I would think it either is, or is not. I don't understand how it could be an illusion.

Saying that, I am not a dualist but am aware of the difference of objects and human consciousness, even though some even see human consciousness itself as an illusion. But, it is to speculate on different degrees of consciousness, ranging from minerals, plants animals and humans (possibly AI as a further development). — Jack Cummins

I do not see it this way. My thinking is that consciousness is always the same. It is subjective experience. Nothing has rudimentary consciousness. What really counts is the thing having the subjective experience. What is the subjective experience of crystals? How does the subjective experiences of a crystal, an archaea, a plant, a mouse, a chimpanzee, a human?

The belief in objects having rudimentary consciousness goes back to animism. — Jack Cummins

:up:

from 2019 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/355107

I wonder if you are seeing consciousness as being about the processes of being alive, as in that respect it is the same. However, rocks and crystals are not alive in the way we understand it. Differences vary according to the complexity of a lifeform. Part of this determines how we see inherent value in its right to life. Most people don't feel guilty killing weeds and bedbugs.

Of course, such a perspective is anthropocentric but capacity to feel pain is an important criteria. With humans, the nature of consciousness is dependent on ego- consciousness, which is bound up with personal identity and the significance of language. We don't know about the nature of communication of some beings, such as dolphins. But, a rock doesn't have a sense of self, or inner life. Crystals may have an energy field, which is why they are used for healing. But, this is a likely projection of the human imagination.

To go back to fundamentals: I guess one thing you need to do is to define "consciousness", after which, you may find that the question is more easily answered. Until you do that, no answer is possible. This is sometimes known as the "Socratic" method, although he actually took it from geometry. Your second task is to explain why the phenomena, which you take as evidence of consciousness in objects, cannot be explained by natural inanimate processes. For example, what is there in "sick building syndrome" which cannot be explained by (eg) poor plumbing, badly-maintained airconditioning, etc?

Assuming you can deal with those issues, the next stage is to define "energy field". Presumably this is something supernatural or metaphysical? How is it defined, and what is the evidence for its existence?

PS a moment's reflection suggests that, on any definition of consciousness, "human consciousness may be an illusion" must be self-contradictory.

One clear example of possible panpsychism is 'sick building syndrome', in which it as if the energy fields seem disturbed. Here, it would suggest that matter has some inherent consciousness. — Jack Cummins

In my understanding, this is not an example of what most people would call panpsychism. I don’t think it includes actual behavior by or changes in inanimate objects. A rock is just a rock sitting there being conscious. Clearly, that is a different meaning for the word than what we normally use. Perhaps I’m wrong about this.

Illusion is the wrong word. It's either correct or incorrect. If it's incorrect, it's no more illusory than the illusion that 2+2=6 (I don't think that's an illusion at all, it's just the wrong answer)

To go back to fundamentals: I guess one thing you need to do is to define "consciousness", after which, you may find that the question is more easily answered. Until you do that, no answer is possible. — alan1000

:up: :up:

One clear example of possible panpsychism is 'sick building syndrome', in which it as if the energy fields seem disturbed. Here, it would suggest that matter has some inherent consciousness. . . . I am asking about illusory appearance as a basis of belief and it is a little different from. the idea of delusion, which is a falsehood. — Jack Cummins

Panpsychism is a currently popular philosophical worldview, even among scientists. So, the notion that mental phenomena are inherent in the natural world has some validity. But to imagine that a brick & mortar building can feel sick is pretty far-out.

Therefore, to explain "sick building syndrome" with mental energy fields seems to be an anthro-morphic analogy with a "sick human" whose problem is mental instead of physical. Years ago, when Investigators couldn't find a physical cause, they sometimes concluded that the "syndrome" was hysterical or viral memes in people, instead of fumes or germs*1 in buildings. Eventually, fungal mold became a common culprit because it was often hidden behind sheetrock walls where rain or plumbing leaks kept things damp. Consequently, insurance companies began to pay-out millions of dollars for mold remediation. I suppose you could imagine that's like a doctor treating a sick patient.

Perhaps, those predisposed to spiritual themes could easily imagine that an inanimate material object could be possessed by an energy/mind field. For some, such mysteries evolved into conspiracy theories, involving invisible agents. But pragmatic & skeptical investigators*2 are likely to view such mysteries more as a problem with human minds than with spirit-possessed buildings. Ironically, even practical scientists are mystified by brainless slime molds that can navigate mazes, as-if they possessed rational minds*3. Ooooh, spooky! :naughty:


*1. 6 Things That Cause Sick Building Syndrome
Mold is the leading cause of Sick Building Syndrome and can have dire effects on your health. In fact, in about 80% of sick building syndrome cases, mold infestations (black mold and other types) are the main cause of illness.
https://rtkenvironmental.com/health/sick-building-syndrome/

*2. SKEPTIC Magazine :
In the absence of toxins or pathogens, investigators look to behavior patterns for clues.
https://www.skeptic.com/article/mystery-illness-strikes-boston-choir-but-was-it-all-in-their-heads/

*3. How Brainless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence
Single-celled amoebae can remember, make decisions and anticipate change, urging scientists to rethink intelligent behavior.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/

I think awareness and consciousness differ, but they might be hte same genus. In that way, I can see how panpsychism could be illusory purely in the sense that we want to relate to other objects, so their "being aware" the way a eukaryote is (responds to environment etc..) is enough for us to all be on the same page, even though we do not share experiences at all.

But, I also agree with Patterner that it's going to be one or the other. Then again, I feel the same about sense data, so perhaps I'm missing a trick..

I wonder if you are seeing consciousness as being about the processes of being alive, as in that respect it is the same. However, rocks and crystals are not alive in the way we understand it. — Jack Cummins

No, that's not it. I don't see consciousness as being processes of being alive, mental processes, or anything. I see it as nothing but subjective experience.

i don't think rocks or crystals are conscious as a unit. Just a huge number of particles that are each subjectively experiencing their own existence. I don't think the conditions for a group consciousness exist in such things.

I think awareness and consciousness differ — AmadeusD

Perhaps the subjective experience of information processing systems of sufficient number and/or complexity is awareness. And when sufficient feedback loops are also present, the experience is self-awareness.

Defining consciousness is not a simple task for a dictionary definition. That is because apart from different usage of the term it involves so much in way of understanding. A few years ago there was a thread on 'What is consciousness' by @TClark and this showed how it is a big question. Some see it in a clinical sense, like being able to identify signs of life in basic life support, some see it as self-awareness and others see consciousness as something to develop by humans, as in the nature of 'cosmic consciousness' (Bucke). I see all as important as consciousness is multifaceted. Cosmic consciousness is about training one's consciousness or fine tuning, the path of self-mastery.

'Sick building syndrome' is an unusual example of panpsychism and only works if one accepts the idea of energy fields, as opposed to issues of maintenance. In speaking of energy fields I am referring to electromagnetic forces and the Eastern idea of the 'subtle body' may arise from awareness of the electromagnetic field. The idea of 'Gaia' by James Lovelock is also relevant because it conceives of the planet earth as a living being.

Yes, I agree that objects, including buildings, are different from a rock. That is because objects include human interventions in design. However, everything in the universe exists in relationships rather than isolation. Nature is not separate. Weather and bacteria influence all objects, including rocks and buildings.

The reason I referred to sick building syndrome is that I have lived in a number of such buildings. Part of the issue is maintenance but it can be of repeated problems. When one is fixed a new one occurs. I have wondered if buildings have a life cycle, as maintaining older buildings is difficult and complete renovations are often needed. It could be that the organic parts are prone to aging. Even rocks erode and change, just like foods decay. I always seem to have dead lettuce in my fridge. Also, most organic forms need care and I am not good at looking after plants as they die if I have them. This may be my lack of skill or I have wondered if my own 'energy' is not conducive for their thriving.

I like your detailed post. Mold is certainly an issue with sick building syndrome, related to damp. It can lead people to become sick physically. Similarly, bed bugs are on the rise in many developed countries and while not necessarily a major source of physical health problems can affect mental state so much.

Yes, suggesting that buildings are sick is anthropomorphic, an example of the 'pathetic fallacy' and metaphorical. It is an interpretation conjured by the human imagination.

What would change in our way of being if we were to think of things as possessing consciousness?

We would have to take into consideration all things that we otherwise consider inanimate. We would have to know what would be pleasant or unpleasant for things (e.g., a stone).

Let's say I enjoy tickling a pebble. But will that stop a person from grinding a thousand cute pebbles into powder to obtain a chip for an iPhone?

He will say that the pebbles like being part of an iPhone.

Since everyone can define it however they want, panpsychism is devaluated.

Theoretically, if objects were seen as having consciousness it could be argued that they need to be treated with greater respect. There is the question as to how AI should be treated if it is viewed as conscious. Is destroying it a form of murder?.

However, what may also be happening in the digital age is some tendency to treat humans like objects and machines. Human consciousness is being seen as of lesser value and people treated as numbers and insignificant.

I am asking this after a conversation with a friend about energy, causation and consciousness with a friend. During the discussion I became aware that I have mixed thoughts on pansychism, the notion that objects have some rudimentary consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Some sober scientists are taking the notion of Panpsychism seriously. But I think their definition is too broad. I prefer to make a clear distinction between Conscious Awareness and Causal Forces. FWIW, here's a recent relevant post on my blog. :smile:

Enformationism vs Panpsychism :
The notion of an incorporeal Idea as the cause of real-world effects on palpable matter is not commonly held by Physicalists & Materialists. . . .
In his book on the philosophy of Panpsychism, Peter Ells makes an affirmation of belief in a “sensuous cosmos” : "To actually or concretely exist . . . is precisely to be an experiential entity, or to be composed of experiential entities"
The language of that assertion is my primary disagreement with Panpsychism : the term “experiential” implying that everything in the universe is sentient (sensing + knowing). But, in what sense is a rock sentient? How does it know? It exchanges abstract Energy/Entropy with its environment. But does a rock remember the “experience” of flowing in the form of homogeneous red-hot magma inside the Earth, then at a later time, the thrill of being spewed-out onto the surface of a cooling planet, where new experiences as dis-aggregated fragments await? . . . .
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page7.html

Something like that strikes me as highly plausible. I think that's roughly the Chalmersian take too - but he calls awareness without experience consciousness too - I find that a hard sell, but all else about panpsychism attracts me so .. I could just be wrong LOL

The issue of experiential sentience (sensing and knowing) is important in considering the idea of panpsychism. Both sensory experiences and development of knowledge are separate but may come together in the emergence of consciousness.

There is the question of how much sentience and knowledge exists in forms such as rocks. Can a rock experience any sensation at all by factors like weather or if it is crushed? Also, does it have any memory as a basis for the organisation of future rock formation? With the memory aspect there is the possibility of Rupert Sheldrake's notion of morphing resonance, although this is more of a 'fringe' concept within science than pansychism. What makes it so 'fringe' may be because it is invisible and hard to test empirically. It is equivalent to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious at a biologically level.

Theories of morphic resonance or memes also do not explain shifts in the different kingdoms in evolution, such as the shift from.mineral to vegetable, or animal to human. They require a higher organisation factor beyond mere memory.

It is about creativity inherent in nature. The shifts in the emergence of the kingdoms is of significance in the evolution of both sentience and knowledge, with the animal and human kingdom both having sentience and the human having consciousness of knowledge, especially through language for the development of ideas. Also, humans are able to reflect on sentience itself and upon the existence of pain itself.

Humans experience is the possibility of being able to integrate experience of pain and suffering as a basis for consciousness as understanding, as opposed to the other extreme of the rock. The rock is passive whereas conscious awareness as human know it involves active participation in the synthesis of experience.

↪Patterner Something like that strikes me as highly plausible. I think that's roughly the Chalmersian take too - but he calls awareness without experience consciousness too - I find that a hard sell, but all else about panpsychism attracts me so .. I could just be wrong LOL — AmadeusD

I'm not sure about that. How can you be aware without experiencing?

Reacting to one's environment. Perhaps awareness isn't the right word, but my recollection of The Conscious Mind tells me those terms are used as noted here - where awareness is below self-awareness, or some such distinction. An amoeba can be aware, react to stimuli etc.. but has no concept of itself or "difference" more generally. It reacts, rather than responds I think is the move.
A being self-aware would be capable of both reaction, and response.

From a 3p perspective, one of those first beings does still experience. But none of them have an experience if you see the difference there...

Awareness is a term which is used in many different ways, like consciousness. What a too wide use of the term misses is the capacity for reflective awareness. The ability to develop reflective awareness is what enables active processes of consciousness.

Actually, this touches the ultimate reality: things are made of the One - not the opposite. Let me explain. The phenomena we observe in this geometric world are a temporary illusion. This illusion is cast by the One upon itself, meaning that everything we perceive is an internal relation of the Universe with itself - within itself. Nothing exists as a result of an external force(external in relation to the universe itself) or intervention; it(the One) exists inherently, by its own nature.

Now, how does this relate to your question? If all things are made of the One, and if their existence depends solely on their relevance and relation to other things, then the only true and ultimate reality is the One itself - that from which all things arise. Panpsychism, in this light, is not an illusion but a symbolic reflection of the One’s internal multiplicity. What we call “consciousness” in objects may be a glimpse of the relational fabric that binds all things within the One.

Here I can say a few things, as my dissertation was based in large part on Galen Strawson's panpsychism. Granted that's only one person and there are many types of panpsychism.

For Strawson, the argument goes something like this: there is experiential phenomena (consciousness) and there is non-experiential phenomena (phenomena that lack consciousness).

Either things at bottom are completely and utterly non-experiential, which would make the arising of experiential phenomena a miracle. Or, completely non-experiential stuff does not exist, meaning there is something about the "ultimates" (fundamental features of reality) that are either experience-involving or experience-realizing.

If there is something about matter that gives rise to experience, then matter cannot be completely and utterly non-experiential.

There are important nuances I won't get into now, because this will become too long. But the gist for him is that we have no good reason to believe completely non-experiential stuff to exist.

To be clear, I do not agree with him on important aspects. So this is not my view, just presenting it to others. Is this an illusion? I don't think so. We only have so many options we can appeal to that make some sense to us. This is one of those options.

The illusory aspects of consciousness is the result of how little information it gives about ourselves, the body. For instance our senses largely point outwards, towards the world, so I am unable to see what is going on behind my eyes. The periphery is so limited that I am completely unaware of what is going on inside my body save for the few and feint feelings it sometimes offers.

If that conscious periphery gave us enough information about the body I’m sure consciousness wouldn’t be a such a mystery, and ideas like panpsychism wouldn’t even be entertained.

For instance our senses largely point outwards, towards the world, so I am unable to see what is going on behind my eyes [ ... ] If that conscious periphery gave us enough information about the body [and brain] I’m sure consciousness wouldn’t be a such a mystery, and ideas like panpsychism wouldn’t even be entertained. — NOS4A2

:up: :up: