Affectivity of Objects and Affordances, Neo-Platonism, and Objective Utility -- Plausibility of Panpsychism

Thesis: Ecological psychology has shown that environments and physical settings facilitate certain behavioral reactions. While most philosophical theories assert that affectivities are one directional, critter to object, little has been discussed about a bidirectional relationship between objects and critters. From adopting a panpsychist view, objects could have a certain level of affectivity upon critters. Using ecological psychology, panpsychism, and the philosophical theory of affordances, this paper aims to create a new theory of bi-directional affectivity between objects and critters. In this paper I intend to argue that when taking on a panpsychist view of the world, that objects gain affectability and a bidirectional relationship is created between objects and higher modes of consciousness, such as humans.

The Affordances of Ecological Psychology

Ecological psychology and the philosophical concept of affordances are undeniably interconnected. In a paper called “Affording Disaster” by Koolage and Deiterle, they argue that guns on public campuses afford more gun violence. In theory and summation, they are basically saying that when a gun is present or available in a public setting, specifically on university campuses there is more likely to be violence. To really understand what these philosophers are asserting there must be distinguished definition of exactly what affordances are, and also ecological and environmental psychology.

Ecological Psychology

Before any type of embarkment on what exactly affordances are in philosophical terminology, we must look at what exactly ecological and environmental psychology’s (EP) definition can be. A clear definition of what exactly this type of psychology is can be difficult to flush out, so a synthesis of a few may suffice ultimately bringing to get a clear vision of what EP has to offer. The Australian Psychological society defines EP as “Environmental psychology is the study of transactions between individuals and their physical settings. In these transactions, individuals change the environment, and their behavior and experiences are changed by the environment.” Clearly this definition points to a bi-directional influence of humans and environments, but also how human actions can affect an environment.

Another definition in a small paper called “Grand Challenges of Environmental Psychology” notes actually a bi-directional relationship between humans and environments. “Environmental psychology is concerned with the facts of bi-directional influence in people-environment interactions; it considers how the socio-physical environment influences people and how people influence the environment.” Clearly definition number 2 asserts that there is a bi-directional relationship between environments and people. What makes this the most interesting is when environments are broken down further into places, people, and objects. Environments are made up of these three “things”, while other factors like smells, sounds etc. are simply products of these physical concrete materials.

Affordances

Clearly with recognition of EP in a psychological and philosophical sense, there must be a relationship between environments and people. Places, people/animals, and objects have some type of influence on behaviors, but certain places, people/animals, and objects only allow for specific activities. Take for example a traditional classroom where there is a white board in the front of the class, and 20-30 desks face the front. The setting of the room infers that this is a learning environment. Had someone come into the classroom and decided to stand on the desk, or sit on the table of the desk instead of the chair facing away from the white board, this would be breaking a norm for that specific environment. This essentially is EP, or environmental psychology; environments and objects in environments allow for predictive behaviors.

              To really understand EP there must be an examination of what exactly is happening within its internal mechanisms. Philosophical dialogue asserts that there is a concept called affordances that does much of the heavy lifting for EP. From the example in the paper written by Koolage and Deiterle, guns afford for shooting, to further exemplify, when there is a gun in an environment, it has the potential to be shot. The gun affords a certain behavior potential. In the example of the classroom with all the desks facing the white board. The desks positioned in that specific variation affords for people to sit facing the front board. In the classroom example, the desks facing the board affords sitting towards the board

              In other words, it is what makes up the environment that causes specific actions or behaviors to take place. One may even go as far to argue that environments can augment mental states, such as smells, noise, images etc. and can influence the way the mind works.

The traditional definition of affordances asserts that actions are mono-directional, or moves in one direction. In “Affording Disaster” the authors define affordances as “Affordances are best understood as emergent properties at the intersection of motivation, perception, the bodies of animals, the properties of objects, and the environment”. Again, clearly there is a relationship between people and environments. What makes this definition overtly interesting is that it specifically points out objects as a key part of the definition. Appropriately, the paper argues that guns afford more violence, to which end, a gun is an object.

              Affordances can also be observed as potentials inside an environment or situation. Sometimes affordances could be considered as advantages, or an opportunity between social relationships among individuals. Ultimately there is an objective that acting on an affordance as causing, or rather, when a person acts on a potential, an affordance is taken advantage of. But what may shine some light on the concept of affordances further is looking at the goal of objects themselves.

Items having Objectivity

              Items in environments clearly have an influence on people as shown by EP, but a question that might be interesting to ask is if items have objectivity. Let us again exemplify a gun. The item, a gun, has one purpose which is to shoot. From an unorthodox point of view, the guns’ objective is to shoot and fire bullets. The gun itself is inoperable unless a human is co-collaborating in the shooting process. In a way, the gun is using a human hand to reach its end goal, which is ultimately shooting. Unfortunately, as AI and other technological advances occur, guns and killing machines may actually become autonomous further pushing objectivity of items.

              To further exemplify what exactly is being pointed too, another example is needed. Cars are used for driving, their objective utility is to move items from point A to point B. While cars only can operate when a human is collaborating with the car’s ultimate objective or purpose, which is to drive. The objective to drive for the car is synonymous across all cars and trucks. Only when the human aids in its objective use, which is for driving. In a way, the car’s sole purpose and objective is to drive, as that is its objective utility. Ironically, cars have the same potential as guns, they are beginning to take on technological advances that allow autonomy.

              From this reverse standpoint, it is actually the item that has directedness towards its objective goal, which in the car’s case is to drive. While this may seem unorthodox, it is plausible when taking on specific mindsets, which this paper will intend to pursue in the following sections.

Objections to Objective Utility in Objects

While it can be argued that labeling objects as having a objective is anthropomorphizing items, it can also be stated and argued that an object does in fact have purpose. To clearly situate this objection as fallacious, there must be a clear connection between purpose and objective.

              A purpose is something that has intentional design towards a specific goal or end task. Humans are taught that the right job demands the right tool, for example, I will not try to write on paper with a donut. Only pens and pencils are the tools used to write on paper. Thus, the item, or the pen and pencil, has a purpose, which is to write. Many times humans will assign purposes to objects, for example, the purpose of the pencil may not be for writing, but glued onto the paper as a piece of art. Although the purpose of the pencil was originally to simply write, its purpose was changed making purpose fluidic.

              Objectives are points of accomplishment or ends to a mean. Clearly there is a relationship between purposes and objectives. While purpose was specifically designated to have more fluidity than objective, objectivity or objectives are less fluid and more rigid. A pencil has specific objective utility which is to write, although its purpose can be changed to be a fragment of an art piece. Creating a small thought experiment can distinguish this difference:

A teacher gives a student some pencils, paper, glue, buttons, and crayons. The teacher then proceeds to tell the student to make an art piece with the said objects, do a drawing, then glue the buttons onto the page. The student then produces a piece that has the pencil glued on the paper. The pencil still remained an object that could be written with, but simply glued to the paper.

In this thought experiment, the purpose of the pencil changed, but its objective utility to write stayed the same, as it still was a pencil, but merely used as glued object. Thus, objectivity for an object/utensil must be the constant for its intended use, while purpose is liquid, fluid, and ever changing. Take for example the gun, a gun’s objective utility stays the same, to shoot bullets, while its many parts can also be purposely used as a paper weight. The guns ultimate objective is to shoot, but its purpose can be changed.

Affectivity in Items relating to Affordances

Affectivity must be explored to fully understand how exactly objects can influence individuals in EP. As stated, EP has the ability to effect behaviors. While affectivity is thought to be only applied to humans, this same concept can be labeled to objects or items in an environment.

              In a 1967 psychological study done by Berkowitz established a well utilized theory called “the weapons effect.” This established that the mere presence of a gun has influence on people’s behaviors to become more aggressive. The study shows that objects in environments can become threatening, causing affective change in a person. What this philosophically eludes to is that objects actually can hold an affective potential.

              In a lighter and flowery example, is how flowers have the potential to change ones mood to be happy. The simply object of the flower places affective change in someone’s experience of life. This again establishes a bidirectional relationship between objects and people.

              Although flowers are a nicer subject to talk about, their objective utility is more prone to purposeful distinguishment than guns. To truly draw a connection between affordances and affectivity, guns must be used as an example. A gun has affective affordance if a gun can change someone’s behavior to become more aggressive; ultimately leading to someone more likely actually shooting the gun. The gun affectively changes the person’s experience, and thus is more likely to afford the guns usage. Clearly, affordances and the affectivity of objects are related.

Panpsychism and Objects with Affordances

A clear relationship between EP and affordances has been established, while items in environments still maybe disputed; but taking on the mindset of a panpsychist may drive home the connection. Panpsychism is a derivative of monism, which both are mildly related. Monism is defined traditionally as the perspective that there is only one substance, as opposed to Cartesian dualism that there are 2, mind and matter. Without getting into the weeds, the problem that Cartesian dualism faced was explaining how a mind could be separate from a body, one of its biggest philosophical flaws. Any rational person would simply ask where a mind is after death as it must go somewhere according to his system. Monism intended to fix such issues, simply claiming that there is no separation between mind and body, that both are “one thing”.

              As monism evolved in thought and started to gain a following, derivatives of its thinking patterns and logical conclusions lead to Panpsychism. While monism suggests that mind and body are one substance with many levels, panpsychism asserts that even inorganic matter holds some level of consciousness. While both monism and panpsychism are related, they differ in monistic perspectives adopting that objects can have no consciousness at all, while panpsychist acknowledge that there is possibility for them to have a level of consciousness.

              Panpsychism seems the more plausible route between the two because it is only logical that the chain of being (teleology), or rather evolution, proves that the human body arose from inorganic matter at some point in time. From the small fragments of matter that proliferated earth, a tiny basic celled organism was created, which ultimately caused the chains of evolution to take hold creating the human. What this suggests is that the potential for life lies inside the very fragments of matter themselves. Further, what this also suggests is that consciousness is embedded in matter, they are two inseparable “things” as opposed to Descartes “two things.”

              Panpsychism does a lot of heavy lifting for objects having bi-directional affordances and affectivity. Working on the scientifically supported premise that human life arose from basic celled organisms which have their origin of inorganic matter, it is only plausible to suggest that consciousness and matter are interwoven. What this also suggests is that some of the principles of consciousness, such as desire, motivation, will, concentrative direction, and objectivity are also engrossed and interwoven in matter.

              A panpsychist would very much conclude that the same elements in human experience are also imbedded in matter, or rather some level of human’s experiences reflected into objects and matter. This includes desire, objectivity, directedness, etc. What makes this even more interesting is that items such as guns, or even as far as environments have objective utility. A gun’s sole purpose is to shoot, thus from a panpsychist perspective, the gun’s sole objective is to propel bullets. Only without the hand of a human being, the gun is useless paperweight. The guns objective utility is only accomplished when a human is used in its process.

Perhaps the word desire is not completely appropriate, but rather that the gun’s directed material organization has specific outcomes with its organization of atoms. The gun cannot independently shoot a bullet, it must have participation in its objective utility, thus it can only achieve its end cause when a human actively participates in its usage. Thus, the gun affords to be shot, but the affordance and affective use is bidirectional, as the utility of the gun has an objective means, and the person who wishes to use the gun also has some level of objectivity. The organization of the gun, trigger, barrel, frame, etc., is focused towards a specific ends, to shoot projectiles, thus its objective utility is established. The gun itself cannot realize its objective utility independently, but only the participation of a human agent can assist in its projected outcomes.

Take for example the availability of the gun itself. The gun has the designated objective to shoot projectiles, and the gun affords to be shot. But merely the presence or the availability of the gun itself causes some affective motivation to use it. A person who does not have access to a gun will not have an affective need to utilize it, it is pivotal on the availability of the gun to which it has some level of affective action by the gun’s presence. Bi-directionally, the gun affords to be shot, but it only can be shot if a human actively participates in the designated utility of the object.

This would also suggest that objects have some level of affectivity onto humans. Because the gun affords a certain behavior, which is to shoot it, the gun asserts a specific objective onto the human or participant. The behaviors of man are thus dictated or “controlled” by the guns presence, a person can either shoot it, or leave the gun inactive. This leads to the bidirectionality of objects and humans from a panpsychist perspective. The gun has some level of affective influence onto the surrounding environment. Obviously, this is also proven in EP as stated earlier in the essay.

              Adopting this perspective is unorthodox, but with a little effort it can be applied to an immense number of applications that provide usefulness. Take for example a drone: its sole objective is to fly, record videos, or transfer explosives to destinations. The drone itself cannot fly autonomously (except with AI). The drone itself has objective utility, but only when a human extends its cognitive faculties into the drone, that it can reach its end goal. Thus the drone uses the human to reach its objectives.

Neo-Platonism, Sustained Persistence, and Object Affective Affordances

All too often Platonism is brushed aside as the whipping boy of theories in undergraduate studies, but what isn’t recognized is that it holds some level of abstract viability. Keeping firm that Plato’s theory of forms is a valid and sound premise, each object has some level of sustained persistence, and that its archetypal form or organization thus must have some objective utility. Although an object maybe destroyed, there will be another item of the same type or “form” to replace it. This suggests that there is some level of sustained persistence among the archetype or “blueprint” of the item through time.

              Take for example the material organization of a gun, a gun can be dismantled and placed into a urn and melted down to its base metals, but another gun will simply replace that one. There is a level of sustained persistence among its form. Ironically, this ties into the working theory affective objective affordances with items, such as guns. When items have some level of affective objective utility, it is not simply the item that is having affective influence onto the human, but it is the form itself, or the idea of the item, and it has some level of sustained persistence. The guns form itself has a sustained affective objective, to shoot, but also influence humans to shoot the gun through its affordable potential. The many different brands, shapes, and sizes of guns all have the same objective, to shoot, but this also shows that the archetypal form of the gun is sustained, even if one is destroyed. Thus, its affective and objective affordances influence the behavior of man throughout time, and thus its objective utility is sustained. If a specific behavior is dictated or influenced by an object, clearly there is bi-directional activity.

Conclusion

Through careful study and thought, it is clear that bidirectionality is firmly established among psychology and hopefully can be seen philosophically. Items in environments have affective influence on people, including affective and objective affordances. Even inanimate objects have some level of objective utility, even if their purpose changes. This shows that items do have sustained persistence through time, even in diverse and varied environments. By allowing affectivity to be perceived in objects, panpsychism becomes more plausible.

Works Cited

Berkowitz, L., & Lepage, A. (1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(2, Pt.1), 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025008

Dieterle, Jill M., and W. John Koolage. “Affording Disaster: Concealed Carry on Campus.” Public Affairs Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2, Jan. 2014, commons.emich.edu/faculty_sch/52.

Sörqvist P. Grand Challenges in Environmental Psychology. Front Psychol. 2016 Apr 25;7:583. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00583. PMID: 27199818; PMCID: PMC4843758.

What Is Environmental Psychology? | APS. psychology.org.au/community/advocacy-social-issues/environment-climate-change-psychology/psychologys-role-in-environmental-issues/what-is-environmental-psychology.