Animism (1 Viewer)

[Good4Nothin]

All primitive societies studied by anthropologists have believed in animism. This is the idea that all things in the world have souls, or spirits. Everything in nature is "alive," in a way. This often goes along with the idea that there are spirit worlds, and that when people die their spirit survives.

Currently there are ideas such as panpsychism or panexperientialism, which are increasingly being taken seriously by some philosophers and scientists. And these ideas seem to resemble animism.

Materialism had become popular among scientists and philosophers in the 20th century, and some refuse to let go of it.

Materialism is the idea that mind is created by matter. Animism, and panpsychism, are the opposite -- they say the matter is created by mind, and that consciousness underlies our reality.

I think I know why materialism has been popular, and why some refuse to let it go -- if nature is dead and mindless, then it will be possible for human scientists and engineers to completely understand nature, and re-make it according to their desires.

If nature is alive and conscious, on the other hand, our little human minds will never be capable of understanding it completely. That would be disappointing for anyone with the grandiose plan of dominating nature.

 

[Angel]

A wonderful OP and another thought=provoking thesis from you.
As an idealist myself, I find the thesis floated in the OP most congenial.
Materialism is a dead end, and that dead end was reached a hundred years ago.
Our DP materialists apparently did not get that memo.

 

[Good4Nothin]

A wonderful OP and another thought=provoking thesis from you.
As an idealist myself, I find the thesis floated in the OP most congenial.
Materialism is a dead end, and that dead end was reached a hundred years ago.
Our DP materialists apparently did not get that memo.

They say old outdated ideas never die until the people who believe in them die. So maybe in a couple of generations ...

 

[Angel]

All primitive societies studied by anthropologists have believed in animism. This is the idea that all things in the world have souls, or spirits. Everything in nature is "alive," in a way. This often goes along with the idea that there are spirit worlds, and that when people die their spirit survives.

Currently there are ideas such as panpsychism or panexperientialism, which are increasingly being taken seriously by some philosophers and scientists. And these ideas seem to resemble animism....

It's an old idea and an exciting one!

Soul Train

From comparatively humble Homeric beginnings, the word ‘soul’ undergoes quite remarkable semantic expansion in sixth and fifth century usage. By the end of the fifth century — the time of Socrates' death — soul is standardly thought and spoken of, for instance, as the distinguishing mark of living things, as something that is the subject of emotional states and that is responsible for planning and practical thinking, and also as the bearer of such virtues as courage and justice. Coming to philosophical theory, we first trace a development towards comprehensive articulation of a very broad conception of soul, according to which the soul is not only responsible for mental or psychological functions like thought, perception and desire, and is the bearer of moral qualities, but in some way or other accounts for all the vital functions that any living organism performs.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/

 

[spud_meister]

The problem is there's no objective way to determine which school of non-materialist thought is actually correct. I'd hate to spend my time watering trees, only to discover they don't actually have souls and there's no Ents in Jannah.

 

[Angel]

The problem is there's no objective way to determine which school of non-materialist thought is actually correct. I'd hate to spend my time watering trees, only to discover they don't actually have souls and there's no Ents in Jannah.

To be sure, if soul exists in all living things, or if it exists in all things whether we've classified them as living or not, the only direct access we have to soul is to our own individual portion of soul, the individual mind, the spirit in each of us human beings. This is a philosophical problem, not a scientific problem. Science cannot investigate what is not public.
As a philosophical problem then the first step is to find ways to infer to other minds, starting with human beings, moving on to other animals and then all living things, and finally to all things. The key is to determine that first reason to infer and then to build on that.

 

[HonestJoe]

All primitive societies studied by anthropologists have believed in animism. This is the idea that all things in the world have souls, or spirits. Everything in nature is "alive," in a way. This often goes along with the idea that there are spirit worlds, and that when people die their spirit survives.

Why couldn't these things exist within a materialistic context, just different forms of energy and matter we don't yet (and maybe never can) understand? I'm certainly not saying this must be the case but I don't see why it shouldn't be considered alongside your proposal.

 

[JustHanging]

Materialism is the idea that mind is created by matter.

Mountains of scientific evidence for that. Many many peer reviewed studies that lay out the methodology, data, and conclusions, so that if you disagree, and can present a coherent argument as to why the studies are wrong, the conclusions will be overturned.

So far nobody has been able to do that.

Animism, and panpsychism, are the opposite -- they say the matter is created by mind, and that consciousness underlies our reality.

No scientific evidence. No evidence other than hearsay and assertion.

I think I know why materialism has been popular, and why some refuse to let it go -- if nature is dead and mindless, then it will be possible for human scientists and engineers to completely understand nature, and re-make it according to their desires.

Everyone has an opinion. What evidence do you have to support it?

And they're already remaking nature according to their desires. Have been for quite a while now. Have you seen a modern airplane?

 

[ataraxia]

All primitive societies studied by anthropologists have believed in animism. This is the idea that all things in the world have souls, or spirits. Everything in nature is "alive," in a way. This often goes along with the idea that there are spirit worlds, and that when people die their spirit survives.

Currently there are ideas such as panpsychism or panexperientialism, which are increasingly being taken seriously by some philosophers and scientists. And these ideas seem to resemble animism.

Materialism had become popular among scientists and philosophers in the 20th century, and some refuse to let go of it.

Materialism is the idea that mind is created by matter. Animism, and panpsychism, are the opposite -- they say the matter is created by mind, and that consciousness underlies our reality.

I think I know why materialism has been popular, and why some refuse to let it go -- if nature is dead and mindless, then it will be possible for human scientists and engineers to completely understand nature, and re-make it according to their desires.

If nature is alive and conscious, on the other hand, our little human minds will never be capable of understanding it completely. That would be disappointing for anyone with the grandiose plan of dominating nature.

We already do a fair amount of dominating of nature. We could even, theoretically, change human DNA to create people with psychopathic tendencies or tendencies toward kindness and empathy if we wanted. Many of the genes have been mapped. The only thing stopping scientists from doing that right now are ethical considerations and government regulations. The technology is there.

But it doesn't even have to be that. By carefully manipulating the brain with hormones, surgery, or medications, we can do the same: manipulate the mind to some desired end result by manipulating the brain. There is no question, for example, that frontal lobotomies had effects on changing personalities and agitation in patients. It was banned not because it was not effective in changing personalities and minds, but because of ethical considerations.

Worrisome? Sure. We can talk about the ethics. But the fact that we have so much power to manipulate the mind by manipulating the brain? Hard to argue against that.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Why couldn't these things exist within a materialistic context, just different forms of energy and matter we don't yet (and maybe never can) understand? I'm certainly not saying this must be the case but I don't see why it shouldn't be considered alongside your proposal.

I think there are forms of energy and matter we don't yet understand. But "materialism" usually refers to the kind of matter and energy that is already known.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Mountains of scientific evidence for that. Many many peer reviewed studies that lay out the methodology, data, and conclusions, so that if you disagree, and can present a coherent argument as to why the studies are wrong, the conclusions will be overturned.

So far nobody has been able to do that.

There is no evidence at all that the brain generates consciousness and cognition. There are correlations between brain activity and mental states. But that in no way shows that mental states are created by brain activity. They are correlations.

 

[JustHanging]

I think there are forms of energy and matter we don't yet understand.

That's nice. What forms, and what is your evidence that they exist?

 

[HonestJoe]

I think there are forms of energy and matter we don't yet understand. But "materialism" usually refers to the kind of matter and energy that is already known.

No it doesn't. Materialist concepts long predate our discovery and understanding of a whole range related concepts and there are many areas that still aren't entirely understood or explained.

To be honest, I'm not convinced the whole concept as some kind of dividing line makes any sense. Phenomena either exist or don't. What's the point in labelling some "material" and others "spiritual"?

 

[ataraxia]

There is no evidence at all that the brain generates consciousness and cognition. There are correlations between brain activity and mental states. But that in no way shows that mental states are created by brain activity. They are correlations.

Any mental state can be manipulated by manipulating the brain, in one way or the other: surgery, medicine, hormones, electrical shock, etc...

Do you know of any which can't?

 

[zyzygy]

There is no evidence at all that the brain generates consciousness and cognition. There are correlations between brain activity and mental states. But that in no way shows that mental states are created by brain activity. They are correlations.

Correlation is a statistical technique that can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are related. What variables are you talking about?

 

[JustHanging]

There is no evidence at all that the brain generates consciousness and cognition.

I'm not sure if you're serious. There is a mountain of evidence. If you are serious, then it's probably best to start at the beginning:



Let me know if you disagree with anything in the video and we can discuss it.

 

[zyzygy]

I am still waiting for an answer to my question about where the mind is generated. All the facts point to the brain.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I don’t think panpaychism states that matter emerges from mind, rather that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of matter. A brute fact of nature like the universal constants.

 

[zyzygy]

I don’t think panpaychism states that matter emerges from mind, rather that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of matter. A brute fact of nature like the universal constants.

I have a hard time believing that the bricks in my walls are endowed with consciousness.

 

[JustHanging]

I have a hard time believing that the bricks in my walls are endowed with consciousness.

It would mean a brick wall must be one hell of an orgy.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I have a hard time believing that the bricks in my walls are endowed with consciousness.

Me too. But when they say consciousness they also aren’t talking about intelligence or memory. Just “qualia”. They are saying that even with an electron, there is something that it is like to be an electron that is subjectively different than it is like to not exist. And that difference is the base level of consciousness.

It is interesting but I disagree with it. I believe consciousness is a product of certain types of information processing, be it via wetware, hardware, software or some other “substrates. Process makes consciousness, not matter. That is my guess, anyway.

 

[hado117]

It would mean a brick wall must be one hell of an orgy.

https://youtu.be/5Vk4OrwUjO8

 

[devildavid]

To be sure, if soul exists in all living things, or if it exists in all things whether we've classified them as living or not, the only direct access we have to soul is to our own individual portion of soul, the individual mind, the spirit in each of us human beings. This is a philosophical problem, not a scientific problem. Science cannot investigate what is not public.
As a philosophical problem then the first step is to find ways to infer to other minds, starting with human beings, moving on to other animals and then all living things, and finally to all things. The key is to determine that first reason to infer and then to build on that.

Maybe we should let all things infer to us. That would be much easier.

 

[blarg]

All primitive societies studied by anthropologists have believed in animism. This is the idea that all things in the world have souls, or spirits. Everything in nature is "alive," in a way. This often goes along with the idea that there are spirit worlds, and that when people die their spirit survives.

Currently there are ideas such as panpsychism or panexperientialism, which are increasingly being taken seriously by some philosophers and scientists. And these ideas seem to resemble animism.

Materialism had become popular among scientists and philosophers in the 20th century, and some refuse to let go of it.

Materialism is the idea that mind is created by matter. Animism, and panpsychism, are the opposite -- they say the matter is created by mind, and that consciousness underlies our reality.

I think I know why materialism has been popular, and why some refuse to let it go -- if nature is dead and mindless, then it will be possible for human scientists and engineers to completely understand nature, and re-make it according to their desires.

If nature is alive and conscious, on the other hand, our little human minds will never be capable of understanding it completely. That would be disappointing for anyone with the grandiose plan of dominating nature.

nope don't understand nature all that well be it mindless or not no sure why nature being alive and conspicuous would make it impossible to understand and manipulate either

and knowing how nature works would let you manipulate it more easily so denying what you know about it would not be in line what your goals if you want to control it

i refuse to let go of materialism because seemingly better idea has yet to come along

figure if mind is some kind of supernatural force that exists independently of matter we probably would not need brains and that mind could just tell us about itself

would be nice to be more then a lump of dirt and water but that's seems to be wishful thinking

dont suppose you have come up with a test to see if this universal mind exists or not?

 

[Angel]

Maybe we should let all things infer to us. That would be much easier.

Maybe you should think about this a lot more.