Husserlian phenomenology is not directly concerned with what is or isn’t. The focus is purely on the experience. The experience is the experience. That is the starting point and it is not finitely reducible.

Meaning whether something ‘exists’ or is ‘imagined’ is of no concern from the phenomenological perspective as the experience (‘real’ or not) is still an experience.

There is no evidence that humour correlates with humour. It does have some relation to creativity though, but how significant that is is probably still a matter of research and investigation.

Creativity would likely still be a good marker for sexual selection, but I would also imagine too much difference in creativity between mates could cancel this out?

I can only answer the first question.

No. It is not a plausible theory at all. You would have to provide some solid evidence for this and I cannot see how you can.

Also, you seem to be talking about ‘laughing’ rather than humour/comedy mostly.

I think you have certainly hit on something important about storytelling. Aristotle wrote about comedy, tragedy and general performance too. Nietzsche also developed ideas on this theme. Theatre and general entertainment in the modern world is more ‘passive’ in its format. We sit and merely observe whereas if we trace back the performative arts we can see how the distinction of ‘audience’ and ‘performers’ has been a gradual development.

For example, in Shakespearean times members of the audience would actively try and attack actors playing villains because the line between ‘real’ and ‘performance’ was not like today. Today at the theatre no one would take a murder scene to be an actual murder. If go back further, or look at different cultures, there are instances where the ‘performance’ is something that ‘audience members’ actively participate in - they take on the role of some character in a trance-like fashion.

As for humour in general there is certainly a common theme of ‘surprise’ and, as Aristotle put it, viewing comedy as something bad happening to someone deserving of the bad element, whereas tragedy is something bad happening to someone perceived as ‘good’ - in simplistic terms. Sympathetic feelings play into the humour, or lack of, as well as simple surprise/shock.

People in high emotional states of suffering will often laugh. People have many different reactions to many situations.

I don’t see how it makes any sense to suggest that physical exhaustion is a precursor to laughter. We do know that hyperventilation can induce certain states, and that physical exertion can create a certain high. In what you are saying there is a very tenuous link at best.

I would say it is justified if one person is rabidly screaming at you and try to bait you whilst you calmly and repeatedly tell them to stop then begin to warn them to stop. If someone is on someone else’s face with spittle flying and they simply won’t back away, and they do as much as they can to prevent you from moving away then hitting them hard, fast and repeatedly is perfectly fine.

The simple, yet crazy, fact is. Some people WANT to be hit and they will not stop until they get hit. I’ve seen it a few times. Some people are like that and some people can knock them down without any real ill will and just walk away. My brother did this on a few occasions because people tended to target him because he had long hair and looked like an easy target to ridicule and assault.

Getting the first punch in can just mean you are faster and more sober than the idiot getting in your face for no reason with clear intent to cause you physical harm.

On the couple of occasions where I’ve been in such situations I learnt to scream and repeatedly slap myself in the face whilst laughing whilst walking around. It worked twice. The would be attackers on both occasions just back away and threw verbal insults looking for a quick exit. I honestly don’t think such a display would work in most situations though I might have just been lucky :D

It was reply to his reply to me. Press @… to go to post.

Yes

Sorry, didn’t realise this was some stupid word game. Bye

I suggest you read the entire thing.

Panpsychism is the belief that every thing has an internal mental aspect. — Daemon

Not for all proponents of panpsychism! If you don’t get it you don’t get it. The fault may be mine entirely but enough is enough. Sorry.

Death will come one day. I promise :)

I was being a tad pedantic ;)

You clearly miss the point of what panpsychism is as an idea. It is NOT necessarily about the ‘universe’ being conscious. That is precisely where I feel some people have latched onto the idea and gone away with the fairies.

To talk about ants possibly possessing some rudimentary form of consciousness is in line with panpsychism ideas.

Not all proponents of panpsychism go the whole hog.

It is a very poorly outlined term that appears to something brains attached to bodies do.

In terms of brain states consciousness takes on many forms including wakefulness and dream states.

To me it is a bit like the problem of defining god. We can only talk about things in the terms we have. At the moment I don’t think we have the kind of concepts needed to get to it properly just like talk of quantum to Aristotle would be beyond his comprehension - due to a lack of modern concepts we take for granted.

Depends what you mean by ‘exist’. In some ways ‘matter’ doesn’t exist and in others it does. Semantics can be pointless trap though.

We know that atoms are mostly ‘empty space’ and what we call ‘solid’ is actually not exactly ‘there’. Either way the experience on the macro level is convincing enough for me to run away from people trying to hack me with axes.

So? What is your point. I am not going to discuss where life begins thanks! Consciousness is enough for now :D

Also, if insects are conscious, then we're getting pretty close to panpsychism. — RogueAI

Yes, that is why I think it is a reasonable idea. We are limited in what we can and cannot say. When it gets stretched out to atoms though I just see that as a stretch too far (to say the least!).

Of course the whackiest ideas in the world may produce fruit. If evidence in the future gives more and more people a reason to explore it so be it.

I don’t know. I do know that everything displaying qualities I relate to consciousness possesses a brain (in order to ‘feel’).

I generally view a body as a requirement for consciousness too, but that is a whole other area.

Because you asked (was it you?) why panpsychism is a reasonable idea so I tried to show that it reasonable to state that multicellular organisms are ‘living’ one a different level compared to single cells.

Panpsychism is more or less like this but it far more difficult to discern what is or is not in possession of consciousness.

Yes? But I don’t regard a singular cell as anything like myself. Is that hard to understand? I am far more expansive in terms of living and interacting with the environment. I am a collection of singular cells in communion not merely an isolated single cell.

I'm not clear what point you're making with the talk of "rudiments", or your remarks about language. — Daemon

In the cognitive neurosciences studies have been done that show markedly similar functions in communication in some species that can be seen in humans. Birds have one ‘component’ (we will call it) whilst other species have others (components such as melodies, learning, and grammatical structures) and we have them all.

A bacterium is a single-celled organism which I regard as being alive. — Daemon

Me too.

Given that neurons seem damn important for thinking I’d rule out bacteria. Ants … they certainly do not appear to be conscious like I am and nor do dogs for that matter. Maybe they can be said to be ‘conscious’ in some rudimentary fashion and even have processing that could be called ‘thinking’ in some fashion? Who knows? Bees appear to be quite clever in some ways, btu appearances can be deceiving.

First you have to explain what you mean by ‘conscious’.

He literally set out to create a ‘science of consciousness’. That is all. He was not dismissive of science merely critical of the physical sciences encroaching upon psychology and such - rightly so imo.

Just read the first line and it is wrong. Predictions are based on the assumptions that there are features of nature common and repetitive enough to allow for accurate readings.

The ‘Laws of Nature’ are based on the assumption that they exist. This assumption just happens to have produced fruitful results, but at the end of the line it might just be that the said ‘Laws’ are in a constant state of flux and that our finite and minuscule perspective merely makes our predictive models seem more reliable than they are.

That said, we seem to have done pretty well as a species in terms of understanding in part the ‘machinations’ of nature :)

I cannot comprehend anyone in the distant future ever looking back at Newton and saying ‘What an idiot!’ (in terms of gravity) yet for those that believed in a flat Earth on the back of a giant turtle I can.

I admit it probably means something to you. All I can say is you need to push yourself harder if you wish to express it further and wider.

I can only suggest trying to talk more and explain more. Refinement will come in fits and starts at first but that shouldn’t discourage you I hope.

I won’t bother anymore because I seem to have bothered you.

Good luck. Genuinely.

That does not mean anything.

That is rather garbled. Science relies on predictive and explanatory models. We don’t suddenly state Newton’s Laws are ‘not true’ in the colloquial sense because they are still capable of giving highly accurate results.

True in mathematics is a matter of abstract truths. Such absolute truths exist only in abstraction NOT in nature (or if they do it seems impossible to me that they could be shown as absolute truths).

At the base level the grounding for all experimentation is not utterly solid. Descartes tried to reach for such and Husserl did too. Husserl basically came to admit to himself that there is not reaching any ultimate grounding but reaching for it is nevertheless a worthwhile task - he was not fond of ‘conclusions’.

I am assuming that you accept the fact that you are made up of multiple living cells. I assume that you don’t regard a single cell as ‘being alive’ in the same manner that multicellular organisms are alive.

It is not a huge leap from there to suggest something similar for consciousness given that we know so very little about consciousness and that it may just be that the rudiments of consciousness exist in a singular neuron just like a single cell it rudimentary to a living organism.

Maybe a combination of emergence and panpsychism makes more sense than either alone? I would put the idea that ‘atoms’ possess consciousness as reaching the realms of fantasy simply because to say such is to equate animal consciousness not merely with a neuron but with fantasies.

Inexplicably consciousness arises. We know that much. It seems pretty clear than not all life possesses ‘consciousness’ like we do, so to call anything different ‘consciousness’ to me seems misleading.

As another comparison we could look at how human language functions compared to simple organisms that have a means of communication. In fact many other animals possess elements of what we call ‘language’ yet humans appear to be fairly unique in that they possess these elements in a combination that allows for complex communication.

Panpsychism is an interesting idea that I believe some people take way too far, or misuse the term ‘consciousness’ when talking about atoms being conscious. It is not even a theory in its current state just an idea that could potentially open up other ideas that are more applicable.

If someone puts forward a model of panpsychism I’d be interested to look at it. As is it is just philosophical speculation with some people taking it into the realms of fantasy.

Okay smart arse … if life is ‘fantasy’ then all we know is ‘fantasy’ therefore the ‘fantasy’ is reality.

Understand?

There is no evidence that a spaghetti monster did not creat the universe either … so fucking what?

There is a difference between pure fantasy and highly speculative ideas. Sadly it seems some think the line is somewhere I don’t.

Pure fantasy.

What are you talking about? It is an idea as a means to approach a better understanding of consciousness. That is it.

You may as well ask what motivates anyone to want to understand anything.

I never said life was everywhere?

My point was simply to compare a single cell to multi-cellar organisms (both being ‘life’). To view these drastically different items of ‘life’ is kind of like viewing ‘consciousness’ as being made up of smaller parts that are conscious just like living organisms are made up of singular living cells.

This is not a view I find convincing I am just answering why panpsychism is a fairly reasonable point to suggest - it doesn’t necessarily have to mean every atom in the universe possesses an ‘element’ of consciousness; but some like to believe that.

Consciousness, as far as I can reasonably tell, is something that happens in brains. How? Not really sure, and no one else is sure either so there is no harm in thinking outside the box and proposing something like panpsychism really … it is just not something that anyone can offer up a testable hypothesis for right now so it is mostly a speculative idea.

Humans are creatures of habit. Memory is applied to to the mundane making it sacred. Be this a football stadium, church, house or a simple rock.

The story we apply to lived experiences creates a narrative that can be passed on and repeated. Needless to say such a ‘habit’ is kind of useful in terms of evolution as it helps us adapt to the environment and approach it from different angles rather than as a mere set of lifeless variables.

Without value there is nothing there for us to pay attention to. Without a means of applying or removing value we are not anything as stagnation of value is just as dead as having no value at all.

It is a reasonable step if you think about it. An animal cell can be alive yet it is not an ‘animal’ nor an ‘organ’. I think we can all agree that an animal requires animal cells and that animal cells, organs and full animals are alive.

Panpsychism is following this train of thought because ‘consciousness,’ like ‘life,’ is not exactly easy to pinpoint in a discrete way. Life just happens to be more easily outlined than consciousness on a more tangible level.

Would it be just to come to the aid of people in one nation where the powers that be are systematically killing/torturing/raping them?

In simple terms it is a just cause to stop such acts even if it meant going to war.

So you are just saying using intuition and scientific thought helps us to understand things? What is this ‘intuition’ you speak of? Is it Kantian or just regular kinda ‘instinct’ talk?

As a concept if there is no mind there is no ‘universe’ to speak of … as there is nothing to speak. I will grant you that. What I cannot see is an intelligible way to talk about ‘consciousness’ existing a few seconds after the big bang when there were no ‘conscious beings’ around. If there was a ‘being’ of sorts around it was most certainly not ‘conscious’ in any way we could begin to understand.

We only have one point of reference for ‘consciousness’. Anything else in some other time/space is not ‘conscious’ in any reasonably comparable manner unless such a being possesses a host of common features to humans.

Science doesn’t understand anything because science isn’t a conscious being.

To say that the universe is a medium for consciousness is no different than saying conscious being exist in the universe … which they do. That is not panpsychism it is just agreeing that conscious beings exist.

A major concern I have for both deism and panpsychism is talk of ‘other forms of consciousness’ existing outside if human conscious comprehension. I don’t see why we would call this ‘consciousness’ at all.

I know this. Unlike many here I do know how to look up definitions of terms.

My view was based on the premise that the ‘average joe’ takes propaganda as something more strongly attached to patriotism than anything else. I may be completely wrong about this, which is fine.

My thought was whether or not ‘propaganda’ (as in the real meaning) would be more or less of a problem if nationhood wasn’t a thing? I played with this idea as it seems to me that a lack of patriotism/nationhood would reduce tribalism to some degree, and that ‘propaganda’ relies on a sense of tribalism at some level. If the general population of the planet abstained from ‘patriotism’ then I suggesting that maybe ‘propaganda’ would not be as much of a problem. Not that patriotism is the singular driving force of propaganda but I do believe that tribalism is and that patriotism is a more substantial form of tribalism - even though there is some ‘good’ within it.