There is an article in Haaretz that was published not long ago.
The title of the article is: “Consciousness Is Nothing but Electrical Activity in the Brain? Ladies and Gentlemen, There Are Signs of a Revolution.”

I would add that it is not clear to me how to understand the materialists’ jubilation. It would be problematic for me to say this to them, because I would be “suspected of a lack of objectivity,” but even if everything really is matter, there is not really anything to be happy about. This is a worldview that claims to be objective, but endangers humanity and its future. It is not clear to me how such a worldview contributes to humanity, which we ourselves are also part of. I assume that in the end one has to use science to help humanity (beyond any “objective” idea). And perhaps they are using their spiritual consciousness in order to endanger the continuation of our existence—and their own existence as well—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 whether this contradicted my questions. Because if I understand correctly, if everything is consciousness that means “there isn’t really consciousness”—that is, there is, but it is not unique to human beings (maybe I didn’t understand correctly?). And then, naturally, the processes that happen in a human being also include, in their view, the idea of consciousness (as if “a table also contains consciousness,” but “limited” compared to human beings).
The analogy that came to mind was something I once read—that even a stone falling from the sky “thinks” that it has choice, and chooses to fall to the ground. But in truth, it is at the “mercy of gravity” (a subjective value that human beings defined in order to describe what is happening).

So the question is: does that article contradict dualism? And does it answer the question of consciousness (as its triumphant headline suggests) in a decisive way? (I also mean the whole idea of panpsychism in general.)
And if I misunderstood something / my assumptions are wrong (including as a result of their article), I would be happy to learn from you.

Thank you, honorable Rabbi!!

I didn’t understand anything. Does this question contradict your questions? (Which questions?)
Please don’t explain what you meant—just ask again, clearly.

As I understand panpsychism, consciousness exists in everything (that is, does a computer also have consciousness?), and then what we call consciousness is part of the total set of processes (like a computer, just 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 panpsychism seriously, when from the outset it is based on something that plainly cannot be measured in any way whatsoever? A person’s subjective experiences are hard enough to assess—so the experiences of a table?

Thank you, and sorry for my ignorance…

It is not necessary that consciousness have an evolutionary advantage.
There are things that are results of other things that do have an evolutionary advantage. Consciousness is apparently one of those.
To say that all things have consciousness is simply nonsense.
If you do not know what X is, then saying that X is present in all things does not advance your understanding of X at all. And if someone thinks it does, that only shows he did not understand the problem at all.

The questions are no longer relevant.

Just an idea that came to me, and I kept developing it. The style may resemble trivial inconsistent styles, but I think there is something more to it. (Even though I haven’t examined it deeply, I’m presenting it as a point for thought, and maybe you can develop from it solid ideas with a logical basis.)

Suppose there is consciousness in everything—this does not mean that it is equivalent to human consciousness. If it were, then everything would behave like a human being (they also claim that atoms have consciousness). That would mean that almost all things are (theoretically) subject to human consciousness (the most exalted one, because it can change the nature of material things, including itself), but can also affect it to some degree.
A table helps a person learn Torah—a positive influence. On the other hand, perhaps the table has satisfaction from the placement of the arm of the person it helps. But that is against its will, since the human used the tools at his disposal to create it. It turns out that the human being is subject to matter (to some degree), and at the same time uses matter (unequivocally).
Just as things have definitions, so too does the human being. A human being apparently has a certain boundary of freedom in the world. He can build, and alternatively destroy.
But he is also limited under the heavens.
A human being is also limited, as stated, and if we go to the “head of the chain” (the one we are able to understand), he is subject to serving his Creator—whom we cannot understand beyond that concept. (Because theoretically every material thing may serve the human being. And we are looking for something beyond matter, and beyond the level of our spiritual consciousness—which itself is difficult for the means used by it to understand.)
The path of serving his Creator, it seems, is expressed through means that human beings are able to understand (we Jews believe this is through the Written Torah and the Oral Torah together).
No inference should be drawn from an axiom concerning things beyond human comprehension, since one may err; but on the other hand, that does not mean there is not some service in it for man. What does not fit the laws of matter as they appear to us will probably be classified as ‘metaphysics’—since we have no explanation for it. Perhaps it is plausible, or will prove plausible in the future, but we are not in a position to determine that.
Sorry for the comparison, but it is called for (just as they compared human consciousness to universal consciousness): just as a table affects (helps) a person’s consciousness in Torah study by making things physically easier for him, but does not determine him, so a person’s cognitive ability affects (but does not determine, and sometimes does determine) the intensity of learning.

Another thing regarding determinism.
The idea of determinism gets a twist through our internal powers of judgment (which are influenced by external things)—which of course we must not belittle, but we need to be aware of their gray areas.
Theoretically, if there is a person, at a certain time and place, at the moment of decision, according to the libertarians he will be influenced by the totality, but will determine his decision.
The determinists will object and raise a theoretical question.
That same person, in the same place and at the same time—would he choose something different?
I think there is a failure here, because there is no possible situation in which two people (identical—let us assume that) stand in the same place and at the same time before making a decision. Even if they are in one box cut off from the world, their locations are still different from each other, and that may itself undermine the question. Because we do not know whether in one location it is “cold” and in the other “hot” (which would cause each one to choose differently—for the sake of illustration, one air conditioner on heating and one on cooling). That is just an illustration. We do not know whether our position in the world affects us, and how much. We do not know whether the passage of time affects us. For a person can be wiser than he was yesterday (or a second ago).
And on top of this, we also “forgot” that we are talking about the same person (there is no way to grasp logically the coming-into-being of two absolutely identical people, especially at the same time and in the same 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 unexplained consciousness, it is worth attributing our outcomes to it. (Besides, that seems most plausible, because in the end, we are the ones doing things—at least as I understand it.)

I read here in the past that someone argued that a mental state can decisively influence a worldview. That intrigued me and I looked into it, and in my opinion worldviews like materialism, nihilism, and determinism sometimes stem from mental states reflecting an unhealthy reality. In that case, there is a severe difficulty for the self-consciousness of the person to decide, because here physics is too strong. (Perhaps a person who felt that he had no way to get out of his situation / that nobody understood him came to such conclusions.)
An example of this is hallucinations. In the immediate sense this carries, it is understood (at least to me) that the person experiencing them is undergoing unreal things (at least relative to a healthy mind—one that enables a person to live a healthy life), which harm him and sometimes others. That person thinks what he sees is correct, but in response receives psychiatric treatment. It turns out that the environment can help the weak. It turns out that the sages of Israel can guide the Jewish people (the comparison is not exact, but still, no person should be judged, because we will not reach and cannot reach, at least to the best of my understanding, his place.)
So then, we are all affected by things. Perhaps there are those who will say—who determined that your claims are correct? Well… you know… nobody. I think this will help make the future better.
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), natural morality (subjective truth) does not correspond to the morality of the Torah (objective truth), and I hope we can bridge the gap.

Just one more thing, honorable Rabbi,
I think this idea (panpsychism) 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 in order to strip it of significance.
That’s all, and I’m not expecting a reply.

Thank you very much!

Sorry for my indecisiveness, honorable Rabbi, but this is related to the topic, and whoever reads it should see this.

When I wrote about panpsychism, I inferred that it supports materialism (which is not correct). I did not read the entire Haaretz article, only parts of it, and from that I inferred (probabilistically) that it supports materialism (which again is not correct), partly because of the style of writing, which struck me as sarcastic. Then of course (lack of objectivity?) I tried to find a thread of an idea that might refute the claim. (Because materialism is, in my opinion, a problematic worldview.) And of course, the beginning of such a thread sometimes includes pseudo-logic (what I wrote above regarding the problematic nature of panpsychism).

After reading about panpsychism, I came to understand that the idea presents a grounded philosophical position that has existed since the days of Aristotle.
As I understand it, the claim is that in every material thing, even atoms, there is consciousness.
If we take that idea and apply it to the consciousness of the table as a whole, for example, we conclude that it is composed of the consciousness of atoms, which somehow unite into a whole table (which also has a general consciousness, and its parts do too—in short, all of it does).
What is not clear to me here is which of the atoms gets even a minimal parallel to human consciousness (and why?), but as I understand it, that is more or less the picture.
It turns out that every atom has consciousness, and the total product also has consciousness.
What connects the atom to the total product—I have no idea. (Maybe its functionality, but again, if so, the materialist will ask which atom “carries all the consciousnesses,” and why specifically that one. The answer is probably metaphysical.)
If there is nothing connecting them, then in fact everything is consciousness.
That means our consciousness is connected to the entire universe, and the universe as a whole also has consciousness (containing all consciousnesses—I am certainly not comparing this to a supreme power). It really sounds crazy.

It is as if the consciousness of two human beings is connected, together with the whole universe, just with different functionality (a different body).
The amazing thing is that I read that this connects to quantum theory, because atoms themselves display a kind of behavior (awareness) that we are unable to understand.

Again, I have no idea what causes the totality of the table’s atoms to unite and be a table, inert in its outward appearance. (And again, from a materialist perspective—which atom gets to “command” the process?)
But if we compare this to a human being (which is what we happen to be), there the functionality of the atoms is different, and we observe that our consciousness is what “commands” the life in us. (At least relative to what the totality of the atoms offers it.) Now one can ask: who says that the consciousness we feel is the one in control and not another one? The answer is that this is the very assumption with which we began the whole controversy about consciousness.
And in our case (human beings), although our consciousness cannot determine everything, we are given what it is able to determine (the mode of human behavior).

And now that I think about it, this connects to your view regarding free will.
It fits, in an exceptional way—even physically—with your argument!
According to which, our consciousness begins the chain of causality.
The functionality proposed for consciousness is different from that of the table; consciousness has the ability to observe its thoughts and also determine how it will act in response to them.

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

What is your opinion of this philosophical view? Too crazy and saturated with pseudo-philosophy, or does it have potential?

Thank you very much, honorable Rabbi!

This is verbiage that I do not understand and do not know what to say about. I too can talk about consciousness possessed by the left leg of the table next to me but not the right one, and their combination together creates a marvelous musical harmony—that is, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. What do you think of that? Your description sounds the same to me. If there is one focused point you want to discuss, write it briefly and clearly, and say what your question is.

I understand your intention, though I may not necessarily succeed in meeting your expectations (certainly not intentionally).
I tried to present the idea of panpsychism as I understood it.
But I hope you understand the problem in explaining it.
If I try to summarize it—there is a metaphysical consciousness for everything, and it is what stands behind the bodies we observe (and in fact holds them together). Our physical body too—its outer appearance, cognitive abilities, and everything not under our direct control—has consciousness. Our behavior too has consciousness—the consciousness that we feel, and we stand behind it.

If everything has a metaphysical entity that begins the causality of matter, then our behavior too has a metaphysical entity (our consciousness, again) that begins the chain of causality.
And that constitutes a counterargument to the opponents of your view on free will: “How is man different from physical nature, such that he is the one who begins the chain of causality?”
Although in any case, you could still ground your view in duality.

I hope I managed to explain.
Whether I did or did not, what is the problem with panpsychism in your opinion?
What is the problem with assuming that a supreme power governs all other things, while for us there remains only ‘fear of Heaven’?

Unfortunately I still did not understand. I know what panpsychism is, but what is the question? In my view this is a strange thesis with no basis whatsoever, so there is no reason to accept it or discuss it. That is the essence of the problem I see in it.
I do not know what “holds them together” means. Physically? I assume you mean that it turns a collection of particles into an organic/collective entity (like a soul for a person).
In the next sentence I did not understand a single word (and especially not the connection between the words):

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

Therefore I cannot understand or address the question that follows it. By the way, there too I did not understand a single word.

If quantum theory turns out to be probabilistic for us because we are unable to understand the “mentality” of particles, and panpsychism proposes that mentality = consciousness (which in this case is metaphysical, because it does not meet the causal standard of the world of physics), then behind the electrical field in the brain, at root, there stands a mechanism of consciousness.
The assumption is that our consciousness is that mechanism. And in that way probability loses its force, because we determine it. Then this synchronizes with your view of free will, and with those who invoke quantum theory. On the one hand, the electrical field is created by us; on the other hand, it cancels the probabilistic element in quantum theory, in this specific case.

Unfortunately, we are probably speaking different languages. I do not understand a single word.