In saying that consciousness comes from a brain, we seem to be saying even more of matter than saying the big bang caused itself. Consciousness is such a subtle thing. If matter can do this, it seems its way more mystical than we thought. Cartesian extension would be dead

I would think about it in terms of 'order' and 'reason' rather than 'consciousness'.

If nothing governed the 'big bang', in other words, if it were a truly chaotic event - like a regular explosion - then there would be no reason to expect order to arise from the resulting chaos. Laws of entropy being what they are, one might expect only further chaos (although of course we wouldn't be around to expect anything whatever.) But it does seem that there is no natural reason to expect why an utterly chaotic and disordered event could give rise to the order of nature.

This of course is the 'fine-tuning argument' which doesn't seem to have been brought up yet in this thread but is quite relevant. It is based on the observation that there is a very small number of mathematical constants and ratios which must exist in a very precise range for stars, and so matter, and so complex life to form - hence the 'goldilocks universe', one which is not too hot, nor too cold, for life to form, but just right. In fact one of the motivations for the multiverse conjecture is to defuse the so-called fine-tuning argument.

Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere.

DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43. 6p.

I think the ancient philosophical intuition that was incorporated into Christian theology with neo-platonism, is that the underlying order which allows the universe to form, is mirrored or reflected in the intellect (nous). So there was a sense in which the philosopher sought to grasp the logos of the whole cosmos.

God, according to [the Stoics], "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world as fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He is the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

If nothing governed the 'big bang', in other words, if it were a truly chaotic event - like a regular explosion - then there would be no reason to expect order to arise from the resulting chaos. — Wayfarer

Exactly. And "no reason" to expect order not to arise from chaos either. Thus, order - such as a cosmos - is fundamentally contingent: it possibly comes to be; or it possibly continues to be; or it possibly becomes otherwise; or it possibly ceases to be: without any of these states being inevitable or necessary (i.e. permanent, perdurable).

Exactly. And "no reason" to expect order not to arise from chaos either. — 180 Proof

The point is that there is far greater likelihood of the magnitude of billions to one - of order not arising; that the chance of order arising spontaneously from chaos is incalculably slight. So it’s not an equal bet. And what kind of philosophy says ‘well it just happened’?

it can’t be the case that everything is contingent. ‘Contingent’ has a dependency relationship on ‘necessary’.

In saying that consciousness comes from a brain, — Gregory

I would also think about the issue in terms of 'meaning' rather the 'consciousness'. The mind (or properly 'intellect') is what is able to grasp meaning and rational relations, which is the fundamental ability of the rational intellect. But it's absurd to think of 'meaning' or 'reason' as any kind of object or thing. Indeed it is the intellect which enables you to know what ‘a thing‘ is. And meaning is not inherent in things, but in the context in which a thing is interpreted - which opens out to a far more mature stance than trying to figure out what kind of ’thing’ consciousness is.

The point is that there is far greater likelihood of the magnitude of billions to one - of order not arising; that the chance of order arising spontaneously from chaos is incalculably slight. So it’s not an equal bet. And what kind of philosophy says ‘well it just happened’? — Wayfarer

It doesn't have to be "an equal bet". No time-parameter since time constitutes (or structures) the Order at issue (i.e. the universe). Probability ("likelihood") is meaningless in this scope; thus, quantum fluctuations, like virtual particles, occur randomly. You're right though, Wayf: philosophy doesn't say "well it just happened" any more than mathematics says "well there's no pattern". :roll:

This review of Krauss' 'Universe from Nothing' is worth reading. As is this this critique:

There is a certain desperation apparent in the attempts of various authors to eliminate God from an account of the origins of the universe. For, at bottom, what motivates such attempts is the desire to overcome the very incompleteness of the scientific project itself - I call it anxiety over contingency.

You lost me. :roll:

Maybe order is in the eye of the beholder

Schelling, after studying Kant's dynamics, concluded that first there was force, then space and time, and then light and gravity. There are also Hobbes's physical views

The Hebrew Bible speaks of the Void. Genesis 1:2. It does not say the Void was good though. The book first speaks of "the good" with regard to light, the only consistent substance in the universe. But of course it does say that light existed before the stars.

Tsk Tsk Tsk, what a mess we make when we begin with assumptions based on illusions.



Firstly:
big bang creating/causing itself,
god creating/causing universe,
brain creating/causing consciousness,
mind creating/causing choice,
is all predicated something coming from nothing and are therefore impossible. Therefore I do not need to waste my time reading any books based on those illusions, and getting lost in details that are all based on false beginnings, like you have.

-We currently have substance therefore it must be uncreated and eternal.
-We currently have motion therefore it must be uncreated and eternal.
-We currently have order, therefore it must be uncreated and eternal.
Build your conclusions or science from and within those absolute starting points.



Secondly:
Don't assume the universe or the brain continue to exist when you're not looking at them. The only thing that's proven is this consciousness here now, as it is here now, and nothing else. Any other belief just happens in consciousness here now. A belief in the universe, the brain, matter, all happens in and of consciousness here now and therefore proves nothing except for consciousness here now.

Build your conclusions around that absolute starting point.

Consciousness is not in the body the body is in consciousness,
Consciousness is not in the universe, the universe is in consciousness,
and it must be eternal.

So you see my good sirs I AM the creator of the universe.

What if Kant was right? Of course he tends toward solipsism, which first Fichte and then Schelling and Hegel tried to remedy. But even from a materialist perspective it can be asked "how do you know you alone don't have the consciousness gene?" Sartre thought shame proved this to be absurd.

The point is that there is far greater likelihood of the magnitude of billions to one — Wayfarer

Not just that.
Every particular was vanishingly unlikely.
Every particular unfolding of our universe is vanishingly unlikely in the sea of possible worlds.
Focusing particularly on life or consciousness (as we know them) is perhaps a bit anthropocentric.

The point is that there is far greater likelihood of the magnitude of billions to one - of order not arising; that the chance of order arising spontaneously from chaos is incalculably slight. So it’s not an equal bet. — Wayfarer

The multi-verse covers that. There are lots and lots and lots of universes. with all kinds of initial conditions; ours, then, becomes an inevitability. Proof? None. Makes sense? Absolutely.

The multi-verse covers that. — tim wood

It’s a huge cop-out, the ultimate ad hoc argument.

I think there is a kind of clear-eyed sobriety which would result from the rejection of multiverse speculation. It would leave a mystery but a real mystery ought to be preferred to an imaginary solution.

The superior student listens to the Way
And follows it closely.

The average student listens to the Way
And follows some and some not.

The lesser student listens to the Way
And laughs out loud.

If there were no laughter it would not be the Way.

-Lao Tzu

The point is that there is far greater likelihood of the magnitude of billions to one - of order not arising; that the chance of order arising spontaneously from chaos is incalculably slight. So it’s not an equal bet. And what kind of philosophy says ‘well it just happened’? — Wayfarer

You make it sound like "order" is a single event, and "chaos" is a single event that happens when order doesn't. In reality, lots of stuff is self organising on the back of this chaos.

The oldest structures we know of (afaik) are primordial stars; which still took about 100 million years to form. Think of it. A whole universe's collective activity takes 100 million years for something interesting (large stable structures) to happen. That must make interesting things incredibly unlikely. But primordial stellar accretion is still a process, once underway and all else held equal it has a propensity to continue absent sufficiently strong external perturbations.

That's the dance of contingency and necessity; stuff is contingent and full of flux; the flux has propensities (contingencies) to do stuff which refine their trajectories (actualities), limiting their options (necessities) absent external factors disrupting everything (the contingency of necessity). This whole thing is as it must be ontologically (the necessity of contingency).

It is a strange universe, a strange Milky Way, perpetually fine tuned for life but still populated by world destroying comets.

Words going into the mind turn into illusions and misunderstandings — OmniscientNihilist

These words, going into my mind, turned into illusions and misunderstanding.

I too now know nothing about everything and everything about nothing. I have climbed the ladder of nonsense and let it drop behind me so that others may use it & join me in the clouds.

The universe is an optical illusion. shift your point of view and it disappears

shift your point of view — OmniscientNihilist

To where. :P

"To where."
-

off your mind and onto reality

^^

off your mind and onto reality — OmniscientNihilist

...

Put the bong down.

"What changes is not real, what is real does not change." -Nisargadatta

It’s a huge cop-out, the ultimate ad hoc argument. — Wayfarer

Misapplied, gee-whiz statistics also are a cop-out. Name your poison. But here's what we know: there is a universe. Does not matter how unlikely that is, because here it is. What accounts for the manifest, existing thing? You can say you don't know - I sure don't. But lots of folks just cannot stick with that. so they say, "Because I do not know, I know. God did it. And of course God, being God, can't be detected. That's how we know he's real, and made the universe...". So what makes more sense to you, a conjecture presented as such? Or a supernatural-based fantasy presented as real? Which do you think is worse, is the more ignorant, the stupider?

But here's what we know: there is a universe. Does not matter how unlikely that is, because here it is. — tim wood

Where?

"What changes is not real, what is real does not change." -Nisargadatta — OmniscientNihilist

What I take from that is that you never put the bong down.

"The Way that can be spoken of
Is not the constant Way ..." ~Laozi


@Wayfarer -

Saying the universe is unlikely is not even wrong.
Compared to what is it unlikely? And in what context, other than itself, are there computable parameters?


"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen." ~L.W.

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen." ~L.W. — 180 Proof

"A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. The finger is needed to know where to look for the moon, but if you mistake the finger for the moon itself, you will never know the real moon." -Thich Nhat Hanh

why do things change? because they are made of something else. and if they are made of something else then they are not really themselves but what they are made of. for what they are made of was merely impersonating something else and fooled you

for example: i shape some gold into a bird and give it to you. what do you have? a bird or gold?

Qualia shapes itself into a person, what do you have? a person or qualia?