Solipsism

[heusdens]

This is a thread on the philosophical viewpoint of solipsism.

Solipsism is the doctrine that the only thing that realy exists is one's own mind. All other things that are known to exist (by others), are declared to have no existence at all. For a real solipsist, all of outside reality (outside of one's own mind) are just projections, thoughts, images, etc, but do not describe a real existing outside reality, that exists independend of one's mind.

So far, no real philosopher of person has ever declared him/herself to be a solipsist, there exists no debating clubs for solipsist.
The reason for that is that for a solipsist it's no use to ever meet someone else and debate anything, cause all of outside reality, including other persons/minds are declared non-existence either.

Nevertheless, solipsism is a very common viewpoint, and is still practised all around the globe in various forms. This is because it is hiding it's content and the only outside form of it is better known as religion. In this form the mind has been transformed into an absolute form, namely God. God is for a solipists the substitution for what other people call the outside material reality. Some of them do recognize a material reality, but not in the way materialism pictures it (as independend of the mind). In the viewpoint of solipsist material existence (if such a material existence in their viewpoint exists at all) is in last instance dependend on the existence of God. God is in this viewpoint defined as the ultimate or final cause of the material world.

This is a clear distinction with the philosophy of materialism, in which matter is the primary substance, which is neither created or destroyed, but is in eternal motion/change, and mind is a secondary consequence of the material world itself.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Mentat, I think this really contradicts your thread, "I think therefore I am"!
Is Wuliheron's "Paradox of Existence" solipsm (sp?)?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens

Nevertheless, solipsism is a very common viewpoint, and is still practised all around the globe in various forms. This is because it is hiding it's content and the only outside form of it is better known as religion. In this form the mind has been transformed into an absolute form, namely God. God is for a solipists the substitution for what other people call the outside material reality. Some of them do recognize a material reality, but not in the way materialism pictures it (as independend of the mind), which in their view bases it's existence in last instance on the existence of God.

Religion is not synonymous with solipsism and a solipsist is not necessarilly religious. Religious people worship a god or divinity, but a solipsist doesn't necessarilly worship anything. In addition, according to this definition just about anything can be solipsism. For example, even Atheistic Monism and Pantheism. Therefore it contradicts itself.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta

Mentat, I think this really contradicts your thread, "I think therefore I am"!

Is Wuliheron's "Paradox of Existence" solipsm (sp?)?

Not by this definition it isn't. I am not religious nor do I believe or disbelieve everything is just in my mind. For me existence is a paradox and one I am happy to accept without demanding explanations. However I will say if it all really IS just in my mind I must have quite the imagination. :0)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Mentat, I think this really contradicts your thread, "I think therefore I am"!
Is Wuliheron's "Paradox of Existence" solipsm (sp?)?

I've discussed that viewpoint with Mentat in the thread "The Fundamental Question". This was about consequently reasoning the scenario: what if nothing would exist (think about everything that exist, and then try to eliminate that from your thinking). When your mind is trying to think that thoroughly through, the last thing it will face is the fact that you cannot think of reality, where your thinking isn't present any more. Not that such a reality isn't in itself possible (anybody knows there was a real world before one was ever born, and a real world will continue to exists after one is gone) but in that reality the "you thinking" part isn't present, obviously.

My conclusion was, that thinking a real world would not realy exist, would just lead to the fact that neither you would or could be present. It would be unthinkable/impossible that the thinking me was existing, without the world itself be present.

But things can be interpreted within the mind in the wrong way.
One could conclude (if one would lend on that fact only, and not taking into account the reality we know about) that for instance the mind itself must exist eternally (for the obvious reason that, without outside knowledge, the mind doesn't know about a world which existed before the mind itself existed, since there can be no experience within the mind of a world in which the mind itself was not present), and also that the normal way of perceiving causality (first there was a world, which in later instance formed me) is turned upside down (or inside-out). From our mind itself, without acknowledging any outside fact of reality, we can not know that, of course. Therefore it's good there is a material reality outside of our thinking and mind, to base our thinking on!

[M. Gaspar]

If all people were solipsists, would anyone be exploring the sciences? Or would some of them at least be inclined to explore the "outside world" as a study in what they themselves had come up with out of their own minds?

Do solipsists "arise" SPONTANEOUSLY at birth? If not, don't they realize that this position they have taken has come as a result of listening to the ideas of OTHERS with which they -- the "convinced solipsists" -- resonate?

Sounds a lot like studying one's naval.


So, materialists see matter as the primary substance...even though we "know" that "matter" is fundamentally "bound-up ENERGY".

Who then (group label) sees ENERGY as the primary substance?

And who are the "anti-solipsists"...those who believe that matter AND consciousness might be "out there" as well...with the energy of consciousness -- perhaps -- the interconnecting medium common to all "things"? And, where do I sign up?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Religion is not synonymous with solipsism and a solipsist is not necessarilly religious. Religious people worship a god or divinity, but a solipsist doesn't necessarilly worship anything. In addition, according to this definition just about anything can be solipsism. For example, even Atheistic Monism and Pantheism. Therefore it contradicts itself.

That what religion and solipsism have in common is that both in first instance refuse to accept a material reality, which exists outside and independend of their(the) mind. Both share the viewpoint of the philosophy of Idealism, which opposes Materialism.
Both believe in the abdoluteness of their own mind, although religion (the belief in a supreme being) does that in form of inventing a Deity (Absolute mind) for that reason.
Religion is just the outside shape of the same viewpoint as solipsists have. As explained from the contradictionary viewpoint itself, in reality one never meets a solipsist. They all cover up in form of religion, but the content of their ideas are the same.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Mentat, I think this really contradicts your thread, "I think therefore I am"!


Not really. In fact, the two views are perfectly compatible. You see, if I say "I think therefore I am", I may still be a solipsist, and think that "I" is the only thing that exists [;)].


Is Wuliheron's "Paradox of Existence" solipsm (sp?)?

I don't think so. I think it probably allows for it, as much as it allows for any other view - provided you recognize that whatever you view you present, it must be irrational and paradoxical.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If all people were solipsists, would anyone be exploring the sciences? Or would some of them at least be inclined to explore the "outside world" as a study in what they themselves had come up with out of their own minds?

Do solipsists "arise" SPONTANEOUSLY at birth? If not, don't they realize that this position they have taken has come as a result of listening to the ideas of OTHERS with which they -- the "convinced solipsists" -- resonate?

Where solipsism comes from is from studying one's own mind and adopting conclusion on reality from that point of view only, without studying reality itself.

This is much like studying one's own naval and from that claiming to know where the world comes from, indeed!


So, materialists see matter as the primary substance...even though we "know" that "matter" is fundamentally "bound-up ENERGY".

Who then (group label) sees ENERGY as the primary substance?

This is a simple misunderstanding. The notion of matter in the philosophical context is different as what physicist see as matter.
Philosophical materialism depicts both matter and energy (in the physical meaning) as being material i.e. matter.
Physics (Einsten!) just explains to us that matter and energy as physical notions are in fact the same substance. One can be transformed into the other.
It's a nice fact that philosophical materialism already adopted to this view on matter, before physicists explained this in physical terms!


And who are the "anti-solipsists"...those who believe that matter AND consciousness might be "out there" as well...with the energy of consciousness -- perhaps -- the interconnecting medium common to all "things"? And, where do I sign up?

Solipsism must be seen as an extreme form of Idealism. The opposite viewpoint of Idealism is Materialism.
And it's of course not the viewpoint of materialism that mind does not exist, it's just the notion that minds do not exist without a material reality. Evolution theory is therefore a materialistic viewpoint, cause it explains how life and consciousness have arisen out of an unconsciouss and lifeless material world.
Matter and consciousness are out there, for sure. The question is just: what came first? The materialist viewpoint is that in first instance just matter existed, and only later, as a result of a long material process, life began to evolve, forming consciouss beings.
Matter can exist without the need for consciouss beings to exist. Conscious beings (like us) can only exist if a material reality exists.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
That what religion and solipsism have in common is that both in first instance refuse to accept a material reality, which exists outside and independend of their(the) mind.

Sorry, but that flat out isn't true. You can define words any way you want, but this is definitely not like any accepted definition of religion I've ever heard. Some people I've known actually worship material reality as Divine or God and belong to registered religions.

Both share the viewpoint of the philosophy of Idealism, which opposes Materialism.
Both believe in the abdoluteness of their own mind, although religion (the belief in a supreme being) does that in form of inventing a Deity (Absolute mind) for that reason.
Religion is just the outside shape of the same viewpoint as solipsists have. As explained from the contradictionary viewpoint itself, in reality one never meets a solipsist. They all cover up in form of religion, but the content of their ideas are the same.

I think most spiritual and religious people would argue that the mind is not the issue, it is the heart that matters. If anything, some of the religious claim the mind is the work of the devil or some such.

I recommend Ursula LeGuin's story, "The Lathe of Heaven" for a more Asian perspective on solipsism. It was made into a movie in the seventies. In the story the lead character, George, is caught forging drug perscriptions and sent to a psychologist.

The Dr discovers George was attempting to suppress his dreams because sometimes when he wakes up he finds reality has changed to match his dream. Upon further examination the Dr discovers George's dreams really do have the power to change reality. In the end, George buys a copy of the Beatles singing "All you Need is Love" and falls asleep listening to it.

Even in this story, what the lead character discovers is that even his mind is subservient to his feelings.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If all people were solipsists, would anyone be exploring the sciences? Or would some of them at least be inclined to explore the "outside world" as a study in what they themselves had come up with out of their own minds?

If people meet who are solipsists, then they have to make a decission on what they should believe or not. They can either believe that all other persons are just images in their mind, and do not exist for real (the "world" vision of solipsism allows only one mind to exist) or they have to abandon or reshape their belief.
Abandoning their belief means they have to adapt the vision that the outside world realy exists, independend of their minds.
When they reshape their belief, they have to acknowledge the fact that also other minds exists, apart from themselves, but which have adopted a similar disbelief in the material world. This then takes the form of religion.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but that flat out isn't true. You can define words any way you want, but this is definitely not like any accepted definition of religion I've ever heard. Some people I've known actually worship material reality as Divine or God and belong to registered religions.

The basis of religion lies in philosophical Idealism. I did not say that religion argues that an outside reality does not exist, just that in their point of view this material reality can not be seen as independend of the mind. In last instance, they will claim that this material reality was the work or creation of some Divine being, or they will claim that material reality itself is consciouss.


I think most spiritual and religious people would argue that the mind is not the issue, it is the heart that matters. If anything, some of the religious claim the mind is the work of the devil or some such.

I recommend Ursula LeGuin's story, "The Lathe of Heaven" for a more Asian perspective on solipsism. It was made into a movie in the seventies. In the story the lead character, George, is caught forging drug perscriptions and sent to a psychologist.

The Dr discovers George was attempting to suppress his dreams because sometimes when he wakes up he finds reality has changed to match his dream. Upon further examination the Dr discovers George's dreams really do have the power to change reality. In the end, George buys a copy of the Beatles singing "All you Need is Love" and falls asleep listening to it.

Even in this story, what the lead character discovers is that even his mind is subservient to his feelings.

It's a nice story. But it conflicts with reality and is therefore only a story. The feelings one has, definately determine one's perception of reality. But not reality as such, although of course, one's perception of reality do determine also how one deals with and act in reality, and that is a reality in itself of course.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens

The basis of religion lies in philosophical Idealism. I did not say that religion argues that an outside reality does not exist, just that in their point of view this material reality can not be seen as independend of the mind. In last instance, they will claim that this material reality was the work or creation of some Divine being, or they will claim that material reality itself is consciouss.

Idealism incorporates the use of infinity, but a solipsist need not. I could believe my mind is finite and, therefore, everything is finite and the universe will end when I die.

It's a nice story. But it conflicts with reality and is therefore only a story. The feelings one has, definately determine one's perception of reality. But not reality as such, although of course, one's perception of reality do determine also how one deals with and act in reality, and that is a reality in itself of course.

Here's a more realistic one.

I keep maps in my glove box to help me navigate occationally. Some of these are fairly old, but still helpful. However, if the map says turn left and there is no left turn I go straight. The map is not the territory and I do not worship the map as a God or somehow superior to my mind. One of the biggest and easiest mistakes you can make with a map is to assume it shows everything that is there and is perfectly accurate.

Another huge mistake is to read the map while driving and forget where your attention needs to be. Sometimes I will memorize parts of a map and then use my memory of it while driving, but again, I try to never forget where my real attention needs to be. Driving is also just plain more fun without distracting thoughts, preconceptions, and expectations. Nothing like a sunday drive in the country.

The "reality" that you describe as divided between the material and mental worlds, just sounds like another distracting map to me. I'd never use it to play guitar and sing or any number of other things. Certainly I wouldn't contemplate it while driving.

In addition, your obvious attachment to this old map seems counterproductive. I'd never use a NY City map to try and find my way around Boston, nor would I attempt to make every map conform to my personal ideas of what all the little symbols should look like. Some maps are good for oceanography but are useless for city driving and vice versa.

Fortunately for me, the paradox of existence accomodates a potentially infinite number of distinct kinds of maps.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The "reality" that you describe as divided between the material and mental worlds, just sounds like another distracting map to me. I'd never use it to play guitar and sing or any number of other things. Certainly I wouldn't contemplate it while driving.


The material world and the wold of the mind are of course distinct feautures of reality, but there isn't a clear line between the two.
Same there isn't a clear line between life and death. All such notions are artificial categories of the mind.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
The material world and the wold of the mind are of course distinct feautures of reality, but there isn't a clear line between the two.
Same there isn't a clear line between life and death. All such notions are artificial categories of the mind.

The same could be said for the idea of "artifical catagories of the mind" as well. It is another example of using the absurd to disprove the absurd. In essence, it is a "logical" argument that one absurdity is more absurd than another. Like children on a playground taunting each other, that is often how people use such maps.

What a waste of time. The alternative is to simply compare maps like adults, and make the best of a less than crystal clear situation. The old joke has it that men will never pull over to a gas station and ask for directions. Some of them would rather drive around lost for hours or make their own damn road. :0)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The same could be said for the idea of "artifical catagories of the mind" as well. It is another example of using the absurd to disprove the absurd. In essence, it is a "logical" argument that one absurdity is more absurd than another. Like children on a playground taunting each other, that is often how people use such maps.

I didn't claim that the categories of the mind are absurdities, they are obviously based on observations about the world, and analyzing them, only the abstract looking at things, without considering the things in their process of becoming, makes that such categories do no longer reflect on reality. What is needed is the notion of development and change within everything material.



What a waste of time. The alternative is to simply compare maps like adults, and make the best of a less than crystal clear situation. The old joke has it that men will never pull over to a gas station and ask for directions. Some of them would rather drive around lost for hours or make their own damn road. :0)

What makes a map a good map? That is defined by the purpose. You use other maps for walking as for driving a car, since the scale of things is important.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens

What makes a map a good map? That is defined by the purpose. You use other maps for walking as for driving a car, since the scale of things is important.

Scale, detail, and ease of use are criticaly important in the context of using and developing maps. Even more important is the attitude with which we approach using and developing maps. Contentious arguing or "knocking heads together" is great for coming up with new ideas for designing maps, but often counterproductive towards actually using them.

In addition, knocking heads can also lead to more maps specifically designed for people intent on knocking heads together. Thus you can spend most of your time just designing new maps rather than enjoying life and just using them when convenient. In fact, by focusing so intently on creating new maps with which to bang heads you help to create and environment where that occurs routinely. This website and western science in general is a good example of such an environment and approach. :0)

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is a thread on the philosophical viewpoint of solipsism.
... Solipsism is the doctrine that the only thing that realy exists is one's own mind.

I'd just like to mention that this therefore means that I'm not a solipsist - if these statements of yours are actually what solipsists believe. For example, I disagree with this very first statement. I argue that the only thing that really exists, is A Mind. It's a singular. And 'everybody' else is a mere perception within this Mind. That includes 'you' 'me' and my hamster.
I'd just thought I'd mention it, since you accused me of being a solipsist. And in your very first statement, I break-free of solipsist beliefs (as you narrate them).
Other than that, feel free to continue chatting about solipsists.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'd just like to mention that this therefore means that I'm not a solipsist - if these statements of yours are actually what solipsists believe. For example, I disagree with this very first statement. I argue that the only thing that really exists, is A Mind. It's a singular. And 'everybody' else is a mere perception within this Mind. That includes 'you' 'me' and my hamster.
I'd just thought I'd mention it, since you accused me of being a solipsist. And in your very first statement, I break-free of solipsist beliefs (as you narrate them).
Other than that, feel free to continue chatting about solipsists.

Are you sure about this? If there is only one Mind, then is it not reasonable to conclude that that Mind is your own? You can never know (through the use of your physical senses) whether anyone else is even conscious, can you? You can never know if they are not just figments of your imagination. However, you can know, from personal experience, that you are conscious, so what makes you think yours is not the Mind that creates all reality?

BTW, I'm just applying solipsism to Lifegazer's hypothesis, I don't actually believe any of this stuff I'm saying (just in case there's still someone who doesn't realize my need to play Devil's Advocate[<:)][:D].

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Are you sure about this? If there is only one Mind, then is it not reasonable to conclude that that Mind is your own?

Sure. But "Who am I?"
My argument reduces the identity of all finite-beings (you, me, and my hamster), to a singular-Mind. My argument does not state that "lifegazer" is that Mind - since I too, am but a mere perspective of It.
The confusion rests-amongst the question of true identity. 'we' are the imagination of It. That's my position.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Sure. But "Who am I?"
My argument reduces the identity of all finite-beings (you, me, and my hamster), to a singular-Mind. My argument does not state that "lifegazer" is that Mind - since I too, am but a mere perspective of It.
The confusion rests-amongst the question of true identity. 'we' are the imagination of It. That's my position.

Then why aren't you conscious of the universe from the view-point of God? Why are you conscious from the viewpoint of one of the creations? If the only thing that really exists is God, then why isn't He the only conscious/aware being?

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Evolution theory is therefore a materialistic viewpoint, cause it explains how life and consciousness have arisen out of an unconsciouss and lifeless material world.
Matter and consciousness are out there, for sure. The question is just: what came first? The materialist viewpoint is that in first instance just matter existed, and only later, as a result of a long material process, life began to evolve, forming consciouss beings.
Matter can exist without the need for consciouss beings to exist. Conscious beings (like us) can only exist if a material reality exists. [/B]

Evolution explains how life rose out of the mud. It does not say that life did not use any of the INGREDIENTS of the mud while it was doing so.

And let us also go on record to say that our biological definition of "life" may not be as COMPREHENSIVE as some of us would like to believe. Ideas -- like EVERYTHING ELSE -- evolve !

According to my "calculations", matter (baryonic and otherwise) and consciousness BOTH "came first"...out of the Primal Singularity that burst forth into the most recent "Big Bang".

And, to finish a thought, the Primal Singularity was "simply" the condenced energy/matter/consciousness/(spirit???) of the Universe in its former incarnation.

I believe that matter and consciousness are interdependent when it comes to the ongoing evolution of each, and are "simply" part and parcel of the Entity that is the Universe.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Then why aren't you conscious of the universe from the view-point of God? Why are you conscious from the viewpoint of one of the creations?
That's a spiritual/emotional question.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by wuliheron

In addition, knocking heads can also lead to more maps specifically designed for people intent on knocking heads together. Thus you can spend most of your time just designing new maps rather than enjoying life and just using them when convenient. In fact, by focusing so intently on creating new maps with which to bang heads you help to create and environment where that occurs routinely. This website and western science in general is a good example of such an environment and approach. :0) [/B]

But this IS one of the ways I enjoy my life...kicking around ideas and knocking heads with people...especially those who are "smarter" than I am.

Some people do bunji jumping. Some people collect stamps. Some people go treasure hunting...or to yard sales.

Its the adventure of EXPERIENCING something exciting -- or DISCOVERING some new -- that makes such pre-occupations "FUN" ...even when you don't find the treasure (but NOT fun, I suppose, if the bunji cord breaks).

My point is that, for those of us (you included) who like a cerebral workout, this a great place. And add to this the ADVENTURE of maybe coming up with a NEW IDEA (that in the future might gain credibility) or EXPRESSING AN EXISTING IDEA in a way that superbly explains it...these are reasons enough to knock heads with one another.

Finally (you know I don't mean it [6)] ), these "maps" you so abhor are simply "models" of certain belief systems for the purpose of discussion, not "real" in and of themselves.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'd just like to mention that this therefore means that I'm not a solipsist - if these statements of yours are actually what solipsists believe. For example, I disagree with this very first statement. I argue that the only thing that really exists, is A Mind. It's a singular. And 'everybody' else is a mere perception within this Mind. That includes 'you' 'me' and my hamster.
I'd just thought I'd mention it, since you accused me of being a solipsist. And in your very first statement, I break-free of solipsist beliefs (as you narrate them).
Other than that, feel free to continue chatting about solipsists.

One can, at one moment, for sure think that one's mind is the only real thing, but that thinking needs of course to be tested against reality. I can of course claim all my sensory perceptions are dilusions, and do not imply a material reality out there. That can explain an assumption as the one stated to the doctrine of solipsism. But we know the solipsist is not alone, and some day he will meet another mind, and they can talk and communicate about reality. That is what humans have been doing, since they developed means of communication, to talk about this outside reality thing. We merely concluded that our mental images of reality are alike. And not only that, the reality thing seems to have objective existence, which does not depend on our mind. We are not naive realists any more. We know perceptions don't tell all of the truth about reality, but can deceive us. Therefore mankind developed science, to have a better picture of reality. And guess what? The picture we have of reality, realy positively affirms of there is reason to state that there is an objective reality out there, which is veryfiable in many ways, and which is independend of our mind.
So far science has never come up with one fact that makes us doubt about wether there is a material reality. The only thing is that we never have a 100% acurate view of reality, and therefore our investigation has not yet ended, but is still going on.
Further, we have the profound impression that our material reality, is not the same as, for instance that of a piece of rock, a drip of water, or an electron. Because we are consciouss beings, and discoverd that material processes going on on this planet, developed life forms on a previously lifeless planet, and costed about 3,2 billions years to develop lifeforms with consciousness.
This kind of knowledge also convinces us, that we have no reason to stick to old beliefs, in which the material world was believed to be governed by mysterious beings or spirits, and that the cause for the existence of the world was some super natural event. The long course of science, makes it possible for us, to provide enormous amounts of evidence against these primitive beliefs. This is not like saying that science has found "absolute truth", since that never will or can happen, but that the need to explain our material reality around us, in terms of ununderstandable and unexplainable factors like deities, do no longer fit into our picture of reality. As far as the 'hypothese of God' is concerned, this is the story of course.

Now what about the investigations, which are based on the alternative assumption? We have on one side (on the materialist assumption) enormous amounts of evidence about a material reality, that is independend of our mind. On the other side, the assumption that there is a Big Mind at work out there, wouldn't it be needed to have one bit, if just a very very tiny bit at all, of proof, which can be objectively be verified? Or is that asking too much?

I never claimed that - in principle - the fact that this universe and all there is, exists as an effect of the presence of some Deity of some sort, is a possible assumption. Provided that in first instance we start out from no knowledge at all (that is: being a child at the age of 4 or so), and just reasoning from our own minds, we can in principle come up with such an assumption, without being ridiculous. But this assertion, as it is an assertion on reality itself, needs to be tested against all of reality of course, which has been done profoundly and intensively in the course of human history.

A couple of thousand years of human communication on this issue, and large scale investigations in form of science, which came up with enormous amounts of evidence for the assumption that there is an objective reality, a material reality, which is not in any way dependend of our mind, urges me to very profoundly me consider that. If I am sensible and reasonable of course, and not stubborn. That is: if I proof I realy have a mind, because also that is something that needs to be tested against reality too!
I would argue that the best choise is the obvious choice, the one which has plenty of evidence, and not the one for which no evidence exists.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Are you sure about this? If there is only one Mind, then is it not reasonable to conclude that that Mind is your own? You can never know (through the use of your physical senses) whether anyone else is even conscious, can you? You can never know if they are not just figments of your imagination. However, you can know, from personal experience, that you are conscious, so what makes you think yours is not the Mind that creates all reality?


Mentat:
It is possible to conclude that someone/something is conscious. Quite simply, observing a living thing, you could take into account the properties of consciousness (which include awareness of oneself and surroundings) and arrive at a conclusion. It may sound simplistic, but I find it fairly tenable.

Also, if your perceptions of reality are not real, then what is the purpose of your existence? And how do you know your physical body is real?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Evolution explains how life rose out of the mud. It does not say that life did not use any of the INGREDIENTS of the mud while it was doing so.

And let us also go on record to say that our biological definition of "life" may not be as COMPREHENSIVE as some of us would like to believe. Ideas -- like EVERYTHING ELSE -- evolve !

According to my "calculations", matter (baryonic and otherwise) and consciousness BOTH "came first"...out of the Primal Singularity that burst forth into the most recent "Big Bang".

And, to finish a thought, the Primal Singularity was "simply" the condenced energy/matter/consciousness/(spirit???) of the Universe in its former incarnation.

I believe that matter and consciousness are interdependent when it comes to the ongoing evolution of each, and are "simply" part and parcel of the Entity that is the Universe.

Your question can be adressed at what is the relation between Being and Thinking. Like I explained in the previous post, we have profound reasons to think that Being (material being) was there first, and only later that Thinking (consciousness; mind) developed.

Or to state the issue differently: how much thinking can there be, without a material world? Just try to THINK that!

This is just to say: we need to conclude that Thinking (consciousmess; mind) without Being (material world) is an impossibility. However this does not urge us in any way to conclude that Being without Thinking would be impossible too.

In exploring that issue, I think we have not found much real evidence of anything having the ability to Think, oustide of our own species and some other species. We know monkeys and some other animals, up to some extent can Think, besided our selves.

Therefore there is reason to conclude that Thinking was not a primary substance on which material existence is in any way dependend.

[RuroumiKenshin]

On the premise of being=existence, rocks (who do not think) are.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Are you sure about this? If there is only one Mind, then is it not reasonable to conclude that that Mind is your own? You can never know (through the use of your physical senses) whether anyone else is even conscious, can you? You can never know if they are not just figments of your imagination. However, you can know, from personal experience, that you are conscious, so what makes you think yours is not the Mind that creates all reality?

As stated in the begin of the thread any hypothesis that aserts that no outside reality exist, is a form of solipsism. From the outside, however, all solipsists cover up for this unreal notion about reality in the form of 'inventing a Deity' for substituting this 'One Mind' thing.

There is absolutely no real difference between 'real solpisism' and 'belief in a Deity', only that the first is 'openly' admitting it (and so far noone does that) and the other is just trying to cover it up behind a facade of religion.

Another way how one can see this is done by using the method of transformation/projection (the mathematical method). Reality consist of two things: the 'outside' material world, and the 'inner' mind.
For the solipsist we can make the projection of the 'outside' reality to their 'inner' representations of this. But not only 'outside' reality is projected innerly, also their own mind is projected innerly. The first mind (all processes of cogniation as an ensemble, so the functions of your brain) we call 'Big I'. The projected image of this in the solipsist mind is 'Little I'. It can be seen as the awareness part within the mind (that which is aware of other parts of the mind). Then we have a good 'picture' of how the solipsists worldview is. The outside reality, which was for him inexistent and for us is just the outside material world, has become now the 'Holy Spirit'. 'Big I' is 'God the Father'. And 'Little I' is 'God the Son'.
The Trinity concept of a Deity used in religious context is arrived from that model.

As can be stated, this 'world' view which Idealism (of which solipsism is its purest form) claims to have is based on the claim that no outside reality exists in the first place. Therefore all claims that are made based on that, are in forms of 'Absolute Ideas' (a term used by Hegel, who was a well known Idealist. See the thread Dialectical Materialism (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1496) for references to Hegel).
Since no idea can be claimed to be true without testing it against reality itself, the notion of Absolute Truths etc. are nothing more then Absolute Absurdities. To KNOW something about reality, means to INVESTIGATE reality and thoroughly study it, and base knowledge on that. That is how science, based on Materialism proceeds.

[Adam]

Solipsism

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm

There is one BIG problem with the idea: If the reality you are experiencing is the only one to which you have access, then the entire question becomes 100% irrelevent.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Adam
Solipsism

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm

There is one BIG problem with the idea: If the reality you are experiencing is the only one to which you have access, then the entire question becomes 100% irrelevent.

First I don't see why, and secondly, there can only be one reality (if more then one exist, they merge together into one reality).

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
One can, at one moment, for sure think that one's mind is the only real thing,

My position is that The Mind is the only real thing. Everything else - including 'me' - is a perspective of that Mind. I don't know what solipsists think, but there seems to be many deviations from my own line-of-thought (by them), according to you.

But we know the solipsist is not alone, and some day he will meet another mind, and they can talk and communicate about reality.

Different perspectives can meet in One Mind. It's no different than meeting various characters in your dreams.

And not only that, the reality thing seems to have objective existence, which does not depend on our mind.

The sensations of that reality are real. Anything which happens in your mind is real. But what else seems real beyond your sensation of it?

Therefore mankind developed science, to have a better picture of reality.

Science is the analysis of sensation. Our sensations are ordered... and the Laws of Physics are a reflection of this order. Science does not give us any keys to an external reality. Science merely shows us how our sensations work.

And guess what? The picture we have of reality, realy positively affirms of there is reason to state that there is an objective reality out there, which is veryfiable in many ways, and which is independend of our mind.

Which scientific law verifies external reality?

So far science has never come up with one fact that makes us doubt about wether there is a material reality.

Science is the study of our perceptions/sensations. The reason why science hasn't come up with one fact to make us doubt the reality of these sensations, is because those sensations are real.
I can state - with all philosophical certainty - that science doesn't even address the true nature of reality! In the centuries since Galileo, not one scientific theory has ever addressed the nature of reality. Science just addresses the behaviour of that reality, and tries to unveil its order.
Only philosophy can even attempt to answer these questions. Not to make any inflammatory comments - but science is largely redundant when it comes to such matters as this.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
First I don't see why, and secondly, there can only be one reality (if more then one exist, they merge together into one reality).

You don't see why? It's because we can never prove it either way, if the only thing we have to go on is our own senses. Lifegazer uses this point of reasoning alot, so I'm sure you are familiar with it.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My position is that The Mind is the only real thing. Everything else - including 'me' - is a perspective of that Mind. I don't know what solipsists think, but there seems to be many deviations from my own line-of-thought (by them), according to you.

Different perspectives can meet in One Mind. It's no different than meeting various characters in your dreams.

The sensations of that reality are real. Anything which happens in your mind is real. But what else seems real beyond your sensation of it?

Science is the analysis of sensation. Our sensations are ordered... and the Laws of Physics are a reflection of this order. Science does not give us any keys to an external reality. Science merely shows us how our sensations work.

Which scientific law verifies external reality?

Science is the study of our perceptions/sensations. The reason why science hasn't come up with one fact to make us doubt the reality of these sensations, is because those sensations are real.
I can state - with all philosophical certainty - that science doesn't even address the true nature of reality! In the centuries since Galileo, not one scientific theory has ever addressed the nature of reality. Science just addresses the behaviour of that reality, and tries to unveil its order.
Only philosophy can even attempt to answer these questions. Not to make any inflammatory comments - but science is largely redundant when it comes to such matters as this.


In other words, you state that you can make claims about reality, that are not adressed and even open for scientific research, and not verifyable therefore.

What is your basis of your statements (for instance the existence of 'The Mind')? Your only arguments and only proof is your own mind, there is nothing that can be tested outside of it.
And the reasoning is flawed, because you first assert there is no such thing as an 'outside reality', but as this is exactly the position of a solipsist, you then argue there must exist 'The Mind'.

There is absolutely no basis on which you can argue for 'The Mind' cause all you know about is your own mind.

The cause for different minds having same experiences about the outer reality does not lead to 'The Mind' however, but to the material world outside of our consciousness.

The term 'The Mind' is rather meaningless, cause there is no way to test for the existence of such an entity. What makes the outer reality behave like or have the property of a mind?
What basis do you have to conclude that the outer reality isn't material, but mindfull. As far as this, you never gave any real argument for that.

The way we see reality, eanbles us to put meaning into reality.
For instance the formation of life forms, and their evolution, can be seen in such a context. But does that realy mean some intelligent force guided evolution and other material processes?
This can't be stated on the basis of known phenomena and the laws of physcis, so such statements are typical meta-physical.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
You don't see why? It's because we can never prove it either way, if the only thing we have to go on is our own senses. Lifegazer uses this point of reasoning alot, so I'm sure you are familiar with it.

The reasoning is flawed and speculative. What is the meaning of the existence of something, if we can not know about it?
Either it exists, and we can know about it, or it doesn't, and we can not even test it indirectly, then the assumption is meaningless.

[M. Gaspar]

that the existence of something has no meaning unless WE can know about it!

I'll bet there are a LOT of things we don't know about (yet...if ever) that we don't know about or can test directly.

"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory, which precedes testing.

And...some things can be known ONLY by their EFFECTS.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
that the existence of something has no meaning unless WE can know about it!

I'll bet there are a LOT of things we don't know about (yet...if ever) that we don't know about or can test directly.

"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory, which precedes testing.

And...some things can be known ONLY by their EFFECTS.

I hope you see the difference between things we CAN know about (but do not yet know) and things we CAN NOT know about.

Some examples of the first:
- planets near stars, not yet discovered
- matter in galaxies or in between galaxies (dark matter components)
- etc.

Things we CAN NOT know about:
- parallel existing universes with no interaction whatsoever
- forms of matter with even in theory no interaction with kown matter

These things can only be theoretically postulated, but can never be verified (not even in directly).

[heusdens]

Within philosophical idealism, there are two main disciplines:

Objective Idealism

This philosophy postulates an 'Absolute Idea' (Hegel) as the primary substance. According to this philosophy everything is the result of an objective principle of mind. This ideal creature is existing outside of our own mind and independend of the human mind, and which is primary to the material world. Acc. to objective idealism, this creature, or this objective mindfull principle is the creator of the world, and the world is developing according to the laws set forth by this objective idea.

Representants of this philosophy are for instance: Plato, Thomas von Aquin, Leibniz and Hegel.

Philosophical directions that are part of this philosophy are: Newhegelianism, newplatonism and newthomismus.

Subjective Idealism

This comes down to the philosophy that sees all of reality as only consisting in the human mind itself. All things only exist in our mind, and not outside of it. The world is our consciousness. If this kind of reasoning is followed consequently, the conlusion is that the ONLY reality is the reality of one mind, and nothing else. This form is known as 'solipsism'.


Objective and subjective idealism are the two main disciplines within idealism. They have both in common that, wether this is in form of an objective mind outside the human mind, or the human mind itself, both oppose materialism in ascerting that the primary substance in the world is not matter, but mind.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The reasoning is flawed and speculative. What is the meaning of the existence of something, if we can not know about it?
Either it exists, and we can know about it, or it doesn't, and we can not even test it indirectly, then the assumption is meaningless.

The fact that something exists does not pre-suppose that we can know about it, heusdens. Isn't that obvious?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory, which precedes testing.



Just to clarify, theory does not precede testing. Hypothesis precedes testing, and, afterwards, may graduate to "theory".

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
I hope you see the difference between things we CAN know about (but do not yet know) and things we CAN NOT know about.

Some examples of the first:
- planets near stars, not yet discovered
- matter in galaxies or in between galaxies (dark matter components)
- etc.

Things we CAN NOT know about:
- parallel existing universes with no interaction whatsoever
- forms of matter with even in theory no interaction with kown matter

These things can only be theoretically postulated, but can never be verified (not even in directly).

There are however some things, such as the exact state of an individual particle (for example) that we cannot ever know.

[M. Gaspar]

Thanks. That was useful.

Meanwhile, what's your position on "speculation"?

Cannot someone "take the case" that something is so...then see how far they can take the premise until it falls apart -- or is torn apart by others?

Have not such speculations yielded THEORIES that were CONFIRMED ...down the road?

Am I being asked -- at least indirectly -- to keep my speculations to myself?

Frankly, I think I'm onto something (as opposed to "on" something! [8)] )...and WELCOME specific objections that force a response.

And if not here, where?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Thanks. That was useful.

Meanwhile, what's your position on "speculation"?

Cannot someone "take the case" that something is so...then see how far they can take the premise until it falls apart -- or is torn apart by others?

Have not such speculations yielded THEORIES that were CONFIRMED ...down the road?

Am I being asked -- at least indirectly -- to keep my speculations to myself?

Frankly, I think I'm onto something (as opposed to "on" something! [8)] )...and WELCOME specific objections that force a response.

And if not here, where?

No, no, please don't feel that you should keep your speculations to yourself. All I, personally, ask is that you not make them appear as though they were already theories.

My position on "speculation" is that a speculation is an hypothesis, provided it can be tested. If it's untestable then it's unscientific, and thus could never graduate to being a "theory".

[M. Gaspar]

Is it not true that there have been speculations in the past that have seemed untestable at the time -- hence, "unscientific" -- but, at a later date, the means of testing, measuring or even just detecting were found?

In the thread I originated -- A Conscious Universe? -- I asked how this speculation might be "proved".

Solipsism -- the subject of THIS thread -- is a philosophy that will NEVER graduate to a theory, because solipsists only talk to themselves!

If that myopic point of view is worth discussing, surely we can discuss the possibility of a Cosmic Mind.

Just not on this thread...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
The fact that something exists does not pre-suppose that we can know about it, heusdens. Isn't that obvious?

No, cause it is a false pre-position. The existence of something can only be stated as a fact, because we have in theory the possibility to know about it.

Else, the famous P-particles would also have existence.
P-particles are particles that do not in any way interact withn normal matter, they can coexist at the same time and place as normal matter, so in theory the universe can be full of it, and they could be in plenty abundance residing inside your body and brain.

However, from their definition, it is absolutely impossible to test their existence. Therefore one can not state that such particles exist.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
There are however some things, such as the exact state of an individual particle (for example) that we cannot ever know.

Yes, thanks. Great! But they just belong in the second category, I am sorry I did not list them exhaustively (that would be quite impossible!)

[Adam]

Originally posted by heusdens
First I don't see why, and secondly, there can only be one reality (if more then one exist, they merge together into one reality).

Consider the Matrix as an analogy/example. If you can't do a Neo and "wake up" and suddenly experience something totally different, then what you have is reality. Everything else is just fairy tales making up a small tidbit of your reality. As the link I provided earlier points out, the entire idea is basically without foundation.

[M. Gaspar]

Scientists speculate that there is "Dark Matter" to account for the "extra gravity" that seems to be needed to explain the movement of stars within their galaxies. They haven't found any Dark Matter as yet...only its EFFECT.

Scientists speculate that there must be "Dark Energy" to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe. They can't DETECT it...only it's supposed EFFECT.

My challenge, then, might be to identify an EFFECT that suggests that the Universe may be conscious.

Gotta put my thinking cap on for that one.

And I better do it on another thread.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Scientists speculate that there is "Dark Matter" to account for the "extra gravity" that seems to be needed to explain the movement of stars within their galaxies. They haven't found any Dark Matter as yet...only its EFFECT.

Scientists speculate that there must be "Dark Energy" to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe. They can't DETECT it...only it's supposed EFFECT.

My challenge, then, might be to identify an EFFECT that suggests that the Universe may be conscious.

Gotta put my thinking cap on for that one.

And I better do it on another thread.

That is not a TOO BIG challenge, cause we know the effect of the material reality was (amongst others) the appearence through billions of years of evolution of consciouss beings in the form of humans.

It can be states that the universe is conscious, cause it contains parts that are consciouss. In exactly the same way as I can state that I am consciouss, cause parts of me are consciouss.

But what does this help us to understand things? What does it clear?

We must put in mind that in order to distinguish conscioussness from non-consciousness, we usually refer to Nature and the processes of Nature as acting without consciousness, will or intent. Even so, we think of ourselves as having those properties, and we have come from Nature and are part of it.

Further, it must be noted that there isn't a clear line within Nature between consciousness and unconsciousness. We refer to Nature as unconscioussness, cause this allows us to distinguish ourselves from other processes in Nature.

[Mentat]

Heusdens, I still don't agree that we must be able to know about everything that exists. For example, P-particles: Just because it is impossible for us to know about them, doesn't mean that they don't exist, merely that we can never know about them. To say that our lack of ability to ever know about something means that it doesn't exist, is (IMO) anthro-egotistical.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
That is not a TOO BIG challenge, cause we know the effect of the material reality was (amongst others) the appearence through billions of years of evolution of consciouss beings in the form of humans.

It can be states that the universe is conscious, cause it contains parts that are consciouss. In exactly the same way as I can state that I am consciouss, cause parts of me are consciouss.

But what does this help us to understand things? What does it clear?

We must put in mind that in order to distinguish conscioussness from non-consciousness, we usually refer to Nature and the processes of Nature as acting without consciousness, will or intent. Even so, we think of ourselves as having those properties, and we have come from Nature and are part of it.

Further, it must be noted that there isn't a clear line within Nature between consciousness and unconsciousness. We refer to Nature as unconscioussness, cause this allows us to distinguish ourselves from other processes in Nature.


Let's put aside, at the moment, whether consciousness existed in some "fragmented" form in the early Universe...or whether consciousness has accreted -- like baryonic matter -- over time.

Let us just address why I'm bothering to think about whether the Universe is conscious (and responsive to all It's parts).

It might help us understand the forces behind the manifestation of "reality" out of "virtuality". If the Universe were conscious -- and in two-way "communication" with us (and everything else) -- and our (and Its) INTENTIONS had an EFFECT to the "lynchpin" of RANDOMNESS, then we might be inclined to ALIGN with this NATURAL PROCESS to CREATE that which we INTEND within our lives.

What might it "clear"? The notion that we are organic anomalies within an expanding MACHINE...and see ourselves (and Everything else) at a product of one Being's evolution.

I asked myself just now "What does this have to do with Solipsism?"...not wanting to stray offpoint too far. But then the answer came: just as Solipsists contend that "Nothing can be proved outside my mind." ...Materialists contend that "Nothing can exist that I can't measure directly."

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens, I still don't agree that we must be able to know about everything that exists. For example, P-particles: Just because it is impossible for us to know about them, doesn't mean that they don't exist, merely that we can never know about them. To say that our lack of ability to ever know about something means that it doesn't exist, is (IMO) anthro-egotistical.

The point is of course that postulating the existence of something that can not be proven even in theory, is a pointless debate.
Because the thought can not be tested against reality.

So why are you bothered about it in the first place? What purpose does it serve to claim the existence of something, which we never can know about?

There is no point. It has no purpose.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I asked myself just now "What does this have to do with Solipsism?"...not wanting to stray offpoint too far. But then the answer came: just as Solipsists contend that "Nothing can be proved outside my mind." ...Materialists contend that "Nothing can exist that I can't measure directly."

A solipsists claims that all of reality consists only of one's own thoughts and emotions, and such, and that there is not something existing outside of that.

Materialism claim that that is the case, there is a material reality outside of our thoughs and emotions. Materialism does not claim that things that can't be measured direclty do not exist. That is a ridiculous and false statement.
For instance a black hole we can never measure directly, but only indirectly (because the black hole influences nearby matter). In fact ALL of reality we measure indirectly, by measuring effects. All kinds of planets orbiting stars other then the sun, have not been measured direclty, but only by investigating the effects on the start itself (which "whobbles" a bit due to the gravitational attraction of the planet).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
My challenge, then, might be to identify an EFFECT that suggests that the Universe may be conscious.

Well then, let us shift this topic until an EFFECT has been detected that would indicate that the universe is conscious.
And until that has been proven, let us just continue to claim that the universe is material.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well then, let us shift this topic until an EFFECT has been detected that would indicate that the universe is conscious.
And until that has been proven, let us just continue to claim that the universe is material.


OK. I'll sit tight.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
OK. I'll sit tight.

That's the wrong idea.

Better explore and study the world in greater detail, so you might find clues for your claims (or: conclude that the claims are baseless, and drop the hypothese).

At least: do something (your own motto!)

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
That's the wrong idea.

Better explore and study the world in greater detail, so you might find clues for your claims (or: conclude that the claims are baseless, and drop the hypothese).

At least: do something (your own motto!)


Did you really think I was going to "sit tight"?!

Don't you know me yet? [:)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The point is of course that postulating the existence of something that can not be proven even in theory, is a pointless debate.
Because the thought can not be tested against reality.

So why are you bothered about it in the first place? What purpose does it serve to claim the existence of something, which we never can know about?

There is no point. It has no purpose.

It has not purpose, to us. I know. I was just arguing the point, because what you said sounded wrong [;)]

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
M.Gasper:- "Originally posted by M. Gaspar
My challenge, then, might be to identify an EFFECT that suggests that the Universe may be conscious."

Well then, let us shift this topic until an EFFECT has been detected that would indicate that the universe is conscious.
And until that has been proven, let us just continue to claim that the universe is material.
It amuses me that a couple of universal-effects (you guys) can sit there conciously-seeking to unearth an effect of the universe which might prove that the universe is concious... and yet forget your own existences.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
It has not purpose, to us. I know. I was just arguing the point, because what you said sounded wrong [;)]

It does not only have no purpose to us but also has no purpose to anyone else we can know of, so in effect there is noone to which it has any purpose.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
It amuses me that a couple of universal-effects (you guys) can sit there conciously-seeking to unearth an effect of the universe which might prove that the universe is concious... and yet forget your own existences.

We've already been there. We call ourselves consciouss. We are a part of the universe. It can therefore be stated that the universe itself must be consciouss too (since some parts of it have that property).

But the question comes up in most cases in the form of the issue wether the pre-existing universe (the universe as it existed before there was any life) can be called consciouss.

There isn't any reason to call the universe conscious, apart from the consciouss beings we have defined, cause there is no reason to assume that the changes and motion that occur in the universe cannot lead to new qualities which were inexistent before. Existent material properties combine and build up to form new properties, that were inexistent before.

In fact, that is what the universe tells us, it comes up with new properties and qualities. This is the reason that the universe is developing, and that the motions and changes that occur, are not random changes.

All forms of development show a history. Human life, mankind, the evolution of life and the development of the material world, all these things show us that the universe is developing progressively.
If all changes and motion that occur in the material world, would be nothing more as purely random, there would not be historic progress of any kind. The universe would just be in a random state, and change to another random state, with exactly the same properties.

This is clearly not the case.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
It does not only have no purpose to us but also has no purpose to anyone else we can know of, so in effect there is noone to which it has any purpose.

What "purpose" does it serve for humanity to "know" that the Universe will "expand forever and ever"? Yet, this is a current theory -- based on the observation of certain EFFECTS -- and which engages some of the best minds that the Universe has been able to assemble...on THIS planet, anyway.

Might it be "proved' some day that this will be the case...or might someone make a case -- mathematically, perhaps -- for a "phase transition" (precipitated by the attendant cooling of the Universe in the expansion model) that might shift the theoretical "Dark Energy" down to the theoretical "Dark Matter" ...thereby CAUSING the EFFECT of the Universe collapsing ?

And, what would be the "purpose" of "knowing" THAT?

On the other hand, if a case could be made -- by OBSERVING certain EFFECTS (yet to be identified...although Lifegazer points to a possibility) that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity responsive to all of Its part...THIS could serve a "purpose".

...especially when coupled with the idea -- which I think could be proven -- that INTENTION influences the "lynchpin" of randomness to "cause" certain "things" (both material and situational/experiencial ) to "come into being" (leaving OTHER potentialities UN-manifested)...

...this, it seems to me, would have some "purpose" ...and worth pursuing.

How? If you "knew" that your INTENTIONS -- communicated to the rest of the Universe (along with Everything Else's intentions) could PRODUCE desired RESULTS -- might that not be USEFUL to you in the here and now ?!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What "purpose" does it serve for humanity to "know" that the Universe will "expand forever and ever"? Yet, this is a current theory -- based on the observation of certain EFFECTS -- and which engages some of the best minds that the Universe has been able to assemble...on THIS planet, anyway.

Might it be "proved' some day that this will be the case...or might someone make a case -- mathematically, perhaps -- for a "phase transition" (precipitated by the attendant cooling of the Universe in the expansion model) that might shift the theoretical "Dark Energy" down to the theoretical "Dark Matter" ...thereby CAUSING the EFFECT of the Universe collapsing ?

And, what would be the "purpose" of "knowing" THAT?

On the other hand, if a case could be made -- by OBSERVING certain EFFECTS (yet to be identified...although Lifegazer points to a possibility) that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity responsive to all of Its part...THIS could serve a "purpose".

...especially when coupled with the idea -- which I think could be proven -- that INTENTION influences the "lynchpin" of randomness to "cause" certain "things" (both material and situational/experiencial ) to "come into being" (leaving OTHER potentialities UN-manifested)...

...this, it seems to me, would have some "purpose" ...and worth pursuing.

How? If you "knew" that your INTENTIONS -- communicated to the rest of the Universe (along with Everything Else's intentions) could PRODUCE desired RESULTS -- might that not be USEFUL to you in the here and now ?!

Your question is like what is the purpose of learning and knowledge.
I could then ask what is the purpose of life itself? Is there a purpose and a meaning to anything?

When talking about the progress in knowledge, for instance in the field of particle physics and cosmology, those progress was driven by a need to now how the actual world in fact looks like, how did it develop, etc. The need understand this, is derived from the need to make use of the possibilities the natural world provides for our species to sustain itself in a more developed way.
All this is derived from the fact that our biological species developed from their natural drifts into a being that by interaction with their physical surroundings (nature) extended their natural powers and overcame their limitations, by using tools and by use of labor, which formed and shaped our consciousness.
The end product of this historical process, is society and mankind as we know now, which is able in many ways of sustaining itself (but also destroying itself) and made human life more worthwhile.

In the end, you can only define mankind as freedom, the freedom to not be dependend on nature directly for food and other resources (because we can manufacture food resources ourselves, and can influence natural conditions, to provide for these and other resources) and so, and to use one's abilities not just and not only for mere sustaining oneself. As human individuals we don't have to work all day to provide our basic living conditions, but in fact we work with each other (made possible by the division of labor), most will produce things they don't need for themselves, and
most will use things, they didn't produce themselves.

The will to know and the ability to understand the world, that has made man to what it is know. Without that willing and without that ability mankind would now not be very much different then apes.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
We've already been there. We call ourselves consciouss. We are a part of the universe. It can therefore be stated that the universe itself must be consciouss too (since some parts of it have that property).

But the question comes up in most cases in the form of the issue wether the pre-existing universe (the universe as it existed before there was any life) can be called consciouss.

There isn't any reason to call the universe conscious, apart from the consciouss beings we have defined, cause there is no reason to assume that the changes and motion that occur in the universe cannot lead to new qualities which were inexistent before. Existent material properties combine and build up to form new properties, that were inexistent before.

In fact, that is what the universe tells us, it comes up with new properties and qualities. This is the reason that the universe is developing, and that the motions and changes that occur, are not random changes.

All forms of development show a history. Human life, mankind, the evolution of life and the development of the material world, all these things show us that the universe is developing progressively.
If all changes and motion that occur in the material world, would be nothing more as purely random, there would not be historic progress of any kind. The universe would just be in a random state, and change to another random state, with exactly the same properties.

This is clearly not the case.

I have NOT stated that the Universe is conscious because it has given rise to sentient beings. I am saying the the "element" of "consciousness" has ALWAYS been a part of the Entity that is the Universe

...except that within each incarnation of the Universe (from each "Big Bang" to "Big Crunch") the collective consciousness that condensed into the Primal Singularity from the PREVIOUS incarnation of the Universe...

...THIS -- as with baryonic matter -- "fragmented" into an early soup of "particles" -- thereby rendering the neonatal Universe unable to "form coherent thoughts"...

...until these "fragments (of concousness -- like matter) come together (accrete via natural forces) into dynamic, coherent systems (like us and Everything Else) which allows for a NETWORK (much like that of the human/monkey/rabit brain) to store and retrieve memories, to learn, and make wild speculations about Itself (via Its parts).

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Your question is like what is the purpose of learning and knowledge.
I could then ask what is the purpose of life itself? Is there a purpose and a meaning to anything?

When talking about the progress in knowledge, for instance in the field of particle physics and cosmology, those progress was driven by a need to know how the actual world in fact looks like, where did it come from, etc.
All this is derived from the fact that our biological species developed from their natural drifts into a being that by interaction with their physical surroundings (nature) extended their natural powers and overcame their limitations, by using tools and by use of labor, which formed and shaped our consciousness.
The end product of this historical process, is society and mankind as we know now, which is able in many ways of sustaining itself (but also destroying itself) and made human life more worthwhile.
In the end, you can only define mankind as freedom, the freedom to not be dependend on nature directly for food resources and so, and to use one's abilities not just and not only for mere sustaining oneself.
The will to know and the ability to understand things, that has made man to what it is know. Without that willing and without that ability mankind would now not be very much different then apes.

If I didn't have to stop and get dressed right now, I would read and respond to the above...pointing out whatever "errors" are contained therein [;)] .

Instead, I will print out this page -- missing out, of course, on whatever your typing now to my last posting (if, indeed, you haven't deserted this thread in disgust) -- and will be back to make myself CLEAR-ER if at all possible.

Have a nice day. [:)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I have NOT stated that the Universe is conscious because it has given rise to sentient beings. I am saying the the "element" of "consciousness" has ALWAYS been a part of the Entity that is the Universe

That is something you need to proof then. It seems you in fact do not adopt the vision that consciousness is a quality of matter, derived from matter in a long historic process, but was always "there"..

I think you just claim, since material forms can take the form of consciousness, this is a potential thing, which always existed.

In the same way, the quality that I have of being a millionaire, can be said to already exist, cause I could win a lottery for example.
But that potentiality to become a millionaire, does not make me any richer now however....


...except that within each incarnation of the Universe (from each "Big Bang" to "Big Crunch") the collective consciousness that condensed into the Primal Singularity from the PREVIOUS incarnation of the Universe...

...THIS -- as with baryonic matter -- "fragmented" into an early soup of "particles" -- thereby rendering the neonatal Universe unable to "form coherent thoughts"...

...until these "fragments (of concousness -- like matter) come together (accrete via natural forces) into dynamic, coherent systems (like us and Everything Else) which allows for a NETWORK (much like that of the human/monkey/rabit brain) to store and retrieve memories, to learn, and make wild speculations about Itself (via Its parts).

This is pure meta-physics if you ask me.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
But the question comes up in most cases in the form of the issue wether the pre-existing universe (the universe as it existed before there was any life) can be called consciouss.

I'm aware of that. But I'm of the opinion that it does not rain unless there is moisture in the sky... if you get my drift.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm aware of that. But I'm of the opinion that it does not rain unless there is moisture in the sky... if you get my drift.

Of course. The moisture is potential for raining to occur. But not all potential becomes actual. I could agree that the universe contains "potential consciousness" and may contain a lot more, we aren't even aware of, cause they are not yet actual.

But my conclusion would be that potential rain is not actual rain. The universe can indeed be qualified as having had the potential for consciousness to occur, but didn't contain this factual quality before the appearance of consciouss living beings.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
It does not only have no purpose to us but also has no purpose to anyone else we can know of, so in effect there is noone to which it has any purpose.

That's anthro-egotistical, but I'll just leave it alone.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
That's anthro-egotistical, but I'll just leave it alone.

What is anthro-egotistical?

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Your question is like what is the purpose of learning and knowledge.
I could then ask what is the purpose of life itself? Is there a purpose and a meaning to anything?

When talking about the progress in knowledge, for instance in the field of particle physics and cosmology, those progress was driven by a need to now how the actual world in fact looks like, how did it develop

The will to know and the ability to understand the world, that has made man to what it is know. Without that willing and without that ability mankind would now not be very much different then apes.

Hey...YOU'RE THE ONE that said my inquiry has "no purpose"...so I was making the point that MY pursuit is as "purposeful" as the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, it is actually a PART of that pursuit (however misguided [8)] ).

I was NOT actually saying that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is purposeless. If nothing else, it's FUN!

So you're preaching to the choir when you make your case for pursuing knowledge for its own sake. It's part of "who we are" as you have said.

Now, let's take the case -- for a brief moment -- that the Universe is out with a similar purpose...that of learning about Itself, which is to say, Everything That Is.

In such a case, the Universe would have to keep "re-shuffling the deck" by giving rise to sentient beings -- over time -- that would "think on" these things, thereby rendering Self-knowledge.

Also part of the "mix" would be the Universe having a 30-billion-year Experience via the actions and consequences, inentions and emotions contained in the mini-dramas we call our individual lives.

As to the "purpose of life"? Here's my take: The Universe is out to have an EXPERIENCE ...a different one than the one BEFORE...or the one before THAT...etc.

The Experience, of course, is the collective experiences of everything that has ever HAD an experience..including a rock.

Each incarnation (and I'm deliverately using this "charged" word, even though I could express it as the time between each "Big Bang" and "Big Crunch")...this type of unending life-cycle seems a better candidate to ME for how the Universe spends ETERNITY than the one where It keeps EXXXPPPPAAAAAAAANNNNNDDDDIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG GGgggggggggggggggggg g gg g g g g !


It's [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] [?] [8)] for me!

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens


The will to know and the ability to understand the world, that has made man to what it is know. Without that willing and without that ability mankind would now not be very much different then apes.

And men in the 21st century might not know more than men of the 20th century without "the will to know and the ability to understand the" ...Universe.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Hey...YOU'RE THE ONE that said my inquiry has "no purpose"...so I was making the point that MY pursuit is as "purposeful" as the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, it is actually a PART of that pursuit (however misguided [8)] ).

I was NOT actually saying that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is purposeless. If nothing else, it's FUN!

So you're preaching to the choir when you make your case for pursuing knowledge for its own sake. It's part of "who we are" as you have said.

Now, let's take the case -- for a brief moment -- that the Universe is out with a similar purpose...that of learning about Itself, which is to say, Everything That Is.

In such a case, the Universe would have to keep "re-shuffling the deck" by giving rise to sentient beings -- over time -- that would "think on" these things, thereby rendering Self-knowledge.

Also part of the "mix" would be the Universe having a 30-billion-year Experience via the actions and consequences, inentions and emotions contained in the mini-dramas we call our individual lives.

As to the "purpose of life"? Here's my take: The Universe is out to have an EXPERIENCE ...a different one than the one BEFORE...or the one before THAT...etc.

The Experience, of course, is the collective experiences of everything that has ever HAD an experience..including a rock.

Each incarnation (and I'm deliverately using this "charged" word, even though I could express it as the time between each "Big Bang" and "Big Crunch")...this type of unending life-cycle seems a better candidate to ME for how the Universe spends ETERNITY than the one where It keeps EXXXPPPPAAAAAAAANNNNNDDDDIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG GGggggggg[SIZE=1]ggggggggggg g gg g g g g

You are reasoning from a point of view that is not a factual point of view. There is no "observer" out there, that can witness the evolution of the universe as a whole, and would be wondering about the things happening.
Now I know that this point of view does not exist and cannot exist. Neither has a rock any "experience" (this is because the rock has no material systems to proceed such information, like humans and living animals do).

If you want to talk about purpose and meaning, ok, but you'll have to do that from the point of view of a human observer, or everything you say becomes pointless and meaningless.

Why in heavens name do you think you have to reason about the purpose and the meaning of the universe, and even from the point of view of the universe itself? Somehow you then shift your mind from your own life to that of the universe, and from that point of view, you only see meaningless interaction of matter throughout all of eternity.
What does it matter (to the universe) what happens in the universe? Nothing whatsoever!
The universe doesn't get bored when it expands forever, or if evolution takes 3 billions years. The universe couldn't care less!

We on the other hand have to deal with the fact that we have only a limited time to live, and in that time we have to fullfill some of our own goals. Our individual and personal ones, but also our collective ones. If you look around you, you will find all the meaning and purpose you want, even more as you can handle in just one live!

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Of course. The moisture is potential for raining to occur. But not all potential becomes actual. I could agree that the universe contains "potential consciousness" and may contain a lot more, we aren't even aware of, cause they are not yet actual.

But my conclusion would be that potential rain is not actual rain. The universe can indeed be qualified as having had the potential for consciousness to occur, but didn't contain this factual quality before the appearance of consciouss living beings.

Perhaps one of the problems we are having is that we see the quality of "consciousness" in two different ways.

For you, for "consciousness" to merit the term, it must exist at a certain functional level...below which it is no longer consciousness.

For me, "consciousness" is on a continuum ...from a "simple self-awareness" (as might be that of an atom) to a more complex awareness of self and that which is OUTSIDE of self (as might be that of insects, lizards, birds, mammals...STILL at varying degrees).

The "degree" to which a being is is conscious might have to do with the ACCRETION of the "raw material" of consciousness which existed WITHIN the Primary Singularity and burst forth into fragmentation.

Thus, the Universe did not just draw from the POTENTIAL of consciousness...but from the actual bits of consciousness contained within Itself.

I AGREE that the MATERIAL world is necessary as a vehicle for for the EVOLUTION of consciousness. But -- like matter -- consciousness didn't come from nothin'!

[M. Gaspar]

Putting it another way...

at the moment after the "Big Bang" the Universe (which was, one moment before, a singularity) might be said to have "lost Its MIND" via the fragmentation!!! ...and has been spending all this time "pulling it back together again."

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Putting it another way...

at the moment after the "Big Bang" the Universe (which was, one moment before, a singularity) might be said to have "lost Its MIND" via the fragmentation!!! ...and has been spending all this time "pulling it back together again."

With all due respect, aren't you repeatedly violating Occam's Razor?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Perhaps one of the problems we are having is that we see the quality of "consciousness" in two different ways.

For you, for "consciousness" to merit the term, it must exist at a certain functional level...below which it is no longer consciousness.

For me, "consciousness" is on a continuum ...from a "simple self-awareness" (as might be that of an atom) to a more complex awareness of self and that which is OUTSIDE of self (as might be that of insects, lizards, birds, mammals...STILL at varying degrees).

The "degree" to which a being is is conscious might have to do with the ACCRETION of the "raw material" of consciousness which existed WITHIN the Primary Singularity and burst forth into fragmentation.

Thus, the Universe did not just draw from the POTENTIAL of consciousness...but from the actual bits of consciousness contained within Itself.

I AGREE that the MATERIAL world is necessary as a vehicle for for the EVOLUTION of consciousness. But -- like matter -- consciousness didn't come from nothin'!

If everyone would be free to choose the meaning of concepts, then any statement can be valid, of course. One just needs to adapt the meaning of the terms used....

If you say that one flip-flop is a computer, then that is for you a computer. If you say that one atom is conscious, then an atom is conscious. If you call one molecule of water an ocean of water, then one molecule of water is an ocean.
There is even some "sense" in this. If I take out one molecule of water out of an ocean, it clearly will still be an ocean. Then also if I take all the molecules of water out of an ocean, except one, this will still be an ocean..... The question is of course this: an ocean, while being made up of water molecules (let us forget about the other details, that ocean water contains also other molecules), and if one molecule of water isn't an ocean, then when do water molecules form an ocean? 2 molecules? 100 molecules? 20 billion molecules? 35 billion billion molecules? We simply can not say this in numerical terms. Whatever figure you mention, it could be argues then that one less that figure still has the same property of being an ocean. So this always drops down to claiming that one molecule of water is also an ocean. Which however, we know it is not.

So, in other words, these "free chosen" terms, can cause some problems in communications.

Is water cooking (under normal atmospheric pressure) at 100 degrees celcius? We could as well say that at 1 degree celcius is cooking, cause clearly some water molecules are escaping from the liquid form and escape into the air above the water.

So, in other words, the discussion here is on what is the meaning of the term consciousness, and why do we call a human being consciosness, and an atom not. While both a human being and an atom are made of the same stuff: matter!

I do not find it very meaningfull to redefine the ordinary concepts of words. Water is cooking at 100 degrees celcius, and not at 1 degrees celcius. A human being is consciousness, and an atom is not.

I can not exactly tell you where the exact line is between for instance unconsciousness and consciousness, because consciousness cannot be precisely defined, but in ordinary language we do not say that one atom can have consciousness.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
You are reasoning from a point of view that is not a factual point of view. There is no "observer" out there, that can witness the evolution of the universe as a whole, and would be wondering about the things happening.
Now I know that this point of view does not exist and cannot exist. Neither has a rock any "experience" (this is because the rock has no material systems to proceed such information, like humans and living animals do).

If you want to talk about purpose and meaning, ok, but you'll have to do that from the point of view of a human observer, or everything you say becomes pointless and meaningless.

Why in heavens name do you think you have to reason about the purpose and the meaning of the universe, and even from the point of view of the universe itself? Somehow you then shift your mind from your own life to that of the universe, and from that point of view, you only see meaningless interaction of matter throughout all of eternity.

What does it matter (to the universe) what happens in the universe? Nothing whatsoever!
The universe doesn't get bored when it expands forever, or if evolution takes 3 billions years. The universe couldn't care less!

We on the other hand have to deal with the fact that we have only a limited time to live, and in that time we have to fullfill some of our own goals. Our individual and personal ones, but also our collective ones. If you look around you, you will find all the meaning and purpose you want, even more as you can handle in just one live!

1. You say that might point of view is not "factual"...when we both know that, throughout the progress of science, things existed that were "factual"...only nobody knew about them...or had even CONJECTURED about them yet.

Thus, your first sentence may turn out to be that which is not "factual".

2. I agree that there is NO "observer" "out there". The "observer" is the Universe ITSELF. Can this be "proven" at this time? Maybe not. However, a case can be made via
EXTRAPOLATION that would satisfy many...even scientists !

3. How can you say -- after all I have posted -- that I see "meaningless interaction of matter for all eternity". Either I am the worst communicator in the world, or you are the worst receiver!

4. You make a statement as if you know, as an absolute fact, that "nothing matters" to the Universe. Yet the Universe may have many raisons d'etre ...the most basic of which might be "simply"...to have an Experience...a real complex one! Another might be to "evolve" on whatever plane(s) you wish to address. And another reason might be to see what It can create THIS time!

5. If the Universe HAS a "Mind"-- and/or a "Will" -- I would think it would want to DO SOMETHING with Itself...rather than just "sit there" ...knowing everything but DOING NOTHING! If you concede that WE have "goals"...why not the Universe?!!!

6. You seem to suggest that I am looking for "meaning" and "purpose". I have plenty of BOTH in my life. No. What I am "looking for" is an understanding of what might be the clearest image of what the Universe actually IS...which MIGHT be...a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

"The truth? You can't handle the truth!" [;)]

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
With all due respect, aren't you repeatedly violating Occam's Razor?

Say more.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
1. You say that might point of view is not "factual"...when we both know that, throughout the progress of science, things existed that were "factual"...only nobody knew about them...or had even CONJECTURED about them yet.

Thus, your first sentence may turn out to be that which is not "factual".

2. I agree that there is NO "observer" "out there". The "observer" is the Universe ITSELF. Can this be "proven" at this time? Maybe not. However, a case can be made via
EXTRAPOLATION that would satisfy many...even scientists !

There is much one can do with EXTRAPOLATION, even turning REASON in UNREASON.

Let me adress this to you. What do you call an ocean? How many water molecules should it at least contain? Ok. Suppose it would be at least that number. Then take one molecule out of the ocean. Is the ocean still an ocean? If you say yes, I can state by EXTRAPOLATION that also one molecule of water is an ocean.
Which turns REASON in UNREASON.


3. How can you say -- after all I have posted -- that I see "meaningless interaction of matter for all eternity". Either I am the worst communicator in the world, or you are the worst receiver!

You DID see me say (write) it, so this proofs that I CAN say it, even after all your posts!


4. You make a statement as if you know, as an absolute fact, that "nothing matters" to the Universe. Yet the Universe may have many raisons d'etre ...the most basic of which might be "simply"...to have an Experience...a real complex one! Another might be to "evolve" on whatever plane(s) you wish to address. And another reason might be to see what It can create THIS time!

This is because the way I define what consciouss experience is. It is what humans experience. And not what stones or anything other material and unconscious experiences.

Your only argument comes from reasoning and assuming that the universe can somehow have consciousness. I argue that it doesn't have consciousness and neither can't have consciousness.



5. If the Universe HAS a "Mind"-- and/or a "Will" -- I would think it would want to DO SOMETHING with Itself...rather than just "sit there" ...knowing everything but DOING NOTHING! If you concede that WE have "goals"...why not the Universe?!!!

If... if!

If water would be money, I would be a millionaire!



6. You seem to suggest that I am looking for "meaning" and "purpose". I have plenty of BOTH in my life. No. What I am "looking for" is an understanding of what might be the clearest image of what the Universe actually IS...which MIGHT be...a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.


I suggest and know you can and you should. And it is because you can you should. It might keep you from "thinking" from the point of view of the universe, which is not a holdable point of view. You cannot observe from the point of view of the universe, cause the universe doesn't have a point of view. It's because we can, that we do reason from that perspective.



"The truth? You can't handle the truth!" [;)]

For sure I can. Can you?

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
If everyone would be free to choose the meaning of concepts, then any statement can be valid, of course. One just needs to adapt the meaning of the terms used....

If you say that one flip-flop is a computer, then that is for you a computer. If you say that one atom is conscious, then an atom is conscious. If you call one molecule of water an ocean of water, then one molecule of water is an ocean.
There is even some "sense" in this. If I take out one molecule of water out of an ocean, it clearly will still be an ocean. Then also if I take all the molecules of water out of an ocean, except one, this will still be an ocean..... The question is of course this: an ocean, while being made up of water molecules (let us forget about the other details, that ocean water contains also other molecules), and if one molecule of water isn't an ocean, then when do water molecules form an ocean? 2 molecules? 100 molecules? 20 billion molecules? 35 billion billion molecules? We simply can not say this in numerical terms. Whatever figure you mention, it could be argues then that one less that figure still has the same property of being an ocean. So this always drops down to claiming that one molecule of water is also an ocean. Which however, we know it is not.

So, in other words, these "free chosen" terms, can cause some problems in communications.

Is water cooking (under normal atmospheric pressure) at 100 degrees celcius? We could as well say that at 1 degree celcius is cooking, cause clearly some water molecules are escaping from the liquid form and escape into the air above the water.

So, in other words, the discussion here is on what is the meaning of the term consciousness, and why do we call a human being consciosness, and an atom not. While both a human being and an atom are made of the same stuff: matter!

I do not find it very meaningfull to redefine the ordinary concepts of words. Water is cooking at 100 degrees celcius, and not at 1 degrees celcius. A human being is consciousness, and an atom is not.

I can not exactly tell you where the exact line is between for instance unconsciousness and consciousness, because consciousness cannot be precisely defined, but in ordinary language we do not say that one atom can have consciousness.

Let me see if I can't tease out the distinction between what YOU say I am saying and what I AM saying...

YOU are saying that I am saying that WHATEVER is "going on" with an atom (as an example) -- no matter what it is that's going on -- even if its only a mechanical system with no awareness whatsoever -- you are saying that I am saying that I want you (or whomever) to re-define "consciousness" to INCLUDE whatever properties and qualities that atom has (or has NOT).

And, what I am saying is that we -- seekers of knowledge -- might want to see if we need to EXPAND our definition of consciousness so that it INCLUDES the POSSIBILITY tha atoms -- and everything else -- has a LEVEL of consciousness.

With this possibility in mind (no pun intended) we can then discuss OTHER possibilities which may, in fact, lead us to a more COMPREHENSIVE understanding of nature of the Universe.

Of course I might be WRONG in my speculations. But I am taking the case that the Universe is conscious for the sake of discussion...

ya know...like when you proposed this thread about Solipsism. You wanted to discuss this rather myopic point of view. No-one has said (I don't believe) that because the Solipsist viewpoint is somewhat anal, that we should not be discussing it.

And now I'm wondering how rediculous a point of view would need to be before someone said "Enough already!"

If I started a thread that said, "Let's talk about the 'Sect of the Receptacles' who believe that they can experience God by sticking their tongues into electric outlets"...we'd probably get a good discussion going...and, who knows, we might come to believe that the Sect of the Receptacles is RIGHT.

For me, the speculation that the Universe -- and everything in it -- has an element of consciousness to it...this seems to be quite reasonable -- almost a "given" -- and yet I am met with unremitting opposition.

And I can't tell you how much I LOVE it. [g)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Let me see if I can't tease out the distinction between what YOU say I am saying and what I AM saying...

YOU are saying that I am saying that WHATEVER is "going on" with an atom (as an example) -- no matter what it is that's going on -- even if its only a mechanical system with no awareness whatsoever -- you are saying that I am saying that I want you (or whomever) to re-define "consciousness" to INCLUDE whatever properties and qualities that atom has (or has NOT).

And, what I am saying is that we -- seekers of knowledge -- might want to see if we need to EXPAND our definition of consciousness so that it INCLUDES the POSSIBILITY tha atoms -- and everything else -- has a LEVEL of consciousness.

With this possibility in mind (no pun intended) we can then discuss OTHER possibilities which may, in fact, lead us to a more COMPREHENSIVE understanding of nature of the Universe.

Of course I might be WRONG in my speculations. But I am taking the case that the Universe is conscious for the sake of discussion...

ya know...like when you proposed this thread about Solipsism. You wanted to discuss this rather myopic point of view. No-one has said (I don't believe) that because the Solipsist viewpoint is somewhat anal, that we should not be discussing it.

And now I'm wondering how rediculous a point of view would need to be before someone said "Enough already!"

If I started a thread that said, "Let's talk about the 'Sect of the Receptacles' who believe that they can experience God by sticking their tongues into electric outlets"...we'd probably get a good discussion going...and, who knows, we might come to believe that the Sect of the Receptacles is RIGHT.

For me, the speculation that the Universe -- and everything in it -- has an element of consciousness to it...this seems to be quite reasonable -- almost a "given" -- and yet I am met with unremitting opposition.

And I can't tell you how much I LOVE it. [g)]


The "If .. then what" scenario can be extended to anything.

If water was money, if we could extend the definition of money to water, then I can speculate I am very rich.

I can of course speculate a LOT about that!! I might even LOVE to do that!


But we know this isn't very helpfull in any way.....

[M. Gaspar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by heusdens



[b]

If... if!

If water would be money, I would be a millionaire!


Like "speculation"..."if" is not a four-letter word!

I believe Einstein used the word a lot...

...so I am in good company

...including yours. [:)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
[QUOTE]Originally posted by heusdens

If... if!

If water would be money, I would be a millionaire!


Like "speculation"..."if" is not a four-letter word!

I believe Einstein used the word a lot...
...so I am in good company (including yours ).


In the IF universe, all our dreams can come true of course.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
In the IF universe, all our dreams can come true of course.

Not exactly.

While I DO believe that it may be true that INTENTION effects the "lynchpin" of randomness to cause certain things to manifect while other potentialities do not...

I also take into account that while each of us is a "force" in the Universe, we are not the ONLY force. Thus, countervaling forces may prevail.

Nonetheless, it is more "empowering" to believe that one's INTENTIONS -- coupled with ACTIONS -- can EFFECT results...than it is to believe that we are "dust in the wind".

Plus, the efficacy of such a notion about INTENTION and RESULTS might be "provable" both empirically and experiencially.

And I'm feeling a new thread coming on...

[M. Gaspar]

I INTEND to get some sleep tonight and voila...

I'm signing off.

Thanks for a fun few hours.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not exactly.

While I DO believe that it may be true that INTENTION effects the "lynchpin" of randomness to cause certain things to manifect while other potentialities do not...

I also take into account that while each of us is a "force" in the Universe, we are not the ONLY force. Thus, countervaling forces may prevail.

Nonetheless, it is more "empowering" to believe that one's INTENTIONS -- coupled with ACTIONS -- can EFFECT results...than it is to believe that we are "dust in the wind".

Plus, the efficacy of such a notion about INTENTION and RESULTS might be "provable" both empirically and experiencially.

And I'm feeling a new thread coming on...

There is actually no objection to calling the universe as gifted with WILL, INTEND, PURPOSE, MEANING and even CONSCIOUSNESS.

And the proof for that is closeby, cause you exist and are part of the universe.....

But please recognize that all these denominators arive out of your own self-reflection on yourself. You, anyone, are the mind of the universe.

Nothing in principle can be stated or argued against that....


The way the universe, the material reality, reflects on itself, excercises will, intend, purpose and meaning, is by way of human conscious beings.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
There is actually no objection to calling the universe as gifted with WILL, INTEND, PURPOSE, MEANING and even CONSCIOUSNESS.

And the proof for that is closeby, cause you exist and are part of the universe.....

But please recognize that all these denominators arive out of your own self-reflection on yourself. You, anyone, are the mind of the universe.

Nothing in principle can be stated or argued against that....


The way the universe, the material reality, reflects on itself, excercises will, intend, purpose and meaning, is by way of human conscious beings.


Do you not grant any consciousness at all to dogs? How about iguanas? Where, specifically, do you draw the line?

If, as you suggest, humans are the only conscious beings in the Universe, when, in our evolution, did consciousness "pop up"?

Was Homo erectus conscious? How about Homo habilis? Australopithecus? Miocene apes? Or was our shrew-like ancester conscious as it scurried about trying to avoid those big green lizards? And how about the lizards!

Is a "drop of consciousness" to our "full-blown consciousness" like a drop of water is to an ocean? Yes and no.

The ocean is comprised of drops (atoms) of water but, until the drops of water COMBINE to form as SYSTEM that fits our specific CRITERIA of what WE say an ocean is, then, of course, one drop would not an ocean make. But we CAN say it is wet .

By the same token, we cannot say a kangaroo has HUMAN consciousness, but we could say it is conscious to a certain degree.

Let me be perfectly clear where I stand on the consciousness of the Universe. I do NOT believe -- as you maintain -- that the Universe is "conscious" by virtue of It's "thinking PARTS"...that these "parts" (human beings) are the only things "thinking"...while the larger whole is NOT.

I believe the Universe is a CONSCIOUS ENTITY...the "biggest egghead in town" ... using ALL of its parts, each of which as a "piece of consciousness" IN it ...forming an interconnected NETWORK that allows for SELF-AWARENESS ...AND responsiveness to all of its parts.

Did this view of mine arise out of "self reflection" as you put it? Particially. But it also arose out of my reflection on that which is OUTSIDE of myself...including information from better minds than mine.

I am not a solipsist. So am I an idealistic materialist? Label me -- and be SPECIFIC -- so that I can put it on a T-shirt.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Do you not grant any consciousness at all to dogs? How about iguanas? Where, specifically, do you draw the line?

Like I said, you can not draw a definite line, but it must reside "somewhere" between the dead material world (that of galaxies, stars, planets) and the formation of human beings through evolution.
And of course, not just human beings have consciousness.


The ocean is comprised of drops (atoms) of water but, until the drops of water COMBINE to form as SYSTEM that fits our specific CRITERIA of what WE say an ocean is, then, of course, one drop would not an ocean make. But we CAN say it is wet .

Water is a molecule, consisting of two Hydrogen atoms and one atom of Oxygen. And ONE molecule of water is NOT wet.



Let me be perfectly clear where I stand on the consciousness of the Universe. I do NOT believe -- as you maintain -- that the Universe is "conscious" by virtue of It's "thinking PARTS"...that these "parts" (human beings) are the only things "thinking"...while the larger whole is NOT.

The universe is a thinking consciouss entiry by virtue ONLY of it's thinking and conscious entities in forms of conscious thinking beings.


I believe the Universe is a CONSCIOUS ENTITY...the "biggest egghead in town" ... using ALL of its parts, each of which as a "piece of consciousness" IN it ...forming an interconnected NETWORK that allows for SELF-AWARENESS ...AND responsiveness to all of its parts.

Did this view of mine arise out of "self reflection" as you put it? Particially. But it also arose out of my reflection on that which is OUTSIDE of myself...including information from better minds than mine.

I am not a solipsist. So am I an idealistic materialist? Label me -- and be SPECIFIC -- so that I can put it on a T-shirt.

This above is simply NOT TRUE. You just state and assume or believe something, without delivering actual proof of that.

If you wanna label yourself yoy can label yourself as a variant of the "Gaia" hypothese (earth system as a living entity), blown up to cover the whole universe.

It is not a materialist point of view, so it is therefore an idealist opinion.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Like I said, you can not draw a definite line, but it must reside "somewhere" between the dead material world (that of galaxies, stars, planets) and the formation of human beings through evolution.
And of course, not just human beings have consciousness.

[b]

Water is a molecule, consisting of two Hydrogen atoms and one atom of Oxygen. And ONE molecule of water is NOT wet.


[b]

The universe is a thinking consciouss entiry by virtue ONLY of it's thinking and conscious entities in forms of conscious thinking beings.

[b]

This above is simply NOT TRUE. You just state and assume or believe something, without delivering actual proof of that.

If you wanna label yourself yoy can label yourself as a variant of the "Gaia" hypothese (earth system as a living entity), blown up to cover the whole universe.

It is not a materialist point of view, so it is therefore an idealist opinion.

If you -- and everyone else -- want to think that this planet, the sun and the Milky Way galaxy are "dead" ...that's your perogative.

Yes, I DO think the "Gaia" hypothesis extends to the Universe Itself. And, the fact that we are finding it difficult to "draw the line" with regard to what is conscious and what is not, perhaps that suggests that we have a CONTINUUM that might be better expressed as "degrees of consciousness" ...which would make our galaxy a LOT more conscious than WE are!

Thanks regarding the water molecule . I knew that but mispoke. Nonetheless, I do maintain that a water molecule MUST be wet ...even if we can't DETECT said "wetness" because we can't DETECt said MOLECULE...with our regular senses.

Likewise consciousness: the consciousness of a quark is as "wet" as the consciousness of a physics professor...only not AS "wet".

So it remains: either my hypothesis -- or the Universe Itself -- is ALL "wet"!!! And, one might pre-emptively say which of these possibilities is the case...yet still be open to any "evidence" that might suggest otherwise.

Thus, regarding "delivery of proof"...I haven't gotten there yet because the pizza is still in the oven!

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Say more.

Occam's Razor dictates that the explanation of a phenomenon, that explains it with the same amount of accuracy as another, but with the least amount of assumptions, is superior.

You, when presented with an argument against your hypothesis, add lots of assumptions to counter the arguments. This violates Occam's Razor.

Of course, Occam's Razor isn't always correct or even applicable, I just wanted to make sure that you knew you were doing this.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Occam's Razor dictates that the explanation of a phenomenon, that explains it with the same amount of accuracy as another, but with the least amount of assumptions, is superior.

You, when presented with an argument against your hypothesis, add lots of assumptions to counter the arguments. This violates Occam's Razor.

Of course, Occam's Razor isn't always correct or even applicable, I just wanted to make sure that you knew you were doing this.

Thanks for useful input.

Have decided to re-read print-outs from this thread (and others) and HIGHLIGHT all my ASSUMPTIONS. Then I can figure out what to DO about them.