TPF : Spinoza's God -- PanEnDeism?

[Gnomon]

Is Spinoza's metaphysics panpsychism?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/519247

Spinoza said every object is, to some degree, animated. Isn't this panpsychism? — Eugen

Spinoza's worldview is often equated to PanPsychism, but I think PanTheism or PanDeism or even PanEnDeism (PED) are more accurate labels. PanPsychism tends to view the "universal substance" as a multipurpose form of mechanical Energy (Chi), and is equivalent to the early human beliefs of Animism. Yet, although Baruch was an outcast Jew, he described that essence of all things as "God". However, he was not referring to the traditional tribal god-models of Judaism or Christianity, but to the abstract philosophical notion that has come to be labelled as the "god of philosophers". My own concept of a PED universal substance is "BEING". Obviously, the "power to exist" is essential to all things in reality. But it doesn't just "animate" dead matter, it also produces all other properties, including Mind, that characterize living beings.


Animism :
1. the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.
2. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe.

PanEnDeism :
Panentheism, from the Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God" is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time.
___Wiki
Note : The substitution of "Deism" instead of "Theism", merely removes the various positive & negative anthro-morphic (i.e. physical & emotional) attributes, such as "wrathful, Joy, sadness, anger, hatred, despair" from traditional & scriptural descriptions of deity.

BEING : In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

[Gnomon]

Sub specie aeternitatis Spinoza's "worldview" is most consistent with acosmism (vide Maimon, Hegel ... Deleuze); otherwise, sub specie durationis, his "worldview" seems to me quite consistent with (as mentioned) pandeism. — 180 Proof

I had never heard of Acosmism before. It seems that almost every philosopher, who tries to pigeonhole Spinoza's novel belief system, comes up with a new label that is close to the interpreter's own view. That's because his god-concept contained elements that were both traditional (Stoicism, Judaism, etc) and highly original (Enlightenment Science ; God and/or Nature). Consequently, his complex god-model loosely fits several philosophical god-models, such as PanTheism, PanPsychism, and PanDeism. But, as far as I know, he never specifically presented a Hindu version of our Cosmos (Nature) as Maya (illusion). Apparently, it was Hegel, who interpreted Spinoza's view in those terms.

The main reason why I chose to label his philosophy with PanEnDeism, is because he describes God as "infinite". At the time he wrote, most scientists & philosophers assumed that our universe was both Infinite and Eternal. And they had no clear concept of a Big-Bang-beginning or Evolution. But, 20th century science discovered plausible evidence to indicate that our world, along with its characteristic Space-Time dimensions, had a (birth-like) beginning, and will eventually go out of existence (heat death) : hence neither Infinite nor Eternal. Therefore, our Cosmos exists contingently & finitely within the infinite BEING of God. So, the label that best fits the notion of an Infinite & non-intervening Creator, within which our natural world exists, is PanEnDeism : all-in-god.

Acosmism : "Acosmism, in contrast to pantheism, denies the reality of the universe, seeing it as ultimately illusory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism
"Furthermore, because Spinoza’s cosmos is part of God, it is not what it seems to be. He is acosmistic insofar as “noncosmic” seems to deny the cosmos—a position, however, very alien to Spinoza’s thought."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/acosmism

Spinoza's God :
“By God I understand a being absolutely infinite,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

Substance of God :
“Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ch_Spinoza

"One verse from the famous opening invocation to Zeus became even more famous because it was quoted in the New Testament (Acts 17:28): “For 'in him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring." ___Aratus; Greek poet
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aratus-Greek-poet

[Gnomon]

What do you think of Being as opposed to Schopenhauer's Will and of Whithead's process philosophy's "occasions of experience" and such? — schopenhauer1

I have no formal philosophical training, and I've never read any of Schopenhauer's works. But my guess is that his notion of "Cosmic Will" is more like my concept of creative "Intention", than of static "BEING" (the eternal Potential to Exist). Although, since our evolving world is a product of that generic power-to-be, BEING must also include the creative power-to-become. Which could be interpreted as Will-Power.

In my personal thesis of Enformationism, the "energy" or "impetus", that propels our world to evolve from a Big Bang embryo to a maturing universe with conscious wilful organisms, is the Intention ("Will of God") of the hypothetical Creator/Designer/Programmer. For example, a computer programmer has a design intent (goal or quest) that is implemented in the program, and which "propels" the system toward that ultimate end-state : the output. Unfortunately, I can only speculate as to what that "Omega Point" might be.

I've scanned Whitehead's Process and Reality. And, although it seems to be very similar to my own view of Reality as a process of becoming what the Creator intended, I'm not sure I understand all of his technical terminology. So, it would be best for me not to pontificate on the meaning of "occasions of experience".

"Whitehead uses the term 'actual occasion' to refer only to purely temporal actual entities, those other than God".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality

[Gnomon]

Since for Spinoza substance is infinite, or has no exterior, and eternal, or is not the effect of an external cause, and nothing ontologically transcends it, therefore substance is not "within" another substance. For this, and other reasons in Spinoza's oeuvre, "Panentheism" does not obtain. (Re: Ip5-p8, p13-p15) — 180 Proof

I agree, that if the "substance" of our world was infinite & eternal, it would be God per se, as in Pantheism. However, since we have discovered, long since Spinoza's theory, that the physical universe is not eternal, as he supposed, and that its material "substance" is temporary (subject to Entropy), I conclude that our finite world is merely a small part of the Enfernal (eternal + infinite) realm of the hypothetical Creator. Since there was a creation event (Big Bang), we must conclude that the Mother "substance" (eternal essence; necessity) existed prior to the birth of our child "substance" (finite material ; contingent) .

Therefore, I conclude that our space-time Reality could be merely one of many offspring of the Enfernal Ideality. Hence, PanEnDeism, a part within the whole. A scientific-materialistic alternative to this eternal vs temporal existence is the Multiverse Theory, in which our world is merely one of an infinite regression of bubble-like Mini-verses. But I don't waste time speculating on such "out of this world" possibilities. That's because we are quibbling about unproveable conjectures, not known facts. So, your guess is as good as mine.

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

A Multiverse of bubble-verses
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ttOu62-DRoc/U ... erse-1.jpg

[Gnomon]

What do you think of Being as opposed to Schopenhauer's Will and of Whithead's process philosophy's "occasions of experience" and such? — schopenhauer1

As I said in my previous reply, I'm not really familiar with Schopenhauer's philosophy. But I just read an article that mentioned his concept of The Will. FWIW, here's what Peter Kassan, Artificial Intelligence journalist, says about Schop's Will, in the context of Free Will :
"Perhaps more than any other classical philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer fetishized the will above all else, elevating it to a universal principle pervading the universe, thereby reducing it to to the equally empty idea of energy (not in the scientific sense, but the mystical)."

I assume he might also denigrate my own notion of Enformy. But, Although it is in a sense "the Will of God", it's not intended to mean a magical or mystical force, but merely a positive version of the scientific term "Entropy". Something like this may have been Schopenhauer's intent, although he may not have been aware of the 20th century concept of Entropy. Enformy is not an obsession for me, but I think it is a more meaningful term than the current alternative : "Negentropy".


Enformy -- the power to enform :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural (or meta-natural), in the sense that the "First Cause" (of all natural effects) logically existed before the Big Bang.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Don Watson's Enformy : http://www.vxm.com/2.CompTheory.html
Note : he does sometimes stray into Mystical territory, but otherwise, his notion of "Enformy" is similar to mine.

PS__ Energy is indeed "empty" in the sense that scientists know what-it-does, but not what-it-is essentially. So, in my thesis, I try to fill-in the blanks with a comprehensive theory of what-everything-is, ultimately --- without adding to the mystery with spooky allusions.

[Gnomon]

I stand by my own close textual analysis and previous post though. — 180 Proof

OK. I bow to your authority on Spinoza's written beliefs. But, for the purpose of my own "quixotic metaphysics", I'll still consider him to be an honorary PanEnDeist (it's a small club), Yet, I doubt that he was familiar with that term, which seems to be of recent origin. The ancient notion of PanDeism --- now extended beyond the scope of our local, contingent world --- may be a development out of modern Big Bang physics, as applied to metaphysics. It portrays the logically necessary First Cause of our universe, as "Deist" (creating but non-intervening) + "Pan" -- substance of all the actual (knowable) world + "En" --- not limited to this finite world, but encompassing all possible worlds (if any). So, Spinoza would have to join the club retroactively, ex post facto. :joke:

Pandendeism is a fairly recently coined term to describe a sort of ``open'' pandeism
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philo ... ode28.html

[Gnomon]

Pantheism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/522439

Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". But what exactly does this mean when taken literally? — Michael McMahon

My philosophical worldview PanEnDeism, is historically related to PanTheism. However, due to its secular mindset, mine not a traditional religious perspective, in that it does not require sycophantic worship or arbitrary rituals & practices. Instead, it is intended to be more like an empirical scientific worldview, in that it takes a Pragmatic approach to understanding the real world, and our relationship to it. There is no authoritative or formal definition of PED, but my general concept is similar to Spinoza's notion that the "universal substance" of our world is not physical Matter, but meta-physical Mind *1. Meaning that our reality is essentially an idea in the Mind of G*D. That may not sound scientific, but for me, that general concept of Reality was derived from the counter-intuitive weirdness of Quantum Theory, and the all-encompassing reach of Information Theory. It's not a mystical or magical belief system, but a practical mundane worldview, based on the the scientific conclusion that Information = Energy = Matter *2.

In this post, I won't attempt to explain the conceptually-simple-but-technically-complex reasoning process by which I arrived at that strange worldview *3. So, I'll just get to the bottom line : Taken literally, "PanTheism"means that our apparent Reality is actually an interpretation of ultimate Ideality *4. What this means, when taken literally, is that particular Reality (Pan ; All) exists within (En) holistic Ideality (Deity ; First Cause ; Enformer). In other words, G*D's mental substance (Information, Meta-Physics) is what we know via our senses as material reality (Physics). From that simple equation of Ideal Stuff (substance) with Real Stuff (matter), we can derive all we need to know about the world, and our place in it. Of course the human mind is free to posit conjectures about the logically necessary First Cause. But the current fragmented state of world religions, indicates that such fictions can wreak havoc among competing belief systems. Which may be why the ancient faith-based religious notion of Pantheism, eventually evolved into theoretical philosophical PanDeism, and finally into evidence-based PanEnDeism.


*1 Spinoza's Substance Monism : Substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff, e.g., matter or mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

*2 The mass-energy-information equivalence principle : Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

*3 I have already provided a variety of explanations for my rationale in several of my blog posts, and in many posts on this forum.

*4 Empirical Idealism :
Scientific Materialism is the assumption that particle Physics is the foundation of reality, and that our ideas are simply products of material processes. Empirical Idealism doesn't deny the existence of a real world, but reasons that all we can ever know about that hypothetical reality is the mental interpretations of sensory percepts. Platonic Idealism (Myth of the Cave) calls those interpretations illusions, and asserts that true Reality is equivalent to an idea in the mind of God. Enformationism is compatible with both views, depending on your perspective.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

PS__I expect challenges to labeling PED as "empirical". So, I'll simply say that it's just as empirical as Inflation Theory, Multiverse Theory, and String Theory, which all postulate entities that are literally out-of-this-world.

[Gnomon]

Dialog with Eugen on Spinoza's God relative to my own G*D.

The problem is that when I'm asking guys if Spinozism would be false if we couldn't obtain consciousness from something with 0% consciousness, they tell me that my question makes no sense. Am I really missing something here or they're just fucking with me?

Please tell me if the following questions make sense to you:
1. Is there a true explanation for why in Spinozism it is possible to have a law of nature that let you obtain consciousness from things with no consciousness, or Spinoza just assumes this law exists?
2. Does Spinoza have a true explanation for why complexity equals consciousness while simplicity doesn't? --- Eugen

Hey, Eugen. I'm hardly a Spinoza expert, and I've never actually read any of his writings, except in excerpts from the writings of those who do claim to be experts on Spinoza. However, I do have a general understanding of how his worldview differed from that of his contemporaries. Since he lived in the early stages of the Enlightenment, that eventually led to modern Science, he rejected most of the magical & mystical notions of Abrahamic religions. But, he seemed to accept some of the relevant theories of ancient Greek Philosophy.

Primarily, he viewed humans as a part of Nature, with no supernatural Souls. So, humans are conscious in the same sense that animals are conscious, but perhaps more highly developed, due to success in competition (striving). However, he had no knowledge of Darwin's Evolutionary theory. So, I doubt that he could explain in detail how human consciousness could emerge from that of lower animals. And he probably had no idea how human-scale awareness could arise from the obtuseness of rocks. Consequently, Spinoza's understanding of the mind was theoretical & philosophical, not empirical & scientific. Of course, some modern thinkers like to read-into Spinoza's words, their own modern views.

Therefore, in answer to question 1, I'm not aware of any reference, in his writings, to a "law of Nature" leading to consciousness. I suppose, he just assumed, like Aristotle, that consciousness was simply an inherent aspect of Nature, which he equated with God. If God is conscious, then consciousness is simply a feature of Nature that humans have inherited to a greater degree (?) than animals.

Regarding question 2, I'm not aware that Spinoza made any argument from Complexity, especially since a detailed Complexity Theory only emerged after computers became available to crunch numbers approaching infinity. However, he did have an argument from Striving, to show how some attributes of Nature (God) could emerge from competition among living creatures.

However, I have my own personal philosophical argument, to show "how you could obtain consciousness from something unconscious." And my concept is due, in part, to my concept of God, (PanTheism ; PanPsychism : PanEnDeism) which is similar to Spinoza's, but also incorporates a lot of scientific knowledge that he didn't have access to.

Consciousness . . . in Spinoza’s Ethics :
Consciousness, for Spinoza, is neither a faculty, nor a property specific to certain minds or ideas. Furthermore, consciousness does not come in degrees. Indeed, Spinoza's account of consciousness is not intended to differentiate kinds of minds in terms of awareness of their respective ideas
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 17.1322038

Spinoza’s Psychological Theory :
The main questions raised by scholars concern how Spinoza justifies and explains the existence of conscious life in the world, whether he separates self-conscious entities from non-self-conscious entities, and, further, whether he acknowledges the existence of unconscious ideas within the human mind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spin ... hological/

The Riddle of Consciousness : Mind in a Material World
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page65.html

Can Integrated Information Theory Explain Consciousness? : The Problem with Panpsychism
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page80.html

[Gnomon]

I read your theory last summer, and I find it interesting. But one thing remains: I see no logic in having consciousness from non-conscious things. — Eugen

The logic behind the emergence of novelty is inherent in evolutionary theory. The point of my thesis is that the Potential for consciousness (Panpsychism) is intrinsic to the Divine Substance of our world. I think that is what Spinoza assumed --- without much empirical evidence. That essence of deity is what I call "Information" in modern terms. The ancients would have called it "Spirit". In any case, that essence has Omnipotential --- it has the ability to Enform (create) an unlimited variety of things. For a scientific example, I refer to the mysterious phenomenon that scientists call "Phase Transition", whereby one kind of thing (water) is transformed into a different kind of thing (ice) with new properties.

The "Logic" behind such emergent novelty is Divine Creativity (LOGOS ; teleology), and the mechanism for such creative change is what I call EnFormAction. Various philosophers have attempted to define the Logic of Evolution, but it tends to get rather complicated. Perhaps, because the process gets shuffled & jumbled by the necessary Randomness inherent in this space-time world. in this post, I won't try to give you a step-by-step accounting of the Logical process that allow conscious beings to emerge from a substrate of insentient matter. Instead, I'll simply refer you to The EnFormAction Hypothesis. Unfortunately, the thesis requires an axiomatic unknowable Deity to provide the Creative Enforming Force. So, it will be summarily dismissed by hard-nosed Atheists. Does any of that make sense to you?


What is EnFormAction? : 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.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Logic of the Cosmos : Although the notion of a creative force of Reason in the cosmos, responsible for bringing order, form and meaning out of chaos was originally a secular philosophical concept, it later became associated with Christianity
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page37.html

Evolution and Logic :
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~smith/Evolu ... 0Smith.pdf

[Gnomon]

Yes, but from what I see your God is not simply a blind, purposless, totally unconscious (not only not meta-conscious, but not even conscious) no-willing thing. — Eugen

First, I must admit that I know nothing for sure about the G*D of my thesis. All I know is that, logically, the Cause must have the potential for all Effects. If Consciousness is an effect of creation, then the Creator must logically possess some form of Consciousness. But exactly what form it takes is beyond my understanding. First, what would an infinite Being be conscious of? If there is nothing outside, then maybe G*d is only conscious of what goes on inside. But, then what is that inside? Just our world, or an infinite array of worlds. Does G*D Feel what we feel?. I don't know, And, apart from direct revelation, I think it's presumptuous for us to describe what G*D thinks & feels. Most of the divine revelations I'm familiar with sound too much like human Chiefs, Kings, and Emperors. Thererfore, I think Spinoza's concept of God as the Universal Substance is sufficient for my pragmatic purposes, which don't invovle the need to worship mysteries.

Spinoza's "God or Nature" [Deus sive Natura] provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical "First Cause" or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine." Coleridge and Shelley saw in Spinoza's philosophy a religion of nature and called him the "God-intoxicated Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”. ... Therefore, God is just the sum of all the substances of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ch_Spinoza