The Universe doesn't follow rules, it produces Rules

[Ginkgo]

"The Universe doesn't follow rules, it produces Rules"

The physicalist would say the laws of physics are universal. The assumption being the laws of physics are the same in every corner of the universe. If we understand the laws of the universe then we understand the workings of the human brain to the same extent. In other words, science can explain consciousness because consciousness can be explained in physical terms.

The physicalist tell us that consciousness arises, or emerges from the complexity of bits and bytes. The humans brain works like a computer. Computers are not conscious yet, but with increasing complexity, in the future computers will be conscious just like us.

Roger Penrose in his book, "The Emperors New Mind" strongly disagrees with this idea. Basically, he is saying the human brain has a non-computational aspect as well. The non-computational part cannot be explained by way of the computational. If this is true then the obvious question centres on this non-computable aspect. Does the brain work with rules that are not part of the physical universe?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

"The Universe doesn't follow rules, it produces Rules"

The physicalist would say the laws of physics are universal. The assumption being the laws of physics are the same in every corner of the universe. If we understand the laws of the universe then we understand the workings of the human brain to the same extent. In other words, science can explain consciousness because consciousness can be explained in physical terms.

The physicalist tell us that consciousness arises, or emerges from the complexity of bits and bytes. The humans brain works like a computer. Computers are not conscious yet, but with increasing complexity, in the future computers will be conscious just like us.

Roger Penrose in his book, "The Emperors New Mind" strongly disagrees with this idea. Basically, he is saying the human brain has a non-computational aspect as well. The non-computational part cannot be explained by way of the computational. If this is true then the obvious question centres on this non-computable aspect. Does the brain work with rules that are not part of the physical universe?

if the laws of physics werent the same in every corner of the universe, there would be corners that had no such laws. if they had no such laws they might not be limited by physical space, since their "non-laws" extend to whereever. as such they could freely traverse your universe at will superbeings gods

[Hobbes' Choice]

No, the universe did not produce the concept of rule.
.

As humans are products of the Universe, the Universe produced all concepts.

[Hobbes' Choice]

"So you are saying humans and their concepts are outside of the universe?"

No, but being in the universe, part of the universe, doesn't make us conduits for the universe.

#

"And that the universe did not cause humans into existence, nor their concepts?"

The universe didn't 'cause' humans. Humans are a natural development within the universe.

Ridiculous.

Nature is what the universe does.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Trying again: just cuz humans are part of the universe, and can describe the universe, doesn't make us the spokesmen for the universe...that is: the universe (an amoral, unconscious, process) is not channeling through humans...that is: the universe (as amoral, unconscious, process) is incapable of producing the concept of rule and our being in and part of the universe is not evidence that it did or can.

Humans have a concept of rule. Humans were produced by the universe. Humans are part of the universe. Therefore, the universe has a concept of rule.
.

No, this means that a concept of rules exists within the universe.
If I "have" and apple; does not mean that Europe has an apple. It means that there is an apple in Europe held by me. To say that "the Universe has a concept of Rule', might imply that the Universe qua Universe is a concept holding thing; it is not, thought the Universe has 'produced' all concepts it is not aware that it has done so. Does the sea know it makes waves?

[Ginkgo]

"The Universe doesn't follow rules, it produces Rules"

The physicalist would say the laws of physics are universal. The assumption being the laws of physics are the same in every corner of the universe. If we understand the laws of the universe then we understand the workings of the human brain to the same extent. In other words, science can explain consciousness because consciousness can be explained in physical terms.

The physicalist tell us that consciousness arises, or emerges from the complexity of bits and bytes. The humans brain works like a computer. Computers are not conscious yet, but with increasing complexity, in the future computers will be conscious just like us.

Roger Penrose in his book, "The Emperors New Mind" strongly disagrees with this idea. Basically, he is saying the human brain has a non-computational aspect as well. The non-computational part cannot be explained by way of the computational. If this is true then the obvious question centres on this non-computable aspect. Does the brain work with rules that are not part of the physical universe?

if the laws of physics werent the same in every corner of the universe, there would be corners that had no such laws. if they had no such laws they might not be limited by physical space, since their "non-laws" extend to whereever. as such they could freely traverse your universe at will superbeings gods

Yes, this is why physics postulates there are no supreme being and also tells us that the brain must work within the laws of the universe. In the case of the brain it may well turn out that ii makes use of both classical and quantum laws.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

"The Universe doesn't follow rules, it produces Rules"

The physicalist would say the laws of physics are universal. The assumption being the laws of physics are the same in every corner of the universe. If we understand the laws of the universe then we understand the workings of the human brain to the same extent. In other words, science can explain consciousness because consciousness can be explained in physical terms.

The physicalist tell us that consciousness arises, or emerges from the complexity of bits and bytes. The humans brain works like a computer. Computers are not conscious yet, but with increasing complexity, in the future computers will be conscious just like us.

Roger Penrose in his book, "The Emperors New Mind" strongly disagrees with this idea. Basically, he is saying the human brain has a non-computational aspect as well. The non-computational part cannot be explained by way of the computational. If this is true then the obvious question centres on this non-computable aspect. Does the brain work with rules that are not part of the physical universe?

if the laws of physics werent the same in every corner of the universe, there would be corners that had no such laws. if they had no such laws they might not be limited by physical space, since their "non-laws" extend to whereever. as such they could freely traverse your universe at will superbeings gods

Yes, this is why physics postulates there are no supreme being and also tells us that the brain must work within the laws of the universe. In the case of the brain it may well turn out that ii makes use of both classical and quantum laws.

the universe is made of quantum laws therefore the brain is made of quantum. what you didnt mention is consciousness and the brain. the brain may abide by physical laws but consciousness does not.

[surreptitious57]

The laws of physics would be different for different Universes. Everything which is known to
exist has a physical explanation for it and that is just as true of consciousness as it is of any
thing else. And so it is not that it is non physical as such but that the standard definition of
physical is some what narrow for accommodating it : that which has property or dimension
or can be experienced by the five senses. By that criteria consciousness is non physical yet
it obviously exists and so that is the definition I use to describe the physical : that which is

[Ginkgo]

the universe is made of quantum laws therefore the brain is made of quantum. what you didnt mention is consciousness and the brain. the brain may abide by physical laws but consciousness does not.

Decisive observation on your part. No doubt that dualism is saying that physical stuff and mental stuff are different, so consciousness is something that defies a scientific explanation. The reason being that mental stuff and physical stuff are different, so science can not help us with any explanation for consciousness. Quite simply, consciousness doesn't need a dualistic explanation.

But here is the rub. Science talks about consciousness in terms of classical physics. This doesn't mean that consciousness can not be explained in terms of quantum physics. For me this is the game changer. Consciousness submits to a scientific explanation- all be it a quantum explanation- is still science.

edit. Removed a tautology from my post. Careless wasn't it?

[henry quirk]

"Nature is what the universe does."

No. the universe (reality) is a process, an on-going rush and flow and flux and waxing and waning of potentials and actualities.

'Nature' is a label, a placeholder, applied to a narrow, perceived, aspect of the universe.

The universe, as on-going process, doesn't 'do' anything but 'itself' (and it does so without consciousness, without chosen direction, without purpose).

The universe is uroborus (without the scales).

'Rules' are another label (or collection of labels), created by us, applied by us, as descriptions or codifications of what is perceived.

I believe our descriptions are accurate (insofar as that goes) but the description is not synonymous with what is described.

That is: 'event' first, *description of 'event' second.









*including apprehending of the event through 'rules'

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

"Nature is what the universe does."

No. the universe (reality) is a process, an on-going rush and flow and flux and waxing and waning of potentials and actualities.

'Nature' is a label, a placeholder, applied to a narrow, perceived, aspect of the universe.

by Nature we are talking about the Universe not mother nature on earth

[jackles]

Yeah love is a kind of chaos where by no one aspect of it comes into the event as a part of the local norms. Is that what you mean henry.

[henry quirk]

"by Nature we are talking about the Universe not mother nature on earth"

Missing my point (again).

#

"*love is a kind of chaos where by no one aspect of it comes into the event as a part of the local norms. Is that what you mean henry."

I'm sorry, Jack, but I can't make heads or tails of *this.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

"by Nature we are talking about the Universe not mother nature on earth"

Missing my point (again).

#

"*love is a kind of chaos where by no one aspect of it comes into the event as a part of the local norms. Is that what you mean henry."

I'm sorry, Jack, but I can't make heads or tails of *this.

So you weren't talking about Mother Nature. But the process you described describes Nature. It's not a small part of it, but everything.

[henry quirk]

"the process you described describes Nature"

I see the process as being reality or the universe.

Nature, again, is narrow, perceived, aspect of the universe.

So: nature is a subset of reality or universe.

That's my take, anyway.