I feel like jumping in for awhile, considering the dog- pack nature of the attack on you today.
As Kant pointed out, we do not have absolute knowledge of things- in- themselves, but rather, they are presented to us insofar as they can be assimilated to our forms of perception and the way we integrate experience. We do not know how much the things- in- themselves differ from the phenomena of consciousness, although we can, of course, infer some kind of correlation.
The suggestiveness of quantum mechanics is not so much the effect of the observer in determining position, but the fact that electrons seem to make arbitrary leaps. It is not just that this randomizes matters, and breaks the supposed "Iron Law of Causality", but that it has an appearance of "leaping" without the application of any force, which suggests the possibility of primitive consciousness and will.
Leibniz actually thought that all things were, in fact, forms of consciousness, with the major division being between those with simple perception, and those with apperception, that is, self- awareness. He called them Monads, and considered the material universe to be the way in which monads experienced one another and presented themselves to one another. In other words, it is conceivable that there is only consciousness, but since it has no "visibility", the different things formed must objectify themselves to become accessible to contemplation.
If that were so, then the material universe would be a sort of proxy for the world of consciousness. However, it should be noted that the consciousness that might subsist in a stone would be quite different than the complex consciousness found in human beings. Therefore, while there may be some suggestive implications taken from physics to apply to speculations about human affairs, there is doubtless a limit to applicability, and one has to be careful of over- reaching......... |
