A Panpsychist Hypothesis (General)
PART ONE-David and I appear to have reached a dead end in our discussion of his concept of God, and so I will now try to put together the various strands (sorry if this involves some repetition of past posts) in order to formulate the panpsychist hypothesis I've been promising (threatening)! It's important right from the outset to emphasize that ALL hypotheses eventually come up against the brick wall of how life and consciousness originated. This applies just as much to David's God as it does to all other theories. He wrote: "I think God is somehow organized as an intelligence." "Somehow" is the great gap here, there and everywhere.-Panpsychism is the theory that "each spatio-temporal thing has a mental or 'inner' aspect. Not minds as such, but "varying degrees in which things have inner subjective or quasi-conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness." (Oxford Companion to Philosophy). According to David, "God is intelligence", is "both the particles and the organizer of the particlesâ", and is "present in all that IS, living and inorganic" (BBella). This is the most extreme version of theistic panpsychism. I would like to develop a variation on it, with the proviso that I offer it as an alternative, not as a belief. The first step for me is agreement with David that nothing can come from nothing, and that life and consciousness exist. Anyone who disagrees can stop reading now. I also believe that all events have a cause. On the premise that matter is formed by energy, I'm happy to accept that energy is the first cause, i.e. that energy has always been in existence. (If the energy-to-matter theory is false, it makes little difference to the hypothesis, but a great deal of difference to David's own theory.) Although clearly we cannot know of any events before the birth of our universe, it seems to me highly unlikely that eternal energy would suddenly erupt into matter-creating activity, having done nothing at all for ever and ever beforehand. This would apply whether it was intelligent or not. It also stands to reason that intelligence won't be much use unless there's something to be intelligent about, and eternal energy without events to be aware of might just as well not exist. In this respect, one might call it potential intelligence. And so a key question has to be WHEN energy became intelligent. The likelihood that energy has been producing matter for ever and ever is important for my atheistic compartment, because the more universes there have been, the greater the chances of our own life-supporting universe and life itself coming into being. However, one should never lose sight of the astonishing complexity of the simplest living organism, which for all our own intelligence we humans are still only starting to unravel. This underlies the theistic argument for ID. But first we have to understand the nature of matter. I don't have the scientific background to judge the accuracy of the various theories, but I've been picking David's brains in an effort to get clarification of his own theory, and there are two important exchanges I would like to quote
hw [referring to David's concept of God] : If it's true that energy creates matter, it's not unreasonable to assume that this creation takes place through intelligent quantum energy particles working together. DAVID: Quite a jump in logic. A single particle joins with another and then another and now we have a matter particle. It doesn't require intelligence at this basic level.-This surprised and secretly pleased me, but in response to my challenge, David modified his statement laterAVID: I think God [...] has planned out all the quantum particles that drop out of the plasma and form constituents of matter. These particles have an automatic way of falling together, as they consistently do it the same way as shown by particle physics results. They are in concise families with definite ways of acting.-Since our most difficult problem is to explain the complexities of life and consciousness, I'm going to put David's first statement ("doesn't require intelligence") together with his second, concerning "an automatic way of falling together". This is what most of us would call "natural law", and if this is how matter consistently behaves when it comes into existence, there is indeed no requirement for intelligence. And so instead of intelligence preceding the creation of matter, the argument would be that it does not come into being until there is matter for it to be aware of. I've suggested in the past that the disintegration of matter may somehow have sparked the first glimmerings of awareness in the energy within, but it could have been any activity involving material changes. This is the brick wall of "somehow".
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
PART TWO-We should now go back to the panpsychist concept of matter with "quasi conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness", and in particular we should bear in mind that matter means zillions and zillions of energy particles. These are the quantum energy particles which David himself has imbued with the intelligence of his God, so intelligent particles are common to both hypotheses. I think we would all agree - except perhaps Romansh - that every human has his/her own individuality. Those who have had experience of living with animals will say the same of them. Those who have studied ants and bacteria etc. express surprise at the "intelligence" shown by individuals. (David recently gave us the example of slime, and has offered us countless others.) The behaviour of cells in cell communities gives us the same message. You will see that I'm working my way from the complex back to the comparatively simple. The "particles" are individuals that cooperate (or compete), and the innovations that have driven evolution have stemmed from individual intelligences - because every innovation must take place within an organism that already exists. To what extent this process can be applied to inorganic matter we don't know (that's why I've mentioned "natural laws"), but in the organic world we do not have ONE mind: we have zillions, from the human brain down to bacteria. These live for themselves and for their particular communities, and the "inner mental aspects" of these communities are also individual (Sheldrake's species consciousness). In short, the God hypothesis proposes a single mind that has somehow always had intelligence, awareness and knowledge (of what?) or somehow evolved these attributes in time to deliberately create our universe and everything in it. My panpsychist variation begins with potentially intelligent energy being transformed into ever changing matter, experience of which somehow led to the dawning of countless individualized forms and degrees of intelligence (though the same process might have occurred innumerable times before our universe). Evolution progresses in the same way, through the accumulative experience and intelligence of cellular communities responding to changes in the environment; human self-awareness evolved from cellular awareness. No single controlling mind, but each organism fending for itself with its own inner "quasi-consciousness". The controlling force is not chance, because all these intelligences guide themselves and cooperate with one another to create complexity. This rids us of all the baggage associated with the conventional God figure, while keeping the influence of chance to the bare minimum, since the birth of intelligence in matter marks the starting point of individual purposefulness (survival, propagation, improvement). Unlike materialistic atheism, this hypothesis sets no limits on the workings of intelligent energy, which need not be confined to or perish with the matter it has created, because it is not the product of matter. The (always partially) fulfilled potential can be passed on, and it incorporates all those factors in life that appear to defy material explanation - self-awareness, love, aesthetics, reason, imagination etc., plus so-called psychic experiences which are far too numerous to be ignored. David is constantly warning us against endowing his God with attributes - and indeed how could one impose any shape or character on eternal energy? - though he can't resist reading purposes and plans into the divine mind. The God of my panpsychist variation is also the particles of eternal energy, but in this panpsychist variation, apart from their evolved and evolving intelligences, we impose no attributes - not even that of homogeneity. Finally, let me stress again that this is not a profession of belief. I'm only offering an alternative to faith in a nebulous God, and faith in chance, while also looking for a way to encompass those areas of intelligence that materialism has so far failed to explain.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper 
, Saturday, June 14, 2014, 13:04 (3814 days ago) @ dhw
PART TWO > > We should now go back to the panpsychist concept of matter with "quasi conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness", and in particular we should bear in mind that matter means zillions and zillions of energy particles. These are the quantum energy particles which David himself has imbued with the intelligence of his God, so intelligent particles are common to both hypotheses. I think we would all agree ... except perhaps Romansh ... that every human has his/her own individuality. Those who have had experience of living with animals will say the same of them. Those who have studied ants and bacteria etc. express surprise at the "intelligence" shown by individuals. (David recently gave us the example of slime, and has offered us countless others.) The behaviour of cells in cell communities gives us the same message. You will see that I'm working my way from the complex back to the comparatively simple. The "particles" are individuals that cooperate (or compete), and the innovations that have driven evolution have stemmed from individual intelligences ... because every innovation must take place within an organism that already exists. To what extent this process can be applied to inorganic matter we don't know (that's why I've mentioned "natural laws"), but in the organic world we do not have ONE mind: we have zillions, from the human brain down to bacteria. These live for themselves and for their particular communities, and the "inner mental aspects" of these communities are also individual (Sheldrake's species consciousness). > > I- wow thank you.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Saturday, June 14, 2014, 15:41 (3813 days ago) @ GateKeeper
dhw:PART TWO > > > > We should now go back to the panpsychist concept of matter but in the organic world we do not have ONE mind: we have zillions, from the human brain down to bacteria. These live for themselves and for their particular communities,- > GK: wow thank you.-Not so fast. I have answered.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Saturday, June 14, 2014, 17:41 (3813 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw:PART TWO > > > > > > We should now go back to the panpsychist concept of matter but in the organic world we do not have ONE mind: we have zillions, from the human brain down to bacteria. These live for themselves and for their particular communities, > > > > GK: wow thank you. > > Not so fast. I have answered.-lol, it was a thank you. -for the time he spent. It had nothing to do with the gaps I see in it.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Saturday, June 14, 2014, 18:08 (3813 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: lol, it was a thank you. > > for the time he spent. > It had nothing to do with the gaps I see in it.-So, tell us about the gaps
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Saturday, June 14, 2014, 15:37 (3813 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: In short, the God hypothesis proposes a single mind that has somehow always had intelligence, awareness and knowledge (of what?) or somehow evolved these attributes in time to deliberately create our universe and everything in it. My panpsychist variation begins with potentially intelligent energy being transformed into ever changing matter, experience of which somehow led to the dawning of countless individualized forms and degrees of intelligence (though the same process might have occurred innumerable times before our universe).-Potential intelligence as a proposition requires a total redefinition of what is meant by 'intelligence'. Intelligent thought requires a language with which to think. Intelligence plans and designs. You want it invented out of thin air. Intelligence is inexorably wrapped up with consciousness. So far you have everything backwards from my analysis of reality. A bunch of leggos falling together just because they are arranged to get connected. Where is the child to actually do it. That is what your theory lacks, the actor.-> dhw: The controlling force is not chance, because all these intelligences guide themselves and cooperate with one another to create complexity.-You admit the individual cell or single-celled animal is extremely complex. And you reject chance. The cells just invented their own complexity and conjured up their own intelligence because it was potentially there? And Mary Poppins could fly. All at the same level of pipe dream.- > dhw: Finally, let me stress again that this is not a profession of belief. I'm only offering an alternative to faith in a nebulous God, and faith in chance, while also looking for a way to encompass those areas of intelligence that materialism has so far failed to explain.-Good try. No more believeable than fairies in the dell. A better starting point is the approach of the quantum theorists who believe that an intelligence actually interacts with quantum particles as in John Wheeler's proposed second choice experiments which have now been done. I'll stick with my idea that God is the intelligence present in the quantum layer of reality. And note that the initial particles that emerge from energy to from matter are quantum paticles.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw: ... My panpsychist variation begins with potentially intelligent energy being transformed into ever changing matter, experience of which somehow led to the dawning of countless individualized forms and degrees of intelligence (though the same process might have occurred innumerable times before our universe).-DAVID: Potential intelligence as a proposition requires a total redefinition of what is meant by 'intelligence'. -If energy is first cause, then energy is potentially everything that exists, including intelligence. Baby plants, insects, animals and humans are filled with potential intelligence, but it requires experience to develop it, and even in the human world this depends largely on matter. Your concept of God is of a being that has already fulfilled the potential of energy intelligence, because if this universe is the beginning, he already knew what to do with matter before he'd even experienced it! DAVID: Intelligent thought requires a language with which to think. Intelligence plans and designs. You want it invented out of thin air. Intelligence is inexorably wrapped up with consciousness.-I'm not going to define intelligence, but I'm happy to list some of its attributes: the ability to process perceptions, understand and act on them, communicate, devise plans, make decisions...some of these can be accomplished by computers, which we call artificial intelligence, and by the billions of organisms around us, including the very simplest, such as bacteria. Language, thinking, consciousness - you only conceive of them in human terms. And yet you continually present us with examples that contradict this narrow view.-DAVID: Ten different attributes of plants. Not so docile:-http://io9.com/5901172/10-pieces-of-evidence-that-plants-are-smarter-than-you-think QUOTE: "Though plants possess nothing even remotely like brains, they can nevertheless communicate, measure time, and even use camouflage. They may not be thinking in a way that we'd recognize, but our chlorophyll-saturated pals are certainly doing a lot more than sitting around splitting water molecules. Here are ten things plants do that look pretty damn smart - even to those of us over here in the Kingdom Animalia."-This clearly illustrates the definition of panpsychism that I quoted: there are "varying degrees in which things have inner subjective or quasi-conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness". You don't make these connections. You believe in evolution, and yet you prefer to imagine that with a few animal exceptions, all organisms are automata made and wound up by your God. DAVID: So far you have everything backwards from my analysis of reality. A bunch of leggos falling together just because they are arranged to get connected. Where is the child to actually do it. That is what your theory lacks, the actor.-They are not leggos falling together. Research has shown that plants, insects, animals, bacteria and cells are individual intelligences working together, perceiving, planning, communicating, making decisions. But their form of intelligence is different from ours.-DAVID: You admit the individual cell or single-celled animal is extremely complex. And you reject chance. The cells just invented their own complexity and conjured up their own intelligence because it was potentially there? And Mary Poppins could fly.-You have seized on the "somehow" which no theory can deal with. I'm offering a somehow that evolved from the interplay between energy and matter. You claim that the energy particles of your God were somehow always intelligent and conscious because... because...they just were. And Mary Poppins could fly. dhw: Finally, let me stress again that this is not a profession of belief. I'm only offering an alternative to faith in a nebulous God, and faith in chance, while also looking for a way to encompass those areas of intelligence that materialism has so far failed to explain.-DAVID: Good try. No more believeable than fairies in the dell. A better starting point is the approach of the quantum theorists who believe that an intelligence actually interacts with quantum particles as in John Wheeler's proposed second choice experiments which have now been done. I'll stick with my idea that God is the intelligence present in the quantum layer of reality. And note that the initial particles that emerge from energy to from matter are quantum paticles.-I did not expect you to change your views. For me, all the hypotheses are fairies in dells, though one must be closer to the truth than the others. But which one? I'm not going to challenge you on quantum theory. Nor would I challenge Stephen Hawking or his fellow atheist physicists. You and I both know that his opinion is no more and no less scientifically based than your own. There is no consensus. Only faith.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Monday, June 16, 2014, 02:52 (3812 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: If energy is first cause, then energy is potentially everything that exists, including intelligence. (Re a definition, see below). Baby plants, insects, birds, animals and humans are filled with potential intelligence,-As you note below, I hold that most of the so-called intelligence outside of humans is automatic responses. Higher animals like horses can be taught how to respond to the rider, but little true intelligence is required.-> dhw: Your concept of God is of a being that has already totally fulfilled the potential of energy intelligence, because if this universe really is the beginning, he already knew what to do with matter before he'd even experienced it!-That is your concept of my concept. God may have had to experiment, i just don't know for sure, but I still think the arrival of humans was his intent. > > DAVID: Intelligent thought requires a language with which to think. Intelligence plans and designs. You want it invented out of thin air. Intelligence is inexorably wrapped up with consciousness. > > dhw: I'm not going to attempt a definition of intelligence, but I'm happy to list some of the attributes we associate with it: the ability to process perceptions, understand and act on them, communicate, devise plans and strategies, make decisions...some of these can be accomplished by computers, which is why we talk of artificial intelligence. They can also be performed by the billions of organisms we see around us, including some of the very simplest, such as bacteria.-You are reaching amazing conclusons aabout automatic chemical reactions and instinct, inherited learned behaviors. -> dhw; And yet over and over again, you present us with examples that contradict this narrow view (for which, as always, I am deeply indebted to you): > > DAVID: Ten different attributes of plants. Not so docile: > > http://io9.com/5901172/10-pieces-of-evidence-that-plants-are-smarter-than-you-think-Bec... these attributes are a fascinating part of life, should be presented to this venue, and my interpretation is totally opposite to yours. And to make the point thatt life is miraculous in all its aspects, and it all appeared from inorganic matter. I am incredulous, and why not? > > dhw: These amazing examples clearly illustrate the point made in the definition of panpsychism that I quoted: there are "varying degrees in which things have inner subjective or quasi-conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness". You don't seem to make these connections. -No I don't because you are quoting interpretation, not fact, when hou view the actions of animals and plants. > > dhw: In my hypothesis they are not leggos falling together. Research has shown that plants, insects, animals, bacteria and cells are individual intelligences working together, perceiving, planning, adapting, communicating, making decisions. But their form of intelligence is different from ours.-Their so-called intelligence are intelligent actions, which are in general automatic responses to the whatever challenges present. > > dhw: I'm offering a somehow that evolved from the interplay between energy and matter. You claim that the energy particles of your God were somehow always intelligent and conscious because... because...they just were. And Mary Poppins could fly. All at the same level of pipe dream.-As Mary Poppins and Peter Pan said, it just takes wishing, your will and faith. You may started from the same place but the two interpretations of what we see are diametrically opposed. > > I did not expect you to change your views. For me, all the hypotheses are fairies in dells, but one of them must be closer to the truth than the others, There is no consensus. Only faith.-On this we agree. I started out in a mild form of agnosticism. Religion made no sense and still doesn't. Then I started reading about the latest discoveries in particle physics. Later I dug into Darwin and found he invented a theory from very little real understanding of evolution. He didn't even know about Mendel. My conversion simply took a great deal of reading. I made up my own decisions from the information I read, not from opinions. What I found required intelligence and underlying information to explain what was demonstrated. So I asked the question: where did the required information come from? There is no way it could be developed as things evolved. Information requires intelligence to begin with. Codes are only developed by intelligence.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw: I'm not going to attempt a definition of intelligence, but I'm happy to list some of the attributes we associate with it: the ability to process perceptions, understand and act on them, communicate, devise plans and strategies, make decisions...some of these can be accomplished by computers, which is why we talk of artificial intelligence. They can also be performed by the billions of organisms we see around us, including some of the very simplest, such as bacteria.-DAVID: You are reaching amazing conclusons aabout automatic chemical reactions and instinct, inherited learned behaviors.-We are both presenting opinions as if they were established scientific facts. I should have qualified my statement by saying that many researchers believe....I hope you will also qualify your own. (But see below.)-dhw; And yet over and over again, you present us with examples that contradict this narrow view (for which, as always, I am deeply indebted to you). -Apologies for my terrible syntax! I am indebted to you for the examples, not for your narrow view!-DAVID: ...And to make the point that life is miraculous in all its aspects, and it all appeared from inorganic matter. I am incredulous, and why not?-I agree that life is miraculous, and I'm as incredulous as you ... whether life stemmed from an unknown eternal intelligence, a process of evolving intelligence, or sheer chance.-dhw: Research has shown that plants, insects, animals, bacteria and cells are individual intelligences working together, perceiving, planning, adapting, communicating, making decisions. But their form of intelligence is different from ours. DAVID: Their so-called intelligence are intelligent actions, which are in general automatic responses to the whatever challenges present.-Again, we are both presenting interpretations, not facts, but earlier you called my conclusions amazing, and so I like the caveat "in general". Innovations would be the most obvious exception to the general behaviour of these organisms, with every innovation stemming from an action that was NOT automatic. And even if, unlike many researchers in the field (we have discussed this on earlier threads) you are convinced that these organisms do not process perceptions, communicate, plan, take their own decisions etc., but act like robots once new organs and modes of behaviour have been established, you are still allowing for individual intelligence with your "in general". dhw: I'm offering a somehow that evolved from the interplay between energy and matter. You claim that the energy particles of your God were somehow always intelligent and conscious because... because...they just were. And Mary Poppins could fly. All at the same level of pipe dream.-DAVID: As Mary Poppins and Peter Pan said, it just takes wishing, your will and faith. You may started from the same place but the two interpretations of what we see are diametrically opposed.-Yes, your pipe dream is the opposite of the alternative pipe dream I have outlined. I don't accept or dismiss either of them, since both are based on interpretations of our limited knowledge, and both inevitably founder on the unknown "somehow". Dhw: I did not expect you to change your views. For me, all the hypotheses are fairies in dells, but one of them must be closer to the truth than the others, There is no consensus. Only faith.-DAVID: On this we agree. [...] I made up my own decisions from the information I read, not from opinions. What I found required intelligence and underlying information to explain what was demonstrated. So I asked the question: where did the required information come from? There is no way it could be developed as things evolved. Information requires intelligence to begin with. Codes are only developed by intelligence.-We have always agreed on this, and of course you based your own decisions on the information you read. I have sufficient respect for people like Hawking and Dawkins to assume that they also based their decisions on the available information. I also agree that codes are developed by intelligence, but although information requires intelligence, intelligence also requires information if it is to function. Your first cause is intelligence in the form of pure energy. You have now acknowledged the possibility that your God might have had to experiment, although initially you dismissed the idea because it made your God seem an indecisive ditherer. Perhaps eventually you will also acknowledge the possibility that cells and cell communities have an intelligence of their own. And as information is accumulated through experience, thereby increasing the scope of intelligence, you may one day acknowledge the possibility that intelligent energy on its own, without information to work on, is a pretty meaningless concept. This leaves us with the question of how intelligence without information might come into being. And so perhaps one day you might acknowledge the possibility that first cause energy is a potential that required the information provided by matter to take on any reality. But it's just an alternative to the possibility that energy has intelligence before there is anything for it to be intelligent about.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 17, 2014, 00:31 (3811 days ago) @ dhw
dhw; We have always agreed on this, and of course you based your own decisions on the information you read. I have sufficient respect for people like Hawking and Dawkins to assume that they also based their decisions on the available information. I also agree that codes are developed by intelligence, but although information requires intelligence, intelligence also requires information if it is to function. Your first cause is intelligence in the form of pure energy.-But to follow my reasoning, you must envision that first cause as not a blank DVD with no information on board, but a DVD (intelligent energy)loaded with all the informaton needed to get the universe and life started- > dhw: you may one day acknowledge the possibility that intelligent energy on its own, without information to work on, is a pretty meaningless concept. -I saw this idea of your coming andc answered it above. It is not a blank DVD-> dhw:This leaves us with the question of how intelligence without information might come into being. -Not my concept from the beginning, but my fault when I said there had to be information, I didn't make it clear that it had to exist within the universal intelligence. It was so obvious to me but not to you, and so I assumed it was understood. Babies are born with a potential intelligence to be developed, but it is developed by gaining information and learning how to use that information. I don't view the universal intelligence as a baby form.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw; I...agree that codes are developed by intelligence, but although information requires intelligence, intelligence also requires information if it is to function. Your first cause is intelligence in the form of pure energy.-DAVID: But to follow my reasoning, you must envision that first cause as not a blank DVD with no information on board, but a DVD (intelligent energy)loaded with all the informaton needed to get the universe and life started-dhw: This leaves us with the question of how intelligence without information might come into being. -DAVID: Not my concept from the beginning, but my fault when I said there had to be information, I didn't make it clear that it had to exist within the universal intelligence. It was so obvious to me but not to you, and so I assumed it was understood. Babies are born with a potential intelligence to be developed, but it is developed by gaining information and learning how to use that information. I don't view the universal intelligence as a baby form.-But you are offering us the seemingly illogical premise that your first cause pure energy already had the information necessary to create the materials of universe and life before it had even experienced its own transformation into matter. However, you have in recent posts acknowledged two possible scenarios which you preferred to dismiss earlier: 1) that your pure energy God may have experimented, and 2) that he may have created universes prior to this one. That at least would get you out of the impossible dream of a DVD loaded with information before the information exists. But of course if you agree that your God had to learn as he went along, you will find yourself in the difficult position of acknowledging that his intelligence is not unlike our own: potential rather than actual, until it gains information and learns how to use it. And once you agree to that, you could find yourself on the slippery slope to my panpsychist hypothesis. Ah, Heaven forbid!
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 01:27 (3810 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But you are offering us the seemingly illogical premise that your first cause pure energy already had the information necessary to create the materials of universe and life before it had even experienced its own transformation into matter. -Whoa! My first cause energy is God, and God is not matter. Matter is the stuff that appered after God used the information to instruct the first particles how to form and join together to create the first matter.-> dhw: However, you have in recent posts acknowledged two possible scenarios which you preferred to dismiss earlier: 1) that your pure energy God may have experimented, -The experimentation I suggested might have occurred was during evolution, a path God chose for the development of humans.-> dhw: 2) that he may have created universes prior to this one.-If God has been around forever, then he, more than likely, has created universes before.-> dhw: That at least would get you out of the impossible dream of a DVD loaded with information before the information exists. -The information exists with God within his intelligence. It is obvious that life uses a massive amount of information. It didn't develop by chance.-> dhw:But of course if you agree that your God had to learn as he went along, you will find yourself in the difficult position of acknowledging that his intelligence is not unlike our own: potential rather than actual, until it gains information and learns how to use it. And once you agree to that, you could find yourself on the slippery slope to my panpsychist hypothesis. Ah, Heaven forbid!-It is your slope, not mine, and a sloppy, slimey, slippery one at that.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 12:43 (3810 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: But you are offering us the seemingly illogical premise that your first cause pure energy already had the information necessary to create the materials of universe and life before it had even experienced its own transformation into matter. > > Whoa! My first cause energy is God, and God is not matter. Matter is the stuff that appered after God used the information to instruct the first particles how to form and join together to create the first matter. > > > dhw: However, you have in recent posts acknowledged two possible scenarios which you preferred to dismiss earlier: 1) that your pure energy God may have experimented, > > The experimentation I suggested might have occurred was during evolution, a path God chose for the development of humans. > > > dhw: 2) that he may have created universes prior to this one. > > If God has been around forever, then he, more than likely, has created universes before. > > > dhw: That at least would get you out of the impossible dream of a DVD loaded with information before the information exists. > > The information exists with God within his intelligence. It is obvious that life uses a massive amount of information. It didn't develop by chance. > > > dhw:But of course if you agree that your God had to learn as he went along, you will find yourself in the difficult position of acknowledging that his intelligence is not unlike our own: potential rather than actual, until it gains information and learns how to use it. And once you agree to that, you could find yourself on the slippery slope to my panpsychist hypothesis. Ah, Heaven forbid! > > It is your slope, not mine, and a sloppy, slimey, slippery one at that.-to an ant you are around for ever and very smart. It would seem you both have logical conclusions if ya just change some base faith statements.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw: But you are offering us the seemingly illogical premise that your first cause pure energy already had the information necessary to create the materials of universe and life before it had even experienced its own transformation into matter. -DAVID: Whoa! My first cause energy is God, and God is not matter. Matter is the stuff that appered after God used the information to instruct the first particles how to form and join together to create the first matter.-That is precisely my point. When you say "instruct the first particles how to create matter", you are making it sound as if the particles existed separately from God himself ... but according to you, God IS those particles of energy, because he is the first cause. Nothing else existed, and matter IS energy. So how could first cause pure energy (your God) have acquired the information to create the materials of the universe and life before it had even transmuted itself into matter? dhw: However, you have in recent posts acknowledged two possible scenarios which you preferred to dismiss earlier: 1) that your pure energy God may have experimented, DAVID: The experimentation I suggested might have occurred was during evolution, a path God chose for the development of humans.-If your God experimented in order to produce humans, he clearly did not have total knowledge of what was needed. I am offering the same get-out from the logical trap you have set yourself by claiming that God had all the information about matter before matter (made by transmuting his own particles) even existed. dhw: 2) that he may have created universes prior to this one. DAVID: If God has been around forever, then he, more than likely, has created universes before.-Which would have enabled him to acquire more and more information. Part of the logical get-out I am suggesting.-dhw: That at least would get you out of the impossible dream of a DVD loaded with information before the information exists. -DAVID: The information exists with God within his intelligence. It is obvious that life uses a massive amount of information. It didn't develop by chance.-That is not the question here. The question is how your God acquired the information before he experienced himself as matter (see my first paragraph). Although you always claim that you do not endow your God with any attributes, you are insisting that he planned and knew everything needed to create our universe and life. This is the conventional image of an omniscient, omnipotent God. Why are you not prepared to consider the possibility of a God that had to acquire by experience the information needed to make universes and life? dhw: But of course if you agree that your God had to learn as he went along, you will find yourself in the difficult position of acknowledging that his intelligence is not unlike our own: potential rather than actual, until it gains information and learns how to use it. And once you agree to that, you could find yourself on the slippery slope to my panpsychist hypothesis. Ah, Heaven forbid! DAVID: It is your slope, not mine, and a sloppy, slimey, slippery one at that.-As with evolution, you can dismiss the atheistic version of the hypothesis, but you are still left with an alternative version of your God: instead of the know-it-all-from-the beginning God, we have one who ... just like ourselves ... has to develop his intelligence through experience. Why is even this slope more sloppy, slimy and slippery than your own?
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 22:12 (3809 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:That is precisely my point. When you say "instruct the first particles how to create matter", you are making it sound as if the particles existed separately from God himself ... but according to you, God IS those particles of energy, because he is the first cause. Nothing else existed, and matter IS energy. So how could first cause pure energy (your God) have acquired the information to create the materials of the universe and life-God is intelligence and information from the very beginning. God is eternal. Perhaps 'instruct' was the wrong word. Let's say that God created those particles with the proper instructions to form together and to create matter. I have admitted in the past that I don't know, and cannot know, how God is constructed in a pure energy state to be both intelligence and information, but within the quantum level of reality, where I think He resides, everything is counterintuative.-> dhw: If your God experimented in order to produce humans, he clearly did not have total knowledge of what was needed.-I can only repeat that God chose evolution to create US. Evolution, as we have seen, does not follow a straight path and shows experimentation. He may have had to steer it. > > dhw: That is not the question here. The question is how your God acquired the information before he experienced himself as matter .....Why are you not prepared to consider the possibility of a God that had to acquire by experience the information needed to make universes and life? -That is not the way I envision God, but you are right. I don't know the limits of His power, if any, and therefore I cannot deny that He developed experience. However, to jump start a universe and early life, it appears to me He was well equipped to do that much. I admit, both the universe and life are in processes of evolution that God used. So I will partially agree with you. After the start of the universe and life He may have had to develop some experience.-> > dhw: As with evolution, you can dismiss the atheistic version of the hypothesis, but you are still left with an alternative version of your God: instead of the know-it-all-from-the beginning God, we have one who ... just like ourselves ... has to develop his intelligence through experience. Why is even this slope more sloppy, slimy and slippery than your own?-Since I am working backward from our current knowledge of reality, I can go just so far. I don't know why God chose an evolutionary process, but He did. I do not accept the omniscent, all-powerful God on the Bible. He appear to me to have some limits. For example, if He wanted an evil-free world, He could have made us all goody-goody automatons, but we have free-will. Perhaps He could guide our creation but not the entire outcome. Or our freedom is his choice. All of this is guesswork.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw: ...you are making it sound as if the particles existed separately from God himself ... but according to you, God IS those particles of energy, because he is the first cause. Nothing else existed, and matter IS energy. So how could first cause pure energy (your God) have acquired the information to create the materials of the universe and life before it had even transmuted itself into matter?-DAVID: God is intelligence and information from the very beginning. God is eternal. [...]-You and I have agreed that the first cause is eternal energy. (The only other suggestion we've had is George's "nothing", and I've just seen that he has made a welcome and entertaining return! Perhaps you'd like to join in, George?) When it acquired intelligence and information is the point at issue. If it is eternal, there was no beginning. DAVID: I have admitted in the past that I don't know, and cannot know, how God is constructed in a pure energy state to be both intelligence and information, but within the quantum level of reality, where I think He resides, everything is counterintuative.-Fair comment. But any version of first cause energy is counterintuitive: 1) intelligence and information magically all present and correct without a beginning; 2) a total blank that by chance hits on a winning formula; 3) energy as a single entity of potential intelligence that magically becomes aware of itself and can experiment and learn to create universes and life; 4) energy as potential intelligence that forms particles of matter which magically become aware of themselves so that they cooperate to form universes and life. You could argue that all of these counterintuitive hypotheses belong to "the quantum level of reality", which nobody understands. One brick wall is as impenetrable as another. dhw: If your God experimented in order to produce humans, he clearly did not have total knowledge of what was needed. DAVID: I can only repeat that God chose evolution to create US. Evolution, as we have seen, does not follow a straight path and shows experimentation. He may have had to steer it. -My point was that the possibility of experimentation in the one field denotes incomplete information, and that enhances the possibility of incomplete information in every field, from the creation of matter onwards. -dhw: .....Why are you not prepared to consider the possibility of a God that had to acquire by experience the information needed to make universes and life? DAVID: That is not the way I envision God, but you are right [...] After the start of the universe and life He may have had to develop some experience.-I'm quite happy with "may", though I'd extend it to before the start of this universe and of life. My point is that if, at any time, first cause energy may have needed experience to fulfil its potential intelligence, it may have been nothing but potential intelligence right up until it began to experience awareness in zillions of separate particles of matter. I'm not seeking to replace one illogical hypothesis with another. I'm only trying to establish that this one is just as credible as yours and as that of atheistic materialism and luck, allowing for the brick wall they all have in common. But I'm also taking in variations on your God hypothesis. Any statement about his powers and his intentions can only be pure speculation, and so even a theist should allow for alternative interpretations because, as you so rightly say about evil, free will etc., and as I say about the origin of the universe and life, it's all guesswork. That's why some of us find it so difficult to climb off the agnostic fence!
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Friday, June 20, 2014, 02:46 (3808 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But any version of first cause energy is counterintuitive: 1) intelligence and information magically all present and correct without a beginning; 2) a total blank that by chance hits on a winning formula; 3) energy as a single entity of potential intelligence that magically becomes aware of itself and can experiment and learn to create universes and life; 4) energy as potential intelligence that forms particles of matter which magically become aware of themselves so that they cooperate to form universes and life. You could argue that all of these counterintuitive hypotheses belong to "the quantum level of reality", which nobody understands. One brick wall is as impenetrable as another.-I am sorry you are having problems with my first cause. I have my concept which is, restated, God had enough intelligence and information to make a universe and get life started. He used evolutionary processes for both. I don't know why He did. Anything else is guess work. > > dhw: My point was that the possibility of experimentation in the one field denotes incomplete information, and that enhances the possibility of incomplete information in every field, from the creation of matter onwards. -That is your guess. Maybe He just tweaked when He felt like it, maybe only to speed a process that would have gotten to US HUMANS eventually. Actually He has all the time in the world to accomplish anything. > > dhw: I'm quite happy with "may", though I'd extend it to before the start of this universe and of life. My point is that if, at any time, first cause energy may have needed experience to fulfil its potential intelligence, it may have been nothing but potential intelligence right up until it began to experience awareness in zillions of separate particles of matter.-Never potential intelligence. "Which came first chicken or egg" type of argument. Pure energy invented its own intelligence? Illogical. -> dhw: I'm not seeking to replace one illogical hypothesis with another. ....I say about the origin of the universe and life, it's all guesswork. That's why some of us find it so difficult to climb off the agnostic fence!-You are on the fence because you don't like my logic. So you find other explanations which are totally illogical.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Friday, June 20, 2014, 12:56 (3808 days ago) @ David Turell
david > Never potential intelligence. "Which came first chicken or egg" type of argument. Pure energy invented its own intelligence? Illogical. > >>-for me it is not illogical because of the possible states the particles that make up the energy can be in at any given time.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Friday, June 20, 2014, 16:11 (3807 days ago) @ GateKeeper
david > > Never potential intelligence. "Which came first chicken or egg" type of argument. Pure energy invented its own intelligence? Illogical. > > > >> > > GK: for me it is not illogical because of the possible states the particles that make up the energy can be in at any given time.-Intelligence requires information. One cannot separate the two. When a consciousness receives information it becomes intelligent. Show me the other way around
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Friday, June 20, 2014, 19:41 (3807 days ago) @ David Turell
david > > > Never potential intelligence. "Which came first chicken or egg" type of argument. Pure energy invented its own intelligence? Illogical. > > > > > >> > > > > GK: for me it is not illogical because of the possible states the particles that make up the energy can be in at any given time. > > Intelligence requires information. One cannot separate the two. When a consciousness receives information it becomes intelligent. Show me the other way around-The states of the particles that make up the energy. They only have to "line up" to become intelligent. This can have happen through a few ways. from field interactions to spooky actions at distances.-I could also introduce these notions in multi univ scenario.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Saturday, June 21, 2014, 02:16 (3807 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: The states of the particles that make up the energy. They only have to "line up" to become intelligent. This can have happen through a few ways. from field interactions to spooky actions at distances.-I don't understand. How does entanglement make intelligence? A lattice of particles describes a pattern, not intelligence.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Saturday, June 21, 2014, 02:45 (3807 days ago) @ David Turell
GK: The states of the particles that make up the energy. They only have to "line up" to become intelligent. This can have happen through a few ways. from field interactions to spooky actions at distances. > > I don't understand. How does entanglement make intelligence? A lattice of particles describes a pattern, not intelligence.-The particles can be in many states at the same time. This implies the necessary states for "awareness" would be in that mixture. Maybe The number of staring particles could be small, but even so, the level of "awareness" would be very high.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Saturday, June 21, 2014, 15:13 (3806 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: The particles can be in many states at the same time. This implies the necessary states for "awareness" would be in that mixture. Maybe The number of staring particles could be small, but even so, the level of "awareness" would be very high.-Can you define those 'states'? And what does the word 'awareness' mean to you?-I still don't see what you are attempting to describe.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
DAVID: Never potential intelligence. "Which came first chicken or egg" type of argument. Pure energy invented its own intelligence? Illogical. GK: for me it is not illogical because of the possible states the particles that make up the energy can be in at any given time. DAVID: Intelligence requires information. One cannot separate the two. When a consciousness receives information it becomes intelligent. Show me the other way around-I could not have put it better myself. Consciousness without information is only potential intelligence. If eternal energy was the first cause (i.e. nothing else existed before it), even if it was conscious, it could not have become intelligent without information. So where did the information come from, to enable it to make a universe and life? Earlier you wrote: "Pure energy invented its own intelligence? Illogical." Now apparently pure energy invented its own information, and that's how it became intelligent. Logical? -dhw: I still find it impossible to conceive how intelligent energy could have had any information at all about the behaviour of matter before matter even existed. DAVID: Because the inventor knows what he is creating.-That is the same as saying he already has the information about matter before any information about matter is available. You call it counterintuitive. I call it illogical. dhw:The possibility that first cause energy was a potential rather than an actual intelligence is therefore bolstered by your acceptance that your God may have had to experiment in at least one area of his activity. DAVID: These are your conjured up possibilities, not mine.-You have agreed that this is possible in the case of evolution.-Dhw: I have complete respect for your FAITH, but I don't like your insistence that your own illogical hypothesis (which you prefer to gently call "counterintuitive") is more logical than any other illogical hypothesis. I have said repeatedly that NONE of these hypotheses are logical, because they all come up against the brick wall of inexplicable life and consciousness. Hence agnosticism. DAVID: Hence the need for faith.-Why is there a need for faith? Those who believe in heaven and hell, judgement, damnation etc. may feel under pressure, but why do you "need" to choose one illogical hypothesis in preference to another?
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Saturday, June 21, 2014, 15:32 (3806 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I could not have put it better myself. Consciousness without information is only potential intelligence. If eternal energy was the first cause (i.e. nothing else existed before it), even if it was conscious, it could not have become intelligent without information. So where did the information come from, to enable it to make a universe and life? Earlier you wrote: "Pure energy invented its own intelligence? Illogical." Now apparently pure energy invented its own information, and that's how it became intelligent. Logical? -I have developed my concept of God as a universal consciousness by working backward from our knowledge of the universe and of the attribues of life. You are questioning my invention which has intellignce and information all at the same time, all eternal. And, yes, to accept that requires faith. > > dhw: That is the same as saying he already has the information about matter before any information about matter is available. You call it counterintuitive. I call it illogical.-Thomas Edison made his inventions by trial and error, but he used information about the material things he dealt with in moving forward. I find your point illogical. > > dhw: Why is there a need for faith? why do you "need" to choose one illogical hypothesis in preference to another?-Simple: I have a conclusion that fits the known facts as I see them. That conclusion, which I reached over a number of years of reading, feels good to me, and I have faith that I am right. It is OK that you cannot do that.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
DAVID (to GK): Intelligence requires information. One cannot separate the two. When a consciousness receives information it becomes intelligent. Show me the other way around-dhw: I could not have put it better myself. Consciousness without information is only potential intelligence. If eternal energy was the first cause (i.e. nothing else existed before it), even if it was conscious, it could not have become intelligent without information. So where did the information come from, to enable it to make a universe and life? Earlier you wrote: "Pure energy invented its own intelligence? Illogical." Now apparently pure energy invented its own information, and that's how it became intelligent. Logical -DAVID: I have developed my concept of God as a universal consciousness by working backward from our knowledge of the universe and of the attribues of life. You are questioning my invention which has intellignce and information all at the same time, all eternal. And, yes, to accept that requires faith.-I've simply been trying to point out that your God hypothesis is no more logical than the alternative which you have dismissed. The only intelligence we know of (our own and that of our fellow creatures) is a potential that develops accumulatively through experience of things that already exist. And so a starting point followed by evolution of intelligence can scarcely be dismissed as less logical than no starting point and intelligence that has always been there. -dhw: I still find it impossible to conceive how intelligent energy could have had any information at all about the behaviour of matter before matter even existed. -DAVID: Because the inventor knows what he is creating. dhw: That is the same as saying he already has the information about matter before any information about matter is available. You call it counterintuitive. I call it illogical. DAVID: Thomas Edison made his inventions by trial and error, but he used information about the material things he dealt with in moving forward. I find your point illogical.-I'm glad to see that "trial and error" is becoming more prominent in your argument, as opposed to the know-it-all version of your God. Thomas Edison had a mountain of existing information provided by countless earlier intelligences on which to base his experiments. Since your God was nothing but pure energy, there was no existing information about matter to enable him to create a universe and life. If you are now saying that he did NOT have all the information, but gradually learned from his experiences with matter, you can allow for the possibility (which is all I'm asking) that eternal energy had no information at all until it turned into matter. The two hypotheses then begin to converge.-dhw: Why is there a need for faith? why do you "need" to choose one illogical hypothesis in preference to another DAVID: Simple: I have a conclusion that fits the known facts as I see them. That conclusion, which I reached over a number of years of reading, feels good to me, and I have faith that I am right. It is OK that you cannot do that.-A nice response.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Monday, June 23, 2014, 15:32 (3804 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I've simply been trying to point out that your God hypothesis is no more logical than the alternative which you have dismissed. The only intelligence we know of (our own and that of our fellow creatures) is a potential that develops accumulatively through experience of things that already exist.-This is an anthropomorphic analysis. First cause (God) need not follow this humanized example. My first cause has consciousness and the necessary information to start a universe and start life from inorganic matter. > > dhw: I'm glad to see that "trial and error" is becoming more prominent in your argument, as opposed to the know-it-all version of your God.....If you are now saying that he did NOT have all the information, but gradually learned from his experiences with matter, you can allow for the possibility (which is all I'm asking) that eternal energy had no information at all until it turned into matter. The two hypotheses then begin to converge.-Again the same mistake in analysis. If I am working backward from what I see, I think First Cause (God) had consciousness and information before creating the universe and life. Creation implies that requirement. However, I know evolutionary processes were used for both the universe and for development of life's variety. Threfore it is entirely possible that some information had to be developed during the evolutions, which info was then acted upon. Do not cloud your mind with religions' view of God as all-knowing, present and into the future, and all-powerful. That is human wishful thinking. I start from my own observations only. > > dhw: Why is there a need for faith? why do you "need" to choose one illogical hypothesis in preference to another-> DAVID: Simple: I have a conclusion that fits the known facts as I see them. That conclusion, which I reached over a number of years of reading, feels good to me, and I have faith that I am right. It is OK that you cannot do that. > > dhw: A nice response.-Thank you. I think your childhood background in religion clouds your ability to analyze. Start from a fresh beginning, avoid humanizing, and you might come up with my pattern of thought.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw: I've simply been trying to point out that your God hypothesis is no more logical than the alternative which you have dismissed. The only intelligence we know of (our own and that of our fellow creatures) is a potential that develops accumulatively through experience of things that already exist. DAVID: This is an anthropomorphic analysis. First cause (God) need not follow this humanized example. My first cause has consciousness and the necessary information to start a universe and start life from inorganic matter.-What's wrong with an anthropomorphic analysis? How do you know that the creation doesn't mirror the creator? You are quite right that first cause "need not" follow the humanized example. Similarly it "need not" follow the conventional religious pattern that you are offering us of an eternally conscious being that knows how to create a universe and life even before it has created the first blob of matter. I'm offering alternatives, whereas you are insisting that only one version is correct (see below).-dhw: I'm glad to see that "trial and error" is becoming more prominent in your argument, as opposed to the know-it-all version of your God.....If you are now saying that he did NOT have all the information, but gradually learned from his experiences with matter, you can allow for the possibility (which is all I'm asking) that eternal energy had no information at all until it turned into matter. The two hypotheses then begin to converge. DAVID: Again the same mistake in analysis. -You can only talk of "mistakes" if you know the correct version. You don't, and you have admitted that your version depends on faith. DAVID: If I am working backward from what I see, I think First Cause (God) had consciousness and information before creating the universe and life. Creation implies that requirement. However, I know evolutionary processes were used for both the universe and for development of life's variety. Threfore it is entirely possible that some information had to be developed during the evolutions, which info was then acted upon.-This is a welcome volte face since the days when you were dismissing as a "non-starter" the idea of your God experimenting, because it made him into an indecisive ditherer. Your admission of the possibility of trial and error and development of information in the creation both of the universe and of life clearly allows for the possibility that first cause energy did NOT have the necessary information to start a universe and start life from inorganic matter, but had to ACQUIRE it. And this makes it possible that the intelligence of first cause energy evolved in exactly the same way as our own intelligence ... expanding its potential as it gained information. There is no "mistake" here ... just two equally weird possibilities: eternal energy which knew it all; eternal energy which had to learn. DAVID: Do not cloud your mind with religions' view of God as all-knowing, present and into the future, and all-powerful. -An astonishing piece of advice from someone who until recently insisted that God knew and had planned everything in advance - advice now being offered to someone who has suggested a version of origins that is diametrically opposed to the above!-DAVID: I think your childhood background in religion clouds your ability to analyze. Start from a fresh beginning, avoid humanizing, and you might come up with my pattern of thought.-Physician, heal thyself! While I continue to delve into the various alternatives, having faith in none of them, you have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve the religious image of an eternally conscious power magically endowed with all the information and experience necessary to build life and a universe. Ah David, start from a fresh beginning, avoid idealizing, and you might be able to think outside the box you have made for yourself.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 24, 2014, 16:00 (3803 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: This is a welcome volte face since the days when you were dismissing as a "non-starter" the idea of your God experimenting,..... And this makes it possible that the intelligence of first cause energy evolved in exactly the same way as our own intelligence ... expanding its potential as it gained information. There is no "mistake" here ... just two equally weird possibilities: eternal energy which knew it all; eternal energy which had to learn.-And I have brought you to accepting an eternal force which is behind the creaton of our reality. Our only difference is you want it to learn as it goes along. Since the Big Bang is an instant in first space-time, what source did your cause learn from, or was your first cause (FC) a very fast learner? > > dhw: Physician, heal thyself! While I continue to delve into the various alternatives, having faith in none of them, you have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve the religious image of an eternally conscious power magically endowed with all the information and experience necessary to build life and a universe.-No, I have returned you to accepting an FC of energy, you without a consciousness, me with a consciousness. Now I have got to make you realize that only conscious energy learns.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Tuesday, June 24, 2014, 17:22 (3803 days ago) @ David Turell
> > dhw: This is a welcome volte face since the days when you were dismissing as a "non-starter" the idea of your God experimenting,..... And this makes it possible that the intelligence of first cause energy evolved in exactly the same way as our own intelligence ... expanding its potential as it gained information. There is no "mistake" here ... just two equally weird possibilities: eternal energy which knew it all; eternal energy which had to learn. > > And I have brought you to accepting an eternal force which is behind the creaton of our reality. Our only difference is you want it to learn as it goes along. Since the Big Bang is an instant in first space-time, what source did your cause learn from, or was your first cause (FC) a very fast learner? > > > > dhw: Physician, heal thyself! While I continue to delve into the various alternatives, having faith in none of them, you have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve the religious image of an eternally conscious power magically endowed with all the information and experience necessary to build life and a universe. > > No, I have returned you to accepting an FC of energy, you without a consciousness, me with a consciousness. Now I have got to make you realize that only conscious energy learns.-One possible solution: One of QM's basis is "probability". this FC energy you speak of is "self taught" because of the way we are using the word "smarty pants".-another possible solution: I watched my kid wash a few ants down a crack while laughing. I see no reason for the universe not to have done things like this with the same malice my 6 1/2 yr old did.-This stuff is easy once we understand there is more tham one answer with the information we have. FC, QM style. It is even easier when our conclusions are locked into what we know and what we are seeking to learn.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 24, 2014, 20:05 (3803 days ago) @ GateKeeper
David: No, I have returned you to accepting an FC of energy, you without a consciousness, me with a consciousness. Now I have got to make you realize that only conscious energy learns. > > GK: One possible solution: One of QM's basis is "probability". this FC energy you speak of is "self taught" because of the way we are using the word "smarty pants".-But all of QM is probability. That is all we have, and neat equations that work. > > GK:another possible solution: I watched my kid wash a few ants down a crack while laughing. I see no reason for the universe not to have done things like this with the same malice my 6 1/2 yr old did.-I don't follow. > > GK: This stuff is easy once we understand there is more tham one answer with the information we have. FC, QM style. It is even easier when our conclusions are locked into what we know and what we are seeking to learn.-Fair enough
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 25, 2014, 00:47 (3803 days ago) @ David Turell
David: No, I have returned you to accepting an FC of energy, you without a consciousness, me with a consciousness. Now I have got to make you realize that only conscious energy learns. > > > > GK: One possible solution: One of QM's basis is "probability". this FC energy you speak of is "self taught" because of the way we are using the word "smarty pants". > > But all of QM is probability. That is all we have, and neat equations that work. > >-Not all. Buts its a biggie.- > > GK:another possible solution: I watched my kid wash a few ants down a crack while laughing. I see no reason for the universe not to have done things like this with the same malice my 6 1/2 yr old did. > > I don't follow. > > -If the universe "learned" it may have been "child like". We are in its image?
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 25, 2014, 02:07 (3803 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> > David I don't follow. > > > > > GK: If the universe "learned" it may have been "child like". > We are in its image?-I think we are in the image of the universal consciousness, which I view as God, in the fact that we have our own consciousness, simple as that. How much that consciousness had to learn is the debate I'm having with DHW.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
GK: If the universe "learned" it may have been "child like". We are in its image?-DAVID: I think we are in the image of the universal consciousness, which I view as God, in the fact that we have our own consciousness, simple as that. How much that consciousness had to learn is the debate I'm having with DHW.-A couple of weeks ago, David, you dismissed the idea that your God had to learn, because it made him indecisive and dithering. You then dismissed the parallel with our own intelligence - "a potential that develops accumulatively through experience of things that already exist" ... because it was "an anthropomorphic analysis". Now you are saying that our own consciousness is in the image of the universal consciousness ... in which case, if we reflect your God, your God must reflect us, and an anthropomorphic analysis is a perfectly reasonable one to make. HOW MUCH he had to learn is one more admission on your part that he had to learn, from which we can proceed from your hypothesis - of first cause energy always being conscious and in possession of the necessary information - to my alternative panpsychist hypothesis that first cause energy may not have become conscious until matter gave it something to be conscious of, thereby kickstarting the learning process.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 25, 2014, 19:10 (3802 days ago) @ dhw
GK: If the universe "learned" it may have been "child like". We are in its image? > > DAVID: I think we are in the image of the universal consciousness, which I view as God, in the fact that we have our own consciousness, simple as that. How much that consciousness had to learn is the debate I'm having with DHW. > > A couple of weeks ago, David, you dismissed the idea that your God had to learn, because it made him indecisive and dithering. You then dismissed the parallel with our own intelligence - "a potential that develops accumulatively through experience of things that already exist" ... because it was "an anthropomorphic analysis". Now you are saying that our own consciousness is in the image of the universal consciousness ... in which case, if we reflect your God, your God must reflect us, and an anthropomorphic analysis is a perfectly reasonably one to make. HOW MUCH he had to learn is one more admission on your part that he had to learn, from which we can proceed from your hypothesis - of first cause energy always being conscious and in possession of the necessary information - to my alternative panpsychist hypothesis that first cause energy may not have become conscious until matter gave it something to be conscious of, thereby kickstarting the learning process.-lmao It seems that even us perfect people, like the Gater-god, still can learn.-the bible is right. we are in its image. shush now, I know you guys don't like the bible. But for 2000 years ago? Eistien just aint that impressive to me. Base on what albie knew before he did what he did. Jesus was betting his life. albie was betting nothing. he was in a office job for the rest of his life if he didn't do something, anything.-then he dumped is wife and kid.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Thursday, June 26, 2014, 02:42 (3802 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK:lmao > the bible is right. we are in its image. shush now, I know you guys don't like the bible. But for 2000 years ago? Eistien just aint that impressive to me. Base on what albie knew before he did what he did. Jesus was betting his life. albie was betting nothing. he was in a office job for the rest of his life if he didn't do something, anything. > > then he dumped is wife and kid.-Who is albie?
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Thursday, June 26, 2014, 12:23 (3802 days ago) @ David Turell
> > GK:lmao > > the bible is right. we are in its image. shush now, I know you guys don't like the bible. But for 2000 years ago? Eistien just aint that impressive to me. Base on what albie knew before he did what he did. Jesus was betting his life. albie was betting nothing. he was in a office job for the rest of his life if he didn't do something, anything. > > > > then he dumped is wife and kid. > > Who is albie?-albie eistien.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Thursday, June 26, 2014, 15:17 (3801 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> > > GK:lmao > > > the bible is right. we are in its image. shush now, I know you guys don't like the bible. But for 2000 years ago? Eistien just aint that impressive to me. Base on what albie knew before he did what he did. Jesus was betting his life. albie was betting nothing. he was in a office job for the rest of his life if he didn't do something, anything. > > > > > > then he dumped is wife and kid. > > > > David: Who is albie? > > GK: albie eistien.-That is a fascinating biography of Albert Einstein. As a clerk, it gave him some kind of income while cooking up his special relativity theory. As a Jew he had very few other avenues to go forward.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Thursday, June 26, 2014, 02:32 (3802 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Now you are saying that our own consciousness is in the image of the universal consciousness ... in which case, if we reflect your God, your God must reflect us, and an anthropomorphic analysis is a perfectly reasonably one to make. -You forget we are made in His image, not the other way around. We immitate His makeup. The UC is in the quantum layer of reality. I view that layer as totally interconnected and timeless and only partially connected to us. Only when we do an experiment like the recent Wheeler delayed-choice do we see this. The secondary choice changes the first measurement in our layer of reality, but the interconnectedness of the particles in timeless quantum reality explains why. No time change in quantum reality, just sister particle relationships influencing each other, but since in our space-time reality we see sequential activity we see a confusing result because of our time consciousness. This is what Kastner was driving at with her transactional analysis.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw: Now you are saying that our own consciousness is in the image of the universal consciousness ... in which case, if we reflect your God, your God must reflect us, and an anthropomorphic analysis is a perfectly reasonable one to make. -DAVID: You forget we are made in His image, not the other way around. We immitate His makeup. You are again viewing the result of my thinking with anthropomorphic objections. The UC does not need matter or events to be eternal and to contain information and intelligence through a timeless eternity, until at some juncture the UC acts to create a universe and life. And the UC is in the quantum layer of reality, not ours.-If I make something in my image, it must resemble me, and I must resemble it. Therefore we resemble your God. You specified that this image related to consciousness. Therefore there must be resemblances between God's consciousness and ours, and so it is perfectly reasonable to apply an anthropomorphic analysis to your personal interpretation of God's thinking.-dhw: I agree that only conscious energy learns, .... But how does energy become conscious? According to you, it's always been conscious. However, to be conscious, you must have something to be conscious of! DAVID: Simply, I am allowed to develop a concept of my universal consciousness in any form with any attributes I wish. It may seem illogical to you that I arrived at this description, but that is what I have concluded. -Of course you are allowed to believe what you want. However, I am also allowed to point out that a different concept of God (not to mention of the origin of the universe and life) can be extrapolated from the not illogical premise that consciousness can only function if there is something for it to be conscious of, and that information about matter can hardly exist before matter itself exists, and that any inventor will therefore have to gather information as he goes along. Such responses as "non-starter", "a mistake", "your own invention", "illogical", "anthropomorphic" sound just a little hollow when the only criterion appears to be your right to give your God whatever attributes you wish. The panpsychist hypothesis that forms the subject of this thread may be as full of flaws as your own concept of a universal consciousness, but I'd be most surprised if your theories concerning the presence of a universal consciousness in the quantum layer of reality were regarded by your fellow quantum theorists as being more likely than the presence of multiple consciousnesses or the presence of no consciousness at all.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Friday, June 27, 2014, 01:20 (3801 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: If I make something in my image, it must resemble me, and I must resemble it. Therefore we resemble your God. You specified that this image related to consciousness. Therefore there must be resemblances between God's consciousness and ours, and so it is perfectly reasonable to apply an anthropomorphic analysis to your personal interpretation of God's thinking.-Again, not the way I view it. I think of our consciousness as a very small manifestation of the UC; yes, resembling it but nowhere as complex or powerful in its attributes.-> > dhw: Of course you are allowed to believe what you want. However, I am also allowed to point out that a different concept of God (not to mention of the origin of the universe and life) can be extrapolated from the not illogical premise that consciousness can only function if there is something for it to be conscious of, and that information about matter can hardly exist before matter itself exists, and that any inventor will therefore have to gather information as he goes along. Such responses as "non-starter", "a mistake", "your own invention", "illogical", "anthropomorphic" sound just a little hollow when the only criterion appears to be your right to give your God whatever attributes you wish.-You may certainly make up any rules you wish for your concept of the UC. I see no reason why my UC cannot be entirely self-conscious without matter being present. We start at very different points in this discussion. Adler, my mentor, describes God as a'person like no other person, like no one we can conceive of or imagine. There is a vast gap between human persons and God, the person. Yes we are in His consciousness image, but each of us is a very tiny portion of what He is. This is why you and I are talking at cross-purposes. You are leaving out the enormous power in the UC, and since you are not following Adler, as I do, our discussion is worlds apart. You are trying to apply human thought to something quite different.-> dhw:The panpsychist hypothesis that forms the subject of this thread may be as full of flaws as your own concept of a universal consciousness, but I'd be most surprised if your theories concerning the presence of a universal consciousness in the quantum layer of reality were regarded by your fellow quantum theorists as being more likely than the presence of multiple consciousnesses or the presence of no consciousness at all.-The quantum theorists I read don't talk about dieties.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
DAVID: You may certainly make up any rules you wish for your concept of the UC. I see no reason why my UC cannot be entirely self-conscious without matter being present. We start at very different points in this discussion. Adler, my mentor, describes God as a'person like no other person, like no one we can conceive of or imagine. There is a vast gap between human persons and God, the person. Yes we are in His consciousness image, but each of us is a very tiny portion of what He is. This is why you and I are talking at cross-purposes. You are leaving out the enormous power in the UC, and since you are not following Adler, as I do, our discussion is worlds apart. You are trying to apply human thought to something quite different.-If I believed in God (and remember, I neither believe nor disbelieve), I would accept that he is a person like no other person, we are a tiny portion of what he is, he is enormously powerful etc. We can't create universes or life or the mechanisms of evolution, and so those claims would be entirely credible. But I still wouldn't understand how he could know all about matter before matter exists, and so I would ask myself if this might possibly indicate that like ourselves, he fulfils the potential of his intelligence by gathering information and learning as he goes along. I might even ask myself what he might have done with his self-consciousness for all of eternity before turning his energy particles into matter. I would not dismiss such questions or their possible answers as a mistake, a non-starter, illogical, anthropomorphic. And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open. dhw: The panpsychist hypothesis that forms the subject of this thread may be as full of flaws as your own concept of a universal consciousness, but I'd be most surprised if your theories concerning the presence of a universal consciousness in the quantum layer of reality were regarded by your fellow quantum theorists as being more likely than the presence of multiple consciousnesses or the presence of no consciousness at all. DAVID: The quantum theorists I read don't talk about dieties.-Hardly surprising, since a glance at Wikipedia will tell you that many of the most prominent names are atheists. Of course that doesn't mean they are right, but it does suggest that quantum theory provides no more solid a basis for your beliefs than any other branch of the sciences.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, June 28, 2014, 13:50 (3800 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: If I believed in God (and remember, I neither believe nor disbelieve), I would accept that he is a person like no other person, we are a tiny portion of what he is, he is enormously powerful etc. A)We can't create universes or life or the mechanisms of evolution, and so those claims would be entirely credible. But B) I still wouldn't understand how he could know all about matter before matter exists, and so I would ask myself if this might possibly indicate that like ourselves, C)he fulfills the potential of his intelligence by gathering information and learning as he goes along.- A) We can not even conceive their complexity or elegance, much less create it ourselves.-B) Because he designed the rules that govern it, perhaps. I mean, if you were creating a car you could conceive and design it long before you implemented it.-C) Possible, no way to know. -DHW:) A)I might even ask myself what he might have done with his self-consciousness for all of eternity before turning his energy particles into matter. I would not dismiss such questions or their possible answers as a mistake, a non-starter, illogical, anthropomorphic. B) And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course C) that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open.- A) Perhaps it was spent working out all the details before he implemented them.-B) Of course it is, and some of us believe there is actually a "How To" book... some believe there are several...-C) No, your curse is that you can't believe without seeing, that you demand evidence, that you have no faith; not in science, and not in god. Personally, I think I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe, whether I was right or not.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Saturday, June 28, 2014, 21:10 (3799 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > DHW:) A)I might even ask myself what he might have done with his self-consciousness for all of eternity before turning his energy particles into matter. I would not dismiss such questions or their possible answers as a mistake, a non-starter, illogical, anthropomorphic. B) And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course C) that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open. > > > Tony: A) Perhaps it was spent working out all the details before he implemented them. > > B) Of course it is, and some of us believe there is actually a "How To" book... some believe there are several... > > C) No, your curse is that you can't believe without seeing, that you demand evidence, that you have no faith; not in science, and not in god. Personally, I think I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe, whether I was right or not.-Wonderful answers. Thank you.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
DHW (to David): If I believed in God (and remember, I neither believe nor disbelieve), I would accept that he is a person like no other person, we are a tiny portion of what he is, he is enormously powerful etc. A)We can't create universes or life or the mechanisms of evolution, and so those claims would be entirely credible. But B) I still wouldn't understand how he could know all about matter before matter exists, and so I would ask myself if this might possibly indicate that like ourselves, C)he fulfills the potential of his intelligence by gathering information and learning as he goes along.-TONY: A) We can not even conceive their complexity or elegance, much less create it ourselves. B) Because he designed the rules that govern it, perhaps. I mean, if you were creating a car you could conceive and design it long before you implemented it. C) Possible, no way to know.-I could not conceive and design a car without already being possessed of vast amounts of knowledge accumulated over millennia of experience, ranging from the invention of the wheel to the mechanics of locomotion. This is the point that I don't seem to be able to get across to anyone: that if the first cause was pure energy, nothing else existed. There was no matter. Even if that energy was conscious, it would have had to make matter out of itself, and if matter had never existed before, how could it know how all the different forms would behave? David's answer is that God's consciousness is different from ours, and so we shouldn't ask such anthropomorphic questions. I have every right to ask such questions, and if I come up with a speculative answer (e.g. that your God had to learn as he went along), it should be taken seriously as a logical possibility. DHW:) A)I might even ask myself what he might have done with his self-consciousness for all of eternity before turning his energy particles into matter. I would not dismiss such questions or their possible answers as a mistake, a non-starter, illogical, anthropomorphic. B) And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course C) that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open.-TONY: A) Perhaps it was spent working out all the details before he implemented them.-Or perhaps he experimented with other universes and even other forms of life, for ever and ever. Or perhaps he wasn't even aware of anything until his energy happened to transmute itself into matter. We don't know, so one speculation is potentially as valid as another. (This is also my answer to David, who says God "would have to know about matter before he created it or how would He invent a universe which works?")-TONY: B) Of course it is, and some of us believe there is actually a "How To" book... some believe there are several... C) No, your curse is that you can't believe without seeing, that you demand evidence, that you have no faith; not in science, and not in god. Personally, I think I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe, whether I was right or not.-Of course I used "curse" ironically. I don't feel cursed. I am in fact blessed with a generally happy nature and have led a happy life. I have long since grown accustomed to living with my ignorance, although I opened up this website because I'm still eager to learn. It's true that the evidence I've heard from both sides still fails to convince me, but even this has proved to be a source of enjoyment and education, because people like David and yourself have offered me marvellous and stimulating company over the years. As for belief, I don't see it as a matter of "would rather". Either you have faith or you don't. And belief or disbelief or non-belief in God is only a problem if you consider it a problem. In fact, I suspect belief causes more problems than disbelief or non-belief, but that's another subject.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Sunday, June 29, 2014, 16:03 (3798 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Even if that energy was conscious, it would have had to make matter out of itself, and if matter had never existed before, how could it know how all the different forms would behave? David's answer is that God's consciousness is different from ours, and so we shouldn't ask such anthropomorphic questions. I have every right to ask such questions, and if I come up with a speculative answer (e.g. that your God had to learn as he went along), it should be taken seriously as a logical possibility.-I have granted that God might have had to do some experimenting. Since the universe evolved, glitches are conceiveable. But the initial fermions (matter particles) and bosons (field particles) had to be pre-designed so they all worked together as the BB began. The 'designer universe' observations do not suggest any aspect of impreciseness. Some of the exact numbers required extend out to trillions of decimal places. The current theory about the Higgs is that it must be very exact or the universe would have collapsed upon itself in the beginning, since it provides the field that gives mass to all particles. Do you think this interlocking dependence invented itself? > > dhw: [1]Or perhaps he experimented with other universes and even other forms of life, for ever and ever. [2] Or perhaps he wasn't even aware of anything until his energy happened to transmute itself into matter. We don't know, so one speculation is potentially as valid as another. (This is also my answer to David, who says God "would have to know about matter before he created it or how would He invent a universe which works?")-I can accept proposal [1]. I think [2] makes no sense. Why did his energy become matter? More chance as your 'energy happened to transmute" strongly implies?-> > dhw: Of course I used "curse" ironically. I don't feel cursed. I am in fact blessed with a generally happy nature and have led a happy life. I have long since grown accustomed to living with my ignorance, although I opened up this website because I'm still eager to learn. ... As for belief, I don't see it as a matter of "would rather". Either you have faith or you don't. And belief or disbelief or non-belief in God is only a problem if you consider it a problem. -Excellent self-analysis. And we'll continue to discuss in that vein.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw: Even if that energy was conscious, it would have had to make matter out of itself, and if matter had never existed before, how could it know how all the different forms would behave? David's answer is that God's consciousness is different from ours, and so we shouldn't ask such anthropomorphic questions. I have every right to ask such questions, and if I come up with a speculative answer (e.g. that your God had to learn as he went along), it should be taken seriously as a logical possibility.-DAVID: I have granted that God might have had to do some experimenting. Since the universe evolved, glitches are conceiveable. But the initial fermions (matter particles) and bosons (field particles) had to be pre-designed so they all worked together as the BB began. The 'designer universe' observations do not suggest any aspect of impreciseness. Some of the exact numbers required extend out to trillions of decimal places. The current theory about the Higgs is that it must be very exact or the universe would have collapsed upon itself in the beginning, since it provides the field that gives mass to all particles. Do you think this interlocking dependence invented itself?-An impressive answer, until one considers the fact that Higgs himself, like Hawking and many others in this highly specialized field, is an atheist. Are these people such fools that they don't understand the implications of their own studies? As a layman I can't argue with you or with them, but the different conclusions make it clear that you all use science to bolster theories that are based on pure speculation. At least, though, you do have the grace to acknowledge periodically that it all comes down to faith. -dhw: [1]Or perhaps he experimented with other universes and even other forms of life, for ever and ever. [2] Or perhaps he wasn't even aware of anything until his energy happened to transmute itself into matter. We don't know, so one speculation is potentially as valid as another. (This is also my answer to David, who says God "would have to know about matter before he created it or how would He invent a universe which works?")-DAVID: I can accept proposal [1]. I think [2] makes no sense. Why did his energy become matter? More chance as your 'energy happened to transmute" strongly implies?-I might just as well ask why his energy was or became conscious. You demand answers to questions you know are unanswerable, but you do not accept that the same questions can be asked about your own hypothesis. This is the basis of agnosticism. We know NONE of the answers.-dhw: Of course I used "curse" ironically. I don't feel cursed. I am in fact blessed with a generally happy nature and have led a happy life. I have long since grown accustomed to living with my ignorance, although I opened up this website because I'm still eager to learn. ... As for belief, I don't see it as a matter of "would rather". Either you have faith or you don't. And belief or disbelief or non-belief in God is only a problem if you consider it a problem. DAVID: Excellent self-analysis. And we'll continue to discuss in that vein. -I hope so!
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Monday, June 30, 2014, 15:32 (3797 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: An impressive answer, until one considers the fact that Higgs himself, like Hawking and many others in this highly specialized field, is an atheist. Are these people such fools that they don't understand the implications of their own studies? As a layman I can't argue with you or with them, but the different conclusions make it clear that you all use science to bolster theories that are based on pure speculation. At least, though, you do have the grace to acknowledge periodically that it all comes down to faith.-Yes, they have faith in pure chance, and I have faith in a guiding intelligence. Scientism's ego is very powerful. I point to Paul Davies and Simon conway Morris as the exceptions. > > dhw: I might just as well ask why his energy was or became conscious. You demand answers to questions you know are unanswerable, but you do not accept that the same questions can be asked about your own hypothesis. This is the basis of agnosticism. We know NONE of the answers.-Of course we don't. This is where the leap to faith occurs, obvoiusly accepting the best answer.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Saturday, June 28, 2014, 21:05 (3799 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: If I believed in God (and remember, I neither believe nor disbelieve), I would accept that he is a person like no other person, we are a tiny portion of what he is, he is enormously powerful etc. We can't create universes or life or the mechanisms of evolution, and so those claims would be entirely credible. But I still wouldn't understand how he could know all about matter before matter exists, -God, in my view, would have to know about matter before he created it or how would He invent a universe which works? Yes, there is the possibiltiy of some experimentation since He used the process of evolution in having the universe develop from the BB.-> dhw: And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open. -Mine is also. > > dhw:Hardly surprising, since a glance at Wikipedia will tell you that many of the most prominent names are atheists. Of course that doesn't mean they are right, but it does suggest that quantum theory provides no more solid a basis for your beliefs than any other branch of the sciences.-I have chosen to place God in the quantum layer of reality. He can hid there and still run things. That is as far as I can go.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw: This is a welcome volte face since the days when you were dismissing as a "non-starter" the idea of your God experimenting,..... And this makes it possible that the intelligence of first cause energy evolved in exactly the same way as our own intelligence ... expanding its potential as it gained information. There is no "mistake" here ... just two equally weird possibilities.-DAVID: And I have brought you to accepting an eternal force which is behind the creaton of our reality. Our only difference is you want it to learn as it goes along.-Hold on! Firstly, I'm suggesting "equally weird" alternatives. I don't "want" anything. Secondly, you've already conceded that eternal energy may have learned as it went along. You wrote: "I know evolutionary processes were used for both the universe and for the development of life's variety. Therefore it is entirely possible that some information had to be developed during the evolutions..." If information had to be developed, it was not already available. Please keep this in mind for the next point. DAVID: Since the Big Bang is an instant in first space-time, what source did your cause learn from, or was your first cause (FC) a very fast learner?-First, you can't have it both ways, that the Big Bang was the start of time but first cause energy existed before the Big Bang. You cannot have a before without time. Secondly, you have agreed that first cause energy might well have created other universes before this one, which would certainly have given it experience of working with matter. Thirdly, even if it didn't, the beginning of the process would have had to be your first cause "pure energy" turning its own particles into matter, in which case it had to learn at the same speed as the particles in my panpsychist hypothesis. Your alternative is that it didn't have to learn. It knew everything already (although you've admitted above that its not knowing everything is "entirely possible"). I will deal with this below. -dhw: Physician, heal thyself! While I continue to delve into the various alternatives, having faith in none of them, you have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve the religious image of an eternally conscious power magically endowed with all the information and experience necessary to build life and a universe. DAVID: No, I have returned you to accepting an FC of energy, you without a consciousness, me with a consciousness. Now I have got to make you realize that only conscious energy learns.-I agree that only conscious energy learns, which is why I disagree when you keep insisting that organisms like ants and bacteria are mere automata, even though we know they learn. But how does energy become conscious? According to you, it's always been conscious. However, to be conscious, you must have something to be conscious of! If nothing happened, your God might just as well have been unconscious. My alternative is that first cause energy was not conscious. It only became conscious when it turned into changeable matter, so there was something for it to be conscious of. Now I have got to make you realize that consciousness that has always had information which did not exist until there was something to be conscious of is a logical impossibility.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 25, 2014, 18:48 (3802 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: This is a welcome volte face since the days when you were dismissing as a "non-starter" the idea of your God experimenting,..... And this makes it possible that the intelligence of first cause energy evolved in exactly the same way as our own intelligence ... expanding its potential as it gained information. There is no "mistake" here ... just two equally weird possibilities. > > DAVID: And I have brought you to accepting an eternal force which is behind the creaton of our reality. Our only difference is you want it to learn as it goes along. > > Hold on! Firstly, I'm suggesting "equally weird" alternatives. I don't "want" anything. Secondly, you've already conceded that eternal energy may have learned as it went along. You wrote: "I know evolutionary processes were used for both the universe and for the development of life's variety. Therefore it is entirely possible that some information had to be developed during the evolutions..." If information had to be developed, it was not already available. Please keep this in mind for the next point. > > DAVID: Since the Big Bang is an instant in first space-time, what source did your cause learn from, or was your first cause (FC) a very fast learner? > > First, you can't have it both ways, that the Big Bang was the start of time but first cause energy existed before the Big Bang. You cannot have a before without time. Secondly, you have agreed that first cause energy might well have created other universes before this one, which would certainly have given it experience of working with matter. Thirdly, even if it didn't, the beginning of the process would have had to be your first cause "pure energy" turning its own particles into matter, in which case it had to learn at the same speed as the particles in my panpsychist hypothesis. Your alternative is that it didn't have to learn. It knew everything already (although you've admitted above that its not knowing everything is "entirely possible"). I will deal with this below. > > dhw: Physician, heal thyself! While I continue to delve into the various alternatives, having faith in none of them, you have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve the religious image of an eternally conscious power magically endowed with all the information and experience necessary to build life and a universe. > DAVID: No, I have returned you to accepting an FC of energy, you without a consciousness, me with a consciousness. Now I have got to make you realize that only conscious energy learns. > > I agree that only conscious energy learns, which is why I disagree when you keep insisting that organisms like ants and bacteria are mere automata, even though we know they learn. But how does energy become conscious? According to you, it's always been conscious. However, to be conscious, you must have something to be conscious of! If nothing happened, your God might just as well have been unconscious. My alternative is that first cause energy was not conscious. It only became conscious when it turned into changeable matter, so there was something for it to be conscious of. Now I have got to make you realize that consciousness that has always had information which did not exist until there was something to be conscious of is a logical impossibility.-although I disagree with david here. It is possible to "become aware" before what I think you are calling "changeable matter". It may come down to the misunderstanding of "energy". The term "energy" has to be used very precisely here for you to understand. I don't think david is being clear enough for you. I could be wrong with that though. I am way better at talking in person with diagrams than I am at reading, and righting. That spellering was intentional.-Your notions are 100% correct in how I see you presenting your idea. It is consistant with how physics uses the term "energy" when we get to this level. His God is, although very close to what I believe, is no more rational than your conclusion in my opinion. -I agree that Ants are "automatic" right now. But we have to dump the notion of human time scales. I agree with your notion that Ants are learning, everything is learning. Ants are a bodyless brain. Brains learn.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Thursday, June 26, 2014, 02:38 (3802 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: Your notions are 100% correct in how I see you presenting your idea. It is consistant with how physics uses the term "energy" when we get to this level. His God is, although very close to what I believe, is no more rational than your conclusion in my opinion. -Please consider the placement of the UC (God) in the quantum layer of reality. I think that increases the probable rationality
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Thursday, June 26, 2014, 12:42 (3802 days ago) @ David Turell
GK: Your notions are 100% correct in how I see you presenting your idea. It is consistant with how physics uses the term "energy" when we get to this level. His God is, although very close to what I believe, is no more rational than your conclusion in my opinion. > > Please consider the placement of the UC (God) in the quantum layer of reality. I think that increases the probable rationality-ok. we started at qurk gluon soup. The the QM component is "in" this soup. Well, there is a better way to say it. But you guys get it. -could you Explain to me useing parts of the qm model how this "awareness" is working? Before I place our god in QM. For now, just limit its functionality in QM. With the understanding we all know its in the fabric of space to cosmic webs. -on a side note ... don't cammas go between "me" and "how"?-anther side note: gamma ray bursters remind me of atp to adp.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Thursday, June 26, 2014, 15:22 (3801 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: could you Explain to me useing parts of the qm model how this "awareness" is working? Before I place our god in QM. For now, just limit its functionality in QM. With the understanding we all know its in the fabric of space to cosmic webs. -If I realy knew how God worked, this would end all discussions.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Thursday, June 26, 2014, 18:35 (3801 days ago) @ David Turell
> > GK: could you Explain to me useing parts of the qm model how this "awareness" is working? Before I place our god in QM. For now, just limit its functionality in QM. With the understanding we all know its in the fabric of space to cosmic webs. > > If I realy knew how God worked, this would end all discussions.-I do not have as much faith as you do. It is why I kept looking.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Thursday, June 26, 2014, 01:35 (3802 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I agree that only conscious energy learns, .... But how does energy become conscious? According to you, it's always been conscious. However, to be conscious, you must have something to be conscious of!-Simply, I am allowed to develop a concept of my universal consciousness in any form with any attributes I wish. It may seem illogical to you that I arrived at this description, but that is what I have concluded. You are again viewing the result of my thinking with anthropomorphic objections. The UC does not need matter or events to be eternal and to contain information and intelligence through a timeless eternity, until at some juncture the UC acts to create a universe and life. And the UC is in the quantum layer of reality, not ours.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
dhw: But any version of first cause energy is counterintuitive: 1) intelligence and information magically all present and correct without a beginning; 2) a total blank that by chance hits on a winning formula; 3) energy as a single entity of potential intelligence that magically becomes aware of itself and can experiment and learn to create universes and life; 4) energy as potential intelligence that forms particles of matter which magically become aware of themselves so that they cooperate to form universes and life. You could argue that all of these counterintuitive hypotheses belong to "the quantum level of reality", which nobody understands. One brick wall is as impenetrable as another.-DAVID: I am sorry you are having problems with my first cause. I have my concept which is, restated, God had enough intelligence and information to make a universe and get life started. He used evolutionary processes for both. I don't know why He did. Anything else is guess work.-I still find it impossible to conceive how intelligent energy could have had any information at all about the behaviour of matter before matter even existed. dhw: My point was that the possibility of experimentation in the one field denotes incomplete information, and that enhances the possibility of incomplete information in every field, from the creation of matter onwards. DAVID: That is your guess. Maybe He just tweaked when He felt like it, maybe only to speed a process that would have gotten to US HUMANS eventually. Actually He has all the time in the world to accomplish anything.-You have missed my point. You have acknowledged the possibility that your God might have had to experiment in order to get to us. If his knowledge in that field was incomplete, it is equally possible that his knowledge in the field of universe-creating was also incomplete. The possibility that first cause energy was a potential rather than an actual intelligence is therefore bolstered by your acceptance that your God may have had to experiment in at least one area of his activity. DAVID: Never potential intelligence. "Which came first chicken or egg" type of argument. Pure energy invented its own intelligence? Illogical.-Evolved, not invented. It is indeed a chicken or egg argument. The idea that energy has always been intelligent and possessed of the information needed to make universes and life, even before the existence of matter, is no less illogical. dhw: I'm not seeking to replace one illogical hypothesis with another. ....I say about the origin of the universe and life, it's all guesswork. That's why some of us find it so difficult to climb off the agnostic fence! DAVID: You are on the fence because you don't like my logic. So you find other explanations which are totally illogical.-I have complete respect for your FAITH, but I don't like your insistence that your own illogical hypothesis (which you prefer to gently call "counterintuitive") is more logical than any other illogical hypothesis. I have said repeatedly that NONE of these hypotheses are logical, because they all come up against the brick wall of inexplicable life and consciousness. Hence agnosticism.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Friday, June 20, 2014, 18:36 (3807 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I still find it impossible to conceive how intelligent energy could have had any information at all about the behaviour of matter before matter even existed. -Because the inventor knows what he is creating > dhw:The possibility that first cause energy was a potential rather than an actual intelligence is therefore bolstered by your acceptance that your God may have had to experiment in at least one area of his activity.-These are your conjured up possibilities, not mine. > > Dhw: I have complete respect for your FAITH, but I don't like your insistence that your own illogical hypothesis (which you prefer to gently call "counterintuitive") is more logical than any other illogical hypothesis. I have said repeatedly that NONE of these hypotheses are logical, because they all come up against the brick wall of inexplicable life and consciousness. Hence agnosticism.-Hence the need for faith.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 02:03 (3810 days ago) @ dhw
dwh->you will find yourself in the difficult position of acknowledging that his intelligence is not unlike our own: potential rather than actual, until it gains information and learns how to use it. And once you agree to that, you could find yourself on the slippery slope to my panpsychist hypothesis. Ah, Heaven forbid!->-we are part of that intelligence, so I would expect ours to have parts of what his has. Just like a blood cell operates with many of the same structures as a neuron.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 06:14 (3810 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: we are part of that intelligence, so I would expect ours to have parts of what his has. Just like a blood cell operates with many of the same structures as a neuron.-Are you talking aobut red or white blood cells, and either way neurons are very different? I'm not really following you.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 12:39 (3810 days ago) @ David Turell
> > GK: we are part of that intelligence, so I would expect ours to have parts of what his has. Just like a blood cell operates with many of the same structures as a neuron. > > Are you talking aobut red or white blood cells, and either way neurons are very different? I'm not really following you.-Maybe I picked a poor example. how about muscle and neuron cells? I meant structures within cells are very similar. Like motor proteins, f0/f1's, and mitochondria. Not to mention members and membrane transport mechanism using integral and peripheral proteins. But the cell functions are different. -The brain that is you has many of the same parts that the rest of your body has. I and the father are one. You and your body are one. For two thousand years agoa that man was smart. -I will have to read up on blood make up. Thanks.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
Dhw(to David): you will find yourself in the difficult position of acknowledging that his intelligence is not unlike our own: potential rather than actual, until it gains information and learns how to use it. And once you agree to that, you could find yourself on the slippery slope to my panpsychist hypothesis. Ah, Heaven forbid!-Gatekeeper: we are part of that intelligence, so I would expect ours to have parts of what his has. Just like a blood cell operates with many of the same structures as a neuron.-If God exists, I too would expect our intelligence to be like his (though immeasurably inferior). The logical corollary, of course, is that in that case, his intelligence would be like ours ... e.g. in its ability to learn from and build on experience. That is the point I'm making in my discussion with David. Alternatively, if God does not exist as a single being, we have zillions of evolved and evolving intelligences (though different in their makeup) operating in the same accumulative and progressive way.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 15:21 (3809 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw(to David): you will find yourself in the difficult position of acknowledging that his intelligence is not unlike our own: potential rather than actual, until it gains information and learns how to use it. And once you agree to that, you could find yourself on the slippery slope to my panpsychist hypothesis. Ah, Heaven forbid! > > Gatekeeper: we are part of that intelligence, so I would expect ours to have parts of what his has. Just like a blood cell operates with many of the same structures as a neuron. > > If God exists, I too would expect our intelligence to be like his (though immeasurably inferior). The logical corollary, of course, is that in that case, his intelligence would be like ours ... e.g. in its ability to learn from and build on experience. That is the point I'm making in my discussion with David. Alternatively, if God does not exist as a single being, we have zillions of evolved and evolving intelligences (though different in their makeup) operating in the same accumulative and progressive way.->>-I would counter using the notions of quantum computing. And piggy back that with how our type of life uses the resources in this region of space.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Saturday, June 14, 2014, 15:11 (3813 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:This surprised and secretly pleased me, but in response to my challenge, David modified his statement later: > > DAVID: I think God [...] has planned out all the quantum particles that drop out of the plasma and form constituents of matter. These particles have an automatic way of falling together, as they consistently do it the same way as shown by particle physics results. They are in concise families with definite ways of acting. > > dhw: Since our most difficult problem is to explain the complexities of life and consciousness, I'm going to put David's first statement ("doesn't require intelligence") together with his second, concerning "an automatic way of falling together". This is what most of us would call "natural law", and if this is how matter consistently behaves when it comes into existence, there is indeed no requirement for intelligence.-You can't get rid of initial intelligence which set up the 'natural law' to allow the automatic falling together. I still stick with intelligence first.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by GateKeeper , Tuesday, June 17, 2014, 12:02 (3811 days ago) @ David Turell
istence, there is indeed no requirement for intelligence. > > You can't get rid of initial intelligence which set up the 'natural law' to allow the automatic falling together. I still stick with intelligence first.-You kind of have to gives us something in the way of a mechanism We don't have to agree with it .I see two possible ways. at least.
A Panpsychist Hypothesis
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 17, 2014, 15:33 (3810 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK:You kind of have to gives us something in the way of a mechanism We don't have to agree with it .I see two possible ways. at least.-Give us your thoughts.