Your query about whether any previous cycles would have involved a big bang, and the existence of an initial one, is the problem which I have always seen with cyclical pictures. It is like looking at a circle which probably needs to begin with an actual point initially. As far as I see it, most cyclical pictures are idealist essentially, although I wonder if there may be a more complex indeed, in some form of quantum enfoldment of potential prior to manifestation, but it is rather perplexing, even with a linear model.Carter Blunt wrote: ↑March 5th, 2023, 6:53 pmTime is just a measurement of motion, so there still has to be a first motion, no matter how far back you go. If you're saying our big bang was part of a cycle of infinite big bangs, does the universe play out the exact same way every time, looping back in on itself in some kind of paradox where the ending is the beginning? Or is there a FIRST big bang?JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 10:35 amThe question may be whether there was ever a time before life existed at all. Here, I am thinking of more cyclical pictures. Even if life emerged in this universe in the form of the big bang, that doesn't rule out the possibility of many previous births and deaths of universes prior to the existence of this one, in a cyclical picture of eternity.
Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
The idea of disembodied consciousness is problematic, and would involve spirits of some kind. It would depend on what spirit is, or some underlying spiritual force, such as recognised in panpsychism. The other possibility may be of the unconscious, or as Jung described, the collective unconscious, as a source from which all consciousness comes from and returns to as a blending process of merging with the eternal.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 8:11 amIt’s more than an assumption. The fact is that the world can exist without consciousness, but consciousness has never been found disembodied. Whatever one may speculate on the nature, origins and development of these things, this fact cannot be ignored.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 10:30 amIt depends what you mean by conditions,; were they simply material ones? Usually, the idea of emergence is linked to a materialist understanding of consciousness, with the assumption that consciousness was a later development. That is in contrast to the perspective of consciousness being a prerequisite. However, my own perspective involves the Jungian understanding of the unconscious as the source. But, it still leaves the question as to whether there is some underlying consciousness, as potential, in the unconscious prior to emergence.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 9:43 am I think perhaps that the conditions here were appropriate for life, so life emerged? Just that?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
Part of the problem with the idea of the multiverse is that it a fuzzy i conceptual picture of the fluidity of perception, mainly be backed up with various aspects of quantum theory. What seems to have happened is that in the light of the new physics ushered in by Einstein 'reality' has become less solid. Relativity has made both time and space relative, with the result of making so much about ongoing relationships between variables, rather than the more previous mechanistic view of space-time as constants. Change is going on constantly and the various perspectives may be the basis of the whole idea of the multiverse, and all ideas of developments, such as evolutionary progression and survival of the fittest are human interpretation.Bahman wrote: ↑March 5th, 2023, 11:26 amSure I cannot rule out the multiverse idea so other forms of life are possible. I can conceive other universes with different laws of nature, different elementary particles, and different sorts of life.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 6:04 pmWhile I have do think that 'big bang' theory may be one of the most accurate theories, it is so hard to see the entire spectrum of eternity and infinity because it is beyond known boundaries. It is almost impossible to know whether the linear or the cyclical is the larger pattern because there appears to an interplay of both in the patterns in nature, just like the interplay between mind and matter. Also, we in this universe and its laws of nature and dimensions of reality, so it is hard to know how fixed these are. There is no reason to believe that this is the only universe, especially in the light of the quantum model or portrait of the multiverse.Bahman wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 12:18 pmSure there was a period between the Big Bang and the moment that the universe cool down enough to allow any form of life. In the starting, there was only light. Then the universe got colder and this allowed the appearance of matter in form of elementary particles. There was a period when there were only stars. You need heavy elements for life and for that you need supernova. You could then have planets made of heavy elements. And life could appear on a planet if the planet has the appropriate conditions.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 10:35 am
The question may be whether there was ever a time before life existed at all.
I don't think that the cyclic universe is a correct model since it deals with an infinite past. Nevertheless, even if the model was true any form of life gets destroyed during the collapse of the universe so the proper condition for life has to become available again.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 10:35 am Here, I am thinking of more cyclical pictures. Even if life emerged in this universe in the form of the big bang, that doesn't rule out the possibility of many previous births and deaths of universes prior to the existence of this one, in a cyclical picture of eternity.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
Yes, disembodied consciousness is problematic. Idealism is problematic. Materialism is not.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 11:42 amThe idea of disembodied consciousness is problematic, and would involve spirits of some kind. It would depend on what spirit is, or some underlying spiritual force, such as recognised in panpsychism. The other possibility may be of the unconscious, or as Jung described, the collective unconscious, as a source from which all consciousness comes from and returns to as a blending process of merging with the eternal.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 8:11 amIt’s more than an assumption. The fact is that the world can exist without consciousness, but consciousness has never been found disembodied. Whatever one may speculate on the nature, origins and development of these things, this fact cannot be ignored.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 10:30 amIt depends what you mean by conditions,; were they simply material ones? Usually, the idea of emergence is linked to a materialist understanding of consciousness, with the assumption that consciousness was a later development. That is in contrast to the perspective of consciousness being a prerequisite. However, my own perspective involves the Jungian understanding of the unconscious as the source. But, it still leaves the question as to whether there is some underlying consciousness, as potential, in the unconscious prior to emergence.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 9:43 am I think perhaps that the conditions here were appropriate for life, so life emerged? Just that?
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
Materialism is far less problematic than idealism because idealism involves speculative imagination. Of course, there is a potential problem of reductionism, if it is seen too concretely. Nevertheless, the nature of disembodied consciousness raises a lot of questions, especially in some discussions of immortality and what it could entail. In querying the nature of disembodied consciousness, thinkers from the phenomenological perspective have raised important understanding of the way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 11:08 pmYes, disembodied consciousness is problematic. Idealism is problematic. Materialism is not.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 11:42 amThe idea of disembodied consciousness is problematic, and would involve spirits of some kind. It would depend on what spirit is, or some underlying spiritual force, such as recognised in panpsychism. The other possibility may be of the unconscious, or as Jung described, the collective unconscious, as a source from which all consciousness comes from and returns to as a blending process of merging with the eternal.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 8:11 amIt’s more than an assumption. The fact is that the world can exist without consciousness, but consciousness has never been found disembodied. Whatever one may speculate on the nature, origins and development of these things, this fact cannot be ignored.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 10:30 am
It depends what you mean by conditions,; were they simply material ones? Usually, the idea of emergence is linked to a materialist understanding of consciousness, with the assumption that consciousness was a later development. That is in contrast to the perspective of consciousness being a prerequisite. However, my own perspective involves the Jungian understanding of the unconscious as the source. But, it still leaves the question as to whether there is some underlying consciousness, as potential, in the unconscious prior to emergence.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
That's a contradicting statement. Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 2:16 pm
Materialism is far less problematic than idealism because idealism involves speculative imagination. Of course, there is a potential problem of reductionism, if it is seen too concretely. Nevertheless, the nature of disembodied consciousness raises a lot of questions, especially in some discussions of immortality and what it could entail. In querying the nature of disembodied consciousness, thinkers from the phenomenological perspective have raised important understanding of the way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
My understanding is that the phenomenonologists raise the way in which seeing mind and body as separate is problematic in many respects. This is parallel to Gilbert Ryle's argument in 'The Concept of Mind' that dualism, especially the idea of the 'ghost in the machine' is a category error of trying to separate mind and body, rather than the two being complementary perspectives of the inner and outer.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 8:53 pmThat's a contradicting statement. Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 2:16 pm
Materialism is far less problematic than idealism because idealism involves speculative imagination. Of course, there is a potential problem of reductionism, if it is seen too concretely. Nevertheless, the nature of disembodied consciousness raises a lot of questions, especially in some discussions of immortality and what it could entail. In querying the nature of disembodied consciousness, thinkers from the phenomenological perspective have raised important understanding of the way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life.
Of course, it is complex because life as we know it is dependent on a body. That may the standard medical definition of life, especially when declaring a person as alive, dependent mostly on breath. Probably, where it gets a bit more complicated is in relation to whether consciousness begins and ends at this point in a definitive way and what constitutes the spark of life as the animating factor.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
Since there's no evidence of disembodied consciousness, if consciousness and the organic life of bodies always appear together, I can't see where it gets complicated. It's actually pretty straightforward.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 8th, 2023, 9:16 am
Of course, it is complex because life as we know it is dependent on a body. That may the standard medical definition of life, especially when declaring a person as alive, dependent mostly on breath. Probably, where it gets a bit more complicated is in relation to whether consciousness begins and ends at this point in a definitive way and what constitutes the spark of life as the animating factor.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
I think you've zeroed-in on an important aspect of this discussion. For myself, I feel inclined to reconsider the basic assumptions at work here. For example, why are we wondering about "the real way in which mind and body come together", instead of starting from the (alternative) assumption that both are one, an undivided (and maybe indivisible) thing? In other words, when we ask why they came together, I ask in return why we think they were ever apart? [N.B. I'm discussing the status quo, not the emergence of mind, which presumably happened farther back down our evolutionary chain.]Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 8:53 pm Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.
I think you capture some of this in your final words. I think that mind and body are distinct — we can recognise one or the other — and tell one from the other — without difficulty. But are they "distinct" in the sense of being independent, in a way that would justify us considering them in isolation from each other?
"Who cares, wins"
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
I can see your point of view and the problematic nature of idealism in comparison with materialism is something which I have been thinking about in various threads. I can see why materialism is the most simple solution but I am not convinced that it captures everything as it does not seem to capture the essence of the lifeforce itself. For example, at birth and death the animating factor starts and ends. It may come down to breath on the basic physical level but what is involved in the process is complex.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 11:08 pmYes, disembodied consciousness is problematic. Idealism is problematic. Materialism is not.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 11:42 amThe idea of disembodied consciousness is problematic, and would involve spirits of some kind. It would depend on what spirit is, or some underlying spiritual force, such as recognised in panpsychism. The other possibility may be of the unconscious, or as Jung described, the collective unconscious, as a source from which all consciousness comes from and returns to as a blending process of merging with the eternal.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 6th, 2023, 8:11 amIt’s more than an assumption. The fact is that the world can exist without consciousness, but consciousness has never been found disembodied. Whatever one may speculate on the nature, origins and development of these things, this fact cannot be ignored.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 10:30 am
It depends what you mean by conditions,; were they simply material ones? Usually, the idea of emergence is linked to a materialist understanding of consciousness, with the assumption that consciousness was a later development. That is in contrast to the perspective of consciousness being a prerequisite. However, my own perspective involves the Jungian understanding of the unconscious as the source. But, it still leaves the question as to whether there is some underlying consciousness, as potential, in the unconscious prior to emergence.
It may be systems based but the question is whether there is any underlying non physical aspects involved. In particular, in the navigation of motivation and purpose in each life there is will, which is psychological. The basis of psychological motivation definitely involve physical aspects but it it can be asked is that all there is? So, the idea of the "ghost in the machine' may pose a problem of dualism but to deny the 'ghost' at all may be too reductionist, with the material being seen as all and everything.
In addition, the other aspect of this, regarding disembodied consciousness is the nature of artificial intelligence. Of course, such intelligence is non sentient but not disconnected from machines, digital devices and transmission of information. However, the processes go beyond the physical, raising the question is information physical or non physical? This is important in thinking about consciousness and asking what exactly is 'mind'?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
Your interpretation Count Lucanor's reply is important, raising the issue as to what extent mind and body are one or separate. This does go back to Descartes and , as far as I am aware he did wish to see them as two aspects but interlinked. This led to two different pathways of thinking, one being the emphasis on the empirical and mechanistic understanding of the human being and, the other, as a focus on inner reality, especially the idea of the soul.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 9th, 2023, 9:20 amI think you've zeroed-in on an important aspect of this discussion. For myself, I feel inclined to reconsider the basic assumptions at work here. For example, why are we wondering about "the real way in which mind and body come together", instead of starting from the (alternative) assumption that both are one, an undivided (and maybe indivisible) thing? In other words, when we ask why they came together, I ask in return why we think they were ever apart? [N.B. I'm discussing the status quo, not the emergence of mind, which presumably happened farther back down our evolutionary chain.]Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 8:53 pm Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.
I think you capture some of this in your final words. I think that mind and body are distinct — we can recognise one or the other — and tell one from the other — without difficulty. But are they "distinct" in the sense of being independent, in a way that would justify us considering them in isolation from each other?
This paradox has been prevalent in different understandings. In particular, the emphasis on the mechanistic aspects was a basis for the Cartesian-Newtonian model. On the other hand, the emphasis on the 'soul' or 'ghost in the machine' was a basis for the perpetuation of the idea of consciousness as a separate reality, which may have enabled a perspective of the existence of the 'soul' as an independent reality, going back to Plato and his basis for the idea of immortality.
My own thinking is concerned about how the nature of 'mind' and 'life' itself can be understood in the ongoing perspectives, including quantum physics models, in which 'reality' is less 'solid'. It raises deep questions in which the physical is the basic structure of development of life but the quantum understandings, which are various models, are not materialistic essentially, such as that conveyed in the idea of the multiverse.
- davidclark
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: March 9th, 2023, 1:12 pm
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
I am not a dualist myself and I think the common distinction between mind and body only depicts different aspects of the same thing. It's not a body with a mind, but a mindful body. Mind is what the brain does, and not even just the brain, but the entire central nervous system and perhaps the whole organism with its sensations.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 9th, 2023, 9:20 amI think you've zeroed-in on an important aspect of this discussion. For myself, I feel inclined to reconsider the basic assumptions at work here. For example, why are we wondering about "the real way in which mind and body come together", instead of starting from the (alternative) assumption that both are one, an undivided (and maybe indivisible) thing? In other words, when we ask why they came together, I ask in return why we think they were ever apart? [N.B. I'm discussing the status quo, not the emergence of mind, which presumably happened farther back down our evolutionary chain.]Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 7th, 2023, 8:53 pm Thinkers from the phenomenological perspective may have raised interesting, imaginative speculations, but nevertheless, useless for an understanding of the real way in which mind and body come together in the processes of life, given that assumption that there's a distinction between mind and body.
I think you capture some of this in your final words. I think that mind and body are distinct — we can recognise one or the other — and tell one from the other — without difficulty. But are they "distinct" in the sense of being independent, in a way that would justify us considering them in isolation from each other?
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
Physical does not mean hard, tangible, bodily things, even though the concept encompasses them too. Electromagnetic forces are physical, too. There are states, modes and relational properties of the physical that can only be described with abstractions, but even if we refer to them as "non-physical", they are not implying a cancellation of material monism, which is what materalism is. There are no known processes that "go beyond the physical". "Lifeforce", "animating factor", "ghost", these are all terms that recognize the existence of living processes that are ultimately physical, but are not reducible to it because they are emergent.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 9th, 2023, 11:46 am I can see your point of view and the problematic nature of idealism in comparison with materialism is something which I have been thinking about in various threads. I can see why materialism is the most simple solution but I am not convinced that it captures everything as it does not seem to capture the essence of the lifeforce itself. For example, at birth and death the animating factor starts and ends. It may come down to breath on the basic physical level but what is involved in the process is complex.
It may be systems based but the question is whether there is any underlying non physical aspects involved. In particular, in the navigation of motivation and purpose in each life there is will, which is psychological. The basis of psychological motivation definitely involve physical aspects but it it can be asked is that all there is? So, the idea of the "ghost in the machine' may pose a problem of dualism but to deny the 'ghost' at all may be too reductionist, with the material being seen as all and everything.
In addition, the other aspect of this, regarding disembodied consciousness is the nature of artificial intelligence. Of course, such intelligence is non sentient but not disconnected from machines, digital devices and transmission of information. However, the processes go beyond the physical, raising the question is information physical or non physical? This is important in thinking about consciousness and asking what exactly is 'mind'?
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why Did Life and the Processes of Evolution Occur?
I agree with what you are saying and the only aspect which I do wonder about is natural selection itself because it is like an 'invisible hand' behind the scenes. It could have been something that evolved, or emerged but it does seem to suggest some inherent consciousness as the source of life itself.davidclark wrote: ↑March 9th, 2023, 1:34 pm Life may have originated from complex chemical reactions that occurred on Earth billions of years ago. These reactions, which were driven by energy from the sun and other sources, may have gradually led to the formation of self-replicating molecules that eventually evolved into the first living organisms. The processes of evolution may have occurred because of natural selection, online class takers idea that organisms that are better adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, this leads to the development of new species and the diversification of life on Earth.
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