Unconscious matter can create conscious states. — TheWillowOfDarkness

1. Ok, so if that works, spinozism works, but if you're not right and there is a hard problem, then spinozism doesn't work, right?

2. In regards to consciousness, spinozism is consistent with materialism and not with panpsychism in your view, right?

Can a materialist be a spinozist without contradicting himself? What about a panpsychist? Or is spinozism fundamentally different from those two ?
A better question: if one thinks the hard problem or the combination problem is true, can he still be a spinozist in regards to mind?

1. So you're saying Spinozism doesn't encounter the hard problem because it is different from materialism, or because the hard problem isn't a thing to begin with?

2. So you admit that in both Spinozism and materialism some combinations of unconscious matter create conscious states?

This is where I simply don't see how you could avoid the hard problem. When asked how come photons interacting with atoms(atoms and photons have no consciousness) you get a conscious experience. You cannot just say "well... it just does".

So light(fotons) hitting my body(atoms), create an experience. So how come matter can create consciousness?

When a concious experience is produced, — TheWillowOfDarkness

Produced by what?

It's an entirely new state formed or created. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Formed or created by what/who, why, how....?

I am far from being an expert in Spinozism, but so far I also find him letting huge room for interpretation. You can be a materialist atheist and argue Spinoza's God is nothing more than blind nature, you can be an idealist and argue Spinoza was an idealist, you can be a panpsychist, and so on.

I believe that in regards to mind, his view rises many questions. Even in places where he had a clear opinion, like in the case of free will, if you dig deeper, you'll find some issues.

So far, I think he was actually an atheist trying to come with a new view in a world dominated by religion, but he didn't want to be too radical, so he came up with different version for the divine than the mainstream dogmatic religions, a view that leaves freedom of interpretation and that could make happy both spiritual and atheist people.

I don't bother memorizing stuff that I don't find is true. — god must be atheist

What exactly do you find wrong in Spinozism?

So, in your opinion, why bother with Spinoza, right? It's because:
1. Long time ago, I had a pretty similar idea about reality;
2. Some smart people seem to embrace his idea;
3. There are some things about his view that I simply don't understand;
4. I was curious if he actually invented something that couldn't be touched by any of the problems of today's metaphysical ideas: the hard problem of materialism; the combination problem of panpsychism; the interaction problem of dualism; etc.

Spinoza said neither God nor humans have free will. But they both have will, which is the desires of the thinking subject. — Gregory

It seems to me like a ''personal God'', with will and desires. It is exactly the opposite I've heard many saying.

Me neighter. But from what I understand, in Spinozism, attributes don't interact with each other. So a thought is caused only by another thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXn6Q9cz548&t=223s

Watch from min.4:00.

To be conscious is to have existing states of conciousness which are caused by other things. It's just a causality, like rain making paper soggy.

In this case, we have some states which are not concious experience interacting to create a new existing state, a conscious state. No hard problem. — TheWillowOfDarkness

A. If by ''conscious'' you mean meta-consciousness (the ability to self-reflect; abstract), and if by ''not conscious experience'' you mean qualia - you end up with the panpsychist so-called combination problem - how come small blocks of consciousness come together and form a higher consciousness.

B. If by ''not conscious experience'' you mean 0% consciousness (no qualia, no thought, no nothing you could associate with consciousness), then why did you use the word ''experience"? In this case, you've got the hard problem: how do you end-up with consciousness from combining things with 0% consciousness?

It seems to me from what you're saying that it's impossible to avoid either the hard problem or the combination problem.

So God thinks and will after all?

But does spinozism encounter any problem in regards to consciousness, or it's a perfect metaphysics in this sense?

You're basically saying consciousness is a property of a body. How come? Is that a given? I don't really understand how this property appears. Any body has consciousness? Can the universe be considered a body? If not, on what basis a body is conscious and another isn't?

States which have been caused to exist — TheWillowOfDarkness

For me, that sounds like the hard prpblem. Caused by something unconscious?

How do feelings arise?

God has intellect and consciousness (will) — Gregory

but is God conscious (not meta-conscious)? Does God will?

How come walking "arises from" still legs? Or strawberry flavor "arise from" tasteless atoms? Or songs "arise from" breathing? Or stars "arise from" nebulae of helium gas? Or smoke "arises from" :fire: ... — 180 Proof

Q1, 4, 5 - weak emergence, you can reduce and deduce everything from the properties of its components
Q 2,3 - how do you define flavor and songs?

I thought these kinds of questions have long disappeared from the materialists' list of arguments, but ''ok boomer''. :joke:

Look, I'm not even arguing that encountering the hard problem or the combination problem, aka compositional fallacy automatically makes metaphysics invalid. I'm not here to debate any problem. I'm just trying to find out how spinozism would answer these questions, or if it is related at all with them, like panpsychism or materialism.
So is spinozism something totally new in your opinion?
My guess is that you would consider it closer to materialism. If not, what makes it so different from materialism, panpsychism, dualism, idealism, or even epiphenomenalism?
How do you see it?

if you're trying to criticise Spinoza, — fdrake

I'm not here to criticize, I have nothing against Spinoza, especially when I myself used to believe in something very similar to his view. I'm here to understand. Every time I encounter a metaphysical idea related to consciousness (and spinozism is related to consciousness), I try to find out how is that related to materialism, panpsychism, epiphenomenalism, idealism, dualism, or if it's something totally new. I'm trying to find out how that metaphysical idea deals with the hard problem, the meta hard problem, the combination problem, the dissociation problem, or the interaction problem.
Insofar, depending on the interpretation one prefers, in my opinion, spinozism has to deal either with the hard problem (a non-conscious force causes consciousness), or the combination problem. Moreover, it always has to deal with epiphenomenalism, even if it's not a classical case of epiphenomenalism.
I'm not saying that by having to deal with those issues, a certain idea is automatically wrong. Maybe Spinoza manages to avoid those issues or to give a solution to them.

I thought we'd be able to take it for granted that something which emerges from a collective of agents isn't necessarily conscious - like countries weren't. If you need more examples to block the syllogism, a handshake of agreement emerges from the actions of two agents, but is not conscious. Is that a clearer example? — fdrake

I'm not arguing crowds are conscious, I don't think they are, but I think that's an argument against panpsychism. I'm just saying that I've repeatedly heard/read that in Spinoza was a panpsychist (even on Wikipedia) and that in his view everything has consciousness. I've also sent you a quote from Spinoza saying: “all [individual things], though in different degrees, are...animated”1
i. Now:
A. If he was a panpsychist - a rock is conscious, a mountain, which can be divided into rocks is also conscious. So on what basis two guys shaking hands cannot form a new conscious entity?
B. If S wasn't a panpsychist, please tell me where could I frame him? Was he a materialist, a dualist, an idealist? Can we consider his metaphysics totally out of these concepts, therefore avoiding all the issues those metaphysical ideas encounter?
If someone asked S about the hard problem or the combination problem, how would he respond?

No problem, it is just your opinion is totally different from all I've heard so far, and I guess they've all read books like you did.

I truly appreciate your complex answer, though I must admit my philosophical language is very limited, so I couldn't understand everything you wrote.
Nonetheless, absolutely every video and material written says Spinoza thought everything was conscious. The problems still remain for me:
1. How come small conscious entities form larges conscious entities?
2. If 1 is true, and everything is a whole, how come that whole isn't conscious itself?
3. How come consciousness arises from a non-conscious thing?

I haven't read Spinoza, I've just watch some videos and read a few lines about his work and this is what I understand.

1. In his view, every element possesses an infinite of attributes, including consciousness. So every atom that you contain is somehow alive. “all [individual things], though in different
degrees, are...animated”1 https://willamette.edu/arts-sciences/philosophy/past-colloquia/nwpc-2010/roelofs.pdf
“the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we are saying nothing but that God...in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind has, this or that idea.”2

On the other hand, he claims that there's no real separation, and that everything is a whole. So how come the whole isn't conscious? If all atoms inside me have the attribute of consciousness and they form a greater conscious being (me), why stop here? You're saying that all people in a country are conscious, but the country isn't. Why not? If smaller conscious attributes somehow form a larger consciousness, why larger consciousnesses cannot form another larger one and so on to infinity?
Moreover, I don't see how Spinoza can avoid the either the combination problem or the hard problem, even if he manages to change a little bit the terms. How come smaller conscious attributes come together and form a bigger one? How come a non-conscious entity can cause consciousness?

If you want a historical angle on it, I think in context the big problems he's speaking about are the mind body problem, God's relationship to substance, God's freedom, good and evil, and whether God's an agent - in historical/political context I think he's as much a radical Jewish theologian and political activist as a metaphysician. — fdrake

That's truly hard to bite. So stabbing your toe could be considered a thought causing another thought, namely ''Damn this needle''. I simply cannot see how this works.

Spinoza doesn't claim it is the same. That is a statement you attribute to him. — Valentinus

I've watched some videos and they all claim that in Spinoza's metaphysics, you could easily call God nature.

Spinoza outlines the connection to human experience through the propositions concerning modes and the distinction between causing oneself or being caused by another. In general, the "hard problem" would require subtracting from substance and then asking how to add it back again. — Valentinus

I don't see any way out of this: how can an unconscious entity can cause consciousness? It's simply the same problem moving one step forward (or backward).

You will have to show from what text you derive that interpretation. It seems like a misunderstanding of how Spinoza agreed and disagreed with Descartes on various issues. — Valentinus

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

''In opposition to this dualism, the panpsychist views of Spinoza (1632–77) and Leibniz (1646–1716) can be seen as attempts to provide a more unified picture of nature. Spinoza regarded both mind and matter as simply aspects (or attributes) of the eternal, infinite and unique substance he identified with God Himself. In the illustrative scholium to proposition seven of book two of the Ethics ([1677] 1985) Spinoza writes:

a circle existing in nature and the idea of the existing circle, which is also in God, are one and the same thing … therefore, whether we conceive nature under the attribute of Extension, or under the attribute of Thought … we shall find one and the same order, or one and the same connection of causes….''

I can provide you with some other videos and links if you want. They all say the same thing: he was a panpsychist, and he believed that one could call God nature.

"Since God’s intellect is the sole cause (as we have shown) both of the essence and of the existence of things, it must necessarily differ from them both in regard to their essence and to their existence. — Valentinus

So, after all, it seems to me that God is different from the rest of things. So God's intellect is the cause of all things (nature); and God's intellect is different in essence and existence to those things. So we cannot say God's intellect is the same as nature.

Therefore God’s intellect, insofar as it is conceived as constituting the divine essence, differs from our intellect both in respect of essence and in respect of existence, and it cannot agree with it in anything except name, and this is what we set out to prove. One may make the same argument about will, as anyone may easily see." — Valentinus

It might escape the ''combination problem'', but it sounds to me that Spinoza cannot escape ''the hard problem of consciousness''. So God's intellect has nothing to do with what we call consciousness, feeling, will, etc. The question remains: if that's the case, how do we get from unconscious to conscious?

Spinoza was not panpsychist. — Valentinus

I've seen some videos and read some materials and they all say he believed everything was animated. On the other hand, God (the whole nature) has no consciousness. This sounds pretty much like panpsychism to me.

Thank you all for your answers, I really appreciate it! So far, I guess my triangle covers 100% of possibilities. I'm waiting for more answers.

By the title of the post we're speaking in the context of 'political systems', which to my understanding means, governance and diplomacy. Correct me if I'm wrong. If no one is governing or engaging in diplomacy, we have anarchy- as included in the triangle. So, something outside of this triangle.. is something/someone governing. As AI was already dismissed that would seem to leave only humans. So, between a single individual governing everyone (monarchy) and all individuals governing each other (democracy) it would seem, at least in my mind, we've painted ourselves into a corner. Eager to hear any alternate forms of political systems (aside from anarchy, already included) that are outside of this triangle. — Outlander

Basically my question is that if my triangle covers 100% of all possibilities

If something about human nature changed, about what is core to humanity, then something different could develop in terms of forms of the existence or governance. IT could contribute to this, or even ideas on gender, age and perceptions of rights and ideologies, or the growing reality of tribalism. — Brett

I see your point. My question wasn't necessarily referring to humans or politics as we know it, but to conscious beings and their ways of living together.

That's correct, but it's just a combination of things inside that triangle. I want something totally outside.

all political systems are either a republic or they aren't. — Echarmion

A republic is a republic, while ''they aren't'' can mean many things. I offered 3 clear extremes and I stated that any future political system will be either one of those 3 clearly defined extremes, or somewhere between them. Can we go beyond and have something totally different than what I mentioned? :)

where there isn't actually any person in power anymore — Echarmion

- ok, but that wouldn't be out of the triangle. I am not necessarily interested in persons but in how the system manages the resources, the laws, the freedoms, etc.. I see nothing fundamentally different just by replacing humans with machines.

It seems to me that your theory has exactly the same issue as materialism: how can you create qualia, experiences, consciousness from ''mundane information''?

I also believe that. Moreover, neutral monism does not solve anything, it just hide behind ''something''.

Sure, but that doesn't mean intelligent life won't be around

What exactly is a "layer" here? Do you mean like a difference of scale, like the difference between the microscopic quantum realm and the macroscopic world that we inhabit, or something more like parallel dimensions? — Mr Bee

Both things actually. E.g., now we have micro and macro, but tomorrow we discover new elements, new dimensions, new realms, etc..

An infinite reality, with an infinite umber of different things, dimensions, laws.

So in the end it's all about getting information. But what about understanding it?

Your location will remain a mystery hehe

If consciousness is unlimited, living beings in the universe are limited only by consciousness itself. An unlimited consciousness is the most powerful concept I can think of. It would be an omnipotent, omniscient consciousness - equal to a god. — Pop

But technological/natural evolution won't reach infinity. PS: out of topic, where are you from?

Ok, I understand your view, I tend to largely agree with you on God, but I think I would disagree on the evolution part. I think between us and a super-evolved alien, the only difference would be in the power and speed of processing the information, but nothing fundamental, like the difference between us and animals. Why? My answer is the abstraction and our ability to contemplate reality with no boundaries. We contemplate the infinite of infinities, so I think there's nothing more than that :)

Ok, I will ask you other simpler things. Do you think evolution will bring us new senses? If yes, can those senses be something that we cannot comprehend right now?