By the 'One' I am referring to 'mind' although I am not a dualist. I don't think that body and mind are separate with the body as container. It is far more complex, especially with mind not being located in the head alone in the brain itself, just as the self is not an entity to be contained in the physical being.

If you think that the mind exists on its own and the body exists too, then you are a substance dualist! What is your definition of mind, by the way?

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. — Jack Cummins

Transcendent & Numinous experiences are not real phenomena. but ideal imaginary models of unseen things. So, they are obviously not out-there in the Real world. Philosophers like to explore such exotic possibilities, but our material bodies necessarily remain behind in the physical world that sustains their life functions. For me, I treat such explorations of the un-mapped territories like going to the movies : at the end of the Platonic shadow-show, I always go home to my immanent abode. :wink:

PS___ When you die in the real world, you don't survive to make another movie. Unless, you believe --- without evidence --- in reincarnation. Your living body does depend on stuff that, for practical purposes, can be reduced to the physical. For the life of the Mind though, some people can live on fantasies. That's why they go to rom-com and super-hero movies.

I am still grappling with the label and ideas of substance dualism. I have had a number of discussions with @180 Proof about it and how Spinoxa's philosophy is important. However, this is probably dependent on how one interpretats Spinoza. At this point, I would say that I I have some sympathy/ empathy with substance dualism. However, as for the naming of the theory, this is complex, especially the clear distinction between conceptual frameworks of substance dualism or non-dualism.

I do struggle with the clear distinction between life/ death and mind/matter. Prior to interaction on this forum, I definitely believed in disembodied consciousness. Now, I see the idea of disembodied consciousness as problematic, especially in the absence of sentience. Nevertheless, I am aware of the way in which some models of consciousness, Including some perspectives on artificial intelligence challenge the role of sentience in consciousness itself.

I see it as a big philosophy quandary. I used to think that Plato's idea of immortality, as disembodied made sense, but do see this as extremely questionable in my present understanding of its connection with matter/ mind. The idea of reincarnation (and resurrection) overcome this duality. However, so much is speculative and comes down to the notion of justified belief as opposed to clear empirical arguments.

I would say that I I have some sympathy/ empathy with substance dualism. — Jack Cummins

Well, as I've said elsewhere, I read Spinoza's conception of dual-property parallelism as a logical implication of 'non-transcendent (or monist), eternal, infinite substance' – acosmism.

The idea of reincarnation (and resurrection) overcome this duality. — Jack Cummins

"Reincarnation" presupposes the duality of souls and bodies insofar as it is the soul that is jumping (via death) from body to body. "Resurrection" is dualist too, though less explicitly, since the dead body regenerates itself and not the soul that's "eternal".

What I wonder about most in reading ideas of Spinoza, and others, including Shopenhauer; is to what extent ideas like reincarnation and resurrection are symbolic primarily. That is, whether they go beyond individual identity or personal identity as such. This would be more about a cosmic recycling process in the larger scheme of the evolution of consciousness.

Of course, it is hard to know how it works exactly and what the symbolic stands for. Panpsychism, going back to Its roots in animism, may involve the nature of the perplexity of issues of the evolution and emergence of consciousness in varying degrees through the vehicle of matter.

The senses belong to the brain and the body belongs to the heart, the duality of both creates a spirit and that switches the brain to a conscious-brain. Consciousness is a mark of ownership of vessels, beginning in the heart and ending in the brain. The state of being conscious, is of a spirit of heart and brain creating a mind of sense-data and body accepting blood flow; resulting in a sensory play-pit with modal trajectory that one can move through, depending on dimensionality. In all fairness, it's not an illusion, but a product of the heart’s and brain’s spirit using the vessel structure it has constructed.

I ask you, are any of the facets of consciousness unexpected? (Vision is from the eyes, Smell is from the nose, etc etc). None of it is an illusion.

What I wonder about most in reading ideas of Spinoza, and others, including [Sc]hopenhauer; is to what extent ideas like reincarnation and resurrection are symbolic primarily. — Jack Cummins

IIRC, neither thinker argues for "reincarnation and resurrection" symbolically or otherwise. And "consciousness" is not "fundamental" in either philosophy, so "panpsychism", like individual/personal survival after death, is excluded as a speculative possibility.

So much of human understanding is concrete as opposed to symbolic. Part of this dilemma comes down to the question of what the human imagination stands for. It goes back to qualia and issues of metaphysics, as a dilemma in the sciences and arts. Which is more 'real' in descriptive understanding? Likewise, it could be questioned is panpsychism is a metaphorical analogy or an epistemological model of underlying processes of nature?

I just finished reading Michael Tye's book, "Vagueness and the Evolution of Consciousness".

Tye labels himself a physicalist/representalist, but proposes there to be some aspect of consciousness present in all things (he labels this "consciousness*").
Full consciousness (without the "*") requires a physical structure - like the brain. Consciousness* is unmeasurable/undetectable, but it's presence is sine qua non for consciousness in humans and some other animals.

I'm pretty skeptical, but for those inclined toward panpsychism, it's at least a relatively minimal form of it. I could rationalize it based on the fact that we're all composed of quanta of the same quantum fields- so there is a direct relation between any 2 objects that exist.

The duality of body/brain is inherent in nature. There is the problem of seeing consciousness in the brain alone, as opposed to the nervous system and its distribution in the body. Toenails may experience pain and have some form of consciousness. This would explain the underlying varying degrees of consciousness, including diverse forms of bedbugs and crystals.

Quantum.fields may be important in understanding of consciousness and panpsychism. It is this aspect which may be significant, or dismissed, in the debate of the significance of panpsychism. So much of consciousness has been located in brain in the Cartesian- Newtonian picture of reality.

I am sure that being sceptical is also important to avoid wild flights of fantasy but so much goes back to issues of how 'reality' is constituted and works. There has idealism and materialism, as well.ad theism.and idealism. What if all such ideas and models are inadequate? Panpsychism may not be complete but it may further ongoing partiality in models of understanding..Just as consciousness itself is evolving, the human models and descriptions of it, are evolving too.

Which is more 'real' in descriptive understanding? — Jack Cummins

I don't understand the question.

Likewise, it could be questioned is panpsychism is a metaphorical analogy or an epistemological model of underlying processes of nature?

Imo, it's a (poor) "analogy".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1006207

I am sorry if you don't understand my argument. Part of this may come down to how 'objects'are understood. Are they as real as conscious beings; or more real, if one takes a materialist stance.

As you may be aware, I have sympathy with Jung's idea of synchronicity, which is about patterns as opposed to causality, in the strictest sense. So, seeing what happens in nature in life is about patterns and the realm of metaphors. Objects may have 'life' in so far as they have significance in human meaning. It is hard to know how this compares to the idea of objects, such as in the mineral kingdom have consciousness in their own right. I don't know how the independent consciousness of objects could be measured by human consciousness.

I am not sure to what extent this reply answers your query about my perspective on the issue of pansychism. I welcome further questioning because I am wishing to understand and think about this area of philosophy in a sympathetic but critical point of view. Intimately, I am not sure how significant the philosophy of panpsychism is but have some intuition that it of importance at this particular time in understanding consciousness and its processes.

There has idealism and materialism, as well.ad theism.and idealism. What if all such ideas and models are inadequate? Panpsychism may not be complete but it may further ongoing partiality in models of understanding..Just as consciousness itself is evolving, the human models and descriptions of it, are evolving too. — Jack Cummins

What do you mean by "adequate"? Logically possible? Absence of explanatory gaps? Having rational justification to accept?

Now, I see the idea of disembodied consciousness as problematic, especially in the absence of sentience. — Jack Cummins

The creative human mind can imagine "disembodied consciousness", just as it can imagine big-headed Klingons from a distant galaxy. But, in appropriate contexts, we can distinguish science-fantasy from science-facts. If Consciousness was a physical object --- like a brain --- it could exist apart from the human body. But, if you remove the brain from the body, something bad happens : Life & Mind cease. That's because they are on-going Processes produced by and dependent on material Mechanisms, not localized objects in space. That's why I prefer Whitehead's Process Philosophy to the notion of Ghosts who walk around with transparent ectoplasmic bodies. :joke:

GHOST GIRL

Klingons are from this galaxy.

Are they [objects] as real as conscious beings; or more real, if one takes a materialist stance. — Jack Cummins

Some (non-abstract) "objects" are also "conscious beings" and the vast majority are not. Neither type is "more real" than the other as far as I can tell.

Btw, what does "more real" even mean?

Klingons are from this galaxy. — Patterner

LLAP \\//_

Yes, I am probably 'wrong' to speak of some beings or objects as more 'real' than others. It would come down to the issue of more 'real' for whom? Consciousness is not in itself a determinant of what is 'real'. My bed has no consciousness but it is as real as I am.

When I suggested that some objects are more real than conscious beings I am suggesting that they are more permanent. What I meant is that they are less subject to change, or death specifically.

Of course, so much is variable in terms of structures. A bed may break but it doesn't change form whereas some objects disintegrate. Sentient beings grow and change through processes such as puberty and illness. Their consciousness also makes them subject to changes in behaviour. States of mind play an active role in a being's underlying nature. In particular, the inorganic has no will or survival instincr.

Without a brain there is no imagination or capacity to reflect, as you point out. Imagination and reflection are process related. I am wondering whether Whitehead's description of the transcendent has any independent will independently of physical forms through which it transmits. That may be where it becomes impossible to split the physical from the non physical as they are a duality in process. Even that which has no brain, such as a tree cannot be reduced to a mere spirit and exist fully. The immaterial.relues upon vehicle of the material for its expression.

With the concept of the ghost there is no channel for sensory perception. It could be regarded as information but it is different from an actual living being. Even computers and forms of artificial intelligence don't have the underlying processes of imagination an creativity. That is why they could be said to lack a 'soul' as without sentience there is no direct interaction with the transcendent or the source of evolutionary potential.

What is your definition of the mind?

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.

The mind, to me, is defined as an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and create. These abilities are required to cause a coherent change in other substances. The situation becomes a little complex when it comes to thinking and writing, which are abilities of intelligent creatures. You can understand a simple and short sentence by the conscious mind; otherwise, you need the intervention of the subconscious mind when you are dealing with the content of even a paragraph, which is complex. The subconscious mind, to me, is conscious too since its intervention is coherent as well.

irreducible substance — MoK

That seems much more like theory than definition to me. The other things in your list may be definition, depending on who you ask.

Each body part has a function, the mind is all the body's functions online collected into a spirit.

Henry Bergson's idea of the mind as being a filter of 'mind at large' offers a fuller descriptive explanation. — Jack Cummins

If so, what's the "explanation" for this "mind at large"? or evidence for each "mind being a filter"? or is Bergson's idea only a speculative analogy (rather than an "explanation") and not intended to be taken literally?

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.

I do wonder what 'substance' is in itself and wonder how MoK defines this. — Jack Cummins

By substance, I mean something that objectively exists, opposite to what subjectively exists, so-called experience.

I do struggle with the clear distinction between life/ death and mind/matter. Prior to interaction on this forum, I definitely believed in disembodied consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Ironically, the dualistic notion of "disembodied consciousness" (ghosts) may be influenced by the materialistic foundation of our language and our sensory experience. For example, Spiritualists in the 19th century sometimes produced physical evidence that an invisible ghost had manifested in the seance. They made up a sciency-sounding name for spirit-slime : Ectoplasm*1.

It's the greenish stuff that ghosts "slimed" the Hollywood GhostBusters with. In practice, it was merely some un-identifiable viscous substance*2, such as animal fat or cheese dust, that seancers could see & touch, to bolster their Faith and undermine Skepticism. The fake solidified "spiritual energy" was so cheesy that modern paranormal investigators eschew the tangible slime, and depend on readout "evidence" from electronic devices as FaithBuilders. :smile:


*1. In spiritualism, ectoplasm, also known as simply ecto, is a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.
spiritualism ectoplasm

*2. Paranormal: What exactly is ectoplasm?
It doesn’t actually exist. The name came about back during the craze with Mediums and photography. It was generally faked, but more current pictures sometimes depict a cheesecloth like substance that appears. These are the closest thing that you will find that may be labeled “ectoplasm”.
https://www.quora.com/Paranormal-What-exactly-is-ectoplasm