Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Tamminen]

To say that the world without subjects is possible requires a leap from an internal viewpoint to an external viewpoint, from immanence to transcendence. It is a religious leap, and it has no justification.

Not so, it requires nothing more than logical deduction.
I can deduce that the world necessarily existed before my being came into existence because I was a born from another who required a world to exist in order for them to have me.
No faith required just a rational thinking and logic.

I think you have not read my recent posts. I am speaking of the universe as a spatiotemporal totality.

[Tamminen]

You see a picture of an uninhabited world before your eyes. Suddenly you realize that you are in the picture and cannot get out. It is not the picture you thought it was.

And it disappears.

Philosophers must become poets to understand basic ontology.

[Halc]

Hi Gertie. I have very limited net access lately, so I don't see all posts right away, especially when not quoted in a way that puts out notifications.
So commenting here on your RQM post.

(As an aside, I don't follow how ''to another observer at the same time, it may appear to be in a superposition of two or more states'', as I thought observation is the cause of the wave function collapsing into a specific state). But aside from that, it's a very intriguing idea!

The classic example is Schrodinger's cat, except we put a lab assistant inside the box with the cat. In relation to the observer outside the box, the cat and the lab assistant are in superposition of dead/alive and observing dead/alive, respectively. But to the lab assistant who can measure the cat, the cat is either dead or alive, but not in superposition of both. Same system (cat), but in different states to different observers.

My problem with it, is that it relies on interactions/relationships for a specific state to be realised (forgive my terminology), but if there is no pre-existing state of Somethings to interact/have a relationship, how can they interact?

That existing state is just as relative as anything else, so it is invalid to discuss that state without specification of a relation. So relative to Schrodinger outside the box, the lab assistant is in a state of superposition of observing a live can and observing a dead cat, but in relation to the lab assistant observing the live cat, the cat is simply alive.

It seems to infer that 'waves of potential actualised Somethings' can interact, but potential isn't a Something, just a possibility.

There is no actuality. There is only relative-to. That much is RQM and a few other interpretations. The rest is actual QM science:

A possibility is a statement about a measurement not yet taken. So from Schrodinger's POV, the cat eventually being measured alive is a non-zero probability, and thus this is a possibility. But that possibility is an expression of what we can expect when he finally looks into the box, not an expression of what might be the current state of the unmeasured contents of the box. Some interpretations actually assert that there is an actual state inside the box, and possibility being more of an epistemological likelihood of knowing that state.

I've put this really clumsily, but hopefully you get my point?

I thought you put it all quite well.

[Halc]

Tamminem, please indulge me and explain just one more time, as clearly as possible, how there could be subjects in the early universe of plasma and thick gas?

I actually agree with Tam on this point. He has repeatedly described the universe as a spatio-temporal whole, a 4D way of thinking about it, as opposed to a 3D state that changes over [separate from the universe] time. So in the spatio-temporal model, there is no universe-before-observers, or before/after anything. There is just the universe, and yes, it obviously happens to have observers, even if I don't agree with Tam's description of what constitutes an observer.
Anyway, that is a sample-size of 1. I don't see any logic behind asserting that another sample must necessarily have observers as well.

[Sy Borg]

Tamminem, please indulge me and explain just one more time, as clearly as possible, how there could be subjects in the early universe of plasma and thick gas?

We are the subjects. Here and now. Simple enough?

No. That does not explain it.

You denied earlier that consciousness was emergent, that it was always there. Thus, seemingly goes your angle, there must be consciousness present before what we refer to as consciousness had evolved. On the face of it, it appears to be a godlike speculation.

I can't see how subjectivism could always have been unless you start counting with the evolution of brains, which would then make your views largely a play on the idea of being, disregarding the journey of matter itself to a state from which consciousness could emerge.

None of us had any kind of subjective view as zygotes and embryos, at least no more than any other microbe. So we are already experiencing the emergence of consciousness in every one of our lives - from complete blackness to waking awareness.

Our own journey into consciousness would seem strongly suggestive that what we think of as consciousness is in fact objectively emergent rather than fundamental to reality.

[Sy Borg]

Tamminem, please indulge me and explain just one more time, as clearly as possible, how there could be subjects in the early universe of plasma and thick gas?

I actually agree with Tam on this point. He has repeatedly described the universe as a spatio-temporal whole, a 4D way of thinking about it, as opposed to a 3D state that changes over [separate from the universe] time. So in the spatio-temporal model, there is no universe-before-observers, or before/after anything. There is just the universe, and yes, it obviously happens to have observers, even if I don't agree with Tam's description of what constitutes an observer.
Anyway, that is a sample-size of 1. I don't see any logic behind asserting that another sample must necessarily have observers as well.

But that's just Mikowski space, which is not reality, just a model of reality.

If, as per relativity, time could run forwards and backwards then, sure, the early universe is in a sense happening now. However, that is not the entropy-driven reality we live in, just maths and models.

[Tamminen]

Our own journey into consciousness would seem strongly suggestive that what we think of as consciousness is in fact objectively emergent rather than fundamental to reality.

This is in fact not far from what I am saying. Conscioussness emerges because it is fundamental. Its emerging is necessary because it is the essence of the universe in the same way as it is essential for a human organism. I do not see any fundamental difference between our thinking. The word 'emerge' is ambiguous, and seems to cause the misunderstanding.

[Tamminen]

You denied earlier that consciousness was emergent, that it was always there.

To put it another way: the plasma phase was part of the early stages of the becoming of the universe as we experience it, being manifestations of its essence as consciousness, in the same way as the embryo is an early phase of the becoming of the conscious human being.

[Karpel Tunnel]

None of us had any kind of subjective view as zygotes and embryos, at least no more than any other microbe. So we are already experiencing the emergence of consciousness in every one of our lives - from complete blackness to waking awareness.

This is assuming that we would have a similar kind of consciousness and memories, like the memories we have now. If we go back in time in our memories we remember less and less events, including in ages where we were clearly conscious, since those memories are often very vivid. But as little children we experience the world less verbally, more immersed in all senses - rather than the more visual beings we become as adults. AND THOSE EXPERIENCES are almost overwhelming to remember, since most of us are rather cut off as adults. We don't feel as strongly, we don't sense as strongly. You can experience this when a memory comes early in life which is not one of the regularl memories we unpack now and again.

I cannot prove that we were conscious, but you are now claiming we were not. This is assuming that if we were we would remember. That is an assumption, and one I think we have reason to doubt.

It would be very odd if we did not have a lot of consciousness when we were 1 year old. Our brains are then more complicated than nearly alll other animals including adult animals. We obviously are very affected by what we experience given our emotional reactinos, yet as adults we do not have memories of that time, at least most of us.

Memory and consciousness need not go together.

Further people would find it distressing to remember what it was like to be a baby - in a conscious, now I remember what it was like lying in the crib way.

Memory and all sorts of other cognitive processes come in Piagetian and other stages, sure. Consciousness, that was there all the way back.

[Wayne92587]

Mankind, he and she are born flawed, imperfect, incomplete, are not born fully dressed, is born bare, less than a mere animal, is born without specification, boundless, without limitation, free do as he will, Man’s Flaws being unseen, still Unknown without realization.

Mortal, Animal Man, born without instinct but having the desire, the hope to figure out how to survive.

When the Light was separated from the Darkness a second Light was created, separated out from in between the Light and the Darkness.

This second Great Light, twice-light shining at dawn, just before the Sun rises above the Horizon and a second Time at dusk, shining even after the setting of the Sun below the Horizon.

This second Great Light, Twice-light, Man is born flawed, imperfect, incomplete, is not born fully dressed, is born bare, less than a mere animal, is born without specification, boundless, without limitation, free do as he will.

Mortal, Animal, Man, born of Flesh and Bone is born without instinct but having only, the desire to live.

When the Light was separated from the Darkness a second Light was separated out from in between the Light and the Darkness. being known to be the “Twilight Zone”.

Though I walk through the valley of Shadows and Darkness, I fear no Evil, for thou art with me.

The Sun is the Light unto the World, the World of Reality a seen in the Light of Day.

This Twilight, second Great Light, being created to be Mankind’s Help-mate; the Rational, the Conscious Mind.

[Tamminen]

About emerging.

So there is an uninhabited world with no relationship to subjects. Now subjects emerge from this world - or do not emerge. Think of this latter alternative. What does it mean that such a world exists, instead of this world that we are experiencing? The uninhabited past of our world has meaning because we are here to give it a meaning, and we can say it exists or has existed, but without our being in the world the world and its possible existence has no meaning. Existence without subjects makes no sense. Matter without subjects makes no sense. In the same way as a transcendent God is purely fictitious, also transcendent matter, matter without a relationship with subjectivity, is purely fictitious.

[BigBango]

Tamminem, please indulge me and explain just one more time, as clearly as possible, how there could be subjects in the early universe of plasma and thick gas?

Greta, you are making too much of a big deal out of the devastation going on as evidenced by the Big Bang. Sure all the mass that science knows about, visible mass, has a history we can trace back to first of all the Big Bang, the Plasma, the cooling and the stuff we see now as visible matter. Science has also come to the conclusion that visible mass is only 10% of the mass of the universe.

Don't let yourself jump from our knowledge about visible matter that is only 10% of the mass of the universe to the conclusion that all mass was engulfed in that cataclysm. If you buy the theory that there was a quantum fluctuation of "nothing" thus creating the plasma and all mass, including dark matter evolved out of that plasma then you might wonder where the "subjects" were. But if you follow Penrose theories then the Big Crunch preceding the Big Bang most likely just involved the collision of all the black hole centers of the previous world of galaxies. What happened to the rest of the mass in those pre BB galaxies and might that mass not have had "subjects" that witnessed the collapse of their world.

[Sy Borg]

None of us had any kind of subjective view as zygotes and embryos, at least no more than any other microbe. So we are already experiencing the emergence of consciousness in every one of our lives - from complete blackness to waking awareness.

This is assuming that we would have a similar kind of consciousness and memories, like the memories we have now. If we go back in time in our memories we remember less and less events, including in ages where we were clearly conscious, since those memories are often very vivid. But as little children we experience the world less verbally, more immersed in all senses - rather than the more visual beings we become as adults. AND THOSE EXPERIENCES are almost overwhelming to remember, since most of us are rather cut off as adults. We don't feel as strongly, we don't sense as strongly. You can experience this when a memory comes early in life which is not one of the regularl memories we unpack now and again.

I cannot prove that we were conscious, but you are now claiming we were not. This is assuming that if we were we would remember. That is an assumption, and one I think we have reason to doubt.

It would be very odd if we did not have a lot of consciousness when we were 1 year old. Our brains are then more complicated than nearly alll other animals including adult animals. We obviously are very affected by what we experience given our emotional reactinos, yet as adults we do not have memories of that time, at least most of us.

Memory and consciousness need not go together.

Further people would find it distressing to remember what it was like to be a baby - in a conscious, now I remember what it was like lying in the crib way.

Memory and all sorts of other cognitive processes come in Piagetian and other stages, sure. Consciousness, that was there all the way back.

I have a memory in a pram scribbling circles on the wall while holding a pen dagger style, another of a fight with a grumpy babysitter while in a high chair and refusing food.

Oh yes, babies are perfectly conscious. It's exactly the same consciousness too, just raw. Infants are conscious, but they have a different kind of consciousness, before the threshold of consciousness that is the "terrible twos" (although can come before or after to some extent) - when a baby realises that it is separate to mother. The earlier form of consciousness, one which almost no one can remember, is functionally different because the self is not delineated.

A newborn baby is an organisms that has lived its entire existence as part of the mother. It takes some time for the emerging - sensorily supercharged - being to realise that it's no longer part of mother. Just as it takes time to get over broken relationships, it takes time for what "the former microbe to realise that it's split from its donor".

However, even this consciousness was not always there. Blastocysts and gastrulas are not going to be any more conscious than any other microbe. One could argue that microbial consciousness exists ad is simply unknown, but if we go further back to the Earth's pre-biota days as a bombarded emergent planet with a largely molten surface in the Hadean Era, it's hard to think of that entity as being conscious (and probably just as well).

[Sy Borg]

Tamminem, please indulge me and explain just one more time, as clearly as possible, how there could be subjects in the early universe of plasma and thick gas?

Greta, you are making too much of a big deal out of the devastation going on as evidenced by the Big Bang. Sure all the mass that science knows about, visible mass, has a history we can trace back to first of all the Big Bang, the Plasma, the cooling and the stuff we see now as visible matter. Science has also come to the conclusion that visible mass is only 10% of the mass of the universe.

Don't let yourself jump from our knowledge about visible matter that is only 10% of the mass of the universe to the conclusion that all mass was engulfed in that cataclysm. If you buy the theory that there was a quantum fluctuation of "nothing" thus creating the plasma and all mass, including dark matter evolved out of that plasma then you might wonder where the "subjects" were. But if you follow Penrose theories then the Big Crunch preceding the Big Bang most likely just involved the collision of all the black hole centers of the previous world of galaxies. What happened to the rest of the mass in those pre BB galaxies and might that mass not have had "subjects" that witnessed the collapse of their world.

Not convincing BB. The quantum fluctuation was not in "nothing" but was one of truly countless fluctuations - just that one virtual particle that popped into existence did not pop out again and instead expanded.

Humans are a minority, their existence emerging upon a much larger layer of animals.

Animals are a minority, their existence emerging upon a much larger layer of plants.

Plants are a minority, their existence emerging upon a much larger layer of microbes.

Microbes are a minority, their existence emerging upon a much larger layer of geology.

Geology is a small part of what constitutes geology, its existence emerging from much more prevalent plasma.

Baryonic matter (plasma and stuff) is a minority, its existence emerging upon a much larger layer of dark matter.

Dark matter is a minority, its existence emerging upon a much larger layer of dark energy.

We can confer subject status to any of these, but it will only be supposition.

[Fooloso4]

Tamminen:

… but without our being in the world the world and its possible existence has no meaning.

Right, without something for whom there is meaning existence has no meaning.

Existence without subjects makes no sense.

Right, without something to make sense of things nothing makes sense.

It does not follow, however, that there cannot be a world that has no meaning or sense. It does not follow that there must be subjects.

All that we can say is that the world here and now must have subjects. Consciousness may or may not be fundamental. There is nothing that precludes a world without consciousness. There may be vast regions of the universe without consciousness, inaccessible to any conscious being. There may have been a time in our universe prior to consciousness and there may be a time in which there no longer will be consciousness.

… also transcendent matter, matter without a relationship with subjectivity, is purely fictitious.

The idea of matter being transcendent is purely fictitious, but this does not mean there cannot be matter without a relationship with subjectivity. It may be that matter gives rise to subjectivity under the right conditions. Once it does there is a relationship but where it does not there is no relationship until or unless a conscious being becomes aware of it.