value wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 8:24 amAssertion in our discussion: With determinism it is posed that consciousness is a product of an intrinsic existing cosmos that is bound by laws. As a result any 'option' is predetermined.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 9:34 amNo. There is no PRE-determination. I am atheist. Only a god can know the future. Maybe this is where we differ.
As individuals we are causal agents, able to reflect. Change is not only possible but determinedly so, both responsive and relevant. The problem would be that if free choice were possible regardless of cause and effect and regardless of antecedent truth.
If an outcome cannot have been other than what it became due to an
intrinsic existing cosmos of which consciousness is a deterministic product, then consciousness would fundamentally observe information that would PRE-exist (pre-known) on cosmos-level.
It would render the act of observing meaningless
from the perspective of the cosmos.
value wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 8:24 amThe issue that I am addressing is the fact that the described situation implies that 'any information' in the cosmos is pre-known to any conscious observer or 'option'.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 9:34 amBut that is absurd.
DO you believe in God or something?
I am not religious and I am also not an atheist which is a religion in my opinion.
If consciousness is a product of an intrinsic existing cosmos then consciousness would be bound by causality within that cosmos and any information that is observed must have PRE-existed (pre-known) relative to consciousness.
value wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 8:24 amIt implies that consciousness derives its 'meaning' as a product of the information within the intrinsic existing cosmos. That is nonsensical because it implies that the act of observing is applied to the pre-existing information that underlays that act of observing.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 9:34 amno and no.
What you are saying is not making any sense. It is not even wrong.
1) the cosmos exists intrinsically by laws
2) consciousness is a
product of that cosmos and is bound by the same causal laws
In this situation the cosmos existed independently BEFORE consciousness and that means that any information that consciousness could observe must have originated from the cosmos causally.
The described situation is nonsensical and that means that determinism - 'conscious options as a causal product of the cosmos' - cannot be true.
value wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 8:24 amIt would render consciousness meaningless and that is not justified because one is obligated to explain consciousness.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 9:34 amWhat is the "it" in this sentence? It is often an indication of loss of reason when an "it" is inserted in lieu of an actual established idea.
So this thing renders consciousness meaningless. Why?
Consciousness is our means of agency. It is the decisive process between thought and action. It lies between the causes of the world and the operation of our nervous system. These causes determine the outcome.
That is my obligation to explain the role of consciousness fulfilled.
'It' refers to the preceding assertion that information that is fundamentally pre-known
from the perspective of the cosmos (as causal origin of consciousness) has no reason to be observed.
Determinism would imply that information of the cosmos would produce consciousness causally through laws, to look at that same information. That is absurd.
An analogy would be a fountain that has a conscious eye on top of it as a causal product of that fountain that would then look back at the stream of water from which that eye itself is made
in the same time.
value wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 8:24 amConclusion: a proper addressing of the why question of consciousness prohibits the claim that consciousness is a deterministic product of the cosmos, because that would render the act of observing - and the cosmos with it - fundamentally meaningless.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 9:34 amYou seem to be arguing from adverse consequences. It can't be right because you can't figure it out.
No. The demand to answer the
why question of consciousness - to explain its meaningfulness - is justified in my opinion and the preceding reasoning has shown that both consciousness and the cosmos would lose their meaningfulness when consciousness would be a deterministic product of the cosmos.