Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

[In reference to the boundary between the physical/natural and the non-physical/super-natural.]

The localization of thought, experience, and consciousness in humans to the head (particularly the brain) was done a long time ago. Damage the brain (non-lethally) and you may damage thought, personality, or consciousness. Damage the hand (or even remove it) and no such impact occurs. (Sure it will hurt a lot, but Galen worked out that sensation, pain, and motor control travel to the brain by the nerves over 1800 years ago in pre-Christian Rome.)

Consciousness in humans is known to be localized in the brain, and similarly in other animals that demonstrate some sort of consciousness. This isn't some presupposition about naturalism, this is empirically demonstrated. Any non-physical sort of consciousness appears to *only* interact with brain. (Or more likely, does not exist.)

I disagree. Thats why most scientists and philosophers acknowledge the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'. Empiricle science as a measure isn't even in the same ball park as being able to explain the nature of consciousness. Even Galilao acknowledged science could not measure consciousness. The NCC's and physical connections are just that the physical aparatus that hosts consciousness. Just like a radio reciever, cut or fray the wires and you will either get a poor signal or no signal.

Before the “father of modern science” Galileo Galilei, scientists believed that the physical world was filled with qualities, such as colours and smells. But Galileo wanted a purely quantitative science of the physical world, and he therefore proposed that these qualities were not really in the physical world but in consciousness, which he stipulated was outside of the domain of science.
https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143

Not only that there is evdience for consciousness beyond brain. There is NDE and also experiements and studies with psychodelics, transcedental meditation and remote viewing. To say that the rich and vast experience of human kind going back thousands of years is all superstition, myth and woo is silly. Our experience is a window into our soul, into a deeper understanding of reality.

Neurobiology has crossed no such boundary. It is science and sciences operate in the physical world. It (and related sciences) have localized consciousness and are working to understand the mechanism. That's what they *should* do. If they ultimately fail and leave behind a gap, then perhaps we can talk again.

No matter how much you understand the mechanism this will never explain the nature of consciousness and come to a theory of consciousness. It will only tell us what the behaviour is. One is quantifying and the other is qualia. You can't measure qualia by quantity so theres a measurement problem. Thats the Hard Problem of Consciousness and most philosophers understand this.

Chalmers is good on this, on explaining the difference in paradigm between material science and Conscious experience as a real phenomena which can reveal truths about reality. Theres a couple of thought experiements about inverted colours, the Frank Jackson’s case of Mary, the neuroscientist who knows all relevant physical truths about color processing, but whose visual experience has been entirely monochromatic (Jackson1982).

Basically the arguement is experiences like colours are phenomena which can reveal real facts but in a different wat of objective facts. Like theres no such thing as the colour red in our brains but red (colours) is a real abstract in the world.

So a person in the case of Mary who has never experienced the colour red and does so for the first time we can say she has gain some new factual knowledge about reality even though there is nothing physical about red. There are many truths along these lines which we can experience that give us factual and truthful knowledge about reality.

https://consc.net/papers/belief.pdf

 

[durangodawood]

....
If the fine structure constant was off by a bit, we wouldn't be here. If other constants were off slightly, the universe or life would not exist.

Not sure how that indicates intent rather than chance.

 

[AlexB23]

Not sure how that indicates intent rather than chance.

Then, we would have to discuss the multiverse. If stuff was by chance for life to arise (which, I believe it was not), then the multiverse would make more sense for those who do not believe in a universe created by a deity such as God, as in there could be thousands of universes, and just this one had the right conditions for life.

 

[durangodawood]

Then, we would have to discuss the multiverse. If stuff was by chance for life to arise (which, I believe it was not), then the multiverse would make more sense for those who do not believe in a universe created by a deity such as God, as in there could be thousands of universes, and just this one had the right conditions for life.

I dont see how the physical configuration of this universe is less likely than any other. The universe is the way it is and and it does what it does. That would be true of any other configuration.

...unless you assume life as we know it had to be a goal.

 

[AlexB23]

I dont see how the physical configuration of this universe is less likely than any other. The universe is the way it is and and it does what it does. That would be true of any other configuration.

...unless you assume life as we know had to be a goal.

True, but the configuration to give life is very low probability, so that means a Creator must have take part in making the universe in a way suitable for life. I am assuming that life is the goal.

 

[durangodawood]

True, but the configuration to give life is very low probability, so that means a Creator must have take part in making the universe in a way suitable for life. I am assuming that life is the goal.

Yeah if you assume an intending creator mind, then its fair to propose the mind did stuff in the process of creating.

The problem is youre sort of beginning with the conclusion. By contrast, the OP is trying to reason back to a mind from the evidence we observe.

 

[AlexB23]

Yeah if you assume an intending creator mind, then its fair to propose the mind did stuff in the process of creating.

The problem is youre sort of beginning with the conclusion. By contrast, the OP is trying to reason back to a mind from the evidence we observe.

Well, given the Mandelbrot set, it seems to be impossible to trace it back to God. And that is coming from a Christian guy. Eucharistic miracles on the other hand show something divine, but that's for another thread.

 

[honey badger]

Well, given the Mandelbrot set, it seems to be impossible to trace it back to God. And that is coming from a Christian guy. Eucharistic miracles on the other hand show something divine, but that's for another thread.

the fact that consciousness can seed itself tells us there is so much more than we can possible ever concieve by taking thought ....

 

[Hans Blaster]

Neurotransmitters and hormones -- aka, chemicals don't explain experience itself but only a correlation with it. No more than wires and transistors in radios can explain radio waves, They are just mechanical behaviour that accompanies the phenomena.

Perhaps like radio recievers the brain acts a a reciever and transmittor of consciousness thats fundemental in the universe. It may take a certain brain state or threshold that makes consciousness so the brain is the facilitator.

If the brain does work as a receiver for "consciousness", then where is the undetected field responsible for that transmission? If it is a real physical field capable of interacting with ordinary matter we should be able to detect it.

Also Chalmers Zombie thought experiment is useful. If consciousness is just the result of the physical brain then why should electrical signals, neurons create consciousness. Why should a non conscious mechanical apartus be able to create self awareness. Technically robots, complex computers don't have consciousness as its not about wiring or signals.

As Chalmers said we could have evolved as Zombies and be able to do everything a conscious human can do but without consciousness. So why consciousness.

That really looks like an argument from personal incredulity from Mr. Chalmers. Got to fill some gaps.

 

[durangodawood]

the fact that consciousness can seed itself tells us there is so much more than we can possible ever concieve by taking thought ....

"Seed itself"........ what do you mean by that?

 

[honey badger]

"Seed itself"........ what do you mean by that?

Consciousness seeds itself just as nature seeds itself.

Albert Einstein put it this way

“The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why.”

 

[stevevw]

If the brain does work as a receiver for "consciousness", then where is the undetected field responsible for that transmission? If it is a real physical field capable of interacting with ordinary matter we should be able to detect it.

I don't know whether its a field or force within physics or some invisible and undetected source a bit like dark energy. Some think it resides at the quantum level. I think Penrose has come up with one idea about quantum microtubal vibrations.

I think its somewhere in at the quantum level as consciousness has many quantum like qualities. Information, knowledge and Mind have no spatial dimensions or are restricted by time. Maybe there is some additional field or force not yet know because it takes a different kind of paradigmatic thinking.

All we know is consciousness is real, its the only thing we know is real and we know it can influence the physical world. We know that people can have OBE which are more real that everyday reality.

So whatever consciousness is its more than the sum of our brain processes and its something real that has power yet it is hard to even express as a physical thing to even begin to know what to look for.

That really looks like an argument from personal incredulity from Mr. Chalmers. Got to fill some gaps.

I disagree, He is one of the worlds leading philosophers and cognitive scientists on consciousness. I think its well argued and makes a lot of sense. We know that our experience can be a true representation of reality even though we cannot measure it empirically.

When we sense we are part of something bigger that is not some superstition created by evolution. Its something that has driven human kind to religion and to look beyond us for meaning.

 

[stevevw]

Well, given the Mandelbrot set, it seems to be impossible to trace it back to God. And that is coming from a Christian guy. Eucharistic miracles on the other hand show something divine, but that's for another thread.

Why, have you noticed the infinite patterns and ordered numbers which don't seem to have an end. Do you notice thise same patterns in nature.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disagree. Thats why most scientists and philosophers acknowledge the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'.

I don't really care what the "philosophers" say. I've been thousands of scientific conversations, read hundreds (probably thousands) of scientific papers, and for some reason I'd never even heard of this "Hard Problem of Consciousness" until maybe 5 years ago, and it wasn't in any professional context. I'm not even sure what it is.

Empiricle science as a measure isn't even in the same ball park as being able to explain the nature of consciousness.

We like measuring our empiricles. If you're saying we don't have a consensus model for the mechanism of consciousness, so what? There are many things in science that we know a lot about, but haven't worked out a definitive mechanism.

Even Galilao acknowledged science could not measure consciousness.

Cut him some slack. Galileo started to rescue physics from the millennia of damage done by philosophy. He couldn't fix everything. (This also goes to my earlier posts about pre-implanted supernatural biases. It takes time to collectively lift ourselves from the muck.)

The NCC's and physical connections are just that the physical aparatus that hosts consciousness. Just like a radio reciever, cut or fray the wires and you will either get a poor signal or no signal.

Show a mechanism for this signal that interacts with ordinary matter. (A Lagrangian would be great, but I'd take anything at this point.) Why can't we detect it?

Before the “father of modern science” Galileo Galilei, scientists believed that the physical world was filled with qualities, such as colours and smells. But Galileo wanted a purely quantitative science of the physical world, and he therefore proposed that these qualities were not really in the physical world but in consciousness, which he stipulated was outside of the domain of science.
https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143

Not only that there is evdience for consciousness beyond brain. There is NDE and also experiements and studies with psychodelics, transcedental meditation and remote viewing.

Remote viewing is fraud.

To say that the rich and vast experience of human kind going back thousands of years is all superstition, myth and woo is silly. Our experience is a window into our soul, into a deeper understanding of reality.

I used none of the bolded words. Those are your choices.

No matter how much you understand the mechanism this will never explain the nature of consciousness and come to a theory of consciousness. It will only tell us what the behaviour is. One is quantifying and the other is qualia. You can't measure qualia by quantity so theres a measurement problem. Thats the Hard Problem of Consciousness and most philosophers understand this.

Oh, great "qualia".

Chalmers is good on this, on explaining the difference in paradigm between material science and Conscious experience as a real phenomena which can reveal truths about reality. Theres a couple of thought experiements about inverted colours, the Frank Jackson’s case of Mary, the neuroscientist who knows all relevant physical truths about color processing, but whose visual experience has been entirely monochromatic (Jackson1982).

Basically the arguement is experiences like colours are phenomena which can reveal real facts but in a different wat of objective facts. Like theres no such thing as the colour red in our brains but red (colours) is a real abstract in the world.

So a person in the case of Mary who has never experienced the colour red and does so for the first time we can say she has gain some new factual knowledge about reality even though there is nothing physical about red. There are many truths along these lines which we can experience that give us factual and truthful knowledge about reality.

https://consc.net/papers/belief.pdf

I think I've already decided from your presented examples that I have no use for Chalmers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know whether its a field or force within physics or some invisible and undetected source a bit like dark energy.

It definitely isnt' like dark energy. Dark energy operates way, way, way, way too weakly to interact with the body/brain and explain consciousness. This is the main problem for the "consciousness field" is that it could only be one of the 4 known forces, and of those the EM field.

Some think it resides at the quantum level.

Everything (except perhaps gravity) operates at the quantum level. The forces that keep your atoms together, keep you from collapsing to a black hole, etc. all quantum.

I think Penrose has come up with one idea about quantum microtubal vibrations.

While something like this (a sort of macro-scale QM effect) might be associated or even the cause of consciousness, it is still just quantized electromagnetism. Such a model would also require the physical structure of the microtube inside of cells. (It's also 100% natural if it exists.)

I think its somewhere in at the quantum level as consciousness has many quantum like qualities. Information, knowledge and Mind have no spatial dimensions or are restricted by time.

Quantum mechanics definitely works in spacetime, so have you just ruled out QM? (Plus information, "knowledge", and "mind" are stored in physical media so far as we know so keep the spacetime.)

Maybe there is some additional field or force not yet know because it takes a different kind of paradigmatic thinking.

Not one that could have evaded detection.

All we know is consciousness is real, its the only thing we know is real and we know it can influence the physical world. We know that people can have OBE which are more real that everyday reality.

None of this demonstrates non-materiality.

So whatever consciousness is its more than the sum of our brain processes and its something real that has power yet it is hard to even express as a physical thing to even begin to know what to look for.

And whatever wetness is it is more than just the collisions of water molecules and their weak hydrogen bonds. (Emergent properties. That's what we're talking about here.)

I disagree, He is one of the worlds leading philosophers and cognitive scientists on consciousness. I think its well argued and makes a lot of sense. We know that our experience can be a true representation of reality even though we cannot measure it empirically.

"Also Chalmers Zombie thought experiment is useful. If consciousness is just the result of the physical brain then why should electrical signals, neurons create consciousness. Why should a non conscious mechanical apartus be able to create self awareness." is very much an argument from personal incredulity. If you quote him correctly, it would seem that Mr. Chalmers has indeed fallen in to this pit.
A fallacy does not a good argument make.

When we sense we are part of something bigger that is not some superstition created by evolution. Its something that has driven human kind to religion and to look beyond us for meaning.

And this argument from personal incredulity is all yours. (but hardly unique or original.)

 

[AlexB23]

the fact that consciousness can seed itself tells us there is so much more than we can possible ever concieve by taking thought ....

Agreed. The human brain is a marvel, and is God's engineering

 

[AlexB23]

Why, have you noticed the infinite patterns and ordered numbers which don't seem to have an end. Do you notice thise same patterns in nature.

Yeah. For instance, 1/7 is 0.142857142857 repeating. But that is just simple division bro.

 

[SelfSim]

I think the Mandelbrot set shows that some iterative processes in nature, (attributable to physical feedback), on observations describable by certain power laws, produces self replicating patterns. Our own molecular biology includes numerous examples of this.

This looks to be evidence for the non-uniqueness of human, (and earth-like life) life, including consciousness, wherever else these processes may occur in the universe. The universe is very large and therefore there is plenty of scope for the possibility.

What's missing is the evidence for these processes actually occuring elsewhere.

 

[partinobodycular]

If the fine structure constant was off by a bit, we wouldn't be here. If other constants were off slightly, the universe or life would not exist.

Suggesting nothing more than the 'Anthropic Principle'.

If stuff was by chance for life to arise (which, I believe it was not), then the multiverse would make more sense for those who do not believe in a universe created by a deity such as God, as in there could be thousands of universes, and just this one had the right conditions for life.

Actually, absent some reason to the contrary logic dictates that in a multiverse the number of universes with the right conditions for life may only be constrained by the number of possible variations thereof.

Anything that could by mere chance create one universe with the right conditions for life, should have the ability to create two, or three, or a thousand, or a billion, or.... Without a logical reason to constrain the number an arbitrary limit makes no sense.

Absent a reason to constrain the number to one, the logical conclusion is that the number of universes with the right conditions for life is essentially infinite.

And yet your omnipotent God only created one... how unimpressive.

but the configuration to give life is very low probability, so that means a Creator must have take part in making the universe in a way suitable for life.

Why posit a creator, when apparently mere chance can do the same.

I am assuming that life is the goal.

Why?

Eucharistic miracles on the other hand show something divine, but that's for another thread.

Trust me, we've been there, done that... it didn't go well for the theists.

The human brain is a marvel, and is God's engineering

Interesting, it led to sin, death, and damnation, and yet you consider it to be a marvel. Your standards would seem to leave something to desired.

 

[durangodawood]

Consciousness seeds itself just as nature seeds itself.

Albert Einstein put it this way

“The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why.”

Great discoveries about the physical world dont come to people without massive intellectual preparation. So Id have to disagree with Einstein there. His own life serves as an example for this.