Consciousness, Materialism and Idealism

[Joshpantera]

Note from Moderator @TABA:  This and the following messages have been moved here from their original home in another topic.  There has been enough deviation from the original thread to warrant creating a new one primarily for discussions among Ex-Christians about these subjects....

 

 

 

 

On 2/23/2023 at 3:23 PM, Edgarcito said:

This, that, and some other thing...

 

What did Paul mean when he said "For in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28)

 

Sounds like we exist "within" God. We live, move, and have our being in, "Him." God is never not conscious. Therefore "Him" entails an all-pervading eternal level type of Consciousness what we apparently live, move, and have our being "in."

 

All of this according to the apostle Paul.

 

Not some New Ager, or Eastern Guru. Not some Quantum Physicist. Not some Cognitive Scientist. And not some Idealist Philosopher. 

 

This is from the mind to pen, assumably, of St. Paul.  And if a pseudo-Paul, so what? Point still stands. Why is this written in the Christian cannon for any reason???

 

God is conscious, and primary to existence itself. Prerequisite, to any form of existence whatsoever. 

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

What did Paul mean when he said "For in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28)

 

Sounds like we exist "within" God. We live, move, and have our being in, "Him." God is never not conscious. Therefore "Him" entails an all-pervading eternal level type of Consciousness what we apparently live, move, and have our being "in."

 

All of this according to the apostle Paul.

 

Not some New Ager, or Eastern Guru. Not some Quantum Physicist. Not some Cognitive Scientist. And not some Idealist Philosopher. 

 

This is from the mind to pen, assumably, of St. Paul.  And if a pseudo-Paul, so what? Point still stands. Why is this written in the Christian cannon for any reason???

 

God is conscious, and primary to existence itself. Prerequisite, to any form of existence whatsoever. 

 

Josh,

 

When Paul was speaking at the Areopagus in Acts 17 he was actually quoting from the works of two Greek poets. 

 

Epimenedes the Cretan and Aratus of Cilicia.

 

Please check this link out to see more.

 

https://readingacts.com/2019/03/19/acts-17-paul-and-the-poets/

 

So scripture doubly underlines your point.

 

Not only did Paul believe that god is primary to existence itself, but he knew that his Greek audience believed this also.

 

These pagans already understood the point you have been making, allowing Paul to use this understanding in his preaching to them.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Josh,

 

Here's something from the Old Testament that reemphasizes your point about all-pervading consciousness.

 

There is nowhere in heaven, hell, the spiritual realms or in the physical universe that is not filled with consciousness.

 

Psalm 139 

 

For the director of music. Of David. A psalm.

 

1 You have searched me, Lord,
    and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
    you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
    you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue
    you, Lord, know it completely.
5 You hem me in behind and before,
    and you lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
    too lofty for me to attain.

 

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
    Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
    if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
    if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
    your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
    and the light become night around me,”
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
    the night will shine like the day,
    for darkness is as light to you.

 

13 For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
    How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
    they would outnumber the grains of sand—
    when I awake, I am still with you.

 

19 If only you, God, would slay the wicked!
    Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty!
20 They speak of you with evil intent;
    your adversaries misuse your name.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord,
    and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
    I count them my enemies.
23 Search me, God, and know my heart;
    test me and know my anxious thoughts.
24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
    and lead me in the way everlasting.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Josh,

 

When Paul was speaking at the Areopagus in Acts 17 he was actually quoting from the works of two Greek poets. 

 

Epimenedes the Cretan and Aratus of Cilicia.

 

Please check this link out to see more.

 

https://readingacts.com/2019/03/19/acts-17-paul-and-the-poets/

 

So scripture doubly underlines your point.

 

Not only did Paul believe that god is primary to existence itself, but he knew that his Greek audience believed this also.

 

These pagans already understood the point you have been making, allowing Paul to use this understanding in his preaching to them.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nailed it, Dude!!!

 

The context is that he knew good and well what he was saying, and to who. Consistent with what an omnipresent God would be, by definition. We would literally be living, existing, and having our being in every way, within that which is omnipresent. Going back further than the Greeks to Egyptians. If brake out Hermetic texts, it's even more upfront. 

 

I read Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's book, "The Hermetica." And they inserted the Egyptian Neter Atum, where the word "God" reads in the texts. Because it's a dialogue between Thoth and Atum. The God of Knowledge and Wisdom and the supreme Mind, Brahman type God, Atum. 

 

 

Chapter 2 goes into an interesting perspective. The waters of potentiality prior to the creation.  

 

Chapter 3 lays right into it from the outset. About the One. Which is clearly presented as primary Consciousness. Just like Brahman. Upfront about it.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Josh,

 

What about this?   

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scalar-field-used-for-testing-the-algorithm_fig3_319031195

 

 

Thanks to research at the Large Hadron Collider we now know that the Higgs field is a field of scalar energy that pervades the universe, imparting certain properties to matter and energy, allowing them to behave in ways that they otherwise wouldn't.

 

The LHC was only able to detect the Higgs boson because it could smash particles together at sufficiently high energies.  If you refer to the image you can understand this as being the two peaks with yellow summits.  The Higgs field is present everywhere as an underlying sea of imperceptible energy (blue) that can only be 'seen' by us when it rises above its ground state of 0 and achieves energy values of 0.6.  The LHC was needed to 'see' this field of invisible energy, but, if current scientific models are correct, the field is always there.

 

In your worldview of primary consciousness, there could be something that corresponds to this.

 

There could be an underlying field of consciousness pervading the entire universe, but which we cannot perceive.  Much like the zero-valued ground state of the Higgs field.  But when matter and energy achieve a certain level of organization (say 0.6) consciousness becomes visible to us.  This energy gradient, from 0 upwards, might even explain the hierarchy we seem to see in the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

 

Organisms the have low levels of internal organization and that are poorly aware of their environment and others of their kind might rise only a little above the ground state ( 0 zero ) of the universal consciousness field, achieving values of 0.3 or 0.4.  Whereas organisms that are highly organized, highly aware of their environments and also highly aware of others of their kind would be like high peaks of the universal consciousness field.  

 

Perhaps dolphins, whales, primates and other species (humans?) achieve consciousness, self-awareness and language because they have risen to even higher values, crossing the 1.0 boundary and peaking even higher.  This scheme would then explain how even apparently 'dead' matter would still share in the consciousness of the entire universe, but because these things never rise above a certain value, say 0.1 or 0.2, we cannot perceive them as conscious.  To us, they are dead.

 

And this also leaves things wide open for the universal consciousness field to achieve higher and higher values, through self-organization and evolution.  If we supposed the existence of super-intelligent aliens, they might rate at values of 7.5 or 8.9, leaving us way, way behind.

 

Two thoughts come to mind here - one fact and one fiction.  Dealing with the fiction first, do you recall the Organians, from Errand of Mercy?  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708429/  Spock speculated that they were as high above them (humans, Vulcans and Klingons) as they were to amoebas.  What value would they be... 9.9?

 

Factually, what I'm suggesting about numerical values for the universal field of consciousness ties in (somewhat) with the Kardashev Scale.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

In your worldview of primary consciousness, there could be something that corresponds to this.

 

There could be an underlying field of consciousness pervading the entire universe, but which we cannot perceive.  Much like the zero-valued ground state of the Higgs field.  But when matter and energy achieve a certain level of organization (say 0.6) consciousness becomes visible to us.  This energy gradient, from 0 upwards, might even explain the hierarchy we seem to see in the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

 

Analytic Idealism works it out this way: 

 

"A spatially unbound field of core subjectivity with excitation of the field."

 

That is the idea behind a "Mind at Large." And it's carefully addressed as a Naturalist perspective, not to be confused with supernaturalism.

 

This movement is a movement of Naturalists who are pushing beyond the materialist metaphysics phase of science and philosophy. While at the same time retaining their Naturalist views. 

 

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Organisms the have low levels of internal organization and that are poorly aware of their environment and others of their kind might rise only a little above the ground state ( 0 zero ) of the universal consciousness field, achieving values of 0.3 or 0.4.  Whereas organisms that are highly organized, highly aware of their environments and also highly aware of others of their kind would be like high peaks of the universal consciousness field.  

 

Perhaps dolphins, whales, primates and other species (humans?) achieve consciousness, self-awareness and language because they have risen to even higher values, crossing the 1.0 boundary and peaking even higher.  This scheme would then explain how even apparently 'dead' matter would still share in the consciousness of the entire universe, but because these things never rise above a certain value, say 0.1 or 0.2, we cannot perceive them as conscious.  To us, they are dead.

 

And this also leaves things wide open for the universal consciousness field to achieve higher and higher values, through self-organization and evolution.  If we supposed the existence of super-intelligent aliens, they might rate at values of 7.5 or 8.9, leaving us way, way behind.

 

Two thoughts come to mind here - one fact and one fiction.  Dealing with the fiction first, do you recall the Organians, from Errand of Mercy?  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708429/  Spock speculated that they were as high above them (humans, Vulcans and Klingons) as they were to amoebas.  What value would they be... 9.9?

 

Factually, what I'm suggesting about numerical values for the universal field of consciousness ties in (somewhat) with the Kardashev Scale.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

The way you're looking at this possibility through the lens of natural science is exactly the way that AI philosophy is aiming for. You've nailed the perspective, again. 

 

The internal discussions do go off into speculation about advanced versions of conscious entities far greater than humankind. I'll work up to that. 

 

You have the spatially unbound field of core subjectivity with its 'dissociation processes' that take place within the infinite Mind. The term for finite consciousness is "dissociation." The Mind at Large is looking at itself from across a dissociative boundary. It's One thing interacting with itself. 

 

The field has its own inner experience. The term is phenomenal Consciousness. The model calls for MAL as phenomenal and instinctual in nature. Not metacognitive, deliberating, or thinking oriented at large scale. It's subjective and feeling oriented. Nature as Mind. 

 

Our inner experiences are extensions of the primary existence of the instinctual MAL. And this is where your above quotes seem to correspond to what the model is suggesting.

 

Because metacognition, or "meta-consciousness," takes place in higher life forms. It builds up from lower life forms, through evolution. Resulting in us, but not limited to us. And the belief at present is that higher level metacognitive life forms very likely do exist. Which is what any aliens would be when considered against MAL. Higher level dissociation processes taking place within MAL. Advanced to our current understanding. But still another aspect of MAL experiencing itself from within. 

 

The way that this addresses Kantian philosophy and "the thing in itself," is to use the metaphor of reality appearing to us like a dashboard of dials. Our perceptions are indirect perceptions of what actually does exist out there. Filtered through our dashboard of perception. 

 

The natural laws are constant because a field of core subjectivity is a type of constant, which we see as the natural laws. When we look out at the material universe, we see lots going on out there - lots of explosive action, lots of activity, lots of motion.

 

According to the model, what we're seeing are representations on our species-specific dashboard, of the excitations taking place within MAL. As we look around from within MAL perceiving it from our sensory apparatus. It looks to us like supernova, galaxy formation, blazing stars, etc., etc.

 

Another Hermetic principle is the principle of Vibration: 

 

"Everything vibrates, Nothing rests" - The Kybalion

 

I've been integrating the Hermetic principles and axioms with modern AI Philosophy. MAL is always experiencing excitation of the field. This is a way in which we can trace the existence of energy itself, as something taking place within a field of core subjectivity. The Mental excitation of Nature itself at ontological primitive level, is what would be the energy source supporting all of the frequency and vibration that we experience in the universe. 

 

The materialist metaphysics way, we start out with 'unaware energy' that exists for no explained reason, which then gives rise to 'unaware matter,' which then, for another unexplained reason, spontaneously emerges from previously unaware energy-material.

 

The question of where energy itself comes from is basically "turtles all the way down." 

 

At least this other way, from an Idealist metaphysics perspective, there is an explanation on the table for the existence of energy, frequency, and vibration. It's flowing from the excitation of Nature's Mental core according to the modeling. 

 

Excitation of the Mental Field > Corresponding Vibrations > Dissociative Processes > Dissociated Observer Effects > The Space-Time Dashboard > Appearance of Particles and Matter. 

 

Energy can only come from excitation of Mind through the Idealist metaphysics. 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Analytic Idealism works it out this way: 

 

"A spatially unbound field of core subjectivity with excitation of the field."

 

That is the idea behind a "Mind at Large." And it's carefully addressed as a Naturalist perspective, not to be confused with supernaturalism.

 

This movement is a movement of Naturalists who are pushing beyond the materialist metaphysics phase of science and philosophy. While at the same time retaining their Naturalist views. 

 

 

The way you're looking at this possibility through the lens of natural science is exactly the way that AI philosophy is aiming for. You've nailed the perspective, again. 

 

The internal discussions do go off into speculation about advanced versions of conscious entities far greater than humankind. I'll work up to that. 

 

You have the spatially unbound field of core subjectivity with its 'dissociation processes' that take place within the infinite Mind. The term for finite consciousness is "dissociation." The Mind at Large is looking at itself from across a dissociative boundary. It's One thing interacting with itself. 

 

The field has its own inner experience. The term is phenomenal Consciousness. The model calls for MAL as phenomenal and instinctual in nature. Not metacognitive, deliberating, or thinking oriented at large scale. It's subjective and feeling oriented. Nature as Mind. 

 

Our inner experiences are extensions of the primary existence of the instinctual MAL. And this is where your above quotes seem to correspond to what the model is suggesting.

 

Because metacognition, or "meta-consciousness," takes place in higher life forms. It builds up from lower life forms, through evolution. Resulting in us, but not limited to us. And the belief at present is that higher level metacognitive life forms very likely do exist. Which is what any aliens would be when considered against MAL. Higher level dissociation processes taking place within MAL. Advanced to our current understanding. But still another aspect of MAL experiencing itself from within. 

 

The way that this addresses Kantian philosophy and "the thing in itself," is to use the metaphor of reality appearing to us like a dashboard of dials. Our perceptions are indirect perceptions of what actually does exist out there. Filtered through our dashboard of perception. 

 

The natural laws are constant because a field of core subjectivity is a type of constant, which we see as the natural laws. When we look out at the material universe, we see lots going on out there - lots of explosive action, lots of activity, lots of motion.

 

According to the model, what we're seeing are representations on our species-specific dashboard, of the excitations taking place within MAL. As we look around from within MAL perceiving it from our sensory apparatus. It looks to us like supernova, galaxy formation, blazing stars, etc., etc.

 

Another Hermetic principle is the principle of Vibration: 

 

"Everything vibrates, Nothing rests" - The Kybalion

 

I've been integrating the Hermetic principles and axioms with modern AI Philosophy. MAL is always experiencing excitation of the field. This is a way in which we can trace the existence of energy itself, as something taking place within a field of core subjectivity. The Mental excitation of Nature itself at ontological primitive level, is what would be the energy source supporting all of the frequency and vibration that we experience in the universe. 

 

The materialist metaphysics way, we start out with 'unaware energy' that exists for no explained reason, which then gives rise to 'unaware matter,' which then, for another unexplained reason, spontaneously emerges from previously unaware energy-material.

 

The question of where energy itself comes from is basically "turtles all the way down." 

 

At least this other way, from an Idealist metaphysics perspective, there is an explanation on the table for the existence of energy, frequency, and vibration. It's flowing from the excitation of Nature's Mental core according to the modeling. 

 

Excitation of the Mental Field > Corresponding Vibrations > Dissociative Processes > Dissociated Observer Effects > The Space-Time Dashboard > Appearance of Particles and Matter. 

 

Energy can only come from excitation of Mind through the Idealist metaphysics. 

 

 

Hello Josh.

 

I can see that there is a good deal of overlap between us on this.  Another point of agreement that I can see is that quote from the Kybalion about nothing being at rest.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam 

 

There are many competing models that try to explain the fundamental nature of reality at the smallest possible scales.  The section 'Relation to Other Theories' lists some of them.  Right here in Ex-C Pantheory is a strong promoter of the zero point energy field.  If you ask him he will explain more.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

 

It's way too early to say which of these many theories and models is the correct one, but instead of discussing that I'd like to draw your attention (unless you already know this) to the common feature of all of them.  None of them describe reality as being fundamentally static or at rest.  They all describe the fundamental nature of reality as being vigorously in motion.

 

The quantum vacuum isn't described as a void or a nothingness.  It's exactly the opposite.  It's a roiling, churning, pulsating sea of vibrations and excitations that defy our very understanding of space, time and causality.  Nothing is at rest and infinite potential is all.  As you said about turtles, there's no need to invoke a prior cause for the quantum vacuum because it sits outside of causality - being all that there timelessly is, was and will be. 

 

 

But before we go any further Josh, I must declare my hand.

 

If you recall Robert Tulip visited Ex-C a while back and I found myself interested in and sympathetic to his ideas and thinking.  He and I clicked and we had a very fruitful exchange.  But I could not bring myself to fully embrace his philosophy.  I liked it but could not commit to it.

 

In much the same way, I'm interested, appreciative and sympathetic of your model of primary consciousness.  It has an elegance and a simplicity that are appealing.   As mentioned earlier in our discussions about primary consciousness, there seem to be many points of contact and overlap between it and the findings of science.  And similarly, just as many points of contact and overlap between it and religion.  

 

As you will have seen from the number of times that I've 'nailed it' I do 'get' your thinking about it and I do agree with it - but only up to a point.  I cannot fully commit to it, just as I couldn't fully commit to Robert Tulip's ideas.  Having said that, please consider me to be a friend to your model of primary consciousness.  Not a follower or an ardent devotee, but a

helpful friend.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

18 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Having said that, please consider me to be a friend to your model of primary consciousness.  Not a follower or an ardent devotee, but a

helpful friend.

Myself as well.

[walterpthefirst]

This is for anyone to reply to. 

 

It relates to the theme of this thread.  'How do we know what is real?'  Is the discovering of what is real a collective enterprise where everyone agrees on how to go about it and everyone agrees to do so equally?  Or is discovering what is real something that one person can discover on their own and then impart to everyone else?  Please read, think about it and then express your opinion about Alice and Bob.

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

 

 

Bob and Alice cannot agree as to which one of them is the more rational.

 

Bob thinks that rationality is something which applies to everyone equally.  That everyone should measure their degree of rationality by an external standard that is true for everyone everywhere.  As evidence for his thinking, he cites the guidelines of Formal and Informal Logical fallacies.  He says that this is a framework of thinking that applies to everyone equally and is also external to everyone, not relying in any way on any one person’s definition of something or any one person’s experiences.

 

The rules and guidelines of the fallacies are there to test the logic, rationality, and internal consistency of everyone’s thinking.  Bob believes that nobody should consider themselves above this standard or not bound by this standard. 

 

But Alice doesn’t agree with Bob.

 

She believes that her unique experiences have endowed her with a superior understanding of what rationality is.  One that others can share in, provided that they agree to think as she does.  They need to accept her superior understanding of rationality on her terms before they can see just how much better her understanding is than that of everyone else.  Alice believes that this is not negotiable.

 

She rejects Bob’s idea of everyone adopting a common standard of rationality because she knows that she has special knowledge and a special understanding of rationality.  So long as everyone sticks with a common and universal standard of understanding rationality, they will never see how limited and flawed it is.  She knows that they will never have a true understanding of rationality until they think as she does.

 

And so, Alice and Bob continue to disagree.

 

 

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

So, who do you think is more rational?   And why?  Please note that I'm not asking who is right and who is wrong.  Just who is the more rational in their thinking.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

On 3/5/2023 at 11:04 AM, walterpthefirst said:

As you will have seen from the number of times that I've 'nailed it' I do 'get' your thinking about it and I do agree with it - but only up to a point.  I cannot fully commit to it, just as I couldn't fully commit to Robert Tulip's ideas.  Having said that, please consider me to be a friend to your model of primary consciousness.  Not a follower or an ardent devotee, but a

helpful friend.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

I get it. I didn't expect that there's any belief involved in your supporting posts, I'm just glad to see that you haven't completely written it off as crack pot.

 

Because a lot of people would, not understanding the first thing about what this alternative view entails. They'd just hand wave dismiss the whole thing. 

 

On 3/5/2023 at 11:23 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Myself as well.

 

Yeah, I know you have a background in eastern philosophy and aren't a strict type of materialist. But you're a scientist. And you seem to have a good balance between eastern philosophical ideas and science - probably due to your involvement with both and working out your views of balancing the two over your 20 + year deconversion. 

 

Donald Hoffman's model is a mathematically precise model. This is somewhat different from the philosophical models. And all it does is accept the standard model, with the addition of going into a deeper reach below the currently accepted reach. 

 

I'll explain. 

 

When I posted about space-time no longer being fundamental, this is known but not exactly widespread knowledge yet. Because it comes from very specialized work. The "Amplituhedron" is a geometric shape that exists beyond space-time. This is below quantum foam, I'm pretty sure. Because quantum foam is the lower level of space-time. This is beyond that. And it is found through precise math's. But that's only one level below space-time. And gives geometry to space-time. 

 

Below that are found "Decorated Permutations." Which give geometry to the "Amplituhedron" and what other geometric shapes exist at the level of above DP's. Now we're two levels beyond space-time, through math's, which are working in conjunction with the standard model as it's inner features, more fundamental than space-time. 

 

Donald Hoffman simply linked mathematically precise "conscious agents" below the level of "Decorated Permutations." Below that, the "conscious agents" point to the existence of the One, so to speak, but the math breaks down at the level of the One. 

 

Here's a simplistic look at the math based scientific model: 

 

Conscious Agents > Decorated Permutations > Amplituhedron > (Space-Time) > Quantum Foam > Sub-Atomic Particles > The visible Universe > Evolution by Natural Selection

 

All of this is already linked together with the standard model down to the DP's. With the additional level of "Conscious Agents."

 

I think Hoffman recently put out a paper on this (video cited below). But by linking into the already existing math of the DP's this could turn into a coherent, mathematically precise, theory of primary Consciousness. In conjunction with the standard model. 

 

Now what I've done in these online communities is get involved in looking at how these philosophical and mathematical theories may work together and converge. 

 

Since the maths can't penetrate below the level of two Conscious Agents existing, I simply plugged the Kastrup model of raw motion below the Conscious Agents. That would be the field of core subjectivity with excitation of the field. That field excitation / motion / vibration, which is necessarily eternal, is what would give rise to the existence of Conscious Agents. And then from there forward, all the math already exists and runs through to the standard model cosmology. 

 

Field of Core Subjectivity with Excitation > Conscious Agents > Decorated Permutations > Amplituhedron > (Space-Time) > Current Standard Model of Physics and Cosmology > Current Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection 

 

I've conflated the leading philosophical model with the leading scientific mathematical model. I don't think the models matter too much aside from being metaphorical. And if we can conflate metaphorical myths together, why not models? 

 

This is just a way in which we could visualize how it's even possible that a Conscious based Reality could exist. We have to get to where it's possible to envision. As the starting point for further inquiry and deeper investigation over time, over generations.

 

And because of the issues surrounding the observer effect, collapsing the wavelength, entanglement, and non-locality - people go looking in the direction of primary Consciousness to try and get to the next level of human understanding of reality. This looks like the new frontier for the sciences. Not just woo woo mysticism. 

 

Having it all linked together is critical to having any of this ever taken seriously. Linked all the way through to evolution by natural selection. And a naturalist based explanatory power for how and why consciousness exists. Removing the hard problem of consciousness. 

 

Here's Donald Hoffman's own words on the issue: 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

When I posted about space-time no longer being fundamental, this is known but not exactly widespread knowledge yet. Because it comes from very specialized work. The "Amplituhedron" is a geometric shape that exists beyond space-time. This is below quantum foam, I'm pretty sure. Because quantum foam is the lower level of space-time. This is beyond that. And it is found through precise math's. But that's only one level below space-time. And gives geometry to space-time. 

 

Below that are found "Decorated Permutations." Which give geometry to the "Amplituhedron" and what other geometric shapes exist at the level of above DP's. Now we're two levels beyond space-time, through math's, which are working in conjunction with the standard model as it's inner features, more fundamental than space-time. 

 

Donald Hoffman simply linked mathematically precise "conscious agents" below the level of "Decorated Permutations." Below that, the "conscious agents" point to the existence of the One, so to speak, but the math breaks down at the level of the One. 

 

Here's a simplistic look at the math based scientific model: 

 

Conscious Agents > Decorated Permutations > Amplituhedron > (Space-Time) > Quantum Foam > Sub-Atomic Particles > The visible Universe > Evolution by Natural Selection

 

All of this is already linked together with the standard model down to the DP's. With the additional level of "Conscious Agents."

 

I think Hoffman recently put out a paper on this (video cited below). But by linking into the already existing math of the DP's this could turn into a coherent, mathematically precise, theory of primary Consciousness. In conjunction with the standard model. 

 

Now what I've done in these online communities is get involved in looking at how these philosophical and mathematical theories may work together and converge. 

 

Since the maths can't penetrate below the level of two Conscious Agents existing, I simply plugged the Kastrup model of raw motion below the Conscious Agents. That would be the field of core subjectivity with excitation of the field. That field excitation / motion / vibration, which is necessarily eternal, is what would give rise to the existence of Conscious Agents. And then from there forward, all the math already exists and runs through to the standard model cosmology. 

 

Field of Core Subjectivity with Excitation > Conscious Agents > Decorated Permutations > Amplituhedron > (Space-Time) > Current Standard Model of Physics and Cosmology > Current Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection 

 

I've conflated the leading philosophical model with the leading scientific mathematical model. I don't think the models matter too much aside from being metaphorical. And if we can conflate metaphorical myths together, why not models? 

 

This is just a way in which we could visualize how it's even possible that a Conscious based Reality could exist. We have to get to where it's possible to envision. As the starting point for further inquiry and deeper investigation over time, over generations.

 

And because of the issues surrounding the observer effect, collapsing the wavelength, entanglement, and non-locality - people go looking in the direction of primary Consciousness to try and get to the next level of human understanding of reality. This looks like the new frontier for the sciences. Not just woo woo mysticism. 

 

Having it all linked together is critical to having any of this ever taken seriously. Linked all the way through to evolution by natural selection. And a naturalist based explanatory power for how and why consciousness exists. Removing the hard problem of consciousness. 

Yes.  But Ed's worldview has a story.  

A Story, Josh!  

A story that is complete with talking snakes, magical fruit, an evil rib woman, and a zombie god-man tormenting his enemies in eternal hellfire.  How is your math and science going to compete with that?!?

[walterpthefirst]

Field of Core Subjectivity with Excitation >

Conscious Agents >

Decorated Permutations >

 

Amplituhedron > (Space-Time) >

 

Current Standard Model of Physics and Cosmology >

Current Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection 

 

 

I've rearranged the elements of your model Josh to indicate where I am on this.

 

Working from the bottom up, Evolution and the Standard Model seem to be well supported by evidence.  To my knowledge the Amplituhedron is currently a theoretical concept only, with no evidence that I know of to support it.  Yes, it explains much and promises much, but then again, so does String Theory.  And as we know, there's currently no evidence to support String Theory.

 

The reservations I have about the three uppermost elements can be be summed up in two ways.  First, where's the evidence?  Second, if we cannot even probe the quantum foam that overlies the Amplituhedron, what hope is there of investigating the deeper, even more fundamental levels?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  But Ed's worldview has a story.  

A Story, Josh!  

A story that is complete with talking snakes, magical fruit, an evil rib woman, and a zombie god-man tormenting his enemies in eternal hellfire.  How is your math and science going to compete with that?!?

 

Ok Prof, I realize that what you wrote here was done tongue-in-cheek.  But lets step back a moment and reflect.  I wonder if there's a deeper truth to be found here.

 

Consider this please.

 

As you'll have seen I've outlined to Josh my misgivings about his model of reality.  We agree on a lot but the dividing line between us comes down to what is or isn't supported by evidence.  I just can't embrace attractive and aesthetically appealing theories and models, just because they seem to explain much about reality.  This is the same kind of reservation that stops many scientists from enthusiastically embracing string theory.  It looks very elegant and the math holds up under scrutiny, but...

 

But are beauty, internal consistency and depth of explanation good enough criteria to accept something as true?  For some people, certainly.  For others, not.  And this is where I'd like to use the image of a level playing field.  When there are many competing notions of how reality works, with none of them supported by evidence, then they all assume a kind of equality.  No single one can be pointed to as being any more 'real' than any other.

 

Then, since it's an entirely human thing to want to have THE answer, people lower the threshold of their necessary criteria for belief, dropping the requirement for evidential support and going with what appeals to them emotionally.  In scientific terms, those scientists who are dazzled by mathematical beauty might be swayed by something like String theory.  There are still hundreds of other models of reality out there but instead of using logic and rationality to choose from among them, certain scientists answer their inner desire to know THE answer by using their emotions.  They may not even be aware that they are doing this.  Such is human nature.

 

I'd even go so far as to submit that the same kind of thing happens, not just in science, but also in religion.  There are umpteen competing religious myths and stories about the creation and meaning of reality, couched in magical and supernatural terms, rather than scientific ones.  But since none of them is supported by an iota of evidence, once again all of these many options can be considered as a level playing field.  There's no single religion or belief that is any more supported by evidence than any other.  Therefore, belief in a particular one becomes a matter of emotionally-guided, personal choice.  

 

Perhaps the main difference between the level playing fields of science and religion is one of upbringing.

 

In my opinion, how a child is raised is less likely to have an effect on which evidence-free model of reality a scientist will choose to embrace than which religion a person will embrace.  If someone is raised Muslim, then there's a very great likelihood that they will remain Muslim.  And, to lesser or greater degrees, the same is likely to be true for those raised as Jews, Christians, Sikhs, etc.  Their choice of religion is usually made up for them by their parents, peers and community.

 

But if a person leaves their childhood religion or is raised to be free to choose their own way, I'd suggest that the level playing field idea still holds good.   Because there's nothing to choose between so many equally probable/improbable  religions (equal in terms of zero evidential support) people use their emotions to choose what religion they will embrace.  

 

So, they are doing exactly what the scientists who are swayed by mathematical beauty are doing.  They choose what pleases them and not what the evidence says is real.  In the absence of evidence both scientists and religionists have a free hand to let their emotions do the choosing for them.  

 

And then, having chosen, their emotions cause them to fiercely defend their choice - regardless of the facts.  Regardless of the fact that they used their all-too-faulty emotions to choose what to believe and regardless of the fact that their chosen belief is no more supported by evidence than any other.   But because it means so much to them emotionally, they must fight to preserve it at all costs, even if this means compromising their honesty and integrity.

 

 

Hmm... that went on longer than I'd planned.  Anyway, your thoughts, Prof?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The one thing I might point out, Walt, is that most people don't choose their religion.  Emotion certainly plays a huge role in their defense of, and adherence to, their religion later in life; but the religion itself is usually instilled by parents, family, and the larger society.  As such, for the majority of religious folk, "choosing" might be a bit of a misnomer. 

 

There are, however, a few who do embrace religion later in life, often either having been completely ambivalent on the subject during childhood, or having been semi-apostate/"backslidden" for many years.  One common theme in these later-in-life conversions is a period of deep emotional turmoil or trauma immediately preceding the event.  Testimonials often follow the same general formula: "Before I got saved I was drunk, crackhead, divorced, just lost my job, my kid was killed in a car accident, addicted to heroin, pornography, and my dog ran away.  But that's when jesus found me and set me freeeee!"  Very few, if any, people choose to accept religion later in life based upon their financial success, marital bliss, or any other measured indicator of happiness. 

 

Some might even consider my affiliation with Buddhist philosophy to be on the same plane as a later-in-life conversion.  It was, after all, largely an act of desperation in the beginning,  as I had to find something that would alleviate my addiction to alcohol.  But, the basis for Buddhist philosophy is in the 4 Noble Truths; and I could see the Scientific Method mirrored in them.

1. There is suffering (observation in nature).

2. Suffering comes from attachment and desire (testable hypothesis).

3. There is an end of suffering (predicted outcome).

4. The end of suffering is the 8-Fold Path, also known as the Middle Way (experimentation).

Even the concept of Karma can be phrased as "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."  Sound familiar?

 

So, in my case, that is about as much of Buddhism as I can reasonably accept, based on what is supported by testable evidence.  And my choice was as much scientific as it was emotional.  The rest of Buddhism--the chanting and praying and reincarnation and such--I'll leave that to the monks.  And for much the same reason I'm currently only willing to go so far with Josh's ideas, appealing as they are.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The one thing I might point out, Walt, is that most people don't choose their religion.  Emotion certainly plays a huge role in their defense of, and adherence to, their religion later in life; but the religion itself is usually instilled by parents, family, and the larger society.  As such, for the majority of religious folk, "choosing" might be a bit of a misnomer. 

 

We largely agree here, Prof. 

 

"Their choice of religion is usually made up for them by their parents, peers and community." ...was how I attempted to cover this point.  However, I submit that there is still a small minority (like Josh) who did not receive the blueprint of their religion from anyone in their formative years. 

 

This minority 'selected' what they wanted to believe on the basis of other criteria.  Criteria derived from life experiences and/or studying what options are out there.  Is selection any better than choosing here?   What I'm trying to address here is what I see as a more consciously directed process than the passive acceptance of exactly what your ancestors believed.

 

Ok, my thoughts on this are still vague - but can you see what I'm driving at?

 

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

There are, however, a few who do embrace religion later in life, often either having been completely ambivalent on the subject during childhood, or having been semi-apostate/"backslidden" for many years.  One common theme in these later-in-life conversions is a period of deep emotional turmoil or trauma immediately preceding the event.  Testimonials often follow the same general formula: "Before I got saved I was drunk, crackhead, divorced, just lost my job, my kid was killed in a car accident, addicted to heroin, pornography, and my dog ran away.  But that's when jesus found me and set me freeeee!"  Very few, if any, people choose to accept religion later in life based upon their financial success, marital bliss, or any other measured indicator of happiness. 

 

Agreed.  But is there any room for people to do as I suggest above?  To sit down and study as wide a spectrum of beliefs as possible, to see which ones make sense to them and then to mix and match accordingly.  That is, for a person to beat their own path and not just be the victim of their upbringing or the victim of their emotional desires?

 

I use Josh as a case in point.  I'd be extremely surprised if he just received his beliefs from others or blindly embraced them because his uncontrolled emotions urged him to do.  He is well read, intelligent and thoughtful.  It seems to me that he must have exercised a degree of control and 'chose' or 'selected' what he now believes.

 

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Some might even consider my affiliation with Buddhist philosophy to be on the same plane as a later-in-life conversion.  It was, after all, largely an act of desperation in the beginning,  as I had to find something that would alleviate my addiction to alcohol.  But, the basis for Buddhist philosophy is in the 4 Noble Truths; and I could see the Scientific Method mirrored in them.

1. There is suffering (observation in nature).

2. Suffering comes from attachment and desire (testable hypothesis).

3. There is an end of suffering (predicted outcome).

4. The end of suffering is the 8-Fold Path, also known as the Middle Way (experimentation).

Even the concept of Karma can be phrased as "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."  Sound familiar?

 

Ok, Prof.

 

But how about this?  If you could consciously compare the 4 Noble Truths with the Scientific Method then doesn't this suggest that you exercised a large degree of measured, deliberate control in your choosing/selection of your beliefs?  You may be been propelled by an urgent emotional need to get your life in order, but that doesn't mean that you just lost all control and surged forward blindly.  

 

Do you see the division I'm suggesting here?  Your emotions played their part, but so did your intellect. 

 

Which is SO unlike my overwrought and near-hysterical conversion to Christianity.  A 'choice' made without any thoughtful reflection or consideration of what I was actually signing up to.  An uncontrolled, lemming-like rush to satisfy what my emotions were telling me that I needed, there and then.

 

 

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, in my case, that is about as much of Buddhism as I can reasonably accept, based on what is supported by testable evidence.  And my choice was as much scientific as it was emotional.  The rest of Buddhism--the chanting and praying and reincarnation and such--I'll leave that to the monks.  And for much the same reason I'm currently only willing to go so far with Josh's ideas, appealing as they are.

 

And lo and behold.  I've been typing away, with the page scrolling slowly down and only now do I see your second sentence of the above paragraph in the context of what I've just typed.

 

And my choice was as much scientific as it was emotional.  

 

I rest my case.  You did select/choose and you used both heart AND mind to do so. 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yes.

[Rev R]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, in my case, that is about as much of Buddhism as I can reasonably accept...

Have you read Steven Batchelor, Prof?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 minutes ago, Rev R said:

Have you read Steven Batchelor, Prof?

I know a Batchelor named Steven.

[Rev R]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I know a Batchelor named Steven.

don't we all?

You might dig a couple of his books. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 minutes ago, Rev R said:

don't we all?

You might dig a couple of his books. 

I'm not familiar with his work.  Please, tell me more.

[Rev R]

20 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not familiar with his work.  Please, tell me more.

Of particular interest would be Buddhism Without Beliefs and Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist. Both offer Batchelor's thoughts on a Buddhist practice without the supernatural aspects found in traditional sources. You might find some useful ideas in there somewhere.

[Joshpantera]

On 3/6/2023 at 8:27 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  But Ed's worldview has a story.  

A Story, Josh!  

A story that is complete with talking snakes, magical fruit, an evil rib woman, and a zombie god-man tormenting his enemies in eternal hellfire.  How is your math and science going to compete with that?!?

 

When the religious Boomers are mostly dead and gone. 

 

And these generations that like scientific and philosophical backed ideas are what remains in the world. From Gen-X down. It's already hitting the youth now. The fan base for this stuff is mainly Gen-X and lower. But some of the older fans have taken this to the Theosophical Society and New Thought Movement to try and spark new interest by inserting modern concepts into mystical issues. I'm reading through a paper that one of them emailed me which addresses Analytic Idealism to the Theosophical Society. 

 

By having all of this out on YouTube and social media it's working its way around. A lot of the interviews are being held by college age young adults. Who are learning what's wrong with materialist metaphysics at young ages. And they are past religious literalism, which is part of the discourse. The myths and the scientific models are being referred to as metaphor. Because it's acknowledged that we aren't evolutionarily designed to see in terms of truth, just fitness. There's a real existence, but it's Mental in orientation, not literally material. That's what's going around. 

 

I have all kinds of ideas about introducing new "stories." To offer an alternative to the old and outdated ones. And I may well follow through with it. I have creative personalities interested in getting involved. Like to write a bunch of modern "Gospels" which are carefully constructed to show how it's possible to do a much better job than the NT writers did. No self-contradiction.

 

Love your enemies to the extent that it's realized that only way that holds true is if the God loves his worst enemy, the Devil. Leading by example. Not the "do as I say, not as I do" mindset of the NT writers. Which is a God who says love your enemies but then obliterates his own opposition in an egoic rage fit. We've worked out so many of these internal logic issues over the years in the Lion's Den. 

 

No racism. No misogyny. No slavery. No self-contradiction. No logic leaping.

 

The current NT, as we well know, jumps from "Love your enemies" to bipolar rage fits screaming at the "Unbelievers, Witches, Drunkards, Sexually Immoral," and assorted dregs of ancient society that they'll burn in torment. Internally inconsistent, self-contradicting, shortsightedness. 

 

If anything, it could alert people's awareness to the fact that not only were the NT writings not divinely inspired, but they can also be outdone by people living in the 21st century who simply have the insight to stick to their own internal logic - which will be set out at the beginning and then followed through to the end. 

 

If Consciousness is primary, then it comes down to being continuous. We're back to eternal life, but without the 'dualistic features' like heaven and hell. Which have no place in a unitary, non-dual existence in Consciousness.

 

And that's one of the main reasons that it's better than if christianity were true!!! If christianity were true, then it evidently sucks in compared to this narrative. 

 

The real "Good News," is that all of these false institutions had been the wrong the entire time. That's a hell of a narrative. And these younger generations don't believe the fundy stuff much anymore anyways, so there's no uphill battle of convincing them of what they already know. It's just a matter of connecting all the dots and presenting something parsimonious and coherent to the modern mind, which is at least plausible by way of science and philosophy integrated with non-organized religion based human spiritual intuition. All-inclusive to everyone in the world, regardless of ethnicity, sex, or anything. 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/7/2023 at 3:50 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Field of Core Subjectivity with Excitation >

Conscious Agents >

Decorated Permutations >

 

Amplituhedron > (Space-Time) >

 

Current Standard Model of Physics and Cosmology >

Current Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection 

 

 

I've rearranged the elements of your model Josh to indicate where I am on this.

 

Working from the bottom up, Evolution and the Standard Model seem to be well supported by evidence.  To my knowledge the Amplituhedron is currently a theoretical concept only, with no evidence that I know of to support it.  Yes, it explains much and promises much, but then again, so does String Theory.  And as we know, there's currently no evidence to support String Theory.

 

The reservations I have about the three uppermost elements can be be summed up in two ways.  First, where's the evidence?  Second, if we cannot even probe the quantum foam that overlies the Amplituhedron, what hope is there of investigating the deeper, even more fundamental levels?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Starting out, there's no evidence of anything concrete aside from our experience of awareness in the current moment.

 

If we're to venture away from the Math's, and the models, and anything abstract, and focus only on the absolute truth that we have access to - it's awareness of experience. All other bets are just that, guess work. We don't have a variety of options. Just the fact that we start off aware of the fact that we are experiential centers of some type. 

 

The model above is one that can work backwards from the only certainty that exists, as an explanatory path for connecting the dots between what we know for sure - experience - and what doesn't result in paradox and contradiction of the only thing we know for sure. 

 

Materialist metaphysics can't manage to explain qualia from quanta. It's less preferred in that way. That's part of the circulating narrative, too. You can see some of the narrative examples I told the Professor about above. This is some more of the depth of the narrative. 

 

And part of the narrative are examples of how to respond to the 'opposition' without stepping over the line and going into ego-based threats towards "unbelievers," and acting insecure about the fact that not everyone sees it as you do.

 

The narrative is that everyone can see our "Experiential Based Reality" (EBR) however they're compelled to see it. Everyone is free and entitled to any opinion they prefer. 

 

What exists, simply is, and can't be otherwise.

 

It doesn't depend on subjects, grovelers, or "believers." It has no pressing need to have anyone believe in it. It's the real omni-everything. Revealing the dualistic versions as impostures. But imposing no revenge. Why would it? The non-dual has no competition, no opposition in reality. All smoke and mirrors. 

 

It's simply what exists all the time right under noses, regardless of what anyone says, believes, thinks or doesn't think about it. 

 

The "Experiential based Reality" is what it is, because it can't be otherwise. 

 

And what it is, is experiential. 

 

Poo pooing life and experience has no logical application within the narrative. There's no sense of waiting this life out for some other life. Experience itself is what we are. Experience is what's meant to happen and why we even exist to begin with. 

 

And it's up to us to navigate the societal rules that we will allow and tolerate as a collective sharing in the experience, of experience itself. Nothing is set in stone. Everything is up to us to decide, by intuition, logic, and reason. Myths and models are recognized as metaphor. Indirect ways of visualizing what it's "like" to exist in a Conscious Universe with the dots connected all the way through from a conceptual perspective. You are here, primary Consciousness maps out as such. It's like a dashboard of dials or user interface headset. We're all performers in a grand play which looks to us as mundane day to day life experience. 

[walterpthefirst]

Starting out, there's no evidence of anything concrete aside from our experience of awareness in the current moment.

 

If we're to venture away from the Math's, and the models, and anything abstract, and focus only on the absolute truth that we have access to - it's awareness of experience. All other bets are just that, guess work. We don't have a variety of options. Just the fact that we start off aware of the fact that we are experiential centers of some type. 

 

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

 

And here's where we (amicably) diverge, Josh.

 

Science acknowledges that in terms of our experience we have no absolute proof of anything outside of ourselves.  But it gets around that hurdle by not promising to deliver absolute proof of anything.  All of empirical science is tentative and provisional, not absolute.

 

Having done that science then works on the assumption that there is a reality that is external to our experiences.  Does that assumption work?  The answer is a resounding yes.  Science delivers astonishingly reliable results.  But if you want to doubt that because you cannot be sure of anything outside of your own experience, then beware!

 

That is the line consistently taken by the Christian Presuppositional apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL8LREmbDi0

 

He tried the brain-in-a-vat argument against Matt Dillahunty.  Didn't work!

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

On 3/8/2023 at 3:05 PM, Rev R said:

Of particular interest would be Buddhism Without Beliefs and Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist. Both offer Batchelor's thoughts on a Buddhist practice without the supernatural aspects found in traditional sources. You might find some useful ideas in there somewhere.

Thank you.  I will tentatively plan to check them out and then most likely not get around to it for a while.  It is, indeed, possible to practice Buddhist philosophy without any kind of theistic belief or religious trappings.  Because Ms. Professor is Vietnamese, we have the traditional shrines in our home and we observe some of the rituals.  But, for her it is more cultural than religious; and, for me, it is simply a reminder to stay grounded in the moment.