Consciousness as a fundamental quality of the universe

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, midniterider said:

If everyone sees the Sun orbit the Earth every single day....then the consensus conclusion is that the Sun orbits the Earth. That's objective. Everyone's incorrect conclusion (haha).

 

Exactly. We know that we can't rely on observation at face value to reveal truth. What I find interesting is that analytic idealism is also called objective idealism. That sort of makes it clearer. It's thinking objectively about idealism. I can ask the question, "what is the objective world," and the answer will come back that it's a manifestation of conscious existence. Consciousness / awareness itself IS the objective world. 

 

This relates very strongly towards the advancement of objective thinking, IMO. If this is correct and we see how the physicalist explanations break down in part 5, the less complex explanations, or the simplest explanation, comes down to the objective idealist explanation. He lays out the argument plainly and clearly. Doesn't mean he's right, but it does illustrate that he is arguing the simplest scientific explanation given a consideration of both explanations on the table. 

 

I'm moving on to part 6 about the subconscious mind: 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

Part 6 was interesting. It outlines the depths of introspection that is possible concerning Consciousness and consciousness. Framed through analytics about phenomenal and meta consciousness. In the west we don't have a tradition of strong introspection, whereas in the east there's a rich variety of words invoked to describe various aspects of consciousness. We lack the vocabulary to even keep up. 

 

And that basically shows how ancient Vedic traditions were able to have insight into things that philosophy and science are just now catching up to, basically. These issues about consciousness and Consciousness can be noticed and identified by paying close attention. Through meditation they were able to observe the difference between thoughts and looking deeper beyond thoughts to the observer aware of the thoughts streaming by. This goes towards the ancient ideas about universal consciousness. Which our western traditions are largely lacking. 

 

He tail ends part 6 with a summary of each episode in conclusion. 

 

Then introduces part 7 where he responds to common objections to AI: 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

1) The felt concreteness objection (things feel concrete).

 

The response is that feeling is a sense like vision and anything similar which boils down to mental. The matrix would "feel" as though it were solid and concrete as you're plugged into it's high-level virtual reality. But regardless, it wouldn't be. 

 

2) Private minds objection.

 

The response was delt with in part 4 concerning dissociation. The idea that we're dissociated aspects of a spatially unbound subject. Basically, the very thing that something like Advaita Vedanta gets into. The idea is that Brahman is pure transcendent energy consciousness. And the universe is made up entirely of that base foundation. They created those myths through 'introspection' which may have given eastern thinkers a leg up on western thinkers as far as noticing things which were going unnoticed in the west. 

 

3) Stand alone world objection. 

 

The response is a yes and no situation. Yes, the world as it is, the thing in and of itself, exists when someone is not looking at it. That which is beyond the veil of human perception is always there. But no when it comes to the dashboard of dials that are tools of interpreting the thing in itself. They are married to human perception. Other species see according to their species-specific perceptions of the thing in itself. Hoffman's desk top icons are the same as the dashboard analogy. 

 

4) The autonomy of nature objection. 

 

The response is that nature is a trans-personal form of universal consciousness. You are not the only one involved in a species-specific perception of icons or dials on the dashboard, to combine AI with CR. You can't just imagine the world to appear any which way you fancy because it doesn't boil down to you and you alone perceiving it. Humanity has evolved in such a way as to have species wide perceptions of the thing in itself, which, are indirect across the board, species wide. 

 

5) The shared world objection. 

 

The response is that dreaming reality idea is just a metaphor, one that does come from Vedic tradition. But it's not literal outside of the metaphorical context. And the response to objection 4 blankets this objection as well. There is a reality it's not just imagined or dreamed up. The issue is that we are perceiving reality through a system of dashboard dials or desktop icons. This is very different from independently dreaming up or imaging everything. 

 

6) Natural order objection.

 

This is probably the most common. And it's one that I have thought about over the years. I came up with the same general thinking that he has. There's no reason to think that something like universal consciousness would be the same as our human experience, except on higher or larger scale. Universal consciousness is entirely different type of experience or awareness. Most likely not concerning contemplative thought and such. That steam rolls not only theistic thinking but most new age bandwagons as well. They get expanded consciousness, but it doesn't turn out to be what they think it would be. Our human thinking of species-specific desk top icons and dials on a dashboard are the result of aeons upon aeons of evolution. And he points that out. 

 

7) I rest from listing the remaining objections and leave it to readers to push play on the video linked in my previous post....

 

Amen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

Thanks, Josh. I'll have to watch it now.  

[Joshpantera]

The cosmological history objection is what I was reflecting on a few pages back. Consciousness as primary, leading all the way down, making a phenomenal oriented universal consciousness as described in this series, especially concerning the factual issue of our perceptions as akin to dials on a dashboard or icons on a desktop, completely changes the way in which one has to look at the issue of perceptual and conceptual cosmology, including cosmological history! 

 

The objection is that there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of the universe way BEFORE consciousness arose on the planet. 

 

I never realized how (1) ignorant and (2) just what a strawman argument the cosmological history objection actually is until very recently. Geoff Haselhurst made this objection against idealism and idealist philosophers. 

 

According to AI universal wide phenomenal consciousness would have always been in play prior to the existence of earth, the evolution of life, and the rise of human beings and our species-specific oriented meta consciousness built on top of millions of years of evolution. And it was never just made up in the human mind. The human mind is merely an evolved way of perceiving something that has always been there, historically. 

 

The short idea is that our human consciousness is merely one type out of a potentially infinite sea of consciousness or awareness that can't have any more of a fixed beginning than existence itself can. Because existence and consciousness melt into a monistic, singular type of totality which can't be separated apart from the other according to the philosophy of AI and the scientific mathematical efforts of CR. 

 

I know better than to fall for the physicist's and cosmologist's big straw man against idealist philosophy now according to the details involved in the objection.

 

That doesn't prove idealism right, but it does illustrate the ignorance involved in very highly credentialed critics of the philosophy. Which should be embarrassing enough for them to step back a moment and try and reformulate their direction of criticism at the very minimum. To reveal just how much you don't understand the first thing about what you're criticizing, doesn't come off as very flattering towards one's intelligence....

[midniterider]

I may have more time to comment this weekend, but yeah if the universal mind is all there really is then matter was born from that. It doesnt matter how old the physical universe is. Not sure that's what you're saying or not. 

 

Matter may have 'always' been here but that doesnt mean it must necessarily pre-date the universal mind. Maybe the universal mind got bored being unextended in space and time, so gave things a little pop. We named it the big bang.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 hours ago, midniterider said:

 if the universal mind is all there really is then matter was born from that.

 

Matter may have 'always' been here but that doesnt mean it must necessarily pre-date the universal mind. Maybe the universal mind got bored being unextended in space and time, so gave things a little pop. We named it the big bang.

 

All the thinking on this subject is very interesting, but is boggling my brain!  (which is not too hard to do)    I'm more of a logical minded philosopher.  Physics (and math) has never been my cup of tea.

 

What midniterider said is something that has crossed my mind.  Trying to think of it logically, wouldn't it be more logical for consciousness to create matter, than for matter to magically produce consciousness?  I don't have time now to watch the videos above, but will try to do so in the next few days. 

[midniterider]

2 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

All the thinking on this subject is very interesting, but is boggling my brain!  (which is not too hard to do)    I'm more of a logical minded philosopher.  Physics (and math) has never been my cup of tea.

 

What midniterider said is something that has crossed my mind.  Trying to think of it logically, wouldn't it be more logical for consciousness to create matter, than for matter to magically produce consciousness?  I don't have time now to watch the videos above, but will try to do so in the next few days. 

 

I think it boggles the mind because we generally have been programmed to think that matter produces consciousness. I'm not sure if it would be more logical but it seems just as simple as physicalism. The evidence in particular that catches my eye is the study where 'rich' mental experiences like LSD trips or NDEs correlated with lower measure brain activity. You would think it would be the other way around if the brain caused consciousness.

 

I've heard the argument that an NDE must have been 'residual' electrical activity (though there was no recorded electrical signals). But if consciousness is simply brain activity (from a physicalist perspective) how can it produce such a vivid experience when it's 'nearly' dead? If the battery is  dying in your electric flashlight does the bulb get brighter or dimmer?  

 

There's some philosophical evidence (yes, those words can be used together just like 'thought experiment') that points to the primacy of consciousness. But being a product of the 20th century, whose roots are in physicalism, I'm not sure how we can know if AI is true or points to reality or what the future implications will be if it turns out to be true.  

 

I'm not married to any particular philosophy though. Nor do I think that it's important to hold tight to this philosophy or that one. Whether I agree with this one or that one has little impact on my daily living.  In any case it's fun to think about the implications of the primacy of consciousness. 

[Joshpantera]

Yes, the implications run wild. 

 

Hoffman mentioned in one of his interviews that it stands to further technology and science. One thing that I've been thinking about is that if true, then potentially advanced civilizations in the universe could have deduced the same, and possibly hammered it down as factual and could then use the technology associated with understanding reality beyond the space-time dials on the dashboard of perception.

 

This could be something added to the concept of stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, or stage 4 type civilizations.

 

Not just the ability to harness power of a planet, star, galaxy, or the whole universe, but also starting out with basic face value perceptions of existence which evolve through stage 1 - 4 type civilizations. 

 

And in both cases, we currently rank as below a full stage 1 civilization by those metrics. Perceptually, technically, and hell, spirituality by default when you look at it closely. Spiritually in the sense of knowing thyself and embracing fully the potential reality of existence. 

 

Christianity, of course, representing an extremely dumbed down rendition of human spirituality as I've argued in the Lion's Den...

 

 

[Joshpantera]

I'm going through the interview between Z Dogg MD and Kastrup, the double PhD: The True Nature Of Reality (w/Dr. Bernardo Kastrup) - YouTube

 

 

Turns out that Kastrup has a PhD in computer science, worked at CERN, and has been involved in artificial intelligence research AI. And has a second PhD in philosophy which founds his involvement arguing on behalf of analytic idealism, the other AI. 

 

His ideas about artificial intelligence and sentience are just as different and unorthodox as the rest. But they make sense IMO.

 

By this philosophy, creating a machine and thinking that you'll just connect a few wires together and suddenly its sentient - is the wrong way of approaching the issue. And he goes into a completely different approach. 

 

Machines, inanimate objects, and even universal consciousness are phenomenal. 

 

Meta-consciousness is the product of biological evolution. Specifically, metabolizing life. He argues that an AI wouldn't be meta-conscious. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

This introduces another player, Tom Campbell.

 

He has his own TOE which is founded on his own type of primary consciousness-based simulation theory. Some of the back-ground is that Tom is a physicist who speaks in his book about PSI oriented personal experimentation that he catalogued. He intentionally engaged himself as a subject in things like remote viewing experimentation. And had experiences that led him to a simulation theory. 

 

All of these guys (Donald Hoffman, Tom Campbell, and Bernardo Kastrup) are operating within the new paradigm shift, which is basing their models on an idealist philosophy of science. Instead of a materialist or physicalist philosophy of science. And they seem to think that models are not to be taken too literally. As models are not static. Which is a good point. 

 

I've taken a serious deep dive into analytic idealism. Free falling down its rabbit hole and taking in a shit load of interviews, information, and content. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

@TheRedneckProfessor

 

I'm going to transfer this Lion Den's content over here to preview against idealist philosophy. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2/11/2022 at 8:02 AM, Joshpantera said:

everything is a manifestation of fundamental consciousness / awareness interacting with itself.

"This right here would be golden for a half-baked apologist such as RKI, because, twisted to fit christian theology, it would allow for god to retain his omnipotence and omniscience while still permitting us free will.  If individual consciousness is the universe experiencing itself, then, in an infinite universe filled with infinite possibilities, every possible choice and every potential outcome already exists (god's omni-shit); but I only experience the choices I make and the consequences thereof (free will).

 

Unfortunately, RKI has already asserted that god exists outside of time and space, which means he would not be able to operate within a universe that consists largely of infinite time and space.  So, while it might be a good apologetic for a different apologist, sadly RKI has already shot his own foot on this one." - RNP

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

This is why understanding things like idealist philosophy and the related implications are a tool of knowledge that I think counter apologists would do well to familiarize themselves with. 

 

All of the omni's line up like you told him. Including omnipresence.

 

The issue here is that RKI is stuck with dualistic thinking with his assertions about outside of time and space. Idealism breaks down to non-duality. They can't get an 'all is mind' platform without losing their dualistic thinking. 

 

If god is consciousness, and consciousness is all, then an option of something not being god / consciousness is off the table completely. 

 

All is god / consciousness. 

 

The other kind of apologist that you mention would have to go that far to get to what you're describing. Then they get the omni's. Then it's parsimonious for the reasons listed. 

 

But they lose monotheistic thinking and any other dualistic way of thinking in the process.

 

The apologetic comes at the expense of bull dosing christian theology. No god separate from man or anything else. No god and satan as two (dualistic thinking) distinct and separate entities. No heaven or hell, which are likewise dualistic mythological concepts. Jesus is mundane in the sense of being god and man, if everything is god / consciousness. 

 

The christian message taken literal in any way, loses meaning. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Thanks, @Joshpantera.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I had a few half-thought ideas about a month ago concerning who/where/what "I" is.  I should pick those back up.  Thanks for the reminder. 

[Joshpantera]

This closer to truth program is something I've seen a few episodes of. This one in particular sort of precedes Bernardo Kastrup's analytic idealism. It basically sets the stage for what AI brings to the table: 

 

 

 

@Weezer You asked a question in TRP's thread about where did consciousness come from? Instead of going off into there I'll answer it here on the consciousness thread. 

 

The answer from Analytic Idealism is that existence and consciousness are not separate. Consciousness IS existence itself. It has to be indivisible and undivided.

 

Bernardo Kastrup's defense of his PhD in philosophy pretty much explains where the video above sort of leaves off: Bernardo's defense of his second Ph.D. - YouTube

 

It's no different than asking the question of where did existence come from or when did existence itself begin?

 

The answer is that at that fundamental level of contemplation, whatever it is that we plug in to that 'fundamental position', cannot be assigned any fixed beginning. Whether someone says, existence, cosmos, consciousness, or god - it's the something that must be pre-existing already and we move forward from there. There's always a first assumption. And the first assumption is that something exists and everything else is reduceable to it: 

 

1) Something = something else. 

 

Idealist Philosophy is no different. It's going to be that an abstract, field of subjectivity, is the base level nature of reality. No beginning, no end. All present. All everything. Which then looks like the below:

 

2) Consciousness (phenomenal) = consciousness (meta)

 

But not intelligent and meta-conscious at the base level. It's not anything like what people imagine of a personal god. If anything, it's more like the impersonal concepts like Brahman. It's not a contemplative assertion of consciousness.

 

All strawman arguments against idealist philosophy seem to rely on that assertion. The assertion that meta-consciousness is fundamental. But that isn't correct. Not in the case of analytic idealism.  And that has to be understood in order to understand the philosophy. 

 

Everyone has to start from the first assumption of a pre-existing source and then go from there.