I guess that my reference to brutality and violence is because it has come so much more real for me. I have been attacked 3 times in the last year and someone I know was stabbed. That person survived after hospital care for injuries. I was not seriously injured but had to go to A and E on one occasion. So, from my perspective, violence is not just hyped up by the media but is an issue to contend with.

It is likely that my experience is based on living in an area with more gang culture than I was used to in the past. But, I do wonder from interaction with people from gangs if part of the problem is such people's lack of sense of any real.personal identity and significance, which is projected onto those being attacked.

The discussion bounces because there are so many possible choices in values. It is also hard to know how useful it is to lament the loss of human values and 'morality'. It doesn't necessarily change anything. As far as I see, the most important aspect is for each individual to recognize their own significance as a way of waking up to some creative freedom.

Exactly, that was my initial starting point. Every detail counts significantly in the whole. Even on this forum, every member plays an important part and discussions would be so different if certain people had not joined in. Every person has an active role in shaping life for oneself and others. Existence is active presence.

I have come across British people who have been to Australia and loved it for that reason. In many ways, individuals' experience of how significant they feel may vary according to where they are living.

In London, I feel so little sense of any community and it is getting worse and worse. There is so much brutality and violence, and indifference to violence often too. There is so much fear and hostility. It is because I have known and seen better that I worry about it. I do have an underlying sense of personal value, and human values, which makes me object to the dehumanization which I see around me.

The Christian value upon each person as special and beloved by God was problematic insofar as it led to exploitation of other beings, mainly animals. However, the Judaeo-Christian tradition did value the human person, in principle if not always in practice.

Spiritual perspectives are inclined towards emphasis on individual worth and, in the West, Christianity was a starting point for individualism. This was also true of existentialism and secular humanism. The cultural relativism and postmodernism of the twentieth century were a likely shift in valuing of individual worth as ethical values were questioned at the core. This was at an academic level, but it is likely that it has had some impact, especially with the plurality of ideas in the information age.

The information age is also a way of showing how small each person is in the scheme, with the exception of influential celebrities. The media have often looked to external signs of 'success' and not paid much attention to the inner life and the value of each unique person.

Grandiosity may well spring from low self worth, with the need for pretence of one's importance. It can often swing into the sense of 'failure' and a sense of despair. This can occur in bipolar affective disorder, which used to be known as manic depression.

It does seem that the equation of a person with money is what reduces a person to being a mere number. The nature of competition in capitalism has the social and psychological effects of dehumanization. The school of new economics, such as that of EF Schumacher were based on the value of work as the highest expression of service personal meaning and value. As it is, materialistic competition is getting tougher in the fight for resources and 'Small is Beautiful' is a lost value.

The culture of individualism gave rise to an inflated sense of the worth of the self, even grandiosity. It came with an emphasis on personal expectations, demands an individual rights. This was accompanied by a philosophy of being able to master and create personal identity through autonomy.

However, in the twentieth first century the culture of individualism is receding into awareness, especially through the media, of mass culture. In many ways, this gives rise to a sense of personal insignificance for many, especially those lacking in power. Certain individuals are treated as mere numbers, and the vulnerable are often regarded as a 'nuisance' and burden unlike in traditional society, in which there was a spirit of community.

I like your full consideration of your own personal significance. Each person exists for oneself and others. There is the question of one's own inner knowledge, development and wisdom. Does it count at all if it is not shared or is still significant.

When I thought about the thread question I didn't think about the way it relates to medical ethics and the question of 'unborn child'. That has often hinged on the question as to at what stage does a person come into being. The problem is that has often being a way of guilt tripping people, especially women in difficult situations, suggesting that they should not have abortions. The argument against birth control is also bound up with an emphasis on the moral good of procreation. Where it gets critical though is where people are advised not to have children who may have disabilities and other complex issues. There can be judgmental biases of whose life has 'quality' and value.

Of course, from the standpoint of one's own ego consciousness, if one does not exist it would not matter. But if Wayfarer had not existed it might make some difference in the larger picture, including 'The Philosophy Forum'.

Yes, conceptualizing a world without oneself is a cognitive problem. It is possible to imagine a world after one's death, but that in itself is fantasy because there are so many potential variables. It is hard enough to predict what will happen in one's own life, let alone outside of it.

Such a thought experiment is a question but excessive rumination on it could be futile. The main way in which I see it useful is for thinking about one's specific influence while one is alive, like one's unique personal signature. It becomes linked to the way of evaluating one's role in life. For example, I often worry that I take more than I give in life. I do seek to give out rather than than take but am aware of my own limitations. So, I see the imagination of a world without me as a way of thinking and reviewing the issues of what do I contribute to the larger scheme.

I am inclined to see time as cyclical, so both past and present are about about dynamic patterns. In that respect, it is potentiality and actuality, as to what, including individuals person, in the specifics of manifestation. There is almost infinite possibilities, such as all the possibilities of reproductive potential of DNA, and this is the primordial chaos underlying what possible persons may come into existence.

I am glad that someone else has thought about this question. While it is speculative reflection, it is not completely abstract.

It is true that no one's being and role is irreplaceable. When I left the job I had worked in for a number of years I wondered who would take on various roles I had played out there. What I came to realise was that so much was shifting with various comings and goings. Roles are so fluid and it is almost as if we are like puppets taking on different parts in a larger fabric which is weaved of so many variables in dynamic interplay.

I guess that I am just imagining oneself as negative space, which is only fantasised projection in the sense of removing oneself from pathways of causal chains. Each person is separate but also interconnected with others in determining influences. It is not mere actions but discourse, including the spoken, and non-verbal.effects, as interpreted in variable ways.

Seeing oneself at the centre of everything, or as having a peripheral role can be a shifting aspect of perspective. There can be extremes of inflation or deflation of one's importance. It is possible to see oneself as having too much of a determining effect or too little.

Each person has some influence but it is variable. One of the most obvious determing actions one has is the role in bringing children into the world. But there are so many other contributions one may make . This is interconnected to moral responsibility and one's sense of agency, as well as the awareness of outcomes of one's influences for others', as evident in their feedback and description of one's personal significance of influence for them.

The ripples of desires and actions are complex. I have come across suggestions like it can be useful to determine the significance of a life event if it will matter in 10 years time. This can be a useful frame but it is sometimes the small events which spiral into large ones..

With events like wars there is an interplay of individuals and leaders in chains of events. It could be argued that if one figure had not taken on a role another person would have done. The interplay of individual actors and their actions cannot always be separated out clearly.

It may be dark.rumination to wonder about what could have been different, with regret. I probably started out conceiving of my own existence during childhood when my mother told me how she had almost had a fatal accident before I was ever conceived. She said to me, 'Just imagine, your would never have existed...' it led be to wonder about a world without me ever coming into being, which is different from a world after one's own death. That is because after death there are already traces of oneself left in the world.

You say that your role doesn't exist outside of one's participation and, in a sense one's nonexistent self is a limbo phantom self. However, if one had not existed that doesn't mean that others would not have existed, so life would have been different for them.

Generally, there has been so much harm done by religious beliefs although some find great comfort in them. It is not just religious wars but religious psychosis. I know people who have fears, such as being the devil or the Antichrist. I understand that Marilyn Manson believed that he was the Antichrist at one stage, until he came to the conclusion it was symbolic.

I remember how as a teenager I got so freaked out by some Christian people saying that there were demonic backward messages in certain music. One big example is Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven', in which there is meant to be the words 'Satan is God' if the song isplayed backwards.

I was reading Bertrand Russell's summary of Spinoza and thinking about how interesting it is that Spinoza speaks of evil being a necessary aspect of God. I can see why he is radical and can be interpreted as an atheist. His ideas, whether he is regarded as a pantheist, or whatever are a radical departure from the religious ideas of the masses, but different from materialism.

Whether one is a materialist, pantheist, or an existentialist there is the confrontation with ultimate fear. The nature of existentialist fear is about facing the starkness of bitter truths, especially death and the unknown. Fear exists inside and outside of religious framework but is just in a different way.

I am inclined to see patterns and synchronicities in life experiences but that may be about my own narrative story making tendency. It is interesting how different individuals see life and the ideas of purpose and destiny so differently. It may be partly based on what wishes to believe, or some innermost subconscious conditioning, or even the nature of one's own life experiences, or a mixture of all of these. In some cases, some challenging experience, as well as philosophical reading and thinking, may lead to profound shifts in religious or non religious interpretations.

I wonder what Spinoza, and many of us philosophers would have made of quantum physics. I won't deliberate on this because it comes down to models of 'reality', especially the dialogue between religious/ spiritual metaphysics and science. I can see why some question the validity of 'metaphysics' in the dialogue between the arts and sciences.Bertrand Russell spoke of a 'no man's land' to describe philosophy and this may correspond with the ongoing issues of relationship between religion and science in shaping ideas of religion. The worldviews of the philosophy of 'reality'. The dea of 'God' may seem outdated, but it is an extremely complex area of philosophy, and may not be dismissed easily in human understanding..

Of course, the concept of 'God' had been used and abuse for various ends in arguments. One question may be what are the benefits and disadvantages of throwing the idea of 'God' aside in philosophy?

Telepathy, like premonitions, is an interesting phenomena. There are science explanations but they only show the hardwiring. They may point to the way in which everything is aspects of the larger system and interconnected. The idea of the microcosm being a reflection of the macrocosm goes back to Plato. It may be that hallucinogenics enable tapping into this in altered states of consciousness. Also, the anthropologist, Gregory Bateson, spoke of people in certain states of consciousness; such as that of shamanism being able to tune into patterns in the larger scheme.

Language may not capture the full nature of the divine or numinous experience. The silence of meditation experiences may capture this, as does those who speak of mystical experiences. Of course, understanding in the rational sense is important, but it is limited. This is with or without the notion of God. The emphasis on the limits of language and silence were spoken of by Wittgenstein. He did not speak of God and it may be that the idea of God symbolises that which lies beyond the realm of knowledge.

Epicurus is correct to see the gods as representing moral ideals. This is the foundation of mythic reality. Within Christianity, for example, the 'imitation of Christ' and discipleship has been prominent. It may have got lost, or been ignored, by some individuals in history, who got caught up religious imperialism.

The question is whether the immortality of God and, any form of mortality, is about symbolism and archetypes, for humans to follow. Even cultural figures, like Jim Morrison, Elvis and Marilyn Monroe may have a 'God-like' symbolic quality, as significant beings who existed and continue to be inspirational icons. Jesus existed as person, and so did Krishna, but the foundation of all gods may not be based on an actual person, or as something living on in the 'heavens'.

As for the metaphysical nature of immortality, beyond the human imagination, it does depend if heaven (and hell) are seen as having an objective foundation. The belief in immortality, beyond role models, depends on how this is seen.

Heaven and hell exist in the human imagination, and may be experienced in this embodied life, but as to whether they are an experiential reality in it's own right is open to question. Some see near death experiences as pointing to such forms of immortality but it is hard to know if they are simply brain states of the person, while still embodied. So, the immortality of God(gods, angels and human spirits) depends on whether there is a dimension beyond embodiment. Ultimately, arguments for and against it are a matter of speculation.

Yes, in thinking of the idea of God, it is worth considering what that would entail. When I was a teenager (Catholic) I conceived of it as the Trinity. This 'mystery' involved The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God was the invisible source, the Son, was God embodied as Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit as the invisible force giving rise to the manifestation of Christ, and Christ-inspired action, or healing. I can remember a school teacher, a feminist, challenging this masculine conception and referring to God as 'she'. Many pupils and parents were shocked by this and my own conclusion was that God was beyond gender, apart from Jesus being a man.

I also came to see the idea of Brahman and Atman in Hinduism as important. Even though there are many gods in Hinduism, Atman is the supreme godhead, with the human (Brahman) who realises the presence of Atman. With an interest in comparative religion, I also came to recognise the idea of The Tao, the Supreme Reality behind everything.

Now, when thinking about God and the question or meaning of such existence, I see it as being fairly fluid in human conception, but as the potential, or force, underlying all manifest existent forms in the universe, and possibly beyond.

In the two scenarios which you describe it is possible that there is no difference. So, it may be that the idea of an afterlife, which often is associated with the idea of God plays a major factor. Personally, I am inclined to think that the question of life after death matters more than the existence of God. I admit that I have spent more time wondering about the various possibilities of life after death. That is because if one doesn't continue in any form what is the significance of God in relation to one's own personal identity. It becomes rather abstract and more about being known in 'the mind of God'.

Obviously, I am sure that many people in philosophy circles would scorn the process superstition. For those who pray, it is to whichever God one believes in but prayer is central to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It may be about focusing on one's own deepest self. A similar process occurs in traditions of meditation, although meditation is not 'inner speech' with any figure but more about stilling one's thought processes. Both may involve going beyond the surface of ego consciousness.

Whether one's ideas about reality are 'delusions' or not is culture dependent. The standard idea of delusion is if one's ideas are not shared by others. For example, if someone believes oneself to be a Messiah it is usually thought to be delusional. Generally, those with unusual beliefs are regarded as eccentric, or referred to a psychiatrist.

Even within psychiatry, mental health professionals ideas vary, ranging from fundamentalists to hardcore atheists. This affects the way the professionals interpret the ideas of psychosis and delusions. Nevertheless, one common ground is thinkers about the impact of the ideas. If a person is seen as a risk to oneself or others there is more concern about delusional beliefs.

Of course, it is is possible for people in power or an entire nation to be delusional, in a 'harmful' way. Politics involves ideas about reality, ranging from leaders fighting for religious beliefs to Marxism based on dialectical materialism.

Yes, who is or what is your god? That is a good question if the capital G of God is removed. It doesn't matter if it is nature or a higher, transcendental reality but what it stands for in terms of values and motivation, especially the power of wisdom or love.

The idea of God as the first cause is one amongst many others. This is so different from the idea of a personal relationship with God which is held by many religious believers. The idea of prayer only makes sense from that perspective.

I do agree with you that the idea of 'God' varies in meaning, or meaninglessness, from person to person. The definitive arguments for or against the existence, or non-existence, is problematic. That is because meaning is constructed culturally and individually. The idea of what is 'absolute reality' is relative to a large extent.

Throughout history and throughout the world there may be underlying ideas, such as the idea of God but it is only interpretation. Initially, a person is taught a set of beliefs, which they may accept or reject. In the information age of twentieth first century there is so much choice of perspectives and ideas. A person may choose on the basis of what seems to make sense from a rational, emotional or intuitive level. It may be about pragmatic navigation of life experiences and choices.

I updated the thread title. It was a thread I started some time ago in the past, which resurfaced. I have updated the title to reflect the direction it is taking.

The issue of God's existence is one which has gone on and on in philosophy. It can go round and round in circles to the point of being boring. Equally, it remains a heated matter, and may show how philosophy can become justification of preference of beliefs. It can be asked does it still matter whether 'God' exists. I maintain that it does, because how it affects one's stance to understanding life. It is a recurrent philosophical issue and will remain so, even though it cannot be proven for or against the existence of God.

I am aware that the angle which you come from is a slightly different one of asking how important the question is. This may really be the central one for thinking about as some would question the significance of the philosophy of religion. To what extent is the concept of God outdated and mere speculation?

I started out with an interest in how to live even when I had not fully questioned religion. I had issues about the nature of reality and about ethics. I was not sure to what extent ethics and issues of religion were separate. However, in my reading I came to realise that whether we believe in God or spiritual reality affects one's entire approach to life.

That is not to say that ethics only matters to religious believers at all. It is not as simple as 'if God does not exist everything is permitted' (Dostoevsky). Some of the secular humanists have constructed ethical frameworks which are not dependent on the existence of God or spiritual reality. Morality doesn't rely on a belief in punishment from God in an afterlife.

However, whether or not one believes in God does affect one's approach and interpretation of all that happens in life. That is why I think that it is still an important question and will still matter as long as philosophy exists.

The question of separation from 'God' is interesting and I also can relate to Eastern metaphysics. For example, Buddhism doesn't speak of a specific deity. However, it does believe in a spiritual dimension, which could be described as the symbolic dimension. This is only realised in the human mind, due to the limits of human knowledge of absolute 'reality' Of.course, it may be relative as opposed to some absolute 'mind's eye' of 'God'.

Some Eastern thinkers speak of an 'overself' or 'oversoul' which may be about the stream of consciousness arising in experience. I think that this is how William James understood religious or spiritual experiences. Here, spirituality may be about numinous experiences, such as depicted in the arts, as opposed to just those categorised within the domain of 'traditional 'religious beliefs and thinking.

It is interesting that Bohm's model may be nearer to Spinoza's model than to that of Plato. I do struggle with reading Spinoza and it is possible that not enough attention has been paid to him due to the obscurity of his writing. It almost seems 'esoteric', although I admit that it may be my own shortcoming that I find him difficult to read. I only have a downloaded copy of 'Ethics' and, perhaps, if I got a paper version I may get on better with it.

Yes, the concept of something from 'nothing's does give rise to the idea of 'the void'. I have always seen this as a parallel between the idea of the unconscious, after I came across a book, 'God and the Unconscious' by Victor White, when I was at a teenager. The book is based on a dialogue between Victor White, a theologian, with Jung.

Of course, I know that I am so influenced by Jung, as you are with Spinoza. I wonder how can the Jungian worldview can be compared and contrasted with that of Spinoza?

I agree with both mind/matter as essential and wonder about how this totally may be 'God', Human beings could be conceived as cells of consciousness, as well as all the varying lifeforms.

Bearing in mind the ambiguity of Whitehead's term 'experience' as equivalent to 'information' I wonder how he regards the symbolic dimension. Is it like part of a computer? I once had a friend, who in the midst of 'psychosis' banged his head on the floor and exclaimed, 'God is a computer'. It struck me that he had made an important statement. The idea of 'God' could be seen as a model of information, as known to us in the age of 'virtual reality'. Similarly, the nature of computer simulation could be seen as an alternative to the anthropomorphic conceptions of absolute reality, as the sum of all parts, or 'God'.

With the question of God (or gods) as a Being, that is where the idea of the supernatural realm comes in. Some religious thinkers even posit the idea of a 'divine hierarchy', including realms of angels and archangels as intermediate between God and human beings.

Some cognitive thinkers, such as Jesse Bering, speak of as the 'God instinct' as an aspect of evolutionary psychology. The idea of God may even be hardwired into the brain, although critical reason has led human beings to question the existence of God or gods. There were atheists amongst the ancients though, just as there theists in the twentieth first century.

Generally, one needs to step into the frame of ancient human beings in considering this. .One significant book is, 'The Bicameral Mind: The Origins of Consciousness' by Julian Jaynes. He maintains that ancient people's religious experiences were comparable with those of people diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of course, this cannot be proven empirically. However, what Jaynes is arguing is that at some point, human beings did not have a distinct separate sense of inner experience and the objective world. The figures of inner experience, such as Moses' sense of receiving the Ten Commandments amidst a burning bush were taken as 'real' in an objective sense.

Such a picture would be compatible with the poetic visionary descriptions of Homer, and it is possible that Plato also came from this angle. Myth and religious experience arose in conjunction with the development of song, poetry and language. Graham Hancock suggests that the idea of the supernatural corresponds with the development of the symbolic dimensions of human experience.

I am trying to square the circle for myself of the issue of non-duality with Platonism. That is why I am in the midst of reading Murdoch's interpretation of Plato. I have read Bohm's ideas on the idea of the implicate and explicate order. However, this would correspond with an interpretation of the Forms aspects of invisible metaphysics.

With the idea of non-duality, or substance dualism there is still a question of emphasis on the physical or the spiritual. That is where it gets difficult. That is why the notion of God may be useful, but not necessarily in the form of the deity of mainstream Abrahamic religions. It may come down to the idea of The Tao, the unity at the paradox of all dualities.

Fuererbach's 'projections' raise the question as to whether God created man in his own image or vice versa. Ultimately, this is a matter of speculation, and problematic, as AJ Ayer argued. But, the question of source does seem important and is connected to the issue of how did something come from nothing?

Separating mind and matter is an issue as the two are bound up intricately. That is why I go towards the position of non-dualism. I have been rereading Iris Murdoch's 'Existentialists and Mystics' recently. She shifts her views at various points from reading diverse authors, including Kierkergaard, Sartre, Plato and Simone Weil. The general gist of her exploration comes up with a form of nature mysticism, which does not involve belief in 'God'.

Murdoch does not get into aspects of physics as such, but her writing does hinge around the nature of explanations, including language and images. Here, the issue of 'quantum physics' can be questioned in relation to 'woo woo' philosophy.

If quantum physics is taken literally, as a definitive description of 'reality' it becomes as fanciful as many religious arguments. Quantum physics is only a model, but one which takes into account the 'virtual' nature of -reality'. It replaces clockwork, mechanistic explanations including a 'God' out there, heaven 'up above' and 'hell below'. But, it does point to an unknown 'invisible source' from my point of view. If nothing else this may mean that I am a mystic in the Platonic sense.

It is interesting that you resuscitated this thread because I have been thinking about the theism/debate recently. It is an extremely complex area and I am sure that there are many forms of 'shallow' theism. I know that you have read Spinoza and interpret it slightly differently from his initial position of pantheism.

Part of the issue which I see is the question as to whether there is a 'higher power' or not, which may come down to whether spirit or 'the supernatural' exist in any meaningful way. Or, are they mere projections of the human imagination? I am inclined to think that there is a transcendent realm. I was also interested in the ideas of Whitehead, as described to me by @Gnomon in my recent thread on panpsychism. This involves an emphasis on the transcendent and the imminent as processes. There is nature but does anything exist beyond this, as source.

Generally, I am interested in comparative worldviews, especially Buddhism, which does not believe in a specific deity, but allows for some kind of transcendent levels of consciousness.

Also, I am interested in the evolution of magic and religion as topics in anthropology and religion, especially shamanism. Of course, I am aware that there is a danger of getting carried away with this but I see the shamanic model of reality as one worth considering. Fred Alan Wolf saw shamanism as comparable with the energetic nature of 'quantum reality'.

I agree that sexuality is such a wide spectrum range from biology, psychology and culture. However, in thinking about narcissism the psychology aspect is extremely important, especially from the standpoint of psychoanalysis. Freud emphasises the principle of self-love as the foundation for all relationships. It is about basic solidity of ego, especially in the early development of childhood.

I know that Freud's ideas are open to a lot ot criticism but his understanding of childhood development point to the way in which childhood traumas affect one's psychology throughout life. This is a basis for understanding why childhood sexual abuse is so detrimental. One criticism of Freud that he dismissed some flashback memories of childhood abuse as being fantasy. There is a strong link between mental health problems and childhood sexual abuse, acknowledged by many psychiatric researchers.

The ideas of Lacan as a later psychoanalytic development are also of significance. At this stage, I haven't managed to read his actual writing as I I found it rather heavy going. But I did read one book, 'Using Lacanian Clinical Technique_ An Introduction', by Philip F Hill.
He offers a couple of relevant quotes from Lacan:
'Man is captivated by the image of his own body.'
'The sexual relation implies capture by the other's image.'
Hill explains the role of images in particular as central to falling in love in general.

It would make sense to argue that it is differ fall in love if one is struggling with one's own self image and that is why issues, such as body dysmorphic disorder, have such an intrusive impact in life.

I am not sure to what extent Bergson's idea of mind as 'filter' can be taken literally. It is speculative in the sense that one can only pinpoint the brain aspects of the brain through empirical means. It is possible to form diagrams of the brain and nervous system based on research but it doesn't point to the underlying 'substance' of mind itself. Chemicals can alter consciousness, including the neurotransmitters but that is only the physical basis of it.

I do wonder what 'substance' is in itself and wonder how @MoK defines this.


I like your description of 'the mind is all the body's functions online as spirit'. It captures the virtual nature of the reality of experience.

Defining 'mind' is extremely problematic and entire volumes have been written with this aim by Hegel and so many writers, including Gilbert Ryle's 'Concept of Mind'. Of course, you are asking me about my own slant. I am influenced a lot by Carl Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, which involves layers of the psyche, including the subconscious and the collective unconscious as a source.

I also take on board many perspectives. I have read Daniel Dennett but do not agree with his materialist perspective. Of course, the brain and nervous system is the wiring but that can be far too reductive. The physical is its base and organic factors are of key significance.

But, 'mind' as source seems essential too. Henry Bergson's idea of the mind as being a filter of 'mind at large' offers a fuller descriptive explanation. Aldous Huxley drew upon this too, in thinking about hallucinogenic induced altered perception, such as the use of mescaline. This is chemically altered experience but involves mystic states of heightened perception. Drugs can lead to psychiatric problems, mainly psychosis, especially when used in a recreational way. However, they can also up the subconscious and imagination, which may have been so important in the evolution of consciousness amongst ancient people.

The mind may have subtle levels and that is why the issue of panpsychism arises because it would be about the lowest rudimentary stirrings of potential emergence of consciousness, or some reactive response to stimuli.