I didn’t assume the universe isn’t sentient I said I struggle to grapple with sentience in a universe.... which appears when one observes it to be but rocks floating around. I didn’t qualify whether said rocks were sentient or not it was open ended and clearly an option within the poll. — Benj96

Nothing personal. I do not like polls, I do not think they are reflective of peoples true views as wording of questions and responses (and the limitations thereof) hinder rather than elicit conversation.

“Where do you think consciousness is held” was the question? I had trouble knowing where to start. I think forms of mind (of which consciousness is one) are ubiquitous in nature but object to calling “rocks conscious”. Maybe you could say what you think consciousness is? And where it is found?

Human mind and Human consciousness are associated with human brains. Hive minds may be associated with colonies of bees and ants. Flowers may (to me) experience (in a non-conscious manner) sunlight.

"consciousness is fundamental to the universe" was one option- actually was not listed in that form and even then I could not have chosen it as reflective of my view.

Your reasoning that my memories and experiences are the only things that provide a sense of self is also just an assumption. That would mean someone with severe Alzheimer’s or dementia doesn’t have a sense of self or a conscious awareness because their memories or experiences are muddled up or disintegrating yet they still interpret the world around them. — Benj96

I wonder about that. If a person no longer knows their name, remembers their family and friends, has forgotten their life experiences are they still “Uncle Joe”? I guess it depends on how you define “self” and “I”. I think mind comes in various degrees and various forms but the fundamental ontology is the question. If one is seriously demented one probably is aware in the “now” (like many creatures are) could be said to be “conscious” but I think a “sense of self” (open to definition) requires continuity of memory. I don’t mean to be argumentative. I could preface everything with IMHO. I am just providing thoughts.

I use the term “mind in nature” or “panexperientialism” (forms of panpsychism) and do not equate the terms awareness, experience, consciousness and memory (various forms of mentality, psyche).


1. Its coded into DNA and assembled/primed to run in utero – I think “mind” is more fundamental than DNA.
2. Its a quality of energy - the capacity to observe itself - I like the phrase that consciousness is the universe becoming aware of itself but it does not help regarded the metaphysics or ontology of mind itself.
3. It's a quality of matter - capacity to gather and store information- any structure contains information, I don’t think that alone helps us (but feel free to elaborate).
4. Its both a quality of energy and matter - fundamental to the universe. Like an ethereal soup- I think we pretty much can confirm the presence of energy, matter and mind, it is their relationship that is in question.
5. It is a byproduct of hierarchical organisation of systems. An emergent phenomenon - Consciousness I would say is an “emergent” (not in ontological sense) property of certain complex systems. Only in the same sense that different arrangements of matter give rise to different physical properties as well.
6. Consciousness doesnt actually exist it's an illusion- That would be “eliminative materialism” and seems to me to deny the very principle of the “inquiring mind”.
7. Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell.- Yes that is true but I fail to see the connection (you could elucidate for me).


Frankly, I am just confined to home for the pandemic and engaging to pass the time. It does inspire me to pursue lines of inquiry and use language to verbalize thoughts, I am not a true philosopher being mainly superficially familiar with only a few topics, have little ego invested, and I am relatively immune to negative responses. (I just stop engaging).

I have always thought one of the reasons socialism (particularly in the communist form) fails is because it denies the true, competitive, acquisitive nature of humans. Systems which substitute ideals for actualities are destined to fail (a problem with progressive liberalism as well). If there is no true reward for industry, innovation and hard work other than the "betterment of society" the result is predictable.

Regulated Capitalism with Democratic Socialism would seem a good compromise.
I don't think the huge differentials in privilege and income we now see in U.S society now are necessary to have an efficient functioning society. Most would work as hard to make a million dollars a year as to make 100 million. At that level it is not the money really it is a competition about "relative worth" a "comparison to my neighbor".

I don't think I am positing some kind of division, I am saying that red doesn't exist. It is not a property of the world. At least, not in the everyday sense we think of red, which is to say that we think of it as a property of objects that we perceive. — Graeme M

I understand the notion. Apples are not “red” when not being perceived by a “subject” with an “appropriate” sensory system.
Apples are not “red” in the dark. Apples are not “red” when blue light shines on them, when they are not ripe, etc. Language is imprecise; it is predicated on our experience. Red is the result of a perceptual process. Wavelengths are the result of a different process. We are part of nature. Our perceptions are part of nature. Nature is a process. You are saying this kind of process (atomic emission for example) is real and exists and that kind of process (perception of red) is not real and “doesn’t exist”. This is why Whitehead calls this kind of distinction “an artificial bifurcation of nature”. It is why some philosophers argue against the notion of primary and secondary qualities or properties.

but it seems to me that consciousness (for brevity, let's call consciousness qualia so we aren't being confused about physical states of awareness etc.) describes physical brain state — Graeme M

Bert1 (I think) would make a distinction between qualia (content) and consciousness (awareness of content) but I don’t make that distinction (he can elaborate). For me consciousness depends on experience not vice versa (deprived of input consciousness deteriorates). Consciousness (self-aware, self-reflective) is a high level of integrated unified form of experience which is in my view relatively rare in nature. You seem to wish to make the brain state and the experience (identical) thereby eliminating the need for any further discussion or explanation (eliminative materialism or physicalism). I do not claim that human experience can be had without a human brain (there is a one to one correspondence). I just claim that the scientific, material, physical, quantitative descriptions of brain states do not complete, adequately or satisfactorily describe the entire “process” of experience. Much like describing your travels (no matter how complete) to someone else is no substitute for them taking the trip. The experiential component of nature is more that can be described in purely mechanistic deterministic or materialist quantitative terms. The content of human experience and thought is more that can be described with language.

Behaviorally, patients can in many cases respond to sensory input without a conscious experience of that perception. That suggests, to me at least, that qualia describe computational outcomes within the processing system — Graeme M

Most mental processing, indeed a lot of creative output and problem solving, memory retrieval does not occur in our conscious awareness. (Examples are those solutions that appear in the morning, those answers that pop into our head after we stopped asking the question). “Consciousness” is just the tip of the iceberg of mental activity (purposeful, intelligent) that takes place in the human brain. Training is what we do to teach ourselves to accomplish tasks without conscious effort or reflection (sports, musicians, military).

My take on this is that qualia, as we call them, aren't real things, they are descriptions of the internal brain states. — Graeme M

Qualia are the result of perceptual process but all properties of nature are the result of process and relationship. So the distinction between qualia and properties is artificial (bifurcation of nature).

without the agent and its computations, a description does not occur. Descriptions are information, information is ubiquitous, describing agents are not. Rocks do not undertake those kinds of computations, at least not so far as I know. — Graeme M

I am not an advocate of “rocks are conscious”. Rocks are simple aggregates. Rocks lack the complex integrated structure that would give any kind of unified integrated experience. You will have to address Bert1 on that subject.
The ultimate constituents of “rocks” space-time quantum events are active agents (processes) which may possess a primitive non conscious form of experience regarding continuity, the past and the future, relations (inputs and outputs) to the larger nature from which they arise and depend upon. I do not believe in inert, independent entities or objects with inherent fixed properties, it is all process, events and relationships all the way down (it gets into various interpretations of quantum mechanics).

If red were a genuine physical property of the universe, then it seems possible other material objects could also experience red — Graeme M

Other materials have different interactions, relationships and processes related to that wavelength.

Do rocks compute information about internal states and reliably respond to those computations? — Graeme M

No, not rocks as composites or aggregates.

After all, isn't it the phenomenal character of consciousness with which we are concerned in panpsychism? Or have I misunderstood the claim? — Graeme M

Only certain forms and only when you have a certain definition of consciousness. There are many forms of panpsychism (I have one and Bert1 has another, but there are many other versions). The basic notion is that some form of mind, experience, mentality, psyche or “conscious quality” is ubiquitous in nature (to the core) and that physical monisms, and dualisms are mistaken ontologies that give rise to the “hard problem of consciousness”.

I don't think so, no. Consciousness is an essential prerequisite for an experience. If I'm conscious, it means I'm capable of experience. — bert1

For me, an experience happens when a conscious system undergoes a change. — bert1

I think that experience, perception and feeling (prehension) precede (are a requirement for) life and the higher form of mentality that we call “consciousness”. Most of nature is “non or unconscious experience” but I concede you are not alone (or even a minority) in your view.

Shaviro ," perception and feeling are among the necessary conditions of possibility for life, rather than life being a necessary condition of possibility for sentience."

The very nature of reality as process (continuous creative becoming) past, present and future (durational events in space and time) requires a primitive form of perception (relations to the larger whole), feeling (habit or a lure for certain outcomes). This is working panpsychism from the foundations of reality up. The other approach is (I think therefore I am, consciousness exists) and working your way out (other humans) and down (other forms of life and existents). If one does not believe mind is ubiquitous in nature where does it stop, and where and how did it start?

What is it you wish to discuss?
Your God is my "myth" and my God is likewise to you?
Likewise "myths have meaning".

Yes, there is a sharp division in the biology, to do with how many kinds of cones and how many channels there are in the optic nerve. — Pfhorrest

Do you have a reference?
Cause I suspect all photoreceptors are the result of mutations in a common ancestor, and that the different spectral sensitivities are the result of such mutations?
.
They would not result in blurry vision only the ability to detect different wavelenghts?

Well first of you are not the same from day to day, it is only memories and experiences that give you any sense of continuity (self). You are continuously "becoming" like everyone and everything else.
Second of, the assumption that the rest of the universe lacks any form of sentience is just that an assumption (see any thread on panpsychism, perception or sentience).

"whatever will be will be, the future's not our's to see"
Not a fan of fatalism or determinism.

Northern Europe presents a much better balance. — Marchesk

I would rather live in Finland, Sweden or Norway than China as well. I think it is hard to characterize governments with one or two word labels. I visited the philosophy of politics sites and there are so many different labels for socialism and liberalism that I prefer to talk about specific problems and specific solutions.

1). In order to be aware of the passage of time one requires stability of/access to past events in the form of a record/memory. If we had no memory of the previous moments how would we ever know there was a "then" to this "now", a "cause" to this "effect". — Benj96

Elements of the past are incorporated into the present. There are no permanent enduring “objects” there are only repetitive patterns of events “processes”. A primitive form of memory is thus built into the “universe”. “The past is never dead, in fact it is not even the past”-William Faulkner

2). The universe shows lack of simultaneity. Due to gravity all parts of the universe experience the passage of time differently therefore how is there a unanimous "now". Even a hiker at the base of a mountain experiences slower time passage than one at the top even if infinitesimally small. Your now is different to mine. When I react instantly to something you see it occur slightly afterward at a different point in "time" due to the fact we occupy different space. — Benj96

Two different issues really. One relates to the influence of gravity or acceleration on the rate of a process (cesium emission for an atomic clock, crystal oscillation, etc.). The rate of all physical, chemical and biologic processes are influenced by gravity and acceleration and since this is what we use to measure “time” the rate time passes changes under these conditions. (time dilatation).

It is true there is no “universal now” available to any observer since there is no privileged point of view in the universe. One can arbitrarily “adopt a reference point of view” and sequences of events as the light from them arrives there can be ordered and causality will not be violated.

3). We all live in the present. The past has never been reached nor has the future. You are always living now. You were born now and you are reading this now and you will die now. The only dividing factor is the sequence of change that is continuously occurring now. Where is time if it's always this case? — Benj96

I too am a”presentist”, believing only the present to “truly exist” but you may get a lot of responses from people with a different view of past, present and future. I am also a “process philosophy” person as a basic ontology (metaphysics). The world is constantly becoming (creative advance) and so sequential events necessitating “memory” of the past and “anticipation” of future possibilities requires “change, becoming” but not time as some separate metaphysical entity.

4). When does an event end? Units of time are arbitrary. The second, hour month etc are man made repeatable units based off natural ones from astronomy and ecological cycles. It seems the only way to measure time is to particularize it as a frequency of a defined length. Otherwise it simply flows with events just blending into one another. One seamless transitional state of change. — Benj96

Since there is no absolute “time” as you say its measurement is arbitrary. Different events have different durations. Change is what we perceive not “time”.

5). Reversibility. Almost all mechanism of physics are reversible and work equally well backwards as forwards. They are directionless and do not require an arrow of time. Entropy increases the disorder of energy giving us a seemingly obvious direction to time. However the jury is out on whether entropy has an opposite. Life is technically a decrease in entropy as it is the organization of a system so perhaps consciousness plays a role in countering entropy? Gravity orders millions of chaotic mass particles into a singular one and then perhaps a black hole which further gathers energy in its light form too decreasing entropy. — Benj96

Entropy “the arrow of time”. Cats do not become kittens. Time in our experience is not “reversible”. Cosmology indicates a direction to the universe (the big bang, formation of stars, planets, increasing complexity, life, etc.). I don’t think our consciousness creates these changes in the universe. Nature is full of self-organizing, self-sustaining systems of which we are one. There is creative advance at least in some small corners of the universe and I think explaining that is worth exploring (could even inspire some religious inclinations).

I'm skeptical to believe time actually exists in the universe. I believe it is a necessary concept to explain all phenomenon relative to one another across a medium which is objective and constant (both in the sense of physics but also conscious experience of the past present and future) but its convenience/utility doesn't mean it actually physical exists. — Benj96

Time is I would say an abstraction from change. Something we use to record sequences of events. Time itself does not exist. Change (becoming) is the fundamental nature of reality. There is no fixed absolute independent separate entity “time”.

One might suggest it is not longer truly a communist country (since the means of production are no longer entirely owned by the state and the economy is no longer centrally planned). One might also suggest its recent success is largely due to its adoption of components of capitalism.
Depending on how one defines it, I am not sure it is a purely "socialist" country either and class divisions are developing. It is clearly not a democracy but appears to be run by an elite who unlike the current US administration rely to a great degree on technical and scientific expertise.
The Chinese government is worthy of discussion and they have lifted millions out of poverty in the last few decades.

The communist form of socialism (government ownership of the means of production, planned economy) has been repeatedly tried and failed.

Utopian socialist communities have been tried and usually failed as well over short periods of time.
Democratic Socialism on the other hand (Scandinavian style) seems successful as long as the government sector of the economy is not allowed to become too large.

Unregulated capitalism (while generating wealth) seems to lead to concentrations of economic (hence political power) tends towards monopoly and creates classes (high inequality) within the society (current US).

Clearly we now have international corporations with budgets larger than countries, concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of a few, a supreme court which claims corporations are individuals, money is speech, and therefore allows unlimited influence by them on the political process.
We can perhaps agree on the problems, any solutions?

You seem to be on the path to Humean skepticism or even "solipsism". We are hopelessly separated from the "real world" through the "veil of perception". Placing epistomology over ontology and accepting at face value "the sense perception theory of knowledge".

I think we are much more connected to the world than this view would allow. We are part of the world, having arisen from the world. Our sense have provided an accurate enough picture or representation for us to survive.

In fact perception is at its more fundamental basis a process of causal efficacy. A chain of causal events, light striking the retina, nerve stimulation, visual cortex pattern resulting in presentational immediacy and interpreted in symbolic reference.

We don't perceive a separated bundle of impressions we perceive a wall, a rock, another human being.
We are not cut off from the world in the way Hume or even Kant would suggest.

Thus in some way processes themselves might be self-informing. — schopenhauer1

This is where one's view about the most fundamental nature of reality comes into play.
I have that view that all of nature is a process, a becoming (continuous perishing and rebirth) not an enduring being. This speaks of quantum events with duration in spacetime and relationships to other events and to the future and the past; instead of enduring quantum particles with fixed properties interacting in a purely mechanistic and deterministic manner (vacuous actualities).

This ability to incorporate (prehend) elements (data, information) of the past and to incorporate (prehend) possiblities from the future into the present event is a form of "experience" which purely quantitative, empirical, materialist, objective observation cannot measure. It is also the basis for all more integrated unified greater intensity forms of experience (mind, psyche, consciousness).

Shaviro ," perception and feeling are among the necessary conditions of possibility for life, rather than life being a necessary condition of possibility for sentience."

Present your definition of mentality, please. The Stanford article on panpsychism refers frequently to mentality, but I couldn't find a clear definition of the word in that context. Being a math person I prefer an intelligible presentation of basic definitions. — jgill

Well I freely admit language is a problem and language is imprecise. Defining terms like mind, mentality, experience, consciousness are a major problem in philosophy of mind. I don’t claim to have a definition that would satisfy a mathematician or materialist. This is part of the so called “hard problem of consciousness”. We experience directly (all of our thoughts, inquiries and answers start there in the mental)and yet we can’t measure or quantify it and we only infer its presence in other entities.

I am at heart a process philosopher and the world is a becoming, a constant perishing of the past and rebirth of the present and anticipation of the future. For me the world is composed of fleeting space time events, the most basic form of mentality is this incorporation of the events (data) of the past and of the possibilities of the future into the “present”. Whitehead called this aspect of reality “prehension”. In this view a primitive form of non sense, non conscious, experience or anticipation of the future and knowledge (memory) of the past, is built into the universe which is not physical and thus cannot be directly quantified or measured by our senses or our instruments.

Is this what you mean: "self organizing and self sustaining systems in physics, chemistry and biology." ? — jgill

That was in reference to sharply demarcating life from non life. A distinction I think is arbitrary. The “strange attractor” quality of such systems is worthy of philosophy thought and speculation. If you expect the precision of applied and theoretical math in philosophy you are likely to be disappointed. Metaphysics and ontology in particular are speculative.

Try the evolution of color vision
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-evolution-of-color-vision-in-insects.-Briscoe-Chittka/195de55dbf4fa744998682d1542a386f34430ac8

Yes, but there is little value in saying things that people can interpret to fit their own view if what you intend to do is disagree with them. But maybe you are a more agreeable person that I am, and maybe you will keep people interested long enough to have a conversation with them that I will miss out on — bert1

But my goal is not to "disagree" with them but to "engage" in a discussion of ideas, an exchange of thoughts. One discussion rarely changes anyone's basic world view but hopefully it stimulates one to explore other ideas. I know the main value of engaging here is the reading I do elsewhere in an attempt to understand the discussions and clarify and defend my views.

Yes, human experience requires a functioning human, just as canine experience requires a functioning dog, snail experience required a functioning snail, and rock experience requires a functioning rock. — bert1

Do you wish to say all these forms of "Consciousness" (experience, psych, mentality) are to the same form, degree and intensity? or just that they are all of the same metaphysical (ontological) kind?
I am wondering if you see a "combination problem" or not?
I am also wondering if you see some form of "universal consciousness" or "consciousness" separated from physical structure?

So I am not implying that the "mental" as it were is not real - there must be some actual thing happening - but that the qualities of the mental are not genuine physical qualities. Instead, they are descriptions of process. Red for example isn't a real property of the world. It's a description of how a physical quality of the world affects my body — Graeme M

I am perfectly happy to describe the “mental” as a process. The corollary to that concession is that IMHO the entire universe is a process “Process and Reality A.N. Whitehead”. I have a process-relationship view of nature versus an object –properties view. The most fundamental units of nature are “spacetime events, occasions”. These spacetime events for the type of panpsychist that I represent are not purely physical in nature but also possess a “experiential or mental pole, Whitehead used the term “prehension”. This for me is a type of “neutral monism”. I like the parsimony of monism versus any form of dualism or other plurality ontology or metaphysics. The physical and experiential are inseparable components of all processes and events
.
When you say “red isn’t a property of the real world” you engage in what Whitehead would call an “artificial bifurcation of nature”. We are part of nature, our perceptions are part of nature. The division of the world into primary and secondary qualities per Locke is an artificial one that leads us into many of our philosophical difficulties. I don’t want to get sidetracked into a discussion about the nature of perception or sensation (how well our perceptions represent “the real world”. We are part of nature, we arise from nature and thus our perceptions are as “real” as any other part of nature.

I suggest that if we move from thinking that our experience is a representation of the world and view it as the state of internal information manipulation, we no longer need to explain "consciousness — Graeme M

Again this takes us into the philosophy of perception and will sidetrack the notion of “panpsychism”. Just for reference I like Whitehead on this subject as well, with his theory of perception “causal efficacy, presentational immediacy and symbolic reference”. A good introduction by Steven Shaviro http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1274 who I find in general to be a good interpreter of modern philosophy (some writers speak to me, others do not ).

In the end, the world we inhabit (as opposed to the world without) is an abstracted model, perhaps something like Graziano's attension schema. — Graeme M

I think our perceptions represent the world to us well enough for us to function. Granted our perceptions are limited and may mislead us regarding the nature of reality and science has shown many of our perceptions or common sense notions to be incorrect. For me this includes the notions of the larger world being inert, mechanical and deterministic and devoid of any form of “will, psychical, mental or experiential qualities”.

So I am curious how you regard labor unions and universal health care for instance?

I think the trouble with consciousness is probably language - by creating terms to describe our internal experience we have given concrete existence to something that isn't really there. We report that we "see" things, that "we" feel emotions, that the subjective perspective of our corporeal selves is somehow a separate entity. — Graeme M

Well language is always a problem being imprecise and subject to interpretation, but I think the difference is more than that.
You seem to imply the psychic, mental or experiential is not "real" "existent" somewhat like eliminative materialism might imply.
One response is that (in my case anyway) there is no separate or free floating consciousness. Human experience requires a functioning intact human brain. It is that "reality" is more than what can be objectively observed, measured or quantified. There is a physical correlate to any experience but merely looking at the material or physical fails to captures the totality of the "event". Merely describing the region of the brain which is active, the neurotransmitters, the neuronal network, etc does not give a complete, adequate or entirely satisfactory description of the event (love, hate, sadness, joy) . Much like talking about your trip is no substitute for actually having made the trip and describing the infrared in scientific terms fails to create warmth.

Without engaging in a "idealist" or "solipsism" argument about we don't have any "knowledge" except through our "senses":
Which do you trust more in a murder trial an "eyewitness" or DNA that puts the accused at the scene holding the murder weapon? Just asking?

I am not sure where to go with that.
One can simulate intelligent behavior with AI but I doubt there is the kind of "subjective or interior experience" there that we usually attribute to ourselves.
One can doubt many things but the "reality" of our own inner feelings, awareness and thoughts (I think therefore I am) would not seem to be a productive start. Descartes started right but went wildly wrong when he came to dualism as a conclusion.
We try to eliminate the "subjective" from our scientific "objective" study of the world, but the separation is hardly entirely complete or successful and something seems missing from entirely objective descriptions of human experience (love, sadness, joy). Who is doing the investigation and making the observations anyway.
We try to communicate our inner experience with language but verbal descriptions are never complete descriptions of the "actual event or occasion".
We attribute "inner experience or subjective experience" to other humans on the basis of observation, behavior, similarity and verbal and other types of communication but we are never actually privy to the entire content of anyone else's "mind". There seems little point to seriously doubt it.
That there is mind in the world seems to be a first principle. What other entities have some form of "mind" would seem to be the reasonable question and area of philosophical speculation.

I suspect you rely more on instrumentation, measurement and science for your evidence i.e DNA vs eyewitness testimony.
I'm not solipist or a skeptic just recognizing the limitations of eyewitness testimony and evidence.

The limitations of our "senses" in combination with the fluidity of our "memory" make eyewitness testimony among the worst forms of "evidence".

As I stated when I started I do not want a dispute about the meaning of words as opposed to ideas. You and I have many areas of agreement but we disagree about the best way to present panpsychism and favor different versions of the basic notion. I know a lot of philosophers use the term "consciousness" in the broader way you prefer.

I think "consciousness" as commonly used and understood by a wider audience refers to the kind of self reflective, self aware, unified, integrated, intense experience or mind of which we humans are "aware" when we are awake (not asleep, not in a coma, not "knocked out", etc.). I think most people object to the notion the "experience" or "mind" of anything other than the highest and most complex animals is "conscious" in the sense in which we usually use and perceive the meaning of the term.

There are lots of other terms to use: mind, experience, awareness, prehension, etc. Perhaps fundamental to the way I present my view of "panpsychism" are terms like "mind in nature" or "panexperientialism", "non conscious experience" , "mentality", "psychialism". I think saying things like "electrons are conscious" loses a great number of any audience that might be listening.

We can probably agree there is some fundamental aspect of nature which is "subjective or internal, what it is like" that is not measured by physical science and which is present in various forms and degree throughout nature but which is the same metaphysical kind or category, or not?

"I came because I had to; I'm the one who saw.
Jesus can't control it like he did before.
And furthermore I know that Jesus thinks so too.
Jesus wouldn't mind that I was here with you.
I have no thought at all about my own reward.
I really didn't come here of my own accord."
Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar/ Dammed For All Time/Blood Money

Judas was a little of all three (we humans are complex). He justified his actions in his own mind just as we all justify our own less than noble actions on a daily basis.

Actually nature is filled with self organizing and self sustaining systems in physics, chemistry and biology. One can view the entire planet as a self organizing and sustaining system (gaia theory). The classic example often put forth are viruses and the self replicating molecules of RNA, DNA, etc. I think that is thinking on too small a scale. No process, system, or form of life exists in isolation, there are strong inter dependencies and interrelationships that make the assertion "this is alive" and "that is not" questionable as a philosophical proposition. No living thing can exist outside of the environment (universe) from which it has arisen and on which it depends, it is "process" all the way down.

If you wish to explore "consciousness" as an information problem you might check out Tononi and this article from Scientific American would be a good start
/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-explain-consciousness/
Also the existence of mind or "consciousness" in nature would seem to be the one thing we can hardly doubt because of our immediate "awareness" and self reflection. It is what allows us to question and think in the first place. With that as a given one can begin to inquire what and who else has some form of awareness, experience, mind or consciousness. I think these terms actually have different meanings but get conflated in discussions such as this. The mental like the physical comes in various forms and degrees but not a difference in metaphysical kind.

I'm not sure I understand why we even use expressions like "consciousness" or "experience" when speaking of non-living entities. Do the planets have the "experiences" of revolving about the sun? Does a virtual particle - which may only be a mathematical device - have "consciousness" or "experience"? Do quarks have free will? Why is it important for some people to apply these and similar words removed from a context of living beings? — jgill

Actually drawing a bright line between the living and the non living and the experiential and the non experiential is not such an easy task as you imply. It is precisely in attempting to draw such a line that one begins to consider, becoming over being, and process and relationship over being and properties. The task is also what leads some to consider panpsychism over mechanistic and deterministic approaches to nature and reality.

Not that that really means much, since it’s such a trivial thing.

E.g. if free will is just the absence of determination then every electron has free will. That makes it clear that that is a pretty useless sense of “free will”, — Pfhorrest

I think one's metaphysical view of the nature of "reality" (worldview) is important. It profoundly affects the way that individual makes decisions and approaches problems.
For example if one attributes feelings, experience and awareness to other creatures one is likely to behave differently towards them than if one regards them as robotic automatons (pure stimulus response systems).
If one regards the world as a creative becoming (a process) with interdependence and interrelationships your approach is different than if one regards the world as inert independent objects with fixed inherent properties ("vacuous actualities" devoid of "any inner experience") (eliminative materialism)) or (mechanistic determinism).
I am not sure adding "free will" (itself a highly controversial term and subject) will be productive, although rejecting the doctrine of mechanistic determinism with respect to nature is important to considering the various forms of panpsychism.

Time is an abstraction from the "continuous creative becoming" which is reality.
Time itself does not exist, change (becoming) is the fundamental nature of reality.

I think the realization that "consciousness" has evolved is fundamental to a philosophy of mind.
"Human consciousness" did not just pop into existence at some point in brute emergence.
Our human experience must have had its precursors in the evolutionary process and although we have no direct access to the "subjective experience" of other humans much less other life forms mind has evolved in nature. At what point do you think "mind" first appeared.
My response is one of panpsychism, it is impossible to draw a line and so some form of protomind or protoexperience is fundamental to the operation of nature and present to the core and in the most fundamental units of nature "events" (per Whitehead).

I am afraid the current function of the mass media is entertainment.
It is all about ratings and about making money.
The news is mostly commentary and opinion (I hesitate to call it analysis).
The 24 hr news cycle and fracturing of the media is not healthy for our society.
The proper role of the media is to present the facts, give background perspective and hold elected officials accountable. Give the public the information they need to make informed choices.
The media has become an "echo chamber" reinforcing already held views, failing to present all sides and this has contributed strongly to the "polarization" of society. We do not listen to, comprehend or consider the viewpoint of others.

The traditional view is God is eternal and stands outside of time. God can view history from the begining (Alpha) to the end (Omega).
Of course in the traditional view God is also omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing).
Thus if such a God is all loving then what ever happens is part of the divine plan and ultimately must be for the larger good.
I have never been able to accept this view of God given all the suffering and pain in the world.
So my view of God is creative. Gods purpose is creativity, diversity, novelty and intensity of experience.
The future is open and although God offers possibilities for continuous creative advance to the world there is freedom to reject or accept Gods purposes. I am thus not a traditional deist more of a pantheist.

Rocks as simple aggregates would not be expected to have any unified experience. I think calling a rock "conscious" is part of what makes "panpsychism" seem silly to a lot of people. Asserting the individual constiuents of rocks "quantum events" have some form of non-conscious proto-experience is an entirely different matter.
You will have to expound on your point as I am not entirely sure what you intend to convey.

I'm not sure if your counting me as "one of these people". I merely think Biden has a responsiblity to put forward a coherent message of his vision for the nation and I do not see that he is being successful at that. I am optimistic that a message of hope would prevail over a message of fear and division but I am hearing a message from Trump and from Biden there is barely any message at all getting through. Surely a candidate for president does have an obligation and responsiblity to articulate his vision for the future.

Joe Biden as far as I can see is "missing in action" "without a message". I think Trump is bad for the country and bad for the world but Biden is sadly mistaken if he thinks being "not Trump" is sufficient.

The second amendment was ratified in 1791. At that time the U.S. had a standing army of about 800 individuals so a "well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state". Advanced personal weaponry at that time was front loading pistol or musket, capable of firing 2 or 3 rounds a minute in experienced hands. Times have changed and the reasonable purpose and implementation of the amendment should probably change with it. I don't think the founders could have foreseen the types of personal weapons now available.

I support an individuals right to possess firearms for personal defense, hunting and sport but "the right to keep and bear arms" has never included grenade launchers, tanks or surface to air missiles (there are restrictions). I think those restrictions should include military assault weapons.

I am going to be late to the party as usual. Philosophy like politics has a wide variety of viewpoints and a number of different proposed solutions to the same problems (assuming one can agree on the problem to start with).

I promote a variety of panpsychism although I prefer the term panexperientialism for the form of panpsychism which fits into my larger worldview. I think language is important and I try to avoid using terms like “consciousness” in ways that violate the common uses and understandings of the term. Language is imprecise and it is important to try to agree on definitions lest discussions become more disputes about usage of words than about ideas.

I come to panpsychism via a more fundamental philosophy which is basically Whiteheads process philosophy. In that philosophy the most fundamental units of reality are “events” (occasions or droplets of experience) what Whitehead calls “actual occasions”. Thus one talks about “quantum events” not “quantum particles”. About the world as a continuous creative becoming not a “being”, about properties as relationships between events not as inherent aspects of inert entities. The distinction between primary and secondary properties is thought of as a fundamental mistake in philosophy, an artificial bifurcation of nature.

Coming from this type of process ontology as a fundamental worldview a form of panpsychism is almost an inevitable conclusion. Having given this brief introduction and cursory overview of my fundamental worldview, I will comment on some of the posts from the thread just to try to give a different perspective, use of language and point of view. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. I do not think the purpose of philosophy is to win arguments only to familiarize yourself with different possibilities or explanations for “reality”.

If you want to be a panpsychist, the best way to do so is to attack emergentism as hard as you can. If you can say that emergentism isn't true, and that consciousness is real, then you can say that consciousness is fundamental.
— Pneumenon
I regard consciousness to be a relatively rare form of unified integrated (self aware and self reflective experience). I think humans and other higher animals can be regarded as “conscious” in the way we usually use the term. I think all of nature is “experiential” and thus experience is fundamental and consciousness or mind differ not in kind from experience but in degree. Different physical arrangement give different physical properties and the same can be said for arrangements of experiential units. Thus human consciousness requires an intact functioning human brain. I am a neutral monist of sorts the fundamental units of nature “occasions of experience” are unified integrated physical-protoexperiential units. To say they are conscious is to twist the usual interpretation of the world “conscious”.

So a sophisticated panpsychist might point out that if a cognitive scientists were to say "At X time, in this part of the brain, there is an "integration" that is happening which causes the emergence of consciosness".. the part about "causing emergence" becomes its own explanatory gap that needs to be explain. What is this emergence of consciousness itself besides that of being correlated with the integration of brain states? Schopenhauer1
This is the “combination problem” of panpsychism. How do the individual units of experience or mind combine to form a higher level of awareness or mind. I do not see it as fundamentally different from the way in which different physical combinations (like molecules, have different properties than their individual constituent “atoms”). Consciousness is a form of unified integrated experience and requires a complex integrated structure, system or process to support it.

@Pfhorrest said that the three basic options are:
1) Nothing is conscious (eliminativism)
2) Some things are conscious (emergentism)
3) Everything is conscious (panpsychism)
I do not think experience, mind and consciousness arise from fundamental constituents which are inert entirely physical and devoid of any psychic subjective or affective aspect themselves. So I fund panpsychism to be more plausible (in some form) than the alternatives.

That is the equivalent of what is being claimed of neuro-biological processes. You see.. physical, chemical, physical chemical physical chemical, more physical chemical physical chemical. WHAM!!! EXPERIENCE!!! Something is not right there.-Schopenhauer1
Which is why I think experience (non-conscious experience) is an aspect of the most fundamental units of nature “events” or “actual occasions” in Whiteheads terms.

So whilst the panpsychist holds that mentality is distributed throughout the natural world—in the sense that all material objects have parts with mental properties—she needn’t hold that literally everything has a mind, e.g., she needn’t hold that a rock has mental properties (just that the rock’s fundamental parts do)." Italics added.- Tim Wood
Rocks are simple aggregates that lack the integrated or complex structure which would give rise to any form of unified or integrated, or conscious experience. Hardly any serious presentation of panpsychism would hold that “rocks are conscious” and as an argument against panpsychism it represents a failure to grasp the fundamentals of the philosophical presentation.

If one assumes there are degrees of consciousness, from zero to partial to full, then one may conclude a rock has zero degree and a bright, functioning human has over ninety degrees when fully awake. If one assumes partial consciousness does not exist, then when we awaken there is no continuity and its like a light being switched on instantly. Is that possible? More likely, consciousness underlies everything, always there, and we become aware of it. Jgill
I think most experience is non- conscious experience, there are long presentations about “Whiteheads Unconscious Ontology” and “Non Conscious Experience in Whitehead” that I will not bore you with. Experience comes in forms and degrees but not differences in kind and experience is fundamental to a process view of nature. Most human experience I would argue is non-conscious experience. Our conscious experience is only the tip of the iceberg (the flashlight) of our mental processing and perception. Most of our mental processing is non-conscious and not under conscious control and outside the realm of conscious awareness.

I also brought up the idea that maybe properties are not "real" as in, inhering in the matter arrangements or matter itself, but observer-dependent. I've also mentioned this theory goes back to Locke and earlier, but Locke arbitrarily split primary and secondary properties. Of course, Kant has a full blown theory of it, but his "categories" are a bit too much of speculative idealism. Schopenhauer1
The division of properties into primary and secondary is one of the fundamental mistakes in the interpretation of nature an “artificial bifurcation of nature” as Whitehead would phrase it. The red and warmth of the sun are as “real” as much a part of reality as wavelengths and photons (perhaps more), you cannot pick and choose. There is always more to “reality” than what can be objectively measured and quantified.

From that principle ‘panpsychism’ is a no goer. Any rational approach would be more willing to accept that the interactions of certain cells leads to ‘consciousness’ at some point. I’m willing to be open to the suggestion of some proto/pre-conscious states leading to the emergence of what we term as ‘consciousness’. I like sushi
Precisely there are different degrees and forms of experience just as there are different measured physical properties depending on the structure of the system under observation.. Using the term “consciousness” causes an unnecessary resistance to the concept of panpsychism because the way we usually use consciousness is to describe our own self aware, self reflective, language oriented awareness and we do not attribute that degree or form of experience to all of nature.

It is not just a matter of clocks running at different speeds. It is also a matter of physical (and hence chemical and biologic processes) running at different rates due to differences in acceleration and gravitational systems. Thus the traveling twin (given sufficient acceleration and gravitational) effects indeed does age slower in biological terms than the stay at home twin. One can show such changes in the lifetimes of accelerated atomic particles, in atomic clocks taken on airplane trips or placed in space at altitudes where the gravitational field is weaker. It brings up the whole question of what is the nature of time and the fact that there is no universal fixed eternal time or present moment. The rate of all processes are affected by acceleration and gravity not just the running of a clock.