RJG wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2021, 9:30 am
RJG wrote:If there is nothing (no-somethings) to be conscious of, then there can be no-consciousness.
Scott wrote:I am not sure I agree with this premise, but it depends what you mean.
All I'm really saying here is that the experience of consciousness is not possible without 'something' (a bodily experience) to be conscious of. Much like reading is not possible without 'something' (a word; words) to read.
Scott wrote:What if it turns out that you are just an omnipotent god having a dream, and none of this is real?
If everything we are conscious of is just a dream (or an hallucination of some type), this doesn't mean that nothing is real. Certainly at the very least, the dream, and the dreamer would still be undeniable certain; real.
RJG wrote:Similarly, when we are reading, we are reading of 'words'. If there is nothing (no-words) to be reading, then there can be no-reading.
Scott wrote:Again, I am not sure I can agree…
Can you read if there is nothing to read? ...or do you need words to read? In other words, I'm saying that the experience of reading is not possible without 'something' to read.
I think having the perception of words on a page does not require there to be words on a page. So I think the answer to your question is,
yes, a person could read if there was nothing to read. In other words, the person could be hallucinating.
Scott wrote:What we all often call "this world" or "external reality" is yet another dreamy relative contingent realty of relative truths that are true relatively and contingently, which is what I meant to convey in my previous post when I brought up that fact that we are all undeniably hallucinating our entire pseudo-reality that we regularly confusingly call simply "reality". We each live in our own unique VR-world, that seems to created by a material brain, but we only know and see that so-called brain as an object in the VR-reality itself. In other words, what we see as our own brain is part of the hallucination. It's an object, and we know objects don't really exist, not absolutely; they are artifacts of made-up Newtonian-like space and unreal time, and an observer-dependent scale-selection that acts as basis for scientific approximation (a.k.a. demonstrable wrongness).
RJG wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree except for the implication that "everything is uncertain", as this is a logical contradiction in itself. One cannot logically assert (with certainty) that everything is uncertain. For if everything was uncertain, then so is the assertion that "everything is uncertain". So then at least something must be certain.
I agree, which is why I generally wouldn't say simply that
everything is uncertain. Rather, I think we can distinguish between types of reality, namely on the one hand relative/contingent/synthetic/changeable/doubtable/non-absolute realities (e.g. Batman's existence and what his 'real' identity is) versus eternal/analytic/absolute reality (e.g. pi; 2 + 2 = 4; all bachelors are unmarried, etc.). The antithesis of any statement in the former category is possible at least hypothetically or in a dream world or a meta-reality we awaken to, hence the plurality of realities which reflect the plurality of possibilities. Eternal truth in contrast is timeless and absolute. The antithesis of an absolute truth is not possible.
Some things are certain, absolutely. Thus, they don't have a fully meaningful opposite. A married bachelor is a non-thing, gibberish.
Consciousness is a certainty. Thus, by being conscious, a conscious person has access to eternal truth in a way that a philosophical zombie does not.
Scott wrote:Indeed, but so too might the mirror you see be unreal. So too might the human body you see in that mirror be unreal. You and I might each be an AI in a Matrix, created by non-human aliens in a universe with no real humans. Or it could just be a fleeting dream that a non-human alien is having about to wake up and forget forever. Just as the ghost you see may be unreal, so too may humans be unreal. Humans may be no more real than unicorns, and in a way that fact alone proves that they are not absolutely real…
RJG wrote:
I agree that our subjective perceptions, by themselves, are not trustworthy to reveal true reality, as we have no way of (experientially) knowing if that which we perceive is a hallucination, or if it actually represents something real. But we can know true reality. We can trust absolute and logical truths to reveal true reality, as there is nothing more real in all of our reality than absolute and logical truths. We can trust them because they are non-man-made (a priori) truths, and are likewise
impossible for man to deny.
- Truth Hierarchy:
1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities
I generally agree with that hierarchy.
I do want to note that I prefer to not look at it one-dimensionally as if a relative/contingent/non-absolute truth is simpler a lesser form of an eternal/absolute truth, but rather I prefer to see those as two different dimensions. One is a bag of eternal (a.k.a. timeless) truths that you can carry with you to any place and any time and any possible world. It's truth when I am a sword-wielding chacther in a video game, it's true when I am a unicorn avatar in a dream world of unicorns, and it is true when I get pulled out of The Matrix. It's true yesterday and tomorrow.
It's a different type of truth, not merely a different amount of certainty.
Amount of certainty is one dimension on which we can rate a possible contingent truth (e.g. the likelihood that Batman is really Bruce Wayne versus the likelihood that Spiderman is really Peter Parker) and those likelihood will change if the world changes (i.e. if we change our reference blob), such as if we switch our relative truths from being contingent to the DC Universe versus Marvel Universe.
Eternalness is another conceptual dimension entirely. The transcendence of spacetime is another dimension entirely.
The way consciousness i more fundamental and real than time or motion is more than mere certainty.
To say motion is relative isn't just about certainty (i.e. that we could be mis-measuring the motion of an object) but about the nature of that reality no matter how certain it is. It is exemplified by the fact that motion is a meaningless concept in a world with one single point object because motion refers to a quality of a relationship between objects. In parallel, contingent truth represent a relationship between a proposition and a specific possible world of many possible worlds (e.g. The DC Universe versus The Marvel Universe versus the dream world I lived in for a bit last night). Even if we are talking about a dream within a dream, declaring one of those relative realities as the base-reality for contingent truth still requires a relationship between that contingent truth and the so-called base reality; it's relatively true in that world at that relative time (from that reference blob in spacetime in some relative here and now). There's an inherent circularity to it because it only tells us about relationships. No amount of certainty can make a contingent truth absolutely real. Its certainty is always contingent on the other side of the relationship. For instance, a measurement of speed will always be a contingent relative non-fundamental truth rather than absolute non-relative truth. The truth of we say about Batman will be contingent on which world it is relative to, and possibly contingent to a time or space in that world, which themselves are just as relative, contingent, and presumably imaginary.
Scott wrote:Rather, I would assert that the words "past" and "future" make no sense without consciousness, and they are both relative to consciousness and consciousnesses experience. Consciousness is much more fundamental and much more absolutely real than time, if time can be said to be real at all.
RJG wrote:I would think it is the other way around. I think time is fundamental to reality.
We know Newtonian time is an illusion.
We know there is no universal now.
Einstein proved all of that, and GPS satellites wouldn't function if they didn't take it into account.
Rather, as conscious blobs in a relative spacetime that all pseudo-move at the same speed (lightspeed) in 4-D space, we experience our first-person trajectory in 4-D spacetime as special (as being the linear trajectory of time), and then the 3 perpendicular planes from that are seen as space. Your time is space from another reference blob/point, and vice versa. Space and time can not be distinguished any more than left and right can be, or front of you and in back of you can be. They are relative. And indeed the left is always on your left, and time is always a direction you seem to be moving that is thus special compared to the perpendicular directions in 4-D spacetime, but that's all relative to you. Without you, it's gone. There is no absolute left and right, or leftness and rightness, or forwardness or backness, or spaceness or timeness.
RJG wrote:
And without time there could be no consciousness.
I think we can agree that these two things are interlinked, but I think it's clear that consciousness is more fundamental than that which is relative to it, such as scale, fowardness, backness, pastness, futureness, leftness, rightness, hereness, nowness, etc.
Time is not real.
Consciousness is real.
Time is not fundamental.
Consciousness may be like the projector that projects the frames of a movie onto a screen, creating the illusion of movement and time even though it is playing (and perhaps re-playing) an unchanging movie. Consciousness may be like the movie viewer viewing frame after frame of an eternal movie. Consciousness may be like the video game player playing a video game with multiple endings all pre-programmed into the video game DVD.
RJG wrote:If we define "time" as equivalent to "change"
I wouldn't define time that way, and I don't see how we can even generate a concept of change without first presupposing the illusion of time by at least treating it as relatively real.
RJG wrote:Without time, absolutely nothing could ever happen (change). All of reality would be frozen; no movement;
Eternal reality presumably has that quality, yes.
If we consider the physics of the world without consciousnesses, it appears to be an eternal 4-D block universe using Einstein's physics. Quantum physics would give a similar picture but may give it more dimensions and have it be a superpositioned multiuniverse in terms of Many World Interpretation (i.e. the absence of the collapse the wave function), but that superposition of possibilities could be seen as just one more dimension in the enteral block universe.
Scott wrote:I respectfully disagree with the statement, "We can't get the 'consciousness-of-X' without there first being an 'X' to be conscious of.". We can hallucinate an X that never existed and never will.
RJG wrote:
I think you are referring to a different X. The X in the consciousness-of-X refers to the actual physical bodily experience (thought, feeling, sensation), and not to the contents of said experience. So if we are hallucinating ghosts flying about, then we are conscious-of-the-sight (of ghosts flying about). X is the "sight" or visual experience (of seeing ghosts flying about). X is absolutely certain; real. Whereas, the objects represented in the content of X are not-certain.
Again, it is much like reading. When we read, we read actual 'words', so if we are reading about ghosts flying about, we are still only reading actual 'words', whereas the objects (ghosts flying about) represent the content of these words, and are therefore not-certain (as the 'words' themselves).
The book itself may not exist. The word may not exist. We may not have bodies. Atoms may not exist. Carbon and water may not exist. Electrons may not exist.
Scott wrote:Nonetheless, as a way to describe fundamental reality, I agree with the sentiment of avoiding the term causality, due to its implication of time.
Instead, I prefer the concept of eternal or transcendental creation. Keep in mind, I believe in nothing supernatural. Even Einstein saw fundamental reality as eternal (a.k.a. timeless). To Einstein, presumably the past and the future were mutually causal. Have you seen the movie Predestination?
RJG wrote:
Nope, but I'll look it up!
If you watch it, please do let me know what you think.
Scott wrote:In relative time as perceived by a conscious observer, the seeming pattern of causality represents a relationship between past conditions and future conditions, but without assuming the fundamental reality of time, there is no reason to believe that the past causes the future anymore than the future causes the past. Rather, in Einstein's eternal block universe they mutually cause each other, in a timeless unchanging 4-D block universe.
RJG wrote:So, then how would causality work if there were no time? How can something cause something else?
In an eternal block universe without a preferred arrow of time and without consciousness, causality could refer to a mutual relationship between different aspects of the block universe. For instance, consider the fact that if I show you half of a chess board, you would be able to determine the rest of the chest board by the half I showed you, regardless of which half of the board I showed you.
In Einstein's block universe, if we ignore consciousness and assume the universe obeys causal determinism (i..e assume "god does not play dice"), then presumably if I showed you half of that 4-D block universe you would be able to determine the rest of it regardless of which half I showed you, even if that half was only what you from your current reference point in that relative spacetime would consider the future.
In other words, the future would determine the past in the same way the past determines the future, in an eternal block universe with no randomness (i.e. no metaphorical god's playing dice) and no libertarian free will.
In Einsteins physics, there's no reason to believe that there aren't creatures who experience time in the opposite direction as us. Indeed, if you looked at what's before the Big Bang ('before' from the perspective of a human on Earth) then you might get mostly mirror image of our universe post-Big-Bang but with the arrow of time seeming to point in the opposite direction, especially assuming the Big Bang represented a peak of low entropy, so that the entropy-based arrow of time points away from it in all directions.
RJG wrote:
How could we get motion or change or anything to happen in a timeless universe/reality? Wouldn't everything be frozen if "change" (aka "time") were not possible?
The 4-D block universe in Einstein's physics doesn't change.
Plato's eternal reality, his world of forms, or what I like to call Plato's Heaven, presumably doesn't change and doesn't have ticking clocks.
The eternal is timeless by definition.
Scott wrote:But with conscious presence, a relative time emerges, much like a DVD player can pull out a scene at a certain point in a movie even though the disc--without the DVD-player or movie-watcher--contains all events.
But it may not be like a DVD movie. It may be more like a DVD video game. All the possibilities are programmed onto that eternal DVD, different cut scenes depending on which options the player chooses.
RJG wrote:
How can the player "choose"? Or is he predetermined to react (choose) in a certain/specific/predetermined way?
I don't know.
If I (meaning Scott) was a philosophical zombie, I (meaning unconscious Scott) wouldn't even believe consciousness exists, let alone conscious will.
Why does eternal creation exist (or as others sometimes put it, 'why is there something rather than nothing'), and why do we experience it in this seemingly transcendental way through these focal point avatars, and why does it at least seem like we as synthetic conscious creatures/avatars are taking part in eternal creation (i.e. exercising transcendental free will)? I can only speculate, and I assume my speculations would be lucky to barely scratch the surface.
RJG wrote:
In a conscious reality (where befores and afters exist) "conscious causation" and "consciously choosing" are logically impossible because of CTD. (...we can't logically come 'before' and cause that which we consciously realize/come 'after').
Consciousness could be like a time-traveler from the future who edits past events based on future experiences.
But it doesn't require literal time travel because time isn't real.
Assuming Newtonian time is real will lead to all sorts of contradictions, even ignoring consciousness.
Consciousness isn't what causes the illogical contradictions. Those are already there in Newtonian time without consciousnesses.
Yes, Newtonian time plus consciousness entails contradictions, but so does Newtonian time plus apple pie. The problem is time, not consciousnesses or pie.
Newtonian time is illogical. It can't exist. It's like a married bachelor.
Scott wrote:How accurate of an analogy that turns out to be, I do not know. But I believe the possibility that it is accurate proves that conscious will does not logically require time to be fundamentally real for it (conscious will) to be fundamentally real.
RJG wrote:
It seems to me that if conscious causation (and a "conscious will") are logically impossible in a reality with time, then it is even more so impossible in a reality without time (in a timeless reality).
Everything is logically impossible with Newtonian time because Newtonian time is impossible.
Consciousness is real, so anything that is incompatible with consciousness is impossible.
If green beans and consciousness cannot co-exist, then green beans don't exist.
It won't be consciousness that we throw out if something is revealed to be incompatible with consciousness.
Granted, one can conjecture an eternal universe like Einstein's 4-D Block Universe, imagining it as existing eternally separate from consciousness, and then see their consciousness as merely experiencing it, like a movie-watcher watching frame after frame of a movie from a unchanging DVD. That is to see the universe more like a DVD movie than a DVD video game (in which the player gets to choose backstory and choose from multiple endings). Either way, the 4-D block universe (without consciousness) is represented by the unchanging DVD. Consciousness is transcendental to that DVD. Is it just a transcendental watcher or does it take part in eternal creation? Either possibility is consistent with Einstein's physics as far as I can tell. Either possibility is consistent with quantum mechanics as best I can tell.
Either way, what we know for certain is that:
A. Eternal creation exists (a.k.a. there is something rather than nothing)
B. Our individual consciousness exists, absolutely, and seemingly eternally
Whether B is part of the contributor to A (i.e. we are each a part of the eternal creator, like a bunch of little eternal transcendental god-heads painting the world into existence), or whether some separate independent third entity is the creator, or whether A and B both exist independently by pure happenstance without an eternal creator (i.e. there is no eternal creator despite their being the eternal creation), is all perhaps mostly a matter of religion.
Those who would answer those questions will likely find that their answers fall into #4 of your wise hierarchy of truth.
But the claim that time is real would fall into #5, I believe.