Is this view nuts?

[Illuminaughty]

I like to consider myself a rational guy. I'm a humanist and I highly value both the rational faculty and the scientific method. I tend to be a practical person who can stear clear of pie in the sky thinking... But one a few issues I have a rather strange view of things developed in response to certain altered states that I've experienced. I question rather these view are in fact rational or if maybe I've fallen prey to wishful thinking. This questionable view is a belief in a sort of panpsychism and the idea that the totality of the universe Itself is one single living being. What do you say about this? Have I fallen over the edge into superstition?

 

[renewed21]

Nice.

You do have an intelligent mind. God Bless.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This questionable view is a belief in a sort of panpsychism and the idea that the totality of the universe Itself is one single living being. What do you say about this? Have I fallen over the edge into superstition?

Yes.

At least, you've given me no cause to think otherwise.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

Depends.... do you have any reason or evidence to believe the universe is a single living being? Or is it just a thought you had while you were in an altered state that sounded good?

If you don't have evidence, then you have fallen into superstition.

Come back towards the light, please!!


P.S. Observations made while in an altered state usually aren't rational, but can be quite convincing. Critically think about the situation from a sober mindset for a while.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I do. In fact I often go back and forth on the issue. It seems to be one of my most reoccurent intuitions though.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I do. In fact I often go back and forth on the issue. It seems to be one of my most reoccurent intuitions though.

Intuition is not always right, and in fact is often wrong. Follow the evidence.

There is no evidence that even suggests the world is one big living thing. In fact the vast majority of it is quite dead.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Depends.... do you have any reason or evidence to believe the universe is a single living being? Or is it just a thought you had while you were in an altered state that sounded good?

That's precisely the question I have trouble with. I'm not sure if its the most accurate model I could use to make sense of my own experience and the evidence or if I'm trying to contort the facts to prop up a position I just happen to be attracted to.

P.S. Observations made while in an altered state usually aren't rational, but can be quite convincing. Critically think about the situation from a sober mindset for a while.

I recognize the need for skepticism in terms of drawing conclusions from peak experiences or altered states. In fact I even recognize the need for skepticism in the realm of normal states of consciousness and every day "reality". I'm one of those post modern types that rarely thinks in terms of a black or white "yes" vs "no". I tend to think of things more in terms of "maybe" and probability. I also change my mind a lot lol.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's precisely the question I have trouble with. I'm not sure if its the most accurate model I could use to make sense of my own experience and the evidence or if I'm trying to contort the facts to prop up a position I just happen to be attracted to.



I recognize the need for skepticism in terms of drawing conclusions from peak experiences or altered states. In fact I even recognize the need for skepticism in the realm of normal states of consciousness and every day "reality". I'm one of those post modern types that rarely thinks in terms of a black or white "yes" vs "no". I tend to think of things more in terms of "maybe" and probability. I also change my mind a lot lol.

I also tend to think in shades of grey, but there are also times when a black and white approach is best.

In this case, if you don't have any evidence, then you don't have any evidence. Shades of grey would apply if you had something that would suggest your observation was true, but so far you haven't shown any.

Since there's no evidence for your observation, I would say you're safe in writing it off as a trip you had while you were high

 

[Illuminaughty]

The view I'm debating with myself would kind of be inline with some of the stuff I've read from Sir Arthur Edington, David Bohm, Sir James Jeans, and Erwin Schrodinger. Some of my nerd heroes.

“That which we experience as mind…will in a natural way ultimately reach the level of the wavefunction and of the ‘dance’ of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these levels. … It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the level of particle physics”
​

David Bohm: (1986: 131).
​

"To put the conclusion crudely- the stuff of the world is mind-stuff. As is often the way with crude statements, I shall have to explain that by "mind" I do not here exactly mean mind and by "stuff" I do not at all mean stuff. Still, this is about as near as we can get to the idea in a simple phrase. The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds, but we may think of its nature as not altogether foreign to the feelings in our consciousness. The realistic matter and fields of force of former physical theory are altogether irrelevant- except in so far as the mind-stuff itself has spun these imaginings. The symbolic matter and fields of force of present-day theory are more relevant, but they bear to it the same relation that the bursar's accounts bear to the activity of the college. Having granted this, the mental activity of the part of the world constituting ourselves occasions no surprise; it is known to us by direct self knowledge, and we do not explain it away as something other than we know it to be- or rather, it knows itself to be. It is the physical aspects of the world that we have to explain. our bodies are more mysterious than our minds- at least they should be, only that we can set the mystery on one side by the device of the cyclic scheme of physics, which enables us to study their phenomenal behaviour without ever coming to grips with the underlying mystery.

The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are parts of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it. But we must presume that in some other way or aspect it can be differentiated into parts. Only here and there does it rise to the level of consciousness, but from such islands proceeds all knowledge.,,
​

Sir Arthur Edington
​

I'm tired of typing so I will recommend the book "Quantum Questions, Mystical Writings of the Worlds Great Physicists"

Particularly the writings

• The Oneness of Mind by Erwin Schroedinger
• The I that is God by Erwin Shroedinger
• A Universe of Pure Thought by Sir James Jeans
• In the Mind of Some Eternal Spirit by Sir James Jeans
• Mind Stuff by Sir Arthur Edington

 

[Illuminaughty]

In this case, if you don't have any evidence, then you don't have any evidence. Shades of grey would apply if you had something that would suggest your observation was true, but so far you haven't shown any.

I do have some evidence or I wouldn't even consider the theory. It's such an important issue to me I would like something really conclusive though. It's just not enough evidence to remove all doubt.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Here are describing to good intros to panpsychism

Panpsychism[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

 

[Illuminaughty]

"If both mind and matter are real, and are not separate substances, and neither can emerge or evolve from the other, then both matter and mind have always existed together, are coextensive, co-eternal and in some way, co-creative. Panpsychism, variously called panexperientalism or radical materialism, proposes that matter (or physical energy) itself is intrinsically sentient or experiental, all the way down."
Christian de Quincey

 

[Illuminaughty]

Galen Strawson: Panpsychism vs. Physicalism? - YouTube

Godehard Bruentrup: What is Panpsychism? - YouTube

William Seager: Panpsychism vs. Strong Emergence? - YouTube

 

[Eudaimonist]

"If both mind and matter are real, and are not separate substances, and neither can emerge or evolve from the other

To me, the bolded part above is an awfully big "if". I lean towards emergentism, in large part due to the way mind is clearly associated with brain function. Without brain function, there's no point in viewing mind as existing.

then both matter and mind have always existed together, are coextensive, co-eternal and in some way, co-creative.

So, my view is that the potential for mind has always existed, just as the potential for living (biological, material) entities has always existed. But there isn't any need to see mind and matter as equal partners.

Panpsychism, variously called panexperientalism or radical materialism, proposes that matter (or physical energy) itself is intrinsically sentient or experiental, all the way down."

Buddhists are likely to agree with you. I personally find the proposition dubious.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I like to consider myself a rational guy. I'm a humanist and I highly value both the rational faculty and the scientific method. I tend to be a practical person who can stear clear of pie in the sky thinking... But one a few issues I have a rather strange view of things developed in response to certain altered states that I've experienced. I question rather these view are in fact rational or if maybe I've fallen prey to wishful thinking. This questionable view is a belief in a sort of panpsychism and the idea that the totality of the universe Itself is one single living being. What do you say about this? Have I fallen over the edge into superstition?

Personally, I wouldn´t choose the term "living being", but apart from that I think a good case can be made for all distinctions being but products of our minds.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well I think it is reasonable to think that mind and body may be two expressions of one single fundamental substance, as in Spinoza.

I don't know what it means to say that the 'universe Itself is one single living being'. What does living mean? What does it mean to call it a being? Is it conscious?

It can, though, make sense to say that we are all one and all connected.

 

[Illuminaughty]

It's funny I just happened to turn the DVR on and found an episode of "Through the Wormhole" on this subject called "Is the Universe Alive." That's pretty much what I meant by living being but I agree that's probably not the best way to phrase it. Maybe calling it a super-organism would be better? Kind of like some understandings of the Gaia hypothesis but applied to the whole universe rather than just the earth. A giant quantum computer or brain.

 

[Illuminaughty]

To me, the bolded part above is an awfully big "if". I lean towards emergentism, in large part due to the way mind is clearly associated with brain function.

That's also how I would expect it to work in terms of panpsychism.

Without brain function, there's no point in viewing mind as existing.

If you are talking about individual survival after the destruction of the brain I think you may be right. It's possible that mind is an integral feature of all matter though. Not always as complex as the human brain but still there none the less.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you are talking about individual survival after the destruction of the brain I think you may be right. It's possible that mind is an integral feature of all matter though. Not always as complex as the human brain but still there none the less.

I don't see how. With a brain, there is a perspective. For instance, there is sensory input and with processing there is conscious awareness of sensed entities. However, without a brain, what is the source of perspective? Even introspection? There doesn't appear to be any.

So, my conclusion is that, without a brain, mind is not there at all. It's not an integral feature. Only the potential for mind is present.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

Again, the main thing is: Where's your evidence?

Thoughts and concepts are nice, but I think you're poisoning your thoughts with what you want to believe, rather than what you have justification to believe.

Not to be insulting, but that's exactly what religious people do when they decide to "have faith" instead of following the evidence.