Ah, but points are defined. — tim wood
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
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
TheMadFool :chin: — 180 Proof
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
So you're saying, in effect, that 'the simplest explanation explains nothing at all' – like g/G? — 180 Proof
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
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit — Parmenides
Creatio Ex Nihilo — Theophilus Of Antioch
Something OR Nothing — TheMadFool
There has always been something and nothing. (Democritus)The question: Can the origins of Something be traced back ultimately to Nothing? — TheMadFool
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).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. (See Noether's theorem, dissipative structures, etc)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?
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.)If so it follows that ...
There has always been something and nothing. (Democritus) — 180 Proof
If so, it follows that consciousness was present at the most fundamental level, since structure was plainly created. — Pop
As for the latter, do you think the universe is processing information?
Are we not part of the universe? — TheMadFool
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
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
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
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
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
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.Do you agree that in order to have structure you need to integrate information? — Pop
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 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.
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.If not, then it is only a vague notion that you are expressing.
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 ...Do we presume that we have reached the ultimate knowledge? — Jack Cummins
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
IIT scientists would be finding measurable "consciousness" literally everywhere — 180 Proof
To my way of thinking, "consciousness" as a still under-determined concept is like the heap from the sorites paradox — 180 Proof
I'm saying structure is information integrated by the environment full of other dissipative structures (i.e. an entropy gradient).So you are saying you do not have to integrate information in order to have structure? — Pop
It could be. Or it could be more than just that.Do you agree that consciousness is integrated information?
I'm saying structure is information integrated by the environment of other dissipative structures — 180 Proof
Do you agree that consciousness is integrated information?
It could be. Or it could be more than just that. — 180 Proof
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
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.