DNA most likely evolved via Random processes

How could it have? There's no agreed possible process via which DNA could have appeared. It certainly didn't evolve, as evolution depends on self-replication, only possible with DNA!

a holistic function — Gnomon

Yes, he has it that consciousness isn't the neurons directly but comes from their Whole which then
goes on to form it directly.

Since the the Whole is irreducible, it needs be fundamental, plus, one would also think that a whole can only be expressed as a Whole in a holistic way. Consciousness solved!

The Boss may not know exactly where those ideas and feelings came from, but merely judges : "sounds good to me", or "no, that will conflict with other goals". — Gnomon

Or it is that the Boss has no doing associated with it, per Koch, and the nonconscious guys continue to attend to the goings on by voting or whatnot.

How could it have? There's no agreed possible process via which DNA could have appeared. It certainly didn't evolve, as evolution depends on self-replication, only possible with DNA! — Chris Hughes

I was talking about DeoxyRibonucleicAcid. The organic molecule that acts as a carrier of information (instructions, recipe) for construction of an organism.

I assume you are talking about the coded Information itself, which is immaterial. IMHO generic Information (EnFormAction) is the essence and cause of reality itself. Metaphorically, it functions as the "Will of G*D", if you will. But your personal DNA is the physical result of a 14 million year chain of cause & effect development (Intelligent Evolution). It is unique only in the sense that any particular thing is unique : it is characterized by a difference-that-makes-a-difference (specified information). The mathematical code that creates and maintains your material body is not a miraculous addition to a soul-less husk, but is the algorithmic essence of your Self, both Physical and Metaphysical.


EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Intelligent Evolution : The Program of Development for creation of a world via random heuristics and the Programmer's selection criteria.

one would also think that a whole can only be expressed as a Whole in a holistic way. Consciousness solved! — PoeticUniverse

Irony or Sarcasm or Tautology?

Or it is that the Boss has no doing associated with it, per Koch, and the nonconscious guys continue to attend to the goings on by voting or whatnot. — PoeticUniverse

My personal interpretation of Koch's IIT Consciousness --- in view of Dennett's "Multiple Drafts" model and Minsky's "Society of Mind" --- is that 98% of human behavior is carried-out by subconscious automatic instinctive & Intuitive processes. Which leaves only the most important 2% of decisions for the the CEO (the Conscious Whole) to approve or veto. It's only that final say-so (judgment) that we can truly call Free Will. At best, we are absentee (golf-course) executives. Otherwise, we are all philosophical zombies.

If you are a zombie, you're an exceptionally insightful automaton. :smile:


Multiple Drafts : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

Society of Mind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

PS__The weak point of these Subconscious Mind theories is "what to do in case of a tied vote by the underlings?" Do nothing, or kick it upstairs to the boss? Those who get emotionally tied-in-knots are acting irrationally. Rare rational thinkers make an executive or judicial decision and move-on.

There is speculation about this, but no one yet knows how DNA came about. Those who brush aside this problem and its larger question are bending truth.

What do you mean? I mean there is no randomness in chemistry. H and O will form H2O and never H3O2 or H4O5. And when water forms snowflakes, they are all "random", but nevertheless none fail to become a beautiful crystal pattern. There are strict rules and limited possibilities, and the atoms actively seek to form those possibilities. There is repulsion and attraction precisely determining what can go where and what has to go elsewhere, atoms don't just bang around at random and stick to whatever they hit.

So, while DNA most likely evolved via Random processes, any meaning encoded in the chemistry is a product of Selection, which implements Intention.

Selection determinator can be passive and inanimate against some dynamics, like A shaped roof selects which raindrops go to one or the other side. So evolutionary selector can be amount of light, heat, acidity... stuff like that.

If there is an intention behind it all we should find out when we die, but until then I don't see the point to jump in any kind of god-like conclusion since it brings more questions than it answers.

Having read and agreed with radical biologist Rupert Sheldake, whose views, I'd say, coinicide with Idealism, — Chris Hughes

FWIW, I just came across an old blog post that specifically addresses the differences between Sheldrake's Morphogenesis theory and my own theory of Enformationism.

Morphogenesis and Enformationism : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html

Paul Davies on Morphogenesis : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page8.html

Irony or Sarcasm or Tautology? — Gnomon

I'd say that consciousness is fairly well solved. It needs a brain and body with a beating heart, etc., as a background. It's physically based and so is not floating around as an 'All' or such. Koch adds in a footnote that it is intrinsic in the sense of being internal, but not in the sense of something like mass.

Free Will — Gnomon

With all the thinking/doing of the brain areas already done and finished and represented as qualia, sequential consciousness is too late in the cycle to do any conscious thinking of its own, but the cycle continues…

With all the thinking/doing of the brain areas already done and finished and represented as qualia, sequential consciousness is too late in the cycle to do any conscious thinking of its own, but the cycle continues…

Too late at the momement, but maybe not for the next time.

In your link...

Paul Davies on Morphogenesis : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page8.html

... you say:

I... speculate that human culture has arisen at this mid-point of the evolutionary arc in order to take over the management of enforming the world. Does this mean that the development of our universe is not random & pointless, but intentional & goal-oriented?

... and you quote physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies as saying:

... if the emergence of life, and perhaps mind, are etched into the underlying lawfulness nature, it would bestow upon our existence as living, thinking beings a type of cosmic-level meaning.

(From The Demon in the Machine: How Hidden Webs of Information Are Solving the Mystery of Life by Paul Davies)

(My boldings)

So perhaps consciousness, as well as being how we see the world, is what the world, the multiverse, is made of: the unifying field, full of meaning, as in our Goldilocks planet - and the non-random appearance of DNA.

Selection determinator can be passive and inanimate against some dynamics, like A shaped roof selects which raindrops go to one or the other side. So evolutionary selector can be amount of light, heat, acidity... stuff like that. — Zelebg

Yes. The selection criteria for evolution are encoded in the universal laws of Math/Logic/Physics and in the Initial Conditions. So the geometric shape of a roof can passively divide random raindrops into two categories, which will determine the future direction of flow. But the "intention" I mentioned was in the mind of the encoder/programmer, who tilted the playing field in order to influence the outcome without presetting all the intermediate details. Thus, allowing a degree of freedom within determinism.

That's why, in my thesis, the creative act occurred before the Big Bang beginning, but the creative process of Evolution is still underway. Since we humans find ourselves in the middle of the journey, and our understanding is limited by the time/light horizon, we can infer the intended end-state only by looking in the direction of Time's Arrow. But the fact that there is a direction (tendency) in Nature indicates that there was conscious intention in the mind of the pool shooter (Programmer), who aimed the cue stick, and then allowed physics to guide the ball to the selected pocket.

Too late at the momement, but maybe not for the next time — Zelebg

Yes, but just sort of, for decisions and thoughts noted in consciousness are not made instantly, as it seems, but are 300-500 milliseconds old, as is everything in consciousness, for that's how long it took for the nonconscious figurings to make the decision or thought via their voting/analysis or whatnot. There is also the time to structure the qualia. At least the nonconscious willing still represents 'you', plus what consciousness presented can still get used by the nonconscious as an input to make better future.

It's physically based and so is not floating around as an 'All' or such. Koch adds in a footnote that it is intrinsic in the sense of being internal, but not in the sense of something like mass — PoeticUniverse

Yes. My personal consciousness is intrinsic to my body as a holon. But Cosmic Consciousness of the ALL is intrinsic to the universe as a whole. In my thesis, the physical universe is analogous to the fleshly body of a conscious human. But the quality of consciousness is not located in any part of the world. So, you could say that it's "floating around" out there in the great beyond. In other words, immaterial Consciousness is non-local. :smile:

With all the thinking/doing of the brain areas already done and finished and represented as qualia, sequential consciousness is too late in the cycle to do any conscious thinking of its own, but the cycle continues… — PoeticUniverse

If you are referring to the time gap between intention and action as determined by Benjamin Libet, his results can be interpreted as allowing time for an intentional veto. Thus, retaining a role for agency in the ongoing cycle of life. :cool:

" Libet's results thus cannot be interpreted to provide empirical evidence in favour of agency reductionism, "
"Daniel Dennett argues that no clear conclusion about volition can be derived from Libet's experiment because of ambiguities in the timings of the different events involved."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

So perhaps consciousness, as well as being how we see the world, is what the world, the multiverse, is made of: the unifying field, full of meaning, as in our Goldilocks planet - and the non-random appearance of DNA. — Chris Hughes

Yes. My worldview is similar to Panpsychism, but I prefer to use the abstract term "Information" in reference to the enformed structure of the world, in place of "Consciousness" or "Psyche". That's because some people imagine that rocks & atoms are conscious in the same sense that humans are. Physicists sometimes speak metaphorically about a particle "feeling" a force. But they don't mean it literally.

DNA conveys information (meaning) to the degree that its structure is non-random.

But the "intention" I mentioned was in the mind of the encoder/programmer, who tilted the playing field in order to influence the outcome without presetting all the intermediate details. Thus, allowing a degree of freedom within determinism.

Yes, it makes no sense we just happen to exist. The problem is this god would be thinking the same thing. This god could also be shapeshifting lizard aliens who put us in the simulator, but they too would be thinking it makes no sense they just happen to exist for no good reason.

However you turn it around it doesn't make sense because the real question underneath is - why is there something rather than nothing? And whatever answer goes there must seem magical to us. But what is more fantastic, that 'something' is simply a bunch of particles that just happen to encode in their properties huge number of combinatorial possibilities, some of which look like what we see around us, or that 'something' is simply a bunch of something that just so happens to be conscious and magical being.

Benjamin Libet, his results can be interpreted as allowing time for an intentional veto. — Gnomon

No, not Libet, just time. The nonconscious even just taking 1 millisecond would still mean that decisions/thoughts aren't made in consciousness. Also, the nonconscious figuring time for a 'veto' still takes time just like any other figuring/analysis and goes through the same route. The 'veto' isn't done by consciousness.

The speed of light even gets added to the delay. We ever live in the past in consciousness.

Yes, it makes no sense we just happen to exist. — Zelebg

But it does make sense that Existence must be, it having no opposite or alternative.

Yes. My personal consciousness is intrinsic to my body as a holon. But Cosmic Consciousness of the ALL is intrinsic to the universe as a whole. In my thesis, the physical universe is analogous to the fleshly body of a conscious human. But the quality of consciousness is not located in any part of the world. So, you could say that it's "floating around" out there in the great beyond. In other words, immaterial Consciousness is non-local. :smile: — Gnomon

Well, my consciousness depends on my brain, body, etc., else there isn't any.

Also, I confess that I am an automon.

However you turn it around it doesn't make sense because the real question underneath is - why is there something rather than nothing? And whatever answer goes there must seem magical to us. — Zelebg

The only reasonable answer to that fundamental question is "creation" ex nihilo. Which is why I assume that the Creator must exist eternally outside of space-time (i.e. nothingness). In Eternity, all things are possible. But in space-time only some things are actual. In the Real World creation ex nihilo is impossible, hence magical. From our perspective in the conditional world, the Creator is a magician, capable of doing the physically impossible.

However, since I define G*D as BEING (the power to exist), creation (making things exist) is simply inherent in the job description. As PoeticUniverse noted : existence is essential, and must be taken for granted by those of us who know we exist. So, no BEING, no beings; no things. QED

Well, my consciousness depends on my brain, body, etc., else there isn't any. — PoeticUniverse

True. Consciousness is a function : no form, no function.

Also, I confess that I am an automon. — PoeticUniverse

Prove it! :grin:

The 'veto' isn't done by consciousness. — PoeticUniverse

So, you think the subconscious is a perfect democracy, with no executive to overrule the voters with a veto? Maybe you are an automaton. :smile:

The only reasonable answer to that fundamental question is "creation" ex nihilo. Which is why I assume that the Creator must exist eternally outside of space-time (i.e. nothingness). I

To exist outside of the time is to exist never. To exist outside of space is to exist nowhere. It means it does not exist and that it never existed. If this simple logic is not obvious there is really no point in talking about this anymore, or about anything really.

To exist outside of the time is to exist never. To exist outside of space is to exist nowhere. It means it does not exist and that it never existed. If this simple logic is not obvious there is really no point in talking about this anymore, or about anything really.

That's a bit strong. There's much talk, in the Land of Metaphysics, of what is or may be beyond time and space. Like Donald Trump, for instance.

Have you not heard of phase space, that curious eight-dimensional world that merges space and time with a four-dimensional momentum space? Me neither, I just googled it. Point being: play fair.

Well, my consciousness depends on my brain, body, etc., else there isn't any.

I think it should be said that consciousness is a direct one-to-one ratio with the body, and any discussion about consciousness is a discussion about the body. In fact, let’s do away with consciousness altogether.

... let’s do away with consciousness altogether

That's a bit strong as well, Count. What would be left?

That's a bit strong as well, Count. What would be left?

All is still there, except we would be looking at the world instead of trying to look inward. There is a reason our eyes point out of our body.

So... let's deny the possibility of dimensions beyond time and space; and let's continue this discussion without consciousness. Forum, where are your defenders?

So... let's deny the possibility of dimensions beyond time and space; and let's continue this discussion without consciousness. Forum, where are your defenders?

I’m merely stating my belief. I don’t need to accept what you have yet to prove.

“Conscious” is an adjective describing organisms, in our case, the human body. I see no reason to speak of other dimensions if what we are describing stands right before us.

Yes, but things look different in daylight.