/s3/static.nrc.nl/bvhw/files/2023/08/data102852383-4bf8db.jpg)
How broad is the mind? Or in other words, where are the limits of our consciousness? Or even more contemporary: Who are we? human animals Indeed suppose we only have consciousness? We already know about non-human animals, but would inanimate nature also have some form of consciousness, atoms, or who knows even the entire universe?
Roughly speaking, the core of the whimsical philosophical theory known as “panpsychism” is the belief that consciousness is not a phenomenon that arose late (or “high”) in evolution, but an essential property of all reality. It’s not so much about “thinking” (which we can do) or “awareness of your physical environment” (which all kinds of living beings have), but about what is called “phenomenological” awareness, i.e. having subjective experiences, so that the real is a “quality”. experiments. If this capacity were primary, it would be an extreme break with materialism, in which matter is primary and consciousness arises from it or can be reduced to it.
Variants of this universal spirituality have ancient roots in philosophy, traces of which can sometimes be seen, for example, in Spinoza’s monism, who saw all reality as one divine essence. He opposes theories that reduce everything psychological to physical processes (the most radical conclusion being that ‘mind’ does not exist, but is an illusion). But also against a dualism that regards matter and spirit as two entities, such as the dualism of René Descartes (1596-1650). The French thinker divided reality and what we can know into matter (Nothing extensive) and mind (think about things). Dualism has often been challenged in philosophy and has been discredited by many popular writers on consciousness as “Western” thinking responsible for the binary doom that befell the planet.
essential property
As a therapy, holistic spirituality promises a beautiful new view of reality as a single “system” of which consciousness is a primary property. Reference is made not only to Spinoza, but also to Leibniz (who believed that reality consisted of thinking “monads”) or Schopenhauer (who saw in everything the expression of a single metaphysical “will”). The closest came in the twentieth century to the “neutral monism” of William James, and after him Bertrand Russell. According to this theory, mind and matter are composed of properties that are themselves “neutral” but can manifest themselves in two different ways.
Since then, such rich abstractions have been pushed to the background by the success of neuroscience and the dominance of naturalism over philosophy. This is the belief that science offers the best explanation we have, and philosophy should follow suit. But times are changing, and recently the once-exotic theory of panpsychism has seen a modest, and of course controversial, resurgence. On the margins of philosophy it has even gained something of a hip cult status. The most famous proponent of the panpsychic theory is Philip Goff, a philosopher at Durham University, who defended the theory in Consciousness and basic reality (2017) in Galileo’s mistake (2020).
Panpyschism is associated with ecological thinking that likes to see the Earth or the universe as a living system
Goff rejects Galileo’s scientific worldview and Descartes’ dualism, both of which hold that you can describe reality mathematically, in a comprehensive objective science. No, says Goff, “qualitative” experiments are essential, even down to the subatomic level with electrons and quarks. This may sound strange, but Jove is touching. Three years ago it appeared even the size of a fist The Routledge Handbook of Inclusive Spirituality, filled with technical discussions about the plausibility of his theory and its obstacles. listeners to Norwegian Refugee Council– Podcast future affairsthe podcast that’s always eagerly looking for paradigm shifts, encounters the theory regularly.
This reassessment of subjectivity as the basis of reality fits with the cultural trend, the growing aversion to Cartesian dualism that is said to have alienated the West and is now destroying the planet as well. Panpyschism is also associated with ecological thinking that likes to see the Earth or the universe as a living system. Including an inclination to the wisdom of the natives or “Orientals” and the granting of rights to forests, mountains, and rivers—eventually sentient beings too.
:format(webp)/s3/static.nrc.nl/bvhw/files/2022/05/data85980517-015b0d.jpg)
Read also: Is Jabal coming to court… which is not surprising at all
being a bat
But there was also a new impetus in analytic philosophy. Inclusive spirituality received a powerful boost from the work of the world-famous Australian philosopher David Chalmers (1966). And in 1996, he put the “hard problem of consciousness” on the map for a wide audience in his book conscious mind. that difficult problem It refers to the subjective nature of experiences, which, according to Chalmers, cannot be grasped by concepts from the cognitive sciences. He distinguishes this from the “soft problem”, providing explanations for cognitive tasks such as object recognition. What is missing is the “flair” or “feel” of subjective experiences. This was discussed by the American philosopher Thomas Nagel, who asked “what does it mean to be a bat” in an essay that has become a classic. Even if we know everything about bats, that’s what it feels like to own one We areare still far from us.
Chalmers finds panpsychism an attractive theory, but for now draws from his analysis of it difficult problem A dual epilogue, dealing in detail with Descartes. Spirit and matter may not be substances, as the famous Frenchman thought, but they are fundamentally different properties: one cannot be reduced to the other. According to Chalmers, even zombies are logically possible: physical beings that behave just like us, but without the inner experiences.
Expensive nonsense
Chalmers work started new discussions in the philosophy of mind and also sparked a new interest in universal spirituality. Despite his appearance as a dualist, Chalmers hates scientific materialism just as much as Joffe. He now considers it possible that a good comprehensive psychological theory would be to “synthesize” that materialism with his own dualism. But for the time being he still thinks that is conceivable at best, “who knows”.
Because how plausible is it that reality “somewhere” consists of consciousness? Is universal spirituality a serious theory?
In any case, panpsychists point to the advantage of their theory, which is that it offers a solution to what is called the “problem of emergence” of materialism. This is the difficult question: how consciousness can arise from “blind” physical processes. Mass psychologists do not have this problem, because for them consciousness is the lowest building block. It is not necessary to “arise”. Incidentally, classical dualists such as Descartes do not suffer from this problem either, who posit the existence of two separate substances: spirit and matter (their pressing problem is rather: how can the two be connected?).
If everything is conscious, why isn’t it also a corpse?
Patricia Churchland philosopher
Not everyone is in philosophy of mind I am convinced that holistic spirituality can indeed deliver on this promise. Least liked, of course hardcore Materialists, such as the American philosopher Patricia Churchland. She thinks universal spirituality is extravagant nonsense. “If everything is conscious, why can’t it be a corpse too,” Churchland quipped on Twitter in April last year.
Other philosophers and consciousness scientists adhere to naturalistic approaches to consciousness, in various (including non-physical) categories. Some, like Chalmers, are self-interested, but skeptical about whether a universal soul theory can be made convincing. Speculation or imagining does not help. Thomas Nagel, the “bat-sense” philosopher, in Universal Psychological Philosophy smells “the slightly revolting smell of something assembled in a metaphysical laboratory”.
in existential physics (2022), her famous introduction to science and “life’s big questions,” physicist Sabine Hosenfelder also takes a hard line. And she believes that holistic spirituality may be true. If you look at consciousness as information processing, it’s possible that complex systems elsewhere in the universe have a low degree of consciousness. But it also explains why, as far as we now know, the universal soul theory cannot be true: consciousness is accompanied by changes in the ‘inner’ state that are never observed in subatomic particles.
Holistic psychologists have an answer for that. After all, it’s not about ‘thinking’ as we do, but about basic ‘phenomenological awareness’, the ability to ‘qualitatively’ experience experiences, which is sometimes included under the concept of ‘hows’. Subatomic particles can have ‘elementary’ properties
The most persistent problem
Or is this not an answer at all, but rather an excuse? Here looms a stubborn problem for panpsychologists, which also includes several authors Routledge Handbook grit their teeth. This is the “problem of synthesis”, and it is the mirror image of the “problem of appearance” of the materialists. How do these “apparently elementary” particles become integrated into a living organism that is conscious of its experiences as a whole? How can a unity of consciousness arise from the “experiences” of all these separate elements? Chalmers doesn’t have an answer to that either.
Holistic psychologists probably want a lot, neurophilosophers Julian Frank and Mark Slors think. in personal pronountheir particles in the series Elementary particlesThe two argue that holistic spirituality is based on what they see as an outdated idea of consciousness as an inner realm of particular experiences. This view has been undermined by Wittgenstein and other philosophers who point to the social and “external” character of human reality. There is no “ghost in the machine” to build a bridge. Our “phenomenal” consciousness is allowed difficult problem Perhaps it is not so puzzling that we should attribute it to quarks or to entire galaxies.
And there is something else, critics say. Advocates of universal spirituality sometimes speak of different worldviews that their beliefs might produce, which are less alienating and destructive. But how exactly? Even if there is much that can be experienced at the subatomic level and ‘everything’ is potential consciousness, the question remains what is important on the surface, in the experienced reality. Is not universal spirituality not only not excluded in theory, but also irrelevant in practice?
At least Jove is not losing hope. Inclusive spirituality remains hot. In July, the philosopher wrote Contest for essays on the whole selfAlso related to religion. The winner will get a post in it Journal of Consciousness Studies And a thousand pounds. Deal to solve the mystery of consciousness.
