BothAndBlog Forum

Panpsychism says that consciousness is fundamental. What does that mean exactly, that consciousness is fundamental? That the substance that the universe is composed of is essentially consciousness? — Watchmaker

FWIW, I try to avoid the philosophical problems of Panpsychism, as it is usually formulated. If Consciousness is fundamental, then we could assume that every thing in the universe is conscious to some degree. But the notion of conscious atoms and dust particles has been vociferously debated. As an alternative, I take "Information", in a post-Shannon sense, as the Spinozan single substance of the universe. In order to understand what that means, you'd have to spend some time getting familiar with the scientific postulation that "Information" (essence of both matter & mind) is the fundamental element of Reality. I explore the meaning of that unorthodox concept in my BothAnd Blog.

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... at-exists/

Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism :
Goff scoffs at the materialist assumption that mental properties mysteriously emerge from complexes of physical properties. "It’s silly to say that atoms are entirely removed from mentality, then wonder where mentality comes from." This discrepancy is why the ancient theory of Panpsychism proposed that even matter is made of Mind (psyche). “Consciousness” is the most common term used to indicate that metaphysical “substance” of reality. But the term is misleading, so I prefer to use the more technical term "Information" in reference to the mind-stuff of which sentience, awareness, feelings and knowledge are made.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

Hmmm. Information is fundamental. But wouldn't there still need to be a mind to to "know" this information, as well as to "know how" to execute it? — Watchmaker

Yes. In my thesis, I call that "Knower" by various names that indicate only its functional role, because I don't know anything for sure about anything that is not within the space-time universe.

Since the "Knower", as a whole, must necessarily be more-than the comprehendable parts, I assume that he/she/it must be external & prior-to the known universe. Also, since some theorists portray the Information-centric universe as a computer program, I use the label "Programmer" to indicate the creative role of the "Enformer". And, for those who are more comfortable with the baggage-laden concept of God, I sometimes refer to the Knower as "G*D". The asterisk is intended to hint that this is not your grandfather's notion of deity. Some traditional philosophical appellations for the executor of the program is "First Cause" or "Prime Mover". Of course, William Paley's, pre-computer, functional description of "Watchmaker" is also historically appropriate.

As far as I'm concerned, whatever the "Knower" is, beyond the conceiver of the world's Information, is of no concern to me. I can make some assumptions & conjectures about Eternity & Infinity, but that's really beyond my scope of knowledge. Apparently, the Knower wants to be known only for He/r knowable Forms. If there is any other revelation, I don't know anything about it. Presumably, you can know the "Artist" by his/her works.

The Information Philosopher on Panpsychism :
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... npsychism/

Universe information theory :
Digital physics is a speculative idea that the universe can be conceived of as a vast, digital computation device, or as the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

So substance is a form of being, not stuff. Would it be conceivable that matter is ultimately composed of ousia? — Watchmaker

Perhaps. "Ousia" was adopted by Christian theologians as a reference to the spiritual "substance" or "essence" of God. So, if you think of Matter as a tangible form of incorporeal Spirit, that might work. But, for a science-oriented audience, it might be easier to convey the same idea by substituting 21st century "Information" for ancient spooky "Spirit".

From that perspective, God would be the Enformer, who created a world from his own "substance" : in this case, "Information" -- the creative power to enform. That's an update on an old pre-20th century Deistic notion : either God became the physical world, or that God transformed some of his metaphysical Essence into physical matter. Today, pragmatic scientists have learned that knowable Information (meaning) can transform into invisible Energy (potential ; causation), and into mathematical Mass, that we experience as weighty Matter. (E=MC^2)

However, that same "Information" was originally known as the intangible ideas & thoughts in a Mind, in a brain. So, Information is the ultimate shape-shifter. In my thesis though, I also refer to the ultimate source of all things as BEING : the "foundation of all existence". BEING is simply the power to become, to exist. To sum up : everything in this world is a form of Information, or as I prefer, EnFormAction.


Metaphysics of God (as One Infinite Eternal Substance) :
Many philosophers and scientists of the past have understood God as One Dynamic Substance that causes and creates the world. This is conducive to the pantheist conception of God as the Universe / Nature / Reality.
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphys ... stance.htm

Mass, in physics, mathematical measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a ... change of state..

Is Information the Fifth Form of Matter? :
It states that information is the fundamental building block of the universe, and it has mass . . .
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -of-matter

So, if you think of Matter as a tangible form of incorporeal Spirit, that might work — Gnomon
I think that's a reification. — Wayfarer

Of course. But the suggestion was intended as a change of perspective, in order to adapt to a challenge to someone's religious worldview. From my own science-based philosophical worldview , I have concluded that what the ancients called "Spirit" (invisible agency), is what we now call "Energy" (invisible causation). The difference is that, thanks to Einstein, we can now equate invisible Energy & tangible Matter via the moderation of mathematical Mass. (E=MC^2)

With that in mind, I could re-word my tongue-in-cheek proposal as : "think of Matter as a tangible form of intangible Energy". That's not the fallacy of Reification, but the realization that Energy is a mental model constructed to explain physical changes, that would otherwise seem mysterious. Energy may seem less mysterious (spiritual), if you view it as an active form of Generic Information, which I also call "EnFormAction", to denote its relationship to mundane Energy .


Why are most forms of energy invisible to the naked eyes :
"There is no manifestation of energy that is visible. Even light itself is not visible."
"Mostly because energy is a model we invented to make our physics easier. It doesn't physicially exist, it's just something we created to show how things behave"
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-most-form ... -other-not.
Note -- we see the effects of Energy inputs as the physical changes in Matter


Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog, post 33

EnFormAction :
"En-" within : referring to essential changes of state
"Form-" to mold or give shape to : it's the structure of a thing that makes it what it is.
"Action-" causation : the suffix “-ation” denotes the product or result of an action.
* So the cosmic force of EnFormAction is the Cause of all Things in the world and of all Actions or changes of state. In physical terms, it is both the Energy and the Material, plus the Mental concept of things. It is the creative impulse of evolution.*
* Plato’s "Form"s were described, not as physical things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios & relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.
BothAnd Blog, post 33

So I'm wondering what is gained by losing the distinction between conscious and not conscious. — Daemon

Good question! I assume that Panpsychists are probably trying to unify the traditional mind/matter dualisms, by assuming that both are merely emergent forms of a universal "substance" or "essence: Mind, which is best known in its manifestation as Consciousness. I agree with that motivation, but I personally take a slightly different track. A common retort to notions of universal Consciousness is to ridicule the idea of a conscious atom or grain of sand. Another problem, as you noted, is to make a distinction between Conscious & Subconscious mental processes.

Therefore, in my own attempts to understand how conscious Mind could evolve from mindless Matter, I merely reversed order of primacy. Many philosophers have found the notion of a universal Mind reasonable. So, to present it as a philosophical principle instead of a religious doctrine, I substitute the more technical-sounding term "Information". The word originally referred to the contents of a human mind in the form of intangible Thoughts & Ideas & Feelings. But Claude Shannon stripped the word of its conscious connotations, and defined it as an empty container for any meaning you want to put into it. That abstract definition works well for the purposes of programming general-purpose computers, but not so good for the self-programming & self-conscious human mind.

My thesis tracks the evolution of the human mind back to the original Singularity (imagined as a creative evolutionary program), and even one step farther to a hypothetical "Programmer", traditionally known by philosophers as the generic "First Cause". And the common "substance" all the way up is generic "Information" (EnFormAction ; the power to enform). Which takes on many real forms along the way : Potential, Energy, Forces, Mass, Matter, and Mind. For those who are not familiar with cutting-edge Information theory -- in Physics & Philosophy -- that scenario will seem even more ridiculous than the mystical-sounding Panpsychism theory. But, I prefer to call it "Information Realism". It retains the distinction between Conscious Minds & insensible Matter, but unifies them as diverse forms of evolutionary emergence back to a common ancestor, the hypothetical Prime Mind.

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind :
So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/

Consciousness : Emergent or Fundamental?
Most scientific and religious worldviews take the ontological status of Consciousness for granted. But when those belief systems are in conflict, their unstated presumptions are key to resolving the problem. Modern Science typically assumes, as an unproven axiom, that consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes. In other words, the human mind is a product of brain processes. And that hypothesis of mind as mechanical output makes sense from the the perspective of philosophical Materialism. But most religions are based on the principle of Divine Consciousness or Spirit or Will as the primordial creative force of the world. Unfortunately, centuries of debate have shown that it will never be easy to resolve such a stark black & white opposition of opinions.

Philosophy, though, is undaunted by irresistable forces and immovable objects. It thrives on head-knocking controversies. A recent post on the Quora Forum formulated this general topic as a technical question : " is consciousness a fundamental property of the universe like gravity . . . ?" In other words, is mind essential to reality instead of an accidental emergence? Or restated in religious terms, did God create the material world by simply imagining it? Put another way, the question may be posed as "What is the basis of reality, matter or consciousness?" Here, it sounds more like a functional distinction between shape-shifting intangible Energy and stable palpable Matter, or like the difference between Mind and Body.
BothAnd Blog, post 7