[GeneV]

Well, from the responses I'm not sure anyone knows what the topic is.

It isn't about "belief" in God or the transgressions of religion or the pitfalls of physicalism, but rather why it is so many of us who live in Western culture can't intelligently and objectively discuss the possibility of a conscious universe without, on the one hand, religious concepts of God getting in the way, and on the other, attitudes by the science or atheist side so worried about religious infringement they trash any and all ideas that remotely stray from mechanistic/physicalistic formulas, or even hint that science isn't the only legitimate way to investigate and know..

Well I did not get that, so thanks for the clarification.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 12-22-2010 at 02:45 PM.

[Ratmagiclady]

Well I did not get that, so thanks for the clarification.

Just goes to show, I may not wrap my cosmos around this place, but analog hi-fi? Twill be my go-to.

[GeneV]

Just goes to show, I may not wrap my cosmos around this place, but analog hi-fi? Twill be my go-to.

My night's sleep often begins with a couple of McIntosh MC 30s I rebuilt. Sweet sound, but not as sweet as a triode. I just couldn't fit speakers that will sing at a couple of watts in the bedroom.

[Ratmagiclady]

My night's sleep often begins with a couple of McIntosh MC 30s I rebuilt. Sweet sound, but not as sweet as a triode. I just couldn't fit speakers that will sing at a couple of watts in the bedroom.

Yeah, most of these guys are on a different level. My expertise was always more on the lines of reviving old stuff people'd throw on the street cause it picked up a buzz or something, make em go, sound pretty darn nice, ...but they don't break em like they used to anymore.

[Sparkle]

Les, you deny Physicalism. However, with due regard to Wittgenstein's private language argument, it appears to me that is the basis of your thesis. Physical ism, furthermore, to me, is simply a new name for the philosophical arguments of the ancients and for examples, to the more recent views of René Descartes, the Existentialists and of course, to the approach of scientists and their scientific method. Your "conscious universe" seems to me to be another term for what others believe to be "god". I'm simply trying to communicate. I'm not arguing but simply providing some feedback of the impressions I get through my personal filters, biases, prejudices or whatever you prefer. There is no escape. All understanding is subjective. We communicate better if words are in a context. As Ayers argued, I say "Apple". My listener imagines an "Apple" on a tree. I meant a computer! I believe that most of us who have responded to your remarks and each others are not significantly different in our comments and/or beliefs. Perhaps after you get a bit older you will agree. LOL On the other hand I accept that I may be mistaken. Regardless, I believe the exchanges to be valuable, at least to me. No doubt "Amen" has the wrong etymology on which I would end this part. LOL

[GeneV]

Yeah, most of these guys are on a different level. My expertise was always more on the lines of reviving old stuff people'd throw on the street cause it picked up a buzz or something, make em go, sound pretty darn nice, ...but they don't break em like they used to anymore.

Working on '50s tube equipment is like working on a car from that era. You have enough room under the hood to sleep 2. Replaceable parts in electronic equipment. I love it.

[les3547]

Some good points here. In discussing such possibilities Les, there is bound to be philosophical argument on what constitutes truth.

Yes, ambiguity about “truth” definitions always seem to complicate any philosophical discussion.

I relate to the term in two ways. First is the classic “correspondence” approach, which strictly applies to statements. A statement is “true” if it corresponds with the way reality actually exists, or potentially can exist. But I also realize some people project the term onto reality itself where the “truth” becomes the way reality actually exists. I usually try to see how someone is using truth when I answer them.

. . . but for lack of complete knowledge we can be left wandering in our limitations for the possibilities that we cannot be sure of.

Yes, I think a more important question than what truth is, is: how do we discover the nature of reality? If we know how to know, then it becomes a lot easier to get our statements to correspond to how reality exists. In my opinion, the empiricists have it at least partly right. As John Locke put it, “Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience. In that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself.”

But why do I say “partly right”?

With knowledge we come closer to understanding our environment better, but we're limited by what our 5 senses and our scope of experience provides to us.

I say it’s “partly right” because I question that human experience is limited to what our senses provide. Before defending that statement, let me put it in the context of my way of searching for the nature of reality.

If I had to label my personal epistemological approach I’d call it experientialism and define it as to pursue knowledge through direct personal experience, and to accept as “known” only that which has been experientially confirmed. So practicing experientialism means that to agree something is known, it must be adequately supported by one’s own experience or reliable reports of experience.

As I’m sure you know, when doing science, for example, after one hypothesizes that the nature of reality is a certain way, one then attempts to set up experiments where what has been hypothesized can be observed. Observation is experience, sense experience, and that’s what makes science a variety of experientialism, usually referred to as “empiricism.”

Hardcore empiricists are usually squirming about now from hearing empiricism described as a mere “variety” of experientialism. It seems fair to say most empiricists believe that for the purposes of gathering information useful to knowing, only sense experience is trustworthy. But what about the experience of consciousness itself? If one suddenly lost all of one’s senses, is there nothing left to experience? Not only are there types of conscious experience independent of the senses but, there is a long history of individuals learning to explore other aspects of reality through “inner” experience.

Since we are after experienced-based evidence, and since our subject matter is abstruse (the source of the universe’s organization, especially into life) and we need all the relevant information we can get, it seems to me that we cannot afford to overlook any consistent reports of experience whether sense experience or expert inner experience. So I take very seriously statements like the following:

"Better than a hundred years lived in ignorance, without contemplation, is one single day of life lived in wisdom and in deep contemplation." The Buddha.

“. . . when you pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is there in the secret place . . .” Jesus.

Japanese Zen teacher Dogen’s words (who’d traveled to China to study Ch’an, 13th century), “In the study of the Way, the prime essential is sitting meditation. The attainment of the way by many people in China is due in each case to the power of sitting meditation. Even ignorant people with no talent, who do not understand a single letter, if they sit whole-heartedly in meditation, then by the accomplishment of meditative stability, they will surpass even brilliant people who have studied for a long time. Thus students . . . do not get involved with other things.”

Notice the similarity to Dogen’s words by the 11th century Greek Orthodox monastic, Simeon: “Therefore our holy fathers . . . have renounced all other spiritual work and concentrated wholly on this one doing, that is on guarding the heart, convinced that, through this practice, they would easily attain every other virtue . . . If you wish also to learn how it should be done, I will tell you of this . . . . keep your attention within yourself, not in your head but in our heart. Keep your mind there in the heart . . . your mind should constantly abide there . . . . One of the fathers says: ‘Sit in your cell and this prayer will teach you everything.’” (Taken from the Philokalia.)

Might not such inner experience offer us new information?

---

Last edited by les3547; 12-24-2010 at 04:24 PM.

[les3547]

Les, you deny Physicalism. However, with due regard to Wittgenstein's private language argument, it appears to me that is the basis of your thesis. Physical ism, furthermore, to me, is simply a new name for the philosophical arguments of the ancients and for examples, to the more recent views of René Descartes, the Existentialists and of course, to the approach of scientists and their scientific method. Your "conscious universe" seems to me to be another term for what others believe to be "god". I'm simply trying to communicate. I'm not arguing but simply providing some feedback of the impressions I get through my personal filters, biases, prejudices or whatever you prefer. There is no escape. All understanding is subjective. We communicate better if words are in a context. As Ayers argued, I say "Apple". My listener imagines an "Apple" on a tree. I meant a computer! I believe that most of us who have responded to your remarks and each others are not significantly different in our comments and/or beliefs. Perhaps after you get a bit older you will agree. LOL On the other hand I accept that I may be mistaken. Regardless, I believe the exchanges to be valuable, at least to me. No doubt "Amen" has the wrong etymology on which I would end this part. LOL

First let me say I agree with most of what you said. So let me isolate that with which I disagree.

I don’t really “deny physicalism, I deny that its proponents have demonstrated physicalness can self-organize at the quality found in life. Further, I say physicalist proponents too often exaggerate the importance of what little self-organization they have found, while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge just how lacking in physical self-organizing evidence humanity is.

Physicalist devotees also, in science specials on TV for example, misrepresent evolution by linking evolution fact with evolution theory as though they are equally supported by evidence. That life evolved over hundreds of millions of years and common descent may be evolution facts, but what causes evolution is a whole different category. Yet when scientists address the public about what is “known,” ALL of evolution is presented with the same certainty, and that is misleading. If truly objective something like this should be said “we know life evolved, nobody knows what evolved it. We have our theories, but we can’t prove them.”

Instead, it is common to hear Darwin’s observations with finches as evidence for evolution, when really it is evidence for adaption (and no one can demonstrate that adaption is the basis of evolution). For example, there can be no doubt that genetic change is a key aspect of evolution, but how does anyone know what has caused the genetic change that evolved organisms? The assumption that genetic change is random (and then “selected”) is not because randomness has proven itself propitious to system building (as in eye or brain or liver or thyroid, etc. systems). If fact, randomness is normally an enemy to organized efforts (which is why we plan things we want to work well instead of leaving them to randomness).

The physicalist will say “but in the absence of any other evidence, the default position is randomness.” That is ridiculous. We had no idea genes existed at one point, yet they were still doing their thing. Our lack of awareness of a cause doesn’t mean we can assume it is something that supports our personal belief system, and that’s exactly what physicalists are doing. Randomness is assumed because it is gets rid of planning (as God might do), yet there is no intelligent basis for either faith in randomness to yield the right gene for selection, or that gene change is random at all!

For example, let’s say a staunch physicalism believer studies the DNA of some new corn species he’s found. Unbeknownst to him, GMO technicians have purposely manipulated the corn’s DNA in vitro over a period of years. While the reality is that human consciousness intervened, his prior assumptions cause him to interpret the source of the corn’s DNA structure as having come about through random mutation when it was achieved through purposeful mutation.

If the universe were conscious, and has assisted in the evolution of life, affecting genes is right where it would be done. That brings us back to my point that discussions about what’s responsible for life’s organization are seldom objective, and most of it has to do with the long dispute between religion and science.

[Ash]

Good discussion Les. Experiential knowledge is generally widely accepted particularly since the knowledge can be tested, and the experiences reproducible. The inner experience beyond the basic 5 senses, which seems to me a form of self-awareness but not quite self-actualisation, is more difficult to put through these rigors of hypothesis testing, since they are more personal experiences. Teachings of the wiser people in history point towards us being aware of our environment, but to use isolation and contemplation as tools of reflection and reverence to the greater being who gave us every blessing in life. I see this reflective experience is more for consolidation of knowledge and wisdom rather than for acquisition of further knowledge. This strikes me also as an important aspect to our experience, which is perhaps less applicable in non-theistic thinking.

It can leave the non-theist in a quandary when he or she is really thankful for a miraculous event and has no one to thank. The typical rebuttal "Thankful for what?" then follows - "One can enjoy a pleasant experience without attributing it to an imaginary benefactor. And if there is a benefactor, the atheist can usually figure out who it is. No one is that self-effacing." Could the same thing be said in cases of disappearing cancers inexplicable even to the experts, the beauty of a magnificent sunset, the miracle of conception and childbirth, the transformation of a tiny seed into a living plant?

[les3547]

I see this reflective experience is more for consolidation of knowledge and wisdom rather than for acquisition of further knowledge. This strikes me also as an important aspect to our experience, which is perhaps less applicable in non-theistic thinking.

I really like what the Buddha taught on this subject (FYI, I am not a Buddhist). Many people, especially atheists, like to say the Buddha was an atheist, but that isn't the slightest bit true. Of course, nor was he a theist or even an agnostic.

His approach was brilliant, IMO, because he just taught an inner method and told followers to let that teach them. When asked to speculate on God or deities he replied, "[I have not declared these things because] that is not condusive to the purpose, not the way to embark on the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessaton, to calm, to higher knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana. That is why I have not declared it.”

Today we are expert at exploring the world outside of us, but seem to know so little about what we are at our core. Just that fact that there is a raging debate about what consciousness is, yet we are consciousness, is quite the irony.

[Coeurdechene]

Why can't we have an intelligent conversation about the possiblity of a conscious universe? Too often it is because one side wants it to fit with the Bible, and the other side wants it to avoid fitting the Bible. An actual exchange of ideas on the subject never happens since neither side argues honestly or considers all evidence objectively.

This discussion is difficult too because some people are not ready to be open about their deeper beliefs, they are not willing to accept other people's values, its difficult for some to enter such a discussion because they, sometimes, feel they are being judged or their feelings denied...

If I had to label my personal epistemological approach I’d call it experientialism and define it as to pursue knowledge through direct personal experience, and to accept as “known” only that which has been experientially confirmed. So practicing experientialism means that to agree something is known, it must be adequately supported by one’s own experience or reliable reports of experience.

This also complicates the matter since it eliminates the "objective" consideration, and some will not consider other's experiences as evidence of nothing.
When we enter this realm some may give different reasons for what the other felt...
Its very difficult to define a usable frame for such a discussion...
What can be considered as a legitimate experience?
Could the psychedelic experiences be considered as such? i'm sure lots of people would dismiss this kind of experiences as just drug induced hallucinations..but for some the psychedelics are just a mean of opening closed doors, of open new perceptions..all this can be comparable to the mystycs experience..
In the area of subjective feelings we enter a very difficult ground for discussion..
Thats why i said in my first post that we all should be able to ascertain to the value of other people's thoughts and beliefs.

[Ash]

Could the psychedelic experiences be considered as such? i'm sure lots of people would dismiss this kind of experiences as just drug induced hallucinations..but for some the psychedelics are just a mean of opening closed doors, of open new perceptions..all this can be comparable to the mystycs experience..

They are certainly real experiences for the psychotic, however they are not experienced by the non-psychotic (schizophrenia and drug-induced psychosis are medically and physically definable conditions that alter the brain's physiology and cloud insight and judgement along with inducing hallucinations and delusions). These are not the same as the inner experiences being referred to.

[Ratmagiclady]

Physicalist devotees also, in science specials on TV for example, misrepresent evolution by linking evolution fact with evolution theory as though they are equally supported by evidence. That life evolved over hundreds of millions of years and common descent may be evolution facts, but what causes evolution is a whole different category. Yet when scientists address the public about what is “known,” ALL of evolution is presented with the same certainty, and that is misleading. If truly objective something like this should be said “we know life evolved, nobody knows what evolved it. We have our theories, but we can’t prove them.”

Only problem is, that's not true as you say.

Instead, it is common to hear Darwin’s observations with finches as evidence for evolution, when really it is evidence for adaption (and no one can demonstrate that adaption is the basis of evolution). For example, there can be no doubt that genetic change is a key aspect of evolution, but how does anyone know what has caused the genetic change that evolved organisms? The assumption that genetic change is random (and then “selected”) is not because randomness has proven itself propitious to system building (as in eye or brain or liver or thyroid, etc. systems). If fact, randomness is normally an enemy to organized efforts (which is why we plan things we want to work well instead of leaving them to randomness).

You're trying to find purpose before understanding the mechanism, there: to assert a priori that there *must* be a certain agency making things happen without all that random mutation, when they *aren't.*

In fact, most of what causes genetic mutation *is* neutral or nonviable in effect, ....observably. ...You can make it happen, observably: all you have to do is irradiate some DNA. or chart some genomes: nothing's unaccountable there, just cause some think, verbally, on a human scale, 'It shouldn't be so.'

Likewise, when a combination of them turns out to be beneficial under varying circumstances, and this happens as often as you'd expect, then it tends to have a selection advantage. Observably.

The physicalist will say “but in the absence of any other evidence, the default position is randomness.” That is ridiculous. We had no idea genes existed at one point, yet they were still doing their thing. Our lack of awareness of a cause doesn’t mean we can assume it is something that supports our personal belief system, and that’s exactly what physicalists are doing.

It does, however, perfectly well say that it *could* be random. In many ways it observably *is* random. That only *has* to mean 'soulless' if both sides happen to believe that 'soul' means 'Supernatural artifice apart from normal causation.'

Randomness is assumed because it is gets rid of planning (as God might do), yet there is no intelligent basis for either faith in randomness to yield the right gene for selection, or that gene change is random at all!

Cart before the horse, there. You assume that the point of science is to disprove your theology, when the observations really just happen to be inconvenient to certain deterministic assertions.

All science can say about your theology is that it's making assertions unsupported by science and that some assertions of that theology are factually-incorrect.

If the universe were conscious, and has assisted in the evolution of life, affecting genes is right where it would be done.

Presumption on presumption. (I *do* happen to believe the universe is conscious, but not necessarily as an artificer, and certainly not as an external one with a set of blueprints and demands to be imposing,) It's anthropomorphising way too much to assume there's a linear engineering like process where none is *necessary.*

In some way, it's *alive.* That doesn't have to mean 'intelligently-designed,' and the observations actually don't support that assertion. Or don't *have* to. Scientifically, it's *unnecessary* to start positing more than there is to it about how things manifest, thus science doesn't support adding supernatural 'causes' to chartable processes just for the sake of them.

That brings us back to my point that discussions about what’s responsible for life’s organization are seldom objective, and most of it has to do with the long dispute between religion and science.

I think the dispute between *some* religion and science has to do with *some* religion trying to make scientific claims based on dogma, that are untrue.

Now, when we start finding patterns to *anomalies,* that's interesting, (and we have to beware of our own capacity to make sorting errors even there,) but that doesn't suddenly make radiation and DNA and other replication errors that we see every day not happening, or not sufficient explanation. Or some reason to drive a truckload through the perceived 'gaps' and say, 'This is all bunk!'


See where I'm going with that? While it's certainly *possible* Lady's, err, monkeyed, with the odds, it doesn't change how the odds work, or make the observations of the observable untrue. (And, notably, it doesn't mean anyone's observed anything of the sort. When people say that proves a negative, they're often overreaching, but we're talking about margins of resolution, not tearing up the picture. )

[les3547]

You're trying to find purpose before understanding the mechanism, there: to assert a priori that there *must* be a certain agency making things happen without all that random mutation, when they *aren't.*

Not so, I am not trying to find purpose, I am challenging the assumption of randomness.

In fact, most of what causes genetic mutation *is* neutral or nonviable in effect, ....observably. ...You can make it happen, observably: all you have to do is irradiate some DNA. or chart some genomes: nothing's unaccountable there, just cause some think, verbally, on a human scale, 'It shouldn't be so.'

Of course we can cause mutation. You are starting to sophist away my point. I wasn't referring to the fact that genes can be made to mutate by random factors, I was talking about relying on that to provide selectable material that supports all the evolution of organ systems-organisms that has ever occurred.

How exactly does anyone know randomness can produce that sort of selectable gene pool?

And before you start giving examples of, say, moths who with the help of selection turn from light to dark in a few generations because birds eat the light ones, that is adaption of existing systems, and I haven't challenged such observations.

What cannot be demonstrated, yet is causally linked to evolution (e.g. in TV science specials, etc.), is that the minor adaption of an existing system through selection is what built the system in the first place.

Likewise, when a combination of them turns out to be beneficial under varying circumstances, and this happens as often as you'd expect, then it tends to have a selection advantage. Observably.

What is observable? Let's drop for now that mutation can be artificially caused; let's talk strictly about genetic changes we didn't cause.

How do you know what causes evolution-contributing gene change? And if you can't know, why assume it was random?

It does, however, perfectly well say that it *could* be random. In many ways it observably *is* random. That only *has* to mean 'soulless' if both sides happen to believe that 'soul' means 'Supernatural artifice apart from normal causation.'

Lol, I don't think that is an honest assessment of how things are presented. Here is what is typically taught to students, and presented to the public:

Evolution 101: Mutations

Now, this is UC Berkeley talking, not some hack science site saying:

"Mutations are random.
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

Cart before the horse, there. You assume that the point of science is to disprove your theology, when the observations really just happen to be inconvenient to certain deterministic assertions.

All science can say about your theology is that it's making assertions unsupported by science and that some assertions of that theology are factually-incorrect.

Nonsense, I did not say or imply such a thing. First of all, I have no theology, and second, ideal science isn't what we are discussing. Yes, ideally science is objective.

And then there is scientism, where some of its adherents are like a semi-cult group trying to push physicalism, and who also happen to be 100% atheistic. When challenged for exaggerating the importance of certain facts and hiding what they don't know in such a way that it seems to make physicalism all put proven, they always fall back to citing the empirical ideal of objectivity as though it automatically applies to anyone who practices science.

Presumption on presumption.

It isn't me who is presuming however. I'll explain in the next post.

In some way, it's *alive.* That doesn't have to mean 'intelligently-designed,' and the observations actually don't support that assertion. Or don't *have* to. Scientifically, it's *unnecessary* to start positing more than there is to it about how things manifest, thus science doesn't support adding supernatural 'causes' to chartable processes just for the sake of them.

But you are presuming I want an intelligently designed universe because I challenge how evolution science is presented to the public and students. I don't know if the universe has consciousness helping out with evolution or not, and I don't care if it is or isn't. Whatever is, is, and I would rather know what is than have my beliefs confirmed (which is why I eschew belief whenever possible).

But just look at how you frame the issue, it leaves no room for anything but a physicalist model. You say "Scientifically, it's *unnecessary* to start positing more than there is to it about how things manifest."

Really? Are you saying science can account, via demonstration, what's behind the organization of life? Oh, they can't demonstrate it? So does science then stop positing more than is known? Oh, they don't? Well, then, what sort of things are posited? Purely physicalistic, atheistic stuff? Yep.

But there's more here. You say "science doesn't support adding supernatural 'causes'" Why must a conscious universe be supernatural? If it is conscious overall, I wouldn't imagine it as anything but natural. Since no one knows what the originating impetus was for the universe, since no one knows what provides the organization of life, why would anyone possibly want to eliminate a naturally conscious universe from the options?

Science maybe neutral, but scientism devotees are far from it. They cleverly find ways to eliminate any possible link to the dreaded God of religion, and anything that they can't explain mechanistically is dismissed as "unscientific" as though if science can't answer it, then it can't be answered.

As far as I have observed, science can only answer physical questions. So for that, I trust science without reservation. But for deeper questions, it seems to lack mightily.

[les3547]

Its very difficult to define a usable frame for such a discussion...
What can be considered as a legitimate experience?
Could the psychedelic experiences be considered as such? i'm sure lots of people would dismiss this kind of experiences as just drug induced hallucinations..but for some the psychedelics are just a mean of opening closed doors, of open new perceptions..all this can be comparable to the mystycs experience..
In the area of subjective feelings we enter a very difficult ground for discussion..
Thats why i said in my first post that we all should be able to ascertain to the value of other people's thoughts and beliefs.

I agree. In my youth I had a lot of experience with peyote, I believe that's what helped me get attracted to meditation. I've since learned to achieve the forced openness psychedelics cause by learning new consciousness skills, those taught by a serious and dedicated meditation practice.

Regarding subjectivity, as you probably realize, all experience is subjective, and we can never know what someone is actually experiencing. A claim like I just made about what meditation can teach one cannot be observed by you, but it can be tested. Of course, the test is you practicing meditation yourself in such a way that should produce the same results.

The kind of tests we can externalize are what we all trust the most, because we can share the observation simultaneously, and most easily reproduce the test. That path has proven extraordinarily valuable for discovering the nature of the physical world, and I respect it very much.

Yet there is a reason someone like Socrates said "know thy self." There is another way of knowing that is only available to the individual. You cannot accept my word for what I say I have discovered inside; if you want to know, the only way is to look inside for yourself.