Pantheism and panpsychism

[untermensche]

Well, people who argues for the many worlds interpretation are also physicists.
But interesting non the less.

If the experts don't agree what can we say?

All you can do is hold these ideas about multiple worlds in reserve and wait for actual evidence.

 

[veclock]

Well, people who argues for the many worlds interpretation are also physicists.
But interesting non the less.

If the experts don't agree what can we say?

All you can do is hold these ideas about multiple worlds in reserve and wait for actual evidence.

That is exactly why I said "if the many worlds interpretation is right, then[...]".
All I can do? We're in the philosophy forum. Anyone is allowed to have a philosophical discussion as a fun activity in the wait for actual evidence.
I'm not saying this will lead so any progress but it can at least lead to one filtering out better or worse theories and getting to know them better.
You're free to be totally passive about it, but then I don't understand why you ever wrote anything in this thread. Because it's been a philosophical discussion all along.

We're not here to make progress in the field (did anyone really think that?), we're here to make progress in our own thinking and orientation around it, until actual evidence is gathered.
It's a way of celebrating that we have brains that we can use. It's a fun activity.
It's like, when I'm holding these internet conversations I notice how my ability to formulate myself in everyday life and use critical thinking improves a lot.
I think this attitude of "until scientists gather evidence everyone should just shut up and be passive" is sooo boring.
Philosophy is allowing oneself to be playful with logic and critical thinking, and it's a way of socializing with other humans.
Don't you think that conversations like this, especially among young people, can inspire them to become actual scientists to be able to explore it for real?
These conversation killing attitudes only does harm in my opinion.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know how to deal with questions involving multiple worlds.

I would not understand the behavior of anything moving from one world to another.

I believe consciousness is something that evolved to deal with problems of survival.

I reason that the only way a consciousness could help with survival is if that consciousness has free will.

Like cells used EM energy and evolved to react to it and then the brain evolved to turn those reactions into experiences I think evolving cells just as blindly evolved to make use of some effect to create experience.

Experience is always two things.

It is first the thing that experiences. The thing that has the experience.

The second is the thing experienced. The fall tree with red and orange and yellow leaves.

When you have both these things you have experience.

If they are not both present you do not.

 

[untermensche]

These conversation killing attitudes only does harm in my opinion.

Conversation for the sake of conversation is fine.

It is what makes the world go round.

It is what makes life worth living.

But it is not philosophy.

Philosophy is a disciplined mind that is skeptical and has criteria to accept ideas.

If we can't really comprehend something, like other worlds besides this world, then we can't really talk about them.

We can invent other worlds. We have imagination.

But actually talking constructively about other worlds we have no comprehension of?

I am skeptical.

 

[fromderinside]

The thing guys, is consciousness and proto-consciousness are probably the same thing with regard to the human condition. Consciousness helps not at all with regard to natural law and t =0. That is so because the best humans can do is a few seconds after something happens that they can sense. That is after something that takes place as the result of other activity many billions of trillions of time a second prior to that which one senses. So at the quantum level and the man responsive interval man is offered only data from the past.

However, humans operate largely at a human level of behavior and consciousness that is common to most all humans. So with respect to humans much of what humans do are influenced and influence what humans endure. To the extent that that impacts survival it is important to humans. To the extent that to which humans are merely responding after what has taken place man has essentially no determinative skin in the game.

So it is reasonable that man has evolved concentrating on play the survival game among men behavior and context. Consciousness, awareness self, intent, motives are all wrapped up in such changes. However that consciousness is only consciousness with respect to man time.

Consciousness is a random variable in t = 0 time survival calculations.

Above takes consciousness out of determinative behavior generally, reducing it to some effect in human time behavior. Consequently human experience cannot include inclusion of actual free will nor control overt he state of the world or actual consciousness of the world. What is left is that small arena where time sense is operative among living things.

No one would ever such behavior free will. We have some success ginning up games with humans which permits us to believe we are in control and do act with intent while actually being helpless in the real world of events IAC natural law after t = 0.

The t in mans equation is only effect re survival among living beings. Were we the only beings in the world we would have no idea beyond interactions with other men of our impacts on things., and then only in context with that of other men.

 

[untermensche]

This idea that the brain is making a bunch of probability calculations is an idea totally destroyed by Chomsky in this video.

This is a room full of computational cognitive scientists and an 80 something year old man telling them they are all totally misguided and are not doing anything constructive.

They are not stupid people.

They are misguided and not thinking things through.

The exchange at 1:09:18 is interesting.

 

[Swammerdami]

I just stumbled on this thread, skimmed it, and will give my reactions.

I strongly agree with veclock's point of view. The questions veclock poses are questions I would pose.

And, if I were veclock I would find some of the responses frustrating. For example, veclock distinguishes 'awareness' and 'consciousness' in order to clarify and avoid talking past each other. The first response defined 'aware' as veclock defined 'conscious' and went on to deny any difference!

... Let's assume the brain creates consciousness. How does it do that? Brain activity. Is it the flow of electrons in the brain, or flow of information? If it's electrons, is consciousness made out of electromagnetism? ...
Electrons are just waves in the electromagnetic field, right? Then what is brain activity?

I personally think that if you built a sufficiently complex brain out of Lego blocks or TinkerToys it would be conscious. It's just that electricity and electricity-driven biochemistry are the convenient ways to build complex machines in our universe.

Roger Penrose's ideas have already been discussed in this thread; he thinks neurons are much more complex than generally imagined due to quantum effects in microtubules. Question: Does he think that this gives a huge boost to the brain's complexity and the resultant complexity leads to consciousness? Or do these "quantum tubules" have some peculiar property unrelated to their complexity which leads to consciousness?

I think consciousness is some unknown quantum effect of matter/energy.

Quite possible! The argument I'm trying to lay out goes hand in hand with this, since electrons are quantum particles. But let me ask you, do you think this quantum effect gives rise to consciousness only in complex structures like the brain, or even at the quantum level for individual particles?

It's NOT possible.

Quantum theory clearly rules out the existence of ANY unknown effects on the applicable scales....
There are no unknown quantum effects that can influence just a single human (or just a single cellular behaviour in a human brain) without atomising him.

Whatever consciousness is, it is absolutely and definitely a result of known physical effects. Either that or quantum field theory is massively and obviously wrong. (It really is not. We really have checked).

Is this really true? Quantum computers are large objects which already do things undoable in classic physics.

Closer to home, many scientists believe that the high efficiencies of certain living processes, e.g. photosynthesis, rely on quantum effects.
Chlorophyll is microscopic, but a fast-growing tree which benefits from that chlorophyll is macroscopic. For the same reason, Penrose might be right: The complexity of brain may benefit from quantum effects inside neurons. Indeed, if we accept that the efficiencies of photosynthesis and olfactory sense, etc. rely on quantum effects, we can at least GUESS at more extreme quantum exploits being likely.

I've had this idea about a timeless infinite fractal of universes and infinite timelines of every universe. Different timelines comes from the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. When I've been on psychadelics it's become quite obvious that consciousness is what allows us to navigate between timelines with our choices in this infinite fractal of timelines. Even though it felt like a religious experience in many ways I'm of course not gonna hold it as proof of anything. But what is interesting is when a vast majority of people taking "consciousness expanding substances" report similar philosophical realizations.


One way of answering that question is to assume that consciousness is a fundamental part of physics, maybe all of it, maybe some parts of it. Then the activity would be the same thing as consciousness, nothing extra is needed to be "reading" the activity because it's "reading" the whole universe all the time. But somehow, reading more intensely as complexity increases, like in a brain. However, I understand that this argument falls quite flat since a sleeping brain is quite unconscious and still shows very much complex activity. So is there a solution for that counterargument? Maybe the activity has changed in some fundamental part during sleep that some necessary component is turned off. Maybe the register of time? Maybe consciousness can't work without that? I don't know enough about the brain to go much further here, maybe someone can fill in or correct me here.../

... [L]atest I've heard from Brian Greene is that the fabric of space time is stitched together by the threads of quantum entanglement. What if the complex structure of the brain and entanglements going through it creates a very special geometry of entanglements for example...

... Any smaller scale effects are irrelevant at larger scales. If you have a good description of how a carbon atom behaves, it can be understood in terms of the subatomic components and their interactions, but those components cannot give rise to behaviour that defies the description you started with.

This has been demonstrated to be universally true. And it's a bloody good thing too, or Newton couldn't have done any of his work without first having determined the full details of the Standard Model, including those bits we don't yet have full details for.

When experimental and observational behaviour matches theoretical behaviour, no new information about smaller scales can change the larger scale results. Only where they disagree can an understanding of the next 'lower' level provide new insights or describe unexpected or novel phenomena.

This is counterintuitive, but true. I believe it was Wigner who demonstrated it - it was one of that generation on Nobel winning physicists.

Can you point to such a demonstration? Are those who relate the eifficiency of photosynthesis to quantum 'tunneling' wrong?

This idea that the brain is making a bunch of probability calculations is an idea totally destroyed by Chomsky in this video.

I tried to watch this, but Chomsky mumbles and makes pontifical judgements. He dismisses some contemporary ideas as "disproven in 1959."

This reminded me of the conclusion in the 1960's (by Minsky et al?) that perceptrons were a dead-end in machine learning!

 

[untermensche]

This idea that the brain is making a bunch of probability calculations is an idea totally destroyed by Chomsky in this video.

I tried to watch this, but Chomsky mumbles and makes pontifical judgements. He dismisses some contemporary ideas as "disproven in 1959."

This reminded me of the conclusion in the 1960's (by Minsky et al?) that perceptrons were a dead-end in machine learning!

If you're unfamiliar with the material you may have trouble understanding because even at 84 Chomsky's mind moved very fast and covered a lot of material quickly.

But when Chomsky says something was already known in 1959 then it was already known.

The audio is bad in places but the Q&A is the most interesting part of that video.

Chomsky basically decimates their ideas one by one.

An incredible display of a genius thinking on his feet.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd like to start a discussion about two terms and their relation to each other: Pantheism and panpsychism.

Pantheism is the view that the world is god. The universe, multiverse, everything = god. From now on, when I write "universe", I mean the sum of all universes/multiverses. Everything.

This can often be meant metaphorically. In theism, God is the highest entity. In materialistic atheism, the universe is the highest. Then a pantheist might say, well if the universe is the ultimate reality in which everything is contained and created, then the universe is god. In other words, still atheism but with a metaphorical use of the word god, where the thoughts of god is the laws of physics. Other pantheists might say that there is a god that have thoughts and a will, like a monotheistic god, but the universe is its body.

Then there is panpsychism and the problem of consciousness. We currently have no explanation for consciousness. Although there seems to be a materialistic neurological process for every conscious process, it's hard to explain why these processes couldn't go on "in the dark", as in a philosophical zombie without a consciousness, doing everything we do but without experiencing it. With developments in AI and robotics, we will soon face the question whether our robots are conscious or not.

Panpsychism is the view that all systems are conscious. Brains, computers, calculators, bee hives, ant nests, forests, lightnings, melting snowflakes, some might even say atoms.
Consciousness is simply built into physics. There's another term called panprotopsychism, where atoms aren't really conscious, but you gain more consciousness the more complex the system grows. This seems more reasonable in my mind. There's also some tricky problems with panpsychism. The problem of subsystems. Our brains do much in the dark (the subconscious parts), then after it has processed it further, the conscious part of our brain gets access to it. So is it possible that the other parts of information processing in our brains/bodies are conscious, but separate? Is it possible that the nerve systems in our guts and heart are conscious? These systems are more complex than smaller animals brains, and we would probably argue that all animals are conscious.

In any reasonable form of panpsychism, you wouldn't say that a chair is having thoughts. Our brains can do that, because they are complex and built for thoughts, problem solving, information processing ect. But a chair (or rather, matter in general) could have some form of inner experience.

Then there's also quantum mechanics where observation affects the outcome of an experiment. This might perhaps be the measuring tools interfering with the particles. Or consciousness itself?
Also, there's the splitting of universes, where you choose both to go to the right and to the left, the universe splits in two and you do both. That's another example of where you might say that consciousness plays a role.

So panpsychism is a philosophical view that kind of answers the problem of consciousness. But if that's true, then I think that it has implications for whether pantheism is true or not.

If all systems are conscious, then the universe is conscious, because it is one system. It's not built as a brain, so it shouldn't be able to having thoughts, solve problems, punish people or communicating with humanity. But it should be able to experience itself.

Personally I'm agnostic about this, but I'm exploring these thoughts right now to see how well they hold up.
Please give me your thoughts on panpsychism and how it relates to pantheism!

Another attempt at proving mind separate from body?

Like anything first create the definition, then see if anything matches the criteria. If everything is 'conscious' define precisely what that means so there can be no dispute on meaning. I pose the question knowing from past discussions it is near impossible.

Words and meaning are contextual and biased. To some the word consciousness in a debabte infers a life after death, an eternal non corporeal exitance.

Invoking the term materialistic for neuroscience in the debate is biased. It infers an existence or a reality not taken into accent by science for whch there is absolutely no evidence other than subjective perceptions.

Modern quantitative experimental science left metaphysics as a descriptive tool. That which can not be quntidied is seclative philosophy.

T me panteism is sply muti-god. Panpsychism sounds like another manufactured word.

 

[untermensche]

If something is conscious there must be a use for that consciousness.

Human consciousness is ultimately an evolved survival strategy.

The mind makes decisions with the use of an intellect and language capacity and memory.

But humans might wipe themselves out.

It might turn out to be a fatal strategy.

Without humans this planet would likely support life for billions more years.

 

[steve_bank]

Unlike animals humans allow for the feeding and clothing andsurvival of those who engage in idle speculation and make no contribution to society.

 

[untermensche]

Unlike animals humans allow for the feeding and clothing andsurvival of those who engage in idle speculation and make no contribution to society.

You mean humans can survive even in very bad circumstances.

Like a system of wage slavery. And a system where millions are tossed aside like trash.

Humans are resilient.

 

[veclock]

Another attempt at proving mind separate from body?

No, the total opposite. It's the view that mind-body connection is not only an aspect of the brain but the universe as well.
Because the brain involves physics, and whatever consciousness might be, it has to be present at a proto level of the physics involved.

 

[steve_bank]

Another attempt at proving mind separate from body?

No, the total opposite. It's the view that mind-body connection is not only an aspect of the brain but the universe as well.
Because the brain involves physics, and whatever consciousness might be, it has to be present at a proto level of the physics involved.

p1 brain is material
p2 mind is a function of brain
p3 universe is material
c therefore universe is alive and possesses is conscious

Non Sequiter.

There is nothing science based in the logic.

Computers are made of atoms. The universe is made of atoms. Therefore the universe is a computer.

 

[veclock]

p1 brain is material
p2 mind is a function of brain
p3 universe is material
c therefore universe is alive and possesses is conscious

Non Sequiter.

There is nothing science based in the logic.

Computers are made of atoms. The universe is made of atoms. Therefore the universe is a computer.

No. More like:
Computers are processing information, and are made of atoms. The universe is made of atoms. Therefore information can also be found at the atomic scale.

No one is claiming that the universe is alive and has consciousness. But some proto-conscious element has to be found somewhere below the level of brains,
in the physics that are involved in brains. Roger Penrose proposes the collapse of the wave function as the fundamental proto conscious building block of consciousness.

Brains are creating our complex minds, with physics. Not with magic. So therefore a proto conscious building block need to be found somewhere at a lower level.

So...

p1 brain is physics
p2 consciousness is created in the brain adding up trillions of proto conscious parts
p3 universe is physics
c therefore whatever physics is representing proto consciousness, then you will find proto consciousness not only in brains but wherever that particular physics takes place

 

[steve_bank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

Animism (from Latin: anima, 'breath, spirit, life')[1][2] is the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Potentially, animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and perhaps even words—as animated and alive. Animism is used in the anthropology of religion as a term for the belief system of many indigenous peoples,[7] especially in contrast to the relatively more recent development of organised religions.[8]

Although each culture has its own different mythologies and rituals, animism is said to describe the most common, foundational thread of indigenous peoples' "spiritual" or "supernatural" perspectives. The animistic perspective is so widely held and inherent to most indigenous peoples that they often do not even have a word in their languages that corresponds to "animism" (or even "religion");[9] the term is an anthropological construct.

Largely due to such ethnolinguistic and cultural discrepancies, opinion has differed on whether animism refers to an ancestral mode of experience common to indigenous peoples around the world, or to a full-fledged religion in its own right. The currently accepted definition of animism was only developed in the late 19th century (1871) by Sir Edward Tylor, who formulated it as "one of anthropology's earliest concepts, if not the first".[10]

Animism encompasses the beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no categorical distinction between the spiritual and physical (or material) world and that soul or spirit or sentience exists not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers or other entities of the natural environment: water sprites, vegetation deities, tree spirits, etc. Animism may further attribute a life force to abstract concepts such as words, true names, or metaphors in mythology. Some members of the non-tribal world also consider themselves animists (such as author Daniel Quinn, sculptor Lawson Oyekan, and many contemporary Pagans).[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.[1] It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.[2]

Personification is the related attribution of human form and characteristics to abstract concepts such as nations, emotions, and natural forces, such as seasons and weather.

Both have ancient roots as storytelling and artistic devices, and most cultures have traditional fables with anthropomorphized animals as characters. People have also routinely attributed human emotions and behavioral traits to wild as well as domesticated animals.[3]

What you are putting forth is a modern mix of traditional modes of beliefs.

There is really nothing new, just renaming and recombining. You are arguing and rationalizing as to the theists on the forum.

As a generalization an anthropomorphism is attributing human qualities to the aspects of reality. The bain cres mind, the brain is physcal, therefore physical realty is censorious.

Pre science it was natural logical progression, explain reality as a reflection of us humans. I believe Aristotle was an animist. Gods are reflections of humans.

 

[untermensche]

p1 brain is material
p2 mind is a function of brain
p3 universe is material
c therefore universe is alive and possesses is conscious

Non Sequiter.

There is nothing science based in the logic.

Computers are made of atoms. The universe is made of atoms. Therefore the universe is a computer.

No. More like:
Computers are processing information, and are made of atoms. The universe is made of atoms. Therefore information can also be found at the atomic scale.

No one is claiming that the universe is alive and has consciousness. But some proto-conscious element has to be found somewhere below the level of brains,
in the physics that are involved in brains. Roger Penrose proposes the collapse of the wave function as the fundamental proto conscious building block of consciousness.

Brains are creating our complex minds, with physics. Not with magic. So therefore a proto conscious building block need to be found somewhere at a lower level.

So...

p1 brain is physics
p2 consciousness is created in the brain adding up trillions of proto conscious parts
p3 universe is physics
c therefore whatever physics is representing proto consciousness, then you will find proto consciousness not only in brains but wherever that particular physics takes place

The consciousness of an individual is like a fingerprint.

It is an individual unique consciousness created by unique experiences using a unique set of genetic capacities.

Our consciousness is created by our experiences. Without the experience of language we would not have language.

There is no such thing as a general consciousness.

No such thing exists.

Only individual unique consciousnesses.

And these arise only because of genetic information utilized within a living organism and experience.

 

[steve_bank]

Every time I scroll past the thread for some reason I think 'pan pizza'.

 

[veclock]

What you are putting forth is a modern mix of traditional modes of beliefs.

There is really nothing new, just renaming and recombining. You are arguing and rationalizing as to the theists on the forum.

As a generalization an anthropomorphism is attributing human qualities to the aspects of reality. The bain cres mind, the brain is physcal, therefore physical realty is censorious.

Pre science it was natural logical progression, explain reality as a reflection of us humans. I believe Aristotle was an animist. Gods are reflections of humans.

No, no spirits. No emotions, no intentions. I'm I'll side with Roger Penroses theory, which I think is the best formulated one, then just a little proto consciousness for every collapse of the wave function.
Consciousness is built when enough of these are quantumly entangled. Like billions-trillions, as in the microtubulars of the brain.

So as you probably understand, a mountain wouldn't be quantumly entangled with itself in this way. That's a huge difference between this and some animism religion, where spirits possess every rock. Brains creates consciousness, but using proto conscious building blocks that are fundamental to physics...

The consciousness of an individual is like a fingerprint.

It is an individual unique consciousness created by unique experiences using a unique set of genetic capacities.

Our consciousness is created by our experiences. Without the experience of language we would not have language.

There is no such thing as a general consciousness.

No such thing exists.

Only individual unique consciousnesses.

And these arise only because of genetic information utilized within a living organism and experience.

I wouldn't be so sure if I was you. Did you ever conduct an experiment where you quantum entangled half of your brain with someone elses?
What would that feel from the subjective point of view to one or the other?

Until someone starts doing experiments with brains and quantum entanglements to see what happens with consciousness, don't claim you know anything like it was a fact. No one knows yet.

 

[untermensche]

What you are putting forth is a modern mix of traditional modes of beliefs.

There is really nothing new, just renaming and recombining. You are arguing and rationalizing as to the theists on the forum.

As a generalization an anthropomorphism is attributing human qualities to the aspects of reality. The bain cres mind, the brain is physcal, therefore physical realty is censorious.

Pre science it was natural logical progression, explain reality as a reflection of us humans. I believe Aristotle was an animist. Gods are reflections of humans.

No, no spirits. No emotions, no intentions. I'm I'll side with Roger Penroses theory, which I think is the best formulated one, then just a little proto consciousness for every collapse of the wave function.
Consciousness is built when enough of these are quantumly entangled. Like billions-trillions, as in the microtubulars of the brain.

So as you probably understand, a mountain wouldn't be quantumly entangled with itself in this way. That's a huge difference between this and some animism religion, where spirits possess every rock. Brains creates consciousness, but using proto conscious building blocks that are fundamental to physics...

The consciousness of an individual is like a fingerprint.

It is an individual unique consciousness created by unique experiences using a unique set of genetic capacities.

Our consciousness is created by our experiences. Without the experience of language we would not have language.

There is no such thing as a general consciousness.

No such thing exists.

Only individual unique consciousnesses.

And these arise only because of genetic information utilized within a living organism and experience.

I wouldn't be so sure if I was you. Did you ever conduct an experiment where you quantum entangled half of your brain with someone elses?
What would that feel from the subjective point of view to one or the other?

Until someone starts doing experiments with brains and quantum entanglements to see what happens with consciousness, don't claim you know anything like it was a fact. No one knows yet.

What do you think you would be if you were deprived of all experience?

Your mind was created by experience.

It did not exist at birth.

There is no universal consciousness.

There is your consciousness that is not my consciousness.

As far as we can observe there are only evolved animals that have consciousnesses.

The rocks have not somehow developed a consciousness. They have nothing they could do with one.