About
    • AMMDI is an open-notebook hypertext writing experiment, authored by Mike Travers aka mtraven. It's a work in progress and some parts are more polished than others. Comments welcome! More.
Search
Page Contents
Full
Incoming links
from cosmism
from Eugene Thacker
from Alien Phenomenology
  • David Ray Griffin has offered a helpful shorthand for this position, calling it panexperientialism instead of panpsychism, and the former name may suit my purposes better than the latter
from Mysticism
  • p69 More William James: "he acknowledges repeatedly that radical empiracism comes close to panpsychism, the idea that all of experience is soulful, anminated, vibrant, and alive. (see his The Will to Believe)
from Weird Studies/Holiday Memories
  • They were blown away by scientists finding teleological panpsychism etc in nature.
from Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition
  • Kircher is much preoccupied with Isis and Osiris...here "Egyptian" divine immanence combines with Pseudo-Dionysian light mysticism to produce that acute sense of the divine in things so characteristic of Renaissance Hermetism. For Kircher, Isis and Isiris have a meaning which, when found among philosophers of the Renassance such as Bruno, is called panpsychism (p418)
    • The divine Dionysius testifies that all created things are nothing but mirrors with reflect to us the rays fo the divine wisdom. ...
Twin Pages

panpsychism

15 Oct 2022 - 26 Nov 2025
Open in Logseq
    • Panpsychism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
      • Panpsychism, in itself, is not a theory of mind per se, because it does not in general give an account of the precise nature of mind, nor of how it relates to material things. Rather, it is a meta-theory; it is a theory about theories, a framework which says: However mind is to be conceived, it applies, in some sense, to all things.
      • panpsychism needs to be distinguished from some closely related concepts: animism, hylozoism, pantheism, panentheism, and panexperientialism:
        • philosopher's disease alarm going off. Are all of these things different? They all seem similar, poor approximations of something that is basically true, that mind is more of a pervasive
    • The view that mind is inherent in all things. Very non-MIT-materialist, kind of the opposite in fact. For an MMM
      just coined this term for Minsky-MIT-Materialist and I feel very proud of myself
      , mind-like behavior is based on physical mechanisms that instantiate the forms and processes of thought somehow. Neurons or gates, that sort of thing. So no, rocks don't have minds because they have no mechanism to support anything mental. Animals on the other hand obviously do have minds, if not as capable as our own. The essence of this view is that minds are perfectly natural, rather than supernatural.
    • Panpsychism has a very different view of mind, obviously. Whatever it is, it may be found in anything, regardless of its complexity or aliveness.
    • Not entirely sure what this means and sounds awfully woo-woo to me. You can't have a mind without some kind of machinery, that's sort of my materialist fundamentalist postulate.
    • Yet I'm a big fan of Latour, whose non-human actors sound sort of similar. I guess it's easier for me to believe in pan-agency than pan-cognition, and panpsychism sounds more like the latter than the former.
    • On the other hand – forget the ghosts, you don't have to believe in them to believe that meaning is spread out in the world. A river is meaningful to the people who interact with it, but the meaning is not (only) in the heads of the people, it's found in the material relationship that includes and connects mind and world.
    • Does Gregory Bateson count as a panpsychist? I guess so, although I think his view was subtly different. He'd blanch at the curt definition from Panpsychism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality." And he'd say that mind is not a quality that inheres in things, it's a function of relationship.
      • The term does not appear in his Mind and Nature, FWIW