Thoughts on Panpsychism / Panprotoexperientialism?

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

  1. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    I'll grant that. Some things inside us are hard to deal with.

    ...I suppose it is rather hard to distinguish without relying on some form of ESP. There are some basic forms of ESP that are really easy, though (basically looking at your surroundings with your imagination, and your aura's sense of touch).

    Natural forces? Those are, mostly, not gods. Gods certainly can control the natural forces, but by and large, the planet acts on its own. It is possible to commune with the planet, but only in the sense of feeling its energy; never in words.

    No, you're still being monotheistic about this. What you think of all the other gods doesn't matter if you're going to put what is essentially the Christian god at the top of the stack - a superintelligent, masculine being who plans out reality.

    The Life is being itself, the essence that permeates all of reality - that is all of reality - and evolves with it. It is fundamentally feminine, because it is the the fertile womb from which all living things are born, not the seed that spreads life from place to place. It cannot really be said to be truth, because it is being without intelligence, and truth must arise from intelligence. It is not the destination toward which we evolve, but a great organism that evolves with us, endlessly upward without destination. Knowledge is, I think, masculine; because it is a spreading seed that enables the Life to advance everywhere it reaches - a masculine thing (of great benefit to the Life, but not an aspect of the Life as such).

    The attributes of this "Author of the Simulation" are spread between three different entities: the Life (of course), Satya (god of truth), and El (god of authority)
     
  2. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    I'm using monotheistic language to refer to a pantheistic God. I don't think that God plans out reality exactly, though; He just experiences all of the possible relationships which can exist within Himself. I use the masculine pronoun here because "It" feels disrespectful, but I don't see God as having a single sex or gender. ("Ze," "zir," "ey," and such are just gay. Yeah, we're not sayin' that.)

    I'll have to think more about whether or not truth requires intelligence. Thinking truthfully requires intelligence, but even a universe without life would exist in a series of states which change according to rules. (Nothing would exist there which could model the systems in that universe, though.)
     
  3. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    Communication is hard. I could certainly imagine "truth" meaning something different to you than I read it as.

    When most people talk about truth, they mean something true that someone said. It's notable that such statements are not actually direct statements of the underlying reality - they're honest interpretations of that reality. Such things are sometimes more useful than knowing the reality itself, because they provide you with ways to deal with reality. But the underlying reality is true in its own, very different way that is hard to talk about.
     
  4. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    An honest interpretation of reality is a truthful description of one's subjective experience. Honest interpretations of reality provide one with ways to deal with reality because they contain a systems of values.

    Truthful descriptions of the underlying reality require more time and energy to construct and to test. They do not contain values, but they have predictive utility; they help us to construct tools, but they don't tell us which tools to construct or how to use them.

    Incidentally, I'm not implying that all systems of values are adaptive. Maladaptive values systems simply become extinct.
     
  5. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    This is still an interpretation you're talking about. Predictions are tools to deal with reality, not reality itself.
     
  6. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Yes, descriptions of reality at scale are interpretations of reality (and, technically, a part of reality too). They're value-neutral interpretations, though. (Subjective and intersubjective interpretations are not value-neutral; objective ones are value-neutral.) I think of such things as conceptual meta-tools, tools that we use to construct more tools.
     

Share This Page