|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #1008886 added April 21, 2021 at 12:07am
Restrictions: None
Mind Matters
Well, I haven't mentioned this subject in a while. The article is from 2018, but I just found it recently.
I think the last time I ragged on panpsychism was about a year ago. This article has the added benefit of the word "vibrate" in the headline, which makes me want to make vibrator jokes. But those would be too easy, so I'll try to restrain myself.
Why is my awareness here, while yours is over there? Why is the universe split in two for each of us, into a subject and an infinity of objects? How is each of us our own center of experience, receiving information about the rest of the world out there? Why are some things conscious and others apparently not? Is a rat conscious? A gnat? A bacterium?
"Infinity?" [citation needed]
Over the last decade, my colleague, University of California, Santa Barbara psychology professor Jonathan Schooler and I have developed what we call a “resonance theory of consciousness.” We suggest that resonance – another word for synchronized vibrations – is at the heart of not only human consciousness but also animal consciousness and of physical reality more generally. It sounds like something the hippies might have dreamed up – it’s all vibrations, man! – but stick with me.
Because if there's any place where such a hypothesis could emerge, it would be Santa Barbara.
Based on the observed behavior of the entities that surround us, from electrons to atoms to molecules, to bacteria to mice, bats, rats, and on, we suggest that all things may be viewed as at least a little conscious. This sounds strange at first blush, but “panpsychism” – the view that all matter has some associated consciousness – is an increasingly accepted position with respect to the nature of consciousness.
I've laid out my problem with panpsychism before. In brief: where's the evidence, for or against? Is it falsifiable? Can we do experiments on it? Because otherwise it's just an idea. Maybe it's a good idea - I mean, can it really hurt to consider all things as related? But to me it has one great flaw, which is that if you claim that every atom has some kind of consciousness, you dilute any definition of consciousness. Like when you call time an illusion, you change the definition of "illusion."
Still, the article is worth reading, because who knows? Maybe they're onto something (as opposed to on something, which is the usual state necessary to claim "It's all ONE, dude.") From a purely physical standpoint, it's clear that there's a deep connection between all life, and for that matter, all matter. What's not clear to me is that consciousness, which from the standpoint of parsimony might be better described as an emergent property of an individual's neural connections, also comes from some sort of lower-level consciousness.
It's a lot to think about, and it's not like I can come up with a more compelling idea. So I keep reading on the subject, and thus, sharing what I find.
After all, that's what group consciousness is all about, yes? |
© Copyright 2021 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
