***************
Again, I did not say minds exist without bodies. I said what we experience as mind and what we measure as body are entangled aspects of what we experience as reality. Moreover, bodies are packets of stored Information, which is continuously being accumulated. Bodies do not exist as things-in-themselves. If they did, we would have no meaningful way to relate to them.
*************
I can't help you clear up your confusion until you learn to stop conflating the idea of brain with brain-in-itself and the idea of consciousness with sapient consciousness (consciousness of consciousness).
Think: Do you really want to conflate the quantitative expression of Substance (brain material) with the qualitative experience of Consciousness?
IAE, I did not say that the brain does not avail the expression of consciousness, nor that consciousness can be leveraged apart from brain. I said they are entangled.
CSI: Substance, such as brain and/or body (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into measurable Substance. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold. Every measurably quantitative unfoldment and every qualitative appreciation entails an entangled fluxing of CSI.
**************
CONSCIOUSNESS AND BRAINS: Our brains are not, in themselves, conscious. Rather, they are math circuits with which Consciousness avails expression for various of its perspectives. At higher levels, such perspectives participate in appreciating how the expression of universe is reconciled to unfold.
MATHICALITY: The shape / frame of reference that our Universe presents to appear to any particular Perspective depends on locally experienced gravitational curvature, proximity of the Perspective, and its speed. There is no shape for any physical universe-in-itself that can be objectively drawn. Rather, it can only be expressed in locally appreciated mathicality.
CSI: Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into Substance. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.
ENTROPIC DISSIPATION INTO DISORDERLINESS AND HEAT LOSS V. EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS OUT OF CHAOS: What seems to be expanding is the space between galaxies, not galaxies themselves. IAE, it does not appear that Information is lost. Rather, local systems with reliable and regular heat sources (suns) seem to avail complex systems to evolve, to favor those most suited to survive and replicate.
MATHICALITY: The shape / frame of reference that our Universe presents to appear to any particular Perspective depends on locally experienced gravitational curvature, proximity of the Perspective, and its speed. There is no shape for any physical universe-in-itself that can be objectively drawn. Rather, it can only be expressed in locally appreciated mathicality.
CSI: Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into Substance. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.
ENTROPIC DISSIPATION INTO DISORDERLINESS AND HEAT LOSS V. EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS OUT OF CHAOS: What seems to be expanding is the space between galaxies, not galaxies themselves. IAE, it does not appear that Information is lost. Rather, local systems with reliable and regular heat sources (suns) seem to avail complex systems to evolve, to favor those most suited to survive and replicate.
SELF-FACTORING INFINITY: Even if the primary from which all is derived abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing. Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness. To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?
*************
Behind much of religion is an idea that there is more to beingness than what can be measured. That there abides a higher basis for appreciating right and wrong, good faith and bad faith, good will and bad will.
Wannabe people-farming fascists that believe they own moral determinations as some kind of new priesthood of "moral scientists" hate that.
In some respects, I like Peterson and Harris. In other respects, Harris especially can be incredibly juvey.
The reason many people have not forsaken higher mindedness, even as they leave organized systems of elitist dogma, may have something to do with having peered into the well of smug despotism and decided they do not like it.
*************
Your incapacity to say anything substantive that would incline towards preserving the republic against the allied despotism of corrupti and ignoranti is noted. There is nothing so mule headed as a fascist who believes he has the scientific moral truth.
*************
FACTORING PROBABILITIES AMONG PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS:
Bayes’s theorem describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of measurable conditions that might be related to the event. For example, if cancer is related to age, then, using Bayes’ theorem, the measure of a person’s age can be used to more accurately assess the probability that they have cancer, compared to the assessment of the probability of cancer made without knowledge of the person's age. With the Bayesian probability interpretation the theorem expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of measurably related evidence. Bayesian inference is fundamental to Bayesian statistics.
Subjective Consciousness functions as if measurable events of the past should be a guide. This is how "if-then" reasoning proceeds, as it filters to select for the most reliably measurable factors to guide subsequently desired results. This can help Consciousness more in the "how" to achieve a desired result, but not so much in the "why" to desire a particular result.
The combined effect of various perspectives of Consciousness (subconsciously functioning as if commonly confirmed perceptions concerning the past should be assumed to be a "how to" guide) seems to function towards making such assumption self-fulfillingly consistent.
**************
THINGS AND WITTGENSTEIN: There are not objective "things." There are fluxing relationships that are, thanks to the uncertainty principle, not subject to any absolute, complete, or fixed measurement. However, they are often subject to practical measurements within orders of significance, which often avails astonishing technologies. The flux of relationships does entail the continuous transmission, reception, and reconciliation of Information.
For example, the speed of light is not fixed as a thing-in-itself, but as a constant relationship to every perspective. To whatever the extent needed to preserve that constant, every perspective will have a differently "curved" (or reconciled or renormalized) experience of its space-time frame of reference.
When Wittgenstein-ians argue among themselves about banalities, such as whether there is an "end to every thing," they bore me. Apart from co-dependent flux of relationships, there are no things-in-themselves, there never has been any such things, and there never will be any such things. Every relationship that we experience, sense, measure, appreciate, or communicate concerns Information about fluxing relationships --- not any "things" in themselves.
EVOLUTION: With regard to the evolution of societies and nations, you seem to have an incoherent appreciation of evolution, i.e., propagation of the most fit to replicate. On one hand, you assume the process is not consciously guided, but on the other you assume some natural truth about how it should be guided.
Meantime, I assume it is ok with you that I direct some of my poorer kin to your house, to invade it in order to equalize your stuff? I am partly Scots-irish. Perhaps I should retain some grudge against the Vikings and Scandinavians? They certainly increased their wealth as a product of colonization or invasion. Btw, for sanctuary cities, do you have some scale to decide which kinds of invaders should be entitled to the most generous amounts of equalizing reparations?
PATRIOTIC ASSIMILATION: When you make such remarks, it leads me to believe you do not really believe in patriotic assimilation. You prefer a hodgepodge. An unraveling of the USA. Perhaps California as three states, or a La Raza Reconquista. See https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/patriotic-assimilation-indispensable-condition-land-immigrants: "Patriotic assimilation is the bond that allows America to be a nation of immigrants. Without it, America either ceases to be a nation, becoming instead a hodgepodge of groups—or it becomes a nation that can no longer welcome immigrants. It cannot be both a unified nation and a place that welcomes immigrants without patriotic assimilation."
ENEMY WITHIN: This new hodgepodge scientism (or bastardized philosophy) also turns our schools and then our media against the Constitutional Republic. The hatred against founding principles is seen in the divisiveness of Antifa, the calls by Crazy Maxine for impeachment, the Obama regime's fanning of the flames of Ferguson, the open border efforts of Soros, and so on.
SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR SUPERFICIAL GROUPS: From the article cited above: "Special treatment for specific groups by the federal bureaucracy implies betrayal and rejection of the principles espoused by every American leader from Washington through Reagan. This approach has contaminated our schools, preventing them from teaching civic principles and reverence for the nation—including lessons on how those principles have helped leaders repair the nation’s faults. The new approach also threatens the cherished American principle of equal treatment under the law."
LITTLE PEOPLE: Regarding "never been better for ... that can afford...."! Yup. Life is good for Barbara Streisand as she hires the little people to shelter her home from invasion, but invites all of middle class Californians to be laid open to gimmedats.
NATURAL MORAL STANDARD: You assume there is some kind of objective, concrete, true standard for degradation, apart from the consciously subjective appreciation of it. That is where you fall into error. Or, if not, please explain what this objective standard is, how it is scaled, and what it proves. Is there some "natural law" reason for favoring diversity for the sake of diversity, even if it entails increased rates of non-assimilation of patriotic values?
CHERRY PICKED CHARTS: Is your chart below supposed to be some kind of scientific indicator? Does it factor for cities of diverse populations, illegal alien populations, quality of life, Dem mayors, strength of economy, increased surveillance, better technology, changing habits for reporting crime, improved devices for home security, numbers of feces on streets? Do illegal aliens tend to report crime? Is there a projection for what the rates would have been, had there been more assimilation and less illegal invasion?
According to Bureau of Justice Statistics: "Most crimes are not reported to police, and most reported crimes are not solved. In its annual survey, BJS asks victims of crime whether they reported that crime to police. In 2016, only 42% of the violent crime tracked by BJS was reported to police. And in the much more common category of property crime, only about a third (36%) was reported. There are a variety of reasons crime might not be reported, including a feeling that police “would not or could not do anything to help” or that the crime is “a personal issue or too trivial to report,” according to BJS."
************************
PROFOUND ISSUE: At bottom, there is between us a much more profound issue, of which I suspect you have very little appreciation. It relates to the title for the article, Is the Godhead Conscious?
I believe there is absolute truth in the Great Commandment (good faith) and Golden Rule (good will). However, as to specifics for fleshing those rules out, much less so. That is because working out the specifics entails reconciliation among numerous subjective perspectives of Consciousness. We provide the sinews for the Reconciler. I think that reconciliatory process should be voluntary as much as feasible. It should be energized by people coming together voluntarily to participate in forums, such as churches, for inspiring people to reason together in good faith and good will. I think that was key to the American project.
For that, it seems to me that moral scientisimists have little to contribute, but much to poison. I am not sure how deaf, dumb, and blind they seem to be to a key point: To replace godly inspired voluntary good faith and good will among responsible individual citizens with so-called "natural moral science" (as indoctrinated by fake priests of natural moral science) is calculated to put the masses under the authority of corporate fascists, as they regulate impositions against freedom of expression, association, and enterprise.
Too often, what rises to the top among such fascists is not the cream. To replace the Constitutional republic with elitist open borders is to make the world one vast plantation for people farmers to farm the cheapest laborers of the desperate masses. But hey, so long as you're comfortable among people promoting that agenda.
***********************
THEOSOPHY:
Regarding the link I provided, the online source apparently does not support its direct use. I have encountered that kind of difficulty before. When I'm really interested, I simply search the first clause of the first quotation from the link. Which I provided, along with other salient quotations.
Regarding scientism, I don't think it is honest to suggest I have used the term to condemn all scientific endeavor. Rather, I have specifically advocated that the method of philosophical conceptualization not be used if it impairs science.
Otoh, I think common sense indicates areas that are beyond scientific kin. Such as for determining or measuring precisely what existed "before" the "beginning" of our measurable universe. Or for speculating that our universe could arise or be sustained out of nothing more than math, without the qualitative involvement of any activator. Or for prescribing what is good or bad in purely scientific terms. Or for prescribing the best form of government for a particular society or culture. Or for prescribing or even defining equality of economic results among all people of the world. Or for deciding which groups should be "scientifically/morally entitled" based on superficial traits (such as color or recent status of invasive-"immigration") to gang up politically to take the stuff of other people. Or for pretending to make spiritual concepts irrelevant merely by imagining an infinity of untestable parallel universes or bubbles.
For those areas, I think philosophical conceptualization can provide at least as good an approach as over-greedy scientism and anti-theistic scientisimists. For such areas, much depends on choice of worldview. Not every political philosophy is necessarily appropriate to every society or culture.
Now, if I were from a failed culture or nation, I may be tempted to imagine I have some kind of "natural right" to invade a neighbor to "ëqualize" his stuff. However, I don't think that kind of philosophy is suitable for sustaining the modern world. I do not believe it would raise economies. Rather, I suspect it would tend more towards equalizing poverty and misery. It may even impair real science from being deployed to repel that asteroid that may have Earth's name on its trajectory.
But I do not base that on science. I base it on my judgment and experience concerning human relations and history. I do NOT call that judgment "science." In some cases, I may call it coming together to reason in good faith and good will.
For example, I happen to value a Constitution-based representative republic. Which I do not think can be sustained by importing or indoctrinating a flood of liberty-illiterates that can be easily bribed (and not to their long term good) by nefarious, godless, self-godded, people-farmers.
I do not believe you have thought through any point about "theosophism" or non-scientism "insights." I hope you do not believe that conceptual assimilations concerning social values are devoid of insight merely because their truth values cannot be proved in ultimate logic or science, outside of self-fulfilling experience. I hope you do not believe that nothing is of value unless it can be utterly reduced to 1's and 0's.
Moral conceptualism (theosophy?) can help on conditional bases. For example, if I decide to identify with the idea of a representative republic, then I can make conditional recommendations. Such as, don't swamp the nation with a majority of imported voters that value instead electing politicians that promise free stuff, often elevated based on gang identifiers (such as race, etc.)
Now, if I decide I just want to suck off the work of others, then I may prefer a gang, culture, or nation where the rulers have specialized in that sort of thing. And once they have sucked their own nation dry, I may want to emigrate with them to plague another nation with my "special sense of fairness." It's not for nothing that many liberty-illiterates want to emigrate to the West.
If you have not noticed the degradation of life in London, Paris, New York, and San Francisco, I'm afraid there's not much I can do to help you.
*****************
SCIENTISM:
I am surprised that, for someone so apparently dedicated to science, you seem unfamiliar with the now common term of scientism.
A good primer is here: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_scientism.html:
Scientism is the broad-based belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences. It is based on the belief that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, and that the methods of natural science form the only proper elements in any philosophical (or other) inquiry.
....
Proponents of Scientism often assert that the boundaries of science could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science. In its most extreme form, Scientism can be seen as a faith that science has no boundaries, and that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavour will be dealt and solved by science alone
....
It has been argued that Scientism, in the strong sense, is self-annihilating in that it takes the view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not itself a scientific claim. Thus, Scientism is either false or meaningless.
Certainly, it requires the almost complete abandonment of any metaphysical or religious discussion, (and arguably also any ethical discussion), on the grounds that these cannot be apprehended by the scientific method, which is very limiting for a supposedy all-encompassing doctrine. Some would say that proponents of Scientism merely avoid actually engaging with many important arguments.
*************************
Since you seem unfamiliar with the concept, you probably have not thought much about tendencies loosed when corrupt or fake elites indoctrinate a citizenry into radical scientism. A society so indoctrinated will be trained to defer to so called scientific experts in every field, including morality, art, and politics. This is what I consider to be very dangerous to any citizenry that values and wants to preserve itself as comprising a representative republic. If you refuse to appreciate that, then I agree, we have very little to discuss.
**************
CRAPHOLES:
I do not see science as the problem so much as scientism. I thought I made that distinction clear, but maybe not. I do not see the scientism of Nazis, Fascists, or Communists as something to admire. Nor have I found them to be well adjusted or happy.
I'm not aware of any polls that would support your position on that. It may be interesting to conduct some actual polls in major cities that are run by Dem so-called moral scientists. My take is that I do not see the scientisimic axis of Leftist corrupti and ignoranti, that wants to replace the free-thinking representative-republic with elitist ruled mass indoctrination, as something to admire.
Nor do I see elitist scientisimists as fostering a better life for all of humanity "without consideration for race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc." Maybe that is supposed to be a joke? Rather, I see them fostering division, discord, misery, and hate by farming and inciting gangs based on superficial differences. Many people have lived in socialistic crapholes, but want to come to America to spit on it and try to turn it into the kind of craphole they left. Your take on San Francisco and California as exuding some kind of progressive leadership is probably very different from mine.
I think whatever you're imagining bears little resemblance to reality. But hey, everyone gets a chance to choose their worldview. To my thinking, if you like your despotic, scientismic, socialistic craphole, you should keep your craphole. But I have no desire for it.
**************
I DON'T KNOW:
That might be the case. And it might not. I don't think science can shed light on the question.
Meantime, we directly experience consciousness, the necessity of choices, and the need to assimilate civilizing values.
I do not have faith in science to do a good job of that. Rather, I see moral scientisimists as being dangerous to decent civilization.
But I agree that one can make a worldview (anti-anthropic) choice to conceptualize conscious good faith and good will as being of no value for any legitimate or meaningful purpose.
However, from what I see, many such people tend to be bitter, unhappy, and not much help for sustaining a representative republic instead of an elitist run despotism.
***************
THE RUB:
Does potential for manifestation that is not presently manifested "exist"? If so conceptualized, then perhaps we should imagine the Universe at its simplest as a superposition of presently appreciated manifestation and potentiality of non-presently appreciated manifestation.
I agree that given an infinite number of yes and no answers, 1s and 0s (yin and yang?), such would carry potentiality for simulating an infinite number of realities. Question: Would that implicate an activating and involved Simulator? Would that Simulator retain capacity to intervene (or remain involved) in guiding the unfolding simulation?
The rub: What turns math into a functioning Algorithm? What can use mere math to avail interpretations or appearances of measurable sensations? I do not think science can provide or test for such an answer. I think whatever IT ultimately is, IT is beyond the reach of mortal science, but perhaps not beyond the reach of mortal appreciation.
************
THEOSOPHY:
Regarding theology or metaphysics: It's not so much that all things end, but that all appearances transition to other phases. Like an unfolding of math translations and interpretations.
My conceptual interpretation:
Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into S. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.
In that respect, C, S, and I are co-fundaments. But I conceptualize them not as necessarily having an original beginning point, but as always phasing, fluxng, and operating in synchronicity.
Each entails involvement with the other two. All three are innately adapted to the Math (laws of Nature) and the math Activator (God?) that regulates and reconciles them.
But may that Activator be conscious in any worthwhile sense that we can appreciate? For a purpose of inspiring hope or the assimilation of ought from is, it is not necessary that such a case be proven. Only that it be thought internally reasonable and not disproved by free thinkers.
********************
COMMON SENSE REGARDING WHAT IS BEYOND SCIENCE:
First, I think common sense can often differentiate between what is necessarily in the realm of metaphysics versus testable science. We do not have access to a twin universe with which to conduct double blind experiments.
Second, I thought it was you that indicated the science is settled, that the universe arose from nothing. Do you see the irony in the position you are taking now?
IAE, I do find it worthwhile to conceptualkze how the apparent unfolding of our universe may be derivative of nothing more than math and a math activator. But that is not nothing.
*********
COMMON SENSE REGARDING GOOD FAITH AND GOOD WILL:
Btw, I am not especially interested in the metaphysics of heaven or salvation. Though I do suspect that consciousness from one perspective or another never ceases. But what is of more interest to me is how to inspire and assimilate ought from is. I do not see science as much help for that. And I do not see decent civilization as having much chance without it.
Moreover, I suspect a lot of wannabe people-farmers have adopted some very demented codes of morality. There have been some "moral science clubs" that I think tend to support elitist despotic rule more so than a decent regard for the freedom and dignity of ordinary citizens. In that regard, I see scientism as often being in the service of, or being deployed for, conniving or even evil purposes. I suspect many Nazis, Fascists, and Communists convinced.themselves they were being good little moral scientists.
For myself, I prefer the New Testament teaching of good faith and good will. I think that had much to do with the general success of the American Project. Notwithstanding snooty pretense.common among Brits.
********************
EX NIHILO:
Interestingly, Krauss avows not just to be an atheist, but to be an antitheist. Perhaps he has some bias in favor of denigrating the belief system of anyone who disagrees with him? Perhaps he disparages philosophy because he is not particularly good at it?
Cosmologist George Ellis and mathematical physicist I.S. Kohli have opposed his notion and argued that many of his claims pertaining to A Universe from Nothing "are not supported in full by modern general relativity theory or quantum field theory in curved spacetime". So I don't think you can safely say the idea is proved by physics.
He says: "What would be the characteristics of a universe that was created from nothing, just with the laws of physics and without any supernatural shenanigans? The characteristics of the universe would be precisely those of the ones we live in."
Well, "just with the laws of physics" is the problem with the idea of coming from nothing. Those laws are not "nothing." In a way of thinking, those laws form an Algorithm, or a system of math. Which may entice some to ask: Well, is it reasonable to imagine a time when no math existed?
********************
Interestingly, Krauss avows not just to be an atheist, but to be an antitheist. Perhaps he has some bias in favor of denigrating the belief system of anyone who disagrees with him? Perhaps he disparages philosophy because he is not particularly good at it?
Cosmologist George Ellis and mathematical physicist I.S. Kohli have opposed his notion and argued that many of his claims pertaining to A Universe from Nothing "are not supported in full by modern general relativity theory or quantum field theory in curved spacetime". So I don't think you can safely say the idea is proved by physics.
He says: "What would be the characteristics of a universe that was created from nothing, just with the laws of physics and without any supernatural shenanigans? The characteristics of the universe would be precisely those of the ones we live in."
Well, "just with the laws of physics" is the problem with the idea of coming from nothing. Those laws are not "nothing." In a way of thinking, those laws form an Algorithm, or a system of math. Which may entice some to ask: Well, is it reasonable to imagine a time when no math existed?
********************
IAE, I personally have been very sympathetic to an idea that what appears to be our physical universe (of measurable space-time-matter-energy) is a derivative of math. I only add it seems sensible to me that something is needed to fire up and continue math-ing the math. I don't see much sense in imagining that math somehow math's itself.
I am also sympathetic to an idea that our measurable universe did not suddenly arise out of a self-created pre-design. My conceptualization is that there has always been a feedback relationship between Math and a Math Activator. That gives rise to an unfolding feedback relationship among three co-relational fundaments: Immeasurable Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating information.
I do not speculate or advocate whether that feedback dynamic gives rise to just one universe, a multiplicity of universes, a dissipating universe, or a yo-yo universe. I do tend to conceptualize that the feedback relationship, in one form or another, has always existed and always will exist.
************************ ************************
I am also sympathetic to an idea that our measurable universe did not suddenly arise out of a self-created pre-design. My conceptualization is that there has always been a feedback relationship between Math and a Math Activator. That gives rise to an unfolding feedback relationship among three co-relational fundaments: Immeasurable Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating information.
I do not speculate or advocate whether that feedback dynamic gives rise to just one universe, a multiplicity of universes, a dissipating universe, or a yo-yo universe. I do tend to conceptualize that the feedback relationship, in one form or another, has always existed and always will exist.
************************ ************************
See https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/:
Per David Albert of Columbia: "But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all." ...................
"The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in A Universe From Nothing--the laws of relativistic quantum field theories--are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on--and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."
Albert is indeed a professor of philosophy, but he has a doctorate in physics. *******************
"That brings me to South African physicist George Ellis. When I interviewed Ellis last year, I asked him if Krauss’s book answers the question posed by its subtitle. Ellis responded:
Certainly not. He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.
Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.
And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions. It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy.
When I mentioned Ellis’s critique to Krauss, he claimed that Ellis, although once a physicist, is now a “theologian.” Ellis, a Quaker, has indeed written about religion, among other topics, but he is renowned for his work as a physicist. He co-wrote with Stephen Hawking the classic work The Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime, published in 1973. Just in the past five years, Ellis, now 76, has edited one book on quantum gravity and co-written another on cosmology and has co-written more than a dozen papers on physics, according to his website.
If Ellis isn’t a physicist, Krauss certainly isn’t. So what is he? Ellis describes A Universe From Nothing as a “kind of attempt at philosophy.” The hand-waving sophistry and terminological quibbling that Krauss displayed during his conversation with Wright were also reminiscent of philosophy at its worst. Krauss, perhaps, is just a bad philosopher."
*******************
DERIVATIVE OR FUNDAMENT:
You are claiming to prove that consciousness is a mere derivative and not a correlative fundament --- but only by assuming it. You have no provable or non-metaphysical model by which to explain how it is that, out of all manifestations possible under a given set of parameters, any particular set happens to become measurable.
Perhaps you are confusing matter-leveraged perspectives of consciousness with the fundamental quality of consciousness. Yes, organization of matter-brain synapses can extend or alter powers of consciousness or enhance IQs. But the quality of conscious experience is not "in" the matter. The conceptualization is not that matter is conscious-as-matter. Rather, the conceptualization is that each sequential manifestation of matter is correlative with an expression or appreciation of consciousness. The matter abides as or with an expression of consciousness, not as a pre-existing pre-condition for consciousness.
You seem to be seduced by scientism, i.e., the belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences.
Descartes imagined a substance-dualist separation of mind and body, each operating independently. As if the mind could function without the body. Nowhere have I invoked such an idea. So, except to confuse the discussion or to feign superior knowledge, why do you bring it up?
I do not say consciousness is beyond self-evident or common sense experience. Only that its fundamental aspect or quality is beyond measurement. I do not conceptualize that mortal consciousness is independent of brain or body, or that body is independent of mortal consciousness. Rather, I conceptualize that mortal consciousness and body are necessary correlates --- even though the fundamental quality of consciousness is beyond scientific measure.
Now, if you believe you have an entirely quantitative way to capture that quality, please feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, I think you may be suffering under a kind of spiritually-blinkered false sense of scientific completeness.
**************
Ray Kurzweil predicts the Singularity by 2045. https://futurism.com/kurzweil-claims-that-the-singularity-will-happen-by-2045/
He defines the Singularity at occurring when we multiply our effective intelligence a billion fold, by merging with the intelligence we have created.
*******************
If it were strongly evidenced that Earth is alone with sentient life, that would be argued as support both by many atheists and by many believers. Atheists would say it shows we are just unlikely happenstance; while believers would say it shows how special we are. So I don't see that as being persuasive either way.
I prefer argumentation based on the character of consciousness as opposed to anthropic arguments. Reason: Each person's consciousness is to him self evident.
**************
Not sure what you don't understand. Do you understand that equations must balance? Or the Conservation of matter and energy?
I see religions as using metaphors to inspire congregants to seek common moral purposes and ground. I doubt intelligent aliens would have any difficulty seeing metaphors as metaphors.
Now, as to moral scientisimists, I am not so sure. They seem to have a lot of problems. Maybe they have a condition akin to moral autism?
**************
Well, I did not purport a scientific theory. So you are arguing against a strawman. Concepts about beginnings tend not to be empirically testable, except possibly for internal consistency.
Regardless, are you saying there is no commonality in the existence or concept of consciousness? if so, I do not find such an implication to be creditable. Maybe you do. If so, merely stating that position is hardly to support it.
Moreover, to prove your position by calling anything contrary "post modernist" is merely to engage the fallacy of name calling. It sounds like you are bending over backwards to tell people not to believe in anything except a universe that is entirely dumb and happenstance? If so, at the end of the day, your position reduces to a non-provable assumption about a metaphysical origin.
I directly sense my conscious beingness without need of name-calling to tell me I am wrong. Now, that may not apply in your case, and if so, that is fine.
*****************
If the quality of conscious experience of beingness is derivative of nothing more than math as it is being mathed, that would seem pretty supernatural. Whatever the derivation, we don't have much of a non-supernatural "explanation" that is completely satisfactory. I posit that everyone takes a leap of faith of some kind. What I find most funny is those that think they go about their lives without engaging in leaps of faith.
************
Regarding Reconciling Consciousness: I think there abides a commonality among all perspectives of consciousness. However, each perspective is differently leveraged in respect of its relationship with the field of math. Even so, every perspective is reconciled to the field of math. But for unfolding reconciliations among math-based equations, how could any communication or signal be sent or received?
*******************
(Caution: Cannibas may help.)
Is Consciousness a fundament to the Universe? If so, where are the signals to be decoded from other sentient life?
We may vaguely intuit, but seem not fully aware or conscious of, a quantum level for the expression or "in-forming" of consciousness, as a fundament. We have leveraged capacity to send and receive signals to and from vast distances within our known universe. Now we look around and wonder: Where are the other planets that harbor intelligent life? Where are their signals? WHERE IS EVERYBODY?
Of course, there is much speculation supported by many speculative arguments. Using various modifications for the Drake Formula, it may seem reasonable to suppose that, even out of billions of trillions of possible planets, Earth may be the only one to our time-sense harboring intelligent life.
The number of stars in the observable universe may be about 20 billion trillion. If Earth is the only planet with sentient life that is contemporaneously observable to us, what may that mean? May it mean:
CONTEMPORANEITY: That any record of intelligent life on other planets winked out before intelligent life evolved on Earth? Or, that light from stars recently or now supporting intelligent life has not yet reached Earth?
INABILITY TO GET ALONG: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life blew themselves up because of internal discord before they developed capacity to signal other planets?
INFESTATION: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life were laid to waste because of internal disease before they developed capacity to signal other planets? other planets?
INSTABILITY: That other planets had insufficient environmental variation or climate stability to induce or sustain photosynthesis or cellular based organisms?
ASTEROIDS: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life were blown up because of external events (asteroids, gamma rays, exploding stars) before they developed capacity to signal
TIRED OF LIVING: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life decided the experience was too troubling and so they reduced themselves?
CLOAKING: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life have been subsumed under Borgdoms that are desirous of cloaking and concealing until they satisfy themselves that other planets are friendly or safe? Have they worked to muffle our capacity to receive external signals? Are they muffling their signals in background radiation static and noise? Are they signaling at a quantum level that we have not yet been able to decode? (Is the moon hollow -- lol.)
CLOUD ABSORPTION: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life have been subsumed under Borgdoms that that are satisfied to explore virtual worlds and possibilities "within," so they feel no need to signal other planets?
WORMHOLED TO SAFER ENVIRONS: That physical existentiality is just a way station to a quantum (cloud-dimensionality) plane of conscious experience? Have they wormholed their way to a safer universe?
SINGULARITY: What if our experience of a physically measurable and apparent universe can reasonably be conceptualized as a derivative --- secondary to nothing more than a field of math that is "mathed" with a fundamental, Reconciling Consciousness (Singularity)? What if each perspective of Consciousness is not, in itself, "ïn" any place-time? What if being in a place or time is a mere illusion, derivative of math being mathed ("mathicality")?
In that case, to find the Reconciling Consciousness, it would not be apposite to look "in" the apparent universe. Rather, it would be necessary to look within the math of our own experience of consciousness (to seek "the better angels of our nature"). It may be that the other perspectives of consciousness that we seek beyond Earth have migrated to a higher or more reconciling dimensionality of math-based (quantum) existence.
Some programmers and mathematicians seem to be speculating about the possibility of immortality "ïn" a quantum-based "cloud." Some speculate that we are on the cusp of such geometric accelerations of computational power that we are fast approaching a "singularity."
QUESTION: What if every extraterrestrial civilization that approaches such a computational cusp tends first to be blown up by internal or external division, or to find ways to cloak rather than to signal its math-based whereabouts, or to migrate to a quantum-based cloud? What if the apparent universe is simply like a womb for nurturing new entertainments and experiences for the Singularity?
In answer to "WHERE ARE THEY": Perhaps "they" are cloaked and waiting in quantum-based, extra-dimensional singularity, where "they" are "hardened" and reconciled against external destruction.
COMMENT: If their signals were of a system-wide reconciling character, they would be interpreted by the scientifically inclined of Earth as if they were mere non-sentient phase shifts.
Per David Albert of Columbia: "But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all." ...................
"The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in A Universe From Nothing--the laws of relativistic quantum field theories--are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on--and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."
Albert is indeed a professor of philosophy, but he has a doctorate in physics. *******************
"That brings me to South African physicist George Ellis. When I interviewed Ellis last year, I asked him if Krauss’s book answers the question posed by its subtitle. Ellis responded:
Certainly not. He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.
Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.
And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions. It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy.
When I mentioned Ellis’s critique to Krauss, he claimed that Ellis, although once a physicist, is now a “theologian.” Ellis, a Quaker, has indeed written about religion, among other topics, but he is renowned for his work as a physicist. He co-wrote with Stephen Hawking the classic work The Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime, published in 1973. Just in the past five years, Ellis, now 76, has edited one book on quantum gravity and co-written another on cosmology and has co-written more than a dozen papers on physics, according to his website.
If Ellis isn’t a physicist, Krauss certainly isn’t. So what is he? Ellis describes A Universe From Nothing as a “kind of attempt at philosophy.” The hand-waving sophistry and terminological quibbling that Krauss displayed during his conversation with Wright were also reminiscent of philosophy at its worst. Krauss, perhaps, is just a bad philosopher."
*******************
DERIVATIVE OR FUNDAMENT:
You are claiming to prove that consciousness is a mere derivative and not a correlative fundament --- but only by assuming it. You have no provable or non-metaphysical model by which to explain how it is that, out of all manifestations possible under a given set of parameters, any particular set happens to become measurable.
Perhaps you are confusing matter-leveraged perspectives of consciousness with the fundamental quality of consciousness. Yes, organization of matter-brain synapses can extend or alter powers of consciousness or enhance IQs. But the quality of conscious experience is not "in" the matter. The conceptualization is not that matter is conscious-as-matter. Rather, the conceptualization is that each sequential manifestation of matter is correlative with an expression or appreciation of consciousness. The matter abides as or with an expression of consciousness, not as a pre-existing pre-condition for consciousness.
You seem to be seduced by scientism, i.e., the belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences.
Descartes imagined a substance-dualist separation of mind and body, each operating independently. As if the mind could function without the body. Nowhere have I invoked such an idea. So, except to confuse the discussion or to feign superior knowledge, why do you bring it up?
I do not say consciousness is beyond self-evident or common sense experience. Only that its fundamental aspect or quality is beyond measurement. I do not conceptualize that mortal consciousness is independent of brain or body, or that body is independent of mortal consciousness. Rather, I conceptualize that mortal consciousness and body are necessary correlates --- even though the fundamental quality of consciousness is beyond scientific measure.
Now, if you believe you have an entirely quantitative way to capture that quality, please feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, I think you may be suffering under a kind of spiritually-blinkered false sense of scientific completeness.
**************
Ray Kurzweil predicts the Singularity by 2045. https://futurism.com/kurzweil-claims-that-the-singularity-will-happen-by-2045/
He defines the Singularity at occurring when we multiply our effective intelligence a billion fold, by merging with the intelligence we have created.
*******************
If it were strongly evidenced that Earth is alone with sentient life, that would be argued as support both by many atheists and by many believers. Atheists would say it shows we are just unlikely happenstance; while believers would say it shows how special we are. So I don't see that as being persuasive either way.
I prefer argumentation based on the character of consciousness as opposed to anthropic arguments. Reason: Each person's consciousness is to him self evident.
**************
Not sure what you don't understand. Do you understand that equations must balance? Or the Conservation of matter and energy?
I see religions as using metaphors to inspire congregants to seek common moral purposes and ground. I doubt intelligent aliens would have any difficulty seeing metaphors as metaphors.
Now, as to moral scientisimists, I am not so sure. They seem to have a lot of problems. Maybe they have a condition akin to moral autism?
**************
Well, I did not purport a scientific theory. So you are arguing against a strawman. Concepts about beginnings tend not to be empirically testable, except possibly for internal consistency.
Regardless, are you saying there is no commonality in the existence or concept of consciousness? if so, I do not find such an implication to be creditable. Maybe you do. If so, merely stating that position is hardly to support it.
Moreover, to prove your position by calling anything contrary "post modernist" is merely to engage the fallacy of name calling. It sounds like you are bending over backwards to tell people not to believe in anything except a universe that is entirely dumb and happenstance? If so, at the end of the day, your position reduces to a non-provable assumption about a metaphysical origin.
I directly sense my conscious beingness without need of name-calling to tell me I am wrong. Now, that may not apply in your case, and if so, that is fine.
*****************
If the quality of conscious experience of beingness is derivative of nothing more than math as it is being mathed, that would seem pretty supernatural. Whatever the derivation, we don't have much of a non-supernatural "explanation" that is completely satisfactory. I posit that everyone takes a leap of faith of some kind. What I find most funny is those that think they go about their lives without engaging in leaps of faith.
************
Regarding Reconciling Consciousness: I think there abides a commonality among all perspectives of consciousness. However, each perspective is differently leveraged in respect of its relationship with the field of math. Even so, every perspective is reconciled to the field of math. But for unfolding reconciliations among math-based equations, how could any communication or signal be sent or received?
*******************
(Caution: Cannibas may help.)
Is Consciousness a fundament to the Universe? If so, where are the signals to be decoded from other sentient life?
We may vaguely intuit, but seem not fully aware or conscious of, a quantum level for the expression or "in-forming" of consciousness, as a fundament. We have leveraged capacity to send and receive signals to and from vast distances within our known universe. Now we look around and wonder: Where are the other planets that harbor intelligent life? Where are their signals? WHERE IS EVERYBODY?
Of course, there is much speculation supported by many speculative arguments. Using various modifications for the Drake Formula, it may seem reasonable to suppose that, even out of billions of trillions of possible planets, Earth may be the only one to our time-sense harboring intelligent life.
The number of stars in the observable universe may be about 20 billion trillion. If Earth is the only planet with sentient life that is contemporaneously observable to us, what may that mean? May it mean:
CONTEMPORANEITY: That any record of intelligent life on other planets winked out before intelligent life evolved on Earth? Or, that light from stars recently or now supporting intelligent life has not yet reached Earth?
INABILITY TO GET ALONG: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life blew themselves up because of internal discord before they developed capacity to signal other planets?
INFESTATION: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life were laid to waste because of internal disease before they developed capacity to signal other planets? other planets?
INSTABILITY: That other planets had insufficient environmental variation or climate stability to induce or sustain photosynthesis or cellular based organisms?
ASTEROIDS: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life were blown up because of external events (asteroids, gamma rays, exploding stars) before they developed capacity to signal
TIRED OF LIVING: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life decided the experience was too troubling and so they reduced themselves?
CLOAKING: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life have been subsumed under Borgdoms that are desirous of cloaking and concealing until they satisfy themselves that other planets are friendly or safe? Have they worked to muffle our capacity to receive external signals? Are they muffling their signals in background radiation static and noise? Are they signaling at a quantum level that we have not yet been able to decode? (Is the moon hollow -- lol.)
CLOUD ABSORPTION: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life have been subsumed under Borgdoms that that are satisfied to explore virtual worlds and possibilities "within," so they feel no need to signal other planets?
WORMHOLED TO SAFER ENVIRONS: That physical existentiality is just a way station to a quantum (cloud-dimensionality) plane of conscious experience? Have they wormholed their way to a safer universe?
SINGULARITY: What if our experience of a physically measurable and apparent universe can reasonably be conceptualized as a derivative --- secondary to nothing more than a field of math that is "mathed" with a fundamental, Reconciling Consciousness (Singularity)? What if each perspective of Consciousness is not, in itself, "ïn" any place-time? What if being in a place or time is a mere illusion, derivative of math being mathed ("mathicality")?
In that case, to find the Reconciling Consciousness, it would not be apposite to look "in" the apparent universe. Rather, it would be necessary to look within the math of our own experience of consciousness (to seek "the better angels of our nature"). It may be that the other perspectives of consciousness that we seek beyond Earth have migrated to a higher or more reconciling dimensionality of math-based (quantum) existence.
Some programmers and mathematicians seem to be speculating about the possibility of immortality "ïn" a quantum-based "cloud." Some speculate that we are on the cusp of such geometric accelerations of computational power that we are fast approaching a "singularity."
QUESTION: What if every extraterrestrial civilization that approaches such a computational cusp tends first to be blown up by internal or external division, or to find ways to cloak rather than to signal its math-based whereabouts, or to migrate to a quantum-based cloud? What if the apparent universe is simply like a womb for nurturing new entertainments and experiences for the Singularity?
In answer to "WHERE ARE THEY": Perhaps "they" are cloaked and waiting in quantum-based, extra-dimensional singularity, where "they" are "hardened" and reconciled against external destruction.
COMMENT: If their signals were of a system-wide reconciling character, they would be interpreted by the scientifically inclined of Earth as if they were mere non-sentient phase shifts.
No comments:
Post a Comment