Panpsychism

[Stone holm]

Just finished listening to a talk by Rupert Sheldrake on U tube about rediscovering God. So how does panpsychism fit with Mormonism.

[Duncan]

what is panpsychism? if it has something to do with Peter Pan then I have no idea

[Uncle Dale]

Just finished listening to a talk by Rupert Sheldrake on U tube about rediscovering God. So how does panpsychism fit with Mormonism.

 

 

I've heard Mormons say that the earth is a living entity --

that it was "baptized" in Noah's flood, etc. It's probably a

doctrine derived from the PGP's Book of Moses, or from

some Joseph Smith antecdote.

 

But -- yes -- if you are one of those folks who envision

the sun, moon and stars all possessing consciousness

and perhaps even a degree of consciousness beyond

human imagination -- then that would be panpsychism,

of a sort.

 

Cosmic consciousness -- group consciouness -- Jung's

collective unsconscious... the list goes on and on.

 

A couple of years devoted to the study of theological

Sangskirt may be in order, for the serious professor of

such stuff.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

Just finished listening to a talk by Rupert Sheldrake on U tube about rediscovering God. So how does panpsychism fit with Mormonism.

As compared to being in the "same ballpark" it is in the same state.  The problem is that it is a vague and complicated theory and if taken one way, it is very close, but taken another way, it can be seen as far apart.  In general though it is a real boon for theism, the right interpretation can bring it close to Mormonism.

[pogi]

"This world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related (Plato, Timaeus, 29/30; 4th century BCE)."

 

Sounds about right to me.

 

Interestingly, we were jsut talking about this in the intelligences thread.  Nofear brought up Orson Pratt's teachings which could be considered "panpsychic".  Google "Orson Pratt" and "panpsychism" and you come up with some interesting stuff.

Edited January 26, 2015 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

"Everything is consciousness" can be taken in a number of ways.  If we take it as Plato suggests, we have substance theology, a transcendent God without body parts or passions who's everywhere and nowhere, who could not possibly be our father, and has classically anti-Mormon overtones, if you catch my drift. (and were endowed before 1990).  THAT interpretation usually takes matter to be an "illusion", or "mere appearance".

 

If we take it as a social constructivist takes it (Rorty and Wittgenstein, arguably) everything is consciousness because HUMAN consciousness defines culture and culture defines us- there is an interplay between us as individuals and the culture.  Even the environment is ultimately culture, because all we know about the environment, we get from our own consciousness.

 

All we can really know is.... what humanity knows and is capable of knowing.  So in that sense, everything is HUMAN consciousness

 

Now THAT view is extremely compatible with Mormonism, because for us even God is "Human".  His consciousness organizes the universe.  Furthermore for Mormons, consciousness seen as "spirit" is interchangeable with matter.  So in a real sense Mormons are materialists who simultaneously believe that "everything is organized by consciousness" as spirit, and since there is "no immaterial matter" spirit itself is matter, so everything is therefore matter refined or not.

 

So it depends on what interpretation you want to look at.  If you go down the Platonic, Buddhist, Hindu path that the world around us is illusion and "reality" is consciousness, and God is transcendent, then it is NOT compatible with Mormonism

 

If on the other hand you want to see "reality" as a product of God's organizing consciousness, and us as part of God as humans, with us as co-organizers of worlds with God, through the cultural beliefs he has given us, and that God is immanent in the universe and is literally our Father, then it is VERY compatible with Mormonism.

[Robert F. Smith]

Sounds something like Jeffrey G. Sobosan saying that “we must learn to blend the beauty of the pantheistic vision into Christian theology so that God’s presence can be understood as ontologically inclusive of everything that is in the universe . . . .”, Romancing the Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Science (Grand Rapids/ Cambridge, Engl.: Eerdmans, 1999), 15.

[The Nehor]

It does not really fit. We have some scripture suggesting that the earth and perhaps other bodies have spirits that display some level of sentience but we have no idea how pervasive it is, how conscious everything is, and even if the earth is smarter or dumber then we are.

 

I like the idea and hope it is true and even wish like C.S. Lewis that I was advanced pay homage or recognize the spirits of a place without offending or diminishing my reverence for God. In practical terms it does not mean much to Mormons. We bang rocks together without worrying how they feel about it. We birth and kill plants and animals. We reshape our environment to suit us. We do not worship astronomical bodies or try to commune with them.

 

I suppose if God wanted us to take into account how our actions impact the spirits all around us He would have told us. I am not sure it would matter if we were told that. We are told to take care of the earth and we are heartily engaged in disrupting every ecosystem we can get to without any thought to the consequences even when we have only a vague idea of what the consequences will be.

[mfbukowski]

"This world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related (Plato, Timaeus, 29/30; 4th century BCE)."

 

Sounds about right to me.

 

Interestingly, we were jsut talking about this in the intelligences thread.  Nofear brought up Orson Pratt's teachings which could be considered "panpsychic".  Google "Orson Pratt" and "panpsychism" and you come up with some interesting stuff.

No,

Pratt and Plato are far apart.   I have avoided that thread for a reason.

This is obviously conflicts with the typical view that God is a completely immaterial spiritual being without body, parts, or passions. It also seems to have some philosophical significance regarding the nature of reality. Spirits, since they are “material,” seem to be more similar to material human beings (bound by laws, composed of a more or less fixed set of components, characterized by layers of complexity) than to, say, platonic forms (ineffable, ideal philosophical concepts). This doctrine also seems to be relatively compatible with a worldview based in the scientific method and incompatible with a worldview based in Plato, the Nicene Creed, etc.

 

http://mormontextsproject.org/tag/orson-pratt/

[mfbukowski]

Sounds something like Jeffrey G. Sobosan saying that “we must learn to blend the beauty of the pantheistic vision into Christian theology so that God’s presence can be understood as ontologically inclusive of everything that is in the universe . . . .”, Romancing the Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Science (Grand Rapids/ Cambridge, Engl.: Eerdmans, 1999), 15.

As long as you would take it as Pratt would take it and not as Plato would take it

 

If that "ontology" is materialism, it works for Mormons.  If that ontology is not materialism, it doesn't.  Transcendent gods don't work, immanent Gods do.

[Uncle Dale]

...If you go down the Platonic, Buddhist, Hindu path that the world around us is illusion and "reality" is consciousness, and God is transcendent, then it is NOT compatible with Mormonism...

 

Or, perhaps there is a philosophical middle ground between pure objectivity and

simple illusion. As it was explained to me during a lengthy residence in South Asia,

the eastern concept of Maya is something more (and less) than illusion.

 

In this explanation of things, our problem lies not so much in perceiving things

that are not "there," as it does in mis-perceiving and taking for granted that

our human limitations are also the limits of reality.

 

A guy writing epistles some 20 centuries ago might have called it "seeing through

a glass darkly," but the educated Hindu would relate a somewhat more sophisticated

explanation of why we perceive on a very limited scale, and thus generally miss

understand the greater scheme of things.

 

A particle physicist might tell us something vaguely similar -- that where we preceive

the solid objects of an apple set upon a table, at the perception level of electrons,

there is no apple, no table -- and 99.999% of what we think is solid, in reality is

empty space, seething with virtual particles, energy patterns, force interactions, etc.

 

Transcendent Divinity generally "works" for Reorganized Latter Day Saints, because

they usually make no attempt to differentiate transcendence from immanence -- nor

to limit what God is, using the precepts of men. I say "generally," for certainly no

gradeschool Saint, nor mentally challenged member, nor senile old guy (like myself)

should be expected to play theologian and exegete of what God is, vocabulary-wise.

 

I've looked at the Pratt brothers' arguments, and those of others in our past history

and have come away less impressed than many of my old friends in Utah.

 

A "god" who is confined to a physical body of flesh and bone and who is disallowed

from being in two different places at the same instant is more the being my ancestors

worshipped, than that Reality which encompasses the "council of the gods," Eloheim,

Jehovah, Satan, man, matter, energy, time and space.

 

Then again -- we as a species are more comfortable with a supernatural which is not

too extraordinarily super -- and the nature of which allows a pleasing place for ourselves.

 

(Or, so it seems to me. People whom I respect and admire have told me I'm wrong)

 

UD

Edited January 26, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

Or, perhaps there is a philosophical middle ground between pure objectivity and

simple illusion. As it was explained to me during a lengthy residence in South Asia,

the eastern concept of Maya is something more (and less) than illusion.

 

In this explanation of things, our problem lies not so much in perceiving things

that are not "there," as it does in mis-perceiving and taking for granted that

our human limitations are also the limits of reality.

 

A guy writing epistles some 20 centuries ago might have called it "seeing through

a glass darkly," but the educated Hindu would relate a somewhat more sophisticated

explanation of why we perceive on a very limited scale, and thus generally miss

understand the greater scheme of things.

 

A particle physicist might tell us something vaguely similar -- that where we preceive

the solid objects of an apple set upon a table, at the perception level of electrons,

there is no apple, no table -- and 99.999% of what we think is solid, in reality is

empty space, seething with virtual particles, energy patterns, force interactions, etc.

 

Transcendent Divinity generally "works" for Reorganized Latter Day Saints, because

they usually make no attempt to differentiate transcendence from immanence -- nor

to limit what God is, using the precepts of men. I say "generally," for certainly no

gradeschool Saint, nor mentally challenged member, nor senile old guy (like myself)

should be expected to play theologian and exegete of what God is, vocabulary-wise.

 

I've looked at the Pratt brothers' arguments, and those of others in our past history

and have come away less impressed than many of my old friends in Utah.

 

A "god" who is confined to a physical body of flesh and bone and who is disallowed

from being in two different places at the same instant is more the being my ancestors

worshipped, than that Reality which encompasses the "council of the gods," Eloheim,

Jehovah, Satan, man, matter, energy, time and space.

 

Then again -- we as a species are more comfortable with a supernatural which is not

too extraordinarily super -- and the nature of which allows a pleasing place for ourselves.

 

(Or, so it seems to me. People whom I respect and admire have told me I'm wrong)

 

UD

Great post!

 

When I think of "Maya" I always think of George Harrison's song "Beware of Darkness" which oddly enough I think pretty much captures the idea.

 

Watch out now, take care

Beware of falling swingers

Dropping all around you

The pain that often mingles

In your fingertips

Beware of darkness

Watch out now, take care

Beware of the thoughts that linger

Winding up inside your head

The hopelessness around you

In the dead of night

Beware of sadness

It can hit you

It can hurt you

Make you sore and what is more

That is not what you are here for

Watch out now, take care

Beware of soft shoe shufflers

Dancing down the sidewalks

As each unconscious sufferer

Wanders aimlessly

Beware of Maya

Watch out now, take care

Beware of greedy leaders

They take you where you should not go

While Weeping Atlas Cedars

They just want to grow, grow and grow

Beware of darkness

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/g/george+harrison/beware+of+darkness_20059016.html

 

We might call some of that "light mindedness and loud laughter".

But as a social constructivist myself, and a social Trinitarian, I would disagree that you have to throw some transcendence into the mix because any universe I can understand is strictly in my understanding meaning in my mind.   No matrix stuff, just a fact of life..   That's where all tha beauty and transcendence is- for me- in the final analysis, and I don't see how that can be debated.   Not I am not a solipsist by any means, but I have learned those words"beauty" and "transcendence" from my culture, and have even learned to some extent what I am supposed to feel when I see the milky way at night.  I think in words, and my culture is words that I did not invent.

 

But I have wordless experiences, but then, dang it, I have to tell you about them using.... grrrr....words.  So I experience God directly but the minute I open my mouth... it's all gone.

 

People can only know what people can know.  Seems straightforward to me.  So that makes all I can know immanent, because I know that I am not myself transcendent by any means.    And if I call experience "transcendent" it's still just immanent words.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................................   

Then again -- we as a species are more comfortable with a supernatural which is not

too extraordinarily super -- and the nature of which allows a pleasing place for ourselves.

..................................................

There is always a tendency to create God in our own image.

 

Yet Western religious dogma has maintained for a very long time the notion of God as absolutely "other," and outside space and time.  Islamic-Judaic-Christian dogma is fully supernatural in concept, which is why that strong tradition so readily condemns the LDS Restoration in its return to the frank anthropomorphism of the Bible, along with a finite, naturalistic God.  This is rightly regarded as heresy, even though it is actually the normative dogma which is a Greek philosophical construct and, therefore, heresy to original Judaism and Christianity.  The Restoration is real.

 

Norbert Samuelson correctly declares "That the God of the Philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Harvard Theological Review, 65 (1972):1-27; cf. Georg Picht, “The God of the Philosophers,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 48/1 (1980):61-79, online at http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XLVIII/1/61.abstract .

[CV75]

Just finished listening to a talk by Rupert Sheldrake on U tube about rediscovering God. So how does panpsychism fit with Mormonism.

Inasmuch as the light of Christ (“which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God… that he might be in all and through all things”) is tied to His consciousness or awareness and perception of all things (“omniscience”), then I can see some relevance.

Some of these “all things” may be completely acted upon, wherein His turns out to be the only consciousness in them, and others, like us, act with our own consciousness, albeit we can only do so because He gave us the agency to do it, and whereas “in him was the life of men and the light of men,” His consciousness is in us as well as our own.

In the example of the Earth having a consciousness as indicated in the Pearl of Great Price (and her geologies, the cosmos of D&C 128:23, and Luke 19:40; and so forth, e.g., D&C 88:90), I’m thinking this is Christ’s consciousness being reflected through the medium of an inanimate Earth. Anything the Earth “does” or receives is therefore the Lord fulfilling all righteousness “that it might be filled with the measure of man.” The same goes for plants and animals, which also possess a “destined order or sphere of creation” as a reflection of the light of Christ and His consciousness, though they are clearly animate--though this allows that they may not have individual spirits like we do after all!.

Maybe the only life that possess a spirit or intelligence (there is another thread about that) is human, and all other forms of life are only appendages to it by virtue of the divine consciousness that inhabits them, and which we in turn may steward and inhabit ourselves. This gives Adam a lot of leeway in naming the life forms of this world.

[JLHPROF]

I don't know enough about panpsychism to compare it to Mormonism.

However I think the scriptures are clear that the earth has a spirit which can be grieved, joyful, obedient, etc and that ALL things were created spiritually first.

Whether this means consciousness or mind I can't say but I believe the scriptures on the spirits are more than just poetry.

[pogi]

Stone holm, you may be interested in this:

 

 

This is a presentation by Chris Bradford of the Mormon Transhumanist Association entitled "The Viability of Panpsychism"

 

He goes over several points to prefer panpsychism including it's commitment to some sort of monism and materialism. 

He makes some interesting points including how Cotton & Conway's Free Will Theorum might demonstrate how particles may actually be deciding how to respond to measurement in quantum mechanics.  

Edited January 26, 2015 by pogi

[Hillel2]

what is panpsychism? if it has something to do with Peter Pan then I have no idea

Hello. Panpsychism is, specifically, the belief that when you trace all phenemona to their point of inception, they possess a single original, essential soul or psyche.

 

Perhaps the LDS idea that all originally unorganized matter is simultaneously endowed with some form of undifferentiated intelligence is equatable with panpsychism?

[pogi]

Hello. Panpsychism is, specifically, the belief that when you trace all phenemona to their point of inception, they possess a single original, essential soul or psyche.

 

Perhaps the LDS idea that all originally unorganized matter is simultaneously endowed with some form of undifferentiated intelligence is equatable with panpsychism?

 

Panpsychism does not necessarily state that there is only one single original psyche, simply that everything has some degree of mind or consciousness, which is more closely related to Mormon views of distinct eternal intelligences which were created into spiritual bodies followed by physical bodies both organic and inorganic.  

Edited January 26, 2015 by pogi

[Stone holm]

Seems like the way Sheldrake explained it, it would fit rather nicely with a lot of Mormon teachings.  Even my wife, who normally turns a deaf ear to such discussions, admitted it sounded very much like what we believe on a lot of fronts.  I have always found Sheldrake to be very stimulating.  Not sure I can go with his defense of Lamarckian Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, his discussion about the inherited resemblance and morphic resonance is very curious.  I think the unfortunate effect of the push for teaching Creationism in public schools has had the impact of forcing biologists into over-reacting and becoming overly orthodox themselves.  Sheldrake provides some very interesting pokes into conventional thinking, and although we like to deny it all the time and not emphasize it, we Mormons are not particularly conventional when it comes to our thinking about God -- which is what attracted me to Mormonism in the first place.

[Uncle Dale]

 

There is always a tendency to create God in our own image.

 

Yet Western religious dogma has maintained for a very long time the notion of God as absolutely "other," and outside space and time.

..

 

 

No doubt you can find this sort of view expressed among the writings

of the early "Church Fathers," and in the outcomes of various early

councils and synods. Probably more than one Pope has issued

decrees, etc. etc.

 

And yet, many of those early Christians also envisioned a Creation

in which planet earth was the center and the earthling human race

the epitiome of all that was good and pleasing -- just a little below

the angels (till Adam made some bad choices). God's own populated

realm, amidst the stars and planets.

 

The Judeo-Christian God may seem as distant as the absent

Watchmaker of Deism, or the Grand Architect of Freemasonry --

but also as close as the indwelling Spirit mentioned by Quakers

and others, long before Mormonism came upon the scene. The

entire concept of incarnation argues against "absolutely other."

 

But -- the impatient human mind seeks a quick and simple binary

choice (ala "Voice of Warning") -- that the biblical God would be

EITHER outside of time-space, OR confined to it, like ourselves.

 

A more nuanced consideration communicates not "a god" nor a

"collection of gods," confined to fleshy bodies -- but "the God,"

as the encompassing Reality: BOTH the cause of time-space

AND its omnipresent resident (simultaneously).

 

Granted -- this is no existential lesson applicable to pre-school

Sunday scriptures class. It is, however, a viewpoint quite different

from the binary choice offered in a "Key to Theology" discourse.

 

So long as human beings attempt to teach religion to their kids,

the simplistic notions and comforting little stories will persist --

but we Latter Day Saints have been wrong, in promoting the

conclusion that a God with a beard, bones and DNA overlapping

that of chimps 99%, is the ONLY alternative to "absolutely other."

 

UD

[Hillel2]

Panpsychism does not necessarily state that there is only one single original psyche, simply that everything has some degree of mind or consciousness, which is more closely related to Mormon views of distinct eternal intelligences which were created into spiritual bodies followed by physical bodies both organic and inorganic.

[Hillel2]

Panpsychism does not necessarily state that there is only one single original psyche, simply that everything has some degree of mind or consciousness, which is more closely related to Mormon views of distinct eternal intelligences which were created into spiritual bodies followed by physical bodies both organic and inorganic.

[Hillel2]

Hi. I think you're correct. My exposure to the term was via sufi Islam and some of the russian mystic philosophers where there is a notion of one primal, albeit not necessarily, developed consciousness.

As a follow iup question, if LDS philosophy does suggest some kind of p-psychism, is it not also hylozoistic?? I.e, if intelligence is a universal characteristic, all matter has to be alive. Many years ago when i read Andrus' G-d Man and the universe my impression was that LDS belief was both p-psychic and hylozoistic.

[pogi]

Hi. I think you're correct. My exposure to the term was via sufi Islam and some of the russian mystic philosophers where there is a notion of one primal, albeit not necessarily, developed consciousness.

As a follow iup question, if LDS philosophy does suggest some kind of p-psychism, is it not also hylozoistic?? I.e, if intelligence is a universal characteristic, all matter has to be alive. Many years ago when i read Andrus' G-d Man and the universe my impression was that LDS belief was both p-psychic and hylozoistic.

 

I suppose LDS philosophy could also be considered hylozoistic depending on your definition of life.  If spirit is alive, then yes, all material things possess life. 

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................................

 The entire concept of incarnation argues against "absolutely other."

On the contrary, it confirms it.  Why?  Because it is the only instance in which the totally "other" deigns to become one of us.  The LDS concept is very different opting for a God who was never "other," and with whom we have DNA and coeternality.

 

But -- the impatient human mind seeks a quick and simple binary

choice (ala "Voice of Warning") -- that the biblical God would be

EITHER outside of time-space, OR confined to it, like ourselves.

 

A more nuanced consideration communicates not "a god" nor a

"collection of gods," confined to fleshy bodies -- but "the God,"

as the encompassing Reality: BOTH the cause of time-space

AND its omnipresent resident (simultaneously).

LDS theology is monistic, not binary, and is also thoroughly humanistic in a naturalistic universe (and multiverse).  What you see is literally what you get, with all of us having to obey physical law.  The illogical option which you speak of is the main reason for the "death of God" in the 20th century.  Who can believe in such an absurdity?  Normative, yes, but admirable and logical, no.

 

Granted -- this is no existential lesson applicable to pre-school

Sunday scriptures class. It is, however, a viewpoint quite different

from the binary choice offered in a "Key to Theology" discourse.

 

So long as human beings attempt to teach religion to their kids,

the simplistic notions and comforting little stories will persist --

but we Latter Day Saints have been wrong, in promoting the

conclusion that a God with a beard, bones and DNA overlapping

that of chimps 99%, is the ONLY alternative to "absolutely other."

 

UD

I should have thought that someone like you, Brother Broadhurst, might have spent a good deal of time meditating on such matters when you were in Nepal.  However, your conclusions are strangely off target here.  There are of course an infinity of possibilities in an infinite multiverse, and an infinite number of chimpanzees with typewriters might also write the great American novel -- given infinite time.  It makes more sense to me to take the universe as we know it, and ask a very simple question:  Does LDS theology cohere with the facts better than any other theology?  The answer is a resounding "yes."  Does that prove it true?  No.  That is a matter for individual testimony through the Holy Spirit.  Otherwise, it is merely a matter for social construction -- as Mark Bukowski continually and correctly observes.