Pantheism and Ockham’s Razor

When viewed under the lens of Ockham’s Razor, pantheism appears to rise above its competitors. Ockham’s Razor favors the explanation that makes the least number of assumptions while accommodating all relevant data.

In a previous article we presented a logical summary for a proof of God:

Argument Summary
  • Humans are composed of elementary particles or fields of “energy”.
  • Human mental states result from these field interactions.
  • Every complex physical property results from the shaping of simpler forms of that property in a system’s interacting subsystems.
  • It would involve special pleading to claim that mentality works dramatically differently from physicality.
  • It is therefore irrational to assume that a property like mentality would magically arise from nowhere when fields interact.
  • Therefore fields have simple mentality.
  • Field interactions shape this mental state making it more complex.
  • The more and sophisticated the interactions, the more complex the states.
  • The Universe is composed only of interacting fields.
  • Therefore the Universe must have some kind of mental life.
  • Ergo God.

Now this argument contains a couple of assumptions relating to panpsychism. 1) mental states don’t simply spring out of non-mental stuff; 2) mental properties arise the same way as physical properties.

These are all extremely reasonable assumptions. Physical phenomena don’t spring out of non-physical stuff so why would we entertain that mental phenomena could spring out of non-mental stuff? There is no justification whatsoever that we should treat mental phenomena completely differently than physical phenomena in that regard. In other words, we can’t plead that mentality is a special case with respect to physicality. We can’t engage in special pleading.

But pantheism’s chief competitor, materialism, does make two truly outlandish assumptions: 1) mental states spring out of non-mental stuff by some unknown unjustifiable process; 2) mental properties arise in a completely different way than physical properties. These are monumental assumptions. Since they require some as yet unknown mechanism, they are in fact supernatural assumptions.

Something is supernatural if it transcends the laws of nature. Materialism’s assumption that the mental strongly emerges from the physical seems to meet that definition. There is not a single solitary concrete example of the strong emergence of anything. So strong emergence goes against everything we know about the laws of nature. Strong emergence is in fact supernatural.

Shadow of the Dead God Critiques Our God Proof

Someone calling themselves Shadow of the Dead God has issued a critique of our proof for the existence of God. As per usual his “critique” is nothing but pompous pseudo-scientific drivel riddled with logical fallacies.

His first false claim is that we’re redefined God to be the universe. This is the second atheist criticism we deal with right in the proof in the section “Atheist Criticisms”. That he missed it or could not understand it does not bode well for his comprehension abilities.

We are not redefining anything. We are simply saying that the Universe is a being, the supreme being, God. Pantheism was the first conception of a supreme being. If anyone has redefined the concept of God it is every non pantheist.

The second false claim is that we’re “conflating” the terms God and Universe. We are not. We are equating them, saying that they are one and the same thing, not confusing two different things. There is no conflation whatsoever. He does not seem to understand what the concept of conflation refers to.

The third false claim made is that we err by assuming that there is not some physical stuff other than energy. He claims that to assert that one “would need to have a complete theory of quantum gravity, that unifies general and special relativity with quantum mechanics to assert that”. He provides no justification for this odd view presumably because there is none.

Next he falsely claims that “Laurence Krauss demonstrated that the total net energy of the universe equals zero.” Kraus did no such thing. His cancellation hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. A hypothesis with inconclusive experimental proof to support it. At any rate, these cancellation theories are not claiming that there is no energy, only that the effects of positive energy cancel out the effects of negative energy.

Next is a false claim that our proof commits an equivocation fallacy. He claims that we are equivocating “electrical and neurological synapsis that create (sic) brain activity” with “gravitational pull of black-holes”. We don’t do that at all. We’re simply saying that both such interactions ultimately involve field interactions. So he has misrepresented our argument and attacked that misrepresentation, i.e. he committed a straw man fallacy.

Next he claims that our “assertion that the universe is just one massive system of interacting energy, is patently wrong, and lacking of understanding.” He does not justify this claim and instead rambles on about how the universe does not work and nothing interacts with the universe which is something we’ve not said. He appears to be making the bizarre conflation that we’re claiming that the fact that the Universe is a system of interacting energy somehow means that we’re interacting with the Universe as a whole. It doesn’t though. This is just some nonsense he made up because he seems to have a pathological need to misinterpret what we write.

Next he make the false claim that heat death of the Universe is inevitable. It is not. Few physicists actually believe that and for those that do, their justification is merely theoretical, not an established fact. He then makes the false claim that the Universe had a beginning. The known universe possibly did but the Universe itself for all we know has always existed. A big problem here is his repeated faulty equivocation of theories with fact. This betrays a severe lack of understanding in basic science.

Here’s where it gets pretty absurd. He agreed with the following statement: “It’s important to understand that interacting energy wouldn’t cause a mental state to magically arise out of nowhere”. But he had a big problem with the following conclusion: “Energy itself must have the simplest possible default mental state”. If everything is interacting energy and the interactions do not cause mental state to arise from nowhere, the only alternative is that energy has a simple mental state that gets shaped by interaction. He proclaims that this is absurd without any justification.

With the following statement:  “It would be wrong to assume that only energy packet interaction results in mental states. Any sort of energy interaction should also produce mental states” he conflates mental states with minds and then rejects the statement with an appeal to incredulity fallacy. Because he can’t imagine that energy interactions result in changed mental states, the notion is simply proclaimed to be nonsense.

In responding to the argument summary he proclaims that while energy interactions in the brain produce mental states, no other interactions do. That shows that he is engaging in special pleading. Somehow energy interactions in the brain are special in that they alone magically bestow mentality.

He dismisses our observation that treating mentality as a special case from physicality involves special pleading by simply proclaiming that mentality supernaturally arises from the physical. No explanation is given, we are just meant to take this dogmatic statement on blind faith.

He dismisses our objection to the supernatural concept of strong emergence of mentality by simply proclaiming that mental states require a brain. Again, no justification is given, we must simply believe this on blind faith.

He dismisses our conclusion that energy has simple mentality by simply proclaiming that it is an “unfounded, unsupported and absurd assertion” and “absurd, incoherent and illogical nonsense” without finding any holes in the argument’s logic.

His rebuttal is nothing but an incoherent mishmash of pseudoscience and logical fallacies. His many unjustified proclamations amount to bare assertion logical fallacies. This is the very kind of tripe you’d encounter with young Earth creationists who are trying in vain to show that your science based arguments are wrong.

The Special Pleading of Mentality’s Strong Emergence

Humans are ultimately composed of elementary particles or fields. Every complex physical trait we have can be traced to primitive versions of this trait in these fields. Every physical thing we do is a form of movement. We can only perform these movements because the fields we are composed of have the ability to move.

These movements require energy. Our bodies have mechanisms to absorb and use energy to perform these movements. The same holds true with our elementary particles.

The ability to move our limbs doesn’t magically appear out of thin air at some point of development. It is instead directly traceable to each of our subsystems: cells, atoms, subatomic particles and elementary particles. There is not one physical attribute that is an exception to this rule. As such, complex physical phenomena are said to weakly emerge from the interactions of subsystems that possess simpler forms of these physical phenomena.

A rational person therefore would assume that this weak emergence rule would apply to our mental abilities too. That is, every complex mental phenomena we are capable of would have a simpler counterpart in each subsystem. This would mean though that the cells, atoms, subatomic particles and elementary particles that compose us would have simple forms of mentality too. That is, panpsychism is a reality.

The alternative to our subsystems possessing mentality involves the idea that mentality strongly emerges from physical sources that lack any mental capabilities. This odd scenario assumes that mentality is somehow inexplicably special. It is a unique case that applies only to mental capabilities but not physical properties. Yet no justification whatsoever has ever been presented for this special case. This is the very definition of special pleading.

Special pleading is a fallacy in which something is cited as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. Those who oppose panpsychism necessarily must embrace the strong emergence of mentality. They dogmatically adhere to this irrational outlook with only the rudimentary logical fallacy of special pleading to justify it.

It is high time that all sane scholars reject the raving irrationality of mentality’s strong emergence and instead embrace the only rational alternative, panpsychism.

Panpsychism’s Combination Non-Problem

For many philosophers the so called combination problem is panpsychism’s Achilles’ heel. The combination problem refers to not understanding how the multitude of cells (or particles) possessing simple mentality, work together to form the complex mentality that we experience.

There really is no problem at all though. We don’t seem to have a problem understanding how our complex physical properties weakly emerge from simpler forms of those properties in the cells or particles that compose us. Why on Earth then would there somehow be a problem for mental properties?

This “problem” is really just a case of special pleading. Mental properties somehow inexplicably operate differently than physical properties because some philosophers simply find the idea of panpsychism distasteful.

Highly integrated cells working together cause new physical capabilities to emerge just as our advanced mental capabilities emerge from cells with far simpler mental capabilities. The mind’s subjectness is akin to the body’s systemness. Either both have a combination problem or neither does.

Has any actual justification ever been presented that the combination problem even exists? It does not appear so. This “problem” then is merely a dogmatic fantasy or delusion based on nothing but blind faith.

The real combination problem seems to apply to anti-panpsychists. How does phenomenal experience somehow magically arise from nowhere when the right combination of particles form? This is the real question that is consistently ignored by those with a deep-seated, blindingly irrational aversion to the eminently rational position of panpsychism.