Re: [-empyre-] free will and determinism

Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com> · Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:01:38 -0500 (EST)

Absolutely! - which is why a lot of my work emphasizes the 'plasma' or
other dissolutions - I think of culture almost as a residue in the world -
and this constantly leads to surprise (literally) that on _this_ plane,
among _these_ aristotelian well-defined objects, it's taken so
seriously...

Alan

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Joel Weishaus wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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