GENIUS FORUMS

Hi David

I've been meaning to confront you on one aspect of your "wisdom of the infinite" article.
(Great article by the way).
This is it.

You say that despite the apparent chaoticness of the universe if you trace each event you will find causes for why it is the way it is , and yet even a leafs path down from a tree ,however random it looks ,is caused .
Its just that the causes are so numerous that it looks *chaotic*.

You also say that when the particular conditions are right for a certain thought to enter your head it will do so.

Now both the conditions of the leafs path and that of the path of the molecules in your head are cuased by inumerable past events.

Shouldnt this mean that thoughts should also seem chaotic (yet still fully caused) just like the leafs path.

In fact wouldnt it be a great(!) coincident that the molecules would actually align to produce even the most basic thought.

Bassicaly what i am saying is that if the leafs path correlates with the rest of the univerese then our thoughts should do so too.

How do thoughts violate entropy.

I would think this would imply that minds do have some controll (albeit severely limited) over what they do.

I hope i will be able to reply soon but over the weekend i do not have access to the net.

chikoka wrote:Hi David

I've been meaning to confront you on one aspect of your "wisdom of the infinite" article.
(Great article by the way).
This is it.

You say that despite the apparent chaoticness of the universe if you trace each event you will find causes for why it is the way it is , and yet even a leafs path down from a tree ,however random it looks ,is caused .
Its just that the causes are so numerous that it looks *chaotic*.

You also say that when the particular conditions are right for a certain thought to enter your head it will do so.

Now both the conditions of the leafs path and that of the path of the molecules in your head are cuased by inumerable past events.

Shouldnt this mean that thoughts should also seem chaotic (yet still fully caused) just like the leafs path.

Well, it should be said that the truth of causality doesn't require things to appear chaotic. Things can be ordered or chaotic or a mixture of both, depending on the conditions. A triangle is just as much a causally-created phenomenon as an explosion.

What is it about thoughts that causes you to think that they might arise in a fundamentally different manner than that of a leaf arising and spiralling down to earth?

In fact wouldnt it be a great(!) coincident that the molecules would actually align to produce even the most basic thought.

Bassicaly what i am saying is that if the leafs path correlates with the rest of the univerese then our thoughts should do so too.

And so they do.

The molecules in the brain form only a small part of the countless array of causes which contribute to the production of a thought. Given this, it makes little sense to compare thoughts to molecules. It would be like comparing a computer file with hydrogen atoms.

How do thoughts violate entropy.

How does anything violate entropy? How does a solar system filled with order and contrasts emerge out of a chaotic brew of gases?

I would think this would imply that minds do have some controll (albeit severely limited) over what they do.

Or it could imply that the mind is not an isolated system, but connected to the larger web of causality. Hence, it is vulnerable to violations of entropy.

-

Determinism & Chaos Theory = Reality.

The beginning foretold the end. Everything that is, can be traced back, and can therefore foretell the future.

Thoughts are your memories being deposited, your thoughts are just actions of your neurons that have been conditioned by your life to react the way they do. It's all been told already,.

IJesusChrist wrote:Thoughts are your memories being deposited, your thoughts are just actions of your neurons that have been conditioned by your life to react the way they do. It's all been told already,.

I see.

So there is top down control where the macro can determine what happens at the micro level.
This as you say happening by means of the electrical impulses fired atb the synapses and the potential gradients of all the different chemicals across the different membranes.
This would imply that the macro can have properties not derived from the micro e.g. how conscouse beings can be made of unconciouse elements.


You also talk of a "hidden void" when earlier you say "to exist is to appear".
If the void really is "hidden" (not appearing) then how can it exist?

Also theres the question of how reality "knows" how to present itself consistently.
An example will illustrate this.

Say you leave the kitchen and so it stops appearing which would mean it would stop exististing.

If you decide to return 5 minutes later how does the room know how to present itself in the same way ,as well as how does it decide what changes in the kitchen you are going to meet.

Thinking about this has led me to a few ideas which i would like to see if you are okay with.

1.

The kitchen does stop existing as soon as it is no longer appearing , but so does the *time* that the kitchen occupies (since it also isnt appearing) so according to the kitchen the 5 mins that you were away did not exist and so essentialy you came back at the same time that you left.

How would we then explain how the clock above the sink now reads a different time and why the meat is now burnt.(its ok to use your imagination) :^)
Reality for the kitchen must be a strange thing indeed with all these instant changes.

2.

Reality could also function according to our expectations.
Since i expect to find the kitchen in a certain state when i return it will conform to this expectation.
If existance depends on minds then other aspects of minds could affect reality such as this.
Changes would occur because you expect them to, and the subconcious would deal with the exact particulars.
Conflicting expectations between two minds would be resolved perhaps by choosing the expectation of the one with
the greater will.

3.

There could be a cosmic censorship principle simmilar to that proposed by hawking on time travel.
Reality could present itself in a consistent way according to this principal and not depending on
minds.
This principle would "exist" in much the same way as causality would.



There is also the problem of how minds exist (using your definition). Do they need to appear to each other
or is there primary mind (God) who causes us to exist simply by allowing us to appear to him.
(then i suppose, how does he exist).

chikoka wrote:

IJesusChrist wrote:Thoughts are your memories being deposited, your thoughts are just actions of your neurons that have been conditioned by your life to react the way they do. It's all been told already,.

I see.

So there is top down control where the macro can determine what happens at the micro level.
This as you say happening by means of the electrical impulses fired atb the synapses and the potential gradients of all the different chemicals across the different membranes.
This would imply that the macro can have properties not derived from the micro e.g. how conscouse beings can be made of unconciouse elements.

Consciousness can only come from non-consciousness, by definition. After all, where else could it come from? So there is no real mystery to it.

In the same way, light comes from non-light, heat from non-heat, clouds from non-clouds, etc. It is the nature of change.

You also talk of a "hidden void" when earlier you say "to exist is to appear".
If the void really is "hidden" (not appearing) then how can it exist?

As with anything else, it exists when it appears to exist - in this case, via our conceptualizing minds. We can only ever experience it as a logical entity, as an inference performed by the intellect.

Also theres the question of how reality "knows" how to present itself consistently.
An example will illustrate this.

Say you leave the kitchen and so it stops appearing which would mean it would stop exististing.

If you decide to return 5 minutes later how does the room know how to present itself in the same way ,as well as how does it decide what changes in the kitchen you are going to meet.

Your approach here is understandable, but nonetheless framed incorrectly. You're still thinking in terms of objective existence. In effect, you're asking, "Does the kitchen really disappear or remain in existence when not being experienced?"

Keep in mind that this is a logical issue, not a scientific one. In other words, I'm not advocating a scientific theory which rivals and challenges established scientific theory. It goes deeper than that.

Because existence can only ever manifest as an appearance, the issue of whether the kitchen "really" disappears or remains in existence when not being experienced becomes a non-issue. The reality of the "kitchen disappearing" is as much an appearance as anything else.

The important thing to understand is that there is no such thing as objective reality. It is a contradiction in terms. Everything boils down to being an appearance in the moment and none of us can ever go beyond that.

There is also the problem of how minds exist (using your definition). Do they need to appear to each other
or is there primary mind (God) who causes us to exist simply by allowing us to appear to him.
(then i suppose, how does he exist).

There could be larger minds around, although there can never be a primary mind in the sense of a "universal consciousness". That too is a contradiction in terms. These larger minds would be in the same boat as us, in that they too would be confined to the realm of appearances. And like us, their own experience of the mind would come in the form of an appearance.

-

chikoka wrote:
1.
The kitchen does stop existing as soon as it is no longer appearing , but so does the *time* that the kitchen occupies (since it also isnt appearing) so according to the kitchen the 5 mins that you were away did not exist and so essentialy you came back at the same time that you left.

You see, when you leave the kitchen, it is no longer being experienced. But when you enter, it is as exactly as it has been whether you were there or not - however, since no conscious being was in the room, there was no need to experience time, so in a way, the kitchen experienced all time at once from whence you left, to whence you arrived again.

chikoka wrote: 2.

Reality could also function according to our expectations.
Since i expect to find the kitchen in a certain state when i return it will conform to this expectation.
If existance depends on minds then other aspects of minds could affect reality such as this.
Changes would occur because you expect them to, and the subconcious would deal with the exact particulars.
Conflicting expectations between two minds would be resolved perhaps by choosing the expectation of the one with
the greater will.

No, you see, my mind does not change Newton's laws, or the any other constants in our universe, rather, I change the perception of them. Hence disagreement appears. Disagreement can happen about anything, simply because we can experience the same time, and relatively the same place, but have a different experience - this doesn't change what happened to the other person - rather it simply shows the difference between perception.

chikoka wrote: 3.

There could be a cosmic censorship principle simmilar to that proposed by hawking on time travel.
Reality could present itself in a consistent way according to this principal and not depending on
minds.
This principle would "exist" in much the same way as causality would.

The rest of this is basically the same answer as the first two. And that is the ultimate question - does anyone else exist if you don't experience them? The answer is yes, and no. They exist since they affect everything else in the universe - but since you don't experience them, they don't need to experience time. Thusly, other people you experience aren't conscious until you experience them.

Interesting no?

David Quinn wrote:As with anything else, it exists when it appears to exist - in this case, via our conceptualizing minds. We can only ever experience it as a logical entity, as an inference performed by the intellect.

Are you saying the void is apparently not apparent?

Are logical truths relative since different truths can be comprehended at different levels and yet each apparentness of these logical truths have to be true?
It could be apparent to someone that X not = X.
Even though it wouldnt be for most of us.

The void only exists to those who have made these logical inferences?

David Quinn wrote:And like us, their own experience of the mind would come in the form of an appearance.

Since the "same" thing can appear differently to two different people , would that imply that exisistance is relative?

If it does then the "own experience of the mind" would result in there having to be a separate univerese for each mind.
Or that since existance is relative only one mind exists "at a time".
Again this "one at a time" is an appeal to objective reality so it still is a problem.

chikoka wrote:Are you saying the void is apparently not apparent?

If it really apears to us through logical inference then it cannot be *hidden* if i understand how you use the word.

If it isnt hidden then it is the objective reality everyone is used to.

David:

There could be larger minds around, although there can never be a primary mind in the sense of a "universal consciousness". That too is a contradiction in terms. These larger minds would be in the same boat as us, in that they too would be confined to the realm of appearances. And like us, their own experience of the mind would come in the form of an appearance.

I don`t know bro, wherever I go my "universal consciousness" seems to tag along no matter how many times I play hide and seek with it. I tried playing in the garden of Eden with it and once I created dualism by taking a gigantic huge bite - the hide and seek game was afoot.

Even if I meet the super dooper consciousness - it would still be an appearance, right?

Therefore (When you see the word therefore, you should see what its therefore);

My brain is being animated by the universal consciousness because everywhere I go there are appearings.

I have never experienced another consciousness and you are therefore appearing in mine. You have never appeared in your consciousness have you?

Ok - I have never appeared anywhere else other than in and to your consciousness right?

Can`t you tell you are looking in a mirror? Beingofone waves HELLO?

Be careful tho - when to many mirrors are held up, the reflections go on and on.

You have to be quite still at times to get past the guard because he won`t let you in unless you realize you are his boss - he carries a big sword tho and it looks sharp.

chikoka wrote:

David Quinn wrote:As with anything else, it exists when it appears to exist - in this case, via our conceptualizing minds. We can only ever experience it as a logical entity, as an inference performed by the intellect.

Are you saying the void is apparently not apparent?

If it really apears to us through logical inference then it cannot be *hidden* if i understand how you use the word.

If it isnt hidden then it is the objective reality everyone is used to.

The hidden void is defined to be that part of Reality which is beyond the mind and can never be experienced by anyone or anything. It is permanently hidden from our view, by definition. The only way we become aware of its existence in the first place is by pursuing the logical consequences of (a) existence being an appearance, and (b) consciousness being finite.

I should also add that it has little spiritual significance. It is no more significant than the trees and clouds we experience in our consciousness. It is just another portion of the Totality.

Understanding the nature of the Totality itself is the aim, not chasing after minor hidden realms that cannot be experienced.

Are logical truths relative since different truths can be comprehended at different levels and yet each apparentness of these logical truths have to be true?

I don't know what you mean.

It could be apparent to someone that X not = X.
Even though it wouldnt be for most of us.

Well, such a person would be deluded, since it is utterly impossible to challenge X=X in any way. I have met many people who believed they were challenging it, but all of them to a tee had no real understanding of the issues involved.

So no, logical truths aren't relative. They are absolute, which means that they cannot be challenged by the rational mind.

The void only exists to those who have made these logical inferences?

The void (not the minor hidden one, but the great one that comprises all of Reality) becomes known to those who meditate on the core logical truths of existence and allow their minds to be fundamentally altered by such meditations.

chikoka wrote:

David Quinn wrote:And like us, their own experience of the mind would come in the form of an appearance.

Since the "same" thing can appear differently to two different people , would that imply that exisistance is relative?

Indeed. Things can only exist relatively to other things.

If it does then the "own experience of the mind" would result in there having to be a separate univerese for each mind.
Or that since existance is relative only one mind exists "at a time".
Again this "one at a time" is an appeal to objective reality so it still is a problem.

That's right. It is impossible to really know whether other minds exist or not. They seem to, but it could be an illusion. But it ultimately doesn't matter, since, once again, we are dealing with the realm of appearances.

-

Perhaps those grappling with what Dave is saying about the hidden void might be helped by thinking of it [loosely] this way: Reality is infinite potential. What we experience through the nature of our consciousness is a portion of that potential. We cannot know what the rest of that potential is like because we can only experience what we do via the nature of our consciousness. The consciousness we have and the "existence" we experience thereby is the only part of that potential we can ever know (what the actual limits and scope of that are is also something that we can't really ever know, but we can know that there will always be limits). The rest of the potential is the void.

1 million buckets at the bottom of the sea, each bucket contains a salt water drinker. One sea, 1 million drinkers. Each drinker drinks from the same sea, yet each drink quenches a different thirst. Our consciousness is to drink from the one sea, yet our thirst is our own.

.

Dan Rowden wrote:Perhaps those grappling with what Dave is saying about the hidden void might be helped by thinking of it [loosely] this way: Reality is infinite potential. What we experience through the nature of our consciousness is a portion of that potential. We cannot know what the rest of that potential is like because we can only experience what we do via the nature of our consciousness. The consciousness we have and the "existence" we experience thereby is the only part of that potential we can ever know (what the actual limits and scope of that are is also something that we can't really ever know, but we can know that there will always be limits). The rest of the potential is the void.

I like that.
Still have to think about it though , so will get back to you later.

isn't all potential infinite? if it's viewed as finite; it's just a view, not a fact. infinite in this context being that which the end cannot be predicted.

Reality is infinite potential.

The consciousness we have and the "existence" we experience thereby is the only part of that potential we can ever know (what the actual limits and scope of that are is also something that we can't really ever know, but we can know that there will always be limits).

I'm just being rather pedantic, as Dan's statement as a whole is fine, but I don't like this phrase "infinite potential". Dan has acknowledged it's falsity by his statement in italics above.

The nature of the evolutionary process in all things prevents "anything being possible". Evolution creates the effect of quantumness, due to the logic of physical reality (physics) and in doing so prevents an infinity of forms to manifest. If there are limited forms that can arise then there is limited "potential". Even where different levels of consciousness will create differing appearances, this is still finite as the range of what is being observed is still finite.

Reality is "infinite potential" only in a eternal casual process sense, not in what a conscious entity might observe.

And now to go where the QRS don't bother going...

To me, even if the "universal" constants are different in other sub-universes should our observed universe only be a bubble in a multi-verse totality, I very strongly suspect that the outcomes (things) will be the roughly the same if viewed at the same relative evolutionary time as our own within any other evolving universe bubble.

Note though that just like the evolution of life, most universe bubbles will fizzle out due to being consumed by more powerful surrounding bubbles, before they would reach our level of universe evolution, and eventually all sub-verses will be consumed by other sub-verses. (Consumed in this sense means “brought inside of a larger more dominant casual flow, to become a “part”. A part is a thing whose movement relative to other things as a “unit” is primarily determined by the larger unitised whole (which in turn is subject to the same process).

Indeed our own universe clearly, to me:) that is , consists of zillions of consumed sub-universes already, which appear to us in the form of atoms.

The nature of time is to create physical reality by causing relativity to manifest. The nature of Reality is to create increasing finiteness via evolutionary growth. Evolution, is the process of the Many reforming into One, until such time as the one is caused to devolve back into the many.
Imaginatively speaking, if this sub-verse formed from a big bang, that is when God (the preceding evolved physical unconscious “one”) died, and it’s parts spread about the universe.