Philosophical viewpoint of solipsism

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Your question is like what is the purpose of learning and knowledge.
I could then ask what is the purpose of life itself? Is there a purpose and a meaning to anything?

When talking about the progress in knowledge, for instance in the field of particle physics and cosmology, those progress was driven by a need to now how the actual world in fact looks like, how did it develop

The will to know and the ability to understand the world, that has made man to what it is know. Without that willing and without that ability mankind would now not be very much different then apes.

Hey...YOU'RE THE ONE that said my inquiry has "no purpose"...so I was making the point that MY pursuit is as "purposeful" as the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, it is actually a PART of that pursuit (however misguided ).

I was NOT actually saying that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is purposeless. If nothing else, it's FUN!

So you're preaching to the choir when you make your case for pursuing knowledge for its own sake. It's part of "who we are" as you have said.

Now, let's take the case -- for a brief moment -- that the Universe is out with a similar purpose...that of learning about Itself, which is to say, Everything That Is.

In such a case, the Universe would have to keep "re-shuffling the deck" by giving rise to sentient beings -- over time -- that would "think on" these things, thereby rendering Self-knowledge.

Also part of the "mix" would be the Universe having a 30-billion-year Experience via the actions and consequences, inentions and emotions contained in the mini-dramas we call our individual lives.

As to the "purpose of life"? Here's my take: The Universe is out to have an EXPERIENCE ...a different one than the one BEFORE...or the one before THAT...etc.

The Experience, of course, is the collective experiences of everything that has ever HAD an experience..including a rock.

Each incarnation (and I'm deliverately using this "charged" word, even though I could express it as the time between each "Big Bang" and "Big Crunch")...this type of unending life-cycle seems a better candidate to ME for how the Universe spends ETERNITY than the one where It keeps EXXXPPPPAAAAAAAANNNNNDDDDIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGgggggggggggggggggg g gg g g g g !


It's [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] for me!

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens


The will to know and the ability to understand the world, that has made man to what it is know. Without that willing and without that ability mankind would now not be very much different then apes.

And men in the 21st century might not know more than men of the 20th century without "the will to know and the ability to understand the" ...Universe.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Hey...YOU'RE THE ONE that said my inquiry has "no purpose"...so I was making the point that MY pursuit is as "purposeful" as the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, it is actually a PART of that pursuit (however misguided ).

I was NOT actually saying that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is purposeless. If nothing else, it's FUN!

So you're preaching to the choir when you make your case for pursuing knowledge for its own sake. It's part of "who we are" as you have said.

Now, let's take the case -- for a brief moment -- that the Universe is out with a similar purpose...that of learning about Itself, which is to say, Everything That Is.

In such a case, the Universe would have to keep "re-shuffling the deck" by giving rise to sentient beings -- over time -- that would "think on" these things, thereby rendering Self-knowledge.

Also part of the "mix" would be the Universe having a 30-billion-year Experience via the actions and consequences, inentions and emotions contained in the mini-dramas we call our individual lives.

As to the "purpose of life"? Here's my take: The Universe is out to have an EXPERIENCE ...a different one than the one BEFORE...or the one before THAT...etc.

The Experience, of course, is the collective experiences of everything that has ever HAD an experience..including a rock.

Each incarnation (and I'm deliverately using this "charged" word, even though I could express it as the time between each "Big Bang" and "Big Crunch")...this type of unending life-cycle seems a better candidate to ME for how the Universe spends ETERNITY than the one where It keeps EXXXPPPPAAAAAAAANNNNNDDDDIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGgggggggggggggggggg g gg g g g g

You are reasoning from a point of view that is not a factual point of view. There is no "observer" out there, that can witness the evolution of the universe as a whole, and would be wondering about the things happening.
Now I know that this point of view does not exist and cannot exist. Neither has a rock any "experience" (this is because the rock has no material systems to proceed such information, like humans and living animals do).

If you want to talk about purpose and meaning, ok, but you'll have to do that from the point of view of a human observer, or everything you say becomes pointless and meaningless.

Why in heavens name do you think you have to reason about the purpose and the meaning of the universe, and even from the point of view of the universe itself? Somehow you then shift your mind from your own life to that of the universe, and from that point of view, you only see meaningless interaction of matter throughout all of eternity.
What does it matter (to the universe) what happens in the universe? Nothing whatsoever!
The universe doesn't get bored when it expands forever, or if evolution takes 3 billions years. The universe couldn't care less!

We on the other hand have to deal with the fact that we have only a limited time to live, and in that time we have to fullfill some of our own goals. Our individual and personal ones, but also our collective ones. If you look around you, you will find all the meaning and purpose you want, even more as you can handle in just one live!

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Of course. The moisture is potential for raining to occur. But not all potential becomes actual. I could agree that the universe contains "potential consciousness" and may contain a lot more, we aren't even aware of, cause they are not yet actual.

But my conclusion would be that potential rain is not actual rain. The universe can indeed be qualified as having had the potential for consciousness to occur, but didn't contain this factual quality before the appearance of consciouss living beings.

Perhaps one of the problems we are having is that we see the quality of "consciousness" in two different ways.

For you, for "consciousness" to merit the term, it must exist at a certain functional level...below which it is no longer consciousness.

For me, "consciousness" is on a continuum ...from a "simple self-awareness" (as might be that of an atom) to a more complex awareness of self and that which is OUTSIDE of self (as might be that of insects, lizards, birds, mammals...STILL at varying degrees).

The "degree" to which a being is is conscious might have to do with the ACCRETION of the "raw material" of consciousness which existed WITHIN the Primary Singularity and burst forth into fragmentation.

Thus, the Universe did not just draw from the POTENTIAL of consciousness...but from the actual bits of consciousness contained within Itself.

I AGREE that the MATERIAL world is necessary as a vehicle for for the EVOLUTION of consciousness. But -- like matter -- consciousness didn't come from nothin'!

 

[M. Gaspar]

P.S...

Putting it another way...

at the moment after the "Big Bang" the Universe (which was, one moment before, a singularity) might be said to have "lost Its MIND" via the fragmentation! ...and has been spending all this time "pulling it back together again."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Putting it another way...

at the moment after the "Big Bang" the Universe (which was, one moment before, a singularity) might be said to have "lost Its MIND" via the fragmentation! ...and has been spending all this time "pulling it back together again."

With all due respect, aren't you repeatedly violating Occam's Razor?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Perhaps one of the problems we are having is that we see the quality of "consciousness" in two different ways.

For you, for "consciousness" to merit the term, it must exist at a certain functional level...below which it is no longer consciousness.

For me, "consciousness" is on a continuum ...from a "simple self-awareness" (as might be that of an atom) to a more complex awareness of self and that which is OUTSIDE of self (as might be that of insects, lizards, birds, mammals...STILL at varying degrees).

The "degree" to which a being is is conscious might have to do with the ACCRETION of the "raw material" of consciousness which existed WITHIN the Primary Singularity and burst forth into fragmentation.

Thus, the Universe did not just draw from the POTENTIAL of consciousness...but from the actual bits of consciousness contained within Itself.

I AGREE that the MATERIAL world is necessary as a vehicle for for the EVOLUTION of consciousness. But -- like matter -- consciousness didn't come from nothin'!

If everyone would be free to choose the meaning of concepts, then any statement can be valid, of course. One just needs to adapt the meaning of the terms used...

If you say that one flip-flop is a computer, then that is for you a computer. If you say that one atom is conscious, then an atom is conscious. If you call one molecule of water an ocean of water, then one molecule of water is an ocean.
There is even some "sense" in this. If I take out one molecule of water out of an ocean, it clearly will still be an ocean. Then also if I take all the molecules of water out of an ocean, except one, this will still be an ocean... The question is of course this: an ocean, while being made up of water molecules (let us forget about the other details, that ocean water contains also other molecules), and if one molecule of water isn't an ocean, then when do water molecules form an ocean? 2 molecules? 100 molecules? 20 billion molecules? 35 billion billion molecules? We simply can not say this in numerical terms. Whatever figure you mention, it could be argues then that one less that figure still has the same property of being an ocean. So this always drops down to claiming that one molecule of water is also an ocean. Which however, we know it is not.

So, in other words, these "free chosen" terms, can cause some problems in communications.

Is water cooking (under normal atmospheric pressure) at 100 degrees celcius? We could as well say that at 1 degree celcius is cooking, cause clearly some water molecules are escaping from the liquid form and escape into the air above the water.

So, in other words, the discussion here is on what is the meaning of the term consciousness, and why do we call a human being consciosness, and an atom not. While both a human being and an atom are made of the same stuff: matter!

I do not find it very meaningfull to redefine the ordinary concepts of words. Water is cooking at 100 degrees celcius, and not at 1 degrees celcius. A human being is consciousness, and an atom is not.

I can not exactly tell you where the exact line is between for instance unconsciousness and consciousness, because consciousness cannot be precisely defined, but in ordinary language we do not say that one atom can have consciousness.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
You are reasoning from a point of view that is not a factual point of view. There is no "observer" out there, that can witness the evolution of the universe as a whole, and would be wondering about the things happening.
Now I know that this point of view does not exist and cannot exist. Neither has a rock any "experience" (this is because the rock has no material systems to proceed such information, like humans and living animals do).

If you want to talk about purpose and meaning, ok, but you'll have to do that from the point of view of a human observer, or everything you say becomes pointless and meaningless.

Why in heavens name do you think you have to reason about the purpose and the meaning of the universe, and even from the point of view of the universe itself? Somehow you then shift your mind from your own life to that of the universe, and from that point of view, you only see meaningless interaction of matter throughout all of eternity.

What does it matter (to the universe) what happens in the universe? Nothing whatsoever!
The universe doesn't get bored when it expands forever, or if evolution takes 3 billions years. The universe couldn't care less!

We on the other hand have to deal with the fact that we have only a limited time to live, and in that time we have to fullfill some of our own goals. Our individual and personal ones, but also our collective ones. If you look around you, you will find all the meaning and purpose you want, even more as you can handle in just one live!

1. You say that might point of view is not "factual"...when we both know that, throughout the progress of science, things existed that were "factual"...only nobody knew about them...or had even CONJECTURED about them yet.

Thus, your first sentence may turn out to be that which is not "factual".

2. I agree that there is NO "observer" "out there". The "observer" is the Universe ITSELF. Can this be "proven" at this time? Maybe not. However, a case can be made via
EXTRAPOLATION that would satisfy many...even scientists !

3. How can you say -- after all I have posted -- that I see "meaningless interaction of matter for all eternity". Either I am the worst communicator in the world, or you are the worst receiver!

4. You make a statement as if you know, as an absolute fact, that "nothing matters" to the Universe. Yet the Universe may have many raisons d'etre ...the most basic of which might be "simply"...to have an Experience...a real complex one! Another might be to "evolve" on whatever plane(s) you wish to address. And another reason might be to see what It can create THIS time!

5. If the Universe HAS a "Mind"-- and/or a "Will" -- I would think it would want to DO SOMETHING with Itself...rather than just "sit there" ...knowing everything but DOING NOTHING! If you concede that WE have "goals"...why not the Universe?!

6. You seem to suggest that I am looking for "meaning" and "purpose". I have plenty of BOTH in my life. No. What I am "looking for" is an understanding of what might be the clearest image of what the Universe actually IS...which MIGHT be...a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

"The truth? You can't handle the truth!"

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

Originally posted by Mentat
With all due respect, aren't you repeatedly violating Occam's Razor?

Say more.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
1. You say that might point of view is not "factual"...when we both know that, throughout the progress of science, things existed that were "factual"...only nobody knew about them...or had even CONJECTURED about them yet.

Thus, your first sentence may turn out to be that which is not "factual".

2. I agree that there is NO "observer" "out there". The "observer" is the Universe ITSELF. Can this be "proven" at this time? Maybe not. However, a case can be made via
EXTRAPOLATION that would satisfy many...even scientists !

There is much one can do with EXTRAPOLATION, even turning REASON in UNREASON.

Let me adress this to you. What do you call an ocean? How many water molecules should it at least contain? Ok. Suppose it would be at least that number. Then take one molecule out of the ocean. Is the ocean still an ocean? If you say yes, I can state by EXTRAPOLATION that also one molecule of water is an ocean.
Which turns REASON in UNREASON.

3. How can you say -- after all I have posted -- that I see "meaningless interaction of matter for all eternity". Either I am the worst communicator in the world, or you are the worst receiver!

You DID see me say (write) it, so this proofs that I CAN say it, even after all your posts!

4. You make a statement as if you know, as an absolute fact, that "nothing matters" to the Universe. Yet the Universe may have many raisons d'etre ...the most basic of which might be "simply"...to have an Experience...a real complex one! Another might be to "evolve" on whatever plane(s) you wish to address. And another reason might be to see what It can create THIS time!

This is because the way I define what consciouss experience is. It is what humans experience. And not what stones or anything other material and unconscious experiences.

Your only argument comes from reasoning and assuming that the universe can somehow have consciousness. I argue that it doesn't have consciousness and neither can't have consciousness.

5. If the Universe HAS a "Mind"-- and/or a "Will" -- I would think it would want to DO SOMETHING with Itself...rather than just "sit there" ...knowing everything but DOING NOTHING! If you concede that WE have "goals"...why not the Universe?!

If... if!

If water would be money, I would be a millionaire!

6. You seem to suggest that I am looking for "meaning" and "purpose". I have plenty of BOTH in my life. No. What I am "looking for" is an understanding of what might be the clearest image of what the Universe actually IS...which MIGHT be...a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

I suggest and know you can and you should. And it is because you can you should. It might keep you from "thinking" from the point of view of the universe, which is not a holdable point of view. You cannot observe from the point of view of the universe, cause the universe doesn't have a point of view. It's because we can, that we do reason from that perspective.

"The truth? You can't handle the truth!"

For sure I can. Can you?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
If everyone would be free to choose the meaning of concepts, then any statement can be valid, of course. One just needs to adapt the meaning of the terms used...

If you say that one flip-flop is a computer, then that is for you a computer. If you say that one atom is conscious, then an atom is conscious. If you call one molecule of water an ocean of water, then one molecule of water is an ocean.
There is even some "sense" in this. If I take out one molecule of water out of an ocean, it clearly will still be an ocean. Then also if I take all the molecules of water out of an ocean, except one, this will still be an ocean... The question is of course this: an ocean, while being made up of water molecules (let us forget about the other details, that ocean water contains also other molecules), and if one molecule of water isn't an ocean, then when do water molecules form an ocean? 2 molecules? 100 molecules? 20 billion molecules? 35 billion billion molecules? We simply can not say this in numerical terms. Whatever figure you mention, it could be argues then that one less that figure still has the same property of being an ocean. So this always drops down to claiming that one molecule of water is also an ocean. Which however, we know it is not.

So, in other words, these "free chosen" terms, can cause some problems in communications.

Is water cooking (under normal atmospheric pressure) at 100 degrees celcius? We could as well say that at 1 degree celcius is cooking, cause clearly some water molecules are escaping from the liquid form and escape into the air above the water.

So, in other words, the discussion here is on what is the meaning of the term consciousness, and why do we call a human being consciosness, and an atom not. While both a human being and an atom are made of the same stuff: matter!

I do not find it very meaningfull to redefine the ordinary concepts of words. Water is cooking at 100 degrees celcius, and not at 1 degrees celcius. A human being is consciousness, and an atom is not.

I can not exactly tell you where the exact line is between for instance unconsciousness and consciousness, because consciousness cannot be precisely defined, but in ordinary language we do not say that one atom can have consciousness.

Let me see if I can't tease out the distinction between what YOU say I am saying and what I AM saying...

YOU are saying that I am saying that WHATEVER is "going on" with an atom (as an example) -- no matter what it is that's going on -- even if its only a mechanical system with no awareness whatsoever -- you are saying that I am saying that I want you (or whomever) to re-define "consciousness" to INCLUDE whatever properties and qualities that atom has (or has NOT).

And, what I am saying is that we -- seekers of knowledge -- might want to see if we need to EXPAND our definition of consciousness so that it INCLUDES the POSSIBILITY tha atoms -- and everything else -- has a LEVEL of consciousness.

With this possibility in mind (no pun intended) we can then discuss OTHER possibilities which may, in fact, lead us to a more COMPREHENSIVE understanding of nature of the Universe.

Of course I might be WRONG in my speculations. But I am taking the case that the Universe is conscious for the sake of discussion...

ya know...like when you proposed this thread about Solipsism. You wanted to discuss this rather myopic point of view. No-one has said (I don't believe) that because the Solipsist viewpoint is somewhat anal, that we should not be discussing it.

And now I'm wondering how rediculous a point of view would need to be before someone said "Enough already!"

If I started a thread that said, "Let's talk about the 'Sect of the Receptacles' who believe that they can experience God by sticking their tongues into electric outlets"...we'd probably get a good discussion going...and, who knows, we might come to believe that the Sect of the Receptacles is RIGHT.

For me, the speculation that the Universe -- and everything in it -- has an element of consciousness to it...this seems to be quite reasonable -- almost a "given" -- and yet I am met with unremitting opposition.

And I can't tell you how much I LOVE it.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Let me see if I can't tease out the distinction between what YOU say I am saying and what I AM saying...

YOU are saying that I am saying that WHATEVER is "going on" with an atom (as an example) -- no matter what it is that's going on -- even if its only a mechanical system with no awareness whatsoever -- you are saying that I am saying that I want you (or whomever) to re-define "consciousness" to INCLUDE whatever properties and qualities that atom has (or has NOT).

And, what I am saying is that we -- seekers of knowledge -- might want to see if we need to EXPAND our definition of consciousness so that it INCLUDES the POSSIBILITY tha atoms -- and everything else -- has a LEVEL of consciousness.

With this possibility in mind (no pun intended) we can then discuss OTHER possibilities which may, in fact, lead us to a more COMPREHENSIVE understanding of nature of the Universe.

Of course I might be WRONG in my speculations. But I am taking the case that the Universe is conscious for the sake of discussion...

ya know...like when you proposed this thread about Solipsism. You wanted to discuss this rather myopic point of view. No-one has said (I don't believe) that because the Solipsist viewpoint is somewhat anal, that we should not be discussing it.

And now I'm wondering how rediculous a point of view would need to be before someone said "Enough already!"

If I started a thread that said, "Let's talk about the 'Sect of the Receptacles' who believe that they can experience God by sticking their tongues into electric outlets"...we'd probably get a good discussion going...and, who knows, we might come to believe that the Sect of the Receptacles is RIGHT.

For me, the speculation that the Universe -- and everything in it -- has an element of consciousness to it...this seems to be quite reasonable -- almost a "given" -- and yet I am met with unremitting opposition.

And I can't tell you how much I LOVE it.

The "If .. then what" scenario can be extended to anything.

If water was money, if we could extend the definition of money to water, then I can speculate I am very rich.

I can of course speculate a LOT about that! I might even LOVE to do that!


But we know this isn't very helpfull in any way...

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens





If... if!

If water would be money, I would be a millionaire!


Like "speculation"..."if" is not a four-letter word!

I believe Einstein used the word a lot...

...so I am in good company

...including yours.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

Originally posted by heusdens

If... if!

If water would be money, I would be a millionaire!


Like "speculation"..."if" is not a four-letter word!

I believe Einstein used the word a lot...
...so I am in good company (including yours ).

In the IF universe, all our dreams can come true of course.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
In the IF universe, all our dreams can come true of course.

Not exactly.

While I DO believe that it may be true that INTENTION effects the "lynchpin" of randomness to cause certain things to manifect while other potentialities do not...

I also take into account that while each of us is a "force" in the Universe, we are not the ONLY force. Thus, countervaling forces may prevail.

Nonetheless, it is more "empowering" to believe that one's INTENTIONS -- coupled with ACTIONS -- can EFFECT results...than it is to believe that we are "dust in the wind".

Plus, the efficacy of such a notion about INTENTION and RESULTS might be "provable" both empirically and experiencially.

And I'm feeling a new thread coming on...

 

[M. Gaspar]

For instance...

I INTEND to get some sleep tonight and voila...

I'm signing off.

Thanks for a fun few hours.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not exactly.

While I DO believe that it may be true that INTENTION effects the "lynchpin" of randomness to cause certain things to manifect while other potentialities do not...

I also take into account that while each of us is a "force" in the Universe, we are not the ONLY force. Thus, countervaling forces may prevail.

Nonetheless, it is more "empowering" to believe that one's INTENTIONS -- coupled with ACTIONS -- can EFFECT results...than it is to believe that we are "dust in the wind".

Plus, the efficacy of such a notion about INTENTION and RESULTS might be "provable" both empirically and experiencially.

And I'm feeling a new thread coming on...

There is actually no objection to calling the universe as gifted with WILL, INTEND, PURPOSE, MEANING and even CONSCIOUSNESS.

And the proof for that is closeby, cause you exist and are part of the universe...

But please recognize that all these denominators arive out of your own self-reflection on yourself. You, anyone, are the mind of the universe.

Nothing in principle can be stated or argued against that...


The way the universe, the material reality, reflects on itself, excercises will, intend, purpose and meaning, is by way of human conscious beings.

 

[M. Gaspar]

"Heusdens...we have a problem."

Originally posted by heusdens
There is actually no objection to calling the universe as gifted with WILL, INTEND, PURPOSE, MEANING and even CONSCIOUSNESS.

And the proof for that is closeby, cause you exist and are part of the universe...

But please recognize that all these denominators arive out of your own self-reflection on yourself. You, anyone, are the mind of the universe.

Nothing in principle can be stated or argued against that...


The way the universe, the material reality, reflects on itself, excercises will, intend, purpose and meaning, is by way of human conscious beings.

Do you not grant any consciousness at all to dogs? How about iguanas? Where, specifically, do you draw the line?

If, as you suggest, humans are the only conscious beings in the Universe, when, in our evolution, did consciousness "pop up"?

Was Homo erectus conscious? How about Homo habilis? Australopithecus? Miocene apes? Or was our shrew-like ancester conscious as it scurried about trying to avoid those big green lizards? And how about the lizards!

Is a "drop of consciousness" to our "full-blown consciousness" like a drop of water is to an ocean? Yes and no.

The ocean is comprised of drops (atoms) of water but, until the drops of water COMBINE to form as SYSTEM that fits our specific CRITERIA of what WE say an ocean is, then, of course, one drop would not an ocean make. But we CAN say it is wet .

By the same token, we cannot say a kangaroo has HUMAN consciousness, but we could say it is conscious to a certain degree.

Let me be perfectly clear where I stand on the consciousness of the Universe. I do NOT believe -- as you maintain -- that the Universe is "conscious" by virtue of It's "thinking PARTS"...that these "parts" (human beings) are the only things "thinking"...while the larger whole is NOT.

I believe the Universe is a CONSCIOUS ENTITY...the "biggest egghead in town" ... using ALL of its parts, each of which as a "piece of consciousness" IN it ...forming an interconnected NETWORK that allows for SELF-AWARENESS ...AND responsiveness to all of its parts.

Did this view of mine arise out of "self reflection" as you put it? Particially. But it also arose out of my reflection on that which is OUTSIDE of myself...including information from better minds than mine.

I am not a solipsist. So am I an idealistic materialist? Label me -- and be SPECIFIC -- so that I can put it on a T-shirt.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Do you not grant any consciousness at all to dogs? How about iguanas? Where, specifically, do you draw the line?

Like I said, you can not draw a definite line, but it must reside "somewhere" between the dead material world (that of galaxies, stars, planets) and the formation of human beings through evolution.
And of course, not just human beings have consciousness.

The ocean is comprised of drops (atoms) of water but, until the drops of water COMBINE to form as SYSTEM that fits our specific CRITERIA of what WE say an ocean is, then, of course, one drop would not an ocean make. But we CAN say it is wet .

Water is a molecule, consisting of two Hydrogen atoms and one atom of Oxygen. And ONE molecule of water is NOT wet.

Let me be perfectly clear where I stand on the consciousness of the Universe. I do NOT believe -- as you maintain -- that the Universe is "conscious" by virtue of It's "thinking PARTS"...that these "parts" (human beings) are the only things "thinking"...while the larger whole is NOT.

The universe is a thinking consciouss entiry by virtue ONLY of it's thinking and conscious entities in forms of conscious thinking beings.

I believe the Universe is a CONSCIOUS ENTITY...the "biggest egghead in town" ... using ALL of its parts, each of which as a "piece of consciousness" IN it ...forming an interconnected NETWORK that allows for SELF-AWARENESS ...AND responsiveness to all of its parts.

Did this view of mine arise out of "self reflection" as you put it? Particially. But it also arose out of my reflection on that which is OUTSIDE of myself...including information from better minds than mine.

I am not a solipsist. So am I an idealistic materialist? Label me -- and be SPECIFIC -- so that I can put it on a T-shirt.

This above is simply NOT TRUE. You just state and assume or believe something, without delivering actual proof of that.

If you want to label yourself yoy can label yourself as a variant of the "Gaia" hypothese (earth system as a living entity), blown up to cover the whole universe.

It is not a materialist point of view, so it is therefore an idealist opinion.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Like I said, you can not draw a definite line, but it must reside "somewhere" between the dead material world (that of galaxies, stars, planets) and the formation of human beings through evolution.
And of course, not just human beings have consciousness.



Water is a molecule, consisting of two Hydrogen atoms and one atom of Oxygen. And ONE molecule of water is NOT wet.




The universe is a thinking consciouss entiry by virtue ONLY of it's thinking and conscious entities in forms of conscious thinking beings.



This above is simply NOT TRUE. You just state and assume or believe something, without delivering actual proof of that.

If you want to label yourself yoy can label yourself as a variant of the "Gaia" hypothese (earth system as a living entity), blown up to cover the whole universe.

It is not a materialist point of view, so it is therefore an idealist opinion.

If you -- and everyone else -- want to think that this planet, the sun and the Milky Way galaxy are "dead" ...that's your perogative.

Yes, I DO think the "Gaia" hypothesis extends to the Universe Itself. And, the fact that we are finding it difficult to "draw the line" with regard to what is conscious and what is not, perhaps that suggests that we have a CONTINUUM that might be better expressed as "degrees of consciousness" ...which would make our galaxy a LOT more conscious than WE are!

Thanks regarding the water molecule . I knew that but mispoke. Nonetheless, I do maintain that a water molecule MUST be wet ...even if we can't DETECT said "wetness" because we can't DETECt said MOLECULE...with our regular senses.

Likewise consciousness: the consciousness of a quark is as "wet" as the consciousness of a physics professor...only not AS "wet".

So it remains: either my hypothesis -- or the Universe Itself -- is ALL "wet"! And, one might pre-emptively say which of these possibilities is the case...yet still be open to any "evidence" that might suggest otherwise.

Thus, regarding "delivery of proof"...I haven't gotten there yet because the pizza is still in the oven!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Say more.

Occam's Razor dictates that the explanation of a phenomenon, that explains it with the same amount of accuracy as another, but with the least amount of assumptions, is superior.

You, when presented with an argument against your hypothesis, add lots of assumptions to counter the arguments. This violates Occam's Razor.

Of course, Occam's Razor isn't always correct or even applicable, I just wanted to make sure that you knew you were doing this.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Occam's Razor dictates that the explanation of a phenomenon, that explains it with the same amount of accuracy as another, but with the least amount of assumptions, is superior.

You, when presented with an argument against your hypothesis, add lots of assumptions to counter the arguments. This violates Occam's Razor.

Of course, Occam's Razor isn't always correct or even applicable, I just wanted to make sure that you knew you were doing this.

Thanks for useful input.

Have decided to re-read print-outs from this thread (and others) and HIGHLIGHT all my ASSUMPTIONS. Then I can figure out what to DO about them.