:up:

Do you feel that an apple can be explained logically? Consciousness is a phenomenon, it's behavior. — T Clark

T Clark!

I'm not following 'the logic' on that. Maybe you could ask that question in another way. In other words, are you trying to equate consciousness with an apple? If so, then I suppose your supposition holds that it (consciousness) is not special nor is it a mystery. But, of course, using logic, that would be false. Does that sound right?

And so some would argue that meaning itself, is neither objective nor subjective, deterministic nor relativistic; meaning is contingent. In that simple context, consciousness means that one simply enjoys the opportunity to experience meaningfulness. — 3017amen
I really don't know what you're trying to say. I think we've laid out good ways to talk about consciousness in this thread. What else is needed? — T Clark

Gosh, that's a loaded question. I agree your thread 'laid out good ways to talk about consciousness'. It's a fascinating subject no doubt. The thread doesn't explain it though.... . So in a way, we're kinda back to the so-called logic of conscious existence, for which there seems to be mystery...

I don't think it is a mystery. I think most of the confusion comes from a lack of imagination. People can't help but think that consciousness is something special and that we need to identify special sources for it. — T Clark

Happy Monday!

In the spirit of using some sense of logic, if the [your] premise is that consciousness is not 'special' or that there is no 'mystery' associated with same, it seems then we have a default of sorts back to logic and reason in order to determine why that is so.

If we try to put logic to the meaning of consciousness, more often than not, we naturally default to whether consciousness can be explained meaningfully. And as such, we ask if it can be explained logically.

Do you feel consciousness can be explained logically? Is it outside the domains of formal logic or the usual categories of human thought (much like other things/phenomena in life)? Does it violate rules such as bivalence, excluded middle, and other a priori axiomatic methods? If your answer is that consciousness can be explained logically, then your foregoing supposition that it's not special holds. But, unfortunately, I don't think it does (unless you can support your claim). It's as if you're repeating some false paradigm that says 'there's no mystery in life; my self-awareness is not unique'.

But that's ok, perhaps a completely different approach (maybe more fun), may simply be in the form of the so-called limitations of language, to capture this meaning of consciousness. For instance, if we parse the actual meaning of meaning, we find some interesting definitions to play with:

The word "flight" has two different meanings: a plane journey, and the act of running away.

It's sometimes very difficult to draw a clear distinction between the meanings of different words.

Intended to communicate something that is not directly expressed.

In linguistics, meaning is what the source or sender expresses, communicates, or conveys in their message to the observer or receiver, and what the receiver infers from the current context.

Synonym: A reason or justification given for an action or belief.

Generally, if one were to parse consciousness and its meaning, one definition could be that it's polysemous in nature. Meaning (pardon the pun), because not only do we have the phenomena associated with the conscious, subconscious and the unconscious mind (all working together in an illogical mix), we have philosophical ambiguities connected with an individual's perception of truth (Subjectivity). Different people experience the same text, and come away with different statements of fact about that text’s meaning. Humans all react to the same world-text, but we all live in our own simulation of how that world “factually” exists.

And so some would argue that meaning itself, is neither objective nor subjective, deterministic nor relativistic; meaning is contingent. In that simple context, consciousness means that one simply enjoys the opportunity to experience meaningfulness.

bothers me when people who start discussions don’t define their terms at the beginning of the thread — T Clark

T Clark!

Happy Saturday!

Is consciousness logical?

think most of the confusion comes from a lack of imagination. People can't help but think that consciousness is something special and that we need to identify special sources for it. — T Clark

What does that mean?


Alternatively, I agree, logically it's as straightforward as consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness all tangled up in a big gooey ball of warm evolutionary soup :joke:

But seriously, you're really not "special", hence no soup for you !

T Clark!

Not to be glib, but in a word or so, consciousness is a mystery. You know kinda like God, cosmology, mathematics, music, and whole host of other things found in living structures.

In the alternative, you could say that consciousness (the explanation of) is illogical, or outside of, or beyond the usual categories of human thought and/or reason. But then that sounds paradoxical... .

You're probably getting tired of me saying that :joke:

Nice OP dude!

180's a good guy, but understandably, he tends to get a bit emotional/sensitive to defending his atheism.

Of course, we know EOG topics by nature are quite emotional undertakings anyway. Ironically enough, human feeling/sentience/phenomena itself, was found by Atheist Simon Blackburn, to be quite an abstract metaphysical undertaking... .

But getting back to proving a negative, is it true that the absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence?

Suppose you and your partner live together in a beautiful home somewhere. Your partner claims there's a bear in the house. If that claim is true, your partner should be able to show you the bear - fae would take you to the location where the bear is, point to it, and probably yell at you, "there! bear!". Imagine now yourself denying that there's a bear in the house. How would you prove to your partner that, "there isn't a bear in the house"? Well, you would have to take your partner to every single room in your house and show that there's no bear in any one of them. Quite, clearly, your task is more difficult compared to your partner's - you had to take your partner to all the rooms in your house while your partner only had to lead you to the room with the bear. — TheMadFool

The only concern with that analogy that I can see would be objectivity v subjectivity. Meaning, what kind of truth are we relying on here to prove a negative? While it is true that if an Atheist makes a positive statement that 'God does not exist", he is put in a precarious untenable position of proving or defending same, since you would still have to grapple with which methods of logic to apply in making that case.

For instance, in the real world (so to speak), if you wanted to argue from inference, Modus Tollens, phenomenology, the religious experience, ineffable truth's, real subjective truth's, so on and so forth, that is one method. But, if we are discussing ontological argumentations based on the a priori, then that's another method, which of course is generally less persuasive in either direction, positive or negative (with the exception of analogizing to QM, uncertainty principle, bivalence, non-contradiction, etc. where an existential theist-Christian existentialist like myself- could poke holes in absolute kinds of thinking/reasoning).

But then another irony rears it head there. And that's because the a priori also encompasses mathematical abstract structures as found in the natural world. And as such, in ontology that includes abstract features of consciousness, like human sentience and the like. So now we're back to metaphysics and to 180's highly emotionally charged defensive reactions :joke:

Lot's of ironies in life.

Nice OP TMF!

To piggyback on what others have said: philosophy (mostly) consists in reasoning to better, or more probitive, questions — 180 Proof

Yep! Much of practicing good philosophy (and science for that matter) is about knowing the right questions to ask.

Those of us who dabble in it, often find that once the questions are asked, it leads to yet other questions that ironically enough, in some way shape or form, get answered.

If you have the time, you might find this video somewhat intriguing. It speaks to the relationships between the two...

The exact impetus to the evolution of the curious mind as you put seems difficult to pinpoint but if I were to hazard a guess, confining myself to homo sapiens, we have language, we imitate, we reason fairly well and these abilities, if they are abilities, make curiosity communicable and transmissible, also providing it with context. — TheMadFool

TMF!

Thank you kindly for your contribution. Indeed, we have learned that some primates seem to exhibit varying degrees of curiosity, or even in a bit more obvious fashion, facial manifestations/expressions which seem to indicate some level of joy or anger. Of course, we assume, as a common theme here, that the primitive limbic system where much of this sentient cognition resides, is alive and well.

And so in keeping with the abstract structure definition of sentient life forms or Being, we are still left with metaphysical features of brain life associated with our ontology. Nonetheless, if one were to proceed to the next level of evolutionary logic, the intellect, which employs both abstract structures of feeling and logic (curiosity, wonderment, etc. etc.) we know that when those same primates gather, they seemingly aren't concerned with wondering about philosophical concepts and the like.

To that end, how do we connect the dots from lower level primate intellect, to higher-level feelings of self awareness and left-right brain features of cognition/consciousness?

As I mentioned earlier and it must be getting tedious for you, curiosity is, in a sense, the difference between a full belly and an empty one. However, if an animal acts on its curiosity, attempts to answer the question, say, "can this be eaten?" — TheMadFool

That would be a function of animal instinct, no? For example, it remains a mystery why sharks mistakenly attack humans for their prey. The common inference is that their sense data is not sophisticated enough to discern the difference between seals and humans. Indeed, in that situation, it would be 'tedious' for sure :joke:

3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? — 3017amen
There seems to be an intriguing paradox lurking beneath the trio of social existence, religion, and science as the poster-child of curiosity. As I said earlier, human social existence is the current-best setting for the curious mind to reach stratospheric heights. Compare that to religion - essentially moral in nature, consolidating the bond between individuals and thus the cohesive force that maintains society's integrity - and how it, in its own way, stifles curiosity. Religion, as the late Christopher Hitchens said, is forced down our throats as some kind of final solution, the answer to answer all questions, it is the ultimate truth. Go down that road and you'll come to a grave, buried in it the curious mind.

The paradox is that though society is the best available soil as it were for the flower of curiosity to grow, one existing force that keeps people together in harmonious union (religion) is dead against curiosity.

To answer your question, religion isn't really a search for truth — TheMadFool

Indeed, I think your foregoing concerns relates to the age old cultural paradigms that in this instance, give the concept of God a bad name, as it were. For example, many times you and I have discussed the dangers of religious dogma relative to fundamentalism and radical extremist type behaviors. So in short, no exceptions taken there.

However, where I thought you might take the discussion-question is more in the way of phenomenology, empirical data and logical inference. What I mean by that is we know in cognitive science that the religious experience exists, by the likes of William James and many other's.

To that end, you said:

. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)? — 3017amen
This seems a promising line of inquiry. I second the motion. — TheMadFool

I third the motion!

Thanks TMF, I always enjoy the discussion.

Your reference is a dead end. Can you not answer for yourself — tim wood

I already did! You should have turned left at the cul-de-sac :joke:

Charlie the whale.
— 3017amen

Looked it up. The only reference was a song. Couldn't find any lyrics. — T Clark

Look harder, you' ll find that music is metaphysical in that it has abstract structure (s). Quite enjoyable too! You know, it's kind of a universal language

By the way, "nuh-unh" is included in the Oxford English Dictionary. — T Clark

Much like you, I don't know what that means. Correction, you're probably getting tired of me saying that... LOL

So did Charlie the whale . But he was just a big fish in a little pond, kind of like this forum....LOL

I don't know what you're trying to get at and I don't see what any of this has to do with structuralism. Ditto for the rest of your post. I don't see how all the questions you ask are related to each other or structuralism. — T Clark

Abstract structures are metaphysical.

We don't know reality, we know human reality. — T Clark

Unfortunately, that's incorrect, since for one, consciousness has yet to be explained. Using your words it would be more accurate to say that we don't know reality and we don't know human reality, hence metaphysics (among other thought processes).

Think of it this way, as Einstein alluded, if we were all Dr. Spock's or 'Spock-like', we wouldn't contemplate those kinds of things...there would be no need. Does a fish wonder about philosophy?

Non-human creatures large and small live in the jungle. Name one that knows anything about any laws of gravity. — tim wood

Sure. But we're not non-human.

For example, what does, "patterns in nature" mean? What does, "simple mathematical schemes in same," mean? — tim wood

As I've said earlier, the practice of engineering et.al.

I think we know the question(s) of why there are patterns in nature and why there are simple mathematical schemes in same, lies outside of physics. — 3017amenNot so, they are what physics is all about. — tim wood

Mr. Wood,

I'm sorry, you did not read it correctly. Hint: "Why" is in the sentence. That's the important distinction. Physics doesn't care about the why's of existence. They are concerned about how.

Thanks anyway though!

Do any of these features or properties of consciousness confer any biological survival advantages? — 3017amenWhat is a biological survival advantage?

And so on through your whole post. — tim wood

Awesome! Great question!

Let's start with the laws of gravity. Is that knowledge needed to dodge falling objects in the jungle?

I remember this story finding a home among the credulous (one can type "bounties" into the search bar for a good laugh).

U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops

"It was a huge election-time story that prompted cries of treason. But according to a newly disclosed assessment, Donald Trump might have been right to call it a “hoax.”" — NOS4A2

Nos4A2!

I fact-checked the link you sent and read the story. It was determined to be fake news. Want to know how I found out?

The dishonest leadership (gaslighting) that was experienced was also caused or driven by the usual power & greed phenomenon of human nature: Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. - Thucydides

The most important thing for those who have been duped by trump is: does he want to be perceived as a victim or a loser? If he's perceived a loser, he gets no money or power. So it's in his best interest to perpetuate the [a] lie. How disturbing is that?

A common sense characteristic of highly flawed individuals. (The voters are smarter than you think.)That's why he lost re-election (dishonest leadership).

T Clark!

Another wonderful day in the neighborgood! Ok, I shall summarize (our discussion), of what might be considered as the most salient of points made, by way of one post at a time. It has become quite clear that when discussing religion, humanities and natural sciences, we keep coming back to the nature of our reality (existence).

I think we know the question(s) of why there are patterns in nature and why there are simple mathematical schemes in same, lies outside of physics. And so it seems, we are forced to put our metaphysicians hat on. Why that in itself, keeps rearing its head is not always the question as I've pointed out. But instead, the questions concerning reality include more questions about causation (which we know can easily lead to regressive reasoning and an infinite tower of turtles-which is fine if one choses that path). And so it seems rather important to summarize or categorize one so-called analogous method at a time.

What I mean is, philosophically, that lead me to the idea of Structuralism, which in turn lead me to atheist Simon Blackburn's take on same, thanks to : The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

You analogized that interpretation of Structuralism through Taoism/complimentary opposing forces in nature. That seems consistent with the tenets of Structuralism. I take no exception to that. But instead, I wanted to parse this idea of 'abstract structure', and what that means relative to the human condition (oddly enough, structuralism was heir to existentialism). Hence my questions about how we ourselves, might be more akin to the metaphysical, than the physical.

If mathematics in science/physics, are used to describe/explain much of the natural world, and considering the fact that it (math) is an abstract metaphysical language, what other things in life are considered abstract and metaphysical? Concerning our own ontology, the answer is consciousness (aka Idealism). And that leads to other abstract metaphysical features of or from consciousness:

1. intuition
2. the color red
3. wonder
4. curiosity
5. the will
6. causation
7. somethingness v. nothingness (intention)
8. mathematics
9. music theory
10. love

Then, (no pun intended) it seems the why's of those existing things rear their heads:

1. Do any of these features or properties of consciousness confer any biological survival advantages?
2. Is the knowledge of the laws of gravity required to survive in the jungle?
3. Does the universal language of music/the study of music theory confer any biological advantages?
4. What advantages are there to ask questions about causation (are there survival advantages associated with curiosity)?
5.What does it mean to perceive something as abstract?
6. Is the concept of God abstract?
7. Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?"
8. Is Time itself abstract (it is certainly paradoxical)?

What other things in life are considered "abstract structures"?

TClark!

Thank you so much for your contribution thus far. Tomorrow I am going to take the liberty to summarize some minor concepts we uncovered, through wondering/questioning.

To that end some of the questions were either glossed over, not answered, or perhaps dismissed. The main theme though, is relative to what it means to apperceive abstract structures in life, and what the implications are to the human condition.

One ironic thing is, although Mr Blackburn is an atheist, he nonetheless postulated his/this notion of abstract existence which by definition, suggests a metaphysical realm in nature or in the natural world of some sort... .

I am going to take the time to study more of his philosophy. It may be that I misinterpreted his intent. He comes across as a highly articulated speaker. And so like many things in life, as I've alluded to earlier, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'll pick and choose from his philosophy that which applies to our discussion here.

if mathematics and natural laws are stories, are we living in a mystical, fictitious or abstract world of stories? I mean that in both literally and figuratively. — 3017amen
Yes. — T Clark

Can you please provide an example of that? I'm not sure I understand completely. While I can appreciate being sussinct, philosophy lives in words. Or, as you say, stories :joke:

I use the term from here: ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure-Simon Blackburn. — 3017amen
Sorry. I still don't know what this means. — T Clark

Simon Blackburn is an atheist who seems to think the natural world, much like yourself (me included) is/has somewhat of an abstract existence. This is the dude here:

Should one wonder about causation then? — 3017amen
One should always wonder about causation — T Clark

Why should one always wonder about causation?

What was there before humanity - a big bucket full of goo without the bucket. All one undifferentiated thing - the Tao. We came along and started making distinctions, abstractions - trees, quarks, love. That's the world we know. Is that real? Sure, but the goo comes first. Lao Tzu wrote about the Tao:

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God. — T Clark

Being hidden but always present, could be interpreted as Greek Platonism, no?

Thanks T Clark!

Goggle Wheeler's Cloud first, you may use that as your [the] reference point... . — 3017amen
It's a song. — T Clark

Ha! It's a abstract song (or story in your case) about worm holes. You know, seeing that music itself being abstract and all, seems to be as perplexing as cosmology :joke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

Schopenhauer

Of course those laws are what's unseen behind the physical/natural world, or things-in-themselves. Hence, we have nothing but an abstract language to describe (and to some degree explain) things. — 3017amen
There are some who disagree, but for me, mathematics and natural laws are stories we tell ourselves. They have no independent reality outside of humanity. — T Clark

T Clark!

I see. No exception taken, except for the fact that if mathematics and natural laws are stories, are we living in a mystical, fictitious or abstract world of stories? I mean that both literally and figuratively.

The humanistic examples include human phenomena associated with human consciousness... In my view, those things are, by nature, abstract things-in-themselves. — 3017amen
I don't see why you would classify the phenomena you listed as "structures." Also, I think "abstract things-in-themselves" is a contradiction in terms. — T Clark

I use the term from here: ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure-Simon Blackburn.

To reiterate some of my earlier questions: "Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... . — 3017amen
As I said previously, for me, religious thought is just thought, so of course there is a connection between religion and human sentience. — T Clark

Should one wonder about causation then?

Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?" — 3017amen
In a sense, anything described in human language is abstract. — T Clark

I like that. Existence, for you then (as you described), could be simply abstract, not really real. Is that, in a sense, metaphysics? Or, is it some sort of Platonic existence where mathematical structures exist? Those questions seem rhetorical, but they're not. I'm just trying to piece together the rationale there... .

Thanks!

Is that not something you wonder about? — tim wood

Good point! Why do we wonder? What is its purpose? Evolutionary survival advantages?

You suppose time in nature. Surely you must have some reason for so supposing. — tim wood

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future.[1][2][3] It is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.[4][5][6][7] Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions.[8]

Time has long been an important subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.[7][9] Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems.[10][11][12]

Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads".[6][13][14]

The physical nature of time is addressed by general relativity with respect to events in space-time. Examples of events are the collision of two particles, the explosion of a supernova, or the arrival of a rocket ship. Every event can be assigned four numbers representing its time and position (the event's coordinates). However, the numerical values are different for different observers. In general relativity, the question of what time it is now only has meaning relative to a particular observer. Distance and time are intimately related and the time required for light to travel a specific distance is the same for all observers, as first publicly demonstrated by Michelson and Morley. General relativity does not address the nature of time for extremely small intervals where quantum mechanics holds. At this time, there is no generally accepted theory of quantum general relativity. [15]

Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units (SI) and International System of Quantities. The SI base unit of time is the second. Time is used to define other quantities – such as velocity – so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.[16] An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. To describe observations of an event, a location (position in space) and time are typically noted.

The operational definition of time does not address what the fundamental nature of it is. It does not address why events can happen forward and backward in space, whereas events only happen in the forward progress of time. Investigations into the relationship between space and time led physicists to define the spacetime continuum. General relativity is the primary framework for understanding how spacetime works.[17] Through advances in both theoretical and experimental investigations of space-time, it has been shown that time can be distorted and dilated, particularly at the edges of black holes.

Temporal measurement has occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in navigation and astronomy. Periodic events and periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples include the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum, and the beat of a heart. Currently, the international unit of time, the second, is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms (see below). Time is also of significant social importance, having economic value ("time is money") as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in human life spans.

There are many systems for determining what time it is, including the Global Positioning System, other satellite systems, Coordinated Universal Time and mean solar time. In general, the numbers obtained from different time systems differ from one another.

No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word.
— tim wood

Let's start with the fundamental definitions:

Logical possibility: refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values.

At this point, to stress the context of abstract laws in nature, one must look at Time. What is Time? Let's start there...

What makes you think time is in nature?

You might argue that what is in nature, is in nature, but even that becomes granular, looked at closely enough. That tree over there, surely that's in nature? And practically speaking, for one who likes trees, or seeks shade, or even lumber, of course it is. But are not all of these, and all that they are themselves founded upon, constituted of abstractions? — tim wood

Gosh, I really don't know what to do with that Mr. Wood, sorry. I mean I wish to continue the discussion, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say or argue (time not being part of the natural world/existence).

Maybe you could try articulating your point in another way, perhaps? Or maybe start with the definition of time itself?

Instead of going there, why not deal with what's here? There is no context in nature, only nature itself. — tim wood

I'm not following that. "no context in nature?" What's here, among other things, is Time.

Just so you don't loose sight of the subject matter:

No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word.
— tim wood

Let's start with the fundamental definitions:

Logical possibility: refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values.

At this point, to stress the context of abstract laws in nature, one must look at Time. What is Time? Let's start there...

No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word. — tim wood

Let's start with the fundamental definitions:

Logical possibility: refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values.

At this point, to stress the context of abstract laws in nature, one must look at Time. What is Time? Let's start there...

Is anything else possible? Or even conceivable? — tim wood

Using human thought as the only thing we have in this context, there are other 'abstract thoughts' that include things like multiverse theories, a di-polar God, etc...

I think that using computers to analyze the mind/brain and the universe can be misleading in the sense that the brain does what it does and is different from a computer in many crucial respects, not least of which is biology. — Manuel

Manuel!

Well let's NOT put that aside for the moment. In our finitude, we have a hardware operating system that has limited knowledge, if you will. Limited choices from which to choose. Yet those choices are there for us to uncover/discover. That is one distinction I was making. The other related to free will. In that context, we are only free to choose those questions that are innate/fixed to our hardware/software interrelations. ( ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.)

As we move up in levels of complexity, the questions we ask about the world may not have an answer. We may not know enough to ask nature the proper questions. So the proportional part of the question only arises if the questions we ask correctly capture some aspect of the mind-independent world. — Manuel

Hence my analogy to the finitude of human nature viz the cosmic computer. In other words, there are fixed limits to understanding also in the sense there may exist other possible worlds that have a completely different metaphysical language or logic outside the usual categories of human thought. A different level of understanding. We only know what manifests through the design of our own computer, not the computer itself. But that's an intriguing supposition of yours that requires more thought, thank you.

In the interest of time I will defer to generality here, but I think one of the implications I'm hearing is that there are still questions or propositions (synthetic a priori) that could be asked which in turn could "capture come aspect of the mind-independent world". And to that end, arguably, mathematics has its own sense of independent truth.

I like your post about Wheeler, more on that to come...

I had another thought/question. Back the poster POP (from my metaphysics thread), and his world view concerning emotions. We know that in sports, emotions cause action, and sometimes extra ordinary action. In that same way, if the world is indeed will and representation, is that not an emotional/intellectual intention of some sort(?) Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world?

Let's say the world is a cosmic computer. And in that computer are all the choices (human volition) one can make in the world in order to arrive at an answer to a given question. In the context of cosmology, if one proceeds to hypothesize through the use of logic (synthetic a priori propositions/judgements), does that not imply that depending upon what actual questions we ask, our answers will only be commensurate or proportional to that which we ask? — 3017amen
I really don't understand. — T Clark

Goggle Wheeler's Cloud first, you may use that as your [the] reference point... .

I understand. That was POP's view, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. However if one embraces the notion of ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. then, things that are alive also include abstract structures. And abstract structures include human sentience. — 3017amen
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe if you give me an example of the kind of abstract structure you're talking about. — T Clark

Thank you for asking. Here are a couple examples of the way I interpret 'abstract structures' in nature:

We know in structural engineering we have a mathematical formula that is used to design a given structure (beam, truss, concrete compressive tensile/strength's, etc.. etc.). Then we have obvious geometric formulas that can also describe the structure's aesthetic shape or its architectural design. And we also have in nature the existence of protons and electrons that are also 'described' (or even 'explained' to some extent) through the use of abstract mathematics. That means/method of using, mathematics itself is an "abstract structure"/language. Of course those laws are what's unseen behind the physical/natural world, or things-in-themselves. Hence, we have nothing but an abstract language to describe (and to some degree explain) things.

The humanistic examples include human phenomena associated with human consciousness. We have been discussing briefly the idea that human (sentience/religion and) intellect not only includes the aforementioned ability to run calcs., but also the foregoing abilities to ask questions concerning self-awareness. For example, we said we have this innate need to ask questions about causes and effects. (The metaphysical question of why do we ask why.) Or questions about whether there is a cosmological God or designer. Then of course all the other cognitive/behavioral science things having to do with human phenomena and sentience (love, wonderment, the Will, intention, Kantian intuition, ad nauseum). In my view, those things are, by nature, abstract things-in-themselves.

To reiterate some of my earlier questions: "Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... .
Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?"

With respect to John Wheeler's notion of PAP/double slit's (Wheeler's Cloud), I had another thought or simple question.

Let's say the world is a cosmic computer. And in that computer are all the choices (human volition) one can make in the world in order to arrive at an answer to a given question. In the context of cosmology, if one proceeds to hypothesize through the use of logic (synthetic a priori propositions/judgements), does that not imply that depending upon what actual questions we ask, our answers will only be commensurate or proportional to that which we ask?

That, also could be analogous to free will insofar as a balance between chance and choice, or randomness in the world of QM (not chaos)….

Non-living matter is not conscious or emotional in the senses we normally use for those words. For that reason, I don't know what it means to attribute consciousness or emotion to something that is not alive. Consciousness and emotion are behavioral characteristics. I don't think rocks are self-aware. What behavioral evidence shows they are. — T Clark

I understand. That was POP's view, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. However if one embraces the notion of ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. then, things that are alive also include abstract structures. And abstract structures include human sentience.

Fundamentalists Christians routinely fight to have yoga banned from schools on the basis that it's a foreign religion, but Indians say it's a form of therapeutic discipline and not a religion at all. Good luck sorting that out. — Wayfarer

Indeed. You probably know I'm not a big Fundy fan. Yet I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either. Hence, for one, the religious experience.



I would say, ask any Christian congregation, and the answer would be a resounding ‘no’.

Most Fundy's tend to be somewhat unsophisticated in their world view. Much like fanatical atheism.

(Not exactly sure 'Jesus' endorsed western organized religious- Catholic, Lutheran, etc.- dogma/teachings either.)

I would imagine that you chose the words natural science, with a view to thinking about the empirical methods of investigating. Of course, this is important as opposed to just introspection, but even if empirical methods are used, there is so many beyond that, in the whole interpretation of the findings. My own view is that the exploration of religion is one which may be best approached in a multidisciplinary way. — Jack Cummins

Jack!

Thank you for joining the discussion. a lot of things to think about here. First, of course cognitive science investigates religious experiences from an empirical template. And yes, what (one of the things that) goes beyond the experience itself is the metaphysics of why we ask why. We discussed the foregoing features of consciousness where things like Kantian intuition play a major role in that... .

I agree that basically to NOT dichotomize one's world view, only seeks to enhance its investigative means/methods. (Speaking of cognitive science, the Maslonian mantra of conscious life being both A AND B; not either/or, is alive and well here... .)