A theory of consciousness

@nameless,

Nameless - You are using terms that I do not understand in the sense you seem to mean them. "Perspective"? Please define.
I was using "perspective" (un-capitalised) to mean someone's POV.

You also seem to be selectively arguing my points.

Quote:

Then you are in trouble, as 'scientific theories' (science does not have 'knowledge', no 'Truth') are constantly altering as the universes seen are different every moment, to every Perspective. You could speak, from a 'linear' Perspective, of the evolution of 'scientific knowledge', or the tentative nature of 'scientific knowledge', but that would be philosophy of science, not 'science'.

I never said science "has" knowledge or truth. I said those terms, and the philosophy you are using here, are irrelevant in the face of scientific experimentation. One can argue as much as one likes about "knowledge" and "truth" but such debate has a) no practical use and b) no effect on the real discoveries and uses of scientific knowledge (ie. the computers we are using to make posts).

Quote:

Every synchronously arising (Planck) moment.

I have no idea what this means :perplexed:

Quote:

You are correct! My neighbor, physicist Richard Feynman, told me, once, that if it doesn't agree with experiment, its worthless!

He taught me the same principle too Smile

Quote:

Be careful, though, that the 'tools' of your experimentation, and the specific 'stuff' that they can help you understand don't become an insular tautology; when you have/are a hammer, you naturally ignore the screws, and see nails everywhere!

OK this is a good point. Which is why I am asking for feedback, to find my blind spots!

2 Replies

@Hermes,

Hermes;23518 wrote:

Nameless - You are using terms that I do not understand in the sense you seem to mean them. "Perspective"? Please define.
I was using "perspective" (un-capitalised) to mean someone's POV.

I was using "Perspective" (capitalised) to mean the 'someone' (universe) who is a POV.

'Perspective' –noun
1. a technique of depicting volumes and spatial relationships on a flat surface. Compare aerial perspective, linear perspective.
2. a picture employing this technique, esp. one in which it is prominent: an architect's perspective of a house.
3. a visible scene, esp. one extending to a distance; vista: a perspective on the main axis of an estate.
4. the state of existing in space before the eye: The elevations look all right, but the building's composition is a failure in perspective.
5. the state of one's ideas, the facts known to one, etc., in having a meaningful interrelationship: You have to live here a few years to see local conditions in perspective.
6. the faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship: Your data is admirably detailed but it lacks perspective.
7. a mental view or prospect: the dismal perspective of terminally ill patients.

1) a) A view or vista.
b) A mental view or outlook: "It is useful occasionally to look at the past to gain a perspective on the present" (Fabian Linden).
c) The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole: a perspective of history; a need to view the problem in the proper perspective.
d) Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view: the perspective of the displaced homemaker.
e) The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance: tried to keep my perspective throughout the crisis.

If you put em all together, it comes close.
We are 'Conscious Perspective'.
'Perspective' is a necessarily limited view of something, a 'point' of view. All 'points of view', Perspectives are unique. All Perspectives are necessary for Consciousness to 'see' a Complete picture of Mind. It is by the glance of Perspective that existence manifests, one and the same as the Perspective ilumning/being ilunined by Mind.
There is Consciousness/Mind (the "Ground of all Being")

Quote:

I said those terms, and the philosophy you are using here, are irrelevant in the face of scientific experimentation. One can argue as much as one likes about "knowledge" and "truth" but such debate has a) no practical use and b) no effect on the real discoveries and uses of scientific knowledge (ie. the computers we are using to make posts).

A perfect example of Perspective!
So, you don't think that 'critical thought' should disturb a pragmatic 'scientific method'? Let good enough alone?

Quote:

Quote:
Every synchronously arising (Planck) moment.

I have no idea what this means

Do you know what a moment is? It is the smallest 'slice' of time/space that can no longer contain any temporal qualities. It is one universe. Static. No motion, no 'time'. A 'Tapestry', not a 'movie'.
A 'moment' is (a unique universe is), the 'moment' Conscious Awareness has something of which to be Aware; Mind.
'Synchronously' means simultaneously, at the same time.
This relates to the new update of the obsolete notion of 'cause and effect'; ('Moments' are) "mutually arising features of the same event."

Quote:

He taught me the same principle too

If I had heros, he'd be one! I'll remember him, perhaps.

Quote:

Quote:
Be careful, though, that the 'tools' of your experimentation, and the specific 'stuff' that they can help you understand don't become an insular tautology; when you have/are a hammer, you naturally ignore the screws, and see nails everywhere!

OK this is a good point. Which is why I am asking for feedback, to find my blind spots!

Which might be why I respond...

Later..
Peace

1 Reply

@nameless,

OK The discussion I had on this thread was not really along the lines I had hoped. I have since updated my site (here) and shall include the main theory here. My question to everyone is; if this process was programmed and enacted within a suitable computer could it achieve self-awareness? If not, why not?

------------------------------------

The Temporal Cycle
Here we shall consider a schematic of the temporal cycle, and follow through the temporal loop including its derivative and worldly functions. This (top) loop is the basic function of Dasein, the continued Anticipation of the Now and Now-that-was to produce the Potentiality-for-Being, and the Making-present of that Potentiality with the senses to produce the Now. These two Interpretations, with respect to the Entities of Dasein, would in our ancestors have provided (and still do, in us and higher order animals) a sense of what is to come within-the-World around us.

The bottom right loop is the derivative (weak) Interpretative cycle, allowing Dasein to "see" a Potentiality beyond the immediate. The bottom left loop is how Dasein interacts with the World in which it lives, and the other instances of Dasein, the They. This loop is also vital for sentience to emerge, particularly, it is key in developing the Entity-of-Dasein (the "ego") and for subsequently enabling purpose.

http://sites.google.com/site/hermesthephilosopher/Home/The-Temporal-Cycle/Process4.jpg

Now + Now-that-was

The Now is the current state of Dasein in the present. Its Being is one of the Entities at hand, the senses and Entities of the present as they relate to the Entity of Dasein and as the Function of Dasein determines the present to be. At any one moment in time, the Now is the collection of Entities that the Function of Dasein is "experiencing" at that time, the focus of Dasein's ken, the region of Dasein that is the present.

The Now-that-was is the remnant Entities of a just-passed Now, the Being of Dasein as it was a moment before. This short, immediate "history" of Dasein is vital to provide a vector, so to speak, for the extrapolatory Interpretation called Anticipation. To perform a strong temporal Interpretation, a comparison of two things is required. The Now-that-was then serves to produce, on Interpretation with the Now, a differential, the change in Being of Dasein, which change can be identified with changes in the memory of Dasein, it's Entities.

Anticipation

As said, by Interpreting the Now and the Now-that-was, Anticipation produces an Interpretive product that is a status of the Being of Dasein, in the future, based on the Entities held within Dasein (its past experiences, thus Anticipation is "with respect to the past"). This Interpretive product is called the Potentiality-for-Being.

Potentiality-for-Being

Just as the Now is the state of Being of Dasein in the present, the Potentiality-for-Being is the state of Being of Dasein in a possible future. The nature of that future, the quality of the prediction so the speak, is clearly dependent on the range and depth of experiences Dasein has stored as Entities that are Interpretistically relevant to the Now at hand. If it has encountered a similar situation before, then the Anticipation Interpretation is more likely to be accurate.

An important feature of the system to note at this point is the temporality created by this predictive Interpretation. By taking Dasein into a possible future, the Being of Dasein is not only in the past through its Entities, nor also in the present through its senses, but reaching into a future it has created of its own accord. This point will be very important for the emergent properties of Dasein, discussed in the Birth of Dasein and the Development of Dasein, and also the conception of time possessed by Dasein.

One should envisage the loop of the three main states of the Now-that-was, the Now and the Potentiality-for-Being not as a cycle to be followed round and around, for if one did then at any moment one's focus would be away from some part of the loop, but as a continuous and parallel flow of information.

Senses

The senses obviously take physical interactions in-the-World and translate these to signal patterns "readable" by Dasein. There may be some degree of "pre-processing" whereby the sense "organ" in question encodes or optimises the signal for Interpretation, but this is not strictly necessary and is rather a way to help subsequent functions focus on what has been determined important in the sense, by evolution or the creator.

Making-present

The Making-present is the second big Interpretation performed by Dasein, it compares the Anticipation Interpretation (future) with the senses (present) and in doing so creates the Now, completing the cycle. For the Potentiality-for-Being to be assessed and productive, it must be brought back to the present, and in Interpreting it thus with the senses, the predicted state of Being of the World can be reckoned with what the senses record.

Again, there are emergent properties of this system that are discussed on other pages. But even now one should be able to simply imagine the effect this would have on the casual execution of Dasein. Consider dropping a ball in front of yourself. At any one "moment" in time, Dasein has the current position of the ball as the Now, and traces from its immediate knowledge of where the ball was an instant before to Anticipate where it shall be next (with respect to prior experience, Interpretation is of Dasein's Entities); and this Potentiality-for-Being is appreciated whilst the ball is falling. The senses will then corroborate this in a normal situation, the Making present brings this synthesis of the future and the present back to the Now, and Dasein's expectations have been realised. They didn't have to be realised, but this is a matter for other sections.

Motor action

For the instance of Dasein to interact with the World and the They it must partake of motor action to effect a change in the World. In humans this takes one of two forms; speech or skeletal muscle movement, generally associated with movement of the limbs. The Potentiality-for-Being provides, in the possible future of what Dasein may become, the goal for said movement. In the process of execution to reach this goal, other parts of the instance, the cerebellum in humans or example, are dedicated to achieving the plan through translation to coordinated skeletal muscle contraction.

Attention control

The process as described thus far has two intrinsic problems which have a common solution. First is the continuous increase in the amount of information being introduced into the cycle; the derivative Potentiality-for-Being and the senses mean that there is potentially more data to arrive back at the Now than departed. Secondly, not all this data is of import to the instance at any one time, to Be concerned with inconsequentialities at a time of danger could be fatal for Dasein.

Therefore, Dasein has control over the weighting of its own Interpretations in the form of a "gating" signal system (in green) that may promote or inhibit certain Interpretive pathways. Like all possibilities of action this originates in the Potentiality-for-Being, sending regulator signals to major sites in the process; this is akin to motor action since Dasein is becoming its potentiality through self action, but here in the most direct manner and at a level undetectable to its senses and Entities, thus it is "sub-conscious".

As a consequence, rather than Being "everywhere at once" within its own Being, Dasein can emphasise Being within the Now by inhibiting Anticipation, or focus upon the sense of hearing; always by acting upon a Potentiality-for-Being. The problem of lost information is sidestepped by selecting what is relevent-to-hand and the problem of Being "in the wrong place" is directly confronted by allowing Dasein to Be where it deems to be important.

0 Replies

@Hermes,

Hermes, I was intrigued when I first saw your post and checked-out your Heideggerian theory of consciousness. Heidegger's system of thought is so huge, so encompassing and so interesting that it requires its own semantics and nearly its own syntax. It's a very broad and ambitious view of human existence, so I find your attempt to conceptualize consciousness within the context of Heideggerism (yes, I do believe that Heidegger's thought is important enough to be an "ism") -- and to enfold modern notions regarding the mind-brain interaction within that analysis -- to be very meritorious.

That being said, one always needs to maintain some perspective when embracing Heidegger. As everyone interested in philosophy knows, his thought system allowed him to co-opt the national socialism movement in early 20th century Germany and to maintain that relationship long after its very dark visions became apparent. That's to say that no human thought system is perfect and entirely reliable, and that Heidegger's system at some point of development betrayed its core value of "being". But obviously the world of philosophy is willing to keep mining the gold while being aware of the dross within Heidegger.

Heidegger's focus on the nature of being, on ways of thinking about and discussing "being in itself", make him extremely important to philosophy of mind, IMHO. Daniel Dennett and most of the modern anti-dualists offer us an ultimate ontology based on looping self-reference. They tell us that our consciousness just is the brain's electrochemical processes set within in the broader context of bigger information and physical/energy process loops, which we see as nature, evolution, and the universe at large. Douglas ("I am a Strange Loop") Hofstadter helps Dennett in expounding upon the nature of the life-loops that comprise the human experience; but ultimately it all becomes functionalism and infinite regress. As a dualist, or perhaps more accurately a "something bigger yet"-ist, I in turn hold there to be something beyond what science currently knows (currently being the key word); something more to our minds and experience. Thus far, the best way to describe whatever intuitions I have about that "something bigger" is through the word "being".

But how do we approach "being"? I personally think that the Buddhists have some very relevant things to say from their long experience with meditation. They ultimately talk about no-self and no-dualism, and thus are often co-opted by the physicalist-monists. But I interpret what the Buddhists say to be the fruit of their close approach to the truest nature of "being", the increased pureness of their experience of BEING versus what we get from daily life in western culture. I.e., "Das man" in Heidegger-speak.

After Buddhism, Heidegger seems to be the only game in town regarding "being". So, when I saw your post and your web site about consciousness in a Heideggerian frame, I had to take it seriously. Sorry for the slow response, but I've been doing some off-and-on reading and thinking about Heidegger and your ideas in between a book by Dennett, another on quantum physics, and the daily stuff of an average middle-aged life of quiet middle-class desperation.

Anyway, here are some of my notes. Obviously I'd like to see "Dasein" as the thing that puts the dual back into dualism. I'm not sure if Heidegger or you Heidegger fans would really like that; but humor me if you would. You said that Dasein "is not sentient", although in context, you seemed to be referring to the brain's ability to perceive sense data, to abstract that data, to put it into the framework of self-awareness, and to project that sense-enhanced self-awareness temporally. Although Descartes thought such ability to be the noble thing that sets the mind apart from the world, we're not talking Descartes here. So sure, Dasein is not "Descartes-sentient", but it may well be "being-sentient". I.e., being as requiring being-awareness -- a bit of a loop, conceptually. As some Heidegger 101 explanations go, "Dasein is the being for whom being is a question". Just because I don't like Hofstadter doesn't mean that I have totally sworn off loops.

OK, another random note. Your discussion of the necessity of relationship between Entities and the Star Entity of Dasein made me think of Nicholas Humphrey's "Just So Story". That's just a thought for a footnote.

Now, on to the main event: how to physically build a Dasein machine. Sounds innocent, but admittedly that's a nuclear idea. A thermonuclear idea! Big stuff. How do we give a computer a taste of Dasein (and hope it doesn't screw up and become Dasman, like most of us fallible humans?). I'm certainly not ready to write the code, but it will obviously involve a lot of object-oriented programming and parallel distributed processing. And yes, I agree, it's going to require as much sense-scanning capacity as you can cram into it. If it's going to be anything like us and be able to benefit from our tutelage, it's going to require some sort of physical locus (you seem to agree with that). And once you've really got it all going, you're gonna be doing a lot of emergence and chaos analysis. It's gonna be so complex that you'll be tweaking it for awhile before it finds the right balance between madness and resignation; just keeping it from epileptic-like seizures will be a trick. But yes, I've heard too that the A.I. people are doing some amazing stuff these days; the question may well be when, not if it will happen.

As you say, this can't just be a static computer. It has to have interaction with us and with others like itself. It has to be developed in the context of a society (i.e. it needs its "Entities"). But also, I think it needs a lot of relationship with the physical world; it needs to care about day and night, about air temperature, about the ground and moisture and threats to its being, about where its next dose of energy is coming from. It needs to see the moon and stars and be taught about them by us. It needs, IMHO, to have a strong relationship to the physical world. For somewhere in the mass of information stemming from being-in-the-world, comes the Being holograph, the pattern of Being itself which repeats itself fractally through fixed dimensional magnifications, but also through trans-dimensional view-shifts (especially across time), and through various "phase state" abstractions. Over time, hopefully the patterns of Dasein would weave themselves into the scads of interconnected PDP objects and "emerge", nurtured by its interactions with us, with its other fellow Entities, and with the world of nature.

I believe that Heideggerism has an important place for dread, angst and death. I've heard that Dasein requires an awareness of nothing, of no-being; it must be a real threat, not an abstract concept. We must introduce the problem of evil and pain and death to this machine and to its society. Good luck in trying not to get hurt yourself! This Dasein machine project may require a lot of risk on the part of those humans who would participate. There may well be some cheezy sci-fi movie scenarios in play (yes, HAL in 2001, etc.).

And somehow, the Dasein machines must be taught to care, if I'm reading Heidegger right. The meaning of emotion and feeling must be developed in these machines, perhaps from initial elementary prioritization of sensory signal patterns; e.g. certain patterns are taught to be good, causing an approach response; certain patterns are bad, causing a flight response; certain responses indicate a threat that must be responded to, causing an anger / take-action response. Over time, perhaps more complex emotions and feeling will evolve/emerge within the programmed mental states intermediating such interactions and behavioral responses. As such, the machines will achieve "caring", increased "being in the world", and thus be on their way to Dasein. We hope.

So those are my notes, take 'em or leave 'em. Hope they're more or less relevant, and that my Heidegger knowledge isn't too far from the mark. Thanks again for a very thought-provoking approach to the consciousness question.

Jim G.

1 Reply

@eternalstudent2,

eternalstudent2;27693 wrote:

Hermes, I was intrigued when I first saw your post and checked-out your Heideggerian theory of consciousness....

Happy that you enjoyed reading it and thank you for the excellent feedback here!

Quote:

That being said, one always needs to maintain some perspective when embracing Heidegger. ....

I know where you're coming from, but he was defended by his Jewish mistresses in post war trials IIRC. This puts him in the "hypocritical" rather than "racist" pigeon hole for me Smile

Regarding his writing, I too find some of his passages either horribly verbose or bordering on religious instruction, but there is enough good thinking in there for a lot of worthwhile study Smile

Quote:

Heidegger's focus on the nature of being, on ways of thinking about and discussing "being in itself", make him extremely important to philosophy of mind, IMHO. ....

Quote:

But how do we approach "being"? I personally think that the Buddhists have some very relevant things to say from their long experience with meditation. .....

Heidegger had himself as a continuation of the Greek tradition, and he argues at the start of Being and Time that western philosophy had totally forgotten the question of the meaning of Being that the Greeks raised. I am happy to follow his lead in this regard. I am not familiar with Buddhist concepts of Being, and I confess that I am content to not know. I don't know much about philosophical history of the notion of "being"... are there really so few major theories?

I am not entirely sure what "dualism" means. I used to believe in some form of universal dualism, and I believe it is possible to Interpret dualism in many many observations of science and nature. But now, I prefer to be without creed, of any kind. There is no need to subscribe to any "set of beliefs", dualism, monism, materialism or gobustrelism (last one made up). I believe such thinking is more likely to be prescriptive, and so bias one's Interpretations, where interference in thought is not to be desired.

To put it another way, to be aligned to any one school of thought is not going t make an individual smarter and any more able to solve the problem at hand. If the solution happens to be dualistic, then it is. :bigsmile:

Quote:

Anyway, here are some of my notes. Obviously I'd like to see "Dasein" as the thing that puts the dual back into dualism. I'm not sure if Heidegger or you Heidegger fans would really like that; but humor me if you would. You said that Dasein "is not sentient", although in context, you seemed to be referring to the brain's ability to perceive sense data, to abstract that data, to put it into the framework of self-awareness, and to project that sense-enhanced self-awareness temporally. Although Descartes thought such ability to be the noble thing that sets the mind apart from the world, we're not talking Descartes here. So sure, Dasein is not "Descartes-sentient", but it may well be "being-sentient". I.e., being as requiring being-awareness -- a bit of a loop, conceptually. As some Heidegger 101 explanations go, "Dasein is the being for whom being is a question". Just because I don't like Hofstadter doesn't mean that I have totally sworn off loops.

My interpretation of Dasein, as presented in Being and Time, is that it can be broken down into Function and Entity; our brains carry out the Function, and our sense of self (ego) is the Entity. I believe that this holds true for every possible interpretation of Dasein within his book.

So, to start with, Dasein is not sentient, because it is just a function with no Entity of self. Only after years (in the case of humans) of interaction in the world is the Entity of Dasein slowly constructed within the Function, this leading to self awareness.

The concept of Dasein being the inquirer, as Heidegger puts it, is a bit more complex. I interpret this as being the literal ability to pose and ask questions (eg. find the quiddity of a thing) - and this is more complex since language is a prerequisite for such an action. I shall go on to cover this, eventually.

One of the main problems with Heidegger is, I believe, he mixes, even confuses, different functions and emergent properties of Dasein. His insight was second to none, but decoding what he saw from what he wrote is the trick (hey, I could be totally wrong on this! I'm no scholar, though I have been reading that book for over 4 years now Smile

)

Quote:

OK, another random note. Your discussion of the necessity of relationship between Entities and the Star Entity of Dasein made me think of Nicholas Humphrey's "Just So Story". That's just a thought for a footnote.

Sorry not familiar with this.... may look up later.

Quote:

Now, on to the main event: how to physically build a Dasein machine. Sounds innocent, but admittedly that's a nuclear idea. ....

hehe I agree with you here totally. I guess it was this kind of thinking that got me started on this years ago. I've always loved tinkering with machines, why not make it a mind?

Quote:

As you say, this can't just be a static computer. It has to have interaction with us and with others like itself. It has to be developed in the context of a society (i.e. it needs its "Entities"). ....

You helped my thinking with this paragraph today; I don't think that Being-in-the-world can be overstressed, it enables and defines and gives purpose to everything in Dasein.

Quote:

I believe that Heideggerism has an important place for dread, angst and death. I've heard that Dasein requires an awareness of nothing, of no-being; ....

These are good points; emotion is difficult to define, and I am still not sure whether it is necessary or not to become sentient. What do you think? Taking Heidegger's lead again, I attempt to explain what anxiety is functionally, and I shall try to incorporate emotions at some point. And yes, great care has to be taken raising a sentient machine Smile

Actually, I think the biggest danger is not directly from the machine, but from public reaction. There are going to be hundreds of millions, if not billions of people that would not like the idea of a sentient machine one bit. It threatens peoples anthropocentric sense of superiority and is going to, to some extent, destroy the notion of our sentience being a sacrosanct gift from God. If I were a person of import and power, then I would certainly not make public any such research/developments, and would apply liberal pro-machine propaganda before announcing it.

Such negativity/hatred/racism could potentially result in some of those man-machine war scenarios that sci fi loves to explore. I'd rather be positive and hope things work themselves out Smile

Quote:

And somehow, the Dasein machines must be taught to care, if I'm reading Heidegger right. The meaning of emotion and feeling must be developed in these machines, ...

Care... as Heidegger means it, is still beyond my comprehension. I think he chose a word deliberately resistant to interpretation just to p*** people off :devilish: The way he introduces the term, by recounting a roman myth, suggests to me he was choosing a term simply to accord with ancient concepts of Being, and so spurn recent philosophical notions.

I think, practically, Care has no meaning, and can instead be thought of as the collective action of many functions that Heidegger never explicitly identifies but which I have tried to extricate.

Quote:

So those are my notes, take 'em or leave 'em. Hope they're more or less relevant, and that my Heidegger knowledge isn't too far from the mark. Thanks again for a very thought-provoking approach to the consciousness question.

Thank you very much again Jim, on at least one point there you made me see things differently which helped me today! Smile

0 Replies

@nameless,

Hi, I am a new member. I find this disscussion quite interesting. I need to know what you think about reality of the world we preceive. Do you think that the real world is physical or a spirtual one?

2 Replies

@Sir Neuron,

Sir Neuron, Smile

Well I would say that physical world is spiritual, but not in the sense of the supernatural, to me people confuse the unknown for the supernatural. At anyrate Sir Neuron, this is not the place for introductions, there is a thread for that at the top of boards, no harm done, but it is customary for newbies to sign in there. Welcome aboard though, we are most pleased to have you with us!! boagie

0 Replies

@Sir Neuron,

Sir Neuron;29118 wrote:

Hi, I am a new member. I find this disscussion quite interesting. I need to know what you think about reality of the world we preceive. Do you think that the real world is physical or a spirtual one?

Hello Sir Neuron,
Glad you find it interesting Smile

An innocuous but deep Q. I shall respond to your Q and Boagie's answer together...

boagie;29126 wrote:

Sir Neuron,

Well I would say that physical world is spiritual, but not in the sense of the supernatural, to me people confuse the unknown for the supernatural. ....

Whilst I understand Boagie's position, and whilst I am most probably of the opposite belief (that the world is not spiritual), I see no need to fall on one side or the other of the fence. Thus, I shall be a little guarded and say neither. Let me explain...

At the most fundamental level I believe it is logically impossible to discover if the world (by world I mean universe) we inhabit is "spiritual", the creation of a sentient being, or "physical", an emergence from some set of "natural laws".

If one takes science as the gradual emergence of systems, biology from chemistry, chemistry from atomic physics, atomic physics from quantum physics etc... then this should in principle lead back to a fundamental system which we might like to denote as the "base system"; the absolute start of these systems. How would scientists know they found it? Well, it would, according to Occam's razor, be the simplest possible explanation for everything we can experience in the universe.

But, if we decided, for example, to build a virtual reality machine and develop sentience within that world and once that program was started it had no external inputs - it is completely sealed from the universe that we built it in - would those sentients be able to discover the laws that underlie the machine that we put them in, the laws of our universe?

So, my convoluted answer is that I believe metaphysics to be fundamentally un-resolvable, and thus one can never decide, with either logic or science, that the world is either spiritual or physical in origin. Either answer is equally a matter of faith :bigsmile:

1 Reply

@Hermes,

Hermes wrote:

Hello Sir Neuron,
Glad you find it interesting
An innocuous but deep Q. I shall respond to your Q and Boagie's answer together...

Whilst I understand Boagie's position, and whilst I am most probably of the opposite belief (that the world is not spiritual), I see no need to fall on one side or the other of the fence. Thus, I shall be a little guarded and say neither. Let me explain...

At the most fundamental level I believe it is logically impossible to discover if the world (by world I mean universe) we inhabit is "spiritual", the creation of a sentient being, or "physical", an emergence from some set of "natural laws".

If one takes science as the gradual emergence of systems, biology from chemistry, chemistry from atomic physics, atomic physics from quantum physics etc... then this should in principle lead back to a fundamental system which we might like to denote as the "base system"; the absolute start of these systems. How would scientists know they found it? Well, it would, according to Occam's razor, be the simplest possible explanation for everything we can experience in the universe.

But, if we decided, for example, to build a virtual reality machine and develop sentience within that world and once that program was started it had no external inputs - it is completely sealed from the universe that we built it in - would those sentients be able to discover the laws that underlie the machine that we put them in, the laws of our universe?

So, my convoluted answer is that I believe metaphysics to be fundamentally un-resolvable, and thus one can never decide, with either logic or science, that the world is either spiritual or physical in origin. Either answer is equally a matter of faith :bigsmile:

I belief that 'believing' is important to the progress of experiments, which leads to discovery. Experiments reveal whether ideas associated with believes are either true or false. I have limited knowledge regarding this topic, but it is my desire to share my thoughts, and I hope it will inspire some-one like you to discover the truth some day.

Base on limited knowledge of various disciplines, I have conceptualized that THE MIND possesses two main attributes - viz. CONCIOUSNESS and WILL. 'Conciousness' is the mind's awareness of its surroundings. 'Will' is apparently the choice of an action to perform. Actions are also determined by the 'subconscious', which is not an attribute of 'the mind', but it is a response to the state of 'brain matter'. Furthur more, the choice to perform an action or even a thought is base on the state of 'brain matter', hence, 'will' is determined by the physical environment. Therefore, 'will' is already predetermined since the behaviour of matter is governed by particular laws. It is a loop - 'will' influence matter and matter influence 'will' - and the outcome is dependant on space and time.

To make 'matters' worse and add to the connumdrum, matter is not physical, but only appears to be. Matter will penetrate matter if one offered no opposing force to the other. In this case no force signifies that it does not exist, because that is what matter is - a force. But the fundamental laws ensures that every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, giving rise to an apparent physical state.

Hence, space is physically empty, comprising of pure force.
It sounds a little crazy, but it must be, at least a bit, in order to satisfy rationale.

Enough for now. Awaiting a response. :detective:

1 Reply

@Sir Neuron,

YO!

I think we need define our terms, in my expression of the physcial world as spiritual I in no way mean that it is NOT physcial, it is both physical and spiritual, the spiritual aspect is how I feel about it, how I feel about my relation to the physcial world, we are inseparable, we are one, just as there is no dividing subject and object, so, there is no dividing boagie from the world around him.

"Will' is determined by the physical environment. Therefore, 'will' is already predetermined since the behaviour of matter is governed by particular laws. It is a loop - 'will' influence matter and matter influence 'will' - and the outcome is dependant on space and time." quote Sir Neuron

:)Just a suggestion, it is not that I disgree with the above, but, if will thus action is already predetermined by matter, the physcial world as object, then it is not in truth action, it is reaction, and reaction is the basis of all relations, thus the bases of apparent reality. I think your theory would benifit in adopting the positon that there is no such thing as action, it is all reaction.

2 Replies

@boagie,

boagie;29279 wrote:

I think your theory would benifit in adopting the positon that there is no such thing as action, it is all reaction.

I know of no theory that would benefit from 'adopting the position' of any such fallacy.
Action exists, reaction exists, there is no refutation thereof.
Are you saying that the thermodynamic 'law' that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" has been refuted while I have been napping? I'd rather see some links, please, to such a monumental refutation (world headlines?) then 'just' your opinions and biases, if you would be so kind.
Some science journal, perhaps. Otherwise, it sounds like you are merely trolling for (ego gratifying) 'disciples'.
His theory would, perhaps, best benefit not from adopting/imbibing anyone else's 'position', but from a critical examination of all evidence and data, thereof, when and as it becomes available.

2 Replies

@boagie,

Ok I'm gonna need to quote stuff out of order to group it all together... Smile

Starting with what I agree with...

Quote:

To make 'matters' worse and add to the connumdrum, matter is not physical, but only appears to be. Matter will penetrate matter if one offered no opposing force to the other. In this case no force signifies that it does not exist, because that is what matter is - a force. But the fundamental laws ensures that every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, giving rise to an apparent physical state.

Hence, space is physically empty, comprising of pure force.
It sounds a little crazy, but it must be, at least a bit, in order to satisfy rationale.

This is a fact of science that everyone should agree with - this overview seems generally correct IMO (except matter penetrating matter - are you referring to the exclusion principle?). I personally believe that the old notion of an atom as an indivisible unit of "matter", like a hard thing, shall turn out to be not literally correct, but correct in an abstract sense. You are right to emphasise forces as the basic function of "matter" as we perceive it. This is a god example of how our minds, as Heidegger put it, "cover up" the reality of a situation with a cursory Interpretation (as it does with "time").

Quote:

Base on limited knowledge of various disciplines, I have conceptualized that THE MIND possesses two main attributes - viz. CONCIOUSNESS and WILL. 'Conciousness' is the mind's awareness of its surroundings. 'Will' is apparently the choice of an action to perform. Actions are also determined by the 'subconscious', which is not an attribute of 'the mind', but it is a response to the state of 'brain matter'. Furthur more, the choice to perform an action or even a thought is base on the state of 'brain matter', hence, 'will' is determined by the physical environment. Therefore, 'will' is already predetermined since the behaviour of matter is governed by particular laws. It is a loop - 'will' influence matter and matter influence 'will' - and the outcome is dependant on space and time.

Quote:

Just a suggestion, it is not that I disgree with the above, but, if will thus action is already predetermined by matter, the physcial world as object, then it is not in truth action, it is reaction, and reaction is the basis of all relations, thus the bases of apparent reality. I think your theory would benifit in adopting the positon that there is no such thing as action, it is all reaction.

I totally agree with Boagie here; everything within the universe that we experience at our level in the physical systems is a reaction. Of course this begs headache-inducing questions as to the origin of these reactions, but to address this problem is not necessary to explain the task at hand.

Accordingly, I do not believe there is such a thing as "free" will as it is commonly understood to be a total free and conscious decision. I argue on my site that in deciding action, the only part of our minds where such a choice takes place, we merely automatically choose the "path of least resistance", or rather, the path of most good and least bad. It is the phenomenon of awareness that gives us the sensation of choice.

The Potentialities-for-Being that constitute our possible choices seem real in their Being, and as each possibility seems real we believe that our ability to choose is as real, but in fact it is not. (Sorry to start using the jargon, but that is how I justify it... there are definitions of this stuff on my site).

More directly addressing Sir Neuron's post... I believe that concepts like "consciousness" and "will" are in fact high level emergent functions of simpler fundamental process (as I put forward on my site). For too long scientists and philosopher have tried to tackle these concepts directly and failed because they miss this point. Imagine trying to explain the sun without first working out nuclear fusion... this is the mistake that many make. You need to go back to first principles on Being and Interpretation to know how "consciousness" and "will" eventually emerge.

Quote:

YO!

'Sup :bigsmile:

Quote:

I think we need define our terms, in my expression of the physcial world as spiritual I in no way mean that it is NOT physcial, it is both physical and spiritual, the spiritual aspect is how I feel about it, how I feel about my relation to the physcial world, we are inseparable, we are one, just as there is no dividing subject and object, so, there is no dividing boagie from the world around him.

Ok sorry I misread what you meant there. So you believe in a subjective spirituality that is an appreciation of the physical reality, but not its foundation?

1 Reply

@Hermes,

Wow!
I think we are on to something here. I think we are in told agreement.

Just that I need some Clarification of the below quote. Are you saying the term 'action' signifies something that happens but not in response to something else? If that is the case, then I apologize for my previous express, and I am in agreement with the quote as well.

Hermes wrote:

I totally agree with Boagie here; everything within the universe that we experience at our level in the physical systems is a reaction. Of course this begs headache-inducing questions as to the origin of these reactions, but to address this problem is not necessary to explain the task at hand.

Hermes wrote:

It is the phenomenon of awareness that gives us the sensation of choice.

:a-ok:

We must have read the same book - as a matter of speaking. This is precisely my analysis.

Hermes wrote:

The Potentialities-for-Being that constitute our possible choices seem real in their Being, and as each possibility seems real we believe that our ability to choose is as real, but in fact it is not. (Sorry to start using the jargon, but that is how I justify it... there are definitions of this stuff on my site).

:a-ok:

That is a good way to put it.

Hermes wrote:

More directly addressing Sir Neuron's post... I believe that concepts like "consciousness" and "will" are in fact high level emergent functions of simpler fundamental process (as I put forward on my site).

O.K., I will buy that for now, until I have completely read your site. I am not sure I understood you correctly here.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Are you saying that the thermodynamic 'law' that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" has been refuted while I have been napping?

Thank you for your support. However, I think it is a matter of interpretion.
The thermodynamic 'law' may be restated as: for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think this is a better expression than my previous one.

1 Reply

@Hermes,

If anyones interested, there is a niffty video on youtube relating to the brain. I tried to include it in the video section of the forum, but I guess I need to subscribe to youtube. Enter a search for 'Beyond Reality' on youtube. You will find it there.

0 Replies

@Sir Neuron,

Sir Neuron;29341 wrote:

I think it is a matter of interpretion.
The thermodynamic 'law' may be restated as: for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think this is a better expression than my previous one.

Hahaha!
Certainly that is another valid Perspective (note; another)!
As is "for every 'action', there is an equal and opposite 'action'.

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

All only valid from a 'linear Perspective', the 'action or reaction' is not inherent in existence (there is no 'action', no 'motion' whatsoever), but in certain Perspectives of existence, just like the obsolete (Perspectival) notion of 'cause and effect'!

(I think that our various views of action, reaction, no action is not the point, but the 'equal and opposite' part; like yin and yang or the sign for infinity...)

but, i digress...
The point is that though there are innumerable (and every one unique) valid Perspectives, they are not all 'valid' from every specific Perspective; they are 'valid' from that particular Perspective.
So, telling someone that 'my' Perspective should be adopted by 'you', as the 'Sole True Perspective' is a fallacy. The very definition of Perspective means 'incomplete'. Some 'included angles' are wider than others, but none Complete. That was my point.
Thanx though for the Perspective! *__-
Peace

0 Replies

@nameless,

Nameless,:Not-Impressed:

This coming from a man who says that there is nothing happening whatsoever and that motion is illusion. So Nameless if nothing is happening, if there is no motion, what is this talk of for every action there is an equal reaction. I simply say its all reaction. I might add, I do not like your tone.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;29526 wrote:

Nameless,:Not-Impressed:

This coming from a man who says that there is nothing happening whatsoever and that motion is illusion.

Oh, and this is supposed to invalidate something that I said? Really? What?

Quote:

So Nameless if nothing is happening, if there is no motion, what is this talk of for every action there is an equal reaction.

I thought it something that you could understand.
I was speaking from the perspective that posits 'motion' TO the Perspective that posits motion. Using your language to respond to your point in a manner that you (and other such Perspectives) can understand.
I also posited, which you neglect to address, that perhaps it was the "equal and opposite" portion that was of true import, not the niggling illusion of 'action' question which science deals with very nicely, which you avoid. It really doesn't matter, 'believe' as you must.

Quote:

I simply say its all reaction.

Yeah, I know, I heard it a few times before. That is youPerspective. Not everyone. That was my simply valid point.

Quote:

I might add, I do not like your tone.

Doesn't matter to me in the least what you like.
Considering the medium, my 'tone' might be in your head. Hmm?
Are you compelled to respond if you have some personal problem with your imagined tone of what I offer? Feel free to ignore me. Nothing that I wrote required your response.
Thats funny! You "don't like my tone"!
I guess that if you cannot deal with the points made, on topic, feel free to imagine a 'tone' that you just "don't like".
If you do not like the tone that declares that 'your' Perspective is not held by everyone, then the 'tone' that you "don't like", is the 'tone' of truth.
Which is rarely 'liked' (at first).

And you said nothing in your response of any relevence to the topic, or the points made in my reply, other than you don't like other Perspectives.
As I said, feel free to ignore my posts.

1 Reply

@Hermes,

Gentlemen, let's keep things in perspective...

0 Replies

@nameless,

Nameless,

You have a history of getting nasty with people that either disagree with you or simply do not understand your position, it seems to matter little the difference to you. And yes, do ignore me, and I shall ignore you, if you can do that, I thank you.

2 Replies

A theory of consciousness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know