Philosophy Discussion Forums

Dark Matter wrote:You do know that the observer cannot be the thing observed, don't you?

Assertion without evidence.

Dark Matter wrote:Evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of, or separation from, the thing which is evaluated. The hitch is, there is no separation.

Demands? Says who? Evidence please.

Dark Matter wrote:We live in a participatory universe: every impulse of every electron, thought, or spirit is an acting unit in the whole universe.

Meaningless gobbledygook.

Dark Matter wrote:“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.”
― Nikola Tesla

Dark Matter wrote:Even in mice, the brain works like a radio receiver[/url]

I note with some interest and more than a little dismay that you have misrepresented the quote and the link.

The abstract of the link reads, "Brain circuits can tune into the frequency of other brain parts relevant at the time." (emphasis added) Note that there is no evidence for the brain of mice (or anything else, for that matter) somehow "tuning in" to anything outside the subject's brain or body.

Now, if you can show me the mechanism by which the brain is influenced by "spiritual" (or whatever non-physical) forces outside the brain or body, then we might be on to something. If there was a mechanism, there would be evidence for it.

This harkens back to Cartesian dualism which was discredited back in the 17th century and again, soundly, in 1949 through Gilbert Ryle's book, The Concept of Mind.

See Cartesian dualism has been discredited by philosophers and cognitive scientists and Mind-Body-Problem. There are countless more sources should you wish to avail yourself of them.

Greta wrote:

Dark Matter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Well, at least it's better than shrugging my shoulders and saying, "Just because."

The alternative is admitting that one doesn't know, not making false claims of certainty, one way or another.

We need a conceptual frame (or ground) in which to think that is always open to revision. I don’t know exactly what the unifying principle is, but I know that it is.

Why must a cause be conscious?

See above.

Perhaps the story really did start with some chaotic fluctuations, with order assembling from there? I don't know.

I don’t know, either. But as I already stated, I don’t believe in magic. From chaos, only chaos. Logically, there must be an inherent organizing principle at play.

There's numerous non conscious causes in nature, eg. the Sun creating the Earth, the wind blowing a tree down.

Which of those is not contingent on a prior cause?

Still, a non conscious cause would not negate meaning in life, which obviously exists in any being that cares about staying alive or breeding, at the very least.

Instinctive drive, in and of itself, is not meaningfulness.

There is nothing magical about, say, an adult emerging from a child (aside from the "Gosh, isn't nature magical?" angle).

There is if it’s an effect without sufficient cause.

Emergence is very simple. It seems magical but it's just about thresholds. For instance, clouds of molecular gas gradually form areas of concentration. The bigger they get, the stronger their gravitational pull on the material around them, so they grow ever more rapidly. As yet a star has not emerged. That only happens when the proto-star achieved so much mass that the hydrogen in its core fuses into helium, causing a chain reaction known as "ignition", and which blows the surrounding material away, and that material forms the proto planetary disc from which the planets emerged.

Not magical, just physics in this instance.

Which of those examples is not contingent?

What physics are occurring in consciousness I do not know.

That’s the point.

Yet it's possible that it's not God in actuality you are following but the ideals that you yourself have synthesised.

I don’t know what God (or consciousness) is, but I know that it is. And there is no doubt that my ideals are conditioned by innumerable factors, like culture, experience, language, history, innate tendencies, etc., etc.

Would it be so bad if humanity had the capacity to imagine something better and strove for it, even if those ideals were yet to come?

How does “I don’t know” accomplish that?

-- Updated November 17th, 2017, 2:09 pm to add the following --

Scribbler60 wrote:

Dark Matter wrote:You do know that the observer cannot be the thing observed, don't you?

Assertion without evidence.

I will take you seriously when an eye can see itself. Until then, I will consider your over reliance on evidence to be silly superstition.

Dark Matter wrote:

Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Seems that the superstitious bit is reliance on things without evidence.

I also note that you haven't made any attempt to refute the facts I presented. I take that as capitulation, which is somewhat sad, because this isn't a contest.

-- Updated November 17th, 2017, 2:24 pm to add the following --

Dark Matter wrote:You do know that the observer cannot be the thing observed, don't you?

Scribbler60 wrote:Assertion without evidence.

I will take you seriously when an eye can see itself. Until then, I will consider your over reliance on evidence to be silly superstition.[/quote]
Seems that the superstitious bit is reliance on things without evidence.

I also note that you haven't made any attempt to refute the facts I presented. I take that as capitulation, which is somewhat sad, because this isn't a contest.

Can an eye see itself? Answer that, and then I will get to the rest.

Dark Matter wrote:From chaos, only chaos. Logically, there must be an inherent organizing principle at play.

What was the molecular cloud from supernovae that became the stellar nursery that formed the Sun? Sheer chaos. The organising principle in this instance is gravity. The larger an entity, the more it attracts, and the bigger it gets until it reaches a size threshold, and from there it either dissipates or develops in terms of order rather than size. This is as true for proto stars as it is for people, suckling piglets and companies - basically "the rich get richer".

So, within a chaotic cloud of gas, logically some areas will be more concentrated and hotter than others. They will attract more material than cooler, less concentrated areas. In time, the chaos forms particulates based on earlier zones of concentration. Order. The process then continues. This is the story of the universe that we see in the CMB.

Of course, you want the underlying why, though, and the above won't satisfy. The furthest I'll go into the kind of non orthodoxy that you're looking for is that I see the universe as a living entity. It's not illogical to see the universe as full of dead things with a little oasis of life here on Earth and maybe elsewhere, but there are other valid perspectives. People can refer to "dead rocks", but many of our innards could be considered dead in themselves but form parts of living systems.

So, if the universe is a living system, we have the question of interconnectedness. We know from other life forms that interconnections govern sentience. So simple organisms with nerve nets are less interconnected than a chordate with the nerves coordinated by a brain. As a chordate, if you cut off my little finger, my whole body is affected. If you chop off a tiny portion of a sponge or jellyfish, the impact is local. The animal isn't connected enough to be aware throughout its body.

So I see the universe (or at least galaxy) as perhaps gradually forming a "nerve net" over many billions of years as advanced species make contact. From there, perhaps a fractal equivalent of a brain as well. At that point we have something rather godlike. So, while I obviously don't know, I see God more as an ideal and a potential than a realised actuality in the now.

Of course, if any godlike entities reached a level of empowerment where they could survive the heat death of their universe and kick start a new one, then you win

Dark Matter wrote:

Still, a non conscious cause would not negate meaning in life, which obviously exists in any being that cares about staying alive or breeding, at the very least.

Instinctive drive, in and of itself, is not meaningfulness.

It is to the one feeling the drives.

Dark Matter wrote:

Emergence is very simple. It seems magical but it's just about thresholds. For instance, clouds of molecular gas gradually form areas of concentration. The bigger they get, the stronger their gravitational pull on the material around them, so they grow ever more rapidly. As yet a star has not emerged. That only happens when the proto-star achieved so much mass that the hydrogen in its core fuses into helium, causing a chain reaction known as "ignition", and which blows the surrounding material away, and that material forms the proto planetary disc from which the planets emerged.

Not magical, just physics in this instance.

Which of those examples is not contingent?

I do't understand this question.

Dark Matter wrote:

Would it be so bad if humanity had the capacity to imagine something better and strove for it, even if those ideals were yet to come?

How does “I don’t know” accomplish that?

By opening the door to learning.

Greta wrote: What was the molecular cloud from supernovae that became the stellar nursery that formed the Sun? Sheer chaos. The organising principle in this instance is gravity. The larger an entity, the more it attracts, and the bigger it gets until it reaches a size threshold, and from there it either dissipates or develops in terms of order rather than size. This is as true for proto stars as it is for people, suckling piglets and companies - basically "the rich get richer".

So, within a chaotic cloud of gas, logically some areas will be more concentrated and hotter than others. They will attract more material than cooler, less concentrated areas. In time, the chaos forms particulates based on earlier zones of concentration. Order. The process then continues. This is the story of the universe that we see in the CMB.

Of course, you want the underlying why, though, and the above won't satisfy.

Quite right. The highlighted is why. Stephen Hawking was severely criticized for making the same observation in his book A Brief History of Time.

The furthest I'll go into the kind of non orthodoxy that you're looking for is that I see the universe as a living entity. It's not illogical to see the universe as full of dead things with a little oasis of life here on Earth and maybe elsewhere, but there are other valid perspectives. People can refer to "dead rocks", but many of our innards could be considered dead in themselves but form parts of living systems.

By whom. or what? And how does it stand in relation the the Absolute?

So, if the universe is a living system, we have the question of interconnectedness. We know from other life forms that interconnections govern sentience. So simple organisms with nerve nets are less interconnected than a chordate with the nerves coordinated by a brain. As a chordate, if you cut off my little finger, my whole body is affected. If you chop off a tiny portion of a sponge or jellyfish, the impact is local. The animal isn't connected enough to be aware throughout its body.

So I see the universe (or at least galaxy) as perhaps gradually forming a "nerve net" over many billions of years as advanced species make contact. From there, perhaps a fractal equivalent of a brain as well. At that point we have something rather godlike. So, while I obviously don't know, I see God more as an ideal and a potential than a realised actuality in the now.

I see that kind of god (which I think is very likely) as a "Supreme Being," not God in the classical sense.

Of course, if any godlike entities reached a level of empowerment where they could survive the heat death of their universe and kick start a new one, then you win

An interesting thought.

Dark Matter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Instinctive drive, in and of itself, is not meaningfulness.

It is to the one feeling the drives.

Until he or she takes an honest look at them.

Dark Matter wrote:Which of those examples is not contingent?

I don't understand this question.

All the examples you gave are the effects of a prior or more fundamental cause.

Dark Matter wrote: How does “I don’t know” accomplish that?

By opening the door to learning.

What kind of "learning"? Quantitative or qualitative? The learning of mere facts or how to be at home in and with the universe?



Hmmmm. I wonder if Scribbler is going to answer my question.

Greta wrote:

Spectrum wrote:Personally I have not speak of the Ultimate Nature of Reality with any degree of certainty. To me what is reality is based on the empirical and the empirically possible as justified by philosophical rationality.

What the theists are asserting is they know with certainty[by default] God is the Ultimate Reality of all reality. From this assertion SOME evil prone theists - inspired by evil laden verses for such a real God - commit terrible evils and violence on non-believers and even their own believers.

I think you know my views about your prospects of converting emotional people with logic.

Yes, it is tough, but I am optimistic human emotions [except the 'gone case'] can be modulated with logic [rationality and wisdom] as evident throughout human history. The Eastern spiritualities [e.g. mindfulness techniques] has been doing that since thousands of years ago.

-- Updated Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:50 pm to add the following --

[b]Dark Matter[/b] wrote:Can an eye see itself? Answer that, and then I will get to the rest.

This is a very 'cheap' question.
You might as well ask, Can a mouth eat itself? Can a dick f.. itself? and other similar ridiculous questions.

To analyze "Can an eye see itself,' one must map all the processes in relation to the physical eyes, the optic nerves, all other processes that support the end results of what the function of the physical eyes contribute to [e.g. seeing, perception, cognition, etc.]. It should be noted the physical 'eyes' do actually 'see' but it is merely a physical part to the whole 'seeing' or 'cognition' process.

Your question above is bases on ignorance and is thus baseless.

In any case, such a question answered or unanswered has no direct link to an explanation of God.
God is an impossibility and a belief in God is driven by psychological factors deep within the human psyche.

Chester wrote:Occam's razor demands that the simplest explanation should be accepted as truth unless there is sound reason for believing that it isn't the simplest explanation. It therefore stands to reason that thought should be seen as the only ingredient within reality...there is no such thing as thought independence, so called material reality can be dismissed as an unnecessary theory.

If that were the case, the name Occam wouldn't have any objective value, it would be just another thought you have found in your mind. There wouldn't be either any real demands imposed from a process independent of your res cogitans. And invoking reason, of course, would be useless, since there wouldn't be an objective realm in which to validate that things happen because of their particular relations with the world, independent of your mind. Everything, according to you, is happening in your mind, it is all that exists. Since it can't be caused by something else, any thought structure would be arbitrary, and yet remain legitimate for your own mind. It welcomes the absurd.

Chester wrote:God is the encompassment of all thought, everything else that thinks is a subset of Him, dependent on HIm, though not necessarily controlled by Him.

That statement directly contradicts your own previous statement above. If the only reality is your thought, then at best this so called "God" is a product of your thought. If it stood as an independent reality of thought, then you could not say that "thought should be seen as the only ingredient within reality". And if you're now willing to accept a reality independent of thought, why couldn't it be material reality.

Chester -

You touch on something that is an ongoing fascination for me. My issue is simply what you mean by "thought". People most commonly refer to "thought" as the verbal inner dialogue we have. If we look beyond this definition of "thought" as a purely "verbal" appendage then you can perhaps see the limitation of applying Ockham's Razor.

No doubt, if you dig deep enough, you'll end up asking yourself where you stand on the argument of psycholgism.

All this before even beginning to define what you mean by "God". If you can define "God" then you should hopefully be able to see such a description as limited by the means that language gives us. A material claim for God is another thing entirely and one that would necessarily require material evidence set within the structure of material understanding.

Cross application of fields of enquiry will only befuddle the heart of the question, and if the question is not understood under a specific light then it is a poor question and one that either deals with a subject that language cannot quite frame within its current semantical tools and concepts.

Greta:

You said, “What physics are occurring in consciousness I do not know.”

The Physics of Consciousness by Evan Harris Walker seeks to answer that very question. (Note: I’ve only read enough to know that Spectrum would burn it.)

Chester wrote:Occam's razor demands that the simplest explanation should be accepted as truth unless there is sound reason for believing that it isn't the simplest explanation.

It is certainly more satisfying to have a simple explanation, but there is no reason to think it is more likely to be true than any other reason.

Isn't it rather that a theory that satisfies Occam's razor, because it is simpler, is a better theory - because it is more testable. That:

God is the encompassment of all thought, everything else that thinks is a subset of Him, dependent on Him, though not necessarily controlled by Him.

is not testable at all. That doesn't mean it is false, just that it is a bad theory.

Scribbler60 wrote:See Cartesian dualism has been discredited by philosophers and cognitive scientists and Mind-Body-Problem. There are countless more sources should you wish to avail yourself of them.

Isn't one on the simplest and firmest scientific / empirical footing to simply dismiss other minds entirely? Then one is released from any necessity to contort definitions of mind to fit what is observed in matter?

Funny thing is, the belief that an effect can emerge from something in which it is entirely absent is dualism; “The eye through which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me” is not. I haven’t a clue how Scribbler came up with the idea of dualism.

Dark Matter wrote:Can an eye see itself? Answer that, and then I will get to the rest.

You may as well ask, "Does water sink or float?"

The sense of sight is just one sense. An eye evolved to take advantage of that sense.

Can skin feel itself? It most certainly can.

Can a nose smell itself? Yep.

Can an ear hear itself? Well, if your ear is making noise, then yes, it would be able to hear itself.

Without external apparatus (say, a mirror) an eye cannot see itself. But it can feel itself. Have you ever had a piece of grit or something in your eyesocket? The eye may not be able to see it (again, without external apparatus) but if you've ever had something in your eyesocket, then you know full well that the eye is an exquisitely sensitive instrument to not only photons but physical sensation.

And if you haven't a clue how I came up with dualism, you haven't been paying attention. Dualism - that is, some mind or conscious awareness that exists external of organic matter, whether it's a "soul" or "god" or something else - seems to be the crux of your argument. If I am incorrect in that assumption, I will be happy to stand corrected on that.

Please avail yourself of the information I provided in my previous post through those links. Then we may be able to have a cogent, rational discussion.

-- Updated November 18th, 2017, 6:33 pm to add the following --

Dark Matter wrote:Hmmmm. I wonder if Scribbler is going to answer my question.

Just so you know, I'm not ignoring you or the conversation, but I don't get to this site every day. I must admit, though, I do grow somewhat weary of these "proof of god" conversations, since the "proof" has always, without exception, been something that's been refuted.

Now, I hasten to add, and I've always been clear with this, that proof - undeniable, falsifiable, objective proof - of a divine superintelligence might arise before the sun sets tomorrow. But so far, in thousands of years of trying, the track record has been zero, and there's no indication that the track record is about to change.

Dark Matter wrote:

Greta wrote:What was the molecular cloud from supernovae that became the stellar nursery that formed the Sun? Sheer chaos. The organising principle in this instance is gravity. The larger an entity, the more it attracts, and the bigger it gets until it reaches a size threshold, and from there it either dissipates or develops in terms of order rather than size. This is as true for proto stars as it is for people, suckling piglets and companies - basically "the rich get richer".

So, within a chaotic cloud of gas, logically some areas will be more concentrated and hotter than others. They will attract more material than cooler, less concentrated areas. In time, the chaos forms particulates based on earlier zones of concentration. Order. The process then continues. This is the story of the universe that we see in the CMB.

Of course, you want the underlying why, though, and the above won't satisfy.

Quite right. The highlighted is why. Stephen Hawking was severely criticized for making the same observation in his book A Brief History of Time.

Finding causes prior to the BB is an issue. Namely, we don't know about it. We might suppose various possibilities, but they are still suppositions. You assume that there must be a conscious agent rather than a chaotic fluctuation providing a first cause. Then again, maybe reality is structured so that the idea of "first cause" makes no sense, but we are too locked into our perceptual limits to ever understand.

Whatever, in nature I constantly see things developing over time, gradually gaining attributes that were once potentials (emergence). Any attribute that acts to help an entity persevere will necessarily become more common over time. Given the fractal nature of reality, it's very possible that universe generally operates similarly. It might not, if what we think of as "the universe" is a closed system. If it's part of a multiverse, then it may just be one more fractal layer of reality.

Dark Matter wrote:

The furthest I'll go into the kind of non orthodoxy that you're looking for is that I see the universe as a living entity. It's not illogical to see the universe as full of dead things with a little oasis of life here on Earth and maybe elsewhere, but there are other valid perspectives. People can refer to "dead rocks", but many of our innards could be considered dead in themselves but form parts of living systems.

By whom. or what? And how does it stand in relation the the Absolute?

Maybe it is The Absolute? A total living entity filled with smaller things, gradually maturing.

Dark Matter wrote:Instinctive drive, in and of itself, is not meaningfulness.

It is to the one feeling the drives.

Dark Matter wrote:Until he or she takes an honest look at them. [Peggy Lee - Is That All There Is video]

Yet all roads lead to the same place. "If that's all there is" then, sings Peggy, let's simply enjoy life as hedonists.

However, Epicurus realised that short term pleasures did not necessarily being longer term happiness. As he looked ever more long term, hedonism in its highest form brings one to similar asceticism and morality as theistic traditions, sans the cultural fetishes regarding women, gays, life and death.

Also, as a eusocial species, diversity is essential. If everyone lived deeply examined lives then not much would get done while doing all that examining. Some people need to simply go for it in life - that's how they will best fulfil their potentials with their particular gifts and limits - yet they still can find life compellingly meaningful in their relationships. We all suffer and experience joy to some extent, and those states are more or less the baseline of meaning.

Dark Matter wrote:How does “I don’t know” accomplish that?

By opening the door to learning.

Dark Matter wrote:What kind of "learning"? Quantitative or qualitative? The learning of mere facts or how to be at home in and with the universe?

We learn things that interesting and useful to us. Humans, like bacteria and some fungi are an exploratory species, not only physically, but mentally, emotionally, spiritually, creatively etc.

I wouldn't worry about humans learning in an uneven manner and at times arguably not "seeing the forest for the trees" because growth is never even. Humanity, with its burgeoning technological prowess and slowed moral progress, is akin to a teenage lad having a growth spurt, clumsy, gangly and lacking poise until be accustoms himself to his more mature form and fills it out (the analogy here is that the new technological "body" of humanity is yet to be filled with the "body" of matured morality).