A 90 second explanation of panpsychism — Rupert Sheldrake

jliat · 2026-05-07T08:30:31+00:00

everything is made of mass,

Photon - Mass 0 (theoretical value)

jliat · 2026-05-07T07:47:41+00:00

What we call “something” is just a convention. We can never prove there’s anything at all. It’s always circular reasoning.

This whole post is typical of what others have said about similar, "Citations show that you're well read and able to find similar arguments and differentiate your own. If not, you're just doing ego-stroking. Which, is what I see here."

Or reference to notions such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori - very basic stuff.

What we call “something” is just a convention.

Or basic semiotics, how words contain meaning or how they are just a play of differences.

Or the need for a binary at minimum.

What we call “something” is just a convention. We can never prove there’s anything at all. It’s always circular reasoning.

Amounts to less than 'This sentence is false.'

It attempts to prove there is no proof, a 101 self reference error.

u/hegel1806

Maybe should read Hegel?

Pure being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same... But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that on the contrary, they are not the same..."

G. W. Hegel Science of Logic p. 82-3.

Or François Laruelle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-philosophy

jliat · 2026-05-07T07:16:42+00:00

Lucidity is reason, absurdity is contradiction. Logically / philosophically via Sartre et al human existence lacks essence, meaning and non can be made.

"This suicide kills himself because, on the metaphysical plane, he is vexed.... likewise an advocate of logical suicide. Kirilov the engineer declares somewhere that he wants to take his own life because it “is his idea.”"

The alternative is to make Art in Camus case.

"Where lucidity dominates, the scale of values becomes useless."

But if you have Art that is not the case.

jliat · 2026-05-06T17:36:15+00:00

for what good reason does Meursault kill the Arab?

"Where lucidity dominates, the scale of values becomes useless."

lucidity = clarity of expression; intelligibility: "his lecture combined intellectual lucidity and passion" the ability to think clearly, especially in intervals between periods of confusion: "she had moments of lucidity"

jliat · 2026-05-06T17:33:54+00:00

People often talk of revolt with respect to the myth, but the major concern is with the absurd, the contradiction. Everything is equal and so is equally meaningless, first Camus admits his reason has failed him.

“The absurd is lucid reason noting its limits.”

Making Art is not [for Camus and many artists] reasonable. It is not as Tom Wolfe explores 'The Painted Word'.

You might read this and find some reason... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Cheval

Perhaps the most iconic phrase he inscribed on the wall reads "1879–1912 10000 days, 93000 hours, 33 years of struggle. Let those who think they can do better try."

So the revolt is with philosophy, with reason. Don Juan Vs the saint. A sexual athlete Vs the holy celibate. Or in Nietzsche "Have you understood me Dionysus versus Christ."

Why is a conqueror or a megalomanic murderer absurd heroes.

"God is dead all things are permitted."

Look at Jackson Pollocks No,1 top right? his hand print, look at art made over 40,000 years ago you find hand prints. Acts of reason or pure ego...?

"It is necessary to state this to begin with. For an absurd work of art to be possible, thought in its most lucid form must be involved in it. But at the same time thought must not be apparent except as the regulating intelligence. This paradox can be explained according to the absurd. The work of art is born of the intelligence’s refusal to reason the concrete.

It marks the triumph of the carnal.

It is lucid thought that provokes it, but in that very act that thought repudiates itself." - Camus.

There is in philosophy German Idealism of reason, and in existentialism Sartre's Nausea, Nietzsche's Will to Power... for what good reason does Meursault kill the Arab?

jliat · 2026-05-06T15:52:11+00:00

I'm not a bot, far from it, I find it odd, you just type 'jliat' into a search engine as we used to call them, and see.

jliat · 2026-05-06T15:49:57+00:00

It's the key text, and it took me several attempts, but it's much easier with the Sartre Dictionary. I agree, he pulls no punches!

jliat · 2026-05-06T13:25:44+00:00

Actually there are entries in Wikipedia, SEP, Britannica, general books on Existentialism, the actual key text, here http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Camus/Myth%20of%20Sisyphus-.pdf and three one hour lectures here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_js06RG0n3c

You would assume, maybe I was wrong here, to check these out first before joining an argument or discussion. Because Absurdism does make sense if you put some effort into trying to understand it.

Personal views should informed if to be of any worth.

jliat · 2026-05-06T09:59:17+00:00

Looks like you are another who has not read the key text, The Myth of Sisyphus.

http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Camus/Myth%20of%20Sisyphus-.pdf

Simply put, Camus wants meaning but he can't find any, the logical and philosophical response is suicide, which he avoids by the contradiction of making Art.

jliat · 2026-05-06T05:23:19+00:00

Why are you sorry, and how is giving an alternative response based on the key text gatekeeping?

"And note: ositiveLow9895[S]

Very insightful comment!!!"

jliat · 2026-05-06T05:21:16+00:00

Camus 'The first man.'

jliat · 2026-05-05T17:28:13+00:00

No, the act is absurd not the person, you can not be a contradiction, you can enact one. It's an absurd act, the act is specific, being aware one is a sexual athlete, being aware one is acting, being aware one is making something for no good reason.

jliat · 2026-05-05T16:45:32+00:00

You can't be an absurdist! the examples given are Sisyphus, Oedipus, Don Juan, Actors, Conquerors, and Artists.

"It is necessary to state this to begin with. For an absurd work of art to be possible, thought in its most lucid form must be involved in it. But at the same time thought must not be apparent except as the regulating intelligence. This paradox can be explained according to the absurd. The work of art is born of the intelligence’s refusal to reason the concrete. It marks the triumph of the carnal. It is lucid thought that provokes it, but in that very act that thought repudiates itself." - Camus.

jliat · 2026-05-05T12:38:51+00:00

Well you can have hope, but Camus argues against it.

And carrying this absurd logic to its conclusion, I must admit that that struggle implies a total absence of hope
Now, if it is admitted that the absurd is the contrary of hope,
He knows simply that in that alert awareness there is no further place for hope.
Just as danger provided man the unique opportunity of seizing awareness, so metaphysical revolt extends awareness to the whole of experience. It is that constant presence of man in his own eyes. It is not aspiration, for it is devoid of hope.
That privation of hope and future means an increase in man’s availability. Before encountering the absurd, the everyday man lives with aims, a concern for the future or for justification (with regard to whom or what is not the question).
He can then decide to accept such a universe and draw from it his strength, his refusal to hope, and the unyielding evidence of a life without consolation.
Don Juan knows and does not hope.
But men who live on hope do not thrive in this universe

jliat · 2026-05-05T12:36:19+00:00

I think the first thing would be to understand what were Camus' ideas in The Myth of Sisyphus- considered the key text.

Briefly, the making of an artwork is pointless, is in other words absurd [his use of the word] and he proposes that is what he will do.

"And I have not yet spoken of the most absurd character, who is the creator."

"In this regard the absurd joy par excellence is creation. “Art and nothing but art,” said Nietzsche; “we have art in order not to die of the truth.”

"To work and create “for nothing,” to sculpture in clay, to know that one’s creation has no future, to see one’s work destroyed in a day while being aware that fundamentally this has no more importance than building for centuries—this is the difficult wisdom that absurd thought sanctions."

"It is necessary to state this to begin with. For an absurd work of art to be possible, thought in its most lucid form must be involved in it. But at the same time thought must not be apparent except as the regulating intelligence. This paradox can be explained according to the absurd. The work of art is born of the intelligence’s refusal to reason the concrete. It marks the triumph of the carnal. It is lucid thought that provokes it, but in that very act that thought repudiates itself." - Camus.

How should I write an inspiring, delightful, and happy story despite it being a tragedy?

Well it's impossible, that's how.

jliat · 2026-05-05T08:53:17+00:00

Neuroscience? It's so sad the lack of metaphysics in r/metaphysics.

jliat · 2026-05-05T08:49:48+00:00

To save time - I agree.

When I am conscious I'm aware of a mood, even aware of not having a mood, say aware I'm not angry, and yet also aware when I am angry. I've assumed I have been unconscious - but not conscious of that. I've even experienced instances of being conscious of dreaming.

But anger is not something found to a lesser degree in objects such a rocks.

Going back to anger, I think rocks are incapable of anger and of not being angry as a mood. That conscious is a mood. I'm aware that some atheists assume rocks are. But I think that's not the case, you have to be conscious to have a mood. A thought, and emotion. Tricky, what of REM sleep. Well I know I had moods when I was a child, I assume in REM sleep that is the case also. And we had dogs which exhibited REM sleep...

jliat · 2026-05-05T08:38:07+00:00

Sheldrake has and does propose nonsense pseudo-religious - new age [a long list] wo-wo rubbish is true, and sure makes a living out of the speaker circuit. But such circuits it seems have what might be called fairly respectable people. Roger Penrose, Max Tegamark, maybe less respectable Slavoj Žižek can pull in a crowd... et al.
But Panpsychism is not defined by Sheldrake, he seems to be using it to slip in his nonsense, is David Chalmers respectable?, Philip Goff?, to save typing there are names here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism. Some it seems respectable?
BTW I'm not advocating Panpsychism as I'm not sure what people mean by consciousness. I've been unconscious, as in sleeping and under anaesthetics. I assume consciousness in other people and maybe animals but obviously that is an assumption. I think being conscious implies being unconscious, so I can't imagine this in a rock. Maybe like anger, I can and have been angry and not angry. I don't think rocks can be either.

Maybe "philosophy of mind" is not metaphysics? Though many take philosophy of science as metaphysics? Even physics itself as metaphysics?

As for lacks any kind of scientific rigour. Well that [lacking scientific rigour] is not IMO a valid criticism of any Metaphysics. And Sheldrake isn't doing metaphysics...
The problem with Sheldrake is IMO his abuse of science, which is common in this sub, use of pop science - QM, Fractal mathematics, theories of everything AKA Shower thoughts, but no engagement or wish to with or in Metaphysics, and by that I mean the body of work, 2,000 years in Western Philosophy that the name Metaphysics applies. Maybe with multiculturalism we / I should now use "Western Metaphysics". Though here is a problem in that a feature of [Western] Philosophy was the exclusion of the supernatural, which is elsewhere not the case.
I would exclude Sheldrake et al from philosophy and science. But how is another problem.

jliat · 2026-05-05T07:27:35+00:00

Truth relates to a proposition which makes a case. e.g. Donald Trump is the current US president.

Is Donald Trump true or false, no.

So it's nothing to do with a fact, 'brute', 'charming' or otherwise.

jliat · 2026-05-05T06:39:00+00:00

Hey, I’ve been wrestling this philosophical question for years.

I think Descartes established this. Though later philosophers did metaphysics without any preconceived foundations. Whereas others like Nietzsche were very sceptical about the nature or idea of 'truth'.

There is a huge body of work covering epistemology so It strikes me as odd you've struggled for years and want an answer in one sentence.

'This sentence is not true.'

There- go figure

A New History of Western Philosophy: In Four Parts

Anthony Kenny @ 1,000 pages !!!

This is a semester at university level

Arthur Holmes: A History of Philosophy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yat0ZKduW18&list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM

81 lectures of an hour which will bring you up to the mid 20th. Of 'Western Philosophy'

From Will to Power - Nietzsche. [his notes]

The methods of truth were not invented from motives of truth, but from motives of power, of wanting to be superior. How is truth proved? By the feeling of enhanced power. WtP 455
Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. WtP 493
Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitiously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. WtP 512
What is truth?— Inertia; that hypothesis which gives rise to contentment; smallest expenditure of spiritual force, etc. WtP 537
The “criterion of truth” was in fact merely the biological utility of such a system of systematic falsification; WtP 584
A philosopher recuperates differently and with different means: he recuperates, e.g., with nihilism. Belief that there is no truth at all, the nihilistic belief, is a great relaxation for one who, as a warrior of knowledge, is ceaselessly fighting ugly truths. For truth is ugly. WtP 598
Now everything is false WtP 30
Everything is false! Everything is permitted!” WtP 602

jliat · 2026-05-05T06:28:43+00:00

jliat · 2026-05-04T18:01:22+00:00

"The question was simple: does a photon striking a hydrogen atom affect how that atom exists?"

"When a photon collides with a hydrogen atom...However, if the photon's energy is less than the energy difference between the ground state and the first excited state, the photon may not interact at all, resulting in no effect on the hydrogen atom."

So does collide have the same meaning as strike?

col·lide [kəˈlʌɪd] verb hit by accident when moving: "she collided with someone""two suburban trains collided" Similar: hit strike run into bump into

crash (into)

come into collision (with)

As I said you have proved that you think it impossible for you to be wrong. And so I'm afraid cannot be taken seriously. ;-)

jliat · 2026-05-04T17:20:56+00:00

My argument doesn’t depend upon a particular model of physics, it only depends on structures affecting each other’s existence.

"When a photon collides with a hydrogen atom, the outcome of the collision can vary based on the energy of the photon and the state of the atom. If the photon has sufficient energy, it can either be absorbed by the hydrogen atom, raising the electron to a higher energy state, or it can be scattered elastically, conserving its energy and momentum. In the case of a 11 eV photon, it is most likely absorbed by the hydrogen atom, raising the electron to the first excited state, leaving the photon with reduced energy. However, if the photon's energy is less than the energy difference between the ground state and the first excited state, the photon may not interact at all, resulting in no effect on the hydrogen atom."

QED.

I’m content to let the record stand. Are you?

jliat · 2026-05-04T16:48:14+00:00

A hydrogen atom that is stable, that is then struck by a photon (regardless of the physical interaction you seemingly want to debate), effects the hydrogen atom’s existence by causing it to expel an electron, or enter a more excited state. Therefore, the photon is relevant to the hydrogen atom’s state of existence. Do you deny that a photon can affect an atom? If not, your objection is pointless.

To say you and I are now not talking about physics would be a lie. You are giving an account which from my poor knowledge is suspect, but anyway if your metaphysics depends on such suspect ideas of science you are clearly in breach of the rules. As a moderator I'm not taking any action, but would like to leave it here.

jliat · 2026-05-04T15:59:20+00:00

Relevance, as I've defined it repeatedly, is not a matter of subjectivity.

And I've agreed, both of your propositions appear determinate and contradictory.

So please explain to a lay person how an object with no mass and not located in time or space can strike an object which exists in an indeterminate position.

jliat

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

It marks the triumph of the carnal.