Some thoughts on consciousness

[PureX]

You put great emphasis on awareness, but our level of awareness came extremely late in the history of life. In fact, I would say that for the majority of this period of life, there was no level of awareness that we might consider significant. Our awareness is not a pre-determined end or goal, just good luck.

But we don't know the "history of life" as life is not historical, yet. We have no idea how much sentient life exists, when or where it began, or when it will end. Nor do we know the timeline of existence within which sentient life emerged, and remains in effect. What we do know is that it has emerged, and in doing so it gives existence, itself, a means of self-awareness, and of self-exploration. And that we are that means.

OK, we don't know that the only purpose of life is to survive and reproduce, but we can't say it is anything else. I think we can say, based on what we have observed to date, that the only apparent drive and purpose of life is to survive and reproduce.

That was true until we became self/other aware. When that happened, that awareness transcended our drive to simply continue existing. And it transcended that purpose. Now we have a new purpose: to understand what it means to exist.

Yes, Matter/Energy is not alive. However, Matter/Energy can be combined to create living things. It is conceivable that we may be able to create no-organic living things in the future. On some level, current robotic technology quite easily mimics the functional level of lower life form with the only component missing being self-replication. It is not outside the realm of possibility that AI technology rises to the level of human cognition, with no other purpose or cause beyond our will to create it.

You are caught up in the process and missing the result. In fact, I think you are trying hard to minimize the significance of the result. The laws that control the expression of energy allowed for life to happen. But when life happened, it transcended the physical limitations of existence until that point. And it happened again when life became self/other aware. How existence can manifest, now, is much different tha how it could be manifested before life happened, and before consciousness happened. Existence is a much different phenomenon, now, than it ever could have been without these expressions of transcendence.

As to life and consciousness being irrelevant, there is nothing in the history of our experience to say that it is anything but that. To attach any other purpose or meaning is simply subjective desire. Despite irrelevancy, it does not mean that we cannot appreciate and value it.

This is an illogical bias that you should seriously rethink. Everything humanity is and does is based on our desire to better understand the phenomenon of our own experience of being. It's what defines us as 'human'.

 

[MikeF]

But we don't know the "history of life" as life is not historical, yet. We have no idea how much sentient life exists, when or where it began, or when it will end. Nor do we know the timeline of existence within which sentient life emerged, and remains in effect. What we do know is that it has emerged, and in doing so it gives existence, itself, a means of self-awareness, and of self-exploration. And that we are that means.

I certainly take your point (If it is one of your points) that we have no idea about the scope of living things in relationship to the cosmos as a whole. I whole-heartedly agree that we are overwhelmingly limited in our ability to examine and explore the whole of the cosmos, of reality.
So, perhaps I need to be more careful and refer to the history of life on earth. It does have a history. And you make a similar mistake in your statement, "What we do know is that it has emerged, and in doing so it gives existence, itself, a means of self-awareness, and of self-exploration. And that we are that means.". We are not the means, which your statement implies, but rather, a means, since as you have pointed out, there is no way to verify if there are any other sentient beings with similar capabilities.
Your comments imply, perhaps unintentionally, that this process of life is all about us, or has become about us. Yes, our existence is important to us, but we cannot say the cosmos as a whole is anything but indifferent to us. There is no evidence otherwise.

That was true until we became self/other aware. When that happened, that awareness transcended our drive to simply continue existing. And it transcended that purpose. Now we have a new purpose: to understand what it means to exist.

Again, it is this expansion of our significance and importance that I feel the need to push back against. It seems you agree that the prime directive of life, at least for species other than human beings, is survival and reproduction. And I agree that the evolved complexity of our central nervous system has given us, as a species, much greater agency over our individual and collective existence. But you cannot say that the sole or primary purpose of the human species has changed or transcended to the purpose of understanding what it means to exist. All you can say is that, above and beyond our inherited prime directive of living to survive and reproduce, which is still active in human beings, we have the ability to give ourselves other purposes as well. One of many possible purposes we may assign ourselves may be the goal of understanding why and what it means for us to exist. It is not a primary or overriding purpose for all humanity that has superseded or replaced the core drive of life to survive and reproduce. All we can say is that we can be much more self-directed than other species on earth with the ability to suppress or override instinctual behavior.

You are caught up in the process and missing the result. In fact, I think you are trying hard to minimize the significance of the result. The laws that control the expression of energy allowed for life to happen. But when life happened, it transcended the physical limitations of existence until that point. And it happened again when life became self/other aware. How existence can manifest, now, is much different than how it could be manifested before life happened, and before consciousness happened. Existence is a much different phenomenon, now, than it ever could have been without these expressions of transcendence.
This is an illogical bias that you should seriously rethink. Everything humanity is and does is based on our desire to better understand the phenomenon of our own experience of being. It's what defines us as 'human'.

I'm not trying to minimize how dramatically different human cognition is from other life forms. I fully appreciate the scale and scope of the improvement.

As to my being biased, I really thought I was being dispassionately neutral in my analysis. I guess that will be up to others to decide.

My focus on process is to push back on your wanting to color the evolution of life in magical terms; your implication that evolution has defied and overcome the laws of physics. To say that, "life transcended the physical limitations of existence to that point" is hyperbolic and not correct. Life happened well within the the limitations physics, mass/energy, of reality. No physical laws or limitations were transcended or overcome. Is our planet (as that is all we can really speak to in regards to life) different after life than it was before life? Certainly. But by the same token, some future event may kill off all life on this planet, and reality will still be reality, there just won't be life on this planet.

The only thing that truly defines us as human beings is our genetics and the expression of those genetics. *Edit: However, human beings can be subjectively described and characterized in a multitude of different ways.

The sentence, "Everything humanity is and does is based on our desire to better understand the phenomenon of our own experience of being." is, again, hyperbolic and inaccurate. Humanity and life on earth as a whole, at the core, is based on meeting needs of survival, not understanding being. We humans, with our cognitive abilities, can express that in many ways, one of which is to better understand the phenomenon of being in hopes that in understanding the rhyme and reason of it all, it will allow us to better meet our needs and avoid or mitigate the discomforts and vagaries that are a part of life. But this alone is not what humanity is based on.

And, for you, given your comments elsewhere, your expressed belief in a metaphysical plane or existence outside of reality, a term like "transcendence" has a much greater meaning that "different". It is this inevitable slide from reality to your artificial construct of a metaphysical realm that I feel the need to keep in check.

We both see great possibilities for future expressions of humanity, we just need to understand the set of possibilities will always confined to the boundaries of reality.

 

[PureX]

I certainly take your point (If it is one of your points) that we have no idea about the scope of living things in relationship to the cosmos as a whole. I whole-heartedly agree that we are overwhelmingly limited in our ability to examine and explore the whole of the cosmos, of reality.
So, perhaps I need to be more careful and refer to the history of life on earth. It does have a history. And you make a similar mistake in your statement, "What we do know is that it has emerged, and in doing so it gives existence, itself, a means of self-awareness, and of self-exploration. And that we are that means.". We are not the means, which your statement implies, but rather, a means, since as you have pointed out, there is no way to verify if there are any other sentient beings with similar capabilities.
Your comments imply, perhaps unintentionally, that this process of life is all about us, or has become about us. Yes, our existence is important to us, but we cannot say the cosmos as a whole is anything but indifferent to us. There is no evidence otherwise.

The cosmos is no more indifferent to us than we are to ourselves. Which we clearly are not. Because WE ARE THE COSMOS. Or, as you pointed out, we are a part of it. And we are the part of it that cares. Existence is not indifferent, because we exist, and we are not indifferent. Existence is self-aware because we exist, and we are aware of our existing. Being part of the whole does not exclude us from the whole, or the whole from us. There may be more to the "whole" than we can know, but that doesn't negate our inclusion.

Again, it is this expansion of our significance and importance that I feel the need to push back against.

Why?

It seems you agree that the prime directive of life, at least for species other than human beings, is survival and reproduction. And I agree that the evolved complexity of our central nervous system has given us, as a species, much greater agency over our individual and collective existence. But you cannot say that the sole or primary purpose of the human species has changed or transcended to the purpose of understanding what it means to exist.

Why not? The moment our continued existence is secured, we tend to do exactly that. Art, philosophy, religion, science, and even our drive to destroy are all manifestations of our innate desire to better understand the mystery of being (existence). Our animal bodies may only want to reproduce, but the conscious minds that inhabit them clearly want something more. Because the door to a transcendent realm of far greater possibilities has been opened to us, and we want to explore that realm.

All you can say is that, above and beyond our inherited prime directive of living to survive and reproduce, which is still active in human beings, we have the ability to give ourselves other purposes as well. One of many possible purposes we may assign ourselves may be the goal of understanding why and what it means for us to exist. It is not a primary or overriding purpose for all humanity that has superseded or replaced the core drive of life to survive and reproduce. All we can say is that we can be much more self-directed than other species on earth with the ability to suppress or override instinctual behavior.

Transcendence does not require the negation or destruction of it's source condition. It springs from within the source, and occurs in addition to it.

My focus on process is to push back on your wanting to color the evolution of life in magical terms; your implication that evolution has defied and overcome the laws of physics.

I have implied no such thing. Transcending the laws of physics (into the realm of metaphysics) is not magic, and does not negate in any way the laws of physics. This is the bias I was referring to above: that keeps you presuming things that aren't evident.

To say that, "life transcended the physical limitations of existence to that point" is hyperbolic and not correct. Life happened well within the the limitations physics, mass/energy, of reality.

But the results transcended the mechanisms. And opened up a whole new realm possible mechanisms, and possible results.

The only thing that truly defines us as human beings is our genetics and the expression of those genetics. *Edit: However, human beings can be subjectively described and characterized in a multitude of different ways.

So why do you choose the most bio-mechanical way?

The sentence, "Everything humanity is and does is based on our desire to better understand the phenomenon of our own experience of being." is, again, hyperbolic and inaccurate. Humanity and life on earth as a whole, at the core, is based on meeting needs of survival, not understanding being.

This simply is not true.

Life on Earth "as a whole" may be primarily interested in survival, but we humans stand apart (here on Earth) in our desire to find meaning and purpose in that quest. Yes, we ALSO must continue to survive to do that, but we don't survive just to survive. We survive to find the meaning in our doing so.

We humans, with our cognitive abilities, can express that in many ways, one of which is to better understand the phenomenon of being in hopes that in understanding the rhyme and reason of it all, it will allow us to better meet our needs and avoid or mitigate the discomforts and vagaries that are a part of life. But this alone is not what humanity is based on.

And, for you, given your comments elsewhere, your expressed belief in a metaphysical plane or existence outside of reality, a term like "transcendence" has a much greater meaning that "different". It is this inevitable slide from reality to your artificial construct of a metaphysical realm that I feel the need to keep in check.

We both see great possibilities for future expressions of humanity, we just need to understand the set of possibilities will always confined to the boundaries of reality.

A huge problem with this sort of conversation occurs because the word "reality", by itself, does not designate a difference between 'what is', and what we think 'is', is. There is only one reality, to which none of us have full access. But there are many realities among us, as we each carry our own around in our heads. These are all different "realities" and yet they are all part of one reality.

 

[MikeF]

The cosmos is no more indifferent to us than we are to ourselves. Which we clearly are not. Because WE ARE THE COSMOS. Or, as you pointed out, we are a part of it. And we are the part of it that cares. Existence is not indifferent, because we exist, and we are not indifferent. Existence is self-aware because we exist, and we are aware of our existing. Being part of the whole does not exclude us from the whole, or the whole from us. There may be more to the "whole" than we can know, but that doesn't negate our inclusion.
Why?
Why not? The moment our continued existence is secured, we tend to do exactly that. Art, philosophy, religion, science, and even our drive to destroy are all manifestations of our innate desire to better understand the mystery of being (existence). Our animal bodies may only want to reproduce, but the conscious minds that inhabit them clearly want something more. Because the door to a transcendent realm of far greater possibilities has been opened to us, and we want to explore that realm.
Transcendence does not require the negation or destruction of it's source condition. It springs from within the source, and occurs in addition to it.
I have implied no such thing. Transcending the laws of physics (into the realm of metaphysics) is not magic, and does not negate in any way the laws of physics. This is the bias I was referring to above: that keeps you presuming things that aren't evident.
But the results transcended the mechanisms. And opened up a whole new realm possible mechanisms, and possible results.
So why do you choose the most bio-mechanical way?
This simply is not true.

Life on Earth "as a whole" may be primarily interested in survival, but we humans stand apart (here on Earth) in our desire to find meaning and purpose in that quest. Yes, we ALSO must continue to survive to do that, but we don't survive just to survive. We survive to find the meaning in our doing so.
A huge problem with this sort of conversation occurs because the word "reality", by itself, does not designate a difference between 'what is', and what we think 'is', is. There is only one reality, to which none of us have full access. But there are many realities among us, as we each carry our own around in our heads. These are all different "realities" and yet they are all part of one reality.

Sometimes I think we are drawing the exact same universe, we are just using different crayons to color it in.

I still take issue with your drive to anthropomorphize the cosmos/reality. Does the universe care or neglect? No. That we human beings are a part of reality, and based on our cognitive abilities, have an emotional capacity to care about things, does not mean we can attribute the emotional capacity to care to all parts of reality. And this emotional capacity to care is not uniform among human beings, as we can care and not care about the same things to varying degrees, and other species in the animal kingdom may be said to have some capacity to express this emotional capacity to care. But our ability to care can in no way be attributed in some universal way to the whole of reality. A sun does not care. A rock does not care. Water does not have the capacity to care. The inanimate cosmos is indifferent because it has no capacity to express any emotion. We are part of the whole, but not every part of the whole, however you choose to slice and dice it, share or exhibit the same properties.

As to humanity's purpose, beyond survival and reproduction, it is whatever we chose it to be, given the time, space, and resources to pursue, and we can give ourselves individually and collectively, more than one purpose.

Yes, there is one reality, and our individual perception of that reality is affected by our unique physical makeup, our environment, socialization, education, etc. One reality with many flawed and fallible observers of that reality.

 

[PureX]

Sometimes I think we are drawing the exact same universe, we are just using different crayons to color it in.

I still take issue with your drive to anthropomorphize the cosmos/reality. Does the universe care or neglect? No. That we human beings are a part of reality, and based on our cognitive abilities, have an emotional capacity to care about things, does not mean we can attribute the emotional capacity to care to all parts of reality.

Reality is a singular whole. It's not a bunch of unrelated 'parts'.

Our feet don't think. Nor do our hands. But our minds, do. And so we do. Because we are not a collection of parts. We are a singular whole.

Our DNA is not self-motivated, nor self-propelled. Not is it self-aware. Yet it can result, through circumstances, in all of these. This is transcendence. This is how the result far exceed (transcend) the mechanics that enable it.

You focus on the mechanics of existence and so insist that the universe doesn't think, or feel, or have purpose. But you ignore the result of those mechanisms. And those results transcend the mechanisms that enabled them. The results do think, and feel, and seek purpose. In fact, it would not be illogical to presume that the results ARE THE PURPOSE of the mechanisms. But you really don't want to go there, I think, because you don't like what that implies.

Yes, there is one reality, and our individual perception of that reality is affected by our unique physical makeup, our environment, socialization, education, etc. One reality with many flawed and fallible observers of that reality.

Imperfection is an essential part of the creative mechanism.

 

[MikeF]

Reality is a singular whole.

There are only two conditions in which I would characterize reality/cosmos as a singular (which singular I interpret as uniform, for why else add the adjective) whole and that would be either the instant before the Big Bang or if total equilibrium of the cosmos occurred due to a continually expanding cosmos resulting in final heat death. (I'm not a physicist, so this is not an opinion on the Big Bang or wether heat death of the universe will occur.)

It's not a bunch of unrelated 'parts'.

We can look at a system or object and conceptually subdivide it into parts and group those parts in a multitude of ways. The more complex the system or object the greater number of ways we can conceptually partition it. We can also observe relationships and dependency between parts. But parts of a system or object do not have to relate in any other way than they simply be in the set of parts of the same system or object. Each part in no way has to share/exhibit the exact same set of characteristics or properties.

Our feet don't think. Nor do our hands. But our minds, do. And so we do. Because we are not a collection of parts. We are a singular whole.

The human body is a system of integrated, co-depedent parts. My Central nervous system operates and controls my bodily functions, but it does not operate the bodily function of any other life form. That the biological system that is me has consciousness in no way conveys that property/characteristic to anything else, or to a system that I may be a subset of. My cosciousness does not make the larger system of the cosmos conscious. Planets, stars, galaxies are not integrated with my Central nervous system as my hands and feet are. I can not direct or influence celestial bodies with my consciousness. Neither my nor any other consciousness makes the cosmos conscious. To say that humanity is to the cosmos as a brain is to the rest of the body is a completely false comparison.

Our DNA is not self-motivated, nor self-propelled. Nor is it self-aware. Yet it can result, through circumstances, in all of these. This is transcendence. This is how the result far exceed (transcend) the mechanics that enable it.

I agree ...... It's cool.

You focus on the mechanics of existence and so insist that the universe doesn't think, or feel, or have purpose. But you ignore the result of those mechanisms. And those results transcend the mechanisms that enabled them. The results do think, and feel, and seek purpose. In fact, it would not be illogical to presume that the results ARE THE PURPOSE of the mechanisms. But you really don't want to go there, I think, because you don't like what that implies.
Imperfection is an essential part of the creative mechanism.

And as shown above, the universe does not think. We are neither integrated or a co-dependent part of the cosmos as the parts of a living organism are. If all life ended tomorrow, the system that is the cosmos would not die or cease to function, to be. It behaved as it does before life began on this planet and it will continue to do so if life were to cease.

And it is illogical to presume life, or any particular life form is the purpose of the mechanics of the cosmos. That our solar system formed this particular configuration, that earth was not too big or small, too far or close to the sun, that tectonic plates moved as they have and climate has cycled as it has, all these random events have influenced how life has evolved and the species that have arisen. It is random, serendipitous chance. Random, imperfect chance.

 

[PureX]

There are only two conditions in which I would characterize reality/cosmos as a singular (which singular I interpret as uniform, for why else add the adjective) whole and that would be either the instant before the Big Bang or if total equilibrium of the cosmos occurred due to a continually expanding cosmos resulting in final heat death. (I'm not a physicist, so this is not an opinion on the Big Bang or whether heat death of the universe will occur.)

Singular in that everything is inter-related (causally) and inter-dependent (existentially). Existence is ONE GIANT EVENT taking place. The many "parts" we humans think we recognize are imaginary. They are fictions caused by the fact that our brain function is binary (compare/contrast/repeat) and as such we cannot perceive or comprehend holistically.

We can look at a system or object and conceptually subdivide it into parts and group those parts in a multitude of ways.

Yes. It's the only way we humans have of comprehending anything. That's how our brains unction. But that is not an accurate reflection of reality. Reality has no "parts". Everything is part of everything else. The distinctions we are perceiving and applying to our experience of existence are conceptual projections. Manifestations of the mind.

The more complex the system or object the greater number of ways we can conceptually partition it. We can also observe relationships and dependency between parts. But parts of a system or object do not have to relate in any other way than they simply be in the set of parts of the same system or object.

They cannot be unrelated. This is what you are overlooking. There are no "parts" but those we imagine in our minds and then impose on the singular (and infinitely complex) event that is 'reality'.

The human body is a system of integrated, co-dependent parts.

... Within a larger system of integrated co-dependent parts. And that within an even greater system of integrated, co-dependent parts. And ultimately all within the same gigantic integrated co-dependent whole. The whole of the 'cosmos'. The whole of existence. We humans cannot grasp the whole. But everything that we can grasp tells us that it is all of a singular whole.

My Central nervous system operates and controls my bodily functions, but it does not operate the bodily function of any other life form.

This does not mean that you exist apart from that which you cannot control. It only means your control is limited.

That the biological system that is me has consciousness in no way conveys that property/characteristic to anything else, or to a system that I may be a subset of.

Of course it does; by every action you take in relations to every other "thing" that you experience/perceive to exist. Just as what you think and how you act in the world is being inspired by your experience of every other "thing" in the world that you encounter. Your existence is being defined by, and is in turn defining the existence of everything around you.

My cosciousness does not make the larger system of the cosmos conscious.

Of course it does. Just because you're only one cell in a very big brain does not mean the brain isn't there, and isn't thinking, with your help.

Planets, stars, galaxies are not integrated with my Central nervous system as my hands and feet are.
I can not direct or influence celestial bodies with my consciousness. Neither my nor any other consciousness makes the cosmos conscious.

Doesn't matter. It's all part of the same whole. Everything effects everything else. The effect may be very small, but all those small effects add up to a significant effect.

To say that humanity is to the cosmos as a brain is to the rest of the body is a completely false comparison.

The validity is not logically based on the degree of control, as you seem to be trying to imply. The degree of control is unknown, and irrelevant. That such control (effect) exists is undeniable. That far greater control via other unknown sentient forms of being, could exists, and is even probable, is reasonable. But again, this doesn't matter. What matters is that even a very big animal with a very small brain still is an animal with a brain. And that brain still has it's purpose within the animal.

And it is illogical to presume life, or any particular life form is the purpose of the mechanics of the cosmos. That our solar system formed this particular configuration, that earth was not too big or small, too far or close to the sun, that tectonic plates moved as they have and climate has cycled as it has, all these random events have influenced how life has evolved and the species that have arisen. It is random, serendipitous chance. Random, imperfect chance.

It is illogical NOT to assume that the result of a specific and complex process was the goal of the specific and complex process applied to it. Existence is NOT random. It is the result of specific limitations being imposed on an otherwise chaotic expression of energy. Nothing can come from chaos but chaos. Nothing can exist in chaos but chaos. Existence is not some accidental/magical result of chaos. It is the result of the limitations (and therefor the possibilities) that we imposed on a single, massive expression of energy.

 

[MikeF]

The many "parts" we humans think we recognize are imaginary. .... Reality has no "parts".

You can say this, but it is not true. For example, each atomic element displayed in the periodic table has a set of properties that make it unique and distinguishable from other elements. It makes real and perfect sense to recognize and treat different elements as different things. Elements can be combined into molecules that exhibit properties that are unique and different from the the individual elements used. It is valid and real to see these molecules as distinct parts. To classify these things as parts is neither arbitrary nor imaginary, it reflects observed reality.

Just because you're only one cell in a very big brain does not mean the brain isn't there, and isn't thinking, with your help.

Really? Now this is what I would call imaginary, and for that matter, contradictory to your premise that there are no parts. To describe me as a cell (part) of a big brain seems anathema to your whole line of reasoning.
If I am equivalent to a brain cell, what, of the cosmos or reality, constitutes the entire brain? Only other human beings? What, in the cosmos or reality, constitutes the body as distinct from, yet co-dependent and controlled by, this brain? What, in the cosmos or reality, is considered outside of, and not a part of this body?

What I can agree to is viewing all of life on earth as a single entity/organism (with distinct parts); that we and all life are parts and expressions of the same organism. From its earliest, simplistic beginnings, the organism of life has had no other purpose other than to survive, adapt, and reproduce. It is clear from the historical record that there is no value to any one particular part, or expression of life, rather, that life simply continue, in any way, shape, or form. Since the cosmos, and more specifically this planet, is in a continual state of change, this organism of life must change. This change is not predetermined, predictable, or directed, but rather random in a way that, at any given time, some varied expressions of life will persist and continue to survive. It is the randomly changing system that is earth's environment that exerts a selective pressure and constraint on how life can be expressed.
It has been billions of years of trial and error for life to adapt and evolve the expression that is human being. But if we humans were to disappear tomorrow, life may express a form with similar cognitive capacity as human beings, yet derived from different precursor forms.
And we human beings are ever changing, yet difficult to recognize in a single life time. We are not the end of the road, just one of many current expressions of life. Whatever may come in 50 million or 100 million years will not be recognized as the human beings of today.

It is illogical NOT to assume that the result of a specific and complex process was the goal of the specific and complex process applied to it. Existence is NOT random. It is the result of specific limitations being imposed on an otherwise chaotic expression of energy. Nothing can come from chaos but chaos. Nothing can exist in chaos but chaos. Existence is not some accidental/magical result of chaos. It is the result of the limitations (and therefor the possibilities) that we imposed on a single, massive expression of energy.

Again, this does not agree with observed reality. You say that nothing can come from chaos, but it is not about a constant state of chaos, a constant, uniform energy level in the cosmos. The cosmos is expanding and cooling, and matter in various forms percipitates out of the original, expanding energy. This process occurs in a random, non-uniform way. We get different elements randomly banging around as they form, resulting in the cosmos we see today. The exact configuration at any instant is the result of all the random interactions to that point during this expansion and cooling.

Sometimes I think you misuse the word existence. When you say, "Existence is not some accidental/magical result of chaos.", do you really mean that life is not some accidental/magical result of chaos? The cosmos exists and it is continually changing in a random, non-uniform way. It is that very randomness that informs and constrains how life can be expressed.

To say that we, human beings, imposed limitations on a single, massive expression of energy that is the cosmos is nonsensical. We, and life as a whole, imposed nothing on the cosmos that existed for billions of years before life on earth. Life, and we as one particular expression of it, can only ride and adapt to the wave of continual change that is the cosmos.

 

[PureX]

You can say this, but it is not true. For example, each atomic element displayed in the periodic table has a set of properties that make it unique and distinguishable from other elements. It makes real and perfect sense to recognize and treat different elements as different things.

I didn't say that it doesn't make sense, from our perspective, to divide existence up into "parts". Or even for us to treat them as separate phenomena. But ultimately, existence is one giant expression of energy which is being governed by one set of limitations. We exist as relative phenomena. While existence itself is an absolute.

Elements can be combined into molecules that exhibit properties that are unique and different from the the individual elements used.

But WE are determining that those perceived properties define them as "different". Ice, water, and steam all have "different properties", too. And yet they are all the same substance. They are only being perceived as "different" by their relative circumstance. And everything that exists is like this: defined by us as unique according to their relative circumstance.

It is valid and real to see these molecules as distinct parts. To classify these things as parts is neither arbitrary nor imaginary, it reflects observed reality.

But observed reality is a product of the observer, like a painting of a landscape. It does not contain the truth of the landscape, but rather of the painter.

To describe me as a cell (part) of a big brain seems anathema to your whole line of reasoning.
If I am equivalent to a brain cell, what, of the cosmos or reality, constitutes the entire brain? Only other human beings? What, in the cosmos or reality, constitutes the body as distinct from, yet co-dependent and controlled by, this brain? What, in the cosmos or reality, is considered outside of, and not a part of this body?

The singular brain cell doesn't get to know all of this. It does not possess that capacity. And yet it plays it's part, as it was designed and programmed to do. As do we.

What I can agree to is viewing all of life on earth as a single entity/organism (with distinct parts); that we and all life are parts and expressions of the same organism. From its earliest, simplistic beginnings, the organism of life has had no other purpose other than to survive, adapt, and reproduce. It is clear from the historical record that there is no value to any one particular part, or expression of life, rather, that life simply continue, in any way, shape, or form. Since the cosmos, and more specifically this planet, is in a continual state of change, this organism of life must change. This change is not predetermined, predictable, or directed, but rather random in a way that, at any given time, some varied expressions of life will persist and continue to survive. It is the randomly changing system that is earth's environment that exerts a selective pressure and constraint on how life can be expressed.

You are completely ignoring the overwhelming limitations to "random" chance. Neutrenos may disrupt the DNA sequence of a life form randomly, but whether or not that disruption causes a mutation is not randomly determined. In fact, nothing after the disruption, itself, is randomly determined. Very, very little in this existence is the result of randomness. Randomness can only instigate a change. How if and how that change manifests is entirely depending on the limitations being brought to bear on it.

Chance is a part of the fundamental formula of existence, but it is not the part that shapes existence. It's only the part that instigates change within it.

It has been billions of years of trial and error for life to adapt and evolve the expression that is human being.

But all that "trial and error" is really just energy flowing through a gauntlet of limitation to follow through on what is possible. It is only what is possible that occurs. Change is not random, as you seem to be imagining.

You say that nothing can come from chaos, but it is not about a constant state of chaos, a constant, uniform energy level in the cosmos. The cosmos is expanding and cooling, and matter in various forms percipitates out of the original, expanding energy. This process occurs in a random, non-uniform way. We get different elements randomly banging around as they form, resulting in the cosmos we see today. The exact configuration at any instant is the result of all the random interactions to that point during this expansion and cooling.

That random energy cannot become anything but random energy unless some organizing limitations are being imposed on it's expression. For us, at the moment, those organizing limitations are showing up as an array of "quantum particles" (forces) which can interact with each other in certain ways, but not on other ways, or in any (random) way. And it is these limitations on a 'random' expression of energy that is determining the nature of existence. NOT randomness.

Sometimes I think you misuse the word existence. When you say, "Existence is not some accidental/magical result of chaos.", do you really mean that life is not some accidental/magical result of chaos? The cosmos exists and it is continually changing in a random, non-uniform way. It is that very randomness that informs and constrains how life can be expressed.

No, it isn't. This is where you got it wrong. Randomness by definition cannot contain any limitation, or it's no longer random. It must be limited, somehow, for any expression of order to form. And the order that forms in the wake of those limits are what determines the results. Not the randomness.

To say that we, human beings, imposed limitations on a single, massive expression of energy that is the cosmos is nonsensical. We, and life as a whole, imposed nothing on the cosmos that existed for billions of years before life on earth. Life, and we as one particular expression of it, can only ride and adapt to the wave of continual change that is the cosmos.

Consciousness imposes it's will on the physical reality from which it springs. This is self-evident. Why you keep trying to deny it is a mystery to me.

 

[MikeF]

I didn't say that it doesn't make sense, from our perspective, to divide existence up into "parts". Or even for us to treat them as separate phenomena. But ultimately, existence is one giant expression of energy which is being governed by one set of limitations. We exist as relative phenomena. While existence itself is an absolute.
But WE are determining that those perceived properties define them as "different". Ice, water, and steam all have "different properties", too. And yet they are all the same substance. They are only being perceived as "different" by their relative circumstance. And everything that exists is like this: defined by us as unique according to their relative circumstance.
But observed reality is a product of the observer, like a painting of a landscape. It does not contain the truth of the landscape, but rather of the painter.
The singular brain cell doesn't get to know all of this. It does not possess that capacity. And yet it plays it's part, as it was designed and programmed to do. As do we.
You are completely ignoring the overwhelming limitations to "random" chance. Neutrenos may disrupt the DNA sequence of a life form randomly, but whether or not that disruption causes a mutation is not randomly determined. In fact, nothing after the disruption, itself, is randomly determined. Very, very little in this existence is the result of randomness. Randomness can only instigate a change. How if and how that change manifests is entirely depending on the limitations being brought to bear on it.

Chance is a part of the fundamental formula of existence, but it is not the part that shapes existence. It's only the part that instigates change within it.
But all that "trial and error" is really just energy flowing through a gauntlet of limitation to follow through on what is possible. It is only what is possible that occurs. Change is not random, as you seem to be imagining.
That random energy cannot become anything but random energy unless some organizing limitations are being imposed on it's expression. For us, at the moment, those organizing limitations are showing up as an array of "quantum particles" (forces) which can interact with each other in certain ways, but not on other ways, or in any (random) way. And it is these limitations on a 'random' expression of energy that is determining the nature of existence. NOT randomness.
No, it isn't. This is where you got it wrong. Randomness by definition cannot contain any limitation, or it's no longer random. It must be limited, somehow, for any expression of order to form. And the order that forms in the wake of those limits are what determines the results. Not the randomness.
Consciousness imposes it's will on the physical reality from which it springs. This is self-evident. Why you keep trying to deny it is a mystery to me.

I feel like we are talking past each other on the use of the word 'random'. If we were to talk about a severe weather event, how would you describe the unpredictability of the changing pattern/shape and movements of the clouds? What about the inability to exactly predict wether a tornado forms, where it forms, it's exact path and exact strength?
You like to use the phrase "range of possibility". In the weather example, a weather forcast or storm warning essentially is describing the range of possibilities for the storm for a particular area. The forcast may predict strong winds, possible hail, as well as a tornado.
Over several years, an area may receive several storm warnings each year that never result in a tornado. Then one year there are two tornadoes. What word describes the inability to exactly predict the tornados? Can we call the tornados a random event?

And as you suggest, the air mass is a system that has physical laws constraining the way the molecules involve may move as they bang into each other, however, can we not describe the unpredictably changing pattern/motion of molecules as random within the confines of the system? If not, how should we describe this unpredictableness?

 

[MikeF]

But WE are determining that those perceived properties define them as "different". Ice, water, and steam all have "different properties", too. And yet they are all the same substance. They are only being perceived as "different" by their relative circumstance.

It is not a perceived difference, it is an actual difference that exists wether there is an observer to perceive the different states of matter or not. Solids, liquids, and gases exhibit different properties (how the set of water molecules fill a closed volume, for example), regardless of the substance. You can dispense with the quotes for the word 'different'.

 

[PureX]

It is not a perceived difference, it is an actual difference that exists wether there is an observer to perceive the different states of matter or not. Solids, liquids, and gases exhibit different properties (how the set of water molecules fill a closed volume, for example), regardless of the substance. You can dispense with the quotes for the word 'different'.

But WE are determining what a "property" is. And so we are determining that one property is different from another. But in reality, it's all just the expression of energy; ordered to enable an increase in complexity.

Try looking at it this way: We have no idea what energy is, but for the sake of discussion lets presume it's a "frequency" of some sort. So that energy expressed at 'frequency x' presents itself to our science as a phenomena we call "quantum particle gluon". While energy expressed at 'frequency y' presents itself to our science as a phenomena we call 'quantum particle quark'. And there is a whole range of frequencies that energy can be expressed at, resulting in a whole array of phenomena that present themselves to us, through our science, and that we label accordingly. As the expression of energy increases and decreases in 'frequency', it presents itself to our science as one or another of an array of "differentiated phenomena" that can then interact with each others to create even more differentiated phenomena; that combine to become what we call atoms. And then these interact and interrelate to cause more differentiate phenomena that we call molecules, and on and on it goes.

We don't know what energy is. Vibrating 'strings' was a theory for a while. Oscillating 'bubbles of space' was a theory. Both involve variations in frequency that manifest in the quantum realm as differentiated phenomena that we call quantum particles, and that can then interact with other quantum particles to create even more differentiated phenomena (as viewed through our science) called subatomic particles, and so on.

All we actually know is that the energy is not being expressed randomly. Something is ordering it into a pattern of 'frequencies' (for lack of a better term), that enables these expressions of energy to interact with each in specific ways, and to create ever more complex phenomena. So we have energy (force) and we have a creative order being imposed on that expression of energy (force). And EVERYTHING that exists, exists AS THAT. As 'ordered energy'. All those different phenomenological expressions of that order that we humans experience (active/inactive, dense/sparse, vast/minute, rare/common, and so many more) are all based on how we perceive that organized range of expressed energy.

 

[MikeF]

But WE are determining what a "property" is. And so we are determining that one property is different from another. But in reality, it's all just the expression of energy; ordered to enable an increase in complexity.

Try looking at it this way: We have no idea what energy is, but for the sake of discussion lets presume it's a "frequency" of some sort. So that energy expressed at 'frequency x' presents itself to our science as a phenomena we call "quantum particle gluon". While energy expressed at 'frequency y' presents itself to our science as a phenomena we call 'quantum particle quark'. And there is a whole range of frequencies that energy can be expressed at, resulting in a whole array of phenomena that present themselves to us, through our science, and that we label accordingly. As the expression of energy increases and decreases in 'frequency', it presents itself to our science as one or another of an array of "differentiated phenomena" that can then interact with each others to create even more differentiated phenomena; that combine to become what we call atoms. And then these interact and interrelate to cause more differentiate phenomena that we call molecules, and on and on it goes.

We don't know what energy is. Vibrating 'strings' was a theory for a while. Oscillating 'bubbles of space' was a theory. Both involve variations in frequency that manifest in the quantum realm as differentiated phenomena that we call quantum particles, and that can then interact with other quantum particles to create even more differentiated phenomena (as viewed through our science) called subatomic particles, and so on.

All we actually know is that the energy is not being expressed randomly. Something is ordering it into a pattern of 'frequencies' (for lack of a better term), that enables these expressions of energy to interact with each in specific ways, and to create ever more complex phenomena. So we have energy (force) and we have a creative order being imposed on that expression of energy (force). And EVERYTHING that exists, exists AS THAT. As 'ordered energy'. All those different phenomenological expressions of that order that we humans experience (active/inactive, dense/sparse, vast/minute, rare/common, and so many more) are all based on how we perceive that organized range of expressed energy.

I do not have a PhD in Astrophysics, perhaps you do, or through self-study, have the equivalent. I don't have a lot of problem with the descriptions in the second paragraph above, but what I feel is missing is a recognition of the role of energy levels for the whole system(and gradient of energy levels throughout the system), and how that energy level for the whole system changes over time. Perhaps 'energy level' is analogous to temperature of the system, which, the system in this discussion is the cosmos. I agree that everything that makes up the cosmos appears to be the same stuff, an Energy/Matter substance. If we agree to use the Big Bang theory as a model, the instant before the bang, the cosmos would be this uniform Energy/Matter stuff at a very high (the highest?) energy level, or temperature, and no matter or particles would exist on the spectrum of possible states of Energy/Matter. It would be pure Energy on the Energy/Matter spectrum, at its highest energy level, and uniform. In the millionths of a second after the bang, the building blocks of matter begin to precipitate out of the pure Energy as it expands and cools. These would be the quantum particles you referenced. These quantum particles form because this is the property that the Energy/Matter stuff exhibits at this decreased energy level. If we somehow increase the energy level/temperature of the system to the initial state, the quantum particles would dissolve back into pure energy.

And here is where I think the way we color these same events influences how we characterize and think about what is going on. You want to use words like 'create', 'creative', 'express', and 'order'. Your use has connotations of agency, intention, of a maker or creator. But the only order being imposed on the system of the cosmos is the laws of physics, whatever they turn out to be in their entirety. Quantum particles are not created, they simply form and un-form in relation to energy level/temperature.

Once the particles begin to form, develop mass, they begin to demonstrate other properties, or states of Energy/Matter stuff, at these lower energy levels/temperatures. They bang around and collide and begin to stick to each other. Again, not dissimilar to H2O molecules banging around as a gas, and as the energy level/temperature of the system decreases, the H2O molecules begin to stick together and form liquid H2O droplets. The same material, H2O, exhibits different properties at this lower energy level. Lower the energy level/temperature further, and we see yet another state or expression of H2O molecules as a solid. This is what is occurring with Energy/Matter stuff. As energy level/temperature decreases, we see different states of the same stuff being expressed. Any particular state of Energy/Matter stuff can be stable over a range of energy levels/temperatures just as H2O maintains a liquid state over a range of energy levels/temperatures.

Last point is randomness. Quantum particles did not precipitate out of the Big Bang all at the same time and in a uniform way. It occurred over the gradient of expanding and cooling Energy/Matter stuff. Granted, it all happened very fast, but not instantaneously. Particles formed at different rates, and once formed as discrete entities, began to collide with each other. These collisions can in no way be described as ordered and uniform. I think the path of all these forming particles, post Big Bang, can be described as quite chaotic. As the system of the cosmos continues to expand and cool, energy levels/temperatures continue to decrease, the particles can begin to stick together. The point at which any particular particle sticks to another is simply a function of a particle's vector of motion and the relative energy levels/temperatures at impact. There is no pattern or template for the formation of different phenomenological expressions of Energy/Matter stuff other than the laws of physics. Everything else is down to the continual change of relative energy levels/temperatures (with an overall continual decrease for the whole cosmos system) and the chaotic collisions of all states of Energy/Matter stuff throughout this whole process of expansion and cooling.

I think, given our observations of Energy/Mass stuff, that it is more accurate, more probable, to describe the state of the cosmos, at any given instant, as an unplanned, unpredictable culmination of chance events (after the initial bang). If we were able to redo the Big Bang multiple times, no resulting cosmos would be exactly the same as any other, at any point of elapsed time. After each bang, it is sheer chance as to when and where different states of Energy/Matter stuff form, clump, and continually make different phenomenological things. Each of our experimental Big Bangs may all end up in the same uniform state, uniformly cold (maximum coldness? Lowest energy level?) and as evenly dispersed Energy/Matter stuff, but each Big Bang will get there along a different path, through its own unique expression of random chance events.

Now we just need a panel of experts to make a determination as to which of us has presented a more accurate characterization of the cosmos and the degree to which randomness is involved.

 

[PureX]

Now we just need a panel of experts to make a determination as to which of us has presented a more accurate characterization of the cosmos and the degree to which randomness is involved.

But you didn't really address my previous point (which does not require a PHD in anything). And that is that all these differences of phenomena that we believe to be surrounding us are actually coming form within us. (The differences, I mean, not the phenomena.) We believe light, temperature, motion, space, time, complexity, and so on are different phenomena because they enter and occupy our awareness via different mechanisms. But they (and we) all originate in the same explosion of energy. And they are all, still, just that energy expressing itself. That explosion is still exploding. The event of existence is still taking place: in us, through us, and all around us. Our awareness of this is it's awareness of itself, because we are in it, and it is in us. We are one and the same cosmic event.

And this event is ordered. It is being controlled by a set of limitations: possibilities, and impossibilities determining the ways that all that energy is being expressed. You keep trying to claim it's all sprung from chaos, but logically that is not possible. Chaos cannot spontaneously generate, recognize, or maintain any order of any kind. Chaos only exists in the cosmos as a very minute but important 'change-up' factor. When all the other control factors and forces are {relatively) equal, chance (chaos/disorder) can then determine the course or outcome of an event. It happens, but it's rare. And it's certainly not the cause of existence as we know it.

 

[MikeF]

/

But you didn't really address my previous point (which does not require a PHD in anything). And that is that all these differences of phenomena that we believe to be surrounding us are actually coming form within us. (The differences, I mean, not the phenomena.) We believe light, temperature, motion, space, time, complexity, and so on are different phenomena because they enter and occupy our awareness via different mechanisms. But they (and we) all originate in the same explosion of energy. And they are all, still, just that energy expressing itself. That explosion is still exploding. The event of existence is still taking place: in us, through us, and all around us. Our awareness of this is it's awareness of itself, because we are in it, and it is in us. We are one and the same cosmic event.

And this event is ordered. It is being controlled by a set of limitations: possibilities, and impossibilities determining the ways that all that energy is being expressed. You keep trying to claim it's all sprung from chaos, but logically that is not possible. Chaos cannot spontaneously generate, recognize, or maintain any order of any kind. Chaos only exists in the cosmos as a very minute but important 'change-up' factor. When all the other control factors and forces are {relatively) equal, chance (chaos/disorder) can then determine the course or outcome of an event. It happens, but it's rare. And it's certainly not the cause of existence as we know it.

It looks like you have no major qualms with my simplistic sketch of the Big Bang and how matter has formed and will consider that common ground to build from. I thought I was addressing your point, but I'll try and address it more directly.

You state, "... that all these differences of phenomena that we believe to be surrounding us are actually coming from within us." And here we need clarification. For you I think the term 'phenomena' means anything that is made out of Energy/Matter stuff. Examples include anything with mass, such as the elements in the periodic table and the sub-elements that make them up, as well as the electro-magnetic spectrum in all its forms. And though you acknowledge there are these different phenomena, all formed out of Energy/Mass stuff, you seem to be saying that any recognition of these different phenomena by human beings is imaginary and all in our heads. Any difference we perceive between phenomena is artificial because all phenomena are just formed from the same stuff and therefore are not really different. I just don't get this. It is nonsensical to me.

You say, "We believe light, temperature, motion, space, time, complexity, and so on are different phenomena because they enter and occupy our awareness via different mechanisms." Here we have a conflict or contradiction in terms. Per the definition of phenomena (anything made from Energy/Mass stuff), none of the items listed in this sentence are phenomena, unless 'light' is a synonym for electro-magnetic radiation. Perhaps the items on the list should be considered properties or events. If that is the case, then you are saying that there are no different properties or events in the cosmos. Objects that human beings perceive to move through space and time, do not actually do so, it is merely an illusion created by our senses.

But this is all silly. There are different phenomena, or identifiable things, made out of Energy/Mass stuff. Additionally, different phenomena exhibit real, demonstrably different properties, and are involved in distinguishable events, differences that in no way require human beings. If there are no different properties or events, then there are no different phenomena, for how would you define one phenomena as different/separate from another. Your argument does not stand up.

To your point that all of reality, including human beings, are part of the same cosmic event, and the resulting process that was set in motion and still ongoing, I have no issue. Of course everything in reality is all part of the same reality. However, distinct phenomena are identified by their unique set of properties that distinguish it from other phenomena. The properties that define a neutron are different from those that define a proton or an electron. The element Iron has a unique set of properties that are different from Argon or Sulphur. You seem to suggest that human beings confer their awareness/consciousness property to the inanimate whole of the cosmos that we are a sub-set of. This is ridiculous. Awareness/consciousness is solely the manifestation of the unique central nervous system from which it is formed. Each instance of awareness/consciousness is independent from any other and cannot be shared or transferred, and certainly not to the inanimate, which the cosmos (as a set of phenomena) is. And certainly, this property of awareness/consciousness is not exhibited by human beings alone. Awareness/consciousness presents in a broad spectrum throughout the animal kingdom.

You state, "Chaos cannot spontaneously generate, recognize, or maintain any order of any kind." This sentence asserts that the cosmos presents an order that is spontaneously generated by an entity that recognizes or is aware of the resulting intended order. If you want to say that the Big Bang (energy explosion, in your terms) is a spontaneous event, that is fine. To suggest that it was the result of specific intent to create a particular and specific order does not mesh with reality. This is akin to saying that if I throw a deck of playing cards into the air and they fall to the ground, that the resulting arrangement of the playing cards has an order to them and that I intended that specific order. This is what I tried to explain with the multiple Big Bang experiments. Each new Big Bang will proceed in a unique way, just as every time I throw a deck of cards, they will never fall to the ground the same way or form the same arrangement on the ground. It is not logical to infer that there is any intent for the cosmos to have a specific configuration at any instant in time. Once it began, it was on auto-pilot. You say that things cannot be created from chaos, but that is only if the system is statically held at high energy. Nothing will form if all Energy/Matter stuff stays at high energy levels. But the system is not static, it is expanding and cooling, which permits the formation and clumping of matter, and this formation of matter is just as random and unpredictable as the resulting arrangement of playing cards on the ground. This is what informs and dictates the ever changing arrangement of the cosmos, the laws of physics and a non-static system. No design or intelligence required.

Lastly, you put great emphasis on the existence of human beings. We humans have only just come on to the scene and for only a relative instant when compared to the whole of this cosmic event we call reality. When you speak of possibilities, keep in mind that it is possible that the earth could be hit by an asteroid large enough that the resulting impact would kill every living thing on this planet. It is also possible that a large enough impact could alter earth's orbital path around the sun, or evaporate all the water into space, such that the earth is no longer a Goldilocks planet, one with just the right environment to permit life as we know it to exist. If that were to occur, would that have been the intended plan from the start? How would such an event speak to our place and purpose in the cosmos?

 

[rational experiences]

We are all just humans first.

Living nearly as just water. By bio form.

Basic science.

I don't lie coerce or reason for a not natural status. Human chosen. Human designed sciences.

The first lie not natural. Artificial causes.

Natural says the liar can change artificially. Then his mind becomes abstract from natural

Says the most weirdest ideas as science themes about transcendence even giving human form status self and one self to thoughts of his reactive science model as word use.

As a human I am a human.

The first two humans deceased.

Their human living memories separate to my own baby to adult affect my living beliefs a self.

Such as saying I returned as a baby from their deceased form.

One of many lies I realised human preach.

Or you believe a baby had no choice. I know I chose my parent says another human as if the baby self was powerful.

The first two parents owned us in their bodies sperm and ovary

If you think you chose your parent you are wrong. Sex did. If you think sex a powerful creator as a self experience then you did.

I started to realise lying.

I had a human self experience as a human not as a scientist with an unconditional loving self present being.

An eternal memory recorded before our parents became human. Saw it. Was proven where we came from. Who we were separated from. A spirit.

A loving status so loved it made me cry. My physical body state changed. I begged it not to leave me. Not one moment was that awareness science.

I had the experience naturally just as a human.

If you are awed in science by that form of being existing then be awed. But it is not...never was...nor never will be your machine sciences

I can talk about it. You can talk about it. But your machine you manifest build yourself liar.

 

[PureX]

It looks like you have no major qualms with my simplistic sketch of the Big Bang and how matter has formed and will consider that common ground to build from. I thought I was addressing your point, but I'll try and address it more directly.

You state, "... that all these differences of phenomena that we believe to be surrounding us are actually coming from within us." And here we need clarification. For you I think the term 'phenomena' means anything that is made out of Energy/Matter stuff.

Unfortunately, at this level of existence the term "made out of" and "stuff" no longer applies. Which is why it becomes so difficult to clarify. We don't know what 'energy' is. I would call it a 'will for something to happen', but as an atheist, you will not be able to accept that as you will automatically presume the will must have a will-er. And I suspect that you're determined that cannot be the case. I, personally, have no difficulty with the implication of a "will-er", or of there being none. To me, it's a possibility too far beyond our 'pay-grade' to quibble about. Yet for the lack of any better way to describe energy: the will for something to happen seems as good as any.

BANG! That will for something to happen is suddenly let loose. And so ... we have to ask ... the will to do/be what? What is it that is being willed to happen? And the answer to that question seems to have been built into the ways that this will (energy) is able, and not able, to be expressed. Because it is not being expressed in any/every way. It is being expressed only in very specific ways that have, over time, resulted in an incredibly complex, diverse, and very specifically balanced realm of both physical and metaphysical being. In fact, the cosmos is so complex, and yet so precisely balanced that it's impossible to imagine that any other variation of the organizing principals involved could have resulted in anything but total failure (non-existence).

And yet you keep trying to insist that it's all an accident of chance. And I find that assertion incomprehensible. I agree that chance has a role in the process that has created the cosmos (existence as we presume to know it), and that it is continuing to do so, but it is clearly not the determining factor. That energy; that will for something to happen, is being expressed as a set of existential physical phenomena: phenomena that we are currently calling 'quantum particles'. And each of these 'particles' (fundamental existential physical phenomena) has it's own unique set of characteristics, as perceived by us, through the lens of our science. But we have no idea at all why energy is expressing itself in this way and not in a random way, or in some other organized way. But then we can't even comprehend that another way could 'exist'.

Any difference we perceive between phenomena is artificial because all phenomena are just formed from the same stuff and therefore are not really different. I just don't get this. It is nonsensical to me.

I understand. Nevertheless ...

When I was in my 20s, I read the Tao Te Ching for the first time, and it made me a bit angry. Because it seemed to me to be deliberately contradicting itself in every statement it presented.

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things."
​

And so on, verse after verse. I read it, but I threw it away afterwards.

But then some ten years later I had occasion to come across a copy of it, and remembering how frustrated I was with it years before, I couldn't help taking a new look. And to my surprise, this time some of it began to make sense to me. I understood that it was not contradicting itself just to frustrate me, it was presenting it's message through sets of opposites. Sort of like presenting both sides of the coin as a way of conveying the coin's 'fullness'. Still, though, I was unable to decipher a lot of the verses, and eventually I gave up and moved on to other things.

And another ten years passed, with all the requisite life experiences that tend to come with time, here. And I decided to go get a copy of the book, and look into it, again. And this time, to my surprise, I not only understood it, but I found it funny in many places. I saw that the author was not only very wise, but had a keen sense of humor about himself and the world.

My point is that sometimes these things take a long time to digest.

Here are a couple of quotes from the Tao Te Ching that I think are especially applicable to this conversation, that you might try to consider.

"When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad."

"Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other."

"Colors blind the eye.
Sounds deafen the ear.
Flavors numb the taste.
Thoughts weaken the mind.
Desires wither the heart."
​

And finally this:

"There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao."

"It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things."

"The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers."

"Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself."​

 

[MikeF]

Unfortunately, at this level of existence the term "made out of" and "stuff" no longer applies. Which is why it becomes so difficult to clarify.

When you say, "... at this level of existence ..." do you mean the existence of life on earth, or do you mean the existence of Homo Sapiens? Perhaps it would be helpful to know what all your levels of existence are.

I am interested to know the different levels of existence, but for this post I will assume we are talking about the difference between inanimate matter as one level of existence and living organisms as another level of existence.

As rough numbers, the best we can say from the data is that for the first 9 billion years, the inanimate matter level of existence was the only level at play. You seem to indicate by the quote above that my descriptions of how the matter formed and the cosmos developed is an accurate description of this 9 billion year period of solely inanimate matter. Is this correct? Do you agree that for the inanimate matter period, if we conducted multiple Big Bangs, the distribution of matter would not be exactly the same for each of them?

 

[MikeF]

We don't know what 'energy' is.

We are in full agreement. We don't know everything there is to know about this Energy/Matter stuff. All we can do is talk about what we observe and be realistic about the conclusions we may be able to draw beyond what the data explicitly describes.

I would call it a 'will for something to happen', but as an atheist, you will not be able to accept that as you will automatically presume the will must have a will-er. And I suspect that you're determined that cannot be the case. I, personally, have no difficulty with the implication of a "will-er", or of there being none. To me, it's a possibility too far beyond our 'pay-grade' to quibble about. Yet for the lack of any better way to describe energy: the will for something to happen seems as good as any.

I would not describe myself as an Atheist, but rather a RAEist.

I know that you understand intellectually that one cannot claim whether there is a Will-er, or the definitive absence of of one, but emotionally you have a preference for there to be a Will-er, and you fear the reaction of Humanity as a whole should all of Humanity believe that there is no Will-er. This is why you prefer to use the anthropomorphic term 'Will', and a term like 'create' over 'form'.

All I care about is what is actually real. If all the evidence points to a Will-er, then I would admit that and begin to explore ways to understand the nature of that Will-er.

But as it stands today, at Humanities present level of collective knowledge, the evidence does not point to a Will-er. I am not saying that there cannot be a Will-er, but when we explore these topics that are on the boundaries of our understanding, we have to be very, very careful not to make up explanations to fill in the blanks in our understanding.

For anyone to say that the inanimate cosmos was set into motion to create all the galaxies exactly as they are, our solar system exactly as it is, with the solar systems specific arrangements of planets, and that the earth was designed and intended to have the exact compliment and ratio of elements that is has 13 billion years after the Big Bang, they would be in direct contradiction with all of our scientific understanding. And truly, I do not believe that you are a science denier. I think you both fully appreciate the gains and validity of science, as well as understand its limitations.

For us to presume that there must be a Will-er, is no different from early Animism where it was assumed that some form of spirit or soul was required to account for the movement of anything, including rivers, the wind, and the stars. We look back and think how primitive those early peoples were, but given their level of understanding it was not irrational for them to assume that, just as their thoughts moved their own bodies, some other mind must be willing the wind to blow or the sun to cross the sky.

To claim a Will-er for the Big Bang and its aftermath is no different than the primitive Animist assuming spirit control of inanimate nature. If we have no data as to what caused the Big Bang or why it happened, then we have to say we do not know.

If you believe the formation of the inanimate cosmos proceeded in only one possible way, in this exact arrangement of galaxies to the position of each atom, then I'm not sure there is anything I could say to convince you otherwise. If we can't come to agreement on the distribution of inanimate matter, we definitely will not make headway discussing the mechanism of life.

You end the paragraph I quoted above by saying that you lack a better way to describe energy other than "a will for something to happen". I believe I have provided a more accurate description.

 

[rational experiences]

If you say as most human minds do something unexplainable in science as it was never a human existence created formed form then it was never created.

You always state it fell from a higher place into change and became less.

Reasoning as empty space is that proof.

Whatever empty space never was is gone.

Science says hence the first law for the status science to practice science is forced change upon a known existing higher state to force it become one mass less to realise emptiness.

As a theme to copy natural history in creation.

As we know our conscious human thinking body self presence is after an ape we personally are only as old as you are today. I am 60 years old as a human.

Stated and taught about time age and self presence by. Human scientist.

Exactly taught for self. Human.

No argument allowed was civilization group world human community supported expressed agreed and applied as life's practice.

As the eternal was first a natural mutual body owning a conscious presence then humans can placate why we knew about our destruction.

We never knew about any creation as it is just expressed as change to a higher existing form.