Consciousness and its advantage

There is an article in ”Haaretz”, which was published not long ago.
The article is titled “Is consciousness nothing but electrical activity in the brain? Gentlemen, there are signs of a revolution”.

I add that I am not clear on how to understand the jubilation of the materialists. It would be problematic to tell them this because I would be “suspected of lacking objectivity”, but even if everything is really material, there is really nothing to rejoice about. This is a perception that claims to be objective, which endangers humanity and its future. It is not clear to me how such a perception contributes to humanity, which we also live in. I suppose that in the end, science should be used to help humanity (beyond any “objective” idea). And perhaps they are using their spiritual consciousness to endanger our continued existence and their own existence in the material world.

Now back to the content of the article:
When I asked the question here (the question on this page), I wondered if it contradicted my questions. Because if I understand correctly, if everything is consciousness, it means that there is no consciousness, but it is not unique to humans (maybe I didn't understand correctly?). And then anyway, the processes that occur in humans also include the idea of consciousness (like a table includes consciousness, but it is limited in relation to humans).
The analogy that came to my mind for this is something I once read about how a stone falling from the sky also thinks that it has a choice, and it chooses to fall to the ground. But in truth, it is at the mercy of gravity. (A subjective value that humans have defined to describe what is happening).

So the question is, does the following article contradict dualism? And does it answer the question of consciousness (like its joyful title), decisively? (I also mean the idea of ’panpsychism’ in general)
And if I didn't understand something correctly/my basic assumptions (also following their article) are wrong (in your reference to the content of my words), I would be happy to learn from you.

Thank you, Your Honor!!

I didn't understand anything. Does this question contradict your questions? (What questions?)
Please don't explain what you meant but ask again and clearly.

From my understanding of panpsychism, consciousness is present in everything (does a computer also have consciousness?) Then what we call consciousness is part of the totality of processes (like a computer, only with a different mode of operation).

Does the idea of panpsychism negate the meaning of the question “What is the advantage of consciousness?”?
Does panpsychism contradict dualism?
How can one take the idea of panpsychism seriously, when from the outset it is based on something that cannot be clearly measured (with emphasis on clearly) in any way? Subjective experiences of a person are difficult to estimate, so experiences of a table?

Thank you and sorry for my ignorance…

Consciousness does not necessarily have an evolutionary advantage.
Some things are the results of other things that have an evolutionary advantage. Consciousness probably is one of them.
Saying that all things have consciousness is pure nonsense.
If you don't know what X is, then saying that X is in all things doesn't advance you in understanding X. And if someone thinks so, it just shows that they haven't understood the problem at all.

The questions are no longer relevant.

Just an idea that came to me, and I continued it.. The style is similar to trivial inconsistent styles, but there is something beyond it in my opinion. (Although I haven't examined it in depth, I'm putting it as a point for thought, and maybe you'll develop solid ideas from it, with a logical basis.

Let's say there is consciousness in everything, this doesn't mean that it is equivalent to human consciousness. If so, then everything would behave like a person (according to them, atoms also have consciousness). This means that almost all things are (theoretically) subject to human consciousness (the most sublime, because it has the ability to change the essence of material things, including itself), but can also influence it to some extent.
A table helps a person study Torah, a good influence. On the other hand, perhaps a table has a resting place, a resting place for the person's arm that it helps. But this is by necessity, since man used the tools at his disposal to create it. It is found that man is subject to matter (to some extent), and at the same time, uses matter (unambiguously).
Just as things have definitions, so too does man. Man, apparently, has a certain boundary of freedom in the world. He can build, and alternatively destroy.
But he is also limited under the firmament.
Man is also limited as stated, and if we go to the ”head of the chain” (the one we can understand), he is subject to the service of his Creator - which we cannot understand beyond this concept. (Because, theoretically, any material thing may serve man. And we are looking for something beyond matter, and beyond the level of our spiritual consciousness - which itself is difficult for the means used to understand it.)
The path to the service of his Creator, it turns out, is expressed by means that man can understand (we Jews believe that by the Written Torah and the Oral Torah together)
No inference should be drawn from an axiom concerning things that are beyond man's attainment, since he may make mistakes, but alternatively - this does not mean that there is no certain service to man in it. What does not agree with the laws of matter that are foreseen for us, will probably be categorized under ‘Metaphysics’ -Since we have no explanation for it, perhaps it turns out, or will turn out in the future, but we cannot determine.
Sorry for the quibble, but it is necessary (just as they quibbled about the human consciousness to the collective consciousness): Just as a table influences (helps) the human consciousness in studying Torah, by making it easier for him physically, but not overwhelming him, so a person's cognitive ability influences (but does not determine, and sometimes determines) the intensity of the study.

Another thing regarding determinism.
The idea of ​​determinism is given a twist by our internal judgmental abilities (which are influenced by external ones) - we should not underestimate them of course, but it is necessary to be aware of the gray areas in them.
Theoretically, if there is a person, at a certain time and place, given a decision time, according to libertarians, he will be influenced by the whole, but will determine the His decision.
Determinists will complicate it, and raise a theoretical question.
The same person, in the same place and at the same time - would he choose something different?
I think there is a fallacy here, since there is no way that two people (identical - let's say) will stand in the same place and at the same time before making a decision. Even if they are in one box that is disconnected from the world, their location is still different (from each other), and this may frustrate the question itself. Because we do not know whether in one location it is “cold” and in the other location it is “hot” (which would cause each person to choose a different choice, for the purpose of the matter - air conditioning over heating and air conditioning over cooling) - and this is just for illustration. We do not know if our position in the world affects us, and how much. We do not know if the progress of time affects us. Yes, a person can be wiser than yesterday (or a second ago).
This and more “We forgot” that we are talking about the same person (it is not possible to logically grasp the emergence of two absolutely identical people, especially at the same time and place) All the conditions cannot be realized together in any way.
It turns out that we tried to apply laws that we acquired from what was reflected in our consciousness, to ourselves. The question of free will is a mystery, and given a reality in which there is an inexplicable consciousness, it is worth associating our results with it. (What is also most obvious, because in the end, we do things - at least to my understanding.)

I read here in the past that someone claimed that a mental state may decisively affect a worldview. I was intrigued and examined this, and in my opinion, worldviews such as materialism, nihilism and determinism - sometimes stem from mental states, which reflect an unhealthy reality. And in this case, there is great difficulty in determining a person's self-consciousness, because here - physics is too strong. (Perhaps a person who felt that He is unable to get out of his situation/no one understands him, he has come to such insights)
An example of this is hallucinations, in the immediate meaning that arises from this, it is understood (at least to me) that the subject experiences things that are not real (at least for the healthy mind - one that allows a person to live a healthy life), which harm him and sometimes others. That person thinks that what he sees is right, but in response receives psychiatric treatment. We find that the environment is capable of helping the weak. We find that the sages of Israel are capable of guiding the people of Israel (in contrast, but still no one should be judged, because we will not reach and will not be able to reach, at least to the best of my understanding, his place.)
Well, we are all influenced by things, perhaps there are those who will say - who determined that your claims are correct? Well… you know… no one. I think that this will help the future to be better.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), natural morality (subjective truth) is not compatible with Torah morality (truth Objectively), and I hope we can bridge the gap.

Just one more thing, Your Honor,
I think this idea (pan-psychism) is meant to confront duality, in that there is no way to explain human consciousness in any material way, so consciously or unconsciously, they used the idea of a metaphysical entity to remove its meaning.
That's all, and I don't expect an answer.

Thank you very much!

Sorry for the indecisiveness, Your Honor, but it is related to the topic, and it is appropriate for whoever reads it to watch it.

When I wrote about pan-psychism, I concluded that it supports materialism (which is not true). I did not read the entire article in Haaretz, but parts of it, and from that I concluded (with probability) that it supports materialism (which is not true, again), also because of the nature of the writing, which I found to be sarcastic. Then of course (lack of objectivity?), I tried to find a thread of an idea, which would try to refute the claim. (Because materialism, in my opinion, is a problematic concept.) And of course, a thread sometimes includes pseudo-logic at the beginning (what I wrote above, regarding the problematic nature of pan-psychism).

After reading about pan-psychism, I came to the understanding that the idea presents a well-founded philosophical position, which has existed since the days of Aristotle.
To my understanding, the claim is that in every substance, even in atoms, there is consciousness.
If we take the idea and apply it to the consciousness of the overall table as an example, we will conclude that it consists of the consciousness of atoms, which somehow unite into an overall table (which also has an overall consciousness, and also for its halves, and in short for the whole).
It is not clear to me here which of the atoms is minimally equivalent to human consciousness (and why?), but my understanding is that it is something like this.
It turns out that every atom has consciousness, and the overall product also has consciousness.
What connects the atom to the overall product - I have no idea. (Perhaps its functionality, but again, if so the materialist would ask which atom “carries all consciousness”, and why specifically it? A question, the answer is probably metaphysical)
If there is nothing that connects, then in fact everything is consciousness.
This means that our consciousness is connected to the entire universe, and the entire universe also has a consciousness (which contains all consciousnesses, God forbid, I attribute this to a higher power). It really sounds psychic.

It's as if the consciousness of two people is connected, along with the entire universe, only with a different functionality (another body).
The amazing thing is that I read that this connects to quantum theory, because the atoms themselves have a kind of behavior (consciousness) that we cannot understand.

Again, I have no idea what causes the set of atoms of the table to unite and become a table that is still in its exterior. (And again, from a materialistic perspective - which of the atoms gets to ‘command’ the move)
But if we apply this to a human being (which is us “by chance”), in whom the functionality of the atoms is different, we find that our consciousness is ‘commander’ over the animals within us. (At least over what the totality of the atoms offers it.) Now we can ask, who said that the consciousness we feel controls and not something else - the answer is that this is the basic premise with which we started the polemic around consciousness in the first place.
And with us (with humans), it is true that our consciousness cannot determine everything, but we are given what it can (the way a person behaves).

And now that I think about it, it connects with your theory regarding free will.
This fits in exceptionally well, also physically, with your argument!
According to which, our consciousness begins the chain of causality.
The functionality offered to consciousness is different from the table, consciousness has the ability to foresee its thoughts, and also determine how it will act to behave after them.

But without a doubt, this seems to me to be too psychotic an idea. And it also feels psychotic to talk about.

What do you think of this philosophical view? Too psychotic and saturated with pseudo-philosophy, or does it have potential?

Thank you very much, Your Eminence!

This is a text that I do not understand and do not know what to say about. I can also talk about a consciousness that the left leg of the table next to me has but not the right one, and their combination together creates a wonderful musical harmony, namely Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. What do you think of this? Your description sounds the same to me. If there is one focused point that you would like to discuss, write it down briefly and clearly, and state what your question is.

I understand your intention, but I don't necessarily think I'll be able to meet your expectations (which I don't mean to).
I tried to present the idea of panpsychism as I understood it.
But I hope you understand the problem with explaining it.
If I try to summarize it - there is a metaphysical consciousness for everything, which is the one that stands behind the bodies we perceive (and essentially holds them together.) Our physical body - the external appearance, cognitive abilities and everything that is not under our direct control, also has a consciousness. Our behavior also has a consciousness - the consciousness that we feel, and we stand behind it.

If everything has a metaphysical entity that begins the causality of matter, our behavior also has a metaphysical entity (our consciousness, again) - that begins the chain of causality.
And this constitutes a counterargument to the opponents of your system (free will) “How is man different from physical nature, which is the one that starts the chain of causality?”
Although in any case, you can settle your system on duality.

I hope I managed to explain.
Even if so and if not, what is the problem with pan-psychism in your opinion?
What is the problem with assuming a higher power, controlling all other things, and we are left with “fear of God”?

Unfortunately, I still don't understand. I know about panpsychism, but what is the question? In my opinion, this is a strange thesis that has no basis and therefore there is no reason to accept it or discuss it. This is the essence of the problem that I see in it.
I don't know what "holds them together" means. Physically? I assume you mean that it turns the collection of particles into an organic/collective entity (like a soul for a person).
In the following sentence, I didn't understand a single word (and especially the connection between the words):

If everything has a metaphysical entity that begins the causality of matter, our behavior also has a metaphysical entity (our consciousness, again) - that begins the chain of causality.

Therefore, I cannot understand and address the question that followed it. By the way, I didn't understand a single word there either.

If quantum theory turns out to be probabilistic because we are unable to understand the “mentality” of particles, and panpsychism suggests that mentality = consciousness (which in this case is metaphysical, because it does not meet the causal standard of the world of physics), even though behind the electric field in the brain, at the root, there is a conscious mechanism.
The assumption is that our consciousness is this mechanism. Thus, probability loses its value, because we determine it. Then this synchronizes with your method of free will, and those who propose quantum theory. On the one hand, the electric field is created by us, on the other hand - it cancels the probability in quantum theory, in this specific case.

Unfortunately, we probably speak different languages. I don't understand a word.