What's wrong with panpsychism?

.............................................

OTOH, Idealistic monism posits that intelligence (in the sense of highly complexified consciousness, even if that consciousness is not self-aware) of some sort has always existed, and that the process of universe formation and evolution are top-down. All phenomenal reality is how the universe appears, not how it actually is. So what is it that can observe appearances? Why, primal consciousness itself, of course.

One issue is giving up the notion of an omnipotent creator, one that can do simply anything, at least in the universe that has actually come to be. Maybe primal consciousness doesn't know exactly how its process of expressing itself will turn out, and can't do simply anything within its own method of unfolding; it's fully invested in evolving, coming to know itself through the medium of its own appearances or creations. Maybe it doesn't know in the sense we understand the term except through us, self-reflective beings that Bernardo Kastrup believes are alters -- myriad appearances (to itself) of its own dissociated self that reflect what it is coming to know.

...............................................

One problem with this is that the Universe comprises an incredibly complex interdependent system of natural laws following many beautiful mathematical constructions, that is also incredibly fine tuned for life as we know it. This gives the strong appearance of design by a focused, sentient superintelligence that creatively invents, not one that is not self-aware. By analogy, in our experience the only source of greatly complex specified information (in the form of intricate machines and mechanisms) is focused sentient human intelligence.

[Laird]

Well said, nbtruthman. That point has occurred to me too (particularly as an objection to some sort of Idealistic non-self-aware mind-at-large).

One problem with this is that the Universe comprises an incredibly complex interdependent system of natural laws following many beautiful mathematical constructions, that is also incredibly fine tuned for life as we know it. This gives the strong appearance of design by a focused, sentient superintelligence that creatively invents, not one that is not self-aware. By analogy, in our experience the only source of greatly complex specified information (in the form of intricate machines and mechanisms) is focused sentient human intelligence.

I agree that the impression of a Source that is brimming with self-aware intelligence can be overwhelming, and there's something compelling about such an interpretation. However, phrases such as "natural laws", "beautiful mathematical constructions", "sentient superintelligence", "creatively inventing", "complex specified information", etc. could be akin to icons we use on our "desktop" to grope towards a better understanding of reality.

How do we model the putative self-aware intelligence of Source? Why, on our own experience/understanding of ourselves. But we don't have words to describe how Source experiences Itself except through what could be just rough approximations expressed in language.

Source seems inscrutible, well beyond our present capacity to understand. Just as how we understand the term "intelligence" is well beyond the simple sentience of a paramecium, what we label "intelligence" in Source could well be beyond, and as yet alien to, what we label as intelligence in our own minds. It may not even make sense to make the comparison.

As one example, we think in terms of natural laws, and in using the word "laws", we unwittingly project onto Source the role of a law maker. It's as if the laws are, in a sense, separate from Itself, something with an independent existence. However, to "create" in this way tends to introduce a dualism between Source and Creation, and I instinctively bridle at that: I tend to intuit some kind of monism is in operation that language tends to make a dualism of.

I wonder whether the "mentation" of Source can be described as "intelligent", and whether Source can be described as a "creator" with "intention", modelled on how we understand our own somewhat limited ability to create. I have this sense that such words don't do justice to what It might actually be; but the words are all we have and we have become mesmerised by them.

Occasionally, I seem to get fleeting glimpses of a Source that isn't "intelligent" and "creative" so much as the very embodiment of what such words are feebly pointing towards. Source is being what it is, and that includes qualities we may tacitly see as distinct and separate, "lable-able" if you like.

It's so difficult to put across what I mean, because I, as much as anyone, am limited to what I can communicate in words. It's just that now and then I get those fleeting glimpses, which I experience wordlessly. The process of trying to translate them into everyday language more often than not leaves me frustrated.

Maybe poetry helps. One villanelle I wrote sometimes seems (on good days), to encapsulate something of what I'm trying to get at:

Riddle (reality)

Like ermine kissed by candlelight,
like breath on skin, but softer still,
it’s hardly something you could fight:
you’d easier nail a lark in flight
for singing songs that sound too shrill.
 
Like ermine kissed by candlelight,
but calculating, if polite,
it cultivates a marksman’s skill.
It’s hardly something you could fight:
exploding suns can flare less bright;
 
be thankful for its muted thrill--
like ermine, kissed by candlelight?
An owl’s stoop in blackest night?
 
Whether you think it warm or chill,
it’s hardly something you could fight;
absurd to thrash, as if it might
come crashing in to steal your will.
 
Like ermine kissed by candlelight,
it’s hardly something you could fight.

............................................................................

Source seems inscrutible, well beyond our present capacity to understand. Just as how we understand the term "intelligence" is well beyond the simple sentience of a paramecium, what we label "intelligence" in Source could well be beyond, and as yet alien to, what we label as intelligence in our own minds. It may not even make sense to make the comparison.

.............................................................................

I wonder whether the "mentation" of Source can be described as "intelligent", and whether Source can be described as a "creator" with "intention", modelled on how we understand our own somewhat limited ability to create. I have this sense that such words don't do justice to what It might actually be; but the words are all we have and we have become mesmerised by them.

Occasionally, I seem to get fleeting glimpses of a Source that isn't "intelligent" and "creative" so much as the very embodiment of what such words are feebly pointing towards. Source is being what it is, and that includes qualities we may tacitly see as distinct and separate, "lable-able" if you like.

.............................................................................

The capacities and qualities required of a talented human designer (the most important ones relevant to this discussion bolded):

Overall, the ability for absolutely clear-cut and purposeful intellectual activity
An inventive and intuitive mind
Capacity to visualize
The imaginative resources to appreciate imagined possible interactions, transmissions, distributions, etc. of phenomena
Integrating capacity
Ability to think logically
Ability to concentrate
Inventive talent
Memory 
Conscientiousness
Sense of responsibility
Perseverance
Strength of will
Aesthetic sense

It seems to me that the creative designing of our Universe and system of natural laws so as to accomplish a vast number of evident some time conflicting goals and purposes must have required a superintelligence with at least these sorts of capacities though magnified vastly beyond the human, certainly actually many more. These capacities and qualities are those of a focused sentient superintelligence. If it is claimed that such creativity and inventiveness did not require these human-like qualities and capacities that we have found to be essential to creating and designing complex mechanisms, then it needs to be suggested what actually was required and how it worked. So this claim is at best a promissory note.

It is evident from astronomy and astrophysics that the present laws of physics applied in the early Universe probably starting with the Big Bang. The supremely creative acts of what seems to have been a sentient superintelligence seem to have already taken place. However, according to panpsychist and monistic speculation, this was an era when some form of proto-consciousness was just then "evolving", complexifying  and becoming more sophisticated, slowly creating and embodying into matter. So this speculation does not fit either the evident requirements or the astrophysics evidence. Then there is also the evidence from parapsychology. Empirical evidence from PSI, afterlife communication and reincarnation research also conflicts.

I agree that the impression of a Source that is brimming with self-aware intelligence can be overwhelming, and there's something compelling about such an interpretation. However, phrases such as "natural laws", "beautiful mathematical constructions", "sentient superintelligence", "creatively inventing", "complex specified information", etc. could be akin to icons we use on our "desktop" to grope towards a better understanding of reality.

How do we model the putative self-aware intelligence of Source? Why, on our own experience/understanding of ourselves. But we don't have words to describe how Source experiences Itself except through what could be just rough approximations expressed in language.

Source seems inscrutible, well beyond our present capacity to understand. Just as how we understand the term "intelligence" is well beyond the simple sentience of a paramecium, what we label "intelligence" in Source could well be beyond, and as yet alien to, what we label as intelligence in our own minds. It may not even make sense to make the comparison.

As one example, we think in terms of natural laws, and in using the word "laws", we unwittingly project onto Source the role of a law maker. It's as if the laws are, in a sense, separate from Itself, something with an independent existence. However, to "create" in this way tends to introduce a dualism between Source and Creation, and I instinctively bridle at that: I tend to intuit some kind of monism is in operation that language tends to make a dualism of.

I wonder whether the "mentation" of Source can be described as "intelligent", and whether Source can be described as a "creator" with "intention", modelled on how we understand our own somewhat limited ability to create. I have this sense that such words don't do justice to what It might actually be; but the words are all we have and we have become mesmerised by them.

Occasionally, I seem to get fleeting glimpses of a Source that isn't "intelligent" and "creative" so much as the very embodiment of what such words are feebly pointing towards. Source is being what it is, and that includes qualities we may tacitly see as distinct and separate, "lable-able" if you like.

It's so difficult to put across what I mean, because I, as much as anyone, am limited to what I can communicate in words. It's just that now and then I get those fleeting glimpses, which I experience wordlessly. The process of trying to translate them into everyday language more often than not leaves me frustrated.

Maybe poetry helps. One villanelle I wrote sometimes seems (on good days), to encapsulate something of what I'm trying to get at:

Riddle (reality)

Like ermine kissed by candlelight,
like breath on skin, but softer still,
it’s hardly something you could fight:
you’d easier nail a lark in flight
for singing songs that sound too shrill.
 
Like ermine kissed by candlelight,
but calculating, if polite,
it cultivates a marksman’s skill.
It’s hardly something you could fight:
exploding suns can flare less bright;
 
be thankful for its muted thrill--
like ermine, kissed by candlelight?
An owl’s stoop in blackest night?
 
Whether you think it warm or chill,
it’s hardly something you could fight;
absurd to thrash, as if it might
come crashing in to steal your will.
 
Like ermine kissed by candlelight,
it’s hardly something you could fight.

I appreciate the effort you put into trying to communicate intuitions of the ineffable. I do agree that Source is ultimately inscrutable, but I think that It must embody as part of Its incomprehensibly vast nature at least hugely magnified versions of the qualities I listed. Designing and creating complex mechanisms simply absolutely requires focused thought of a sentient being, ignoring for the time being claims for the creativity of Darwinian mechanisms. Anyway, I am more limited to rational thought. I do have some intuitions, and unfortunately they are rather different: my intuition is of what I have described however poorly.

Courtesy of the Daily Grail, here's an article on panpsychism at Quartz:
https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-eve...edibility/