3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 13th, 2021, 3:34 pm
1. What is your theory concerning Strict Dualism where genetically coded 'information' somehow emerges? Meaning, we know that for the existence of biological consciousness and for it to somehow emerge we need some sort of 'informational database' that breaths fire into the equations. And that in turn, makes a thing a sentient thing-in-itself. In other words, what is the thing that transforms inanimate matter to animate matter(?).
In philosophy, some have attributed this 'metaphysical information' as a
causational neuron/electron/energy force field, having analogous attributes like massless energy, quantum fields (Higgs field) and the like. And some of this informational energy that is unseen represents a variety of metaphysical qualities (Qualia) from conscious existence similar to that of one's Will. As such, one philosophical analogy to the quantum biological mystery along with that so-called genetically coded informational database, seems to be associated with that same notion of a metaphysical Will. The Will itself being the cause.
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” --Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
Please keep in mind, even if the BB theory is correct, science does not know where the Singularity came from, much less why it was there to begin with. Most would argue that would only leave us with notions of logical necessity. Logically, it seems the cause of the BB seems more problematic than an eternally expanding universe with infinite causes... .
Do you think the Will is somehow responsible for that which 'breaths fire into the Hawking equations'? If mathematics is a metaphysical language that describes physical existence, and the Will itself is a sentient metaphysical cause, would it follow that a consistent inference of the non-physical (see Subjective Idealism) somehow provides for that foregoing informational database?
Of course, the short answer to those questions is that we do not know, but it's fun to draw some comparisons and/or distinctions to both the physical and non-physical phenomena in your world view model...
When you moved "up when" from the BB Singularity, you said we were left with "with notions of logical necessity." In what I understand as Strict Dualism, concepts kin to "logical necessity" precede manifestation of their physical counterparts. We have a strong case for the etheric-to-physical influence as the expression of (new) intended order acting on the concept of, say, chaotic audio noise to produce speech.
As an engineer, my first question is
"from whence came intention." I decided to bound my thought model reality by saying first came
curiosity. From curiosity came the
intention to understand self and reality. The reason this work for me is that it is also how we create a
little me to explore a hypothetical situation as an effort to understand something. For instance, I am curious about owning an electric Cadillac. I imagine myself driving one. In doing so, I give a
little me aspect of myself a purpose command, a little autonomy to have a surprising experience and expect feedback as to how it was.
Three things happen when we create a
little me, an environment and a purpose. Done right, we learn something. Our
little me aspect remains in our memory forever. We can call up our
little me to seek out new understanding.
In a sense, we are our
little me's creator. We have created a local reality that is an aspect of the greater reality, but limited by our worldview. We have populated the local reality with one or more aspects of ourselves. In principle, our aspects are a collective working to satisfy our curiosity. Done right, they are self-aware, sentient life forms as a nest in the hierarchy of life we occupy.
One of the implications of Strict Dualism is that the physical is a shared venue. The idea of a collective mind does not really work, but a collective of individual minds sharing related curiosity (purpose) does work. The whole idea of a
little me is to understand a potential future. Think of one programmer initiating a query as compared to many programmers autonomously deciding how to ask and understand a potential future.
Carrying this thought exercise a little further, a collective of many
little mes can be expected to develop a "local collective worldview." One of the metaphysical assumptions about the physical venue for learning is that it is organized according to the intended order expressed by many minds working as a cooperative community. While that is conjecture, such a model helps explain the various physical life forms.
Using Sheldrake's Hypothesis of Formative Causation, and noting the nested hierarchy as an architectural form seemingly preferred by nature, it is easy to conjecture a hierarchy of life forms of which there are many instances nested as species. If we take our urge to be superior humans out of the equation, the only difference between the human species and other species, appears to be how common characteristics of life are involved. Some have expressed a thumb. Some have expressed wings. Think of a conceptual fractal form that is differently expressed, depending on circumstance.
So, I am taking the long way around to say in answer to
"What is your theory concerning Strict Dualism where genetically coded 'information' somehow emerges?" that an "outside-in" (etheric-to-physical) approach produces a more useful model. Not physically emergent genetic codes, but the expression of intended order that probably evolved genetic codes as a mechanism.
For the record, in the two-mind model, I refer to our etheric self as personality and our avatar's self as Body Mind. I am not sure how the the sense of self would be expressed in a Body Mind. Most people are entirely guided by their human's instincts which, in some respects, is about as evolved as cows. The sense of self does not turn toward discerning intellect for most people. In that sense people might be described first as a biological species governed by a metamorphic memory *(Nature's Habit, instincts) hosting a symbiotic species that itself has a different line of evolution.
Be careful here not to jump down the Creationist's rabbit hole. I am a reductionist by training and see little reason not to apply it to metaphysics. There is no magic. There is the operation of naturally occurring organizing principles. If you allow curiosity to be the motivation, and from that intentionality as the operator, then all else is conceptually implicate. (Yes, a nod to Bohm.)
I think I may have circled the question without answering it.
