Psychophysics

By Mike Hockney

One hundred percent of scientists think that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is correct. One hundred percent of scientists are wrong. Isn’t that astounding? Why is it so hard for scientists to see the blatant errors in Einstein’s logic?

The central reason for the failure of Einstein’s theory as an account of ultimate existence is that, like everything else in science, it denies the real existence of mind. Once mind is admitted to physics, Einstein’s fallacies become obvious. To refute both Einstein, only one thing is required ... to place an eternal, non-sensory, mathematical Singularity at the centre of the spacetime universe. This Singularity is a Fourier frequency domain, but is functionally equivalent to a Cosmic Mind. Because it’s an immaterial, dimensionless entity outside space and time, the Singularity is undetectable by any scientific experiment, yet its existence automatically disproves all claims of scientific materialism regarding the fundamental nature of reality.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Sep 1, 2015
• ISBN: 9781326408718

Mike Hockney

Mike Hockney invites you to play the God Game. Are you ready to transform yourself? Are you ready to be one of the Special Ones, the Illuminated Ones? Are you ready to play the Ultimate Game? Only the strongest, the smartest, the boldest, can play. This is not a drill. This is your life. Stop being what you have been. Become what you were meant to be. See the Light. Join the Hyperboreans. Become a HyperHuman, an UltraHuman. Only the highest, only the noblest, only the most courageous are called. A new dawn is coming... the birth of Hyperreason. It's time for HyperHumanity to enter HyperReality.

Book preview

Table of Contents

Psychophysics

Table of Contents

Introduction

Animatism

Kepler and Newton

The Second Ether

The Rebirth of the Ether?

John Bell and the Ether

Absolute Einstein?

The Unwelcome Guest

The Singularity

The Mystery of Light

Brainwaves

The Forbidden

Mind, Space and Time

Division By Zero

Relativity?

The Antidote

Goethean Science

Herbart

Psychodynamics

Pythagorean versus Platonic Form

Potentiality and Actuality

The Six Systems

The War

The Receptacle

Nested Uncertainty

Fechner

Day and Night

The Split Brain

Angels

The Mind Threshold

Fichte

The Unconscious God

The Mind Transmitter

Idiocracy

Noumenal Idealism

The School of Leibniz

The Rise of the Stupid

Panpneumatism

Eternity

Vitalism

What Is a Thought?

As Above, So Below

The Fear

The God Series

The Compiler

The Photonic Universe

The Mind and the World

Conclusion

Introduction

One hundred percent of scientists think that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is correct. One hundred percent of scientists are wrong. Isn’t that astounding? Why is it so hard for scientists to see the blatant errors in Einstein’s logic?

The central reason for the failure of Einstein’s theory as an account of ultimate existence is that, like everything else in science, it denies the real existence of mind. Once mind is admitted to physics, Einstein’s fallacies become obvious. To refute both Einstein and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, only one thing is required ... to place an eternal, non-sensory, mathematical Singularity at the centre of the spacetime universe. This Singularity is a Fourier frequency domain, but is functionally equivalent to a Cosmic Mind (God, we might say). Because it’s an immaterial, dimensionless entity outside space and time, the Singularity is undetectable by any scientific experiment, yet its existence automatically disproves all claims of scientific materialism regarding the fundamental nature of reality.

A logical, rational, analytic mathematical Singularity – demanded by the principle of sufficient reason – at a stroke demolishes science’s entire Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism. It leaves nothing standing. Every theory of science – whether it’s relativity, quantum mechanics, Darwinism, the Big Bang, the Multiverse, neuroscience ... you name it – is formally falsified by the existence of a Cosmic Mind.

The whole of science is literally predicated on the non-existence of a permanent, inherently unobservable Singularity – Mind – at the exact centre of existence. Therefore, if the Singularity is there – and we are talking about the Big Bang Singularity itself (meaning that the material universe of space and time in fact originated in a Cosmic Mind) – then the whole of science is false in any claims it makes about ultimate reality.

The existence of the Singularity that rules the universe is proved by means of reason, logic and mathematics. It has nothing to do with the senses, experiences and experiments. It reflects a rationalist, intelligible, mathematical universe, not an empiricist, sensible, scientific universe.

It’s not religion that demonstrates that the central claims of science are absurd, it’s ontological mathematics – the quintessence of reason and rationalism.

At the Singularity, two worldviews fatally collide: empiricism and rationalism. If the Singularity exists, scientific empiricism cannot explain reality. If the Singularity does not exist, reality is neither rational, logical nor intelligible. If the Singularity exists, mathematics, and not science, explains reality. If the Singularity does not exist, reality contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and it’s incomprehensible how mathematics can have any place in science.

Science, without math, is nothing but alchemy – a religion! Yet science with math is automatically contradicted by math since math is all about rationalism while science is all about empiricism; math is all about reason while science is all about the senses. So, which is it – is existence ultimately rational (mathematical), or sensory (scientific)? As Plato pointed out, ultimate reality can’t be both intelligible and sensible. It’s one or the other.

Science plays the bogus game of trying to be empirical (experimental) and rational (mathematical), but if empiricism is true then rationalism is false, and vice versa. So, a fundamental logical contradiction stands at the heart of science and infects every claim made by science ... and, equally, everything it denies. This ontological and epistemological contradiction becomes inescapable at the controlling Singularity (Cosmic Mind) of the Universe. If rationalism (math) is true, this Singularity exists. If empiricism (science) is true, the Singularity doesn’t exist, and math, reason and logic are false. But if these are false, science is irrational!

Nothing is more important than the question of whether the spacetime universe of matter was born of an eternal mental Singularity outside space and time, which even now exists right at the centre of the spacetime universe, and controls all of spacetime.

Mind might seem like something vague and impossible to pin down. It’s not. Mind is pure math, in fact the most mathematical thing you can possibly get. Mind is ontological mathematics.

To see why Einstein is wrong, you need to replace physics, based on matter, with psychophysics, based on mind. No scientist has the vaguest idea what psychophysics is, yet its conceptual basis couldn’t be simpler. In order to revolutionise physics, all that’s required is to add to science’s spacetime world of matter, a frequency Singularity of mind. As soon as this is done, Einstein’s relativistic arguments collapse since the Singularity provides an absolute reference frame that entirely conditions the spacetime world, yet is undetectable by any scientific experiment. This is only to be expected given that the Singularity is immaterial, dimensionless and not in spacetime at all. The Singularity reflects pure, analytic, transcendental, ontological mathematics. It’s a mathematical object, not a scientific one.

This book shows exactly where Einstein’s thinking goes wrong. It’s a logical failure created by science’s inability to understand what mathematics is ontologically, and to use mathematics correctly. This failure runs through the whole of science. Science is simply the systematic misapplication and misinterpretation of mathematics. Psychophysics, the replacement for physics, is the remedy.

Nothing exposes the science delusion more than science’s dysfunctional relationship with mathematics. No scientist on earth can say what math actually is, why science uses it (given that math is non-empirical), and how it can be of any use at all in describing a reality that, according to science, is 100% non-mathematical, i.e. since science denies that reality is made of math, it’s impossible to understand how math can serve any function at all in describing a non-mathematical universe. It couldn’t be simpler: if reality is mathematical, math can describe it; if reality isn’t mathematical, math can’t describe it. There’s no in-between state: reality can’t be a bit mathematical and a bit non-mathematical. It’s one or the other. This is a zero-sum game.

Einstein himself said, How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality? Of course, he never provided any answer, and that’s the whole problem with science, and with Einstein’s logic in particular.

He additionally said, As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. On what basis is this statement valid? Where is Einstein’s evidence or proof? When has science ever demonstrated that the universe isn’t in fact made of math, e.g. of analytic mathematical entities such as sinusoidal waves? Why shouldn’t the strings that many scientists believe in be pure mathematical vibrations rather than bizarre, quasi-mathematical entities that have no analytic necessity? No scientist can answer such questions.

Science is entirely predicated on the scientific method, yet this method can say literally zero about the ontology of mathematics. Therefore, we have the situation in which science is totally reliant on math (all modern scientific theories are ferociously mathematical), yet the method of science is 100% useless in addressing what mathematics is. If science can’t explain why it uses math and what math is, how can it explain reality to us? If science can’t explain itself, it’s manifestly unfit for purpose as any kind of explanatory tool.

As Nietzsche observed, science does not explain, it describes. In particular, science describes reality in terms of science’s model of reality, but science can inherently provide no evidence or proof that this model has any bearing whatsoever on the ultimate constitution of existence.

The Bible is a Judaeo-Christian model of reality, which, like science, cannot prove a single thing about the foundations of existence. The Bible is a silly bunch of stories and ancient superstitions based on emotions (fear, hope and tribal vanity in particular). Science, on the other hand, is a model based on sensory claims, yet where has science ever demonstrated that reality in itself must be sensory? If ultimate reality isn’t sensory (and it self-evidently isn’t!) then, whatever science is doing, it’s not explaining existence to us.

Science is an exercise in simulating reality, but the validity of its simulation depends entirely on how well sensory experiments reflect ultimate reality. If ultimate reality is non-sensory, science is ipso facto telling us nothing about it. In fact, it’s actively concealing the truth from us by pretending that the senses can reveal fundamental existence to us when they emphatically can’t.

Science is the Matrix. It can tell us about the Matrix, but can’t tell us anything about the truth beyond the Matrix. To get to the Truth, we need the red pill. But science dispenses only blue pills. Science traps you in its simulation forever. It relentlessly promotes the Lie that the simulation is reality, and there’s no Truth outside the simulation. Science, therefore, is the enemy of the Truth. Like any religion, it promotes its own ideology and dogmatism as the Truth. Math – which science can’t explain – is the red pill that exposes all of science’s fraudulent claims.

This book shows exactly why scientists will never accept any proof that Einstein is wrong ... because science is now effectively a religion that refuses to question any of its core beliefs. Above all, science refuses to confront its relationship with mathematics, and refuses to attach any ontological significance to math.

Science isn’t what you think it is. Science is properly called scientific materialism and empiricism, and, unless you can explain why it’s not scientific idealism and rationalism, then you don’t understand what science is, what it does, why it makes the kinds of claims it does, and why it finds it impossible to detect Einstein’s errors.

Materialism and empiricism are philosophical positions, and, by correctly labelling science as scientific materialism and empiricism, it becomes clear that science is itself a philosophy, hence must be subject to philosophical analysis and criticism. Yet science disdains philosophy and refuses to enter into any philosophical debate over its legitimacy and modus operandi. In this way, it’s exactly on a par with religions, which also refuse to engage with philosophy, and to defend and justify themselves philosophically.

When was the last time you heard the Pope responding intellectually and theologically to criticisms of Catholicism? When was the last time you heard any scientist responding to ontological, epistemological and metaphysical critiques of science? It never happens. Science and religion both act as if they are immune to criticism.

Science seeks to avoid philosophy by relying on its experimental method, but it hasn’t realised that this method is the exact means by which it conveys its materialist and empiricist philosophy. Why, for example, doesn’t science reflect the rational, logical method of mathematics, which has nothing to do with either materialism or empiricism? This is all the more pertinent given that science without mathematics would be nothing but Aristotelian natural philosophy, alchemy or outright religion. Why does science use mathematics at all given that science is all about the senses, observations and experiments, and mathematics is about none of these things? Isn’t that a fundamental contradiction? Why does no science book ever mention the central mystery of the presence of mathematics at the core of science?

The scientific method is all about what is observable to the senses, hence, by definition, is irrelevant to anything non-sensory, and it can tell us literally nothing about things not susceptible to observation. However, the advocates of the scientific method quickly, and with no logical validity, move from the claim that the scientific method tells us about the observable world, to a flat denial that there’s any unobservable world, i.e. they soon enough assert that anything not amenable to the scientific method cannot exist. That is pure belief, and has no rational basis.

Science claims to be able to explain the world to us, yet it can’t even explain what mathematics is and why science is so reliant on it. The importance of mathematics to science implies that the world is in some way inherently mathematical, yet science refuses to engage with any such concept. It can say neither what math is, nor why the world isn’t fundamentally mathematical.

Science rejects anything unobservable, yet math, in itself, is unobservable. Science rejects hidden variables and rational unobservables, yet mathematics is full of them. This means that the scientific worldview is radically different from the mathematical worldview. Indeed, they are almost diametrically opposed.

If you accept the ontology of mathematics – i.e. you accept that mathematics is a real existent rather than a bizarre, mysterious, inexplicable abstraction – then you agree that the study of mathematics is the study of existence itself, and you have thereby rejected science.

The examination of the rival claims of ontological mathematics and science involves a sophisticated rational, logical, and metaphysical analysis, but all such considerations are rejected by science. It refuses to entertain any ideas incompatible with its ideology and dogmatism. It doesn’t refute these ideas, it simply ignores them ... just like any religion disregarding whatever threatens and undermines it.

In all of these ways, science is a faith. If you haven’t realised that, you don’t understand science, and you’re not in a position to see through the host of fallacious claims it makes about the true nature of reality. Science doesn’t deal with facts, but with interpretations generated by its philosophical stance.

Science’s core philosophy has never at any time been proved. There is zero evidence that it’s true, and any number of rational, logical arguments can be deployed to demolish its key claims, as we have shown throughout the God Series.

If you subscribe to science, you are a believer, not a rationalist. If you think science is a rational undertaking then you should of course be rationally and logically capable of refuting the myriad rational and logical disproofs of science that we and others have raised against it. If you just ignore these, you’re no better than an Abrahamist or Karmist. You’re an enemy of reason.

Anyone who is opposed to mathematics – the quintessential rational and logical subject – is irrational. So, is science pro or anti-mathematics? Science certainly uses mathematics, but only in terms of its materialist and empiricist ideology. It rejects all of mathematics that doesn’t fit its dogmatism, hence no one can plausibly claim that science is on the side of mathematics. In fact, science is a cynical abuse, and systematic misinterpretation, of mathematics. Science is the sensory distortion of ontological mathematics, and is exactly that which hides and masks the mathematical Truth.

Science – the religion of the senses – is what must be overcome if humanity is ever to grasp the non-sensory Truth of existence. Science isn’t the friend of the Truth; it’s the greatest enemy of the Truth, and is what now stands between humanity and the Truth. The Truth is non-sensory, noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics ... this being the only thing that can rationally and logically exist within the immaterial Singularity, outside space and time, which preceded the Big Bang that gave rise to the scientific world of time, space and matter.

To put it another way, mathematics stands entirely outside science. The reality that precedes the scientific world isn’t God, or mysticism, or nonduality, or love, or consciousness, or randomness, or non-existence, but the mathematical world.

Mathematics has all the same attributes as a Creator God ... except math is a system, not a person. Math supports a deistic, not a theistic or atheistic, worldview. However, since ontological mathematics is a self-optimising, self-solving system expressed through countless living minds (monads), it possesses the remarkable capacity to transform all of us into perfect persons, i.e. to make theistic Gods of all of us. God doesn’t make math, math makes God, and not just one God, but as many Gods as there are monads.

Abrahamism claims that an eternal, necessary, immaterial, theistic God outside space and time created us. In fact, eternal, necessary, immaterial, deistic Math outside space and time is the Source of all things, and it mathematically converts all of us into perfect theistic Gods by the end of Time (the end of a Cosmic Age).

Abrahamism is theistic, Eastern religion is pantheistic or panentheistic, science is atheistic, and mathematics is deistic, but has theistic Gods as its ultimate product, i.e. math is a God Factory whereas science is a Godless Factory.

Modern physics is the ultimate atheistic subject. This can be changed in an instant simply by converting it into psychophysics, which is the version of physics compatible with deistic, transcendental, ontological mathematics. Physics, like everything else, is a philosophy, and, if you change your philosophy, you thereby change your understanding of physics.

Physics privileges matter over mind. It’s all about lifeless, mindless stuff, devoid of meaning and purpose. Psychophysics privileges mind over matter. It’s all about the fundamental components of reality – monads – which are living, striving, teleological minds. You couldn’t get a greater contrast.

Psychophysics is the opposite of physics, and, unlike physics, is 100% compatible with total mathematics, i.e. the mathematics of all numbers: real numbers, imaginary numbers, complex numbers, negative numbers, positive numbers, zero and infinity. As Pythagoras said, All things are numbers; number rules all.

This book tells the story of psychophysics. It’s the story of what science ought to be rather than it what it currently is. At a philosophical level, this story concerns the great battle between German idealism and rationalism, which begins with Leibniz, and British scientific materialism and empiricism, which begins with Locke and Newton.

The Germans are far more intellectual than the British, but the British are much more down-to-earth. The Germans are the modern versions of the ancient Greeks, and the British (joined by their American cousins) the modern versions of the Romans. However, whereas the Romans were great admirers of Greek culture, the British and Americans historically despised much of German and Continental thinking, a revulsion that remains to this day, especially in philosophy.

Ancient Greek and German idealist thinking presents reality as a living, teleological organism, imbued with mind, i.e. it’s consistent with psychophysics. Anglo-American science and philosophy is all about reality as a mindless, purposeless machine, i.e. it expresses the conventional view of physics. Just look at the most prominent machine thinkers – Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox. A host of other British and American names could be added to that list.

Who are the greatest upholders of the Greek and Germanic tradition? ... the Illuminati. Look at some of the illustrious names who have served as Grand Masters of the Illuminati: Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Hypatia, Leibniz, Weishaupt, Hegel and Goethe. The Illuminati have never been led by a materialist or empiricist ... and never would be. Illuminism is all about rationalism, logic, analysis and mathematics.

The Two Systems

The world is either a machine made of lifeless, mindless, meaningless, purposeless things – as science and all mechanistic theories of nature maintain – or an organism made of living, minded, meaningful, purposeful things – as all religions, spiritual systems and ontological mathematics maintain.

It’s easy to understand how a universal organism can produce the phenomenon of evolution. It’s impossible to understand how a machine with no living or mental parts, with no meaning or purpose, can manifest evolution through the alleged process of random, purposeless mutations being acted upon by random, purposeless Nature, which is of course the ideology of Darwinism. Darwinists seek to claim that randomness, uncertainty, chance, accident, indeterminism and acausation can lead from a primordial slime, or chemical soup, to human beings; that purposeful life can emerge from purposeless lifelessness; that mind can emerge from mindlessness. This would be the second greatest miracle of all time, preceded only by the egregious, magical claim that non-existence can randomly and miraculously jump out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism!

Science is absurd. Its central claims are impossible. Science openly defies reason and logic. It has no evidence or proof for its claims. No one ever has, or ever could, observe a random event. Randomness is an irrationalist, indeterministic philosophical hypothesis and speculation, not something factual and proven.

Scientists refuse to refer to eternal God, or eternal mind, or even eternal matter, as causal mechanisms. Once you have removed any eternal causal order from existence, you then have no option but to refer to existence acausally jumping out of nothing for no reason – and this is exactly what science has done. Random indeterminism lies at the heart of all scientific theories, whether cosmology, evolution or wavefunction collapse.

Without a necessary, eternal causal order, you can have a system only of contingency and temporality, of things appearing miraculously (since they do not belong to a permanent, rational, logical order). Only math can provide an eternal, necessary, causal order. If you want existence to have an answer, that answer must be math. There can be no other.

Can a universe of car parts evolve? That’s what Darwinists expect us to believe. Can car parts randomly mutate? Can car parts be subject to natural selection? What does that even mean?

Natural selection presupposes that something can select. Can a system of nothing but car parts select some car parts over others? How? Why?

Natural selection presupposes mental qualities of evaluation, choice, will, will to power, desire, ambition, ruthlessness, intelligence, scheming, cunning, aggression, fitness, adaptability and purpose – but these are exactly the qualities that are denied by all lifeless, mindless, mechanistic, materialist systems, such as science.

Darwinism is ridiculous. Machine parts cannot evolve. Full stop. There can be no natural selection in a system of machine parts. End of story. Not a single Darwinist has ever explained how natural selection – the centre of their belief system – comes to exist in the first place in their lifeless, purposeless system of mechanical parts.

The task is not to explain evolution by natural selection. The task is to explain natural selection itself, since, without that, you can’t have Darwinism. How does a universe of machine parts naturally select anything? Why doesn’t everything in such a universe reflect mechanistic inevitability – total classical scientific determinism – meaning that it’s impossible for anything ever to be selected? Selection, by definition, involves choosing one thing over another, but, in a mechanistic universe made exclusively of machine parts, there’s nothing at all that can select, hence there can be no natural selection, hence no Darwinism. That’s a fact!

Why doesn’t Darwinism refer to mechanistic inevitability rather than natural selection? A system of mechanistic inevitability cannot evolve, only mechanistically unfold. There can be no such thing as evolution in a system of machine parts.

Evolution is a misnomer within the ideology and dogmatism of scientific materialism. Nothing material can evolve. Nothing material is capable of evolving. Lifeless, mindless atoms cannot evolve (evolve into what?!), so how can collections of lifeless, mindless atoms evolve?

If we laid out all the parts of a supercar on an alien planet, and came back a billion years later, would we expect to find a planet inhabited by hyper-evolved, living supercars, or a pile of rusted, useless parts? You’d need to be insane to imagine that lifeless things can evolve life, and that mindless things can evolve mind. However, if, like scientists, you believe in miracles and magic, in things jumping out of nothing for no reason, in things emerging from other things in which they have no precedent, well, Darwinian evolution must make perfect sense to you!

Science is in fact an anti-evolutionary ideology, just like Abrahamism. Only through fraudulent, specious, impossible arguments does evolution enter into science.

*****

Appealing to random, probabilistic indeterminism doesn’t help the scientific evolutionists. In fact, it makes things worse! An indeterministic system is as useless at selecting anything as a deterministic system (i.e. a system of mechanistic scientific determinism), and makes even less sense. In a genuinely random system, all events are by definition random, hence nothing is ever selected. Things just happen, with no rhyme or reason.

Natural selection is a heuristic fiction, with no rational, logical basis. Scientists desperately introduced it in order to turn disordered randomness into order. The only legitimate natural selection is one based on teleological minds expressing will to power, and such entities play no part in science.

*****

In Illuminism, monadic minds – the basic units of existence – are evolving entities (they are inherently self-solving and self-optimising), hence a universe made of monadic minds must exhibit evolution.

Organisms evolve. Machines don’t ... unless by the intervention of organisms! Materialist evolution is an inherent contradiction in terms. Darwinism is one of the greatest intellectual cons ever perpetrated. It’s a wholly false doctrine.

Evolution is unarguably true, but evolution has nothing to do with Darwinism, with materialism and randomness. Evolution is driven by teleological minds manifesting will to power.

*****

In a system of purely physical energy – which is what science is all about – how can you generate mental energy? How can there be mind in any sense at all? In a system of purely lifeless energy, how can you generate living energy? How can energy conservation apply to physical versus mental energy, non-living versus living energy? Science has no choice but to explain mental and living energy as material, lifeless energy, but how can that make any sense? It’s a literal category error, of the type of which science is full, and none of which it ever addresses or makes any attempt to philosophically, rationally and logical justify. Reason and logic are simply not part of the scientific toolset. Science doesn’t have any rational and logical core principles. It does not swear allegiance to the principle of sufficient reason.

*****

Science is opposed to logic and reason. That’s a fact. It never once relies on rationalism and analytic first principles. That’s a fact. It denies eternal necessity, i.e. a permanent causal order. That’s a fact. It has never once sought to intellectually defend its stance, or refute the devastating criticisms of it. That’s a fact.

Science is ferociously anti-intellectual and refuses to debate with any of its critics. What’s it so afraid of? Is it because scientists aren’t capable of refuting their opponents? Is it that they’re too ignorant, stupid and badly educated to do so? Is it that science would be ruthlessly exposed as intellectually bankrupt, ruled over by narrow, limited, stunted, power-obsessed ignoramuses and Philistines?

How many scientists know anything at all about philosophy, or about the secret, forbidden history of science? Scientists – 100% of them – are ignorant barbarians. You simply don’t find any intellectual scientists. John Bell was the last genuinely philosophical scientist. Naturally, he was a theoretician, not an experimentalist. Experimentalists are the lowest of the low, those who drag everything down to their moronic level of empiricism, materialism and the senses, and reject reason and logic because they are not susceptible to experimental verification (i.e. contingent interpretation).

The Impossibility

Science precludes any substantive discussion of mind, life or subjective agency (free will). Neither mind, life nor subjective agency appears in any equation of science. Therefore, science will never explain mind, life or subjective agency. It simply has no means to do so. What it hopes to accomplish is to interpret life, mind and subjective agency as derivatives of mindless, lifeless, unfree scientific formulae, entirely lacking in subjective agency. All scientific formulae are passive, reactive, mechanical (or random!), meaningless, and non-teleological.

The Science Delusion

"In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. A panpsychist sees himself as a mind in a world of minds.

"Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in eastern philosophies such as Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, Panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind, but it saw a decline during the middle years of the 20th century