Do you believe that the universe originated from consciousness?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 97
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze

I would say the most relevant things we both 'know' is that the universe is 'fine tuned' and consciousness has only been observed associated with physical brains.   Which of those is the clincher?

Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Would it be relevant if all things physical were actually mental?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Of course it would.   It would also be relevant if not everything was mental.

Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Perfect. Now which theory is correct? I can't think of anything that's not mental. Can you? 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Claiming that conciousness somehow circumvents the need for a cause is special pleading
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I never claimed that everything needs a cause.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The material universe is non-mental - or so I believe.   you need non-mental stuff to make brains out of in order that the mental emerges.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
If not everything needs a cause then why would the universe need a cause?
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
How can something that we're mentally conceptualizing or perceiving not be mental? 



secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
According to you things happening with no cause invalidates science. How do you avoid this problem in your hypothesis? 
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Because the universe began to exist. It exists contingently. All thing, in our experience, that exist contingently have a preceding cause.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Because the universe began to exist
Can you demonstrate that this is the case?
What if the uuniverse has simply always existed in one form or another? 
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
We were discussing the scientific method which is a cause and effect methodology. The scientific method does not tell us that everything has a cause. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
We were discussing the scientific method which is a cause and effect methodology. The scientific method does not tell us that everything has a cause. 

Then why assume thay the universe has a cause?
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure, the expansion rate of the universe, when rewinded, condenses to an infinitesimally small point. The second law of thermodynamics. Redshift gravitational waves.
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Because it exists contingently and in our experience all things that exist contingently have causes.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
We have no evidence of what existed or occurred before the planc time if exist, occur or begore are even applicable terms. For all we know the energy that comprises the universe has simply always existed. Certainly if you can posit a being we have no evidence for has simply always existed I can make a similar supposition about energy which we have evidence for. Otherwise you are making a case of special pleading which is a logical fallacy. 

Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Supposing that the universe didn't have a beginning isn't consistent with the evidence and, unsurprisingly, isn't mainstream scientific consensus.

I'm just pointing out the problems with naturalism. If free will is the only avenue to avoid a mathematical impossibility then that's the better option.

Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Btw, are there any other theists that you guys argue with on here? I think the only one I've seen is Janesix.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
How can something that we're mentally conceptualizing or perceiving not be mental? 
There is a mental counterpart of (eg) my keyboard which I am conscious of.  I could be dreaming, in which case there would be only the mental element and no keyboard at all.

I know of no way to prove I am not currently dreaming - but it is my belief that I am awake and my keyboard is part of eternal reality.  Belief does not require absolute proof.   In short, my keyboard can be non-mental by being part of external reality.  That there is also a 'mental concept' corresonding to my keyboard is neither proof nor disproof of my keyboard's external reality.  It is, however, my belief that my keyboard is part of external reality.


Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Is it relevant that external reality has only ever been known or defined according to mental concepts and perceptions?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Is it relevant that external reality has only ever been known or defined according to mental concepts and perceptions?
I think it's very relevant if you want to develop a theory of how brains work.   It seems that brains work by creating an internal model of the external world and we are conscious of the model, not the external reality directly.

I am not sure it is relevant to whether the universe comes from consciousness - in fact it can't be relevant because the universe does not come from consciousness (or so I believe).

Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Right, but whatever the external reality is, it must be mind-compatible in order for us to be generating an internal mental model off of it. 

If reality is fundamentally mental then this implies that consciousness is fundamental too.

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
If reality is fundamentally mental then this implies that consciousness is fundamental too.
Nobody knows where all the matter and energy in the universe came from.   No body knows what went 'bang' at the big bang.   it's my belief that one day we will know, and it will be physics (not consciousness) after all.   I don't know that, I believe it.  I also know I could be wrong (it has happened before!) but that doesn't affect my belief.   

Further, I believe that after billions of years matter formed into structures capable of consciousness.   Previously I've called the emergence of consciousness 'big bang 2'.   BB1 produced matter; BB2 produced mattering.   Prior to bb2 things happened in the universe, but they didn't matter.   In a lifeless, unconscious universe it doesn't matter if a supernova destroys a planet, but after bb2 if that planet had consciuous life on it then it becomes a tragedy.

BB1 produced electrons and gravity, BB2 produced hopes and dreams, purpose and beauty.   As consciuous entities, we live in both the universe made by BB1 (u1) and the universe made by BB2 (u2).   Rocks and protons are in u1 only - they are subject only to physical law.   But people live in both universes.  We are not immune from the realities of u1, but for us the elements unique to u2 are just as real - love is a force in u2.

But it happened because matter formed itself into brains, bringing consciousness into existence.  Before that, there was none.

  

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
It is actually beyond our current cosmological model to say how the universe began so there is no scientific consensus on the subject. There is a scientific consensus about what the earliest event we have evidence for but that is not the same thing. And I thinknyou know that I do not accept anybtheory which requires freewill until freewill can somehow be demonstrated
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Btw, are there any other theists that you guys argue with on here? I think the only one I've seen is Janesix.
There are others but I must admit that janesix and yourself seem more reasonable than some theists (and also some atheists) and I enjoy our conversations as a result.

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
And I thinknyou know that I do not accept anybtheory which requires freewill until freewill can somehow be demonstrated
Can you demonstrate that this response was causally determined and not the result of my free will?   If it was by free will, you can still assert plausibly a deterministic cause but i'm asking if you can demonstrate it was.



secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
We know that determinism is a force at large in the universe. We do not know that freewill necessarily is. One needs to be demonstrated one has already been demonstrated. That is the difference. 
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Fallaneze
Depending on how you define the implications of the platform (which i may disagree), i think it's a logical platform, yes. 
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no sense in referring to the beginning of the universe as something other than the Big Bang itself. As Hawking states:

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. 

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. "