• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That characterization is a bit extreme - the steady-state model was the default until Einstein acknowledged Le Maitre's work. Hoyle thought the idea of a beginning to the universe was unscientific and that scientists supporting it were unconsciously influenced by biblical creation. But he wasn't averse to the idea of intelligent interference in nature, if not intelligent design.

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
Hoyle [] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

This was the default for academic materialists, atheists, for obvious reasons: no creation = no creator. It was certainly not the default assumption for most people, then or now.

Interesting that the primeval atom was 'religious pseudoscience' until proven beyond most reasonable doubt - while steady state/ static universes/ big crunch were all accepted as 'likely true' in this same circle until proven false beyond most reasonable doubt. A tiny bit of a double standard?

Seriously? that's not my experience. Creative intelligence is at the core of methodological naturalism; how else can we formulate hypotheses?

As an explanatory power for the laws of nature?

You may be different, but many atheists label the concept of an intelligent designer off the table entirely as inherently supernatural.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
I take your point, but you could use the same rationale to assume that the gambler playing 4 royal flushes in a row just got lucky.
It's possible, but we know from past experience that people can be amazingly skilled at cheating at cards. That must clearly change our credence that it was chance.

It comes down to the quality and quantity of information we are dealing with, but I'd say 4 royal flushes sell the universal constants, physics, chemistry, biology very short. There are an infinite number of possible configurations which utterly fail to produce space/time, far less the topic of this thread 'consciousness' -odds which are conceded by the necessity of an infinite probability machine- (multiverse) to overcome them.
Well, firstly we don't know for certain that the universal constants can vary, that they can vary independently, or how much they might be able to vary.

Secondly, the physical models of how the universe might have come about prior to the big bang almost all predict the possibility or probability of multiple big bangs, and String Theory predicts a vast landscape of possibilities. It's also worth noting that most of those models were proposed before the 'fine-tuning problem' became apparent.

But the current position is we don't know, but a variety of models are consistent with the weak anthropic principle.

But at some point you cannot be sure enough that 'cheating' is so entirely impossible as to be left only with chance.
What's that supposed to mean?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
Hoyle [] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"
That was my point, his objection was on scientific grounds not specifically antipathy to the bible.

Interesting that the primeval atom was 'religious pseudoscience' until proven beyond most reasonable doubt - while steady state/ static universes/ big crunch were all accepted as 'likely true' in this same circle until proven false beyond most reasonable doubt. A tiny bit of a double standard?
How s that a double-standard? It's how science works. Current theories are rejected when falsified beyond reasonable doubt, and new hypotheses are not accepted as theories until tested & supported beyond reasonable doubt.

As an explanatory power for the laws of nature?
Huh?

You may be different, but many atheists label the concept of an intelligent designer off the table entirely as inherently supernatural.
You've lost me here - what has the concept of an intelligent designer got to do with formulating hypotheses?
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's possible, but we know from past experience that people can be amazingly skilled at cheating at cards. That must clearly change our credence that it was chance.

Yet the casino goes to great lengths to actively prevent cheating by all means- do we know of any exo-cosmological security force forbidding the intelligent creation of universes?

Well, firstly we don't know for certain that the universal constants can vary, that they can vary independently, or how much they might be able to vary.

In which case we would only be heaping on more laws- 'symbolic (representational) information'- actively constraining universal constants into ranges favorable to sentient life, right? that's not cutting the odds in the larger picture, just shifting them into the shadows.

Secondly, the physical models of how the universe might have come about prior to the big bang almost all predict the possibility or probability of multiple big bangs, and String Theory predicts a vast landscape of possibilities. It's also worth noting that most of those models were proposed before the 'fine-tuning problem' became apparent.

Likewise the casino analogy generously grants you your multiverse, an automated mechanism (card shuffler) with 100% proven capability of producing the exact observation- something that is inherently beyond any empirical observation re the multiverse.. And yet it still doesn't offer the least improbable explanation, unless intelligent intervention can be utterly ruled out, which it cannot, in either case.

But the current position is we don't know, but a variety of models are consistent with the weak anthropic principle.

Sure I agree with that- but again 4 royal flushes by chance is consistent with the weak anthropic principle also- i.e. it must first be observed to have happened, to be considered - that does nothing to suggest a chance occurrence though.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You've lost me here - what has the concept of an intelligent designer got to do with formulating hypotheses?

(wiki)
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.

A theist puts up no such ideological restrictions- let all hypothesis compete regardless of their ideological implications. That's why Lemaitre succeeded where Hoyle was forbidden to go. Into territory already labeled as 'supernatural' 'cannot be explained in scientific terms' 'religious pseudoscience' etc etc

So rather than question whether something is science or not science according to arbitrary academic rules, a far more objective question is simply
is it true or not true?

Beyond that, if you are looking for an explanation for nature itself super-natural is a box you probably want to be able to check. Otherwise you are left with the paradox of trying to account for the laws of nature, using only those same laws..
 
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.
Yup that is pretty much it, until you come back with something to contradict this understanding, it is the reigning paradigm, methodological naturalism is what we have. If wishes were horses etc. come back when you have a horse.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yup that is pretty much it, until you come back with something to contradict this understanding, it is the reigning paradigm, methodological naturalism is what we have. If wishes were horses etc. come back when you have a horse.

^ that was certainly Hoyle's position against the primeval atom, & he never did allow it to be contradicted in his mind.
 
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
^ that was certainly Hoyle's position against the primeval atom, & he never did allow it to be contradicted in his mind.
And his mind is somehow relevant to modern understanding?
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And his mind is somehow relevant to modern understanding?

The ideological constraints of methodological naturalism date back to at least the Victorian age when they were popularized in a simplified/reductionist classical model of reality and even further in ancient Greece. it's not a new idea and still lingers well into the 21st century. It's no coincidence that the world's foremost spokesperson for Darwinian evolution today, sold more copies of a book called 'The God Delusion' than anything actually focusing on the science of biology.
 
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
The ideological constraints of methodological naturalism date back to at least the Victorian age when they were popularized in a simplified/reductionist classical model of reality and even further in ancient Greece. it's not a new idea and still lingers well into the 21st century. It's no coincidence that the world's foremost spokesperson for Darwinian evolution today, sold more copies of a book called 'The God Delusion' than anything actually focusing on the science of biology.
Not biology's problem, and yes the "Enlightenment" occurred. Modern biology has been a useful science for quite a while, do you have anything to contribute?
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not biology's problem, and yes the "Enlightenment" occurred. Modern biology has been a useful science for quite a while, do you have anything to contribute?

An 'enlightenment' which gave us static universes, steady state, big crunch, Piltdown man and worse I won't mention.

While in the mean time, arguably the greatest scientific breakthroughs came from skeptics of materialism like Max Planck and Georges Lemaire.

I'm not complaining- ultimately the ideological resistance to a creation event only served to underscore the weight of scientific evidence for it. And like the pejorative 'big bang' the term 'ultraviolet catastrophe' speaks to an ideological resistance to mysterious underlying guiding forces beyond the 'immutable laws' of the classical reductionist model, once also written of as 'religious pseudoscience'

'Science progresses one funeral at a time' Max Planck
 
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
An 'enlightenment' which gave us static universes, steady state, big crunch, Piltdown man and worse I won't mention.

While in the mean time, arguably the greatest scientific breakthroughs came from skeptics of materialism like Max Planck and Georges Lemaire.

I'm not complaining- ultimately the ideological resistance to a creation event only served to underscore the weight of scientific evidence for it. And like the pejorative 'big bang' the term 'ultraviolet catastrophe' speaks to an ideological resistance to mysterious underlying guiding forces beyond the 'immutable laws' of the classical reductionist model, once also written of as 'religious pseudoscience'

'Science progresses one funeral at a time' Max Planck
Good luck, but arguing over semantics of ideological positions is not moving the understanding of the universe forward. When your position actually has something to contribute, we will give it the diligence it deserves, until then.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
Yet the casino goes to great lengths to actively prevent cheating by all means- do we know of any exo-cosmological security force forbidding the intelligent creation of universes?
We have no grounds whatsoever for either. Russell applies - see my sig.

In which case we would only be heaping on more laws- 'symbolic (representational) information'- actively constraining universal constants into ranges favorable to sentient life, right? that's not cutting the odds in the larger picture, just shifting them into the shadows.
The fact is that the universe exists as it is, no constraints required. All we can say is that unless there was an infinitesimal area suitable for life, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

Likewise the casino analogy generously grants you your multiverse, an automated mechanism (card shuffler) with 100% proven capability of producing the exact observation- something that is inherently beyond any empirical observation re the multiverse.. And yet it still doesn't offer the least improbable explanation, unless intelligent intervention can be utterly ruled out, which it cannot, in either case.
Sorry, I can't make out what you're saying here.

Sure I agree with that- but again 4 royal flushes by chance is consistent with the weak anthropic principle also- i.e. it must first be observed to have happened, to be considered - that does nothing to suggest a chance occurrence though.
It is what it is. We have no basis on which to judge probabilities.

You clearly want to make a designer god a logical option, but there is no more reason to suppose a designer god than to suppose magic, or cosmic pixies. The cosmological models are at least based on well-tested fundamental physics.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
(wiki)
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.

A theist puts up no such ideological restrictions- let all hypothesis compete regardless of their ideological implications. That's why Lemaitre succeeded where Hoyle was forbidden to go. Into territory already labeled as 'supernatural' 'cannot be explained in scientific terms' 'religious pseudoscience' etc etc
These are not ideological restrictions, simply the consequence of having no choice but to rely on observables, which are designated 'natural'. As soon as you can provide reliable observable evidence of whatever you call 'supernatural', it will be accepted as part of reality, i.e. the natural, physical world.

So rather than question whether something is science or not science according to arbitrary academic rules, a far more objective question is simply
is it true or not true?
The question is does it have any observable effect or influence on the world?
If it doesn't, it may as well be fiction.

Beyond that, if you are looking for an explanation for nature itself super-natural is a box you probably want to be able to check. Otherwise you are left with the paradox of trying to account for the laws of nature, using only those same laws..
And how are you going to account for the supernatural? an infinite regression of ever more super-supernaturalness, or special pleading?

The universe exists. That's all we can currently say.
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Site Supporter
May 19, 2018
11,779
12,494
Neath, Wales, UK
✟1,229,948.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Thought I'd try this out to see where it went.
I have some questions that I’m wondering how you all might answer.

The basic question I'm asking is "When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?"

Was it at the moment of the Big Bang?
Did consciousness exist before the Big Bang?
Did consciousness evolve into existence in parallel with the first creatures here on Earth?
Does the Universe itself have a consciousness that exist because the Universe exists?
What does science say about when consciousness entered the Universe?
The religious? What would you say?
The spiritual minded folks? Same question.
Any other ideas?

When God permitted it.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,255
15,921
72
Bondi
✟375,517.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
...and my position is apparently not as solidified as yours.

Somebody once said 'Doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one'. :)
development.

I don't think Voltaire thought that rejecting certainty therefore meant one had to accept absurdities.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,255
15,921
72
Bondi
✟375,517.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You've lost me here - what has the concept of an intelligent designer got to do with formulating hypotheses?

If his first post had been 'Hi, I'm Guy. I'm a proponent of ID' then it would have saved us all a lot of time.
 
Upvote 0

Vap841

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2021
431
252
55
East Coast
✟46,998.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Lol our anti-evolutionary behaviors are explained by the theory of evolution.
I'll leave the readers to draw their own conclusions.
Ok sounds good, just a couple brief remarks in closing then.
Incredulous sarcasm is not an argument
And yet it's all been expressions of incredulity
Again, argument from incredulity
An argument from incredulity is when a person claims that something is false just because that specific person can’t understand how it could be true, the problem of psychophysical emergence is a general recognition that the scientific explanation for the mind body problem is lacking and results in a non-understanding that doesn’t connect dots. You’re claiming that the explanation DOES connect dots that scientific theories usually connect, but it doesn’t. And then you incorrectly use the fallacy of incredulity to make it look like it’s just my not understanding the explanation that is the problem. You fell into a pattern of conflating me disagreeing with an explanation as being an intelligible answer with me not understanding what the explanation is trying to claim.

I think that you explain scientific models very well and I do not have better models. I just don’t believe that scientific models ‘Alone’ give us the closest match for what reality is. A non-physical causal influence over a physical body isn’t even allowed into a scientific model because the rules don’t allow for it, so it’s a circular objection that it can’t be explained with the physical models.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,049
2,232
✟217,840.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Guy Threepwood said:
FrumiousBandersnatch said:
It's trivially true that there is information in everything, but it's always physical. That particular informational content is substrate independent is only true of symbolic (representational) information.
Agreed, and it is sometimes called specified v Shannon, functional or determining information, but I like your definition of the distinction- 'symbolic (representational) information'.
Sorry to disrupt this agreement, but 'symbolic representational information' has the same dependencies as any other type of information. Its dependent on an observer who is capable of conceiving information, via whatever means.
This is a case where its so-called 'physical source', is completely irrelevant.
Conception (or conceiving information) is still the substrate/dependency there.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
Lol our anti-evolutionary behaviors are explained by the theory of evolution.
You just seem to think they're 'anti-evolutionary', but you haven't tried to justify that claim.

You’re claiming that the explanation DOES connect dots that scientific theories usually connect, but it doesn’t.
No, I've explicitly said several times in different ways that it doesn't explain the 'hard problem', but that the identity model I suggest is the best available.

And then you incorrectly use the fallacy of incredulity to make it look like it’s just my not understanding the explanation that is the problem. You fell into a pattern of conflating me disagreeing with an explanation as being an intelligible answer with me not understanding what the explanation is trying to claim.
You haven't managed to raise a coherent argument against it, only incredulous sarcasm - what else am I to think but that you don't understand what I've been describing?

I think that you explain scientific models very well and I do not have better models. I just don’t believe that scientific models ‘Alone’ give us the closest match for what reality is. A non-physical causal influence over a physical body isn’t even allowed into a scientific model because the rules don’t allow for it, so it’s a circular objection that it can’t be explained with the physical models.
I'll ask you again - in what sense can a causal influence over a physical body be non-physical?

How is what you're suggesting any different from invoking magic, or simply saying, "we don't know"?

How is 'the non-physical' in any sense an explanation? what is the 'non-physical'? does it provide any insight into or understanding of consciousness? does it make any predictions? is it testable? does it provide any unifying principles? does it have any utility whatsoever?

I really don't understand what you think claims of the 'non-physical' achieve - can you explain?
 
Upvote 0