Thoughts on Panpsychism / Panprotoexperientialism?

Discussion in 'TT - Public' started by Ulixes Orobar, Aug 6, 2017.

  1. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    After reading one of Aeoli's recent blog posts, I have a question. What does everyone think about panpsychism?

    LINK: panpsychism - Wiktionary | http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/panpsychism

    AEOLI'S POST: The gnostic and naturalistic fallacies | http://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/the-gnostic-and-naturalistic-fallacies/

    (Watch these videos if you have the time.)

    VIDEO 1:

    VIDEO 2:


    (Full Disclosure: I am a pantheist and a panpsychist. I'm also an Aristotelian, though, so I do not think that our souls exist independently from our bodies. My soul will "dissolve" when my body dies; my memories and my personality will not survive the death of my body. Only the Spirit survives bodily death; that is, the universe will continue to evolve and to experience after this human dies.)
     
  2. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    Agnostic, defaulting to disagreement. It is far from obvious that a proton must have anything reasonably described as a mental aspect. If by "mental" we are talking about ideal aspects or abstract aspects, or what have you, then that seems more plausible.

    This is a nonmaterialist restatement of the idea of superorganisms which underlies fascism. I'm primarily a bottom-up sort of guy because I've found this perspective much more useful for understanding complex phenomena like computers, humans, and societies, but this is less an ideological stance than a disposition that happens to have worked so far.

    Re: Aristotelianism and the three-aspect theory, I don't know because I don't understand the definitions. Aristotle was a first-order genius and, unlike Plato or Socrates, a fundamentally honest person IMO. So I defer judgment to him, but I can't pretend to understand what distinguishes a soul from a spirit. On the other hand, he was wrong about a lot of stuff too.
     
  3. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Well, I think that material interactions create proto-experiences, very very simple disconnected experiences. The material interactions in our brains produce immersive, unified experiences of an evolving self in a changing world with (experiences of) thoughts and intuitions about those things (and with memories of previous experiences and such). Not all material interactions produce self-awareness or even a sense of connectedness across time through very short-term memories. By, Spirit, I mean consciousness itself--all experiences that will ever happen in all of existence.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  4. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    By "soul," I mean the form of the body which grows over time. This includes the neuronal networks in our brains which grow in the way that our bodies grow. They exchange material with their surroundings in order to maintain such a growing form. These things exist as material interactions, fundamentally, and it feels like something to exist as these material interactions.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  5. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    Am I correct in restating this as "the platonic form to which the material form aspires to conform"?
     
  6. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    The form doesn't exist apart from the material. I would just say, "conforms," not, "aspires to conform." My body doesn't aspire to grow as it does.
     
  7. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    This is the view I wound up at after struggling with "obviously one consciousness exists [mine], but I have no way of disproving that any particular thing has a consciousness". "Everything has a consciousness, no exceptions" seemed like the simplest resolution to that. (Consciousness has to be a continuous uncountable for that conclusion to work, but that's fine.)

    Oh, but mental aspect... no, I'd see mental as a particular interaction of spirit and matter that does not occur in all cases. Everything has a spiritual aspect, not everything has its spirit and matter properly configured to form thoughts. (That is if I'm understanding the word "mental" right, which I'm probably not.)
     
  8. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Let me try in vain to clarify things. All material interactions produce proto-experiences. They do not necessarily produce thought; not all systems process information about their environment and about their changing internal states. They do not necessarily produce consciousness (as most people think of it); not all systems remember their previous states, so each experience remains disconnected from the one before it. They do not necessarily feel pleasure and pain; not all systems possess survival and self-perpetuating instincts.
     
    • Thank Thank x 2
  9. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    You're using "spiritual" as I was using "mental." Being a physical system feels like something, but the (disconnected, simple, and "noisy") experiences of most systems would seem incredibly alien to us. Most lifeforms with neurons have experiences to which we would struggle to relate, but they have coherent and integrated experiences on timescales similar to ours.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    "Proto-experiences" is a good word for it. It seems we mean the same thing, then.
     
  11. Auriga

    Auriga New Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2017
    Posts:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    3
    From the section "What is a Density" from Tom Montalk's article "STO, STS, and Densities":
    STO, STS, and Densities - Metaphysics | http://montalk.net/metaphys/267/sto-sts-and-densities#d4

    "First Density (1D) is the lowest, corresponding to subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, chemicals, and minerals, where conscious development is rudimentary and limited to simple awareness at best. Because consciousness, freewill, and nondeterminism go hand in hand, the unpredictable behavior of quantum systems (such as atoms and subatomic particles jittering nondeterministically) is due to their possessing (or being immersed in) an infinitesimal but nonzero level of consciousness, a kind of blind primordial awareness.

    Second Density (2D) encompasses plant and animal life, where consciousness first experiences striving, will, passion, drive, pain, or pleasure. Examples of the lowest 2D lifeforms include plants, bacteria and fungi, whose consciousness is rudimentary. The higher 2D lifeforms begin experiencing the first inklings of freewill and self-awareness.

    Third Density (3D) includes humans and other unpolished beings like us. 3D beings possess the seed of self-awareness and freewill. With these, they begin exploring their own individuality and its relation to others, and consequently they begin choosing whether to hone their individuality by helping others or by exploiting them. This process comes with a myriad of experiences and lessons accumulated over many lifetimes that hammers together their core of individuality and exalts it. As the choice of polarity solidifies and the limitations and illusions of life in 3D are overcome, a threshold is eventually reached where one has more consciousness and metaphysical energy than can be contained by the 3D realm of experience, and so one transcends to the next level."

    Basically, everything has at least an infinitesimal consciousness, and consciousness increases as the complexity and choice of actions of the being increases. Only humans and comparable or higher beings have significant self awareness.

    As an aside, Tom Montalk's site has the best organized explanation of spirituality I've ever found. His gnosis summary:
    0 - Gnosis Summary | http://montalk.net/gnosis/222/0-gnosis-summary

    summarizes all creation in a logical manner. The links in the left sidebar of that page explain creation in more detail.

    Other good topics on his site are metaphysics:
    - Metaphysics | http://montalk.net/metaphys

    the matrix of our limited reality:
    - Matrix | http://montalk.net/matrix

    and the alien agenda:
    - Alien Agenda | http://montalk.net/alien
     
  12. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    The Alien Agenda page looks very accurate to me; I'm impressed. The densities... not so much. I don't get why he would divide them up that way, and I disagree with the implication that disembodied creatures are "higher". (Having a physical body is a major source of energy that I don't think beings would choose to give up at any level.)

    I haven't read the other links yet.
     
  13. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    That site doesn't seem to say much about the benevolent Nordics, though, and he mistakenly dismisses the creators of the human race as "probably gone" - actually, those are one and the same. Or, to be more precise, the Nordics in general were our creators (the now-malevolent ones were also somewhat involved), which is why we look like them.

    I see your links, and raise you these:
    Anu, the divine infamy | http://www.loveenki.com/enki_gb/anu-the-divine-infamie/
    The three suns or the occult history of our solar system | http://www.loveenki.com/enki_gb/the-three-suns-or-the-occult-history-of-our-solar-system/

    While I can't say much for the organization of that site, it appears to be the primary source from which other sites on that topic draw. If organization is important, you might have better luck starting here:

    0.1. First Part: The Arrival of the Gods on Earth and the Creation of the Human Race | http://www.enkiptahsatya.com/01-first-part-the-arrival-of-the-gods-on-earth-and-the-creation-of-the-human-race.html
     
  14. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    I am familiar with Tom Montalk's work; I have been following him for a couple of years now. Like all religious / "spiritual" / mythological writing, I have to remind myself not to take it too literally. Still, I find Montalk's work very useful myself.

    (That's my advice when reading religious literature and when reading some philosophy: don't read it too literally. Don't sperg out about whether or not it is technically accurate in a scientific sense. Don't assume that the author always intends to describe a physical system, at scale, in specific, operational language; to do this is to miss the point and to misunderstand the goal of the author. This advice is based upon my early experiences with mainline Protestantism. Ignore the advice if you have never had this problem.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    I'd like to hear what you think his work really means (let's take the "Alien Agenda" page for example). Your advice sounds to me like "ignore what he has to say"... but maybe you're simply describing a problem that I don't have (For every advice, there is someone who needs the opposite advice).
     
  16. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    I've probably read that page before, but I'll have to reread it. (This may take several days as I do not have any electricity at home. Don't forget to trim your trees!)

    I can comment on David Icke's shape-shifting lizards, though. The shape-shifting lizards are not literally lizard people; they are humans who behave like shape-shifting lizards. They behave in a cold, calculating manner, and they seek dominance and power. Unlike the landed aristocrats of old, they do not explicitly identify themselves as elites. (So, the arm-chair diagnoses of the normies are wrong, and Icke is not crazy. He's just a lot more interesting than most people are.) As far as literal aliens go, I'm agnostic but open.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  17. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    So... what you mean is to force-fit everything you hear to your own worldview, instead of rejecting it outright.

    I view David Icke calling the Reptilians "shapeshifters" as a minor error; I would say they are Reptilian souls inhabiting genuinely human bodies. If you force-fit this to your worldview, it means exactly the same thing as David Icke's version meant to you; if you take it as I actually mean it, though, I just disagreed with David Icke on a minor point of how they do what they do. (Unless I misunderstood his definition of "shapeshifter", which is possible.)

    You're welcome to say that I'm "almost right", but those are really just humans that have that sort of "spirit" in the figurative sense - but I recommend that you acknowledge that you're disagreeing with me by doing so. Although I can't speak for David Icke and Tom Montalk as such, I rather favor the interpretation that you're disagreeing with them too.
     
  18. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Well, I wouldn't say "force-fit," but I do my best to integrate new information into my current worldview instead of dismissing it. Sometimes, this causes my worldview to break down completely. I also disagree with Icke on a minor point. From what I gather, to act innately like a reptile is to have a reptilian soul.

    I think that my points of disagreement are rather minor, but they are disagreements. (I doubt that Montalk would mind; he's not a dogmatist or anything like that. Icke probably wouldn't mind either.) In this case, I merely disagree regarding the fundamental nature of souls and of Spirit. I don't think that souls exist as a separate substance which affects matter; souls exist as dynamic yet ordered, large-scale, self-maintaining patterns within sets of material interactions. I believe that "disembodied" souls exist too, but our minds perceive them in a highly metaphorical manner. (Our ancestors saw and portrayed the old gods in this way.) Material interactions must be computed in (space)time in order to have substance; they don't exist unless excitations in the field interact with other excitations in the field. Spirit exists everywhere and experiences everything--that is, every change of state.

    My philosophical and religious views are rather strange and idiosyncratic, so I suspect that everyone disagrees with me somewhere. I do my best not to speak up around most people because of this.
     
  19. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    This is reasonable.

    Agreed.

    Communication is hard here. I don't think that souls are physical things, extending off into the fourth physical dimension or whatever. You don't appear to believe that souls don't affect matter at all, only that they don't perform mechanical interactions with matter. We do still disagree as to the fundamental nature of souls, but I'm at a loss as to words with which to guess at the exact form of our disagreement. This is probably in part due to not having an entirely refined concept of what a soul is myself.

    So you don't believe that souls are dependent on matter for their existence. What do you think of reincarnation?

    There are multiple things going on here:
    1. The gods love stories. They would tell stories just to express a concept. These stories did not have to be true. (We're no different nowadays, except that it's easier to tell fiction from nonfiction when reading modern books.)
    2. The gods have long relied on astral projection to visit humans. Astral projection = a person with a body, temporarily disembodied (so as to move in ways not physically possible).
    3. There was a time when the gods were physically present. That was a long time ago... but some records still speak of it.

    I don't see anything to disagree with here. I usually use "Spirit" to refer to the layer of an individual lifeform very close to the physical, but using it to refer to the general field of all nonphysical awareness is valid.

    This conversation would fit better in the deeper hollows of this forum, but you haven't been admitted there yet, so we'll have to make do.
     
  20. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Regarding Montalk's 'Alien Agenda' page, I agree broadly. What we call, "aliens," our ancestors would have called, "angels," "demons," "ghosts," etc. I think that people attribute these abduction experiences to aliens because they believe that such an attribution is somehow more scientific. (It isn't, but many modern people act as if it is.) When it comes to attributing intentions and motives to these beings and to the gods, I'm a bit skeptical. I suspect that their experiences differ from ours quite considerably, and I do not know how integrated their experiences really are. (Maybe they only have integrated experiences through us. Maybe they have them through us and on their own. Maybe it varies from being to being. Maybe some beings do not even exist independently of us while others do.) I try not to anthropomorphize such entities unless I find it useful at the time. Speculating about what it's like to be a different sort of being is an interesting mental exercise, but its purpose differs from those of religion and mythology.

    Regarding reincarnation, I believe in it, but I cannot point to any conclusive evidence for it; the evidence is circumstantial and inconclusive. I believe that parts of our souls survive into the next life, but our memories and our personalities die with our bodies. If we could see our other lives, we would notice some interesting patterns.

    I know what astral projection is, but I have never been able to pull it off. I have very vivid dreams, and I can become lucid in my dreams sometimes; however, I don't consider that to be quite the same thing.
     

Share This Page