Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1577
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Post by UniversalAlien »

Thomyum2 wrote:
But I'll just add in closing that I think that ideas such as 'cause and effect', 'emergence', 'necessity', 'dependence' and so forth can take us down the wrong path in thinking about questions about consciousness and being because the terms in language have grown out of the models that we have already built out of countless experiences and are thus bound to the suppositions that those models contain. In other words, we have to keep in mind that the the phenomena involving matter in space and time, and even the passage and direction of time itself, are only sensible in terms of sequences of observations and human memories thereof, so to think in these terms is to be thinking within the framework of the subject-object metaphysics that we are trying to break free of and get beyond.
"the framework of the subject-object metaphysics that we are trying to break free of and get beyond."

Is that possible :?:

Or is this more likely:
In particular, if consciousness is an ontological fundamental-that is, a primary element of reality-then it may have the power to achieve what is both the best-documented and at the same time the spookiest effect of the mind on the material world: the ability of consciousness to transform the infinite possibilities for, say, the position of a subatomic particle as described by quantum mechanics into the single reality for that position as detected by an observer. If that sounds both mysterious and spooky, it is a spookiness that has been a part of science since almost the beginning of the twentieth century. It was physics that first felt the breath of this ghost, with the discoveries of quantum mechanics, and it is in the field of neuroscience and the problem of mind and matter that its ethereal presence is felt most markedly today. — Jeffrey M. Schwartz
Again Planck:
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics


“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”
― Max Planck
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Thomyum2 wrote: July 6th, 2022, 5:50 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 29th, 2022, 9:35 am T2!

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. In reading it, I was inspired by a few things (you hinted or suggested) hence a few takeaway's or key concepts:

1. Unity of Opposites: subject-object dynamic
2. Logical Necessity: the causes of a some-thing's existence is derived from within itself.
3. Metaphysical: subjective idealism
4. Unperceived Existence (aka: if a tree falls in the forest: both yourself and Gertie postulated...)
5 Quantum Observer effect & Non-locality.
6. Anthropic Principle


Gosh, which one shall we tackle first? Well just as a broad brushing of your first point, I agree that the subject-object dichotomy makes better sense in the spirit of Unity but, I also think Schop was referring to the primacy of consciousness (primarily the Will to wonder, have meaning, purpose and so on) as the metaphysical necessity. Much like synthetic a priori knowledge, that are fixed, innate or intrinsic qualities of consciousness, (a necessary part of what causes one to wonder about causes and effects or otherwise why things happen) to begin with, just is. Existentially, it makes contextual sense from the standpoint of one's essence being unknown, as we find ourselves existing without a 'concrete' cause. So we are left with asking questions and pursuing things like empirical science, cognitive science, religion and so on to figure it all out. But, we depend on our intrinsic sense of wonder first, to effect advancement of a theory, or otherwise to find a reasons for causes/effects.

To this end, (and I'll try to answer your last question) Subjective Idealism is very appealing when one wants to parse whether things exist or not, as well as the questions of what could lie beyond perception (both you and Gertie touched on that). All that said, and if we want to parse the causes of consciousness (Must the universe contain consciousness), we can first look at the effects of consciousness (from the infamous tree in the forest riddle):

Can something exist without being perceived by consciousness? – e.g. "is sound only sound if a person hears it?" The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces involves the existence of the tree (and the sound it produces) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists.[9] It is human beings that are able to perceive it.[9] George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived". Today, meta-physicists are split. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties, while according to bundle theory, an object is merely its sense data. The definition of sound, simplified, is a hearable noise. The tree will make a sound, even if nobody heard it, simply because it could have been heard.

The answer to this question depends on the definition of sound. We can define sound as our perception of air vibrations. Therefore, sound does not exist if we do not hear it. When a tree falls, the motion disturbs the air and sends off air waves. This physical phenomenon, which can be measured by instruments other than our ears, exists regardless of human perception (seeing or hearing) of it. Putting together, although the tree falling on the island sends off air waves, it does not produce sound if no human is within the distance where the air waves are strong enough for a human to perceive them. However, if we define sound as the waves themselves, then sound would be produced. /* The possibility of unperceived existence */ We shall not use one word to define two different things. If we define sound as waves, what word shall we use to describe the "sound" we hear? Here, we are talking about two different things. For a stone, a stone only senses air waves. Sound is meaningless to stone. Because stones cannot convert air waves into sound. Of course we shall use sound as the thing we hear. Then the waves between the vibration source and our ears, we shall not also use the same word “sound”. It is just air waves. This is a physics argument, not philosophy argument.

What is the difference between what something is, and how it appears? – e.g., "sound is the variation of pressure that propagates through matter as a wave"
Perhaps the most important topic the riddle offers is the division between perception of an object and how an object really is. If a tree exists outside of perception, then there is no way for us to know that the tree exists. So then, what do we mean by 'existence'; what is the difference between perception and reality? Also, people may also say, if the tree exists outside of perception (as common sense would dictate), then it will produce sound waves. However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur. So then, how is it known that 'sound as it is mechanically understood' will occur if that sound is not perceived?

Much of that speaks to your concern about what is non-sensical about something for which we assume we might know about. The example of perceiving sound means that a consciousness is required to translate sound waves or process information into actual sound. Conversely, some argue that the physical sound waves would still exist (which in theory is correct) it's just that no-one would hear it. But that too is non-sensical because consciousness (epistemology) is required or logically necessary (metaphysically necessary) to apperceive the understanding of the physic's of sound waves to begin with. In that sense, we are left with Subjective Idealism as primacy in, at the very least, apperception and Being.

But let's take different tact. As the foregoing stone example illustrates, sound is a different kind of language to a stone. In like manner, stones and air vibrations/waves correspond to the physical. Sound does not exclusively correspond to the physical and is arguably more metaphysical in its effects on humans (actually neither does understanding of sound waves themselves). As such, consciousness itself is both physical and metaphysical. Are those analogies suggesting that a different language is needed to understand the origins (the 'formula') that causes conscious existence in the universe? (And the perception of other worlds/trees falling without one's understanding of them falling?) It certainly could be that a different set of rules could apply... . Maybe we are not smart enough to understand consciousness(?). But it's fun trying...!!

The bullet-point concepts that are relative having a physical effects coming from a metaphysical language of sorts:

The sound analogy:

1. Physics-->sound waves--->mathematics-->metaphysical...
2. Perception--->consciousness--> physical--> metaphysical...

Both 1 & 2 involves concepts relating to consciousness to understand. Maybe another kind of another anthropic feedback loop of sorts... .
Hi MP, thanks for your detailed reply and sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, a broad topic, but in the interest of keeping things concise, I’ll just share a couple of thoughts on some of your points for now, but if you’d like to follow or develop any of these further I’m happy to do so.

I I think I understand what you’re getting at here – that there is something that ‘precedes’ or forms the basis for all experience, that goes beyond the subject-object dichotomy. I tend to subscribe to the approach Robert Pirsig takes with his Metaphysics of Quality and the idea that Quality, or Value, underlies the subject-object distinction and essentially forms a sort of ground of being from which both subject and object emerge. I’m not very well versed in Schopenhauer’s thought, but I suspect he is describing a very similar thing with his ‘Will’. I’m not sure that I would equate consciousness with either of these things though. (To be honest, I find ‘consciousness’ to be a rather nebulous and ill-defined term so I usually try to avoid it.)

Regarding the familiar ‘tree in the forest’ question, yes, we can derive a different answer by changing the definition of sound. Doing so dodges the central question here, though. Definitions, in my estimation, are in essence just premises and we can’t prove premises, we can only examine them and their consequences, and choose to accept them and make use of them or not.

I’ll stress again what I said in the earlier post – that it’s important to distinguish between the individual consciousness or perception of an object and collective consciousness. The tree can exist outside of my perception, that part is clear – other people can see it or hear, and yes, even the stones can be affected by it. So from an individual point of view, it’s a useful premise to assume that the tree has existence independent of us because that has utility – it’s useful in our interactions with the world and the beings we encounter there. But can the tree exist outside of any and all perception or consciousness of it, past present of future? In what sense then does it exist? We can believe it does exist or that it could exist, but can that belief itself give it existence?

In your exchange with @Gertie above you both touched on the idea of things existing in relationship, and I agree it makes sense to talk in these terms. When we perceive something or are conscious of something, a relationship with it is established - it is that relationship that gives both subject and object their existence. To assert that something that can exist outside of any relationship with anything else – an object that never has been and never will enter into relationship of any kind with any object or being - is one that is essentially severed from our own universe, cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way except as an object in our imagination. You’re probably aware that this idea can be found in Buddhist philosophy - that no object has ‘intrinsic existence’; that things exist only in their relationship to other things. The objective universe exists in relationship to the conscious, perceiving, subject, but its ultimate nature is ‘empty’. (Incidentally, since you’ve touched on physics here, Italian Physicist Carlo Rovelli also explores this idea, and the influence that Buddhist philosophy has had on his scientific work, in his book ‘Helgoland’, which I highly recommend, and makes what I think is a very compelling argument that this idea is compatible with physics, that material objects are ultimately nothing more than ‘nodes’ in relationships – that it is the relationship that is meaningful, not the nature of the object itself.)

But I'll just add in closing that I think that ideas such as 'cause and effect', 'emergence', 'necessity', 'dependence' and so forth can take us down the wrong path in thinking about questions about consciousness and being because the terms in language have grown out of the models that we have already built out of countless experiences and are thus bound to the suppositions that those models contain. In other words, we have to keep in mind that the the phenomena involving matter in space and time, and even the passage and direction of time itself, are only sensible in terms of sequences of observations and human memories thereof, so to think in these terms is to be thinking within the framework of the subject-object metaphysics that we are trying to break free of and get beyond.

I'm not sure I understand your last question where you've said here:
I would like some clarification on your question. You said: ..."how can consciousness be said to be both the observer and the observed?"

Are you referring to things that transcend LEM and/or the theoretical abilities to look objectively outside/beyond the Block Universe?
But perhaps you can elaborate for me and we can take it from there if it's still of interest.
T2!

Thank you for your reply. Your ability to communicate your point is to be commended. I understand where you are coming from, so much so, I'm going to take a brief time-out an research some of that which you mentioned.

But let me just share a few things and also answer your clarification question. Consciousness itself has so much complexity assigned to its existence, that it's easy to get sidetracked. It's analogical equivalent is the concept of a God. Considering the concept of God is included in over 75% of all philosophical domains, the overlapping characteristics are equally as complex and comprehensive. As such, just so you know, my philosophy usually centers around the subject-object dynamic because it's an easy comprehensible place to start. Then, as the synthesis of thinking aloud ensues, other things 'emerge' which in-turn lead to more intriguing things, but I try to stay disciplined enough to return to that so-called dichotomy to see if those new thoughts had any impact on the initial criteria of same (the subject/object).

To that end, I really do appreciate you understanding that dynamic of subject-object, and parsing that thought process. I want to return the favor, so I am going to take the time to check-out your Robert Pirsig, among other things... .

In the meantime, I will answer your clarification question. When you introduced the conundrum or question of both/and ("...both the observer and the observed".), you kind of opened a Pandora's box of mental phenomena. And so in order to consider that question you had about whether consciousness can potentially be both the observer and observed, I thought of a few axioms:

1. The Bock Universe was a theory that posited many things including an objective view of time as if one were able to be both the observer and the observed. A person who could theoretically exist outside of time (an independent objective observation) of the universe.

2. LEM, law if excluded middle effects consciousness in that it transcends that law. It does so by going beyond bivalence. As such, the conscious mind, the subconscious mind (and Freud would add the unconscious mind but that's another topic) working together during everyday cognition makes consciousness itself, if effect, illogical. In our daily stream of consciousness (a William James term) the driving while daydreaming, having an accident, and not surviving example bears this out. And that's because know one knows which mind was driving and which mind was 'on the beach' per say. One's self-awareness was essentially fooled. An illusion was experienced. Hence, to put that conscious phenomenon into a logical proposition, it is illogically true to say 'I was driving and not driving my car at the same time... .'

Other examples of that sense of transcending pure reason relates to Voluntarism v. Intellect (Voluntarism - any metaphysical or psychological system that assigns to the will a more predominant role than that attributed to the intellect.) Hence the logical conundrum:

Taken from William Barrett's, Irrational Man:

"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."

- Voluntarism: in the modern metaphysical sense is a theory which explains the universe as emanating ultimately from some form of will. In a broader psychological sense, the term is applied to any theory which gives prominence to will (in opposition to intellect ). In this latter sense, but not in the former, the philosophy of Augustine, Anselm, William of Occam, and Scotus may be styled Voluntarism.

- Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God's reason.

-According to intellectualism, choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as good; the will itself is determined. For voluntarism, by contrast, it is the will which determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Concerning the nature of heaven, intellectualists followed Aristotle's lead by seeing the final state of happiness as a state of contemplation. Voluntarism, by contrast, maintains that final happiness is an activity, specifically that of love.

-19th century voluntarism has its origin in Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason." Intellectually, humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality, but this need not and must not interfere with the duty of acting as though the spiritual character of this reality were certain.

The short answer to the conundrum is that , once again, living a life with consciousness includes both/and; not either/or. Meaning the answer is both the will and intellect work together, much like the subject-object in making sense of the world. So to answer your other question about the Will itself, I still think that the Will takes primacy over the intellect since our will to be, is that fixed innate intrinsic thing that causes one to exist. That striving, urging, wanting thing-in-itself causes our Being to exist. our need to be happy. Schopenhauer's World as Will extends that theory to (conscious) cosmic emergence that propagates the universe. (I know, we both hate those word concepts.) Nevertheless, a genitally coded system of information that just is, a priori, that includes both mind and matter. Much like the seed that causes the plant to grow and has all the information necessary for its existence, the metaphysical Will causes such existence... .

3. From cognitive science (Maslow) we learned that living life is both/and; not so much an either/or proposition that we find in formal logic (and the logic of language itself). Quick example is that an engineer must apply either, the right or wrong formula to make the structural beam work. If not, it fails. Living life is not like that. As we've just parsed, the intellect, will, and other sentient phenomena are all mixed together in an insoluble fashion. In short, this is why people-management is not for everyone; there are gray areas to the human condition (no conscious pun intended). Managing people requires a bit more right-brain kinds of thinking, not to mention limbic thinking (sentience).

Anyway, there's a lot to unpack there, and I hope I clarified your one concern about analogical observer/observed concepts. Like I say, I am going to research your suggested read's and report back.... .
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

UniversalAlien wrote: July 7th, 2022, 7:00 am Thomyum2 wrote:
But I'll just add in closing that I think that ideas such as 'cause and effect', 'emergence', 'necessity', 'dependence' and so forth can take us down the wrong path in thinking about questions about consciousness and being because the terms in language have grown out of the models that we have already built out of countless experiences and are thus bound to the suppositions that those models contain. In other words, we have to keep in mind that the the phenomena involving matter in space and time, and even the passage and direction of time itself, are only sensible in terms of sequences of observations and human memories thereof, so to think in these terms is to be thinking within the framework of the subject-object metaphysics that we are trying to break free of and get beyond.
"the framework of the subject-object metaphysics that we are trying to break free of and get beyond."

Is that possible :?:

Or is this more likely:
In particular, if consciousness is an ontological fundamental-that is, a primary element of reality-then it may have the power to achieve what is both the best-documented and at the same time the spookiest effect of the mind on the material world: the ability of consciousness to transform the infinite possibilities for, say, the position of a subatomic particle as described by quantum mechanics into the single reality for that position as detected by an observer. If that sounds both mysterious and spooky, it is a spookiness that has been a part of science since almost the beginning of the twentieth century. It was physics that first felt the breath of this ghost, with the discoveries of quantum mechanics, and it is in the field of neuroscience and the problem of mind and matter that its ethereal presence is felt most markedly today. — Jeffrey M. Schwartz
Again Planck:
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics


“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”
― Max Planck
UA!

Thank you for that!! After reading your post/quote, that reminded me of things like non-locality, the observer effect, Hawking's metaphor and Einstein's infamous quote ("spooky action at a distance") about quantum entanglement. In succinct fashion:



Not to sound redundant, but this spooky action not only serves to reinforce or corresponds to metaphysical phenomena itself, but still has bearing on whether the metaphysical Will is that thing-in-itself that "breath's" fire into the Hawking equations.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Thomyum2 wrote: July 6th, 2022, 5:50 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 29th, 2022, 9:35 am T2!

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. In reading it, I was inspired by a few things (you hinted or suggested) hence a few takeaway's or key concepts:

1. Unity of Opposites: subject-object dynamic
2. Logical Necessity: the causes of a some-thing's existence is derived from within itself.
3. Metaphysical: subjective idealism
4. Unperceived Existence (aka: if a tree falls in the forest: both yourself and Gertie postulated...)
5 Quantum Observer effect & Non-locality.
6. Anthropic Principle


Gosh, which one shall we tackle first? Well just as a broad brushing of your first point, I agree that the subject-object dichotomy makes better sense in the spirit of Unity but, I also think Schop was referring to the primacy of consciousness (primarily the Will to wonder, have meaning, purpose and so on) as the metaphysical necessity. Much like synthetic a priori knowledge, that are fixed, innate or intrinsic qualities of consciousness, (a necessary part of what causes one to wonder about causes and effects or otherwise why things happen) to begin with, just is. Existentially, it makes contextual sense from the standpoint of one's essence being unknown, as we find ourselves existing without a 'concrete' cause. So we are left with asking questions and pursuing things like empirical science, cognitive science, religion and so on to figure it all out. But, we depend on our intrinsic sense of wonder first, to effect advancement of a theory, or otherwise to find a reasons for causes/effects.

To this end, (and I'll try to answer your last question) Subjective Idealism is very appealing when one wants to parse whether things exist or not, as well as the questions of what could lie beyond perception (both you and Gertie touched on that). All that said, and if we want to parse the causes of consciousness (Must the universe contain consciousness), we can first look at the effects of consciousness (from the infamous tree in the forest riddle):

Can something exist without being perceived by consciousness? – e.g. "is sound only sound if a person hears it?" The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces involves the existence of the tree (and the sound it produces) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists.[9] It is human beings that are able to perceive it.[9] George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived". Today, meta-physicists are split. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties, while according to bundle theory, an object is merely its sense data. The definition of sound, simplified, is a hearable noise. The tree will make a sound, even if nobody heard it, simply because it could have been heard.

The answer to this question depends on the definition of sound. We can define sound as our perception of air vibrations. Therefore, sound does not exist if we do not hear it. When a tree falls, the motion disturbs the air and sends off air waves. This physical phenomenon, which can be measured by instruments other than our ears, exists regardless of human perception (seeing or hearing) of it. Putting together, although the tree falling on the island sends off air waves, it does not produce sound if no human is within the distance where the air waves are strong enough for a human to perceive them. However, if we define sound as the waves themselves, then sound would be produced. /* The possibility of unperceived existence */ We shall not use one word to define two different things. If we define sound as waves, what word shall we use to describe the "sound" we hear? Here, we are talking about two different things. For a stone, a stone only senses air waves. Sound is meaningless to stone. Because stones cannot convert air waves into sound. Of course we shall use sound as the thing we hear. Then the waves between the vibration source and our ears, we shall not also use the same word “sound”. It is just air waves. This is a physics argument, not philosophy argument.

What is the difference between what something is, and how it appears? – e.g., "sound is the variation of pressure that propagates through matter as a wave"
Perhaps the most important topic the riddle offers is the division between perception of an object and how an object really is. If a tree exists outside of perception, then there is no way for us to know that the tree exists. So then, what do we mean by 'existence'; what is the difference between perception and reality? Also, people may also say, if the tree exists outside of perception (as common sense would dictate), then it will produce sound waves. However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur. So then, how is it known that 'sound as it is mechanically understood' will occur if that sound is not perceived?

Much of that speaks to your concern about what is non-sensical about something for which we assume we might know about. The example of perceiving sound means that a consciousness is required to translate sound waves or process information into actual sound. Conversely, some argue that the physical sound waves would still exist (which in theory is correct) it's just that no-one would hear it. But that too is non-sensical because consciousness (epistemology) is required or logically necessary (metaphysically necessary) to apperceive the understanding of the physic's of sound waves to begin with. In that sense, we are left with Subjective Idealism as primacy in, at the very least, apperception and Being.

But let's take different tact. As the foregoing stone example illustrates, sound is a different kind of language to a stone. In like manner, stones and air vibrations/waves correspond to the physical. Sound does not exclusively correspond to the physical and is arguably more metaphysical in its effects on humans (actually neither does understanding of sound waves themselves). As such, consciousness itself is both physical and metaphysical. Are those analogies suggesting that a different language is needed to understand the origins (the 'formula') that causes conscious existence in the universe? (And the perception of other worlds/trees falling without one's understanding of them falling?) It certainly could be that a different set of rules could apply... . Maybe we are not smart enough to understand consciousness(?). But it's fun trying...!!

The bullet-point concepts that are relative having a physical effects coming from a metaphysical language of sorts:

The sound analogy:

1. Physics-->sound waves--->mathematics-->metaphysical...
2. Perception--->consciousness--> physical--> metaphysical...

Both 1 & 2 involves concepts relating to consciousness to understand. Maybe another kind of another anthropic feedback loop of sorts... .
Hi MP, thanks for your detailed reply and sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, a broad topic, but in the interest of keeping things concise, I’ll just share a couple of thoughts on some of your points for now, but if you’d like to follow or develop any of these further I’m happy to do so.

I I think I understand what you’re getting at here – that there is something that ‘precedes’ or forms the basis for all experience, that goes beyond the subject-object dichotomy. I tend to subscribe to the approach Robert Pirsig takes with his Metaphysics of Quality and the idea that Quality, or Value, underlies the subject-object distinction and essentially forms a sort of ground of being from which both subject and object emerge. I’m not very well versed in Schopenhauer’s thought, but I suspect he is describing a very similar thing with his ‘Will’. I’m not sure that I would equate consciousness with either of these things though. (To be honest, I find ‘consciousness’ to be a rather nebulous and ill-defined term so I usually try to avoid it.)

Regarding the familiar ‘tree in the forest’ question, yes, we can derive a different answer by changing the definition of sound. Doing so dodges the central question here, though. Definitions, in my estimation, are in essence just premises and we can’t prove premises, we can only examine them and their consequences, and choose to accept them and make use of them or not.

I’ll stress again what I said in the earlier post – that it’s important to distinguish between the individual consciousness or perception of an object and collective consciousness. The tree can exist outside of my perception, that part is clear – other people can see it or hear, and yes, even the stones can be affected by it. So from an individual point of view, it’s a useful premise to assume that the tree has existence independent of us because that has utility – it’s useful in our interactions with the world and the beings we encounter there. But can the tree exist outside of any and all perception or consciousness of it, past present of future? In what sense then does it exist? We can believe it does exist or that it could exist, but can that belief itself give it existence?

In your exchange with @Gertie above you both touched on the idea of things existing in relationship, and I agree it makes sense to talk in these terms. When we perceive something or are conscious of something, a relationship with it is established - it is that relationship that gives both subject and object their existence. To assert that something that can exist outside of any relationship with anything else – an object that never has been and never will enter into relationship of any kind with any object or being - is one that is essentially severed from our own universe, cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way except as an object in our imagination. You’re probably aware that this idea can be found in Buddhist philosophy - that no object has ‘intrinsic existence’; that things exist only in their relationship to other things. The objective universe exists in relationship to the conscious, perceiving, subject, but its ultimate nature is ‘empty’. (Incidentally, since you’ve touched on physics here, Italian Physicist Carlo Rovelli also explores this idea, and the influence that Buddhist philosophy has had on his scientific work, in his book ‘Helgoland’, which I highly recommend, and makes what I think is a very compelling argument that this idea is compatible with physics, that material objects are ultimately nothing more than ‘nodes’ in relationships – that it is the relationship that is meaningful, not the nature of the object itself.)

But I'll just add in closing that I think that ideas such as 'cause and effect', 'emergence', 'necessity', 'dependence' and so forth can take us down the wrong path in thinking about questions about consciousness and being because the terms in language have grown out of the models that we have already built out of countless experiences and are thus bound to the suppositions that those models contain. In other words, we have to keep in mind that the the phenomena involving matter in space and time, and even the passage and direction of time itself, are only sensible in terms of sequences of observations and human memories thereof, so to think in these terms is to be thinking within the framework of the subject-object metaphysics that we are trying to break free of and get beyond.

I'm not sure I understand your last question where you've said here:
I would like some clarification on your question. You said: ..."how can consciousness be said to be both the observer and the observed?"

Are you referring to things that transcend LEM and/or the theoretical abilities to look objectively outside/beyond the Block Universe?
But perhaps you can elaborate for me and we can take it from there if it's still of interest.
T2!

...I took the time to read about Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality and generally take no exceptions. Indeed, as you alluded, it's reminiscent of Schopenhauer's theory about The World as Will. That Metaphysical thing-in-itself that causes things to be. Of course, the distinctions of Quality over Quantity all is part of the fundamental differences between philosophical materialism and immaterialism. (Quantity=materialism
Quality=immaterialism). Much like subject-object, obviously both quantity-quality are required for consciousness/cognition to be... .

I did want to parse your actual comment about causation and how that might have an impact on human Being. As such, you had mentioned causation was somehow not relevant, but am not completely sure, if you don't mind elaborating... . Persig's 'Quality' is basically a euphemism for the Will that causes stuff to happen. Causation is critical though, to parsing the distinctions between something being static v. dynamic. Being, is primarily a dynamic phenomena, as we can think of many dynamic processes to biological existence and/or propagation and so forth. Whether it is thinking, living, dying, and so many other things that are in a constant state of flux or change, it is that which leads to the questions of subjective agency or personhood. For instance, the many causational kinds of questions are included but not limited to: Does 'Quality" or the 'Will' cause humans to do what they do? Does the human desire to workout mathematical models about the universe have a cause? Does the desire for listening to music have a cause? Does the desire to be happy and find meaning and purpose have a cause? Does the desire to ask why have a cause? And do any of those things have Darwinian survival value?

There are many more foregoing questions that provide evidence that the metaphysical will (which is a Quality of consciousness or Qualia) within each one of us causes one to act or simply be. Otherwise, we can simply not be, if we choose to do so. It appears to be beyond evolutionally survival n the jungle or instinct, or shall I say transcends instinct(?).

On a macro scale, or in cosmology, we have discovered things going on (from this thread) like 'spooky action at a distance' and the observer effect among other phenomena that also provides evidence of a qualitative Will to be or exist at the most fundamental level of existence. While quantitatively we can make observations, qualitatively we cannot. If we cannot explain or describe phenomena either through observation, abstractly/metaphysically through mathematics, and/or observe things physically, yet they all seem to have an independent pattern of behavior, what are the implications in your view? Seems like an unexplained phenomenon of sorts... .

Of course, being in a state of finitude is where find ourselves. However, it may not be so absurd to conclude an independent existence of some kind (either material or immaterial or both) is causing things to happen? (aka: that which breathes fire into the Hawking equations.) Is that another way of saying the 'spooky action' is part of that 'ghost in the machine'? Perhaps all we are looking for is the link between the dualism of mind/matter, subject/object, material/immaterial, ad nauseum. That thing-in-itself that breaths fire into conscious existence.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1577
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Post by UniversalAlien »

3017Metaphysician wrote:
Of course, being in a state of finitude is where find ourselves. However, it may not be so absurd to conclude an independent existence of some kind (either material or immaterial or both) is causing things to happen? (aka: that which breathes fire into the Hawking equations.) Is that another way of saying the 'spooky action' is part of that 'ghost in the machine'? Perhaps all we are looking for is the link between the dualism of mind/matter, subject/object, material/immaterial, ad nauseum. That thing-in-itself that breaths fire into conscious existence.
Finitude :?: - I feel trapped/liberated by an existence which may have no limits - May be infinite :?:

"That thing-in-itself that breaths fire into conscious existence" - Conscious existence from my interpretation of Planck is the fire of
existence - the point that underlines the existent state - You can't get beyond that unless you want to believe in an independent
deity outside of our existent state. Philosophers from the beginning have been trying to prove and disprove such a supernatural
entity - As far as I know they have failed.

Has anyone ever shown or proven a supernatural power that exists outside of the known and observable Universe :?:

And has anyone ever proven the Universe to be limited :?:
- And if not limited wouldn't the Universe have to be Infinite :?:

I could understand cause and effect and yin and yang
- But I still can not wrap my head around a universe that is finite and infinite - To me it is either finite OR infinite :idea:
value
Premium Member
Posts: 748
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Post by value »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 27th, 2022, 7:40 pmInfinite possibilities; the illusion of space and time and quantum phenomenon, make Multiverse 'logically possible'?
No, infinity cannot be counted so the idea of a Multiverse would be absurd.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Post by Thomyum2 »

UniversalAlien wrote: July 7th, 2022, 7:00 am Thomyum2 wrote:
But I'll just add in closing that I think that ideas such as 'cause and effect', 'emergence', 'necessity', 'dependence' and so forth can take us down the wrong path in thinking about questions about consciousness and being because the terms in language have grown out of the models that we have already built out of countless experiences and are thus bound to the suppositions that those models contain. In other words, we have to keep in mind that the the phenomena involving matter in space and time, and even the passage and direction of time itself, are only sensible in terms of sequences of observations and human memories thereof, so to think in these terms is to be thinking within the framework of the subject-object metaphysics that we are trying to break free of and get beyond.
"the framework of the subject-object metaphysics that we are trying to break free of and get beyond."

Is that possible :?:
I do think it is possible, but it requires a different way of using language. When we speak precisely and literally, we describe reality 'objectively'. Communicating this way is useful when terms are mutually understood, and perspectives are shared. But when we speak metaphorically, such as by using analogies, allegories or parables, we're using language not to describe, but rather to point to something - to suggest and hint at something that's not immediately apparent to the senses but lies beyond them.
UniversalAlien wrote: July 7th, 2022, 7:00 am Or is this more likely:
In particular, if consciousness is an ontological fundamental-that is, a primary element of reality-then it may have the power to achieve what is both the best-documented and at the same time the spookiest effect of the mind on the material world: the ability of consciousness to transform the infinite possibilities for, say, the position of a subatomic particle as described by quantum mechanics into the single reality for that position as detected by an observer. If that sounds both mysterious and spooky, it is a spookiness that has been a part of science since almost the beginning of the twentieth century. It was physics that first felt the breath of this ghost, with the discoveries of quantum mechanics, and it is in the field of neuroscience and the problem of mind and matter that its ethereal presence is felt most markedly today. — Jeffrey M. Schwartz
Again Planck:
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics

“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”
― Max Planck
I love the quotes, especially this last one, which I think is right on the mark.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Post by Thomyum2 »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 7th, 2022, 9:28 am But let me just share a few things and also answer your clarification question. Consciousness itself has so much complexity assigned to its existence, that it's easy to get sidetracked. It's analogical equivalent is the concept of a God. Considering the concept of God is included in over 75% of all philosophical domains, the overlapping characteristics are equally as complex and comprehensive. As such, just so you know, my philosophy usually centers around the subject-object dynamic because it's an easy comprehensible place to start. Then, as the synthesis of thinking aloud ensues, other things 'emerge' which in-turn lead to more intriguing things, but I try to stay disciplined enough to return to that so-called dichotomy to see if those new thoughts had any impact on the initial criteria of same (the subject/object).
Hello again MP! Appreciate as always your willingness to give such thorough replies. There’s more here than I can respond to all at once here, so as before I’ll share a few key thoughts – hope you don’t mind that I’m skipping over a few things in the interest of brevity and to make my post more manageable.

You’re correct that this area of thought does get into the concept of God. Berkeley’s idealism, for example (and which I hold in high regard) doesn’t make sense if the idea of God is excluded. This ties in to what I said before that if we think of idealism solely from the point of view of the individual, it leads to a solipsism. But whether we use the term ‘God’ or ‘consciousness’ – I personally prefer ‘Mind’ – it’s getting at the same thing, which is that while objects can exist independently of individual subjects, or the minds of single observers, in the absence of all observers – i.e. of Consciousness or Mind - the existence of those objects becomes a hypothetical. They are then objects of faith or belief, not of perception, and that's a very different kind of thing (qualitatively different! :wink: ).
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 7th, 2022, 9:28 am
In the meantime, I will answer your clarification question. When you introduced the conundrum or question of both/and ("...both the observer and the observed".), you kind of opened a Pandora's box of mental phenomena. And so in order to consider that question you had about whether consciousness can potentially be both the observer and observed, I thought of a few axioms:

1. The Bock Universe was a theory that posited many things including an objective view of time as if one were able to be both the observer and the observed. A person who could theoretically exist outside of time (an independent objective observation) of the universe.

2. LEM, law if excluded middle effects consciousness in that it transcends that law. It does so by going beyond bivalence. As such, the conscious mind, the subconscious mind (and Freud would add the unconscious mind but that's another topic) working together during everyday cognition makes consciousness itself, if effect, illogical. In our daily stream of consciousness (a William James term) the driving while daydreaming, having an accident, and not surviving example bears this out. And that's because know one knows which mind was driving and which mind was 'on the beach' per say. One's self-awareness was essentially fooled. An illusion was experienced. Hence, to put that conscious phenomenon into a logical proposition, it is illogically true to say 'I was driving and not driving my car at the same time....'

So to your two points of clarification about the Block Universe and the LEM, I’m afraid I still don’t quite understand how you’re tying these to the idea that ‘the observer cannot be the observed’. In an observer/observed - i.e. a subject/object - relationship, the two are already separate, and in fact must remain so in order for the dichotomy to be sensible or have utility. ‘Objective’, by definition, means pertaining to the object – to the thing being observed, which is independent of the subject. It’s those qualities which are not dependent on the subject and which will continue on to the next observer or observation. The subject, or the observer, isn’t a part of the object, so it makes no sense to place the observer into the object. So as you say about the Block Universe, this ideas contains a notion of a “person who could theoretically exist outside of time (an independent objective observation) of the universe.” There can’t be something ‘outside of the universe’, because if there were, then that thing we’re talking about is no longer a universe, but rather just a subset thereof.

I think that Umberto Eco sums this up better than I can in this quote, one which I’ve cited here on the forum before:
But can one describe, as if seeing it from above, something within which we are contained, of which we are part, and from which we cannot exit? Can there be a descriptive geometry of the universe when there is no space outside it on which to project it? Can we talk about the beginning of the universe, when a temporal notion such as "beginning" must refer to the parameter of a clock, while the universe must be the clock of itself and cannot be referred to anything that is external to it?...Can we postulate the universe and then study with empirical instruments this postulate as if it were an object? Can a singular object exist (surely the most singular of all) that has as its characteristic that of being only a law?
And so moving on...
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 7th, 2022, 9:28 am Other examples of that sense of transcending pure reason relates to Voluntarism v. Intellect (Voluntarism - any metaphysical or psychological system that assigns to the will a more predominant role than that attributed to the intellect.) Hence the logical conundrum:

Taken from William Barrett's, Irrational Man:

"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."

- Voluntarism: in the modern metaphysical sense is a theory which explains the universe as emanating ultimately from some form of will. In a broader psychological sense, the term is applied to any theory which gives prominence to will (in opposition to intellect ). In this latter sense, but not in the former, the philosophy of Augustine, Anselm, William of Occam, and Scotus may be styled Voluntarism.

- Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God's reason.

-According to intellectualism, choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as good; the will itself is determined. For voluntarism, by contrast, it is the will which determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Concerning the nature of heaven, intellectualists followed Aristotle's lead by seeing the final state of happiness as a state of contemplation. Voluntarism, by contrast, maintains that final happiness is an activity, specifically that of love.

-19th century voluntarism has its origin in Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason." Intellectually, humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality, but this need not and must not interfere with the duty of acting as though the spiritual character of this reality were certain.
These are interesting ideas and quotes and it’s an area of philosophy I haven’t really explored much, so am glad you shared them. But the voluntarism/intellectualism dichotomy strikes me as another duality which mirrors idealism/realism. I’ve always seen these as being like flip side of a coin, like different ways of looking at an idea, and one or the other may be useful depending on the problem being addressed or the circumstance at hand, rather than one or the other being ‘true’ or ‘having primacy’. Perhaps the influence of William James on me is showing through a bit here, and in fact, this brings to mind the work of both James and Peirce: I think if you substitute the work ‘thought’ for ‘intellect’, you’ll find this describes the ideas that Peirce developed (later taken up by James) that thought is really a tool for the creation of belief, which he defines in turn as being a ‘rule for action’. The consequences of our actions create doubts, which in turn stimulate thoughts, which lead to the creation of new beliefs, and so forth in an ongoing cycle. So it seems to me that both Will and Intellect work together in this process - Will as the source of value and sense for what is good or bad, and Intellect as the tool that applies reason and understanding of what actions will produce what result in our immediate world - and neither exists without the other, just as Subject and Object always occur together.
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 7th, 2022, 9:28 am The short answer to the conundrum is that , once again, living a life with consciousness includes both/and; not either/or. Meaning the answer is both the will and intellect work together, much like the subject-object in making sense of the world. So to answer your other question about the Will itself, I still think that the Will takes primacy over the intellect since our will to be, is that fixed innate intrinsic thing that causes one to exist. That striving, urging, wanting thing-in-itself causes our Being to exist. our need to be happy. Schopenhauer's World as Will extends that theory to (conscious) cosmic emergence that propagates the universe. (I know, we both hate those word concepts.) Nevertheless, a genitally coded system of information that just is, a priori, that includes both mind and matter. Much like the seed that causes the plant to grow and has all the information necessary for its existence, the metaphysical Will causes such existence... .

3. From cognitive science (Maslow) we learned that living life is both/and; not so much an either/or proposition that we find in formal logic (and the logic of language itself). Quick example is that an engineer must apply either, the right or wrong formula to make the structural beam work. If not, it fails. Living life is not like that. As we've just parsed, the intellect, will, and other sentient phenomena are all mixed together in an insoluble fashion. In short, this is why people-management is not for everyone; there are gray areas to the human condition (no conscious pun intended). Managing people requires a bit more right-brain kinds of thinking, not to mention limbic thinking (sentience).

Anyway, there's a lot to unpack there, and I hope I clarified your one concern about analogical observer/observed concepts. Like I say, I am going to research your suggested read's and report back....
I’m surprised to hear someone who has Kierkegaard’s portrait on their profile say that living life is ‘not so much an either/or proposition’! :)

I’m planning to also respond to your next post where you replied again after looking more at Pirsig’s ideas, and where you bring up the ideas of quantitative and qualitative, which of course are also familiar terms in Kierkegaard’s work. But I'll go ahead and suggest here that the way he uses these terms, as I understand him, is that quantitative refers to changes or difference of degree or number, whereas qualitative refers to a change or difference in fundamental nature. So isn't a qualitative matter, of necessity, actually and always an Either/Or proposition? Perhaps a topic for another thread.

Anyway, enough for one post but hopefully to be continued...
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Must the Universe contain consciousness?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Thomyum2 wrote: July 10th, 2022, 4:55 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 7th, 2022, 9:28 am But let me just share a few things and also answer your clarification question. Consciousness itself has so much complexity assigned to its existence, that it's easy to get sidetracked. It's analogical equivalent is the concept of a God. Considering the concept of God is included in over 75% of all philosophical domains, the overlapping characteristics are equally as complex and comprehensive. As such, just so you know, my philosophy usually centers around the subject-object dynamic because it's an easy comprehensible place to start. Then, as the synthesis of thinking aloud ensues, other things 'emerge' which in-turn lead to more intriguing things, but I try to stay disciplined enough to return to that so-called dichotomy to see if those new thoughts had any impact on the initial criteria of same (the subject/object).
Hello again MP! Appreciate as always your willingness to give such thorough replies. There’s more here than I can respond to all at once here, so as before I’ll share a few key thoughts – hope you don’t mind that I’m skipping over a few things in the interest of brevity and to make my post more manageable.

You’re correct that this area of thought does get into the concept of God. Berkeley’s idealism, for example (and which I hold in high regard) doesn’t make sense if the idea of God is excluded. This ties in to what I said before that if we think of idealism solely from the point of view of the individual, it leads to a solipsism. But whether we use the term ‘God’ or ‘consciousness’ – I personally prefer ‘Mind’ – it’s getting at the same thing, which is that while objects can exist independently of individual subjects, or the minds of single observers, in the absence of all observers – i.e. of Consciousness or Mind - the existence of those objects becomes a hypothetical. They are then objects of faith or belief, not of perception, and that's a very different kind of thing (qualitatively different! :wink: ).
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 7th, 2022, 9:28 am
In the meantime, I will answer your clarification question. When you introduced the conundrum or question of both/and ("...both the observer and the observed".), you kind of opened a Pandora's box of mental phenomena. And so in order to consider that question you had about whether consciousness can potentially be both the observer and observed, I thought of a few axioms:

1. The Bock Universe was a theory that posited many things including an objective view of time as if one were able to be both the observer and the observed. A person who could theoretically exist outside of time (an independent objective observation) of the universe.

2. LEM, law if excluded middle effects consciousness in that it transcends that law. It does so by going beyond bivalence. As such, the conscious mind, the subconscious mind (and Freud would add the unconscious mind but that's another topic) working together during everyday cognition makes consciousness itself, if effect, illogical. In our daily stream of consciousness (a William James term) the driving while daydreaming, having an accident, and not surviving example bears this out. And that's because know one knows which mind was driving and which mind was 'on the beach' per say. One's self-awareness was essentially fooled. An illusion was experienced. Hence, to put that conscious phenomenon into a logical proposition, it is illogically true to say 'I was driving and not driving my car at the same time....'

So to your two points of clarification about the Block Universe and the LEM, I’m afraid I still don’t quite understand how you’re tying these to the idea that ‘the observer cannot be the observed’. In an observer/observed - i.e. a subject/object - relationship, the two are already separate, and in fact must remain so in order for the dichotomy to be sensible or have utility. ‘Objective’, by definition, means pertaining to the object – to the thing being observed, which is independent of the subject. It’s those qualities which are not dependent on the subject and which will continue on to the next observer or observation. The subject, or the observer, isn’t a part of the object, so it makes no sense to place the observer into the object. So as you say about the Block Universe, this ideas contains a notion of a “person who could theoretically exist outside of time (an independent objective observation) of the universe.” There can’t be something ‘outside of the universe’, because if there were, then that thing we’re talking about is no longer a universe, but rather just a subset thereof.

I think that Umberto Eco sums this up better than I can in this quote, one which I’ve cited here on the forum before:
But can one describe, as if seeing it from above, something within which we are contained, of which we are part, and from which we cannot exit? Can there be a descriptive geometry of the universe when there is no space outside it on which to project it? Can we talk about the beginning of the universe, when a temporal notion such as "beginning" must refer to the parameter of a clock, while the universe must be the clock of itself and cannot be referred to anything that is external to it?...Can we postulate the universe and then study with empirical instruments this postulate as if it were an object? Can a singular object exist (surely the most singular of all) that has as its characteristic that of being only a law?
And so moving on...
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 7th, 2022, 9:28 am Other examples of that sense of transcending pure reason relates to Voluntarism v. Intellect (Voluntarism - any metaphysical or psychological system that assigns to the will a more predominant role than that attributed to the intellect.) Hence the logical conundrum:

Taken from William Barrett's, Irrational Man:

"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."

- Voluntarism: in the modern metaphysical sense is a theory which explains the universe as emanating ultimately from some form of will. In a broader psychological sense, the term is applied to any theory which gives prominence to will (in opposition to intellect ). In this latter sense, but not in the former, the philosophy of Augustine, Anselm, William of Occam, and Scotus may be styled Voluntarism.

- Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God's reason.

-According to intellectualism, choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as good; the will itself is determined. For voluntarism, by contrast, it is the will which determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Concerning the nature of heaven, intellectualists followed Aristotle's lead by seeing the final state of happiness as a state of contemplation. Voluntarism, by contrast, maintains that final happiness is an activity, specifically that of love.

-19th century voluntarism has its origin in Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason." Intellectually, humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality, but this need not and must not interfere with the duty of acting as though the spiritual character of this reality were certain.
These are interesting ideas and quotes and it’s an area of philosophy I haven’t really explored much, so am glad you shared them. But the voluntarism/intellectualism dichotomy strikes me as another duality which mirrors idealism/realism. I’ve always seen these as being like flip side of a coin, like different ways of looking at an idea, and one or the other may be useful depending on the problem being addressed or the circumstance at hand, rather than one or the other being ‘true’ or ‘having primacy’. Perhaps the influence of William James on me is showing through a bit here, and in fact, this brings to mind the work of both James and Peirce: I think if you substitute the work ‘thought’ for ‘intellect’, you’ll find this describes the ideas that Peirce developed (later taken up by James) that thought is really a tool for the creation of belief, which he defines in turn as being a ‘rule for action’. The consequences of our actions create doubts, which in turn stimulate thoughts, which lead to the creation of new beliefs, and so forth in an ongoing cycle. So it seems to me that both Will and Intellect work together in this process - Will as the source of value and sense for what is good or bad, and Intellect as the tool that applies reason and understanding of what actions will produce what result in our immediate world - and neither exists without the other, just as Subject and Object always occur together.
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 7th, 2022, 9:28 am The short answer to the conundrum is that , once again, living a life with consciousness includes both/and; not either/or. Meaning the answer is both the will and intellect work together, much like the subject-object in making sense of the world. So to answer your other question about the Will itself, I still think that the Will takes primacy over the intellect since our will to be, is that fixed innate intrinsic thing that causes one to exist. That striving, urging, wanting thing-in-itself causes our Being to exist. our need to be happy. Schopenhauer's World as Will extends that theory to (conscious) cosmic emergence that propagates the universe. (I know, we both hate those word concepts.) Nevertheless, a genitally coded system of information that just is, a priori, that includes both mind and matter. Much like the seed that causes the plant to grow and has all the information necessary for its existence, the metaphysical Will causes such existence... .

3. From cognitive science (Maslow) we learned that living life is both/and; not so much an either/or proposition that we find in formal logic (and the logic of language itself). Quick example is that an engineer must apply either, the right or wrong formula to make the structural beam work. If not, it fails. Living life is not like that. As we've just parsed, the intellect, will, and other sentient phenomena are all mixed together in an insoluble fashion. In short, this is why people-management is not for everyone; there are gray areas to the human condition (no conscious pun intended). Managing people requires a bit more right-brain kinds of thinking, not to mention limbic thinking (sentience).

Anyway, there's a lot to unpack there, and I hope I clarified your one concern about analogical observer/observed concepts. Like I say, I am going to research your suggested read's and report back....
I’m surprised to hear someone who has Kierkegaard’s portrait on their profile say that living life is ‘not so much an either/or proposition’! :)

I’m planning to also respond to your next post where you replied again after looking more at Pirsig’s ideas, and where you bring up the ideas of quantitative and qualitative, which of course are also familiar terms in Kierkegaard’s work. But I'll go ahead and suggest here that the way he uses these terms, as I understand him, is that quantitative refers to changes or difference of degree or number, whereas qualitative refers to a change or difference in fundamental nature. So isn't a qualitative matter, of necessity, actually and always an Either/Or proposition? Perhaps a topic for another thread.

Anyway, enough for one post but hopefully to be continued...
T2!

Yes, (haha), as far as idealism, much like dualism, there are all sort of distinctions that relate to opposite's. Typically, I take the particular tenets of same and make them my own. For instance, the concept of God/Christianity that you alluded to (the Being Jesus as the physical/metaphysical object) and mental phenomena can be parsed in many way's (subjective idealism/subjective truth's & objective idealism/objective truth's), that can include theories relative to the collective unconscious mind being somewhat independent as well... . In some ways this all goes back to 'if the tree fell in the forest would it still exist' riddle. That was showcased in your comment (to Jack) about the primacy of inner-subjectivity, as well as our discussions about the subject-object dynamic.

Then we talked before about sound waves existing (albeit abstractly through mathematics) somehow without an observer (a tree that has fallen in the past). And I've talked about what it means to have an actual 'belief' in the forgoing antiquity (historical accounts) of the Jesus/Being (in other threads). But for now, your point about 'objects' of cognition (holding a belief or otherwise what it means to have understanding about a thing-in-itself), goes back to 'qualitative' representations; not physically quantitative one's. I think that it's a consistent point to remember when we are talking about understanding the nature of existing things, and their ultimate causes (and effects of conscious existence). And, this is all is germane to whether the Universe contains an independent consciousness, either corresponding to quantum phenomena/observer effects, or epistemological and metaphysical phenomena of the mind.

I will do some homework on Peirce and offer some comments...

With respect to quality and quantity, the most succinct way to differentiate those relative to the mind would be (at the risk of redundancy):

Quantity= physical/material, etc.

Quality=meta-physical, immaterial, etc.

I'm having a discussion with Jack about the same distinctions:

[W]hat is an existing, thinking, thing (things-in-themselves)? Meaning, as sentient human Beings, by what method can we fully appreciate, describe and explain our thinking existence as an exclusive physical thing-in-itself (beyond neurons).

Think about looking at a rock, then touching it, breaking it in half, and observing its existence (through a microscope or whatever). There is little doubt that through that process, it appears to be an an object. You can quantify it as such very easily. But can you qualify it? Meaning, what kind of qualities does it have? It's dense, inert, a naturally occurring solid mass, an aggregate, and so on... .

Now look at the Will. Is it an object of the senses? Let's assume that it is. What kind of object is it? Well, we can quantify it by way of the cognitive process of neurological activity, but does it have the quality of a rock in-itself? We can't really touch it like you could a rock, but even of you could, what would that mean (touching neurons)? If it means that by touching it and examining it that we would understand it like the rock, would that mean that a persons Will to be, is the same quality of the thing known as a rock?

Alternatively, think about thought itself. I want to move my arm and it moves. What causes this? Well, my Will to move my arm causes the arm to move first, then physically the process begins. What about the need to have purpose and meaning, or to love and not love, or the urge to feel happy (or the actual feelings of happiness/sadness themselves)? The Will then, in many ways, can be said to take on some level of primacy in Being. It can cause us the physically act to pursue or effect a some-thing. In other words, relative to me wanting to move my arm, the metaphysical moves the physical. In Being, the physical becomes subordinated as simply a means to and end. One's own metaphysical Will has a cause and effect.

Lastly, let's go back to the rock scenario. Someone say's that they saw a rock, yet I didn't see it. I believe that they saw the rock because they told me they saw it. What is this object known as a belief in and of itself? Is it a belief about a thing? Yes of course. But the belief itself is that a thought? What is a thought? That thought then, becomes the object of the belief. Is the object known as a belief (a rock) is that physical? In itself, that thing-in-itself called belief, and thoughts associated with a belief, is now just a mental representation. I did not see the rock. These representations themselves, can't be fully described materially. Or, can they?


This OP askes 'Must the Universe contain Consciousness?' Gertie, is that question similar to the judgement 'all events must have a cause'?

And with respect to quality v. quantity, the Hawking metaphorical 'breath' of quality, is a consistent language of not only consciousness itself, but metaphysics too (mathematics).
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021