Re: [-empyre-] free will and determinism

["Joel Weishaus" <weishaus@pdx.edu>]

An egotistic position if ever there was one.
 But from our own evidence, the universe existed quite well before we came
along.
If so, either our brain evolved to a level of consciousness, or
consciousness is a product of our brain. To me, the former is more elegant.

-Joel

>
> Or perhaps a central product if one buys into the anthrocentric positions
> - i.e. that our consciousness / awareness of _this_ universe is a
> necessary precondition, that description is part of it. This buys into the
> inflationary model - Alan
>
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Joel Weishaus wrote:
>
> > Henry:
> >
> > I'd say that consciousness is not overlaid on top of particles, this
doesn't
> > make sense. But that what we call consciousness is an unintentional
product
> > of the quantum world. A "bi-product."
> >
> > -Joel
> >
> >
> > >
> > > paper by Jaron Lanier:
> > >
> > > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier03/lanier_index.html
> > >
> > > A quote:
> > >
> > >
> > >  Another way I approached the same question was to
> > > say, if consciousness were missing from the universe,
> > > how would things be different? A                range
> > > of answers is possible. The first is that nothing
> > > would be different, because consciousness wasn't there
> > > in the first place. This would be Dan Dennett's
> > > response (at least at that time), since he would get
> > > rid of ontology entirely. The second answer is that
> > > the whole universe would disappear because it needed
> > > consciousness. That idea was characteristic of
> > > followers of some of John Archibald Wheeler's earlier
> > > work, who seemed to believe that consciousness plays a
> > > role in keeping things afloat by taking the role of
> > > the observer in certain quantum-scale interactions.
> > > Another answer would be that the consciousness-free
> > > universe would be similar but not identical, because
> > > people would get a little duller. That would be the
> > > approach of certain cognitive scientists, suggesting
> > > that consciousness plays a specific, but limited
> > > practical function in the brain.
> > >
> > >  And then there's another answer, which initially
> > > might sound like Dennett's: that if consciousness were
> > > not present, the trajectories of all
> > > particles would remain identical. Every measurement
> > > you could make in the universe would come out
> > > identically. However, there would                be no
> > > "gross", or everyday objects. There would be neither
> > > apples nor houses, nor brains to perceive them.
> > > Neither would there be words or thoughts, though the
> > > electrons and chemical bonds that                would
> > > otherwise comprise them would remain the just the same
> > > as before. There would only be the particles that make
> > > up everyday things, in exactly the same positions they
> > > would otherwise occupy.                In other words,
> > > consciousness is an ontology that is overlaid on top
> > > of these particles. If there were no consciousness the
> > > universe would be perfectly described as being nothing
> > > but particles.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > empyre forum
> > > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>
> http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
> http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
> Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
> finger sondheim@panix.com
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre