Does the Universe Have a Mind of Its Own?

[Les Sleeth]

I hope it is apparent to you, and others like Les, that Cambrian explosion is a controversial topic in the scientific community. Scientists are not trying to deceive the public by pretending they know everything. Here is a perfect example, where a scientist is trying to show that his colleagues are full of it. It certainly doesn't give me the impression that everything has been accounted for.

Well, I've said that and quoted scientists who have challenged evolution theory at the point of past genetic variation. My distress is due to what you suggest may be merely my "perception."

I dislike the inaccurate representation of the strength of evidence for evolution to the public. You act like the exaggerating scientists are the exception rather than the rule (do you think Richard Dawkins is objective?). However, those scientists you can offer as proof of science's conservative, objective stance wouldn't have to be "trying to show that his colleagues are full of it" if there weren't scientists doing exactly what I am complaining about.

When it comes to what is represented to the public, I know what I've heard. I watch a lot of science specials, for example. Don't tell me to take my complaint to the Discovery's or National Geographic's or PBS's show producers. They turn to science professors at major universities, and working, published research scientists to provide expertise for the programs. They have a right to expect such professionals to represent the facts properly.

Just yestersay I listened as a marine biologist explained how a part of shark physiology evolved through natural selection and then added "that's just how evolution works." I hear and read it incessantly.

The UC Berkeley website that was recently in the news for being sued by Christians I'd quoted earlier as misrepresenting natural selection as a "force." At this site http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ you will find the website describing "lifting functional constraints through duplication":

"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated. For example, globin is a truly ancient protein. Billions of years old, it was present in the common ancestor of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi. Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

How does the author know natural selection achieved that? It is an unproven assumption which rather than being taught as theory is presented as fact. The student reading that doesn't know it is an unconfirmed assumption, and so universities are turning out all sorts of "believers" who think when they talk evolution their beliefs are supported by the facts rather than theory.

At least some of this type of distortion has helped evolution believers convince supreme courts to to take the stance they have with evolution. Teaching evolution theory is fine; but when it is taught the way Berkeley is representing it (and I claim that is a common practice), and misrepresented to the public on science specials by science professionals, then that is a problem.

It turns my stomach a bit to see certain (not all) holier-than-thou scientists banding together to fight the evil IDers, while they themselves pretend to have evidence they really don’t in order to propagate physicalistic beliefs in the guise of science. As far as I can see, they are employing McCarthyish tactics to demonize one side, and then wrapping themselves in the scientific flag so they can force their theory down the world’s throat.

I admire your belief in the scientific ideal, but your representation of what science "is really about" is not reality. What scientists are actually doing is reality. However, I don't generalize from what some say in regard to evolution theory to all areas of science. I am only pointing to a very specific area.

 

[Les Sleeth]

First, this philosophy section is not the correct place to discuss the evidence for "evolution of organs"...so I plan to start a new thread in the "biology" section and hope you will join the discussion and present your "hypothesis" on the origin of "organs".

Nope. I am not trying to offer hypotheses. I am questioning and comparing inferences.

As to your above question, the answer is no. Many new things that exist (your term) are brought forth to the collective sense of humans each and every day--consider the Hubble telescope and how it brings forth scientific evidence of new star clusters, etc. But, perhaps you will object vis-a-vis your "mechanical" criterion--so could you provide an example of:
1. something that exists (please explain how this is known)
2. that is not mechanical (please give examples as relates to existence)
3. unavailable to the senses (this seems clear enough, but please explain)
4. how science is "useless" in helping understand the above.
Thank you.

It wasn't a "mechanical criterion" it was a NON-mechanical crierion. I have expained all your questions to you before.

Questions 1 and 3 . . . read my last post to LaPalida.

Question 2 . . . no matter what I say mechanists try to claim it is mechanistic. Consciousness is the latest victim.

Question 4 . . . if science is dependent on sense data, for example, but there is a way to obtain information that isn't through the senses, then how can science study or evaluate that information?

 

[Rade]

. . . if science is dependent on sense data, for example, but there is a way to obtain information that isn't through the senses, then how can science study or evaluate that information?

I think you start this argument from false premise...science does not demand "sense data", science only demands that the mind (e.g. what you call consciousness below) have "knowledge" of that which exists. Now, above I read this argument you make:

Isn't it possible that consciousness knows "out there" one way, and knows "in there" another way? Isn't it possible that "in there" knowledge, since it requires sense withdrawal, leads to knowing something utterly unavailable to the senses?

And here I agree with you, and I note your use of the concept that the consciousness "knows" both "other" and "self". But I also hold (perhaps you do not ?) that this "knowledge" here you refer to is in fact "scientific knowledge" of the neutral monism of the union of other with self. What I mean is that the consciousness you refer to knows scientifically both the "out there" and the "in here" because it both cases an "object" (the faculty that exists we call consciousness) entangles with another "object" (either the object of the "other" or the object of the "self"). Thus yes, I agree that when your consciousness (let us call it C) entangles with the other (O) it must form the unique state [C-O], but when the consciousness (C) entangles with the self (S) it forms a completely different state [C-S]--here I take that both (O) and (S) exist in reality as an axiomatic given. Where we appear to disagree is that I hold that both of these processes of the consciousness fall within the bounds of "science", where it would appear that you hold that only the formation of [C-O] is science. So, if you could help me understand this aspect of your philosophy that would be appreciated--if [C-S] is not science, and science does not require data from the senses (e.g., many scientists use data from dreams, intuition, mediation, etc. to do science) then what is [C-S], what you call the 'union of the self with consciousness' ?

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . if science is dependent on sense data, for example, but there is a way to obtain information that isn't through the senses, then how can science study or evaluate that information?

I think you start this argument from false premise...science does not demand "sense data", science only demands that the mind (e.g. what you call consciousness below) have "knowledge" of that which exists.

The Wikipedia here . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism . . . Offers a nice explanation. Notice this part, “Empirical is an adjective often used in conjunction with science, both the natural and social sciences, which means the use of working hypotheses which are capable of being disproved using observation or experiment (ie: ultimately through experience). [my emphasis]

It is well established that the observation of what has been hypothesized is required for science, and the only acceptable observation (experience) in science is sense experience. I am pretty certain you cannot find any accepted science definition which does not have the sense experience requirement.

I am also quite certain that your definition — “science only demands that the mind . . . have "knowledge" of that which exists” — is incorrect. If that were true, then how do we test that one’s mind has knowledge? To do science, whatever one claims that one knows must be made available for others to observe with the senses. What you are describing as “science” seems more like a definition of rationalism (or more specifically, continental rationalism). Reason without the requirement of sense observation is not accepted as science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_rationalism

Now, above I read this argument you make:

Isn't it possible that consciousness knows "out there" one way, and knows "in there" another way? Isn't it possible that "in there" knowledge, since it requires sense withdrawal, leads to knowing something utterly unavailable to the senses?

And here I agree with you, and I note your use of the concept that the consciousness "knows" both "other" and "self". But I also hold (perhaps you do not ?) that this "knowledge" here you refer to is in fact "scientific knowledge" of the neutral monism of the union of other with self. What I mean is that the consciousness you refer to knows scientifically both the "out there" and the "in here" . . .

Well, I would agree that the term “empiricism” requires confirming experience, and doesn’t specifically exclude inner experience. But the variety of empiricism called “science” (the scientific method) does not at the moment accept any experience other than observation using the senses.

. . . because it both cases an "object" (the faculty that exists we call consciousness) entangles with another "object" (either the object of the "other" or the object of the "self"). Thus yes, I agree that when your consciousness (let us call it C) entangles with the other (O) it must form the unique state [C-O], but when the consciousness (C) entangles with the self (S) it forms a completely different state [C-S]--here I take that both (O) and (S) exist in reality as an axiomatic given. Where we appear to disagree is that I hold that both of these processes of the consciousness fall within the bounds of "science", where it would appear that you hold that only the formation of [C-O] is science.

As I explained above, yes I assert that only with [C-O] is available to science. But we have to be a little careful here because I’d agree that consciousness entangles with objects, but not the self (explained in the next post).

So, if you could help me understand this aspect of your philosophy that would be appreciated--if [C-S] is not science, and science does not require data from the senses (e.g., many scientists use data from dreams, intuition, mediation, etc. to do science) then what is [C-S], what you call the 'union of the self with consciousness' ?

Just a quick point. Data from “dreams, intuition, mediation, etc.” which produce no physical results that can be observed, either directly or by registering on detection devices, cannot be studied scientifically (although they can be evaluated logically).

The consciousness of the “self” I’ve been talking about isn’t as you have presented it. Self is consciousness in the “union” model. This can be a difficult idea to grasp if your consciousness is always in some state, like a state of thought, or a state of anxiety, or a state of imagination, or a state of desire.

But what is consciousness before it assumes a state? No one can know unless one can get one’s consciousness to be stateless, and that requires one to fully still the mind. To achieve that experience, one first withdraws from the senses. Why? Because participation in the senses “splits” part of consciousness (i.e., that part devoted to hearing, seeing, tasting, etc.); that splitting into sense aspects both fractionates the periphery of consciousness and involves it in what the senses are detecting. Upon successful withdrawal, the peripheral part of consciousness tied up in sense experience seems to rejoin a more central “core.”

In withdrawing from sense participation and finding a core of consciousness, one discovers that the core always holds steady as “base” consciousness; that is, the core is “neutral” in the sense of not being in any form (like sense perception). That steady, unmoving core can then be relied on to still one’s incessantly thinking mind. When that occurs, the part of consciousness tied up in mentality also rejoins the core.

When all one’s faculties have united at the core is when things first start to get interesting. One discovers consciousness is very bright; even blind people easily experience this, so it has nothing to do with the eyes. One also hears/feels a vibrancy; even deaf people experience this, so it has nothing to do with the ears. One’s breathing almost disappears and it seems one’s consciousness and one’s breath are fully united. All that is very satisfying in some way, and that experience alone is enough to keep people coming back for the experience. But there is still more.

There is a very famous quote of the inner adept and meditation teacher Kabir that has intrigued serious meditators for centuries. He said, “Students, what is God? God is the breath inside the breath.”

Now, there is no possible way to have a clue what he is talking about until one reaches the point where one’s conscious faculties have all united. In that experience one discovers that behind the breath, and moving the breath, seems to be a vast and gently pulsating force. As one goes deeper and deeper into this experience, a new sort of uniting happens; where before all uniting was of one’s own conscious aspects into one, now one seems to join with that huge, breathing presence. It feels like consciousness separates from the brain a bit and becomes part of the universe.

That experience, sometimes called the “mystical” experience, has had quite a few very serious devotees. The Buddha seems to have been the first to really achieve full union using meditation techniques, but I am convinced that Jesus did too and a great many others most people haven’t heard of. I only know of this because I have been researching the subject since the early ‘70s (and I’ve been practicing union meditation daily since then as well). (You might check out the interesting interview PIT2 posted here https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106775 where a brain researcher discusses union, the mystical experience, and the brain.)

So when I say that people are ignorant who claim “there is no evidence” of a universal consciousness, I am referring to this long history of successful union meditators (in the West they usually called it “union prayer” rather than union meditation). Those practitioners are in a wholly different class that followers of religion in that they are aiming for a direct and pure experience rather than an indirect and vicarious experience through ritual, belief, faith, etc.

 

[Rade]

It is well established that the observation of what has been hypothesized is required for science, and the only acceptable observation (experience) in science is sense experience. I am pretty certain you cannot find any accepted science definition which does not have the sense experience requirement.

First, let me say that I appreciate the time you spent with the above post--it is just that I disagree on a number of points (not all), so I will continue the dialog. First, your argument that accepted definitions of science hold a "sense-data" requirement is incorrect. [[As an aside--I find it odd that you revert to requirement of definition here to support your argument--many other times on this forum you have told me personally that philosophers do not use definition to support argument and I have been taken to task for doing so ]] But, even if I now do as you say and look to the dictionary for the "accepted" science definitions as you say (I use unabridged Webster) I see that the term "science" has 6 different "accepted meanings" by the English speaking folks of the world and none of the 6 have any requirement of sense data as source of experience of observation in order for the observation to be "scientific". Now clearly, we will agree with you that science does use sense data, but you are incorrect when you conclude that science "must" use sense data--and no movement to dictionary definitions helps your argument, since it is your position that "philosophers do not use dictionaries"--unless you now change your position.

I am also quite certain that your definition — “science only demands that the mind . . . have "knowledge" of that which exists” — is incorrect. If that were true, then how do we test that one’s mind has knowledge?

The answer to your question is that we "test" to see if the mind has knowledge via inventory of the sum of the "facts of reality" that are contained in "one's mind" as you say. Here I hold that one's mind comes to knowledge two ways (1) directly via perceptual observation and (2) indirectly via reason. Thus, I hold that you are not "quite certain" about my definition.

To do science, whatever one claims that one knows must be made available for others to observe with the senses. What you are describing as “science” seems more like a definition of rationalism (or more specifically, continental rationalism). Reason without the requirement of sense observation is not accepted as science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_rationalism

And here, you are incorrect, because clearly one can via reason grasp the "facts of reality" that were previously made available to the mind via sense perception and then (most importantly to your false argument) conduct a transformation or operation on those previous facts and form new hypotheses that can lead to experimentation (=science). Thus, you set up a false dichotomy (e.g., reason without the requirement of sense observation)--this statement is a contradiction of terms--reason ALWAYS is a posteriori to data via perception. One does not "reason" with a mind 100 % empty of sense data, which is the illogical conclusion of your position stated above.

Well, I would agree that the term “empiricism” requires confirming experience, and doest’t specifically exclude inner experience. But the variety of empiricism called “science” (the scientific method) does not at the moment accept any experience other than observation using the senses. AND Just a quick point. Data from “dreams, intuition, mediation, etc.” which produce no physical results that can be observed, either directly or by registering on detection devices, cannot be studied scientifically (although they can be evaluated logically).

Only one factual example shows that this statement is false. In his bibliography, the physicist N. Tesla, tells when he first "invented" the concept of the alternating current. He was sitting on a park bench and was inventing working models of machines in his mind, and was consciously changing parts, gear ratios, etc. (he was doing "science"--forming hypotheses) and then it came to him, the correct form, and he mentally then turned on the machine (e.g., he did "science" -- experimentation) and he observed that it worked, it mentally generated electricity (more science--observation). Tesla went to his laboratory and replicated his mental experiment (replication of experiments is part of scientific method) and the rest is history. Thus, your comments about the correct relationship of empiricism, and scientific method, and senses are falsified each time you turn on your computer.

As I explained above, yes I assert that only with [C-O] is available to science. But we have to be a little careful here because I’d agree that consciousness entangles with objects, but not the self (explained in the next post).

I understand your concept of the consciousness that you describe in great detail--thank you--but we have already on another thread discussed this experience (what you call mystical). It is well known that this exact experience also occurs in at least two mental states other than meditation: (1) the psychological state called "paranoia" and (2) in the minds of folks that take hallucinogenic drugs. In fact, all of the mental states of awareness that you discuss above (or lack of--the feeling for example of emptiness, silence) are found in one or both of (1) and (2). And the mental condition is well known by scientists that study such things, -- what you describe as the sense of timelessness, that all is one, and the feeling of rapture (=mystical state of Buddha, etc. etc. through history) results when the mind losses its ability to distinguish between the "subject" of the self and the "object" of the self. One of the basic attributes of being a human being (=species Homo sapiens) is our ability to maintain over time a firm sense of personal identity that requires that we know the borders of what separates the "self" from the "other" (e.g., what is inside from what is outside). Sorry to burst your bubble about supposed importance of "mediation" as some unique route to knowledge of an imagined "universal consciousness"--but it is just not true--mediation is "one" way, but not the only way of the imagination of the mind as relates to the experiences you describe above.

The consciousness of the “self” I’ve been talking about isn’t as you have presented it. Self is consciousness in the “union” model. This can be a difficult idea to grasp if your consciousness is always in some state, like a state of thought, or a state of anxiety, or a state of imagination, or a state of desire.

Self (S) is self and consciousness (C) is consciousness, and the law of identity tells us that S = S and that C = C. Both (S) and (C) are specific identities, each with specific attributes and different "structures" and "functions". Thus, one of many examples, the self (S) has cells (gametes) that can reproduce, but the (C) is 100% made of cells (neurons) that cannot reproduce--thus the (S) is not identical to (C) as pertains to reproduction, and your "union model" is thus falsified. Your text about reality of experiences during meditation in no way supports a claim (as you seem to hold) that consciousness is a priori to existence.

But what is consciousness before it assumes a state?

Since you hold that consciousness can be a thing that assumes a "state", and that it can be in a state of 0.0 activity, logically it then must exist as such a complex thing. Thus the answer to your question --what you describe is the washing machine not yet turned on, and a state not yet turned on is nothing more than a machine (here consciousness) in isolation to which nothing is being done, which is a well defined state that can be recognized again if it should occur.

 

[wave]

You act like the exaggerating scientists are the exception rather than the rule (do you think Richard Dawkins is objective?).

I've read a number of papers by Dawkins and they seemed objective. On the other hand, some of his books and interviews can be subjective because they contain his personal beliefs. It's his right to publicly express his opinions, and I think most people are smart enough to view it as such. It would be a mistake to stereotype scientists based on the personal beliefs of a few individuals.

However, those scientists you can offer as proof of science's conservative, objective stance wouldn't have to be "trying to show that his colleagues are full of it" if there weren't scientists doing exactly what I am complaining about.

Scientists will continue to debate over Evolution, no matter how accurately it is portrayed to the public. This type of one-upmanship is how science works.

The UC Berkeley website that was recently in the news for being sued by Christians I'd quoted earlier as misrepresenting natural selection as a "force."

I presume you are talking about the lawsuit filed by Caldwell. That lawsuit is not about misrepresentation. The plaintiff object to links on the website that advocate compatibility between Evolution and religion.

"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated. For example, globin is a truly ancient protein. Billions of years old, it was present in the common ancestor of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi. Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

How does the author know natural selection achieved that? It is an unproven assumption which rather than being taught as theory is presented as fact.

Wrong. We know that because we have an overwhelming amount of molecular genetic evidence. For example, mutations often leave very distinct telltale signs in the DNA. A good understanding of genetics is required to fully comprehend the evidence, but I will gladly explain a few examples involving globins if you wish. It's really amazing what we have discovered using molecular genetics.

Teaching evolution theory is fine; but when it is taught the way Berkeley is representing it (and I claim that is a common practice), and misrepresented to the public on science specials by science professionals, then that is a problem.

The Berkeley website is an introduction to Evolution, so it's understandable that they didn't include any explanation. It's also understandable why you'd perceive that as a sign of unproven assumptions. This kind of hand waving frequently occur in popular science books and TV shows. However, they are meant to entertain and to inspire a sense of wonder. Usually there is good solid science underneath, but you won't find it unless you dig deeper. It's very difficult to attract an audience and be scientifically rigorous at the same time.

I admire your belief in the scientific ideal, but your representation of what science "is really about" is not reality. What scientists are actually doing is reality.

Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. My research area is in biophysics, so my belief is based on experience rather than ideal.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I presume you are talking about the lawsuit filed by Caldwell. That lawsuit is not about misrepresentation.

Right, but that's not what I said (or at least meant). I said that it was ME who had quoted information at that site (before the Caldwell lawsuit) for misrepresenting the evidence (I quoted different info, as you can see).

Wrong. We know that because we have an overwhelming amount of molecular genetic evidence. For example, mutations often leave very distinct telltale signs in the DNA. A good understanding of genetics is required to fully comprehend the evidence, but I will gladly explain a few examples involving globins if you wish. It's really amazing what we have discovered using molecular genetics.

Well, WRONG right back at ya. I didn't say a thing about the genetic evidence, I complained about the authors attributing the development of globin to natural selection! They, or anyone else, do not know what caused globin to develop as it did. Genetic changes, yes; what produced those particular genetic changes that fit the environment so well, no.

If I have to repeat my point one more time I think I'll blow up (so if you want to end this debate right now, make me repeat it ).

However, they are meant to entertain and to inspire a sense of wonder.

"Wonder" in misrepresentation should not be inspired. I predict you are going to see a lot more people complain over evolution "believers" communicating about evolution without properly distinguishing between known fact and theory. They represent themselves as being objective, but really they are propagandizing.

It's very difficult to attract an audience and be scientifically rigorous at the same time.

I don't buy it. People are interested in science like never before. That's why Hawking and Greene and science/nature programs are so popular. It doesn't require "rigor" to present things without exaggeration, it requires honesty. If science is supposed to be objective, then let it be objective and stop violating the very standards that define it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

As an aside--I find it odd that you revert to requirement of definition here to support your argument--many other times on this forum you have told me personally that philosophers do not use definition to support argument and I have been taken to task for doing so

That’s not what I took you to task for. I was not critical of you offering a definition; I challenged using a language dictionary for a philosophical definition.

But, even if I now do as you say and look to the dictionary for the "accepted" science definitions as you say (I use unabridged Webster) I see that the term "science" has 6 different "accepted meanings" by the English speaking folks of the world and none of the 6 have any requirement of sense data as source of experience of observation in order for the observation to be "scientific".

That’s right because a language dictionary isn’t giving definitions for a philosophical discussion, but rather for how the word is used in language.

Now clearly, we will agree with you that science does use sense data, but you are incorrect when you conclude that science "must" use sense data--and no movement to dictionary definitions helps your argument, since it is your position that "philosophers do not use dictionaries"--unless you now change your position.

Do you know why science is said to be an application of empiricism? Because empiricism is the philosophy that the scientific method was derived from.

Do you know what “empirical” means? It means, based on experience. The following explanation of empiricism is taken from my Oxford Companion to Philosophy: ““Empiricism. A statement, proposition, or judgment is empirical if we can only know its truth or falsity by appealing to experience . . . An idea or concept is empirical if it is derived ultimately from the five senses, to which introspection is sometimes added. It need not be derived from anyone sense alone, and the data supplied to the senses may need to be processed by the mind, and indeed may not count as data at all until some activity by the mind has taken place . . .”

The answer to your question is that we "test" to see if the mind has knowledge via inventory of the sum of the "facts of reality" that are contained in "one's mind" as you say. Here I hold that one's mind comes to knowledge two ways (1) directly via perceptual observation and (2) indirectly via reason. Thus, I hold that you are not "quite certain" about my definition.

You are entitled to “hold” your personal beliefs about what is epistemologically effective (though your concept #2 is nothing new; it is ordinary rationalism), but you are not entitled to claim science is something different than what the world has agreed it is.

You know, you could research this easily and find out what most everyone here knows. I don’t want to embarrass you but you are showing how little you’ve looked at this subject; this issue was settled many decades ago decidedly NOT as you are arguing it. I Googled “scientific method” and found plenty of explanations for what it is, and they all require observation. One of many examples:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

And here, you are incorrect, because clearly one can via reason grasp the "facts of reality" that were previously made available to the mind via sense perception and then (most importantly to your false argument) conduct a transformation or operation on those previous facts and form new hypotheses that can lead to experimentation (=science). Thus, you set up a false dichotomy (e.g., reason without the requirement of sense observation)--this statement is a contradiction of terms--reason ALWAYS is a posteriori to data via perception. One does not "reason" with a mind 100 % empty of sense data, which is the illogical conclusion of your position stated above.

Maybe so, but we are not debating how one “grasps the facts of reality.” That discussion would called “Epistemological Claims,” or something similar. We are debating about the definition of science.

You want to include rationalism as part of science, but rationalism was soundly rejected a long time ago. If you study the history of philosophy, you can see it was dominated by reason alone, a “rationalistic” ideal that ruled virtually unchallenged until the 17th century. Locke and others were instrumental in changing the way we pursue knowledge by adding the experience requirement. It was that and that alone which created the age of science and which continues to work admirably.

Today there are still people trying to hash things out with only reason, but not in science. It is not science, pure and simple. Why don’t you try convincing any of the scientists here at PF of your philosophy. I have, on occasion, been ridiculed by hard science types for no other reason than I post in the philosophy section here. To them philosophy is “mental masturbation” because of its long history of rationalism, so anyone interested in philosophy must be one of those types (of course, they hadn’t bothered to find out that I fully agree with that assessment of rationalism).

Only one factual example shows that this statement is false. In his bibliography, the physicist N. Tesla, tells when he first "invented" the concept of the alternating current. He was sitting on a park bench and was inventing working models of machines in his mind, and was consciously changing parts, gear ratios, etc. (he was doing "science"--forming hypotheses) and then it came to him, the correct form, and he mentally then turned on the machine (e.g., he did "science" -- experimentation) and he observed that it worked, it mentally generated electricity (more science--observation). Tesla went to his laboratory and replicated his mental experiment (replication of experiments is part of scientific method) and the rest is history. Thus, your comments about the correct relationship of empiricism, and scientific method, and senses are falsified each time you turn on your computer.

LOL! Do you think anybody would’ve accepted Tesla’s experiment as science if he hadn’t demonstrated it for others to observe? Understanding is one thing, science is another.

I understand your concept of the consciousness that you describe in great detail--thank you--but we have already on another thread discussed this experience (what you call mystical). It is well known that this exact experience also occurs in at least two mental states other than meditation: (1) the psychological state called "paranoia" and (2) in the minds of folks that take hallucinogenic drugs.

Paranoia is most definitely not what the mystical experience is. Certain hallucinogenic drugs, such as peyote, actually can open one up to the mystical experience, but it doesn’t last. I know, it did a couple of hundred trips before I decided meditation was the only way to make it last.

In fact, all of the mental states of awareness that you discuss above (or lack of--the feeling for example of emptiness, silence) are found in one or both of (1) and (2). And the mental condition is well known by scientists that study such things, -- what you describe as the sense of timelessness, that all is one, and the feeling of rapture (=mystical state of Buddha, etc. etc. through history) results when the mind losses its ability to distinguish between the "subject" of the self and the "object" of the self.

I’m sorry my friend but you are now talking out of the well-known backside. It doesn’t seem like you are taking the time to carefully study. Look up mysticism please, at least that variety I’ve been discussing. I’ve not been talking about anything but the experience which results from a dedicated practice of meditation. And scientists who do not practice meditation don’t know squat about the experience except what registers on their encephalographs, etc. Can you know what a peach tastes like by recording taste bud reactions to a peach?

One of the basic attributes of being a human being (=species Homo sapiens) is our ability to maintain over time a firm sense of personal identity that requires that we know the borders of what separates the "self" from the "other" (e.g., what is inside from what is outside). Sorry to burst your bubble about supposed importance of "mediation" as some unique route to knowledge of an imagined "universal consciousness"--but it is just not true--mediation is "one" way, but not the only way of the imagination of the mind as relates to the experiences you describe above.
Self (S) is self and consciousness (C) is consciousness, and the law of identity tells us that S = S and that C = C. Both (S) and (C) are specific identities, each with specific attributes and different "structures" and "functions". Thus, one of many examples, the self (S) has cells (gametes) that can reproduce, but the (C) is 100% made of cells (neurons) that cannot reproduce--thus the (S) is not identical to (C) as pertains to reproduction, and your "union model" is thus falsified. Your text about reality of experiences during meditation in no way supports a claim (as you seem to hold) that consciousness is a priori to existence.
Since you hold that consciousness can be a thing that assumes a "state", and that it can be in a state of 0.0 activity, logically it then must exist as such a complex thing. Thus the answer to your question --what you describe is the washing machine not yet turned on, and a state not yet turned on is nothing more than a machine (here consciousness) in isolation to which nothing is being done, which is a well defined state that can be recognized again if it should occur.

I don’t think we are going to get anywhere, just like previous times we’ve debated. You believe you can know without personal experience of what you trying to know, and I am 100% convinced that only experience brings knowledge. So I am not sympathetic toward all your “reasonings” where you think you know what you are talking about just because you can come up with some logical explanation.

 

[wave]

"You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

Well, WRONG right back at ya. I didn't say a thing about the genetic evidence, I complained about the authors attributing the development of globin to natural selection!

This is all a misunderstanding, so delay your explosive demise for a few minutes. The author did not attribute the development (i.e. creation or alteration) of globin proteins to natural selection. Instead, he claims that novel globin molecules arise from mutations (i.e. duplication and divergence) in certain individual(s) of a population.

So why did he mention natural selection? Well, natural selection (i.e. heredity) is responsible for passing mutations from carriers to their descendents. That is how mutations "spread" from individuals to the rest of the population. Furthermore, individuals that carry beneficial mutations are more likely to have more descendents than those carrying harmful mutations. Hence, different types of globin molecules are adapted through natural selection (i.e. differential reproduction success), such that advantageous globins molecules flourish while disadvantageous ones are weeded out.

Pay close attention to the bolded part of your Berkeley quote. The author attribute the development of novel globin molecules to "duplication and divergence" (i.e. mutations). Consequently, the author attribute the adaptation of advantageous globin molecules to natural selection.

Do you see why your complaint is unjustified? Contrary to your complaint, the author did not say that natural selection has developed something. In fact, scientists know natural selection cannot develop any kind of novelty. When you select something, you can only get a subset of the possible choices. So are you going to blow up or admit you have misread the site?

They, or anyone else, do not know what caused globin to develop as it did. Genetic changes, yes; what produced those particular genetic changes that fit the environment so well, no.

That is not the full story though. First of all, we observe very specific DNA fingerprints that indicates exactly which genetic mutations caused a particular globin development. We observe those types of mutations in nature as well as in the lab on a daily basis. At the very least, you must concede development via mutation is possible through natural means. Secondly, the genetic evidence that we currently observe fit so well precisely because natural selection has weeded out the ones that didn't fit so well.

Of course you can attribute any cause to "universal consciousness" and no one can prove you wrong. I personally prefer to call it the http://www.venganza.org/" . Either way, if you believe that then Evolution should be the least of your concerns. Think of all those wrongful convictions such a cunning supernatural entity could cause! Your fingerprints can magically appear on a knife in some poor victim's back!

As an aside - I am curious to know whether I had any affects on your knowledge of science at all. I am not referring to your philosophical stance or your opinions on scientists. Instead, I had made a number of posts to explain or correct your disinformation and misinterpretations of scientific evidence. Did some of those posts change your mind one bit, or was it all just a waste of time? PM the answer if you want.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you see why your complaint is unjustified? Contrary to your complaint, the author did not say that natural selection has developed something. In fact, scientists know natural selection cannot develop any kind of novelty. When you select something, you can only get a subset of the possible choices. So are you going to blow up or admit you have misread the site?

I am not going to blow up, and I am not going to admit I misread the site (yet). The author says:

"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated."

Okay, there we have the connection to duplication. He goes on:

"Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

There, I say, he went too far. But you say, "Pay close attention to the bolded part of your Berkeley quote. The author attributes the development of novel globin molecules to 'duplication and divergence' (i.e. mutations). Consequently, the author attributes the adaptation of advantageous globin molecules to natural selection."

Well, I agree that is exactly what the author does. And you don't see a problem with any of that? By using the term "natural selection," he clearly places responsiblity for the changes within Darwinist theory, yet he doesn't know that the changes were undirected (accidental) mutations (i.e., the Darwinist version of events).

I say a proper presentation would have said, "the theory of evolution would explain the history of globin development like this . . . "; and if he were really being careful he might add, ". . . but we don't have enough evidence yet to be certain of what actually happened."

Not only did he not say anything like that, his tone was that of speaking facts when really he was offering a theory for what happened. It is neither objective nor a balanced presentation, it is misleading.

That is not the full story though. First of all, we observe very specific DNA fingerprints that indicates exactly which genetic mutations caused a particular globin development.

I've never disputed that.

We observe those types of mutations in nature as well as in the lab on a daily basis. At the very least, you must concede development via mutation is possible through natural means.

Of course I concede it's possible.

Secondly, the genetic evidence that we currently observe fit so well precisely because natural selection has weeded out the ones that didn't fit so well.

There's no doubt natural selection weeds out poor fits. But you don't know that accidental genetic variation/mutation created all or most of the good fits.

Of course you can attribute any cause to "universal consciousness" and no one can prove you wrong. I personally prefer to call it the http://www.venganza.org/" .

See, this is where you lose credibility as someone who is broadly educated enough to give an informed opinion on possible influences on the development of this universe. You are so informed on the science side, but your understanding of the sources of the universal consciousness reports is downright meager.

Either way, if you believe that then Evolution should be the least of your concerns. Think of all those wrongful convictions such a cunning supernatural entity could cause! Your fingerprints can magically appear on a knife in some poor victim's back!

Supernatural? I've never suggested anything supernatural is possible, including universal consciousness. If it exists and had a guiding role in creation, then it clearly has worked naturally; and that means all the evidence we'd have from which to make inferences indicates that universal consciousness is natural.

As an aside - I am curious to know whether I had any affects on your knowledge of science at all. I am not referring to your philosophical stance or your opinions on scientists. Instead, I had made a number of posts to explain or correct your disinformation and misinterpretations of scientific evidence. Did some of those posts change your mind one bit, or was it all just a waste of time? PM the answer if you want.

Well, obviously I've not agreed with your take on the Berkeley website. I think their interpretation of the evidence was stated in a way to give the impression that Darwinistic evolution was fully confirmed by the globin example, when it isn't. And I do not think they properly informed the public (and it is a public site) of where the evidence is lacking.

So, in this respect I am as disappointed as I've always been with how evolution is being represented to the world by far too many scientists.

However, I would also say that you made me want to be more careful about making generalizations that might be interpreted as applying to all science and scientists.

You know, I love science. Much of my spare time is spent reading and watching it. I don't claim to understand all the ways science is practiced because I am limited to what I can apply in my everyday life. I can assure you I am a hardcore empiricist. If you can't show me, if I can't experience it (or be certain someone has), I won't believe it. I say all that because I wish it were clear that I am objecting only to what's represented to the public by some. I have no other complaints about science, and I look forward to learning a lot more about it.

I can feel your integrity and your dedication to science. I admire that. I think however that science enthusiasts tend to educate themselves too narrowly. If it is science, every opinion is backed by tons of research and thought; but let the subject turn a bit metaphysical and too often the opinions one hears is of the quality of bar room discussions.

EDIT: I wanted to add that I don't think it's mere chance that the areas where I claim there is exaggeration on the science side are exactly where Creationists/IDers are waiting to jump in. I suspect much of distortion is due to the continuation of this now centuries-old battle. The problem is, there are thinkers today who would like to have the universal consciousness concept considered, not taught as science, but given a fair look or at least have the door left open theoretically and not closed prematurely by scientific exaggerations. I have struggled long and hard to get scientific thinkers to look at where the best evidence is of the experience of a universal consciousness; as far as I know, I've had little or no success. I don't see how one can claim objectivity when one is only open to one sort of evidence (scientific).

 

[Royce]

Les, wave, I have noticed the same problem that you two are having in the threads that I have started and the ones that I have participated in.

The philosophical concepts of Universal Consciousness, Intelligent Design,
non-biblical creation, spirituality, purpose, intent, arrows or even the possibility of a god or God have absolutely nothing to do with religion, religious dogmas or supernatural.

Les, you and I, among others, have spent years learning to separate these concepts and rid them of all of the emotional baggage that always comes with them. Even now we occasionally fall back into the trap.

The other problem that scientists just can't seem to deal with is that science is all about HOW and philosophy is all about Why.

In this case, yes, genetic drift and mutations happen and are spread by natural selection. The philosophical question is WHY genetic mutation and drift occur at all and why it seems to favor higher organization and complexity in some and yet doesn't effect others at all.

Take, for example, the turtles and crocodilians. They are living fossils and haven't changed in millions of years. Yet they are still around and doing quite well, thank you. Yet in the same environment there are some species that do nothing but change as fast as they can to their benefit or detriment. Why? How can one order not be effected and yet another can and does mutate itself right out of existence?

Again it has nothing to do with religion and the question isn't how; its WHY.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Take, for example, the turtles and crocodilians. They are living fossils and haven't changed in millions of years. Yet they are still around and doing quite well, thank you. Yet in the same environment there are some species that do nothing but change as fast as they can to their benefit or detriment. Why? How can one order not be effected and yet another can and does mutate itself right out of existence?

Goodness sakes, this is really a poor argument against evolution, Royce! Not far from the one I once saw: "Why don't we ever see a cow turn into a horse".


Evolution has absolutely NO statement about the pace of change. Species and environment are in a dynamic relationship, and just as the dynamic spacetime of general realtivity can produce a highly curved region or a flat one, so evolution can produce species that evolve rapidly and species that don't evolve at all. It all depends on the actual details of the case.

 

[Royce]

Goodness sakes, this is really a poor argument against evolution, Royce! Not far from the one I once saw: "Why don't we ever see a cow turn into a horse".
Evolution has absolutely NO statement about the pace of change. Species and environment are in a dynamic relationship, and just as the dynamic space time of general relativity can produce a highly curved region or a flat one, so evolution can produce species that evolve rapidly and species that don't evolve at all. It all depends on the actual details of the case.

sA, I am a firm believer in evolution in both that of life and the evolution of the Universe. I even believe in the Theory of Evolution and Darwin's Origin of Species. I also believe that it is an incomplete theory in that it does not account for nor explain everything about evolution. It is not a scientific fact nor is it a scientific law. it is a scientific theory and a very good one. Yet, it addresses only HOW and not WHY.

Such Questions as

Why did organs suddenly appear?
Why do some species mutate and other don't?
Why do some species suddenly appear without and evidence of a preceding simpler more primitive form?
Why does there seem to be an consistent order from simpler to more complex if it is all random and accidental mutations and genetic drift?

Much of the HOW of evolution is speculation such as, it happens so there must be a cause. Maybe its hard radiation from the sun. It is not proven fact. It is only proven that it does happen, not how or why it happened.

Les, especially, is trying his damnedest to get this point across but so far hasn't been able to. We, he and I, Have no problem with evolution nor with natural selection. We believe in it. We even support it over biblical creationism.

The theory of evolution and natural selection, however does not yet explain nor account for everything in evidence nor is it a fact or law.
It is a working theory in the process of being fully developed.

This is not the way that it is reported nor presented in the media nor by a number of self professed experts and scientist who should know better but don't, thereby proving, to any really thinking person, that they are not real, honest scientists but are instead propagandist no better than the fundamental biblical creationist.

This is our gripe, our only only gripe and our whole gripe,
so help me God.

(edit for typo's and they wouldn't let me use the word b**ch so I had to substitute "gripe")

 

[selfAdjoint]

The theory of evolution and natural selection, however does not yet explain nor account for everything in evidence nor is it a fact or law.
It is a working theory in the process of being fully developed.

The devil is apparently in the details. What part of "everything in evidence" in the biological sphere do you not believe evolution does explain or account for? Eyes? Wings? Species?

The fact that particular mechanisms of evolution are still being introduced and older one modified just shows it's a science like any other. The same thing happens in physics. It shows not that the early stages of the theory were false but that we didn't fully understand their consequences. As we learn more about the subtleties of genomes and proteomes we cn expect more insights to dawn.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The devil is apparently in the details. What part of "everything in evidence" in the biological sphere do you not believe evolution does explain or account for? Eyes? Wings? Species?

I would just say that evolution THEORY has one account or another for everything. But that's not the complaint. The complaint is that theory is often presented right along side facts as though theory is fact.

It's fine to have a theory, and to believe in a theory; but that is a different issue than stepping forward as an evolution expert, giving the impression to the public and students one is reporting objectively, not properly distinguishing between fact and theory, and then treating all of it, fact and theory, as being of the same quality of evidence.

 

[wave]

The author attribute the development of novel globin molecules to "duplication and divergence" (i.e. mutations). Consequently, the author attribute the adaptation of advantageous globin molecules to natural selection.

Well, I agree that is exactly what the author does. And you don't see a problem with any of that? By using the term "natural selection," he clearly places responsiblity for the changes within Darwinist theory, yet he doesn't know that the changes were undirected (accidental) mutations (i.e., the Darwinist version of events).

I would agree with you, had he stated or implied that the changes were undirected. But the author never mentioned explicitly or implicitly how or what caused those duplications to occur. Hence you cannot infer the nature of those mutations based on his words, even though he used the term "natural selection". You are reading too much into it, so I think your complaint is again unjustified.

You are so informed on the science side, but your understanding of the sources of the universal consciousness reports is downright meager.

That's a fair statement. However, I wish your criticism was more constructive and educational rather than merely point out my level of understanding.

I've never suggested anything supernatural is possible, including universal consciousness.

What is your definition of "universal consciousness"? Is it natural or supernatural? Please try to be concise.

 

[wave]

It is not a scientific fact nor is it a scientific law.

What is your point exactly?

Why did organs suddenly appear?

Which organs? When did they suddenly appear?

Why do some species mutate and other don't?

Which species? Mutate in what sense?

Why do some species suddenly appear without and evidence of a preceding simpler more primitive form?

Which species? When did they suddenly appear?

Why does there seem to be an consistent order from simpler to more complex if it is all random and accidental mutations and genetic drift?

Perhaps that is why we often find the opposite in nature?

 

[Amp1]

It seems like we have two distint lines of thought going on with in the central concept of 'Universe Consiousness/Mind' (if I'm allowed to equate the two)

Paul you said:

...I think individuality and unique personalities can be explained if you accept the car/driver, model where biological organisms are seen as the "cars" or vehicles which are "driven" by the one universal consciousness. But to explain the individuality, the "cars" must be equipped with extensive on-board computing capability -- like Mars rovers. Certain biological actions, like autonomic functions and reflex actions, seem to be explainable completely from a material biological basis. They are functions of the central nervous system. Other actions, like willful and deliberate muscle movement, seem to involve a component of consciousness, so a complete explanation may require the participation of the universal consciousness, which by hypothesis is outside the brain.

The way I see it, the brain has a considerable capability to store information locally which represents the view of the universe from the particular world line traversed by this particular organism. That history is unique and it is reasonable to expect that it would "color" any perceptions or conceptions of the universal consciousness relating to this particular organism. This would result in the appearance of a unique individual with its own unique personality.

Furthermore, I suspect that this "considerable capability" of brains is causing brain researchers to jump to the conclusion that all mentality is housed in the brain, when in reality, the functions associated with consciousness may very well be located outside the brain.

This is an excellent analogy, I’m sure I follow your line of reasoning. I was coming at this from a perhaps parallel line of thought. Could not the ‘Cars’ in this case be embedded with a ‘chip’ if you will that has the property of personality attribute and the chip could be linked to the universal mind, and the unimind serve as a backup to the experiences that the car picks up that shapes its individuality along its world line? Further could not all these cars serve to enhance the existential and experiential attainment of this unimind? (note: have to go to class will continue this line.)

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is an excellent analogy . . . could not all these cars serve to enhance the existential and experiential attainment of this unimind?

I like the analogy too, as well as the idea that "cars" enhance us somehow. I've suggested that possibly our CNS individuates us from/within the "general" universal consciousness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I would agree with you, had he stated or implied that the changes were undirected. But the author never mentioned explicitly or implicitly how or what caused those duplications to occur. Hence you cannot infer the nature of those mutations based on his words, even though he used the term "natural selection". You are reading too much into it, so I think your complaint is again unjustified.

We aren't going to agree, obviously. Above you are demonstrating how the article can be technically defended, but I am talking about public perception. We all know "natural selection" is a Darwinist term and that Darwinist evolution allows nothing but accidental mutation. By using the term, and at a site devoted to explaining evolution, the author clearly places responsibility for genetic change in the hands of happenstance; and by not making it clear that the explanation is theory, it communicates the impression there’s more evidential support than there is.

Since you’ve posted in Garth’s thread on science and faith, I’d guess you’ve looked at his link to Madeline Bunting’s article criticizing Dawkins:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1681235,00.html

Possibly you see a similarity between her complaint and mine when she says, “This is the only context that can explain Dawkins's programme, a piece of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage. More irritatingly, he doesn't apply to religion - the object of his repeated attacks - a fraction of the intellectual rigour or curiosity that he has applied to evolution (to deserved applause). Where is the grasp of the sociological or anthropological explanations of the centrality of religion? Sadly, there is no evolution of thought in Dawkins's position; he has been saying much the same thing about religion for a long time.”

That's a fair statement. However, I wish your criticism was more constructive and educational rather than merely point out my level of understanding.

Hmmmm. A big assignment. I've written extensively about it here at PF, and even a page or two ago in this thread (sorry, I’d assumed you’d read that). Rather than post it again, let me give you a few links.

I’ve approached the subject from several directions. One way, for example, is to discuss knowledge of a possible universal consciousness and knowledge of the physical universe as dependent on two different epistemologies. In Garth’s thread (again) -- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=885928&posted=1#post885928 -- I make that point in post #69.

In another thread, in the discussion with DM, starting with post #14 here . . . https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105637 . . . we exchange ideas over two more pages about studying the conscious experience of Jesus (as opposed to theologies that were developed later). Just to make it clear if you decide to read it, I am not Christian or a the member of any religion.

You might check out the interview PIT2 posted here . . . https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106775 . . . where a brain researcher gives his take on the mystical experience. The term “mystical” as it applies to religious studies has a very specific meaning. You might Google Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill as an introduction to the subject.

If you are still interested after reading any of the above I’ll be more than happy to answer any questions.

What is your definition of "universal consciousness"? Is it natural or supernatural? Please try to be concise.

Another challenging assignment (being concise with that subject). First one has to understand what consciousness is, and that is no easy matter. But let’s say that consciousness is, at a minimum, an organizing dynamic. I’ll get back to that idea in a minute.

Good theories require good inferences, and one of my requirements for inference is to try to find conditions we know exist to depend on for developing supposition. For example, I inferred a universal consciousness, if it did participate in guiding creation, must be natural since all of creation is natural. By “natural” I mean that it follows, and must follow, laws more basic than itself (just like everything else seems to).

One reason I think a universal consciousness (assuming for discussion sake one exists) has come about through and must obey more basic laws is because I can see no other way to avoid at least one of the age-old philosophical problems of infinite regress or something from nothing. Below are links to two threads that taken together attempt to show how something conscious might arise “naturally” from more basic laws/conditions and avoid infinite regress or something from nothing:

The first, found here . . . https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76897 . . . is a thread on “neutral substance monism” to try model what is most fundamental to existence.

The second, found here . . . https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103874 . . . is a thread on how oscillatory dynamics might establish order within what’s most fundamental to existence (i.e., the subject of the monism thread).

Now, with a concept for base existence and how order might arise from it, let’s return to the idea that a universal consciousness might be thought of as an organizing dynamic. From what conditions might I logically infer that? In this case, it is the degree of organization found in our solar system, most notably in the origination of life and the subsequent development of life forms (although there are a lot of unique organizational arrangements throughout our solar system too).

What produced the quality of organization needed for abiogenesis and the development of life forms? Well, physicalists claim mechanics did it all by their lonesome, yet they cannot demonstrate any mechanical dynamics which, without conscious intervention by humans, can self-organize as needed to deliver life. So I say that is a extremely under-supported inference, and that an organizational dynamic is still needed to explain creation.

Finally, what is the only known force in the universe to organize with the quality to create system, upon system, upon system . . . human consciousness. So is it such a leap to infer that there might be universal consciousness that’s been part of the development of the universe, and that those areas of organization which mechanics are incapable of explaining are produced by that consciousness?

 

[Paul Martin]

It seems like we have two distint lines of thought going on with in the central concept of 'Universe Consiousness/Mind' (if I'm allowed to equate the two)
Paul you said:
This is an excellent analogy, I’m sure I follow your line of reasoning. I was coming at this from a perhaps parallel line of thought. Could not the ‘Cars’ in this case be embedded with a ‘chip’ if you will that has the property of personality attribute and the chip could be linked to the universal mind, and the unimind serve as a backup to the experiences that the car picks up that shapes its individuality along its world line? Further could not all these cars serve to enhance the existential and experiential attainment of this unimind? (note: have to go to class will continue this line.)

I'd say "yes" to both your questions. I'm not exactly sure what you meant by "backup" though. I suspect that the unimind somehow collects and stores information from the individual world line experiences. That might be what you mean. Maybe something like "The Book of Life" that some traditions talk about, and which some NDE experiencers have reported seeing.

I like the chip idea. I think it is a mistake to consider consciousness to be happening, or going on, in the brain. Just as a chip does not know or understand or appreciate the significance of any of the enormous amount of data it might process, I don't think that the brain does either. In both cases, IMHO, the brain/chip has the ability to collect, store, process, and transmit huge amounts of data, but understanding, appreciation, or any other conscious awareness of significance of patterns in that data all accrue to a conscious agent outside of the brain/chip.

Just a guess, but it sure seems to make sense of a lot of puzzling phenomena.

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

The devil is apparently in the details. What part of "everything in evidence" in the biological sphere do you not believe evolution does explain or account for? Eyes? Wings? Species?

The ubiquity of sleep in not only animal species but in individuals as well.

 

[Rade]

It is not a scientific fact nor is it a scientific law. it is a scientific theory and a very good one. Yet, it addresses only HOW and not WHY.

But, ALL THEORIES have as building blocks "facts" and "laws"--and clearly this bar is reached by "Organic Theory of Evolution". And, of course evolutionists ask "why" questions, to suggest otherwise is bunk and the reason why this thread is in the philosophy section and not biology:
So, here from "The Diversity of Life" by E. O. Wilson (1992) we read: "The Bald Eagle, one species, flies above the Chippewa National Forest of Minnesota. A thousand species of plants compose the vegetation below. Why does this particular combination obtain rather than 1000 eagles and 1 plant" ?
And, then from Desmond Morris, "The Naked Ape" (1967), why are humans the only primates with a non-vestigial hymen ?
But, let's just cut to the quick and read a textbook called " The Science of Evolution", W. D. Stansfield (1977):
1. Charles Darwin in 1830s asked " why was each island in the Galapagos archipelago populated by its own species of finch, found nowhere else in the world ?
2. Why should the mammalian embryo have to pass through a stage in which it forms gill arches and gill slits if these structures are never to function as such ?
3. Why in certain parts of Africa where malaria is endemic is the abnormal S^2 gene for the beta chain of hemoglobin found in high frequency ?
4. Why do some orchids of the genus Orphrys have flowers that not only mimic the shape of insects, but also give off an odor similar to (at times stronger than) the odor emitted by the female of the insect species ?
5. why, why, why, why, ? It is just about the single most important question that any evolutionary biologist asks.
But, now let us suggest a true axiom, e.g., that the creationists, the intelligent design folks, and the mystics never, ever, ask HOW.

 

[Rade]

... I think it is a mistake to consider consciousness to be happening, or going on, in the brain.

Where exactly in the human body do you consider consciousness "to be happening" ? Perhaps in my finger nail ? And, are you saying that consciousness never goes on in the brain, or is just not limited to the brain for such goings on ? And, what do you mean by brain ? Is it the organ comprised mostly of nerve tissue, plus chemicals, blood, etc ? --or is it to you some thing different ? Now, I am just so confused by this statement of yours I'm sorry for asking such simpleton questions.

 

[LaPalida]

To Les,

There is no difference between the two mutations (macro and micro), you're making a false distinction and then touting it as true. Organ development is just a whole load of superficial mutations happening over a much longer period of time. You say that it is bad logic to extrapolate that microevolutionary processes, which you agree are observed today in the variation of bird beaks for example, are responsible for evolution of new organs. How is this bad logic exactly? Is it so hard to imagine that for example a chihuahua will one day, if isolated, become a different species with differently adapted organs from a great dane? But no you don't deny that because you don't deny commmon descent. You say "show me organ development taking place right now". But we both know that organ development takes incredibly large amount of time (ranging in millions of years). Therefore it is impossible to reproduce this in the lab. You know clearly that it cannot be reproduced in the lab because if it could then that would falsify Evolution, that postulates that it happens over crazy long stretches of time. The fact that we can't produce organ development in a lab actually supports Evolution. This false distinction is in fact the very argument that creationists and IDers use to show that "evolution is dogmatic". So how exactly do you differentiate between them and yourself if you use exactly the same arguments? You say that the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by random mutation. How exactly? Because you say 10 million years is too little time. Little for what exactly? Livers hearts and kidneys? None of these things were around during the Cambrian. They evolved after the Cambrian over longer periods of time, just like the animals we see today around us (giraffes, octopi and gorillas). Assuming that it wasn't only chance isn't wrong, because it wasn't all chance. It was random mutation coupled with various other factors that served as a catalyst (predation/ns, snowball Earth/changes in the environment, sexual selection, etc), the "how of it" which is currently hotly debated among the scientists. Assuming that it was only chance is wrong, assuming further that the ONLY other viable explanation available is that "God did it" (because universal conciousness is just another word for God let's face it) is clearly abandoning all logic and reason and jumping to unfounded conclusions because you might just as well say that it was pink unicorns in toutous that did it or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it would have the same amount of evidence for it. How are we sure that it's chance - because there is no pattern observed and no evidence for anything guiding it. Harmful mutations occur as randomly as the harmless and beneficial ones. You have absolutely no shred of evidence to show us that this is guided and not random. Is the lottery spinning the balls guided too perhaps? You don't know that it's not random... it's all speculation.

See, this is where you lose credibility as someone who is broadly educated enough to give an informed opinion on possible influences on the development of this universe. You are so informed on the science side, but your understanding of the sources of the universal consciousness reports is downright meager.

Yeah ... except that the evidence in the "universal conciousness reports" is downright meager. Prove me wrong.

 

[Paul Martin]

Where exactly in the human body do you consider consciousness "to be happening" ? Perhaps in my finger nail ?

Not in the body at all and not in the physical universe. I think there is much more to reality than the physical universe. I think Penrose's suggestion is plausible: that in addition to the physical universe there exists, in maybe not exactly the same way, a mental universe and an ideal universe. I think consciousness is lodged wholly within the mental universe.

And, are you saying that consciousness never goes on in the brain, or is just not limited to the brain for such goings on ? ?

The former. I think consciousness goes on only in the mental world but that there is communication among all three Penrose worlds.

And, what do you mean by brain ? Is it the organ comprised mostly of nerve tissue, plus chemicals, blood, etc ? --or is it to you some thing different ? ?

I mean exactly what you said. It is the physical organ inside the skull.

Now, I am just so confused by this statement of yours I'm sorry for asking such simpleton questions.

Sorry if I caused any confusion. I think the problem might be that you have not agreed to accept my hypothesis, that there exists only one consciousness. Or, what I think is equivalent, the hypothesis raised by the original question of this thread: whether there might exist a universal consciousness. If you accept that hypothesis, in the same way you tentatively accept a mathematical proposition, simply for the sake of argument, then I think the statements I have made are really simple and not confusing. I have not asked you to believe the hypothesis; I only ask that you consider the hypothesis and try to figure out what might be inferred from it.

Paul

 

[Amp1]

Yes, it does make more sense than a lot of the hoopla, Paul.

LaPalida, how would you intergrate 'Mitochondria' into the theory of evolution. I've read somewhere that Mitochondria gives evolutionists a fit because they have their own DNA. If this is true and they are not just some symbiote that just happened to latch onto the cells of I think most living organisms, then how do you explain them? They are, I believe, indispensable to life or at least the function of the majority of life on Earth.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is no difference between the two mutations (macro and micro), you're making a false distinction and then touting it as true. Organ development is just a whole load of superficial mutations happening over a much longer period of time.

Lol. How the heck do you know that? See, you are doing exactly what I am complaining about. You have stated what created organs like it is a fact, rather than making it clear that evolutionary theory proposes that organs came about through . . .

And I've not said there is no difference between the two mutations, I've said there are no observations (i.e., evidence) that the microevolutionary processes we can observe today produced organs. Now, if you can demonstrate it creating organs (or in the process of creating them), then I will gladly accept that. I don't care what the truth is you know (even if I were a God believer, I don't think the reality of evolution disproves God). My concern is about objectivity.

You say that it is bad logic to extrapolate that microevolutionary processes, which you agree are observed today in the variation of bird beaks for example, are responsible for evolution of new organs. How is this bad logic exactly? Is it so hard to imagine that for example a chihuahua will one day, if isolated, become a different species with differently adapted organs from a great dane?

Yes, I say it is bad logic, and your examples don't fix that. A chihuahua can become a different species without new organs, and adapting a functioning intact organ is an entirely different issue than creating a functioning organ from scratch.

But no you don't deny that because you don't deny commmon descent. You say "show me organ development taking place right now".

Well, there are plenty of primitive critters around without livers or pancreases who could use one. There may be nearly two million species, and many billions of living things, why aren't there NEW organs in the process of evolving?

But we both know that organ development takes incredibly large amount of time (ranging in millions of years). Therefore it is impossible to reproduce this in the lab. You know clearly that it cannot be reproduced in the lab because if it could then that would falsify Evolution, that postulates that it happens over crazy long stretches of time. The fact that we can't produce organ development in a lab actually supports Evolution.

No, the THEORY of evolution claims organ development occurred that way. So far it hasn't been observed. You don't have to reproduce it in the lab, just find some creatures in the process of developing new and high-functioning organs.

And do you know how the fact that such organ development can't be found is explained by evolutionists? They say, "well, it stopped now."

Great tactic!

Why is it my problem that evolutionists cannot make their case? They are the ones asserting something is true, and they are the ones who claim they are doing science. It is the standards of science which demand that evidence match the degree one states something is true or likely, so evolutionists are breaking their own rules, not mine. I'm just trying to insist they abide by the rules of evidence and logic.

This false distinction is in fact the very argument that creationists and IDers use to show that "evolution is dogmatic". So how exactly do you differentiate between them and yourself if you use exactly the same arguments? You say that the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by random mutation. How exactly?

Oh, now there's a nasty little back-stabbing debating tactic. If a Nazi says we should love our children, and you say we should love our children, then are you a Nazi? I ran into that same ridiculous logic when I cited some points Phillip Johnson has made. Because he's the ID guru, people argued nothing he says can be considered plausible. Now does that make sense to you?

To make your case, or cast doubt on other's argument, you offer logic and evidence; you don't associate someone with person or philosophy an entire group is prejudiced against.

It was random mutation coupled with various other factors that served as a catalyst (predation/ns, snowball Earth/changes in the environment, sexual selection, etc), the "how of it" which is currently hotly debated among the scientists.

Bull, you don't know any of that, and neither does anyone else. Once again you are making my case for me, that evolutionist "believers" talk theory like it is fact.

Assuming that it was only chance is wrong, assuming further that the ONLY other viable explanation available is that "God did it" (because universal conciousness is just another word for God let's face it) is clearly abandoning all logic and reason and jumping to unfounded conclusions because you might just as well say that it was pink unicorns in toutous that did it or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it would have the same amount of evidence for it.

More strawman balony. I have never said God did it, and I have not concluded anything else either. You are the one who is repeately jumping to the conclusion that evolution did it. I am content to leave the question open until there is more evidence. When are you going to stop accusing me of what you are doing?

How are we sure that it's chance - because there is no pattern observed and no evidence for anything guiding it.

Please, take a logic course! So, because one thing lacks evidence, you get to stick in your pet theory which also lacks evidence? Show me the evidence that chance alone creates high-functioning systems? The main thing I see chance doing is creating chaos, so I'd love to see the type of chance you seem to know about.

Harmful mutations occur as randomly as the harmless and beneficial ones. You have absolutely no shred of evidence to show us that this is guided and not random. Is the lottery spinning the balls guided too perhaps? You don't know that it's not random... it's all speculation.

You don't have the evidence that chance can create an organ either. It's just that you already believe in evolution and so ignore and demean anything which challenges it, and then gloss over the crappy evidence you have for your cherished belief.

Yeah ... except that the evidence in the "universal conciousness reports" is downright meager. Prove me wrong.

Why is it my responsibility to educate you? I've have many, many times explained how one can investigate the reports. If you want to remain in ignorance of those reports, that's your decision.

 

[Rade]

Not in the body at all and not in the physical universe. I think there is much more to reality than the physical universe. I think Penrose's suggestion is plausible: that in addition to the physical universe there exists, in maybe not exactly the same way, a mental universe and an ideal universe. I think consciousness is lodged wholly within the mental universe. The former. I think consciousness goes on only in the mental world but that there is communication among all three Penrose worlds. ...I have not asked you to believe the hypothesis; I only ask that you consider the hypothesis and try to figure out what might be inferred from it.Paul

Of course I am open to a valid scientific hypothesis. But, does not a valid scientific hypothesis need to meet the bar of Popper and be such that it can be "falsified" ? If so, then I cannot see how the Penrose hypothesis (thus yours) meets the bar of being "science"--is it not either philosophy or religion or some mix of both ?Clearly it cannot be "science" if it "exists" in another dimension of reality and does not follow the known laws of nature (such as E = Mc^2). And, if it does follow such laws, then no need to place it outside the known universe.
As you know, the human mind can be very creative and form all kinds of immagination (as a child I was always facinated by "Pan" in the dictionary--I think it was the picture that goes with the concept). Is it not just as logical for me in infer that Pan invented consciousness in animals (and hence the human animal), and if not, why not, why not accept the Pan Hypothesis as being just as valid as the Penrose Hypothesis ? Pan is a God--who is Penrose ?
Also, more than a few people follow the Pastafarian Philosophy on this issue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Now, you ask me to infer what might be made of the Penrose Hypothesis -- and I very seriously find it much closer to the Pan Hypothesis and the Pastafarian Philosophy than the explanation provided by the Organic Theory of Evolution concerning the origin of consciousness -- would you not agree ?

 

[Silverbackman]

I agree with the thread starter. I view this universe (or Nature) as God and IMO it is the modern advanced way to view God. The universe may have a mind of its own, the source of all the conscious awareness in this world. So perhaps the universe is one big mind and we are perhaps either its only conscious or a separate entity or soul from the megaconscious.

Nature or the universe certainly fits descriptions of God; Examples are quite obvious;

Nature/Universe is omnipresent by default no matter what.

It is eternal and genderless.

If Nature/Universe has a God-like mind that transcends our laws on how the mind works. The mind of God/Nature/Universe would be omniscient and perhaps omnipresent. It is the source of all conscious awareness.

Natural events and caused by Nature. Think about it; during ancient times whenever a natural event happened they claimed a God did it. The term "God" can easily be replaced by Nature.

The Laws of God are the Laws of Nature because there is no way to violate Nature's law ;).

Okay I sort of went a tiny bit off topic but it does tie into the universe having its own mind. What do you all think?

 

[RVBuckeye]

The Laws of God are the Laws of Nature because there is no way to violate Nature's law ;)

I won't disagree with just to disagree with you, although your statement I quoted is pretty bold. I can only speak on what my experiences are and my intuition. These, to some extent, point me in the same direction as you.

Personally, what I haven't been able to explain is why I feel like I have a soul. This feeling is so strong in me I am convinced this is true. It's hard to explain, maybe I don't have the ability. Somehow, I feel like I am more an inhabitant of my body, a separate being. My body is just the mechanism I have been given to have experience. Which in my view, could be the reason for our ultimate purpose. (how can I put it without sounding like a nutcase?) Am I the only one that feels this way? I know I can't prove how I feel, nor do I think science will ever be able to explain a feeling. (you don't know how bad I wanted science to prove it, one way or the other). The fact that I exist sounds so impossible, but I do. (I assure you, even though you can't see me, I exist). So If I exist, someone or something that we call God must as well. That is how I feel.

As far as the topic of evolution, where do I begin? Why is there such disagreement on creationism/evolution that the two theories aren't completely compatible? Based on observation alone, can we not state that a literal interpretation of the biblical account is false, or at least foolish? We weren't there. All we have is what is observable and measurable. Let's assume, for arguments sake, that the universe is self-aware. If it's mind works like mine, I know there are points in my life where I have certain spurts of creativity. The fact that I have the ability to change my mind, or improve upon a past idea, does not neccessarily mean that the first idea was initially wrong. (if your thinking of God's infallability). How we came to be might be just a series of God improving upon his creation, as process we call evolution.

On a tangent of thought, I used to think that evolution was solely the answer, and, in time, scientist would explain it all, even the ability to create higher organs. I was going to cite the apparent evolution of a light sensing organ into what we now have as an eye. That has already been covered. What hasn't been covered though is another oddity of things, which is... How is it that animals seem to be symetrical? Meaning, if you split an animal down the middle, from head to tail, all seem to have 2 equal halves. (I'm talking the extremities, not internal organs). This can't be applied to all things which we seem to be "alive", certainly trees are "alive" yet not symmetrical. Also, animals are "alive", but not all are self-aware. Do you have to be self-aware to be concious? Could there be a correlation between the two? (conciousness and symmetry). Don't reply and say "my house is symmetrical...", I'm speaking on things we determine to be alive.

 

[Rade]

.. What hasn't been covered though is another oddity of things, which is... How is it that animals seem to be symmetrical? Meaning, if you split an animal down the middle, from head to tail, all seem to have 2 equal halves. (I'm talking the extremities, not internal organs). This can't be applied to all things which we seem to be "alive", certainly trees are "alive" yet not symmetrical. Also, animals are "alive", but not all are self-aware. Do you have to be self-aware to be conscious? Could there be a correlation between the two? (consciousness and symmetry)

Not all animals have "symmetry" as to form--look to the group called the "sponges". So, to the final question that you raise, the question becomes "do sponges have consciousness" ? The answer is yes because consciousness is the faculty that exists in all forms of life that have the ability to perceive that which exists. Thus, I suggest that the answer to your question, "do you have to be self-aware to be conscious" (because you assume that all animals are symmetrical)--the answer is no, so I find no cause-effect relationship between symmetry and consciousness.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Not all animals have "symmetry" as to form--look to the group called the "sponges". So, to the final question that you raise, the question becomes "do sponges have consciousness" ? The answer is yes because consciousness is the faculty that exists in all forms of life that have the ability to perceive that which exists. Thus, I suggest that the answer to your question, "do you have to be self-aware to be conscious" (because you assume that all animals are symmetrical)--the answer is no, so I find no cause-effect relationship between symmetry and consciousness.

Good example, I figured there was something I was overlooking.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you have to be self-aware to be concious? Could there be a correlation between the two? (conciousness and symmetry).

In my opinion, self aware defines consciousness, so I say yes to your first question.

Regarding symmetry, human consciusness is extremely attuned to it. It has been proven to define physical beauty in humans, for instance, and in art too. We could create asymetrical music, but it appeals to few people. We like it rhythmic and symetrical, like most else. Thinking too has a basic relationship to symmetry. Besides being left and right brained, we also evaluate by "weighing both sides" of issues. Look at equations? Why do they work so well? Because IMO they reflect an underlying principle(s) of reality.

So I think there is an fundamental relationship between symmetry and the development of consciousness.

 

[Silverbackman]

I won't disagree with just to disagree with you, although your statement I quoted is pretty bold. I can only speak on what my experiences are and my intuition. These, to some extent, point me in the same direction as you.
Personally, what I haven't been able to explain is why I feel like I have a soul. This feeling is so strong in me I am convinced this is true. It's hard to explain, maybe I don't have the ability. Somehow, I feel like I am more an inhabitant of my body, a separate being. My body is just the mechanism I have been given to have experience. Which in my view, could be the reason for our ultimate purpose. (how can I put it without sounding like a nutcase?) Am I the only one that feels this way? I know I can't prove how I feel, nor do I think science will ever be able to explain a feeling. (you don't know how bad I wanted science to prove it, one way or the other). The fact that I exist sounds so impossible, but I do. (I assure you, even though you can't see me, I exist). So If I exist, someone or something that we call God must as well. That is how I feel.
As far as the topic of evolution, where do I begin? Why is there such disagreement on creationism/evolution that the two theories aren't completely compatible? Based on observation alone, can we not state that a literal interpretation of the biblical account is false, or at least foolish? We weren't there. All we have is what is observable and measurable. Let's assume, for arguments sake, that the universe is self-aware. If it's mind works like mine, I know there are points in my life where I have certain spurts of creativity. The fact that I have the ability to change my mind, or improve upon a past idea, does not neccessarily mean that the first idea was initially wrong. (if your thinking of God's infallability). How we came to be might be just a series of God improving upon his creation, as process we call evolution.
On a tangent of thought, I used to think that evolution was solely the answer, and, in time, scientist would explain it all, even the ability to create higher organs. I was going to cite the apparent evolution of a light sensing organ into what we now have as an eye. That has already been covered. What hasn't been covered though is another oddity of things, which is... How is it that animals seem to be symetrical? Meaning, if you split an animal down the middle, from head to tail, all seem to have 2 equal halves. (I'm talking the extremities, not internal organs). This can't be applied to all things which we seem to be "alive", certainly trees are "alive" yet not symmetrical. Also, animals are "alive", but not all are self-aware. Do you have to be self-aware to be concious? Could there be a correlation between the two? (conciousness and symmetry). Don't reply and say "my house is symmetrical...", I'm speaking on things we determine to be alive.

Oh man, I used to have similar problems. I have had a similar feeling and it’s based on consciousness and souls. Why is it that I am the only one in the universe that feels self-aware? Now that may not make sense but in reality it makes the most perfect sense. Do you really know for sure whether people outside your own body exists? It may seem like they are but do you know for sure? That may sound very strange but it leads one to ponder whether all conscious aware life has a separate conscious than God. In fact life maybe the very mind of God and all minds maybe one (monism). Or perhaps there is a distinct difference between every conscious and God's conscious (pluralism).

Ok that last paragraph may not sound close to what you are experiencing but I think you really look deep into yourself it maybe one in the same. So where does this all lead to?

Well whether or not our conscious awareness is but one mind or separate minds one thing is for sure: there is a soul. But do not let this confuse into thinking that there is a supernatural per se. I believe in a soul but not the supernatural. This may seem like a contradiction but in fact that is only because of the Abrahmic stereotype towards souls.

So what is a soul? Many people consider it deeper and separate body from your own. But what is that? It must be your inner self. What is your inner self? Your inner self IS self-awareness and consciousness. This is your soul. This concept is often overlooked by many people but it is as important as realizing God and Nature are in fact one. And no dude you are NOT nuts. Many people ponder such questions all the time .

Now is awareness and consciousness supernatural? Of course not! Is that separate being you feel that can leave your body when you die supernatural? Of course not! Now we may know via scientific method where the soul (conscious awareness) comes from but just because they have not found out where it is doesn't mean it does not exist. There maybe a part of our brain or some energy force within nature that we may or may not ever know about. Either way you look at there is no supernatural. Religion doesn't have to be supernatural. Neither does God or the soul.

I suggest you look more into Eastern philosophy in order to understand more on the mechanics of the soul and God. Concepts such Brahman maybe able to help describe the soul, God, and the inner self. Read this article from wiki on Brahman;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

 

[Paul Martin]

Of course I am open to a valid scientific hypothesis. But, does not a valid scientific hypothesis need to meet the bar of Popper and be such that it can be "falsified" ? If so, then I cannot see how the Penrose hypothesis (thus yours) meets the bar of being "science"--

Yes, I am quite sure you are open to valid scientific hypotheses. And, I think you may be right that the Penrose hypothesis (and mine) does not meet the Popper criterion for a scientific hypothesis. But, is the Popper criterion the proper criterion for the question of consciousness? I think that is the fundamental question at issue here.

...is it not either philosophy or religion or some mix of both ?

Yes. But I think it could also be considered a mix of science and philosophy as well. I'd prefer to leave religion out of it (until later, as you will see if you read all of this post).

Clearly it cannot be "science" if it "exists" in another dimension of reality and does not follow the known laws of nature (such as E = Mc^2). And, if it does follow such laws, then no need to place it outside the known universe.

Yes, that is clear as long as the boundaries of science remain fixed where they are today. Those boundaries ostensibly include only the known universe, and thus they exclude any putative existence of a Platonic world (Penrose's "Ideal World") or of a Cartesian world (Penrose's "Mental World"). Science today limits itself to the Aristotelian world of pure physicality. (Please indulge my amateur attempt to credit the correct people with the original conceptions of the respective Penrose worlds, and forgive me if I have it very wrong.)

As I see it, the trouble with the current boundary is that the very evident phenomenon of conscious experience has not found a comfortable place in the Physical World. The phenomenon is clearly "known" to each of us so I think conscious experience should be considered part of the "known" universe.

The understandable position of science is that we simply haven't gotten to a satisfactory physical theory of consciousness yet, but we are working on it and fully expect to arrive at one sometime, if not soon. The point I am trying to make in this conversation is that it might be fruitful to consider pushing the boundaries of science out a little, to include Penrose's two additional "Worlds" in addition to the Physical World, consider some hypotheses involving the possible existence of them, and see if they might lead to ways of modifying, or extending, the methods of science to make it even more fruitful.

I don't think my suggestion is out of line with other historical extensions of the domain of science. It was at one time believed that the "heavens" were beyond the analytical methods of science; it was believed that the subjects of geology, or biology, were not conducive to experimental methods, and so on.

Let me give one simple example of how I think the scientific method might be extended into the "crackpot" realm: The widely reported NDE (it would be redundant to say "NDE experience, which is what I mean) is usually considered to be out of bounds because the reports of NDE are always anecdotal. Thus, they cannot be reproduced or independently verified. But I think an opening for scientific investigation exists nonetheless.

Since there seem to be many (or at least some) reports of the ability to view the scene of the body "having" the NDE from a vantage point high above the body, and the ability to "see" into adjoining rooms, or even the roof of the hospital, I think that that reported "ability" could be scientifically investigated. The method would be to have a team of scientific investigators spend time in trauma centers or ICUs or wherever NDEs are likely to happen. Then, when an NDE is first reported, have the team interview the subject, specifically asking about, and looking for, evidence of the putative ability to "see" or "hear" or otherwise come to know things which they could not possibly have seen or heard or known if reality is strictly bounded by the physical world.

In this way, we could systematically gather information as evidence to support or deny various theories of how those extra "Penrose Worlds" might operate. This is not a lot different from devising ways of analyzing information coming to us in starlight in spite of the impossibility of placing measurement instrumentation on the star itself.

Is it not just as logical for me in infer that Pan invented consciousness in animals (and hence the human animal), and if not, why not, why not accept the Pan Hypothesis as being just as valid as the Penrose Hypothesis ? Pan is a God--who is Penrose?

Not being familiar with the Pan Hypothesis, I can't comment much on its relative validity. The answer to your second question is that Roger Penrose is a high-powered mathematician at Oxford, but of course you knew that.

But seriously, you raise two interesting questions: 1. Who or what is responsible for "inventing" or "creating" or otherwise originating not only consciousness, but matter, energy and all other phenomena in our universe? and 2. How in the heck was that stunt pulled off?

The first question is easy to answer simply by positing such a responsible entity and then giving it an awe-inspiring name. For example, it is easy to say that 'Pan' invented consciousness and that Pan created the rest of the universe as well. It is also easy to say it was 'God' who did it. Or that a 'primordial universal consciousness' created the universe (my preference), or that an 'Absolute Unitary Being' did it (Andrew Newberg's words from that taped interview), or that an equation that summarizes the maybe-soon-to-be-discovered-complete-and-true Theory of Everything did it, or that a Great Raven did it. That's the easy part. People simply choose to accept one of these names and that's about all there is to it.

But the second question isn't so easy. How, for heaven's sake, did Pan create such a complex thing as a universe? How did God do it? By speaking magic words? How does that work? Or how does an equation yield a universe? And before it does, is that equation written down somewhere? If so, where? And doesn't there have to be some numbers plugged into that equation to get anything out of it? For example, you can't get a circle out of an equation for a circle without a plotter, or a person with a sheet of paper and a compass, or something similar. And how, exactly did that Great Raven make a universe?

So now I am faced with my own version of that question: How, exactly, did that Primordial Consciousness, (PC), create this awesomely complex universe with its seemingly conscious inhabitants? Well, here's my crack at the answer:

By hypothesis, we start with the existence of consciousness (thus obviating the Hard Problem that all the theories accepting competing hypotheses haven't yet solved). Since the consciousness we each are familiar with has the capability of imagination, memory, recollection, and judgment, it is reasonable to assume that the primordial consciousness also has these capabilities.

These capabilities are sufficient to imagine differences, which can be remembered and recalled, so that patterns in collections of them can be noticed, using the capability of judgment. These patterns can be judged by PC to represent numbers and elements of symbolic logic with which all the familiar mathematical structures can be constructed.

Among these structures are algorithms, which, by a pure exercise of PC's thought, can transform sets of numbers into other sets of numbers. The "before" and "after" sets of numbers after such a transformation represent a causal relationship between the two sets. Many such relationships can be built up with second order causal relationships established among them. Likewise, third order, and higher, relationships can be constructed by a combination of applying certain algorithms to certain sets of numbers, and by the direct intervention by PC of setting certain of these numbers to any values PC chooses to set them for whatever "reason" occurs to PC.

As Renate Loll has recently shown, dynamically evolving networks of triples of these causal relationships when aggregated in huge numbers, form a sort of fractal foam which takes on a 4D geometry at the largest scales. Influences on this aggregate network due either to the outcome of the processing of some algorithm, or by the direct intervention of PC by changing some numbers, propagate through the network as PC grinds out the results of the change. This has the effect of waves through the network which, if taken as the standard of speed or as the standard of time, will provide a definition and a calibration for the other.

This structure is what our physical universe is made of. Whether some of those triangles form strings, or loops, or some other structure that will appear in the real TOE remains to be discovered.

In any case, some of the higher level structures are constructed in such a way that PC is able to discern high-level information about these structures. PC, thus being aware of both the low level structure, i.e. the sets of numbers and algorithms involved, and the high level structure and behavior, may learn how to directly modify some of the constituents in order to achieve predictable and desired behavior of the structure. These are Gregg Rosenberg's "Natural Individuals". They are my "vehicles" driven by PC.

In order to merge and reconcile my notion with Rosenberg's, a couple clarifications must be made. First, in my view, the top individual in his hierarchy of Natural Individuals, which of course is PC, is unique in that it is the only one that is truly conscious. All other Natural Individuals are simply vehicles, or machines, similar to a computer or a telephone, that relay information to some conscious agent and which are not conscious of the information being relayed.
Secondly, Rosenberg's "receptive property" needs to be seen as being of two types. One is the receptivity of the output of the operation of algorithms, and the other is the receptivity of direct changes made by PC.

Thus, Rosenberg has provided a place for consciousness, and I have told how consciousness fits into that place. The net result is an explanation for the fundamental ontology of the universe, its method of operation or evolution, and the role consciousness plays in the entire picture. A very interesting consequence of this idea is that virtually every explanation of the profound questions as provided by every religious doctrine I have ever heard of, can be interpreted to make sense in this scheme. Moreover, it seems clear that the way in which these explanations have been expressed in language is about as good as you could do given the knowledge of the authors at the time they wrote. That goes for Pan, the Great Raven, the Gods of the Greeks, of Abraham, or of any other tradition.

Now, I don't know if the inferences I have made from my hypothesis are any more logical than what you might get from a Pan hypothesis, but that's the best I could do on short notice.

Now, you ask me to infer what might be made of the Penrose Hypothesis -- and I very seriously find it much closer to the Pan Hypothesis and the Pastafarian Philosophy than the explanation provided by the Organic Theory of Evolution concerning the origin of consciousness -- would you not agree ?

No, I do not agree. Again, I can't comment on the Pan Hypothesis, but I do think that what I have inferred from Penrose's hypothesis is more plausible than what you could infer from the Spaghetti and Meatball hypothesis. But I'll withhold judgment until I learn how that hypothesis explains reality and consciousness.

As for the Organic Theory of Evolution, I think there is a great overlap between that theory and my ideas. The explanation for all of the physical world is the same. The difference is that where the OTE does not provide any satisfactory explanation for the origin of consciousness, or of other surprising developments of evolution like the sudden appearance of organs, or body types, or of the amazing ability of butterflies to unerringly find their way to continents they have never visited, etc., etc., or the method of establishing the remarkably unlikely initial conditions for the Big Bang, or explanations for how a set of laws of physics could actualize anything at all, much less an entire universe, my ideas provide easy and plausible explanations for all of them.

So, to summarize, I'd say that my notions are not only closer to OTE than they are to Pan and Pasta, but they also provide better answers to the tough questions.

Thank you sincerely for your interest in my thoughts,

Paul

 

[LaPalida]

Lol. How the heck do you know that? See, you are doing exactly what I am complaining about. You have stated what created organs like it is a fact, rather than making it clear that evolutionary theory proposes that organs came about through . . .

And I've not said there is no difference between the two mutations, I've said there are no observations (i.e., evidence) that the microevolutionary processes we can observe today produced organs. Now, if you can demonstrate it creating organs (or in the process of creating them), then I will gladly accept that. I don't care what the truth is you know (even if I were a God believer, I don't think the reality of evolution disproves God). My concern is about objectivity.

Microevolutionary mutations are random. If not random then purpose right? No purpose has been observed then chance is the clear default stance on this argument. In an argument you take the negative stance as the default stance (best bet). Reality of evolution definitely disproves the literal God of the Bible or Torah or whatever other religion in my opinion.

Forgot to mention this also:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Got this off talkorigins.

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

Yes, I say it is bad logic, and your examples don't fix that. A chihuahua can become a different species without new organs, and adapting a functioning intact organ is an entirely different issue than creating a functioning organ from scratch.

Well once again you're wrong because functioning organs are not created from "scratch". Show me where the theory of evolution says that! Show me where a functioning organ is created from "scratch" in reality. I don't know of one. Organs all evolved from previous other tissues.

Well, there are plenty of primitive critters around without livers or pancreases who could use one. There may be nearly two million species, and many billions of living things, why aren't there NEW organs in the process of evolving?

What kind of ridiculous argument is this? Yeah I could use some lasers in my eyes and an extra pair of arms. Why aren't I evolving them! Evolution must be false! In this case, you're making the argument for me, because if I evolved what I needed then it would prove that it's guided (by me in this case). Besides what kind of creatures are you talking about? Jellyfish have no pancreas...but why would they need one? They are perfectly adapted to their environment. If the environment changes then they will select for some trait that helps them survive, if none of them have a gene that expresses that trait which helps them survive the change in the environment then they will become extinct - plenty of evidence for this.

Oh, now there's a nasty little back-stabbing debating tactic. If a Nazi says we should love our children, and you say we should love our children, then are you a Nazi? I ran into that same ridiculous logic when I cited some points Phillip Johnson has made. Because he's the ID guru, people argued nothing he says can be considered plausible. Now does that make sense to you?

To make your case, or cast doubt on other's argument, you offer logic and evidence; you don't associate someone with person or philosophy an entire group is prejudiced against.

Your red herring example looks good on the surface but falls apart after analyzed in depth. Observe: Telling people to love children is not at the core of the Nazi ideology. In fact loving children or telling people to love children isn't part of their ideology. So what is their ideology? "Adherents of Nazism held that the Aryan race were superior to other races". So therefore anyone who says that Aryan race is superior to other races is in fact arguing for the Nazi case, if he believes in what he is saying then he is a Nazi. Now let's look at Intelligent Design. What do they believe? What is their core belief? "Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Hmmmm... and what is your argument? Your words exacly: "The reason we are now on evolution is because I am suggesting that since the source of organ-building genetic variation is open, then it is possible that a universal consciousness caused those genetic changes".

However I conceed that you are only arguing from the "what if" point of view. I am just pointing out that the arguments you use are exactly those used by IDers. Arguments that have been disproved. I want to point out also that I never called you one (IDer or Creationist), nor did I mean to imply that you were one. All I asked was a question and got a kneejerk reaction.

More strawman balony. I have never said God did it, and I have not concluded anything else either. You are the one who is repeately jumping to the conclusion that evolution did it. I am content to leave the question open until there is more evidence. When are you going to stop accusing me of what you are doing?

Chance alone creates high-functioning systems is YOUR strawman. Evolution does not claim that and don't try to pass that off as my argument either please. I said before that it's not chance ALONE. Chance coupled with other things like environmental changes, natural selection, radiation, sexual selection etc etc etc.

No you never said God. You have many times avoided and denied the implication however if evolution is intelligently guided (as you say is possible)... then by what or who? This same question was posed to all the ID advocates. Either they said they didn't know or outright said it was God. Now it could be a higher intelligence or aliens or even genes themselves etc. This is unlikely in your case since you always talk about the greater whole, the universal conciousness, the union with God etc. What is this if not God (and I don't mean God in the Biblical sense necessarily, it could be an all pervading and all powerful entity or conciousness). What possible other synonym could describe something that can guide, at the gene level, the direction and origin of life?

Please, take a logic course! So, because one thing lacks evidence, you get to stick in your pet theory which also lacks evidence? Show me the evidence that chance alone creates high-functioning systems? The main thing I see chance doing is creating chaos, so I'd love to see the type of chance you seem to know about.

You got the burden of proof all wrong: If something lacks evidence then you assume the default position: the negative stance. If you have no evidence for God then you assume the default position that there is no God. If there is no evidence that I commited a crime then the default stance is that I didn't commit a crime. Same for evolution, if there is no evidence for the guiding process then the default position is that there is no guiding behind the process (ie. random chance being the opposite of guided purpose). However it doesn't necessarily mean that this position is for certain. You have to be open to new evidence. So therefore I believe the evidence. Evidence = belief, lack of evidence = lack of belief. Since you are the one making the claim that there is some kind of guidance behind evolution the burden of proof rests upon you to make your case.

You don't have the evidence that chance can create an organ either. It's just that you already believe in evolution and so ignore and demean anything which challenges it, and then gloss over the crappy evidence you have for your cherished belief.

Once again chance alone does not create an organ.

Why is it my responsibility to educate you? I've have many, many times explained how one can investigate the reports. If you want to remain in ignorance of those reports, that's your decision.

No, it's your responsibility to prove your claims true. If you think these reports hold water... which you obviously do, then it's your job to show us that they are true. It's not up to me to go around and investigate every claim to knowledge out there. Burden of proof rests on you in this case. Besides there is a hefty sum provided by James Randi for anyone who can prove any supernatural claim true. If you're so sure of these mystics that sit on top of a mountain and gain some kind of profound knowledge by humming a mantra then let them know! They could make a million! I hasten to add that I don't think there is anything wrong with meditation and I don't want to poo poo people that do it. I object to their or others unfounded conclusions that there is some kind of force behind all that humming.

 

[Rade]

Yes, I am quite sure you are open to valid scientific hypotheses...Thank you sincerely for your interest in my thoughts

And thank you for at least making an attempt to provide an alternative idea (I will not use the term hypothesis, because your ideas about "origin" of consciousness are outside all known laws of nature, thus it does not meet the bar of a scientific hypothesis). So often when I push folks on this forum to provide an alternative to OTE I get the answer "no, I don't have to, I only have to find fault with your bias OTE bent". Well I just have no use for such intellectual pusillanimity. Now, I would like to comment on a few of your ideas. And, I find a problem with your argument because you state that OTE provides no explanation for "origin" of consciousness, which is false. And then you fail to realize that your own "hypothesis" in fact offers no explanation of "origin" for consciousness, thus I refer you to your statement:

By hypothesis, we start with the existence of consciousness (thus obviating the Hard Problem that all the theories accepting competing hypotheses haven't yet solved). Since the consciousness we each are familiar with has the capability of imagination, memory, recollection, and judgment, it is reasonable to assume that the primordial consciousness also has these capabilities.

So, notice, how you "start", your logical argument, not with a "hypothesis" (as you claim) that can be falsified as to "origin", but with a philosophic "axiom". That is, you hold as an axoim the Primacy of Consciousness ('we start with the existence of consciousness')--then you move to a very long and detailed argument about role of consciousness, etc. But, the Primacy of Consciousness (what you call PC) has been logically refuted since Aristotle--by the axiom called Primacy of Existence. First something must exist, then a consciousness as a "thing" (your PC) can be formed. Thus, you have no "competing hypothesis" to OTE for the simple reason that you start with an "axiom" not a hypothesis that can be falsified. Finally, how can you say that just because humans have properties of imagination, judgment that PC must have these ? This is not logical. I would argue that, if there is a PC, that it is "primary" thus simple, as found in the very simple forms of life that we see that show evidence of conscious behavior. You start PC as a complex machine, but nothing that is formed, not a chair, nor a universe is first complex, then simple. All machines derive from the simple, the parts, and the complexity follows as the parts unite. Thus, I find your PC argument to be based on more than a few false premises. Sorry, I really am trying to have open mind here.

Now, I note the following comment:

As for the Organic Theory of Evolution, I think there is a great overlap between that theory and my ideas. The explanation for all of the physical world is the same. The difference is that where the OTE does not provide any satisfactory explanation for the origin of consciousness, or of other surprising developments of evolution like the sudden appearance of organs, or body types

My goodness, where did you learn that "organs" had a sudden and surprising appearance in life forms on earth--or that OTE does not explain their existence ? An organ is nothing more than two or more tissues working together for a function, and of course tissues are made of cells. Organs do not just appear by magic from atoms and molecules--first you must have cells, then tissues, then tissues that merge to form function. How tissues merge during development to form organs as programmed by genetics is well known. Take your body for example, you have organs, did they by surprise and all of sudden just appear one day ? Of course not, at one time in your existence you were a single cell, fertilized by another cell, and your organs were formed gradually. If you find that you can using reason accept this as fact, I ask, what stops you from using a similar argument from reason that life itself on earth, over 100s millions of years, progressed in a similar (not identicle) fashion--that is, single cell forms of life with NO organs, evolved to more complex froms where cells form tissues, yet more complex over time where two or more tissues merge to form the first "organs", yet then organs merging to form organ systems.

 

[Paul Martin]

... thank you for at least making an attempt to provide an alternative idea (I will not use the term hypothesis, because your ideas about "origin" of consciousness are outside all known laws of nature, thus it does not meet the bar of a scientific hypothesis). So often when I push folks on this forum to provide an alternative to OTE I get the answer "no, I don't have to, I only have to find fault with your bias OTE bent".

You're welcome. It is my pleasure to be able to talk to you. As I explained before, I don't claim to be making a scientific hypothesis, so I agree that we shouldn't use that word to describe my ideas. I don't feel that you pushed me to provide an alternative to OTE and I don't feel that I gave you the response you enclosed in the quotes. I was responding to your claim that my ideas seemed closer to Pan than to OTE. Rather than providing an alternative to OTE, I was trying to point out that my ideas were in large part consistent with OTE and not similar at all to the Pan idea. I am only suggesting an extension to the current OTE .

I find a problem with your argument because you state that OTE provides no explanation for "origin" of consciousness, which is false.

That's not exactly what I stated. I said that "OTE does not provide any satisfactory explanation for the origin of consciousness", emphasis added. The explanation is not satisfactory to me, nor obviously to Les as is evident in this thread, nor to many others who have considered the question. The origin of consciousness is still a contentious subject. That's what I meant. I am simply offering a possible approach which might lead to a more satisfactory explanation.

So, notice, how you "start", your logical argument, not with a "hypothesis" (as you claim) that can be falsified as to "origin", but with a philosophic "axiom". That is, you hold as an axoim the Primacy of Consciousness ('we start with the existence of consciousness')

I agree that if 'hypothesis' implies the Popper criterion, then I did not start with a hypothesis. A philosophic axiom might be a better term for it, because, as you say, I do hold consciousness to be ontologically primary.

But, the Primacy of Consciousness (what you call PC) has been logically refuted since Aristotle--by the axiom called Primacy of Existence. First something must exist, then a consciousness as a "thing" (your PC) can be formed.

Now here may be an opportunity for me to learn something. I am not particularly well schooled in the arguments advanced since Aristotle, so I will have to discuss this strictly on the basis of what I do know and what makes sense to me now.

From what you wrote, I'm not sure what all is included in the Primacy of Existence axiom. I will agree that "First something must exist". But I am not yet ready to accept the second part, that "then a consciousness as a "thing" (your PC) can be formed".

The problem is that we haven't defined the terms 'something', 'thing', or 'consciousness'. It seems that until we do, we can't say much about which of these concepts must exist first. You claim that consciousness is a thing. OK. But isn't something also a thing? And isn't consciousness something? What is it about the Primacy of Existence axiom that rules out the possibility that consciousness is the something that first exists?

I would appreciate it if you would present the arguments you referred to which refute the Primacy of Consciousness.

Thus, you have no "competing hypothesis" to OTE for the simple reason that you start with an "axiom" not a hypothesis that can be falsified.

As I said, I don't mean to compete with OTE but to extend it or complement it.

Finally, how can you say that just because humans have properties of imagination, judgment that PC must have these ? This is not logical. I would argue that, if there is a PC, that it is "primary" thus simple, as found in the very simple forms of life that we see that show evidence of conscious behavior. You start PC as a complex machine,...

Yes, I agree that it must have appeared that way to you. I was torn between being brief and risking the possibility that you wouldn't read a long involved development. I agree with your argument that if there is (was) a PC, then it must have been simple.

In my thinking about this question, I have concluded that the most fundamental aspect of consciousness is the simple ability to know. That would be prior to anything actually being known, so PC would have had a very simple starting condition. From that simple starting point, we could say that the beginning of time, which means the beginning of change, would be the event in which PC would come to know something. It might be the realization that nothing was known. Or it might be the sudden realization that the ability to know exists. Whatever it was, as soon as something was known, then there would be a difference between the known and the unknown, and that difference could then also be known. In this way, a set of knowledge could begin and be built up into greater complexity. I believe George Spencer-Brown has worked out a theory something like this.

The other capabilities I mentioned, of imagination, memory, recall, and judgment, would not be present in the original PC, but would be derived or evolved by the exercise or manipulation of that primordial knowledge set. I haven't worked out how this might have happened, but I agree with you that the full-blown capabilities we normally associate with consciousness were not present in the early PC. PC would only become a complex machine after a long period of trial and error and evolution.

In dramatic contrast to the notion of God being involved in the creation of the universe, I see PC as being extremely weak, small, limited, knowing nothing, imperfect, and incomplete in the beginning, but being mutable and capable of learning, growing, and evolving. I don't know if that disqualifies my ideas from being "religion" in the eyes of scientists, but it certainly does disqualify them in the eyes of theologians and religious believers.

My goodness, where did you learn that "organs" had a sudden and surprising appearance in life forms on earth--or that OTE does not explain their existence?

From what I have heard of the Cambrian Explosion. 'Sudden' and 'surprising' are relative terms and I don't want to debate whether the appearance of organs was either one. I will retract any claim I might have made that they were. That is not an issue to me. What I am interested in, is identifying that original "something" which must have existed at the very beginning. That is the only addition, or extension, to OTE that I am suggesting.

So I would like to go back to "the axiom called Primacy of Existence. First something must exist,". Again, I may have truncated the axiom, but if so, it is this first part I want to examine.

We know that something exists now, so it seems clear that something must have existed first. Of course, if there is no such thing as time, then there is no meaning to the term 'first'. We also know that there is no such thing as now, so the only thing we can say for sure is that something exists. And that's fine. What I want to dig into is the possibilities for that 'something', whether it existed first, or now, or whenever. The question is, what could it be?

My approach, which I sort of sketched out in my previous post, would be to list all the candidates, rule out any candidates we can, and then make a judgment among the remaining candidates as to which seems to be the most plausible.

We could start with a list of all nouns in the English language. Then we could imagine narrowing the field to a list like,

1. Matter
2. Energy
3. Higgs field
4. Spin network
5. Causal Dynamical Triangulation network
6. Laws of physics
7. Organizing principle
8. An infinite, eternal, perfect, complete, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God
9. Pan
10. A great Raven
11. A stack of turtles
12. A rudimentary ability to know

I think that number 12 is the most plausible candidate on the list. In my view, 8 through 11 are highly unlikely because, as you said earlier, the starting point must have been simple rather than complex like these four are. Although I don't think scientists are all in agreement, I think they would all say that OTE is based on one of the first 7. Not knowing which one, let's look at each one.

1. Matter has been the prime candidate up until recently. We now know that matter is simply a form of energy. So that moves us on to number 2.

2. Energy is simply the ability to do work, so if energy is primary, then we are saying that the 'something' we are looking for is an ability. I would ask whether the ability to do work is more plausible than the ability to know as being the fundamental entity. Knowing seems more fundamental to me than working.

3. The Higgs field, or any other field for that matter, is a mathematical construct. A mathematical construct is an artifact or a product of mind. To maintain that a field is primary, it seems necessary to have a mind that preceded it, which would make the mind primary. And if we expect that mind to start out simple and minimal, we are right back to starting with something like the ability to know.
4. Spin networks are mathematical constructs, so this is the same as 3.
5. Causal Dynamical Triangulation networks are mathematical constructs, so this is the same as 3.
6. Laws of physics are ideas that may be expressed mathematically, but in any case, laws are mental concepts, so again, a mind must be primary.
7. Organizing principle is another mental concept, so a mind must be primary.

Now unless I left off a good candidate from my list, or unless I have mischaracterized the nature of one of the first seven entries on my list, it seems to me that the most plausible candidate for the "something that first exists" is a mind, or an ability to know, or a primordial consciousness, all of which mean the same thing to me.

Furthermore, I claim that if you assume this ontological starting point, you can derive what would otherwise be the starting point for GR, QFT and ultimately OTE. It wouldn't negate anything in those theories but it would give them plausible underpinnings, and it would open up the possibility that PC might very well be active in non-physical ways today.

Thanks again, Rade, for the energy you have put into this discussion. I greatly appreciate it.

Paul

 

[Rade]

...it seems to me that the most plausible candidate for the "something that first exists" is a mind, or an ability to know, or a primordial consciousness, all of which mean the same thing to me.

First, I see no logical reason to consider that there must be a "first" thing to exist--why so ?-- perhaps "existence" has no beginning, no end--it always was, always will be (our "universe" may come and go, but existence remains). Next, if PC is "first"--what exactly is it to be "aware of" as you say -- aware of what ? -- there is nothing present -- thus it is completely illogical that PC can be first. If being aware is anything, it is inherently relational--e.g. to say that one is aware (or conscious) is to say that there must be an other that is the object of the action, that is, PC must be ultimately aware of something other than itself for it to have any logical meaning. And, I finish with a quote from Aquinas, which for me summarizes nicely why your concept of PC as "first" just does not hold:

"Thought does not need to be related to things, it is the relation" T. Aquinas

Now, if we follow the thinking of Aquinas, I do see that you have a point in that it is very likely that PC, while logically not the first existent, can be held to be the "first action" by which existents "become aware" of each other as you suggest--in other words, your PC concept fits well as an example of that which first allowed for entanglement of real existents--a concept of fundamental importance to quantum mechanics (e.g., entanglement). For example, suppose that the first objects to exist emerged (that is, we reject that existence has no begin-end) as "two" opposites formed at exactly the same time and place, a perfect symmetry, say positive charge things (+) and negative charged things (-). Or, if you wish, have one (+) in fact be first, the other (-) second--it does not matter. Next, let these two things then "become aware" of each other--e.g., they attract due to fundamental laws of physics to form a neutral union [(+) ~ (-)], where ~ represents the electromagnetic force that binds. So, Paul, I would suggest that the ~ may very well be the concept of the "primary consciousness" that you seek--that is, the "first" form of awareness between the "first" forms of existence may well be a type of electromagnetic force (which we now know also includes the "weak force" of nuclear physics). Now, here we find the concept of the "primacy of existence" of Aristotle. But let us move forward from there and suggest that the "primacy of existence" must form a neutral monism with the "primacy of consciousness" (your PC) in order for existence to evolve (e.g., without PC what we call existence would have stopped at the point in time of free (+) and (-) having no meaning--no union--no evolution). Now, it is also interesting to consider that the "ability to know" (your term) or potentiality for (+) and (-) to form union via PC must already be present within (+) and (-) as a type of hidden potentiality out of which PC emerges. Thus, I would suggest that PC can be defined as the fundamental "emergent property" of all that exists--e.g., existence and consciousness (=awareness) cannot be separated, in the same way that the heads cannot be separated from the tails of a coin and we still conceive that the coin evolve as such. This is my best attempt to consider your PC idea within the bounds of logical and science--but I cannot support any attempt at Kantian idealism which would conclude that PC takes primacy over existence, nor that "being aware" takes primacy over the question: aware of what ? For not even Descarte claimed that he was aware of the action process of awareness itself, in other words, a PC can never be aware of itself as being PC, it can only be aware of itself as an object of its awareness.

 

[Rade]

What is it about the Primacy of Existence axiom that rules out the possibility that consciousness is the something that first exists?

The Primacy of Existence is the fundamental axiom of philosophy (but of course even this is open to argument). It is the term "existence" that rules out "consciousness" as being primary. Consciousness is a single existent, Existence is ALL that exists, and the Primacy of Existence means that "all that exists" takes primacy over any single existent such as consciousness. Now, if one holds that existence has no begin or end, it is illogical to say that consciousness is first. Finally, to be "aware" means you must have an answer to the question, aware of what ? e.g., a "what" that exists must logically take primacy to the process (=consciousness) of being aware of "what". There is a philosophic discussion on the Primacy of Existence in the book by philosopher David Kelly, 1986, "The Evidence of the Senses".

 

[Paul Martin]

The Primacy of Existence is the fundamental axiom of philosophy (but of course even this is open to argument). It is the term "existence" that rules out "consciousness" as being primary. Consciousness is a single existent, Existence is ALL that exists, and the Primacy of Existence means that "all that exists" takes primacy over any single existent such as consciousness. Now, if one holds that existence has no begin or end, it is illogical to say that consciousness is first. Finally, to be "aware" means you must have an answer to the question, aware of what ? e.g., a "what" that exists must logically take primacy to the process (=consciousness) of being aware of "what". There is a philosophic discussion on the Primacy of Existence in the book by philosopher David Kelly, 1986, "The Evidence of the Senses".

Your argument doesn't convince me. Maybe I should read Kelly's book. Do you recommend it?

It seems that your argument depends on the definitions of several new (to this discussion) words. What do you mean by 'primary'? Do you mean temporally first? Or do you mean ontologically fundamental? In my view, the temporality of existence is separate and distinct from the temporality of our ordinary experience, so to me, the key question is what is ontologically fundamental. What is the basic constituent of which everything else is composed? And how does the term 'existence' rule out consciousness being primary? Just by virtue of its definition? What is that definition? And what do you mean by 'aware'? I think it might be possible to be aware of nothing. It seems to me a more pressing question would be Who or what is aware? It seems to me that in order to have awareness, there must be something that is aware. I think consciousness could be that something, depending on the definitions you accept for the terms.

Anyway, I would still like to hear your comments on my analysis of candidates for the ontologically fundamental essence of reality. Why is not 'the ability to know' the best candidate?

Paul

Oops! I wrote the above reply after reading only your last post. I didn't know you posted an earlier one relating to my candidate list. I'll study that now and reply to it later.

 

[Paul Martin]

First, I see no logical reason to consider that there must be a "first" thing to exist--why so ?-- perhaps "existence" has no beginning, no end--it always was, always will be (our "universe" may come and go, but existence remains).

I agree. "First" was a lazy way of describing what I really meant. I really meant the ontologically fundamental essence. If I can use the term 'primary' to mean that, then I will. If not, I need some other term.

Next, if PC is "first"--what exactly is it to be "aware of" as you say -- aware of what ? -- there is nothing present -- thus it is completely illogical that PC can be first.

As I said in my other reply, I see no reason why awareness can't be aware of nothing. After all, I thought we both agreed that if there were a PC, it would be extemely simple and rudimentary.

If being aware is anything, it is inherently relational--e.g. to say that one is aware (or conscious) is to say that there must be an other that is the object of the action, that is, PC must be ultimately aware of something other than itself for it to have any logical meaning.

I don't think so. I think you were the one to introduce the term 'awareness' and I took it to mean 'the ability to know'. The ability might exist in the absence of anything known.

And, I finish with a quote from Aquinas, which for me summarizes nicely why your concept of PC as "first" just does not hold:

"Thought does not need to be related to things, it is the relation" T. Aquinas

Here you are introducing yet more terms. What do you mean by 'thought', 'related', and 'relation'. I'm not ready to accept statements from Thomas Aquinas just because he is old.

Now, if we follow the thinking of Aquinas, I do see that you have a point

Hmmm. Well in that case, maybe Tom is OK after all.

... in that it is very likely that PC, while logically not the first existent, can be held to be the "first action" by which existents "become aware" of each other as you suggest--in other words, your PC concept fits well as an example of that which first allowed for entanglement of real existents--a concept of fundamental importance to quantum mechanics (e.g., entanglement). For example, suppose that the first objects to exist emerged (that is, we reject that existence has no begin-end) as "two" opposites formed at exactly the same time and place, a perfect symmetry, say positive charge things (+) and negative charged things (-). Or, if you wish, have one (+) in fact be first, the other (-) second--it does not matter. Next, let these two things then "become aware" of each other--e.g., they attract due to fundamental laws of physics to form a neutral union [(+) ~ (-)], where ~ represents the electromagnetic force that binds. So, Paul, I would suggest that the ~ may very well be the concept of the "primary consciousness" that you seek--that is, the "first" form of awareness between the "first" forms of existence may well be a type of electromagnetic force (which we now know also includes the "weak force" of nuclear physics). Now, here we find the concept of the "primacy of existence" of Aristotle. But let us move forward from there and suggest that the "primacy of existence" must form a neutral monism with the "primacy of consciousness" (your PC) in order for existence to evolve (e.g., without PC what we call existence would have stopped at the point in time of free (+) and (-) having no meaning--no union--no evolution).

I'll have to think about this when I'm less tired.

Now, it is also interesting to consider that the "ability to know" (your term) or potentiality for (+) and (-) to form union via PC must already be present within (+) and (-) as a type of hidden potentiality out of which PC emerges.

I think this is a chicken and egg problem. Which came first, the potentiality or the (+) and (-) things? It seems most logical to me to suppose the potentiality came first (here we go again) or was primary because potentiality could account for the (+/-) whereas the reverse means that somehow we get the (+/-) without potentiality and it then acquires it.

Thus, I would suggest that PC can be defined as the fundamental "emergent property" of all that exists

To me it makes more sense to say that PC can be defined as the fundamental essence from which everything else emerged. That way, everything is accounted for.

--e.g., existence and consciousness (=awareness) cannot be separated, in the same way that the heads cannot be separated from the tails of a coin and we still conceive that the coin evolve as such.

That would also be true if everything emerged from consciousness.

This is my best attempt to consider your PC idea within the bounds of logical and science--but I cannot support any attempt at Kantian idealism which would conclude that PC takes primacy over existence, nor that "being aware" takes primacy over the question: aware of what ? For not even Descarte claimed that he was aware of the action process of awareness itself, in other words, a PC can never be aware of itself as being PC, it can only be aware of itself as an object of its awareness.

I certainly appreciate your attempts and I thank you for them. I don't know enough about Kantian idealism to know whether I support it or not. As for PC being aware of PC, I think the answer must be "not completely". I think PC holds some mystery even for PC.

Thanks again. I'm going to bed.

Paul