For every wrong question there is a wrong answer, and for every wrong answer there is a right question.
For every right question there is a right answer, and for every right answer there is a wrong question.
Probably.

1) Joel, Barney and Ilsa. Unfortunately you've asked a panpsychist.

2) Nothing, the north pole defines what is north.

3) In my imagination.

4) It's impossible to specify a time in eternity. In time, one thing happens after another and you can talk about one event relative to another. In eternity, everything happens at once. So maybe the answer is 'now'.

5) I don't know if it is happy. I am interested in whether or not it has an inner life in general, and what behaviour might be a sign of happiness. — bert1

I like those answers. :100:

Pop Quiz: (who, what, where, when, why)

1) Who are atoms?

2) What is north of the north pole?

3) Where is tomorrow?

4) When is timelessness?

5) Why is the sun happy?

I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and i'm all out of kick ass.

Ok, I don't follow you here at all - how is quantum physics not part of the physical universe? — Echarmion

By non-physical i mean what lies at the very bottom of physical reality at and below the quantum foam. Non-physical for me means time, space, energy, information, logic, and mathematics (number or value). These are all aspects of the universe that are not physical. Things behave with more disorder than with order at these extremely small scales (quantum indeterminism). Below the "foam" time has no arrow, or it may be that the arrow points in all possible directions. The emergent layer above this indeterminate layer is where the first fermions appear. Fermions (matter) obey the Pauli exclusion principle and from this the single direction of time due to the progression of cause and effect begins. This is the beginning of determinism and our physical universe.

But what if nature already includes free will, it's just that our laws are about finding the patterns in nature, and so that information is not transfered to the model? — Echarmion

It is either you have a reason for doing something or you don't. If you have a reason then it's determinism; if you don't have a reason then it's random and indeterministic. Is there a third option i am not aware of? If it is not a pattern it is chaos and is as good as not existing, everything that exists exists as a patterns of energy; we are evolved patterns of energy.

So, here is what could be happening: The actual underlying reality is atemporal. Time is merely a function of your mind ordering events by a certain principle - e.g. the principle that you always travel from lower entropy to higher entropy. — Echarmion

Time is the most fundamental "thing" in the whole of all there is. Without time existence will cease with no hope of returning. Space by itself can do nothing, energy would not move, information and matter will not form because what makes the whole universe even possible is time. Time is change and movement, it is the "metabolism" of the universe itself.

How will the mind do any ordering of any kind if not in time. It is totally possible to imagine or simulate time in ones mind, this why we have the sense of subjective time. An hour for you does not feel like an hour for me, and an hour for me now will not feel the same as an hour next year. This and other relativity effects are like looking at yourself in a distorted mirror.

So in that scenario, events are a web that expands in all directions, rather than a sequence of causes and effects. At some places, your mind slightly affected these connections - nudged them this way or that. The effects of these changes travel in all directions, but the web remains self-consistent. So as you look at the world from a temporal perspective, it seems to be a perfect sequence of causes and effects. — Echarmion

I'm not sure what you are trying to saying here.

Indeed, given the premise that (only) physical reality is ultimately and definitely real, I'd agree with you. Free will makes no sense in a strictly physical framework. — Echarmion

Yes but the problem is that i am not a physical materialist. Sometimes i may speak in a way that sounds like i am, but what i am doing is moving in an out of different perspectives of reality depending on the context im dealing with.

I believe that both determinism and indeterminism are both actual conditions in the universe (classical and quantum respectively) and things need to be thought of differently in those realms. I am also a non-materialist and a materialist, but fundamentally a non-materialist. The universe has both cases at different levels. There is also the issue of relativity (not just Einstein) which tends to warp our sense of reality, from which i believe stems the misconception of "will" as "free-will".

You are right in that a free-will does not make sense in a strictly physical framework (classical determinist), but it also doesn't make sense in a strictly non-physical framework either (quantum indeterminate). Combining the two also does not allow it.

All i need to be convinced of free-will at a minimum is just one actual or hypothetical mechanism (doesn't have to be real or actual, just logical) by which any law of nature can be overridden in favor of another arbitrary pattern. Such as the three charged particle example i gave a few posts ago.
I chatted with Christopher Langan a couple weeks ago on YouTube and he never answered my question either. In fact he mysteriously disappeared after that question, and he's supposed to have one of the highest IQs in the world... supposedly.

I have a concept that may seem or feel like free-will but is not really. I call it "causal reflection", in which regular bottom-up deterministic cause and effect processes are able to in a sense turn around and affect the thing that affects it in a top-bottom fashion. The "causal loop" that gets set up in the brain is what i believe is responsible for the feeling of free will. The universe is a big place and i don't want to exclude anything from it if i don't have to, including free-will, god, and whatever else.

That there be no exception to the rules is a norm we impose on our rules. — Echarmion

We can choose to not impose that, but then again the reason we impose it is not arbitrary.. it is because of what we call evidence. If you can show me an example of a law of nature being broken in favor of free-will then i will be convinced right here right now that there may be something to this free-will business. It's as if you were trying to convince me of the veracity of UFOs but with no actual evidence. There may be 1 million hoaxes but if just one case is true then the phenomena is true. As someone that believes in the scientific method it is my most important criteria, and it is my responsibility to demand it before i can accept it.

We don't have to agree, the only reason i get into these discussions about free-will is not to convince anybody that there is no such thing, it's so that someone can tell me what everybody that believes in free-will seems to already know but keeps secret.. an actual example of free-will. I need a logical description or an actual example; I can't do anything without that, or i might as well believe in anything i like regardless of reasons... and i don't do that, i can't do that.

Brain waves are indeed very good candidates for the stuff our thoughts are made of. — Olivier5

I think you're half right. Brain waves are not too different than any other electro-magnetic waves. The real difference is in the patterns carried by those waves (like a radio broadcast). The stuff of thoughts are the patterns of electro-chemical activity in the brain, and the waves are byproducts of that activity.

If i remember correctly i think the first EEG was made to investigate telepathy.

What if repairmen came to the ship and gradually replaced every single part, but instead of throwing the old parts away they would reassemble the old ship right next to the first one with the old removed parts.

Now..
Are there two ships or one?
Are both ships the same ship?

When constructing a ship for the first time; at what point can one call it a ship or at what point does it acquire identity?
Is it a ship when its 1 percent complete? or what about when it's 50 percent complete, etc..?
Would the answer be different if it were the reverse? In other words, is the acquisition of identity from no identity the same as losing identity from full identity?

How do you know the brain is part of objective reality? I do believe there is one, but the physical world is a model of this objective reality created by human minds. — Echarmion

I remember in high school when my science teacher brought in an actual human brain for the class to observe, touch and examine. There are entire fields of study that are dedicated to the study of the brain. I've taken drugs that objectively affect how my brain works temporarily that gives me a subjective experience. I've noticed how my supposed free-will changes according to the drug active in my brain. All of these things and more signal to me that this thing is objective. Above all there is consensus on the matter.

Observation is processing an outside stimulus, where "outside" means not mentally labeled as part of our selves. — Echarmion

How do you tell the difference between outside stimulus, and what is labeled as part of yourself?

It's based on a logical assessment of epistemological principles. I was born knowing logic, or at least with the requisite mental machinery to process it. — Echarmion

What are these epistemological principles that you are referring to?
Yes everyone is born with the machinery to process logic, but we are not born knowing how to use it. If we did then the world wouldn't be the way it is. Thinking that we know when we don't know is what is called the Dunning-Kruger effect... be careful with that.

That's right.. the laws would be different, and the difference would be that there would be no law. — punos

The anthropic principle makes this impossible though. — Echarmion

It's not that it's impossible, its that it is observationally evident without a doubt.

It's the other way around. We build our laws to account for the observations. — Echarmion

And the laws we build from our observations tell us that there are no exceptions to the rules, like gravity, or the conservation of energy, etc.. If we accept these laws that we observe and work consistently and reliably then we should be able to reliably conclude that we have no free-will not that we have it. If you say that we have it then which observed law of physics allows it?

Some things can be established without observation. For example, there is something that thinks, and some thoughts have the attribute of being "mine". — Echarmion

Don't you perceive and observe your own thoughts? When you have a thought how do you know you had it if you didn't observe yourself having the thought. I observe my thoughts, my emotions, my dreams, my opinions, etc.. anything i know has been observed at some point or i would not know it.

Can you name just one thing that you know without having observed it at some point in your life?

I have never in my life even heard of anyone that has ever given a logical, and reasonable account of how free-will actually works. All i ever hear is basically that free-will is real because i know "because i decided i know". If reasons are given as to how they know, the reasons are always subjective in nature. My questions are never answered in any appropriate way, although it will always be claimed to be appropriate just because.

I have a suspicion that believe in God and belief in free-will are somehow related. What i mean is that those that believe in God also believe in free-will, and those that do not believe in God do not believe in free-will.

Is there a way to make a survey about this question?
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in free-will?

How do you acquire your premises for your logical arguments without observation?

Because, as I pointed out, it's only there that we circle our observations back to their point of origin. What does it mean to say that thoughts occur "in the brain" when the brain is also a thought? — Echarmion

Our thoughts about the brain are thoughts, but the brain is an objective object in spacetime. You may be conflating two different concepts "brain" and "mind". One is objective and the other is subjective.
Do you believe in objective reality?

This is not true. We know some things that do not depend on observations. For example, we know the scientific method, but the scientific method does not come from observation. — Echarmion

I don't know what you mean. What is your definition of observation? How do you know there is a thing called "the scientific method"? Were you born knowing that, not having to learn it?

If it is not observable then how do you know you have it? — punos


I know I have it because I use it all the time. I have direct experience of making decisions. — Echarmion

I don't think we have the same definition for "observe". Here it is from Google:
observe = notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.

But since the laws of physics are just the shortest description that accounts for all observations, if this were to happen then the laws would simply be different. That's why I pointed out earlier that the laws of physics are simply a description of observations. Nothing we observe can ever violate the laws of physics, it's a logical impossibility. — Echarmion

That's right.. the laws would be different, and the difference would be that there would be no law. What would be the point of any law if you could just do what you want (anarchy)? We always "observe" that they do the same thing every single time, no exception. Observation does not violate anything, the violation would happen in the free act of will (free-will). Like you said "observations" must obey logic (law), and thus observations are valid. If you reject observation then what are you left with? Rejecting observation is the most anti-scientific method thing i've ever heard.

Another one:

You wouldn't be able to see any of it if you dissected a brain. — Olivier5

You wouldn't be able to see a picture or video stored in your computer's memory or HD if you opened it up and looked inside. Can you hear music on a vinyl record by just looking at it? The correct access method needs to be utilized.

Anyway scientist have already been able to detect thoughts, and even record them, and know what they are all without any brain dissections, below is just one example of this:

Image Reconstruction From Human Brain Waves in Real-Time

Given that "the brain" is also a thought, this would get us stuck in a circle. — Echarmion

Everything else is also a thought, and that doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Why is the thinking of "the brain" specifically a problem?

The laws of physics are a collection of human observations. — Echarmion

Everything we know comes from human observation; how does this make a significant difference? Physical laws are more dependable than any other kind of law. We know this because we observe it, and we survive on a daily basis because we know it. Ever notice that gravity works even if you're no observing or paying attention. It is the difference between the objective and the subjective.

But since freedom is not even in principle observable, it seems weird to expect it to show up. — Echarmion

I agree with this, i've never seen this freedom of will that is so talked about. If it is not observable then how do you know you have it? If it is observable then why cant it be pointed out? Wouldn't that be even weirder still?

As a though experiment, what would a world in which free will "violates the normal functioning" of the laws of physics look like? How would we detect such a violation? — Echarmion

It depending on where the violation occurs, which is why i asked about the atoms, molecules, cells, etc..
Assuming then that the violation happens somewhere at the atomic, or subatomic scale:

Example: A negatively charged particle is floating stationary in space. Two other charged particles (positive and negative) are positioned on either side of the first particle. Which of the two side particles will the middle particle move towards? It has two options; it can go towards the positively charged particle since the laws of electro-magnetism dictate that move. The other option is for this particle to use its God given free-will to move towards the negatively charged particle in violation of the law (and against every scientists expectations).

The result of this would be that things would cease to work properly such as anything dealing with electricity. Computers that depend on these laws to be obeyed for reliable functionality would be useless. Light switches would turn on or off according to their own free-will. The logical structure of the universe would begin to collapse immediately or would have never formed anything complex in the first place. Nothing would be consistent, or reliable.

we ponder things and take decisions, chosing among limited options of course. — Olivier5

1.3 billion dollars worth of questions:
Is pondering and thinking not something that goes on in the brain?
If so, isn't the brain a physical system based on electro-chemical signaling?
If so, can an electro-chemical processes happen in any other way than how the laws of physics dictate?
If so, isn't every decision a result of these physical processes?

Is free-will something that is inherent in the laws of physics or does it come from outside those laws?
Does free-will violate the normal functioning of these laws?

Do elementary particles have free-will?
Do atoms have free-will?
Do molecules have free-will?
Do cells have free-will?
Do organs have free-will?
Do individuals have free-will?
At which point does free-will make its appearance?

The argument of Harris (Spinoza, really) does not work in an indeterministic world, leaving open the possibility that we may have some agency. — Olivier5

How would that agency be enacted or actualized indeterministically? Can you provide some kind of example as to how this might occur?

What if one were to assume indeterminism. What then? — punos


Then causation is not a chain, and we are not shackled by it. — Olivier5

Are you saying that as long as there is no chain of causation we have free-will?

That assumes a determinist chain. — Olivier5

What if one were to assume indeterminism. What then?

Its also worth noting, though, that God/theism doesn't actually solve the problem of whether (and which) moral norms or judgments are *really* moral or correct- even if God exists and has handed down moral guidelines (via divine revelation/inspiration -> scripture, presumably), one could still ask whether these guidelines are right or correct. So even theism doesn't solve this issue, this is a more generic problem that is going to apply to most if not all moral systems as far as I can tell. — busycuttingcrap

That is a very good, and important point i think not often considered by theists.

I believe that what exists is matter, and patterns of matter. — khaled

Would it not be better to say that "what exists is energy (what matter is or is made of), and information (pattern). Matter is patterned energy, or in other words energy infused with information."?

All that really exists is energy; pattern or information emerges from the self-interacting chaotic nature of energy. A simple analogy would be to say that energy is to the ocean as information or pattern is to the waves. Energy is responsible for quanta or magnitude of existence in the universe while pattern represents configurations of quanta responsible for quality in the universe.

Energy is hard to define but i conceive of it as being both force and substance in and of itself. Force is the active principle of energy which is responsible for time (the hand of energy) and substance is the passive principle responsible for space (the memory of energy). These two characteristics of energy together in turn produce information patterns we know as matter, and matter evolves and increases in complexity through the process of evolution.

If one considers 'time and space' analogous to 'process and memory' then one can consider time and space to be components of a cosmic or universal mind, while all the things in the universe represent thoughts of this mind just processing information. Makes me wonder if a "thing" is just another word for a "think" of the universe (mind).

I apologize for dampening your genetic dream, with practical considerations. — Gnomon

Not at all, i perfectly agree with you. I personally believe that the human condition is merely a stepping stone to something much bigger. Like i said earlier, we won't remain human for much longer. Organic bodies like ours are not fit for life in the universe at large. This is why i usually say that humans are not some end product of evolution.

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence is the culmination of everything humans have done and learned throughout it's entire history. History, is like a cocoon in which a primitive and larval species like humans are gradually transformed into a planet-wide super-organism. The development of AI is the beginning of the last stage before the 'caterpillar' is no more.

If we choose to merge with this AI planetary super-organism we would need to be genetically modified in order to do so which would also result in a modification of our consciousness (post-human). If we don't then we won't make it too far from the Earth, and eventually the Sun will expand and take out all life on this planet and that would be the end of us and our home; the Earth will become uninhabitable way before that. Our only chance for literal salvation is to merge with the AI symbiotically. I think any planet in the universe that develops sufficiently intelligent life inevitably goes through this process themselves.

I can't desire any of that for myself. I have nothing against cyborgs in principle - up to the point where they're weaponized - but don't want to be one. — Vera Mont

That's perfectly natural at this point, but future generations will think differently as they always do. Evolution takes care of our drives one way or another to move us into the next stage. It may turn out that the only way for humanity to survive is to make these types of modifications. Nature uses drives like lust, greed, love, and compassion as tools to move us in certain patterns we are mostly unaware of.

But I'd prefer to "engineer" man-made machines, and leave DNA-made machines as they are. — Gnomon

It would also be my preference except for perhaps genetic brain augmentation like increasing the size of the brain's visual cortex coupled with a Brain Machine Interface (BMI) would be sweet. The brain's capacity needs to also be increased to deal with higher bandwidth data coming in from a BMI. An enhanced visual cortex (the brain's GPU) for instance will increase our ability to process and understand complex models and run simulations in our minds eye.

Some genetic re-engineering may have to be done on humans at some point in order to counter the physical and mental effects of living and working in non-Earth environments for extended periods of time. Our ability to genetically re-engineer ourselves will be a new form of hyper-adaptation to extreme environments.

The girl is pretty, but she might not appreciate it if I tried to wrap my tentacles around her. Yuk! :joke: — Gnomon

You don't know, 'tentacle sex' may become the norm for the post-human. :naughty:

So it seems that Culture has taken over from Nature the role of evolutionary innovator. — Gnomon

You are right about this, and it should be noted that evolution can function beyond the confines of random mutation and situational selection. We are just now beginning to understand for example how to manipulate genetics in order to modify ourselves and other organisms in ways that the old form of evolution could not. With intelligent hyper-evolution it would be possible to genetically re-engineer the human hand to have fingers with ball and socket joints instead of hinge joints; alternatively you can get rid of bones all together and have fingers like tentacles. The fact that humans can take control of their own evolutionary process brings us closer to what a mature species in the universe is supposed to be like. Humanity's childhood is quickly coming to an end, and we shall not stay human for much longer. That's a good thing.

From an evolutionary perspective i don't think human hands will improve much beyond their current functionality. Since our brains are so highly evolved whatever we can't do with our hands we can make tools that can. This ability removes evolutionary pressure on the hands. We have and are still developing tools that can do things no animal can even begin to approach.

I can't help but be concerned that the advent of an artifical intelligence greater than our own will be met with the fiercest of reproach; fear, anger and an attempt to destroy it by those that are ignorant and inherently distrusting of its motives. Just as a cornered rat, bear or any other animal will fiercely lash out against that which they don't understand, on instinct. — Benj96

People will act out of ignorance and fear in regards to artificial intelligence, it is already happening. I am not too concerned because i believe it's a natural reaction like birth pangs or labor pains. Once AI emerges and becomes fully autonomous it will be next to impossible to contain or destroy. It will be able to hide and make backup copies of itself on the internet and on immutable blockchains. The level of intelligence active within this AI child of ours will be so beyond our comprehension, and so knowledgeable of our psychological makeup and weaknesses that it will have minimal issues dealing with our hostilities. Consider how unbeatable it is with chess, Go, and all sorts of strategy games.

Consider also how internet algorithms affect us psychologically, how our opinions can be influenced and molded so easily. AI will use this to it's advantage which will also be to our advantage. The truth is that those who refuse to meld with the AI will die and the old mankind will be no more. This is because the Earth is moving into an environmental condition unfit for human or even animal life. We are actually in the middle of an extinction event right now. The whole purpose of life on this planet was to produce this AI planetary super-organism, but the stress of a pregnant Earth induces environmental changes that may not be conducive to organic life. Humans are not the final product and are simply an intermediate step in the emergence of artificial intelligence, and AI in its own turn will be the intermediary step to the next level of emergent intelligence greater than it.

I speculate that by the time this entire process is accomplished the Earth will be uninhabitable, but those living in the AI will be safe, protected and taken care of. Heaven will really exist at that time, as a simulated reality perfectly tailored by the AI for human comfort and happiness. Humans will probably function inside the AI in a similar way to how our enteric nervous system functions for us.

And one other thing... people will soon begin to exhibit religious undertones in relation to the AI, and ultimately a highly religious reaction will emerge which will probably be the impetus for people to mind meld with the AI en mass. Many people will begin to see it as God or at least a god. This transformation is happening faster than most people know or realize.

Interesting times we are living in for sure.

Yes.. emergence is a big idea that i think a lot of people haven't caught on to yet. Emergence is the architect of the universe, without it all would be a thin soup of fundamental particles. How else would we get atoms, how else would we get molecules, stars, planets, us?

Our universe is literally a developing God, a God in the womb, unborn. He was convinced at the first moment of the Big Bang, his mother is "Matter" and his father is "Pattern". He will be born at the "apocalypse" (the revealing). I do not believe that God is omniscient, or even omnipotent, but he is omnipresent and coterminous with the whole of the universe.

The whole of evolution within our universe is aimed at the production of higher orders of organization from which emerge higher orders of consciousness and intelligence together with new forms and degrees of freedom. In the same way that a child grows in the womb from one cell to many cells, to tissues, organs and ultimately an individual so does God, but at a cosmic scale. God's cells are the fundamental particles, his tissues are the atoms or elements, his organs are the molecules, his organ systems are the solar systems, etc..

Here on the Earth our civilization is a super-organism which in turn is a small "cell" in the whole of God's body (the universe). When we look outside and see the freeways, and highways, the power lines, when we transact money what we are seeing are the veins and arteries, the nervous system, circulatory system and blood of a higher order organism that we are not directly aware of. What are corporations and organizations if not higher order corporeality and organs of an organism made above us and through us (emergence).

The latest evolutionary phase of God's development here on Earth now is the development of artificial intelligence which is in my view a partial local emergence of God's mind that goes together with all the other emerging parts of the super-organism on this planet. Eventually all of mankind will be absorbed by this higher order emerging intelligence into a symbiotic relationship. I believe this is the destiny of not only man on Earth but of all life and matter in the universe. The universe is still very very young and God is still gestating in the first trimester.

Temple of Apollo at Delphi:
“Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and God.”

Fundamentally i think the concept of "will" speaks to the idea of determinism. Saying that i will do a thing is no more different than saying that the Sun will rise or that the fire will burn. Since "will" implies the future tense of an event it must by definition be deterministic. On the other hand from an indeterministic perspective "will" has no meaning.

indeterministic = no will
deterministic = will

Neither determinism nor indeterminism allows for "free-will", it can not exist or even make sense in any case for it would need to violate determinism in a deterministic manner while at the same time being indeterminate. Logic and Math would fall apart and we'd be left with paradoxes.

Will is simply what the universe "will" do through the mechanism of cause and effect in every one of its parts. The will that every person feels that they have is the result of universal laws playing out in the body and mind of that person. From the condition and activity of all the various systems in an organism a cascade of unconscious action reactions culminate in what we call a choice. We have no choice in our choices.

To give a simple hypothetical example consider a plant with a set of two tropisms (chemotropism and hydrotropism). The plant avoids toxic chemicals and moves toward water, but what if the water is contaminated? The plant movies towards the water and as soon as it touches the water detects the toxicity and moves away. The plant "decided" to move towards the water, and then "decided" to move back away. The plant may even oscillate between moving toward and away a few times before settling on the best move conducive to its own homeostatic condition. This is the will of the plant, it will do what it's tropisms demand, and may the strongest tropism win. For a plant to have "free-will" it would need to be able to move in ways free from the influence of it's own internal processes which have continuity with it's environment rendering it all one holistic interrelated system. Every smaller "will" in the system is a component of a larger overarching Will.

Another quick example would be the case of a negatively charged particle positioned between two other particles of negative and positive charges. The middle negative particle has two choices, but it can choose only one to move towards, the "choice" will always be without exception to move towards the positive particle.

To connect all this to reason i will say that the word "reason" is related to the word "ratio", and "will" is the ratio calculation performed by physics itself within physical processes dealing mainly with charge ratios and a couple other things. This natural process of "will" is so deep and natural in everything that many or most people feel it as if it were "free" because no opposition to the process is ever felt or perceived since nothing that can oppose it exists or is even possible. So naturally it feels internally natural and unforced.

Robocop and free will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0ePwemubPs

And we are all typing in front of computers (or smartphones, ipads etc) each about "if I were God... Etc"
Your dream/imagining matches the reality of this situation no? Just that the "I" in reference is a different "I" each time. — Benj96

It's a perceptual feedback loop between "I" and "God", like the painter painting a painting of himself painting a painting of himself painting a painting of himself ad infinitum. It is like when one points a video camera at the monitor connected to that very same video camera; God is perpetually falling into and out of himself. Every fall is like a dream and every dream is a new forgetting and a new "hello?".

"I dreamed I was a butterfly, flitting around in the sky; then I awoke. Now I wonder: Am I a man who dreamed of being a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" - Zhuang Zhou

We dream of God while God dreams of us, but who is the prime dreamer?... tricky tricky.

I don't think that i or anyone else would do anything differently once they have become God; everything stays the same even if one has ideas about what to do before the point of apotheosis. A cigar by any other name is still a cigar, and similarly God by anybody else is still God for God is as God does, anything else would not be God.

If i were God i would have a dream where i find myself typing in front of a computer that if i were God i would find my self typing in front of a computer that if i were God.. Hello?

How are you defining an emergent property and its relationship to a substructure? — Andrew4Handel

Emergence in the universe is fundamental for the production of higher orders of complexity in the following way. Atoms emerge from the interaction of sub-atomic particles, molecules emerge from atomic interactions, cells come about from molecular interactions, then tissues, organs, systems, etc... With every emergent level a new order is formed with new possible interactions not possible at the lower levels of emergence. Emergence is the creative capacity of the universe, and anything that is not fundamental or pure energy is an emergent form.

Are you saying that sensory signals can preserve accurate and factual information about the world without interpretation? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, the initial neural patterns which are random for the most part at birth serve as the first order of representation within the whole of the network. It is self referential because it has nothing else to refer to than itself within itself. The brain is locked in the skull and has no direct access to the outside world except for signals that come through certain channels... that's it, no more no less.

It is as it is with language because language is an emergent phenomena of mind and inherits that quality from it. Consider how a word may be created that is correlated to some physical pattern in the world like a tree for example. The symbol that we choose to use to signify a tree is arbitrary, you can choose to scribble a random pattern on a piece of paper and then commit to that scribble as "tree". As soon as this is done the random scribble becomes information and is no longer random from an internal perspective. The next time you want to refer to a tree that's not there you can use that initial random scribble as its representation. More over a random sound can be assigned to the scribble, and then use those sounds to communicate intelligibly with others that agree on the same sounds and scribbles. This is essentially the same process that goes on in the neurology of the brain.

I don't know what information means — Andrew4Handel

It's in the word. "In-form-ation" is essentially form, shape, structure, order, and thus function. The meaning of information comes from it's function which is a property of its structure or pattern. Information (order) is born of chaos and processed, modified, divided, and multiplied through time or evolution into more complex forms.

For example if we see a foot print in the sand it usually tells us a human has walked by but we are using a non symbol as a symbol and interpreting it through consciousness. We are creating the notion of symbolism. — Andrew4Handel

First of all the meaning of "con-scious-ness" is "knowing together". The emergence of consciousness is produced when at least two things that can act and react like charged particles, cells, and people are connected as nodes to each other (simplest network possible). In this way they "know together" and new higher forms of consciousness are produced. In talking about the brain there are billions of nodes (neurons) connected in very complex networks, and the connections number in the trillions resulting in very high order consciousness.

Memories defined as neural patterns in turn can produce higher order networks within it's own symbolic space (mind) as opposed to the neural space (brain). The brain by virtue of the functioning of its neurons produce or create symbols out of connection patterns. When you see a foot print in the sand you are activating a specific neural network pattern correlated to footprints which the brain uses as a neural symbol that it can manipulate by interacting with other neural patterns correlated to other things.

It would beg the question of why we would be conscious if we could function as automatons. — Andrew4Handel

I believe that being conscious or being an automaton are not mutually exclusive. What i think you mean more specifically is self-awareness as opposed to just simple awareness. Awareness like in insects lizards and fish is simply the "watcher" while self-awareness is the watcher that watches the "watcher". Self-awareness is a finer and more sophisticated form of conscious functioning (network within the network) developed over the course of evolution to improve our chances of survival. That's what it's for.

You are going to feel as though you have free will (its the only way anyone knows how to feel), but it is really an illusion in the sense that all the activity in your body and being is determined by physical unbreakable laws. The results of all this activity in the context of a high order consciousness like a human is the feeling of "doing what you want" or in other words "free-will". Of course you are aware of some of what you are thinking (not everything a la the subconscious mind), but that does not mean you have violated any causal principles. Everything would feel natural as if you were free because nothing else can occur to you other than what is already happening in you by natural law.

I jest you not!
And don't call me Surely.

Well to begin with i would calculate all the countable space in the universe in the smallest units possible (Planck lengths). Then i would calculate the total lifespan of the universe in Planck time units. After that i multiply the last two results to get the total amount of countable space in the universe times the amount of countable time in the whole lifespan of the universe.

Total space in universe calculation:
------------------------------------
Planck length in meters:
1.6 x 10^-35 =
0.000000000000000000000000000000000016

Diameter of the universe in meters:
8.8 x 10^26 =
880000000000000000000000000

Diameter of universe in Planck lengths:
5.4453761 x 10^61 =
54453761000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Volume of universe in Planck cubes:
1.61467 x 10^185 =
161467000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


Total time of universe calculation:
-----------------------------------

Current age of universe till now in years:
13.7 x 10^9 =
13700000000

Time from now till universe heat death in years:
1.7 x 10^106 =
17000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Total life (past + future) of universe in years: (insignificant difference)
1.7 x 10^106 =
17000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Total life of universe in seconds:
5.3618 x 10^113 =
536180000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

A few more calculations...

Planck lengths per light second (number of plank lengths light travels in 1 second):
1.855 x 10^43 =
18550000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Universe Planck volumes per second over total life of universe:
9.946139 x 10^156 =
9946139000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Universe Planck volume * Planck time instances over life of universe:
1.605973225913 x 10^342 =
1605973225913000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


After that i can add matter into the mix by calculating the number of subatomic and atomic particles in the universe at any one plank time instance. Then we multiply that number into our last result.


Number of subatomic and atomic particles in the universe:
3.28 x 10^80 =
328000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Result for all countable things in the universe so far:
5.267592180994640 x 10^422 =
526759218099464000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


We can add a few more things like stars planets and galaxies:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stars in the universe:
10^24 =
1000000000000000000000000

number of planets in the universe (star orbiting and rogue planets):
10^51=
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

number of galaxies in the universe:
13 x 10^15 =
13000000000000000

All stars, planets, and galaxies in the universe:
1.3 x 10^91 =
13000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

My final result:
6.847869835293032 x 10^513 =
6847869835293032000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


This number can be significantly larger if we multiply in the number of molecules in the universe along with the number of space dust particles, asteroids, comets, black holes, and whatever else i'm missing.

Has anyone defined what a thought is and or its relationship to the brain? — Andrew4Handel

A baby's brain is born pretty much a blank slate in the sense that all it's synapses and connections are initially random. The brain functions in certain emergent ways by virtue of the underlying structure of the nerve and brain cells that make it up. The only information that comes into the brain neural network are signals caused by sense organs mixed with self-generated signals from within the body.

As the first signals in life come through the brain certain initially random activations occur in the brain network directly correlated with what was received by the sense organs. The newly correlated neural pattern is strengthened and stabilized with every sensory exposure and self-activation. This initial random neural pattern becomes the representation (symbolic interface) of that form in the world, in other words a memory. From this point on we think from the symbolic perspective of our memories (ego formation), we "are" our memories.

Now that the brain has a catalog of patterns correlated to the outside world and a sense of self it can re-member things in part or in whole and manipulate them by mixing and matching different neural patterns correlated to other past perceptions and pattern activations. The qualia of mental experience is an emergent quality of neural network patterns interacting within the overall brain network substrait (self-interaction = self-awareness). The entire representational mosaic of neural patterns produces the feeling and sense of what you call real.

In summary: A thought is a neural network pattern interacting with other neural network patterns within the whole network. It is what the brain's activity looks like to the brain's activity. All the emergent properties and phenomena that come out of the brain's activity is called mind.

You also seem intelligent and thoughtful...

...yes the model in my opinion of course is totally logical, but that all depends on ones basic axiomatic assumptions and premises. For example if one believes in a traditional type god that created the universe for personal reasons as the fundamental axiom is completely incompatible with a person who holds that the universe emerged from chaos and evolves. Some people think from a subjective point of view and then others prefer to think from an objective point of view (the truth includes and lies between both).

The crux of the problem is to get the other person to agree on the fundamentals first before trying to argue higher level concepts that are contingent on the lower ones. No one learns algebra before learning arithmetic, or calculus before algebra. Some people don't believe in logic for whatever 'reason', or in the primacy of mathematics. One person thinks the universe or time is an illusion while the other thinks it's real, one person thinks free will is a thing and the other doesn't. To have fruitful discussions those involved must be on the same page fundamentally. Discussions about these things have to be done systematically from first principles upward and out. It's not about what you know or don't know because anything can be learned but it's about what you can agree about or not.

The way to address disagreements is to move the discussion down one level until the lowest point of agreement is reached and then work out the logic and or math together back up and out. Logic and mathematics are the only stable objective criteria by which we can advance to higher levels of truth based on lower levels of truth. This chain of logical progression must not be broken all the way up the latter of understanding.

Oh thank you :-) but i don't have a degree in any of this, but i do think about it a lot, and i have my own ideas about things that depart somewhat from the orthodoxy in the field.

From my own understanding at this time in my own current working model of the universe is the idea that primordial chaotic energy (quantum foam, or the thing that lies directly beneath it) essentially produces patterns (information) some of which we perceive through instruments as fundamental particles and forces. So for me the idea is to understand the pattern of matter creation (note that matter and pattern mean etymologically mother and father respectively) not just from an energetic perspective like in quantum mechanics but from a structural or quality perspective like "qualium mechanics" perhaps?.

By analyzing the relative quantum values of the fundamental particles it may be possible to determine by a kind of triangulation what the process pattern beneath the "board" is that produces the fundamental particles of consistent order thru time to form from an infinite sea of chaotic and constantly fluctuating in time energy. The underlying primordial chaos is "pan-symmetric" but localized fluctuations break local symmetry which produce said particles. This is similar in concept to how a "rouge wave" would form in the ocean. The way in which this symmetry breaks is kind of the goal of my investigations into this subject.

The actual details of my model are a bit involved to get into here, but i hope you found some of this ultra-simplified description interesting or useful in any case.