That is rather garbled. Science relies on predictive and explanatory models. We don’t suddenly state Newton’s Laws are ‘not true’ in the colloquial sense because they are still capable of giving highly accurate results.

True in mathematics is a matter of abstract truths. Such absolute truths exist only in abstraction NOT in nature (or if they do it seems impossible to me that they could be shown as absolute truths).

At the base level the grounding for all experimentation is not utterly solid. Descartes tried to reach for such and Husserl did too. Husserl basically came to admit to himself that there is not reaching any ultimate grounding but reaching for it is nevertheless a worthwhile task - he was not fond of ‘conclusions’.

I am assuming that you accept the fact that you are made up of multiple living cells. I assume that you don’t regard a single cell as ‘being alive’ in the same manner that multicellular organisms are alive.

It is not a huge leap from there to suggest something similar for consciousness given that we know so very little about consciousness and that it may just be that the rudiments of consciousness exist in a singular neuron just like a single cell it rudimentary to a living organism.

Maybe a combination of emergence and panpsychism makes more sense than either alone? I would put the idea that ‘atoms’ possess consciousness as reaching the realms of fantasy simply because to say such is to equate animal consciousness not merely with a neuron but with fantasies.

Inexplicably consciousness arises. We know that much. It seems pretty clear than not all life possesses ‘consciousness’ like we do, so to call anything different ‘consciousness’ to me seems misleading.

As another comparison we could look at how human language functions compared to simple organisms that have a means of communication. In fact many other animals possess elements of what we call ‘language’ yet humans appear to be fairly unique in that they possess these elements in a combination that allows for complex communication.

Panpsychism is an interesting idea that I believe some people take way too far, or misuse the term ‘consciousness’ when talking about atoms being conscious. It is not even a theory in its current state just an idea that could potentially open up other ideas that are more applicable.

If someone puts forward a model of panpsychism I’d be interested to look at it. As is it is just philosophical speculation with some people taking it into the realms of fantasy.

Okay smart arse … if life is ‘fantasy’ then all we know is ‘fantasy’ therefore the ‘fantasy’ is reality.

Understand?

There is no evidence that a spaghetti monster did not creat the universe either … so fucking what?

There is a difference between pure fantasy and highly speculative ideas. Sadly it seems some think the line is somewhere I don’t.

Pure fantasy.

What are you talking about? It is an idea as a means to approach a better understanding of consciousness. That is it.

You may as well ask what motivates anyone to want to understand anything.

I never said life was everywhere?

My point was simply to compare a single cell to multi-cellar organisms (both being ‘life’). To view these drastically different items of ‘life’ is kind of like viewing ‘consciousness’ as being made up of smaller parts that are conscious just like living organisms are made up of singular living cells.

This is not a view I find convincing I am just answering why panpsychism is a fairly reasonable point to suggest - it doesn’t necessarily have to mean every atom in the universe possesses an ‘element’ of consciousness; but some like to believe that.

Consciousness, as far as I can reasonably tell, is something that happens in brains. How? Not really sure, and no one else is sure either so there is no harm in thinking outside the box and proposing something like panpsychism really … it is just not something that anyone can offer up a testable hypothesis for right now so it is mostly a speculative idea.

Humans are creatures of habit. Memory is applied to to the mundane making it sacred. Be this a football stadium, church, house or a simple rock.

The story we apply to lived experiences creates a narrative that can be passed on and repeated. Needless to say such a ‘habit’ is kind of useful in terms of evolution as it helps us adapt to the environment and approach it from different angles rather than as a mere set of lifeless variables.

Without value there is nothing there for us to pay attention to. Without a means of applying or removing value we are not anything as stagnation of value is just as dead as having no value at all.

It is a reasonable step if you think about it. An animal cell can be alive yet it is not an ‘animal’ nor an ‘organ’. I think we can all agree that an animal requires animal cells and that animal cells, organs and full animals are alive.

Panpsychism is following this train of thought because ‘consciousness,’ like ‘life,’ is not exactly easy to pinpoint in a discrete way. Life just happens to be more easily outlined than consciousness on a more tangible level.

Would it be just to come to the aid of people in one nation where the powers that be are systematically killing/torturing/raping them?

In simple terms it is a just cause to stop such acts even if it meant going to war.

So you are just saying using intuition and scientific thought helps us to understand things? What is this ‘intuition’ you speak of? Is it Kantian or just regular kinda ‘instinct’ talk?

As a concept if there is no mind there is no ‘universe’ to speak of … as there is nothing to speak. I will grant you that. What I cannot see is an intelligible way to talk about ‘consciousness’ existing a few seconds after the big bang when there were no ‘conscious beings’ around. If there was a ‘being’ of sorts around it was most certainly not ‘conscious’ in any way we could begin to understand.

We only have one point of reference for ‘consciousness’. Anything else in some other time/space is not ‘conscious’ in any reasonably comparable manner unless such a being possesses a host of common features to humans.

Science doesn’t understand anything because science isn’t a conscious being.

To say that the universe is a medium for consciousness is no different than saying conscious being exist in the universe … which they do. That is not panpsychism it is just agreeing that conscious beings exist.

A major concern I have for both deism and panpsychism is talk of ‘other forms of consciousness’ existing outside if human conscious comprehension. I don’t see why we would call this ‘consciousness’ at all.

I know this. Unlike many here I do know how to look up definitions of terms.

My view was based on the premise that the ‘average joe’ takes propaganda as something more strongly attached to patriotism than anything else. I may be completely wrong about this, which is fine.

My thought was whether or not ‘propaganda’ (as in the real meaning) would be more or less of a problem if nationhood wasn’t a thing? I played with this idea as it seems to me that a lack of patriotism/nationhood would reduce tribalism to some degree, and that ‘propaganda’ relies on a sense of tribalism at some level. If the general population of the planet abstained from ‘patriotism’ then I suggesting that maybe ‘propaganda’ would not be as much of a problem. Not that patriotism is the singular driving force of propaganda but I do believe that tribalism is and that patriotism is a more substantial form of tribalism - even though there is some ‘good’ within it.

Very nice post. EVERYONE should read this one.

Those are ideological assertions.

An example might help?

He believes those concepts to be the ultimate truth and is very combative against anybody questioning their validity. — stoicHoneyBadger

If that is nothing to do with ‘ideals’ or an ‘ideology’ I have literally not idea what you are talking about.

I thought this was well known? The motivation is bound up in the problem of understanding ‘consciousness’. That there are many different people taking up the idea of panpsychism with various other motivations attached is secondary to the original point of trying to understand consciousness right?

Try reading Husserl on this subject. He was very much aware of the ‘foundations’ science stood on (or rather, the lack of solidity).

His main approach was to create a ‘science of consciousness’ and make firmer the ground upon which the more traditional ‘sciences’ stand.

“The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology”

I think it does and I think the term/s you are looking for are ‘ideals’ or ‘ideology’. If not tell me how what you are talking about differs.

Note: It is generally a bad idea in philosophy to keep making up new terms. That many terms are not exactly absolute/precise does not necessarily mea we need to keep remaking them (eg. ‘love,’ ‘war’ etc,.)

In terms of ‘concepts’ and how we develop said concepts through growth - from infancy onwards - we do not have hard and fast concepts at all. We build them over time gradually then extend them into other areas and see if they hold or not.

As an example when a small child saw a horse for the first tome she pointed at it and said ‘big dog?’. She understood that it was like a dog in some ways but she had no knowledge, and no concept to apply, to the animal she saw.

If we are talking about this in later years of life we still come across new words and often fumble with how to use them correctly. Again, we begin with a gist then refine it over time.

Compared to ‘ideals’ and ‘ideology’ that fits more with your stages. An ‘ideal’ is obviously taken for granted and not really so readily open to questions like a ‘concept’ is. Furthermore, as I have outlined, it might even be reasonable to suggest that ‘ideals’ and ‘ideologies’ are made up of ‘concepts’?

Would it be better to say what you are talking about is ‘ideals’ and ‘ideology’ rather than beliefs and concepts?

If not what is the difference?

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??). — Gnomon

Are you not interested in a well-established philosophical concept, that was taken for granted by some of the smartest people on the planet for thousands of years? — Gnomon

What is this concept of ‘god’? That is my starting question if the OP is asking about possible proof.

To say I am not interested in this couldn’t be much further from the truth. Religion and religious traditions have fascinated for a long time.

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??). — Gnomon

This is evidence of a sort. Someone believing something does not make it true (obviously). I have stated that I have experienced something that I regard as being what people refer to as ‘experiencing god,’ but the issue is that I am fairly aware how one experience can be viewed differently from different perspectives. All I can say is that there is something acutely important and powerful in the experience.

Such experiences happen to many people from all walks of life. The underlying theme is how difficult it is to express this to someone who has not experienced anything similar whilst simultaneously having the deep desire to do so because no one in their right mind would want to keep it to themselves.

I think the best way to talk about it would be something like how art can appeal to someone in such a powerful manner. Dawkins, as someone else mentioned, is moved to tears when listening to music. The experience I am talking of is something like that but it is universal.

I do not call it ‘god’ but I can easily see how someone else would. My first thought at having the most vivid and intense experience of my life was ‘why me? Surely someone else has had this, but if they have then why the hell are they not shouting about it?’. It was then I realised something along what I experienced had clearly been experienced by many others and that was why religions existed - some had the ability to express the experience more fully than others and people could not help but listen (as happened to myself briefly where everyone I met I seemed so easily able to connect with).

There is something about virtue, but no clear cut question or point.

Just looks like a half-formed thought with a heading that suggests there is an interesting discussion to be had.

yes. Do you a have a point? Spit it out

Sorry, I still don’t see a clear question here.

Yeah! :D It is more or less a definition of human behaviour

The floor is yours. Say something.

Toxic masculinity. I thought that meant threatening to use or actually using physical force to settle differences or arguments. — Agent Smith

It is a stupid term that in some instances tries to ignore the use of any physical dominance over anyone. It is often used in the ‘be a man’ way, but in some situations saying ‘be a man’ is perfectly viable as it can simply be taken to mean something akin to being courageous.

Using physical force can be cowardly and can be courageous. Not all physical force (even if initiated by said person) should be considered as ‘toxic’.

It is mostly part of the weird ‘woke’ nonsense and on the surface seems perfectly reasonable but often does its best to make sweeping statements about how people should or should not behave with not regard for contextual nuance (that is how I define ‘woke’ btw).

It should do nothing, be it can do a lot.

Meaning that activism is activism and philosophy is philosophy. Philosophy should first and foremost be about expressing, exchanging and picking apart different ideas and approaches with rigour in order to expose new questions or rank the use of question/s at hand.

Of course these things can impact and have impacted how society functions. Like with mathematics or science I don’t see it as a way of determining how we ‘should’ live but more about how we ‘can’ live. Like with mathematics and science simple curiosity often comes before any view to use gained knowledge, but generally can lead to being of more practical use for future generations.

Even when it comes to ethics I don’t follow the idea that we should or shouldn’t live a certain way as a human being - such is too much of an individual item than as a means of setting out an overarching scheme to suit all.

And I STILL never said otherwise.

Asking why people believe in a ‘deity’ is not exactly defining what a ‘deity’ is in any reasonable manner. That is my point. It is like skipping the question ‘what happened before the bog bang’ and jumping straight into details of ‘before the big bang’.

Theoretical Physics and such are not exactly pseudoscience. There are some highly speculative ideas and some more tangible ones. You are asking what can be said about ‘god’ and I am saying nothing of worth at all if said ‘god’ is defined as existing in some beyond, in a realm wholly removed and outside of human conceptualisation.

If we are talking about something ‘outside’ of space and time all we have are some mathematical equations that do not really tell us about any ‘reality’ because reality to us is space and time.

However I still think that a child would grow "Better" if he engages in strong love relationships from his birth to his maturity. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I never said otherwise.

In some Chinese cultures brothers share a wife due to the number of women in their community. It works because they share common genetic makeup so are willing to protect the genes.

In other instances the ‘father’ (biological father) has little to nothing to do with their children until they reach a certain age. In those cases the brother of the mother generally takes in the role of ‘father’ in how we would imagine it.

Point being, our personal experience of male and female roles in the societies we are familiar with are not necessarily any better than any other simply because they are more commonly known to us. It could be that they are but I have not seen a reason to suggest anything other than a child being well adjusted enough if they are exposed to stable and loving care (who this comes from is not massively important unless it is viewed as a social taboo).

perhaps you are defining ‘healthy family’ in a way that suggests any other option is ‘unhealthy’.

The idea of ‘father figure’ and ‘mother figure’ are not natural laws. There are instances in different societies where the biological father does not take on the same role in modern western societies.

This is not my opinion (not just something I think), it is something I know from reading anthropological sources.

Yes, but they can and do sometimes come from sources the child has strong emotional ties to - siblings or other relatives/friends.

There are also societies where the role of ‘father’ is quite different to what we are used to where such a role is divided between other relatives in the family.

I went in LamSagrada Familia for what I thought would be 30-60 mins max. 3hrs later still open mouthed!

If you go make sure you get sundown for the full effect. Literally breathtaking. I walked outside after over two hours and had to go back in because I couldn’t believe how amazing it was!

The problem: Father and mother figure. In the first case, which of them both is the father figure for the child? In the second case, which of them both is the mother figure for the child? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Doesn’t really matter as long as there is a stable relationship to observe and a male and female role model around. Point being about the child being exposed to people providing parental guidance and people in stable loving relationships (these need not be from the same people).

There are one mother and one father, biologically. Evidently there is not a strong relationship between biological and social truths, at all. However, when we are talking about a child, we are not allowed to talk socially, but biologically, as he/she is not developed enough. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I don’t understand what this means/refers to?

Fair enough. I just get annoyed when people think people always get depressed ‘for a reason’ when it is simply brain chemistry just going awry.

The common ‘why are you depressed’ when said to someone suffering depression can aggravate or ignore the underlying issue of a chemical imbalance (which may be congenial).

Could logic have a feminine incarnation? The Greeks thought that rationality was masculine and the passions as girly. — Agent Smith

Athena was decidedly ‘feminine’ though :)