Proof of Panpsychism (consciousness at some level in all physical things)

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
When I say panphyschism I mean as Alfred Whitehead. When I say consciousness I mean as Christian de Quincey. This is an excellent, short, and to the point analysis of why panphyschism is true.

Proof of Panphyschism

Life feeds on life, yet it constantly multiplies...how does entropy explain such given the fact EMERGENCE (true emergence) is logically impossible? It would need to violate known laws, or at least the simple logical principle that something cannot arise from nothing - its called common sense.

There is consciousness all-the-way-down, it just isn't all at the same level or type, just as atoms bond to form molecules which make complex physical structures, so consciousness does the same and is always part and parcel to matter.
edit on 12/23/2012 by HillbillyHippie1 because: I can
edit on 12/23/2012 by HillbillyHippie1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-12-2012 by Kandinsky because: corrected typo in title




posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1
 


The appearance is formed from nothing.
"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then God said, "Let there be light". And there was still nothing but you could see it." Groucho Marx

Emptiness is forming.




edit on 23-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1
 


I've experienced this phenomena with my voices, all i do is think of something. And I start hearing it talk to me. I ask it if it knows what it is, many times whatever is talking doesn't know it's form, just that it can communicate with me. Whatever technology my voices are using, psychotronicly can communicate with almost anything or anyone within seconds of thinking about a subject.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1
 


I watched a great documentary where they got a vacuum and used strong magnification to film what occurs inside the vacuum. Inside the complete emptiness virtual particles appear and disappear.
You are a vaccuum with appearing and disappearing particles. The appearance is always changing but what sees the changing does not ever change.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie1
Life feeds on life, yet it constantly multiplies...how does entropy explain such given the fact EMERGENCE (true emergence) is logically impossible? It would need to violate known laws, or at least the simple logical principle that something cannot arise from nothing - its called common sense.

While I agree with your conclusions, your logic is flawed.

Life doesn't violate any known laws of physics and certainly not the second law of thermodynamics. Living creatures accumulate low-entropic energy available in radiation either directly as green plants do or indrectly by feeding off the low-entropic energy accumulated by the others as the rest do.

In a purely materialistic conception of the world, consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon and hence can arise out of "nothing".



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observor
While I agree with your conclusions, your logic is flawed.

Life doesn't violate any known laws of physics and certainly not the second law of thermodynamics. Living creatures accumulate low-entropic energy available in radiation either directly as green plants do or indrectly by feeding off the low-entropic energy accumulated by the others as the rest do.

In a purely materialistic conception of the world, consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon and hence can arise out of "nothing".


Right and wrong. The thermo arguments are pure BS because, as you note, the Earth is NOT a closed system and the jury is, frankly. out, on whether a 'closed system' is possible, given quantum effects. Also, the 2nd is a statistical law, not one that applies equally to every instance it could -- ie, random stuff can and does happen that winds back order into chaos. It's just rare.

Wrong in that a 'purely materialistic conception of the world' actually doesn't include consciousness at ALL, not even as an epiphenomenon. Such a setup necessitates that we are all 'philosophical zombies', with consciousness being pure illusion.

Of course, such worldviews became completely and utterly unworkable with the advent of Claude Shannon's Information Theory and Landauer's Principle. It's now been shown pretty conclusively that "information" has an existential primacy at LEAST on par with that of "spacetime" and "matter/energy"; perhaps even a more fundamental one. Information is not material and matter/energy doesn't perform "computation" -- but neither is ever found without the other. Heck, "energy" is, at its core, an informational construct -- it makes no sense to talk of "an object's kinetic energy", just it's kinetic energy relative to some other observer. It's the _differences_ in energy that is real, not the energy itself -- and that's a purely informational dynamic.

Given these advances, we finally start to see some space for mind in the universe as an interaction and dynamic process/system/structure between and amongst informational entities. It's starting to look more and more like where DeCartes half-assed his way to through faith, we will get to through measurement, but without all the BS religious baggage.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Stunspot
 


Almost Flawless explaination. Pondering material for me, for a few days. Great Posts here in answer to this thread, which I found reading the OPs Profile,,, very nice to remember there are some great minds here on ATS.

very nice.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Bhagwad Gita - Talks with Arjuna
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
HillBillyHippie1:

Consciousness at some level in all physial things


I quite agree with Billy's statement, but I disagree with the philosophical logic in the link. The focus of the argument that consciousness resides in all things at some level requires a framing of the question as to what 'consciousness' actually constitutes? You cannot place something in its own true context without understanding something pertinent of its nature.

How can we know consciousness? Our only evidence of consciousness is provided by our own individual self-sentience, our own sense of self-awareness, and that we observe similar behavioural characteristics of a sentient nature in others, and thus agree that they too must possess a conscious state.

The human body is a highly-organised, highly complex, modular closed system, it is the very reason why it constantly undergoes entropy, and why it has a finite duration for sustaining itself to animated life. The physical bodies of all life forms are simply self-replicating machines of finite duration. The form and structure, both externally and internally, have evolved to fit within certain environmental surroundings, whereby it can seek the material (food) it requires to intake in order to provide and replenish material lost to internal entropy and to continue its self-replication process through the stages of growth to adulthood and old age. At some point during evolution self-sentience arose as an emergent consequence of the life form's conscious state. I do not doubt that this stage of evolution was a consequence of extended memory faculty, which was arguably the single most important evolutionary step for man.

Thus far, I have only alluded to consciousness as a 'state', and indeed, that is all it is. Self-sentience is not consciousness, it is awareness, and the distinction is very important to understanding consciousness. The conscious state is the condition in which self-sentient awareness functions, probably through looping feedback processes involving memory. With regards to consciousness, the question to ask is...how do we come into the conscious state or condition?

I cannot answer this question factually, only hypothetically; nor is there space here to provide a detailed explanation of hypothesis, so a brief overview must suffice.

Each quantum particle emanates a manifested extended field of 'influence' beyond itself...its wavefield. Kinectic energy waves external to the particles force them towards each other and bring them into wavefield correspondence (interaction). The sum of each particle's intrinsic energy and the value of the kinetic energy wave creates a brief resonance energy that lasts only as long as the interaction. I suggest that that brief resonant energy is the foundation for the conscious state in life forms.

The conscious state on its own cannot imbue self-sentience (self-awareness), other mechanisms are required for that to emerge, and those mechanisms require the faculty of memory. Thus, the energetic means for the conscious state is already in-situ at the primal level of nature (consciousness at some level in all physical things), but self-sentience is not. Self-sentience is a product of evolutionary complexity in life forms, whereas the conscious state is a product of in-situ energy resonance correspondence occurring at the primal level of nature.





top topics
 
4

log in

join