Pansychism (Introduction)
DAVID: More help for dhw thought patterns:-http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html?_r=1&-Once again, thank you for your integrity and generosity of spirit. Not many folk would draw attention to articles that seriously consider hypotheses of which they themselves disapprove.-This is an excellent article. What I like most about it is that the author presents the theory entertainingly, but without slanting it in any particular direction. Of course panpsychism, like the intelligent cell theory, does not in any way preclude divine design (most forms of panpsychism in fact seem to link it to some kind of God), but clearly Nagel was toying with an atheist concept. Why not? It's as feasible and as non-feasible as any other hypothesis.
Pansychism
by David Turell 
, Sunday, September 29, 2013, 02:21 (4078 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: More help for dhw thought patterns: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html?_r=1& ... > Once again, thank you for your integrity and generosity of spirit. Not many folk would draw attention to articles that seriously consider hypotheses of which they themselves disapprove. > > This is an excellent article. ... but clearly Nagel was toying with an atheist concept. Why not? It's as feasible and as non-feasible as any other hypothesis.-Thank you for enjoying it
Pansychism
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Tuesday, October 01, 2013, 15:48 (4075 days ago) @ dhw
Panpsychism is just silly. It's like the old 'elan vital' concept of things being live because they contain the spark of life, or like the old homunculus theory of heredity. These are 'explanations' that explain nothing.-Chemistry and Genetics have successfully explained the nature of life and heredity in terms of atoms, molecules and energy, and similar 'reductionist' explanations of mind and consciousness are well on the way.-In fact I'm inclined to say that these are 'explanationist' explanations: they realyy do explain things, by deriving the complex from the simple, without requiring the complexity to already exist within the simple.
--
GPJ
Pansychism
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 02, 2013, 02:23 (4075 days ago) @ George Jelliss
George: Panpsychism is just silly. It's like the old 'elan vital' concept of things being live because they contain the spark of life, or like the old homunculus theory of heredity. These are 'explanations' that explain nothing.-I'm in full agreement. > > George: Chemistry and Genetics have successfully explained the nature of life and heredity in terms of atoms, molecules and energy, and similar 'reductionist' explanations of mind and consciousness are well on the way.-Not if you read Thomas Nagel. Will you comment on his ideas? And how do you explain the findings Sam Parnia's latest book demonstrates?
Pansychism; a good discussion
by David Turell , Thursday, January 02, 2014, 19:58 (3982 days ago) @ dhw
"These century-old arguments bring me to the conceptual framework of the integrated information theory (IIT) of psychiatrist and neuroscientist Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin...Madison. It postulates that conscious experience is a fundamental aspect of reality and is identical to a particular type of information—integrated information. Consciousness depends on a physical substrate but is not reducible to it. That is, my experience of seeing an aquamarine blue is inexorably linked to my brain but is different from my brain. "Any system that possesses some nonzero amount of integrated information experiences something. Let me repeat: any system that has even one bit of integrated information has a very minute conscious experience."- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-consciousness-universal&page=5
Pansychism; a supporting essay
by David Turell , Saturday, August 31, 2019, 17:25 (1915 days ago) @ David Turell
A philosopher's take without any evidence:
https://aeon.co/ideas/panpsychism-is-crazy-but-its-also-most-probably-true?utm_source=A...
"Common sense tells us that only living things have an inner life. Rabbits and tigers and mice have feelings, sensations and experiences; tables and rocks and molecules do not. Panpsychists deny this datum of common sense. According to panpsychism, the smallest bits of matter – things such as electrons and quarks – have very basic kinds of experience; an electron has an inner life.
***
"I maintain that there is a powerful simplicity argument in favour of panpsychism. The argument relies on a claim that has been defended by Bertrand Russell, Arthur Eddington and many others, namely that physical science doesn’t tell us what matter is, only what it does. The job of physics is to provide us with mathematical models that allow us to predict with great accuracy how matter will behave. This is incredibly useful information; it allows us to manipulate the world in extraordinary ways, leading to the technological advancements that have transformed our society beyond recognition. But it is one thing to know the behaviour of an electron and quite another to know its intrinsic nature: how the electron is, in and of itself. Physical science gives us rich information about the behaviour of matter but leaves us completely in the dark about its intrinsic nature.
"In fact, the only thing we know about the intrinsic nature of matter is that some of it – the stuff in brains – involves experience. We now face a theoretical choice. We either suppose that the intrinsic nature of fundamental particles involves experience or we suppose that they have some entirely unknown intrinsic nature. On the former supposition, the nature of macroscopic things is continuous with the nature of microscopic things. The latter supposition leads us to complexity, discontinuity and mystery. The theoretical imperative to form as simple and unified a view as is consistent with the data leads us quite straightforwardly in the direction of panpsychism.
"In the public mind, physics is on its way to giving us a complete picture of the nature of space, time and matter. While in this mindset, panpsychism seems improbable, as physics does not attribute experience to fundamental particles. But once we realise that physics tells us nothing about the intrinsic nature of the entities it talks about, and indeed that the only thing we know for certain about the intrinsic nature of matter is that at least some material things have experiences, the issue looks very different. All we get from physics is this big black-and-white abstract structure, which we must somehow colour in with intrinsic nature. We know how to colour in one bit of it: the brains of organisms are coloured in with experience. How to colour in the rest? The most elegant, simple, sensible option is to colour in the rest of the world with the same pen.
"Panpsychism is crazy. But it is also highly likely to be true."
Comment: dhw will like this. My belief is a parallel in that I think we live in the consciousness of God.
Pansychism; a supporting essay
QUOTE: "In the public mind, physics is on its way to giving us a complete picture of the nature of space, time and matter. While in this mindset, panpsychism seems improbable, as physics does not attribute experience to fundamental particles. But once we realise that physics tells us nothing about the intrinsic nature of the entities it talks about, and indeed that the only thing we know for certain about the intrinsic nature of matter is that at least some material things have experiences, the issue looks very different. All we get from physics is this big black-and-white abstract structure, which we must somehow colour in with intrinsic nature. We know how to colour in one bit of it: the brains of organisms are coloured in with experience. How to colour in the rest? The most elegant, simple, sensible option is to colour in the rest of the world with the same pen.
"Panpsychism is crazy. But it is also highly likely to be true."
DAVID: dhw will like this. My belief is a parallel in that I think we live in the consciousness of God.
He’s not talking about “we”, but about all materials, and I don’t understand what you mean by “in the consciousness of God”. Many panpsychists are also theists, but the question this author is raising is whether it is right to distinguish between those particles that combine to make organic beings and those particles which combine to make what we believe to be inanimate objects. The behaviour of particles in quantum physics is also “crazy”, but is believed by many to represent some kind of reality that is “more real” than the one we are familiar with. I do like the article, which I think is well argued, but I still find it difficult to believe that stones and grains of sand and drops of water have even the most rudimentary consciousness of the kind that would also be necessary for the “fundamental particles” to create life, reproduction and evolution. That is why I put it on a par with chance and God as a theory I cannot have faith in.
Pansychism; a supporting essay
by David Turell , Sunday, September 01, 2019, 15:31 (1914 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "In the public mind, physics is on its way to giving us a complete picture of the nature of space, time and matter. While in this mindset, panpsychism seems improbable, as physics does not attribute experience to fundamental particles. But once we realise that physics tells us nothing about the intrinsic nature of the entities it talks about, and indeed that the only thing we know for certain about the intrinsic nature of matter is that at least some material things have experiences, the issue looks very different. All we get from physics is this big black-and-white abstract structure, which we must somehow colour in with intrinsic nature. We know how to colour in one bit of it: the brains of organisms are coloured in with experience. How to colour in the rest? The most elegant, simple, sensible option is to colour in the rest of the world with the same pen.
"Panpsychism is crazy. But it is also highly likely to be true."DAVID: dhw will like this. My belief is a parallel in that I think we live in the consciousness of God.
dhw: He’s not talking about “we”, but about all materials, and I don’t understand what you mean by “in the consciousness of God”. Many panpsychists are also theists, but the question this author is raising is whether it is right to distinguish between those particles that combine to make organic beings and those particles which combine to make what we believe to be inanimate objects. The behaviour of particles in quantum physics is also “crazy”, but is believed by many to represent some kind of reality that is “more real” than the one we are familiar with. I do like the article, which I think is well argued, but I still find it difficult to believe that stones and grains of sand and drops of water have even the most rudimentary consciousness of the kind that would also be necessary for the “fundamental particles” to create life, reproduction and evolution. That is why I put it on a par with chance and God as a theory I cannot have faith in.
To answer your question I think God created us in His mind
Pansychism; a supporting essay
DAVID: dhw will like this. My belief is a parallel in that I think we live in the consciousness of God.
dhw: He’s not talking about “we”, but about all materials, and I don’t understand what you mean by “in the consciousness of God”. Many panpsychists are also theists, but the question this author is raising is whether it is right to distinguish between those particles that combine to make organic beings and those particles which combine to make what we believe to be inanimate objects. The behaviour of particles in quantum physics is also “crazy”, but is believed by many to represent some kind of reality that is “more real” than the one we are familiar with. I do like the article, which I think is well argued, but I still find it difficult to believe that stones and grains of sand and drops of water have even the most rudimentary consciousness of the kind that would also be necessary for the “fundamental particles” to create life, reproduction and evolution. That is why I put it on a par with chance and God as a theory I cannot have faith in.
DAVID: To answer your question I think God created us in His mind.
Perhaps I’m being stupid, but I still don’t understand this, or “we live in the consciousness of God”. Do you mean our material existence and that of the universe are both illusions and everything is a figment of his imagination? Or do you mean he planned everything in his mind and then manipulated matter to give material form to his ideas? Or the universe is his body and contains his mind?
Purely as a matter of interest, the author of our article has clearly latched on to A.N. Whitehead’s notion that “the basic unit is an experiential event”, which he calls an “actual entity” (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) – and Whitehead was a panpsychist-panentheist and process theologian.
Pansychism; a supporting essay
by David Turell , Monday, September 02, 2019, 15:47 (1913 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: dhw will like this. My belief is a parallel in that I think we live in the consciousness of God.
dhw: He’s not talking about “we”, but about all materials, and I don’t understand what you mean by “in the consciousness of God”. Many panpsychists are also theists, but the question this author is raising is whether it is right to distinguish between those particles that combine to make organic beings and those particles which combine to make what we believe to be inanimate objects. The behaviour of particles in quantum physics is also “crazy”, but is believed by many to represent some kind of reality that is “more real” than the one we are familiar with. I do like the article, which I think is well argued, but I still find it difficult to believe that stones and grains of sand and drops of water have even the most rudimentary consciousness of the kind that would also be necessary for the “fundamental particles” to create life, reproduction and evolution. That is why I put it on a par with chance and God as a theory I cannot have faith in.
DAVID: To answer your question I think God created us in His mind.
dhw: Perhaps I’m being stupid, but I still don’t understand this, or “we live in the consciousness of God”. Do you mean our material existence and that of the universe are both illusions and everything is a figment of his imagination? Or do you mean he planned everything in his mind and then manipulated matter to give material form to his ideas? Or the universe is his body and contains his mind?
Purely as a matter of interest, the author of our article has clearly latched on to A.N. Whitehead’s notion that “the basic unit is an experiential event”, which he calls an “actual entity” (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) – and Whitehead was a panpsychist-panentheist and process theologian.
I do not view God as true matter in any sense. For me God exists only at the quantum level, which is why quantum mechanics is at the root our our reality. This explains one of the reasons why I doubt our ability to reason as God does, since quantum discoveries are so counterintuative but also related to consciousness as Whitehead infers. I think God planned and created us with His mind, and therefore we live in it.
Pansychism; a supporting essay
DAVID: dhw will like this. My belief is a parallel in that I think we live in the consciousness of God.
dhw: I don’t understand what you mean by “in the consciousness of God”.
DAVID: To answer your question I think God created us in His mind.
dhw: Perhaps I’m being stupid, but I still don’t understand this, or “we live in the consciousness of God”. Do you mean our material existence and that of the universe are both illusions and everything is a figment of his imagination? Or do you mean he planned everything in his mind and then manipulated matter to give material form to his ideas? Or the universe is his body and contains his mind?
Purely as a matter of interest, the author of our article has clearly latched on to A.N. Whitehead’s notion that “the basic unit is an experiential event”, which he calls an “actual entity” (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) – and Whitehead was a panpsychist-panentheist and process theologian.
DAVID: I do not view God as true matter in any sense. For me God exists only at the quantum level, which is why quantum mechanics is at the root our our reality. This explains one of the reasons why I doubt our ability to reason as God does…..
This is your one and only justification for your combination of fixed beliefs in your always-in-control God having a single goal which he ignores for 3.X billion years before designing a bush of hominins and homos until he finally designs the only thing he ever wanted to design…… (See “Neanderthal” and “Unanswered questions”)
DAVID: ….since quantum discoveries are so counterintuative but also related to consciousness as Whitehead infers. I think God planned and created us with His mind, and therefore we live in it.
I can understand him using his mind to plan and create us. I can’t understand “therefore we live in it”. Do rocks and grains of sand and drops of water also live in it? Then “it” would mean the material universe, but God is not “true matter in any sense”. On the other hand, in the context of panpsychism and your panentheism: If your God is within as well as without the universe, is he also present in rocks etc.? What would that mean? (I am only trying to understand your thinking here – this is not a criticism.)
Pansychism; a supporting essay
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 03, 2019, 17:39 (1912 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Perhaps I’m being stupid, but I still don’t understand this, or “we live in the consciousness of God”. Do you mean our material existence and that of the universe are both illusions and everything is a figment of his imagination? Or do you mean he planned everything in his mind and then manipulated matter to give material form to his ideas? Or the universe is his body and contains his mind?
Purely as a matter of interest, the author of our article has clearly latched on to A.N. Whitehead’s notion that “the basic unit is an experiential event”, which he calls an “actual entity” (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) – and Whitehead was a panpsychist-panentheist and process theologian.DAVID: I do not view God as true matter in any sense. For me God exists only at the quantum level, which is why quantum mechanics is at the root our our reality. This explains one of the reasons why I doubt our ability to reason as God does…..
dhw: This is your one and only justification for your combination of fixed beliefs in your always-in-control God having a single goal which he ignores for 3.X billion years before designing a bush of hominins and homos until he finally designs the only thing he ever wanted to design…… (See “Neanderthal” and “Unanswered questions”)
Once again you have a humanized God putting off His goal. God needed to create the entire bush of life to provide food for the years He took to create humans. If He just created humans, how would they be able to live all by themselves? God understood the requirements. Your God doesn't because of His human thinking you have given Him.
DAVID: ….since quantum discoveries are so counterintuative but also related to consciousness as Whitehead infers. I think God planned and created us with His mind, and therefore we live in it.dhw: I can understand him using his mind to plan and create us. I can’t understand “therefore we live in it”. Do rocks and grains of sand and drops of water also live in it? Then “it” would mean the material universe, but God is not “true matter in any sense”. On the other hand, in the context of panpsychism and your panentheism: If your God is within as well as without the universe, is he also present in rocks etc.? What would that mean? (I am only trying to understand your thinking here – this is not a criticism.)
I accept the reality of the Earth as God created it. I think rocks are sold matter without any psychic abilities. God provided consciousness where it was really needed.
Pansychism; a supporting essay
DAVID: …. I think God planned and created us with His mind, and therefore we live in it.
dhw: I can understand him using his mind to plan and create us. I can’t understand “therefore we live in it”. Do rocks and grains of sand and drops of water also live in it? Then “it” would mean the material universe, but God is not “true matter in any sense”. On the other hand, in the context of panpsychism and your panentheism: If your God is within as well as without the universe, is he also present in rocks etc.? What would that mean? (I am only trying to understand your thinking here – this is not a criticism.)
DAVID: I accept the reality of the Earth as God created it. I think rocks are solid matter without any psychic abilities. God provided consciousness where it was really needed.
This doesn’t explain what you mean by us “living in God’s mind” or earlier by us “living in the consciousness of God”. As material beings, we live in a material universe. If your God is within as well as without that universe (= panentheism) how can he not be in all the material particles that make up the universe (panpsychism)? Again, I’m not criticizing – I’m just trying to understand what these different expressions actually mean.
Pansychism; a supporting essay
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 04, 2019, 16:48 (1911 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: …. I think God planned and created us with His mind, and therefore we live in it.
dhw: I can understand him using his mind to plan and create us. I can’t understand “therefore we live in it”. Do rocks and grains of sand and drops of water also live in it? Then “it” would mean the material universe, but God is not “true matter in any sense”. On the other hand, in the context of panpsychism and your panentheism: If your God is within as well as without the universe, is he also present in rocks etc.? What would that mean? (I am only trying to understand your thinking here – this is not a criticism.)
DAVID: I accept the reality of the Earth as God created it. I think rocks are solid matter without any psychic abilities. God provided consciousness where it was really needed.
dhw: This doesn’t explain what you mean by us “living in God’s mind” or earlier by us “living in the consciousness of God”. As material beings, we live in a material universe. If your God is within as well as without that universe (= panentheism) how can he not be in all the material particles that make up the universe (panpsychism)? Again, I’m not criticizing – I’m just trying to understand what these different expressions actually mean.
My view is God created simple material things like rocks with no consciousness by using His consciousness. Where He left His consciousness partially intact is in our brains. God maintains this universe in God's mind, an offshoot of Adler's argument from his book, How to think about God.
Pansychism; a supporting essay
by David Turell , Sunday, May 17, 2020, 21:59 (1655 days ago) @ David Turell
A new one:
http://nautil.us//blog/electrons-may-very-well-be-conscious?mc_cid=646f0c04bd&mc_ei...
"This month, the cover of New Scientist ran the headline, “Is the Universe Conscious?” Mathematician and physicist Johannes Kleiner, at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany, told author Michael Brooks that a mathematically precise definition of consciousness could mean that the cosmos is suffused with subjective experience. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution,” Kleiner said, referring to research he and others have been conducting.
"Kleiner and his colleagues are focused on the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness, one of the more prominent theories of consciousness today. As Kleiner notes, IIT (as the theory is known) is thoroughly panpsychist because all integrated information has at least one bit of consciousness.
***
"While there are many versions of panpsychism, the version I find appealing is known as constitutive panpsychism. It states, to put it simply, that all matter has some associated mind or consciousness, and vice versa. Where there is mind there is matter and where there is matter there is mind. They go together. As modern panpsychists like Alfred North Whitehead, David Ray Griffin, Galen Strawson, and others have argued, all matter has some capacity for feeling, albeit highly rudimentary feeling in most configurations of matter.
***
"Many biologists and philosophers have recognized that there is no hard line between animate and inanimate. J.B.S. Haldane, the eminent British biologist, supported the view that there is no clear demarcation line between what is alive and what is not: “We do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in so-called inert matter…; but if the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least in rudimentary form, all through the universe.”
***
"More recently, University of Colorado astrobiologist Bruce Jakosky, who has worked with NASA in the search for extraterrestrial life, asked rhetorically: “Was there a distinct moment when Earth went from having no life to having life, as if a switch were flipped? The answer is ‘probably not.’”
"Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, author of the 2018 book Lost in Math, has taken a contrary position. “f you want a particle to be conscious, your minimum expectation should be that the particle can change,” she argued in a post titled “Electrons Don’t Think.” “It’s hard to have an inner life with only one thought. But if electrons could have thoughts, we’d long have seen this in particle collisions because it would change the number of particles produced in collisions.”
***
"Whitehead’s variety of panpsychism, still the most worked-out version of panpsychism today, re-envisions the nature of matter in a fundamental way. For Whitehead, all actual entities, including electrons, atoms, and molecules, are “drops of experience” in that they enjoy at least a little bit of experience, a little bit of awareness. At first blush it’s a strange perspective but eventually makes a great deal of sense.
"Rather than being unchanging things moving around in a container of space-time—the modern view in a nutshell—Whitehead conceives of particles like electrons as a chain of successive iterations of a single electron that bear a strong likeness to each other in each iteration, but are not identical to each other. Each iteration is a little different than the last. There is no static and unchanging electron. The degree to which each iteration is more or less different than the last iteration is the place for an iota of choice, and mind. This iota of choice compounds upwards and, through the course of biological evolution, results in the complex types of mind and choice that we humans and other mammals enjoy.
***
"Many modern thinkers have come to embrace Whitehead and panpsychism to varying degrees, including Bohm, whose Wholeness and the Implicate Order, his magnum opus on modern physics and the nature of reality, refers to Whitehead as an inspiration.
"I am fleshing out in my work how we can turn these “merely” philosophical considerations about the nature of mind throughout nature into a testable set of experiments, with some early thoughts sketched here. Such experiments move debates about panpsychism out of the realm of philosophy and more firmly into the realm of science."
Comment: I find all of this a stretch, so I'm with Hossenfelder, but since I believe our universe is in the mind of God, some aspects of panpsychism reflect that thought. But much of what is discussed here is reactive behavior, automatic responses to stimuli.
Pansychism; a supporting essay
QUOTE: “The degree to which each iteration is more or less different than the last iteration is the place for an iota of choice, and mind. This iota of choice compounds upwards and, through the course of biological evolution, results in the complex types of mind and choice that we humans and other mammals enjoy.”
DAVID: I find all of this a stretch, so I'm with Hossenfelder, but since I believe our universe is in the mind of God, some aspects of panpsychism reflect that thought. But much of what is discussed here is reactive behavior, automatic responses to stimuli.
The quote has always been my bottom-up alternative to the top-down hypothesis of consciousness emanating from a sourceless mind. But one should note that panpsychism does not have to be atheistic. Whitehead was a panpsychist who believed in a God who was always "becoming" (process theology), as opposed to the know-it-all-in-advance God you seem to believe in most of the time. It depends which version you adhere to. You will not be surprised to hear that I find all these hypotheses “a stretch”!
Pansychism; a supporting essay
by David Turell , Monday, May 18, 2020, 18:40 (1654 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “The degree to which each iteration is more or less different than the last iteration is the place for an iota of choice, and mind. This iota of choice compounds upwards and, through the course of biological evolution, results in the complex types of mind and choice that we humans and other mammals enjoy.”
DAVID: I find all of this a stretch, so I'm with Hossenfelder, but since I believe our universe is in the mind of God, some aspects of panpsychism reflect that thought. But much of what is discussed here is reactive behavior, automatic responses to stimuli.
dhw: The quote has always been my bottom-up alternative to the top-down hypothesis of consciousness emanating from a sourceless mind. But one should note that panpsychism does not have to be atheistic. Whitehead was a panpsychist who believed in a God who was always "becoming" (process theology), as opposed to the know-it-all-in-advance God you seem to believe in most of the time. It depends which version you adhere to. You will not be surprised to hear that I find all these hypotheses “a stretch”!
I'm aware of process theology, but view its just another guessed possibility about God's personality. Based on what God has done, i don't think He needs much learning to change what
He does or what He thinks. The logic comes from the knowledge that we are finite in the future so I consider us just one of His iterations from eternity on til now.
Pansychism; supporting paper from physicists
by David Turell , Monday, September 20, 2021, 15:25 (1164 days ago) @ David Turell
Another strained take from a differing viewpoint:
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-i...
"The physical universe is a “strange loop” says the new paper titled “The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” from the team at the Quantum Gravity Research, a Los Angeles-based theoretical physics institute founded by the scientist and entrepreneur Klee Irwin. They take Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis, which maintains that all of reality is an extremely detailed computer program, and ask, rather than relying on advanced lifeforms to create the amazing technology necessary to compose everything within our world, isn’t it more efficient to propose that the universe itself is a “mental self-simulation”? They tie this idea to quantum mechanics, seeing the universe as one of many possible quantum gravity models.
***
"But where does the physical reality that would generate the simulations comes from, wonder the researchers? Their hypothesis takes a non-materialistic approach, saying that everything is information expressed as thought. As such, the universe “self-actualizes” itself into existence, relying on underlying algorithms and a rule they call “the principle of efficient language.” (my bold)
***
"Under this proposal, the entire simulation of everything in existence is just one “grand thought.” How would the simulation itself be originated? It was always there, say the researchers, explaining the concept of “timeless emergentism.” According to this idea, time isn’t there at all. Instead, the all-encompassing thought that is our reality offers a nested semblance of a hierarchical order, full of “sub-thoughts” that reach all the way down the rabbit hole towards the base mathematics and fundamental particles. This is also where the rule of efficient language comes in, suggesting that humans themselves are such “emergent sub-thoughts” and they experience and find meaning in the world through other sub-thoughts (called “code-steps or actions”) in the most economical fashion.
***
"The scientists link their hypothesis to panpsychism, which sees everything as thought or consciousness. The authors think that their “panpsychic self-simulation model” can even explain the origin of an overarching panconsciousness at the foundational level of the simulations, which “self-actualizes itself in a strange loop via self-simulation.” This panconsciousness also has free will and its various nested levels essentially have the ability to select what code to actualize, while making syntax choices. The goal of this consciousness? To generate meaning or information.
***
"The team also proposes that in the coming years we will be able to create designer consciousnesses for ourselves as advancements in gene editing could allow us to make our own mind-simulations much more powerful. We may also see minds emerging that do not require matter at all.
"While some of these ideas are certainly controversial in the mainstream science circles, Klee and his team respond that “We must critically think about consciousness and certain aspects of philosophy that are uncomfortable subjects to some scientists.'” (my bold)
Comment: this whole paper reads like my God theory that we live in His consciousness. of course they cannot drag Him in. To see the real very complex serious paper:
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247/htm
"Abstract
We modify the simulation hypothesis to a self-simulation hypothesis, where the physical universe, as a strange loop, is a mental self-simulation that might exist as one of a broad class of possible code theoretic quantum gravity models of reality obeying the principle of efficient language axiom. This leads to ontological interpretations about quantum mechanics. We also discuss some implications of the self-simulation hypothesis such as an informational arrow of time. (my bold)
***
"Conclusions
We introduce the self-simulation hypothesis as a modification of the simulation hypothesis. We consider the assumption of mental simulations to be more plausible than computer simulations because, as with lucid dreams, they are currently more precise. Furthermore, humanity’s recent hacking of evolutionary biology, via CRISPR gene editing, is likely to allow rapid evolution of consciousness in the future—designer consciousness—that can make mind-simulations even more powerful. Future non-local quantum gravity theories and deeper understanding of what consciousness is may allow new forms of mind to emerge from networks of biological consciousnesses or that do not require matter in the first place. The upper limit of energy in the universe that can self-organize into conscious systems and networked systems of conscious systems is 100% of the energy. (my bold)