3 of 9
3
A universe from nothing… BS
Posted: 13 January 2012 01:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
eucaryote - 12 January 2012 07:41 PM
SoldatHeero - 12 January 2012 01:07 PM

What is really being revealed is that the physical universe springs from perception!

Wow! You’ve discovered pure solipsism! How exciting!

I think you’re out of your league eucy. Its a problem many atheists face. Think about it, religion is like a fairytale, like little red riding hood, its extremely easy to debunk, even a baby can do it. Yet atheists spend most of their time debunking religion, and then they somehow believe that they have reached the ultimate stage of rational and critical thinking.


You have spent decades debunking fairytales, and now when the real rational people show up, all you can say is “thats solipsism!”.

[ Edited: 13 January 2012 01:59 AM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2012 02:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
srrr - 08 January 2012 03:28 AM

I just read the blog post: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/everything-and-nothing/


It looks like his only argument in favor of getting a universe from nothing is that “it may be true, even if (religious) people dont like it”. He then admits there exists no model that tells us a universe can come from nothing… but it is a possibility! Then he says that we may not be able to understand/visualise something, but that it can mathematically make sense.


My response:
A. whether (religious) people dont like something is irrelevant, and adds no support to the opposite.
B. if there is no model to get something from nothing, why say it is a possibility and suggest it will make sense mathematically?
C. We can observe in nature that conscious beings create/shape the world around them. Why prefer an unnatural (never observed and there is not even a model) “universe from nothing” idea over a “creator shapes universe” idea which is based on extrapolation from natural facts?
D. if the universe is inherently mathematical, then: 1) this is not “nothing”. 2) this is called platonic idealism, which is the exact opposite of a universe without a “creator”.

I’d just like to address B, considering A, C & D have already been dealt with adequately.  What was actually said was:


“do we have any reason to suppose the laws themselves came into existence along with our universe?  Yes… current ideas coming from particle physics allow a number of possibilities for multiple universes, in each of which some of the laws of physics, at least, would be unique to that universe.  Now, do we have any models where all the laws (including even, say, quantum mechanics?) came into being along with the universe?  No.  But we know so little about the possibilities that this certainly remains one of them.  But even more germane to your question perhaps… do we have any physical reason to believe that such nothing was ever the case?  Absolutely”


Just like to add that there are those who stand at the fringes of physics at the moment who would dare to suggest such a model.  Reg Cahill of Flinders University suggested such a model way back in 2003 and has been publishing in the area ever since.  His very radical paper is available here:

Process Physics

I’m guessing Krauss is well aware of such models, even if he is yet unwilling to fully back one of them.  But who knows what might happen around the corner?  BTW I’m not saying I back all aspects of this model either.

[ Edited: 13 January 2012 02:51 AM by Michael Kean]
 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2012 07:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

When there’s not a mathematical model for something, this doesn’t imply there can never be such a model.

So not (currently) having a math model is not really an indictment of anything or an indication that a certain thing is not ultimately possible.

 

So on top of all the other mistakes in thinking we’ve seen in this thread, we also have a fundamental issue with understanding the difference between an author responsibly speculating on hypotheticals and an author asserting asserting certain knowledge.

 

The way science works is, first you speculate about the causes of observed (or even hypothetical, e.g. black holes before they were confirmed)  phenomena, then you try to develop a model to explain (or that will explain, once the phenomena is observed) the observation.

 

To follow and participate in a scientific discussion, you have to be able to do high order things like - parse a speaker’s language for tense- are we speaking about now or in the future?  and causality - are we saying X does cause Y or X could cause Y and intention- are we speaking hypothetically or reciting facts?

 

This reminds me attempts to get machines to understand the meaning of human speech. It’s not that the vocabulary is unknown, it’s that the meta-levels of human speech and the cultural and normative background knowledge needed to understand the intention of what’s being said- as opposed to the literal words being spoken - are just things that no one has a very good understanding of . Thus we can’t impart them to a computer, which lacks them utterly.

 

So what we have on this thread is someone picking up on phrases and expressions, not understanding those things in any meaningful way, then attacking what they think they thought they understood.

 

This never goes well.

 

Especially when it’s paired with an ideological drive to prove a point and absent any genuinely disinterested knowledge seeking.

 

This is what the internet calls a “troll” .

 

The more time you spend online discussing matters, the more you see why we need aerial drones. We’re not a species that can naturally talk through our differences. 

 

People are not rational by nature. In fact,  what Dr. Johnson is said to have observed about a dog he saw walking on its back legs is equally applicable to people acting rationally. He said: “The miracle of it was not that it was done well, it’s that it was done at all”.

 


You’re not going to talk your way through your differences, because people will not permit themselves to be held accountable to rational standards.


Only in highly structured environments, where a real, public and enduring reputation can sustain damage which carries real world consequences to the material well being of the person behind that reputation- you lose your position and the esteem and support of your institution, employer, family,  friends or colleagues - only under those circumstances will people alter their behavior to accord with norms.


Within these kinds of settings, great things can and do happen. In fact, all progress is made by people in a system in which accountability to the honest standards established over generations by disinterested honest brokers is the coin of the realm.

 

As long as society listens to and respects what comes out of these institutions and keeps them above the reach of ideological hands, society will survive and progress.

 

The opposite is what we see under Communism and Nazism and North Korea.

 

Oh, and trolls on the internet.

 

[ Edited: 13 January 2012 08:18 AM by softwarevisualization]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2012 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 13 January 2012 02:30 AM

Just like to add that there are those who stand at the fringes of physics at the moment who would dare to suggest such a model.  Reg Cahill of Flinders University suggested such a model way back in 2003 and has been publishing in the area ever since.  His very radical paper is available here:

Process Physics

I’m guessing Krauss is well aware of such models, even if he is yet unwilling to fully back one of them.  But who knows what might happen around the corner?  BTW I’m not saying I back all aspects of this model either.

Some quotes from that paper:

This new physics is seen to be panexperientialist in character in which a primitive self-awareness or ‘consciousness’ is foundational to reality in the manner argued by Griffin and others [5], a consciousness that appears to be intrinsic to the semantic nature of the information system that is process physics. Such notions it seems may well be moving into the realm of experimental science and will result in a unification of human knowledge and experience that is beyond our prevailing comprehensions.

[...]

Finally the successes of process physics imply that we should give consideration to its foundational assumptions, and one is that reality is a non-local experiential information system. One way to interpret this is that reality has a primitive form of self-awareness. In increasingly more complex systems such as biological systems this self-awareness may manifest as consciousness.

So instead of a “universe from nothing with no creator involved” idea, this one is a “creator creates universe” one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2012 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
SoldatHeero - 12 January 2012 01:07 PM

What is really being revealed is that the physical universe springs from perception!

srrr - 08 January 2012 08:28 AM

We can observe in nature that conscious beings create/shape the world around them.

Call it what you will. Crazy is another word that “springs to mind”. Sock puppet is another.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2012 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
softwarevisualization - 13 January 2012 07:21 AM

When there’s not a mathematical model for something, this doesn’t imply there can never be such a model.

And jesus hasnt returned to earth, but that doesnt imply he wont! In other words, the burden of proof…

So not (currently) having a math model is not really an indictment of anything or an indication that a certain thing is not ultimately possible.

Feel free to explain how a math = nothing. The burden…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2012 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
eucaryote - 13 January 2012 11:11 AM
SoldatHeero - 12 January 2012 01:07 PM

What is really being revealed is that the physical universe springs from perception!

srrr - 08 January 2012 08:28 AM

We can observe in nature that conscious beings create/shape the world around them.

Call it what you will. Crazy is another word that “springs to mind”. Sock puppet is another.

Why not just call it by its name, “eucaryote has been debunked”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2012 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16

  Author=“srrr”


Some quotes from that paper:


This new physics is seen to be panexperientialist in character in which a primitive self-awareness or ‘consciousness’ is foundational to reality in the manner argued by Griffin and others [5], a consciousness that appears to be intrinsic to the semantic nature of the information system that is process physics. Such notions it seems may well be moving into the realm of experimental science and will result in a unification of human knowledge and experience that is beyond our prevailing comprehensions.


Finally the successes of process physics imply that we should give consideration to its foundational assumptions, and one is that reality is a non-local experiential information system. One way to interpret this is that reality has a primitive form of self-awareness. In increasingly more complex systems such as biological systems this self-awareness may manifest as consciousness.


So instead of a “universe from nothing with no creator involved” idea, this one is a “creator creates universe” one.


Wow - you are really philosophically cheap aren’t you srrr!  ‘Any model of consciousness will do as long as it refutes atheism’ seems to be your approach in this venue.  But what will your panpsycho mates think at their venues?  And then you have to muddy the waters by assigning a “creator” label to a sentence that simply says “One way to interpret this is that reality has a primitive form of self-awareness”.  An emergent self-awareness, if any, I might add.


As Wiki says, “In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that all matter has a mental aspect, or, alternatively, all objects have a unified center of experience or point of view…Panexperientialism (a version of process philosophy that some also associate with process physics)*, as espoused by Alfred North Whitehead, is a less bold variation, which credits all entities with phenomenal consciousness but not with cognition, and therefore not necessarily with full-fledged minds.”  So which version is it that you agree with srrr?  If you are going to side with process philosophy and in particular process physics, then you would have to side with emergence as well, because as you will have also read in that paper, emergence is a huge aspect of process physics.  So maybe I can win the emergence argument if I give up on my ‘temporal atheism’ argument - is that it?  Is this the olive branch being offered here?  Or are you just being a cheap opportunist?
* my insertion


Just to clarify my position, I think the paper makes many interesting points but I don’t currently see any necessity to attach any philosophy of ‘innate consciousness’ to it.  It seems the author, through his non-dogmatic tone, would also quite happily allow us this option.  But it does seem obvious to me that the Big Bang included innate direct and indirect properties that were precursors to all that has since emerged here on planet Earth, including fallible human consciousness.  And this is amazing in itself.

[ Edited: 13 January 2012 03:52 PM by Michael Kean]
 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2012 09:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

I remember that Marvin Minsky thought that thermostats had a primitive form of consciousness (because they respond to a changing environment.. they “knew” when it was getting hotter or colder…) .

Strong AI people get forced into positions like that wink It can’t be very gratifying for them.

It’s possible to work this the other way also, right? Maybe what we consider to be separate things are not really separate. Maybe we’re all one BIG thing and talking about separate existences is wrong for the start.

In that case, consciousness is not an inherent part of each thing, since there is no each thing. There’s only a big blob and consciousness is an inherent part of it.

This is what happens when you try to theorize about things we don’t know enough about yet . You sound like you’re sitting around a bong, man.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2012 01:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 13 January 2012 03:44 PM

Wow - you are really philosophically cheap aren’t you srrr!  ‘Any model of consciousness will do as long as it refutes atheism’ seems to be your approach in this venue.  But what will your panpsycho mates think at their venues?  And then you have to muddy the waters by assigning a “creator” label to a sentence that simply says “One way to interpret this is that reality has a primitive form of self-awareness”.  An emergent self-awareness, if any, I might add.


As Wiki says, “In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that all matter has a mental aspect, or, alternatively, all objects have a unified center of experience or point of view…Panexperientialism (a version of process philosophy that some also associate with process physics)*, as espoused by Alfred North Whitehead, is a less bold variation, which credits all entities with phenomenal consciousness but not with cognition, and therefore not necessarily with full-fledged minds.”  So which version is it that you agree with srrr?  If you are going to side with process philosophy and in particular process physics, then you would have to side with emergence as well, because as you will have also read in that paper, emergence is a huge aspect of process physics.  So maybe I can win the emergence argument if I give up on my ‘temporal atheism’ argument - is that it?  Is this the olive branch being offered here?  Or are you just being a cheap opportunist?
* my insertion


Just to clarify my position, I think the paper makes many interesting points but I don’t currently see any necessity to attach any philosophy of ‘innate consciousness’ to it.  It seems the author, through his non-dogmatic tone, would also quite happily allow us this option.  But it does seem obvious to me that the Big Bang included innate direct and indirect properties that were precursors to all that has since emerged here on planet Earth, including fallible human consciousness.  And this is amazing in itself.

Look at my point D:


D. if the universe is inherently mathematical, then: 1) this is not “nothing”. 2) this is called platonic idealism, which is the exact opposite of a universe without a “creator”.


The paper you posted confirms exactly what i said.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2012 03:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-18

So which version is it that you agree with srrr?  If you are going to side with process philosophy and in particular process physics, then you would have to side with emergence as well, because as you will have also read in that paper, emergence is a huge aspect of process physics

Where in the paper does it say consciousness emerges from matter?

It clearly states consciousness to be “foundational to reality”.

Finally the successes of process physics imply that we should give consideration to its foundational assumptions, and one is that reality is a non-local experiential information system.

The keywords here are non-local experiential, as in experience and non-local to imply NOT in space-time.

Perhaps the following statement is what is throwing you off.

One way to interpret this is that reality has a primitive form of self-awareness.

I wonder, perhaps being a materialist you are interpreting this statement to mean matter has a form of self-awareness? Since as a materialist matter is synonymous with reality you imagine that statement to mean primitive matter has a form of primitive awareness?

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for them to say “reality IS a form of self-awareness”.

Anyway that is incorrect because under his model matter is a consequence of evolved experience which is as srrr correctly points out is a form of idealism. What is this “non-local experience” other than the universal perceiver, God himself? God not in the sense of a scheming creator but as reality itself, the one existence.

The phenomenon at the quantum level appears to be God waking up to himself as the sole reality.

You should really take a step back in here and laugh because the truth is you have referenced a case in point article for srrr’s position.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2012 08:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
srrr - 14 January 2012 01:30 AM

Look at my point D:


D. if the universe is inherently mathematical, then: 1) this is not “nothing”. 2) this is called platonic idealism, which is the exact opposite of a universe without a “creator”.


The paper you posted confirms exactly what i said.

Another clever redirection srrr.  But is your answer panpsychism or panexperientialism?


And in answer to your point D “something” from “nothing” is much more than a very tired and foolish Platonic conception that sees e.g. a real rabbit plucked out of a hat as something based on the ideal rabbit in the ‘ether’.  Nor does the paper mention any concept of a creator or even insist on panexperientialism - it just says that its findings are “panexperientialist in character”.  And it certainly doesn’t support your panpsychism.  Some interesting quotes from the paper:


“In general the work moves from the logic of the limitations of logic to the bootstrapping of a semantic information system.  This bootstrapping system possesses none of the known phenomena of current physics, but in later sections we see the emergence of space and quantum matter in a unified manner.”


“In process physics the fundamental assumption is that reality is to be modelled as self-organising semantic information, that is, information that is ‘internally’ meaningful, using a self-referentially limited neural network model. Such a system has no a priori objects or laws, and is evolved using a bootstrap system, so that it is the system itself that ‘internally’ creates patterns of relationships and their dominant modes of behaviour, and all (sub)systems are fractal in character, that is, relationships within relationships, and so on ad infinitum. In this way all emergent phenomena are unified, and it is this key feature that has resulted in an understanding and linking, for the first time, of various phenomena.”


I’d say that would be hard emergence in anyone’s language!  Is this what you would agree “confirms exactly what you said”?  Wonderful - welcome aboard…

 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2012 08:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
SoldatHeero - 14 January 2012 03:36 AM

Where in the paper does it say consciousness emerges from matter?

It clearly states consciousness to be “foundational to reality”.

Finally the successes of process physics imply that we should give consideration to its foundational assumptions, and one is that reality is a non-local experiential information system.
The keywords here are non-local experiential, as in experience and non-local to imply NOT in space-time.

Perhaps the following statement is what is throwing you off.

One way to interpret this is that reality has a primitive form of self-awareness.
I wonder, perhaps being a materialist you are interpreting this statement to mean matter has a form of self-awareness? Since as a materialist matter is synonymous with reality you imagine that statement to mean primitive matter has a form of primitive awareness?

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for them to say “reality IS a form of self-awareness”.

Anyway that is incorrect because under his model matter is a consequence of evolved experience which is as srrr correctly points out is a form of idealism. What is this “non-local experience” other than the universal perceiver, God himself? God not in the sense of a scheming creator but as reality itself, the one existence.

The phenomenon at the quantum level appears to be God waking up to himself as the sole reality.

You should really take a step back in here and laugh because the truth is you have referenced a case in point article for srrr’s position.

Hey - I never said that “consciousness emerges from matter” and neither does the paper or anyone else I’m aware of.  So it seems pointless to respond to your misunderstandings of my materialistic monism.  Materialism in the sense that I use it means an absence of woo-woo.  It does not mean that there is no indirect or intangible reality such as found in space/time.


Further the paper does not say consciousness is foundational to reality, it says “This new physics is seen to be panexperientialist in character in which a primitive self-awareness or ‘consciousness’ is foundational to reality in the manner argued by Griffin and others”  That is, a “primitive self-awareness or consciousness” is foundational to reality in panexperientialism, and process physics is “panexperientialist in character”.  That leaves a lot of room for the reader (and author) to decide for themselves.


One comment the paper does make is the following on p98-99 “As argued in early sections space is a quantum system continually classicalised by on-going non-local collapse processes. The emergent phenomenon is foundational to existence and experientialism. Gravity in this system is caused by differences in the rate of processing of the cellular information within the network which we experience as space, and consequentially there is a differential flow of information which can be affected by the presence of matter or even by space itself. Of course the motion of matter including photons with respect to that spatial information content is detectable because it affects the geometrical and chronological attributes of that matter, and the experimental evidence for this has been exhaustively discussed in this section. What has become very clear is that the phenomenon of gravity is only understandable once we have this unification of the quantum phenomena of matter and the quantum phenomena of space itself. In Process Physics the difference between matter and space is subtle. It comes down to the difference between informational patterns that are topologically preserved and those information patterns that are not.”


That is, unequivocally, “The emergent phenomenon is foundational to existence and experientialism”.


I think you also misunderstand the use of the term “non-local”, which hopefully is made a little clearer by the above quote.  Non-local just points to the asymmetry that exists between quantum space and quantum matter.  It has nothing to do with woo-woo.


The next quote is as follows: “Finally the successes of process physics imply that we should give consideration to its foundational assumptions, and one is that reality is a non-local experiential information system. One way to interpret this is that reality has a primitive form of self-awareness. In increasingly more complex systems such as biological systems this self-awareness may manifest as consciousness.”  No woo-woo here either.  I would be happy to accept this whole quote; it’s nothing different to what I have always said - biological consciousness emerged from the dance between matter and space over time.  If you would like to take on board the idea that reality has a primitive form of self-awareness, be my guest.  Personally, I understand that any self-organising, self-contained system can be characterised as having a form of “self-awareness”.  It’s the same as assigning blind purpose to evolution - nothing more.  The idea of blind purpose makes the reading of e.g. books by Richard Dawkins easier to read, but that does not force us to suggest Dawkins believes in woo-woo when he uses that mechanism in his elucidations.


The rest of what you say is fluff IMO.

[ Edited: 14 January 2012 10:01 PM by Michael Kean]
 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2012 06:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Michael Kean - 14 January 2012 08:20 PM

Another clever redirection srrr.  But is your answer panpsychism or panexperientialism?


And in answer to your point D “something” from “nothing” is much more than a very tired and foolish Platonic conception that sees e.g. a real rabbit plucked out of a hat as something based on the ideal rabbit in the ‘ether’.  Nor does the paper mention any concept of a creator or even insist on panexperientialism - it just says that its findings are “panexperientialist in character”.  And it certainly doesn’t support your panpsychism.

What is “my panpsychism”? Feel free to quote me from my other topics, see if you can find “my panpsychism”.


It doesnt matter if the papers ideas are panpsychic or panexperientalist, both of them imply consciousness. It also doesnt matter that the paper doesnt mention the term “creator”, consciousness is a fine synonym.

Some interesting quotes from the paper:


“In general the work moves from the logic of the limitations of logic to the bootstrapping of a semantic information system.  This bootstrapping system possesses none of the known phenomena of current physics, but in later sections we see the emergence of space and quantum matter in a unified manner.”


“In process physics the fundamental assumption is that reality is to be modelled as self-organising semantic information, that is, information that is ‘internally’ meaningful, using a self-referentially limited neural network model. Such a system has no a priori objects or laws, and is evolved using a bootstrap system, so that it is the system itself that ‘internally’ creates patterns of relationships and their dominant modes of behaviour, and all (sub)systems are fractal in character, that is, relationships within relationships, and so on ad infinitum. In this way all emergent phenomena are unified, and it is this key feature that has resulted in an understanding and linking, for the first time, of various phenomena.”


I’d say that would be hard emergence in anyone’s language!  Is this what you would agree “confirms exactly what you said”?  Wonderful - welcome aboard…

Wow, he uses the word “emerge”, that sure proves that he is talking about strong emergence right? Similarly, when a surfdude says that he emerged from the waves, that proves that consciousness can emerge in brains right? Hey, it even proves that jesus can emerge back from the dead! ...


Im afraid you’ll have to come up with something more than just linguistic similarities to back up the idea of supernatural strong emergence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2012 03:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-10-16
srrr - 15 January 2012 06:40 AM
Michael Kean - 14 January 2012 08:20 PM

Another clever redirection srrr.  But is your answer panpsychism or panexperientialism?


And in answer to your point D “something” from “nothing” is much more than a very tired and foolish Platonic conception that sees e.g. a real rabbit plucked out of a hat as something based on the ideal rabbit in the ‘ether’.  Nor does the paper mention any concept of a creator or even insist on panexperientialism - it just says that its findings are “panexperientialist in character”.  And it certainly doesn’t support your panpsychism.

What is “my panpsychism”? Feel free to quote me from my other topics, see if you can find “my panpsychism”.

Your announcement of your panpsychist stance in defence of C

It doesnt matter if the papers ideas are panpsychic or panexperientalist, both of them imply consciousness. It also doesnt matter that the paper doesnt mention the term “creator”, consciousness is a fine synonym.

Well this is great news.  So now you’re just as happy with a panexperientialist defence of C as a panpsychist one!  Well its a step in the right direction at least.  Just have to get you to panprotoexperientialism & we’re home!

Some interesting quotes from the paper:


“In general the work moves from the logic of the limitations of logic to the bootstrapping of a semantic information system.  This bootstrapping system possesses none of the known phenomena of current physics, but in later sections we see the emergence of space and quantum matter in a unified manner.”


“In process physics the fundamental assumption is that reality is to be modelled as self-organising semantic information, that is, information that is ‘internally’ meaningful, using a self-referentially limited neural network model. Such a system has no a priori objects or laws, and is evolved using a bootstrap system, so that it is the system itself that ‘internally’ creates patterns of relationships and their dominant modes of behaviour, and all (sub)systems are fractal in character, that is, relationships within relationships, and so on ad infinitum. In this way all emergent phenomena are unified, and it is this key feature that has resulted in an understanding and linking, for the first time, of various phenomena.”


I’d say that would be hard emergence in anyone’s language!  Is this what you would agree “confirms exactly what you said”?  Wonderful - welcome aboard…

Wow, he uses the word “emerge”, that sure proves that he is talking about strong emergence right? Similarly, when a surfdude says that he emerged from the waves, that proves that consciousness can emerge in brains right? Hey, it even proves that jesus can emerge back from the dead! ...


Im afraid you’ll have to come up with something more than just linguistic similarities to back up the idea of supernatural strong emergence.

Srrr - I would not rely on linguistic similarities to make a point.  I think the semantics of emergence can be gleened from the statement “Such a system has no a priori objects or laws, and is evolved using a bootstrap system”.  This really is a claim for strong emergence within his model that is also “panexperientialist in character”.  So if you want to take on Cahill’s version of panexperientialism then you will also have to support his idea of strong emergence.  The only way that would be possible is if his version of panexperientialism is a weak version, i.e. it is really panprotoexperientialism - which is something that seems compatible with “my” materialistic monism…

 Signature 

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”  (The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776)

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 9
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed