Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics

[Dancing David]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

You are a part of the universe, that you cannot deny.

FOR YOU, nothing existed before you were born. Nothing will exist FOR YOU after you die.

Now put that easy to understand statement into the context of the entire universe.

Do you think it a mistake or accident that the universe produces conscioiusness? As I have stated, the universe does not make mistakes. Consciousness is just an integral part of the universe as any other law of physics. Existence and consciousness are linked and one cannot exist without the other.

...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Douglas Adams


Sorry RB, you have demonstrated that we have

a. existance of sentient beings
b. existance of the universe

but I do not see that b. follows from a.

Knowledge of the universe may follow from b. but you haven't proven you rpoint.

 

[Dancing David]

It's a necessary stage on the way to consciousness.

Argh, a plauge on speeling...

 

[Hokulele]

Do you think that concepts like Uni-verse or Con-text are equivalent?

When I am sober, no.

The biggest challenge in understanding the universe is that there is nothing to compare it to. How would context apply?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Ah, but you were still conscious after you closed your eyes. What you need to do is bash yourself in the head with a hammer until you are in a persistent vegetative state. At that point reverebison's assertions or posts loose their significance (as if they had any), yet you still exist.

Reported, for advocacy of suicide!

...Oh wait, you said persistent vegetative state, not dead. Well, I guess I can let that one slide. Though I must admit that hammer does seem awfully inviting every time I read through one of reverebison's arguments.


I'm still waiting for evidence from him that existence is contingent on consciousness and not the other way around. Otherwise, as the old joke goes, anyone who tried to argue with Descartes' famous line by saying, "I think not!" would vanish into thin air.

 

[doronshadmi]

When I am sober, no.

The biggest challenge in understanding the universe is that there is nothing to compare it to. How would context apply?

Maybe the biggest challenge is to under-stand how comparison is possible, in the first place.

What do you think?

 

[westprog]

What do you think are the outlines of such a theory (please be aware of the fact that any physical theory must survive well formulated experiments of its predicted results)?

I have no idea. There have been prolonged debates on this forum about the status of consciousness, but the only thing I'm fairly sure of is that the papers written about it aren't being written by physicists. We are a long, long way from a physical theory, and it's that fact that makes consciousness separate from other observed phenomena.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have no idea. There have been prolonged debates on this forum about the status of consciousness, but the only thing I'm fairly sure of is that the papers written about it aren't being written by physicists. We are a long, long way from a physical theory, and it's that fact that makes consciousness separate from other observed phenomena.

Some one (I don't remember his name) wrote something like this:

It is quit trivial to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of the body of a dead bird thrown in the air.

It is maybe impossible to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of a living one.


Do you think that "I have no idea" is closely related to the problem mentioned above?

 

[The Man]

Reported, for advocacy of suicide!

...Oh wait, you said persistent vegetative state, not dead. Well, I guess I can let that one slide. Though I must admit that hammer does seem awfully inviting every time I read through one of reverebison's arguments.


I'm still waiting for evidence from him that existence is contingent on consciousness and not the other way around. Otherwise, as the old joke goes, anyone who tried to argue with Descartes' famous line by saying, "I think not!" would vanish into thin air.

Thanks for the pass, Silentknight and I am still waiting for that evidence as well. However I think it will just be the common misinterpretation of the anthropic principle, since the universe contains what we call “consciousness” then the universe must somehow need what we call “consciousness”. Also "I think not" is my favorite philosophical joke, although sometimes it is hard to tell what is philosophy and what is just a joke, fortunately only philosophers need to (or it seems can) make that distinction.

 

[Hokulele]

Maybe the biggest challenge is to under-stand how comparison is possible, in the first place.

What do you think?

If comparison was generally impossible, you would not be editing your posts so often.

 

[JimBenArm]

Is it just me, or do the random hyphens seem just a bit odd?

 

[Hokulele]

Is it just me, or do the random hyphens seem just a bit odd?

Not in context.

 

[JimBenArm]

Not in context.

Okay. What's the proper context? I'm a bit confused. Not that that's anything unusual for me.

 

[The Man]

Some one (I don't remember his name) wrote something like this:

It is quit trivial to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of the body of a dead bird thrown in the air.

Sure if you account for all the relevant influences, launch trajectory, wind speed and even the rotation of the Earth (depending on the distance).

It is maybe impossible to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of a living one.

Again the same requirement applies, but now you need to consider stimuli, response, neural pathways as well as , launch trajectory, wind speed and even the rotation of the Earth (depending on the distance).

Do you think that "I have no idea" is closely related to the problem mentioned above?

Do you not think that “not so complicated then very complicated” is a better description of the “problem” you mentioned then "I have no idea"?

 

[Hokulele]

Okay. What's the proper context? I'm a bit confused. Not that that's anything unusual for me.

Serious answer: doronshadmi seems to be obsessed with the idea of dualism, and thus uses hyphens to emphasize the "uni" part of universe and the "con" (as in pro and con) part of context.

Slightly less serious answer, but intended by my post nonetheless: Something weird in a sea of weird isn't really odd at all.

 

[The Man]

Serious answer: doronshadmi seems to be obsessed with the idea of dualism, and thus uses hyphens to emphasize the "uni" part of universe and the "con" (as in pro and con) part of context.

Yes, but his is a singular dualism.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, I would argue with that

You could try.

So the existence (or specific presence) of gravity only has consequences “to a conscious entity”?

Yes.

Irrelevant, not at all, if there “has been or always will be consciousness” then you’re hypothetical point is irrelevant.

No. Simply declaring it irrelevant doesn't make it so. Given that there is no consciousness my point stands. I don't need to prove that conciousness has not always existed. That said, you have no evidence that it has. I can't prove a negative.

 

[RandFan]

I see it as a little more of a gray area. The best single example I can think of is blindsight. I believe you mentioned reading Ramachandran in the past, and he devoted parts of both of his popular science books to the issue of blindsight. In short, there are two visual pathways in the brain, only one of which passes through the visual cortex. When this path is knocked out, that person is effectively blind from a conscious point of view. They cannot register what they "see". However, the second pathway is still in effect, it just can't communicate with the "conscious" areas of the brain. A person with this type of blindsight can correctly locate things spatially, determine the orientation of objects, and interact with those objects.

The one example that stuck in my mind was the woman who experienced this later in life (so she had already had experience with the world of conscious vision). She could recognize common objects if she could hold them, but could not see and recognize anything visually. However, when the researcher held up a pen, she could easily reach out and take it from his hand in order to determine what it was by touch.





Conscious recognition apparently isn't necessary for living in and interacting with the universe as we know it.

I can't argue with anything that you've said. The problem is that it is irrelevant. Anything that does not have consciousness (yes we can get into a semantical argument but let's stick to the conventional view) doesn't care. It doesn't appreciate. There is no meaning. Planets and rocks and dust don't know that they exist and don't care one way or the other.

• We can conceptualize (a) something.
• We can conceptualize (b) nothing.

When we do this it is human nature to do so from the perspective of our own consciousness. Take that away and the difference between a and b is null. It is only consciousness that can deduce a difference between the two. End of story.


One more thing, sorry if I'm sounding snarky. I don't mean to. It's a philosophical position. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's just that it's my hill and these are my beans.

 

[Hokulele]

I can't argue with anything that you've said. The problem is that it is irrelevant. Anything that does not have consciousness (yes we can get into a semantical argument but let's stick to the conventional view) doesn't care. It doesn't appreciate. There is no meaning. Planets and rocks and dust don't know that they exist and don't care one way or the other.

• We can conceptualize (a) something.
• We can conceptualize (b) nothing.

When we do this it is human nature to do so from the perspective of our own consciousness. Take that away and the difference between a and b is null. It is only consciousness that can deduce a difference between the two. End of story.

And this is exactly the point I am trying to make by invoking blindsight. Unconsciously we can determine between something and nothing, hence we can react to things we cannot consciously perceive. I will grant you there is nothing we can do about those things, other than simply react, but there is a perceptable difference.

One more thing, sorry if I'm sounding snarky. I don't mean to. It's a philosophical position. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's just that it's my hill and these are my beans.

No worries. Maybe you will get lucky and one of your beans will sprout a magic beanstalk.

 

[doronshadmi]

Serious answer: doronshadmi seems to be obsessed with the idea of dualism, and thus uses hyphens to emphasize the "uni" part of universe and the "con" (as in pro and con) part of context.

Slightly less serious answer, but intended by my post nonetheless: Something weird in a sea of weird isn't really odd at all.

1) The obsession is in the eyes of the reader (as can clearly be seen by your reply style http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4125204&postcount=85 to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4125175&postcount=84 ) .

2) Since we are talking about consciousness , we are dealing first of all with something that has self-reference.

3) From this point of view, we actually deal with something that enables to integrate between different things (whether they are internal or external of it) as a basis for conclusion, decision, etc … in order to react both on its internal and external environments, as can be seen in this preliminary model ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf ).

4) Concepts like Universe, Context etc … were invented by things that have consciousness, in order to express some essential sense, notion about the experience of reality.

5) Furthermore, these conscious things choosed to integrate between concepts like Unity and Verses (in the case of Universe) and between Connection and Text (in the case of Context) in order to communicate between them.

 

[Hokulele]

Heh, now I am accused of dualism.

"Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment."