Philosophy Discussion Forums

Apologies if what follows is somewhat muddled.

I’m in the middle of a tempestuous discussion with a density of physics graduates… all of whom insist on the literal accuracy of the following statement:

Reality is predictable, coherent, not chaos. The evidence is everywhere. We do not understand the rules / laws perfectly but that does not change the FACT that ‘they’ (rules / relationships) exist. Our cognitive activity (represented through laws etc.) simply observed and comprehended what has always been true. The relationships (between, for example, energy and mass) existed long before Einstein.

Now I’m not going to dispute the conclusion that the epistemology of science does a whiz-bang job of describing and predicting stuff. But…is it not a category error to, well, categorically and unconditionally claim that the phenomenology of reality actually can be represented by the words ‘rules’ and / or ‘relationships’? Do not these words merely describe our perception of how what is…is.

‘Rules’ / ‘relationships’ are conceptual metaphysical (Aristotle) concepts are they not? It’s not so much that they don’t exist as a part of the natural world so much as that no one has a clue what manner of phenomenological existence they actually have. Therefore the error is twofold. First my physics protagonists are claiming an equivalence by mere correlation (reality follows rules and is relationships because our epistemology describes it thus)…and second they are claiming an equivalence between two phenomena…one of which (reality) nothing is (ultimately) definitively known about…and the other of which (conceptual reality) all-but-nothing is actually definitively known about (what is consciousness…????).

Would an accurate statement not be more like:

By deduction and inference, reality looks like it can be described by the words ‘rules’ and / or ‘relationships’. This is nothing more than a description though. We have no idea whether or not anything like our understanding of ‘rules’ and / or ‘relationships’ does actually exist, primarily because we have no definitive idea of the phenomenology of ‘understanding’ / ‘knowledge’ nor do we have any definitive idea of the phenomenology of reality itself.

Any assistance in clarifying / resolving these questions (including clarifying my expression of them) would be greatly appreciated.

Rules imply a rule giver, and laws imply a law giver.

You would need to rely on Aristotle's view of the First Cause as a proof of God (the Philosopher God).

There is nothing wrong with this, however you can accomplish the same thing without this analytical assumption/conclusion by changing your terms.

Human perception begins with observations and conclusions about those observations.

Observations are always true.

Conclusions take the form of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Conclusions are either true, partly true, or false.

Human thought precedes language.

Language is either true, partly true, or false.

Thus all expression is either truth or falsehood.

So if you focus back on truth with these definitions then you need not become confused by rules or laws.

I completely agree with you, OP.

Physics can describe the process, but cannot answer the why, nor can they assert any ultimate causation...

Atreyu wrote:I completely agree with you, OP.Physics can describe the process, but cannot answer the why, nor can they assert any ultimate causation...

There will never be an answer to why there exists and eteranlly existent, finite, occupied space Universe. Other than knowing that gravity is the phenomena that coheres UniVerse as single unified whole.

Causation does not compute, i.e, makes no sense i.e. irrelevant to an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

Causation is only relevant to periods of time that we choose to assign as the beginning and ending time to consider cause, effect an resultant.

r6

Rr6 wrote:Causation does not compute, i.e, makes no sense i.e. irrelevant to an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

Causation is only relevant to periods of time that we choose to assign as the beginning and ending time to consider cause, effect an resultant.

Why could not the conscious intent of the Universe Itself be the cause of an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe?

i.e. the Universe exists because the Universe Itself 'says it does'. Remember, many ancient religions taught that "in the Beginning, there was the Word..."

Very similar to the idea of Descartes, "I think, therefore I am". Descartes exists because Descartes says he does.

Applying this idea of a Universe based on thought, rather than thinking of it terms of physics --- matter, energy, etc --- to the idea of causation, indeed gives us a cause for the very existence of the entire Universe itself, and this applies whether it be said to be finite, infinite, material or immaterial, etc....

Rr6 wrote:Causation does not compute, i.e, makes no sense i.e. irrelevant to an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.Causation is only relevant to periods of time that we choose to assign as the beginning and ending time to consider cause, effect an resultant.

At--Why could not the conscious intent of the Universe Itself be the cause of an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe?

Because intent is resultant of biological consciousness. Consciousness may lead to varying degrees of access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and the spirit-of-intent.

We have no evidence of our finite, occupied space Universe, having access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo we have no evidence of our finite, occupied space Universe having any spirit-of-intent.

i.e. the Universe exists because the Universe Itself 'says it does'. Remember, many ancient religions taught that "in the Beginning, there was the Word..."

Uni-Verse----previous to dark energy I used Verse Verse' is the physical/energy occupied space of observed reality. Verse ergo 5 senses of communications mediums. Oral verese, written verse etc...

Very similar to the idea of Descartes, "I think, therefore I am". Descartes exists because Descartes says he does.

I think about something { ex finger } via my experience{ nervous system } of something { finger } ergo I exist.

Applying this idea of a Universe based on thought, rather than thinking of it terms of physics --- matter, energy, etc --- to the idea of causation, indeed gives us a cause for the very existence of the entire Universe itself, and this applies whether it be said to be finite, infinite, material or immaterial, etc...

Atreyou, f you have evidence that infers our finite, occupied space Universe, has access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept and the resultant spirit-of-intent, please share.

r6

I don't think this is as cut and dry as it initially seems.

On the one hand I can predict almost certain outcomes of various situations and on the other hand when I measure the outcome empirically I will always possess a margin of error.

We can predict an outcome which means there is knowledge. If we were unable to predict anything then we couldnt communicate and we'd be floating in a sea of chaos (so to speak).

It makes no sense to say it seems like I can describe the universe when I am actually doing just that. I think it is fairer to say I can only describe what is available to me by way of how I am available to it. To say I cannot describe anything is contrary because that is precisely what I am attempting to do right now. The success of the description is what empirical science tries to restrict.

I think there could be confusion if you regard X, whatever it may be, as "absolute" (which is a term that tries to mean something beyond our means of representation if taken out of context).

Contradiction guides logic. In mathematics, which is an abstract thing, an absolute answer can exist. 1+1=2. That is the law/rule of mathematics. Just like there are rules to chess or any other game.

As an analogy imagine watching dozens upon dozens of games of chess. After a period of time you may believe you understand all of the rules, but if you are smart enough you'll also realise the combination of possible moves in chess is infinite and so you can never be absolutely certain of the rules involved unless someone tells you. That said because we know the rules of chess beforehand it seems misleadingly obvious that we could grasp all the rules and be certain in our knowledge that we know the full set of rules. Say for example in 10,000 games you watch no one bothers to make the "castle" move. You then play a game and they castle ... to you this flies in the face of the rules you thought you had a completr grasp of. You'd cry "cheat!". The difference with scientific methid is we cannot say nature is "cheating" we just have to accept somewhere along the way we've made a mistake, be it in our method, analysis or general comprehension. It could just be that the rules we see as unchanging are changeable under the rule of another set of rules.

If I can discern rules and predict probable outcomes then there is an underlying mechanism I may or may not be able to gain further appreciation of. This is deemed by logical consideration, which may or may not have limitations in areas abstracted from it. As in math logic is absolute, in language the unitation is much more complex and slippery.

Atryou---Applying this idea of a Universe based on thought, rather than thinking of it terms of physics --- matter, energy, etc --- to the idea of causation, indeed gives us a cause for the very existence of the entire Universe itself, and this applies whether it be said to be finite, infinite, material or immaterial, etc...

Atreyou, if you have evidence that infers our finite, occupied space Uni-Verse, has access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept and the resultant spirit-of-intent, please share.

As for your infinite Universe based on thought ideas...I refer you to my above statement, however, invoking concept of an infinite, occupied space Universe via your inference of such, is beyond rational, logical common sense. Ive been very clear on this in a few differrent threads.

Finite = integrity

Infinite = no integrity

Buzz Light Years motto is too infinity and beyond.....Humans can barely comprehend finite considerable set size of our known finite, occupied space Universe, much less an infinit occupied space Universe.

The reason people are so quick pull infinite Universe out of their back pockets, is that then back whatever irrational illogical non-sense there putting forward, because they believe that infinite Universe means anything is possible, including their irrational illogical non-sense.

Infinite is a way out for those lack the intellectual knowledge base and intellectual integrity. imho

r6

Because intent is resultant of biological consciousness. Consciousness may lead to varying degrees of access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and the spirit-of-intent.
We have no evidence of our finite, occupied space Universe, having access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo we have no evidence of our finite, occupied space Universe having any spirit-of-intent.
Uni-Verse----previous to dark energy I used Verse Verse' is the physical/energy occupied space of observed reality. Verse ergo 5 senses of communications mediums. Oral verese, written verse etc...
I think about something { ex finger } via my experience{ nervous system } of something { finger } ergo I exist.

Rr6 wrote:Because intent is resultant of biological consciousness. Consciousness may lead to varying degrees of access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and the spirit-of-intent.

We have no evidence of our finite, occupied space Universe, having access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo we have no evidence of our finite, occupied space Universe having any spirit-of-intent.

There could be no evidence (physical/scientific) because this is a proposition concerning psychology, not physics. A lower psyche cannot recognize or have any 'evidence' of a higher one, if the gap between them is too great. Just like there could be no 'evidence' of our consciousness for an amoeba or paramecium. What evidence for your existence could there be for a bone cell existing in your body? My position is a philosophical, not a scientific one. This idea cannot be tested or investigated by science. It can only be logically sorted out.

And intent is the result of consciousness period. 'Biological consciousness' is simply consciousness which we recognize as such. What we call 'life' is simply 'life as we know it'.

Atreyou, f you have evidence that infers our finite, occupied space Universe, has access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept and the resultant spirit-of-intent, please share.

Again, there could be no 'evidence', at least not in the sense of empirical, physical, scientific evidence. How could there be?

Nevertheless, the principle is a reasonable one. It is actually more logical to think of a corresponding Consciousness existing alongside the totality of all matter-energy than it is to think of the Universe as merely a bunch of 'stuff' (matter, energy, qualia, information, force, spirit, etc) from which awareness somehow mysteriously arose....

Atreyu--There could be no evidence (physical/scientific) because this is a proposition concerning psychology, not physics. A lower psyche cannot recognize or have any 'evidence' of a higher one, if the gap between them is too great. Just like there could be no 'evidence' of our consciousness for an amoeba or paramecium. What evidence for your existence could there be for a bone cell existing in your body? My position is a philosophical, not a scientific one. This idea cannot be tested or investigated by science. It can only be logically sorted out.

I know nothing about our finite, occupied space Universe having a psyche. I do not see any given rational, logical common sense pathways to thinking Universe has a psyche.

And intent is the result of consciousness period. 'Biological consciousness' is simply consciousness which we recognize as such. What we call 'life' is simply 'life as we know it'.

I disagree. Spirit-of-intent is specific to biologicals if not only the biologicals with a nervous system, and even then the most obvious spirit-of-intent sets are with humans. imho

Tho I consider any two entities of consciousness, I do not consider gravity, dark energy, fermions or bosons as having a spirit-of-intent or your inferred psyche. IF you have a rational, logical common sense pathway for assigning a psyche to gravity, dark energy, fermions and bosons, Ive not yet seen it.

Again, there could be no 'evidence', at least not in the sense of empirical, physical, scientific evidence. How could there be?

Ditto my above regarding having a rational logical common sense pathway.........

Nevertheless, the principle is a reasonable one. It is actually more logical to think of a corresponding Consciousness existing alongside the totality of all matter-energy than it is to think of the Universe as merely a bunch of 'stuff' (matter, energy, qualia, information, force, spirit, etc) from which awareness somehow mysteriously arose....

Ditto all my above regarding simple consciousness vs complex biological consciousness with nervous system, and much information related to psyche of humans if not some less complex animals, not our finite, occupied space Universe.

r6

Rr6 wrote:I know nothing about our finite, occupied space Universe having a psyche. I do not see any given rational, logical common sense pathways to thinking Universe has a psyche.

Then open up your mind. Seek, and find. It's rational and logical, but it's far from common sense....

I disagree. Spirit-of-intent is specific to biologicals if not only the biologicals with a nervous system, and even then the most obvious spirit-of-intent sets are with humans. imho

Tho I consider any two entities of consciousness, I do not consider gravity, dark energy, fermions or bosons as having a spirit-of-intent or your inferred psyche. IF you have a rational, logical common sense pathway for assigning a psyche to gravity, dark energy, fermions and bosons, Ive not yet seen it.

Gravity, dark energy, energy, matter, force, etc are simply names we give to phenomena when we don't recognize any awareness present. When we do recognize awareness present, we call it 'life'. We we don't, we call it 'non-life'. But it's always there, whether seen or not. Obviously, we can only detect awareness around us when it is like our own within a certain threshold. Once the other awareness is different than our own beyond a certain threshold, we no longer detect any awareness in the object we are perceiving.

Besides, what makes you think that humans would detect all of the awareness around them that exists? Or even a significant fraction of it? We already know that most matter-energy in the Universe, by a wide margin, is inaccessible to direct perception. In fact, it's also quite known that we can only directly perceive a small fraction of the matter-energy which is actually around us. No good philosopher, or even scientist for that matter, forgets this basic truth. To judge the world by our direct perception of it is not only terrible philosophy, it's even bad science. One of the most basic principles in both is that we do not perceive the world the way it really is, i.e. there is much more to the world than meets the eye. And if one does not proceed from this solid foundation one will go nowhere except into an abyss of contradictions.....

Rr6 wrote:I know nothing about our finite, occupied space Universe having a psyche. I do not see any given rational, logical common sense pathways to thinking Universe has a psyche.

Then open up your mind. Seek, and find. It's rational and logical, but it's far from common sense....

Open my mind to what exactly/spececifically? You have nothing to offer so your mystical statement lacks any significant context.

I disagree. Spirit-of-intent is specific to biologicals if not only the biologicals with a nervous system, and even then the most obvious spirit-of-intent sets are with humans. imho

Gravity, dark energy, energy, matter, force, etc are simply names we give to phenomena when we don't recognize any awareness present.

Then you dont understand that conciousness is twoness, otherness and a line-of-relationship between. Gravity unifies all particles of Universe. You don't seem to understand there exist degrees of consciousness.

When we do recognize awareness present, we call it 'life'.

We call that more complex consciousness i.e you don't yet grasp that all of Universe has varying degrees of consciousness/awareness.

We we don't, we call it 'non-life'. But it's always there, whether seen or not. Obviously, we can only detect awareness around us when it is like our own within a certain threshold. Once the other awareness is different than our own beyond a certain threshold, we no longer detect any awareness in the object we are perceiving.

Gravity is omin-directionally connected to all particles of Universe ergo Uni-Verse.

Besides, what makes you think that humans would detect all of the awareness around them that exists?

I have not idea what your going on about Atreyu.

Or even a significant fraction of it? We already know that most matter-energy in the Universe, by a wide margin, is inaccessible to direct perception. In fact, it's also quite known that we can only directly perceive a small fraction of the matter-energy which is actually around us. No good philosopher, or even scientist for that matter, forgets this basic truth. To judge the world by our direct perception of it is not only terrible philosophy, it's even bad science. One of the most basic principles in both is that we do not perceive the world the way it really is, i.e. there is much more to the world than meets the eye. And if one does not proceed from this solid foundation one will go nowhere except into an abyss of contradictions...

If there is point to all of this I have no idea what it is. If you have rational logical common sense statements that add too or invalidate my comments as stated, please share with specific quote by me your addressing.

r6

Actually, I'm quite well aware of, and endorse, the simple and obvious idea that there are different levels of consciousness and awareness.

And my position is that nowhere in the Universe does that level equal zero.

It's everywhere....

Atreyu wrote:Actually, I'm quite well aware of, and endorse, the simple and obvious idea that there are different levels of consciousness and awareness.And my position is that nowhere in the Universe does that level equal zero.
It's everywhere....

Sorry Atreyu, I still have no idea what your going on about. If you want to have a rational, logical common sense discussion with someone , the first step is to address the specific comment the other makes that is relevant your commment.

Your getting further away from doing that, ergo your comments becoming more and more unrelated, irrelevant mysticism. Please try to get back on track of the disscussion by addressing these concerns. I,m becoming more and more doubtful that you want to have a rational, logical common sense discusion for the reason{s) I give above, if not elsewhere in other threads recently.

It appears to me, that when your self or others lack the intellectual integrity to offer rational, logical common sense replies it is most likely due to ego creating a mental blockage to truth.

Philosophy is about search for truth.

...."the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."......top of page hitvia google for define philosophy.

Then the next hit is as follows;

...": the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

: a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc."....

r6