For Gustav - Metaphysics of Consciousness and Universe

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You over-assume wes, and in area's, don't assume enough.

''That question begs context. The problem seems to me is as follow: you only have terms that are contained within the universe to explore the question of "why" it began. More seriously, "why" implies a purpose, which reeks of anthropomorphization, which I note you pepper throughout your post. So as to minimize repeating myself, I'll just say the why's you're using in the next two have the same problem.''

First, you talk about the Anthropic Principle as though it were a terrible resort... At a conference earlier this year, physicists, including Dr Hawking admitted that the universe may in fact end up needing one. Who are we to disagree with hard science and scientists? Philosophy is no good without science, and vice versa.

''What if the question simply doesn't suffice to describe the actuality of the event? I'd agree the universe began, because that describes an observation of a common medium which I'd agree with. I just don't know if there's a "why" in the sense you seem to imply. "how" seems more pertienent and impartial to me. Is that what you actually intend to address, or was "why" really what you were shooting for?

Perhaps if you're asking "why", you've already missed the answer. Perhaps there is only function, from our limited perspective in time (and thought).''

Now, asking ''how'' the universe began, is question alone for science. If we ask ''why,'' we can riddle some philosophy into it. This escaped your logic didn't it?

''Why do you presume it "chooses"? Again, it would seem likely to me that "chose" simply lacks pertinence to the actuality of the event.''

There are a number of reasons why i can say ''it chooses''. In physics, we must resort to saying the universe ''chose'' one set of conditions out of an infinite selection - that is - if we don't run back to the multiverse theory. If we ask ''why'' the universe began, then we must assume that a ''choice'' might be in question.

''By anthropomophizing this ether as you have, you've invoked god and denied it a name. I think this only confuses things.''

The name of this ether, as i have explained, would be tackled from a more appropriate sense of a superintelligence, once we weighed first the paths to that origin of thought. This is to remain totally scientific about this, and not lop-sided.

''Current favorite theory is the collsion of multi-d branes.''

No it's not the favorite, because you are referring to string theory, which is universally not accepted.

Try again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OMFG. You DID NOT just confuse the anthropic principle for "anthropomorphization". Oh NO YOU DIDN'T! Lol. Seriously? This makes no sense. They are not the same thing. Please think.

Hmm.. no, as to me "how" allows plenty of space for philosopy, and why is well, as I said... anthropomorphization. You put a face on it so you can deal with it, fine I suppose, but rather narrowing in scope. So much so I'd contend that you aren't really trying to find an answer excepting to match your presumptions, rather than as a repurcussion thereof.

Why would you find no philosophy in science?

''Why do you presume it "chooses"? Again, it would seem likely to me that "chose" simply lacks pertinence to the actuality of the event.''

Well, from my perspective this all seems rather uhm... well useless tripe (and I doubt explaining why would matter even a smidge to you), but ok if it works for you have fun with it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I see little point in courtiquing the rest given the display up to here.

 

"If you feel you can have a sensible dialogue on this thread, I wish you well"

Okay I retract my prior criticism of this at the what lead to it and give props to the person who "called it".

 

''You DID NOT just confuse the anthropic principle for "anthropomorphization". Oh NO YOU DIDN'T! Lol. Seriously? This makes no sense. They are not the same thing. Please think.''

I got confused with what you were saying. It's not a word i have used often in my dictionary.

''Hmm.. no, as to me "how" allows plenty of space for philosopy, and why is well, as I said... anthropomorphization. You put a face on it so you can deal with it, fine I suppose, but rather narrowing in scope. So much so I'd contend that you aren't really trying to find an answer excepting to match your presumptions, rather than as a repurcussion thereof.''

Asking ''why'' something happened, does allow a lesser ''why'' to exist... as i have already explained, the why could be answered by the Standard Interpretation (big bang) -

''Why did the universe begin,'' - could be either:

It choose these conditions at random, which is exactly what physics says... or
It chose these conditions for something more pertinent... such as ourselves.

''Why'' is not a problem, but only your choice to see it as a problem. As i have also explained, ''how'' is too rigid, and we would need to resort simply to phyics and science alone.

''Why would you find no philosophy in science?''

I don't believe i said this did I? In fact, i said it because many physicists today do not turn to their philosophical senses, and rather keep everything scientifically narrow.

''Why do you presume it "chooses"? Again, it would seem likely to me that "chose" simply lacks pertinence to the actuality of the event.''

As I have explained, something may not choose out of something intentional. It could be random, as provided in the opening thread. You are ignoring every bit logic involved here.

''Well, from my perspective this all seems rather uhm... well useless tripe (and I doubt explaining why would matter even a smidge to you), but ok if it works for you have fun with it.''

It's only tripe, because you refuse to accept

1. All these variables i presented: Arguements for and against.

2. Because you already made up your mind it was tripe, so something very biased enters your judgement.

 

Which people?

what have they decided?

 

You don't know that.
It all just seems to you to be that way.
For someone who adheres only to "seems", you are awfully adamant!

Can't you accept that someone actually might be beyond
"conceptual relationships in their mind that focus their perception in a manner that gives them peace in the 'knowledge'" ?

 

Well said.

 

It's true, but quite vivid.

Lol. If you'd kept up, "how things seem" being effectively "how things are", I'm just as bigoted as anyone.... right? Seems so.

I accept that I might be a complete crackhead. Doesn't keep me from thinking and reacting though. Regardless no matter the "objective accuracy" of their commentary, that's still what happens. Perhaps you can demonstrate how that might be contradicted in this case?

 

Yes, I noticed. I thought I'd point it out and see what happens. His assumption seemingly so engrained in what he says that pointing it out sounds like nonsense to him. You may notice that I enjoy poking around in areas that I think may expose denial. Given my experience with this matter and how I take the tone set in the few posts I've read, I doubt there's much reason to bother in this case.

 

Ok.

So the universe itself, "chooses", which is an act of will? What if the universe 'has no choice"?

I do not deliberately choose how I see your words. They fall into a reference frame that is mine, which accepts or rejects based on what I think I you've said.

To which I offered:

''Why would you find no philosophy in science?''

Uhm, yes and you just admit it in the following:

How do you know? What you see of what they do may lead you to think that, but have you sampled a cross section of scientist/physicist types to see how philosophical they might seem to you? Assuming it's true, does that mean there's no philosophy in their subject because that's how they behave?

No I'm exploring to see if you have anything here you can defend worth a crap as I see it. A random "choice" still involves will, which you extend to the universe - which is exactly anthropomorphising it. Think it through.

I have not been convinced in the slightest that you've provided something worthy of accepting. Of course you're under no obligation to do so, and I will comment as I see fit regardless.

Which are IMO, framed in a manner that is pointless except to justify a desired outcome.

I made up my mind it was tripe after reading it. I judged it based upon its apparent content, which I don't think you've defended really at all - leaving me to maintain my opinion that indeed, it's tripe. It appears to me that you lack the skill to make it appear otherwise to me. Shouldn't matter much to you though eh? I'd say you must find me simply a "player hater", whom you should be able to shrug of quite easily as "not elightened" and move on with your merry day.

Note specifically that it's the "I didn't say that did I", immediately followed by "I said it because", that is the new basis for my tentative opinion that you're inept.

 

Since this specifically is what you asked me to address, I shall:

This works fine as an assumption, but IMO is secondary to the assumption of self, as with nothing to observe it.... there's nothing to say about it.

I think this is quite flawed actually, as it presumes MUCH. For a simple, stupid example, A=a? It completely ignores context. Much of human experience is not at all qualitatitively determinate, one man's trash being another's treasure and all. Further, on a sheerly physical basis... why then does the electron appear behave as it does? I think Schroedinger would have something to say about this assertion.

This assertion to me seems to presume that perspective is as broad as it could possibly be, which I doubt sincerely.

Hmmm. That's a tough one. I'm just not sure if it's so or not. Maybe I'm not exactly sure what the intended meaning of "consciousness" is here... and what would comprise "reducing" in terms of consciousness?

 

I don't think the universe can depend on an observer to exist, it can only depend on an observer to observe existence - a process in which perspective is established, and "the tao" collapses to "what it seems" from that perspective.

 

i am kinda new to this
how should i proceed?
what particular dialogue would you offer up?
that is... apart from a sensible one?

thanks

 

why not just answer granty? is a response conditional on the above? would you prefer that i take it as a given that i am one of these? if so, what do you object to as far as my posts are concerned?