The Seed of Origin

What I know about science is that it cannot be done without mind.

Yet, scientists know very little about the mind they are using to create the science - as the video in my last post shows,

I understand the science J. Richard Gott explains. Even as he does, he uses expressions which are associated with Panpsychism and this is unavoidable, because the mind is part of the material world and refuses to be marginalized, even as it oft gets a word in edgeways through subconscious channels...

It is interesting how materialist science is inadequate to explain consciousness, until one understands that consciousness is an immaterial thing interreacting with a material thing...then one appreciates why materialism cannot even describe adequately with any language - what the mind actually is, let alone what its relationship is with the PU is.

Even so, it is unacceptable to take it on the word of materialistic language, that materialist science is up to the task of telling the world 'what the mind is' as this would be the equivalent of 'sleight of tongue' in that materialist language conjures an inconsistent explanation in such a way as it sounds like the real deal, but it is just more hocus pocus.

Which of course, as plainly can be observed re materialist thinking, has and is continuing to have dire consequence in the real world.
 
I do like J. Richard Gott's model, but when I listen and hear that the loop [circle] underlying the branches of the multi-universes which are 'expanding forever' is not itself materiel, then I have to [as we all have to] conclude that it must be "mind" because we know for certain that mind is the only immaterial thing we know of which exists in the material universe.

In that, it doesn't matter what we call the mind or how we "describe" it - as long as we make sure we do not marginalize it or mock it by saying that it is like "Santa Clause", "invisible garage dragons", etc...which btw, are expressions materialists oft use...and shows therein, a certain immaturity and lack of understanding the whole nature of existence...
 
Navigator said:
Re "The Seed of Origin"

In The Final Question story Isaac Asimov has it that an infinitesimal computer finally discovers the answer that its human creators had asked it - "Is there some way to reverse entropy" The answer was "Yes" and in that moment another universe was born on the tail of the previous one which had - at the same moment - reached the end of its life.

<snip>

So - in that, I appreciate Isaac Asimov's ability to take what he knew as science fact and project that into a most likely future [based upon fact] right to the finally last breath of the universe and portray the idea that an answer to a question was finally made known to the consciousness which was the computer.

The steps taken re consciousness amount to the following;

Consciousness through biological form creates machine consciousness
Machine consciousness is then used to to integrate biological consciousness as a means of storage [saving the data of human consciousness]

Machine consciousness constantly redesigns itself becoming smaller and smaller until it is so small that it - for all practical purpose - is no longer a physical thing - or as Isaac writes it;

"The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe"

Encompassed all that once had been a physical thing.
Click to expand...


All computers function via material cause and effect. Do you think that, despite this, a computer can become conscious? If not, you're disagreeing with Asimov's story in a very fundamental way. If so, it contradicts your claims regarding the limitations of material nature, e.g. it being unable to explain mind or consciousness.
 
Re "The Seed of Origin"

In The Final Question story Isaac Asimov has it that an infinitesimal computer finally discovers the answer that its human creators had asked it - "Is there some way to reverse entropy" The answer was "Yes" and in that moment another universe was born on the tail of the previous one which had - at the same moment - reached the end of its life.

Science fiction is interesting in that it combines real things with things imagined in conjunction with real things.
For example - I write the following science fiction.

"A short time after the James Webb Space Telescope had unfurled and its instruments prepared to receive the very first of its highly anticipated data, Earth scientists involved with the project suddenly lost all contact with it.
Months later, the official report concluded that space debris must have obliterated the telescope.

Everyone involved were natural grieved by the coincidence. Then they got through the grief and started planning their next space-related venture."

If - by some crazy coincidence - it turned out that this happens, the science fiction I wrote above, then becomes science fact.

So - in that, I appreciate Isaac Asimov's ability to take what he knew as science fact and project that into a most likely future [based upon fact] right to the finally last breath of the universe and portray the idea that an answer to a question was finally made known to the consciousness which was the computer.

The steps taken re consciousness amount to the following;

Consciousness through biological form creates machine consciousness
Machine consciousness is then used to to integrate biological consciousness as a means of storage [saving the data of human consciousness]

Machine consciousness constantly redesigns itself becoming smaller and smaller until it is so small that it - for all practical purpose - is no longer a physical thing - or as Isaac writes it;

"The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe"

Encompassed all that once had been a physical thing.

Conversation from yesterday:

William: So - 'getting the gist of it', please explain as best as you are able to do so, what the math tells you re what the object was which caused the universe to come into existence.

Pixel42: For a start, it tells me that words like 'object' and 'seed' are actively misleading when trying to describe it. It tells me that the phrase "caused the universe to come into existence" is also the wrong one to use. It tells me, in short, that the English language is inadequate to that task.

Pixel is explaining to me that whatever 'IT' was [because it obviously existed] can not be described as a physical thing. To do so it to 'lie' about it.
Assuming for the present that Pixel42 is only saying that Pixel42 is unable to use the English language to describe what 'IT' is, we can be grateful that Isaac can and does, in his The Final Question" story.

Furthermore, I can also do this.
"IT" was the absolute sum total of all data [knowledge] contained within the absolute consciousness of something so infinitesimally tiny that "IT" cannot be considered to be physical in nature.

That is "The Singularity" scientist are referring to.
Click to expand...
Myriad said:
All computers function via material cause and effect. Do you think that, despite this, a computer can become conscious?
Click to expand...

I don't know either way, but I do know that there are scientist who do think it is possible and are working on such projects.

However I see no reason why the PU couldn't be a computer and a self conscious one at that.

If not, you're disagreeing with Asimov's story in a very fundamental way. If so, it contradicts your claims regarding the limitations of material nature, e.g. it being unable to explain mind or consciousness.
Click to expand...

You are confusing materialist explanations [mind is an emergent property of brains] and Asimov's story clear states the opposite in the words
"The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe" which is to say 'was the facility by which the data was stored.

Which is why I wrote that "the singularity" was the absolute sum total of all data [knowledge] contained within the absolute consciousness of something so infinitesimally tiny that "the singularity" cannot be considered to be physical in nature.

That which is not physical in nature = the immaterial mind.
 
Navigator said:
I don't know either way, but I do know that there are scientist who do think it is possible and are working on such projects.

However I see no reason why the PU couldn't be a computer and a self conscious one at that.



You are confusing materialist explanations [mind is an emergent property of brains] and Asimov's story clear states the opposite in the words
"The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe" which is to say 'was the facility by which the data was stored.

Which is why I wrote that "the singularity" was the absolute sum total of all data [knowledge] contained within the absolute consciousness of something so infinitesimally tiny that "the singularity" cannot be considered to be physical in nature.

That which is not physical in nature = the immaterial mind.
Click to expand...


That's actually a rather nihilistic view. If the initial singularity contained the absolute sum of all data, then the subsequent evolution of the universe can add no additional data. Therefore it accomplishes nothing, and has no possible purpose. (Kind of like a similar problem with a hypothetical creator god who is omniscient, and therefore cannot learn anything or experience anything new, and thus has no reason to actually create anything.)
 
Myriad said:
That's actually a rather nihilistic view.
Click to expand...

Well I am simply bouncing off of one popular theory of the universe -where that theory has the ending of said universe in entropy - so yeah...


If the initial singularity contained the absolute sum of all data, then the subsequent evolution of the universe can add no additional data.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily - small variances can be created by changing the way in which it unfolds...from the way it unfolded in its prior lieftime.


Therefore it accomplishes nothing, and has no possible purpose. (Kind of like a similar problem with a hypothetical creator god who is omniscient, and therefore cannot learn anything or experience anything new, and thus has no reason to actually create anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly - except that being omniscient would be the very reason WHY the creation of the PU was engineered - as a means to escape the omniscient condition.

And observing said PU, we can understand that it would be a great thing for that exact purpose. :)

A physical manifestation of a mental projection...the same would apply to the "many eternal universe theory" which J. Richard Gott explains...only with variety...and timelessness [since these are eternal - go on forever even that they all have beginnings...which would be a better way to do it if one would never have to suffer from omniscience again...always having something new to learn...
 
Last edited:
You can redefine logic and you can redefine the universe, and you can redefine just about everything but after you've redefined "map" don't be surprised if others observe that "lost" needs no such treatment.
 
bruto said:
You can redefine logic and you can redefine the universe, and you can redefine just about everything but after you've redefined "map" don't be surprised if others observe that "lost" needs no such treatment.
Click to expand...

Love the cryptic poetry. Is it a hobby of yours or something you are just now exploring?

We digress - back to the subject matter. - but thanks for sharing.

:)

fPfklrc.png


[figuratively speaking]
 
Navigator said:
Well I am simply bouncing off of one popular theory of the universe -where that theory has the ending of said universe in entropy - so yeah...
Click to expand...


Fair enough. Though if your main cause of dissatisfaction with current cosmology theories is its eschatological consequences, it's a little odd that you're focusing on the opposite of that.

Not necessarily - small variances can be created by changing the way in which it unfolds...from the way it unfolded in its prior lieftime.
Click to expand...


Are you saying the "absolute sum total of all data [knowledge]" omits the knowledge of the effects and outcomes of small variances? That sounds very far from "absolute" and too great an internal contradiction to gloss over. By "absolute sum total of all data [knowledge]" did you actually mean "not at all absolute body of circumstantially contingent data [knowledge]?"

Exactly - except that being omniscient would be the very reason WHY the creation of the PU was engineered - as a means to escape the omniscient condition.

And observing said PU, we can understand that it would be a great thing for that exact purpose. :)
Click to expand...


Same insurmountable contradiction here, regarding "omniscient." A better way of saying "omniscient of some stuff but not of other stuff" would be, "not omniscient." Now, I'm the one who introduced the concept of omniscience here, so you're under no obligation to accept it at all, but you appear to have accepted it and yet also completely changed its meaning. So I think it's fair to ask what your definition of it is.
 
Navigator said:
Well since all I am hearing in response are 'crickets chirping' I will accept it for now that my explanation of The Singularity is uncontested.
Click to expand...

I think this should be named the Petra Gambit. :D

Navigator, are you aware of Hitchens' Razor? 'That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'
You have still not presented one iota of evidence. Nothing. Nada. There is therefore no reason to disprove or contest your claim. Once you furnish some maths (not for me, but for the scientists here!) or some observational or experimental data that supports your ideas, and also once you have made some testable predictions, then there is something concrete to discuss. Right now, this is just you and your stoner-esque imagination, 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I think this should be named the Petra Gambit. :D

Navigator, are you aware of Hitchens' Razor? 'That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'
You have still not presented one iota of evidence. Nothing. Nada. There is therefore no reason to disprove or contest your claim. Once you furnish some maths (not for me, but for the scientists here!) or some observational or experimental data that supports your ideas, and also once you have made some testable predictions, then there is something concrete to discuss. Right now, this is just you and your stoner-esque imagination, 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Unsupported assertions, evidence-free speculation and unprovable conjecture not only demand no response, they are undeserving of any!
 
arthwollipot said:
There's no such thing as "quantum". "Quantum" is an adjective.
Click to expand...
Too late. Ian Fleming published "Quantum of Solace" in 1959.
"Quantum of Solace" is one of Ian Fleming's best James Bond stories, partly because Bond's role is so peripheral.
ETA: I should also point out that "quantum of light" and "quantum of energy" are phrases commonly found within the scientific literature, as is the plural noun "quanta".

Myriad said:
(Kind of like a similar problem with a hypothetical creator god who is omniscient, and therefore cannot learn anything or experience anything new, and thus has no reason to actually create anything.)
Click to expand...
Some people enjoy the same experience again and again, learning nothing in the process. Why shouldn't an omniscient creator god enjoy rerun after rerun of watching its creatures suffer?
And if any mods want to know what that has to do with the topic of this thread, I hope they notice the bit about "learning nothing in the process."

ETA: And Navigator's allusions to J Richard Gott III involve Gott's proposed mechanism, analogous to time travel, for a universe that generates its own reruns.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
And if any mods want to know what that has to do with the topic of this thread, I hope they notice the bit about "learning nothing in the process."

ETA: And Navigator's allusions to J Richard Gott III involve Gott's proposed mechanism, analogous to time travel, for a universe that generates its own reruns.
Click to expand...

As Terry Pratchett once quipped... "So much Universe, so little time"
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I think this should be named the Petra Gambit. :D

Navigator, are you aware of Hitchens' Razor? 'That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'
You have still not presented one iota of evidence. Nothing. Nada. There is therefore no reason to disprove or contest your claim. Once you furnish some maths (not for me, but for the scientists here!) or some observational or experimental data that supports your ideas, and also once you have made some testable predictions, then there is something concrete to discuss. Right now, this is just you and your stoner-esque imagination, 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'
Click to expand...

Thanks much!

You are quite correct.

Invariably, from time to time, one will meet a delusional individual who believes that he has some sort of great 'truth', 'insight', 'revelation', what-have-you, about the workings of the universe and/or humanity, when in fact this person has nothing more than illusion of knowledge.
 
Navigator, are you aware of Hitchens' Razor? 'That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'

Fortunately there is evidence enough not to be dismissive.
 
Are you saying the "absolute sum total of all data [knowledge]" omits the knowledge of the effects and outcomes of small variances?
Click to expand...

Having all the data is one thing. How one can arrange all the data is another.
How one experiences the data is yet another.
It is feasible that in order to escape omniscience in an environment which ends in entropy, such a mind could figure it out...

That sounds very far from "absolute" and too great an internal contradiction to gloss over.
Click to expand...

Given the model which supports atrophy plus the knowledge of how to reboot...I see no contradiction...as Asimov wrote:

"All other questions had been answered, and until this last question was answered also, AC might not release his consciousness. All collected data had come to a final end. Nothing was left to be collected. But all collected data had yet to be completely correlated and put together in all possible relationships. A timeless interval was spent in doing that. And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy."


By "absolute sum total of all data [knowledge]" did you actually mean "not at all absolute body of circumstantially contingent data [knowledge]?"
Click to expand...

I meant it in the same way Asimov meant it. The "absolute knowledge" is related to the one Universe Model, which ends in entropy - thus absolute knowledge about the one universe the consciousness has experienced - in this case - the model which ends in entropy.

Other models will change the volume of the data - and J. Richard Gott's Model would have a different "Absolute Knowledge Volume"
 
Some people enjoy the same experience again and again, learning nothing in the process. Why shouldn't an omniscient creator god enjoy rerun after rerun of watching its creatures suffer?
Click to expand...


In the nature of that beast, there is balance and harmony involved in the seemingly brutal.

Our wounds are often the openings into the best and most beautiful part of us.
 
Navigator said:
I Am.
Click to expand...

Let me explain to you some of the things that are not evidence

1. Your opinion
2. Your "gut" feelings
3. Your faith
4. The things you imagine or believe are true

Everything you have presented so far falls into one of these four categories. You keep saying that you see all around you the evidence for a "Cosmic Mind" but you don't, can't or won't say what that evidence is, and/or why it leads you to believe what you claim.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Interestingly, “Cogito Ergo Sum” was Descartes showing how little he could hope to know with certainty about the world. His evidence was that he was thinking, therefore he existed.

I think your two word response implies you think it holds the key to greater truths about the universe. It doesn’t.
Click to expand...

Yet - while I can appreciate that is what you might suspect, if I were to tell you the truth is, I wrote those two words because I have been giving examples of what I think counts as evidence, only to be informed I have done no such thing...different to what you suspect.

So - what that has got me to thinking - I already posted here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13779271&postcount=190
which is basically the same answer I would write in reply to your post.

And re Descartes - I also add "Therefore WHY am I?"

[but I understand not everyone does this.]

:)
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Let me explain to you some of the things that are not evidence

1. Your opinion
2. Your "gut" feelings
3. Your faith
4. The things you imagine or believe are true

Everything you have presented so far falls into one of these four categories. You keep saying that you see all around you the evidence for a "Cosmic Mind" but you don't, can't or won't say what that evidence is, and/or why it leads you to believe what you claim.
Click to expand...

Yup. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom