(click title above)Sweeping Ambiguities Under One Carpet:
Given the apparent cloud of ambiguities behind our genesis, Nature, respecting our perceptions of Genesis, cannot very well be said, in itself, to be “practicing” unambiguous math, logic, physics, or science.
So, then, is “Nature practicing” some sort of ambiguous “art”? Well, if lacking conscious intent (or mind for design), how could “objective nature” sensibly be said to be practicing its artistic expression (or “subjective judgment”)?
How may one complete a rational (or rationalized?) explanation respecting such ambiguities? One seems unable, at some level of express or implied representation, to avoid covering a rationalization by making some sort of meta-reference.
Perhaps, the “best” one can do is to try to reduce one’s meta-rationalization so as to make it as unified and unobtrusive as possible, even while always intuiting its presence, as some sort of invisible Cheshire cat (wave), behind an apparent grin (particle).
Whatever the character of such ambiguous Meta-Source that one takes as completing us, one may as well label such Source as a sort of Synchronizer of Consciousness, aka, “God.”
One may thus model one’s worldview AS IF such Source were working its ambiguous “magic” out of perspectives of consciousness, which are considered, on faith and intuition, as being based in nothing else but interacting layers of algorithmic functions of pure math. (That is, the “Higgs” mechanism for transferring illusions of mass may be modeled as a purely mathematical function.)
Thus, one may seek to reduce, cover, respect, and make reference to all ambiguities under one unifying carpet, i.e., “God.” Thus, one may seek to focus one’s empirical inquiries on concerns not swept under such meta-carpet, even as each perspective of consciousness respects such Meta-Source as that which avails receptivity in common to the inspiring empathies and moral purposes of all significant others.
Thus, even scientists can come together, in respect of such Meta-Source, to seek, reason, and rationalize regarding their common arts and purposes, both in politics and in science.
****
Artistry of Consciousness (God) in driving Evolution of Genesis:
How does God sponsor God’s synchronizing art of genesis and evolution?
All other things being equal, which sorts of environmental niches tend more to favor the rapid selection of new mutations? In which sort of niche would rapid evolution be most favored: A niche that is relatively stable; a niche that is relatively challenging; or a niche of wildly upheaving and tempestuous extremes? For what reasons may some levels of genes become more rapidly amenable to mutating under stresses of social and environmental niches?
May the “answer” depend solely on the particular MICRO character of each gene in each then availed gene pool? Or, may the “answer” depend as much or more on the sensate, empathetic, holographic, holistic MACRO quality of social consciousness of the organisms that are together expressed in the niche’s gene pool? May “natural selection” reasonably be reduced to a micro analysis, or to a macro analysis, or to a fluxing (ambiguous) analysis?
Or, may some Meta-Source (God), functioning through algorithmic levels of pure math, guide, affect, and synchronize all apparent effects of holography, relating both to each gene pool and to its social and exterior niche?
May one “reasonably” choose to rotate among one’s models, depending upon one’s arts and purposes — empirically, individually, socially, and spiritually?
.
****
.
Regarding Natural Selection, it is only trivial to say the following:
If nothing exists which is superior to that which appears to our minds and senses as being physical, so that nothing other than such physics exists, then the origin of our consciousness and of the various forms of life with which we associate could not reasonably be explicated or discussed in any aspect apart from such physics.
****
In other words, assuming God does not exist, then God does not exist.
In other words, assuming the only worthwhile model for discussing life on earth is a natural model, then there is no worthwhile model for any discussion for any purpose or aspect that is apart from a model based entirely on natural physics.
In other words, assuming the physics we can measure is real in itself, independent of any intuition of any higher reality, then the physics we can measure comprises our only reality.
In other words, assuming that consciousness is entirely epiphenomenal of physics, and that physics is not epiphenomenal of consciousness, then consciousness is epiphenomenal of physics.
In other words, assuming we are each not a perspective of a common consciousness, then we are each not a perspective of a common consciousness.
In other words, assuming there is no unifying and real basis for empathy of consciousness, then there is no unifying and real basis for empathy of consciousness.
In other words, assuming there is no real basis for empathetically sharing common moral values, then there is no real basis for empathetically sharing common moral values.
In other words, assuming any basis for inculcating civilizing values is a lie, then any basis for inculcating civilizing values is a lie.
.
****
.
NOTE:
Vaunted atheists, riding on the coattails of successful Christian nations, tend often to discount moral arguments by pointing out how their values, habits, and empathies are often conditioned and inculcated just as well by their upbringing and culture as for any theist.
This is well and good, but it lets them off the hook when it ignores how their values, habits, and empathies would have been conditioned or inculcated but for the fact that they had been brought up in a culture whose moral momentum was already chugging along under variously assimilated religious and spiritual notions about God and moral meaning beyond one's own selfish life.
Atheists should be asked:
1) Have they studied the moral and empathetic values of any successful culture in which there is not an underpinning of spiritually based moral insturction; and
2) Regardless, how civilizing or worthwhile do they think their values would have become had they been brought up in such a society?
.
Altruism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-O-UJmbLo8&feature=related
Game theory: By strategies of rationally directed work and emotional investment, what is IT that we are seeking? Is IT materially selfish balms or is IT empathetically spiritual balms? Are we seeking IT, or are we merely experiencing rationalizations in respect of IT, being synchronously made by homunculus’ “all the way down”? Are we playing ego games, or merely experiencing synchronized rationalizations of ego games?
6 comments:
Genetic Mutations That Cause Immediate Speciation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10species.html?th&emc=th:
“.... newly discovered genes cause reproductive isolation between two groups by causing their offspring, or hybrids, to be infertile or die ...”
“... suggested that an entire class of genes, those involved with fending off disease, and a particular kind of natural selection — that imposed by disease organisms — could be broadly important in speciation in plants ...”
“... new studies are providing increasing evidence that sexual selection is capable not only of producing outrageous structures but also new species ...”
“... female frogs’ preference for different songs in different populations also appears to be causing the populations to begin to evolve into distinct species. When given a choice of songs from either population, females nearly uniformly prefer their own population’s song, as strictly as if the two populations belonged to two long separated species ...”
****
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html#postComment:
Synchronous Favoring Of Survival Of Consciously Selected And Resonating Choices:
An alternative to favored selection among genetic mutations being brought about purely by nature, unaided by guidance of competing and cooperative perspectives of consciousness, is not limited to “intelligent” design.
After all, why must design be “intelligent” or “progressive”? Why must “God” be perfectly intelligent or progressive, as opposed to conscious, artistic, synchronous, and interested in perspectives?
Why could not selection be favored as a result of artistic attractions of mates and favorings of offspring among competing and cooperative forms of conscious or sensate expression?
Would not such a notion subsume and be superior to a more limiting notion of mere survival of the “fittest” (or most adaptable) by tooth and claw? After all, the “fittest” (and “most adaptable”) is rife with ambiguity, quite unlike the sort of rigor that is expected of “science.”
So, why could not the adaptability of particular selections become favored as the results of empathetic and artistic choices and expressions of consciousness?
Why could not the “physical” expression of such choices be considered epiphenomenal to underlying interactions among perspectives of consciousness?
By way of analogy in physics, why could not the “physical mechanism” for transferring conscious perceptions and illusions of physical mass be not a physical Higgs particle, but a non-physical Higgs mathematical function?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/altruism_the_most_profitable_g.html:
Altruistic:
Here’s the deal: Mankind are not basically good. Rather, we are quite capable of incredible evil. See history.
This is a problem that is not resolved merely by blessing each one’s selfish pursuits as “good in the eyes of an Objectivist.” If we want to have civil societies, we need to inculcate civilizing values, traditions, and morals — above that of: “If it feels good, its good for you, and you can get away with it, then do it.”
Now, we can try to inculcate civilizing values by force, as with finely detailed and intrusive law. However, this leads often to repressive, fascist, or failed nations. Not the sort of places a good Objectivist would want to be.
Or, we can support spiritual forums, like churches, to come together humbly in respect of a higher-meta-source (aka, God) for guiding our “better angels.” Spiritually reconnecting (or re-strengthening our connection) to God, we may thus reconnect one to another, to reawaken our naturally civilizing empathies and cooperative tendencies.
I would call this “enlightened altrusim.” But it makes little difference to me if an Objectivist prefers to call it “enlightened selfishness” — provided means are availed to achieve the same civilizing purpose: That we may more easily rest assured to rely each on the other to respect civilizing principles, even when no one is looking.
The shame is, we are instead turning to legalism and political class warfare.
May not God mathematically, synchronously, meaningfully, and on various overlapping levels and functions all at once, multitask through the perspectives of each of us?
Principle of Uncertainty in Conceptualization of Definitions:
For a particle, the very act of changing how one measures or observes such a “physical” thing often changes or affects what “it” is, becomes, or appears to become.
Something analogous seems to happen as one tries to take any non-trivial thing or concept of import (such as “science” or “God”) and reduce it to a definition that is specific, clear, coherent, consistent, and complete.
As one pursues completeness for a definition of any non-triviality, as by relating all pertinent and limiting parameters, the more fuzzy the definition often becomes for any practical or specific application.
A definition may thus become analogous to a “clown balloon in the mind”: Twist or squeeze to deflate any one side or portion and the others inflate or bulge. The problem compounds in that each mind to which one attempts to communicate a particular definition may well conceptualize the idea of the clown balloon, but in varying shape or form.
Thus, much of communication consists more in “body language” than in words. Indeed, even more of communication may consist in empathetic sharing of a common situation or context.
The “physicality” of a “god particle” may be analogous to the subjective experience of a clown balloon in the mind.
Communicating non-trivial “meaning” may consist more in coming together in respect of contextually common bases for experiencing empathy for one another’s concerns.
For that function, “God” is of infinite importance.
Galileo: “You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/change_some_may_not_want_you_t.html:
Gene Man wrote:
Unless 'pure math' can conjure up mass, then that argument won't get it. Math is a symbol or map and as Korzybski taught, "the map is not the territory" -- symbols will not produce reality.
It's reasonable to assume that the particle zoo will forever increase, but there are grounds for doubting this, as explained in the book I referenced, "The Atheist and the God Particle".
Either you believe that consciousness is 100 percent non-physical, or else you concede that consciousness interacts with the physical world. If you agree that it does, you might be surprised by some of the implications, covered in the book.
****
Appreciate your reference. I'll read that book.
I do recognize the concern, regarding pure math conjuring up mass.
I recognize that we mortals cannot produce physical reality out of mere symbols.
At first blush, it seems counterintuitive that even God could.
But, if the Higgs Boson (or Group) is not found, won't resort have to be made to a mathematical function, to account for how mass is transferred?
In any event, in the experiment brewing in my own mind, I am not quite ready to throw in the towel.
Note that I do not posit pure math-in-itself doing the conjuring.
What I "posit" is a holistic Source of the conjuring, One I doubt any mortal, particular perspective will ever confine to a mapped explanation.
Even so, a set of fundamental mathematical relationships does appear to govern the universe we share.
And, as to the math part, we very well may eventually reduce fundamental aspects of that set to a single, unifying, fundamental, self-replicating algorithm.
Provided, I do not believe we can reduce Consciousness within that algorithm.
Rather, for math to conjure would seem to call for a Mathematician.
As to whether some Meta Source of Consciousness ("God") may be the conjurer, able to conjure our perspectivistic translations of "physics" by imaging a system of fundamental algorithms for building algorithms for building yet more algorithms, I doubt we, in applying our limited perspectives of "physics," are equipped to pass judgment on whether God could do that.
As I see it, the problem consists in:
1) not implicating any more work for "Goddidit" than is necessary to a most consistent "solution";
2) reducing an explanation (mathematical) of our individual perspectives to a simplest form that will still serve all fundamental concerns, both "physical" (empirical) and metaphysical (spiritual).
I am a lawyer, hardly a physicist or scientist.
I am trained to have a B.S. detector, so I am not "candy" for narrow experts.
Even though it sometimes takes awhile for me to detect my own B.S.
I will brew and read the book.
Re: "Either you believe that consciousness is 100 percent non-physical, or else you concede that consciousness interacts with the physical world."
I am not so sure. I believe there is a Meta Source of Consciousness. It may be "physical" to its own understanding, even though its thing-in-itself physicality is beyond our limited, particular comprehension. That is, IT may be comprised of "substance" that, in imaging mathematical relationships, has capacity to present "physics" to our appearance. If so, to us, at least while we remain mortal, I do not see why IT would be other than metaphysical, or "100% non-physical."
If IT is holistic, its "Consciousness" may be so far greater than ours as to be beyond our compare. For all we know, its Consciousness may "interact" with the physical world as is presented to our limited translations in a way that is beyond our physical or empirical detection, i.e., by imaging the coordination of a holistic, synchronous, orchestra of inter-functioning algorithmic perspectives of itself.
The trick would be in math; the trickster would be the Mathematician. Leveraging a built up, heirarchical system of math, God would not need to be operating "on the seat of his pants while sweating every last conscious choice" among parameters of possibilities for every last nit, bit, and quanta of our particular interactions.
I do not "posit" such notions as hypothesis for physical or empirical testing.
This is because any such testing would be beyond us; plus I believe "physics" is epiphenomenal to God imaging and leveraging math.
I posit such notions only as possible bases for rationalizing a source of higher empathy, as a basis for inspiring civilizing and moral cooperation. I recognize that I am rationalizing mainly from intuitive evidence, rather than reasoning from "physical" evidence.
It is the mathematical implications that may be somewhat more testable.
If a mathematical function can be useful for explaining mass transfer, that may begin to show a way.
Next, mankind will need to reduce a NQTOE (not quite theory of everything), to try to map, model, or account for all "physical" measurements as derivative of a single fundamental, apparently self-replicating algorithm.
I say "apparently self-replicating," because I believe the evolutionary path taken by such replications would still require a synchronizing source of directive choice (aka, God) among all possible parameters.
If so, each of us is but an expression of self-reflective perspectives of such Holistic Synchronizer of Choices for playing with implications emerging out of the interactions of mathematical algorithms. In a way, we are each a perspective of a caring God.
It is in hindsight to the past that "physics" appears to be "indifferent."
In respect of choices for how our future will unfold, the Synchronized is empathetically caring.
But even the Synchronizer seems to feel constrained, to synchronize with respect to what we perceive to have been the past.
That is, each new building up of presently expressed algorithmic information, while availing tools for choosing among parameters for the future, is limited in respect of the previously existing system of algorithms upon which it is built.
The past is indifferent, but the future is wild.
DEFINITION OF SCIENCE; HOW VS. WHY; UNITY OF KNOWLEDGE --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uqxxbx2VOs;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1tfWtCZB_A&feature=related;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUQEVQBOj60;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP_keLq80eI&feature=related;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=felD_9DBL20&feature=related.
EMPTY SPACE?
Geometrical patterns in space --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndekw22syko.
Wave Structure of Matter; Standing Wave ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wikipedia/wave-structure-matter.htm:
“… the view that what we observe as large-scale matter (discrete and particle-like), is only the 'appearance' (schaumkommen) of wave structures in space. Since 1985, Milo Wolff and others have found a mathematical basis of Wave Structures. The theory is based upon a wave medium in all space of the universe that has the dimension of energy/volume.
….
What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekp1OKi6e4o;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BTcmuGdLCU&feature=related;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1tkM_f5B9s&feature=related.
Post a Comment