...is just a story, or theory, and not even so much mainstream these days. There was a brief time when our galaxy was thought the universe, until more galaxies were discovered. Now, as there are many galaxies, it's supposed there are many universes - the multi-verse. The point here being that the laws of the universe we live in not necessarily the same in other universes, and, operating under different laws, they being possibly different in every conceivable way, and maybe even some that are not conceivable.The mainstream story — leo
To suppose that a universe devoid of consciousness can be molded so as to make consciousness arise, is to inject consciousness from outside the universe. — leo
Consider this, a universe devoid of stars and planets gave rise to stars and planets, even though stars and planets weren't injected from outside of the universe. This doesn't seem like it's a problem in this case... why would consciousness be any different? — ChatteringMonkey
Assume a universe initially devoid of consciousness, which behaves according to laws of motion. While being constrained by these laws, various parts of the universe can assemble into approximately spherical configurations (stars, planets) and into many other shapes. These shapes are within the realm of what is permitted by these laws. But what would make any of these configurations conscious? If there was no consciousness initially, and the laws themselves do not inject consciousness, where would consciousness come from? — leo
In such a universe, its parts have the ability to move, but not the ability to perceive. And indeed consciousness, the ability to perceive, is fundamentally different from the ability to move. The ability to perceive must have been part of the universe from the beginning, for us to have this ability now. Rather than consciousness magically arising out of non-consciousness, there was a initial consciousness that arranged itself into various configurations, various conscious beings. — leo
Consciousness comes from matter being configured in a certain way. — ChatteringMonkey
And no, i'm not going to tell you how that exactly works, because nobody really can at this moment. But the fact that we don't know exactly how it works at this point, doesn't mean that no such explanation exists. — ChatteringMonkey
No, only biological (or other yet undiscovered) life has the ability to perceive... you need a sense organ to be able to perceive, and most of the universe doesn't have such organ. — ChatteringMonkey
the laws that humans make are not like the laws of nature.
The laws of nature do not "constrain the universe". They describe the (physical) universe. In a sense, the laws of nature and the universe are one and the same. What we call "laws" are really descriptions, and they only constrain our ideas about the universe (most notably our predictions) not the universe itself. — Echarmion
assume consciousness arises from matter while logically it cannot — leo
You can’t explain how consciousness can arise from matter. I can explain how it cannot.
A physical theory boils down to equations that relate how fundamental physical entities move. Logically you cannot derive from equations of motion that a configuration of physical entities will perceive anything. All you can derive is approximately where these entities will be. More accurate measurements or equations only will improve these approximations. If you start from a physical theory you will never be able to derive consciousness. You will always have to say “no one knows how that works but maybe in the future we will”. Well it can’t work. You have to invoke magic in order to have consciousness arising from matter. — leo
If you agree that the laws of nature describe the universe, then you must agree that these laws themselves cannot create anything, they cannot inject consciousness into matter, they cannot provide matter with the ability to perceive. — leo
So if the laws themselves don’t do that, what does? Unconscious matter spontaneously becomes conscious, magically? That’s what you have to admit, if you assume that the universe wasn’t conscious in the past. — leo
Regarding laws of humans and laws of nature : humans follow the laws of humans most of the time, from an outside point of view one could say these laws are only descriptions of how humans behave but they don’t constrain humans. If a human is observed to break a human law, one could put that observation into the list of “unexplained phenomena” that one hopes to be able to explain in the future. Or one could say these laws were only approximations and come up with more accurate laws. Isn’t that what we do with matter? — leo
The difference is that we know how to break some laws of humans but we don’t know how to break laws of nature. Or maybe miracles are what happens when humans manage to break these laws. — leo
To suppose that a universe devoid of consciousness can be molded so as to make consciousness arise, is to inject consciousness from outside the universe. — leo
To suppose that a universe devoid of consciousness can be molded so as to make consciousness arise, is to inject consciousness from outside the universe. — leo
There are many things we can't mathematically derive from basic theories of physics. To give but one example, we cannot derive from these equations when and how a storm will come. But nobody thinks that we are invoking magic when we say that the patterns of a storm are ultimately just matter behaving according to the basic laws of physics. It's just to complex to calculate precisely how that works from the ground up. — ChatteringMonkey
You expect the physicalist to give an exact account of how consciousness arises from a physical universe, but then invariably fail to give the same kind of detailed and accurate account for your alternative theory. — ChatteringMonkey
or consciousness just is the action of a brain, in the same way that walking just is the actions of legs. So there is no need for any strong emergence, weak emergence is enough. — bert1
With sufficiently accurate measurements and computing power you could. You could predict when and where there is going to be lightning (photons and electrons moving in a specific way) and so on. But even with infinite accuracy you couldn’t predict from equations of motion that some configuration of physical entities is going to be conscious. You can only predict how that configuration is going to move. That’s the key point you keep missing. Equations of motion, which are at the heart of physical theories, only describe how things move.
Knowing perfectly how things move would allow you to derive when there is going to be a storm, but not that some configuration of matter is going to become conscious. Do you not see that? You will derive how each part of that configuration is going to move, that’s it. — leo
If the truth is that consciousness was always there, how do you want me to explain how consciousness arose? It was always there.
Physicalism doesn’t explain how matter arose in the first place, but on top of that it cannot explain how consciousness arose. — leo
But if we know how something moves, we know its configuration right? — ChatteringMonkey
So if we figure out what configurations of matter produce consciousness, then you could 'in principle' derive when consciousness would arise because you can derive the configuration from those equations of motion. — ChatteringMonkey
I don't see how this should necessarily be any different than any other property matter gets at larger scales, you also need to know what configurations give what properties, which isn't given in the laws of motion themselves. — ChatteringMonkey
One problem is that our physical senses do not perceive what is conscious and what is not. We don’t perceive other human beings to be conscious, we assume them to be. We would need a sense that would show us what they feel and think.
If you’re conscious then you at least know that your own configuration of matter (yourself) is conscious, but another problem here is that you don’t know whether what you perceive is an accurate picture of reality. So you could say that your configuration of matter is conscious, but what that configuration is exactly you don’t know. You only have an image of that configuration, a potentially very limited and flawed image. There again you would need some extraordinary, transcendental sense in order to know whether that image is accurate and complete.
So we would need a perception that we don’t currently have in order to figure out what configurations of matter are conscious. The ability to see what others feel or think, and the ability to know whether we see an accurate image of matter. — leo
Now, if there is nothing that constrains or forces matter to move the way it does, why does it move that way? — leo
Which story is the most incredible really? When you think about it. Some higher consciousness who makes matter move in a regular way? Matter being conscious and choosing on it own to move that way? Or unconscious matter moving in a regular way for no reason at all and becoming conscious for no reason at all? — leo
The laws of motion do not tell us how something is going to feel, they don’t deal with consciousness at all. But the large scales properties of matter are derivable from the laws of motion. For instance you can derive from the laws of motion that on large scales chunks of matter eventually aggregate into large spherical objects, and when the density is high enough the internal motions lead a bunch of photons to be released in all directions, and you have a star, that is a large spherical object that emits a bunch of photons.
The laws of motion can describe how photons that reach your skin are going to modify the motions of the molecules that compose your skin, how this is going to lead electrons to travel from your skin through your nerves towards your brain and how they are going to move in your brain, but they cannot tell you that your brain or your skin or your body is feeling anything. — leo
And if you say that a specific configuration of matter is conscious, you don’t explain what it is about that configuration that makes it conscious. If motion can produce consciousness, then it isn’t just motion, there is something more in there. It isn’t just unconscious matter in motion. Unconscious matter in motion is just unconscious matter in motion. There is something more. — leo
The laws of nature are aggregate regularities we discover from how matter interacts with matter. You could off course always ask, why it has the properties it has, or why do those properties interact in the particular way they do.
And we can't really know, because there are limits to what we can observe, and we also can't step outside of this universe to compare it to some other set of universes. — ChatteringMonkey
I don't know why matter ultimately has the properties it has. But higher consciousness, or God is no explanation IMO, because it just shift the question one step further to that higher consciousness. — ChatteringMonkey
I can't move my laptop with my thoughts, I can get rendered unconscious when I get hit in the head hard enough, I feel my consciousness changing when I drink to much, I do not see any signs of consciousness in rocks or things without brains etc etc... All of these things I do know, and it points to the physical having an effect on consciousness, more than the other way around. Even if we would assume consciousness is inherent in the universe, that still doesn't explain any of these particular experiences. — ChatteringMonkey
from what I gathered directly deriving larger scale emergent properties for more basic laws is, at this point anyway, only possible for a select few things. I could dig up references for this if you insist. — ChatteringMonkey
Here is the interesting thing : let’s say you could step outside of this universe into other universes in which matter behaves differently. Let’s say you came up with some greater law of nature that encompasses how matter behaves in different universes. That still wouldn’t answer the question why does matter behave the way it does? Laws of nature describe, they answer the how, not the why. — leo
It shifts the question one step further and then finally reaches an end. Why does a consciousness choose to do something rather than some other thing? It may have reasons, but the ultimate reason is : because it can. If it couldn’t it wouldn’t. It can, and it chooses to. A consciousness has the power to create and to choose. And consciousness is an inherent part of the universe.
Why are we so afraid of that answer? Why would we prefer an absence of answer, a fundamental meaninglessness, over that answer? Essentially choosing to refuse that answer is choosing meaninglessness over meaning. Yet the very act of choosing is meaningful. Meaning exists and it’s there, in us and all around us. — leo
The outside has an effect on the inside, and the inside has an effect on the outside. They are interrelated. The physical and consciousness are interrelated. There are things beyond your consciousness that have an effect on your consciousness, and you have an effect on things beyond your consciousness.
You do see that your choices have an effect on the world around you. It’s not just the world around you having an effect on you. — leo
If you want. — leo
Why isn't always a legitimate question. Just because you can ask the question, doesn't mean there is an answer to it. — ChatteringMonkey
If say the universe is just material stuff and only created consciousness on earth as a result of biological life evolving there, then for the larger part of the universe the why-question is a meaningless question, because it pertains to meaning and purposes, which presupposes some kind biological life and consciousness that is capable of generating meaning. — ChatteringMonkey
God usually serves as a stop to the infinite regress of causation. It seems to me that this only tells us something about a desire we have for meaning and a first cause, and nothing about the veracity of it. — ChatteringMonkey
Why would it be legitimate to ask how matter behaves, but not why it behaves the way it does?
There is an answer to it. There is just a refusal to accept that answer.
Why do we do anything? Because we choose to. Choice is part of the universe. As much as what we see.
It is not possible to explain why matter behaves the way it does without a choice, either a consciousness making the choice to force matter to behave that way, or matter itself making that choice.
The alternative is the refusal to explain it. Which is a choice too. The answer exists, whether we accept it or not is a choice. — leo
How could material stuff that has no meaning or purpose, and that behaves the way it does without meaning or purpose, create something that has meaning and purpose?
How could something that is unconscious create something that is conscious?
It is mind-boggling to me that people are willing to accept the idea that something unconscious can create something conscious with the ability to make choices, but scoff at the idea that something conscious can create something unconscious which doesn't make choices.
Those who make the first choice have a God too, they call it Matter. Their God who has created them is unconscious, and does what he does for no reason at all. And they see themselves as the result of that, meaningless pieces of stuff in a meaningless world that goes wherever it goes for no reason at all. And to see themselves as that, that is a choice.
Which we could rightly see as an anthropocentric choice. They see themselves as meaningless, so they project that meaninglessness into everything. — leo
Because a why-question pertains to purposes and meaning, and as far as we know only biological life develops purposes and meaning. So to ask why matter behaves the way it does, is already assuming a conscious entity capable of meaning that created matter with a purpose. — ChatteringMonkey
And BTW, it is in fact possible to conceive of explanations for matter behaving the way it does without resorting to the language of meaning and purpose. Universes could in theory be selected for by a non-purposeful process, akin to the process of natural selection, because some values of the properties of matter give rise to stable universes and others do not. — ChatteringMonkey
For me, I kinda like the idea that the universe is purposeless and that we are the only ones that seem to bring meaning into it... it makes me feel special ;-). — ChatteringMonkey
Human laws, the laws that govern our conduct, are created. Natural laws just are. — Tobias
Morover the assumption that law constrains is false. Both natural laws as well as human laws constrain and enable. A natural law, say the law of cause and effect makes our universe livable in the first place, take for instance cycle of birth. This would be impossible without cause and effect. Human law too does not only constrain. Take a traffic light. Yes, you have to stop, but because it regulates all the participants in traffic, it enables you to plan your journey and safely arrive at a destination. — Tobias
I don't agree with this. Asking why here simply means what makes matter behave the way it does. Just like we could ask what makes tree branches move the way they do, and we could answer "the wind", and we're not assuming the wind is a conscious entity capable of meaning.
But then we ask what makes the wind behave the way it does, and so on and so forth until we reach the question what makes matter behave the way it does? — leo
The why-question is valid, and it has only two possible answers.
If you pick the second answer, that matter does what it does for no reason at all, then you would have to explain how something that does what it does for no reason at all, that has no purpose, has the ability to morph into conscious beings capable of meaning, purpose and choice.
Basically either you assume the universe is fundamentally meaningful or meaningless. But if you assume it is meaningless then you have to explain how meaning can appear in a meaningless universe. If matter is everything and it is meaningless, then meaning would be an illusion. But then every sentence we type here would be meaningless. And then what are we doing? Why don't we just write like this goingozinfegoizgtizsngroiqoiden,oqin,donazefonaoeingfe if it is meaningless all the same? — leo
Well here's the kicker, if the universe is purposeless we don't bring meaning into it, because we are purposeless too and any meaning we think we bring is an illusion, and you aren't special and you feeling special is an illusion, and it doesn't matter what we do it's all meaningless, what you do here and anywhere is meaningless.
You say the universe is purposeless but you don't live it that way. You live as if there is some purpose in it. If you bring meaning into it, you who belong to the universe, then meaning exists, and then the universe can't be purposeless, and then matter can't be purposeless. — leo
What happened before the big bang? Nothing, because there is no before... — ChatteringMonkey
But even if it is merely a question pertaining to causation, then it isn't always a legitimate question either, because causation only makes sense in time and space to begin with. — ChatteringMonkey
I pick the second because I seen no signs of matter, outside of biological life which is only a small subset of matter, behaving consciously. — ChatteringMonkey
And I think we will come up with an explanation for how meaning can come from purposeless matter, so to me that is no argument that sways me. To be convinced, someone would have to show how purpose arising out of matter without purpose is impossible in principle.... and I haven't seen that argument yet. — ChatteringMonkey
And furthermore, you happily shift the burden of proof to the physicalist, but I don't think merely positing that matter is conscious, really explains all that much. For a theory to have some explanatory value, you also have to show how it helps to explain the phenomena we see all around us... not just the question why matter behaves the way it does. — ChatteringMonkey
I live as if things have purpose for me, which doesn't have to imply the belief that the whole universe is inherently purposeful... — ChatteringMonkey
I gave that argument. If you start from the assumption that everything that exists is matter. And if you assume that matter is purposeless. Then immediately everything is purposeless. — leo
But this kind of logic doesn't work because matter combines into all kinds of stuff that has properties that are not inherent in matter by itself. This is not a matter of logic, it's an empirical matter... — ChatteringMonkey
You're arbitrarily assuming natural laws weren't created. To say that natural laws "just are" is to assume that they are there for no reason at all, that the universe is purposeless. See my last post above on that.
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.