Panpsychism?

God, the FSM, and everything else.
Bart Stewart
Regular Poster
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Panpsychism?

Postby Bart Stewart » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:00 pm

Here we have an article that considers whether the universe itself may be conscious.

It seems to hinge on a lot of poorly understood or unknowable quantum theory, but maybe they are on to something. It's a little reminiscent of the idea that the universe is a hologram, which to me raises the question -- how is that different from intelligent design creationism? A hologram would be an artificial construction, made by someone, right?

I readily concede I may be missing something.

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-un ... ign=buffer

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:10 pm

If it's conscious, it also is nuts. It made me read "the universe itself may be contagious." :nuts:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4125
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby gorgeous » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:42 pm

everything is conscious...everything is imbued with God...native people talk about the spirit of the Earth, the spirit of the tree, the mountain.....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:17 pm

Conciousness resides only in living things. Intelligence only in advanced living things (though gorgeous may be an exception). There is currently no credible evidence for anything else, though I am willing to be open minded if credible evidence is produced. There is nothing in theory to forbid intelligence in a sufficiently advanced computer, though no such thing has yet appeared.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4125
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby gorgeous » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:19 pm

everything is energy, everything has God in it...one reason mountain climbers risk their lives is because they communicate with the spirit of the mountain..they have said so....and human spirits there guide them...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:29 pm

As always, the assertion with no evidence. Ho hum.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Phoenix76 » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:45 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Conciousness resides only in living things. Intelligence only in advanced living things (though gorgeous may be an exception). There is currently no credible evidence for anything else, though I am willing to be open minded if credible evidence is produced. There is nothing in theory to forbid intelligence in a sufficiently advanced computer, though no such thing has yet appeared.


Lance, when you say "living things", are you speaking of the animal kingdom (includes humans), or do you include flora as well? I use the term flora broadly. I far as I know, animals all have brains, therefore one may say they have a conciousness. Flora etc do not have a brain as accepted in animals, yet one could say they are concious as they react to certain stimuli. For instance, a flower will turn to face the sun as the day progress, in times of drought, plants will run to seed so as to preserve their future.

Very interesting theory and an open mind is needed. My one reservation in this is that is seems to smack of religion, spirituality, perhaps a godman. As an athiest, that would be contra to my beliefs. But we will watch with interest.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:45 am

The validity of panpsychism depends on your definition of consciousness. The article doesn't set out a clear coherent definition of consciousness. If you define consciousness as the capacity to be affected by the environment, then you could say that the universe is filled with consciousness. If you define consciousness as the possession of personality, or as the ability to appreciate and understand, then it would not appear that the universe is filled with consciousness (though we can't rule out the possibility entirely).

Imo mind-matter dualism is an invalid paradigm, primarily because it is based on two ill-defined concepts. It makes more sense to see the world as being composed of information, and to regard that which we call "matter" and that which we call "mind" as different kinds of information processes.
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:48 am

Phoenix

Opinions vary. My personal opinion is that 'true consciousness ' would not occur at any level lower than reptiles*, but that is an opinion, and others may differ.

*With one exception. Cephalopods may be conscious.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:28 am

Bart Stewart wrote:Here we have an article that considers whether the universe itself may be conscious.


http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-un ... ign=buffer[/quote]

1) Logic Error: Only considers Individual consciousness
The claim has a logic error. It says if an individual doesn't hear a tree fall in the forest, how does he know it fell? The answer it simple, The individual exchanges information with other individuals who did see the tree fall. That information is added to the collective knowledge of all individuals and thus a collective framework of knowledge arises. This is why Dualism is bull-shit and deceptive as it ignore individuals communicating with other individuals.


2) Quantum Mechanics only matters on a molecular or smaller level
If you stop looking at the moon how do you know it doesn't disappear? Well the billion other people, on earth, looking at the moon do not see it disappear and they tell you. The mood does not disappear due to quantum mechanics and to claim, as the article does, that the moon may actually disappear due to quantum mechanics is complete bull-shit.

The next issue is the claim that electrons jumping between synapses may change to have new and exotic quantum states. That is also crap. We don't know exactly how quantum mechanics works but we know what it does in different scenarios. That evolution of the brain continued to evolve with those expected quantum states to be normal day to day events, simply shows quantum mechanics have already been factored into evolutionary advantages and this has been true simce the first simple form of life An amoeba reacting to light ( a photon) is going through a quantum mechanical event. There is no point pretending consciousness is a unique result of quantum mechanics.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:55 am

If the article is representing John Archibald Wheeler's theory correctly...
He called his theory the “participatory anthropic principle,” which posits that a human observer is key to the process. Of this Wheeler said, “We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago."
...then I need a new BS detector, because mine just exploded. Nothing exists unless humans observe it? So Jupiter had no moons until Galileo observed them through his telescope? Humans functioned with no blood cells until Leeuwenhoek observed them through his microscope? What an egocentric theory! Or am I taking it too literally?
Neuroscientist Christof Koch of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, is another supporter of panpsychism. He’ll be running some animal experiments. In one, he plans to wire the brains of two mice together. Will information eventually flow between the two? Will their consciousness at some point become one fused, integrated system? If these experiments are successful, he may wire up the brains of two humans.
Who the {!#%@} is going to allow him to "wire up the brains of two humans?" He won't get the data he wants from dead brains, only from functioning ones. That means living human beings. I don't see people jumping to volunteer for this kind of experiment, so you know what this kind of baseless medical experimentation reminds me of, with its "{!#%@} the consequences to the patients as long as we get our data" attitude. WTF?
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Phoenix76 » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:58 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Phoenix

Opinions vary. My personal opinion is that 'true consciousness ' would not occur at any level lower than reptiles*, but that is an opinion, and others may differ.

*With one exception. Cephalopods may be conscious.


So Lance, what explanation would you give the actions of say flora? Why does a flower follow the sun?

I can certainly accept that Cephalopods are conscious, just the same as any other marine animal is concsious, IMO.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:17 am

Phoenix

When someone taps your knee with a hammer, your leg jerks. No consciousness needed for that response.

Plants have no nervous system, and it is really, really difficult to see how they could have consciousness without some equivalent of a brain.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Phoenix76 » Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:35 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Phoenix

When someone taps your knee with a hammer, your leg jerks. No consciousness needed for that response.

Plants have no nervous system, and it is really, really difficult to see how they could have consciousness without some equivalent of a brain.


So a reflex reaction. Hmm, that sounds reasonable. I guess the question is, what is the lowest level of life that might have a brain. I'm sure that question could raise some debate.

Cheers
Bill

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8111
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Poodle » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:58 pm

Consciousness is one of those horrible words with a nebulous definition. Its use is tantamount to the medieval argument about the number of angels which could stand on the end of a pin. Or was it dance rather than stand?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:53 pm

As I said, Poodle, it is all about personal opinion. I have read an article on the subject in which scientists expressed the belief that Drosophila melanogaster, the laboratory fruit fly, had a form of simple consciousness. That is their opinion, and it differs from mine.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:04 pm

appro po of nothing, I recall from a long time ago the statement that consciousness required the ability to recognize the difference between yourself, and your image in a mirror. Fun to play with that notion but of course its only a partial. Dogs for instance do not make that distinction, their world based more on smell. Great Apes readily make that distinction. THEN: Dogs "know" to follow human directions like pointing to the bowl that has food underneath it. A skill or "consciousness" that Apes do not possess.

Its a mix of things.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:45 pm

Plants don't have a nervous system, nor brain cells; but they do have a complex system of chemicals whose sole purpose seems to be to transport information from one part of the plant to another. Animal brains have neurotransmitters.

Plants could have some sort of consciousness, but it seems very unlikely that they have any cognitive ability.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:02 pm

Oleg

Seriously unlikely. Not impossible, but I would ascribe a probability of less than 1 to 1000.

The thing is that response to stimuli, and even learning, can operate in a totally unconscious way, and still be relatively sophisticated. Just refer to Pavlov's dogs.

User avatar
Hex
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:26 pm
Custom Title: mi malam ciuj el vi
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Hex » Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:20 pm

gorgeous wrote:everything is energy, everything has God in it...one reason mountain climbers risk their lives is because they communicate with the spirit of the mountain..they have said so....and human spirits there guide them...

Enlighten me, define what you mean by "energy" and "spirit" in this sentence. Not some kind of nebulous, hazy, vague word, I want to know what these things mean when you say them.
Spoiler:
  TOYNBEE IDEA
IN KUBRICK'S 2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwoaOJZ7Dfk

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:47 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Plants don't have a nervous system, nor brain cells; but they do have a complex system of chemicals whose sole purpose seems to be to transport information from one part of the plant to another. Animal brains have neurotransmitters.

Plants could have some sort of consciousness, but it seems very unlikely that they have any cognitive ability.

What "information" is transported from one location to another? I think: None, but might agree with whatever you are thinking of.

Easy to think of plants as having a bunch of independent acting knee jerk non-neuron based responses...... and the ones that linked together most efficaciously won Darwins Race. No thinking or consciousness about it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:27 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Plants don't have a nervous system, nor brain cells; but they do have a complex system of chemicals whose sole purpose seems to be to transport information from one part of the plant to another. Animal brains have neurotransmitters.

Plants could have some sort of consciousness, but it seems very unlikely that they have any cognitive ability.


I agree with this, in theory.

We live on a planet where Earth like neurotransmitters evolved. I can imagine a planet that other "reaction to the environment" systems have evolved, that are simply much much slower than the speed our evolved systems on Earth work.

I can imagine a scenario in the distant future where humans land on a planet and , in the short term, assume the life forms are like plants, but in reality the plants are quite bright, but take a month to make a decision.

I think it would be unlikely that we come across alien species who "think" at the the same speed the species on earth "think".

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:34 am

On the other hand, Matthew, they might be silicon based and think with the speed of computers. We just cannot know.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:20 am

Poodle wrote:Consciousness is one of those horrible words with a nebulous definition. Its use is tantamount to the medieval argument about the number of angels which could stand on the end of a pin. Or was it dance rather than stand?

What kind of dance are the angels doing? I mean, you could fit more if they were all doing the Lambada as compared to, say, a Tango.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Phoenix76 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:26 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Plants don't have a nervous system, nor brain cells; but they do have a complex system of chemicals whose sole purpose seems to be to transport information from one part of the plant to another. Animal brains have neurotransmitters.

Plants could have some sort of consciousness, but it seems very unlikely that they have any cognitive ability.


I agree with this, in theory.

We live on a planet where Earth like neurotransmitters evolved. I can imagine a planet that other "reaction to the environment" systems have evolved, that are simply much much slower than the speed our evolved systems on Earth work.

I can imagine a scenario in the distant future where humans land on a planet and , in the short term, assume the life forms are like plants, but in reality the plants are quite bright, but take a month to make a decision.

I think it would be unlikely that we come across alien species who "think" at the the same speed the species on earth "think".


Matthew & Oleg, I like your thoughts, but get the feeling that feel plants take a long time to 'react' as it where. For instance, take a sunflower, it reacts quite quickly by following the sun all day. It doesn't take a month, probably dead by then, but within a day it follows the sun. Obviously it needs the sunlight to complete its designated duties.

So whilst I can understand your thoughts and the suggestion that a plant might take a month to make a decision, there are cases, as above, that take a much shorter time.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:12 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Plants don't have a nervous system, nor brain cells; but they do have a complex system of chemicals whose sole purpose seems to be to transport information from one part of the plant to another. Animal brains have neurotransmitters.

Plants could have some sort of consciousness, but it seems very unlikely that they have any cognitive ability.


I agree with this, in theory.

We live on a planet where Earth like neurotransmitters evolved. I can imagine a planet that other "reaction to the environment" systems have evolved, that are simply much much slower than the speed our evolved systems on Earth work.

I can imagine a scenario in the distant future where humans land on a planet and , in the short term, assume the life forms are like plants, but in reality the plants are quite bright, but take a month to make a decision.

I think it would be unlikely that we come across alien species who "think" at the the same speed the species on earth "think".


Matthew & Oleg, I like your thoughts, but get the feeling that feel plants take a long time to 'react' as it where. For instance, take a sunflower, it reacts quite quickly by following the sun all day. It doesn't take a month, probably dead by then, but within a day it follows the sun. Obviously it needs the sunlight to complete its designated duties.

So whilst I can understand your thoughts and the suggestion that a plant might take a month to make a decision, there are cases, as above, that take a much shorter time.

Plants produce hormones that are growth inhibitors as well as growth inducers. The cells that are in sunlight produce more of the inhibitors than the cells in shadow, so the shadow side grows slightly faster, bending the plant toward the light. It doesn't require a messaging system.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:25 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:[It doesn't take a month, probably dead by then, but within a day it follows the sun..

Within a day?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Phoenix76 » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Phoenix76 wrote:[It doesn't take a month, probably dead by then, but within a day it follows the sun..

Within a day?


Okay Bobbo, thought an intelligent person like yourself would figure what I was saying. No?

As an example, lets look at the Sunflower. It will follow the sun all day. Sit and watch, the bloom continues to turn as the sun moves (appears to move) across the sky. So when I say within a day, I am referring to the movement within the day.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Shen1986 » Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:37 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Conciousness resides only in living things. Intelligence only in advanced living things (though gorgeous may be an exception). There is currently no credible evidence for anything else, though I am willing to be open minded if credible evidence is produced. There is nothing in theory to forbid intelligence in a sufficiently advanced computer, though no such thing has yet appeared.


It depends what you call consciousness. I am not claiming that we already produced a robot with consciousness but the ASIMO is quite good at what he does. It can be a great milestone that we will be able to produce a robot with consciousness. Here are the abilities what ASIMO can do:

Abilities[edit]
ASIMO has the ability to recognize moving objects, postures, gestures, its surrounding environment, sounds and faces, which enables it to interact with humans. The robot can detect the movements of multiple objects by using visual information captured by two camera "eyes" in its head and also determine distance and direction. This feature allows ASIMO to follow or face a person when approached.[1] The robot interprets voice commands and human gestures, enabling it to recognize when a handshake is offered or when a person waves or points, and then respond accordingly.[8] ASIMO's ability to distinguish between voices and other sounds allows it to identify its companions. ASIMO is able to respond to its name and recognizes sounds associated with a falling object or collision. This allows the robot to face a person when spoken to or look towards a sound. ASIMO responds to questions by nodding or providing a verbal answer in different languages and can recognize approximately 10 different faces and address them by name.[8]


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO#Abilities

If ASIMO would be able to make his own decisions then we would have a conscious robot I think that is the only thing that ASIMO cannot do so far. Also I read somewhere that the newer models can even search for a energy source when they are running low on energy. Cannot find the article no more but ASIMO was used as a example that consciousness is not something magical or special and can be reproduced inside robots.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:41 pm

Universe Itself is conscious?

Wow man that's really really heavy. ;)

Image

OK, so these generically described scientists are saying that The UniverseTM is GodTM.

Even though I call myself an atheist and not an agnostic, I willingly admit I can't disprove the existence of the more nebulous flavors of The Deity.

Because they are meaningless.
Scientists don't know everything, therefore my favorite flavor of stoopidz is true.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Panpsychism?

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:57 pm

Panpsychism is kinda the only escape from the trap of having to place consciousness at some level but not below.
It is so attractive that famous thinkers like Leibnitz believed in it.
Of course, saying conscious of the most basic sort is everywhere doesn't actually explain anything.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests