Panentheism, Panpsychism, Theism

Abhinavagupta's panentheism centers on the term vimarśa as the essence of sentience, which more closely aligns with contemporary neuroscientific and philosophical understandings of consciousness than traditional Sanskrit terms like cit, citi, or saṃvid. His philosophy prioritizes vimarśa because of its connection to activity and material reality. Employing a dual-aspect monism, he distinguishes between consciousness as a fabric of reality and awareness as a first-person perspective, implying a pervasive subjectivity even within matter. This framework is applied to modern debates on computer sentience, machine AI, and Nick Bostrom's paperclip apocalypse scenario.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Abstract This chapter addresses a key element of Abhinavagupta’s panentheism: the question of how we get sentience, through looking at the possibilities for computer sentience, machine AI, and specifically Nick Bostrom’s discussion of a paperclip apocalypse. Abhinavagupta locates the essence of sentience in the term vimarśa. I suggest Abhinavagupta’s use of the term vimarśa more closely approximates what contemporary neuroscientists and philosophers, such as Anil Seth and John Searle, understand as consciousness, rather than the terms that are ubiquitously used to translate the notion of consciousness from Indian languages to English, like cit, citi, or saṃvid. This chapter argues that Abhinavagupta affords priority to vimarśa precisely because of its links to activity, a capacity to do things in our material reality. Employing a dual-aspect monism, his formulation parses out a key distinction for his panentheism, but also for a contemporary panpsychism and for New Materialism: the idea of consciousness as a fabric of reality in relation to awareness as a first-person perspective. This entails a pervasive subjectivity, even within matter.