Cosmos Created Mind

Gnomon

's thread The Mind-Created World (a case for Idealism) seems to have run its course, dribbling along with ever finer distinctions or off-topic diversions. The longevity of the thread, though, indicates that Mind-World vs Matter-World enigma is a popular & controversial difference of opinion. This new thread is a flipped perspective on the same general topic : what is the relationship between World-at-large & local Brain & personal Mind?

My original, science-based, assumption was that the physical Brain somehow generated the metaphysical function we call Mind, or Sentience or Intellect. And a corollary concept is that “my Ideas are my own personal creation”. However, some hard-core Materialists might retort that there is "no such thing as Mind"*1. Now, those conventional axioms & presumptions are being challenged by the science, or pseudoscience, or philosophy of Noetics*2ab.

Background : I recently finished Dan Brown's new novel, Secret of Secrets, and enjoyed the intellectual thrill ride completely. Spoiler Alert! : If you are not familiar with the book, I'll reveal the "secret" hidden in plain insight : human consciousness, and its alter ego The Mind, is not generated by the brain, but is instead a signal from out there somewhere*2b. If so, what are the special "Noetic faculties" of the human animal*3? Are these spiritual signals the distinguishing factor of homo sapiens?

The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism ; Panpsychism). And the philosophy of Consciousness has explored a variety of angles on how the physical brain could produce the metaphysical effect we call Mind. I can understand that physical Causation is due to some universal force (energy : gravity). But, I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts & feelings are signals from some central transmitter, like the robotic clone army of Star Wars.

The book doesn't specify the exotic Source of the ideas we humans typically take proprietary pride in. So, I'd like to hear pro & con opinions of the notion of a Cosmos Created Mind. Is there some subtle signal that I'm missing? Perhaps Cosmo-God's "signals" are obscured by the blooming buzzing static of our baby brains. :brow:

*1. The statement "there is no such thing as mind" reflects a philosophical and scientific debate, not a universally accepted fact. While some, particularly eliminative materialists, argue the mind is not a separate entity and that mental concepts are reducible to brain activity, others maintain that the mind, including subjective experiences like consciousness, cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone. This perspective, known as the "no-mind thesis," claims the mind does not exist as a thing in itself but rather as the product of our thoughts, feelings, and the brain's functions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=there+is+no+such+thing+as+mind&zx=1761177271497&no_sw_cr=1
Note --- This debate seems to be talking about the religious Soul, instead of the mundane Mind.

*2a. Noetic Science :
# The noetic sciences focus on bringing a scientific lens to the study of subjective experience, and to ways that consciousness may influence the physical world.
# Noetic science is a branch of parapsychology concerned with the power and source of human intelligence. https://www.gotquestions.org/noetic-science.html
# The Institute of Noetic Sciences explores the intersection of science and profound human experience.
https://www.youtube.com/c/InstituteofNoeticSciences

*2b. From the noetics perspective "mind of God" refers to the concept that God's mind is the ultimate source of all consciousness and that the human mind can achieve a direct, intuitive spiritual perception of God through "noetic" faculties.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=noetics+mind+of+god
Note --- Like Idealism, Noetics seems to assume that Mind, not Matter, is the fundamental Substance of the Real World. Traditionally, the Cosmic Mind is called "God". But Noetics seems to be a non-traditional notion of Pantheism, as an alternative to Judeo-Christian-Islamic doctrines ; perhaps more like the non-personal universal principle of Taoism?

*3. The phrase "secret of secrets mind receiver" likely refers to the plot of a Dan Brown novel, The Secret of Secrets, which explores the idea of the brain acting as a receiver for consciousness. The term combines two concepts: the "secret of secrets," which is a narrative element of a secret project or shocking truth in the novel, and the "mind receiver," which describes the book's central premise that the brain is a receiver for consciousness, supporting a non-local consciousness theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=secret+of+secrets+mind+receiver[/quote]
Note --- Why is the source of mind-signals a secret or mystery? Why does the mind-controlling God hide behind the curtain of material reality?

ROBOT ARMY AWAITING SIGNAL FROM IMPERIAL MOTHER SHIP
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSkerE7Mjdy46AR8cuOzBN3aojm3hSP1bL55BGv2MCiQBKh1EU9hdK0BR1lgxFAlFu4ccHr5zvOYEKqLyQWt5ID1131Pzdn02eon8HF8a7nw

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSkerE7Mjdy46AR8cuOzBN3aojm3hSP1bL55BGv2MCiQBKh1EU9hdK0BR1lgxFAlFu4ccHr5zvOYEKqLyQWt5ID1131Pzdn02eon8HF8a7nw

T Clark

I’m glad we’ve finally got a credible source of evidence for your ideas—a Dan Brown novel.

180 Proof

a Dan Brown novel — T Clark

:lol:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-science-of-self/202510/the-secret-of-secrets-is-the-science-accurate :monkey:

↪Gnomon

:sparkle: wt_?

Gnomon

I’m glad we’ve finally got a credible source of evidence for your ideas—a Dan Brown novel. — T Clark

Sarcasm noted. This novel is no more scientific than The DaVinci Code, and not cited as "evidence" for any particular aspect of objective reality. But its discussion of a controversial philosophical concept is evidence of some far-out philosophical conjectures that are out-there in the ether. Quite a few prominent scientists have embraced Panpsychism*1 as an explanation for the emergence of human sentience.

I'm not buying the notion of brain tissue as receiver of divine signals*2, but I'm open to the possibility, pending further evidence. And I use this forum as place to explore unconventional ideas, honed by skeptical reasoning, not ridicule. :smile:

*1. Some scientists are exploring panpsychism as a potential solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how physical matter can give rise to subjective experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientists+and+panpsychism

*2. "I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts & feelings are signals from some central transmitter, like the robotic clone army of Star Wars." ____excerpt from OP

Paine

If it is true that the

brain [is] acting as a receiver for consciousness. — Gnomon

is that not another instance of "forms" activating "matter?"

In that case, not an inversion of the Wayfarer thread.

T Clark

Quite a few prominent scientists have embraced Panpsychism*1 as an explanation for the emergence of human sentience. — Gnomon

Some scientists are exploring panpsychism as a potential solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how physical matter can give rise to subjective experience. — Gnomon

The link you provided doesn’t really identify any scientists who support panpsychism, although it does identify some philosophers. Can you name some scientists who do?

discussion of a controversial philosophical concept — Gnomon

This is not a philosophical question at all—it’s a scientific one. Does our consciousness result from signals coming from outside our bodies?

And I use this forum as place to explore unconventional ideas, honed by skeptical reasoning, not ridicule. — Gnomon

The forum used to be much stricter about keeping out pseudoscientific theories. I don’t really mind that it’s become more lenient, but many such theories still do deserve ridicule.

Joshs

↪T Clark

Some scientists are exploring panpsychism as a potential solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how physical matter can give rise to subjective experience.
— Gnomon

The link you provided doesn’t really identify any scientists who support panpsychism, although it does identify some philosophers. Can you name some scientists who do?

discussion of a controversial philosophical concept
— Gnomon

This is not a philosophical question at all—it’s a scientific one. Does our consciousness result from signals coming from outside our bodies? — T Clark

William James might have begged to differ with you. In his essay ‘Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine’, he raises the question whether consciousness might depend on, or even originate from, sources “outside” the brain, but James does so in a way that deliberately blurs the boundaries between psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience.

180 Proof

↪T Clark

:up: :up: Yeah, (@Gnomon's) pseudoscience —> ridicule.

T Clark

In his essay ‘Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine’, he raises the question whether consciousness might depend on, or even originate from, sources “outside” the brain, — Joshs

The idea that the essence of humans—the soul, consciousness, the spirit—originates outside the body is nothing new. As I understand it, that is one of the fundamental ideas in Christianity. I haven’t read the James essay, so I can’t really say what exactly he’s talking about. The usual suspect tertiary sources on the web say he did not believe that consciousness originated outside the body.

Joshs

↪T Clark

The usual suspect tertiary sources on the web say he did not believe that consciousness originated outside the body. — T Clark

In earlier works , like Principles of Psychology, his approach was mainly materialistic. But toward the end of his career his thinking became more speculative. In the essay, he proposes that the idea that the brain transmits rather than produces consciousness is philosophically and scientifically conceivable, and perhaps better fits the facts than strict materialism.

He writes:

“Suppose that our brains are not productive, but transmissive organs, through which the material world affects the spiritual. Then the diminutions of consciousness which accompany brain lesions may not be due to the destruction of consciousness itself, but to the failure of its physical organs to transmit it properly.”

T Clark

Suppose that our brains are not productive, but transmissive organs, through which the material world affects the spiritual.

For the record, I really like James. As for this quote, that’s not all that far from what I believe. The material world affects the spirit through our senses and perceptions processed by our nervous system. I don’t know if that’s what he meant.

Ciceronianus

The ancient Stoics were stubborn materialists, but believed in a rarefied form of material, generally called pneuma, which was the generative force of the cosmos. Pneuma was a part of all things, organic and inorganic, but had different grades, one of which formed the rational mind/soul of human beings.

Perhaps they were pantheists or panpsychists--I don't particularly care which. I find the general idea of such a cosmos attractive. But I agree that if there is something similar to pneuma it will be established through science, not philosophy.

180 Proof

I agree that if there is something similar to pneuma it will be established [falsified] through science, not philosophy. — Ciceronianus

:up: Like a vacuum or atom or aether ...

Gnomon

The link you provided doesn’t really identify any scientists who support panpsychism, although it does identify some philosophers. Can you name some scientists who do? . . . .
This is not a philosophical question at all—it’s a scientific one. Does our consciousness result from signals coming from outside our bodies? — T Clark

This question is off-topic, because the thread is about a fictional pseudo-scientific worldview, not (or not yet) a mainstream scientific hypothesis. I was hoping to get some feedback from Wayfarer to see if the novel's implicit --- not explicit --- Cosmic Mind worldview is similar to his own Idealistic philosophy. I made-up the Cosmos Created Mind label, as an inversion of the Mind Created World thread.

FWIW, I don't consider Panpsychism to be a scientific theory, because it may be untestable. But it is a legitimate philosophical ontological hypothesis. Nevertheless, the previous link names some serious scientists*1*2 who find the concept of a Mind-based Universe plausible. If you are really interested, you can do a Google search to find a lot more credentialed scientists, who admit to taking the Mind before Matter notion seriously. Personally, I'm skeptical of the Cosmic Signal hypothesis. But I could be proven wrong. :nerd:

*1. Neuroscientist Christof Koch is a proponent of a modern, scientifically-informed version of panpsychism, the belief that consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=koch+panpsychism

*2. How scientists are engaging with panpsychism :
# Experimental research:
Some scientists, like Michael Levin, are actively looking for empirical evidence of consciousness in simple organisms that lack a nervous system.
# Theoretical exploration:
Some have proposed that panpsychism could be a "physics of panpsychism" that would provide a scientific basis for the idea. Others, like Giulio Tononi with his Integrated Information Theory, have developed frameworks that are compatible with panpsychism.
# As a response to the hard problem:
Panpsychism is seen by some as a way to address the "hard problem of consciousness," which is how subjective experience arises from purely physical matter. By positing that consciousness is fundamental, panpsychism offers a way to bypass the difficulty of explaining its emergence from non-conscious matter.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientists+and+panpsychism

Gnomon

is that not another instance of "forms" activating "matter?"
In that case, not an inversion of the Wayfarer thread. — Paine

I don't know. What do you think?
Regarding "inversion" see my reply to TClark.

T Clark

1. Neuroscientist Christof Koch is a proponent of a modern, scientifically-informed version of panpsychism, the belief that consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter…

*2. How scientists are engaging with panpsychism : — Gnomon

You’re OP is not about panpsychism. It’s not even mentioned. It’s primarily about consciousness being the result the transmission from outside the body.

Gnomon

In earlier works , like Principles of Psychology, his approach was mainly materialistic. But toward the end of his career his thinking became more speculative. In the essay, he proposes that the idea that the brain transmits rather than produces consciousness is philosophically and scientifically conceivable, and perhaps better fits the facts than strict materialism. — Joshs

I was not aware that W. James had speculated on brain as receiver or transmitter*1.

↪T Clark

accused me of promoting pseudoscience, where I'm merely exploring an idea that is novel to me.

My current view of Human Consciousness is that it is emergent from Information processing, and ceases when the processor dies. But, confronted with the Hard Problem, I have tried to trace the path of Information (EnFormAction)*2 --- both causal & meaningful --- back to the Big Bang and beyond. Hence, the Ontological & Epistemological question remains : where did the Energy & Laws --- two forms of Information --- of the nascent universe originate? Modern science has no empirical answer ; so we speculate. :smile:

*1. The idea that the brain transmits consciousness rather than produces it is a minority theory that suggests the brain acts as a receiver or filter, similar to a radio receiving a broadcast. This perspective, first explored by William James, proposes that consciousness is a fundamental field that the brain tunes into, which explains why the brain's structure and health can affect its perception of consciousness. In contrast, the prevailing view in neuroscience is that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity, generated by the brain itself, and ceases to exist when the brain dies
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=brain+transmits+rather+than+produces+consciousness

*2. Is Information a Fundamental Force of the Universe? :
A distinguished geoscientist and rising-star astrobiologist offer a stunning new theory . . . .
Robert Hazen and Michael Wong discuss their bold proposal for a new law of nature, centered around the idea that information is as fundamental to the cosmos as mass, energy or charge.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/videos/is-information-a-fundamental-force-of-the-universe/

Gnomon

You’re OP is not about panpsychism. It’s not even mentioned. It’s primarily about consciousness being the result the transmission from outside the body. — T Clark

First, let me clarify that the title of this thread does not describe my own philosophy, but an attempt to encapsulate the worldview underlying Noetic "science" as described in Dan Brown's mystical mystery novel. The OP does mention PanTheism, which is a religious form of philosophical PanPsychism.

So, when I'm accused of promoting PseudoScience, I have to strenuously deny it. But from a hard-core Materialist perspective the difference is literally immaterial. My non-scientific & non-religious personal philosophical worldview may sound like PanTheism to you, but I call it Enformationism*2, which is based primarily on Quantum Physics and Information Theory. And it's more like Taoism than theology. :smile:

*1. The Secret of Secrets by Dan Brown is a novel that explores themes of consciousness, noetic sciences, and mysticism, which are closely related to panpsychism by suggesting that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality and can exist beyond the physical brain. The book's central premise involves the brain acting as a "mind receiver" for consciousness, aligning with the idea that mind and consciousness are not just byproducts of matter, but are a fundamental part of the universe itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=novel+%22secret+of+secrets%22+panpsychism

*2. Creative Mind and Cosmic Order :
Even Darwin implied that the evolution of cognition enhanced the survival of organisms : “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” In other words, wisdom is the most powerful force for surviving and thriving in a world of constant change, and of competition for life’s necessary resources. In 1907, Henri Bergson published his book, Creative Evolution, in which he postulated the existence of a Life Force (elan vital)²⁵. In my own hypothesis, I denote that creative causal force by a technical term : EnFormAction²⁶, denoting a combination of change-causing Energy and organizing Information. Where Energy provides the transformative force, and Information (blueprint) delivers the design intention for configuration.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page10.html

PS___ A century ago, Einstein made some "cosmological" calculations, and was appalled to see that the result indicated a dynamic universe instead of the static world he preferred. So, he added an arbitrary constant lambda (λ) to balance the equation, and later recalled it as his greatest "blunder". Today, I could use the dynamic & directional term EnFormAction in place of lambda, but then I'm not a scientist. Merely, a theorising amateur philosopher. :joke:

Paine

↪Gnomon

I read Wayfarer to be saying that emergence of new life came from someplace rather than nothing. That demands a different response than the constant refresh of the world required for the opposing view counting upon an unknown agency.

Since we are poorly positioned as a species to sort this out as a matter of fact, the difference in question becomes a collapse into a tautology where the opposite ends fail to be a contrary for the other.

T Clark

The OP does mention PanTheism, which is a religious form of philosophical PanPsychism. — Gnomon

This is not true. Pantheism and panpsychism are entirely different things.

180 Proof

Pantheism and panpsychism are entirely different things. — T Clark

:100:

Gnomon

The OP does mention PanTheism, which is a religious form of philosophical PanPsychism. — Gnomon
This is not true. Pantheism and panpsychism are entirely different things. — T Clark

You are just being contrarian & polemic & off-topic. I didn't say they are the same thing, but only that they are related, as a general Form and and a particular Thing are related (hylomorph). Do you understand the relationship between Islam and Monotheism? One is a specific doctrinal religion, while the other is a general doctrine regarding Deity : Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all philosophically monotheistic, but differ in specific doctrinal beliefs.

The quoted -isms are different in that Pantheism is a religious worldview, while Panpsychism is a philosophical theory. By analogy, Theism is a religious belief, while Deism is a philosophical concept. Can you see the relationship (world creator) and the distinction (miraculous intervention vs natural evolution)?

Now that you have made your us-vs-them political position clear, can we get back on the philosophical topic : "The key presumption {of Noetics} is that Consciousness is non-local, i.e. Cosmic Mind (Panpsychism)".? :cool:

Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe, identifying divinity with all of existence, while panpsychism is the philosophical idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, present in all matter. Pantheism is a religious concept, often seen as an alternative to traditional theism by rejecting a transcendent, separate God. Panpsychism is more of a metaphysical theory about consciousness itself, though it is often explored in conjunction with pantheistic ideas to consider whether the universe can be a conscious, divine mind.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pantheism+panpsychism+religion

Pantheism and panpsychism are related but distinct concepts; pantheism is a religious philosophy equating God with the universe, while panpsychism is a philosophical view that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. Panpsychism can be used to support pantheism by suggesting that the universal consciousness is divine.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pantheism+panpsychism+religion

T Clark

You are just being contrarian & polemic & off-topic. I didn't say they are the same thing, but only that they are related, — Gnomon

No, they are not related except they both have a "pan" prefix which refers to "all," "of everything," or "completely." They are completely different things. And no, I'm not being contrarian. I'm being irritated because your OP is so vague and inconsistent and you present half-baked ideas without support and without a willingness to take responsibility for them. It's not philosophy at all, it's a book report.

PoeticUniverse

The key presumption {of Noetics} is that Consciousness is non-local — Gnomon

It is only likely in a block universe of pre-determined events of experience, while in presentism the brain produces the experiential from one's nature and nurture, although still determined as time goes along. The two implementations, or messengers, deliver the same message of being; it's like a music CD versus a live band.

What could be universal, basic and fundamental, and therefore non-local is the witness itself of experiences, which I call Awareness, and would be what one truly is, which is not one's experiences.

Note that again, either way, the Universe does us.

180 Proof

I'm not being contrarian. I'm being irritated because your OP is so vague and inconsistent and you [@Gnomon] present half-baked ideas without support and without a willingness to take responsibility for them. It's not philosophy at all, it's a book report. — T Clark

:up: :up:

The two implementations, or messengers, deliver the same message of being; it's like a music CD [eternal, nonlocal] versus a live band [present, local]. — PoeticUniverse

Exactly.

Gnomon

It is only likely in a block universe of pre-determined events of experience, while in presentism the brain produces the experiential from one's nature and nurture, although still determined as time goes along. The two implementations, or messengers, deliver the same message of being; it's like a music CD versus a live band. — PoeticUniverse

Thanks for making a rational philosophical suggestion, instead of emotional political derision. :razz:

Which do you think is "likely" : A> the pre-recorded Block Universe theory / Eternalism (everything, everywhere, all at once) or B> live event Presentism (one experience at a time)?
In either analogy, does that mean you agree or disagree with the fictional Noetic scientist, that our personal ideas are actually signals from the Cosmos (recorded or live ; local or non-local ; cosmic or proprietary)? Am I wrong to believe that “my Ideas are my own personal creation”? Could you copyright your poems & videos, or list cosmic credits on the label? :smile:

Radio analogy : "The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism ; Panpsychism)". ___ From OP
If my personal sense of awareness (receiver) is actually processing a broadcast signal or narrowcast message, what does that imply about the source/transmitter? : (e.g. Theistic Pantheism vs Atheistic Panpsychism) :nerd:

apokrisis

Pantheism and panpsychism are entirely different things. — T Clark

Panpsychism can be rather a broad church. Hartshorne coined the dichotomy of synecological and atomistic panpsychism to cover this.

So pantheism, or indeed panentheism, is a variety of synecological panpsychism under his classification scheme. Broadly this is the difference between a top-down constraints and a bottom-up construction view of things.

That is, consciousness as either a holistic constraint imposed on material being down to its finest grades of division, or instead the opposite thing of consciousness originating at the level of atomistic events – even particles in interaction – and then becoming complexified as it becomes built up into more elaborate structures like bodies and brains.

So it is the same old causal debate. Top-down holism vs bottom-up contruction. Two ways of treating consciousness as a reified "thing" – an elemental property of nature. But two opposite ways of framing that fact. Either human minds emerge from atomistic fragments appropriately combined, or from the generalised divine mind appropriately constrained – as in being confined to inhabit the particular circuitry of some human or other, or some shape and form of animal, tree, or mountain or river, or other.

What is shared is seeking to elevate "consciousness" to something maximally general and fundamental to material reality. Either the panentheism of participating in the generality of the divine whole, or the more familiar reductionist model that sounds more scientifically respectable and which thus popularised the actual brand name of panpsychism.

If Nature was fundamentally atomistic in its causality, we’ll just assume consciousness begins right there where the first particles arise. That bottom-up construction view felt always more properly sciencey and less like religious woo.

But of course I have to add that all this pan- talk is guff as its seeks to reduce reality to either its whole or its parts. The systems view seeks to find reality in the interaction of its extremes. A holism that is triadic and which thus incorporates both its holist and reductionist tendencies.

Then semiosis actually defines life and mind as a modelling relation within the entropic world. It gives a sharp reason why consciousness can arise when a particular modelling process arises within Nature at a certain sufficiently cool, large and complex moment in its Big Bang history.

But that would be leading the conversation back into the realm of the actually scientific. :grin:

PoeticUniverse

Which do you think is "likely" : A> the pre-recorded Block Universe theory / Eternalism (everything, everywhere, all at once) or B> live event Presentism (one experience at a time)? — Gnomon

B> live event, because Eternalism requires infinite precision, but, everything leaks…

In either analogy, does that mean you agree or disagree with the fictional Noetic scientist, that our personal ideas are actually signals from the Cosmos (recorded or live ; local or non-local ; cosmic or proprietary)? — Gnomon

Our personal ideas come from the history of the Cosmos.

Am I wrong to believe that “my Ideas are my own personal creation”? Could you copyright your poems & videos, or list cosmic credits on the label? — Gnomon

No copyright; give cosmic credit; no fame… but no blame either.

Radio analogy — Gnomon

I am listening to the World Series of Canada versus Japan on the radio, ha-ha.

Gnomon

But that would be leading the conversation back into the realm of the actually scientific. — apokrisis

I didn't intend for this thread, on a philosophy forum, to be a scientific analysis of evidence for "signals from the cosmos". Other than as a Noetic postulate to resolve the Hard Problem of Consciousness, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence of intelligible signals being received and interpreted by the brain, except of course as energetic inputs (light, sound) from the local environment. Instead, I'm asking for philosophical reasoning about the likelihood or possibility of "non-local" inputs of meaningful signals from an intelligent source out there in the Cosmos at large. :chin:

So it is the same old causal debate. Top-down holism vs bottom-up contruction. Two ways of treating consciousness as a reified "thing" – an elemental property of nature. But two opposite ways of framing that fact. — apokrisis

Now, we're getting somewhere! My own --- philosophical, not scientific --- musings, about the hard problem, point toward Causation (natural energy, gravity, forces) as the precursor of Consciousness in biological entities. This is a holistic interpretation instead of a reductive inference from specific observations. If so, then perhaps human awareness is a high-level function of brain processes, not a reified thing or substance like the aether. All natural processes must have some evolutionary fitness function to avoid being weeded-out by natural selection. And all physical processes, including brain functions, require Energy.

Moreover, professional scientists have recently inferred from their observations that change-causing Energy is a special form of generic Information*1. And ideas in the human mind are also forms of meaningful information, yes?. Therefore, practical Science points to a natural relationship between Consciousness & Causation. However, the topic of this thread is about the possibility that some Cosmic Intelligence --- (gods or aliens or overflowing black holes*2) the novel leaves the Source open to interpretation --- is beaming meaningful signals into our brains in order to produce the ideas that we arrogant apes assume are our own creation. :nerd:

*1. The statement "energy is information" is a complex and debated concept, but it reflects the deep relationship between the two: energy is a fundamental aspect of information, as physical information requires energy to be carried, and information can be viewed as a form of energy or a measure of a system's organization. While not a simple equivalence, theories propose that information and energy are intrinsically linked and potentially convertible, as demonstrated in a physical experiment where information was converted into energy. {details in the link}
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+information

*2. black hole information paradox, a conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity. It questions what happens to the information of matter that falls into a black hole, as quantum mechanics dictates that information cannot be destroyed, while Hawking's theory suggested black holes radiate away matter without recovering this information. This paradox arises because a black hole's only observable properties are its mass, electric charge, and angular momentum, which are not enough to reconstruct the original information of what fell in.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=black+hole+information
Note --- Like Energy, perhaps Information cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. But, no, I don't take the Black Hole Source seriously. Do you?

61iCrEcQnJL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

Cosmos Created Mind

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions