Is panpsychism /cosmopsychism therefore an emergent property of the Universe? — universeness

Except as idle speculation – no. "Panosychism / cosmopsychism" (is) just woo-of-the-explanatory-gaps.

Panpsychism was supported by plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Bertrand Russell etc

I'm only interested in Spinoza – tell me what textual evidence from Spinoza's writings (or correspondances) corroborates his alleged "panpsychism ... support". I think you're quite mistaken about him (& Russell too).

I agree that both panpsychism and cosmopsychism are pure conjecture but I do find them intriguing.

I'm only interested in Spinoza – tell me what textual evidence from Spinoza's writings (or correspondances) corroborates his alleged "panpsychism ... support". I think you're quite mistaken about him (& Russell too) — 180 Proof

I wish I was more 'well read' on Spinoza and on many others but I am not.
I merely copied the claim that Spinoza supported panpsychism from wikipedia's offering on panpsychism
The main quote is:

"It is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers including Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, William James,[3] Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, and Galen Strawson"

Panpsychism was supported by plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Bertrand Russell etc — universeness

Your first clue that you're not onto something rational.

in the future that we will become more of a collective — universeness

Let's hope not.

could this result in the creation of some form of world, and then eventually, a universal, intellect, where we would still be individuals but also be capable of ‘connecting and collectivising’ our brain power. — universeness

It already has numerous times, they call that religion. Which is really just hatred of self, and love of non-self in a way that seems coherent. Which is why it has always pursued the death of people who were accepting the nature of what they actual were, which was a singular self.

I prefer the new fangled philosophy of pan-fuckoffism, which holds that I must be able to verify claims and assertions, before voluntarily incorporating it into my neural network of understandings.

It already has numerous times, they call that religion. Which is really just hatred of self, and love of non-self in a way that seems coherent. Which is why it has always pursued the death of people who were accepting the nature of what they actual were, which was a singular self — Garrett Travers

I don't think that collectivism always results in a religious outbreak that becomes a controlling doctrine of the collective. As a socialist, I fully support the necessity of the democratic freedom of the individual but this must be balanced with the equally necessary security and well-being of all. Getting that balance correct is the most complex part of any socialist agenda and it has never been achieved so far by any national political system.

The god concept is normally rejected as intelligence levels increase and fear levels reduce.
I think that's why few scientists are religious. If 'question asking and answering' becomes more and more networked in the future and if future transhumans demonstrate abilities to communicate in advanced ways then we will answer questions at an increasing pace. This will surely produce the technologies we need to move into the big space outside of this pale blue dot.

I don't subscribe to many of the current tenets of pan or cosmo psychism, but they have aspects, which I think are valid when the history of the pace of the discovery of new knowledge is considered.

Perhaps we will have to survive WW3 first, based on the current brinksmanship being played out between Russia, China, USA and Europe.

As a socialist — universeness

What's that?

I fully support the necessity of the democratic freedom of the individual — universeness

This is a contradiction. Individuals are not free, if they are "granted" access to participate in a social contract that they didn't agree to. Democracy is antithetical to freedom, always has been, always wiil be by definition.

must be balanced with the equally necessary security and well-being of all — universeness

This is also a contradiction. My well-being consists of 100% self-determination. If your "security" involves violating my basic need of 100% self-determination to provide "well-being" for people who are not me, then you're a dictator.

Getting that balance correct is the most complex part of any socialist — universeness

No, it is an impossibility for any tyrant, that's why socialists won't stop murdering people, just like the rest of the religious. The "balance" is you fucking off, and tending to your own affairs within your own purview. My purview is not your business, property, responsibility, nor are welcome in my sphere of influence on this basis of intereaction.

it has never been achieved so far by any national political system. — universeness

Yes, because "politics" means murder, nothing else. All politics are anti-human. It is a slave-driving organization. It hasn't been "achieved" because what it "achieves" is death, it is an organization predicated on forcing humans to perform labor it wants it to perform, and will never be anything else. All political action is reprehensibile immorality, and anti-human.

The god concept is normally rejected as intelligence levels increase and fear levels reduce. — universeness

No, it isn't. The vast majority of humans are either committedly religious, or adherents of bastardized, contorted, plagiarised, derivatives of its 2000 year influence over the intellect, like socialism. Socialism is just a pagan adaptation of concepts, all faith-based, pulled directly from Christianity, that Christianity usurped through murder and perverted from actually peaceful societies that were predicated on anti-god and anti-state, the only peaceful and thriving communities in history. You've been duped, brother.

I think that's why few scientists are religious. — universeness

Most scientists and academicians are religious in their thinking, even if they reject one god over another. Any blind faith in any non-material phenomena is religious thought.

This will surely produce the technologies we need to move into the big space outside of this pale blue dot. — universeness

Don't make me laugh.

which I think are valid — universeness

Name one, then show me some evidence for its support.

Russia, China, USA and Europe. — universeness

So the Fascist-Socialist-Christian-Relatvist WW3, nothing has changed at all. I wonder when people will learn.

Thank you for your frank reply. I understand your true position much more clearly now.

Thank you for your frank reply. I understand your true position much more clearly now. — universeness

I am glad you do. That all being forcefully said, I kindly invite you to read the post I just issued on the main page.

able to verify claims and assertions — Garrett Travers

Panpsychism is verifiable

Panpsychism is verifiable — bert1

Okay, then it should be easy for you to get me the evidence?

Sure, anything happening at all

Sure, anything happening at all — bert1

No, that's just objective material phenomena. I mean evidence for your claim of: the mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality.

Where do you see this mind? Any evidence of this mind that 1. cannot be attributed to natural processes, and 2. can be attributed to mental processes? You'll need both to make this claim, if you don't have both, you are playing make-believe.

The only "woo" is hardline materialism: the equivalent of thinking the Earth is flat.

I kindly invite you to read the post I just issued on the main page. — Garrett Travers

You know more about the academic subject of philosophy than I do in the same way that I know more about the academic subject of Computing Science than you do. Career choice and qualifications, obviously influence expertise.

On the issue of politics, typings such as:

What's that? as your response to my 'as a socialist.'

Democracy is antithetical to freedom — Garrett Travers

If your "security" involves violating my basic need of 100% self-determination to provide "well-being" for people who are not me, then you're a dictator. — Garrett Travers

Yes, because "politics" means murder, nothing else. All politics are anti-human. It is a slave-driving organization — Garrett Travers

Socialism is just a pagan adaptation of concepts, all faith-based, pulled directly from Christianity — Garrett Travers

You've been duped, brother. — Garrett Travers

Sound like angry words based on some kind of bitter and twisted, personal, irrational emotions you have towards all things political.
There is a political chasm between us based on the viewpoints you typed above.
If your philosophical conclusions have informed your political viewpoints then I think you should disconnect the two.
I can only hope you never hold political office or become able to influence politicians.

Sound like angry words based on some kind of bitter and twisted, personal, irrational emotions you have towards all things political. — universeness

No, it's just accurate descriptions. Instead of characterizing my words, argue against them.

There is a political chasm between us based on the viewpoints you typed above. — universeness

I know that, that's because everything you've been taught to believe about politics is a lie.

If your philosophical conclusions have informed your political viewpoints then I think you should disconnect the two. — universeness

Yes, human freedom and politics are contradictory.

I can only hope you never hold political office or become able to influence politicians. — universeness

I.... Don't believe in politics.... I regard politics as evil.... Evil people aren't influenced by ethics, nor do ethical people take part in politics. That's what I was conveying to you. It's a shame that politics isn't registering to you as the single greatest source of homicide in human history. That leads me to hope YOU never take office or influence such an evil institution, as you don't realize it is evil. Don't know how you must a conclusion this bad.

And a society run by me, just for kickers, would be characterized by a moratorium on anything that could be conceived of as a political institution.

No, it's just accurate descriptions. Instead of characterizing my words, argue against them — Garrett Travers

Accurate, only in your opinion. It is natural for me to categorise that which I consider an 'extreme' viewpoint to be just that, extreme. I find to argue against such 'chiseled' viewpoints, over a discussion forum, pointless. Face to face, yes, I would make the effort. On this forum, no, not worth the energy investment.

I know that, that's because everything you've been taught to believe about politics is a lie — Garrett Travers

You do not know everything I have been taught about politics. You do not normally make such irrational statements. Perhaps you are just 'stressed' due to exchanges you have had recently on other threads.
On reading some of them I felt exasperated for you but you fight your corner very very well.

That's what I was conveying to you. It's a shame that politics isn't registering to you as the single greatest source of homicide in human history. — Garrett Travers

Don't confuse politics and some evil politicians. Do you have no political role models? Dead or alive? Are all politicians evil? Please don't say yes because that would just be IRRATIONAL!
The human race needs good people in positions of power. Politics are a reality within the human experience. Use your impressive philosophical knowledge to help make and maintain better politicians.
If you do and you stop making the misguided political comments you have made in this thread, then I for one would change from hoping you never have political power, to voting for you, because WE NEED GOOD PEOPLE IN POLITICAL POSITIONS OF POWER!

Accurate, only in your opinion. It is natural for me to categorise that which I consider an 'extreme' viewpoint to be just that, extreme. I find to argue against such 'chiseled' viewpoints, over a discussion forum, pointless. Face to face, yes, I would make the effort. On this forum, no, not worth the energy investment. — universeness

For my opinion to be extreme, you will have to provide more examples of politics not clearly being used to murder people, enslave people, or otherwise violate human consciousness than what I can provide you in the opposite direction. Who do you think is going to provide more evidence in such a case?

. I find to argue against such 'chiseled' viewpoints, over a discussion forum, pointless. Face to face, yes, I would make the effort. On this forum, no, not worth the energy investment. — universeness

No, this is you recognizing that you are unable to argue it. Which is okay, this is a hard pill to swallow, but you will never be able to argue against it. So, henceforth you will be forced to believe something on 10000 years of contradictory evidence.

You do not know everything I have been taught about politics. — universeness

I bet I hit the nail on the head, though. You've been told enough to not realize that political organizations are the humans most prolific murderer.

You do not normally make such irrational statements — universeness

I haven't said anything irrational. I have described the overt behavior of political organizations. Do you need sources? I'll show them to you if you need.

Perhaps you are just 'stressed' due to exchanges you have had recently on other threads. — universeness

Exchanges online don't stress me out. Especially not the ones I've had here.

On reading some of them I felt exasperated for you but you fight your corner very very well. — universeness

Thank you, I have a lot of fun dispelling irrational conclusions.

Don't confuse politics and some evil politicians. — universeness

Okay. Find me someone that belongs to a political party that has never killed someone, and I will call those specific ones by another name forevermore, truly.

Do you have no political role models? — universeness

No. Not so far in history. James Madison did more for anyone in history, politically by, establishing the country and limiting it with the 1st Amendmendment, which was inspired by Jefferson, who got his ideas from Epicurus, who founded the most peaceful societies in history, which were apolitical to the core. Stateless, voluntary communes, the first in history. The U.S. is founded on protecting the ethical principles of Epicurus. Go have a look, you'll like it.

Politics are a reality within the human experience. — universeness

It seems that way, friend. But, 90% of human history is characterized by stateless, agrarian communes of ideologically homogenous people. Only our ignorance, lack of philosophy, presence of mystic fear, and inclination toward agression in our primitive history, is what gave rise to politics about 10000 years ago, which have always been murderous.

Use your impressive philosophical knowledge to help make and maintain better politicians. — universeness

I can't, if those politicians cannot grasp the inviolability of the human being. That the initiation of force against humans can never breed anything but evil. But, don't worry. I'm working on a life-long philosophical project of establishing that ethical principle in an objective way. I cannot do it alone. It falls on everyone who can help to spread this standard henceforth, everywhere it can be spread, for the sake of our future generations.

If you do and you stop making the misguided political comments you have made in this thread, then I for one would change from hoping you never have political power, to voting for you, because WE NEED GOOD PEOPLE IN POLITICAL POSITIONS OF POWER! — universeness

I know we do, man. And I want you to know that such a statement means a great deal to me. And if I have offended you, know I didn't mean to, I'm just passionate about philosophy in a way that is.... strange. But, politics is an offshoot of ethics. Unless this fundamental principle can be established, the inviolability of the human, in the mind of the average person, no such thing will ever be possible, and our only hope will be to split into communities.

If you doubt me, you need only look East. On this very day in the 21st century, post world war, all one has to do is to turn their gaze and see what I have told them made manifest, and how your politicians let it happen knowing it was coming. I'm so ashamed of these people, and they will be made to answer for what they've done, and continue to do. Just as Hitler is made to eternally.

I will just have to accept your rather nuanced way of looking at politics, so I would not vote for you at the moment. I still think that you are not the kind of person who would use advantage to gain power/influence over others in the way that many bad people/politicians do. I don't know you but from your main postings, I think/hope I am correct. We need more good people not bad Putin's

Okay. Find me someone that belongs to a political party that has never killed someone, and I will call those specific ones by another name forevermore, truly — Garrett Travers

Hah! I don't fall for 'loaded' questions like this. I name a politician and you reply with something like "how do you know that none of the policies they championed, 'caused the death' of someone, somewhere?"
I have been a member of political parties and I have not killed anyone but did I vote for a policy that caused the death of someone somewhere? We are all potential voters. Is this 'philosophical' evidence that we are all potential killers. More so than being a potential killer by being born?

Anyway! I still think the human experience is all about asking and answering questions and I am still intrigued by how the increasing pace of gaining new true and/or fake knowledge might decide/influence our future (possibly transhuman, possibly interstellar) fate.

I will just have to accept your rather nuanced way of looking at politics, so I would not vote for you at the moment. I still think that you are not the kind of person who would use advantage to gain power/influence over others in the way that many bad people/politicians do. I don't know you but from your main postings, I think/hope I am correct. We need more good people not bad Putin's — universeness

Thank you for at least being able to check it out. And no, I would never do such a thing, ethics demands the absence of such interactions between people, by the vary nature of ethics itself. But, I'd like you to think of something. Have you ever considered the nature of how different practices, or art forms kind of call out to certain personality types? For example, I grew up with a very loose household, and got into a lot of trouble. I really fell in love with making music for years, but I hate the idea of playing golf, or shuffleboard. I've noticed the same phenomenon with people who pursue roles in politics, they all have a similar tone, background, personality type. Have you noticed what I'm highlighting, by chance?

Hah! I don't fall for 'loaded' questions like this. — universeness

A loaded question describes a question that is posed to someone, that has a premise that is already assumed for the person being asked the question who has not agreed with the premise. For example, if I asked you : "So, when did you stop beating your child?" This question is predicated on a premise that I assumed was true for you, which you did not verify for me, which means you can't answer the question. It's also called a complex-question. What I actually stated, was a request from you to provide me an example of a good politician from a polity that wasn't responsible for being evil, like murdering someone, or a great deal of people. Not a complex question.

Is this 'philosophical' evidence that we are all potential killers. — universeness

Yes. When you vote, you are voting for your power to force people to live as you wish, at base principle, with volition. I genuinely don't see a work around.

More so than being a potential killer by being born? — universeness

Being born doesn't involve choice. And I have never known of a killer who wasn't the victim of exactly the kind of violation, or a number of them, of which I have described is the source of evil. Namely, violating Human Consciousness.

I still think the human experience is all about asking and answering questions and I am still intrigued by how the increasing pace of gaining new true and/or fake knowledge might decide/influence our future (possibly transhuman, possibly interstellar) fate. — universeness

The unexamined life, is a life not worth living. I am interested too, friend. I hope we come through one day.

Have you ever considered the nature of how different practices, or art forms kind of call out to certain personality types? For example, I grew up with a very loose household, and got into a lot of trouble. I really fell in love with making music for years, but I hate the idea of playing golf, or shuffleboard. I've noticed the same phenomenon with people who pursue roles in politics, they all have a similar tone, background, personality type. Have you noticed what I'm highlighting, by chance? — Garrett Travers

There are generalities, that can be used, to identify such inaccurate categories as 'personality types.'
It is true that your life experiences will affect your 'personality' but individual human nature is malleable and can be massively affected by new knowledge (education) regardless of previous experience or previous nurture. You say you used to get into a lot of trouble. What changed?
I got into trouble in the past but mainly due to standing on picket lines or fighting against abusive employers. I am mostly 'proud' of the trouble I caused. I come from a financially poor background and I am sure there is some truth in the argument that I have been influenced by my background and my nurture but that's only some aspects of who I am. There is much more to me than the influence of early background and nurture.

I concluded you must be asking me a loaded question, as the question:

Okay. Find me someone that belongs to a political party that has never killed someone, and I will call those specific ones by another name forevermore, truly — Garrett Travers

is in the worse case 'silly' and in the best case 'poorly structured.' If you are seriously asking me to name a politician who has never personally killed someone then that's a silly question as the vast majority of politicians have never killed anyone. No human is perfect but I have many political role models from Keir Hardie to Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner and there are many others, none of my role models killed anyone.

I think you conflate politics with the nefarious behavior of individual politicians.
If the leaders of a tribe decide to attack another tribe because members of the second tribe took water from their well and 'game' from their land without permission, Do you blame politics or the political decision made by the leaders of the first tribe?

Yes. When you vote, you are voting for your power to force people to live as you wish, at base principle, with volition. I genuinely don't see a work around — Garrett Travers

You claim you require 100% personal freedom and you offer only your personal code of ethics as a guarantee that you will never infringe upon the personal freedom or well-being of anyone else.
Consider a person who has the exact same ethical standards as you do but they have one difference. They thought it was perfectly ethical (let's say they are 22 years old) to have sex with my consenting 14 year old daughter. I do not agree. I want this man severely punished. You are the arbiter, your decision will become political policy for the tribe. What would you decide to do?

You like the Epicurial commune. I prefer Epicurus and Democritus to Plato as I prefer the atomists Greeks (although in truth I don't much value early Greek or Roman culture) to those associated with god/religious fables but I bet the commune of Epicurus had a political overview and that its politics would have developed had the commune been sustained over a significant time frame and the size of the commune grew and grew. Perhaps Epicurus would have named his political system communism.

Your political viewpoint would mean the humans could only exist in very tiny groups that hardly ever cooperated. We would stagnate and be easily conquered by the first group of maniacs that came along.

which I have described is the source of evil. Namely, violating Human Consciousness. — Garrett Travers

I don't agree that a 'source of evil' exists. Is it evil for a Lion to kill and eat a lamb?
Is it evil for a human to kill and eat a chicken? I assume vegetarians think it is.
To me, there is just 'human behavior' and the political systems we decide to create to control it.
I don't mind the labels 'good' and 'evil,' they are useful but if you need a source then they are simply potential human behaviors, nothing more exciting than that, no supernatural aspects at all.

I want to see the human race leave this planet and start to create off-planet colonies so I have no interest in your, in my opinion, regressive and misguided view of politics.

to identify such inaccurate categories as 'personality types.' — universeness

The thing about this description, is that I agree with you on an emotional level, inaccuracy as a correct descriptor. But, the more I study neuroscience, the more that amorphus concept seems to apply only to conditions of neurological disease, functional issues, trauma. I need more analysis before I can discount it as an applicable term.

It is true that your life experiences will affect your 'personality' but individual human nature is malleable and can be massively affected by new knowledge (education) regardless of previous experience or previous nurture. — universeness

Now, this is the funny stuff. I'll leave you a reseach article on it. Human nature is not malleable, adaptive, but not malleable in enough ways to use that term. Knowledge is the most malleable thing in the universe as far as I know of. The brain operates on recurrent data networks of analysis and integration at all times, when active. Thus, personality is an amorphus term by definition, because data is what informs your personality outside of not-so-malleable genetics and genetic predisposition. Check out this paper, it explains what I mean without getting too into minutia:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333802932_The_Unfolding_Argument_Why_IIT_and_Other_Causal_Structure_Theories_Cannot_Explain_Consciousness?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=0ZjtsYJprdK1bH9EoagNAyoovYSOUvmFyTFP&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=RzhiKwrRXAPA79hV3Pr1UhjDr0zYXOMJe1xl&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=publication&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountLessEqual20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition5%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BwithoutEnrichment%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=5&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle

You say you used to get into a lot of trouble. What changed? — universeness

Philosophy.

I come from a financially poor background and I am sure there is some truth in the argument that I have been influenced by my background and my nurture but that's only some aspects of who I am. There is much more to me than the influence of early background and nurture. — universeness

Me too. And yes, that's kind of the point I'm making. Personality types build over time. And there are certain personality types that have inclinations. One of those inclinations is a desire for power. And the people that develop those personality types are the last people you want in office, and the first people to run off to get elected.

is in the worse case 'silly' and in the best case 'poorly structured.' If you are seriously asking me to name a politician who has never personally killed someone then that's a silly question as the vast majority of politicians have never killed anyone. — universeness

No, I'm asking you to provide me an example of a politician, that either hasn't killed someone, or belongs to a polity or ideological group that has never been known to.

I think you conflate politics with the nefarious behavior of individual politicians. — universeness

No, they do that for me. The entire political apparatus is predicated on an assumed monopoly on force, justified only by force. It is nefarious as an organization and is the cause to all of the worlds societal issues.

If the leaders of a tribe decide to attack another tribe because members of the second tribe took water from their well and 'game' from their land without permission, Do you blame politics or the political decision made by the leaders of the first tribe? — universeness

Attacking a tribe is political action, and what gives rise to political bodies of greater power. The first tribe should definitely not just walk up on peoples established boundaries, but nothing calls for homiced in such actions. Only primitives think along those lines.

You claim you require 100% personal freedom and you offer only your personal code of ethics as a guarantee that you will never infringe upon the personal freedom or well-being of anyone else. — universeness

Yes. I owe nothing else. I owe you that respect, and that respect alone. You have no other entitlement to the contents of my consciousness. But, that, you will receive from me and my people. And if I see yours being violated with force, I will assist you in ending that threat, if you are in my purview of influence.

They thought it was perfectly ethical (let's say they are 22 years old) to have sex with my consenting 14 year old daughter. — universeness

You're 14 year old daughter is not a consenting being. Humans are altricial. We have a rearing period of 20 years, or more. Our Prefrontal Cortex wich covers executive function is not even fully developed until after rearing years. Consent only applies to people who understand coherently what they are consenting to, and to those whose current development has allowed them to move beyond the confines of your purview as a parent in a manner that is homeostatic- disregarding personal catstrophes that might require one to return home.

I want this man severely punished. — universeness

This is the very moment you have begun exiting the ethical domain. Punishment is not your entitlement. You are not the owner of another's consciousness, nor will punishment stop him from doing what you wish him to stop. It will only appease your aggression impulses. It will solve nothing. Punishing someone for something you don't like is everybit as immoral as the whatever it is you think you had a right to punish.

ou are the arbiter, your decision will become political policy for the tribe. What would you decide to do? — universeness

In accordance with the principle of the Primacy of the Human Consciousness of all involved parties, the offending person is hereby ordered to avoid contact with the father's child, until, or unless he has determined that fostering an understanding relationship between the two people, over the course of however much time is required for the child to understand the full impact of interpersonal relationship and potential child rearing and the responsibilities therein contained are reasonably understood and agreed to between all parties, and once the child reaches the age of independent proficiency of productive skill needed to remain homeostatically apart from the father's purview of responsibility. Failure to comply with this recognition of the value of the conscious state of all parties involved will result first in an issued utimatum of expulsion for continued violation, and in expulsion from the tribe for an indeterminate period of time as needed for recourse to achieve understanding and correction of violation if such is conduct is continued thereafter. As the original violation is on the part of the person outside of the father's purview, the offender, he will accept primary responsibility for pursuing this path to win the father's favor, or cease interaction with the father and his child in a manner satisfactory to him. Are the terms understood?

You like the Epicurial commune. I prefer Epicurus and Democritus to Plato as I prefer the atomists Greeks (although in truth I don't much value early Greek or Roman culture) to those associated with god/religious fables but I bet the commune of Epicurus had a political overview and that its politics would have developed had the commune been sustained over a significant time frame and the size of the commune grew and grew. Perhaps Epicurus would have named his political system communism. — universeness

No, they were anti-political in principle, and only ever engaged in politics as a means to ensure they would be generally left alone. No reason to conclude otherwise. Epicurus' communism is the only legitimate example of such in history because they understood that ethics is philosophy, and political action is philosophy's antithesis. You'll understand that when you realize that your views on politics are murderous by nature, as all political views have been shown to be for 1000's of years without exception.

Your political viewpoint would mean the humans could only exist in very tiny groups that hardly ever cooperated. We would stagnate and be easily conquered by the first group of maniacs that came along. — universeness

Kind of. More like independent communities that operate only a voluntary basis through mutual respect of individual consciousness of fellow humans, just as the Epicureans showed us is not only possible, but a thriving model of society. My political view is: politics are evil and so are its participants by the very definition of what states are.

Is it evil for a Lion to kill and eat a lamb?
Is it evil for a human to kill and eat a chicken? — universeness

Human Consciousness. Lions aren't conscious, they operate on instinct. They do not operate in the ethical domain of existence.

To me, there is just 'human behavior' and the political systems we decide to create to control it. — universeness

Yes, which is exactly the problem. Human behavior is informed and refined by sensory data, not through the application of force upon eachother. "Human behavior" is a pure reduction fallacy, nothing more. The human brain is the most complex system of computation in the known universe.

I don't mind the labels 'good' and 'evil,' they are useful but if you need a source then they are simply potential human behaviors, nothing more exciting than that, no supernatural aspects at all. — universeness

Plenty more exciting, no supernatural aspects. Again, human brain is the most sophisticated and complex system of computation we know of, most exciting thing there is. Again, read that paper.

I want to see the human race leave this planet and start to create off-planet colonies so I have no interest in your, in my opinion, regressive and misguided view of politics. — universeness

You don't have an opinion, you have what other people have told you to think. You're political views are run-of-the-mill, tribal human violations as means to achieve whatever ends you declare are important, predicated on no ethics, and barrowed from talking heads. This is your standard for "politics," : "To me, there is just 'human behavior' and the political systems we decide to create to control it." This is exactly the mentality of every murderous dictator in history. Putin is showing you right now what exactly this philosophy of ethics produces inevitably.

No, that's just objective material phenomena. I mean evidence for your claim of: the mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. — Garrett Travers

Yes, something happening. The only causes we know about are psychological, I suggest. |We know we do things because of how we feel. Laws of nature, if reified at all are inferred. Or else identified with what just happens.

Where do you see this mind?

I only 'see' my own mind. The problem of other minds is ubiquitous in philosophy and not just an issue for panpsychists. Indeed panpsychism might be a conclusion resulting from an examination of the problem of other minds.

Any evidence of this mind that 1. cannot be attributed to natural processes, and

Mind cannot sustainably be 'attributed to' natural processes, in the sense of 'fully explained by' or 'reduced to' or even 'emerge from', in my view. The 'hard problem', which exists for emergentists, has yet to be solved, or dissolved. The difficulties are conceptual rather than empirical.

[/quote2. can be attributed to mental processes? You'll need both to make this claim, if you don't have both, you are playing make-believe.[/quote]

I take it as self evident that mental process can be attributed to mental processes. I suspect I have not grasped your point.

Except as idle speculation – no. "Panosychism / cosmopsychism" (is) just woo-of-the-explanatory-gaps —

I love the mysterious brackets around 'is'.

Yes, something happening. The only causes we know about are psychological, I suggest. |We know we do things because of how we feel. Laws of nature, if reified at all are inferred. Or else identified with what just happens. — bert1

Made up assertion.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333802932_The_Unfolding_Argument_Why_IIT_and_Other_Causal_Structure_Theories_Cannot_Explain_Consciousness?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=kIPDJTnFJ1jtMG391GeRJBJ0XILeoGNXFMbS&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=xPTKXCJDhxoUdEQTTs0NbH0ptyvbHWXKpdG8&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=publication&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountLessEqual20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition5%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BwithoutEnrichment%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=5&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle

is ubiquitous in philosophy and not just an issue for panpsychists — bert1

No it isn't, just to mystics.

Mind cannot sustainably be 'attributed to' natural processes, in the sense of 'fully explained by' or 'reduced to' or even 'emerge from', in my view. — bert1

It doesn't matter what your view is, dude. The evidence is present. Read the above research.

The 'hard problem', which exists for emergentists, has yet to be solved, or dissolved. The difficulties are conceptual rather than empirical. — bert1

Solved has nothing to do with anything, it's about what all evidence suggests, which is that the brain controls all functions of the body. It is not conceptual. Conceptual views are what is stopping people from understanding what the evidence blatantly, and exclusively suggests. This is an argument from igorance. It is precisely the conceptual views that have solved no problem and provided no evidence, that is who you should be making claims of "solving" to. To do otherwise is completely dishonest, and you're just living in make-believe because you want to.

Made up assertion.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333802932_The_Unfolding_Argument_Why_IIT_and_Other_Causal_Structure_Theories_Cannot_Explain_Consciousness?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=kIPDJTnFJ1jtMG391GeRJBJ0XILeoGNXFMbS&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=xPTKXCJDhxoUdEQTTs0NbH0ptyvbHWXKpdG8&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=publication&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountLessEqual20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition5%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BwithoutEnrichment%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=5&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle

is ubiquitous in philosophy and not just an issue for panpsychists
— bert1

No it isn't, just to mystics.

Mind cannot sustainably be 'attributed to' natural processes, in the sense of 'fully explained by' or 'reduced to' or even 'emerge from', in my view.
— bert1

It doesn't matter what your view is, dude. The evidence is present. Read the above research.

The 'hard problem', which exists for emergentists, has yet to be solved, or dissolved. The difficulties are conceptual rather than empirical.
— bert1

Solved has nothing to do with anything, it's about what all evidence suggests, which is that the brain controls all functions of the body. It is not conceptual. Conceptual views are what is stopping people from understanding what the evidence blatantly, and exclusively suggests. This is an argument from igorance. It is precisely the conceptual views that have solved no problem and provided no evidence, that is who you should be making claims of "solving" to. To do otherwise is completely dishonest, and you're just living in make-believe because you want to. — Garrett Travers

There is no philosophy in this post. Nor any indication of any awareness of the philosophical issues involved.

There is no philosophy in this post. Nor any indication of any awareness of the philosophical issues involved. — bert1

Sure there is, empiricism, logic, and requests for evidence that contradicts the current scientific body of data that is present on the subject, which you have in no manner produced. But, I have. That's how philosophy works, bud.

Garrett, philosophers rarely dispute science. That's the whole point. Philosophy tackles questions science leaves open.

Mind cannot sustainably be 'attributed to' natural processes, in the sense of 'fully explained by' or 'reduced to' or even 'emerge from', in my view. The 'hard problem', which exists for emergentists, has yet to be solved, or dissolved. The difficulties are conceptual rather than empirical. — bert1

Those are interesting ideas. We are finding out empirical stuff about the mind at an accelerating rate. One example I like is our ability to plant false memories in the minds of mice by interfering with individual neurons. Is it not reasonable to say that mind can be attributed to natural processes like that?

We don't know all the details, we don't know which biological mechanisms are fundamental, but it seems to me that the Hard Problem could in principle be resolved empirically.

We want to know how we can feel stuff. One day soon somebody may discover the mechanism. Why not?

Brother, I hear you, but in this world, we have to pick the lesser of two evils, and that means voting as if our vote is the deciding one. I never like who I end up voting for, but I have to pick one or the other or abstain and write in a name in that I know won't win, and I consider the latter option the coward's way out because, realistically, there's not a chance in hell that a write-in candidate will win.

Garrett, philosophers rarely dispute science. That's the whole point. Philosophy tackles questions science leaves open. — bert1

This is true. But, it is through the empirical verification of truth from whence we start. To dismiss that which is established as truth with the evidence to support it, is anti-philosophical. And anti-philosophical as a matter of established standards within philosophy.

Brother, I hear you, but in this world, we have to pick the lesser of two evils, and that means voting as if our vote is the deciding one. I never like who I end up voting for, but I have to pick one or the other or abstain and write in a name in that I know won't win, and I consider the latter option the coward's way out. — RogueAI

Cowards? You have to imagine that such a decision to vote for a lesser of two evils, is done out of what you fear could be the outcome. We sure we're analyzing cowardice thoroughly? Furthermore, if I'm right about that- which I think I am for most people- then that would imply that a a decision is made in a completely irrational manner. Abstaining in such case is doing what the ethical thing, irrespective of what one thinks of the possible outcomes. Something to ponder.

We don't know all the details, we don't know which biological mechanisms are fundamental, but it seems to me that the Hard Problem could in principle be resolved empirically. — Daemon

I keep getting this strange feeling while studying neuroscience, that the ability for us to ever understand how consciousness actually arises from the brain, is actually not achievable because its ours. You know what I mean? It's like some fucked up neurological situation similare to that meme of all the spiderman's pointing at eachother. A self emergent system of such complexity may in fact not be able to be understood through conceptual metrics that the system itself produced for understanding the reality that itself was produced to understand through perceptions produced by itself ...... See where I'm going with this? Kind of like an infinite regression?