Is this view nuts?

Illuminaughty · Jun 21, 2012

You could say that same about people who embrace emergentism too though couldn't you? I don't believe we have any sort of definitive evidence to support a specific theory about consciousness beyond all shadow of a doubt**. Yet it's rather hard to go without one so it would make sense to tentatively support the theory that seems more probable. I'm not seeing why panpsychism, especially in the more moderated form of panexperientalism, is any more "superstitious" or "irrational" than emergentism is. It's one way of making sense of the data.

** I'm open to the idea that such data may in fact exist but I've never been presented with it at least.

juvenissun · Jun 21, 2012

Illuminaughty said:
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?

This question is very old and is nearly unanswerable.
First, you need to define what is a "living being". That is a quite hard question. If it is not defined, then anything could be a living being. But if it is defined, then your question could be quite easy to answer.

juvenissun · Jun 21, 2012

Illuminaughty said:
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.

I study rocks. If I said that rock is a living being, would you laugh? If you check the term "rock cycle", then you may stop laughing.

Illuminaughty · Jun 21, 2012

I study rocks. If I said that rock is a living being, would you laugh? If you check the term "rock cycle", then you may stop laughing.

Never heard of the rock cycle before I'll have to go check it out now.

Illuminaughty · Jun 21, 2012

Oh, I see. Trusty old wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_cycle

Archaeopteryx · Jun 21, 2012

Illuminaughty said:
"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

For some reason Nietzsche came to mind, but I cannot figure out why. It's been a while since I re-read any of his works, so someone else may be better suited to make (or correct) this point. I somehow recall Nietzsche writing about what the universe would "feel like" from the perspective of a plant: cold and eternal, with no "object" being distinguishable from any other object. I'm not certain if this expresses some kind of panpsychism, but to me when I first read this it felt like (for a brief moment) the erroneous but none-the-less compelling duality of mind and matter fell apart. I felt as though mind and matter truly were one, and that all forms of matter had some level of "mind" even if the kind of mind were so alien that it would impossible (given our own minds) to imagine what it would be like (a sort of mutual incommensurability). I still find the idea fascinating because, when looking for other minds, we look for minds like our own, ignoring the possibility that there may be other kinds of minds so radically different as to be undetectable by our own standards of thinking.

Archaeopteryx · Jun 21, 2012

Illuminaughty said:
You could say that same about people who embrace emergentism too though couldn't you? I don't believe we have any sort of definitive evidence to support a specific theory about consciousness beyond all shadow of a doubt**. Yet it's rather hard to go without one so it would make sense to tentatively support the theory that seems more probable. I'm not seeing why panpsychism, especially in the more moderated form of panexperientalism, is any more "superstitious" or "irrational" than emergentism is. It's one way of making sense of the data.

** I'm open to the idea that such data may in fact exist but I've never been presented with it at least.

I recall reading a paper by a materialist philosopher who pretty much said: "We have no good reason for believing in mind-matter duality. That said, we have no good reason for believing that materialism must therefore be the case."

KCfromNC · Jun 22, 2012

Illuminaughty said:
You could say that same about people who embrace emergentism too though couldn't you? I don't believe we have any sort of definitive evidence to support a specific theory about consciousness beyond all shadow of a doubt**.

There's more shades of gray than the black and white of no evidence versus definitive evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Illuminaughty · Jun 22, 2012

There's more shades of gray than the black and white of no evidence versus definitive evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I agree.

Illuminaughty · Jun 22, 2012

I'll have to re-read some Nietzsche and see if I notice that this time. Do you know what book you found it in by any chance? I have the Portable Nietzsche in my locker at work I'll have to look through it today. I was actually just planning on doing that because the last time I read his stuff was back when I first got out of highschool.

juvenissun · Jun 23, 2012

Illuminaughty said:
Oh, I see. Trusty old wikipedia

Rock cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, rocks are living beings.

Illuminaughty · Jun 23, 2012

For some reason Nietzsche came to mind

I see what your saying. Nietzsche claimed that it wasn't only man that was governed by the will to power but even the atoms and the world itself. I was reading Heideggers book "Nietzsche volume 1 and 2" today and he states that Nietzsche considered will synonymous with affect, passion, and felling. That does seem to imply something like panpsychism.

"This world is the will to power- and nothing more"

WonderBeat · Jun 25, 2012

What you detail is the view upheld by countless esotericists throughout time. Surely, such weight of authority is not to be taken lightly, or dismissed as "superstition." But that is my own view....

Illuminaughty · Jun 27, 2012

I'm reading the book "Radical Nature" by Christian de Quincey now and it adresses a lot of these issues in an easy to understand manner. His view seems to have been heavily influenced by Whitehead, Bergson, Teilhard de Chardin, and traditional Chinese thought (both Taoist and Neo-confucian). I'm sure when I'm done I'll post a few good quotes.

Is this view nuts?

Drift and Doubt

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Drift and Doubt

Drift and Doubt

Wanderer

Wanderer

Regular Member

Drift and Doubt

Drift and Doubt

... and God saw that it was good.

Drift and Doubt

Active Member

Drift and Doubt

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency