These patterns are neither external to us, nor are they merely internal to us. The order emerges out of our discursive and material interactions with our environment. It is not discovered but produced , enacted as patterns of activity. — Joshs

I disagree. I think old faithful would erupt with the same regularity whethet humans, or any life, existed. I would say the same about pulsars, and many more examples.

However, that doesn't even matter. Even if there are no patterns in the universe whatsoever other than those humans construct, humans are a part of the universe. Therefore, patterns are a part of the universe.

I don't know about the universe, as a whole, being teleological. I don't see any reason to believe it is. But teleology is certainly found in the universe.
— Patterner

Agreed, but I would say only where there is intention. I guess that means human or other outside intervention. — T Clark

Intention is a sure sign of teleology. But I have to wonder about intention. Consider DNA. These are Marcello Barbieri's words:

The physicalist thesis would be correct if genes and proteins were spontaneous molecules, because there is no doubt that all spontaneous reactions are completely accounted for by physical quantities. This, however, is precisely the point that molecular biology has proved wrong. Genes and proteins are not produced by spontaneous processes in living systems. They are produced by molecular machines that physically stick their subunits together and are therefore manufactured molecules, i.e. molecular artefacts. This in turn means that all biological structures are manufactured, and therefore that the whole of life is artefact-making . — Marcello Barbieri

Genes and proteins, in short, are assembled by molecular robots on the basis of outside instructions. They are manufactured molecules, as different from ordinary molecules as artificial objects are from natural ones. indeed, if we agree that molecules are natural when their structure is determined from within, and artificial when it is determined from without, then genes and proteins can truly be referred to as artificial molecules, as artifacts made by Nature. — Marcello Barbieri

DNA is two complimentary strands of nucleotides running along sugar phosphate backbones, and joined by hydrogen bonds. DNA means chains of amino acids and proteins. It is encoded information. In an extremely simplified description, helicase unzips DNA so that mRNA can make copies of that information, which it takes out of the nucleus to the ribosomes, where tRNA molecules each take one codon of information to the molecule aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, which knows which amino acid the tRNA's codon represents, which it gives to the tRNA, so the ribosome can stick them together into proteins.

A lot of work is being done by a lot of different molecules to construct something that will not come to exist in any other way. Is there not intent.. Not thoughts of intent. But the system works toward something in the future. If there is intention here, then human or other outside intervention is not needed for intention.

If there is NOT intention, it is still a lot of organized work from different players using encoded information to bring about a specific future. So teleology.

I don't know about the universe, as a whole, being teleological. I don't see any reason to believe it is. But teleology is certainly found in the universe. To demonstrate this, I just did this.
I thought about a future state that was not going to come about without my envisioning it, my intent to bring it about, and my work to bring it about.

(It turns out it takes a minute to get the one on top to stay, because the cap of the one below is not a flat surface with sharp edges. In case anyone was wondering. :grin:)

How would we go about calculating the probability of the BB?

I suspect I am not, although I don't really understand. It seems to me that you're sometimes saying there are consistencies/regularities/patterns in the universe, and sometimes saying there are not. How can we make sense of the indeterminate, beyond knowing it is indeterminate? What I mean is, what greater understanding of it can exist beyond the fact that it is indeterminate? If, for no rhyme or reason, something changes its shape, size, state (solid, liquid, gas), and everything else we can think of, each at its own random interval, isn't that all we can understand about it?

We engage with an open and indeterminate reality by constructing tentative models that help us navigate and make sense of it, knowing these models are provisional and will eventually be replaced as our understanding evolves. — Tom Storm

As our understanding of what evolves?

The question for me is: are the patterns external, or are they the product of our cognitive apparatus? — Tom Storm

I think this brings me back to my original question. If the patterns are not external, why would our cognitive apparatus produce them?

To call a pattern a law of nature reifies it, or at least risks mistaking a useful human construct for something intrinsic to reality itself. — Tom Storm

"Law" is an unfortunate word, but it's the one we've been using for ... well, quite a while. No, I wouldn't think the inverse square law is a thing that demands or forces the gravitational attraction between two objects to be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Nevertheless, the gravitational attraction between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Maybe the science world should start using new words.

I'm not saying there are no patterns — Tom Storm

I thought you were saying that, particularly when you said, "At present, I tend to believe that the idea that the universe “behaves in an orderly way” reflects a human tendency to project patterns and impose coherence where there may be none inherently. What we call "order" is not something we discover in the universe but something we attribute to it through our descriptive practices."

it's about how we tend to perceive things and that our predictive model change over time and may not map onto something we call reality. We tend to fall back on predictions to cope with our world. So if it rains after we pray or do a special dance, we'll keep doing it to try to bring rain again. — Tom Storm

Certainly, our perceptions, and guesses regarding the meaning, of the universe's regularities and patterns change over time. Hopefully becoming more accurate, though Donald Hoffman might say not. But I take 's OP as asking why there are regularities and patterns at all.

There were regularities there of some kind, of course — Moliere

That's what I took to be the point of the OP. There are regularities, patterns, consistencies.

Nothing. It's just interesting. — RogueAI

Ah! Ok. I thought you were getting at something specific.

No regularities seem chaotic. It would be difficult to learn from evidence (or experiences, assuming there could be any). — jorndoe

I doubt there could be any. If sometimes electrons and protons repel each other, and sometimes attracted to each other, and if the strong nuclear force sometimes bound nuclei together and sometimes didn't, and matter sometimes warped space-time and sometimes didn't...

Not only do we act like it's a low probability event, we believe it too. No one is scared the universe will kill us all in the next minute. We believe that's very unlikely, but how do we know? — RogueAI

That's true. But, what else can and should we do?

That's a good question. Also, why do we believe the universe will continue to behave in an orderly way? How do we know there isn't some principle at work whereby the universe becomes chaotic tomorrow. How do we even go about calculating the odds of such a thing? But we all act like it's a low probability event. Is it really? — RogueAI

I can't think of a different way that we should act. If it does not continue to behave tomorrow the way it is today, how could we guess in which ways it will be different? which type of disaster should we plan for? Some of which, such as the sudden disappearance of the strong nuclear force, could not possibly be prepared for anyway. So we may as well all act like it's a low probability event.

I’d guess that humans are pattern seeking, meaning making machines. We see connections everywhere and this often helps us manage our environment. — Tom Storm

Why would we be machines of that nature? I would think because it's a successful strategy. If so, why would seeking patterns/meaning/connections in a universe where there aren't any be successful?

At present, I tend to believe that the idea that the universe “behaves in an orderly way” reflects a human tendency to project patterns and impose coherence where there may be none inherently. What we call "order" is not something we discover in the universe but something we attribute to it through our descriptive practices. I don’t think we ever access a world “as it is” apart from interpretation; what we take to be real or empirical is shaped by historically contingent terminology and shared frameworks of understanding. These frameworks are always provisional or tentative, useful for communicating, and predicting, but not revealing some deep, necessary structure of the universe. Any sense of order is thus not a property of the world itself, but of our current ways of making sense of it, which remain open to continual revision. — Tom Storm

Why would humans attribute order where there is none? Wouldn't that mean order is a part of our nature? And if order is a part of our nature, and we are of this universe, doesn't that mean order is an attribute of the universe?

Here's a funny thing: After learning that atoms are mostly space, one does not find oneself sinking into one's arm chair. Things remain solid. — Banno

Go figure.

I will, however, point out that the reason the X-Men's Kate Pryde can pass through solid objects is because she's able to take advantage of the spaces between. So there's that.

I think Dave Matthews Band's The Space Between is a great song.

Human imagination had often come up with some fairly bizarre ideas that turned out to be accurate explanations of what's going on in our reality. Einstein's relativity and the structure of atoms are great examples.

As brilliant and imaginative as many people are, I cannot imagine anyone is ever going to come up with any workable explanation for how things exist as they do if there was not coherence and predictability. If electrons did not always have negative charges. If mass did not always warp spacetime. If light did not always travel at c. If the strong nuclear force wasn't always about 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force and 10^38 times stronger than gravity. Many many other examples of consistency in our reality.

If these things were not consistent, nothing of what we know would exist.

My thinking is that, whatever the answers might be, they are the answer to how we come about. People say, "That steel isn't really solid. It's mostly empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is what gives us the illusion of solidify." I say that's empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is, is how solidity is accomplished.
— Patterner
Your reply is correct. But "people" already know that. The problem is that what you take as the explanation of solidity, they take as undermining solidity. You have to show them that they have messed about with the meaning of "real". It is a mistake to allow them to get away with that, because once that's happened, there's no way back. — Ludwig V

I'm more concerned with the definition of "solid" at the moment. The definition does not say there is no space between nucleus and electrons, between atoms, between molecules, etc. The explanation for solidity is not the somewhat vague idea probably everyone has before learning what's really going on. but when a rock is coming out your head, regardless of all that, it's best to prevent that impact.

The explanations for things like the human mind, self, and consciousness might be very different than the very vague idea I'm sure most people have before exploring these topics. But whatever the explanation, I still really like chocolate ice cream, Bach, and sex.

The real question is: how serious am I willing to be in answering that? Because the answers might shatter everything I believe to be true. Every conviction I hold might be up for some serious maintenance. — Kurt

Brinn of the Haruchai said:
“I will know the truth. Any being who cannot bear the truth is indeed unworthy.”

My thinking is that, whatever the answers might be, they are the answer to how we come about. People say, "That steel isn't really solid. It's mostly empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is what gives us the illusion of solidify." I say that's empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is, is how solidity is accomplished. And whatever all the specifics are that explain the specifics of my existence are are just how my existence is accomplished. It doesn't matter. (I don't mean matter, I mean matter. :grin:)

Wow. Such a presence. I'm sure even more in person than here. My condolences to her family and friends.

I don't think that's quite what he meant, but it's funny anyway! — J

More seriously, the answer is No. It's a question I remember asking as a child. I assume most people wondered at some point. But no. It's outright impossible.

The question really should be, let's say, could the Queen -- could this woman herself -- have been born of different parents from the parents from whom she actually came? — N&N, 112

I guess there fact that there are billions of people in the world who were born of different parents and none of them are the Queen doesn't prove it can't happen. But I'm leaning that way anyway. :grin:

Thank you.

So would a carefully constructed neural network made from pipes and water wheels that is set up to process inputs and outputs like a human brain be conscious? Could we carefully set up toilet paper rolls to be conscious?
— Count Timothy von Icarus

Very good point. If we take informational or structural accounts of consciousness seriously, then in principle, any system that implements the relevant patterns should be conscious—even ones made from absurd materials. — tom111

I have a very different idea of consciousness, which I won't bother going into in this thread, not wanting to derail. But, consciousness aside, would such a system be capable of what ChatGPT is capable of?

consciousness is meant to give the affected organism ownership of it's mind — T Clark

Could you explain what "ownership" means?

I'm also wondering about "meant". That sounds like it was the plan, which I don't assume you meant?

That position doesn't make sense to me. If what we see is an hallucination or other phantasm, then our eyes must be, also
— Patterner

If you're at the Overlook Hotel and you see people who shouldn't be there, you should question whether you're hallucinating. — frank

I'm not suggesting there is no such thing as hallucination. I'm saying the thought that reality is of a certain nature, but we hallucinate it is of a different nature, and we hallucinate sense organs to perceive that hallucinated reality, doesn't make sense to me.

While I disagree with much of your thinking, I agree with your thought about epiphenomenalism being wrong Here's an article I like along those lines.

You'll get a pushback against "you know it is real because you can see it" from the idealists and solipsists, who will claim that it might be an hallucination or other phantasm. — Banno

That position doesn't make sense to me. If what we see is an hallucination or other phantasm, then our eyes must be, also. Hallucinatory eyes hallucinate the sight of a hallucinatory reality. If reality's nature is not such that eyes can give us valid information about it, then I would expect reality to have evolved some other system to do so.

Why would you feel the need to represent things that you already observe and if some reader/listener doesn't exist yet? The whole point of representing things in the world is to communicate with others. If there are no others, then why would you feel the need to represent things - for who, or for what purpose? — Harry Hindu

Surely, most writing is done to communicate with the living. Mailing letters to people. Leaving notes for people. Emailing people.

People often write for posterity, though. Sometimes to pass on knowledge to later generations, even if the living can also use it. Novels are not usually written for a specific person, even if dedicated to someone specific. These days, the living can read a novel, and authors can make a lot of money because of it. But that's not why people wrote them centuries ago.

Sometimes people write with no intention of anyone reading it.

But I would think most writing is too communicate with other living people.

I've only made a few posts, always saying the letters represent the sounds of words, and the written words represent spoken words. Not sure how I've moved the goalposts. Certainly not my intention. I suspect we are talking about different things. Let me try putting it this way...

Suppose there was no written language. And let's say the idea occurred to me. Why can't we represent the things we talk about visually, instead of audibly? No alphabets exist. How would I go about it? It's possible I would make symbols that represent the things I want to communicate to the reader (not that the word "reader" would exist yet). Simple drawings when possible. Likely also many symbols whose resemblance to what they are supposed to represent is not always terribly obvious.

These drawings would not have anything to do with the spoken words that mean the same things. They are an entirely unrelated representation of the same thing being communicated. Just as the English and Japanese words for "sand" are unrelated to each other, but mean the same thing. Looking at my hypothetical symbol for sand would not give any information about the spoken word. There would be no way of knowing what language the inventor of the symbol speaks, or even that the writer, or writer's culture, speaks any language at all.

Our writing is very different from that scenario. It was intended to represent the spoken words. Sure, so we could communicate visually the things we were communicating audibly. But the approach was entirely different. I took a year of German in college. I remember very few words. But the written language is very phonetic, and I remember the rules of how to pronounce what I see, despite not knowing the meaning. And that was the goal. Of course, there would be no point in written language if it didn't let us communicate the things it and its spoken language are not. But it does so by representing the spoken language. It is useless without knowledge of three spoken languages. At least in my hypothetical scenario you might get an idea of what I'm trying to communicate, because, to the best of my ability, I've made as the symbols resemble what represent.

I agree with everything except this:

The scribbles do not refer to the sounds of a spoken language. — Harry Hindu

Wikipedia says: An alphabet is a standard set of letters written to represent particular sounds in a spoken language.

Britannica says: alphabet, set of graphs, or characters, used to represent the phonemic structure of a language.

Vocabulary.com says:An alphabet is a set of all the letters in a written language. The letters in an alphabet represent the different sounds in that language.

Google's AI Overview says:. An alphabet is a system of letters that represents the sounds of a language.

I would be surprised if any source said the scribbles don't represent the sounds of the spoken language.

Sure, the strings of scribbles refer to things. But they do so by representing the spoken sounds that refer to the things. It's not a coincidence that sand, sorry, and song all start with the same scribble. It was intentional. Spoken language came first. Then people came up with this particular way to represent the sounds they were speaking. If that was not the case, there would be no reason sand, sorry, and song all start with s, or plod, goad, and mind all end with d. And we wouldn't tell people just learning to read to "sound it out."

I think you edited just before I posted.

The accomplishment is that we can communicate without audible speech. We often want or need to be able to do this. Sometimes so others in earshot don't know what we are communicating. Sometimes because we are not able to hear each other, such as when we are too far from each other, or when it's too noisy to hear each other. Sometimes because we want to preserve information so that people in the future will receive it.

Yes, scribbles refer to things. They refer to the sounds of spoken language. Sand, sorry, and song all start with the same scribble because the spoken words they represent all start with the same sound. Obviously, there is not a perfect matchup. Things change. Laugh, Ralph, and sniff all end with the same sound, but different scribbles represent that sound for each. There are multiple reasons for such differences. But we all still agree on things.

Could we manage if we didn't agree on both?

Scribbles are just scribbles unless they refer to something. What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble?

You can draw any scribbles on this page but what makes some scribble meaningful? You might say it depends on how it is used. And I will ask, "used for what? - to accomplish what?" To use anything means you have a goal in mind. What is your goal in using some scribbles? — Harry Hindu

I'm thinking mutual agreement.

It seemed to me they just couldn't get on the same page. I don't mean agree on their views. I'm mean just talking about the same thing. She's trying to talk about a point where consciousness begins. Matter is not conscious. Then, for whatever reason (maybe something/some process is added to it; maybe the anesthesia wears off of an anesthetized brain; whatever), that matter begins experiencing. He would or could only talk of a spectrum of consciousness, but not of a point where, as she put it, you drop off of the spectrum.

A moot point for me, since I believe there is always subjective experience. An anesthetized brain, or so my hypothesis says, is still experiencing. It's experiencing being an anesthetized brain. It's not experiencing thoughts, memories, sensations, or anything else that has traditionally been thought of as human consciousness. And there's no way for it to report on what it's experiencing, as an awake brain can.

Ah. I gotcha. I thought you meant there are writings about physicals who believe consciousness is fundamental.

It seems to me she's having a hard time accepting the conclusion she's coming to.

Whether you're a physicalist or not, those are still the two options. — flannel jesus

I don't remember hearing it suggested that physicalism and consciousness being fundamental are compatible. Can you expand?

Yes, thought provoking, even fascinating at times. But is like to hear a hypothesis. Of course, she's only been working toward thinking consciousness is fundamental. Maybe now she'll try to work things out.

But then, the physicalist position has a lot to say about brain activity. But the explanation for consciousness is generally just "It's emergent." Which isn't more of an explanation.

I finished Lights On. Thanks again! Very much enjoyed it. Eagleman is my favorite part. This Ted Talk of his is a great extension.

Can't say I understand nearly enough of the time and space stuff. Only listened once so far. We'll see what repeated listens do for me.

She sounds even more convinced that consciousness is fundamental in this podcast. (I cleaned up the typical speech stumbles.)

It's possible that consciousness emerges at some point in the universe. Either in life, or in some sort of complex processing. That's been the assumption of the sciences this whole time. It was actually my assumption for most of my career. I've been convinced that that doesn't make sense.
...
I see consciousness actually as binary, which is one of the reasons why the series is titled Lights On. And I actually, now I just believe there is no off. That there's no such thing as off. I shouldn't even say I believe that. I'm convinced that that makes more sense than the alternate view that we have tended to have in the sciences. Which is that it comes on at a certain point. — Annaka Harris

My guess is that, in some rough categorization of memories, you'd file this under "Time I had a horrible bout of fearful imagining" rather than "Time I saw a blond-haired boy in van." — J

Well, the former is certainly the more powerful and important of the two. But I wouldn't have had the experience, and subsequent memory, of the imaginings if not for the boy, and I wouldn't remember the boy at all if not for the imaginings he inspired. Different aspects of one, big, complex memory.