Transcendant Cause

termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Transcendant Cause

Hello!

 

If it were proven that the Universe has a cause,

and that cause is transcendant (ie, outside any spacialities and temporalities) and necessary,

would the latter have to be a MIND?

or is it still possible to conceive such a cause as unconscious?


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
termina wrote:Hello! If it

termina wrote:

Hello!

 

If it were proven that the Universe has a cause,

and that cause is transcendant (ie, outside any spacialities and temporalities) and necessary,

would the latter have to be a MIND?

or is it still possible to conceive such a cause as unconscious?

I think that mind is a bit too complex to be a source of the universe:

Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason. Mind manifests itself subjectively as a stream of consciousness, or intersubjectively through conversation..

Are you saying the cause would have intent or purpose?  Why would it be necessary?  Do you mean by unconscious being without consciousness or without mind?

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Alexicov
Alexicov's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-11-04
User is offlineOffline
 The problem with a cause

 The problem with a cause outside of spacetime and temporality is a subtle, yet pathological one.

In order to "cause" anything, you REQUIRE time. There needs to be a 'before' and 'after' the event. Being outside spacetime prohibits causality. Furthermore, a MIND cannot work outside of spacetime as a mind needs to make decisions/perform actions, both functions requiring time to exist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't see how supernatural

I don't see how supernatural + necessary >> mind.

Minds, as we know them, only exist as a phenomenon which emerges from the physical world in our spacial and temporal universe. Our minds aren't necessary either.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I don't see any reason why

I don't see any reason why it would have to be minds.

 

Understand though, the premise itself moves the idea past our ability to speculate, so I can't place any limits on what may or may not be if that were the case.  If something 'transcendent' exists, by nature I don't think it could be knowable by minds with our limitations.  It would literally be something we could not comprehend.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I don't see

mellestad wrote:

I don't see any reason why it would have to be minds.

 

Understand though, the premise itself moves the idea past our ability to speculate, so I can't place any limits on what may or may not be if that were the case.  If something 'transcendent' exists, by nature I don't think it could be knowable by minds with our limitations.  It would literally be something we could not comprehend.

 

I would say that transcendence may be real but non-existent.  In otherwords transcendence would be beyond existence perhaps being itself with existence as Being relativized as temporal and spatial. I would say that a transcendent could be causal even without time in the fact that the effect could be time itself as a singularity or the first caused thing...objectified being. The greeks would have said substantivized in the sense of a noun or word (Logos). So you would not have to have space or time to cause space and time and its precursor would be an atemporal cause. Still quite different than a mind. Of course you could add an eastern panentheistic flavor and have being as consciousness and consciousness as a fundamental property of the physical world as David Chalmers is speculating. Then the self reference of a boundless Being of potentiality would objectify itself as an individuation and in turn a relativized self regression would occur that we call existence. But you might be able to do that we some pre-existing infinity of numbers in which the finite infinities ( so Rudy Rucker) structure timespace into the big bang.  Ain't theology wonderful Namaste.... Gate Gate paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Transcendent" means purely

"Transcendent" means purely conceptual. If you are 'beyond' space and time, or any equivalent dimensionality, you are nothing, or at most, an idea within a mind within a reality, ie something with some equivalent of space-time.

Even if some entity was beyond our realm in some sense, it would still be part of what exists, and could not be responsible for this existence, therefore even if it managed to create our corner of existence, an explanation for how it came to exist is still required. IOW you have an infinite regress, so there is no logical way out of this, no matter what you claim about the nature of that part of existence this being inhabits.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Transcendent" means purely conceptual. If you are 'beyond' space and time, or any equivalent dimensionality, you are nothing, or at most, an idea within a mind within a reality, ie something with some equivalent of space-time.

Even if some entity was beyond our realm in some sense, it would still be part of what exists, and could not be responsible for this existence, therefore even if it managed to create our corner of existence, an explanation for how it came to exist is still required. IOW you have an infinite regress, so there is no logical way out of this, no matter what you claim about the nature of that part of existence this being inhabits.

I'm with Bob on this, and if you define 'transcendent' as just beyond our universe, and not beyond existence itself, there is absolutely no reason for this being to be a mind.  It just complicates things unnecessarily.  I like the super chicken that plucks big bangs into existence.  It carries less questions then some long bearded dude sitting on a throne with  insecurity issues.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well, for what it is

 

Well, for what it is worth, I think that we get on shaky ground when we try to use the word universe as meaning “all that there is”. Doing that leads us into all of the problems which are associated such as where was god? Who made god? And what did god make the universe from?

 

Granted, it is an odd philosophical quandary but why not say that the universe is only some of what is? Done that way, we can get to such matters in a somewhat different manner. Follow me out on this.

 

The definition of “everything that is” has changed over time as our understanding of the subject has grown. One early version holds that “everything” was the earth, sun and moon. The stars were considered to be on the outside in some way. So sure, if there is something external to the universe, then you can work on understanding the questions in my first paragraph.

 

Later on, it was recognized that there are a few star like things that move around in the sky in ways that the real stars do not. We call those planets. With that, the universe became bigger, so to speak.

 

Then, in the 1800's, we learned how to measure the distance to stars. Again, the universe gets bigger. After that, for several decades, the idea of the universe cam to embrace the galaxy. And we had a general idea that there was nothing outside the galaxy, which lead to Einstein proposing the cosmological constant. Huge whoops there.

 

In the 1920's Hubble and Humason showed that the universe was much larger than even that. A couple of generations of astronomers have added to the general knowledge base so that we think of the universe as being the set of all the galaxies.

 

A certain consequence to that requires that there was a beginning to all of the stuff that we currently consider to be the universe. OK, so tell me how it matters if time had a beginning if the whole set of stuff is only a subset of some larger thing? I freely grant that it is an odd question but it is one that is on the bleeding edge of physics and might turn out to be true, pending certain results from the LHC.

 

If the LHC results come out the way that some physicists are expecting, then sure, time had a beginning but there would also be a sense under which a “before time” thing would make sense. That thing would have the property of an infinite regress. It would also have implications of continuous creation that would be pretty much automatic.

 

This would bring us back to the general question:

 

If the universe has a cause, does it need to be a mind?

 

Really, no. What we are calling the universe can be caused by events which take place in a larger scenario but could still be random events.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Transcendent" means purely conceptual. If you are 'beyond' space and time, or any equivalent dimensionality, you are nothing, or at most, an idea within a mind within a reality, ie something with some equivalent of space-time.

Even if some entity was beyond our realm in some sense, it would still be part of what exists, and could not be responsible for this existence, therefore even if it managed to create our corner of existence, an explanation for how it came to exist is still required. IOW you have an infinite regress, so there is no logical way out of this, no matter what you claim about the nature of that part of existence this being inhabits.

Well some in philosophy and theology use it as introduced here...beyond the universe, physical reality or what have you. These ideas do show up in physics because of the philosophical presuppositions of people like Schroedinger, Heisenberg or David Bohm. Some have proposed  that numbers are transcendent and impose structure to existence if not in fact give ground to existence. And I think I have presented the idea of such a transcendent as potentiality rather than actuality. This is a typical view out there. SO a potentiality that is real but transcends existence could be responsible for existence if it made sense. What language though would we use about a universe that is bubbling off multi-verses or big bangs (depending on what terminology you want to use there )


That big bang generator would be in some sense transcendent to us not in a conceptual or epistemic sense but an ontological sense. Just as it is now. I found this quite easily after rambling on above. I think that these are issues that need to be taken seriously and head on. They probably for the most part are from ancient and traditional language we take for granted but should not. They may slip into even the most refined physics.

Paul Davies Says Stephen Hawking’s New Book Doesn’t Quite Get Rid of God Completely

Posted on by santitafarella

Physicist Paul Davies, reviewing, for the Guardian, Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design  (Bantam 2010), says this:

The laws of physics can explain, he says, how a universe of space, time and matter could emerge spontaneously, without the need for God. And most cosmologists agree: we don’t need a god-of-the-gaps to make the big bang go bang. It can happen as part of a natural process. A much tougher problem now looms, however. What is the source of those ingenious laws that enable a universe to pop into being from nothing?

And here we get into trouble, for Stephen Hawking favors the multiverse hypothesis, in which perhaps infinite universes, each with different physical constants, make different worlds, and spawn (maybe via black holes) new ones, one of which just happens to be ours. But, as Paul Davies notes, the multiverse has its own problems:

The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained – eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.

In other words, on the multiverse hypothesis, behind the laws of physics that we experience there must be still more fundamental meta-laws, but then where did they come from? If you are going to be an atheist, these meta-laws, as Davies emphasizes, must be:

. . . eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given.

http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/paul-davies-says-stephen-hawkings-new-book-doesnt-quite-get-rid-of-god-completely/

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
These days I believe in

These days I believe in bypassing the attempt by Theists to portray God as existing in some separate 'transcendent' realm, so they can argue he doesn't have to abide by the 'laws' of nature, or otherwise avoid some annoying limitation of 'reality' as we know it.

Transcendent simply means beyond our normal or ordinary experience. Given we are very definitely finite in our perceptions and imaginations, that would not be all that hard to find. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity would lie on the border of the 'transcendent', at the very least. Absolutely no reason to assume 'non-physical' or 'supernatural' or anything else of that nature.

I am not restricting myself to the Big Bang Universe.

I refer to the totality of what IS. Whether a single Big Bang, a succession of them, a swarm of them in a multiverse, whatever.

Time is a perception by such beings as ourselves of a particular dimension of reality, which seems to lend itself to some kind of directional progression. In a Timeless context, I still can conceive of a connected chain of states along a particular dimension, with adjacent states constrained by laws which are equivalent to what we would perceive as 'causality'.

From an appropriate point-of-view, what IS may be regarded as a 'static' structure. It exists. The alternative is true 'nothingness'. We exist, therefore that option need not be considered. Coherent existence of any kind involves constraints, boundaries, as between one entity and another, as described by the Law of Identity. Order and consistency requires that something cannot simultaneously 'be' and 'not be', or overlap with that which it is not, according to the Law of non-contradiction.

It has been argued that these fundamental 'Laws of Logic' are empirical in some way, but until someone can come up with a serious and equally fundamental grounding of conception, we have no alternative but to start with them.

The question of how it arose does not itself arise. It would be absurd to propose 'something' other than an abstract fundamental principle of reality 'caused' it to exist, otherwise you are immediately back in infinite regress land.

Mind you, infinite convergent regress is a mathematical possibility within finite realities, ie an infinite summation of entities, durations, whatever, where each prior element is finitely smaller that what follows it, sums to quite finite totalities. Such a sequence would go back into an infinitesimal scale. If some version of Quantum Mechanics holds universally, below a certain scale things simply blur into Uncertainty.

Just my usual 'random' thoughts...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
termina wrote:Hello! If it

termina wrote:

Hello!

 

If it were proven that the Universe has a cause,

and that cause is transcendant (ie, outside any spacialities and temporalities) and necessary,

would the latter have to be a MIND?

or is it still possible to conceive such a cause as unconscious?

Two big ifs

1.) if the universe has cause

There is evidence for "uncaused" phenomenon in nature such as vacuum fluctuations. It is conceivable that the universe began to exist without a cause.

2.) if the cause of the universe is transcendent

Multiverse and cyclical models of the universe suggest that external causes to the universe are non transcendent or even conscience.

There's no reason to jump to mind then if these aforementioned explanations for the origins of the universe are possible and are substantiated or are being substantiated.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
termina wrote:Hello! If it

termina wrote:

Hello!

 

If it were proven that the Universe has a cause,

and that cause is transcendant (ie, outside any spacialities and temporalities) and necessary,

would the latter have to be a MIND?

or is it still possible to conceive such a cause as unconscious?

This is nothing but mental masturbation.

Human consciousness is a result of biological evolution. Consciousness is an emergent property of biological processes, nothing more.

What you are doing is simple anthropomorphism(assigning human qualities to the world around you).

While no one knows what happened before the big bang, we do know the results of it and none of what exists now came from a consciousness, but a process.

Much like a hurricane doesn't consciously form or chose a path. A hurricane is a manifestation of smaller processes that lead to the bigger pattern we call a hurricane.

Whatever came before the big bang would be just as much an object and proccess, not a who, but a what.

There is no need for thinking for the universe to manifest nor will there be any thinking when it reaches heat death in the future.

No different than the smaller componants of heat and climate and water temperature that lead to a hurricane and the death it hits when it too, runs out of fuel.

Don't let your "sense of awe" lead you to new age bullshit. This is just as bad as when theists let their sense of awe lead them to comic book super heros.

Life and the universe are the product of a WHAT, not a who. The universe has no capability of being a villain or a hero. Most of it is hostile to biological life and has plenty of nasty things in it that have affected our tiny dot throughout it's history. It is neither caring or apathetic or mean. It is a process, not a who. The universe is not a giant brain or a god, it is a thing, just like a rock is a thing.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:termina

Brian37 wrote:

termina wrote:

Hello!

 

If it were proven that the Universe has a cause,

and that cause is transcendant (ie, outside any spacialities and temporalities) and necessary,

would the latter have to be a MIND?

or is it still possible to conceive such a cause as unconscious?

This is nothing but mental masturbation.

Human consciousness is a result of biological evolution. Consciousness is an emergent property of biological processes, nothing more.

What you are doing is simple anthropomorphism(assigning human qualities to the world around you).

 

Some disagree. Some view the idea that experience is a response to information and is fundamental.  That consciousness is simply that. The idea is that consciousness is no more emergent than gravity etc.; Human consciousness is simply a more complex functional structure than say a thermostat. Such an idea is that the physical structures of things as interacted upon by other structures share a non-reducible state called information. This state becomes more complex as the physical structures become more complex.  This is the basic argument between Dennett and Chalmers.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Information is tied to

Information is tied to material structure, at the basic level it is a description of the position and momentum of all the matter particles within a given volume of space.

This version of information is a quantity which is not dependent on the 'complexity' of the physical structure, just the number of particles. Of course the more particles there are within a given volume, the more complex the possible patterns and structures it may manifest.

By this definition, an immaterial realm has zero information, so if a mind is somehow dependent on information, an immaterial realm cannot have 'mind'. Consciousness is an emergent property of a particular kind of complex structure, and is totally dependent on that structure, which in turn is totally dependent on the properties of matter, ie its persistence and stability of form.

Massive amounts of evidence from ongoing studies of mind and consciousness completely support this, that the mind is a product of the brain/body complex, as an emergent property of complexity, which does indeed depend, in a sense, on a large amount of 'information', ie available particles, to support that complexity. But it is dependent on a very special kind of 'complexity', which may be described as a kind of 'meta-information' which is a description of the organization of the basic 'information', related to its entropy. Meta-information, complexity of structure, like entropy, is not conserved.

Consciousness seems to be an emergent function of basic mind, which assists the creature to handle unfamiliar situations, and to facilitate interactions with other similar individuals in a social group, via the 'mirror neurons'.

The idea of consciousness as a fundamental is a primitive idea harking back to the concept of the nature of everything being due to an 'essence'. Whereas modern thinking is that the nature of something is a function of its structure. It used to be thought that the basic properties of different substances were due to them containing different proportions of the four 'elements' of earth, air, fire,and water. But we now know that material substances of all kinds, including gases ('air') are composed of the same basic structures ('atoms'), and different substances have their different attributes due to the differences in the arrangement of the particular kinds of atoms they contain, And that the different atoms, the actual elements, are distinguished by the different numbers of the same three particles they contain.

Structure is primary for determining properties, not what it is made of. Different atoms, and different mixes of atoms, facilitate different kinds of structure.

Comparing consciousness to something like gravity is completely inconsistent with its dependence on information complexity and structure.

I looked up David Chalmers, Damn, he looks like a younger version of myself, although I didn't wear my hair long back then, or have facial hair, but if I had, that's how I would have looked. Also Australian, of course...

Even so, I'll go with Dennett.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Information

BobSpence1 wrote:

Information is tied to material structure, at the basic level it is a description of the position and momentum of all the matter particles within a given volume of space.

This version of information is a quantity which is not dependent on the 'complexity' of the physical structure, just the number of particles. Of course the more particles there are within a given volume, the more complex the possible patterns and structures it may manifest.

By this definition, an immaterial realm has zero information, so if a mind is somehow dependent on information, an immaterial realm cannot have 'mind'. Consciousness is an emergent property of a particular kind of complex structure, and is totally dependent on that structure, which in turn is totally dependent on the properties of matter, ie its persistence and stability of form.

Massive amounts of evidence from ongoing studies of mind and consciousness completely support this, that the mind is a product of the brain/body complex, as an emergent property of complexity, which does indeed depend, in a sense, on a large amount of 'information', ie available particles, to support that complexity. But it is dependent on a very special kind of 'complexity', which may be described as a kind of 'meta-information' which is a description of the organization of the basic 'information', related to its entropy. Meta-information, complexity of structure, like entropy, is not conserved.

Consciousness seems to be an emergent function of basic mind, which assists the creature to handle unfamiliar situations, and to facilitate interactions with other similar individuals in a social group, via the 'mirror neurons'.

The idea of consciousness as a fundamental is a primitive idea harking back to the concept of the nature of everything being due to an 'essence'. Whereas modern thinking is that the nature of something is a function of its structure. It used to be thought that the basic properties of different substances were due to them containing different proportions of the four 'elements' of earth, air, fire,and water. But we now know that material substances of all kinds, including gases ('air') are composed of the same basic structures ('atoms'), and different substances have their different attributes due to the differences in the arrangement of the particular kinds of atoms they contain, And that the different atoms, the actual elements, are distinguished by the different numbers of the same three particles they contain.

Structure is primary for determining properties, not what it is made of. Different atoms, and different mixes of atoms, facilitate different kinds of structure.

Comparing consciousness to something like gravity is completely inconsistent with its dependence on information complexity and structure.

I looked up David Chalmers, Damn, he looks like a younger version of myself, although I didn't wear my hair long back then, or have facial hair, but if I had, that's how I would have looked. Also Australian, of course...

Even so, I'll go with Dennett.

I think that Chalmers is worth the read. Dennett goes as far as explaining function and reportability of consciousness (3 rd person level) I do not disagree with Dennett as far as that goes. One still lacks the explanation for 1st person experience which Chalmers is seriously wrestling with. And to be fair with Chalmers his panpsychism thing is really a back burner question. The focus has to do with all of the Mary problems and zombie constructs. I do have concerns that Chalmers posits a naturalistic dualism. But it is based off Shannon's  double aspect theory of information. Information space is an abstract object. We see information as physically embodied when there is a space of distinct physical states.  The differences can be transmitted down some causal pathway. The transmittable states can be seen as themselves constituting the information space. Information is a difference that makes a difference.  The principle stems from observation that there is an isomorphism between certain physically embodied information spaces and certain phenomenological ( experiential ) information spaces. We can notice the differences in structure of the phenomenal states correspond to the differences embedded in the physical processes, to those differences that make a difference down certain causal pathways implicated in global availability and control. We can find the lame information space embedded in physical processing and in conscious experience.  This leads a a naturalistic hypothesis: information has two aspects a physical and a phenomenal. Chalmers thinks this aspect explains the emergence of experience from the physical. Experience arises by virtue of its status as one aspect of information when the other aspect is found embedded in physical processing. 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I may find time to read some

I may find time to read some of Chalmer's stuff - heck, another thinking Australian who looks a bit like me has to be worth some attention...

But seriously, I don't see anything compelling in what you convey of his angle on this.

It at least partly amounts to a bit of labelling, to fit the observations into a particular personal world-view.

I am comfortable with regarding personal experience as "what the process of consciousness 'feels like' from the inside". YMMV.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I may find

BobSpence1 wrote:

I may find time to read some of Chalmer's stuff - heck, another thinking Australian who looks a bit like me has to be worth some attention...

But seriously, I don't see anything compelling in what you convey of his angle on this.

It at least partly amounts to a bit of labelling, to fit the observations into a particular personal world-view.

I am comfortable with regarding personal experience as "what the process of consciousness 'feels like' from the inside". YMMV.

I think he wants a scientific account of that "what it is like to be" or feels like from the inside. I tend to think of it as a multiple self referencing of different functional areas of the brain sotra like Hofstader's strange loop idea. I think that Chalmer's has a legitimate endeavour.  Be fore warned his original book in 1995 The Conscious Mind has some heavy modal logic stuff. I really think he and Dennett are the two top voices in consciousness research with Ramachandran and  Christof Koch significant in the neural correlate area. Alot of Chalmer's and Dennett's papers are free for the downloading at their websites. I have a very full Nook.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:mellestad

TGBaker wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I don't see any reason why it would have to be minds.

 

Understand though, the premise itself moves the idea past our ability to speculate, so I can't place any limits on what may or may not be if that were the case.  If something 'transcendent' exists, by nature I don't think it could be knowable by minds with our limitations.  It would literally be something we could not comprehend.

 

I would say that transcendence may be real but non-existent.  In otherwords transcendence would be beyond existence perhaps being itself with existence as Being relativized as temporal and spatial. I would say that a transcendent could be causal even without time in the fact that the effect could be time itself as a singularity or the first caused thing...objectified being. The greeks would have said substantivized in the sense of a noun or word (Logos). So you would not have to have space or time to cause space and time and its precursor would be an atemporal cause. Still quite different than a mind. Of course you could add an eastern panentheistic flavor and have being as consciousness and consciousness as a fundamental property of the physical world as David Chalmers is speculating. Then the self reference of a boundless Being of potentiality would objectify itself as an individuation and in turn a relativized self regression would occur that we call existence. But you might be able to do that we some pre-existing infinity of numbers in which the finite infinities ( so Rudy Rucker) structure timespace into the big bang.  Ain't theology wonderful Namaste.... Gate Gate paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
 

This is a pretty cool theme for me 

Yes there is no reason for It to be a "mind". From the very little I know about physics I say we need a First Cause to make sense of the Universe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tB1jppI3fo) Or we are doomed to never make sense of it.

One the face of it this FC doesn't need to be a "mind". However when I'm faced with the Universe fine tunning problem I'd say that this FC had an intention... thus hinting a "mind". If this is not true then it begs for M-Theory to be true... On the other hand... if it is true it's "turtles all the way down" again.

From what I've learned by talking in here we have to be carefull when we speak words like transcendental. Because if "transcendental" is what BobSpence think it is then it does not exist, however you put it. Even considering there would be such a thing as "God" it would not be transcendental. It merely rests outside our current awareness of it. I agree with this definition given the semantics religion usually uses.

The same thing goes with the "Universe" word. Physicists like to talk about multiverses sometimes. So we have to be CLEAR about it. If when we talk about "Universe" we mean everything in Existence or we just mean this "reality show" not comprehending other possible universes predicted (speculated) by M-theory. Again, if we by Universe, mean everything in Existence if something such as a "God" exists it cannot be outside the Universe.

Mind may have a different and very weird nature that we are not aware off. On this I'm behind the work of Penrose and Chalmers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

The true nature of time, I think, is very counter intuitive. It tricks even physicists. Time in QM is very weird and it seems that past and future are the same.

NDE reports seem to support Penrose defense on the quantum nature of the mind. They often say that they were in a "state outside of time". Actually what surprises me is that the more I look at NDE reports the more I'm convinced that these people are actually reporting an experience existing (having awareness) in a quantum state of being. More than many say that trying to put in words what they have experienced is almost impossible. Given the nature of quantum mechanics this is to be expected...... Alice in wonderland surreal world is too sane for this 

From the research on NDE, the unrelated Penrose work, thoretical nature of the mind by Chalmers, my personal experience, among other things points to me that there is way more to "us", our conscient nature, than what we are aware about. 

Having said this I'd like to say that there are no supernatural phenomenons only preternatural ones.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OP

Hello,

It is interesting. You need to define both cause and proof. Also, since Cause is greater then it's effect, then one should be able to deduce the effect from the cause if the cause can be "proven."

There has been some that understand that there can be more then one cause. In essence, a cause can be secondary and act as an effect from an original cause and a cause in relation to a different effect. Aquinas understood this.

Therefore, the cause that can be proven, is this cause the primary cause that formed the universe in relation to cosmogony, or is it after the fact.

Since empiricism cannot be used in this situation, and since uniformitarianism has begun to self refute upon itself and is slowly moving towards the presupposition of catastrophe, then how shall we evaulate this in reference to what the cause is?

Therefore to simply say the universe has a cause opens up a series of complex question in relation to the cause. And by cause, are we specifically talking about an impersonal cause or a personal cause? is there such a thing as a personal cause that could be related to cosmogony?

Stephen Hawkins would agree that empiricism cannot be understood in this context even though he's stuck in the old antique store of uniformitarinism.

So please define your terms and relationship of the effects as to the meaning and order of your position.

thank you.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).