- Joined
- Nov 24, 2018
- Messages
- 13,199
- Reaction score
- 2,896
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
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.
It's an old idea and an exciting one!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....
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think there are forms of energy and matter we don't yet understand.
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.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.
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.
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.
There is no evidence at all that the brain generates consciousness and cognition.
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.
I have a hard time believing that the bricks in my walls are endowed with consciousness.
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.
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.
Maybe you should think about this a lot more.Maybe we should let all things infer to us. That would be much easier.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?