That the substance that the universe is composed of is essentially consciousness? — Watchmaker
Where did "knowing" come into play? Something had to initially know how to arrange atoms and chemicals in way to give rise to awareness. — Watchmaker
Wouldn't there have had to be something like a mind that knew how to arrange these ingredients in such a away to give rise to awareness? — Watchmaker
I don't think that the natural evolution of human consciousness has yet given us any ability to decipher the origin story of our Universe. I think this is one of the main reasons why most people take the very easiest and laziest of roads possible to scratch that annoying itch to know, they become theists. — universeness
Push for merging humans with technology to extend lifespan. Push for global unity of our species. Push for developing technology that will allow us to leave this planetary nest as a prudent policy of further protection against the possibility of our extinction. — universeness
That's not true. If the gap is closed no more then no more gods of the gaps are needed. Then the gods are true gods, not serving to fill gaps, say between inflation and time zero. — EugeneW
These pushes are the causes of our future extinction. We could prevent that extinction by stop pushing. What if we arrive on another nest? An Earth-like planet. Then the pushing starts all over? — EugeneW
Are we talking reality's atoms, or reality's degrees of freedom? ... and thus its invariances ... and thus its structural dichotomisation into its global spacetime invariances (the structure of its Lorentz, Poincare and even de Sitter symmetry groups) and its local gauge invariances (starting with the Standard Model's SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1))? — apokrisis
The quantum collapse issue highlights that fact. Yet as I have argued, it also shows us exactly where the epistemic incision must be made. — apokrisis
Panpsychism is the pathological metaphysics that arises when you try to reduce all existence to materialism, and wind up including "consciousness" as "another face of matter" — apokrisis
Rationality sprang from irrational forces. Minds that seek truth emerged from forces that know nothing of truth — Watchmaker
A dual duel? — Watchmaker
Don't be such a big fearty, ya big fearty! :rofl: — universeness
Minds that seek truth emerged from forces that know nothing of truth. — Watchmaker
A fearty farty forty! What fear? — EugeneW
A would still equal A in any possible world that could have arisen by random chance. — Watchmaker
The primal fear which I am convinced is the substrate of all theism that you display in your typings — universeness
Could you rephrase that please? — Watchmaker
This makes sense in that Being grounds Becoming in the Aristotelean scheme. So that which stably exists becomes the stuff which also can stand under the change. — apokrisis
That the substance that the universe is composed of is essentially consciousness? — Watchmaker
That's what I think, yes. — bert1
Of course. But the suggestion was intended as a change of perspective, in order to adapt to a challenge to someone's religious worldview. From my own science-based philosophical worldview , I have concluded that what the ancients called "Spirit" (invisible agency), is what we now call "Energy" (invisible causation). The difference is that, thanks to Einstein, we can now equate invisible Energy & tangible Matter via the moderation of mathematical Mass. (E=MC^2)So, if you think of Matter as a tangible form of incorporeal Spirit, that might work — Gnomon
I think that's a reification. — Wayfarer
But fear of what? We can boldly push and go where no man has gone before, but space being the final frontier "but it's made in a Hollywood basement", as you know the song goes — EugeneW
Let me think about that and get back with you. I appreciate your time. — Watchmaker
consciousness is fundamental
The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine. — Sir James Jean
So I'm wondering what is gained by losing the distinction between conscious and not conscious — Daemon
we can't reduce out accounts of reality to phenomenology as our first person point of view - our semiotic Umwelt - is the least general "view of reality" possible. And we are seeking the maximally general view as the ground under our ontology. — apokrisis
phenomenology that actually examines the structure of experience would not seek to ground itself in the sharp and personal sense of the immediate. It already has to turn towards the subconscious and automatic to find that which is more general. And it is already thus becoming more receptive to standard neuro-reductionism - as an account based on the methodological naturalism which is all about explaining the particular from the better vantage point of the general. — apokrisis
first and third person view are the dualised aspects of the model itself. Neither "exist" outside that. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.