Philosophy Overdose
What is consciousness? Why does it even exist? It’s been said that the only thing we know for certain is our own experience. But how do we account for this most subjective phenomenon within the science of consciousness? How can science with its objective metrics even begin to engage with the felt nature of the inner subjective life?
Professor of philosophy at Durham University, Philip Goff, discusses consciousness and the panpsychist view with Naheed Mustafa in an episode of Ideas with Paul Kennedy from CBC Radio: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/panpsychism-and-the-nature-of-consciousness-1.4822151
Source
The universe will begin yesterday. The universe began tomorrow. Both of these statements are quite meaningless. The tenses are wrong, and perhaps your time sense is completely outraged. Yet the statement: "The universe began in some distant past," is, in basic terms, just as meaningless.
In fact, the first two statements, while making no logical sense, do indeed hint of phenomena that show time itself to be no more than a creative construct. Time and space are in a fashion part of the
furniture of your universe.
The very experience of passing moments belongs to your psychological rooms in the same way that clocks are attached to your walls. Whenever science or religion seeks the origin of the universe,
they search for it in the past. The universe is being created now. Creation occurs in each moment, in your terms. The illusion of time itself is being created now. It is therefore somewhat futile to look for the origins of the universe by using a time scheme that is in itself, at the very least, highly relative.
Your now, or present moment, is a psychological platform. It seems that the universe began with an initial burst of energy of some kind (the "big bang"). Evolutionists cannot account for its cause. Many religious people believe that a god exists in a larger dimension of reality, and that he created the universe while being himself outside of it. He set it into motion. Many individuals, following
either persuasion, believe that regardless of its source, the [universe] must run out of energy. Established science is quite certain that no energy can now be created or destroyed, but only transformed (as stated in the first law of thermodynamics). Science sees energy and matter as being basically the same thing, appearing differently under varying circumstances.
In certain terms, science and religion are both dealing with the idea of an objectively created universe. Either God "made it," or physical matter, in some unexplained manner, was formed after an initial explosion of energy, and consciousness emerged from that initially dead matter in a way yet to be explained.
Instead, consciousness formed matter. The fact is that each atom and molecule has its own consciousness. Consciousness and matter and energy are one, but consciousness initiates the
transformation of energy into matter. In those terms, the "beginning" of your universe was a triumph in the expansion of consciousness, as it learned to translate itself into physical form. The universe emerged into actuality in the same way, but to a different degree, that any idea emerges from what you think of as subjectivity into physical expression.
The consciousness of each reader of this existed before the universe was formed—but that consciousness was unmanifest. Your closest approximation —and it is an approximation only—of the state of being that existed before the universe was formed is the dream state. In that state before the beginning, your consciousness existed free of space and time, aware of immense probabilities. This is extremely difficult to verbalize, yet it is very important that such an attempt be made. Your consciousness is a part of an infinitely original creative process.
I will purposely avoid using the word "God" because of the connotations placed upon it by conventional religion. I will make an attempt to explain the characteristics of this divine process. I call the process "All That Is." All That Is is so much a part of its creations that it is almost mpossible to separate the "creator from the creations," for each creation also carries indelibly within it the characteristics of its source.
If you have thought that the universe followed a mechanistic model, then you would have to say that each portion of this "cosmic machine" created itself, knowing its position in the entire "future construction."You would have to say further that each portion came gladly out of its own source individually, neatly tailored to its position, while at the same time that individual source was also as intimately the source of each other individual portion.
I am not saying that the universe is the result of some "psychological machine," either, but that each portion of consciousness is a part of All That Is, and that the universe falls together in a spontaneous, divine order —and that each portion of consciousness carries within it indelibly the knowledge of the whole.
The birth of the world represented a divine psychological awakening. Each consciousness that takes a part in the physical universe dreamed of such a physical existence, in your terms, before the earth was formed. In greater terms than yours, it is quite true to say that the universe is not formed yet, or that the universe has vanished. In still vaster terms, however, the fact is that in one state or another the universe has always existed.
Your closest approximation of the purpose of the universe can be found in those loving emotions that you have toward the development of your children, in your intent to have them develop their fullest capacities.
Your finest aspirations can give you some dim clue as to the great creative thrust that is behind your own smallest act, for your own smallest act is possible only because your body has already been
provided for in the physical world. Your life is given. In each moment it is renewed. So smoothly and effortlessly do you ride that thrust of life's energy that you are sometimes scarcely aware of it. You are not equipped with a certain amount of energy that then wears out and dies. Instead you are, again, newly created in each moment.
I'm always interested in the connection,at a philosophical and by extension theological level, between panpsychicism and pantheism and panentheism and because they all have pan in the name might as well add pandeism!if consciousness is an inherent property of things in the universe what is it's source?the universe itself which I suppose would also be pantheism or an external, to the universe, source which would be panentheism assuming that the external source still exists,if it doesn't then I suppose pandeism?
My thought is that love can only exist in consciousness and consciousness only. And love is where life lives and lives only.. and i mean TRUE love. Therefore.. It gives meaning to life. I guess. Its.. Like a love triangle 🔺. That's where an element is created from nothing.
Lovevolution is a new word/concept we can share. A free open domain word we can use and spread to help humanity to focus in a positive direction during this time of radical change. Lovevolution can act as a common denominator for the interfaith community and new models of science. Please accept this gift of this word to connect humanity in this common purpose.
Honest good faith question to panpsych folks out there, and this might just be a dumb question about a subject I’m still trying to wrap my head around, but if consciousness IS just this aspect of the world that permeates everything, and NOT an aspect of the brain’s executive functions that we’ve evolved, why does it turn off sometimes for us?
For instance, sleep. If I were prescribed to panpsychism I’d assume that I’d be conscious at all times, even when my body and brain were at rest. Yet I rarely if ever feel that way. Why could or would consciousness just (it seems to me) conveniently turn off during these moments if it WASN’T an aspect of our daytime doing things and hunting stuff brain?
I am humble enough to believe I may be misapprehending something here about panpsychism as a concept. Any help would be appreciated because I DO find this to be a very interesting idea and I can’t quite get over this hump of a problem with it.
I find it so strange that Goff uses "panpsychism" as a label, rather than "panexperientialism." It's like he wants the shock value provided by "panpsychism" to sell books, yet he seems to specifically mean "panexperientialism," which is far less provocative and fits more naturally with scientific modes of thought. Nonetheless, I recommend Goff's "Galileo's Error" and other work.
I've always believed in panpsychism since before I could even grasp the explanation of God offered to me in church as a child. I just didn't know there was a name for it until researching the idea after an intense acid trip this past week.
If we live in a quantum universe and quanta have consciousness, are we not in a universe of Leibnizian monadology?
Was there ever a time when consciousness was non existent, if so at what moment did consciousness come to exist? Does consciousness create matter or does matter create consciousness?
“Scientists don’t know what matter actually is” this is so true, the scientific materialist community are so naive and ethnocentric.
If I may….The problem is in the question simply because of the ideology of the 'beginnings'…our beginnings, life and the cosmos. It is the consensus trance that all 'began'….and the question of consciousness is based around or based upon our perceived 'beginnings'…..We, that is life and existence have always been here, and I would go as far as to say our earth is the only earth and the cosmos is everything, there is no other….Therefore I say consciousness never began, 'it' as indeed 'us' has always existed……Love always
Well, i dont know, but rest in the fact, that God does.
Its like, to high for us, just enjoy it.
Its not an illusion.
I love panpsychism
If we want to have fun in the afterlife being a piece of dirt we may need to keep working on more radio waves. Go Elon Musk
Being unconscious isn't much fun.
I can't wait to be an atom again. Hang on maybe I am an atom.
There's is 1 consciousness. All consciousness is compatible. We're just confused cause were not joined together at the brain. You are two consciousness joined together. Both halves of the brain
Varying levels of consciousness are just varying expressions of Reality being aware of itself.
Why does consciousness exist? is not the fundamental problem: Why does Anything exist? is the bedrock. Consciousness , not a trivial thing, may be the outcome of natural processes of increased specialisation of organs and increasing complexity of the brain. Having said which, consciousness may not be an unalloyed good, so not necessarily an 'advance' in animal development. It may be that consciousness is an unsuccessful adaptation that leads to species extinction.
So what do rocks think about? 😛
It's true bcos some Clue's in Bible …. But it's in double meaning
"Panpsychism and the Nature of Stupidity…"
There are manyelements in my human body. Some of those elements if you removed justine. I would not have conscieness like iron or calcium and many others elements. So with these elements and h20 i would say yeah everything is connected. I would not have conscieness without elements
Junk