• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Panpsychism: Is Science Saying That Matter Is Conscious?

I don't say it's not possible, it's a nice read but pff, but the arguments are really every weak.

It's full of non-sequiturs and some outright leaps of faith. E.g. simpler is not always better although the article states that it is. Even the title stating 'it's probably true' is misleading, all the writer really shows is that we don't know. No-one is really claiming otherwise.

'Don't know' does not equal 'probably true'!

Even Einstein, quoted in this article said "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler" (although no-one is certain he said that...)
 
All interactions between matter and energy are a kind of information processing, so much so that the universe could be considered a kind of huge computer; and minds are a kind of computer, so they've got that much right; apart from that it's just an analogy.

If matter and the universe have consciousness, then it's not a very conscious form of consciousness.
 
I don't find the central argument of that piece convincing.

Kettles are made from fundamental particles, but it doesn't follow that fundamental particles possess an essential 'kettleness'.

Just because some things in the universe are conscious why should it follow that all things are conscious?

Of course it's interesting to speculate whether we would recognise if the Universe as a whole (or a grain of sand) possesses consciousness.

But I'm not sure that discussion can ever transcend armchair philosophy and become science.
 
graylien said:
I don't find the central argument of that piece convincing. ...
Click to expand...

I don't even believe there's a coherent trail of argumentation discernible in this article at all ...

The author doesn't seem to have any focused notion of what 'consciousness' may denote to begin with, and the exposition lurches away to reference constructs such as 'experience' and 'inner life' - none of which are agreed to be synonymous with 'consciousness'.

Furthermore, there's more than a little stink coming off the conflict between the author's aspirations to transcend the hard sciences' perspective and his naive association of 'consciousness' with the material. According to him physicists are wrongly wedded to a purely materialistic worldview and need to embrace 'consciousness', but it's perfectly OK for them to address this phenomenon on the very same terms as the worldview that's wrong and needs to be surmounted. :huh:
 
An update ... This article in Scientific American poses an interesting spin on panpsychism - i.e., that individual psyches are to the universal consciousness as distinct 'personalities' are to individual consciousness in the context of Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly 'Multiple Personality Disorder').

Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything?
A new paper argues that the condition now known as “Dissociative Identity Disorder” might help us understand the fundamental nature of reality

In 2015, doctors in Germany reported the extraordinary case of a woman who suffered from what has traditionally been called “multiple personality disorder” and today is known as “dissociative identity disorder” (DID). The woman exhibited a variety of dissociated personalities (“alters”), some of which claimed to be blind. Using EEGs, the doctors were able to ascertain that the brain activity normally associated with sight wasn’t present while a blind alter was in control of the woman’s body, even though her eyes were open. Remarkably, when a sighted alter assumed control, the usual brain activity returned.

This was a compelling demonstration of the literally blinding power of extreme forms of dissociation, a condition in which the psyche gives rise to multiple, operationally separate centers of consciousness, each with its own private inner life. ...

Although we may be at a loss to explain precisely how this creative process occurs (because it unfolds almost totally beyond the reach of self-reflective introspection) the clinical evidence nevertheless forces us to acknowledge something is happening that has important implications for our views about what is and is not possible in nature.

Now, a newly published paper by one of us posits that dissociation can offer a solution to a critical problem in our current understanding of the nature of reality. This requires some background, so bear with us. ...
Click to expand...

FULL STORY: https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...der-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/
 
Here's the abstract of the paper cited in the MPD / DID / Panpsychism article cited above ...

The Universe in Consciousness

Author: Kastrup, B.

Source: Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 25, Numbers 5-6, 2018, pp. 125-155(31)

I propose an idealist ontology that makes sense of reality in a more parsimonious and empirically rigorous manner than mainstream physicalism, bottom-up panpsychism, and cosmopsychism. The proposed ontology also offers more explanatory power than these three alternatives, in that it does not fall prey to the hard problem of consciousness, the combination problem, or the decombination problem, respectively. It can be summarized as follows: there is only cosmic consciousness. We, as well as all other living organisms, are but dissociated alters of cosmic consciousness, surrounded by its thoughts. The inanimate world we see around us is the extrinsic appearance of these thoughts. The living organisms we share the world with are the extrinsic appearances of other dissociated alters.
Click to expand...

SOURCE: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020005/art00006


 
The fascinating concept of panpsychism continues to receive some serious consideration (it would seem).

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-is-conscious-is-gaining-academic-credibility

Olivia Goodhill@pocketworthy said:
The Idea That Everything From Spoons to Stones is Conscious is Gaining Academic Credibility
“If you think about consciousness long enough, you either become a panpsychist or you go into administration.”
Click to expand...


Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.
This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the “panpsychist” view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.

“Why should we think common sense is a good guide to what the universe is like?” says Philip Goff, a philosophy professor at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary. “Einstein tells us weird things about the nature of time that counters common sense; quantum mechanics runs counter to common sense. Our intuitive reaction isn’t necessarily a good guide to the nature of reality.”

David Chalmers, a philosophy of mind professor at New York University, laid out the “hard problem of consciousness” in 1995, demonstrating that there was still no answer to the question of what causes consciousness. Traditionally, two dominant perspectives, materialism and dualism, have provided a framework for solving this problem. Both lead to seemingly intractable complications.

The materialist viewpoint states that consciousness is derived entirely from physical matter. It’s unclear, though, exactly how this could work. “It’s very hard to get consciousness out of non-consciousness,” says Chalmers. “Physics is just structure. It can explain biology, but there’s a gap: Consciousness.” Dualism holds that consciousness is separate and distinct from physical matter—but that then raises the question of how consciousness interacts and has an effect on the physical world.

Panpsychism offers an attractive alternative solution: Consciousness is a fundamental feature of physical matter; every single particle in existence has an “unimaginably simple” form of consciousness, says Goff. These particles then come together to form more complex forms of consciousness, such as humans’ subjective experiences. This isn’t meant to imply that particles have a coherent worldview or actively think, merely that there’s some inherent subjective experience of consciousness in even the tiniest particle.
Click to expand...
 
Ermintruder said:
Panpsychism offers an attractive alternative solution: Consciousness is a fundamental feature of physical matter; every single particle in existence has an “unimaginably simple” form of consciousness, says Goff. These particles then come together to form more complex forms of consciousness, such as humans’ subjective experiences. This isn’t meant to imply that particles have a coherent worldview or actively think, merely that there’s some inherent subjective experience of consciousness in even the tiniest particle.
Click to expand...

It sounds a lot like the concept of Dust, in Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" novels. Philosophy imitating fiction, or maybe philosophy is a kind of fiction.
 
I feel connected to the the universe conscious, after all we are just star dust that comes from explosions from other stars.

Einstein called his connection to the universe as a cosmic religious feeling, or the universe was talking to him.

In 1905 Einstein published 4 papers at one time on space, time, mass, and energy which scientists called Annis Mirabilis which meant the year of the miracle.

The world would never be the same again.

When you die, you will return back to Star dust.
 
MrRING said:
That seems to be the conclusion here:

http://theweek.com/articles/683192/panpsychism-crazy-theory-about-consciousness--probably-true

original link dead, archived version

https://web.archive.org/web/2020111...azy-theory-about-consciousness--probably-true
Click to expand...
Thanks to @gordonrutter for finding an archived version. It is interesting (to me) that as I read the later posts regarding this idea, I had the thought that the simplified explanation of panpsychism, and the subsequent questions arriving from this theory ie how can minute particles possibly have consciousness that form to greater systems with greater consciousness, reminds me of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. We have accepted his theory as we gain more knowledge and proof of evolution in living creatures, but still have not actually been able to find how the "simpler" forms have evolved to the more complex forms. And then, lastly, I read the OP and in that article it mentions Darwinism.
 
Ok I read all of the above and it all boils down to all matter might be conscious period no logical argument no data no metaphysical argument Well that"s one way to sell a book.
 
The human body is 60% water and 99% of the body’s mass is oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

Now the universe is made of 70% hydrogen, 28% helium, and the other 2% are oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and trace elements.

Us and the universe are made of the same stuff.

We are kindred and connected.

My opinion is that the universe is a living entity.
 
Some further fascinating discussion on panpsychism by Philip Perry, which has just resurfaced into my view https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state

The universe may be conscious, say prominent scientists​

A proto-consciousness field theory could replace the theory of dark matter, one physicist states.
What consciousness is and where it emanates from has stymied great minds in societies across the globe since the dawn of speculation. In today’s world, it’s a realm tackled more and more by physicists, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists. There are a few prevailing theories. The first is materialism. This is the notion that consciousness emanates from matter, in our case, by the firing of neurons inside the brain.

Take the brain out of the equation and consciousness doesn’t exist at all. Traditionally, scientists have been stalwart materialists. But doing so has caused them to slam up against the limitations of materialism. Consider the chasm between relativity and quantum mechanics, or Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and you quickly start to recognize these incongruities.

The second theory is mind-body dualism. This is perhaps more often recognized in religion or spirituality. Here, consciousness is separate from matter. It is a part of another aspect of the individual, which in religious terms we might call the soul. Then there’s a third option which is gaining ground in some scientific circles, panpsychism. In this view, the entire universe is inhabited by consciousness.
Click to expand...

Is this as impossible and unlikely as it superficially seems? Or are we unable to ever truly-understand such a situation, through our finite perceptual/conceptual capabilities?
 
Ermintruder said:
Is this as impossible and unlikely as it superficially seems? Or are we unable to ever truly-understand such a situation, through our finite perceptual/conceptual capabilities?
Click to expand...
Just by thinking about it or even using science, nope. Our minds are also limited and prone to being wrong. Our brains are made up of matter just as everything in the universe is. It comes from and grows from the ground, sunshine, water, air and sound. So it's material in nature. Just as our bodies are. Consciousness is a quality, non material, and higher than the brain and mind and it's our brain and mind that the 'I' is conscious of. The answer to what is consciousness is found in the answer to who is the "I' that has consciousness.

Consciousness cannot be quantified or measured so science is useless. It also cannot be really defined just as, for example, 'love' cannot be either yet we all intrinsically know what love is. The brain is just the means to express that desire in some shape, manner or form to the person we love. To love someone we need consciousness. So consciousness is higher than love, hate, empathy, tolerance, etc, which are all qualities expressed through using our minds and brain and then the body.

To say science knows where or what consciousness is or where it is seated is to me ridiculous. They can't even define or quantify what they are looking for but I guess that as 'the scientist' has become the high priests of society, most people will always look only to them for answers. Rather like how in years gone by, the masses just accepted the dogmatism of the church as everything. We now have a new church, science.

So science which just studies matter, physicists, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists will never discover the answer to consciousness because it is the lesser trying to understand the greater or the lower trying to understand the higher or the gross trying to understand the subtle.

Then the idea or speculation that the universe is somehow conscious or has consciousness, conscious of what exactly? And suppose it exists, where did that consciousness come from?
 
Last edited:
Ermintruder said:
... Is this as impossible and unlikely as it superficially seems? Or are we unable to ever truly-understand such a situation, through our finite perceptual/conceptual capabilities?
Click to expand...

There's little point in debating whether the universe exhibits "consciousness" until and unless one can specify a coherent definition for "consciousness". The fact that such a definition dodges farther out of reach the more we attempt to specify it (like a will o' the wisp receding as you approach it) is one reason the issue of consciousness is called "The Hard Problem."
 
EnolaGaia said:
There's little point in debating whether the universe exhibits "consciousness" until and unless one can specify a coherent definition for "consciousness". The fact that such a definition dodges farther out of reach the more we attempt to specify it (like a will o' the wisp receding as you approach it) is one reason the issue of consciousness is called "The Hard Problem."
Click to expand...
Consciousness in most eastern religions is accepted as a symptom of the soul. I really only know what is stated in the Vedas written down 5 000 years ago. According to those teachings, the soul is eternal, has consciousness expressed through eternal time, which is then expressed through subtle body around which the gross material body coalesces and forms while in the womb. While in the womb the unborn child is aware of this and with the shock of birth, complete forgetfulness of knowledge of our true spiritual nature is forced upon the living entity and so the baby becomes bewildered, cries and is helpless.

Then as the child grows into childhood, youth, and so on, some ask the 'hard question' and some, according to their heart felt desires, will get answers and some don't. Those that don't then say it's impossible to know and some will speculate, some will experiment and some will fruitlessly study it. As they are the vast majority anyone who does know or knows where such knowledge is found, tends to get discounted and not listened to. That is the nature of this age we live in.
 
Last edited:
There was something similar in New Scientist recently https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ousness-in-our-understanding-of-the-universe/

Have to say, I thought it was nonsense. The emotional experience of seeing sunlight dappling through the wet leaves as being beautiful because of 'consciousness' doesn't take into account any other animal. I suspect a dog or an ant perceives the world so differently, the idea that this consciousness is central to the universe is really saying 'the universe is only there due to us fabulous humans'.

The two slit experiment is weird, but, rather than saying the universe depends on humans watching electrons, it tells me that we don't know much about quantum reality - and I don't think that's especially controversial.

If consciousness, and they really mean humans, is so important to the universe working, why is it filled with poisonous gases and deadly radiation, so that we can only exist for a spark of time on a smear of mud crust on the outside of a mote of dust?

We missed the first 13 billion years, and we're unlikely to see the next billion, so we can't be that fundamental. Probably why there were so few scientists in the article but plenty of philosophers.
 
FFTs (Fellow Fortean Travelers) -

I find rummaging around this site, below, to be both humbling and invigorating. There are many short essays - and some looong ones - as well as videos. Here are two links to discussions about consciousness:

https://www.edge.org/responses/what-is-your-favorite-deep-elegant-or-beautiful-explanation
https://www.edge.org/conversations/topic/mind

Several years ago I gave myself the task to reading through some every day. I doubt if I will successfully complete this task in this lifetime.
I don't always agree with what is written, and some authors seem past their prime cognitive work. But great stuff and almost all of it clearly shows the somewhat arbitrary boundaries between disciplines, and the great minds which see the arbitrariness of those boundaries. I think Fort would enjoy.

Regarding matter and consciousness: in addition to agreeing with EG above, I think that most of the fundamental differences in opinions is based in unarticulated premises or assumptions. If the premises are not acknowledged in the discussion, specific topics of disagreement can not be identified and dealt with. I think that dealing with them does not mean coming to some sort of agreement, but rather better understanding the orientation towards the topic which others have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top