in appropriate contexts, we can distinguish science-fantasy from science-facts. If Consciousness was a physical object --- like a brain --- it could exist apart from the human body. But, if you remove the brain from the body, something bad happens : Life & Mind cease. That's because they are on-going Processes produced by and dependent on material Mechanisms, not localized objects in space. That's why I prefer Whitehead's Process Philosophy to the notion of Ghosts who walk around with transparent ectoplasmic bodies. :joke:
GHOST GIRL
Some (non-abstract) "objects" are also "conscious beings" and the vast majority are not. Neither type is "more real" than the other as far as I can tell.
Btw, what does "more real" even mean?
Quoting Patterner
LLAP \\//_
Yes, I am probably 'wrong' to speak of some beings or objects as more 'real' than others. It would come down to the issue of more 'real' for whom? Consciousness is not in itself a determinant of what is 'real'. My bed has no consciousness but it is as real as I am.
When I suggested that some objects are more real than conscious beings I am suggesting that they are more permanent. What I meant is that they are less subject to change, or death specifically.
Of course, so much is variable in terms of structures. A bed may break but it doesn't change form whereas some objects disintegrate. Sentient beings grow and change through processes such as puberty and illness. Their consciousness also makes them subject to changes in behaviour. States of mind play an active role in a being's underlying nature. In particular, the inorganic has no will or survival instincr.
Without a brain there is no imagination or capacity to reflect, as you point out. Imagination and reflection are process related. I am wondering whether Whitehead's description of the transcendent has any independent will independently of physical forms through which it transmits. That may be where it becomes impossible to split the physical from the non physical as they are a duality in process. Even that which has no brain, such as a tree cannot be reduced to a mere spirit and exist fully. The immaterial.relues upon vehicle of the material for its expression.
With the concept of the ghost there is no channel for sensory perception. It could be regarded as information but it is different from an actual living being. Even computers and forms of artificial intelligence don't have the underlying processes of imagination an creativity. That is why they could be said to lack a 'soul' as without sentience there is no direct interaction with the transcendent or the source of evolutionary potential.
What is your definition of the mind?
Defining 'mind' is extremely problematic and entire volumes have been written with this aim by Hegel and so many writers, including Gilbert Ryle's 'Concept of Mind'. Of course, you are asking me about my own slant. I am influenced a lot by Carl Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, which involves layers of the psyche, including the subconscious and the collective unconscious as a source.
I also take on board many perspectives. I have read Daniel Dennett but do not agree with his materialist perspective. Of course, the brain and nervous system is the wiring but that can be far too reductive. The physical is its base and organic factors are of key significance.
But, 'mind' as source seems essential too. Henry Bergson's idea of the mind as being a filter of 'mind at large' offers a fuller descriptive explanation. Aldous Huxley drew upon this too, in thinking about hallucinogenic induced altered perception, such as the use of mescaline. This is chemically altered experience but involves mystic states of heightened perception. Drugs can lead to psychiatric problems, mainly psychosis, especially when used in a recreational way. However, they can also up the subconscious and imagination, which may have been so important in the evolution of consciousness amongst ancient people.
The mind may have subtle levels and that is why the issue of panpsychism arises because it would be about the lowest rudimentary stirrings of potential emergence of consciousness, or some reactive response to stimuli.
The mind, to me, is defined as an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and create. These abilities are required to cause a coherent change in other substances. The situation becomes a little complex when it comes to thinking and writing, which are abilities of intelligent creatures. You can understand a simple and short sentence by the conscious mind; otherwise, you need the intervention of the subconscious mind when you are dealing with the content of even a paragraph, which is complex. The subconscious mind, to me, is conscious too since its intervention is coherent as well.
That seems much more like theory than definition to me. The other things in your list may be definition, depending on who you ask.
If so, what's the "explanation" for this "mind at large"? or evidence for each "mind being a filter"? or is Bergson's idea only a speculative analogy (rather than an "explanation") and not intended to be taken literally?
I am not sure to what extent Bergson's idea of mind as 'filter' can be taken literally. It is speculative in the sense that one can only pinpoint the brain aspects of the brain through empirical means. It is possible to form diagrams of the brain and nervous system based on research but it doesn't point to the underlying 'substance' of mind itself. Chemicals can alter consciousness, including the neurotransmitters but that is only the physical basis of it.
I do wonder what 'substance' is in itself and wonder how @MoK defines this.
I like your description of 'the mind is all the body's functions online as spirit'. It captures the virtual nature of the reality of experience.
By substance, I mean something that objectively exists, opposite to what subjectively exists, so-called experience.
Ironically, the dualistic notion of "disembodied consciousness" (ghosts) may be influenced by the materialistic foundation of our language and our sensory experience. For example, Spiritualists in the 19th century sometimes produced physical evidence that an invisible ghost had manifested in the seance. They made up a sciency-sounding name for spirit-slime : Ectoplasm*1.
It's the greenish stuff that ghosts "slimed" the Hollywood GhostBusters with. In practice, it was merely some un-identifiable viscous substance*2, such as animal fat or cheese dust, that seancers could see & touch, to bolster their Faith and undermine Skepticism. The fake solidified "spiritual energy" was so cheesy that modern paranormal investigators eschew the tangible slime, and depend on readout "evidence" from electronic devices as FaithBuilders. :smile:
*1. In spiritualism, ectoplasm, also known as simply ecto, is a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.
spiritualism ectoplasm
*2. Paranormal: What exactly is ectoplasm?
It doesnt actually exist. The name came about back during the craze with Mediums and photography. It was generally faked, but more current pictures sometimes depict a cheesecloth like substance that appears. These are the closest thing that you will find that may be labeled ectoplasm.
https://www.quora.com/Paranormal-What-exactly-is-ectoplasm