‘Physics gives us behavioural structure; panpsychism is a proposal about what underlies that behavioural structure. Think about a mathematical model in economics that’s just a bunch of equations that abstracts away from the concrete realities of labour, prices, etc. The reality of labour doesn’t add to the reality specified by that model; to the contrary, labour is the very thing one of those symbols refers to! Similarly, according to panpsychism, physics gives us mathematical models that abstract away from the concrete reality of a universe filled with consciousness. The term ‘mass’ refers to something that physics characterises in terms of its behaviour but which in its intrinsic nature is a form of consciousness. If that view makes sense, then there’s no conflict with physics.’
— Philip Goff, Is Panpsychism Inconsistent with Physics?
There are two ways of developing the basic panpsychist position. One is micropsychism, the view that the smallest parts of the physical world have consciousness. Micropsychism is not to be equated with the absurd view that quarks have emotions or that electrons feel existential angst. In human beings, consciousness is a sophisticated thing, involving subtle and complex emotions, thoughts and sensory experiences. But there seems nothing incoherent with the idea that consciousness might exist in some extremely basic forms. We have good reason to think that the conscious experience of a horse is much less complex than that of a human being, and the experiences of a chicken less complex than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler, perhaps at some point the light of consciousness suddenly switches off, with simpler organisms having no experience at all. But it is also possible that the light of consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba and bacteria. For the micropsychist, this fading-while-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities – perhaps electrons and quarks – possessing extremely rudimentary forms of consciousness, to reflect their extremely simple nature.
"The Internet is not coming close to reaching its potential for building humanity’s knowledge base, our understanding of what it all means, or our ability to make smart choices based upon this understanding. This affects our emotional and mental wellbeing, and our capacity for self actualization and self transcendence...
We should strive to keep content and conversations alive, by creating spaces where people can have an evolving and structured conversation about stuff that matters to them. To enable smart choices by individuals and communities. To enable people to observe their own thinking (for example, to better understand their confirmation bias) and how the community is thinking about an issue or across issues."
[“The Runaway Species”, by Anthony Brandt and David Eagleman, a composer and a neuroscientist,] makes a single argument, clearly and thoroughly: creativity is never the creation of something from nothing. Instead, consciously or not, people refashion things. They do this for the most part in three ways: by bending, breaking and blending. Bending involves taking something and altering a property. Breaking involves taking a whole apart and assembling something new from the fragments. And blending involves mixing multiple sources together in new ways.
An electronic book does not join itself to other books end to end, as printed books do when we set them on a shelf. Instead, the electronic book can merge into a larger textual structure at a thousand points of contact; it can dissolve into constituent elements that are constantly redefining their relationships to elements in other books.