|
|
Ph.D. Alumni
Posts: 694
  
Location: New Smyrna Beach, Florida | In philosophy panpsychism is the view that mind or soul is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. The panpsychist sees him or herself as a mind in a world of minds.
Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and can be ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in eastern philosophies such as Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, Panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind but it saw a decline during the middle years of the 20th century with the rise of logical positivism. The recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness has once again made panpsychism a mainstream theory.
Some argue this implies that rocks perceive the world around them, perhaps have thoughts and feelings, and enjoy an inner mental life similar to human beings. This is clearly an absurd suggestion, and not one that was ever intended. If a bacterium’s experience is a billionth of the richness and intensity of human being’s, the degree of experience in the minerals of a rock might be a billion times dimmer still. They would possess none of the qualities of human consciousness–just the faintest possible glimmer of sentience.
So that being said does everything have consciousness?
|
|
| |
|
PhD Alumni
Posts: 4414
Location: United Kingdom | Thanks Leo ... this is like old times ... 
Having said this, I actually do feel that rocks have something akin to consciousness ... ever felt the energy of Standing Stones (well agree that could be imbued from those who placed them there ) ...
.. and also, sometimes, often in fact, when I hold a pebble or some such in my hand, there is a distinct vibration ... although agree too, that could be the humming of the vibrational world ... of which we all are one and part ... 
Edited by Paul Joseph 2/3/2014 5:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
UMS Guest
Posts: 1938
Location: United Kingdom | Hello Leo - it's good to have you back and what an interesting topic you have raised. The following is from Wikipedia: Higher consciousness, also called Super consciousness (Yoga), objective consciousness (Gurdjieff), Buddhic consciousness (Theosophy), Cosmic consciousness, God-consciousness (Islam, Hinduism), Christ consciousness (Christian Mysticism) and Super- Human are expressions used in various spiritual and intellectual traditions to denote the consciousness of a human being who has reached a higher level of development and who has come to know reality as it is (Sanskrit: Yatha bhuta). It also refers to the awareness or knowledge of an 'ultimate reality' which traditional theistic religion has named God and which Gautama Buddha referred to as the unconditioned element. Evolution in this sense is not that which occurs by natural selection over generations of human reproduction but evolution brought about by the application of spiritual knowledge to the conduct of human life, and of the refinement of the mind brought about by spiritual practices. Through the application of such knowledge (traditionally the preserve of the world's great religions) to practical self-management, the awakening and development of faculties dormant in the ordinary human being is achieved. These faculties are aroused by and developed in conjunction with certain virtues such as lucidity, patience, kindness, truthfulness, humility, and forgiveness towards one's fellow man – qualities without which, according to the traditional teachings, higher consciousness is not possible. As an inter-connected group, it is called Collective Consciousness in Philosophy. On the whole I would go along with these definitions. With love - Aquarius
|
|
| |
|
Ph.D. Alumni
Posts: 694
Location: New Smyrna Beach, Florida | Consciousness can be defined in various ways as it is an umbrella model that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena. Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined, philosophers note (John Searle in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy)
"Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."(Schneider and Velmans 2007)
The International Dictionary of Psychology does not even try to give a straightforward definition:
Consciousness: The Having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings: awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of confusing consciousness with self-consciousness-to be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: It is impossible to specify what it is, or what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it. (Sutherland 1989)
This problem of consciousness has befuddled philosophers, psychologists and scientists throughout the ages. David Chalmers, an Australian philosopher, has summarized it exceptionally well, “the Conscious Mind” (1996) “Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain.” In his book he has called this the “hard problem” of consciousness. On the other hand, there is the “easy problem” of understanding the way in which the brain deals with various sets of information that it receives.
excerpt from "Consciousness in Philosophy, Science and Metaphysics" a dissertation submitted by myself.
It has been stated that there are two kinds of consciousness, local and nonlocal (phenomenal and nonphenomenal). Of the local we can suggest that it is an everyday (easy problem) subjective thought process. What about the non-local? Any ideas where phenomenal consciousness is located?
|
|
| |
|
PhD Alumni
Posts: 4414
Location: United Kingdom | I used to think that I was conscious of nothing,
Now I am less certain
Edited by Paul Joseph 2/3/2014 4:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Ph.D. Alumni
Posts: 694
Location: New Smyrna Beach, Florida | Paul, You are more conscious than you may think and yes, there is reason to believe that you perhaps should be less certain. Self-consciousness, A more challenging sense might define conscious creatures as those that are not only aware but also aware that they are aware, as a result treating creature consciousness as a form of self-consciousness. You must at least know that you're aware that you are aware.
The question is, Is consciousness an epiphenomenal happenstance of this particular universe? Or does the very concept of a universe depend upon its presence? Does consciousness merely perceive reality, or does reality depend upon it? Did consciousness simply emerge as an effect of evolution? Or was it, in some sense, always "out there" in the world? |
|
| |
|
PhD Alumni
Posts: 4414
Location: United Kingdom | This was my response before ....
but my little last comment was a joke,
ie, I think therefore I am, but if I do not think ...?
Gets complex
aka, I used to think I know nothing, now I know....
Edited by Paul Joseph 2/15/2014 2:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
UMS Guest
Posts: 1938
Location: United Kingdom | A bit like ‘I used to be confused, but now I’m not su sure!’ |
|
| |
|
PhD Alumni
Posts: 4414
Location: United Kingdom | Exactly Aquarius, thank you for interpreting ... actually that was the phrase my fevered brain was searching for, but had lost track of ...
Suppose the heritage of that idea goes back to Socrates, whose wisdom was based on the fact that he realized he knew nothing |
|
| |
|
UMS Guest
Posts: 1938
Location: United Kingdom | I don't think so. It's a description of Libra's indecisiveness. This sign bestows upon human souls the ability of considering all different aspects of any given situation, and of viewing them from everybody’s angle. Weighing up all pros and cons against each other, is an ongoing process for those born into this sign and they can be excellent in the legal profession and also in Public Relations. This gift however, like any other, has its downside and that is dithering. ‘I used to be indecisive, but now I’m not so sure!’ seems to be the motto of some of them. Well yes, that’s tongue in cheek; but it is a fine description of less experienced Libran souls. Until this aspect of their nature has been mastered at least to a certain degree, their inability to make up their minds can be a veritable trial, and a times downright infuriating, to those who have dealings with them. From ‘The Sun In Libra’
|
|
| |
|
PhD Alumni
Posts: 4414
Location: United Kingdom | Dear Aquarius
I am trying to work out if I should say 'ouch' when I read some of your responses to mine ...
Paul
ps, maybe that's just my inner Libra
pps and not that I am a fan of Wikipaedia - in UK Universities its use is frowned upon as a non-refereed source, this little quote from it does I think support my Socratic comment:
"The phrase "I know that I know nothing" or "I know one thing: that I know nothing" (originally from Latin: "ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat",[1] a possible paraphrase from a Greek text; also quoted as "scio me nihil scire" or "scio me nescire";[2] later back-translated to Katharevousa Greek as "[?? ???? ???] ????? ????", [hèn oîda hóti] oudèn oîda), sometimes called the Socratic paradox, is a well-known saying that is derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates."
For those more academically inclined, this from the Stanford (on-line):
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/
Edited by Paul Joseph 2/19/2014 3:03 PM
|
|
| |
Consciousness
