The phenomenon and the explanation

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm sorry, but I'm with a bunch of friends, 50 or so, eating good food, dancing to great music and just having a great time. Everyone is vax'ed and masked up. That seems to be working pretty good. I was wondering about that, but it's working well. I'm using a friends laptop to let you know that it isn't until next week that I'm able to continue this line with you. Maybe for a very quick note what I can add is that in the world I live in, consciousness came before the physical world. And in this physical world, it's consciousness that's evolving into different forms. As a materialist, you seem to think that consciousness requires a body to function. To me, that's a very limited perspective. I flip that perspective 180 degrees. I agree with Teilhard de Chardin who says that we are a spiritual being with a body. I've recently came across what to me is an interesting perspective built upon the insight of Ibn Arabi that I've been trying to figure out how to condense for this thread. Anyway, be well.

OK, have a great time. When you get around to posting again, maybe you could explain what grounds you have to think consciousness doesn't need a body - i.e. what grounds you have that outweigh all the evidence we have that consciousness depends on a living brain functioning in a particular way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And it's not really a matter of consciousness creating reality, because consciousness can't exist without reality, and logically, it can't precede something that it can't exist without. So it must be that the two are inseparable, they emerge together, with neither one being the cause of the other, but rather each being different aspects of the same thing, consciousness.

So in the end, you really have no way of knowing if reality exists "out there", or whether it's all in your mind. The two versions would look exactly the same.

The first paragraph seems to confuse the two versions. It seems to me that there is good reason to think that the second paragraph presents a false dichotomy - there is a reality that we experience, our phenomenal reality, and there is an indirectly observed, or 'external', reality that supplies the sense data from which we construct our phenomenal reality (our model of the world).

AFAICS, both realities exist; there is no either/or.

It could be argued that the seemingly externally-sourced sense data is just another part of our phenomenal reality, together with the concept of an 'external' reality, but pragmatically, these are different, and sometimes demonstrably conflicting, 'real patterns', as Dennett would call them.

 

[partinobodycular]

The first paragraph seems to confuse the two versions.

Then I'll do my best to clarify.

there is a reality that we experience, our phenomenal reality, and there is an indirectly observed, or 'external', reality that supplies the sense data from which we construct our phenomenal reality (our model of the world).

That's a perfectly reasonable assumption. That there's an "external" reality that supplies the sensory data from which we construct our "internal" reality.

In other words something first gives rise to physical reality, and then that physical reality gives rise to consciousness. A two step process.

But is that initial physical step really necessary? What if consciousness simply emerges on it's own? And inherent in that self-awareness is both the sense that I am, and the sense of what I am. And those two things inexorably manifest themselves "internally" as the illusion of a coherent "external" reality.

It could be argued that the seemingly externally-sourced sense data is just another part of our phenomenal reality, together with the concept of an 'external' reality, but pragmatically, these are different, and sometimes demonstrably conflicting,

I would question the idea that they conflict, because I would maintain that the rules that govern an internally created reality must be identical to the rules that govern an externally created reality. Cause and effect will rule the day regardless of whether reality is internally or externally generated. In both cases, what's true now will always be consistent with what was true in the past, and what will be true in the future.

Conflicts generally arise when people get the misconception that consciousness "creates" reality. It doesn't, it's simply an effect that's simultaneously manifested as physical reality.

So the question is, which is easier to create, physical reality, i.e actual physical stuff, or simply the illusion of actual physical stuff? Both follow the exact same rules, and would look exactly the same, but which is easier to create?

 

[Eloy Craft]

Each individual change must have a beginning, just as each individual being must have a beginning, but that's not to say that change itself must have a beginning any more than exist

It's good evidence that it does. A cyclic universe is a belief that's a matter of faith.

 

[partinobodycular]

It's good evidence that it does.

How is it good evidence?

It's the exact same evidence that states that everything that exists, must begin to exist. After all, there's absolutely nothing that you can point to that didn't at some point begin to exist.

So how is the evidence for existence any different than the evidence for change? If one is eternal, then reason would suggest that the other must be eternal too. Because where you have one you always have the other. They're inseparable.

A cyclic universe is a belief that's a matter of faith.

Who mentioned a cyclic universe? A cyclic universe is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there's a cycle of a billion universes or just one. It's impossible for something to exist BEFORE the beginning of the universe/s. The concept is meaningless.

So everything that exists must do so within the time frame defined by the universe/s. Nothing can exist outside of that.

 

[Eloy Craft]

It's the exact same evidence that states that everything that exists, must begin to exist. After all, there's absolutely nothing that you can point to that didn't at some point begin to exist.

that there is nothing observed that didn't have a beginning is not good evidence that change is infinite. It doesnt fit eternity. An infinite duration is not the eternal state. Eternity is without duration. A duration requires a beginning and an end.

So how is the evidence for existence any different than the evidence for change? If one is eternal, then reason would suggest that the other must be eternal too. Because where you have one you always have the other. They're inseparable.

Change is intrinsically temporal.. An infinite duration isn't what eternity is.

So everything that exists must do so within the time frame defined by the universe/s. Nothing can exist outside of that.

That sounds like dogma.

 

[Astrid]

that there is nothing observed that didn't have a beginning is not good evidence that change is infinite. It doesnt fit eternity. An infinite duration is not the eternal state. Eternity is without duration. A duration requires a beginning and an end.

Change is intrinsically temporal.. An infinite duration isn't what eternity is.


That sounds like dogma.

All but one line there is dogma.
The last line is what we call irony.

 

[partinobodycular]

that there is nothing observed that didn't have a beginning is not good evidence that change is infinite.

My argument is that change is intrinsic to existence, and you'll never find one without the other. So it's an either or proposition, either both of them can be eternal, or neither of them can.

Find me something that exists, and doesn't change, and then your argument will have more credibility. Otherwise all that you're doing is arguing for something that doesn't seem to exist.

Change is intrinsically temporal..

And since change appears to be intrinsic to existence, existence must also be intrinsically temporal.

 

[Astrid]

My argument is that change is intrinsic to existence, and you'll never find one without the other. So it's an either or proposition, either both of them can be eternal, or neither of them can.

Find me something that exists, and doesn't change, and then your argument will have more credibility. Otherwise all that you're doing is arguing for something that doesn't seem to exist.



And since change appears to be intrinsic to existence, existence must also be intrinsically temporal.

Does gravity change?
Does a neutrino?
How about:2+2?

Does God change?

 

[partinobodycular]

Does gravity change?
Does a neutrino?
How about:2+2?

Does God change?

In prior posts I had purposely phrased my assertion as to specify things that you can point to, but you do pose a reasonable question.

For the moment, let's set aside the three examples given, because that's a rabbit hole we don't need to go down. Your point is already well taken.

Instead let's focus on the last one: Does God change?

Well the concept of God certainly changes all the time. So we're going to have to be more specific about what we mean when we say God.

Eloy Craft seems to be referring to what metaphysicists call the First Cause. The assertion is, that the First Cause can't change. But as of now it's simply an assertion on Eloy's part. He's provided no argument as to why the First Cause can't change. Which seems odd to me because there are a number of metaphysical arguments as to why the First Cause can't change. From the First Cause lacking potentiality, to the First Cause not being contingent, to the First Cause being the maximum being possible. Each of these would constitute a legitimate, if not necessarily convincing argument as to why the First Cause can't change. But Eloy Craft has raised none of them. He has simply asserted that an eternal being can't change. To which I would say...so what, we don't need one. The world would function perfectly fine with a first cause that does change. An unchanging first cause doesn't just seem superfluous, it seems illogical.

So yes, there could be an unchanging God, but is such a God necessary, or even logical? I don't think so, and until I see some sort of argument to the contrary, that would seem to be the most reasonable conclusion.

 

[SelfSim]

My argument is that change is intrinsic to existence, and you'll never find one without the other. So it's an either or proposition, either both of them can be eternal, or neither of them can.

Find me something that exists, and doesn't change, and then your argument will have more credibility. Otherwise all that you're doing is arguing for something that doesn't seem to exist.
...
And since change appears to be intrinsic to existence, existence must also be intrinsically temporal.

The process being used here, of arguing over the meanings of words, with the implication that the conclusions reached thereby, must represent what must be true and therefore exist, is the philosophically vacuous 'justified true belief' way of defining knowledge.

Its a classic example of what its proponents would like things to mean, rather than what they really mean. It always leads to the situation that would force us to either lie to ourselves, or never use such words at all.

Its a completely bogus process and wouldn't last a millisecond in a proper scientific review.

This is the exact process that creates the glaringly obvious 'word-salad' we see materialising before us in this sub-conversation.

 

[SelfSim]

Each of these would constitute a legitimate, if not necessarily convincing argument as to why the First Cause can't change. But Eloy Craft has raised none of them. He has simply asserted that an eternal being can't change. To which I would say...so what, we don't need one. The world would function perfectly fine with a first cause that does change. An unchanging first cause doesn't just seem superfluous, it seems illogical.

So yes, there could be an unchanging God, but is such a God necessary, or even logical? I don't think so, and until I see some sort of argument to the contrary, that would seem to be the most reasonable conclusion.

.. either that or we go on lying to ourselves about the existence of a God.
(Meaning: refer to my previous post for where I see all this 'wonderful' justified true belief (aka: vacuous) definition way of acquiring so-called 'knowledge' as taking us).

 

[Astrid]

In prior posts I had purposely phrased my assertion as to specify things that you can point to, but you do pose a reasonable question.

For the moment, let's set aside the three examples given, because that's a rabbit hole we don't need to go down. Your point is already well taken.

Instead let's focus on the last one: Does God change?

Well the concept of God certainly changes all the time. So we're going to have to be more specific about what we mean when we say God.

Eloy Craft seems to be referring to what metaphysicists call the First Cause. The assertion is, that the First Cause can't change. But as of now it's simply an assertion on Eloy's part. He's provided no argument as to why the First Cause can't change. Which seems odd to me because there are a number of metaphysical arguments as to why the First Cause can't change. From the First Cause lacking potentiality, to the First Cause not being contingent, to the First Cause being the maximum being possible. Each of these would constitute a legitimate, if not necessarily convincing argument as to why the First Cause can't change. But Eloy Craft has raised none of them. He has simply asserted that an eternal being can't change. To which I would say...so what, we don't need one. The world would function perfectly fine with a first cause that does change. An unchanging first cause doesn't just seem superfluous, it seems illogical.

So yes, there could be an unchanging God, but is such a God necessary, or even logical? I don't think so, and until I see some sort of argument to the contrary, that would seem to be the most reasonable conclusion.

I'm familiar with " First cause " arguments.
IMO, nobody knows enough for those to come
to any more than word games.
You give me nothing to argue. Sob.

 

[partinobodycular]

This is the exact process that creates the glaringly obvious 'word-salad' we see materialising before us in this sub-conversation.

.. either that or we go on lying to ourselves about the existence of a God.
(Meaning: refer to my previous post for where I see all this 'wonderful' justified true belief (aka: vacuous) definition way of acquiring so-called 'knowledge' as taking us).

You do realize that Eloy Craft is making a metaphysical argument and not a scientific one. Whether he's aware of it or not. And although it may appear to be word salad, lot's of theists take it very seriously. Personally, I don't much care for metaphysical arguments, but sometimes you just have to engage with people on their terms.

Trust me, there are a lot of times when FrumiousBandersnatch's posts look a lot like word salad to me too. But I try to get as much out of them as I can, because I realize that he's a whole lot smarter than I am, and there's probably a lot more meat in that salad than I realize.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm familiar with " First cause " arguments.
IMO, nobody knows enough for those to come
to any more than word games.

I agree. But some people swear by them, and claim them as absolute proof for the existence of God. I think that it's just proof that people see what they wanna see. But that's just me, and that's why it says "Agnostic" over on the left side there.

 

[SelfSim]

You do realize that Eloy Craft is making a metaphysical argument and not a scientific one. Whether he's aware of it or not. And although it may appear to be word salad, lot's of theists take it very seriously. Personally, I don't much care for metaphysical arguments, but sometimes you just have to engage with people on their terms.

Well I'm glad you see his argument for just what it is, then.
Whether he's aware of it or not, amounts to the same net outcome .. completely vacuous gobbledygook.

Trust me, there are a lot of times when FrumiousBandersnatch's posts look a lot like word salad to me too. But I try to get as much out of them as I can, because I realize that he's a whole lot smarter than I am, and there's probably a lot more meat in that salad than I realize.

Why not go and find out then? Put it to the test instead of making assumptions about someone's 'smartness'.

In no way am I making judgements on FB's character, nor on his recounts of mainstream scientific models, however his default philosophical position often leads to inconsistencies when subject to objective testing (which again, is his own free choice).

 

[Eloy Craft]

My argument is that change is intrinsic to existence, and you'll never find one without the other. t

Wouldn't something changing have to exist first? Does something have to change to exist or exist to change?

 

[partinobodycular]

Wouldn't something changing have to exist first?

Not if we use your definition of eternal, as unchanging. Which means that anything that doesn't change, doesn't experience the passage of time. So there would be no such thing as "before" it changes. Before in this case would be meaningless. Thus any change would have to be simultaneous with, and indistinguishable from, its existence. It would be impossible for one to precede the other.

Does something have to change to exist or exist to change?

That's my point exactly. Existence and change are inseparable. Neither one can precede the other.

 

[partinobodycular]

For anyone that wants to do sciency stuff, consider the above in regards to Penrose's CCC. Once you lose scalars, i.e mass, time and space become meaningless. So how can information pass from one aeon to the next? The next aeon would appear to emerge from nothing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Trust me, there are a lot of times when FrumiousBandersnatch's posts look a lot like word salad to me too. But I try to get as much out of them as I can, because I realize that he's a whole lot smarter than I am, and there's probably a lot more meat in that salad than I realize.

My apologies if I don't communicate clearly. If you're not following and you're interested in what I'm talking about, please ask for clarification or simplification - most things can be simplified or rephrased to make them clearer.

I know I can be a bit wordy, and it's difficult to know what level to pitch an explanation at when the forum readers vary from having no scientific or philosophical background at all to having good knowledge and understanding of both.

I doubt I'm smarter than you or anyone else on the forums - there are several posters that often leave me floundering, but, like them, I have particular interests that I focus on, but having some knowledge or understanding of particular subjects doesn't necessarily mean you're smarter...