If that conscious periphery gave us enough information about the body — NOS4A2

That's a big if. It may the most any creature may be able to have.

That argument could go either way.

If that conscious periphery gave us enough information about the body I’m sure consciousness wouldn’t be a such a mystery — NOS4A2

I don't understand what you're getting at here. As if a person had thousands of diagnostic lights on their phenomenal user interface, where the pancreas can call up the conscious user to say 85% of the insulin cells are off line, why would that make consciousness less of a mystery?

One can imagine a future of augmented reality, where everything we need to know about what is happening in our body occurs to us. The sky isn't the limit in this regard. But maybe we wouldn't know what kinds of new experience this technology of networks could be giving rise to.

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. — Jack Cummins

In my own personal philosophical worldview, that "organization factor" is called EnFormAction*1, and the "creative" trend of evolution is Enformy*2. Both terms are derived from an Information-Centric philosophy*3, in which Generic Information works like a computer program in the physical world. It's a combination of Causal Energy and Logical Information. And it assumes that Enformation (power to transform) is more essential than Matter. Hence, Consciousness is an emergent quality, and not fundamental as Panpsychism postulates.

Working together, these physical (energy) & meta-physical (logic) forces are responsible for creating a complex Cosmos from an initial explosion of Energy (Big Bang) and Information (Natural Laws). Materialists tend to ignore or misinterpret the directional guidance of those laws, including Thermodynamics [hot vs cold = change] and Dialectic [sequential Logic is directional]. Absent those taken-for-granted Laws, the BB would be a pop & poof flash-in-the-pan followed-by-a-fizzle, like fireworks --- instead of the orderly organizing system we now observe.

The source of those original logical & limiting laws in the initial conditions of our universe is a mystery. Some think an eternal mechanical-yet-creative multiverse would explain the explosion of bounded something from unbounded nothingness. Others, prefer to imagine an eternal God, with a human-like Mind, to design & program a statistical Singularity into a burst of let-there-be-light. I have seen no hard evidence for either, so both are hypothetical scenarios. Hence, my thesis begins after the Beginning. :smile:

PS___ Panpsychism is not an illusion. It's just an incomplete explanation.


*1. EnFormAction :
Energy + Form + Action = Information
Directional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law [or force] of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will or Schopenhauer's Will) that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite pool of possibility (un-actualized Potential). AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. Mislabeled in science as Negentropy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. An information-centric philosophy, in its broadest sense, views information as a fundamental aspect of reality, potentially even more fundamental than matter or energy. This perspective suggests that the universe, including consciousness and human existence, can be understood as expressions or patterns of information. It challenges traditional, human-centered or matter-centric views of the world and proposes that information processing is key to understanding phenomena like consciousness and the nature of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information-centric+philosophy

BANG, FLASH, & FIZZLE

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. — Patterner

Whitehead pointed out that any object is "subject" to effects from its environment. So cliffs are weathered, are subject to sunlight, wind and water erosion for example. But we don't usually think of inanimate objects as possessing internally maintained structural integrity. We might think that way about cells and even microphysical particles, though.

So, along with the idea of internally maintained structural integrity comes the biological phenomenon of homeostasis, and this requires the ability to respond to the external and internal environments appropriately, something that a rock responding to the sunlight, wind and rain by being eroded could hardly be said to be doing.

Of course even the most complex organisms, even we humans, are " weathered", "eroded" by the internal and external environments, so we are "subjects" in that sense as well.

I can see Strawson's argument because experience is the central to being alive. A chair or a rock doesn't experience the person sitting on it, even though the person may have an effect on the chair, such as scratching it. Ideas about objects having experiences are human projections.

Some panpsychist views are of a spirit in an object, like the idea of a ghost in a machine understanding of a human. This rests on an assumption of disembodied spirits.

Belief in disembodied spirits is central to the idea of the supernatural. Graham Hancock points to the way in which ancient people saw spirits, often under trance states induced by hallucinogenic plants. They took these spirits to be 'real' in the sense of having independent consciousness of human beings. Panpsychism works more in that context.

Panpsychism is a way of trying to understand connections and the source of that which is not a sentient form. Objects have a role in the world and universe as they are part of the material fabric. They may be affected by so much but the presence of the spark of life is what makes it animate. The rock does not have a spark and doesn't die, although plants and trees grow and die. It is not possible to say how much consciousness a tree has. It experiences weather and may store some memory, such as rings but it is unlikely that it has consciousness as we know it. Panpsychism may be an attempt to understanding creativity in the universe, or consciousness in the unconscious.

But we don't usually think of inanimate objects as possessing internally maintained structural integrity. — Janus

No, I don't think we do. I've never heard of any self repairing, non-living system. Not sure what that would even look like.

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. — NOS4A2

I don't know if I'm understanding you. Are you thinking there is a physical mechanism for consciousness within us, and we would be able to see it if our physical senses pointed inward?

I can see Strawson's argument because experience is the central to being alive. A chair or a rock doesn't experience the person sitting on it, even though the person may have an effect on the chair, such as scratching it. Ideas about objects having experiences are human projections. — Jack Cummins

Yes that's what we think and it's very likely true. Strawson's point is different, he's not claiming a tree is alive or thinks, but rather that our interaction with anything is experience-involving or experience-realizing. The chair at very bottom, is made of the same things our brains are made of at bottom.

I don't know of many panpsychists, who would say that a chair thinks or that a rock has consciousness. There may be outliers, but it is a very bizarre view.

I don't know if I'm understanding you. Are you thinking there is a physical mechanism for consciousness within us, and we would be able to see it if our physical senses pointed inward?

Not only that but all mental and physical phenomena.

Panpsychism may be an attempt to understanding creativity in the universe, or consciousness in the unconscious. — Jack Cummins

I'm sure that Panpsychism has always been a serious attempt to understand how such imperceptible phenomena as Life & Mind can exist in an obviously material world. But it's based on an ancient notion of Psyche as a wandering Spirit or embodied Soul. Generally, Spirit was added to Matter to animate it. And Soul was added to matter to produce sentient Mind. Together those ghostly essences were supposed to explain the creativity of the living & thinking world, as contrasted with a universe of dull dead Matter. Modern scientists who advocate All-Mind are more sophisticated than primitive animists. But they still find it difficult to reconcile immaterial Mind with substantial Matter, without relying on spooky ghost-stuff.

However, modern science has given us a much more complete understanding of how the world works. Unfortunately, the 17th century model of a mechanical world is still common today. So, those who advocate All-Mind seem to be reacting to the dullness & deadness of an All-Matter universe. But Materialists deny & decry the religious & anti-science backlash against mechanical Science, that resulted in the Spiritualism of the 19th century. So, who's right and who's wrong?

Maybe both worldviews are partly correct and part erroneous. For example, A.N. Whitehead proposed a 20th century worldview that incorporated some aspects both ancient Religion and modern Science*1. His notion of the Will of God, acting in the world, is closer to Schopenhauer's Will & Idea than to the Holy Spirit of the Bible. And his updated notion of Spirit & Soul is closer to modern Energy, than to ancient Animism*2, with body-hopping ghosts that convert dead matter into living & thinking organisms.

If you are inclined to think that Spiritualist seances actually call-up ghosts from a parallel spirit-realm, you won't like Whitehead's version. The 21st century variety of All-Mind includes another century of scientific development since Whitehead. Modern scientists who advocate Panpsychism are imagining Consciousness as-if it is something like Causal Energy : invisible, but effective. And some try to dissociate their definition of Consciousness from spooky Spiritualism, and to avoid dealing with the notion of sentient Atoms --- which do input & output Energy, but show no signs of Sentience.

Therefore, I see no need to wrestle with the contradiction of "consciousness in the unconscious". Even rocks play the thermodynamic game with Energy. And plants go a step further by evolving life-nurturing metabolism, converting Energy into structure & maintenance. But only the most recent stages of evolution display evidence of Awareness and knowing-that-you-know. Some even seem to possess Self-Awareness (Soul) as the pinnacle of emergent Consciousness. :smile:


*1. 20th Century Spirituality :
Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, often called Process Philosophy, offers a unique perspective on spirituality that moves away from traditional, static views of reality and God. Instead of focusing on fixed substances or a transcendent, uninvolved deity, Whitehead emphasizes the dynamic nature of reality as a process of becoming, with God being both immanent and transcendent, actively involved in the world's evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+spiritualism

*2. Animism & Spiritualism :
Animism is a belief system that attributes a spiritual essence or soul to all living and non-living things, including plants, animals, objects, and natural phenomena. It's not a formal religion itself, but rather a worldview that can be found within various cultures and religions. Animism emphasizes relationships and interactions between humans and the spiritual world, often involving rituals and practices to connect with or appease spirits.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=animism

*3. Experiential Energy :
In Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy, energy is not just a physical property, but a fundamental aspect of all reality, interwoven with experience and becoming. Whitehead views energy not as inert substance, but as dynamic activity, with subjective feeling or potential for experience at all levels. This means even seemingly inanimate objects have a degree of experience or feeling associated with their energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+energy
Note --- His Experiential Energy is similar to my notion of EnFormAction. It's primal energy that had the innate potential to produce matter, and to organize it into living & thinking systems. I suppose you could call it Panpsychism without wandering ghosts & suffering rocks.

PS___ Contra Frankenstein, you can't animate a dead body with pure energy (lightening). Instead, you need enformed (programmed) Energy : EnFormAction. The secret ingredient is encoded Information. And, yes, that implies a Big Bang Programmer similar to Whitehead's transcendent/immanent "God".

Several years ago, I came to the conclusion that the universe is a living entity and that people are akin to single brain cells within that living entity. And just as our entire body is considered to be alive, even though it is composed of material which would normally be considered lifeless (for e.g. water), everything in the universe as can be considered to be as alive as every aspect of our bodies. Is this belief a form of panpsychism?

It is not possible to say how much consciousness a tree has. It experiences weather and may store some memory, such as rings but it is unlikely that it has consciousness as we know it. — Jack Cummins

Since a tree is so very different from us, its subjective experience of itself is very different from our subjective experience of ourselves. Which is my position on consciousness - simply the subjective experience of the given subject.

I don't think I would say a tree's rings are memories, though. Because I don't think the tree pulls up any memories because of the rings.

Indon't even think the rings are information. We can figure out various things because of them. But the rings don't actually mean those things. The information we can glean from them is not processed. Not even in a simplistic way like photons hitting eyespots, leading to the twitching flagellum.

I don't know if I'm understanding you. Are you thinking there is a physical mechanism for consciousness within us, and we would be able to see it if our physical senses pointed inward?

Not only that but all mental and physical phenomena. — NOS4A2

Is there a reason that our technologies cannot detect the physical mechanism of consciousness? We know about all kinds of things going on the brain, after all. Neurotransmitters are a great example.

Apparently, there is a field of plant neurobiology, ha!

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.2017.0096?__cf_chl_tk=EnNihJj2VrCqoJY2sK39jDo75tEsHCXRvnIbXj6piEo-1755233088-1.0.1.1-hwG6qkhXRhpNzX1sA2p0De1fz9QOQx0R02eiQSs4ALE

From which:

Our main thesis is that plant behaviour takes place by way of a process (active inference) that predicts the environmental sources of sensory stimulation. This principle, we argue, endows plants with a form of perception that underwrites purposeful, anticipatory behaviour.

But, notice, this pertains to plants, living organisms. I don't think the same can be said of anything non-living.

Several years ago, I came to the conclusion that the universe is a living entity and that people are akin to single brain cells within that living entity. And just as our entire body is considered to be alive, even though it is composed of material which would normally be considered lifeless (for e.g. water), everything in the universe as can be considered to be as alive as every aspect of our bodies. Is this belief a form of panpsychism? — Kevin Andrew

:100: As someone remarked, panpsychism is really just the current version of an ancient idea: that the Cosmos is 'ensouled'. 'All things are full of gods' ~ Thales of Miletus

Panpsychism cannot explain the unity of experience.

Panpsychism cannot explain the unity of experience. — MoK

What is your explanation for the unity of experience?

The “unity of experience” isn’t just a special riddle for consciousness—it’s mirrored by the unity of life itself. Just as an organism isn’t literally built by stitching cells together but emerges as a whole with its own integrity, consciousness may be the subjective expression of this same principle of organismic unity.

In philosophy the question of the subjective unity of experience was considered by Kant, but the unity of organisms goes back to Aristotle. It is also a major focus of enactivism and phenomenology.

I was a little unsure of the description of Strawson's ideas. It would be too simplistic if any panpsychist thought that rocks were alive in a similar way to human beings' experience. Some of it comes down to differentiating subjective and objective aspects of consciousness, such as Nagel's question of 'What is it like to be a bat?' We make assumptions and there is probably a lot of sense in common sense, especially in what it means to be alive. I know that Russell, my teddy bear, doesn't have consciousness other than what I project onto him.

It is also a matter for physics as well as consciousness. I only understand physics in the questions it raises about philosophy (or metaphysics). However, from what I have read the issue of quantum entanglement has some bearing on the nature of consciousness and to the idea of panpsychism.

The 'unity of experience' raises questions because it involves so much. Plotinus's idea of the 'One' is useful though. That is because it links the nature of subjective experience to the wider sense of consciousness as a source.

In thinking about the comparison between panpsychism and ancient ideas of 'ensoulment' I am wondering about its comparison with paganism.

I have also done some reading of theosophy and this has some bearing on the issue of what is spirit in relation to the life force. One idea which I came across was in connection with souls and spirits. That was the suggestion that ghosts are not 'soul' itself but memory traces in energy fields, especially in cases of traumatic experiences. Theosophy encompasses the view of various levels of spiritual reality, including embodied experience, but not seeing the embodied as all and everything.

Yes, it is a good question as to whether everything being seen as cells, like brain cells, is equivalent to panpsychism. I do think that James Lovelock's idea of Gaia touches upon this. Consciousness, in terms of self-awareness, may be the experience of human consciousness but it all relates to larger systems beyond the human. The earth and other planets are not human, with a sense of personal self, but they have their own organisational capacity.

I haven't read Whitehead but would like to, in order to consider the idea of 'God' as imminent or transcendent. Of course, it does go back to debate ranging from Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. The idea of pantheism is relevant to this.

I have known people who believe in spiritualism. I am not sure what people are tapping into exactly and that is why I find Jung's notion of the collective unconscious to be useful.

In my post above I referred to a view within theosophy of ghosts not being 'soul' itself but traces of energy disturbances. This goes hand in hand with the belief that fragments of a person break down. This is compatible with ideas of rebirth but is not dependent on there being a rebirth necessarily.

In his book 'Supernatural', Graham Hancock describes the way in which the development of belief in the gods was the basis of for the development of the symbolic realm. Whether beings such as gods and angels have independent life and experience is open to question. This would be about the disembodied, so is different from panpsychist ideas about matter, but it does involve the underlying issue of whether experience is dependent on the principle of sentience itself.

Theoretically, if objects were seen as having consciousness it could be argued that they need to be treated with greater respect. — Jack Cummins

Dogs clearly have consciousness and even will, as they can follow human commands, sometimes against their own desires, as some studies have shown. However, people who consume animal meat, for example, rarely consider or respect the consciousness of animals. If we often disregard the consciousness of animals for practical purposes, what are the chances that we would respect the hypothetical consciousness of rocks or other objects?

I haven't read Whitehead but would like to, in order to consider the idea of 'God' as imminent or transcendent. Of course, it does go back to debate ranging from Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. The idea of pantheism is relevant to this. — Jack Cummins

Whitehead described his God as both transcendent and immanent. So any divine actions in the physical world are Natural, not supernatural interventions from heaven. His theology was labeled, by his associate, as Panentheism. But I prefer to spell it PanEnDeism, in order to avoid the doctrinal associations of Theism.

Whitehead's philosophy was also labeled as Panpsychism. But he typically reserved the term "Consciousness" for humans, and used generic "Experience" to refer to other dynamic-but-meaningless interactions, such as exchanges of Energy. I think that term still sounds absurd, implying sentient atoms. So, I use different terminology, that is intended to be less spooky or strange. :smile:

PS___ My first attempt to read his book left me feeling inadequate to the task. I eventually got a better understanding from third-person accounts of Process Philosophy.

*1. Whitehead's panpsychism, or more accurately, his process-relational philosophy, posits that mentality is a fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of reality, not just a characteristic of humans or animals. His view differs from traditional panpsychism by emphasizing the "experiential" nature of all entities, rather than just consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+panpsychism

The 'unity of experience' raises questions because it involves so much. Plotinus's idea of the 'One' is useful though. That is because it links the nature of subjective experience to the wider sense of consciousness as a source. — Jack Cummins

If the "One" you mean the mind, then we are on the same page.

Some of it comes down to differentiating subjective and objective aspects of consciousness, such as Nagel's question of 'What is it like to be a bat?' We make assumptions and there is probably a lot of sense in common sense, especially in what it means to be alive. I know that Russell, my teddy bear, doesn't have consciousness other than what I project onto him. — Jack Cummins

Yes.

It has to do with how we access and interact with objects that allows us to reason about its nature. But in so far as someone is going to say a teddy bear or a particle has very very primitive consciousness, there is no evidence for the claim.

To be fair, there is no evidence against that claim, only common sense. But I think it is more reasonable to assume these things lack mind than have mind. It becomes a virtually meaningless semantic quibble.

With the interaction between humans and objects, while the objects don't have consciousness in their own right, I do wonder if human consciousness permeates objects, at an influential level beyond action itself. Projective forces come into play but it is possible that human thoughts actually interact with physical objects. For example, I know that my room.gets in a mess and things fall over when I am in a negative state of mind. To some extent it may be symbolic but I do wonder if objects are influenced by thoughts.

There is also the strange phenomena of statues shedding tears. Of course, this may be a hoax of some kind.

Thank you for the summary of Whitehead's philosophy relating to panpsychism. I will try to explore his ideas further because immanence and transcendence seem both important. I am not convinced that transcendence and the experience of the numinous can be reduced to the physical completely.

Even if rocks were seen as having some consciousness, it is unlikely that human beings would care. Generally, ecology been dismissed and human beings have seen themselves as being at the top of the hierarchy, as 'special' and to use nature for benefiting human need and greed.

The idea of the existence of 'the soul' was often a way of justifying this. Some thinkers in the past thought that men had souls but women didn't. Similarly, certain people were looked down upon as if 'primitive'. Such hierarchical thinking can be a means of justification of exploitation.