Consciousness Came Before Life

[Mark Quayle]

Where's the consciousness?

It's assumed, in some way, (it seems to me), in the notion that the weather etc adapts itself to something. Sounds like an active will at work, which doesn't make sense (to me) under simple naturalism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

From the article.

“for example, oceanic hydrothermal vents can metabolize, transform energy and synthesize chemicals, weather and climate systems adapt to changes in solar radiation, volcanic activity, and other natural factors,”

Smh

The quote in this context reminds me of the beginnings of an explanation for quantum theory, where the 'phenomenon' of a ray of light hitting the apparently odd angle of water's surface to reach an object below, was described something like, "How does the ray of light know to take the fastest route to get there?" To me the whole notion is stupid. It doesn't "know" nor is the route the fastest, nor the slowest. It is the ONLY route!

Here, too, weather and climate systems don't adapt to anything. They are whatever at any moment they are because of those 'natural' factors and changes.

At least, for the purposes of normal study by humans of hard science, naturalism is such as is natural, and not poetically willful acts of what is causal nor resultant.

It may be that someone can someday prove that a will upholds all things, by way of science, but I doubt it. To me, the direction that science has taken seems more poetic than natural — there is way too much speculation, it seems to me, but the conclusions implied by the speculations way too often sound like God is at work here, and not mere naturalism as we normally have thought of it. I don't accept the notion that if something can be elegantly described by scientists, that it is therefore only natural, and therefore not fact begun and sustained by God.

I wish they would make up their minds and quit the poetic double-talk. If the fact of existence does not prove that First Cause With Intent, (God), is the cause of all things, then neither can naturalists prove that it (He) is not the sustainer of all of it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, not by my understanding of those words.

I believe that anyone can receive revelation - but it would only be applicable for your sphere of influence - like a father receiving revelation on behalf of his family.

The witness is more a confirmation - like you came to a conclusion on your own and the Holy Spirit is affirming it to be true - which is why study is required as well as asking the right questions.

So - to my understanding - revelation is more God guiding you or giving you information - while the witness is God confirming when you have discovered something true.

Sharing those kinds of things with others can be a part of the process of discerning truth.

I think it is less about fooling yourself and more about not coming to the complete or proper conclusion.

It all depends the questions you ask - and you cannot ask the proper questions without applying yourself to study.

For example - if I were to ask my Alexa, "Where is a good place?" - it may give me a bunch of options.

Then if I were to ask, "Where is a good place to eat?" - it would narrow down my options.

Finally I was to ask, "Where is a good place to eat some pizza?" - I would finally get the answers I sought.

When it comes to the Holy Spirit it can often be a struggle - because you can receive the confirmation for a general truth - like the Lord Jesus Christ being the divine Son of God - but you would need to study on the life of the Lord and ponder on what you know about Him - connecting the dots - before you could be able to ask the appropriate questions you would need to get confirmations about more specific things concerning Him.

As an example - I knew that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Eternal God - and I also knew that He was the firstborn spirit son of the Father - (both confirmed by the Holy Spirit) - yet it was not until I began having conversations with other Christians that I could flesh out how they were both true - how to reconcile those two seemingly contradictory truths.

As long as you are asking of the Father in the name of Christ - and basically getting out of their way - you won't be fooled.

I think you need to be a little more careful than that. Just saying.

Is any of us pure? Do we really "get out of the way"?

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

 

[dlamberth]

The quote in this context reminds me of the beginnings of an explanation for quantum theory, where the 'phenomenon' of a ray of light hitting the apparently odd angle of water's surface to reach an object below, was described something like, "How does the ray of light know to take the fastest route to get there?" To me the whole notion is stupid. It doesn't "know" nor is the route the fastest, nor the slowest. It is the ONLY route!

Here, too, weather and climate systems don't adapt to anything. They are whatever at any moment they are because of those 'natural' factors and changes.

At least, for the purposes of normal study by humans of hard science, naturalism is such as is natural, and not poetically willful acts of what is causal nor resultant.

It may be that someone can someday prove that a will upholds all things, by way of science, but I doubt it. To me, the direction that science has taken seems more poetic than natural — there is way too much speculation, it seems to me, but the conclusions implied by the speculations way too often sound like God is at work here, and not mere naturalism as we normally have thought of it. I don't accept the notion that if something can be elegantly described by scientists, that it is therefore only natural, and therefore not fact begun and sustained by God.

I wish they would make up their minds and quit the poetic double-talk. If the fact of existence does not prove that First Cause With Intent, (God), is the cause of all things, then neither can naturalists prove that it (He) is not the sustainer of all of it.

This all makes sense to me at some level of understanding, but not completely. What I find myself wondering about is the image/beliefs in which God is presented as First Cause. There are different ways to present images of God, some even going as far as saying that God is essence of existence itSelf, which has to also include consciousness. But that's the stuff of the mystics of the world religions. It's also a trajectory which doesn't work very well in this forum. The thing is, when we remove our human images of God (which we all have) and take them out of the picture and look at existence on it's own, existence begins to look very much like naturalism. We all agree that consciousness exists. How deeply consciousness is embodied into existence seems to be the question here. I'm of the school that says totally and completely.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This all makes sense to me at some level of understanding, but not completely. What I find myself wondering about is the image/beliefs in which God is presented as First Cause. There are different ways to present images of God, some even going as far as saying that God is essence of existence itSelf, which has to also include consciousness. But that's the stuff of the mystics of the world religions. It's also a trajectory which doesn't work very well in this forum. The thing is, when we remove our human images of God (which we all have) and take them out of the picture and look at existence on it's own, existence begins to look very much like naturalism. We all agree that consciousness exists. How deeply consciousness is embodied into existence seems to be the question here. I'm of the school that says totally and completely.

Yes, of course! And philosophy which may be good at reasoning often begins with intuition, but goes a long way in producing good sense. (Very much like science, by the way).

For example, it may be intuition that says that IF there is existence of things (not just thing) there is an intentional cause of it. And there are many good "proofs" that if we are to conceive of existence as a principle in itself (ontology), we should not conceive of it as a principle of itself (possessing of its own ontology), but rather, conceive of it as being only what it is because of original cause. The problem there is that we trust OUR thinking. (An example: I've seen that kind of thing in "Aquinas' 5 ways"; to me [at least 3 of them] are not of themselves proofs of anything except that, "If we are to say or think this, then to be consistent we should agree that God exists". They don't prove God's existence. To say that they do, I think, is to lend substance or validity to man's concepts, structures and wording, as though the fact that we think or see or do is of itself substance.)

Good sense, if, at least in admitting our thinking to be short of facts, does such things as to convince, if not to prove. God, if First Cause, is necessarily Uncaused, Omnipotent, Singular, Simple, Transcendent and Immanent, and all other things descend causally from him. Immanence, particularly, is of interest to what you said. If all things are natural, the principle of "natural" is causal, and therefore metaphysical. All things are not made in and of themselves real, but reality itself is of God's design —he is not subject to it, but it is subject to him. All fact is created and sustained by him, in every tiniest detail/component. I believe that if that tiniest detail can be found, the fact of God's sustaining of reality will be proven. To me, that is intuitive and good sense. It may be convincing, but it can't be proven —not yet, and not by science, anyhow. I will accept no other God, but Omnipotent First Cause. Anything else is, (to me, haha, "repugnant to logic").

But that is the ramblings of a human mind. We are not exactly logical creatures.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Whether or not Hammeroff's ideas have been co-opted by creationist organizations, I believe it needs to be said that Hammerroff is, to the best of my knowledge, a serious, and respected expert in the field of consciousness.

His background is as a professor of anesthesiology.

Although he has been pushing his/Penrose's ideas of consciousness for decades, so that he has a certain reputation, but he's still pretty fringe.

He organizes the Science of Consciousness conference at U of A.

The main organizer is Stuart Hameroff, an anestheologist and the director of the center that hosts the conference. One of the speakers at the first conference, David Chalmers, co-organized some of the following ones, until the event became too far away from the scientific mainstream.

From the Wikilinked article:

Oh, by the way, attendees could also take a gong bath, during which you are bathed in the musical vibrations of a gong being struck. Or lie down in a curiously unsupervised and unstable-looking sensory-deprivation chamber. Or take a black-light yoga class, which involves – as the name suggests – doing yoga in a room illuminated by black light accompanied by a DJ pumping out frenetic techno beats. Meanwhile, a company offered demos of a brain-stimulation device that had to be inserted way too far up one nostril. And an enthusiastic fellow demonstrated his spontaneous postural alignment technique, in which a misaligned subject’s elbow is tapped with a gold medallion while the healer intones “boy-yoi-yoing”.

 

[Astrid]

His background is as a professor of anesthesiology.

Although he has been pushing his/Penrose's ideas of consciousness for decades, so that he has a certain reputation, but he's still pretty fringe.

He organizes the Science of Consciousness conference at U of A.

The main organizer is Stuart Hameroff, an anestheologist and the director of the center that hosts the conference. One of the speakers at the first conference, David Chalmers, co-organized some of the following ones, until the event became too far away from the scientific mainstream.

From the Wikilinked article:

Oh, by the way, attendees could also take a gong bath, during which you are bathed in the musical vibrations of a gong being struck. Or lie down in a curiously unsupervised and unstable-looking sensory-deprivation chamber. Or take a black-light yoga class, which involves – as the name suggests – doing yoga in a room illuminated by black light accompanied by a DJ pumping out frenetic techno beats. Meanwhile, a company offered demos of a brain-stimulation device that had to be inserted way too far up one nostril. And an enthusiastic fellow demonstrated his spontaneous postural alignment technique, in which a misaligned subject’s elbow is tapped with a gold medallion while the healer intones “boy-yoi-yoing”.

Just ugh.

 

[trophy33]

Oh, by the way, attendees could also take a gong bath, during which you are bathed in the musical vibrations of a gong being struck. Or lie down in a curiously unsupervised and unstable-looking sensory-deprivation chamber. Or take a black-light yoga class, which involves – as the name suggests – doing yoga in a room illuminated by black light accompanied by a DJ pumping out frenetic techno beats. Meanwhile, a company offered demos of a brain-stimulation device that had to be inserted way too far up one nostril. And an enthusiastic fellow demonstrated his spontaneous postural alignment technique, in which a misaligned subject’s elbow is tapped with a gold medallion while the healer intones “boy-yoi-yoing”.

Sigh.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Does sodium thus have the goal of joining with
chlorine and then with other such moleules to produce NaCl crystals?

This would be the case in the Aristotlean teleological view of 'final causes' that everything tends towards; everything has its natural goal... I guess things have moved on a bit since then

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Only requirement is that it actually be true.

Quite, but truth means different things to different people. The most unfortunate (and dangerous) is "truth is what I believe".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Most scientists believe that consciousness came after life, as a product of evolution. But observations of extraterrestrial organic material, along with Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff’s quantum theory of consciousness, provide reason to believe that consciousness came before life. In fact, argue Hameroff and his collaborators, consciousness may have been what made evolution and life possible in the first place.

https://www.realclearscience.com/2024/05/09/consciousness_came_before_life_1030375.html

That article is a horrible pseudoscientific mess

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I believe it needs to be said that Hammerroff is, to the best of my knowledge, a serious, and respected expert in the field of consciousness. I know nothing about his ideas, but I am quite sure that he is considered to be a reputable person.

He was, apparently, a reasonably well-respected anaesthetist. But I studied his original work with Penrose on Orch OR (the 'Orchestrated Objective Reduction' hypothesis of 'quantum consciousness'), based on a surprisingly poor research paper (by Anil Bandyopadhyay, if memory serves) and it was speculative quantum woo at best. Since then it's been extended into a Chopra-esque pseudoscience.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread has had a clean of some problematic posts. As a reminder, the site rules include:
​

• Promoting* or proselytizing religious beliefs or religions other than Christianity is not allowed. Members who are Satanists (followers of any form of Satanism) are not allowed at CF. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith which is found in the Sitewide Rules.

and​

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic​

Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

​

 

[Ace777]

Most scientists believe that consciousness came after life, as a product of evolution.

Consciousness is the biggest mystery for science. It is difficult for us to understand ourselves. People seem to be getting away from a cosmic consciousness instead of discovering more about what we now call quantum entanglement. We know that everything in the universe past present and future is connected in real time. No matter how much distance is between them.

There is a book called: To Kill a Mockingbird that talks about the issue of group or mob mentality. Again we should have made a lot more progress in understanding what is going on. Yet riots today is as big or even bigger of a problem than it was. In the book the issue was resolved when people were called out by name and not just a faceless part of a mob.

 

[Ophiolite]

@Ace777 Let's unpack your last post.

Consciousness is the biggest mystery for science.

Debatable, but let's agree it is one of the larger mysteries currently challenging human understanding of the universe. (Personally, I would put "why are there always an odd number of socks in the sock drawer at least as high.)

It is difficult for us to understand ourselves.

Fine. Nothing earth-shattering there.

People seem to be getting away from a cosmic consciousness instead of discovering more about what we now call quantum entanglement.

Hmm. Problems here!

1. This implies that people (those omnipresent, always anonymous, people) have somehow be embedded in, or intimately engaged with cosmic consciousness. You have not supported this assertion in any way.
2. You have not demonstrated that people are "getting away" from cosmic consciousness.
3. You have introduced a false dichotomy: cosmic consciousness, or quantum entanglement.

These issues push the sentence towards word salad status.

We know that everything in the universe past present and future is connected in real time. No matter how much distance is between them.

No. We don't know that. Quite the contrary. You may have heard rumours circulating about a theory concerning relativity. Fellow with a persistent bad hair day popularised it.

There is a book called: To Kill a Mockingbird that talks about the issue of group or mob mentality.

And this month's prize - Non-Sequitur of the Month - goes to Ace777!

Again we should have made a lot more progress in understanding what is going on.

There are many areas of human activity where more progress would be desirable. If you are using this as an example, you need to make that clear. If you mean it as the epitome of the problem you need to justify that view.
How are you measuring the

Yet riots today is as big or even bigger of a problem than it was

Are they? That is an unsupported an opinion.

In the book the issue was resolved when people were called out by name and not just a faceless part of a mob.

And?

Conclusion: the semantic content of your post is not zero, but it is tantalisingly close to it.

 

[Ace777]

cosmic consciousness. You have not supported this assertion in any way.

Cosmic consciousness refers to a higher form of awareness beyond ordinary human consciousness. It was explored by psychiatrist Richard Maurice Bucke in his 1901 book titled Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind1. Here are some key characteristics:

1. Joyfulness: Individuals experiencing cosmic consciousness often feel profound joy and interconnectedness with the universe.
2. Revelation: They have a revelation about the meaning, purpose, and aliveness of the cosmos.
3. Sense of Immortality: Cosmic consciousness brings a sense of immortality, transcending fear of death.
4. Absence of Sin: Unlike conventional religious concepts, there’s no notion of sin.
5. Importance of Light: Bucke emphasized the significance of light in this state of consciousness2.

In essence, cosmic consciousness involves perceiving the universe as alive, spiritual, and interconnected—a profound shift beyond ordinary self-awareness. Historical figures like Buddha, Lao Tzu, Socrates, and Jesus have been associated with this state

 

[Larniavc]

No matter how much distance is between them.

Excluding all the things that are not causally linked, obviously.

 

[Astrid]

Cosmic consciousness refers to a higher form of awareness beyond ordinary human consciousness. It was explored by psychiatrist Richard Maurice Bucke in his 1901 book titled Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind1. Here are some key characteristics:

1. Joyfulness: Individuals experiencing cosmic consciousness often feel profound joy and interconnectedness with the universe.
2. Revelation: They have a revelation about the meaning, purpose, and aliveness of the cosmos.
3. Sense of Immortality: Cosmic consciousness brings a sense of immortality, transcending fear of death.
4. Absence of Sin: Unlike conventional religious concepts, there’s no notion of sin.
5. Importance of Light: Bucke emphasized the significance of light in this state of consciousness2.

In essence, cosmic consciousness involves perceiving the universe as alive, spiritual, and interconnected—a profound shift beyond ordinary self-awareness. Historical figures like Buddha, Lao Tzu, Socrates, and Jesus have been associated with this state

Anyone can cut and paste more assertions..

What you failed to do is support your assertion.

 

[Ace777]

What you failed to do is support your assertion.

What you failed to do is post anything positive. I usually do not respond to negative comments.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In essence, cosmic consciousness involves perceiving the universe as alive, spiritual, and interconnected—a profound shift beyond ordinary self-awareness. Historical figures like Buddha, Lao Tzu, Socrates, and Jesus have been associated with this state

What about the Universe would make you think this is so? (And here, I don't mean human minds, think beyond the planet.)