What is Panpsychism? (Philosophical Definitions)

preview_player
Показать описание
An explanation of Panpsychism including historical views like Animism, Hylozoism, Religious views like Pantheism and Panentheism, and more modern views like Panexperientialism, Panprotopsychism, Constitutive Cosmopsychism, Constitutive Panpsychism, Non-Constitutive Panpsychism, Constitutive Micropsychism and more. Also including Thomas Nagel's argument for Panpsychism, and William James's combination problem for panpsychism.

Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Joe Felix, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Dennis Sexton, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Will Roberts and √2. Thanks for your support!

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I think Panpsychism is misunderstood when it is defined in terms of 'consciousness, ' given that there are many different conceptions of what consciousness is. A better word is 'sentience'--meaning that everything has at least some fundamental sensation or feeling.

blingbam
Автор

if everything has some level of consciousness in the entire universe say, there could be different levels of combinations to give higher or lower states or consciousness

raceafc
Автор

Pantheism is what I came to after learning as much physics as my brain would hold and taking as much psilocybin as I could handle. Everything is one big thing, the all is in us all. Just replace World with Universe, and consider the Universe at the largest scales is structured like a neural network. Brain waves (electromagnetism, aka light) seem to keep our neural network in synch and focused into a single consciousness... the Universe is filled with light and gravitational waves... In God's image ;) lol.

Netanya-qb
Автор

I would like to point out the difference between consciousness and cognitive thinking/sense of ego. It is essential to recognise the human ego as something that is constructed. This would disprove the sceptics of panpsychisim, is it not so? Ask anyone that has done a powerful psychedelic and have experienced ego death, or someone who have had a near death experience. Many would probably testify to prove panpsychism right.

ica
Автор

Great video, however, I would make one distinction in your definition of panpsychism; rather than "everything has a mind" a more precise definition is that all matter in the universe has an inherent element of consciousness, a building block of the universe. This is not "a mental property" but rather the elements that make it possible for matter to experience itself, not necessarily with an element of intellect and mind as we think of it . Of course, whenever we mention "consciousness" there tends to be an anthropocentric view of what that may be. Plant life, for instance, does not have a mind, but it has a type of consciousness suited for its needs as the form it has. Molecules have a "knowing" to be attracted or not to other molecules, which some would argue that this is simple laws of physics, but what gives the impetus to that "law"...?

panpsychism_
Автор

I believe you need to remove the need for mental or physical elements. There is far more to the universe than just these two elements. We need to see beyond our own creation and limitations. No mental part or physical part is needed for consciousness to exist. Yet consciousness does exist in everything. Although in different states. There maybe levels of consciousness and j think man will be shocked when his level is truly revealed as less than he would so like.

pipparich
Автор

Holy Shit i never Realise My belief had so many versions Thanks for sharing

christophergarcia
Автор

What about the concept that consciousness is an EMERGENT property with top-down causality

ANDDIRECTLLC
Автор

Our minds are holograms, holograms existing in a larger hologram of potentialities, and these potentialities are a reflection of our collective conscious states.
Have a nice day.

GITMachine
Автор

I think I'm surprised I didn't ascend to enlightenment thinking about this...
Or did I?...

matthewfredrickmfkrz
Автор

When you dream, who are the people in your dream? If you have ever experienced lucid dream you know that when you touch things they have texture. But the people, the textures, everything is actually you! :D Same thing applies to this world, everything is one single being call it whatever you like. The universe is experiencing itself.

rodrigeznonames
Автор

The main problem I have with Nagel's argument is P4: "Mental states cannot be derived from physical properties alone". This is a big assumption and not at all proven to be the case. We have to assume there is no emergence i.e. the appearance of qualitatively new properties from the combination of simpler elements. We see emergence everywhere in the complex physical world, from condensed matter physics to biology to the environment. It is still an open question as to how consciousness can emerge from the firing of networks of neurons. Until the neuroscientific project of finding this out is not completed, we cannot reject emergence out of hand and assume P4.

ShahryarKhan-KHANSOLO-
Автор

Hydrogen doesn't have the properties of water, oxygen doesn't have the properties of water, yet when we combine two hydrogens with an oxygen we get a molecule with the properties of water. Where did that property come from? Does every atom have an intrinsic waterness to it? Panwaterism perhaps?

metroidfighter
Автор

why would two objects with the same physical elements be considered the same as far as having conscious ability. why doesn’t this consider the arrangement of these physical elements and then how an arrangement of physical properties can give rise to consciousness.

like if i had an exact twin and you threw him into a blender, just because we both have the same physical make up, the same atoms and molecules, it doesn’t mean we both have the same emergent consciousness. the arrangement of properties gives rise to consciousness and for me the level of consciousness would be the graded in the complexity of reaction by an entity given a stimulus or action.

robertmakesashow
Автор

Commenting today: 10-3-2020, will come back here, after completing my novel. Yes, pansychism is one of the core elements of the story.
Novel Title: "Sambhavani Yuge Yuge". Thank you Carneades.org for the explanation.

rohitkasyap_
Автор

Awesome video. Thanks for explaining everything in detail and being so informative.

ryugo
Автор

I think an analogy with a computer can provide insight here, the commonly available object many of us have that performs computations that in some ways resemble thinking and consciousness. Such a machine consists of a vast number of parts, conspicuously key board, mouse, screen, and speakers just to name some of external parts. But the internal parts, the processors and memory, while perhaps a bit more mysterious, are still widely regarded as mechanical and deterministic. I doubt if anyone would suggest that if you were to tear out a "hunk" of these internal parts, they would exhibit in any way the properties of the entire computer,

No, the computer's behavior is a result of the space-time PROCESSES occurring in its parts. Similarly, I believe human or animal consciousness is likely the result of neural processes in the brain. Just as a portion of a computer processor cannot exhibit any computational capabilities, so the inanimate matter comprising an animal cannot exhibit any awareness or consciousness.

Now, it is possible that human consciousness is due to a universe wide consciousness "field", that couples into an organic brain, much the way a tv or radio is constructed to pick electromagnetic waves beamed from an external source. But even if this were the case, a rock or a piece of metal would not be able to tap into this consciousness field. In this view, only very special kinds of organic objects would be able to do this.

I really cannot see how any of these versions of panpyschism are intellectually compelling.

blues_guitar_string
Автор

I think for the argument of how each smaller part comes together to create a whole can be used to explain how each type of cell in the body comes together to create a whole. These micro consciousnesses create a big whole. For humans it must work in in a similar manner. When any number of people gather together for any number reasons whether it is to solve a project, create something new, complete a task or simply travel from one place to another, you could stay they are combining their individual parts of their unique consciousnesses to a whole and this is what creates the infinite variations of how each situation plays out in our day to day life all the way up to a world wide scale. But to consider the consciousess of these said situations is to recognize that in this scenario we are the cells within a bigger body that we cannot see much in the same that in the limited scope that cells have, cannot perceive that they are in a body. Humans have the advantage of being intelligent thinking and rational beings but we cannot see or perhaps lack the needed to cross this threshold. Now I believe that humans are kinda like incomplete gods, not in egotistical way, because I'm starting to understand that everything is conscious and therefore the godhood that is in me also exists within the tree, but just as a tree mimics the Fibonacci sequence, gradually attempting to reach perfection, so are humans. The difference being that humans have a greater application of choice. Human choices wildly effects the world they live upon.

hewhomakesnosound
Автор

There's nothing to say that the complex interactions of particles and energy, and bashings of nuclear fusion within a star couldn't give rise to some form of experience or consciousness; it's probably just vastly different from what we manifest to be consciousness within our own systems.

cnk
Автор

As far as humans can tell, consciousness seems contingent on matter in the specific formation of matter in a brain and has never been convincingly observed where a brain is not present, just as I can't play Mario on a rock, you could take metal ore from it and oil from the ground and eventually build a computer, that doesn't mean that mario exists in and on the ground just because the materials are nothing special.

loodlebop
join shbcf.ru