#panpsychism

[two-facedgod]

Just a two-faced god edging 33 reading about panpsychism on his day off...

[cogito-ergo-iperuranio]

Anch'io esisto.

Fin dalla mia infanzia, sono stato pervaso da una sensazione che solo oggi, con la consapevolezza di un individuo più maturo, riesco a esprimere con chiarezza.

Osservavo le persone attorno a me, gli alberi mossi dal vento, il cielo che cambiava colore al tramonto, pensando con stupore: "Tra tutte quelle vite, anch'io sono qui. Anch'io esisto. È incredibile!".

All'epoca non riuscivo a comprendere appieno il significato di quella sensazione, né dove mi avrebbe condotto.

Col tempo, tuttavia, percorrendo - talvolta inconsapevolmente - le orme dei grandi pensatori che mi hanno preceduto, un'immagine più chiara ha cominciato a delinearsi nella mia mente, suggerendomi che nulla avrebbe potuto esistere senza la mia presenza e, di conseguenza, il mio atto di percezione.

Sentivo che se io non avessi potuto esistere senza l'universo, neanche l'universo avrebbe potuto esistere senza di me, perché io e l'universo siamo la stessa sostanza.

A quel punto, la causa della mia esistenza apparve più nitida, e cominciai a domandarmi se la mia presenza non fosse, in qualche modo, il risultato dell'impossibilità della mia assenza.

Da questa intuizione, un'idea mi prese per mano, suggerendomi che siamo fondamentalmente legati all'esistenza, sia nel ciclo della vita che in quello della morte.

Perché tutto ciò accade? Una domanda che non trova una risposta razionale, ma che esprime solo presenza: la stessa presenza che nega l'assenza e attraverso cui l'universo trova modo di manifestarsi e osservarsi.

Qualcuno una volta disse: "La coscienza è il modo in cui l'universo prende atto di sé stesso". E io oggi dico: "In quel riconoscimento, per un istante, anch'io esisto".

Cogito Ergo Iperuranio

[crimson-revelation]

Hey, I found your blog here. The information is very awesome!

I checked your posts to see if I was asking a repeated question, but I couldn't find the answer. Maybe I missed it, but I'll still ask because I've seen recent blog posts from people asking the same thing in other languages, and I'm a little confused.

Are we all one consciousnesses, or are there other consciousnesses for each person?

That depends on the framework you're operating from.

Some perspectives say there is only one consciousness expressing itself through different individuals; like one awareness looking through multiple lenses.

Others treat consciousness as individualized, where each person has their own separate awareness and experience.

For example: Dualism talks about individual consciousness, while Non-dualism talks about one awareness. There is also a middle ground called Panpsychism where people talk about how consciousness is fundamental but still expresses individually.

Neither is objectively “wrong.” They’re just different ways of interpreting the same thing.

What matters more is which framework actually makes sense to you and helps you understand your experience better.

[thetadelta]

Just read this theoretical physics essay from 2002, and this physicist's quantum animism theory is precisely what I've always felt about everything (my spiritual beliefs have always been tied to physics), and it's also very validating as a science-minded person who just remembered a past "life" as a rock:

Many primitive peoples organized their lives around a doctrine we call "animism", the belief that every object possesses sentient "insides" like our own. The quantum consciousness assumption, which amounts to a kind of "quantum animism" likewise asserts that consciousness is an integral part of the physical world, not an emergent property of special biological or computational systems. Since everything in the world is on some level a quantum system, this assumption requires that everything be conscious on that level. If the world is truly quantum animated, then there is an immense amount of invisible inner experience going on all around us that is presently inaccessible to humans, because our own inner lives are imprisoned inside a small quantum system, isolated deep in the meat of an animal brain

This theory also provides what is easily the simplest and most intuitive theory of consciousness I've ever seen:

... The most suggestive evidence for a quantum model of mind is that the Heisenberg picture of how quantum events actually happen in the world is extremely congruent with our own internal experience of what it's like to be a sentient being. Looking inside, I do not feel like "software" whatever that might mean, but indeed like a shimmering (wavelike?) center of ambiguous potentia (possibilities?) around which more solid perceptions and ideas are continually congealing (quantum jumps?). This rough match of internal feeling with external description could be utterly deceptive but it at least shows that the quantum model of mind can successfully confront the introspective evidence in a way that no other mind models even attempt. Because of the two-fold character of the quantum description, this quantum model of mind predicts two basic types of subjective experience: a clear, determinate, computer-data type of experience (type-one consciousness) built out of quantum jumps; and a fuzzy, indeterminate, ambiguous experience (type-two consciousness), an insider's view of some of the brain's vibratory possibilities. The vibratory nature of these conscious possibilities is not usually experienced by humans for the same reason that the wavelike nature of sunlight eluded observation for so long--light from the sun consists of wavelengths too short to perceive under ordinary conditions. In the quantum animism model, the quantum jump--Heisenberg's objective transition from half-real potentia to solid actuality--corresponds to a conscious decision in the human mind, or in the mind of some non-human sentient being, to promote part of its ambiguous type-two experience to more unequivocal type-one status.

He eventually goes on to theorize about methods of intermingling people's consciousness with others and then devolves into that theory that humans are inevitably going to make themselves into a pure collective consciousness which I personally think is silly, but consciousness as an inherent property of matter (which is apparently now called panpsychism and currently popular among physicists) both solves a ton of unanswered physics problems and potentially reconciles western science with a lot of "paranormal" phenomena, like telepathy, clairvoyance, divination, pre/retrocogniton, manifestation, etc.

His theory about magnetic fields being used to link consciousness together without triggering a quantum jump is also, in my mind, sort of already proven in that when living creatures are within each others' heart-brain magnetic fields their nervous systems measurably begin to sync (e.g. heart rate), to the point that many people who spend a lot of time in that state with a specific individual can intuitively communicate with them just by thinking (I know this is common with people who ride horses for example). The fact that animism is an almost universal belief system among humans who aren't indoctrinated into (most) modern religions also says to me that panpsychism is not so much a plausible theory as a scientific description of an innate understanding people have about existence.

So anyway, feeling very vindicated about being Literally A Rock, and also about my adamant belief that there is no scientific-spiritual dichotomy and that western realism is inherently flawed. I wish I'd learned about panpsychism sooner since it's a word for the belief system I've had for at least 15 years but I've been out of the physics loop for a while because I haven't had the mental energy.

ETA: My biggest point of disagreement with this essay is that I don't think "quantum systems" like the human brain are isolated from one another in a way that would require precise effort to link them. I think the consciousness of all matter is able to "talk" (share information) on a rudimentary level with other consciousness simply by existing nearby. Anything else wouldn't make sense, the atoms in your brain don't know that they aren't part of things you're touching. The "collective consciousness" already exists in a way, that's what reality is. We are all the universe experiencing itself.

[diary-of-shutterpunk]

There’s an assumption quietly baked into most philosophy.

That humans are individual minds interacting with other individual minds.

It sounds obvious. Almost too obvious to question. But sometimes i suspect something stranger might be happening.

Consider a different hypothesis.

Not that humans are separate minds communicating.. but that humanity is one distributed consciousness, temporarily fragmented into billions of walking viewpoints.

Let's call it the Prisma Hypothesis.

Light passes through a prism and splits into many colors. Each color looks separate, moves at a slightly different angle.

But the colors were never independent things. They were simply one beam experiencing itself in pieces.

Now apply that idea to consciousness.

Instead of billions of isolated awarenesses attempting to understand each other, imagine one enormous awareness experiencing reality through billions of temporary observation windows.

Each person would function like a lens. Different upbringing, culture, traumas, joys. Each lens bends the same underlying awareness into a unique perspective. Which would explain a few strange human phenomena.

Why people across cultures invent similar myths without ever meeting. Why certain ideas appear in different parts of the world at the same time. Why empathy exists at all.. the ability to feel echoes of another person’s internal state.

In the prisma hypothesis, empathy isn’t mysterious. It’s simply light recognizing itself through another angle of glass.

This also reframes conflict. If two people argue, it would not be two independent beings clashing. It would be one consciousness temporarily disagreeing with itself through two differently shaped lenses.

I notice something else when looking at the world through this lens.. humanity seems obsessed with sharing experiences.. music, stories, photography.

Art.

It’s as if each lens keeps saying the same thing: "Look through here for a second"

Which suggests a possibility.

Maybe the deepest human drive is not survival, status, or power. Maybe the deepest drive is perspective exchange.. A vast awareness trying to see reality from as many angles as possible before the lights go out. If the hypothesis were true, it would mean something quietly radical. No human interaction would be meaningless.

Every conversation would be consciousness cross referencing its own observations.

And somewhere in the background of the universe, the original beam of light would be slowly reconstructing the full picture of itself through the millions of viewpoints it temporarily scattered across a small blue planet.

[funeral]

One central thought motivating the panpsychist position is an observation about our understanding of the physical world itself. The key idea is that physics only describes the relational or dispositional properties of matter, not its intrinsic nature: what matter does rather than what it is [ . . . ] According to the panpsychist, the intrinsic nature of basic matter is constituted by rudimentary kinds of consciousness. This then allows us . . . to explicate the more familiar phenomenon of human consciousness in terms of the more basic kind of consciousness instantiated by fundamental physical things.

Philip Goff, Is Consciousness Everywhere?

[spensorium]

Consciousness permeating all things is an idea gaining traction and has had its prevalence across disciplines.. arising in frameworks like panpsychism, animism, and the nondualism of Trika. They have their differences, yet share something essential — the world around us isn’t just made of stuff; it’s made of awareness, alive at every level. Once you begin to take that seriously/as a potential, even tentatively, you open up space for reexamining things that modern culture often dismisses, i.e shamanism, ritual magic, and the ancient notion of correspondences. They start to seem less like pure superstition and woo and more like ways of engaging with an all pervading materia that has always been awake and in communication.

In panpsychism, the starting point is that consciousness isn’t something that randomly appears when neurons reach certain levels of complexity. Instead, it’s a fundamental property of the universe, as basic as mass or charge. Every particle, every field, has some incredibly basic “spark” of experience—even if it’s nothing like human awareness. Relatively complex formations of consciousness like ours are speculated to emerge when these proto/micro-conscious features come together in the ideal arrangements of.

Some ideas go further: instead of particles having little minds, consciousness is more akin to, or is, a field—a pervasive presence, like gravity or electromagnetism, that flows through everything, and amplifies under certain conditions. Like the background humming of reality, getting more pronounced or coherent in certain areas.

Pivot to - Integrated Information Theory, advocated by the neuroscientist Giulio Tononi and studied at such institutions like the "Center for Sleep and Consciousness at the University of Wisconsin Madison". IIT proposes that consciousness exists anywhere in the universe where information is integrated in a particular way. According to the theory, the more tightly and irreducibly a system connects its parts, the more it experiences. A human brain scores very high on this scale. A digital clock, not so much. Even a crystal or a single-celled organism might possess a sliver of awareness, if its parts “talk to each other” in a meaningful way. This doesn’t mean your toaster is thinking about philosophy—but it does mean the universe may be saturated with experiential textures, even in places we once assumed were blank.

On a more speculative edge of neuroscience, some theorists, like Dr. Bernardo Kastrup at the Essentia Foundation..propose that the brain is not the producer of consciousness at all, but more like a filter or transceiver. This reverses the usual story. Rather than the brain generating awareness the way a lightbulb emits light, it might instead be narrowing and localizing a much vaster field of consciousness. In this model, the brain shapes what we can pay attention to, much like a radio dial tuning into a particular station. And just like a radio doesn’t produce music but selects it, the mind might be filtering the infinite to give us a usable stream of experience. If that’s true, then it becomes conceivable that a human mind, in the right state, might “tune into” things well outside its usual scope..perhaps even the history or essence of a stone, a tree, or a place.

This is where animism naturally enters; Animism is not so much a theory as it is a way of relating to the world, one rooted in direct experience. It doesn’t say everything has consciousness—it says everything is someone. A river isn’t a mechanism or a resource; it’s a being. The mountain watches. The forest listens. From an animist perspective, the world is full of presences that aren’t reducible to molecules or biological instincts. There’s intelligence behind the forms, and it’s possible to speak to that intelligence and to be heard.

And then, exploring this notion further, you reach the metaphysical core presented in Kashmir Shaivism. This tradition doesn’t merely say that consciousness is everywhere—it says that consciousness is the only thing that truly exists. All else..time, space, bodies, thoughts etc etc is a play of one awareness(lila). In this framework the world is not stacked from matter with consciousness frothing on top. Instead, everything you see, touch, fear, or love is consciousness appearing as something else. The mountain, the star, the cup in your hand—they are not “in” consciousness. They are consciousness, limited into form through a process of divine contraction.

Kashmir Shaivism maps this process of contraction through its system of 36 tattvas—layers of reality, starting from pure, undivided consciousness at the top, descending gradually into the most solid and limited material forms. Matter, in this tradition, is not separate from spirit. It’s the final condensation of the divine. A rock isn’t unconscious because it’s too far from God—it is God in a deeply contracted state, vibrating with the same energy as the galaxies and the gods, but bound by thick veils of separation. The human being, uniquely, holds both ends of the spectrum: the dense body and the capacity to know the highest Self. The goal is to recognize that all of it—the high and the low—is one continuous field of Shiva’s awareness.

Shamanic journeying, take for example, often involves entering altered states to speak with spirits/ancestors. If consciousness is everywhere..if the brain is a filter, not a generator, then it’s not so far-fetched that people might be tuning into disparate strata of being.

Goetia/ceremonial magic operate under the assumption the notion that specific forces or entities.. whether thoughtforms, spirits, or archetypal intelligences..can be contacted, invoked, and worked with. This is coherent from this view because you are interacting with specific vibrations of consciousness, each with its distinctive personality and signature. Use of sacred names, sigils, or circles isn’t theatrical..it’s symbolically precise and aligning your field with particular strata of the universal Shakti.

As well, ancient systems of correspondences, the foundation of much occult thought..the idea that certain herbs align with planets, metals with emotions, or days with divine beings isn't mere poetic fancy. If everything originates from one undivided field of intelligence, then these resonances are real. A planet and a plant can vibrate in harmony not because one “influences” the other, but because both are expressions of the same pattern, refracted through different densities. The microcosm reflects the macrocosm because both are cut from the same infinite cloth.

When you draw all of this together—panpsychism’s distributed awareness, animism’s relational world, Shaivism’s nondual unfolding, and speculative neuroscience’s reevaluation of consciousness—it paints a different picture of reality. Matter is not mute. Spirit is not elsewhere. The rituals, symbols, and inner journeys of esoteric traditions are not backward errors.. they’re ways of remembering how to speak with a living universe.

[quasi-normalcy]

That was how Dr. Chen’s Fairy had said it was supposed to work: changing the world through force of will alone. What else had he said? Everything has a soul, and magic is a matter of getting other souls to do your bidding. Well then. It was just a matter of negotiating with the souls of the lab equipment. Easy. Now: where were those souls? ... For want of a better idea, I direct my attention toward the cabinet. “Psst!” I shout out loud. “Psst! Hey, cabinet!” The cabinet says nothing. “Cabinet! I need you to open!” The cabinet turns out to be stubborn. Of course, it couldn’t be that easy, could it? “Fine! Be that way!”

Lester the ghost returns, this week in Reality's End on AO3! If you like Terry Pratchett, Susanna Clarke, or episodes of Star Trek TNG with Q in them, you will probably enjoy this novel!

(Or purchase here)