Re: [-empyre-] free will and determinism

"Joel Weishaus" <weishaus@pdx.edu> · Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:04:37 -0800

Alan:

Of course you're right on the word, and the philosophy. But I still don't
believe that human consciousness is world-making. I suspect we are less
separate from the ecology of consciousness than we like to believe. Our
central religions are based on: we are made in God's image, our god is God,
etc. This is what keeps us believing in ourselves. We _must_ believe that we
are important to the universe. Egocentrism is a basic insecurity. Why we
have this insecurity I think has to do with the necessary illusion of
separation we had to undergo in order for individual consciousness
(self-consciousness) to develop. It was an incredible move of the
imagination, the first person to think "I am." But, and here's the important
thing, it was a move of the imagination. The first work of art was
subjective, as there had to be an artist before there could be an art. And
that artist had to see himself, or herself, separate from the rest of
creation before he or she could be creative.

-Joel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Sondheim" <sondheim@panix.com>
To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] free will and determinism

>
>
> Not egotistic, egoistic, and based on the notion that the other universes
> might well also exist etc. etc. but _this_ universe has developed to the
> extent that consciousness recognizes it.
>
> - Alan (think Frank Tipler's the author)
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Joel Weishaus wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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