Panpsychism

Cupressus said:
Well, in my MANY readings of the Tao Te Ching I found that golfballs were often specifically avoided as a topic of conversation. In fact in my MASSIVE library (I will post some more pictures later on) I have found a dearth of information about the mental state of a golf ball. But I bet it relates to QUANTUM MECHANICS.
Click to expand...

ttt
 
Cupressus said:
Well, in my MANY readings of the Tao Te Ching I found that golfballs were often specifically avoided as a topic of conversation. In fact in my MASSIVE library (I will post some more pictures later on) I have found a dearth of information about the mental state of a golf ball. But I bet it relates to QUANTUM MECHANICS.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought. At this point, we shouldn't dismiss any possibilities, I suppose.
 
BidenPresident said:
tytkfuku
Click to expand...

You really seem to have some serious issues. I wish I understood you better because it kind of scares me to play rough with someone who might just be mentally challenged or suffering from autism or some such. I don't want to be "that guy" that mocks a disabled person.

You really should get a little help. Everyone can use it from time to time.
 
Cupressus said:
You really seem to have some serious issues. I wish I understood you better because it kind of scares me to play rough with someone who might just be mentally challenged or suffering from autism or some such. I don't want to be "that guy" that mocks a disabled person.

You really should get a little help. Everyone can use it from time to time.
Click to expand...

cxvncxbn
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I used to think that my golf ball had an element of individual consciousness when I hit it properly and it still went
somewhere that it wasn't intended to go.

Afterwards, a couple of drinks in the clubhouse returned me to the reality that panpsychism is probably not a thing.
Click to expand...
That's because you're either insane or a Pancognitivist*. Maybe both. I'm still researching it.

Panpsychism is a thing, but mainly in the Panexperientialist point of view. Especially among realists.



*From the link:
  • Panexperientialism—the view that conscious experience is fundamental and ubiquitous
  • Pancognitivism—the view that thought is fundamental and ubiquitous.

According to the definition of consciousness that is dominant in contemporary analytic philosophy, something is conscious just in case there is something that it’s like to be it; that is to say, if it has some kind of experience, no matter how basic.[7] Humans have incredibly rich and complex experience, horses less so, mice less so again. Standardly the panexperientialist holds that this diminishing of the complexity of experience continues down through plants, and through to the basic constituents of reality, perhaps electrons and quarks. If the notion of “having experience” is flexible enough, then the view that an electron has experience—of some extremely basic kind—would seem to be coherent (of course we must distinguish the question of whether it is coherent from the question of whether it is plausible; the latter will depend on the strength of the arguments discussed below)....

...However, whilst there have been some defenders of pancognitivism in history, it is panexperientialist forms of panpsychism that are taken seriously in contemporary analytic philosophy.[8] From now on I will equate panpsychism with panexperientialism.
 
Doc Dutch said:
That's because you're either insane or a Pancognitivist*. Maybe both. I'm still researching it.

Panpsychism is a thing, but mainly in the Panexperientialist point of view. Especially among realists.



*From the link:

  • Panexperientialism—the view that conscious experience is fundamental and ubiquitous
  • Pancognitivism—the view that thought is fundamental and ubiquitous.

According to the definition of consciousness that is dominant in contemporary analytic philosophy, something is conscious just in case there is something that it’s like to be it; that is to say, if it has some kind of experience, no matter how basic.[7] Humans have incredibly rich and complex experience, horses less so, mice less so again. Standardly the panexperientialist holds that this diminishing of the complexity of experience continues down through plants, and through to the basic constituents of reality, perhaps electrons and quarks. If the notion of “having experience” is flexible enough, then the view that an electron has experience—of some extremely basic kind—would seem to be coherent (of course we must distinguish the question of whether it is coherent from the question of whether it is plausible; the latter will depend on the strength of the arguments discussed below)....

...However, whilst there have been some defenders of pancognitivism in history, it is panexperientialist forms of panpsychism that are taken seriously in contemporary analytic philosophy.[8] From now on I will equate panpsychism with panexperientialism.
Click to expand...

At this stage of the game, I have no overwhelming need to figure this out.:laugh:
 
200w.webp
200w.webp
200w.webp

Cupressus said:
For example, as reported by Barnes (1982: 96–7), Diogenes claimed that Thales believed that “the universe is alive and full of spirits”, but this remark is derived from an earlier claim of Aristotle: “some say a soul is mingled in the whole universe—which is perhaps why Thales thought that everything is full of gods”.
Click to expand...
This was pretty much Einstein's view. He didn't have any traditional theism and he didn't believe in personal gods, but he did not know what controlled the seemingly random forces of nature. He just referred to everything not fully understood as "God."

Great thread.

37a416d523f6dc6d93efa3cb85336c25.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top