• Xav
    36
    Imagine for a moment that all that existed in the entire universe was a single human brain. There was no vacuum or void surrounding it, it just was. By some miraculous means, it thought, functioned, and experienced all on it’s own.

    Now imagine it experienced its life time; formed memories, started small and childish, grew old and tired, then died and faded away to nothing. This mind and the universe are one and the same. Let’s say it was you who was this mind, your experience could equally be regarded as the universe’s experience as you are all that is the universe. That single point or entity we all feel we are (not the network of ticking neurons); the experience of being ‘one thing,’ was being experienced by you, who is the universe.

    Now imagine, once there was nothing left of the mind, a new and different mind grew in a similar fashion. This new mind has no memories of the previous mind, yet is still all that is in the universe. Though the mind would have no memory of it, it is still the very same universe which was originally entirely the previous mind.*

    The two minds might think of themselves as two different selves however I would say that the universe experienced both outside the limitations of concepts like ego and memory. In this strange and hypothetical universe, is a space where a reincarnation like concept can be easily imagined. The universe being both minds whilst each mind feeling separate.

    The universe would have no facilities for being aware of itself. Nor would either mind know what it was apart of as the powerful sense of being an important and individual existence (the ego) is a deep and core value of the brain that hosts our experience. This universe would be like a pool of water, that is experience, with dividers in it separating it like segments in an ice cube tray. Each divided section being a mind, unaware that it is filled with the same water that fills all the other trays.

    In this hypothetical universe, the ice cube tray only has one row; only one pool at any one time. Linear. But who’s to say there couldn’t be simultaneous pools? Einstein’s work tells us time’s relation to space is nothing like how we perceive it. Chronology means nothing to the overall workings of the universe so why would reincarnation like phenomena not be possible in a nonlinear environment. Who’s to say everyone of us isn’t the very same experience divided only by memory and evolved illusions of self?

    What’s more, who’s to say experience is even limited to the complex neurological systems of organisms and brains. Frankly it is a vast assumption to make any definition for what experience is. From experiencing, I infer that it is possible for a large system of complex energy transfers and reactions (the brain), to form a unified entity, a section of the metaphorical ice cube tray of experience. Who’s to eliminate the possibility that any network of reactions and energy movement couldn’t result in some sort of experience, no matter how foreign or simple? To rocks striking each other in space could create a sudden moment of experience that the universe could feel. A sudden pulse of experience so simplistic and foreign to us it’s impossible to imagine and so we conclude it’s impossible in general.

    What if the dividers in the pool are what is unique to human experience? Could everything else in the universe be experiencing as one? Our strange ego’s extending like tendrils or limbs; still apart of the enormous experience of the universe yet in our own peculiar way isolated by traits grown by evolution. (Evolution in itself being a complex system that very well may have its own experience).

    I do not think the fact that I can entertain this idea via a pseudo rational thought experiment, relying on assumptions and missing many of the greater complexities of human experience proves it is correct. However as a westerner, ideas like reincarnation are often laughed at as we head to church to transmit thoughts to a giant man in the sky who puts us on naughty-nice lists like Santa, yet thoughts like these make me think that reincarnation like ideas run closer to the laws of logic and rationale than god like beings seem to.

    This article may very well be just be wrong. Perhaps there truly is no such thing as experience from that single unified being made of a brain. That may simply be how deep the illusion of ego runs. I am very much a follower and believer of science. But the point of this article is to show that a oneness amongst life and the universe doesn’t stray as far from logic or science as I’ve heard many say. Science has been aided and phenomena have been discover from just as absurd sounding thought experiments.

    *Is it technically the same universe? The purpose of this hypothetical circumstance is to relate it to the universe we do live in which we can say with some confidence is the same universe after each passing moment and each dying and growing mind. So I think this detail can be glossed over.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Sentience most certainly did not create the universe.Xav

    So what did? It just happened? Ok. Everything just happened.

    Please someone tell me if I'm making any sense or if I should go see a psychologist.Xav

    No you don't have to go to a psychologist. You just like envisioning yourself as some bouncy particles which actually haven't existed since quantum theory one hundred years ago. Be that as it may, all you have to do now is convince yourself that quantum waves Have a natural, persistence affinity toward eating Big Macs even if it wipes out their natural affinity to create life so that they can play soccer together.

    Or, you can just take the position it all just happened - kind of like a Magnificent Miracle.
  • Xav
    36
    I think the idea of creation is an inherently flawed concept. It just coming back to what created what created what. I can only logically conclude that creation is simply a concept that seems fundamental to the human mind but is in fact a stupid notion. You call it a magnificent miracle but the idea that there was once nothing and then there was something would be the true miracle. It would make more sense to say there had always been something.

    I am confused if you disagree with the fact that we are all bouncy particles, that yes were discovered recently and so what, what do you think we are?

    As for why we eat big macs despite the repercussions is very simple. Our design is not perfect and though our instincts evolved to better our survival the conditions of good health have changed faster than our biological drives and thus we release dopamine when consuming the tasty, cheap big mac and instead of instinctively bettering our health, we instinctively want a big mac.
  • gurugeorge
    514
    You call it a magnificent miracle but the idea that there was once nothing and then there was something would be the true miracle. It would make more sense to say there had always been something.Xav

    Surely that would be just as miraculous? The queer thing about the Universe is that anything exists at all, the question of whether it always existed or had a temporal beginning, is entirely secondary.

    The main classical arguments for God don't depend on time or creation (although a few outliers like the Kalam cosmological argument do). For example, "[Aquinas argues that] even if the world had always existed, God would still have to exist here and now, otherwise certain features that it exhibits here and now would be inexplicable." (Edward Feser)

    Your train of thought is interesting, but I don't quite see how contextuality gets you out of trouble. Could you expand on that?
  • Xav
    36
    I essentially believe that though outside of my own perspective and from a truly rational view of the universe my personal desires have no real value and natural selection has simply resulted in those with a fabricated drive to survive surviving and those who do not have that fabricated desire to live not surviving. Obviously I don't know for sure if there ever were species without a will to survive but I am just saying from a rational stand point. Being alive or not shouldn't really matter nor should anything in the universe. It just is what it is.
    However the notion that my desire to live is actually real because if it wasn't I wouldn't be experiencing it is what gets me out of trouble. It just frustrated me that the only real reason I could think of, without the implication of a god and afterlife, to live was "why not?"
    I won't claim to have heard of all different ideas of different gods but I was raised as a catholic and cannot accept the idea of an all knowing all powerful being who defines flawed concepts like "right" and "wrong." So there really seemed to be know answer to my question of what the point to living is.
    In accepting that even if my existence was of no real value (positive or negative) to the rest of the universe, I am still of value in the context of my own self, I finally thought of a valid justification to my existence despite having the knowledge that I was driven by many predetermined instincts and brain functions.

    How this relates to the universe's creation of the multiverses creation or whatever I'm not entirely sure. But I imagine it could be that the fundamentals of our understandings of the world such as creation could be entirely wrong. Attempting to justify why things have to be created would be a very difficult discussion though I suppose it would be just as difficult to ask how things could have always been. I agree either notion would be equally as miraculous.
    I think the end of my article may have gone onto a tangent that I don't completely back up. I plan to pursue physics and to discover a deeper understanding of the physical universe. What I really meant to bring to light is that despite not believing in a god. I most certainly think it is hard to argue against existences that are not physically apparent but are most definitely impactful on the physical world. They cannot simply 'float round' like a ghost or spirit, so I figure they must some kind of contextual existence.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    I think the idea of creation is an inherently flawed conceptXav

    Creation it's very profound and fundamental. It describes what we (our minds) are doing throughout our lives - forum posts being but one example. The philosophical path is to extend this observation and afternoon to understand life and nature as a cycle of creation (duration) and non-creation (no-duration).

    I am confused if you disagree with the fact that we are all bouncy particles, that yes were discovered recently and so what, what do you think we are?Xav

    The concept of bouncing particles, while popular with 17th century materialists, vanished in the early 20th century experiments which eventually led to quantum physics. What do I believe we are? We are observers, explorers, and creators that are evolving along with the rest of the universe as we learn.

    As for why we eat big macs despite the repercussions is very simple. Our design ..Xav

    OK. Who's designing? I say our Minds.
  • Xav
    36
    fundamental in what way the transformation of energy, the conservation of information and mathematics entirely rely fundamentally on the absence of creation or destruction. Creation is simply a relative word when dealing with concepts. We are observers and explorers, and perhaps engineers and reconfigurators of the physical world but we are also simply physical existences made of atoms and in turn waves of energy resonating into matter and perhaps further detail is yet to be discovered. Those two existences to not contradict which is precisely what I was suggesting.

    Sorry if you misinterpreted my use of the word design. I simply meant the results of evolution and our physical anatomy and the behavioral results of it.

    Even these contextual existences i refer to are not created by nothing the form out of what already exists physically. Give me one example of something that has been created from nothing since "the beginning of time" and if you can't try justify to me why I would ever think that a time where things could appear from nothing could ever be.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    made of atoms and in turn waves of energy resonating into matterXav

    No such thing as atoms. Everything is entangled. Academia still teaches 17th century physics because it helps the materialist cause.

    Yes something is resonating, but what? Everyone the math equations don't work out, science creates another math, another constant, or another force. It's just like in mythology where new gods are created to explain something new. Now we have dark forces and dark matter, presumably to fit nicely into the Start War sagas.

    What is resonating? Mind.
    results of evolution and our physical anatomy and the behavioral results of it.Xav

    So it's Evolution that is designing? Just a manufactured placeholder for God. No difference. Making up a new word does not make it any different. All of this should be covered in high school, but it isn't, because if a student challenges the dogma it is a D for sure.

    Give me one example of something that has been created from nothingXav

    The Mind is always there. Sometimes experiencing duration (awake), sometimes not (asleep without dreaming, our unconscious). The impulse of the Mind, which we witness as can heart beat, is always there.

    Here is the quantum version of what I just said:

    "According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space".[1][2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]"

    Philosophy can move ahead with quickly once our minds stops denying itself (for fun).
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    Physically my mind is simply a collection of electrical signals yet I experience life as a unified being. This being seems to simply be some kind of concept, a name for the collective system that makes me behave how natural selection has dictated through process of elimination.Xav

    I think what's happening is that you're seeing through the materialism that almost everyone takes for granted nowadays - the obvious incongruity between our ability to grasp meaning, and the dogma of life being a kind of biochemical accident.

    This being seems to simply be some kind of concept,Xav

    Notice that ‘the being’ must transcend the concept, because there must be a being, before any concept can be maintained. Put another way, a being is not a concept, but concepts require a being.

    What you’re referring to here, is recognised philosophical problem, called ‘the subjective unity of consciousness’. Have a look at the Wikipedia entry on transcendental apperception.
  • BlueBanana
    873
    I think the idea of creation is an inherently flawed concept. It just coming back to what created what created what.Xav

    It's turtles all the way down.
  • Xav
    36
    Perhaps in a similar way that the context of the human brain is me, evolution was a designing god. It would be contradictory to my initial thoughts to disagree, however it is a god in the sense that it was our creator. Evolution is a very slow thinking god, soon to be vastly outpaced by the self correcting pace of A.I. which curiously enough. In the same way evolution was our slow thinking creator, we are the relatively slow thinking creator of AI.

    You are right, I have heard of the behaviors of a vacuum which if I recall is the cause of Hawking radiation? This may have caused the beginning of our universe but what dictated the behaviors of a vacuum?

    I think it is very egotistical to assume that the cause is anything similar to the human mind. The vast majority of the universe is hardly inspired by a humanoid model. And it seems evolution is what created us.

    Are the resonating components of energy that project subatomic particles into existence (somewhere in a general area at a general time) minds? Perhaps but far from a human one. The contextual existence of anything seems probable based simply on our own existence. But minds are not created from nothing, they are a context of the physical world and how was the nature of the cosmos generated? There cannot be an answer.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    But minds are not created from nothing, they are a context of the physical world and how was the nature of the cosmos generated? There cannot be an answer.Xav

    Suit yourself. If you wish to believe a god created the Universe instead of Mind, that is your call. The difference being that Mind is there while a god (in any form) is created by the Mind - in this case your Mind.
  • Xav
    36
    I don't think it was created by a god. I don't know how the universe came to be but I think when approaching the matter it's worth considering that many of the fundamental concepts we use to think should be ignored.
    There's every possibility that the universe was not created at all it just was. One thing is for sure throughout history the universe certainly hasn't complied with our rational conclusions. It does not have to have a creator. The universe frankly doesn't give a damn what the Mind thinks it has to have.
    I do not believe evolution is an all powerful god but perhaps in the same way our brain of neurons and synapses somehow conforms into the single being all of us call our selves that evolution may have a mind of its own?

    Maybe I've miscommunication my belief but I do not claim too know the true nature of the universe. The only thing I can know is that I exist and I believe I exist as some kind of contextual existence because I am inarguable more than the matter that makes me. I do not believe in a God (I agree we can make Gods in our mind but those Gods will never alter the world around us all we can do is "pray" to them for a piece of mind, personally I have no use for a God only in my own mind).
  • Rich
    3.2k
    I don't know how the universe came to beXav
    Fair enough. Just something to contemplate then.

    The only thing I can know is that I exist and I believe I exist as some kind of contextual existence because I am inarguable more than the matter that makes me.Xav

    The "more" can be a continuum of differences. Matter may be just a form of mind as Peirce and Bergson speculated.
  • Xav
    36
    Thanks very much for the link that's very informative :)
    But I don't believe the being should transcend the concept because by all means where the physical matter of the brain is unified into a being can only be considered a concept, like the labeling of a system in which we interact only with the inputs and outputs of.
    I can't believe that a "being" could be something other than the concept of the collective results of the transmissions within my brain.
    If it were anymore than could a being exist without the context of physical matter to accommodate it? I often think of calculating the resistance of two parallel resistors. You can calculate the total resistance of two individual parallel resistors and redraw it as a single resistor on one of the total resistance.
    They are entirely equivocal and though physically there are two resistors but in the context of the circuit the two possible designs are equivalent. Without gazing on the circuit there would be no way of knowing.

    By a similar logic There is no way of distinguishing the individual chain of reactions causing problem solving and cognition within my brain and a single being. The concept does not transcend the being the concept is equivalent to the being.
  • Xav
    36
    possibly my entire surrounding is generated by my mind I suppose there would be no knowing but I don't believe that to be the case. If it were then I would be simulating the entire universe and then the universe exists independently to whether my mind is generating it anyhow.

    By more I do not mean physically more, or of more importance. I do simply mean there is a difference in my experience of being me. To the experience of what makes me. This perspective is real in some way. I am really a theoretical output of a more complex system yet and I think you'll agree with me I certainly feel real enough not to be a theory. Or I should say I feel real enough to prove that theoretical outputs are very real in the world and thus contradictory to the word not a theory. I then conclude that I am a contextual existence.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    generated by my mindXav

    One has to be cognizant of other minds. We are not alone. There is mind/life everywhere and it would be jumping too far to believe that we are able to observe all possible mind/life forms. We can only proceed from where we are and then move a bit further. Certainly others have reported experiences that I have never had and vice-versa. Part of learning about Life is sharing.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    If it were anymore than could a being exist without the context of physical matter to accommodate it?Xav

    I can't believe that a "being" could be something other than the concept of the collective results of the transmissions within my brain.Xav

    Don't be fooled by the claim that science understands how the brain and mind are related. It is unknown. I can see from your posts, you're intelligent, inquisitive - and confused. But don't worry, because the confusion is not yours; it is the general massive confusion of the modern world. You're in a great place to actually start reading philosophy, but start at the beginning, with the Greeks, and understand the subject properly. The world is full of crank ideas and pop-scientific rubbish, so don't get led down the garden path.
  • MindForged
    731
    I'm just here to say the title of this thread is hilarious. Props~
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k
    The world is full of crank ideas and pop-scientific rubbish, so don't get led down the garden path.Wayfarer

    Yes absolutely, be sure to refer back to Wayfarer before deciding what to read, don't for heaven's sake presume to use your own intellect to sort the wheat from the chaff.
  • charleton
    1.2k

    I think you would be less confused about things if you were to drop your assumption of some kind of meta-meaning to the universe which crept into your discussion.
    Accept there is no 'grand scheme' and you will be more content. Even if there was a 'grand scheme', it would be very unlikely in a universe of this size and complexity for your life to be a significant part of it, or that you would ever be able to understand it, or even know of its existence.
    There is a real world of experience and a world of ideas which can be shared; with books, videos, and text, speech and many other forms of media. Just enjoy it whilst you can.
  • Xav
    36
    Thanks for the feedback, I will be at university next year and am considering a philosophy minor perhaps.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    Good idea! My only recommendation is - start with Socrates and the Greeks first, if that is an elective.
  • Xav
    36
    In the grand scheme of the universe I don't see a great purpose or relevance to human life I completely agree. But in order to make decisions and function in life I felt a serious need to have some sort of moral, ethical drive to take certain actions over.
    I simply have concluded that I am in someway real as a mind not a brain. But perhaps I need to look further into my justification for this.
  • charleton
    1.2k

    There is no doubt that you owe everything you are to your brain. It's the only organ you cannot live without.
    I like to think of my "mind" as what the brain does. It is the software of the brain which is the hardware.
    As for a purpose - that is what the mind decides.
    It is most likely that there is no "grand scheme of the universe"
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.