[1.] Nothingness is a difficult concept, or rather, a difficult non-concept since it is ...nothing.
[2.] To say that nothingness exists is to create a contradiction, since nothingness is non-existence. Nothingness non-exists.
[3.] Nothingness is non-existence; therefore nothingness is non-relational. Nothingness has no distinctiveness in and of itself, hence nothingness cannot be recognizable.
[4.] Being-ness means basically to be, and to exist. Being-ness exists.
[5.] Take any two distinct quantities-attributes of existence:
A------P------B
A and B perceive each other to be different with perception P. That is to say A is perceived to be different from B and B is perceived to be different from A.
A and B are different elements of a larger picture, but they also[must] share certain common attributes of the larger reality including them. From that perspective A and B are the same, because aspects of A transform into B and aspects of B transform into A. At a higher level of generality and symmetry, A cannot be distinguished
from B, and B cannot be distinguished from A. For example, dogs and cats are distinctively different, yet dogs and cats are the same from the perspective that both are mammals.
[6.] Following this premise, it stands to reason that all attributes and aspects of reality can be transformed into each other, and hence they have no distinctions from each other[at continually higher and higher levels of symmetry].
[7.] Therefore, it follows, that at a top[infinite?] level of symmetry, everything is nothing.
At lower levels of stratification differences DO exist, in that they are perceived by specific minds.
Then it becomes correct to say "existence in reality is greater then existence in the mind alone", where mind in this case pertains to specific localizations of self aware entities.
Ontological Thought Experiment
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
analog
Quote:Quote:<hr>It is a logical inevitablity that consciousness is universal. That is to say it is a meta-consciousness.<hr>
I disagree that it is a logical inevitability, unless you redefine what consciousness is. Redefining consciousness -- what an easy way to completely avoid the hard problem of consciousness without answering anything!
If one were to consider consciousness 'anything that organizes in any conceivable manner' it would be so easy to accept your truth as valid, because it is logically inevitable that the totality will (re-)organize itself in some manner [cause and effect]. But sorry, things can organize themselves without consciousness! Grains of sand being poured into pile form an organized conical shape, and no consciousness is at work there.
Your 'logical inevitability' is a misinterpretation of the conditions for inevitability, and your ontological thought experiment is completely enmeshed with your putative solution to the hard problem of consciousness -- a problem which has never been satisfactorily solved.
Anyway, the word 'meta-consciousness' is, as far as I can tell, meaningless. Or fraught with many disturbing layers of meaning. Either way, it's silly and cumbersome.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The "bias" appears to be on your end of this conversation<hr>
No, if you were more observant you would see that I'm simply being skeptical. I believe that you have jumbled together a bunch of individually attractive theories into a confusing mess. You are juggling too much at once, and your ideas are going everywhere.
I'm still convinced by something David Quinn said, to the effect of 'you don't know what you are trying to prove'. (notice how, with virtually no effort on my part, I'm pulling the tiniest threads and showing that you are trying to tackle more than one problem at once?)
Me? I know what I'm trying to prove. I'm trying to prove that your theory is full of holes (but whether I'm doing a successful job is up to you to decide). :b
If I make you doubt your theory for a half-second, or rethink some part of it, my work was successful. Edited by: mookestink at: 6/21/05 21:55
Quote:Quote:<hr>It is a logical inevitablity that consciousness is universal. That is to say it is a meta-consciousness.<hr>
I disagree that it is a logical inevitability, unless you redefine what consciousness is. Redefining consciousness -- what an easy way to completely avoid the hard problem of consciousness without answering anything!
If one were to consider consciousness 'anything that organizes in any conceivable manner' it would be so easy to accept your truth as valid, because it is logically inevitable that the totality will (re-)organize itself in some manner [cause and effect]. But sorry, things can organize themselves without consciousness! Grains of sand being poured into pile form an organized conical shape, and no consciousness is at work there.
Your 'logical inevitability' is a misinterpretation of the conditions for inevitability, and your ontological thought experiment is completely enmeshed with your putative solution to the hard problem of consciousness -- a problem which has never been satisfactorily solved.
Anyway, the word 'meta-consciousness' is, as far as I can tell, meaningless. Or fraught with many disturbing layers of meaning. Either way, it's silly and cumbersome.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The "bias" appears to be on your end of this conversation<hr>
No, if you were more observant you would see that I'm simply being skeptical. I believe that you have jumbled together a bunch of individually attractive theories into a confusing mess. You are juggling too much at once, and your ideas are going everywhere.
I'm still convinced by something David Quinn said, to the effect of 'you don't know what you are trying to prove'. (notice how, with virtually no effort on my part, I'm pulling the tiniest threads and showing that you are trying to tackle more than one problem at once?)
Me? I know what I'm trying to prove. I'm trying to prove that your theory is full of holes (but whether I'm doing a successful job is up to you to decide). :b
If I make you doubt your theory for a half-second, or rethink some part of it, my work was successful. Edited by: mookestink at: 6/21/05 21:55
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>4. If the physical laws are time independent then the physical laws, by definition, did not arise "randomly".<hr>
Are you aware of the idea of <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/" target="top">symmetry breaking</a> in physics?
Are you aware of the idea of <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/" target="top">symmetry breaking</a> in physics?
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>Are you aware of the idea of symmetry breaking in physics?<hr>
Broken Symmetry:
A spinning coin has rotational symmetry about a vertical axis.
Symmetry is broken when the coin falls over.
Thus a special direction is specified.
Yet, the underlying law of gravity is still symmetrical.
Axiom:
Any broken symmetry can only exist with respect to another "higher level" of symmetry.
Broken Symmetry:
A spinning coin has rotational symmetry about a vertical axis.
Symmetry is broken when the coin falls over.
Thus a special direction is specified.
Yet, the underlying law of gravity is still symmetrical.
Axiom:
Any broken symmetry can only exist with respect to another "higher level" of symmetry.
Re: Symmetry Breaking
That wasn't a very good link to what I had in mind. Maybe <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:NB ... ng/Law.ppt" target="top">this one</a> is a bit better.
I was referring to the idea of symmetry breaking in the early universe as being where physical laws, as we observe them, came from.
Physical laws are not arbitrary, and they do relate to a higher-order symmetry. But other consistent sets of physical laws may be possible.
I was referring to the idea of symmetry breaking in the early universe as being where physical laws, as we observe them, came from.
Physical laws are not arbitrary, and they do relate to a higher-order symmetry. But other consistent sets of physical laws may be possible.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>
mookestink wrote:
I disagree that it is a logical inevitability, unless you redefine what consciousness is. Redefining consciousness -- what an easy way to completely avoid the hard problem of consciousness without answering anything!
<hr>
Intelligence/consciousness is a property of the whole Reality, because individual intelligences are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps.
mookestink wrote:
I disagree that it is a logical inevitability, unless you redefine what consciousness is. Redefining consciousness -- what an easy way to completely avoid the hard problem of consciousness without answering anything!
<hr>
Intelligence/consciousness is a property of the whole Reality, because individual intelligences are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Intelligence/consciousness is a property of the whole Reality, because individual intelligences are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps.<hr> We can just as easily say that unconsciousness/non-intelligence is a property of the whole Reality, because individual occurances of unconsciousness/non-intelligence are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps. In other words, by your very own reasoning, it is just as valid to conclude that Reality is unconscious and unintelligent.
In the end, the Totality contains all things, including isolated incidences of consciousness and unconsciousness. But it itself is neither conscious nor unconscious.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Because WR can only be defined in terms of itself, then it is everywhere connected, without any non-real gaps... If a section of WR were to be somehow disconnected from itself, then that which is real would have elements that are not-real, a contradiction. Hence WR is everywhere connected and continuous within itself. <hr> That's true. Everything is interconnected and inseperable from each other.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Intelligence is therefore a property of WR, because if WR is continuous within itself then individual intelligences are connected to WR and all aspects of WR are interconnected and interrelated. <hr> This next step in your reasoning is very poor. We could just as easily say that WR is a giant banana because bananas exist in WR and all aspects of WR are interconnected and interrelated.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Intelligence is an emergent property of WR, and WR is everywhere intelligent. <hr> If intelligence is an emergent property of WR, then it necessarily emerged out of something other than it - namely, non-intellignce. This immediately contradicts the second part of your sentence.
(Edited grammer - DQ)
--
Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 6/22/05 15:26
Quote:Quote:<hr>Intelligence/consciousness is a property of the whole Reality, because individual intelligences are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps.<hr> We can just as easily say that unconsciousness/non-intelligence is a property of the whole Reality, because individual occurances of unconsciousness/non-intelligence are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps. In other words, by your very own reasoning, it is just as valid to conclude that Reality is unconscious and unintelligent.
In the end, the Totality contains all things, including isolated incidences of consciousness and unconsciousness. But it itself is neither conscious nor unconscious.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Because WR can only be defined in terms of itself, then it is everywhere connected, without any non-real gaps... If a section of WR were to be somehow disconnected from itself, then that which is real would have elements that are not-real, a contradiction. Hence WR is everywhere connected and continuous within itself. <hr> That's true. Everything is interconnected and inseperable from each other.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Intelligence is therefore a property of WR, because if WR is continuous within itself then individual intelligences are connected to WR and all aspects of WR are interconnected and interrelated. <hr> This next step in your reasoning is very poor. We could just as easily say that WR is a giant banana because bananas exist in WR and all aspects of WR are interconnected and interrelated.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Intelligence is an emergent property of WR, and WR is everywhere intelligent. <hr> If intelligence is an emergent property of WR, then it necessarily emerged out of something other than it - namely, non-intellignce. This immediately contradicts the second part of your sentence.
(Edited grammer - DQ)
--
Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 6/22/05 15:26
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>Anselm: But, by definition, God is the being greater than which cannot be conceived!
Leyla: That is an argument for Buddahood.
David: Is Buddahood greater than Nature?<hr>
From the perspective of non-inherent existence, of course not. But neither is (what I think you mean by) Nature greater than Buddahood by the same reasoning.
From the perspective of an inherent existence; yes. I can attain the state (of being) of Buddahood but not the state of being of Nature.
Leyla: That is an argument for Buddahood.
David: Is Buddahood greater than Nature?<hr>
From the perspective of non-inherent existence, of course not. But neither is (what I think you mean by) Nature greater than Buddahood by the same reasoning.
From the perspective of an inherent existence; yes. I can attain the state (of being) of Buddahood but not the state of being of Nature.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>
David Quinn wrote:
We can just as easily say that unconsciousness/non-intelligence is a property of the whole Reality, because individual occurances of unconsciousness/mon-intelligence are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps. In other words, by your very own reasoning, it is just as valid to conclude that Reality is unconscious and unintelligent.
In the end, the Totality contains all things, including isolated incidences of consciousness and unconsciousness. But it itself is neither conscious nor unconscious.
<hr>
No.
Your hypothesized "unconsciousness" must be beholden to some type of cohering force, else it becomes non-reality. Non-reality cannot exist in reality.
Postulating a conscious-coherent WR[totality] is the most logical avenue for theoretical investigation into the true nature of existence.
The totality as a conscious unity would necessarily be a coherent unity. On the other hand, unconsciousness will not and cannot be self cohering since it has no purpose to exist. If the WR was to be an unconscious entity it would decohere and fragment into the nothingness from whence it came. Therefore the totality of existence can only be a self coherent conscious unity.
That means WR is self referring at all points and in all domains of existence. Consciousness must be a relativistic property of spacetime, in that consciousness distributes throughout all of nature, permeating every nook and cranny of reality. Reality is then universally sentient, where every aspect of nature has some degree of consciousness.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
This is next step in your reasoning is very poor. We could just as easily say that WR is a giant banana because bananas exist in WR and all aspects of WR are interconnected and interrelated.
<hr>
Not really. I was hoping for some interesting intellectual discussions, not more brow-beating. So you wish to be spanked again - OK. From the definition above, you see that everthing in reality has degrees of consciousness. Consciousness is the most universal aspect of unity FOR the totality - WR. Therefore to state WR is conscious everywhere is more to the point than to state WR is a banana because it contains bananas. But you must ask yourself "What is a banana?" A banana is a form of energy and energy is abstract. Certain abstract forms[natural laws] are invariant under temporal translation, which appears to be very interesting, at least from our "time arrow" perspective. Then we realize that energy itself remains constant in both directions of time so then we see that energy itself is atemporal, in that it remains a constant under many different changes. It can neither be created nor destroyed.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
If intelligence is an emergent property of WR, then it necessarily emerged out of something other than it - namely, non-intellignce. This immediately contradicts the second part of your sentence.
<hr>
There is no contradiction. Reality can only create reality and intelligence can only emerge from other degrees of consciousness/intelligence. For example, humans have evolved intelligence from our more primitive ancestors, who still had degrees of intelligence and consciousness.
From our intrinsic thermodynamic time-arrow perspective, at any time greater than T = 0, WR must have intelligence and consciousness greater than 0.
Don't be so quick to jump the gun as if you are desperately searching for flaws in reasoning.
David Quinn wrote:
We can just as easily say that unconsciousness/non-intelligence is a property of the whole Reality, because individual occurances of unconsciousness/mon-intelligence are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps. In other words, by your very own reasoning, it is just as valid to conclude that Reality is unconscious and unintelligent.
In the end, the Totality contains all things, including isolated incidences of consciousness and unconsciousness. But it itself is neither conscious nor unconscious.
<hr>
No.
Your hypothesized "unconsciousness" must be beholden to some type of cohering force, else it becomes non-reality. Non-reality cannot exist in reality.
Postulating a conscious-coherent WR[totality] is the most logical avenue for theoretical investigation into the true nature of existence.
The totality as a conscious unity would necessarily be a coherent unity. On the other hand, unconsciousness will not and cannot be self cohering since it has no purpose to exist. If the WR was to be an unconscious entity it would decohere and fragment into the nothingness from whence it came. Therefore the totality of existence can only be a self coherent conscious unity.
That means WR is self referring at all points and in all domains of existence. Consciousness must be a relativistic property of spacetime, in that consciousness distributes throughout all of nature, permeating every nook and cranny of reality. Reality is then universally sentient, where every aspect of nature has some degree of consciousness.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
This is next step in your reasoning is very poor. We could just as easily say that WR is a giant banana because bananas exist in WR and all aspects of WR are interconnected and interrelated.
<hr>
Not really. I was hoping for some interesting intellectual discussions, not more brow-beating. So you wish to be spanked again - OK. From the definition above, you see that everthing in reality has degrees of consciousness. Consciousness is the most universal aspect of unity FOR the totality - WR. Therefore to state WR is conscious everywhere is more to the point than to state WR is a banana because it contains bananas. But you must ask yourself "What is a banana?" A banana is a form of energy and energy is abstract. Certain abstract forms[natural laws] are invariant under temporal translation, which appears to be very interesting, at least from our "time arrow" perspective. Then we realize that energy itself remains constant in both directions of time so then we see that energy itself is atemporal, in that it remains a constant under many different changes. It can neither be created nor destroyed.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
If intelligence is an emergent property of WR, then it necessarily emerged out of something other than it - namely, non-intellignce. This immediately contradicts the second part of your sentence.
<hr>
There is no contradiction. Reality can only create reality and intelligence can only emerge from other degrees of consciousness/intelligence. For example, humans have evolved intelligence from our more primitive ancestors, who still had degrees of intelligence and consciousness.
From our intrinsic thermodynamic time-arrow perspective, at any time greater than T = 0, WR must have intelligence and consciousness greater than 0.
Don't be so quick to jump the gun as if you are desperately searching for flaws in reasoning.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: We can just as easily say that unconsciousness/non-intelligence is a property of the whole Reality, because individual occurances of unconsciousness/mon-intelligence are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps. In other words, by your very own reasoning, it is just as valid to conclude that Reality is unconscious and unintelligent.
In the end, the Totality contains all things, including isolated incidences of consciousness and unconsciousness. But it itself is neither conscious nor unconscious.
analog: No.
Your hypothesized "unconsciousness" must be beholden to some type of cohering force, else it becomes non-reality. Non-reality cannot exist in reality.
Postulating a conscious-coherent WR[totality] is the most logical avenue for theoretical investigation into the true nature of existence.
The totality as a conscious unity would necessarily be a coherent unity. On the other hand, unconsciousness will not and cannot be self cohering since it has no purpose to exist.<hr> This is a groundless assumption. You have no idea whether an unconscious entity can be a coherent unity or not. You're just making this up out of thin air.
All that is required for a thing to be a coherent unity is for it to have the right causal conditions. That is all that matters. If its component parts lend themselves to mutual cooperation, and if the surrounding external conditions support this cooperation, then the object in question will behave as though it were a coherent unity. Nothing more needs to be said. The added assumption of consciousness is unneccesary.
Quote:Quote:<hr> If the WR was to be an unconscious entity it would decohere and fragment into the nothingness from whence it came.<hr> It would only do so if the causal circumstances dictated this. Otherwise, it wouldn't.
All you are basically saying over and over is, "I wanna believe that everything is conscious". This is what lies behind all the complicated prose. An empty religious chant.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If intelligence is an emergent property of WR, then it necessarily emerged out of something other than it - namely, non-intellignce. This immediately contradicts the second part of your sentence.
analog: There is no contradiction. Reality can only create reality and intelligence can only emerge from other degrees of consciousness/intelligence.<hr> Another groundless assumption. There is nothing in the current theory of evolution which supports this.
Quote:Quote:<hr> For example, humans have evolved intelligence from our more primitive ancestors, who still had degrees of intelligence and consciousness.<hr> Yes, and it all started when a few amino acids randomly began to replicate in the primeval soup. What sort of intelligence do you imagine existed before then?
What does Dr Beckworth think of your mystical anti-scientific musings, I wonder?
Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 6/22/05 17:01
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: We can just as easily say that unconsciousness/non-intelligence is a property of the whole Reality, because individual occurances of unconsciousness/mon-intelligence are connected to the whole of Reality and all aspects of Reality are interconnected and interrelated, with no non-real gaps. In other words, by your very own reasoning, it is just as valid to conclude that Reality is unconscious and unintelligent.
In the end, the Totality contains all things, including isolated incidences of consciousness and unconsciousness. But it itself is neither conscious nor unconscious.
analog: No.
Your hypothesized "unconsciousness" must be beholden to some type of cohering force, else it becomes non-reality. Non-reality cannot exist in reality.
Postulating a conscious-coherent WR[totality] is the most logical avenue for theoretical investigation into the true nature of existence.
The totality as a conscious unity would necessarily be a coherent unity. On the other hand, unconsciousness will not and cannot be self cohering since it has no purpose to exist.<hr> This is a groundless assumption. You have no idea whether an unconscious entity can be a coherent unity or not. You're just making this up out of thin air.
All that is required for a thing to be a coherent unity is for it to have the right causal conditions. That is all that matters. If its component parts lend themselves to mutual cooperation, and if the surrounding external conditions support this cooperation, then the object in question will behave as though it were a coherent unity. Nothing more needs to be said. The added assumption of consciousness is unneccesary.
Quote:Quote:<hr> If the WR was to be an unconscious entity it would decohere and fragment into the nothingness from whence it came.<hr> It would only do so if the causal circumstances dictated this. Otherwise, it wouldn't.
All you are basically saying over and over is, "I wanna believe that everything is conscious". This is what lies behind all the complicated prose. An empty religious chant.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If intelligence is an emergent property of WR, then it necessarily emerged out of something other than it - namely, non-intellignce. This immediately contradicts the second part of your sentence.
analog: There is no contradiction. Reality can only create reality and intelligence can only emerge from other degrees of consciousness/intelligence.<hr> Another groundless assumption. There is nothing in the current theory of evolution which supports this.
Quote:Quote:<hr> For example, humans have evolved intelligence from our more primitive ancestors, who still had degrees of intelligence and consciousness.<hr> Yes, and it all started when a few amino acids randomly began to replicate in the primeval soup. What sort of intelligence do you imagine existed before then?
What does Dr Beckworth think of your mystical anti-scientific musings, I wonder?
Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 6/22/05 17:01
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
You have no idea whether an unconscious entity can be a coherent unity or not. You're just making this up out of thin air.
All that is required for a thing to be a coherent unity is for it to have the right causal conditions. That is all that matters. If its component parts lend themselves to mutual coperation, and if the surrounding external conditions support this cooperation, then the object in question will behave as though it were a coherent unity. Nothing more needs to be said. The added assumption of consciousness is unneccesary.
<hr>
Actually no.
The "totality" as you call it, has no external conditions. It can only relate to itself, self referentially. Consciousness cannot be separated from reality.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
Yes, and it all started when a few amino acids randomly began to replicate in the primeval soup. What sort of intelligence do you imagine existed before then?
<hr>
Actually it started several billion years before that with the beginning of time itself.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
All you are basically saying over and over is, "I wanna believe that everything is conscious". This is what lies behind all the complicated prose. An empty religious chant.
<hr>
I see that there is no real philosophical thinking going on here. Coherence occurs for a reason, it is not a disjoint hodge-podge of accidental events. Information is encoded on the two dimensional boundary of space-time, hence spacetime is a form of information storage. If you disagree I can find plenty of references. Since reality stores information on its spacetime boundary, it in effect remembers the past events, and evolves in every sense, cosmologically, biologically, etc. The evolving structure of reality is analogous to a gigantic information processing system, or MIND.
DQ:
You have no idea whether an unconscious entity can be a coherent unity or not. You're just making this up out of thin air.
All that is required for a thing to be a coherent unity is for it to have the right causal conditions. That is all that matters. If its component parts lend themselves to mutual coperation, and if the surrounding external conditions support this cooperation, then the object in question will behave as though it were a coherent unity. Nothing more needs to be said. The added assumption of consciousness is unneccesary.
<hr>
Actually no.
The "totality" as you call it, has no external conditions. It can only relate to itself, self referentially. Consciousness cannot be separated from reality.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
Yes, and it all started when a few amino acids randomly began to replicate in the primeval soup. What sort of intelligence do you imagine existed before then?
<hr>
Actually it started several billion years before that with the beginning of time itself.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
All you are basically saying over and over is, "I wanna believe that everything is conscious". This is what lies behind all the complicated prose. An empty religious chant.
<hr>
I see that there is no real philosophical thinking going on here. Coherence occurs for a reason, it is not a disjoint hodge-podge of accidental events. Information is encoded on the two dimensional boundary of space-time, hence spacetime is a form of information storage. If you disagree I can find plenty of references. Since reality stores information on its spacetime boundary, it in effect remembers the past events, and evolves in every sense, cosmologically, biologically, etc. The evolving structure of reality is analogous to a gigantic information processing system, or MIND.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> analog: For example, humans have evolved intelligence from our more primitive ancestors, who still had degrees of intelligence and consciousness.
DQ: Yes, and it all started when a few amino acids randomly began to replicate in the primeval soup. What sort of intelligence do you imagine existed before then?
analog: Actually it started several billion years before that with the beginning of time itself.<hr> So what sort of intelligence do you imagine existed then?
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: All you are basically saying over and over is, "I wanna believe that everything is conscious". This is what lies behind all the complicated prose. An empty religious chant.
analog: I see that there is no real philosophical thinking going on here.<hr> From my perspective, you're not really engaging in philosophy. You're engaging in a curious mixture of theology and pseudo-science.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Coherence occurs for a reason, it is not a disjoint hodge-podge of accidental events. Information is encoded on the two dimensional boundary of space-time, hence spacetime is a form of information storage. If you disagree I can find plenty of references.<hr> You mean, Sheldrake and his fruity mob?
Quote:Quote:<hr> Since reality stores information on its spacetime boundary, it in effect remembers the past events, and evolves in every sense, cosmologically, biologically, etc. The evolving structure of reality is analogous to a gigantic information processing system, or MIND. <hr> Reality remembers everything that has ever occurred? Such as where a speck of dust settled on a particular brontosaurus 150 million years ago? Why do you want to imagine Reality is like that? ?
What do you make of current Big Bang cosmology which postulates that the universe will either end in a Big Crunch or peter out into state of maximum entropy. Where will the memories go then?
Quote:Quote:<hr> analog: For example, humans have evolved intelligence from our more primitive ancestors, who still had degrees of intelligence and consciousness.
DQ: Yes, and it all started when a few amino acids randomly began to replicate in the primeval soup. What sort of intelligence do you imagine existed before then?
analog: Actually it started several billion years before that with the beginning of time itself.<hr> So what sort of intelligence do you imagine existed then?
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: All you are basically saying over and over is, "I wanna believe that everything is conscious". This is what lies behind all the complicated prose. An empty religious chant.
analog: I see that there is no real philosophical thinking going on here.<hr> From my perspective, you're not really engaging in philosophy. You're engaging in a curious mixture of theology and pseudo-science.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Coherence occurs for a reason, it is not a disjoint hodge-podge of accidental events. Information is encoded on the two dimensional boundary of space-time, hence spacetime is a form of information storage. If you disagree I can find plenty of references.<hr> You mean, Sheldrake and his fruity mob?
Quote:Quote:<hr> Since reality stores information on its spacetime boundary, it in effect remembers the past events, and evolves in every sense, cosmologically, biologically, etc. The evolving structure of reality is analogous to a gigantic information processing system, or MIND. <hr> Reality remembers everything that has ever occurred? Such as where a speck of dust settled on a particular brontosaurus 150 million years ago? Why do you want to imagine Reality is like that? ?
What do you make of current Big Bang cosmology which postulates that the universe will either end in a Big Crunch or peter out into state of maximum entropy. Where will the memories go then?
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ:
So what sort of intelligence do you imagine existed then?
<hr>
You can clearly see that our localized intelligences are more specific, while the universal intelligence is more general.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Reality remembers everything that has ever occurred? Such as where a speck of dust settled on a particular brontosaurus 150 million years ago? Why do you want to imagine Reality is like that? ?
<hr>
Information is encoded on the n-2 dimensional boundary of spacetime:
<a href="http://www.bookfinder.us/review5/055380 ... 2X.html</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr>
The Universe in a Nutshell
Stephen Hawking says:
Information about the quantum states in a region of spacetime may be somehow coded on the boundary of the region, which has two dimensions less.
<hr>
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>A simulation is still not nothing whatsoever. So yes, it is a fact for sure.<hr>
By the same reasoning, does this apply when you say that "I" does not exist? Because whatever the Truth may be, you and me are not nothing whatsoever, and unlike the pink unicorn there is enough evidence that we exist, hence is it a fact for sure?
Quote:Quote:<hr>The purpose of creating a definition of Reality is that it creates a minimum set of criteria which allows one to judge what exactly Reality is. I agree that including "everywhere and everywhen" and "responsible for the existence of all things" in the definition can seem a bit redundant, but I think it is important to emphasize the point that Reality, if the term is to mean anything at all, needs to be the root creative principle which produces all things.<hr> I still think that the word 'produces' could be misleading, thats all.
Quote:Quote:<hr>A simulation is still not nothing whatsoever. So yes, it is a fact for sure.<hr>
By the same reasoning, does this apply when you say that "I" does not exist? Because whatever the Truth may be, you and me are not nothing whatsoever, and unlike the pink unicorn there is enough evidence that we exist, hence is it a fact for sure?
Quote:Quote:<hr>The purpose of creating a definition of Reality is that it creates a minimum set of criteria which allows one to judge what exactly Reality is. I agree that including "everywhere and everywhen" and "responsible for the existence of all things" in the definition can seem a bit redundant, but I think it is important to emphasize the point that Reality, if the term is to mean anything at all, needs to be the root creative principle which produces all things.<hr> I still think that the word 'produces' could be misleading, thats all.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Rewinding the thread:
An entity with the 'greatest properties' would in fact be able to 'experience' Reality directly. What would be required of this entity? A mind containing: perfect memory recall, the ability to instantly perceive causal relationships within their own psyche and that of others (also: immense understanding of human nature), an active will, deafening concentration, and the subsequent awareness of the interconnected nature of the universe, with human interaction being a subset of this greater whole.
Many are getting tangled in petty philosophical definitions. Abstract thought is required to live in Reality. But, only abstract thought that is in tune with the continual causal flow - logically (and at first, irrationally!) The sun may set and sleep may beckon, but Reality forgets nothing. Neither should you.
An entity with the 'greatest properties' would in fact be able to 'experience' Reality directly. What would be required of this entity? A mind containing: perfect memory recall, the ability to instantly perceive causal relationships within their own psyche and that of others (also: immense understanding of human nature), an active will, deafening concentration, and the subsequent awareness of the interconnected nature of the universe, with human interaction being a subset of this greater whole.
Many are getting tangled in petty philosophical definitions. Abstract thought is required to live in Reality. But, only abstract thought that is in tune with the continual causal flow - logically (and at first, irrationally!) The sun may set and sleep may beckon, but Reality forgets nothing. Neither should you.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Analog,
Quote:Quote:<hr>You can clearly see that our localized intelligences are more specific, while the universal intelligence is more general.<hr>
From a layman¡¦s perspective, WR being 'intelligent' could be as relevant and as meaningful as "I" being non-existent. If nature can trigger puberty at the right moment, if nature can regulate earths temperature, if nature can bring forth life from "dead" matter, and if nothing happens without nature dictating it, never mind the infinite number of assumed possibilities, how can we say that that there is no "intelligence" involved at every level down to minutest particle. Because of the interconnectedness and dependency of each and everything in Reality, using a natural and intellectual mind we logically conclude that an "I" does not inherently exist, where as we cannot see in a similar way that intelligence could be an inherent property of WR, dictation its every move including complex possibilities and dimensions that we cannot experience. We see pockets of chaos and randomness, which actually may not be the case at all, for nothing could escape cause and effect.
However, the problem lies in our definition. We have a very limited definition of 'intelligence' according to the limited intelligence we have due to the dimensions we live in, hence we cannot see from the perspective of Reality.
Having said that, it does not mean that WR has any "intellectual" purpose as a whole, it just is.
Quote:Quote:<hr>You can clearly see that our localized intelligences are more specific, while the universal intelligence is more general.<hr>
From a layman¡¦s perspective, WR being 'intelligent' could be as relevant and as meaningful as "I" being non-existent. If nature can trigger puberty at the right moment, if nature can regulate earths temperature, if nature can bring forth life from "dead" matter, and if nothing happens without nature dictating it, never mind the infinite number of assumed possibilities, how can we say that that there is no "intelligence" involved at every level down to minutest particle. Because of the interconnectedness and dependency of each and everything in Reality, using a natural and intellectual mind we logically conclude that an "I" does not inherently exist, where as we cannot see in a similar way that intelligence could be an inherent property of WR, dictation its every move including complex possibilities and dimensions that we cannot experience. We see pockets of chaos and randomness, which actually may not be the case at all, for nothing could escape cause and effect.
However, the problem lies in our definition. We have a very limited definition of 'intelligence' according to the limited intelligence we have due to the dimensions we live in, hence we cannot see from the perspective of Reality.
Having said that, it does not mean that WR has any "intellectual" purpose as a whole, it just is.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
yeah, blah
Sapius,
Quote:Quote:<hr>From a layman¡¦s perspective, WR being 'intelligent' could be as relevant and as meaningful as "I" being non-existent... the problem lies in our definition.<hr>
Indeed. The definition of intelligence varies widely depending on what a person is trying to prove. Talking about, for instance, 'the intelligence of nature' can be a helpful way to explain otherwise difficult theories.
However, analog is being very explicit with what sort of intelligence he is referring to: conscious intelligence with both memory and purpose. Not simply 'an ordering principle', and not simply 'information storage' -- he has specifically used the words 'memory', 'consciousness', and 'purpose'. There has been no indication that he has been using those words as analogies for something else.
[edited to show who I was talking to] Edited by: mookestink at: 6/23/05 4:57
Quote:Quote:<hr>From a layman¡¦s perspective, WR being 'intelligent' could be as relevant and as meaningful as "I" being non-existent... the problem lies in our definition.<hr>
Indeed. The definition of intelligence varies widely depending on what a person is trying to prove. Talking about, for instance, 'the intelligence of nature' can be a helpful way to explain otherwise difficult theories.
However, analog is being very explicit with what sort of intelligence he is referring to: conscious intelligence with both memory and purpose. Not simply 'an ordering principle', and not simply 'information storage' -- he has specifically used the words 'memory', 'consciousness', and 'purpose'. There has been no indication that he has been using those words as analogies for something else.
[edited to show who I was talking to] Edited by: mookestink at: 6/23/05 4:57
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: So what sort of intelligence do you imagine existed then?
analog: You can clearly see that our localized intelligences are more specific, while the universal intelligence is more general. <hr> So what's an example of this universal general intelligence? How does it manifest above and above the localized intelligences?
Quote:Quote:<hr> Reality remembers everything that has ever occurred? Such as where a speck of dust settled on a particular brontosaurus 150 million years ago? Why do you want to imagine Reality is like that?
Information is encoded on the n-2 dimensional boundary of spacetime:
Stephen Hawking says:
Information about the quantum states in a region of spacetime may be somehow coded on the boundary of the region, which has two dimensions less. <hr> I don't know. It looks very tenuous and speculative to me. But more importantly, this sort of theologizing has little relevance to the philosophical task of understanding the nature of Reality in a spiritual sense and the attempt to lead a wise, rational existence. It's still just kids playing lego.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: So what sort of intelligence do you imagine existed then?
analog: You can clearly see that our localized intelligences are more specific, while the universal intelligence is more general. <hr> So what's an example of this universal general intelligence? How does it manifest above and above the localized intelligences?
Quote:Quote:<hr> Reality remembers everything that has ever occurred? Such as where a speck of dust settled on a particular brontosaurus 150 million years ago? Why do you want to imagine Reality is like that?
Information is encoded on the n-2 dimensional boundary of spacetime:
Stephen Hawking says:
Information about the quantum states in a region of spacetime may be somehow coded on the boundary of the region, which has two dimensions less. <hr> I don't know. It looks very tenuous and speculative to me. But more importantly, this sort of theologizing has little relevance to the philosophical task of understanding the nature of Reality in a spiritual sense and the attempt to lead a wise, rational existence. It's still just kids playing lego.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>Stephen Hawking says:
Information about the quantum states in a region of spacetime may be somehow coded on the boundary of the region, which has two dimensions less.<hr>
Eh?
It sounds like he's talking about Green's Theorem.
But that would give ONE less dimension, wouldn't it?
reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away
but would it be possible to not believe in reality?
w/e, but based on one theory I read, within every thought, though process, or electron transference, there could possible be a whole universe, albeit on a smaller scale than ours, that, with its own concious organisms, decided exactly when that would happen
but this theory would also have to admit that below us on this hierarch of universes, their could be limitless universes, each spawning another limitless number of universes. It's also likely we aren't in the top tier.
but either way, every action occurant in this world, is infinately concious
i fealt the need to add to the discussion
but would it be possible to not believe in reality?
w/e, but based on one theory I read, within every thought, though process, or electron transference, there could possible be a whole universe, albeit on a smaller scale than ours, that, with its own concious organisms, decided exactly when that would happen
but this theory would also have to admit that below us on this hierarch of universes, their could be limitless universes, each spawning another limitless number of universes. It's also likely we aren't in the top tier.
but either way, every action occurant in this world, is infinately concious
i fealt the need to add to the discussion
-[Siren Asakura]-
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Ok, we get the idea...
This....is Big Brother.....
Unknown, if this is to be your only contribution to the Forum, and it must be by your own "logic" then I suggest you go away. If we haven't gotten the message by now it should be obvious that we never will. I intend to show zero tolerance for your brand of idiocy.
P.S. Do NOT reply to this message with anything that contains the following words: fool, belief, fucking, human, whores, ask, questions, ignore or answers."
Failure to comply will result in immediate banning. That is all. You may return to the lounge.
Dan Rowden
Unknown, if this is to be your only contribution to the Forum, and it must be by your own "logic" then I suggest you go away. If we haven't gotten the message by now it should be obvious that we never will. I intend to show zero tolerance for your brand of idiocy.
P.S. Do NOT reply to this message with anything that contains the following words: fool, belief, fucking, human, whores, ask, questions, ignore or answers."
Failure to comply will result in immediate banning. That is all. You may return to the lounge.
Dan Rowden
