AuthorTopic: Our Solar System is Moving into a Potentially Dangerous Interstellar Energy Clou  (Read 202215 times)

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile

I consider panpsychism to be as plausible as any other theory or hypothesis.  But even panpsychism CAN include the possibility of emergence.  There, is, after all, no solid reason we should presume that a rock, a bacteria, a tree, a non-human animal and a human are all EQUALLY and similarly "conscious" and intelligent.  (Which I take to be two different but continuous things.)

I think of consciousness as being more-or-less synonymous with "awareness".  In panpsychism, presumably, dust and rocks are aware in some sense or another.  Maybe so!  I've actually first hand experienced the "awareness" of space, and without the aid of drugs.  ;) :-\  So I'm anything other than closed-minded. 

I reject panpsychism, at least of the bottom-up variety (it has the combination problem). It strikes me as an ultimately futile attempt by former materialists who have given up on the "hard problem", but still wish to deny the possibility of post-mortem existence. In any case I do not assume that a rock is a conscious entity. It is, rather, how we (fail to) perceive an underlying consciousness -- it is like hearing a word that we fail to perceive as a word, and perceive as just noise.

Quote
Problem is, we (as a whole culture) haven't even begun to have a theory of "consciousness" per se.  And I think this is no good reason to completely abandon all of the contending theories other than our own personal favorite.

Remove the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, and there is no need for a theory. Rather, we need a theory for why there is the appearance of nonconscious stuff, such as Hoffman's (link in my previous post).

I have several good reasons for abandoning the contending theories. Why else would I have a favorite?

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
In any case I do not assume that a rock is a conscious entity. It is, rather, how we (fail to) perceive an underlying consciousness -- it is like hearing a word that we fail to perceive as a word, and perceive as just noise.

I honestly don't know where you're going here, but I will say this much.:  I'm an "ontological experientialist," which phrase I may be coining on the spot (?) ... by which I mean if there is no experience of being/existence/objects/persons/rocks, whatever... going on somewhere we may as well regard that as a non-pheonomenon or a non-existence.  Experience, rather obviously, requires an experiencer of some kind -- in the broadest, most open-minded sense of what this may entail.

As ontology, such "experientialism" simply means "Nothing ultimately or finally exists in any meaningful sense without experience".  Since experience requires consciousness to manifest, I will go as far as to say that "Nothing meaningfully exists without consciousness".  But this is hardly a revolutionary statement!  We are, after all, using language.   And thought!  And neither of these could exist without experience or "consciousness".

That said, I do think it is plausible that a physical universe roughly similar to our own could in some weird sense "exist" without anyone around to "experience" (or be "conscious) of it or its parts.  But if it did exist as such, no one would be around to imagine, think or say a thing about it.  And in this way it would simply be "dark" -- as if it never existed at all!
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 05:56:44 PM by JRM »
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3327
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
In any case I do not assume that a rock is a conscious entity. It is, rather, how we (fail to) perceive an underlying consciousness -- it is like hearing a word that we fail to perceive as a word, and perceive as just noise.

I honestly don't know where you're going here, but I will say this much.:  I'm an "ontological experientialist," which phrase I may be coining on the spot (?) ... by which I mean if there is no experience of being/existence/objects/persons/rocks, whatever... going on somewhere we may as well regard that as a non-pheonomenon or a non-existence.  Experience, rather obviously, requires an experiencer of some kind -- in the broadest, most open-minded sense of what this may entail.

As ontology, such "experientialism" simply means "Nothing ultimately or finally exists in any meaningful sense without experience".  Since experience requires consciousness to manifest, I will go as far as to say that "Nothing meaningfully exists without consciousness".  But this is hardly a revolutionary statement!  We are, after all, using language.   And thought!  And neither of these could exist without experience or "consciousness".

That said, I do think it is plausible that a physical universe roughly similar to our own could in some weird sense "exist" without anyone around to "experience" (or be "conscious) of it or its parts.  But if it did exist as such, no one would be around to imagine, think or say a thing about it.  And in this way it would simply be "dark" -- as if it never existed at all!

right, if a tree falls in the woods, and there is nobody to hear it falling, does it make a sound?

Or does one hand clapping make a sound?

Y'all are over contextualizing consciousness, IMHO. 

But I love this type of philosophizing, so I'm guilty to...just sort of playing Buddha's advocate here.   

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Buddha was himself all about the "nothing exists independently" shtick.  To him, nothing and nobody was ever apart from the rest. 
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile

I honestly don't know where you're going here, but I will say this much.:  I'm an "ontological experientialist," which phrase I may be coining on the spot (?) ... by which I mean if there is no experience of being/existence/objects/persons/rocks, whatever... going on somewhere we may as well regard that as a non-pheonomenon or a non-existence.  Experience, rather obviously, requires an experiencer of some kind -- in the broadest, most open-minded sense of what this may entail.

As ontology, such "experientialism" simply means "Nothing ultimately or finally exists in any meaningful sense without experience".  Since experience requires consciousness to manifest, I will go as far as to say that "Nothing meaningfully exists without consciousness".  But this is hardly a revolutionary statement!  We are, after all, using language.   And thought!  And neither of these could exist without experience or "consciousness".

That said, I do think it is plausible that a physical universe roughly similar to our own could in some weird sense "exist" without anyone around to "experience" (or be "conscious) of it or its parts.  But if it did exist as such, no one would be around to imagine, think or say a thing about it.  And in this way it would simply be "dark" -- as if it never existed at all!

Yes. Bernardo Kastrup makes this argument (google him for videos, or see https://www.scribd.com/doc/305856953/On-why-idealism-is-superior-to-physicalism-and-micropsychism for a short summary of his views, which are roughly mine). He calls it the argument from parsimony: since if anything existed outside of experience, it might as well not exist, there is no reason to assume such extra-experiential stuff. Especially when assuming it drops one into unresolvable difficulties. But if so, why call consciousness a mystery? (Speaking ontologically, I treat 'consciousness', 'awareness' and 'experience' synonymously.)

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3327
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Buddha was himself all about the "nothing exists independently" shtick.  To him, nothing and nobody was ever apart from the rest.

sure, but you did not answer any of the koans. 

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Quote
That said, I do think it is plausible that a physical universe roughly similar to our own could in some weird sense "exist" without anyone around to "experience" (or be "conscious) of it or its parts.  But if it did exist as such, no one would be around to imagine, think or say a thing about it.  And in this way it would simply be "dark" -- as if it never existed at all!

Hi JRM, Does one have to imagine another universe for this situation?

Couldn't the situation exist right here on earth, an undiscovered species perhaps, or new type gemstone buried deep beneath the earth and never seen or it's existence not known by anyone?

I'm confused by all this. Doesn't something either exist or not exist, no matter if a being is around to witness it or describe it.  :icon_scratch:

I also don't believe any person, can witness or understand what exactly the personal thoughts of another are, only glimpses of that consciousness. Since that unique part of a person's consciousness is hidden from all, including maybe even him, what would it be considered as under your explanation? A non existent or dead part of someones consciousness, or existing but not witnessed. Since it is inanimate, the thought that is of the conscious person that cannot be recognized by anyone, or seen, doesn't that complicate the entire situation as well since it is not a physical reality. :icon_scratch:

 
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 07:09:13 PM by Golden Oxen »

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
But if so, why call consciousness a mystery? (Speaking ontologically, I treat 'consciousness', 'awareness' and 'experience' synonymously.)

I treat them fundamentally this way myself, actually.  Everything -- whatever it is -- is necessarily integral, or whole.  There are no things outside of this whole.

Why treat "consciousness" as a mystery?  I personally treat everything as FUNDAMENTALLY mysterious, because, in large part, we don't know much about any of it -- even though there is a heap of knowledge about things.  It's the most fundamental of "things" which are at bottom "mysterious," even words ... like "mysterious".   We don't know why any of this is here, except in the narrowest causal sense, at most.  Cause is a very limited perspective! Is "Why?" irrelevant?  I doubt it.  But aside from religious or rationalistic/scientific  fundamentalists, no one quite knows.  And I doubt we ever will.  But I'm nothing more than an ant on the forest floor of Mystery!  I know Jack Squat.  And I like it this way.
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
I'm confused by all this. Doesn't something either exist or not exist, no matter if a being is around to witness it or describe it.  :icon_scratch:

I strongly suspect it does, or would. But it's literally very quite impossible to know.  If nobody can experience something, well, the entire universe, cosmos, or whatever is without is-ness in the most obvious, experiential sense.  It is effectively nothing, as far as experiencing beings go.  So I suspect the question is both unanswerable and irrelevant, ultimately.

In other words, what I'm interested in is experience.  I rather imagine I cannot imagine or fathom non-experience.  So I'll leave non-experience to the non-experiencers, as irrelevant to me and my kind.
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
I also don't believe any person, can witness or understand what exactly the personal thoughts of another are, only glimpses of that consciousness. Since that unique part of a person's consciousness is hidden from all, including maybe even him, what would it be considered as under your explanation? A non existent or dead part of someones consciousness, or existing but not witnessed. Since it is inanimate, the thought that is of the conscious person that cannot be recognized by anyone, or seen, doesn't that complicate the entire situation as well since it is not a physical reality. :icon_scratch:

I do believe in the possibility of what I call "radical intimacy" between humans.  "Radical intimacy" allows the most profound possible sharing of experience, understanding, awareness.... It's an extraordinary thing! at its further extent of possibility.  But when we're in "that place" together it tends to somewhat dissolve our usual "rational" way of understanding things.  That's what makes it "radical".  When we are in the deepest, most essential aspect of our human experience we are NOT separate from others, but rather continuous and radially related ... so much that there is no sense of a "separate" self whatsoever (or a purely "external" observer or experiencer).   Our most essential nature, as conscious, experiencing beings, is Wholeness, which is always (best I can sense) a Radical Mystery.  Unfathomable.
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38947
    • View Profile
I do believe in the possibility of what I call "radical intimacy" between humans.

I believe in Radical Solitariness.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lpzqQst-Sg8" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/lpzqQst-Sg8</a>

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3332
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Okay, it's been confirmed by astronomers, another star is on a collision course for our solar system:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/whole-other-star-crash-course-our-solar-system

(I'm not giving it away, you'll have to click and read the article for the punchline....)
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38947
    • View Profile
Okay, it's been confirmed by astronomers, another star is on a collision course for our solar system:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/whole-other-star-crash-course-our-solar-system

(I'm not giving it away, you'll have to click and read the article for the punchline....)

Quote
Gliese 710 is only half the size of our sun, but if there are still people around in 1.35 million years to observe the event, the star will appear as the brightest and fastest object in the night sky. It's bizarre to imagine that our solar system will house a whole other star, even if it is only supposed to pass through the Oort Cloud. Gliese 710 won't be sticking around; eventually it will curb around the sun and be on its way, but not before wreaking some havoc.

This appears to cut the Max Survival Time for Homo Sap down from 300M years to 1.35M years, a mere drop in the bucket of over 3B years of Life on Earth.

If everyone DIES on Earth tomorrow or in 1.35M more years, what's the difference on the grand scale?

I seriously doubt any Homo Saps will be around to greet Gliese 710 when she comes a-calling on a Solar System Fly-by though.  Homo Sap will be Extinct by the Year 2525, as predicted by Zager & Evans.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/yesyhQkYrQM" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/yesyhQkYrQM</a>

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile

I consider panpsychism to be as plausible as any other theory or hypothesis.  But even panpsychism CAN include the possibility of emergence.  There, is, after all, no solid reason we should presume that a rock, a bacteria, a tree, a non-human animal and a human are all EQUALLY and similarly "conscious" and intelligent.  (Which I take to be two different but continuous things.)

I think of consciousness as being more-or-less synonymous with "awareness".  In panpsychism, presumably, dust and rocks are aware in some sense or another.  Maybe so!  I've actually first hand experienced the "awareness" of space, and without the aid of drugs.  ;) :-\  So I'm anything other than closed-minded. 

I reject panpsychism, at least of the bottom-up variety (it has the combination problem). It strikes me as an ultimately futile attempt by former materialists who have given up on the "hard problem", but still wish to deny the possibility of post-mortem existence. In any case I do not assume that a rock is a conscious entity. It is, rather, how we (fail to) perceive an underlying consciousness -- it is like hearing a word that we fail to perceive as a word, and perceive as just noise.

Quote
Problem is, we (as a whole culture) haven't even begun to have a theory of "consciousness" per se.  And I think this is no good reason to completely abandon all of the contending theories other than our own personal favorite.

Remove the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, and there is no need for a theory. Rather, we need a theory for why there is the appearance of nonconscious stuff, such as Hoffman's (link in my previous post).

I have several good reasons for abandoning the contending theories. Why else would I have a favorite?

I read that piece you linked to....it does make it easier to understand.  The MUI, I mean, makes it easier to understand how consciousness is the fundamental, rather than the physical. Much good food for thought, for me. For people who spend so much time clicking on icons, it's a good way to explain it so that it can be understood.

I wonder if what we can perceive in altered states of consciousness (McKenna and his machine elves come to mind) is some fragment of a world more real than the one we think we live in.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline azozeo

  • Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9182
    • View Profile
Okay, it's been confirmed by astronomers, another star is on a collision course for our solar system:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/whole-other-star-crash-course-our-solar-system

(I'm not giving it away, you'll have to click and read the article for the punchline....)


So I guess my grand kids will have to endure this shit all over again. A Yogi Berra moment (DeJa Vu all over again)
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why youíre here. Youíre here because you know something. What you know you canít explain, but you feel it. Youíve felt it your entire life, that thereís something wrong with the world.
You donít know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
387 Views
Last post September 17, 2017, 01:23:36 PM
by azozeo
6 Replies
569 Views
Last post August 24, 2018, 02:23:07 PM
by Eddie