What if God is weak?

[seeds]

_______

Can’t you kids play nice?
_______

[seeds]

Ah, very funny miss buzzkill (though I’m having difficulty recognizing the tease in what appeared to be a valid question).

Basically asking you for the impossible. How on Earth could you provide extraordinary evidence for the universe to seemingly be made out of a "mind-like substance"?

Wouldn't it be more strange if minds were made from something different to the stuff of everything else? It's all atoms and quantum wavicles.

There is absolutely nothing about the mysterious essence of life and consciousness that can be reduced to atoms and quantum wavicles, otherwise there would be no such thing as the “hard problem” of consciousness.

I mean, I defy you to come up with (or point to) a quantifiable mathematical/scientific description of the “dreamer” of dreams that forms the internal locus of your self-awareness (in other words your Cartesian “I Am-ness”).

On the other hand, I will grant you that the fundamental “stuff” out of which our dreams are created is indeed the same as the stuff that forms the phenomenal structures of the universe...

...(as long as you imagine them as existing in two separate dimensions of reality).

That reminds me of something I discussed with uwot in my “What is Gravity” thread wherein hardcore materialism actually kind of supports my assertion of the “mind-like” nature of matter.

And that’s because if according to the purest definition of materialism there is literally nothing else other than physical matter (i.e., “atoms and quantum wavicles”), then that means that the stuff that forms our dreams is simply an inward extension of the same stuff that forms the stars and planets.

And what that implies is that if we humans (within the inner-context of our own minds) can willfully grasp the substance that forms the stars and planets and transform it into anything we wish...

(just by “thinking it” into existence)

...then why is it so hard to fathom that a higher lifeform could be doing the same thing with respect to the universe?

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

(Continued from prior post)

The interesting thing about dreams is they are a compressed form of consciousness. I love that dreams are never boring or pointless. If there is a sense of boredom or pointlessness in a dream, it points to such issues in one's life. So you never have a dream where you go out the back door, walk down the steps, go pick up a bucket, fill it with water, attend some thirsty plants, walk back, replace the bucket etc.

No, more likely you will suddenly appear in the backyard with the bucket and next moment you'll be at an aunty's place who you haven't seen for decades, but she will be a large white rabbit holding the bucket and telling you that it contains all of the secrets of the world

I have a theory about the often bizarre nature of our dreams.

I suggest that just as the fields (waves) of information that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe exist in a state of superpositioned entanglement, likewise, so do the fields of information that underpin the phenomenal features of our dreams.

However, unlike the universe, because there is no fixed and stable order to our dreams, the entangled fields of quantum information...

(i.e., information that delineates our memories of aunties, white rabbits, buckets, and a zillion other things)

...are free to splice and combine in every willy-nilly way imaginable, thus presenting to our wave-collapsing inner consciousness an endless array of strange and implausible scenarios.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

(Continued from prior post)

I'm a big fan of unheralded geology and plasma which, aside from space, make up almost all of our reality. The stuff has done some interesting things in the last 13.8b years so far, obviously enough.

Again, you are fixating on the features of the “façade.”

Doesn’t the fact that everything you are referring to above appears to be created out of a “mind-like” substance that seems to resemble the substance from which our dreams are created, pique your sense of curiosity?

As per above. I guess this points to a difference in what we guess to be the nature of the universe. You seem to lean towards panpsychism whereas I lean towards panvitalism. I see the universe as a living system and consider it blindingly obvious that biology is only one kind of living system amongst multiple, both on Earth and "out there".

No, Greta, I lean toward Panentheism, not panpsychism.

However, if you truly understood my take on Panentheism then you would realize that your leaning toward “panvitalism” is thoroughly compatible with Panentheism in that absolutely everything throughout the entire universe is literally alive...

...hence the ease with which the inanimate (i.e., the not so lifeless matter of a planet) can be transformed into the animate (evolvable micro-organisms) via the process known as abiogenesis.

(P.S., just in case you simply clicked on a notification link to just this one post, please note that there are three parts to my reply to you.)
_______

[Greta]

(Continued from prior post)

I'm a big fan of unheralded geology and plasma which, aside from space, make up almost all of our reality. The stuff has done some interesting things in the last 13.8b years so far, obviously enough.

Again, you are fixating on the features of the “façade.”

Doesn’t the fact that everything you are referring to above appears to be created out of a “mind-like” substance that seems to resemble the substance from which our dreams are created, pique your sense of curiosity?

As per above. I guess this points to a difference in what we guess to be the nature of the universe. You seem to lean towards panpsychism whereas I lean towards panvitalism. I see the universe as a living system and consider it blindingly obvious that biology is only one kind of living system amongst multiple, both on Earth and "out there".

No, Greta, I lean toward Panentheism, not panpsychism.

However, if you truly understood my take on Panentheism then you would realize that your leaning toward “panvitalism” is thoroughly compatible with Panentheism in that absolutely everything throughout the entire universe is literally alive...

...hence the ease with which the inanimate (i.e., the not so lifeless matter of a planet) can be transformed into the animate (evolvable micro-organisms) via the process known as abiogenesis.

(P.S., just in case you simply clicked on a notification link to just this one post, please note that there are three parts to my reply to you.)

Cheers Seeds. I'll start with this anyway since it gets to the nitty gritty. I've often felt that our conceptions are not miles apart, often separated by my preference for science based terms and yours for mystical terminology. I see "death" as merely the removal of individuality. Whether we hold together or not we remain part of the same larger living systems.

Still, I do see a difference in panvitalism and panentheism in that the latter posits an extra layer of reality.

[Greta]

_______

Can’t you kids play nice?
_______

I get grumpy because at least on a philosophy forum you'd hope to have respite from toxic Twitteresque comments. There are places for that stuff and the kinds of people who enjoy that approach.

[Greta]

Ah, very funny miss buzzkill (though I’m having difficulty recognizing the tease in what appeared to be a valid question).

Basically asking you for the impossible. How on Earth could you provide extraordinary evidence for the universe to seemingly be made out of a "mind-like substance"?

Wouldn't it be more strange if minds were made from something different to the stuff of everything else? It's all atoms and quantum wavicles.

There is absolutely nothing about the mysterious essence of life and consciousness that can be reduced to atoms and quantum wavicles, otherwise there would be no such thing as the “hard problem” of consciousness.

I mean, I defy you to come up with (or point to) a quantifiable mathematical/scientific description of the “dreamer” of dreams that forms the internal locus of your self-awareness (in other words your Cartesian “I Am-ness”).

On the other hand, I will grant you that the fundamental “stuff” out of which our dreams are created is indeed the same as the stuff that forms the phenomenal structures of the universe...

...(as long as you imagine them as existing in two separate dimensions of reality).

Sure, there seems to be two domains - the physical and mental (or informational). Meanwhile the current state of play is that relativity and QM cannot be reduced to reach other, which also suggests duality. I think consciousness is made of the same "stuff", though, probably something to do with quantum dynamics.

That reminds me of something I discussed with uwot in my “What is Gravity” thread wherein hardcore materialism actually kind of supports my assertion of the “mind-like” nature of matter.

And that’s because if according to the purest definition of materialism there is literally nothing else other than physical matter (i.e., “atoms and quantum wavicles”), then that means that the stuff that forms our dreams is simply an inward extension of the same stuff that forms the stars and planets.

And what that implies is that if we humans (within the inner-context of our own minds) can willfully grasp the substance that forms the stars and planets and transform it into anything we wish...

(just by “thinking it” into existence)

...then why is it so hard to fathom that a higher lifeform could be doing the same thing with respect to the universe?

But we cannot transform things into anything we wish; there are numerous obstacles, not least the restrictions imposed by reality's basic configuration, which we measure as physical laws. Even our dreams are severely restricted because we cannot regurgitate and reconfigure (as in dreams) information we haven't yet encountered; we can only process information and dynamics that have crossed our paths.

[Greta]

(Continued from prior post)

The interesting thing about dreams is they are a compressed form of consciousness. I love that dreams are never boring or pointless. If there is a sense of boredom or pointlessness in a dream, it points to such issues in one's life. So you never have a dream where you go out the back door, walk down the steps, go pick up a bucket, fill it with water, attend some thirsty plants, walk back, replace the bucket etc.

No, more likely you will suddenly appear in the backyard with the bucket and next moment you'll be at an aunty's place who you haven't seen for decades, but she will be a large white rabbit holding the bucket and telling you that it contains all of the secrets of the world

I have a theory about the often bizarre nature of our dreams.

I suggest that just as the fields (waves) of information that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe exist in a state of superpositioned entanglement, likewise, so do the fields of information that underpin the phenomenal features of our dreams.

However, unlike the universe, because there is no fixed and stable order to our dreams, the entangled fields of quantum information...

(i.e., information that delineates our memories of aunties, white rabbits, buckets, and a zillion other things)

...are free to splice and combine in every willy-nilly way imaginable, thus presenting to our wave-collapsing inner consciousness an endless array of strange and implausible scenarios.

We have both been a tad reckless in our quantum attributions. Note that the main difference between a waking state and a dream is that the former is constrained by sensory input. Whatever the "stuff" of it is, it's the same.

[Lacewing]

Where's the love, man? We need love to keep things in balance.

Love is in balance at all times. To deny this is to be needy of our own selfish desires.

Do you consider yourself the spokesmodel for love?

I made a statement about people on this forum behaving in manic and insane ways which I think could be balanced out for themselves with more love. In reaction, you manically launched into a speech about what love is. (You DO realize you're one of the people I was referring to, right?) Really, you often seem to be in need, DAM. What is your need? What are those selfish desires that keep you manically reacting and grasping and seeking? Are you going to deny it?

[Dontaskme]

Where's the love, man? We need love to keep things in balance.

Love is in balance at all times. To deny this is to be needy of our own selfish desires.

Do you consider yourself the spokesmodel for love?

I made a statement about people on this forum behaving in manic and insane ways which I think could be balanced out for themselves with more love. In reaction, you manically launched into a speech about what love is. (You DO realize you're one of the people I was referring to, right?) Really, you often seem to be in need, DAM. What is your need? What are those selfish desires that keep you manically reacting and grasping and seeking? Are you going to deny it?

Do you consider yourself the spokesmodel for people on this forum behaving in manic and insane ways?

Are you the manic and insane people police?

.

[Lacewing]

Are you the manic and insane people police?

It's not at all difficult to notice such things and comment on them. Like when a person responds to 15 different threads all at once. Or when they repeatedly go off on their own head trip that has nothing to do with having any interaction with anyone. Or, of course, when they flat out babble and spin in circles. Such behavior appears to be some kind of manic need, don't you think?

[TimeSeeker]

It's not at all difficult to notice such things and comment on them. Like when a person responds to 15 different threads all at once. Or when they repeatedly go off on their own head trip that has nothing to do with having any interaction with anyone. Or, of course, when they flat out babble and spin in circles. Such behavior appears to be some kind of manic need, don't you think?

It's just signal broadcasting.

They are looking for somebody to communicate with so that they can soundboard/hash out their ideas (which may be perfectly coherent and internally consistent from their point of view). The problem is that they've developed their own language that nobody else speaks.

This is the curse of autodidacts.

[Lacewing]

It's just signal broadcasting. They are looking for somebody to communicate with so that they can soundboard/hash out their ideas...

I, too, have thought it looks like a signal/cry/call -- yet, these are people who make it clear that they're not trying to connect. I get the impression that they are lonely and/or in need, but they seem to want to remain detached / untouchable / isolated on the platform they preach from. It is their "unique identity". They continually groom it. Such "need" seems odd on a discussion forum.

The problem is that they've developed their own language that nobody else speaks.

I can see what you're saying. I think there's some more to it, as well. I can speak and understand "many such languages" -- I can tell that you do too. What I notice in any language, are the obvious inconsistencies and ego that people deny/ignore (within their own language)... which make their resulting claims dishonest and delusional. If that's what they want to believe, fine. But if they're saying it aloud in a discussion forum, it seems valuable (even responsible) to give a very direct and honest response to whatever crazy crap is being waved about.

How is humankind supposed to evolve and expand awareness if we politely ignore the spewing of insanity? We should be able to question and call out everything. In return, truthfulness should be willing and able to answer, recognize, and acknowledge without hiding.

Dishonesty and delusion prevents there from being any clear awareness to operate from. Regardless of the language (which can be like a cloak), it's what's concealed behind it that I find more interesting and telling. So that's what I ask questions about -- to find clarity amidst the many distortions.

[TimeSeeker]

There is absolutely nothing about the mysterious essence of life and consciousness that can be reduced to atoms and quantum wavicles, otherwise there would be no such thing as the “hard problem” of consciousness.

That's magical thinking - argument from ignorance. We do not need to reduce consciousness to atoms/quarks Brains can be reduces to atoms/quarks. Consciousness is an emergent property of brains, so need to synthesize consciousness from neuroscientific knowledge ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GARpWOLqP6E )

We don't know what consciousness is, but neuroscience is beginning to tell us which parts of the brain to cut out so that certain aspects of it stop working so there is no reason to think it is anything other than physical.

I share Marvin Minsky's perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2oZEkH2yM4

The phrase "hard Problem" means "computationally hard" (e.g we don't have a scientific model for it) It comes from NP-hard problems in computer science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hardness and theory of computational complexity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computati ... ty_classes )

There are harder than NP-hard problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BQP

[seeds]

There is absolutely nothing about the mysterious essence of life and consciousness that can be reduced to atoms and quantum wavicles, otherwise there would be no such thing as the “hard problem” of consciousness.

I mean, I defy you to come up with (or point to) a quantifiable mathematical/scientific description of the “dreamer” of dreams that forms the internal locus of your self-awareness (in other words your Cartesian “I Am-ness”).

On the other hand, I will grant you that the fundamental “stuff” out of which our dreams are created is indeed the same as the stuff that forms the phenomenal structures of the universe...

...(as long as you imagine them as existing in two separate dimensions of reality).

Sure, there seems to be two domains - the physical and mental (or informational).

No, that’s not what I mean by “two separate dimensions of reality.”

As always, Greta, I don’t expect you to believe or accept any of my “mystical” sounding blatherings.

Nevertheless, for the simple sake of clarification, the two domains of which I am referring are not a comparison of the mental to the physical, for in the context of my Berkeleyanish idealism – all is mental.

No, it is a comparison of a lower context of mind (i.e., the human mind and its singular agent) to that of a higher context of mind (i.e., the universe and its singular agent).
_______