Panpsychism becoming a more relevant view

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I have a huge weakness for musicians... SHHHH NATASHA, SHUT THE FUCK UP 

[Carl-Richard]

41 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

I wrote this when I was 19.

Sick man. Get Animals As Leaders and Meshuggah vibes :,)

I wrote something at 17 which is the main thing that stands out in memory. It's on the forum somewhere.

Found it: it's actually in your thread lol.

Holy shit the sound quality is shit 😂

Also, this one was kinda sick ngl (granted the utter lack of tone and the final chord of the progression containing an unintentional note lol):

https://voca.ro/11DYAHJLi7wM

 

Anyways, sorry for derailing thread 👉👈🥺

Edited October 3 by Carl-Richard

[theoneandnone]

10 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@theoneandnone Just through the forum - but Carl and I have experienced multiple completely unexplainable synchronicities. Posting the same things at the same time. Thinking the same thing - often at the same time, and then ending up with synchronised posts. Encountering similar occurrences in reality that cross over into online interactions. We often describe similar events in reality where we have picked up on thoughts from others.

There has been no pattern to it. It just seems to crop up randomly and happen between us with no intent behind it.

Now I just sort of wait, with mirth and benign curiosity, for it to happen again

 

Hmmmm very interesting what do you think it means for you?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

8 hours ago, theoneandnone said:

Hmmmm very interesting what do you think it means for you?

I get to look forward to some surprises generated in my experience, when visiting the forum!

[theoneandnone]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I get to look forward to some surprises generated in my experience, when visiting the forum!

How does synchronization not cause you to be solipstic

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@theoneandnone Oh wow okay - well - this prompted me to ask myself:

'What makes one draw the conclusion of solipsism as a result of noticing the patterns of synchronization in reality?'

I do not draw that conclusion - why do you, do you think?

I do not draw such a conclusion because there are so many possibilities for an explanation behind synchronicities. To narrow it down to one explanation with an incomplete dataset to explain reality seems like a mistake.

[theoneandnone]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@theoneandnone Oh wow okay - well - this prompted me to ask myself:

'What makes one draw the conclusion of solipsism as a result of noticing the patterns of synchronization in reality?'

I do not draw that conclusion - why do you, do you think?

I do not draw such a conclusion because there are so many possibilities for an explanation behind synchronicities. To narrow it down to one explanation with an incomplete dataset to explain reality seems like a mistake.

Fair enough

 

 

touche

[zurew]

On 2025. 10. 02. at 7:23 PM, Carl-Richard said:

And it's quite ironic because Leo has probably read more books than 99% of people on here.

I think thats easily true, but when it comes to the actual academic stuff and reading papers and such I think he lacks a lot - based on how he wasnt familiar with semantics that everyone is familiar with (like possible world semantics - a very powerful conceptual tool to think about how possibility and necessity can be cashed out in different ways) who just dips his toes in SEP or IEP articles. ( and then there is philpapers).

The other thing is about arguments - like you find can 7-8-9+ layers deep arguments, not what Leo presented in his video for God. Its not premise premise conclusion , its an argument and then there is a defense (a supporting argument) for each premise and a defense for each defense premises and on and on like that 7-8-9 layers deep and it turns out that just the defense of premise one will be backed by like 30 supporting arguments.

So it turns out that those "rats" as he likes to call them (btw someone who very much likes to pretend that he cares about the  principle of no-namecalling) much more equipped in a lot of ways than him and he very obviously cant track most of the arguments that are made by those "rats", thats why he needs to rely almost exclusively on equivocation.

Edited October 4 by zurew

[zurew]

On 2025. 10. 02. at 7:23 PM, Carl-Richard said:

We can coin it "teacher's amnesia"; you disregard or even forget what you have learned in the past and it tends to detrimentally impact the way you teach. I actually had this insight when I was around 7-8 years old in school, that me who is a child could teach some things better to another child than the teacher because I understand how it's like being a child (by virtue of currently living through it).

Yeah thats very much true and its an interesting thing.

The "currently living through it" gives you the ability to train your intuition to recognize certain patterns that otherwise would be much harder to detect and explicate and also gives you the vocab to transfer the concepts much easier.

 

 

 

 

 

@Scholar Here is the paper I was mentioning if you are interested (responses to inefficacy objections) 

https://philarchive.org/archive/MCMAIO

[Scholar]

13 hours ago, zurew said:

Yeah thats very much true and its an interesting thing.

The "currently living through it" gives you the ability to train your intuition to recognize certain patterns that otherwise would be much harder to detect and explicate and also gives you the vocab to transfer the concepts much easier.

 

 

 

 

 

@Scholar Here is the paper I was mentioning if you are interested (responses to inefficacy objections) 

https://philarchive.org/archive/MCMAIO

Yes, people tend to find the argument very attractive, it was recently explored by Kane B:

 

I have seen other studies that specifically went into the estimated counts of how many animals are likely saved by a switch to a plant based diet by the average individual.

I think the arguments from consequentialists are mostly mental gymnastics to avoid the clear conclusion that changing how we relate to animals is a clear ethical obligation. I am not a fan of consequentialism in general though as it is such an epistemically explosive approach that you can justify almost anything or be skeptical about almost anything in relation to what is moral. Most people who are consequentialist contort it to fit whatever their already established values are.

 

In my view the correct approach to ethics is to view it as a discovery of the nature of the self and how it's imperatives relate to itself and the world. The reasons why animals are treated the way they are today is not because we are imperfect moral thinkers, but because we do not recognize the self in animals. Societies moral rules are largely a propositonalized form of it's contemporary subjective drives. If those drives are immature or pathological, what you will observe are immature and pathological moral rules/incentives.

 

In other words, the problem is not that people have not found the right arguments to lead them to the conclusion that we ought to treat animals with basic respect, but the fact that the identity of most thinking agents drives them to construct mental models that will allow them to continue expressing their identity in whatever way currently generates the least friction within their psyche. Most moral philosophy conducted today is a complete waste of human cognition for this reason.

Edited October 4 by Scholar

[theoneandnone]

Is there any current philosophers that seriously advocate Pansychism?

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar @zurew When I think about veganism (or environmentalism for that matter), I think like if you want to make a big change, be an activist, otherwise the impact you can make relative to the rest of the world is relatively infinitesimal. And then the question also becomes in what other ways can you make a change, in what other ways can you spend your limited time? What is the moral calculation there?

Then there is also the thought that any act of wrongdoing (especially with respect to animal suffering) should be minimalized, irrespective of any global comparison, just like you don't kill people on the street just because so many people die anyway on a global scale and it's a drop in the ocean (maybe a relatively bad example because killing someone in your community will not be a drop in the ocean, but anyways, you get the idea).

I would like to hear Alex O'Connor try to reconcile these two positions (I've heard him endorse a version of the first one; that veganism must be fought on an activist and collective level, not an individual everyday level). There is also of course a problem of what qualifies as fighting it on a collective level, at what point is your contribution big, and also, at what point is your contribution to animal suffering small enough? Is it simply the intention that matters, not the execution? If you simply intend not to kill people on the street, is that good enough?

Edited October 5 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I would like to hear Alex O'Connor try to reconcile these two positions (I've heard him endorse a version of the first one; that veganism must be fought on an activist and collective level, not an individual everyday level).

But this line of thought just doesnt make any sense, just on the fact that it isnt a real dichotomy. 

You can do both - him being vegan wouldnt prevent him from engaging in activism or in any other activity.

Its just trash reasoning and he knows much better.

Just as you said like none of this would fly in any other context "let me rape and kill people, because my negative impact is so infinitesimal compared to how much rape and murder happens on an everyday global basis , and let me also make some youtube videos about how rape and murder is wrong , because that has more effect than me not doing those things"

 

To respond to the where the line should be drawn question - If I care about the environment the smallest thing I can do is to not litter. Like we are not talking about some incredibly high standard that couldnt be met like "you can only buy items that are all 100% eco-friendly" - we are talking about as low of a standard as , "just dont litter".

Edited October 5 by zurew

[zurew]

16 hours ago, Scholar said:

In my view the correct approach to ethics is to view it as a discovery of the nature of the self and how it's imperatives relate to itself and the world. The reasons why animals are treated the way they are today is not because we are imperfect moral thinkers, but because we do not recognize the self in animals. Societies moral rules are largely a propositonalized form of it's contemporary subjective drives. If those drives are immature or pathological, what you will observe are immature and pathological moral rules/incentives.

Im not sure if you want to establish objective morals there or you rather you just want to make a claim about intersubjective values (namely, that most people fundamentally value and respect the self in others).

I personally dont think objective morals makes sense and I dont think that it would persuade anyone even if it was true. 

 

17 hours ago, Scholar said:

In other words, the problem is not that people have not found the right arguments to lead them to the conclusion that we ought to treat animals with basic respect, but the fact that the identity of most thinking agents drives them to construct mental models that will allow them to continue expressing their identity in whatever way currently generates the least friction within their psyche. Most moral philosophy conducted today is a complete waste of human cognition for this reason.

I think some arguments can perusade people - because argumentation is one tool to create enough friction within a person's psyche so that they are forced to change (but yes, this only goes for honest actors). For example, if you would be able to make an argument that would show the consequences of one's action with as much clarity as the example, where pushing one button will kill 100 people and not pushing the button will save those people, then there is no way that a normal person would push the button (and this is true almost regardless what normative ethics he is subscribed to)

 

It seems that you were trying to make the case that moral arguments are a waste of time, because in most cases it isn't about fundamental value disagreements, but rather about descriptive disagreements (where in this case your claim is roughly that because of their cognitive dissonance people cant percieve / recognize certain facts to be the case - like recognizing the self in animals). I think this is generally true, because from what Ive seen, most debates about metaethics is about talking past each other and not having enough ability to communicate one's moral semantics or its about motivated reasoning (like one guy is religious and thats what he is appealing to - which btw  in most cases even within their own framework doesnt make any sense, because under most religious views you are not required to eat meat)

[Scholar]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

Im not sure if you want to establish objective morals there or you rather you just want to make a claim about intersubjective values (namely, that most people fundamentally value and respect the self in others).

I personally dont think objective morals makes sense and I dont think that it would persuade anyone even if it was true. 

Remove the term morality and replace it with something like "subjective drive". I am basically remaining in the Isness of subjectivity, oughtness is illusiory.

Short version is that fundamentally, subjectivity seeks to actualize itself in some shape or form. It is a process of unfolding itself. All subjectivities fundamentally attempt to maximize the expression of their own subjectivity. In this relation, subjectivities can be irrational in the way they behave, understand themselves and the world. Given that the only thing you always do and could possibly do is an unfolding of your subjectivity, you subjectivity can be misaligned with it's own aim, which is the unfolding of itself to the maximal degree.

Such misalignment is pathology and the unfoldement of subjectivity will strive to correct that pathology over time, given the increase in complexity and the immutable characteristic of maximizing it's own will/expression.

 

5 hours ago, zurew said:

I think some arguments can perusade people - because argumentation is one tool to create enough friction within a person's psyche so that they are forced to change (but yes, this only goes for honest actors). For example, if you would be able to make an argument that would show the consequences of one's action with as much clarity as the example, where pushing one button will kill 100 people and not pushing the button will save those people, then there is no way that a normal person would push the button (and this is true almost regardless what normative ethics he is subscribed to)

You can correct pathology in world and identity modelling. The problem is that identity is primary and will determine what the capacity for world and self-modelling is for the given individual.

You cannot simply convince a staunch Islamist that they are irrational about their beliefs in Islam. Intelligence is a tool in the hands of identity, not the other way around. For this reasons I predict that LLMs will cause profound harm and suffering in the next decades, given that lower-intelligence identities can employ higher intelligence tools to maintain and spread their own identity structures. 

 

5 hours ago, zurew said:

It seems that you were trying to make the case that moral arguments are a waste of time, because in most cases it isn't about fundamental value disagreements, but rather about descriptive disagreements (where in this case your claim is roughly that because of their cognitive dissonance people cant percieve / recognize certain facts to be the case - like recognizing the self in animals). I think this is generally true, because from what Ive seen, most debates about metaethics is about talking past each other and not having enough ability to communicate one's moral semantics or its about motivated reasoning (like one guy is religious and thats what he is appealing to - which btw  in most cases even within their own framework doesnt make any sense, because under most religious views you are not required to eat meat)

This is not the case I am making. Moral arguments can be useful in both convincing others and exploring the reality of ones own subjectivity. However, for arguments to be compelling and move individuals it already requires a significantly shared identity. Most individuals you can convince with pure reason are usually individuals whose identity values things like rationality and logical consistency significantly.

However, even in those cases, given the explosive epistemic nature of reality and the self, it is sometimes impossible even to convince identities who care about reason because in many cases there is uncertainty around what is true. For a rational actor to be moved from their position, in most cases it requires rendering that position clearly irrational. Most often this is difficult or impossible to do. Meaning, as long as a position is tenable to hold, an identity will avoid abandoning if it is attached to it.

You can imagine a scenario in which mentally disabled individuals simply do not exist. In that case, the argument from marginal cases (one of the most compelling arguments against speciesism) would simply not hold any compelling ethical force. There are more complex ethical issues that do not have such clear reductios and therefore individuals can easily maintain whatever their preferred view is without appearing irrational. 

 

Individuals aren't primarily rational agents, but social agents. We model our identity around the social realities that surround us, not around what is rational and truthful.

 

 

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Scholar @zurew When I think about veganism (or environmentalism for that matter), I think like if you want to make a big change, be an activist, otherwise the impact you can make relative to the rest of the world is relatively infinitesimal. And then the question also becomes in what other ways can you make a change, in what other ways can you spend your limited time? What is the moral calculation there?

Then there is also the thought that any act of wrongdoing (especially with respect to animal suffering) should be minimalized, irrespective of any global comparison, just like you don't kill people on the street just because so many people die anyway on a global scale and it's a drop in the ocean (maybe a relatively bad example because killing someone in your community will not be a drop in the ocean, but anyways, you get the idea).

I would like to hear Alex O'Connor try to reconcile these two positions (I've heard him endorse a version of the first one; that veganism must be fought on an activist and collective level, not an individual everyday level). There is also of course a problem of what qualifies as fighting it on a collective level, at what point is your contribution big, and also, at what point is your contribution to animal suffering small enough? Is it simply the intention that matters, not the execution? If you simply intend not to kill people on the street, is that good enough?

I think the way people reason around this issue is not really conducive to human progress. Animal liberation is mainly about how our identities relate to others. If we had applied utilitarian logic this way to issues like slavery, we would have forever procrastinated the abolition of slavery. "What about animals, they are also slaves, if you think it's immoral to have slaves, do you also refuse to use animals as objects?!", "What about people abroad? Is it really that much worse to keep free range slaves if on the other side of the planet chinese slave-workers have to make our cheap products?".

The way things change is through an evolution of identity and the adoption of new virtues. With slavery, we considered it wrong to view human beings as objects, we recognized human beings as a means in and of themselves, rather than a means to an end.

If someone wore human skin or ate human flesh, we would be horrified at this. Why? Because we would recognize that the individual who participated in that act related to other conscious beings in a fundamentally pathological way. They objectified humans to such a degree that they could tolerate using them as mere objects.

As long as we are not horrified by the sight of animal corpses being consumed and worn as items of clothing, we know our identities are pathological. Once we are horrified, the laws and behaviors will align.

This recognition can only occur if we recognize in animals the same individuation we recognize in ourselves.

Slavery was not abolished because we made consequentialist arguments that lead us to change our policies or  consumer behavior, but because we have found ourselves horrified at the idea of viewing human beings as objects.

 

A person ought to cease consuming animal products not because it minimizes death or suffering, but because the only healthy response to seeing the mutilated body parts of a tortured individual is horror. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

I think the way people reason around this issue is not really conducive to human progress. Animal liberation is mainly about how our identities relate to others. If we had applied utilitarian logic this way to issues like slavery, we would have forever procrastinated the abolition of slavery. "What about animals, they are also slaves, if you think it's immoral to have slaves, do you also refuse to use animals as objects?!", "What about people abroad? Is it really that much worse to keep free range slaves if on the other side of the planet chinese slave-workers have to make our cheap products?".

The way things change is through an evolution of identity and the adoption of new virtues. With slavery, we considered it wrong to view human beings as objects, we recognized human beings as a means in and of themselves, rather than a means to an end.

If someone wore human skin or ate human flesh, we would be horrified at this. Why? Because we would recognize that the individual who participated in that act related to other conscious beings in a fundamentally pathological way. They objectified humans to such a degree that they could tolerate using them as mere objects.

As long as we are not horrified by the sight of animal corpses being consumed and worn as items of clothing, we know our identities are pathological. Once we are horrified, the laws and behaviors will align.

This recognition can only occur if we recognize in animals the same individuation we recognize in ourselves.

You essentially told all of philosophy "use your Fi, not your Ti", and "evolve", not "arrive there by logic". Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's like preaching spirituality to 2 year olds; sometimes you have to engage with the frame and do some rough-and-tumble play  (And are you just waiting for them to evolve or do you have a solution for speeding it up?)

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Slavery was not abolished because we made consequentialist arguments that lead us to change our policies or  consumer behavior, but because we have found ourselves horrified at the idea of viewing human beings as objects.

It could be a mix of both. Because both were happening and it's not easy to dissociate them causally retrospectively.

Edited October 5 by Carl-Richard

[theoneandnone]

Is pansychism actually becoming more relevant?

[zurew]

On 2025. 10. 05. at 9:14 PM, Scholar said:

You can imagine a scenario in which mentally disabled individuals simply do not exist. In that case, the argument from marginal cases (one of the most compelling arguments against speciesism) would simply not hold any compelling ethical force. There are more complex ethical issues that do not have such clear reductios and therefore individuals can easily maintain whatever their preferred view is without appearing irrational. 

 

Individuals aren't primarily rational agents, but social agents. We model our identity around the social realities that surround us, not around what is rational and truthful.

I agree with most of the things you are saying, and I share most of your intuitions about identity and persuasion, but I dont have a strong conviction in it, because I havent done any deep research on persuasion when it comes to human psychology (I only rely on an inductive case  that is based on my very limited sample set and it relies on the explanation that explains that limited sample set - but the explanation can be wrong and it can also easily be the case that sample of people I encountered with arent representative of the population we would try to persuade) and also given that this is very clearly an emprical question, I wouldnt be quick with being blackpilled on persuasion, I think its an open and valuable area to research.

 

On 2025. 10. 05. at 9:14 PM, Scholar said:

You can imagine a scenario in which mentally disabled individuals simply do not exist. In that case, the argument from marginal cases (one of the most compelling arguments against speciesism) would simply not hold any compelling ethical force. There are more complex ethical issues that do not have such clear reductios and therefore individuals can easily maintain whatever their preferred view is without appearing irrational. 

I disagree that it wouldnt be persuasive or that it wouldnt be as persuasive. I personally dont limit hypotheticals to physically possible things and a good chunk of logically possible hypotheticals can be very persuasive (if the interlocutor is an honest actor). There are scenarios where people dodge the logically possible hypothetical on the grounds of "but that cant happen in reality, because it would violate the laws of phyiscs" or some shit like that, but there are responses to those kind of objections and you can walk people through on the utility of such hypotheticals.

For example, I dont think that if we would be in a world where mentally disabled individuals wouldnt be possible or wouldnt exist, that in that world most people would have such moral intuitions that they would be just causally okay with answering "yes, I would be okay with slaughtering my mentally disabled relatives".

I think your point make sense when it comes to things people cant relate to and cant conceptualize at all, but I think there are many things that can be conceptualized and reflected upon that arent actual in reality, but still hold compelling ethical force.

Edited October 7 by zurew

[Scholar]

On 05/10/2025 at 10:15 PM, Carl-Richard said:

You essentially told all of philosophy "use your Fi, not your Ti", and "evolve", not "arrive there by logic". Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's like preaching spirituality to 2 year olds; sometimes you have to engage with the frame and do some rough-and-tumble play  (And are you just waiting for them to evolve or do you have a solution for speeding it up?)

From my point of view philosophy has virtually no real world relevancy, certainly not academic philosophy. The problem with engaging with it on more abstract terms is that philosophy is mostly about building elaborate, logically consistent mental constructs. It's like theoretical physics without any contact to any verifiable reality, which is why you have such diverse viewsets amongst philosophers. The only things you can generate agreement on is on things that only have one logical possibility.

So in the end that's what's most academic philosophers do. They test each others mental constructs for logical consistency (not the only factor but the main factor) and think they succeeded if they have a construct that is unable to be shown to be propositionally false.

And most of that process is fueled by identity. The vast majority of philosophers do no introspective or deconstructive work relating to their identity and really just generate mental constructs that fit their identity. I mean if you talk to most academic philsophers and you just prong them why they are a Hegelian over some other obscure philosophical trend, they will tell you because it was most compelling to them. And the reason why it was most compelling was because some of the foundational thinking felt more correct to them than the thinking of other philosophical movements. Most of what feels right or not right is just determined by your identity.

 

7 hours ago, zurew said:

For example, I dont think that if we would be in a world where mentally disabled individuals wouldnt be possible or wouldnt exist, that in that world most people would have such moral intuitions that they would be just causally okay with answering "yes, I would be okay with slaughtering my mentally disabled relatives".

I disagree. Intelligence is the first answer people give when they justify killing animals, because their identity has a distinct separation between themselves and that subgroup. The reason why Peter Singer was so convincing is because he made an argument from Marginal Cases, which clearly shows us that individuals we do care about are non-intelligent and therefore that it is not logically feasible to use that as grounds to discriminate against others.

You can tell someone "But what if you had a son and a daughter who fell in love, do you really believe they should go to prison for that if there is no sign of coercion?", that will not convince them that we shouldn't stigmatize and imprison people for incest. Mostly this is the case because they cannot actually imagine the situation vividly enough to recognize the suffering they are inflicting onto someone they would love. If we could employ hypotheticals this way, moral progress wouldn't be taking so long.

By the way, for this reason, storytelling has been the main vehicle for moral communication for all of human history, including today. Most people get their values from the media they consume, because whereas previously your imagination might have failed, if the story is compelling enough, it will give you insight into something about yourself that you could previously not access.

 

The problem is that their identity fundamentally has made a distinction between themselves and animals. This is why people get deeply offended at comparing racism to speciesism. They view animals as inferior, as a funciton of their identity, which means if you compare a human to an animal, you degrade that human to the level of an inferior being. The best way to make someone less racist is having them interact with people of the other race in an environment in which some cooperation is necessary. The same is true for sexual minorities and even animals. People don't have any qualms about calling for violence against people who abuse dogs and cats. We consider our pets part of our family, part of our identity. People are horrified at the idea of eating dogs almost as much as eating humans. And that's a healthy response.

Edited October 7 by Scholar