Metaphysics, politics and spirituality - Conferences coming!

[Alexander Bard]

I would definiitely LOVE that, dear Daniel!

So if we are working in the area in between metaphysics, politics and spirituality anyway, why not combine all three for a truly philosophical get-together in 2018?

Perhaps Stockholm or London could be a first host city?

Where do we meet next to chat about this? Alter Ego in early September?

So let's see where Alter Ego is heading first and what is then needed in addition, OK?

Warmest wishes

Alexander

2017-08-16 18:11 GMT+02:00 Daniel Görtz <gortz....@gmail.com>:

Wow... Geometrical. This is very nice Alejandro. Looking forward to the new tome. Maybe on a conference next year we could all present the ideas of one another. Me and two others could pehaps divide up your opus and present it. I would love to talk about Syntheism or ontology.

On 16 August 2017 at 13:25, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Geometry is nothing but relations. There is consequently no "program" to geometry. All assumed "geometric laws" are totally tautological.

Which is why Söderqvist and I argue in our next  book that The Universe is geometrical rather than mathematical. Mathematics has allowed for example the number 0 and infinity to sneek in. But none of them exist ontically. There are however no such sneek-ins in the world of geometry.

But geometry does not explain force and change. And while it is correct that there is no ultimate substance on the micro-level and that even particles are miniscule with enormous spaces in between them, those spaces in between (while consisting of space and time to begin with) are filled with incredibly strong forces. These forces consequently have as much ontic and original quality as any assumed "substance". Substance is simply forces and relations and thereby constantly changing. Which geometry does not explain. Time/change remains the true mystery.

The correct terminology for this is, Sdöerqvist and I believe, network dynamics.

Which is why our chapter that responds to my good old friend Max Tegmark's "The Mathematical Universe" (yes, we did attend the Stockholm School of Economics together in the 1980s) is a chapter called "Our Network-Dynamical Universe". This is our take on Whiteaheadianism versus Platonism (where Tegmark is the last Platonist).

Still, we have not yet solved what happens around the Planck length. Which is both a philosophical and physical question. Especially as it must also be defined along the time axis. As Tegmark and the other physicists are happy to admit.

Best

Alexander

2017-08-15 19:46 GMT+02:00 Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com>:

Indeed, I probably misspoke a bit, saying 'just information.' Truly, I don't know what's down there, as I'm by no means a physicist.. but there is a lot to be said for the way reality is 'coded' or can be reduced to information if it is represented most abstractly. Of course there is matter, and that matter and energy are conversions of each other, but the fact that a rock is not as "solid" as we perceive it to be (and in fact it is in a way "empty" and permeable), says more about its informational composition than it does about matter, methinks. 

Remember, in the origins of the universe there was only hydrogen and helium, and so long before life emerged, elements themselves had to "emerge" from simpler building blocks. I think Geometry (yes, capital G) is a good example because you can also start from basic shapes (circles, triangles, squares) and eventually build macro structures that subtle hide more complex forms of geometry (most obvious in phyllotaxis, less obvious in humans, but its there).

The solar system itself is a remarkable example of sacred geometry. No mere coincidence, but something programmed into gravity itself perhaps. 

I think "information" can encapsulate force, relation, change, etc.. which is why I propose geometry itself is the best metaphor. Am I being too simplistic? Lest we forget the prehistorical origins of philosophy itself in geometry. 

Regards, 

Brent

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wait, wait, wait, did you just write "just information"???

Because this is where it gets really really really interesting, dear Brett & Co.

Information does not have force, information does not change in itself, information does not in itself establish and maintain constantly changing relations.

Reality apparently does all of those things though. So the innermost core of reality is definitely not "just information". Which explains why I strongly object to Max Tegmark's "A Mathematical Universe" as nothing but just another dead Platonist tombstone. Philosophically extremely naive.

We must do much better.

Superstrings are so far the possibly best physical theory on the innermost building blocks of reality. Especially when combined with proper emergentism. And the Planck length is the real mystery as a unit. As the point where "potential things" and "actual things" differ.

But we are also thinking the world fundamentally wrong when thinking of the world as consisting of"eternalised objects". Because change and relationalism is more primary - relation predates relata in a Whiteheadian universe -  than the Kantian world of phenomena. Both the field and the intensity are primary to the combined field of intensity that we may perceive as a phenomenon in our post-Kantian phenomenology.

I want to get at this. In this group. With the people here.

So what is the best metaphor for the most minor building blocks of reality? In quantum physics, anything below the Planck length is nothing but "pure chaos". But what the fuck is that then?

What is "information" as opposed to "force", "relation" and "change"?

It sure isn't "psyche" though, right?

Best

Alexander

2017-08-15 4:24 GMT+02:00 Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com>:

Hi Fanny,

I do think its worth defining, thanks for asking. I can't recall what the best source is, but I know I've come across it in mainstream quantum physics-- that when you get down to the deepest level, there is no 'matter' per se, its just information. 

This makes sense to me in terms of metaphysics as 'first principles' (of reality, not ethics in this case), which is based on geometry. It's difficult for us to picture "information" at the quantum level, if we are thinking of data or formulae, but everything is ultimately based on geometry, and geometry is present across all scales/ levels. In a way, this could refer to real Platonic forms. The problem of course is its not obvious how our complex social reality (including our perception of reality) emerges from this base truth... and not because we can't understand it, but because there are countless layers of emergence. Layer upon layer, we are separated by oceans of information. 

This geometry, especially if we talk about 'sacred geometry,' could be a sort of abstract 'intelligence' that qualifies as panpsychism (and perhaps the only version, if we are strict). Sacred geometry refers to a subset of geometry that is simple, elegant, harmonious, and in particular incorporates phi (1.618...). No new age dogma is necessary to indulge sacred geometry, but I am just using it to make a point about geometry and information. And to be clear, it is geometry alone that allows us to make true statements about 'alignment', as opposed to feelings or self-delusion, or astrological coincidences. It is particularly interesting how geometry is reflected across different scales.. from the subatomic, through humans, to the solar system level, and beyond. 

I would compare the different levels of analysis to having different rules (although not different laws of physics). The "game of life" is the archetypal example to simulate how life emerged from such an informational matrix. We can see how when we get to the social level, it is much more complex, but we still make decisions in matrices nonetheless.

Bringing it back to the quantum brain hypothesis... suppose that the more complex a form of life, the more it can interact and feedback into this geometric panpsychism. And our decisions, whether they be free choices, or some higher (and rarer) act of the will, such as an abstract goal or intention, are made in some sort of informational matrix too. If the brain is a quantum computer, it must be true that our self-observation would have similar effects to any quantum experiments. 

We were talking about ethics in another thread, and I'm for some kind of 'moral absolutism' based on a hypothetical ideal abstract frame of reference. And to be sure, we should assume nested frames of reference. So, we could abstract out 2, 3, 4, 5,.. frames and improve our moral standard.. but also acknowledge that it goes deeper than we can reach. Moral enlightenment, like intellectual, demands of us that we keep striving. 

Regards, 

Brent

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 4:37 AM, fannynorlin <fanny...@gmail.com> wrote:

Brent- I find the idea of “informational matrix 'all the way down' which is constituted differently at different orders of magnitude, giving way to complex emergence as we scale up “ really interesting and think that it is this “informational matrix” that we need to unpack and build the ethics behind metamodern politics on. 

In the spiritual world my feeling is that they cling to panpsychism since it gives a logic behind order-creating things like karma, that there is something all-seeing that will assure negative consequences if we do not behave “good”. But if we are to remove this belief we still need to replace it with a better “belief” that can help us create some kind of illusion of order in the “real” chaos of the world. So my question is what is this order? Reading previous threads my take would be that the answer is interactive ethics. But I am wondering, since we can only perceive the world through our consciousness which consists of eternal snapshots of the worlds’ mobilism, is it possible for us to set these ethics outside a frame? If not, what is this frame? 

Could it be be the patterns of emergence that are “valid” in this universe? For ex the pattern that all things strive towards being part of a better non-zero sum games, not because they are necessarily conscious, more that it is a like a programmed code of this universe. A code that itself has emerged through evolution, since a better non-zero-sum game is more energy efficient = more capable of surviving. So if something is a better non-zero sum game it’s good, if not it’s bad. And of course this will depend on what level of abstraction you are looking at the game/system from.

What are your ideas of the informational matrix or “causations upward/downward”? Or do you even agree that they are relevant to define?

Best,

Fanny 

Den tisdag 18 juli 2017 kl. 20:46:25 UTC+2 skrev Brent Cooper:

Is it true to think of panpsychism not as 'consciousness' 'all the way down' but as the informational matrix 'all the way down' which is constituted differently at different orders of magnitude, giving way to complex emergence as we scale up? There is no consciousness above or below the level of the brain, but there is life, and quantum organics, and causation upward/downward. I found this talk on Quantum Biology quite informative. As the speaker says, the problem is not quantum physics is but what it means. 

Physics = substance

Metaphysics = substantial

QED.

Regards, 

Brent

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The burden of evidence is totally on you, Morten!

Because everything we have found over the past 10,000 years has turned out to be totally material. Without a single exception. There is only one substance.

And you misuse the term "metaphysical" grotesquely. If you mean "spiritual" as in "non-material" than for God's sake say so. "Metaphysics" is not a substance. Never has been.

So what does consciousness really exist of? And how does it communicate with the material world? Through which third substance et cetera? Answer the questions instead of escaping them behind meaningless fludder.

Philosophy killed Descartes over 200 years ago. If you're serious about being involved in this community you owe it to the rest of us to tell us what you base your hocus pocus beliefs on. Otherwise you're not yet even modern. Even less so metamodernist.

Best intentions

Alexander

2017-07-17 21:13 GMT+02:00 Morten Overgaard <mover...@hotmail.com>:

Well we may be talking past each other I fear. I don't really believe consciousness to exist "inside" anything, as I suspect it to be entirely metaphysical - so non-applicable in a sense to the physical world - the world of atoms and electrons and so on.

I've got no proof of course, but there's no real proof the other way around either. Just the reflection that we can locate the atoms, electrons, size and weight of anything else physical, except our consciousness.

---

Fra: metamo...@googlegroups.com <metamo...@googlegroups.com> på vegne af Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com>
Sendt: 17. juli 2017 12:15
Til: Metamodernism; Syntheism

Emne: Re: Panpsychism - A spiritual and philosophical challenge

 

Yes!

There is no consciousness outside of material reality.

What we perceive as "consciousness" is a perception based on material reality. The brain cells, hormones, other chemicals involved are all based on atomic reality.

There is consequently no SECOND and different substance from which consciousness exists anymore than a red colour is your perception of a certain wave frequency of light.

Anything else is nothing but hocus pocus. Human narcissism in its worst and most vulgar form (I'm so special because I have consciousness, so then consciousness must be so special etc). Rtahr I agree with Oskarv here that consciousness on closer study turns out to not be very special at all. Just one Darwinian survival mechanism among thousands more.

Or as Descartes' very own students already pointed out  in the 17th century: If there was a second non-material substance through WHICH THIRD SUBSTANCE would this mystical second substance then communicate with the first material substance? Since consciousness apparently exists within and communicates with the material world.

You owe me the answer to that question, dear Morten!

Best

Alexander

2017-07-15 15:10 GMT+02:00 Morten Overgaard <mover...@hotmail.com>:

Hi Alexander

I would appreciate if you could address my original question:

A cellphone - and other physical objects - are composed of atoms, electrons and so on.

Do you believe the same to be the case for consciousness?

---

Fra: metamo...@googlegroups.com <metamo...@googlegroups.com> på vegne af Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com>
Sendt: 15. juli 2017 10:03

Til: Metamodernism
Emne: Re: Panpsychism - A spiritual and philosophical challenge

 

Well, it is not easy when you write that metamodernism is also "amoral" in another paragraph in the very same text. Contradiction again.

Please don't ever let empathy sneek into psychological stages theories and then make banal moralism out of it. Empathy is instinctual and not sophisticated. And feelings are not any good ground for ethics. Simply because they come and go and more often rooted in deeper trash than the beautiful aura they may carry with them at first sight.

Animal rights is a political opinion, it is not a universal ethical principle. Sentimentality does not carry any weight in ethics for a very good reason.

Animal rights have only ever developed in cultures that could afford such luxurious positions. Just like philanthropy and charity. That speaks volumes.

Best

Alexander (hunts without cruelty,  where the latter is optional, precisely for environmentalist reasons)

2017-07-15 9:51 GMT+02:00 Daniel Görtz <gortz....@gmail.com>:

No we have a light clause on panpsychism, "explore visions of" which then would exclude you exactly. Will get back on this.

When it comes to animal rights the burden of proof  lies on the folks who would like to defend the murder and exploitation of obviously sentient beings. When it comes to environmentalism it lies on folks who would like to defend certain future global crashes. So that's the easy part.

On Jul 14, 2017 22:07, "Alexander Bard" <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, then you've really got a problem, dear Daniel!

Because you end "The Lstening Society" with demanding that a panpsychist worldview is a requirement for metamodernism. Just like say metamodernism is amoral while adding animal rights of all things (contradictions again) as a prerequisite for the metamodernist stance. But why is suddenly aggressive environmentalism metamodern? Why not opposition against abortions, which is also a cruelty against sentient beings in that case? Why even care about sentimentality for ethics?

And when we check how you arrived at this stance you have nothing better than your "intuition" to refer to. That's not much.

It rather looks as if you and Emil have arrived in the same la la land as the Eckhart Tolle and Ken Wilber you poke fun at (and damned rightly so) in the same chapter.

Hocus pocus sneaks back into the metamodernist worldview. Something I think both modernism and poststructuralism had got ridden of through the monist revolution from Spinoza via Hegel to Nietzsche.

So yes, let's take panpsychism seriously. I do. But where are the arguments for it? Outside of spooky personal experiences and even more longing for Nietzsche's post-phallic god-corpse?

Right now it's like talking to people who can't fathom that their near-death experiences are flukes of the brain. An EXPERIENCE PROVES NOTHING outside of that experience. Anything else is just hocus pocus. Why else even bother with science?

So what is "pan" and what is "psyche" and why should we bother with the combo?

Best intentions and tough love

Alexadner

2017-07-14 15:01 GMT+02:00 Daniel Görtz <gortz....@gmail.com>:

I can't commit to a discussion at this level of depth at the moment so I'll have to refrain from answering satisfactorily, lest I will be swallowed up time and attentionwise - each question births many more. I am, however, very sympathetic to finding a common ground on this issue, or at least exploring the relatively few positions that seem prevalent among metamodernists and syntheists.

Given how heavy weight this issue is, it should be treated in detail - I'll work with it in the future but I may need to expend several months' work to define a position I am comfortable with. It lies at the heart of our project I agree (which also makes it explosive), and at this time we may need a peace treaty on the issue so we can treat some lower order issues first. Your theology for instance I believe can be approach from both a panpsychist and non-panpsychist standpoints.

We have to admit that we have very strong intuitions here, and that these guide our reasoning. We might have to begin by mapping these different intuitions. What I agree with Morten about is that we should start from phenomenology and reason our way ahead.

Agree that me and Emil have some unresolved issues here - hopefully I can formulate a position that defends how we act in the book, if not we may have revise the theory in the future.

Exciting the conversation - love it, but low energy and much stuff going on. Grateful for you bringing it up.

2017-07-14 14:30 GMT+02:00 Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com>:

In what way, Daniel?

You and Emil certainly give no direction in "The Listening Society" which truly jumps between monism and dualism as another one of the book's many contradictions.

It would be most helpful if we could find some grounding for your sometimes anti-moralist and next hyper-moralist philosophy.

Is there one substance? Or are there suddenly several and if so, how do they connect with each other? Outside of your "intuition" (which is surely not evidence for anything at all). So based on what?

Looking forward to your clarification. Especially after this sudden burst of enthusiasm for Cartesianism all of a sudden.

Morten can surely respond for himself. I'm waiting for him to explain what he means with "metaphysics". Maybe you should to?

Best intentions

Alexander

2017-07-14 0:01 GMT+02:00 Daniel Görtz <gortz....@gmail.com>:

Great post Morten. I agree that this discussion belongs largely within the boundaries of of metaphysics. I think you set the stage for the right kind of discussion and I largely share your intuitions here.

2017-07-13 22:22 GMT+02:00 Morten Overgaard <mover...@hotmail.com>:

Well-well..  "Consciousness".. One of my favorite topics..

I am neither for nor against the points presented below.. Mostly I just have a different perspective. 

You ask whether consciousness has been ever-present and whether it is somehow embedded in or inherent to the universe - plus I sense a lot of other questions tied to this debate: A lot of philosophical uncertainties and a lot of implicit assumptions taken for granted yet perceived differently by people. There are a lot of related points here lying beneath the surface, just waiting to pop up..

Well, here is my view:

If we are to start at the  beginning, then we would need to establish a somewhat commonly agreed-upon baseline or we'd be running in circles.. So for that purpose, I would say the following:

One: I am aware that I am conscious. So in that sense consciousness does exist, because I am aware. I couldn't write these words or perceive anything if I wasn't aware. It may all be a dream or a Lie, but at least I am aware. 

Two: I cannot say for certain whether other people are aware, but I believe they might be. They exhibit what seems to be the same traits of awareness that I do. 

Three: Consciousness seems to be of a non-physical, metaphysical nature. It seemingly does not have any shape, weight or location. You cannot point to where it "is"; you cannot pick it up or out and you cannot otherwise define or delineate its physical nature. It is entirely metaphysical, so it would seem.

It's a bit funny: We can measure things down to the atom-level and even smaller, but we can't find our own goddamn consciousness. We've got million-dollar programs dedicated to looking at and finding out the nature of the universe, but not equally the nature of our own consciousness or why it's here. We spend to much time and resources trying to figure out what is out there; how it's working and why, but not an equal amount trying to figure out first what is "inside". 

It's a bit of a paradox, I would say: It's a paradox that the very thing that enables us to perceive a physical world is itself non-physical. It's one of the most fundamental and overlooked paradoxes in the world; a human capacity that is just taken for granted as we move along in life, reacting to whatever captures our attention right now. And personally I think some of the greatest questions in life can be answered once we seriously try to venture down this rabbithole..

But first, and it's getting late and I am losing my energy and I also fear that people are starting to wonder "does this lead to some sort of conclusion" and, you know, I am not writing a book looking to activate people's hearts but merely writing an email.. So first, let's get back to the baseline understanding about what consciousness is:

As I pointed out above, one of the foundational assumptions should be that consciousness is seemingly of a non-physical nature. This is just an assumption of course: We can't prove that it is, we can't prove that it's not. It just seems to be that way. We would probably have found it already if it was physical, since we've managed to find so many other things. Of course it may happen that in the future some researcher actually does find our consciousness. Maybe he'll say "look folks, it's this little yellow blob right here" - and according to that logic we might be able to pick out a person's consciousness from their brains and place it on a table or even, you know, insert it into another person's head and.. (*realizes this could be a really awful science fiction movie and stops writing*)

Well I don't buy it, and I don't think our consciousness will ever be found, because it probably is of an entirely metaphysical nature. It's really the most overlooked but   obvious paradox right in front of our noses.

So, with that said, and here we are getting close to the finale: If consciousness is not physical, has it then ever been "created" and can it ever be "destroyed"? Because I think we can all agree that something which exists but is not physical cannot be "destroyed" in a physical sense, nor can it ever really be "created" in a physical sense either. Also, it cannot come from "nothing", so by necessity it would need to have always existed.

And with that said, a lot of new doors have been opened: If consciousness is metaphysical then it must always have existed. It can never have been born or created and likely it can never "die" would somehow have to reside completely outside of time as we know it, thereby probably coming dangerously close to what we understand as the "true" nature of reality.

That in my opinion lends some credibility to the whole panpsychism thing. A lot of credibility, actually. All of these are points that cannot be proved of course. Not within the logic of what we today accept as "proof", but the reasoning above does lend some credibility to the theory. If people disagree then they would have to answer this question: Is consciousness physical? If not, then what does that tell you about all the other questions..

That was my view. Thanks for raising the question, I find it quite interesting - and somehow also very related to a lot of metamodern debates.

Kaboom.

Fra: metamo...@googlegroups.com <metamo...@googlegroups.com> på vegne af Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com>
Sendt: 13. juli 2017 20:02
Til: Metamodernism
Emne: Re: Panpsychism - A spiritual and philosophical challenge

 

Well, excellent points, dear Giuseppe!

If something is emergent then it is NOT a property of what it emerges from. That is the whole point with even speaking of emergences.

And since humans emerged and did not exist at the big bang, to speak of consciousness as being ever-present (or psyche for that matter) means that we are back at the Creator-God paradigm, only this time around encapsulating all of history from The Big Bang (or The Big Bounce) and forward.

It is clearly the panpsychists who carry the burden of evidence. The fact that a corpse is overrun by bacteria is an incredibly local phenomenon aftter all.

And here panprotopsychism is just cheating one's way out of panpsychism, don't you agree?

One further question: What really is the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness?

Best intentions

Alexander

2017-07-13 19:40 GMT+02:00 'Giuseppe Dal Pra' via Metamodernism <metamo...@googlegroups.com>:

*over processing other complex tasks.

On 13 Jul 2017, at 18:39, 'Giuseppe Dal Pra' via Metamodernism <metamo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

It might help reaching very general levels of abstraction, since panpsychism presumes just that level of generality. 

I think an interesting route forward would be deriving from Shannon information theory a perspective of entropy 'processed' by intelligence. The act of doing so, increasingly abstractly, or into a more complex assemblage of mental relations with external entropic conditions, leads to cognition. It seems sufficient (neocortex) reasoning allows consciousness to act executively over proceeding other complex tasks. I'm not too familiar with MHC yet but from what I know it seems there are ways to stratify these according to their burgeoning complexity (at this most general level). 

But having a sliding scale does NOT necessitates presuming consciousness is ubiquitous. Are we not transposing our most ambitious intuitions of a highly connected, monist universe? It presumes too much, and in my mind explains too little to justify the leap. 

- GDP

On 12 Jul 2017, at 20:39, Daniel Görtz <gortz....@gmail.com> wrote:

Great presentation <3

2017-07-12 21:17 GMT+02:00 Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com>:

Contra Daniel, I would still say Wendt is required reading if you want to discuss Panpsychism, as that's a big part of his book Quantum Mind and Social Science (chapter 6). Here he does a great job explaining QMASS in video, although it probably doesn't live up to the book. Here is an ASA book review, which is good except for the fact that it cloned one of its own paragraphs halfway down(?). Here is the Google Books copy of QMASS , with a table of contents and partial preview. The whole point of the book for Wendt is to solve the mind-body problem, and thus the structure-agency problem in IR. Maybe Daniel is right, but my reading of Wendt is that he makes his argument quite conservatively, and thus its not really that dangerous to indulge.

Wendt's other main contribution is Why a World State is Inevitable. Here is a video update on that topic. While a world state is inevitable without any quantum argument at the time, this dovetails with QMASS in his argument about the state as holographic organism, in which we are all pixels or nodes. 

Regards, 

Brent

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Friends

If you're up for a serious philosophical and spiritual discussion in the midst of your summer vacation, I would suggest the enormously sensitive but fascinating subject of "panpsychism".

Statements like "The Universe has a subjective consciousness" makes me cringe, for the very simple reason that is is meaningless to speak of conscious subjectivity without at least a decent human brain to experience it with, and even the dumbest human being has more of a human brain than the entire so far known non-human universe. The Universe seems more content without a consciousness (or can simply afford to not have one), leaving the conscious bits to us poor human beings.

But the idea that "mind" has more to it than "human mind" arises as soon as we realise that "quantum mechanics" is a misnomer that really should be referred to as "quantum organics" and the emergent division between say chemistry and biology is not as clear-cut as we had previously assumed. It also turns out that quite a lot of amazing thinkers throughout the ages supported panpsychism one way or the other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

May I also suggest for the health of the debate that we just not throw opinions at each other based on loose arguements (at best) and feelings (at worst) but also try to act Devil's Advocate against our own ideas on the issue? So let's minimise the prestige and maximise the playfulness, it is after all summer in the northern hemisphere. OK?

What is "consciousness"? What is "mind"? And would there be any form of "panpsychism" that we could find if not acceptable than at least tolerable?

Best intentions

Alexander