Thoughts on panpsychism/panexperientialism/panentheism/etc?

Panpsychism is probably correct, but I don’t even remember anymore now how I came around to that position. I think it was just the moment the ‘hard problem’ really clicked with me, like that there really is a hard problem of consciousness, it just became instantly obvious that all matter Must have some sort of pre-conscious aspect,

you've been hit by
you've been struck by
a smoooooooooth cranium

Doesn't panpsychism necessarily imply pandeism? What else would a pre Big Bang singularity resemble other than a deity?

Attached: wallpaper-48786.jpg (1680x1050, 576K)

Maybe some sort of structure is needed for phenomenal consciousness to arise out of matter, in the same way that all atoms have electrical properties, but it’s only in particular circumstances that matter will form a functioning circuit board.

So many it is god, but I don’t think that implies anything like omnipotents or any other properties that most people would ascribed to any definition of god they recognize. It’s Spinoza’s god.

semeiotic animism for söyboys

Bump

kek no

what emerges then? if something emerges isnt that two types of reality and therefore dualism

One could interpret panpychism from the perspective that is everything is consious because it's in a one mind.

No it just means that it develops out of the one type of "stuff", material matter, that consiousness is an illusion or outcome of these physical processes. This is called monism, one type of matter. Dualism proposes that mind and matter are fundamentally two different substances.

>consiousness is an illusion or outcome of these physical processes
seems like it's not really answering anything at all

Obviously it's retarded but thats it's proposition.

Bump

BALD HEAD ASS NIGGA

>smooth as his brain
kek

/sci/ here. I just read half a wikipedia page and I don't think I really get it but it sounds nice.

Btw why does there have to be something underneath representation and why is it assumed that it conforms to the logic implicit in representation. Well they're the same thing, assuming something has to produce it is making it conform to the mind. Why does 1+1=2 and causality have to apply? It seems more like it can't apply. Like, why is the thing beyond our minds assumed to conform to our minds? It's more likely to be incomprehensible, incommensurable with the mechanics of our mind/brain, or the very notion of mechanics or the very notion of notions. It's the same thing with the 'creation' of the universe. If the universe doesn't exist then the logic we use to grasp beginnings and ends, causes and results doesn't necessarily exist. It's incomprehensible because comprehension doesn't necessarily exist. Or even existence and nonexistence. Any thought or distinction. Why is it assumed any of this makes sense just because we understand things in terms of these concepts? Especially considering evolution and that what we are mentally capable of is quite specific, quite narrow. Basically built for living as an animal, not a transcendental perfect consciousness unbound by linear or singular or temporal perception, or the million other things you could say are limitations, which wouldn't be good enough anyway because it has borders and form due to still being a thing that takes input and conjures an experience. It's more like lack of consciousness and perception is truth, but that's still in terms of consciousness and perception.

But anyway, how can anyone speak about anything beyond their subjective experience as if it applies? Isn't anything theorymaking still contained within that subjective experience. Like science is based a huge mountain of subjective experience based things.

Bump

Emergence is just a modern elaboration on the Epistrophê of Neoplatonism.

Satanic

I prefer non-dualism

Attached: wh.png (624x624, 141K)

I like your thoughts but where do you draw the line for representation?