/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17545308]

Any pansychists here?

[Anonymous No.17545605]

>>17545308
Why don't you tell me; you should already know, right?

[Anonymous No.17545649]

Panpsychism is the only plausible explanation of consciousness other than mystical solipsism.

[Anonymous No.17545650]

>>17545605

Not sure what you mean. It’s a broad category of belief, so I don’t know if you’re implying that there is a panpsychism that suggests we all share the same consciousness so that I could “read minds” so to speak.

[Anonymous No.17545692]

>>17545649

That’s how I feel as well, but I’m also not well-read on others thoughts on the whole thing. I post Bohm just because he is one of the fragments of that set of beliefs I’m aware of, but I kind of vaguely hold the notion that there is a vacuum of “awareness” that encompasses all of being. It has no real content without “perspective”, so that the vacuum of awareness isn’t akin to full self-consciousness, but everything that has “being” also has “awareness”.

[Anonymous No.17545868]

>>17545308
Im a panpsychist.

>>17545692
Huh I didn’t know that was what Bohm was about,

[Anonymous No.17546162]

>>17545868

Tbh I wouldn’t ascribe that position to him necessarily, I just know that Bohm has a theme in his thought about consciousness being a shared property, and he seemed to think that consciousness of self was kind of illusory in the sense that we are all individual expressions of consciousness or “thought”. But he also may have had some motivated reasoning, because he tied a lot of that stuff into his desire to change people’s mode of thinking to resolve world issues like nuclear war or climate change. He seemed to think people could learn to transcend the faulty reasoning of thinking from the perspective of their self and realize the way in which they are a conditioned form of thought. Their conditioning was individual and human, but still essentially expressions of that broader category encompassing every self called “thought”. Personally I don’t agree with that belief, I think it is conceivable that people’s mode of thinking could be changed en masse, but that it is extremely unlikely that could solve huge social issues in perpetuity simply because to the degree we could transcend our selves to thought for the sake of achieving peace and such, the desirability of peace is rooted in our perceived individual benefit from it (given that we mostly desire peace right now but are also supposed to be within that faulty mode of reasoning about our relationship to the world), so that to transcend our selves would be to potentially transcend the basis for our desire for peace in the first place, among other things. Like imagine that Denzel Washington movie where he takes hostages in a hospital to get his son healthcare. Many people are pushed into similar enmity toward social structures because their imperfection causes trade-offs. Unfortunate individuals get punished by the same logic that sustains millions of others, and if they are to learn to accept that out of a desire for peace then that presupposes a certain value for peace above the individual preferences that tend to animate a desire for peace, like not wanting your livelihood or family destroyed by nuclear bombs and other mayhem.

[Anonymous No.17547471]

>>17545605
kek

[Anonymous No.17547535]

Quantum physics already makes a pretty good case for it. Also, Whitehead's speculative philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17547590]

>>17545308
Yo

[Anonymous No.17547601]

How does panpsychism 'deal' with free will? It seems to me that most forms of it entail determinism about mental states.

[Anonymous No.17547611]

>>17547535
>Quantum physics already makes a pretty good case for it.
please tell me you are not repeating the meme about the observer effect

[Anonymous No.17547647]

>>17547601
The fact that we can say "I am conscious" strongly implies some causal interaction between the mental and the physical (the backward direction being more obvious and more significant than the forward). Without knowing the structure of the mental, we can't say that free will doesn't exist, but I still don't really believe we are far above the mechanics of our biology. However, compatiblism is reasonable. We are more or less deterministic machines designed to be free actors, and the we always make the choices we wish to make. If we don't have free will, we have as much as we could be expected to as part of the physical world.

[Anonymous No.17547941]

>>17547611
No, the mathematics of Hilbert space and quantum state vectors itself.