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

[stevevw]

There goes that meaningless term again .. aka: 'transcends'.

When last I looked, ideas are expressed in tangible contexts, using the common meanings of everyday language. That language is always expressed by invoking commonly understood meanings, denoted by specifically chosen parts of speech known as; verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjuctions, etc.
What are ideas if they can't be conveyed by the meanings expressed in these obviously 'non-transcendent' parts of speech?

Yet when it comes to say QM or new ideas about reality the word 'transcend' is commonly used. It just means that it extends beyond the limit of whatever and in the case of physics transcends classical physics ie goes beyond the limit of classical physics.

 

[SelfSim]

Yet when it comes to say QM or new ideas about reality the word 'transcend' is commonly used.

Ideas about reality are tested.
What does testing 'transcend' in this undistinguished background model you're implying here?
I guess I'm still not understanding what you mean by 'transcends'(?)

It just means that it extends beyond the limit of whatever and in the case of physics transcends classical physics ie goes beyond the limit of classical physics.

Classical Physics usually refers to pre-1900 physics, whilst Modern Physics refers to post-1900 physics, which incorporates elements of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
If you're referring to the limits of Modern Physics, its clear that no-one knows the limits (or boundaries) of any theory or laws in any physics because these are always taken as being provisional. Applicability, (or context), generally bounds which physics to apply in given scenarios but again, where the boundaries actually are, always forms the basis for future research and testing.
There's nothing 'transcending' anything there. All of Physics is contextual and provisional.

 

[stevevw]

Ideas about reality are tested.
What does testing 'transcend' in this undistinguished background model you're implying here?
I guess I'm still not understanding what you mean by 'transcends'(?)

Just because its tested doesn't mean it explains the nature of that which is tested. QM is one of the greatest tested theories yet it transcends classical physics. It was a big surprise when discovered this.

Anyway its a common word used in the study of consciousness so I cannot see how its a taboo word.

Classical Physics usually refers to pre-1900 physics, whilst Modern Physics refers to post-1900 physics, which incorporates elements of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
If you're referring to the limits of Modern Physics, its clear that no-one knows the limits (or boundaries) of any theory or laws in any physics because these are always taken as being provisional. Applicability, (or context), generally bounds which physics to apply in given scenarios but again, where the boundaries actually are, always forms the basis for future research and testing.
There's nothing 'transcending' anything there. All of Physics is contextual and provisional.

Yes the boundaries, that is the problem that no one really knows the boundaries of what is regarded as naturalistic and what is not. The Promise of material science says that there will always be a naturalistic cause no matter what. So the boundaries are already assumed, so of course they will always find what they are looking for one way of another.

Even if that means promising the answer will come. Even if that means inventing new ideas to fit the priori belief like Dark Matter and Energy.

 

[SelfSim]

Just because its tested doesn't mean it explains the nature of that which is tested.

Aha .. I see the problem here. Our human descriptions of the things we see, hear, etc, (ie: observations in science), are what is being tested and never, ever 'the things themselves'. I hope I'm being clear there .. (or no?).

For example, the properties of what constitutes an electron have been continually updated throughout last century (from testing) and even into this one. So what an electron 'actually is', are always only ever the last best tested descriptions (or ideas), typically of behaviours, distilled from observable properties .. and they have changed dramatically throughout that testing history. If they have changed dramatically then does that mean that 'the actual electron itself' has also correspondignly changed dramatically throughout that timeframe? Obviously not, otherwise our universe would be be highly unstable, as would our own bodies and everything else we observe. Therefore, this shows that no one has ever tested 'an actual electron itself'. We conjure up that that's what's being tested .. but if it were so, then it could not possibly have changed as dramatically as it has, could it?

QM is one of the greatest tested theories yet it transcends classical physics. It was a big surprise when discovered this.

.. and I directly dispute this.
I have never seen anyone claim (other than in a pub-conversation) that QM transcends classical physics! Especially when classical physics means pre-1900s physics! This just makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyway its a common word used in the study of consciousness so I cannot see how its a taboo word.

Perhaps it works in philosophical ramblings and pub-conversations .. but its of absolutely no use where real, (tested) science is the context/backdrop underpinning the conversation

Yes the boundaries, that is the problem that no one really knows the boundaries of what is regarded as naturalistic and what is not.

Again, I do not understand what you mean, (nor the dichotomy you imply), by: 'naturalistic' and not 'naturalistic'.

The Promise of material science says that there will always be a naturalistic cause no matter what. So the boundaries are already assumed, so of course they will always find what they are looking for one way of another.

Who promises that?
Science is provisional and contextual .. that means there are no absolutes which you you imply by: 'no matter what'.
Science does look for 'material things' (using your language here .. unscientific as it is). Science only ever tests its descriptions, that are used in language, as meaning observable/measurable properties or quantities.

Even if that means promising the answer will come. Even if that means inventing new ideas to fit the priori belief like Dark Matter and Energy.

Those new ideas articulated in testable ways, will either be tested now, or in the future .. (no matter the discomfort some may feel about that).
I mean its better to commit to a course of action to find out, than to just make stuff up as an unsupport lie, isn't it?

 

[SelfSim]

Whether mathematics is discovered or invented is ultimately a matter of timing.
About 80 years after Newton came up with his laws of motion, Joseph-Louis Lagrange came up with a different version of classical physics to Newton's.

View attachment 340253
​

Newton's laws of motion were empirically derived and the mathematics invented to explain the observations.
In Lagrangian mechanics, Newtons laws of motion are mathematically derived from the principle of least action.
If Newton never existed, the laws of motion would become a prediction to be supported by experiment and observation, which is the opposite to constructing the mathematics based on observations as Newton had done.

I reckon mathematics might well be the optimsation of all other known descriptive languages. If that notion meets with some measure of agreement, then it stands to reason that mathematics is yet another example of the Principle of Least Action (when applied to the set of all known languages).

But the idea that math is the one true language, or optimum out of all possible languages and that the workings of the universe it describes are therefore also optimal, and efficient, with minimal effort, according to some kind of master plan .. is completely bogus.

There's no evidence that the universe has a singular brain that is “trying” to optimise the universe's performance, according to plan .. it just happens to work out that way ... without the plan, (or a singular brain).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes the boundaries, that is the problem that no one really knows the boundaries of what is regarded as naturalistic and what is not. The Promise of material science says that there will always be a naturalistic cause no matter what. So the boundaries are already assumed, so of course they will always find what they are looking for one way of another.

Science is definitionally naturalistic. It doesn't not consider non-natural effects or causes.

Even if that means promising the answer will come. Even if that means inventing new ideas to fit the priori belief like Dark Matter and Energy.

Do you have some alternative supernatural cause for the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe or the flatness of galaxy rotation curves? Otherwise, I'll just stick with the natural derived causes.

 

[SelfSim]

Do you have some alternative supernatural cause for the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe or the flatness of galaxy rotation curves? Otherwise, I'll just stick with the natural derived causes.

Q?

 

[stevevw]

Science is definitionally naturalistic. It doesn't not consider non-natural effects or causes.

Thats the problem though working out the boundary between what is naturalistic and what is not. It means some things that may be supernatural or at least beyond the current scientific paradigm may be explained away as naturalistic when fundementally they are not. Consciousness comes to mind, pardon the pun.

Do you have some alternative supernatural cause for the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe or the flatness of galaxy rotation curves? Otherwise, I'll just stick with the natural derived causes.

Well Dark matter and energy is a slippery thing. Its sort of posing some new invisible force that interacts with the universe, with everthing. It seems science is just adding new ideas to accommodate the existing standard theory when it may be the theory that is wrong.

I mean I could makeup some mysterious force and call it Consciousness. Theres a fundemnetal force in the universe, everywhere that interacts with everything. As we become more conscious of things this expands the force because our knowledge is increasing, our minds or the Mind that is the universe is expanding at increasing rates as we are expanding our knowledge or perhaps creating our reality at faster rates. Thats just as spectualtive as Dark energy.

It may be that consciousness also holds everything in place because fundementally everything is Mind and information and linked. Who knows but it could be just as possible as Dark matter..

But in a strange way Consciousness does seem to fit. If there is some conscious force and the Universe is like one big Mind than machine then this fits well with QM being non local as knowledge, information, Math, thoughts are not bound by space and time.

 

[stevevw]

Aha .. I see the problem here. Our human descriptions of the things we see, hear, etc, (ie: observations in science), are what is being tested and never, ever 'the things themselves'. I hope I'm being clear there .. (or no?).

For example, the properties of what constitutes an electron have been continually updated throughout last century (from testing) and even into this one. So what an electron 'actually is', are always only ever the last best tested descriptions (or ideas), typically of behaviours, distilled from observable properties .. and they have changed dramatically throughout that testing history. If they have changed dramatically then does that mean that 'the actual electron itself' has also correspondignly changed dramatically throughout that timeframe? Obviously not, otherwise our universe would be be highly unstable, as would our own bodies and everything else we observe. Therefore, this shows that no one has ever tested 'an actual electron itself'. We conjure up that that's what's being tested .. but if it were so, then it could not possibly have changed as dramatically as it has, could it?

Sort of, but I think its more to do with the underlying assumptions that what is being discovered is actually real and not some concept that has been created. Its real as in that it may be a sort of surface measure of one aspect of reality but its not actually explaining the fundemental reality thats underlying. Or at least its assuming that all reality will fall into the assumptions of naturalistic and material science.

Perhaps its more to do with epistemics 'how we know something is real'. Science assumes a certain ontology and therefore creates a method to find that while also assuming this is the only reality. All else is unreal, and doesn't exist.

.. and I directly dispute this.
I have never seen anyone claim (other than in a pub-conversation) that QM transcends classical physics! Especially when classical physics means pre-1900s physics! This just makes no sense whatsoever.

OK so what I am talking about is classical physics as in the (Billiard Ball Schema). Tiny bits of matter behaving like billiard balls as far as laws of motion ect. QM then turned that on its head. What went up didn't come down but could be anywhere at a given point. It was no longer just a particle but a wave, matter was no longer solid but empty space.

This was counter intuitive and went beyond the standard theory and brought about a paradigm shift in thinking. This also opened the door for ideas about reality that went beyond (transcended) the standard science method with ideas like Dark matter, Multiverses, Time travel, Hologram Principle, Simulation Theory ect.

Perhaps it works in philosophical ramblings and pub-conversations .. but its of absolutely no use where real, (tested) science is the context/backdrop underpinning the conversation

Would you say the word 'transcend' would be used in the study of consciousness.

Again, I do not understand what you mean, (nor the dichotomy you imply), by: 'naturalistic' and not 'naturalistic'.

Naturalistic as in naturalistic science. The assumption that all causes have a physical cause (Causal closure of the physical).

Who promises that?

Its the promise of material science that if a material answer cannot be found today it will be in the future. The philosopher of science Karl Popper called this idea “promissory materialism” because it depends on issuing promissory notes for discoveries not yet made.

Science is provisional and contextual .. that means there are no absolutes which you you imply by: 'no matter what'.

Except the absolute priori assumption that the answer or explanation or cause will always be a naturalistic and material one and that the supernatural is unreal.

Science does look for 'material things' (using your language here .. unscientific as it is).

So what would science call something that is material or whatever it is that science says is not scientific. Is it supernatural. I know science includes non solid things like fields and forces but they still conform to a reductive and mechanistic process that can be explained by prior mechanistic and reductive procdesses going back to simple forms and I guess coming from some sort of nothing that is not really nothing and so on, in comes the promissory note.

Science only ever tests its descriptions, that are used in language, as meaning observable/measurable properties or quantities.

What if its descriptions, language, paradigm are wrong. Is there a test to test the testing method lol.

Those new ideas articulated in testable ways, will either be tested now, or in the future .. (no matter the discomfort some may feel about that).
I mean its better to commit to a course of action to find out, than to just make stuff up as an unsupport lie, isn't it?

Trouble is their changing all the time and to be honest I don't see much difference in what mainstream science proposes with these ideas like 11 dimensions is not to different to the ideas of consciousness and Mind being fundemental with Mind dimensions and Information being fundemental. In fact some say some of these ideas fit the data better and overcome some of the Hard problems the Standard model has.

 

[partinobodycular]

I mean I could makeup some mysterious force and call it Consciousness. Theres a fundemnetal force in the universe, everywhere that interacts with everything. As we become more conscious of things this expands the force because our knowledge is increasing, our minds or the Mind that is the universe is expanding at increasing rates as we are expanding our knowledge or perhaps creating our reality at faster rates.

But would consciousness be the cause or the effect of said expansion?

I would posit that it's the latter.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thats the problem though working out the boundary between what is naturalistic and what is not. It means some things that may be supernatural or at least beyond the current scientific paradigm may be explained away as naturalistic when fundementally they are not. Consciousness comes to mind, pardon the pun.

The problem is that no one has ever demonstrated that there is a boundary. There are lots of claims for non-naturalistic effects (some of which you have made here), but no definitive "boundary". In fact there are many non-naturalistic claims that clearly inject into the realm of the natural world in demonstrably false ways.

Well Dark matter and energy is a slippery thing. Its sort of posing some new invisible force that interacts with the universe, with everthing. It seems science is just adding new ideas to accommodate the existing standard theory when it may be the theory that is wrong.

Let's be clear here. The "existing standard theory" that is being "accommodated" is *GRAVITY*. That "accommodation" is at the margins: vacuum energy, poorly interacting matter, long range modifications to the known form of gravity, etc.

Dark matter and dark energy are very well established astronomically. Astronomers and observational cosmologists have put significant restraints on the properties of each, but the theory hasn't quite caught up to them. (Or particle experiments.) It's kind of like Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Kepler worked out the relations to the motions of the planets, but he did not have a fundamental theory to explain them. The first theory to properly do that was Newton's some decades later and then Einstein's a few centuries later did an even better job. (And that may not be the final theory of gravity, but I'm not holding my breath for a "better" replacement.)

I mean I could makeup some mysterious force and call it Consciousness. Theres a fundemnetal force in the universe, everywhere that interacts with everything.

Since we already have a phenomenon called "consciousness" it is best not to induce confusion by overloading the names. Let's just call it "The Force".

As we become more conscious of things this expands the force because our knowledge is increasing, our minds or the Mind that is the universe is expanding at increasing rates as we are expanding our knowledge or perhaps creating our reality at faster rates. Thats just as spectualtive as Dark energy.

(Oh, I guess you already did.)

But seriously, no that is not "just as speculative" it is drastically more speculative. The main dark energy model is a cosmological constant. Something so "new and speculative" that Einstein included it in his equations to avoid the collapse of the Universe. (The expansion wouldn't be discovered for another decade.) It had no bearing on anything but the stability/expansion of spacetime. It is an incredibly simple model and it has been undergoing testing for ~25 years.

Consciousness as "the force" has much more speculative problems as consciousness has *ONLY* been detected in Earth animals and nowhere else. Might there be living beings elsewhere in the Universe, sure probably so, but we have no evidence for them. And you don't really have a mechanism, just some Sunday afternoon noodling.

It may be that consciousness also holds everything in place because fundementally everything is Mind and information and linked. Who knows but it could be just as possible as Dark matter..

Now you want it to also be dark matter? Oh boy.

Among the many problems that could be found with this the only place where consciousness is known to exist is the very place where we don't have any evidence of impact from dark matter or dark energy: Earth. Nothing (and I mean Nothing) about the known properties of the Galaxy and Universe that dark matter and dark energy are constructed to explain have even the slightest impact on the properties of our Solar system, planet, or life on it. None.

The proposed "mind stuff" would need to interact with flesh, so why can't we detect it?

But in a strange way Consciousness does seem to fit. If there is some conscious force and the Universe is like one big Mind than machine then this fits well with QM being non local as knowledge, information, Math, thoughts are not bound by space and time.

Since you are fond of speculating, let me try a bit: The scientists who run into these "odd" behaviors (particularly in QM) have a strong tendency to use supernaturalist language to describe them because of their prior supernatural pre-conditioning either through direct indoctrination or cultural absorption. Perhaps eventually, we'll get better at explaining these things.

 

[partinobodycular]

Consciousness as "the force" has much more speculative problems as consciousness has *ONLY* been detected in Earth animals and nowhere else.

Not to be a stickler here, but as a solipsist I'd argue that the only place that I can be certain that consciousness exists is in my own mind. As to whether or not anyone else is conscious is still up for debate. Personally, I don't see any convincing evidence for it. Human behavior would seem to represent an ensemble of all possible human choices which can collectively result in the existence of a single conscious being... me.

You are simply there to give context to my existence. Of course I'm open to any arguments to the contrary. Unfortunately, for every rational person that I meet there'll always be an equally irrational one. When humanity begins to act in a rational manner... contrary to what mere probability would prescribe, then I might begin to seriously consider that the rest of you are actual conscious beings.

 

[Jimmy It]

Colossians, 1:12
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not to be a stickler here, but as a solipsist I'd argue that the only place that I can be certain that consciousness exists is in my own mind. As to whether or not anyone else is conscious is still up for debate. Personally, I don't see any convincing evidence for it. Human behavior would seem to represent an ensemble of all possible human choices which can collectively result in the existence of a single conscious being... me.

Are you not an Earth animal?

You are simply there to give context to my existence. Of course I'm open to any arguments to the contrary. Unfortunately, for every rational person that I meet there'll always be an equally irrational one. When humanity begins to act in a rational manner... contrary to what mere probability would prescribe, then I might begin to seriously consider that the rest of you are actual conscious beings.

As for solipism? Are you sure you can prove it?

 

[stevevw]

The problem is that no one has ever demonstrated that there is a boundary. There are lots of claims for non-naturalistic effects (some of which you have made here), but no definitive "boundary". In fact there are many non-naturalistic claims that clearly inject into the realm of the natural world in demonstrably false ways.

I think the boundary has been demonstrated. For example despite saying that consciousness is an epiphenomena from the physical brain it only correlates consciousness to physical processes. It doesn't explain the nature of the experience itself and where it originates from. It only assumes it originates from the physical brain because thats all it can explain things by.

So if consciousness (the Force) is some beyond brain force science has crossed the line by attributing consciousness to the physical thus dismissing something that transcends the physical.

Let's be clear here. The "existing standard theory" that is being "accommodated" is *GRAVITY*. That "accommodation" is at the margins: vacuum energy, poorly interacting matter, long range modifications to the known form of gravity, etc.

Dark matter and dark energy are very well established astronomically. Astronomers and observational cosmologists have put significant restraints on the properties of each, but the theory hasn't quite caught up to them. (Or particle experiments.) It's kind of like Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Kepler worked out the relations to the motions of the planets, but he did not have a fundamental theory to explain them. The first theory to properly do that was Newton's some decades later and then Einstein's a few centuries later did an even better job. (And that may not be the final theory of gravity, but I'm not holding my breath for a "better" replacement.)

Since we already have a phenomenon called "consciousness" it is best not to induce confusion by overloading the names. Let's just call it "The Force".

(Oh, I guess you already did.)

But seriously, no that is not "just as speculative" it is drastically more speculative. The main dark energy model is a cosmological constant. Something so "new and speculative" that Einstein included it in his equations to avoid the collapse of the Universe. (The expansion wouldn't be discovered for another decade.) It had no bearing on anything but the stability/expansion of spacetime. It is an incredibly simple model and it has been undergoing testing for ~25 years.

Consciousness as "the force" has much more speculative problems as consciousness has *ONLY* been detected in Earth animals and nowhere else. Might there be living beings elsewhere in the Universe, sure probably so, but we have no evidence for them. And you don't really have a mechanism, just some Sunday afternoon noodling.

Some ideas make the Force prevade everything. At the fundemental level the electron as a rudimentary form and its grades upwards to more complex configurations. This seems to make sense in that some pioneers of QM said Mind was inherently in the electron and with QM experiments of the oberserver effect such as QBism.

Now you want it to also be dark matter? Oh boy.

Among the many problems that could be found with this the only place where consciousness is known to exist is the very place where we don't have any evidence of impact from dark matter or dark energy: Earth.

But if the Force is fundemental then it prevades everything.

Nothing (and I mean Nothing) about the known properties of the Galaxy and Universe that dark matter and dark energy are constructed to explain have even the slightest impact on the properties of our Solar system, planet, or life on it. None.

Yes and the Force at the very basic level may have no influence and just be sort of static but only activated at certain thresholds or states. We know this from experiments with psychodelics, NDE, Meditation, remote viewing ect. Or it may be that its information itself when combined in certain formulations gives rise to some form of the Force or different levels of the Force. As some of the pioneers of QM mention even the Electron has elements of Mind in it.

I say this because it seems to make sense as far as the data goes. Mind or Consciousness is non spacial or time restrained. It seems to be some sort of force where we can tap into and experience certain states which others can also do sometimes this has more force to influence things. In other words science only deals with the quantified aspect of reality. It leaves the scientists and subject out of the picture.

But to have a theory of everything we have to include the subject, conscious experience and how that fits into the equation. It seems 'reality with and without the Force' are two different things with destinct phenomena. So it makes sense as some physicists have proposed that the Force can influence things in some way, the oberservers choice influences reality.

If the Force is beyond physical brain then its fundemnetal and not just in humans but everywhere to varying degrees. Like other forces it can be tapped into and used to influence things.

We see glimpses of this in psychology, how human choices and perspectives change and influence outcomes of behaviour or mental states which are powerful. They seem to transcend, sorry extend beyond the limits of mechanical processes of chemicals and electrical signals like a robot. This phenomena is real and seems to speak of a deeper aspect of reality that cannot be understood through the science method.

These ideas like Math, Information, the Participatory Universe Principle, QBism, Panpsychicism, the Mental Universe Theory ect are attempts to fit the conscious subject into what constitutes reality.

The proposed "mind stuff" would need to interact with flesh, so why can't we detect it?

We can by when the flesh reacts and responds to conscious experience. Like needing food for energy the body reacts, insulin levels drop ect. But the feeling of hunger is on another plane. Its a experiential phenomena. Why should we feel hungry when we need food. Why should we feel awe during a sunset.

We can even conjure these experiences into being without the flesh part of the body provoking this and then this effects our physical boddies the other way around. These experiences are not in the mechanical processes themselves but our bodies do react when we have conscious experience.

In fact the power of their experiences can change the world. But they cannot be explained by purely as you say interactions with the flesh. They transcend that type of process and cause and effect. Yet they are just as real and change change reality. Whatever we want to call it, a new force, field or some unknown invisible phenomena its real in the world and cannot be explained in fact will never be explained by material science.

Since you are fond of speculating, let me try a bit: The scientists who run into these "odd" behaviors (particularly in QM) have a strong tendency to use supernaturalist language to describe them because of their prior supernatural pre-conditioning either through direct indoctrination or cultural absorption. Perhaps eventually, we'll get better at explaining these things.

I don't know. I mean I know that happens but it seems more and more mainstream science is going that way. They are not religious but atheist scientists. It seems that areas like QM naturally lead that way. But its not just physics. Its happening across the board like with evolution and the role of Mind, of conscious choices, free will, agency and teleology in evolution. Usually under evolutionary psychology or inheritence beyond genes such as culture or epigenetics.

 

[stevevw]

Not to be a stickler here, but as a solipsist I'd argue that the only place that I can be certain that consciousness exists is in my own mind. As to whether or not anyone else is conscious is still up for debate. Personally, I don't see any convincing evidence for it. Human behavior would seem to represent an ensemble of all possible human choices which can collectively result in the existence of a single conscious being... me.

You are simply there to give context to my existence. Of course I'm open to any arguments to the contrary. Unfortunately, for every rational person that I meet there'll always be an equally irrational one. When humanity begins to act in a rational manner... contrary to what mere probability would prescribe, then I might begin to seriously consider that the rest of you are actual conscious beings.

I don't know about that. I think we can trust that other people have similar conscious experiences. Theres evdience in how people can describe the exact same experiences and have never met.

Or when we for example there is a regional or even national event how the combined experiences of that event transcend the people and the event itself which can often be a powerful combined conscious experience that goes beyond the individual. But all seem to be tapped into that same experience and at times it can move mountains.

There can be no physical connection that explains this. Its more or less like telepathy where the experience moves people together regardless of culture, location, time and space. The conscious experience can be felt across to opposite points in the world at the same time and instantly.

 

[stevevw]

But would consciousness be the cause or the effect of said expansion?

I would posit that it's the latter.

It makes sense to me that it would be fundemental so is the underlying cause. Consciousness comes first, thats all we have. Everything else is but a concept of Mind and therefore abstract.

What we percieve may be a reflection of something deeper and thats how we understand things as humans. But its not the same for other animals such as different sight or smell or colour perception. So no surface reflection is priviledged, its just how living things are designed to function in the objective world.

In a strange kind of QM way we create reality in a sense. The world people knew 1,000 years ago was a different one to today and the world we will know in another 1,000 years different again. Yet each world at that time was reality. The knowledge we chose to discover could have been different and we may believe in a completely different reality.

Even mainstream science ideas claim there can be different realities with Multiverse Theory. Alternative phsyical parameters creating alternative realities. We may be a brain in a jar or Zombies lol.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wrote:

Since you are fond of speculating, let me try a bit: The scientists who run into these "odd" behaviors (particularly in QM) have a strong tendency to use supernaturalist language to describe them because of their prior supernatural pre-conditioning either through direct indoctrination or cultural absorption. Perhaps eventually, we'll get better at explaining these things.

to which you replied:

I don't know. I mean I know that happens but it seems more and more mainstream science is going that way. They are not religious but atheist scientists. It seems that areas like QM naturally lead that way. But its not just physics. Its happening across the board like with evolution and the role of Mind, of conscious choices, free will, agency and teleology in evolution. Usually under evolutionary psychology or inheritence beyond genes such as culture or epigenetics.

This doesn't even come close to addressing my little bit of speculation despite writing it in apparent reply, in fact you go the other way an characterize those doing things in this non-physical way as "atheist scientists". Do you understand my point in the top quoted text?

Let me try to rephrase it, perhaps that will work better.

All of these scientists you claiming back these non-physical/supernatural-like explanations (including pervasive mind or consciousness) grew up in societies with strong pro-supernatural biases, because all human societies have strong pro-supernatural biases. (Some of them seem to be getting better, but not really that much.) Further, even many "hardened" atheist types (like myself) were raised with direct supernatural indoctrination. (I became an atheist because I rejected your god as implausible, not because I never heard of it.)

Thus when they run into things they don't understand how they work, or ways to comprehend them to brains accustomed to ordinary phenomena, sometimes terms that echo supernatural language gets used (cf. "spooky action at a distance"). This is just a deficit of good reference points. Perhaps if our species had a weaker need to tell stories more "dry" terms would be used and this kind of confusion would arise less often. That scientists working on fundamental properties of matter and QM use terms that echo supernaturalism IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR IT.

Even if being an atheist some how cleansed one of prior supernatural conditioning, you can not just broadly associate areas of science with "atheist scientists" like that (oh, if you only could). Scientists are not so uniformly non-believers as you might think. (And before you post long exposition of scientists identifying as atheist and talking such ways, they *REALLY* need to actually work on the "spooky" thing specifically, so I don't care what Neil Tyson said about any of these things.)

As to the alleged growing popularity of these ideas, I've seen no evidence of it in the place where it should be found: the study of fundamental fields and the nature of quantum mechanics. Could I have missed it (yes), but your not even exposed to the content that would properly indicate such.

 

[partinobodycular]

As for solipism? Are you sure you can prove it?

Absolutely... but with one minor caveat, and that's the degree to which anything can ever be said to be provable. For example, you may believe that you can prove that the world is round, but that doesn't stop someone from disputing it, and therefore when dealing with other minds your ability to prove something is never absolute.

First though, a little background. I'm an epistemological solipsist as opposed to a metaphysical solipsist. The former simply holding to the claim that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind. Whereas the latter holds to an absolute, that their mind is all that exists. To an epistemological solipsist like myself that claim makes no more sense to me than it does to you.

As an epistemological solipsist this is what I know... I exist. But beyond that I also know that you exist. The nature of your existence is unknown to me, but the fact of your existence isn't. What's germane to your question however, is that if this is true of me, and you're a conscious being like I am, then it's also true of you. You know that you exist, and you know that I exist.

The essence of solipsism is the understanding that there's a limit to what a conscious being can know. Whether or not you accept this is up to you, and whether or not it matters is also up to you. Solipsism is simply about recognizing the difference between what you can know to be true and what you can't, and one of the things that you can't know to be true is whether anything actually exists outside of your own mind.

Now this may seem like a perfectly useless philosophical concept, but you'd be surprised at how often people assume things to be true, that they can't actually know to be true... like whether there's a God... or whether there isn't. In spite of all the protestations to the contrary, nobody actually knows. That's what solipsism is good for, to remind us of just how much of what we believe to be true, we can't actually know to be true.

 

[honey badger]

i see the patterns of the process of my soul in everything ... the whole of the creation speeks to it ... our souls journey being the pinnacle part of the creation and why Jesus preached the kingdom ... the kingdom being our soul ...