What kind of thing is the mind? A sound deductive argument

@Olivier5,

Lol I meant peers indeed thanks for the call! Wink

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

How would "God" change anything if "it" is the past present and the future? Don't diminish the majesty of your "God"...

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Of course perceived 'patterns' suggest 'intelligence'...OURS !
Occam's Razor is the principle which would exclude the going for an extra source of 'intelligence'.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Intelligence creating order is simpler to explain than a myriad of randomly generated processes happening over millions of years that have never been observed and replicated. Especially since we have a single candidate that has all the characteristics an intelligence of that sort must have and has claimed to be the person.

So wouldn't Occam's razor push you to the Christian God being the best paradigm choice?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

No because what is said to 'drive ' the universe is DISORDER (entropy) not order.
It is what we call 'life' which appears to oppose disorder, but abiogenetic theory currently works on the principle that complex systems such as life, ultimately maximise entropy. And as a second line of reasoning antithetical to the concept of 'order', Rovelli points out that 'order' is relative to the observer, so that even the second law of thermodynamics, like all physical laws, is a human intellectual construct.

2 Replies

@fresco,

So, is Rovelli referring to the Anthropic Principle as a final conclusion to his point of view?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Of course perceived 'patterns' suggest 'intelligence'...OURS !
Occam's Razor is the principle which would exclude the going for an extra source of 'intelligence'.

No! One mind is more likely than many, one where all the others would be simulated perhaps in a Boltzmann brain...your theory of mind at the basis of being points to God whether you like it or not. That is not my view as for me "God" is no mind nor is it free... no agency in my portray of everything!

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

What is your portray?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

God is no person, no mind, nor an agent.
God has no beginning nor end, it is yesterday, today and tomorrow.
That which is Being in everything cannot change anything because there is nothing left to be changed...all that is, was, and shall be, belongs to its Set!
To the question why there is something rather than nothingness the answer is that nothingness is devoid from itself...by its own definition it can't be anything, nor empty space, nor empty time, nor anything else abstract or physical...Nothingness is not and therefore everything that IS is immutable in its beingness, its archés, its archetype!
Every possible combination of atoms that can be it is already timeless as Einstein understood the tricks of Time passage. Things are what they are as they should be in every moment of existence. Perfection needs no change in all moments. Sweet and bitter, sadness or joy, love or misery, it all is part of God which is the rock and the ground of all Being!
God does not speak because it does not need words...
God does not command because of all that which is, is already on track.
Awareness is in God but not for God as God does not need to be reminded of all its possessions...God sleeps beyond Life it does not live!...
Powerless to change itself because it is all that can be God is dead as a rock and yet embraces everything in Unity. God is the Logos the Alpha and the Omega bounded to repeat itself in a fractal loop forever. Finite and yet without stopping...

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Rovelli has been linked with the anthropic principle.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I don't think Brian has a pantheistic view of 'God'.

1 Reply

@fresco,

You are correct. I am a dualist because I belive there is a beginnng to the universe and time because the second law of thermal dynamics exists as an emergeant effect of an idea stored in matter by an intelligence for the express purpose to be shared with intelligence..

The intelligent creating of an idea and the recognition of that idea by a second intelligence is idealism.

The emmegance of the second law of thermal dynamics and abiogenisis allows for a processs of life and death to be observed over time for the purpose of learning to reach understanding. This is naive realism.

So, it is logical to assume that ,"the process to be observed over time was developed for the purpose of reaching an understanding of that purpose by participating in the process."

But, to be able to recognize and understand that process, Idealism, naive realism and, dualism must all be applied to the story being told by the information arranged in the algorythm we call the evolving universe.

0 Replies

@fresco,

and Fil

brianjakub:

Quote:

Intelligence creating order is simpler to explain than a myriad of randomly generated processes happening over millions of years that have never been observed and replicated. Especially since we have a single candidate that has all the characteristics an intelligence of that sort must have and has claimed to be the person.

So wouldn't Occam's razor push you to the Christian God being the best paradigm choice

fresco:

Quote:

No because what is said to 'drive ' the universe is DISORDER (entropy) not order.

I think you are very close to a so called "truth" with that statement. But, I think it is the "change" in entropy. That drives the universe. It is impossible to tell what is "wrong or right", "good or bad" or even "true or false" with a system if there is no change in the entropy. It is the change in the entropy which is actually makes the patterns recognizable to our intellect as information.

Change (which happens according the second law of thermal dynamics in qm and, according to the laws of gravity in relativity) happens in a precisely ordered way that can be mathematically represented by Maxwells equations, The Shroedinger Wave Equation, Boltzmans Equations, Planck's equations and Einstiens's Relativity.

What's interesting is all of these equations have a constant in them that regulates the rate of change and all the constants are "6 point something" which, suggests there is a real underlying,( but not yet understood) order to the system that is more than likely a real geometric structure to the space inside of atoms (matter) and the space outside of atoms (the higgs field).

The important thing though is alluded to in your first statement, "what is said to 'drive ' the universe is DISORDER (entropy) not order".

You are correct in saying that it is disorder that reveals information in the universe as long as, the disorder comes from order. This is necessary because it is the change in entropy that we understand as information. We know this is an understandable notion because we constantly talk about this change in entropy "information" whenever we compare information from the past to information we observe in the present and then, use it to understand what happened to cause that change. But, we also use that understanding to predict what will happen as these "things" continue change to help us to predict the future.

Quote:

but abiogenetic theory currently works on the principle that complex systems such as life, ultimately maximise entropy.

I agree. "Life" is a process that increases entropy by introducing new information as order and "death and deterioration" is a process that introduces new information by reducing entropy. Our ability to recognize these processes and deciphering the messages in the patterns we recognize over time is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

These "processes" can only be observed if time is introduced into the process as part of the process. Since time is part of the process, time becomes an emergent property of the processes understood using qm and relativity as, they reveal second law of thermal dynamics and gravity.

Quote:

And as a second line of reasoning antithetical to the concept of 'order', Rovelli points out that 'order' is relative to the observer, so that even the second law of thermodynamics, like all physical laws, is a human intellectual construct.

We humans (as are part of this system of information revealed by the changes in the universe(s)) learn to understand the changes in entropy observed by our living and dying in (and with) the system contained in our univere(s) come to understand the patterns as information that tells us a story we can picture in our mind as a type of "reality".

Can you give me some reasons why we should assume that there is not an intellect (with capabilities greater than ours) that actually can construct the processes we observe and understand as information (both perceived in our mind and experienced in reality) and, use to construct a story that seems to tell us something about the information and its author?

Especially, since the designer of a system logically must be outside the system in order to construct the system. Otherwise, the system would be constructing itself and that is a process that has never been witnessed or replicated in reality or logically in someone's mind.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

You can play with semantics as much as you like. None of those word games refute a view of 'the universe' as a human construction forever open to reconstruction, nor do they support any requirement for 'a creator'.

Your view of 'information' is exactly similar to the apocryphal wife's view of 'wages' epitomised by her remark to her husband, who after many years working for his boss decided to go it alone. She said 'but who will pay the wages'.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

You can play with semantics as much as you like. None of those word games refute a view of 'the universe' as a human construction forever open to reconstruction,. . .

We as humans can form a hypothesis about the universe, from the patterns that we form, using our intelligence from the limited amount of data our senses give us, from the small part of the universe our senses can detect.

Are you equating the word "understanding" to form a hypothesis from patterns with the word "constructing" the physical patterns that have been a part of the universe long before we as humans existed?

That seems to be what you are saying to me. Am I correct?

Quote:

Your view of 'information' is exactly similar to the apocryphal wife's view of 'wages' epitomised by her remark to her husband, who after many years working for his boss decided to go it alone. She said 'but who will pay the wages'

"Exactly similar"? Could you clarify that statement?

I think the wife does not understand business because, if she did she would realize that her husband does have similar (but more than likely not "exactly similar") characteristics to her boss therefore he might be able to run a profitable business also. I think there is a person with similar characteristics (with intelligence being one of them) that constructed the patterns in matter that, our intelligence reconstructs in our minds to form hypothesis's that gives meaning to the patterns.

I do not think that person is "exactly similar" to humans because, the portion of the universe we can actually "physically" reconstruct to create new patterns, is to small to have established the patterns that are consistent (and most scientists, philosophers and people in general agree have been consistent for billions of years) from one side of the universe to the other billions of light years apart from each other. Plus those patterns are to ancient to have been established by modern humans as science currently understands them.

Therefore, I think the scientific community and people in general refute your statement that the universe is a human construct. I just agree with them.

Am I misunderstanding mainstream science and philosophy or, do we mostly agree and our differences can be accounted for by semantical differences?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

nor do they support any requirement for 'a creator

I am not saying the require a creator necessarily. I am suggesting including a creator is a possibly better way to form a hypothesis because it follows an established pattern we observe when we use our intelligence to create today and, it is a simpler explanation than using the anthropic principle to interpret the many worlds interpretation of physics.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

You misquoted me. I spoke of the view of the universe. I would not kae the facile mistake of saying 'the universe is ...'given that our view is constantly shifting.

The apocryphal wife could not understand that use of the word 'wages', which she coupled with the word 'who', assumed an external provider. That is your deistic view of the word 'information'.

I am never going to agree with naive realists who think they have no part in constructing what constitutes 'reality' via their an evolving negotiated language (the currency of thought processes). Unless you can commune with that view, based on the inextricability of observer and observed, we will continue to go round in circles.

2 Replies

@fresco,

One, Human Nature is not decided by humans, it is what it is..."brain happens"
Two, you keep surreptitiously insisting on the agent free will to spin off your view of men constructing the world, but that, of course, is up for grabs, not decided either way. In fact, Free will is a rather obscure concept as it contradicts itself, it lacks internal consistency...requires and refutes causation at the same time.
Three, and finally, no one questions that the Human perception of the world is specific and has natural limitations and constraints, but those are themselves phenomena raised by Evolution, not the product of a gratuitous, fully free, willing of an agency that procures, rather then finding itself bound on what emerges from Being, from which itself is a part of. In sum, the Human mind is chasing its own tail when it projects agency from nothingness...it is as it must, what it is, and such is, with the world around! Again, if it has no choice, it is just natural phenomena!

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

You misquoted me. I spoke of the view of the universe. I would not kae the facile mistake of saying 'the universe is ...'given that our view is constantly shifting.

First, there are certain things in the universe, that have been the way they are for so long, it could be said, "that thing is that way". Those things have certain characteristics in common. They are all stable atoms and, because of the strong nuclear force, they have stored the same information in their individual atom sized universe for eons. Those universes are what they are unless destroyed by nuclear reactions in places like stars.

Second, there are certain things in the universe that change in a very systematic way over eons of time. These are atoms that have natural radioactive decay with half lives and, the information in the universe inside those atoms are stored by a combination of the weak nuclear force.

Third, there are things that change constantly and systematically but, in much more complex ways (even being constructive and destructive) like chemical reactions and biology. These are controlled by a combination of the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic forces. An example of this is the information stored in the body (universe) of a biological organism and it is short lived because it is constantly changing. The amount of time that passes between the different changes is short and the changes aren't as systematic as radioactive decay.

Finally gravity is the result as all these forces interacting to create large pieces of matter over long and short periods of time to create gravitational fields which extend over very long distances.

So, our view of the constantly shifting information in the universe, depends on which force is in control of storing the information, where the information is stored, who is viewing the information, where they are viewing it from, and for what purpose.

Don't you think a coherent view of the universe should consider all of those points of view?

Especially if the only way the total information in the universe can change is if someone with intelligence introduces it. And, we as observers are intelligent and capable of observing and introducing information.

Quote:

The apocryphal wife could not understand that use of the word 'wages', which she coupled with the word 'who', assumed an external provider. That is your deistic view of the word 'information'.

Just because, she couldn't imagine her husband being a business owner doesn't mean he can't be or others don't exist with that capability, does it?

And similarly, don't you think it's important to consider that since, we create new information with our intelligence in this universe, and it looks like somebody:
1. initiated the information in our universe
2. from outside our universe
3. long before we existed

because it could lead to a possible conclusion that our pattern of creating information was carried on in the distant past in a similar but, more extensive way?

I am not claiming a deistic view of information. I am claiming the evidence supports or implies that view is a strong contender for the best explanation of where the information came from because it is the simplest. I think we (humans with intelligence) can imagine what the rest of the universe could really be like a lot better than the apocryphal wife.

Quote:

I am never going to agree with naive realists who think they have no part in constructing what constitutes 'reality' via their an evolving negotiated language (the currency of thought processes). Unless you can commune with that view, based on the inextricability of observer and observed, we will continue to go round in circles.

Like I said earlier,"Don't you think a coherent view of the universe should consider all of those points of view especially, if the only way the total information in the universe can change is if someone with intelligence introduces it. And, we as observers are intelligent and capable of observing and introducing information?"

I don't think the only problem we have is disagreeing where the information comes from. I think the problem we are having, is interpreting information that is ancient in origin and, whose story is so epic the process of experiencing it and interpreting spans over eons of time. Could it be that our lifespans are the biggest problem that is limiting our ability to interpret.

Maybe we just need some help from the author of the information.

John 14

Quote:

The Promise of the Holy Spirit
15 “If you love me, you will keep[f] my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,[g] to be with you forever. 17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in[h] you.
18 “I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.

25 “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Read Wittgenstein...meaning is use. Read Derrida...there is nothing beyond context.

'Free Will' is used in courtroom scenarios. It has no usage in a scientififc contexts. I have never suggested otherwise.
Human perception is acive not passive. To say there is a 'specific' worldview is a transitory notion depending on time and place. Epistemology is ultimately subservient to human intellect, but that intellect continues to extend perceptual limits via transducers.

1 Reply

What kind of thing is the mind? A sound deductive argument

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know