Atheism: What Happened Before the Big Bang?

[arildno]

triden:
It is your RELIGION that makes you unable to see the truth, i.e, WARPS your perspective.

 

[Raza]

God did it is just another way of saying "I don't know". In my religion I am allowed to say "I don't know" I think this is much more honest then saying "God did it".

The spark of life is indeed a mystery, but how it is connected to the big bang is not even a little bit clear. These events, the big bang and the initiation of life are separated by billions of years and generations of stars.

I am happy with saying that time and space did not exist before the big bang, at least that is a starting point, god on the other hand, by the very definition of the concept, has no begining, this is a bit hard for me to swallow.

Thank you for a great response, I was asking what created the big matter(?) to simply explode?

 

[verty]

[109:4] "Nor will I ever worship what you worship.

[109:5] "Nor will you ever worship what I worship.

That's not a nice sentiment, it's like saying that the other party is terminally flawed, beyond redemption, and that you would never in your life consider what they worship to be worthy of worship. To then say "to you is your religion and to me is mine" is a very lowly consolation after that harsh judgement and implied condemnation.

 

[Raza]

I believe that Christianity is a beautiful religion but I believe that Islam is a perfect religion but I can use these verses to describe the religion's relationship.

 

[moe darklight]

To you is religion, and to me is reason.

Atheism is not a religion... by its very definition Atheism is the complete opposite of religion... that atheism is just another religion is something that religious thinkers tell themselves and each other as a way of dismissing Atheism. Atheists don't have a belief system... i guess our only rule would be to lean towards whatever 'makes sense'.

But like I said before, don't use forums as your main form of research on atheism... as you noticed, things get heated.

p.s: I too believe that the old testament (that was taught to me at school from page 1 to page 1000000 or whatever the last page is lol) and what I've read from the bible are beautiful books full of great lessons. I haven't read the Quran but I'm sure it is too. They great stories and we can all learn a lot from them, and also learn a lot about our past as a culture. And there was a time when they did serve a purpose, to keep a growing human population from destroying itself and to keep it in order... but it's time to move on. and that doesn't mean we have to forget these books and religions and what we've learned from them.

 

[ray b]

I believe that Christianity is a beautiful religion but I believe that Islam is a perfect religion but I can use these verses to describe the religion's relationship.

then why does your religion play so poorly with others
fail to limit the clear excesses of the leadership
kill people for bad reasons [sex]
fail to improve the common peoples lot
be a source of terror
have so little respect for females

 

[PIT2]

There cannot be a 'perfect religion'. A religion is not just an idea but also every consequence this idea has on the world. Furthermore, in the case of islam (and also christianity) the 'idea' is gathered from a book which is considered an absolute truth. Because a book is meaningless without interpretation, and a book is also an extremely flawed way of conveying ones ideas to someone else (video and sound would be much better but there is no perfect communication except perhaps telepathy), the result is a virtually limitless number of interpretations by just as many people, each of whom are, because of the nature of their religion (believing a book to be absolutely true, more than any other source of information), required to see their interpretation as 'the truth'.

Knowing that written text is in no way a perfect way to convey a message, u can see how it can be very dangerous to believe that it is an absolute truth.

Religious people may say things like: "but suicidebombing is not what islam is! burning people at the stake is not what christianity is!". But that is exactly what they both are aswell. U can't detach a religion from its impact on the world, and so all the negative aspects are just as much part of it as all the positive aspects. Empirical observation proves that religions are not perfect.

A man can be in jail for murder, and his mother may say "my son is not a murderer, he's a good person and was always nice to me". But that's just selecting the good aspects and ignoring the bad ones.

 

[heusdens]

I mostly believe in God because it seems more probable to me than the "Big Bang" theory. As a Muslim, I believe it's my responsibility to know what other people believe in. I have looked in Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism, and now it's my turn to look at Atheism. My question is, in Atheism, What happened before the big bang? What made the first physical matter? What made energy? light? fire?

Thank you.

Atheism is a philosophical point of view, it doesn't involve or require a physical explenation as to what "came before the Big Bang" or things like that. Atheism in not a specific world outlook, but is a category of world outlooks, which have in common that they don't acknowledge that there is a deity.

Most of your question, in sofar they relate to your physical questions, are answered in physical theories, such as the Big Bang theory (it perfectly explains why and from what instant in time there is baryonic matter and why there are photons which we can see in the form of the CMBR, these photons were already there but in this dense "soup" of matter, could not go anywhere and bumped directly into particles, only after atoms were formed, photons became visible light, which we can still detect, in fact it is the olders remnant of the big bang) and as to what was the direct cause of the "Big Bang" this question is answered best by the theory of cosmological inflation, which explains that there was a very rapid expansion of space as the potential field (called the "inflaton" field) slowly rolled down to the minimum of the potential, where it oscilated and reheated the universe, thus releasing the energy which created all the baryonic matter and photons, etc.

For your information, as I guess you want to ask the really profound question as to why at all is there matter/energy, space/time, etc., if you want that asked by physics, that is the wrong question to ask, because any question that physics can try to explain, involves a material state of the universe (which already involves some form of matter/energy, space and time).

So you can in physics ask, why does state X of the universe occur, rather then Y, but you can't ask why is there any state at all. If there isn't a physical state, then physics can not deal with it.

So, if I translate your question into the metaphysical question as to why is there being instead of non-being (and for which you think, your deity provides an answer) the answer is that this question already assume something, namely the absolute seperatedness of being and non-being, which makes it impossible to answer the question.

Since, as we can conclude, being and non-being are in fact not absolutely seperate, but just opposites of each other, which necessarily belong to each other. They are like two sided of the same coin, or two poles of a magnet, you can not separate them.
You can slice the coin, but then you end up have two (half) coins, each with a top and bottom side. Cut a magnet, and you don't have a north pole and south pole, but two magnets, each with a north and south pole.
[ for clarity, we neglect the weird case which is claimed by particle phyiscs about monopoles ]

The way we can see this is to reflect on them in their higher unity (the dialectical unity of being and non-being) which is Becoming.

Every process that goes everywhere and on all moments in time, involve becoming, in which one thing changes or transforms into another thing, which therefore means: the being of one thing, changes into non-being (ceasing-to-be), and the non-being of another thing, changes into being (becoming).

Example: burning H₂ gas with O₂, which creates H₂O and heat. In this process the H₂ and O₂ become inexistent, and at the same time it makes water and heat.

But you can't make water and heat without H₂ and O₂ (or other chemical components), nor can you get rid of H₂ and O₂ without creating something else. This in general means you can only transform something from one state into another, wether that requires motion, chemical processes, or physical processes. And as far as science is concerned we have always a material state changing into a different material state.

A philosophy or idea which clings on the absolute seperatedness of being and non-being (which in other words, doesn't reflect on them in their unity, in the form of becoming or ceasing to be) is not called dialectics but sophistry.

I hope this answers your question?

 

[moe darklight]

then why does your religion play so poorly with others
fail to limit the clear excesses of the leadership
kill people for bad reasons [sex]
fail to improve the common peoples lot
be a source of terror
have so little respect for females

This is not always the case... it depends on the interpretation of the religion.

I'm Jewish (well, obviously not a religious jew but I consider myself a jew and follow some of the jewish traditions) and I have muslim friends, and know muslims who are not disrespectful to their wives etc. because they don't read that into the Quran.

the same as some christians read "Jesus loves everyone" while others somehow read "Jesus hates f*gs."

the problem with religion is exactly that... it's all about faith and what FEELS like the truth. it FEELS like I have a soul. it FEELS like god is watching over me. it FEELS like the bible says this or that. and no one is wrong as long as they convince themselves that what they feel is the absolute truth.

your claim that Islam is perfect reminds me of stephen colbert "The bible is 100% true; it says so in the bible." ... the flawed logic he uses as a comedic device, others use as an actual point of argument!

If Islam is perfect, then you should be able to prove so by presenting all the claims and predictions it makes, and showing us how they are all true. same with any religion... but none can.

There is this belief among religious people that science is out to disprove the existence of god by any means... this is just not true. If tomorrow came indisputable evidence that god exists, I'm sure stephen hawking himself would be out spreading The Word and repenting for all his sins.
many of the greatest scientists throughout history have been highly religious. but as science progressed, the probability of god became less and less until it became pretty clear that there most probably isn't a god (and if there is, that it most certainly is not anything like our religious gods).

I feel sorry for religious people who deprive themselves of many of the joys of life (sex, food, art, knowledge) in the name/fear of a god. what a waste it was for that god to create the orgasm!

 

[whatta]

And wherever have you received the notion from that there exists some shortcut that makes science unnecessary for answering these questions?

I am sorry, but I seriously don't know what you are talking about.

Well, you should be, because he's right. What you (religious dudes) have is a bunch of words explaining 0...01% of the world. What they (scientific dudes) have is a bunch of mathematical expressions explaining 0...01% of the world. Apart from big questions like "who is right" and "where everything came from", this is a matter of language preference.

p.s.: as to "where everything came from" question, it is logically incorrect, because "everything" would include that overlooked source as well. some people put it in other words, like what happened "before" T=0 (whilst there was no "before" by definition). you can render this question even more meaningless by switching to another coordinate system (such that T=0 would map to T'=-infinity). any way, "the answer" (if any) is outside of monkeys' 0...01% of the world, so why bother...

 

[YellowTwo]

heusdens - Nice post that was brilliant.

I think to really understand this whole topic it's a good idea to take a course on beginning philosophy. I took a class last semester and ever since then everything has become so much clearer.

 

[Gokul43201]

The probability of the universe existing randomly and leading to create us is pretty much nil.

The probability that you typed this exact combination of words in this post is also nil. Yet it happened.

Most often, it is ignorance of math and science that let's people be happy with whatever arguments they are fed by promoters of religion. Sad.

 

[Nexus555]

In my opinion, atheist are equally as destructive in nature as religious. Being an atheist requires equal amount of faith that a god does not exist, as religions require faith for the existence. I personally feel that Atheism is a religion without any context.

I stay in the neutral ground being Agnostic. Agnostic's do not deny there is a god (because there is no proof that there is not a god) at the same time they do not claim that there is a god (because there is no evidence that there is a god.) So with that being said, Agnostics rely more on evidence as a means of belief, not mere faith.

However I do enjoy hearing my religious friends sharing their experiences with their religion. For some it's hard for them to comprehend people not believing in their religion. Usually when I tell someone I'm agnostic, I get a flame for being an atheist. Big difference.

 

[heusdens]

In my opinion, atheist are equally as destructive in nature as religious. Being an atheist requires equal amount of faith that a god does not exist, as religions require faith for the existence. I personally feel that Atheism is a religion without any context.

I stay in the neutral ground being Agnostic. Agnostic's do not deny there is a god (because there is no proof that there is not a god) at the same time they do not claim that there is a god (because there is no evidence that there is a god.) So with that being said, Agnostics rely more on evidence as a means of belief, not mere faith.

However I do enjoy hearing my religious friends sharing their experiences with their religion. For some it's hard for them to comprehend people not believing in their religion. Usually when I tell someone I'm agnostic, I get a flame for being an atheist. Big difference.

It doesn't require me to have faith for me being an atheist. It's a false assumption to state that being an atheist requires faith. Despite your "personal feelings". If atheism requires one to have faith, then atheism would not be atheism (by definition), therefore your remark is self-contradictionary.

See also my previous post why I argue that there isn't any reason one could assume that the existence of a deity is a necessary or reasonable explenation. There isn't a reasonable ground on which the assumption that the existence of a deity would be a necessary conclusion yields true. So, in short, there isn't a reason on why one should assume that such a deity could exist.

I don't have to give a "proof" that deities don't exist as in general one can not proof a negative (neither I can't "proof" that an invisible and in principle undetectable gremlin sits on my desk).

If religion can not satisfy the condition why their assumption would be reasonable, then there is no need to justify such a belief.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

This is my perspective regarding the fundamental differences between belief systems and models of reality. It is pretty general so if anyone wishes to discuss any specifics, please feel free to address them.

The first subjective presupposition or assumption that an individual must construct about reality, is an ontological status. Does this individual presuppose a substance ontology, in which reality can fundamentally reduce into constituent parts, from which the macrocosmic emerges? Or does this individual presuppose a process ontology, in which reality is a complimentary oscillation between being and nonbeing?

After one has decided upon their paradigm of reality, one must extend their assumptions further.

I have reflected upon this topic for a while and I have come to the conclusion that this dialogue essentially deconstructs into a dichotomy between two fundamental presuppositions about reality:

1) Is the architecture of reality generated and engineered by an absolute mind, such as god?

Or

2) Does reality exist independent of an absolute mind?

If one presupposes that reality cannot exist independent of some absolute mind such as god, then one must transcend this notion to accept and embrace a Universe capable of existing independently. For instance, if a Christian who maintains a literal interpretation of the bible, presupposes the existence of biblegod and assumes that the bible is the truth and the inerrant word of biblegod, then when one is confronted with concepts and ideas dismissing the need for biblegod and postulating a self-contained Universe, one reaches a contradiction in which there is no longer a need for an absolute mind. Since one would presuppose that biblegod exists and that the word has been given to humanity, then when confronted with contradictory notions such as evolution, one must dismiss it on grounds of contradiction (granted, evolution does not necessarily dismiss the need for a creator, nor am I implicitly implying that) .

Conversely, if one presupposes the existence of reality, independent of an absolute mind, then one must transcend this presupposition in order to embrace an abstract notion such as an absolute mind. Since one does not presuppose the existence of an absolute mind, one does not embrace or accept the words in the bible (or whichever particular holy text is being considered) and instead, seeks solutions that lack the need for an absolute mind, such as biological and stellar evolution or even perhaps a Buddhist/Daoist approach to reality.

 

[PIT2]

It doesn't require me to have faith for me being an atheist. It's a false assumption to state that being an atheist requires faith. Despite your "personal feelings". If atheism requires one to have faith, then atheism would not be atheism (by definition), therefore your remark is self-contradictionary.

How have u defined atheism? Believing nothing?

See also my previous post why I argue that there isn't any reason one could assume that the existence of a deity is a necessary or reasonable explenation.

What if we drop the assumption that mind is an emergent property of matter, which is what separates origin of mind in a temporal sense from origin of universe?

 

[heusdens]

How have u defined atheism? Believing nothing?

I don't think that to believe in something contradicts atheism, since it is the case we don't have complete knowledge, so sometimes we make assumptions for which we don't have sufficient reason/knowledge. This assumption we may qualify as a belief.

[ For example, assume you forgot your key and you can't remember where you left it. For that reason you make for instance the assumption that you left it on your table, although you are not sure about it. ]

So, sometime we belief something is the case for which we don't have sufficient proof.
I think it is quite natural and part of our natural being to make sometimes decission on insufficient proof, and this may well relate to our evolutionary origin. If we would only take action in cases in which we have sufficient proof, maybe that would have caused negative outcomes for survival chances.

Atheism is a category of world outlooks which don't start out or are based on the idea that a supernatural being or deity created the world.

However, I don't consider myself to be an atheist (although my worldoutlook may certainly be classified as such) but as a materialist, which takes the stand that matter is primary, and consciousness is secundary.

What if we drop the assumption that mind is an emergent property of matter, which is what separates origin of mind in a temporal sense from origin of universe?

What is mind, if not dependend on properties of matter? We know our mind is material in essence, else this would mean that my mind could not effect the material and could not be aware of the material world, and I could not move, speak, or do anything with material effects.

Such a mind would then in principle be undetectable, which makes it non-sensical to assume.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't have to give a "proof" that deities don't exist as in general one can not proof a negative

If you can't "proof" a negative, then isn't your belief in said negative based on faith?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

What if we drop the assumption that mind is an emergent property of matter, which is what separates origin of mind in a temporal sense from origin of universe?

If you wish to postulate a duality between mind and body, you must address the long standing Problem of Interactionism.

How does an immaterial mind causally interact with a material body?

 

[heusdens]

If you can't "proof" a negative, then isn't your belief in said negative based on faith?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I said I don't have to proof the non-existence of a deity. It is not a requirement.

The reason for why not to believe in a deity is that there is no reason to assume it exists.

That is already satisfactory, since said deity has no reason to exist, unless necessary.

So a deity that exists despite it not being necessary the case is self contradictionary.

 

[heusdens]

How does an immaterial mind causally interact with a material body?

Because *mind* is material !

 

[PIT2]

Atheism is a category of world outlooks which don't start out or are based on the idea that a supernatural being or deity created the world.

Would u say that atheism implies believing that no intelligent/purposeful cause was involved in the origin of the universe?

What is mind, if not dependend on properties of matter? We know our mind is material in essence, else this would mean that my mind could not effect the material and could not be aware of the material world, and I could not move, speak, or do anything with material effects.

No that doesn't have to be so, it only demonstrates interaction between mind and matter. It doesn't say that matter is primal, or mind is primal, or how deep mind extends into the physical even if it does emerge from it, or whether both are flipsides of the same coin no matter what configuration the physical takes and so have existed equally long, or they both come from some 'neutral substance' which is neither objective nor subjective but something different/inbetween/both.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Because *mind* is material !

I share your position, I am simply posing the question to PIT2.

No that doesn't have to be so, it only demonstrates interaction between mind and matter. It doesn't say that matter is primal, or mind is primal, or how deep mind extends into the physical even if it does emerge from it, or whether both are flipsides of the same coin no matter what configuration the physical takes and so have existed equally long, or they both come from some 'neutral substance' which is neither objective nor subjective but something different/inbetween/both.

Of course this argument is based on assumptions, however, it seems logical to use the least amount of unverified assumptions as possible.

Perhaps this analogy might make better sense:

When one considers water, one can determine various properties of the water. One significant emergent property of water is it's wetness. When discussing the property of wetness, it does not make logical sense to separate this property from water and treat it as an independent and tangible object. Instead, we discuss wetness as a property of the chemical structure of the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Consciousness can be considered an emergent property of the brain and in this sense is inextricably, interconnected to the architecture of the brain. When considering consciousness as a property of the physical brain in the same regard one considers wetness as a property of water, one can see a dilemma.

Matter alone does not posses consciousness, however, when arranged in a specific physical pattern or structure, consciousness emerges.

This dilemma arises out of the etymology of the word 'consciousness' as 'ness' implies a substance or that consciousness is some tangible object separate from the brain. However, it doesn't make sense to separate these two as consciousness is an emergent property of the brain's architecture.

Hydrogen and oxygen alone, do not possesses wetness (as far as I know), however, through their synthesis, wetness arises. Wetness is dependent upon the chemical structure.

In this sense, it doesn't make much sense to assume consciousness merely emerges out of matter, instead, it is more appropriate to consider consciousness as a unique property of the brain's architecture. We know if we alter the electro biochemical properties of the brain or it's physical structure, we can drastically effect consciousness.

In this respect, we eliminate the Problem of Interactionism because we do not postulate consciousness as something seperate.

When you discuss consciousness, you treat it as though it is an object. You are your consciousness. As you expore what consciousness is, it is in fact your consciousness (you) that is trying to understand itself.

There is a flaw in language which separates these things into separate substances.

 

[heusdens]

Would u say that atheism implies believing that no intelligent/purposeful cause was involved in the origin of the universe?

No, not necessarily, I think.

But that is some far fetched and infers some specific cosmologic theory (cosmological inflation) which, acc. to the founder of that theory, Andrei Linde, would make it in principle possible to "create" a universe in a laboratory .

This however would not imply a "begin" of the cosmos at large, but just creating a baby universe.

Personally I think it is a bit far fetched to make that assumption, I think Andrei Linde brought that idea up to ridicule religion.

No that doesn't have to be so, it only demonstrates interaction between mind and matter. It doesn't say that matter is primal, or mind is primal, or how deep mind extends into the physical even if it does emerge from it, or whether both are flipsides of the same coin no matter what configuration the physical takes and so have existed equally long, or they both come from some 'neutral substance' which is neither objective nor subjective but something different/inbetween/both.

Sorry, I don't follow this.

My argument is that mind is inconceivable without matter and must be material in essence. Unless mind itself is material in essence, it *can't* interact with matter.
The only mind we know of are minds of humans (and perhaps to a lesser extend of other living organisms). We know matter is much older then any mind we know of or can think of.

A mind which would not be based on matter is something inconceivable.

 

[heusdens]

I share your position, I am simply posing the question to PIT2.

I acknowledge that!

 

[PIT2]

Hydrogen and oxygen alone, do not possesses wetness (as far as I know), however, through their synthesis, wetness arises. Wetness is dependent upon the chemical structure.

But there is no 'wetness'. Each property of 'wetness' is reducible to the hydrogen and oxygen and further down to the electrons and protons, etc(in the end wetness is still just motion). The reason we think of wetness as something different from motion, is because of our minds. To a retard incapable of any reductionist reasoning, the whole world can seem full of fundamentally different parts. To an omniscient genius, the world would look like one single blurry substance from which he understands how all else derives. U can see that the difference is only in their minds abilities to reduce. But how can that mind itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?

Im not saying that mind is not emergent from matter, just that this is a metaphysical question, and it is just as problematic as the other options. It takes faith to think of that one as truth, and judge the other ones (which could logically lead to the idea that subjectivity was involved in the origin of the universe) as nontrue.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

But there is no 'wetness'. Each property of 'wetness' is reducible to the hydrogen and oxygen and further down to the electrons and protons, etc(in the end wetness is still just motion). The reason we think of wetness as something different from motion, is because of our minds. To a retard incapable of any reductionist reasoning, the whole world can seem full of fundamentally different parts. To an omniscient genius, the world would look like one single blurry substance from which he understands how all else derives. U can see that the difference is only in their minds abilities to reduce. But how can that mind itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?

Im not saying that mind is not emergent from matter, just that this is a metaphysical question, and it is just as problematic as the other options. It takes faith to think of that one as truth, and judge the other ones (which could logically lead to the idea that subjectivity was involved in the origin of the universe) as nontrue.

You essentially just deconstructed the whole of macrocosmic reality down into a simple component of motion, ignoring the physical phenomena and properties that emerge. Using your logic, nothing exists except for quantum entities zipping around in endless patterns and combinations.

You are denying the existence of complexity and organization as real components and consider them to be essentially illusions.

I have no idea where you are going with this but I would be glad to help develop your argument, it might have some logical foundation. I haven't heard anyone critique my view of consciousness in such a way so this should be interesting.

 

[PIT2]

But that is some far fetched and infers some specific cosmologic theory (cosmological inflation) which, acc. to the founder of that theory, Andrei Linde, would make it in principle possible to "create" a universe in a laboratory .

This however would not imply a "begin" of the cosmos at large, but just creating a baby universe.

Thats one possibility. Another one was mentioned by Paul Davies when he talked about retrocausality. He suggested that human beings right now might have some retrocausal effect even on the big bang, and that this could be why the universe was so finely tuned for life. But there are also other options. It depends on what u define as supernatural or deity.

My argument is that mind is inconceivable without matter and must be material in essence. Unless mind itself is material in essence, it *can't* interact with matter.

Even if so, and even if mind is the result of computation, brains arent the only material structures in the universe, or the only places where computation takes place. Depending on how deep mind originates in the complexity matter can also have an influence on where it is to be found.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Also, it is only a metaphysical concern when one assumes that consciousness is something more than physical.

I would like you to demonstrate one immaterial substance which would give you a logical reason to assume an extra component of reality.

My contention is that the immaterial emerges through the expression of language and is not present in reality. I welcome your rebuttal.

 

[heusdens]

But there is no 'wetness'. Each property of 'wetness' is reducible to the hydrogen and oxygen and further down to the electrons and protons, etc(in the end wetness is still just motion). The reason we think of wetness as something different from motion, is because of our minds.

Wetness is a sensory perception, which we catagorize in our mind as such. Wetness is not just the property of water, but how it acts on our skin and causes this sensory perceptions.

To a retard incapable of any reductionist reasoning, the whole world can seem full of fundamentally different parts. To an omniscient genius, the world would look like one single blurry substance from which he understands how all else derives. U can see that the difference is only in their minds abilities to reduce. But how can that mind itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?

I'm not following this.

For instance, an omniscient genius, to which the world is a single blurry, for that same reason that he perceives it as such, can not understand how "all else" derives, since there is no "all else" in his/her/it's perception. So this "omniscient genius" would in fact have little, or no knowledge at all about the world, since all would be a indeferiantated single blurr, from which nothing at all could be infered.

So, this makes no sense to me at all.

The last sentence really surpasses my ability to comprehend what you mean: "How can that mind itself itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?"

Don't know what you mean by that. Minds are not results of 'minds ability to reduce', but instead minds are results of very long lasting evolutionary and biological processes. Any mind we know of this far at least.

Im not saying that mind is not emergent from matter, just that this is a metaphysical question, and it is just as problematic as the other options. It takes faith to think of that one as truth, and judge the other ones (which could logically lead to the idea that subjectivity was involved in the origin of the universe) as nontrue.

What "other options". I don't get it. What is problematic about the understanding that mind can not be separate and not something entirely different as matter, but just requires some very specific material configuration?

So far we don't see any problems with that, the only problems we face here is that we can not comprehend you!

 

[PIT2]

You essentially just deconstructed the whole of macrocosmic reality down into a simple component of motion, ignoring the physical phenomena and properties that emerge. Using your logic, nothing exists except for quantum entities zipping around in endless patterns and combinations.

I didnt say the properties arent real, i said that the properties emerge from it, and that the more powerful minds we have, the better we would be able to reduce properties into lower level properties. Physicalism holds that only one substance exists, but what this actually is when fully reduced i couldn't guess.

You are denying the existence of complexity and organization as real components and consider them to be essentially illusions.

I don't neccesarily hold that view myself. I have tried reasoning if a single property-less substance makes any sense, whether it is even a substance at all, but i didnt get far enough to have a view on this.

 

[heusdens]

Thats one possibility. Another one was mentioned by Paul Davies when he talked about retrocausality. He suggested that human beings right now might have some retrocausal effect even on the big bang, and that this could be why the universe was so finely tuned for life. But there are also other options. It depends on what u define as supernatural or deity.

I don't see any reason to assume any fine tuning. We simply exist under the conditions which makes our form of life possible. It would therefore be an impossibility for the universe (the part we can know about) to exist in any other form (for instance in a form not allowing stellar formation or atoms to exist, or stable planetary orbits, etc. etc.), because then we would not be what we are, or not exist at all.

There is no fine tuning. We are a possibility and therefore we do exist.
In an infinite universe (eternal in time and unlimited/unbounded in extend) that sometimes happens... It is not something unusual.

It becomes only unusual or very unlikely, when you make weird assumptions about the universe, but that is merely a deception.

Even if so, and even if mind is the result of computation, brains arent the only material structures in the universe, or the only places where computation takes place. Depending on how deep mind originates in the complexity matter can also have an influence on where it is to be found.

I don't follow this.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

While I am a materialist, I do not embrace the notion of computationalism as the sole engineer of consciousness. However, regardless of 'how' consciousness emerges out of the brain's architecture, the general conclusion that consciousness is physical, still remains.

However, let's return back to the discussion of consciousness as material or immaterial.

 

[PIT2]

Wetness is a sensory perception, which we catagorize in our mind as such. Wetness is not just the property of water, but how it acts on our skin and causes this sensory perceptions.

Yes that's my point, its just the same lower level properties, just our minds which view it as something 'new'.

For instance, an omniscient genius, to which the world is a single blurry, for that same reason that he perceives it as such, can not understand how "all else" derives, since there is no "all else" in his/her/it's perception. So this "omniscient genius" would in fact have little, or no knowledge at all about the world, since all would be a indeferiantated single blurr, from which nothing at all could be infered.

So, this makes no sense to me at all.

Ok forget the omniscient part and consider normal human beings. We are capable of reducing things to lower level properties. But if we were halfway evolved between our apelike ancestors and homo sapiens, then our reductionistic reasoning would be less powerful. We would see fire, and think it is a fundamental property. Same with water, earth, etc. Isnt it the view of physicalists that everything can be reduced to the physical and its fundamental properties, but that our minds are simply holding us back from seeing it?

The last sentence really surpasses my ability to comprehend what you mean: "How can that mind itself itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?"

Don't know what you mean by that.

It applies to the example of wetness as something 'new' (which was used as an analogy for our minds). Wetness as 'something new' is a result of our minds viewing it as such (when we look at wetness closer with our human intellect, we see that wetness is just the same lower level properties at work). And this can't be the case with our minds as 'something new'.

What "other options". I don't get it. What is problematic about the understanding that mind can not be separate and not something entirely different as matter, but just requires some very specific material configuration?

Besides materialism/physicalism(which u think is true) and dualism, there also exist subjective idealism, panpsychism, panexperientalism, neutral monism, and i don't know what else.

 

[PIT2]

I don't see any reason to assume any fine tuning. We simply exist under the conditions which makes our form of life possible. It would therefore be an impossibility for the universe (the part we can know about) to exist in any other form (for instance in a form not allowing stellar formation or atoms to exist, or stable planetary orbits, etc. etc.), because then we would not be what we are, or not exist at all.

Many scientists agree that the universe appears finetuned for life. One of the explanations for this is the one u mention (anthropic principle i think). In string theory it is claimed there are something like 500 trillion billion etc, possible universes, and that the laws in each or most of those would render life impossible, except for ours (i don't agree that they could know what is required for life). String theory is criticised for this, because it doesn't explain why our universe is the way it is, it simple states that there exist almost infinite other universes that are different. It explains as much about a universe without any matter, as it does about ours.

I don't follow this.

U said that mind emerges from the brain. And i say brain is the same matter and forces that exist in the rest of the universe. So even if u say mind emerges from matter, that leaves the rest of the universe open for it to exist. The moon is made of matter...