The Mind of Everything/Demystifying Self-Awareness

[Etritonakin]

Everything must be preceded by that which makes it first generally possible, then specifically possible.

As everything developed from greatest possible simplicity, each new complexity/arrangement made even more new arrangements possible.

Some have believed the singularity which became our universe was greatest possible simplicity, but it could not have actually been very simple. Simple equates to non-specific. The singularity must have been as specific as necessary to produce the universe specifically -stars, planets, atoms which lend themselves to formation of DNA, etc. That's quite a bit of complexity/data/information.

The singularity is usually the reference point for consideration of our origin, but as anything which is complex is composed not only of things which are more simple, but the most simple, there is quite a bit of room (number of developments) between greatest possible simplicity and the singularity. Therefore, everything became capable of producing a universe specifically -step-by-step -during that period.

What necessarily preceded the singularity? What sort of natural development could become capable of specifying a universe of this particular description?

Some believe all steps which preceded the minds of beings like man were necessary before the formation of any mind was possible at all. In other words, that any and all mental capabilities are dependent upon the atoms, DNA or similar things made up of atoms, etc.

However, though our specific kind of body/interface is certainly dependent upon atoms, etc., any interactions at any level can become arranged to perform logical roles. For example: A computer uses the on and off states of transistors which manipulate electron current and voltage, but it is the production of on and off states which is important -not the electrons or transistors specifically. The same thing could be accomplished with water pressure -or anything at any level (or point in development) which had any kind of similar flow and pressure.

The development of a "mind" prior to the singularity would require similar function/arrangement -not similar composition. The development of a mind must be a natural occurrence -whether or not we are the originals. That which is generally necessary for the function of a mind (or anything else) must always have existed.

Interaction itself is the basis of awareness. It could be called simple awareness, as when one things interacts with another, they are affected -and so aware of each other on a simple level. All more complex awareness is dependent on that and would otherwise be impossible. As interactions evolve (in the broadest sense) -become more numerous and/or complex -or become OF a more complex DESIGN (without being designed) -there is technically more awareness -and more complex awareness.

As we can see from our own minds, once a mind develops, it becomes capable of reverse-engineering and forward-engineering. It is a portion of the overall environment which has the capability to determine for both self and its external environment.

A self reaches a point of being able to consider and understand its own development to that point -thus becoming knowledgeable -and so capable of knowledgeably determining future developments for itself and its environment (which are parts of the same whole).

Knowledgeably determining... or... specifying -and it would specify things which were suited to a self and its developing psychology.

"Nature" must specify the development of a mind -yet not in a knowledgeable way -but a mind is required to knowledgeably specify things of extreme purposeful complexity (for the logical purposes of a psychology). It is therefore an intermediate stage. It is also true that -in reference to greatest possible simplicity -that which is of extreme purposeful complexity is indicative of a mind.

That is not apparent if one only looks back to the singularity when considering the universe, but it is logical -and there is more to consider. As a mind is a perfectly natural development for which there are countless examples -the only known natural development with the required level of capabilities -why would it not be the most likely suspect -certainly before nothing at all? The singularity did specify the universe, but it must first have been specified somehow.

What would be the logical purposes of an original developing psychology? What would such logically need? want? do? The universe happens to tick every box.

 

[Etritonakin]

Edit of original.....

Everything must be preceded by that which makes it first generally possible, then specifically possible.

As everything developed from greatest possible simplicity, each new complexity/arrangement made even more new arrangements possible.

Some have believed the singularity which became our universe was greatest possible simplicity, but it could not have actually been very simple. Simple equates to non-specific. The singularity must have been as specific as necessary to produce the universe specifically -stars, planets, atoms which lend themselves to formation of DNA, etc. That's quite a bit of complexity/data/information.

The singularity is usually the reference point for consideration of our origin, but as anything which is complex is composed not only of things which are more simple, but the most simple, there is quite a bit of room (number of developments) between greatest possible simplicity and the singularity. Therefore, everything became capable of producing a universe specifically -step-by-step -during that period.

What necessarily preceded the singularity? What sort of natural development could become capable of specifying a universe of this particular description?

Some believe all steps which preceded the minds of beings like man were necessary before the formation of any mind was possible at all. In other words, that any and all mental capabilities are dependent upon the atoms, DNA or similar things made up of atoms, etc.

However, though our specific kind of body/interface is certainly dependent upon atoms, etc., any interactions at any level can become arranged to perform logical roles. For example: A computer uses the on and off states of transistors which manipulate electron current and voltage, but it is the production of on and off states which is important -not the electrons or transistors specifically. The same thing could be accomplished with water pressure -or anything at any level (or point in development) which had any kind of similar flow and pressure.

The development of a "mind" prior to the singularity would require similar function/arrangement -not similar composition. The development of a mind must be a natural occurrence -whether or not we are the originals. That which is generally necessary for the function of a mind (or anything else) must always have existed.

Interaction itself is the basis of awareness. It could be called simple awareness, as when one things interacts with another, they are affected -and so aware of each other on a simple level. Furthermore, all more-complex awareness is dependent on that and would otherwise be impossible. As interactions evolve (in the broadest sense) -become more numerous and/or complex -or become OF a more complex DESIGN (without being designed) -there is technically more awareness -and more complex awareness.

As we can see from our own minds, once a mind develops, it becomes capable of reverse-engineering and forward-engineering. It is a portion of the overall environment which has the capability to determine for both self and its external environment.

It sees that which could not previously change in its absence -prior to its development -the previous limit of possible configurations -and changes it -increases it -perhaps infinitely.
It is able to change it because a self is the required mechanism.
Nature cannot move forward from a certain point without the development of a self.
Only then are the possibilities anywhere near endless.

A self reaches a point of being able to consider and understand its own development to that point -thus becoming knowledgeable -and so capable of knowledgeably determining future developments for itself and its environment (which are parts of the same whole).

Knowledgeably determining... in other words... knowledgeably specifying -and it would specify things which were suited to a self and its developing psychology.

"Nature" must specify the development of a mind -yet not in a knowledgeable way -but a mind is required to knowledgeably specify things of extreme purposeful complexity (for the logical purposes of a psychology). It is therefore an intermediate stage. It is also true that -in reference to greatest possible simplicity -that which is of extreme purposeful complexity is indicative of a mind.

That is not apparent if one only looks back to the singularity when considering the universe, but it is logical -and there is more to consider. As a mind is a perfectly natural development for which there are countless examples -the only known natural development with the required level of capabilities -why would it not be the most likely suspect -certainly before nothing at all? The singularity did specify the universe, but it must first have been specified somehow.

What would be the logical purposes of an original developing psychology? What would such logically need? want? do? The universe happens to tick every box.

 

[Etritonakin]

When I use the word singularity, I am referring to the point just before the big bang -though it could technically mean everything before the big bang.
From just before the big bang, the singularity was set to inevitably become something specific once initiated -but what if we change our point of reference to the most simple state/s possible?
That would mean as non-specific as possible -all else being only generally possible thus far.

The most simple state/s I can imagine are similar to binary code - two states or interactive components and something to drive their increasingly-complex arrangement... so I liken it to machine code in relation to cyberspace.

The question becomes not what the singularity would "naturally" become, but what simplicity would "naturally" become. "Nature" was very different at each point.
It obviously became a singularity -at least partially -but what did it become at each step from simplicity to the singularity?
Even from greatest possible simplicity, everything would become something until the point of the big bang -but what -and how -at each step in complexity?
There really are only two basic choices... environment and/or self.

Everything obviously naturally became both environment and self -as our existence shows -and it is logical that some sort of environment allowed for a self rather than a self consciously allowing for an environment.... but self and environment are inseparable parts of the same overall environment. Everything naturally became both environment and creator -whether we are the originals or not -as a self/creator develops -then determines -specifies.

How would we know if we are the originals -or required an original for our existence?
We increase in mastery of the environment produced by the singularity/big bang -which is logically composed of preexisting stuff -but now in a very different configuration compared to simplicity.
Therefore we did not arise from the original environment. Nature is very different now -and our existence is dependent on its present configuration.

It could be said that, if inevitable, everything was always -was always going to become -both environment and self -but neither would be much of anything at first.

So the question becomes how and why one could become extremely augmented in relation to the other -seeing they are interdependent parts of the same whole?
From our perspective, we see environment as extremely augmented in relation to self -as we simply awaken into an already-extremely-complex mind, body and environment already in motion.
We are just along for the ride -until we increase in mastery. Therefore, we see nature/environment as extremely capable -and ourselves not as capable -even though nature is thought to be ignorant of us, and we are able to reverse-engineer it. Environment must be a blind engineer to a certain point -but afterward must see.

Presently, nature's inevitable course will not change without creative input, and that input will logically be toward making the environment more suitable for the creators (ideally).
So environment produces creators, and creators produce more suitable environment. The problem with our perspective is that we see the production of extremely suitable minds, bodies and environment which did not seem to need any creative input due to inevitability after the singularity and big bang.

Could environment have really developed to the point of the singularity/big bang/universe before the development of self --or is self the naturally-occurring mechanism required to move to that point from simplicity? What could initial environment become before being understood and consciously altered?

 

[cladking]

The singularity must have been as specific as necessary to produce the universe specifically -stars, planets, atoms which lend themselves to formation of DNA, etc. That's quite a bit of complexity/data/information.

I think you go off the rails here in assuming the conclusion.

Nature is first foremost and always chaotic. We perceive the bits and pieces that are less chaotic. Any given atomic collision can have many possible outcomes and then whatever outcome occurs affects the probability of every future such event.

The universe as we know it did not exist until just this moment. How it changes in the future is wholly unknowable because every event depends on events that haven't happened yet and can't ever be predicted.

This isn't to say some consciousness didn't set it in motion or is guiding it merely that there is no reason to believe there is necessarily such guidance. The "laws of physics" are unknown but even if reality obeys such laws it still remains chaotic and unpredictable. Some exceedingly complex "mind" might have devised all the laws and the results of all the collisions but we still lack such evidence.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think you go off the rails here in assuming the conclusion.

Nature is first foremost and always chaotic. We perceive the bits and pieces that are less chaotic. Any given atomic collision can have many possible outcomes and then whatever outcome occurs affects the probability of every future such event.

The universe as we know it did not exist until just this moment. How it changes in the future is wholly unknowable because every event depends on events that haven't happened yet and can't ever be predicted.

This isn't to say some consciousness didn't set it in motion or is guiding it merely that there is no reason to believe there is necessarily such guidance. The "laws of physics" are unknown but even if reality obeys such laws it still remains chaotic and unpredictable. Some exceedingly complex "mind" might have devised all the laws and the results of all the collisions but we still lack such evidence.

I think you're peddling magic under a different name -and not perceiving the bits and pieces that are less chaotic -of which the chaotic is composed -and are focused on events after the atoms existed as such -and contradicting the basis of all science.

What you see as chaos results in a completely predictable overall reality -made of repetitive and completely predictable smallest events. Somewhere in there, things get really, really, really complex -chaotic and unpredictable if only some things are considered -but not unpredictable overall.
You're not focused on the smaller, more simple events -the foundation -but a whole bunch of events accomplishing complicated things in complicated ways.
In the absence of conscious decision, there is complete inevitability (as conscious decision can predict and alter. It is the thing necessary to do that).
It may not seem so due to perspective, however. Sometimes we call things chaotic or random when we simply don't know what the heck is going to happen... because we don't know everything yet... are reverse-engineering and aren't done yet... or are considering only one part of the whole.

(I was just thinking about a debate about randomness generators... about whether or not they could truly generate something completely unpredictable, but little focus was on what was required for the randomness generators in question to exist in the first place. It is at least interesting to consider that the randomness generators in question could not possibly exist without man creating them. So, the randomness generator does that to whatever degree -and we were able to create them due to predictability -but we are impossibility generators. We -or similar -are required for the otherwise-impossible.)

 

[cladking]

I think you're peddling magic under a different name -and not perceiving the bits and pieces that are less chaotic -of which the chaotic is composed -and are focused on events after the atoms existed as such -and contradicting the basis of all science.

Technology is the real magic. The ability to invent hypothesis and devise experiment are magic. Observing nature and reality are principally just perspective or point of view.

Things seem harmonic because we understand harmonic. We can see and understand cycles. But everything is still chaos. You can design a machine that chugs along like a steam locomotive but you still can't predict what direction the steam and smoke will blow or when it will break down.

Understanding cycles and their natures are critical to prediction but wholly insufficient because ultimately it's some less than insignificant event in the distant past that determines the outcome of every event great or small. If a butterfly in China didn't cause the hurricane in the Atlantic this week then it most assuredly will next week.

Science has no basis beyond its metaphysics. It means nothing outside of axioms, definitions and experiment.

 

[Etritonakin]

Technology is the real magic. The ability to invent hypothesis and devise experiment are magic. Observing nature and reality are principally just perspective or point of view.

Things seem harmonic because we understand harmonic. We can see and understand cycles. But everything is still chaos. You can design a machine that chugs along like a steam locomotive but you still can't predict what direction the steam and smoke will blow or when it will break down.

Understanding cycles and their natures are critical to prediction but wholly insufficient because ultimately it's some less than insignificant event in the distant past that determines the outcome of every event great or small. If a butterfly in China didn't cause the hurricane in the Atlantic this week then it most assuredly will next week.

Science has no basis beyond its metaphysics. It means nothing outside of axioms, definitions and experiment.

"you still can't predict what direction the steam and smoke will blow or when it will break down."
"it's some less than insignificant event in the distant past that determines the outcome of every event great or small"

I'm still hearing predictability/inevitability overall... but on a scale and level of complexity not yet understood by the observer.

Those things are inherently predictable -but doing so would require understanding and sufficient processing power. You CAN know when something will break down -where every bit of steam will end up - IF you have enough information beforehand and can monitor all states and events.

Observing present nature teaches us that anything really is possible -but only in the way that it is.
That's pretty amazing. As is the fact that we increase in mastery of it -once being subject to it -then it becoming subject to us.

"Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do"

(It is interesting to note that we do not actually create anything -but rather alter the course and configuration of that which already exists and is in motion. We may thereby change the nature and course of nature -but never most basic nature -upon which all is built. Then nature will take its new course until changed again.)

 

[cladking]

I'm still hearing predictability/inevitability overall... but on a scale and level of complexity not yet understood by the observer.

The complexity is millions of orders of magnitude greater than anyone can even imagine.

Everything in reality affects everything else in reality in real time.

The results of all events snowball over time.

The equations to even begin to understand any of this haven't even been "invented" yet. We won't be able to predict the outcome of any event even after we have discovered the nature of all their interactions.

There is no window for prediction. We'll never have trained butterflies that control the present or the future by the flapping of their wings. Even if we could predict the future we still can't control it because we live in no clockwork universe. The framework of reality as disclosed by science shows that science is a flawed tool to understand it but instead of making changes or exercising more rigor we have simply started going with opinion and institutionalizing the status quo.

Even where no life exists in the universe there is still no clockwork reality because of chaos and randomness. Where there is life every individual is working to survive rather than maintenance of the status quo or to be pigeon holed into some biologist's beliefs about whom can survive and who can't. No life ever plays along with prediction but it seems so to us because of what we believe.

 

[Etritonakin]

The complexity is millions of orders of magnitude greater than anyone can even imagine.

Everything in reality affects everything else in reality in real time.

The results of all events snowball over time.

The equations to even begin to understand any of this haven't even been "invented" yet. We won't be able to predict the outcome of any event even after we have discovered the nature of all their interactions.

There is no window for prediction. We'll never have trained butterflies that control the present or the future by the flapping of their wings. Even if we could predict the future we still can't control it because we live in no clockwork universe. The framework of reality as disclosed by science shows that science is a flawed tool to understand it but instead of making changes or exercising more rigor we have simply started going with opinion and institutionalizing the status quo.

Even where no life exists in the universe there is still no clockwork reality because of chaos and randomness. Where there is life every individual is working to survive rather than maintenance of the status quo or to be pigeon holed into some biologist's beliefs about whom can survive and who can't. No life ever plays along with prediction but it seems so to us because of what we believe.

That's because we are involved. Throw conscious decision -inexperienced impossibility generators -into the mix and things get weird. We can't have bad ideas without a little smarts.

I have wondered whether reality has a specific resolution -or if it can be infinitely subdivided -such as can be done in the imagination.

 

[cladking]

I have wondered whether reality has a specific resolution -or if it can be infinitely subdivided -such as can be done in the imagination.

I believe that there is no infinity but for all practical purposes reality can be subdivided a number of times that is effectively larger than any infinity.

 

[Etritonakin]

I believe that there is no infinity but for all practical purposes reality can be subdivided a number of times that is effectively larger than any infinity.

If the basis of at least perceived "reality" were as free as thought, it would be pretty sweet.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think maybe "all" that would be required for the existence of God would be for "everything" which has "always" existed -in early stages (so not much in that regard, but still all) -to reach a point of being able to look back on its development thus far -reverse engineer itself -then increasingly self-determine both self and environment.
Even though it would have always existed -as opposed to impossible absolute nothing -that would be the point of being able to say "I AM", always was, etc.

Such would then logically consider the fact that it was the only "one" -logically determine to self replicate -continue to do so -plan an environment for continued self-replcations -plan to bring them to the point of personal responsibility so their future could be awesome rather than a huge mess -and to eventually cause them see the need for the perfect original (basic truth/logic/math, etc., personified by self-awareness) to govern them (necessarily being perfect so as to not be self-defeating and to continue)... then allow them to create awesome stuff forever without conflict.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Everything must be preceded by that which makes it first generally possible, then specifically possible.

As everything developed from greatest possible simplicity, each new complexity/arrangement made even more new arrangements possible.

Some have believed the singularity which became our universe was greatest possible simplicity, but it could not have actually been very simple. Simple equates to non-specific. The singularity must have been as specific as necessary to produce the universe specifically -stars, planets, atoms which lend themselves to formation of DNA, etc. That's quite a bit of complexity/data/information.

The singularity is usually the reference point for consideration of our origin, but as anything which is complex is composed not only of things which are more simple, but the most simple, there is quite a bit of room (number of developments) between greatest possible simplicity and the singularity. Therefore, everything became capable of producing a universe specifically -step-by-step -during that period.

What necessarily preceded the singularity? What sort of natural development could become capable of specifying a universe of this particular description?

Some believe all steps which preceded the minds of beings like man were necessary before the formation of any mind was possible at all. In other words, that any and all mental capabilities are dependent upon the atoms, DNA or similar things made up of atoms, etc.

However, though our specific kind of body/interface is certainly dependent upon atoms, etc., any interactions at any level can become arranged to perform logical roles. For example: A computer uses the on and off states of transistors which manipulate electron current and voltage, but it is the production of on and off states which is important -not the electrons or transistors specifically. The same thing could be accomplished with water pressure -or anything at any level (or point in development) which had any kind of similar flow and pressure.

The development of a "mind" prior to the singularity would require similar function/arrangement -not similar composition. The development of a mind must be a natural occurrence -whether or not we are the originals. That which is generally necessary for the function of a mind (or anything else) must always have existed.

Interaction itself is the basis of awareness. It could be called simple awareness, as when one things interacts with another, they are affected -and so aware of each other on a simple level. All more complex awareness is dependent on that and would otherwise be impossible. As interactions evolve (in the broadest sense) -become more numerous and/or complex -or become OF a more complex DESIGN (without being designed) -there is technically more awareness -and more complex awareness.

As we can see from our own minds, once a mind develops, it becomes capable of reverse-engineering and forward-engineering. It is a portion of the overall environment which has the capability to determine for both self and its external environment.

A self reaches a point of being able to consider and understand its own development to that point -thus becoming knowledgeable -and so capable of knowledgeably determining future developments for itself and its environment (which are parts of the same whole).

Knowledgeably determining... or... specifying -and it would specify things which were suited to a self and its developing psychology.

"Nature" must specify the development of a mind -yet not in a knowledgeable way -but a mind is required to knowledgeably specify things of extreme purposeful complexity (for the logical purposes of a psychology). It is therefore an intermediate stage. It is also true that -in reference to greatest possible simplicity -that which is of extreme purposeful complexity is indicative of a mind.

That is not apparent if one only looks back to the singularity when considering the universe, but it is logical -and there is more to consider. As a mind is a perfectly natural development for which there are countless examples -the only known natural development with the required level of capabilities -why would it not be the most likely suspect -certainly before nothing at all? The singularity did specify the universe, but it must first have been specified somehow.

What would be the logical purposes of an original developing psychology? What would such logically need? want? do? The universe happens to tick every box.

So what do you understand it was that preceded the 'singularity', that first made it generally possible and then specifically possible?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I believe that there is no infinity but for all practical purposes reality can be subdivided a number of times that is effectively larger than any infinity.

So what is the quantity that is effectively larger than the infinity you believe does not exist? You seem to be saying that you don't believe in infinity but you do believe there is larger than infinity?

 

[cladking]

So what is the quantity that is effectively larger than the infinity you believe does not exist? You seem to be saying that you don't believe in infinity but you do believe there is larger than infinity?

The odds of the universe emerging from the big bang being exactly as it is a number that is staggeringly huge. It may be larger than (((((((((10 ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) and then some.

Meanwhile infinity is nothing at all because it extends outward from every point in infinite directions and there are still an infinite number of points between any two no matter how close together. Or at least it would if infinity really existed rather than being a product of analog thinking. The odds against everything are truly beyond "infinite" even if infinite existed. What are the odds of some specific snowflake composed of specific molecules melting on a child's nose?

The odds of a monkey writing War and Peace are about 1 : 42 x 10 ^ 799999. The odds of Tolstoy coming into existence are far more remote.

The world is not what it appears to us.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The odds of the universe emerging from the big bang being exactly as it is a number that is staggeringly huge. It may be larger than (((((((((10 ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) ^ 10) and then some.

Meanwhile infinity is nothing at all because it extends outward from every point in infinite directions and there are still an infinite number of points between any two no matter how close together. Or at least it would if infinity really existed rather than being a product of analog thinking. The odds against everything are truly beyond "infinite" even if infinite existed. What are the odds of some specific snowflake composed of specific molecules melting on a child's nose?

The odds of a monkey writing War and Peace are about 1 : 42 x 10 ^ 799999. The odds of Tolstoy coming into existence are far more remote.

The world is not what it appears to us.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines 'Infinity' as a number greater than all other numbers, are the odds you quote finite or infinite? Simple answer, finite or infinite?

 

[cladking]

The Cambridge Dictionary defines 'Infinity' as a number greater than all other numbers, are the odds you quote finite or infinite? Simple answer, finite or infinite?

There is no number greater than all other numbers.

They are finite where all the "numbers" exist.

Mathematics where infinite exists is logic quantified but reality is logic manifest. The logic of mathematics never necessarily translates to reality. Indeed, there is never a perfect correspondence of math to reality. "Math" is a construct we use to make sense of the world but the real world is digital where no two identical things exist and everything either exists or does not. There are no "numbers" but "0" and "1". "Infinity" is a mathematical concept needed to quantify the logic of reality in four dimensions. It is not necessarily the simplest explanation for every phenomenon.

Can you see that the numbers necessary to describe reality are immense?

 

[cladking]

Simple answer, finite or infinite?

The largest practical number is the odds of the universe existing exactly as it is. It is finite and every other number is some subset of this one.

The universe will get "infinitely" more complex in every next moment.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no number greater than all other numbers.

They are finite where all the "numbers" exist.

Mathematics where infinite exists is logic quantified but reality is logic manifest. The logic of mathematics never necessarily translates to reality. Indeed, there is never a perfect correspondence of math to reality. "Math" is a construct we use to make sense of the world but the real world is digital where no two identical things exist and everything either exists or does not. There are no "numbers" but "0" and "1". "Infinity" is a mathematical concept needed to quantify the logic of reality in four dimensions. It is not necessarily the simplest explanation for every phenomenon.

Can you see that the numbers necessary to describe reality are immense?

That is why the concept of infinity was created, there is no number greater than infinity.

And btw, from where did this big bang you talk about emerge from?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The largest practical number is the odds of the universe existing exactly as it is. It is finite and every other number is some subset of this one.

The universe will get "infinitely" more complex in every next moment.

By practical number I presume you to mean finite, not infinite.

So pray tell what is the formula that determined the finite odds of the big bang emerging from who knows where?