Anthropic principle meets consciousness
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Anthropic principle meets consciousness
Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity
The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind
The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.
Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, mathematics, music, love, the color red, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these simple regressive models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of reality), or just a product of human experience? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity?
Some Structuralist's believe: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
What else could transcendence be but a sensation fired up by whatever catalyst the human brain is amenable to. For example, some may feel something akin to transcendence listening to Van Halen...among other things. I get mine listening to Wagner...among other things. So yes! Transcendence is only a product of human experience as centered in our biology. There is nothing inherent in the universe regardless of complexity which can claim to be transcendent.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, mathematics, music, love, the color red, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these simple regressive models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of reality), or just a product of human experience? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity?
Some Structuralist's believe: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
Tegularius wrote: ↑July 12th, 2021, 7:35 pmWhat else could transcendence be but a sensation fired up by whatever catalyst the human brain is amenable to. For example, some may feel something akin to transcendence listening to Van Halen...among other things. I get mine listening to Wagner...among other things. So yes! Transcendence is only a product of human experience as centered in our biology. There is nothing inherent in the universe regardless of complexity which can claim to be transcendent.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, mathematics, music, love, the color red, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these simple regressive models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of reality), or just a product of human experience? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity?
Some Structuralist's believe: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
Thank you Teg for your reply!
Just a few thoughts:
1. I'll be doing a thread specifically on Metaphysics shortly, in the meantime, what are your thoughts on experiences themselves? In other words, what are experiences made of?
2. In your view, what would be the differences between, as you say, listening to different genre's of music as one experiences their own truth? In other words, what is this truth that they have that moves them emotionally? It doesn't quite seem like an objective kind of truth that is universally true like mathematical truth's, but am not sure... .
3. By Transcendence I mean a type of independent existence that is not dependent on causation. Those metaphysical features of consciousness don't seem to have any Darwinian survival advantages. For example, studying music theory, or the laws of gravity. The laws of gravity aren't necessary to understand in order to evade falling objects in the jungle. And music theory has no biological survival advantages. So those abstract things that we enjoy (music and math) as perceived by humans seem to transcend reality or what would be considered physically natural.
― Albert Einstein
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
"How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity? "3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am I was inspired by a bit of discourse from some other threads and by theoretical physicist Paul Davies, in that I wanted to share a few analogies to some so-called physical axioms vis-a-vis human value systems. Below are three models:
Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity
The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind
The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.
Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, mathematics, music, love, the color red, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these simple regressive models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of reality), or just a product of human experience? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity?
Some Structuralist's believe: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
Nothing can ultimately explain what is simply the case. Given the structure of the universe the genetic consequences are more than described by natural selection. Any explanation simply defers to another level of complexity.
You simply have to accept. There is no ghost in the machine, and there shall be no deus ex machina.
We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
Before addressing your points, why do you think that Physics is the suitable discipline to tackle consciousness?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
Thanks for your response Nick! I anxiously await a more detailed response, but to answer your question, there are at least two reasons I can think of:NickGaspar wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 10:01 amBefore addressing your points, why do you think that Physics is the suitable discipline to tackle consciousness?
1. Philosophically, in the spirit of unity (Unity of opposites/non-dualism) we know opposites exist which allow us to argue antecedent's. We know that Aristotle's metaphysics (that which comes after physics) provides for complimentary thinking, not to mention the nature of reality (and existence) and the relationship between mind and matter.
2. In physics, we know cold/hot exist and is also complimentary, or in the case of gravity, we have complimentary forces of upward and downward. And we know that in consciousness itself we have matter that helps explain certain things-in-themselves. For instance, we have physical laws that allow for physical matter to self organize into complex states. Conscious organisms seem to be a fundamental feature of existence and the universe.
There are many many questions to explore there too, one of which relate to self-aware organisms like, why should human beings have the ability to discover and understand the abstract principles on which the universe operates(?).
Anyway, I hope I answered your question. I look forward to you thoughts on the 'matter'
― Albert Einstein
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
I guess you were right, a more detailed response would be more helpful.
Let me post more detailed responses for a start.
What would you think if engineers were using Special relativity, not Newtons laws to design and build a bridge on earth.
If scientists were using Newtons laws to calculate the course of Mercury
If quantum physicists were using Quantum mechanics to describe the motion of classical objects.
If biologists were using evolutionary principles to explain quantum entanglement or Relativity.
My point is that,sure there is epistemic connectedness in scientific methodologies, but our frameworks are generalizations that make sense only within a specific scale of nature.
So I am puzzled when I see people addressing a biological property by using physics or quantum physics etc.
What are we expecting to earn from such a practice outside from all that poetic justification that you provided?
So my point is that microscopes are not for gazing the sky and telescopes can not perform ultrasound examinations...if that makes any sense as an ad absurdum example.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
NickGaspar wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 1:40 pmI guess you were right, a more detailed response would be more helpful.
Let me post more detailed responses for a start.
What would you think if engineers were using Special relativity, not Newtons laws to design and build a bridge on earth.
If scientists were using Newtons laws to calculate the course of Mercury
If quantum physicists were using Quantum mechanics to describe the motion of classical objects.
If biologists were using evolutionary principles to explain quantum entanglement or Relativity.
My point is that,sure there is epistemic connectedness in scientific methodologies, but our frameworks are generalizations that make sense only within a specific scale of nature.
So I am puzzled when I see people addressing a biological property by using physics or quantum physics etc.
What are we expecting to earn from such a practice outside from all that poetic justification that you provided?
So my point is that microscopes are not for gazing the sky and telescopes can not perform ultrasound examinations...if that makes any sense as an ad absurdum example.
Thanks for your reply! I can appreciate your concerns and I'll try to address your analogies. Just a few questions/observations:
1. You used the word poetry which is an intriguing concept in itself. Albeit poetry itself is all part of a broader notion of human value systems (music, lyrics, arts, aesthetics/Kant, and other abstract features of consciousness, etc.), but per the OP model(s), how are those models from physics poetry?
2. As I used several examples, it is certainly germane to examine or draw from physics as well as a unitarian framework or philosophy to, in this instance, parse Anthropic principles and the relationships between the mind and physical matter. Do you propose a different means or method to explore the nature of reality? I'm open to any and all ideas.
3. You raised the concern of engineering, this poses or seems to beg yet other philosophical questions regarding metaphysical structures. Are the abstract calculations that we use to size-up structural columns and beams and otherwise build things, are they all part of an Anthropic design of some sort? As you know, neither the laws of physics or engineering calculations themselves are required for survival. In the alternative, using physics, how does nature (the laws thereof) and the natural world/biology address those abstract abilities from conscious existence? Any and all thoughts are welcome!
I like where you are going with the biology v. physics concern. Thanks again Nick.
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
Sculpter 1 !Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 9:07 am"How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity? "3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am I was inspired by a bit of discourse from some other threads and by theoretical physicist Paul Davies, in that I wanted to share a few analogies to some so-called physical axioms vis-a-vis human value systems. Below are three models:
Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity
The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind
The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.
Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, mathematics, music, love, the color red, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these simple regressive models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of reality), or just a product of human experience? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity?
Some Structuralist's believe: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
Nothing can ultimately explain what is simply the case. Given the structure of the universe the genetic consequences are more than described by natural selection. Any explanation simply defers to another level of complexity.
You simply have to accept. There is no ghost in the machine, and there shall be no deus ex machina.
We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it.
Thank you kindly for your contribution. Could you maybe provide some examples to what you're trying to say here:
"We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it."
Are you essentially saying that human rationality seeks legitimate explanations for things and that we truly understand something only when it's explained?
Though you may not be implying that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that the understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of human thought. However, that reasoning alone would simply imply something beyond reason itself accounts for the explanation behind the true nature of our existence (Kantian things-in-themselves and the reality of nature and natural world).
And if that is true it is certainly consistent with transcendental ideals or suppositions associated with metaphysical consciousness. Meaning, in the same way physicists make the judgments and posit: all events must have a cause, in order to advance a theory.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
An event which causes the neurons in the brain to fire up; an external stimulus, perhaps even an internal one causing a chemical reaction often recorded as a memory if intense enough.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 8:42 am1. I'll be doing a thread specifically on Metaphysics shortly, in the meantime, what are your thoughts on experiences themselves? In other words, what are experiences made of?
That's very hard to say. Truth certainly has nothing to do with it. That word is used far too often and remains subjective at best. Truth as some kind of fixed objectivity doesn't exist. Instead, among humans, the word functions as a filter to accept whatever it finds acceptable to its well-being or conscience and therefore only subjective. Among the sciences, it may denote what is regarded as true compared to other explanations which ostensibly are not. Truth remains relative to the individual as it does collectively to society. Truth operates more as an adjective or adverb than a noun.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 8:42 am2. In your view, what would be the differences between, as you say, listening to different genre's of music as one experiences their own truth? In other words, what is this truth that they have that moves them emotionally? It doesn't quite seem like an objective kind of truth that is universally true like mathematical truth's, but am not sure... .
Anyway, in response to your question - which is only my view - the brain operates like a highly abstract picture puzzle of manifold pieces. When its patterns and paradigms begin to make sense an experience emerges. In consequence, what I find overwhelming may leave another completely cold or worse. Why these differences in response and perception is a subject for neurologists since it happens only in the brain.
I don't really see a problem here. Human consciousness has long passed the necessities of Darwinian survival requiring and seeing much more in its mindscape than mere servitude to necessity. Transcendence, if that's the right term, does not, to my mind, have an independent existence but reveals itself as a kind of emergence in thought and feeling which our extra dose of consciousness allows us to occasionally experience. Who knows how far that could go...in theory. All of these super highlights we call transcendence or even near-death experiences, etc., are all manifestations of a material brain. The great mystery is centered in the chemistry which cause these moments of consummation.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 8:42 am3. By Transcendence I mean a type of independent existence that is not dependent on causation. Those metaphysical features of consciousness don't seem to have any Darwinian survival advantages. For example, studying music theory, or the laws of gravity. The laws of gravity aren't necessary to understand in order to evade falling objects in the jungle. And music theory has no biological survival advantages. So those abstract things that we enjoy (music and math) as perceived by humans seem to transcend reality or what would be considered physically natural.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
On what basis do you say that the universe starts relatively simple and featureless and is now organized and complex? What do you define as organized complexity? If you're thinking primarily of life on Earth, that's just one almost vanishingly small part of the universe.3017Metaphysician wrote:The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
This word "accident" often seems to crop up in discussions about the evolution of life on Earth, but I've never been entirely sure what people mean by it.How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
How can I be more simple?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 5:50 pmSculpter 1 !Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 9:07 am"How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity? "3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am I was inspired by a bit of discourse from some other threads and by theoretical physicist Paul Davies, in that I wanted to share a few analogies to some so-called physical axioms vis-a-vis human value systems. Below are three models:
Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity
The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind
The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.
Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, mathematics, music, love, the color red, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these simple regressive models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of reality), or just a product of human experience? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity?
Some Structuralist's believe: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
Nothing can ultimately explain what is simply the case. Given the structure of the universe the genetic consequences are more than described by natural selection. Any explanation simply defers to another level of complexity.
You simply have to accept. There is no ghost in the machine, and there shall be no deus ex machina.
We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it.
Thank you kindly for your contribution. Could you maybe provide some examples to what you're trying to say here:
"We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it."
The universe has been continuing without humans for billions of years and shall continue for billions of years after we are dust and the sun is cold.
Close.
Are you essentially saying that human rationality seeks legitimate explanations for things and that we truly understand something only when it's explained?
I am saying that it is most likely that there can be no ultimate explanation. We can continue to decribe the universe in ever more detailed descriptions, but it is merely human hubris to think these really explain anything at all. And the worst of it is the arrogance that some humans beliece they divine a purpose to the universe. This is risible. Humans can have what purpose they want for themselves and the elements of world with which they share the popwer to act. But the consequnces of this is less than negligiible on a universal scale.
No I am actually saying without reservation that qualities such as "absurdity" and "meaning" are human hubris; there is no hint of it in the larger world or in the universe. There is no reason why we are here.
Though you may not be implying that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that the understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of human thought. However, that reasoning alone would simply imply something beyond reason itself accounts for the explanation behind the true nature of our existence (Kantian things-in-themselves and the reality of nature and natural world).
You are say there might be a reason beyind reason; or pretend there there is a true nature, but really?? Really?Where is your warrant? Kant's epistemology is great, but i do not think you get meaning from that. What we can gather from that is that we tend to view our world through human eyes, never seeing the underlying thing-in-itself. Kant is not imparting any meaning or purpose through this observation.
Not sure where you are going with this.
And if that is true it is certainly consistent with transcendental ideals or suppositions associated with metaphysical consciousness. Meaning, in the same way physicists make the judgments and posit: all events must have a cause, in order to advance a theory.
It seems obvious to me that the "anthropic" is purely phenomenal, not noumenal. It is the false veneer that we humans tend to impose on our world. The anthropic is an inauthentic filter through which we MIS-understand the universe. Surel that is what we may gather from Kant's copurnican turn?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
Sculpter1 ! Thanks for your reply.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 14th, 2021, 5:23 amHow can I be more simple?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 5:50 pmSculpter 1 !Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 9:07 am"How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity? "3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am I was inspired by a bit of discourse from some other threads and by theoretical physicist Paul Davies, in that I wanted to share a few analogies to some so-called physical axioms vis-a-vis human value systems. Below are three models:
Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity
The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind
The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.
Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, mathematics, music, love, the color red, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these simple regressive models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of reality), or just a product of human experience? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity?
Some Structuralist's believe: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
Nothing can ultimately explain what is simply the case. Given the structure of the universe the genetic consequences are more than described by natural selection. Any explanation simply defers to another level of complexity.
You simply have to accept. There is no ghost in the machine, and there shall be no deus ex machina.
We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it.
Thank you kindly for your contribution. Could you maybe provide some examples to what you're trying to say here:
"We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it."
The universe has been continuing without humans for billions of years and shall continue for billions of years after we are dust and the sun is cold.Close.
Are you essentially saying that human rationality seeks legitimate explanations for things and that we truly understand something only when it's explained?
I am saying that it is most likely that there can be no ultimate explanation. We can continue to decribe the universe in ever more detailed descriptions, but it is merely human hubris to think these really explain anything at all. And the worst of it is the arrogance that some humans beliece they divine a purpose to the universe. This is risible. Humans can have what purpose they want for themselves and the elements of world with which they share the popwer to act. But the consequnces of this is less than negligiible on a universal scale.No I am actually saying without reservation that qualities such as "absurdity" and "meaning" are human hubris; there is no hint of it in the larger world or in the universe. There is no reason why we are here.
Though you may not be implying that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that the understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of human thought. However, that reasoning alone would simply imply something beyond reason itself accounts for the explanation behind the true nature of our existence (Kantian things-in-themselves and the reality of nature and natural world).
You are say there might be a reason beyind reason; or pretend there there is a true nature, but really?? Really?Where is your warrant? Kant's epistemology is great, but i do not think you get meaning from that. What we can gather from that is that we tend to view our world through human eyes, never seeing the underlying thing-in-itself. Kant is not imparting any meaning or purpose through this observation.Not sure where you are going with this.
And if that is true it is certainly consistent with transcendental ideals or suppositions associated with metaphysical consciousness. Meaning, in the same way physicists make the judgments and posit: all events must have a cause, in order to advance a theory.
It seems obvious to me that the "anthropic" is purely phenomenal, not noumenal. It is the false veneer that we humans tend to impose on our world. The anthropic is an inauthentic filter through which we MIS-understand the universe. Surel that is what we may gather from Kant's copurnican turn?
Well, let's see, I'm not sure that really answered my question about how the "universe has no use for it". In other words, I interpret your response of the universe existing before and after us, as somehow a refutation of the Anthropic principle. Unfortunately I don't think your answer captured the concern here. I mean, for example, how do you know when the universe started, space-time started, and what an ending point will look like?
For instance, according to our current theories 'our' time did start with the big bang. I say our time, because it is plausible to think of other parallel universes with their own laws and times. No law forbids that other universes have more than one time dimension. This implies an independent existence of some sort-something outside of temporal time started BB time. As far as what existed before the BB, you have two possible answers, either nothingness, no time no space no nothing. Or a pre BB universe with its own concept of time. Time can or cannot have an end, having a beginning does not logically imply it will have an end. And so, I'm not sure what your point is... ?
With respect to something that is beyond our current categories of logic and reason, I think your answer that refers to 'purpose' in itself, refutes your notion of purposeless. No? In other words, how do you reconcile the two forces, and/or features and qualities of our consciousness? In that case, humans feel the need to have purpose; love, intention, beauty, etc. etc., and if not, many choose not to have a will to live. Without purpose, whether it is an illusionary or not, is all part of our (metaphysical) will to be. How do you reconcile purposeless from our consciousness? And how are any of those biological features of consciousness integral to Darwinian survival and instinct?
And finally, your last point and interpretation about Kant may be a little misguided. What I was referring to is the existence of the synthetic a priori that comes from our conscious mind. In layman's terms, our sense of wonder has no biological survival value. If we wonder about how things exist (things-in-themselves) yet we are unable to actually make things (physical matter), we come away with something outside of ourselves that is causational. A concept of causation or super turtle or God. Hence, all events must have a cause. That is my notion of transcendence. The irony there is, all physical theories start with synthetic propositions and judgements. Thoughts?
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
Hi Teg!Tegularius wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 9:32 pmAn event which causes the neurons in the brain to fire up; an external stimulus, perhaps even an internal one causing a chemical reaction often recorded as a memory if intense enough.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 8:42 am1. I'll be doing a thread specifically on Metaphysics shortly, in the meantime, what are your thoughts on experiences themselves? In other words, what are experiences made of?That's very hard to say. Truth certainly has nothing to do with it. That word is used far too often and remains subjective at best. Truth as some kind of fixed objectivity doesn't exist. Instead, among humans, the word functions as a filter to accept whatever it finds acceptable to its well-being or conscience and therefore only subjective. Among the sciences, it may denote what is regarded as true compared to other explanations which ostensibly are not. Truth remains relative to the individual as it does collectively to society. Truth operates more as an adjective or adverb than a noun.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 8:42 am2. In your view, what would be the differences between, as you say, listening to different genre's of music as one experiences their own truth? In other words, what is this truth that they have that moves them emotionally? It doesn't quite seem like an objective kind of truth that is universally true like mathematical truth's, but am not sure... .
Anyway, in response to your question - which is only my view - the brain operates like a highly abstract picture puzzle of manifold pieces. When its patterns and paradigms begin to make sense an experience emerges. In consequence, what I find overwhelming may leave another completely cold or worse. Why these differences in response and perception is a subject for neurologists since it happens only in the brain.I don't really see a problem here. Human consciousness has long passed the necessities of Darwinian survival requiring and seeing much more in its mindscape than mere servitude to necessity. Transcendence, if that's the right term, does not, to my mind, have an independent existence but reveals itself as a kind of emergence in thought and feeling which our extra dose of consciousness allows us to occasionally experience. Who knows how far that could go...in theory. All of these super highlights we call transcendence or even near-death experiences, etc., are all manifestations of a material brain. The great mystery is centered in the chemistry which cause these moments of consummation.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 8:42 am3. By Transcendence I mean a type of independent existence that is not dependent on causation. Those metaphysical features of consciousness don't seem to have any Darwinian survival advantages. For example, studying music theory, or the laws of gravity. The laws of gravity aren't necessary to understand in order to evade falling objects in the jungle. And music theory has no biological survival advantages. So those abstract things that we enjoy (music and math) as perceived by humans seem to transcend reality or what would be considered physically natural.
Thank you for your reply. I'll try to reply to the respective numbers:
1. Physiological/biological/biochemical explanations of 'what it means to have an experience' would be like telling your friends, family and co-workers that you are a robot. And, let's just say for the sake of argument, that we are all robots. How are robots supposedly created? I believe the answer in part, is through abstract structures of mathematical calculations and design. Which in turn, in themselves, confer no biological survival value. So, we could also say we have another Platonic, abstract existence (mathematics and the laws of nature, engineering and so forth) of sorts similar to other abstract metaphysical features that exist in and from our consciousness (the will, beauty/aesthetics, intention, wonderment, music, etc.). Does that provide for any insight to your point?
2. With respect to 'truth', yes, we have both subjective and objective truth's that exist. I would agree in that context. For instance, at the most fundamental level, we live in a world of subject-object apperception (see also philosophical idealism). And just by virtue of us being aware (self-awareness/consciousness) of those differences and distinctions, it infers something beyond neurons and protons and such to justify the purposes (or the why's) of those things existing.
3. I agree to your notion of perception being an abstract puzzle, as it relates to conscious existence. And it bears repeating, there are no Darwinian/biological survival advantages to abstract structures from consciousness. The knowledge of the laws of gravity aren't needed or necessary to help us survive in the jungle.
4. I agree, no exceptions taken.
Thank you Teg...
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Anthropic principle meets consciousness
Hi Steve!Steve3007 wrote: ↑July 14th, 2021, 4:54 amOn what basis do you say that the universe starts relatively simple and featureless and is now organized and complex? What do you define as organized complexity? If you're thinking primarily of life on Earth, that's just one almost vanishingly small part of the universe.3017Metaphysician wrote:The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
This word "accident" often seems to crop up in discussions about the evolution of life on Earth, but I've never been entirely sure what people mean by it.How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity?
Yes, I was referring to biological organisms, thank you. Are you perhaps, concerned about why we are only just a small part of the universe?
The basis of those models lies in the conception of something from nothing (ex nihilo), and the Anthropic principle. and the many coincidences in connection with the requirements of biological organisms. This includes the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the laws of nature necessary for conscious life to emerge the way we understand self-awareness and metaphysical structures, qualities and entities to be.
With respect to your last comment about 'accident', I think some people refer to that as something that is meaningless and/or even chaos. To me, a genetic accident would mean a conscious life that has no purpose. I think that differs from natural mutation and selection. Philosophically, Schopenhauer's The World as Will is a good read there, since we are touching on existential and metaphysical phenomena.
― Albert Einstein
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