Panpsychism

any thoughts?

panpsychism has been around for millenia though most philosophers and scientists don't tend towards the view because it does not really satisfy their intellectual needs for an understanding of what their consciousness is. After all, panpsychism says everything is consciousness and consciousness is the basis of all. If consciousness is such a common feature then there would seem to be nothing really to explain about human consciousness. Hence, panpsychism, even if true, does not answer the question of what human consciousness is nor does it elucidate the relationship between neuronal dynamics and the form or structure of consciousness.

That being said, I'm a panpsychist. Of course, consciousness in other 'things' is nothing like human consciousness that we're used to, but I think that consciousness is not some property that magically appears when matter gets sufficiently complex. Rather, consciousness is fundamental property of matter; instead of speaking of matter we should speak of matter-consciousness at a fundamental level. Of course, accepting the validity of panpsychism does not explain in any way the form or structure of consciousness as we experience it, and thus the theory is deficient in this regard.

very interesting article Dan. I see that the article says that "integrators seem to be stuck with the dilemma of emergence versus panpsychism". Indeed, they seem to be the only two alternatives, or are they?

There are many different worldviews that assume or postulate panpsychism. But that being said, I wonder whether there are any alternatives to emergence versus panpsychism. The question is whether consciousness/mind emerges from the material (quantum mech) world and is thus confined to certain privileged material (quantum mech) systems that presumably exhibit sufficient complexity, or whether it is present everywhere. However, it would seem that the fact that everything is connected to everything else would rule out the possibility of consciousness/mind being localized to some privileged sub-systems within the material (quantum mech) world, and thus consciousness/mind must be everywhere in a sense. However, in what sense it is everywhere and in what sense it is connected with everything else in the universe remains to be elucidated perhaps.

I add to the mix the idea that all elements that constitute the universe experience a fundamental cyclicity that causes a corresponding cyclicity of the 'qual' intensity associated with them. Thus, it may be seen that at any instant only a subset of all elements are contributing significantly as perceptions yielding a natural way to 'divvy up' the universe into disjoint threads of experience (beings). After all, if one 'consciousness' thread is engaged at a particular instant, the other 'consciousness' threads are not simply because the elements that cause them happen to be 'quiet'. The universe cycles through all such available disjoint consciousness-threads in an interlaced fashion, such that all the separate consciousness states can engage in a quasi-live interaction. It is merely a trick of consciousness to feel 'continuously on', and this illusion is most significant as it causes the delusory belief in 'others' and all associated pathologies.

http://datamonster.sbs.arizona.edu/consciousness/

Why is it then that we humans have no real awareness of the universal consciousness that panpsychism implies? Indeed we have difficulty in appreciating that other humans have consciousness (cf braindeath or embyonic stage) and only know that we (as an individual) have; or at least assume that we have (illusions & delusions aside). And even that is a limited knowledge, as for example, when we sleep or go unconscious (knocked out) or die, we have no idea what happens to our consciousness or its potential. Most of us assume that it will end with the end of the material that creates and encages it. But many of us also hope that it might continue in some extracorporal form. The latter being true then body(brain)-mind associations will be disconnected and panpsychism could be a real phenomenon. But where is the evidence for this type of phenomenon? I sincerely hope that someone has evidence or that it will be found soon. But I don't mean anecdotal (as of the RtB type). The prospects for all types of expanded consciousness would then be imaginable. Great!

Before the human form of life with its 'consciousness' appeared on earth, do you think anything existed?
If you do not, you must presumably be a creationist.
If you do then matter is not just a construct of consciousness since it pre-existed.

I haven't read all the panpsychism words yet, so cannot comment further presently, except to say that I agree with Ricks thoughts.

Panpsychism doesn't seem like an "explanation" of consciousness to me, but more like an avoidance of the issue. That is, if everything is "mind" then there is no need to explain how mind arises in the brain. The emergentist philosopher, on the other hand, is ready to do some hard work.

Please don't think that I have a personal wish or need to live on in some sort of post-material form. I was just emphasing the fact that a large numder of people think that way (cf religions). If the mind is an emergent property then it open all types of possibilites for other emergent properties (including other minds) that could also be simultaneous (but maybe unaware; a bit like I am unaware what is going on in your mind, even though I think I know that it is there). Could explain some mental illness, personality differences etc.

From an article by Dr. Susan Blackmore

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NSintox.htm

"This raises the peculiar question of whether what James’s called “our normal rational consciousness” is necessarily the best for understanding the world. After all, if one’s view of the world can change so dramatically with the aid of a simple molecule like nitrous oxide, how can we be sure that our normal brain chemistry is the one most suited to doing science and philosophy? What if evolution had taken a slightly different turn and we had ended up with brain chemistry less inclined to make us believe in God or the afterlife. Or what if our actual brain chemistry evolved to help us survive and reproduce at the cost of giving us false beliefs about the world? If so, it is possible that mind-altering drugs might in fact give us a better, not worse, insight than we have in our so-called normal state."

Rick

The most important first: Why would you want to assume that the speed of light is anything to do with consciousness sharing? This implies that the "shared" consciousness comprises consciousness elements in different locations. What has location go to do with these ideas? Unless we regress to the concept of mind encaged in brain. I appreciate that most (if not all) present evidence supports this, but we are trying to be imaginative here.

2nd: There are even simpler molecules (than N2O) that affect perception or other brain activity (e.g. NO - Some motor neurons of the parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system release NO as their neurotransmitter. The actions of NO on penile erection and peristalsis are probably mediated by these nerves. In laboratory animals (mice and rats), NO is released by neurons in the CA1 region of the hippocampus and stimulates the NMDA receptors there that are responsible for long-term potentiation (LTP) — a type of memory (and learning)). However, our normal brain chemistry (as rangeful as it presently is within the species) has been achieved within evolutionary advantageous pathways that have occurred over millions of years. Mind altering drugs is a broad term but I assume that you mean the recently utilized substances, many of which are synthetic and that are little identified with normal metabolic events. For example, just today, in the UK, there has been a government statement re the safety of seroxat and prozac (SSRI's in general) within the context of mental health safety. We are very distant from being able to understand and thus truely utilize these agents to explore the consciousness issues. I am particularly concerned that statements such as "If so, it is possible that mind-altering drugs might in fact give us a better, not worse, insight than we have in our so-called normal state." will encourage illogical experimentation probably as an excuse to justify their useage for recreational purposes, with all of the health pitfalls that most of the drugs cause. Some references re these issues:

1. Drug foresight

Helen Phillips and Graham Lawton's thought-provoking article raised the fascinating subject of the science and study of intoxication (13 November, p 32). Interestingly, my Foresight team is working on a project looking at the future management of psychoactive substances, by which I mean substances that affect the brain, such as leisure drugs, drugs to treat mental illness and cognitive enhancers.

The project is an evidence-based science review of the future of addiction and substance use in the light of social, economic and scientific changes. We are examining whether science and technology could help us to manage the future use of psychoactive substances to the best advantage of the individual, community and society over the next 20 years.

The project outcomes will be published during the summer of 2005. Its progress can be followed at www.foresight.gov.uk, where visitors can also register to receive the Foresight newsletter.
David King
London, UK

2. Psychotic symptoms more likely with cannabis

Using marijuana in adolescence and early adulthood can cause psychotic symptoms later in life, a new study suggests. The risk of developing these symptoms is “moderate”, say researchers, though is higher in people with a pre-disposition to psychosis.

Up to a third of people develop signs of psychosis at some point during their lives and several studies have already linked cannabis use with psychotic symptoms. But it is often difficult to decipher whether cannabis really triggers psychotic symptoms - such as hearing voices and paranoia - or whether people with mental health problems are more likely to “self medicate” and use cannabis.

A team led by Jim van Os of the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands followed 2437 people aged between 14 and 24. After four years, 21% of cannabis users had experienced psychotic symptoms compared with 15% of non-users. And the more a participant used cannabis, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.

Family history

The risk appears greatest for those with a predisposition to psychosis, as evidenced by mild signs of psychosis at the outset of the study. Within this group - about one-tenth of the total - 51% of users experienced symptoms compared with 26% of non-users.

The definition of psychosis used in the study was very broad, including occasional symptoms that would not require hospitalisation. Even so, van Os thinks the results have public health implications. “If you have a personal or family history of mental illness, you're at risk of negative effects of cannabis smoking,” he says.

Martin Barnes, chief executive of DrugScope in the UK, agrees: "Frequent use, a predisposition to mental health problems and starting at an early age all increase the risk of adverse effects. This research underlines that there are potentially serious health risks associated with cannabis use, particularly for young people.”

Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, UK, notes that cannabis smoking accounts for about 8% of serious cases of psychosis.

Journal reference: British Medical Journal (online)

Michael Le Page and Graham Lawton

I don't understand the physics too well, but doesn't the following have some bearing on light speed? I realise that the information bit could be important to mind and consciousness, but who knows?

Physicists in Switzerland have confirmed that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva have shown that the "group velocity" of a laser pulse in an optical fibre can travel faster than the speed of light but that the "signal velocity" - the speed at which information travels - cannot (N Brunner et al. 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 203902).

Encyclopedia of Philosophy - many have believed that "it is only by accepting pansychism that a modern man can escape the distressing implications of materialism."

Many of the early pansychists accepted the doctrine in its fullest form, believing that every mountain, tree, flower, and dust particle actually possesses an inner psychological life.

Modern physics and quantum physicists - there is only one kind of matter, all things are made of it (animate and inanimate), some of this matter has the undoubted capacity for conscious life, and at the quantum level at least their is dialogue between matter and consciousness. This dialogue means that the observer's conscious mind actually influences the material development of that which he observes.

Thomas Nagel,

"Each of us is composed of matter that has a largely inanimate history before finding its way onto our plates or those of our parents. It was once probably part of the sun, but matter from another galaxy would do as well.....Anything whatever, if broken down far enough and rearranged, could be incorporated into a living organism. No constituents besides matter are needed."

Self-awareness is possible within a dream - thus unconscious consciousness? Someone is watching the dream and it certainly isn't the homunculus. But more than that, there can be the state of "presence with one's own personality" and although it might be distorted and surreal, one can sense oneself within a dream. Perhaps within dreams we coincide thought and consciousness with that of external consciousness (the cosmic consciousness)? But is that treading on RtB's ground, as I have no evidence?

Imagination - the discovery of what is already there and looking behind it.

I don't think anyone who seriously considers the question of consciousness will suggest that panpsychism is an "explanation" of consciousness. Assuming panpsychism to be true, it is still an open question of how and why consciousness has evolved to the particular form that we experience. Many panpsychists reject emergentism outright because it's fundamental assumption is that something is produced from nothing, which is false. Consciousness does not magically appear. It is present in different degrees and forms, from human consciousness, all the way down to supposedly insentient matter. Because the consciousness in supposedly insentient matter is so completely different from our own, we cannot even begin to imagine what it's like.

As an example: suppose a child was raised in an environment where only beautiful and complex musical melodies were the only source of auditory stimulation. Now assume, that upon turning 18 years of age, this strange child is suddenly exposed to a pure auditory tone for the first time, or to white noise for the first time. What do you suppose the experience would be like for him? Do you think he would think that the pure tone or white noise is of the same nature as the beautiful melodies he has heard all his life. It's difficult for us to imagine what it would be like for him to experience this precisely because we are brought up hearing all of things, covering the full spectrum of auditory stimulation, from pure tones and white noise all the way up to beautiful musical compositions. But to someone who has only heard beautiful musical compositions all their life, who has no experience of the full spectrum of auditory stimulation, to suddenly hear something completely different from what they've heard before, it would be very different.

Our conscious life is analogous to the example above. Emergentists do not appreciate that they are experiencing just a tiny fraction of the spectrum of consciousness, and thus they cannot believe that the spectrum of consciousness extends far beyond their experience. However, like the electromagnetic spectrum, the consciousness spectrum is infinite, and ubiquitious.

Is there any evidence to support this? Most brain activity is completely unconscious.