Lucky Guesses?
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Lucky Guesses?
How odd, and this is the point of this thread: "For the scientist that has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance. He is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." ~Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomer
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Lucky Guesses?
Here's my problem with Watts on consciousness -
You're taking Watts' starting position as correct, and I'm saying the currentOn the one hand, we shall have to say that the effect, consciousness, is a
property lacking to its entire cause—in short, that something has come out of
nothing. Or, on the other hand, we shall have to say that consciousness is a
special form of unconsciousness—in short, that it is not really conscious.
thinking in philosophy of mind is moving in the opposite direction - that
consciousness IS a novel emergent property of matter which manifests in
particular complex configurations (the human brain being the most complex
physical system we know of, and perhaps significantly the most richly
conscious). Just because Watts characterises emergence as equivalent to
'something from nothing' (when in fact it's 'something from something else' )
doesn't mean he's right. Emergence is in fact a major mainstream theory in
philosophy of mind.
Some others, panpsychists, suggest that perhaps consciousness is more like a
fundamental property of all matter, and I suppose the idea is that when enough
units are clustered together in a system then complex consciousness like ours is the result, but a simple rock is also conscious at a much lower level.
Theism has traditionally posited a different explanation, a substance dualism of
matter and souls, souls having an independent and irreducible ontology (and
therefore people's identities can for example survive death).
Any or none could be correct, we don't know. It's all basically guesswork,
trying to make sense of something (subjective experience) which doesn't fit in
our current physical models of the universe. It's a gap in our understanding
yet to be satisfactorily explained, and might never be. But substance dualism
struggles for non-theist adherents nowadays, not least because we've discovered the physical neural correlates of consciousness. Otherwise Cartesian Dualism might have remained the 'sophisticated theism'. You might say that god gap has narrowed as a result of scientific progress, but panpsychism leaves the door open.
Panpsychism does seem closest to Davies and you I think. But I'm not clear on
what's being added to panpsychism which warrants terms like God or Theism?
Except your belief that the singularity 'desired' to experience existence in
different ways. Which Davies hints at too in saying the universe has inherent purpose.
I'm afraid I'm not up for challenging Davies on the implications of QM tho! Way out of my league. But as he himself says, most of his peers disagree with him. I get the gist of the argument tho, and maybe he's onto something. Still it strikes me that our knowledge is such that he can only be speculating. Interesting vids nonetheless.
I'm wondering if you abandoned the term 'god ' and opted for 'panpsychism' which I suppose is god neutral, would you be ditching anything but the belief that the singularity had something akin to 'desire'?
I don't think that's a useful approach really.The question remains: are the insights cited in the OP coincidence, lucky guesses, or were ahead of their time?
And you can turn that on its head, and say that of all the gods which people
have believed in over millennia, this one appeals today because it's on a
shortening list of those which haven't lost credibility. It benefits from being
vague, minimalist and addressing areas which haven't been satisfactorily explained.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Lucky Guesses?
There are so many opinions in the philosophy of mind that one has to wonder whether anyone knows how to frame the question, let alone explain it. Advocates of emergence have yet to explain how something of another kind can emerge from something in which it is entirely absent: it's not like rubbing two sticks together and getting a simple chemical reaction like fire. If, on the other hand, consciousness is as simple as that and not something of another kind, then you have the problem outlined by Watts; i.e., "the opinions and judgements of intelligence are products of mechanical (or statistical) necessity."Gertie wrote: You're taking Watts' starting position as correct, and I'm saying the current
thinking in philosophy of mind is moving in the opposite direction - that
consciousness IS a novel emergent property of matter which manifests in
particular complex configurations (the human brain being the most complex
physical system we know of, and perhaps significantly the most richly
conscious). Just because Watts characterises emergence as equivalent to
'something from nothing' (when in fact it's 'something from something else' )
doesn't mean he's right. Emergence is in fact a major mainstream theory in
philosophy of mind.
Anyway, the videos are not intended as an appeal to authority except to show that the insights in the OP are consistent with modern physics.
I don't portend certainty; certainty is an illusion. As Lily Tomlin said, "I refuse to be intimidated by reality anymore. What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch."Some others, panpsychists, suggest that perhaps consciousness is more like a
fundamental property of all matter, and I suppose the idea is that when enough
units are clustered together in a system then complex consciousness like ours is the result, but a simple rock is also conscious at a much lower level.
Theism has traditionally posited a different explanation, a substance dualism of
matter and souls, souls having an independent and irreducible ontology (and
therefore people's identities can for example survive death).
Any or none could be correct, we don't know. It's all basically guesswork,
trying to make sense of something (subjective experience) which doesn't fit in
our current physical models of the universe. It's a gap in our understanding
yet to be satisfactorily explained, and might never be. But substance dualism
struggles for non-theist adherents nowadays, not least because we've discovered the physical neural correlates of consciousness. Otherwise Cartesian Dualism might have remained the 'sophisticated theism'. You might say that god gap has narrowed as a result of scientific progress, but panpsychism leaves the door open.
Panpsychism does seem closest to Davies and you I think. But I'm not clear on
what's being added to panpsychism which warrants terms like God or Theism?
Except your belief that the singularity 'desired' to experience existence in
different ways. Which Davies hints at too in saying the universe has inherent purpose.
I'm afraid I'm not up for challenging Davies on the implications of QM tho! Way out of my league. But as he himself says, most of his peers disagree with him. I get the gist of the argument tho, and maybe he's onto something. Still it strikes me that our knowledge is such that he can only be speculating. Interesting vids nonetheless.
I'm wondering if you abandoned the term 'god ' and opted for 'panpsychism' which I suppose is god neutral, would you be ditching anything but the belief that the singularity had something akin to 'desire'?
I make no bones about it: I go with what works for me and it's an ongoing process.There is no trustworthy standard by which we can separate the “real” from the “unreal” aspects of phenomena. Such standards as exist are conventional: and correspond to convenience, not to truth. It is no argument to say that most men see the world in much the same way, and that this “way” is the true standard of reality: though for practical purposes we have agreed that sanity consists in sharing the hallucinations of our neighbours. Those who are honest with themselves know that this “sharing” is at best incomplete.
-- Mysticism: A Study in Nature and Development of Spiritual ConsciousnessEvelyn Underhill,
The days of certainty are behind us (thank God for that). Even the certainty that the insights mentioned in the OP cannot be grounded in personal experience.I don't think that's a useful approach really.The question remains: are the insights cited in the OP coincidence, lucky guesses, or were ahead of their time?
And you can turn that on its head, and say that of all the gods which people
have believed in over millennia, this one appeals today because it's on a
shortening list of those which haven't lost credibility. It benefits from being
vague, minimalist and addressing areas which haven't been satisfactorily explained.
-- Updated January 10th, 2017, 9:39 pm to add the following --
BTW, Evelyn Underhill's book is one of my favorites and is a free pdf download.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Lucky Guesses?
Davies faith is is the power of reason. There is no band of theologians who hold to the self-organizing physical processes he calls God:If, like Davies said, consciousness is "fundamental to the whole," … A “living principle” means about as much as a black whiteness
How odd, and this is the point of this thread: "For the scientist that has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance. He is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." ~Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomer
Davies stands in direct opposition to Watts. According to Watts only consciousness can give rise to consciousness, but according to Davies consciousness is written into the laws of nature.So where is God in this story? … To me, the true miracle of nature is to be found in the ingenious and unswerving lawfulness of the cosmos, a lawfulness that permits complex order to emerge from chaos, life to emerge from inanimate matter, and consciousness to emerge from life, without the need for the occasional supernatural prod; a lawfulness that produces beings who not only ask great questions of existence, but who, through science and other methods of enquiry, are even beginning to find answers.
All the richness and diversity of matter and energy we observe today has emerged since the beginning in a long and complicated sequence of self-organizing physical processes. The laws of physics not only permit a universe to originate spontaneously, but they encourage it to organize and complexify itself to the point where conscious beings emerge who can look back on the great cosmic drama and reflect on what it all means.
firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-phy ... address-24
Let’s look again at some of your claims in the OP:So, where do these laws come from?
Trying to explain the origin of the amazing laws of physics may lie beyond the scientific enterprise, and at the end of the day we may just have to accept them as an unexplained mystery.
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2013/12 ... explained/
I was not able in the short time I spent looking at this to find anything in Davies either confirming or rejecting the claim that the universe is infinite. His starting point is the laws of nature, but does not claim that they are eternal and suggests they may be mutable.Being infinite, God, can only be a self-referential system, for if there was something extraneous to God, God would not be infinite.
The laws of nature are not identical to the physical world, but rather govern it. The universe gives rise to consciousness but the laws are not conscious. Further, Davies suggests that we may be alone:The problem is that, although self-reference means subject and object must be identical, they cannot be identical when I define myself.
Because we are a product of this cosmic accident, we cannot conclude that Earth is typical. No statistical evidence can be drawn from a sample of one.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Lucky Guesses?
If true, our brain doesn't create consciousness - it receives it. This means that gradations of consciousness are present even if we are not. What would be the level of reality within which lower levels of reality function?"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
Does intuition exist? Does it enable us to experience a priori relationships? If it does it means lucky guesses and revelation both happen. I know that Einstein discovered the theory of relativity during a deep state of meditation which allowed for the experience of intuition and what has always been known. Unfortunately intuition is helped by grace. Without grace we are governed by imagination and restricted to lucky guesses
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Lucky Guesses?
Bingo! IMO, Tesla hit the nail on the head. So did you. But why "unfortunately"?Nick_A wrote:If true, our brain doesn't create consciousness - it receives it. This means that gradations of consciousness are present even if we are not. What would be the level of reality within which lower levels of reality function?"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
Does intuition exist? Does it enable us to experience a priori relationships? If it does it means lucky guesses and revelation both happen. I know that Einstein discovered the theory of relativity during a deep state of meditation which allowed for the experience of intuition and what has always been known. Unfortunately intuition is helped by grace. Without grace we are governed by imagination and restricted to lucky guesses
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Lucky Guesses?
I wrote unfortunately in respect to the atheists who do not believe in the illuminating power of grace. They deny while not allowing verification with the help of grace. It is like looking for and not finding a pen you dropped in a dark room. Even though you have a flashlight in your pocket you forget that you have it so can't find the pen.Dark Matter wrote:Bingo! IMO, Tesla hit the nail on the head. So did you. But why "unfortunately"?Nick_A wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
If true, our brain doesn't create consciousness - it receives it. This means that gradations of consciousness are present even if we are not. What would be the level of reality within which lower levels of reality function?
Does intuition exist? Does it enable us to experience a priori relationships? If it does it means lucky guesses and revelation both happen. I know that Einstein discovered the theory of relativity during a deep state of meditation which allowed for the experience of intuition and what has always been known. Unfortunately intuition is helped by grace. Without grace we are governed by imagination and restricted to lucky guesses
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Lucky Guesses?
LOL! Kinda thought so, but I wasn't sure. Strange, isn't it? How many times have you read or heard some scientist say anything that can happen, happens? Except God, of course, even though according to science it's a distinct possibility.Nick_A wrote:I wrote unfortunately in respect to the atheists who do not believe in the illuminating power of grace. They deny while not allowing verification with the help of grace. It is like looking for and not finding a pen you dropped in a dark room. Even though you have a flashlight in your pocket you forget that you have it so can't find the pen.Dark Matter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Bingo! IMO, Tesla hit the nail on the head. So did you. But why "unfortunately"?
Fooloso4:
Still trying to muddy the water, eh?
-- Updated January 11th, 2017, 2:42 am to add the following --
Fooloso4:
You did mention the "laws of nature" a few times, so I will comment on that. What "laws of nature"? There are no "laws." We see regularities in nature and, for the sake of convenience only, call them "laws." But things are meaningful only when they are relating or being related to; things become only through those relations. Whatever state of being we perceive, whether that is our self or someone or something else, it is but but a momentary average of its constituent relations. The set of classical “laws” are only the perceived average.
- Ormond
- Posts: 932
- Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm
Re: Lucky Guesses?
Your ongoing references to the ancient Greeks are useful as they demonstrate that such discussions have been going on for thousands of years, and are still right where they were from the very beginning....
1) some believe
2) some don't
3) some aren't sure
My honorable fellow posters pride themselves on the quality of their arguments WITHIN the God debate, but refuse to apply their reason to the God debate itself. The price tag for such intellectual cowardice is to be condemned to travel eternally round and round in the same little circles to nowhere.
If our atheist friends would simply apply their own chosen methodology to the God debate itself, they would quickly see there is no compelling evidence that philosophical argumentation for and against the God theory will ever accomplish anything constructive.
Most philosophers will discard this obvious insight because to accept it is to discard the huge pile of information and arguments they have constructed over years, perhaps a lifetime. We can have sympathy for their predicament because surely it's not easy to accept that a simple mistake at the heart of their inquiry renders the rest of it pointless.
But those strong enough to jettison what has been proven not to advance the inquiry will arrive at an interesting fork in the road. Some will choose to abandon the God inquiry and turn their attention to other topics were philosophy has proven itself useful. Others will discover that they are unable to let the God inquiry go, and so they will have no choice but to seek out other methods of continuing.
In both cases, the philosopher will learn which is more important to them, the inquiry, or their preferred methodology. Whatever the answer might be for a particular philosopher, it's a step in the right direction.
A person of reason does not keep doing the same thing over and over and over again for thousands of years expecting different results.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Lucky Guesses?
I have seen this quote attributed to Tesla but have not found a citation to where or if he even said it."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."
The quote says nothing about consciousness.If true, our brain doesn't create consciousness - it receives it.
Here are a few quotes with references:
To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without.
"A Machine to End War", 1937
The human being is a self-propelled automaton entirely under the control of external influences. Willful and predetermined though they appear, his actions are governed not from within, but from without. He is like a float tossed about by the waves of a turbulent sea.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1915-02-07.htm
Dark Matter:It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making.
New York Herald Tribune (11 September 1932)
I mention “laws of nature” because they are central to Davies’ argument. If you listened to the videos you posted and read the statements by Davies I posted you would see that. If you think that there are no laws of nature then you are in fundamental disagreement with him.You did mention the "laws of nature" a few times, so I will comment on that. What "laws of nature"? There are no "laws."
There are no waters to be muddied, only a hole that you have dug that gets deeper and deeper every time you indulge your peculiar need to refute whatever I say. As a result you end up contradicting and arguing against the authors you cite in support of your claims.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Lucky Guesses?
-- Updated January 11th, 2017, 12:51 pm to add the following --
Look, Fooloso4. I thought I made it clear in post #48 that this isn't about he said/she said or agreeing with someone mentioned. Nor is it about playing with ideas like children building sandcastles at a beach. It's not even about finding “the Truth” — truth is something we live; it can't be captured in a body of ideas.
It's about what's possible and making meaningful subjective connections.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Lucky Guesses?
That is the point. The universe is a machine. I know it as the body of a conscious Source. The universe is governed by mechanical laws and consciousness. The closer materiality is to the Source in accordance with a lawful scale of energies the greater the quality of consciousness it can include.To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without.
"A Machine to End War", 1937
The human being is a self-propelled automaton entirely under the control of external influences. Willful and predetermined though they appear, his actions are governed not from within, but from without. He is like a float tossed about by the waves of a turbulent sea.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1915-02-07.htm
It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making.
New York Herald Tribune (11 September 1932)
Consider the body of God, our universe, as between two poles. The first is No-thing which the body exists within. It is the source by which qualities of matter can be created and descending to form creation. The lowest point in the scale of energies is Nothing. So where the Source IS outside of the limitations of time and space, Nothing is the result of the involving purpose of creation. No-thing is pure conscious potential and Nothing is void of conscious potential. Appreciating emergence from the point of view of lawful creation emerging and descending from No-thing is perfectly reasonable. However, emergence beginning from nothing, no potential, and ascending to accidentally form the universe seems ludicrous.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Lucky Guesses?
Are you fooling yourself or just imagining that you are fooling someone else who might be reading this exchange?Nothing relevant to say, Fooloso4?
You question what you took to be my concept of the laws of nature and I pointed out that it is actually Davies’ concept. It is relevant not simply because he is saying something different than what you thought he was, but because what he is actually saying is contrary to what you are claiming and used him as evidence in support of.
Is it relevant that Davies is saying something quite different and contrary to your self-referential system? Of course it is, but apparently you think not.
Is it relevant that you claim as you did in the OP that:
but that what the only physicist you provide any information about says does not in fact correlate with what you have said? Apparently you think not.everything said above correlates very well with 21st Century physics.
You are either hiding in the hole you have dug or you are too deep in to see the truth. Or perhaps you also think that the truth is not relevant.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Lucky Guesses?
LOL! Kinda thought so, but I wasn't sure. Strange, isn't it? How many times have you read or heard some scientist say anything that can happen, happens? Except God, of course, even though according to science it's a distinct possibility.
Simone Weil wrote:
But suppose the domain of science includes measuring what happens. It cannot measure NOW or the state of isness within which the PROCESS of creation takes place. Simone understood it; Einstein understood it as did many others, why is it so hard to consider? My guess is that it questions if we are the supreme being which is an insult to our self esteem and secular progressive politics.I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488
"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil
A lucky guess didn’t result in awareness of this relationship. It is what Plato called anamnesis. It was remembered.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Lucky Guesses?
Which is to say, like Watts, "Evolution is, therefore, a transition from the potential to the actual, wherein the new powers and qualities constantly acquired are derived, not from the potential, but from a superior type of life which already possesses them."Nick_A wrote: Consider the body of God, our universe, as between two poles. The first is No-thing which the body exists within. It is the source by which qualities of matter can be created and descending to form creation. The lowest point in the scale of energies is Nothing. So where the Source IS outside of the limitations of time and space, Nothing is the result of the involving purpose of creation. No-thing is pure conscious potential and Nothing is void of conscious potential. Appreciating emergence from the point of view of lawful creation emerging and descending from No-thing is perfectly reasonable. However, emergence beginning from nothing, no potential, and ascending to accidentally form the universe seems ludicrous.
-- Updated January 11th, 2017, 3:27 pm to add the following --
Foolso4:
Is there something about "the videos are not intended as an appeal to authority except to show that the insights in the OP are consistent with modern physics" you don't understand?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023