[thepace]

Every time I see these kinds of video, whether that is of protein translation, kinesin walking on microtubule, or birth and death of a galaxy, I get this feeling that Panpsychism is closer to truth that it gets credit for. Any constraints we put in the defining consciousness and life seems to be just some arbitrary constraint put there for our own convenience.

[TeMPOraL]

Isn't panpsychism a kind of reverse materialism? Both seem to correctly recognize that terms we create are just lines we draw on our map through the terrain of reality, which we rank by their usefulness, by how close they seem to be "carving nature at its joints". Based on my brief skimming, panpsychism seems to say the terrain is all mysterious and wonderful, whereas materialism says it's all just mundane.

Or am I completely mis-skimming the Wikipedia entry on panpsychism?

[lewispollard]

I think you'd enjoy the work of Bernardo Kastrup, who is a proponent of idealism, while also arguing against panpsychism, for basically the reasons you just stated - ie, there is a reality made of parts, and those parts are x, where x is 'matter', 'mind', 'consciousness', 'electromagnetism' and so on. But the trouble then is that you can only describe the constituent parts in terms of those parts. For example, subatomic particles have properties like spin and charge, but that's the only way you can describe them - in relation to one another - without having to go a level 'deeper' if it were possible to describe them in further parts (which would only be describable in terms of those parts, and so on).

[perfmode]

my question to you: do you consider yourself to be mysterious or just mundane? what is your experience of your own Being-ness?

[gus_massa]

> Do you consider yourself to be mysterious or just mundane?

Mundane, that is even more amazing.

> What is your experience of your own Being-ness?

My electrons and nuclei are arranged in a weird pattern. If you ask them if I'm conscious, they can move another electrons and nuclei to type "yes". If you ask them if I'm lying, they can move another electrons and nuclei to type "no". It's just a strange pattern that simulates a delusion, don't trust them.

[perfmode]

> Mundane, that is even more amazing.

What's amazing about the mundane?

[TeMPOraL]

A good question, something I'll have to think about.

The immediate if indirect answer I can give you: I stopped feeling this sense of wonder, mystery, greater purpose of reality, somewhen during my university years. I only ever experience these feelings when consuming works of fiction.

[mensetmanusman]

C.S. Lewis described something similar with fiction ‘baptizing the imagination in longing’

https://andrewmarrosb.blog/articles/baptizing-the-imaginatio...

[csomar]

> Any constraints we put in the defining consciousness and life seems to be just some arbitrary constraint put there for our own convenience.

The definition of consciousness is very much tied to how humans (or some scientists) perceive consciousness. I'm pretty sure my dog is conscious of itself and its surrounding. It just happens to have a less sophisticated consciousness than the one I have. Some animals might have a pretty high consciousness but they fail to communicate it to the humans.

[jes]

I am an Alan Watts fan. I think he would agree with you.

[jng]

I love Alan Watts too. In any case, I need to insert the necessary reference to recently passed John Conway's Free Will Theorem. I recommend every one to watch his 6-lecture long presentation on this, available on YouTube and underappreciated given the number of views, where he captivatingly describes his proof that, if we have free will, so do elementary particles. This is a purely mathematics- and physics-based proof which I understand is fully accepted by the scientific community, and while it, of course, does not provide an explanation of the underlying cause, it provides the best possible description obtained by scientific methodology so far.

I like to think that, somehow, Alan Watts and John Conway were digging the same tunnel, just starting from the two endpoints, and bound to meet at some point in the future. We just need a few more diggers of that stature (tall order, I know).

[jes]

Thank you for this reference. I’m a free will skeptic. Now looking forward to watching Conway’s series.

I have a paper by Anthony Cashmore that I will cite here later.

[jes]

Paper from Anthony Cashmore that I mentioned previously:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842067/

[djedr]

He would definitely dig that. Curiously, I was drawn to this thread because I was just listening to him today, talking about crystals and the nature of reality. He would go thru so many topics in such detail and clarity, it's incredible.

[jes]

Same. I often notice the precision with which he used language. Such a joy to listen to.

I especially like the chill-step YouTube videos some people assemble and publish. I download them with youtube-dl and listen to them on my phone at night while drifting off to sleep.

At 61 years of age, the philosophy he describes (Advaita Vedanta / Zen Buddhism / Taoism) brings me great comfort.

[djedr]

> I often notice the precision with which he used language.

Indeed. Hard to find an inaccuracy, even when he's talking about some details of technical subjects. He had an exceptional ability to translate between the spiritual and the technical in a way which seems to make complete sense.

> Such a joy to listen to.

A true spiritual entertainer. Never boring. I imagine he could be a stand-up comedian today.

> I especially like the chill-step YouTube videos some people assemble and publish. I download them with youtube-dl and listen to them on my phone at night while drifting off to sleep.

Similar, I went thru a lot of the material on youtube. High-quality material with transcripts can also be found here: https://www.organism.earth/library/author/alan-watts A lot of it I listened to many times over and I keep getting new insights out of it, it's so densely packed.

> At 61 years of age, the philosophy he describes (Advaita Vedanta / Zen Buddhism / Taoism) brings me great comfort.

Definitely helps to know these philosophical perspectives, especially if one gets tangled up in some harmful model of reality.

Somehow the basic (non-religious, just philosophical) Taoism seems to most align with me at the moment. I credit the Dao for solving a very tough naming problem for me. ;)

[thepace]

Out of the many people I have heard talk about vedanta, Alan Watts is one of the most original ones.

[kharak]

I can't see this connection at all. Could someone who thinks or feels this way elaborate?

Does this feeling arise because those atoms move? Or is it the self-assembling behavior? Is this the same feeling some people have when they see a door suddenly close due to the wind, as if some spirit is responsible? I remember feeling like this as a kid. But getting older, I realized that this feeling of agency behind everything is unfounded. And the feeling faded away.

[wahern]

Panpsychism, pantheism, etc, are enticing because humans are predisposed to see patterns, structure, reason, and intelligence; to anthropomorphize nature. Characterizing as "arbitrary" our admittedly feeble and flawed attempts at distinguishing the human mind is an easy way to placate that underlying, intrinsic desire.

Of course, maybe it is true! (That felt good to say :)

[mncharity]

> Every time I see these kinds of video, whether that is of protein translation, kinesin walking on microtubule, [...] I get this feeling that Panpsychism is closer to truth

Those two are... sadly quite different than the TFA video. Those are cartoons, steeped in artistic license, accommodation of animation software limitations, and artists regrettably but intentionally prioritizing "pretty" over a misconception-spawning lack of resemblance to reality. Think of a video of Saint Trump's day, with frames selected to show him floating along, limbs unmoving, through a deserted White House. Problematic when learning biology. Not a good source of ground truth.