My take on Quantum Animism

[Runewolf1973]

I guess if I were to describe my beliefs, I would say that I have a modern animistic world view. I believe similarly to what our primitive ancestors believed in that we live in a fully animate world where “spirits” are present in all things that exist. That includes all animate life-forms, but also so-called “inanimate” forms such as rocks, trees, rivers, lakes, moons, planets, and even stars like our own Sun. I believe that everything is animate down to its core…animated by a conscious energy or force. The way I see it “inanimate” objects or things simply do not exist. ALL of existence is like a "ghost" or "spirit", and material objects are that ghost as it were in a sense manifesting itself.

I find it very hard to believe that "life" or "consciousness" arose mysteriously, almost magically out of inanimate matter. This notion itself basically equates to scientists saying there is some sort of "ghost in the machine" so-to-speak. Although there is a consciousness inside of us, I don't believe that consciousness is limited to our brains.

Quantum mechanics shows us how energy works on a subatomic level. It shows us that all that exists is basically a flux or wave of energy in the form of potentials which can take on different characteristics. I find it rather interesting how many of those truly gifted scientists and thinkers who study or work with energy on the quantum level eventually take on the stance that all that exists is basically energy in the form of some kind of conscious flux. They come to understand that there is nothing that exists that is truly "inanimate". Everything is composed of energy and it is in a constant state of moving, vibrating, spinning, acting, reacting, changing to everything that goes on around it. Energy in that sense could be seen as being almost lifelike and conscious at the quantum level...and perhaps it is.
Here is a quote from quantum physicist Nick Herbert...

"Many primitive peoples organized their lives around a doctrine we call "animism", the belief that every object possesses sentient "insides" like our own. The quantum consciousness assumption, which amounts to a kind of "quantum animism" likewise asserts that consciousness is an integral part of the physical world, not an emergent property of special biological or computational systems. Since everything in the world is on some level a quantum system, this assumption requires that everything be conscious on that level. If the world is truly quantum animated, then there is an immense amount of invisible inner experience going on all around us that is presently inaccessible to humans, because our own inner lives are imprisoned inside a small quantum system, isolated deep in the meat of an animal brain. We may not need to travel into outer space to inhabit entirely new worlds. New experiential worlds of inconceivable richness and variety may already be present "at our fingertips"--worlds made up of strangely intelligent minds that silently surround and inter-penetrate our own modes of awareness."

And here is a quote by Werner Krieglstein regarding this...

"Traditional dualism assumes that some kind of spirit inhabits a body and makes it move, a ghost in the machine. Herbert's quantum animism presents the idea that every natural system has an inner life, a conscious centre, from which it directs and observes its action."

I firmly believe that one day mainstream science will come to realize that there is no “ghost in the machine” so to speak, no emergent phenomena that is consciousness or life, rather, that “consciousness” is the ONLY thing that exists. That animating force was always present in the universe. All it took was time and the right conditions for life to take form and for that energy to change. So in that sense, consciousness or animate life did not mysteriously emerge out of inanimate, unconscious matter…everything was already conscious and animate to begin with. In that way, there is no true “living” or “dying”, only energy changing form. Our physical bodies may change and take on the appearance of life or death, but our consciousness will remain as part of this great quantum existence, for the laws of physics clearly state that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, only change form. There is no reason why this can not hold true for consciousness as well, for if it is not is some way "energy" then it is nothing. We are forever the experiencers of a conscious existence.

There may be some elements of pseudoscience to all this, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is wrong, it just means that science is not quite ready to open those doors. They're still clinging to the old "ghost in the machine" or "emergent phenomena" ideas. As far as quantum mechanics is concerned, the theories are there, and they all work, but the very nature of the "stuff" that quantum physicists work with is almost as elusive and eerie as it were trying to capture a "ghost". We still don't have all the answers, but science is getting there.

I will state this... I do not believe in anything that I would call "supernatural". I don't believe in gods or angels or devils, or any of that supernatural stuff. I do however, believe that ghosts or spirits exist in the form of disembodied consciousness. To me all is naturally existing energy in different forms, we just don't know what all those forms are yet. On the quantum level, those forms could be virtually limitless, on the the other hand, there could be no forms at all, only a great wave of energy in the form of what could only be described as consciousness.

 

[Sees]

Great post... the energy part is what I mention to my 5 year old when she asks about death and the heaven she hears about on movies.

My wife and I had a discussion after first reading your post last night. She brought up a story about some flowers leaning towards their owner/human friend's killer and an investigator subconsciously understanding, then turning the investigation towards him and eventually solving the case.

Makes you wonder. Usually I constantly think of an energy of life being all around us, making living beings fully animated, but do not often consider the level of awareness which might be in most of the quiet "things" around us.

 

[bobhikes]

While I believe in intelligence in all life. I think it stops there. intelligence is just the next step. It is just as hard to go from one atom of hydrogen to one molecule of water in reality as it is to go from inanimate to animate. While we understand and can duplicate the creation of water, we just don't understand the steps taken for life. We are limited in our understanding of the universe.

That being said the understanding I have of conscience is limited and mostly theoretical so I would have a weak argument against you.

 

[Kemble]

Hey Runewolf,

There may be some elements of pseudoscience to all this, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is wrong, it just means that science is not quite ready to open those doors.

Oh absolutely. Animism is one of the oldest "religious" ideas and glad to see someone working with it. Along the lines you touched on have you ever picked up and read _The Self-Aware Universe_ by Amit Goswami, and _The Conscious Universe_ by Dean Radin? Both PhDs. If you next find yourself in a bookstore give them a read; may elucidate in a contemporary context your religious views in an enlightening way.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Thanks for the replies. I will keep an eye out for those books.

 

[George-ananda]

Very good post Runewolf. High quality. I can now more see how Animism and my beliefs are in the same school of thought.

 

[idav]

This is a great post Runewolf. I'm definitely agreeable with the notion of animism and a sort of rudimentary awareness at the quantum level. I also don't mind the idea of consciousness being an emergent property but I feel consciousness would emerge from properties where awareness is already possible or already present at a basic level. Also as mentioned in the OP, none of this is very easy to prove, awareness could be all around us and we wouldn't know it. There isn't anything obvious at the atomic level that tells us matter is aware, the only thing going for the idea is the fact that consciousness is possible with nothing but atomic building blocks.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This is a great post, it's great to emphasize your beliefs, and I'm highly appreciative of your beliefs.

I'm no good on debating it, though, knowing hardly anything in the quantum sciences. Though, supposing that I wonder at times if such a thing called 'consciousness' is really present at all rather than a bunch of data and thoughts generated through the work of everything unconscious, sort of like "just machine, no ghost" and the fact you posted this in the debates section, I thought I'd throw in a few questions, if you don't mind.

While energy is always moving, and everything is entirely built of energy, although it is always changing, moving, reacting, etc. constantly why does this mean it is life or consciousness?

If I'm reading this right, everything we see is literally built off of one thing and that is consciousness? There is nothing that is really inanimate or anything that animation is built into, there is only animation correct? My question then is, how does animation take form - is animation build into energy or does energy build animation or is animation literally energy itself?

And the last question is: Do you believe the ancient animists really got this inter-detailed with the topic? How I always understood animism was that there is a spirit in everything, although I didn't know how complex this everything they described narrowed down to. Did the ancient animists hold concept of every x (x = however small they broke things down into back then) having a spirit or didn't they just mean objects as we'd normally define them for example individual trees, mountains, lakes, stars, etc.? Although I'm sure this is probably irrelevant, it is just out of curiosity on how you view the ancient animists.

Thanks again for this post. It was great to read, very interesting and am interested in hearing your replies, although, like I said, I probably am not going to bring this into debate, just a few questions.

 

[outhouse]

I find it very hard to believe that "life" or "consciousness" arose mysteriously, almost magically out of inanimate matter. This notion itself basically equates to scientists saying there is some sort of "ghost in the machine" so-to-speak. Although there is a consciousness inside of us, I don't believe that consciousness is limited to our brains.

I find this similar to wishful thinking and imagination.


Imagination consciousness evolved as a survival trait for animals, We have to think to survive, which imagination is tied too.

There is no mystery here.


.

 

[Jainarayan]

...I believe that everything is animate down to its core…animated by a conscious energy or force. The way I see it “inanimate” objects or things simply do not exist. ALL of existence is like a "ghost" or "spirit", and material objects are that ghost as it were in a sense manifesting itself.

...

Quantum mechanics shows us how energy works on a subatomic level. It shows us that all that exists is basically a flux or wave of energy in the form of potentials which can take on different characteristics.

Quantum mysticism and Spinozism? I've always kind of looked at it this way.

 

[Trolle]

Great post. I pretty much have the same belief and find it amazing that people thousands of years ago came to have these beliefs without the aid of modern science. I guess it may have to do with the fact that they were more connected to nature than we are now.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I find this similar to wishful thinking and imagination.


Imagination consciousness evolved as a survival trait for animals, We have to think to survive, which imagination is tied too.

There is no mystery here.


.

This thread is not about consciousness in the terms of being aware and thinking or imagining (self awareness), rather it is about consciousness as that "life-force" that causes things to be animate, move, act, react, change, respond to stimuli. Does a tree have to "think" to survive? Is a tree capable of thought, or does it simply act and react, change or evolve to suit it's environment? You don't have to think to be animate.

I believe that consciousness in it's simplest form, is that force which causes particles of energy to appear or act as though "energetic"...to spin, vibrate, and is that force which also causes energy to change form, act and react. I believe that "awareness" is a highly evolved state of that same energy-level consciousness.

So how it works the way I see it (not necessarily science) is that the consciousness (animate factor) was already present in the energy of the Earth when it first formed. Once the conditions were just right, that energy changed, molecules formed, amino acids formed and then that consciousness which was already present in the energy began to change as well. As it changed, that animate force or consciousness grew stronger and stronger until eventually simple life forms developed, plants, bacteria, etc... As things evolved, that consciousness also evolved, growing ever stronger until eventually out of that simple, primal form of consciousness came a new type of consciousness...in the form of awareness. I believe that just as there are different states of consciousness or awareness, there can also be different evolved states of consciousness or awareness. Perhaps a tree has a less evolved form of consciousness than say an animal, therefore it is less "aware". Perhaps a rock has an even less evolved form of consciousness...giving it only the ability act and react on a simple energy-level. Humans were simply the next step up from more primitive creatures...we developed the conscious ability to think and be fully aware...but sometimes we are not so fully aware as we think we are.

So the way I see it, that which we call "life" is not consciousness per-see, but life evolved out of consciousness. Life is what happened when consciousness (animate energy) met the right conditions to support conscious organisms.

 

[Runewolf1973]

While energy is always moving, and everything is entirely built of energy, although it is always changing, moving, reacting, etc. constantly why does this mean it is life or consciousness?

If I'm reading this right, everything we see is literally built off of one thing and that is consciousness? There is nothing that is really inanimate or anything that animation is built into, there is only animation correct? My question then is, how does animation take form - is animation build into energy or does energy build animation or is animation literally energy itself?

And the last question is: Do you believe the ancient animists really got this inter-detailed with the topic? How I always understood animism was that there is a spirit in everything, although I didn't know how complex this everything they described narrowed down to. Did the ancient animists hold concept of every x (x = however small they broke things down into back then) having a spirit or didn't they just mean objects as we'd normally define them for example individual trees, mountains, lakes, stars, etc.? Although I'm sure this is probably irrelevant, it is just out of curiosity on how you view the ancient animists.

Thanks again for this post. It was great to read, very interesting and am interested in hearing your replies, although, like I said, I probably am not going to bring this into debate, just a few questions.

I think I answered the first question in my last post...tried to anyways. The way I see it, anything that is animated in the natural universe must be in some way conscious. Everything that exists (all energy/matter) is animated by some underlying, naturally existing force.

As far as the second question... Quantum physicists theorize that there may actually be no forms/matter the way we see it. It has something to do with the observer effect. When matter is not being observed or measured, it reacts differently...as if there is no actual matter, only waves of energy that can have different potentials and be in different spots at the same time. I find it interesting how a simple particle of energy can behave differently when it is being observed. Quantum mechanics is very weird, but fascinating. I believe that animating is literally energy itself.

As far as the third question... I don't think our primitive ancestors cared too much what this animating force was, they simply knew that it was there (spirit) and they respected it, gave it various names and attributed different powers to the different natural systems....Sun, Moon, rivers, mountains, rocks, trees, animals...all unique, but all sharing part of that same great Spirit.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This reminds me of the Gospel of Thomas...

"I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there."

 

[Yerda]

Hi.

The way I see it “inanimate” objects or things simply do not exist. ALL of existence is like a "ghost" or "spirit", and material objects are that ghost as it were in a sense manifesting itself.

What would you say led you to this perspective?

I find it very hard to believe that "life" or "consciousness" arose mysteriously, almost magically out of inanimate matter. This notion itself basically equates to scientists saying there is some sort of "ghost in the machine" so-to-speak.

How so?

I liked your post and these ideas are interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Great post. I pretty much have the same belief and find it amazing that people thousands of years ago came to have these beliefs without the aid of modern science. I guess it may have to do with the fact that they were more connected to nature than we are now.

This exactly. They were more connected to nature. From what I understand, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and even Odin in Norse Mythology were said to gain some of their spiritual connectivity or insight from trees or nature.

I think the further back you go in time, the less polluted and convoluted things get...and that goes with spiritual belief as well. I prefer my spiritual beliefs to be in their most purest state...the way they were back to the beginning of time itself when there was no religion only an understanding that there was something greater that connected us all. I love that simplicity of animistic belief...almost like nature itself.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Hi.

What would you say led you to this perspective?

How so?

I liked your post and these ideas are interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I'm not really sure. I guess I always felt there was something more that nature could tell us. I never once believed that science and spiritual belief should be separate or that they should be opposed. They are simply different ways of approaching the same goal...to understand why we are here. I believe that one day science and spiritual understanding will meld. When that day comes, we will all have a much greater understanding.

Sorry, didn't really understand your second question.

 

[nash8]

This was a great post runewolf, and it is very similar to the beliefs that I hold, although I have never seen it organized in a specific context like this, other than maybe in panenthiesm, and that particular philosophy doesn't really delve into the mechanics of it.

I also like your use of conciousness, as opposed to the traditional use of "self awareness". The most fundamental "action" of conciousness, in my opinion, is reaction to stimulus. And I have yet to find any substance, be it quantum or otherwise, that does not react to atleast one type of stimulus, so according to these guidelines, I too would consider everything conscious. We have no idea what gives humans self awareness, so how can we presume that other things are not "self aware" as well? The only thing we know is that self awareness is caused because of some reaction, possibly chemical or possibly even quantumly (I came up with a new word lol).

Lastly, I would like to hear your opinions on a particle that acts as this supreme animating principle. A particle/wave/energy that composes all things including photons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, and everything else. As we continually delve into smaller and smaller divisions of particles/waves, it seems plausible to me that there exists a particle/waveform that composes everything, but we have not developed the ability to observe it as of yet. Hell, we just discovered quantum particles a hundred years ago, and we just discovered neutrino less than 60 years ago.

Lastly, I would also be interesting in hearing your opinion of the photon as this animating force as well. I know that all biological systems emit photons, although it is unclear what role this emission and absorption play as of yet, but I have not seen whether or not "inanimate" objects such as rocks and the like emit photon discharges as well.

If rocks don't absorb and emit photons, could this photon interaction be the difference in what we call "animate" and "inanimate"?

 

[Runewolf1973]

I also like your use of conciousness, as opposed to the traditional use of "self awareness". The most fundamental "action" of conciousness, in my opinion, is reaction to stimulus. And I have yet to find any substance, be it quantum or otherwise, that does not react to atleast one type of stimulus, so according to these guidelines, I too would consider everything conscious.

Precisely. This is how I see it, and there is nothing too technical about it. Consciousness is simply the action/reaction effect of energy, that ability for energy particles to react to stimulus.

As far as your other questions, I would have to say that I am not a physicist, but I do find the questions you pose very interesting. I would be inclined to believe that as far as the universe is infinitely vast on the outside, it might also be infinitely smaller. There is so much we don't know yet, so much left to be discovered.

Part of the animistic belief is keeping things simple and accepting things as they are, naturally. We don't really know what new things science will discover, but it really doesn't matter. I feel we should embrace new things as science discovers them, for the more we learn about our universe, the more and more it actually supports this animistic way of thinking.

Thanks for your post.