I think that I am staring into the sun, in the metaphorically sense, right now, unable to sleep, churning thoughts. But, of course, I am blind to my own mind in itself, only seeing my own little narrow set of images and thoughts. So,I am able to see the downside of introspection. But, I do believe that the mind does have an important role because we are able to think. It is probably important to cultivate a certain amount of mental training, and be able to cultivate a deeper sense of awareness. But, of course, the most we can arrive at is certain ideas about why we others, and various life forms exist. These ideas are our perceptions and perspective, and are only partial.

Ah, but points are defined. — tim wood

It's likely that I'm wrong about points and geometry but that doesn't invalidate the "point" I was making viz. deconstructing objects systematically can't be done indefinitely (infinite regress) - the process will have to terminate on a certain geometric object and whatever that happens to be, it'll be undefined.

What is the definition of a point?

There is no "existence room" where are kept the existences, where one might go to find the one needed, but rather the circumstance, the existence itself, dictates what it must be — tim wood

Sorry, I didn't get that.

To put it another way: the rate of space creation in the universe is greater then the rate of entropy creation, so as a percentage of the total space, entropy is decreasing. This permits "order", where order is created by self organization, which relies on information integration — Pop

I have to admit, that's actually a better answer than the one I had. I'll check out the website.

TheMadFool :chin: — 180 Proof

I only meant that the chain of explanations (answers to why? queries) has to terminate at some point. The usual way explanations proceed is the complex is rendered in terms of the simple [biology, for example, is explained in terms of chemistry & physics] but that implies the simpler things get, the less the need for an explanation. Ergo, the series of explanations will eventually lead back to the simplest, which for the reason stated above (bolded), will need no explanation. This simplest, whatever it is, in some circles known as God.

Its well worth checking out. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but his explanation of information is spot on, imo.

You trace the idea of causes back to a 'wall', but what lies behind the wall? I am speaking about origins, but also what lies behind mind and matter. I am question veneers, causation, what lies behind the paradox of mind and matter, and I am not really looking for a textbook or Wikipedia explanation. I believe that it is so much more complex, but I do believe that it is the subject matter of philosophy, even though I know that many detest the idea of mystery. — Jack Cummins

@180 Proof

Here's an interesting thought.

Physicalism: Mind -> Biology [Mind is explained by biology where "->" means "explaine by"]

If so,

Mind -> Biology -> Chemistry -> Physics -> Math -> Mind


This gums up the works:

Existence -> Physics -> Math -> Mind -> Biology -> Chemistry -> Physics :brow: :chin:

@180 Proof

Can you feel your eyes?

Do you know the function of your eyes?

Did you know you had eyes before someone told you?

Now apply this to the mind.
The mind doesn't just think,it feels,in fact it's predominantly feelings then perceptions,then thinking.

You are ignoring and marginalising a huge part of human experience and knowledge.

@Jack Cummins

The mind is ignored by science and much of philosophy.

That's why it can't explain anything profound.

Verbal gymnastics is not profound,at all.

So you're saying, in effect, that 'the simplest explanation explains nothing at all' – like g/G?

:sweat: You lost me.

So you're saying, in effect, that 'the simplest explanation explains nothing at all' – like g/G? — 180 Proof

I'm not saying anything that hasn't been assumed in the way we "explain" stuff. A certain thing/phenomenon is deemed explained if it's reduced to something simpler. Thus, the simple explains the complex. Staying on course implies that once we arrive at the simplest, there's no need for further explanation. Right?

It only implies that we've reached the limit of "explanation" so far, whether it's "the simplest" (which we're never certain of) or not.

It only implies that we've reached the limit of "explanation" so far, whether it's "the simplest" (which we're never certain of) or not. — 180 Proof

Food for thought:

1. Something OR Nothing

2. If Something then explanation needed(why is there something rather than nothing? @Jack Cummins Naughty! Very Naughty!)

3. If Nothing then explanation not needed (there's literally nothing to explain)

The question: Can the origins of Something be traced back ultimately to Nothing?

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit — Parmenides

Creatio Ex Nihilo — Theophilus Of Antioch

Śūnyatā

Chaos (Cosmogony)

:chin:

Something OR Nothing — TheMadFool

Information integration = consciousness

In a universe that has structure, consciousness is fundamental. Or put another way, in a universe that has structure, information integration is fundamental .

I think you would agree that in order to have any sort of structure, you have to integrate information to create it – you have to relate one thing to another to create structure. No?

If so, it follows that consciousness was present at the most fundamental level, since structure was plainly created.

The question: Can the origins of Something be traced back ultimately to Nothing? — TheMadFool

There has always been something and nothing. (Democritus)

In a universe that has structure, consciousness is fundamental. Or put another way, in a universe that has structure, information integration is fundamental . — Pop

No. The degree (density) of "information integration" manifest as "consciousness", however, is emergent (e.g. multicellular organisms) and not itself "fundamental" (e.g. single cell organisms).

Yes.

I think you would agree that in order to have any sort of structure, you have to integrate information to create it – you have to relate one thing to another to create structure. No?

No. (See Noether's theorem, dissipative structures, etc)

If so it follows that ...

Intentional agency (aka "consciousness") is an emergent complex structure irreducible to less complex structures ... or to simple (almost) structure-less structures. (See cellular automata, Conway's "Game of Life", Wolfram's computational irreducibility, etc.)

There has always been something and nothing. (Democritus) — 180 Proof

:up: Nothing doesn't need an explanation and it's as simple as simple can get (?) i.e. Nothing is/has to be the simplest. Ergo, I posit that the explanatory chain (sequence of answers to why? questions) will terminate on Nothing. In fact that's what Jack Cummins' query boils down to.

If so, it follows that consciousness was present at the most fundamental level, since structure was plainly created. — Pop

I'm going to second that because what's a brain? Information storage cum processing device. With respect to the former function, there really is no difference between it and the universe itself (the non-conscious part) being a storage device of sorts. As for the latter, do you think the universe is processing information?

Are we not part of the universe?

:point:



The Twelve Men of Gotham (England)

On a certain day there were twelve men of Gotham that went to fish, and some stood on dry land; and in going home one said to the other, "We have ventured wonderfully in wading. I pray God that none of us come home and be drowned."

"Nay, marry," said one to the other, "let us see that; for there did twelve of us come out." Then they counted themselves, and every one counted eleven.

Said one to the other, "There is one of us drowned." They went back to the brook where they had been fishing, and sought up and down for him that was wanting, making great lamentation. A courtier, coming by, asked what it was they sought for, and why they were sorrowful.

"Oh," said they, "this day we went to fish in the brook; twelve of us came out together, and one is drowned."

Said the courtier, "Count how many there be of you."

One of them said, "Eleven," and he did not count himself.

"Well," said the courtier, "what will you give me, and I will find the twelfth man?"

"Sir," said they, "all the money we have got."

"Give me the money," said the courtier, and began with the first, and gave him a stroke over the shoulders with his whip, which made him groan, saying, "Here is one," and so served them all, and they all groaned at the matter. When he came to the last, he paid him well, saying, "Here is the twelfth man."

"God's blessing on your heart," said they, "for thus finding our dear brother!"

"Dating"? Are you familiar with process theology?

As for the latter, do you think the universe is processing information?

Are we not part of the universe? — TheMadFool

:up: :smile:

Your reply is interesting, and it is the case of existence vs nothing. Aside from the question of why is there something rather than nothing, I think that we can also ask whether there will ever be nothing? In other words, will the universe, and beyond, cease to exist at all in some remote, distant age.

You also hinted at the idea of where our existence lies in a larger frame of reference. I think it here we get into the limits of knowledge. Existence seems to be composed of linear and cycles aspects. But, it is hard to see whether the larger framework is actually linear or cyclical. What this does raise is the issue of whether life is something taking place once on earth and a birth and death of the universe is repeated. Of course, Nietzsche's and some others spoke of the idea of eternal recurrence. Nietzsche's own idea of this altered at times, ranging from a literal to a symbolic interpretation.

However, going beyond the notion of eternal recurrence itself we can ask about our place in the cosmos. If there are no lifeforms similar to us in the universe, we can still wonder if there have ever been some in a past age, or whether there will be in some distant future galaxy.

In a universe that has structure, consciousness is fundamental. Or put another way, in a universe that has structure, information integration is fundamental .
— Pop
No. The degree (density) of "information integration" manifest as "consciousness", however, is emergent (e.g. multicellular organisms) and not itself "fundamental" (e.g. single cell organisms).

Yes. — 180 Proof

No. If you agree that consciousness is a state of integrated information, then you don't know that the higher forms of it are not, at their most basic level, functioning identically to the lower level forms of it.

You are comparing the highest form of consciousness with the lowest, and concluding that they are not equal. They are not equal, but in fact, human consciousness at its base level functions identically to all other consciousness. At base level, information is integrated - that is all that is necessary. In this universe information is integrated fundamentally. Nothing would exist otherwise.

Consciousness had to evolve and the lowest form of information integration is still present in all forms of consciousness. As the foundation of consciousness, it has to be preserved.

For instance, the minimum information that a mind can integrate is to relate one thing to another ( metaphysics ). Agreed? Without this base function, there can be no consciousness. But this base level of functioning, of relating one thing to another, is ubiquitous in the universe! Such as when we relate a quantum field to an excitation, or a string to its vibration, or a wave to its particle of energy. Structure begins in the relationship of one thing to another. Note, for it to become structure, the information has to be integrated. Structure = integrated information. Matter = integrated information. And integrated information = consciousness - this is what IIT aims to prove with PHI.

Intentional agency (aka "consciousness") is an emergent complex structure irreducible to less complex structures ... or to simple (almost) structure-less structures. (See cellular automata, Conway's "Game of Life", Wolfram's computational irreducibility, etc.) — 180 Proof

Computational automata may not be reducible, but cellular automata certainly is - have you heard of the RNA world? In the real world things are caused, so there is a causal chain for everything's existence. Every step relies upon the integration of information. It is a nonsense to state a cell only becomes functional after it is fully evolved - this is in effect what you are saying!


** Do you agree that in order to have structure you need to integrate information?


If you are saying consciousness arises only at a certain density of information, then you would have a definition of consciousness to that effect, that can be tested, and a line in the sand of where in evolution this occurs? If not, then it is only a vague notion that you are expressing.

I think that we can also ask whether there will ever be nothing? In other words, will the universe, and beyond, cease to exist at all in some remote, distant age. — Jack Cummins

In The End the Cosmos will be so spread out that any given photon will not be able to 'see' another one!

I just happen to have a great description of this in one of my greatest illustrated poetic productions:

After the Stars Have Gone—The Final, Silent Dark

A glance into the far flung future of the expansion of the universe.

PDF:

https://theomarkhayyamclubofamerica.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/atshg-8.5x11-jpg-longer-150-dpi.pdf

If there are no lifeforms similar to us in the universe, we can still wonder if there have ever been some in a past age, or whether there will be in some distant future galaxy. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and I think for certain, for the Cosmos is so extravagant in its amount of stuff that here and there the right condition will obtain.

The Impossible Recipe

Explaining the Cosmos is as easy as pie:
It’s an endless extravagance beyond the sky,
Which shows that matter’s very readily made—
Underlying energy raising the shades.

This All sounds rather like an ultimate free lunch,
For the basis is already made, with no punch,
It ever being around, as is, never a ‘was’—
Everywhere, in great abundance quite unheard of.

There’s even more of it than can be imagined—
Of lavish big spenders, there in amounts unbounded:
Bubbles of universes within pockets more,
Across all the times and spaces beyond our shore!

What is the birthing source of this tremendous weight?
There is nothing from which to make the causeless cake!
Its nature is undirected, uncooked, unbaked?
There can’t be a choice to that ne’er born and awaked!

There can’t be turtles on turtles all the way down;
The buck has to stop somewhere in this town.
‘Nothing’ is unproductive—can’t even be meant;
All ever needed is, with nothing on it spent!

Yes, none from nothing, yet something is here, true;
But, really, you can’t have your cake and Edith, too!
And yet I’ve still all of my wedding cake, I do—
It’s just changed form; what ever IS can never go.

Since there’s no point at which to impart direction
The essence would have no limited, specific,
Certain, designed, created, crafted, thought out meaning!
Thus the Great IS is anything and everything!

This All is as useless as Babel’s Library
Of all possible books in all variety!
Yes, and even in our own small aisle we see
Any and every manner of diversity.

The information content of Everything
Would be the same as that of Nothing!
Zero. The bake’s ingredients vary widely,
And so express themselves accordingly.

What’s Everything, detailed? Length, width, depth, 4D—
Your world-line; 5th, all your probable futures;
6th, jump to any; 7th, all Big Bang starts to ends;
8th, all universes’ lines; 9th, jump to any;
10th, the IS of all possible realities.

Your elucidation is quite a piece of cake!
Yo, it exceeds, as well, and so it takes the cake.
Everything ever must be, because ‘nothing’ can’t?
Yes, it’s that existence has no opposite, Kant!

So, we’re here at the mouth of the horn of plenty,
For a free breakfast, lunch, and a dinner party;
Yet many starving are fed up with being unfed.
Alas, for now I have to say, Let Them Eat Cake!

How do these lie in the context of history, comparative religion and thinking which goes beyond the specific focus of materialistic perspectives of Western philosophy? I am not wishing to offer any simplistic solutions, but open up the area of debate, beyond the ideas which are in fashion in the first half of the twentieth century. Do we presume that we have reached the ultimate knowledge? — Jack Cummins

Not sure if history or religions can offer us meaningful answers for the questions for the obvious reasons. No, I don't presume that we have reached anywhere at all. In fact, I would like to ask you, why do you presume that there must be reasons on the existence of the universe, the sentient beings and all forms of existence. Is there any grounds or justifications for believing why the reasons must exist? Could they exist, just because they do, and always have been existing without any reasons at all?

Do you agree that in order to have structure you need to integrate information? — Pop

I do not agree. Structure = integrat[ed] information of prior dissipative structures (i.e. environment). Noether's theorem + computational automata + Wolfram's principle of irreducible complexity demonstrate FOR MY TWO BIT(coin)S that structure (broken symmetries —> dissipative processes) are emergent. In other words, increasing entropy is equivalent to integrat[ing] information – the process of reducing the potential for a system to change or do work.

Like material phases (dissipating threshold-states): plasma —> gas —> liquid —> solid. "Consciousness" is an edge case emerging along the gradient, or phase, transition (see chaos theory) at 'liquid —> solid'. If this were not so, then IIT scientists would be finding measurable "consciousness" literally everywhere – in plasmas, gases, liquids & solids as well as at their phase-transitions –and functional adaptive systems like RNA would not be confined only to biological systems. It amounts to a compositional fallacy to assert without warrant that "consciousness is a fundamental property" – woo-of-the-gaps – as e.g. panpsychicist and gaia theorists do.

If you are saying consciousness arises only at a certain density [structural threshold] of information, then you would have a definition of consciousness to that effect, that can be tested, and a line in the sand of where in evolution this occurs.

A necessary condition, I suspect, but, given the degree of adaptive complexity, not the (only) sufficient condition (e.g. climate forecasting models – for an exponentially less complex chaotic system). Hypothetical models can be "tested" (falsified, not verified), which we do not have for "consciousness"; but definitions, Pop, can only be stipulated and used, as you suggest I've done, for the sake of discussion .

If not, then it is only a vague notion that you are expressing.

Yeah, that's because we are doing philosophy, not (pseudo) science, so speculative conceptual clarity is the goal and not stopgap fiat, scientistic, constructs. To my way of thinking, "consciousness" as a still under-determined concept is like the heap from the sorites paradox.

Do we presume that we have reached the ultimate knowledge? — Jack Cummins

Red herring, mate. One doesn't have to come anywhere near the infinite in order to sufficiently understand the countable number line. In other words, we're probably nowhere near the 'totality of knowledge' but the more knowledge we acquire is more any new knowledge, to be knowledge, has to be consistent with and account for as it extends further into – translating into already known terms even as it changes them – the unknown. We know enough, I think, to not only understand the scale of the unknown but have a good sense of just how improbable it becomes as we learn more that the unknown contains a significant break (or breaks) from the archive of our most precise and efficacious forms knowledge. Possible? Yes. Probable? Acceleratingly improbable. Speculate, of course, to your heart's content for kicks at the roulette table – after all, it's your money / time to donate to the House – or discipline your use of reason and play the odds leveraging the (most abductive forms of) knowledge at your disposal ...

I do not want to found anything on the incomprehensible. I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone.
~Albert Camus

I don't want to believe. I want to know.
~Carl Sagan

I find your expressive style quite difficult to follow. But not a bad answer, on the whole. So you are saying you do not have to integrate information in order to have structure?

Do you agree that consciousness is integrated information?

That things emerge is still a function of integrated information. Emergence is a function of self organization. In the process of self organization a dominant structure arises. It is an isomorphic phenomena- similar no matter the stuff being organized - why is that? ( strong anthropic principle ) - the reason for self organization - the same reason things emerge at the fundamental level. The form of what is self organizing differs, but in the end the group of elements integrate to a structure of some sort - of course it is an evolving structure.

The most fundamental particle is a wavicle of sorts. It possesses energy and information in the form of frequency and amplitude, charge, polarity, etc. This wavicle interacts with another wavicle, and they self organize in the interaction - the frequency and amplitude ( information ) of the two wavicles modulate to form a third wavicle. This third wavicle in its form of frequency and modulation is an integration of the "information" of the first two wavicles.

Information has been integrated and memorized to a symbol.

This is what consciousness does, it integrates information, and memorizes it to a symbol.

This is what human consciousness still does. Information arrives to us via frequencies and vibrations, and consciousness works with that and translates it to anthropocentric symbology.

IIT scientists would be finding measurable "consciousness" literally everywhere — 180 Proof

That is the aim.

To my way of thinking, "consciousness" as a still under-determined concept is like the heap from the sorites paradox — 180 Proof

A solution is possible from an "information" perspective, where "consciousness is information integration for the purpose of self organization."

So you are saying you do not have to integrate information in order to have structure? — Pop

I'm saying structure is information integrated by the environment full of other dissipative structures (i.e. an entropy gradient).

Do you agree that consciousness is integrated information?

It could be. Or it could be more than just that.

Information integration, and self organization are phenomena that exist everywhere, so why would they not also exist in human consciousness?

I'm saying structure is information integrated by the environment of other dissipative structures — 180 Proof

I agree with this - it relates back to the metaphysical need to relate one thing to another.

Do you agree that consciousness is integrated information?
It could be. Or it could be more than just that. — 180 Proof

Certainly it is more than that. Once you can integrate information in a self organizing manner, there is no end to what is possible.

I didn't say it didn't so you've lost me.

But, of course, the most we can arrive at is certain ideas about why we others, and various life forms exist. These ideas are our perceptions and perspective, and are only partial. — Jack Cummins

I was thinking about "WHY" question again, and it seem to me that "WHY" only exists in human mind. Once we are looking outside world, there is no "WHY" at all. So, when you ask "why" questions, it can only be answered from one's direct experience about something, or one's own feelings and motives.
So when why question is asked for the universe and other lives existence, the answers will have to come from only from one's mind, which is either reasoning, imagination, or experience. Once we go out the boundaries of our reasoning, all the explanations and questions disappear. The universe keeps working as it has been for billions of years in silence, and live come and go living their own times without any reasons and explanations.

In the case of the question, if you seek the answers from science, history or religion, then the answers would be based on the First cause, or the Big Bang theory or Creation Theory by God, or Evolution Theories, but I would imagine these are not the type of answers that you wanted to hear or accept as the right answers for the question.

But it does not mean that we have reached the ultimate answers or knowledge, because thoughts always start in the middle and ends in the middle. When Kant has finished his CPR, he thought he had reached the ultimate knowledge and solved all the problems in Philosophy and Religion. But he was wrong. There came the Neo Kantian schools, Hegel and German Idealism, then Phenomenology. It all seems just a part of the process.

The only answer to "Why we exist?" (Why anything exists at all?) that does not precipitate an infinite regress (which we can only terminate with ad hoc nonsense – some question begging "mystery") is "There is no reason we exist." Gratuitious being, gratuitous beings; and, therefore, despite gratuitous suffering, to be grateful or not to be grateful – that is the moment-to-moment question, no?