AgnosticWeb.com - A Panpsychist Hypothesis

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:32:13 +0000

> dhw: An impressive answer, until one considers the fact that Higgs himself, like Hawking and many others in this highly specialized field, is an atheist. Are these people such fools that they don't understand the implications of their own studies? As a layman I can't argue with you or with them, but the different conclusions make it clear that you all use science to bolster theories that are based on pure speculation. At least, though, you do have the grace to acknowledge periodically that it all comes down to faith.-Yes, they have faith in pure chance, and I have faith in a guiding intelligence. Scientism's ego is very powerful. I point to Paul Davies and Simon conway Morris as the exceptions. > > dhw: I might just as well ask why his energy was or became conscious. You demand answers to questions you know are unanswerable, but you do not accept that the same questions can be asked about your own hypothesis. This is the basis of agnosticism. We know NONE of the answers.-Of course we don't. This is where the leap to faith occurs, obvoiusly accepting the best answer.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

dhw — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:26:41 +0000

dhw: Even if that energy was conscious, it would have had to make matter out of itself, and if matter had never existed before, how could it know how all the different forms would behave? David's answer is that God's consciousness is different from ours, and so we shouldn't ask such anthropomorphic questions. I have every right to ask such questions, and if I come up with a speculative answer (e.g. that your God had to learn as he went along), it should be taken seriously as a logical possibility.-DAVID: I have granted that God might have had to do some experimenting. Since the universe evolved, glitches are conceiveable. But the initial fermions (matter particles) and bosons (field particles) had to be pre-designed so they all worked together as the BB began. The 'designer universe' observations do not suggest any aspect of impreciseness. Some of the exact numbers required extend out to trillions of decimal places. The current theory about the Higgs is that it must be very exact or the universe would have collapsed upon itself in the beginning, since it provides the field that gives mass to all particles. Do you think this interlocking dependence invented itself?-An impressive answer, until one considers the fact that Higgs himself, like Hawking and many others in this highly specialized field, is an atheist. Are these people such fools that they don't understand the implications of their own studies? As a layman I can't argue with you or with them, but the different conclusions make it clear that you all use science to bolster theories that are based on pure speculation. At least, though, you do have the grace to acknowledge periodically that it all comes down to faith. -dhw: [1]Or perhaps he experimented with other universes and even other forms of life, for ever and ever. [2] Or perhaps he wasn't even aware of anything until his energy happened to transmute itself into matter. We don't know, so one speculation is potentially as valid as another. (This is also my answer to David, who says God "would have to know about matter before he created it or how would He invent a universe which works?")-DAVID: I can accept proposal [1]. I think [2] makes no sense. Why did his energy become matter? More chance as your 'energy happened to transmute" strongly implies?-I might just as well ask why his energy was or became conscious. You demand answers to questions you know are unanswerable, but you do not accept that the same questions can be asked about your own hypothesis. This is the basis of agnosticism. We know NONE of the answers.-dhw: Of course I used "curse" ironically. I don't feel cursed. I am in fact blessed with a generally happy nature and have led a happy life. I have long since grown accustomed to living with my ignorance, although I opened up this website because I'm still eager to learn. ... As for belief, I don't see it as a matter of "would rather". Either you have faith or you don't. And belief or disbelief or non-belief in God is only a problem if you consider it a problem. DAVID: Excellent self-analysis. And we'll continue to discuss in that vein. -I hope so!

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:03:47 +0000

dhw: Even if that energy was conscious, it would have had to make matter out of itself, and if matter had never existed before, how could it know how all the different forms would behave? David's answer is that God's consciousness is different from ours, and so we shouldn't ask such anthropomorphic questions. I have every right to ask such questions, and if I come up with a speculative answer (e.g. that your God had to learn as he went along), it should be taken seriously as a logical possibility.-I have granted that God might have had to do some experimenting. Since the universe evolved, glitches are conceiveable. But the initial fermions (matter particles) and bosons (field particles) had to be pre-designed so they all worked together as the BB began. The 'designer universe' observations do not suggest any aspect of impreciseness. Some of the exact numbers required extend out to trillions of decimal places. The current theory about the Higgs is that it must be very exact or the universe would have collapsed upon itself in the beginning, since it provides the field that gives mass to all particles. Do you think this interlocking dependence invented itself? > > dhw: [1]Or perhaps he experimented with other universes and even other forms of life, for ever and ever. [2] Or perhaps he wasn't even aware of anything until his energy happened to transmute itself into matter. We don't know, so one speculation is potentially as valid as another. (This is also my answer to David, who says God "would have to know about matter before he created it or how would He invent a universe which works?")-I can accept proposal [1]. I think [2] makes no sense. Why did his energy become matter? More chance as your 'energy happened to transmute" strongly implies?-> > dhw: Of course I used "curse" ironically. I don't feel cursed. I am in fact blessed with a generally happy nature and have led a happy life. I have long since grown accustomed to living with my ignorance, although I opened up this website because I'm still eager to learn. ... As for belief, I don't see it as a matter of "would rather". Either you have faith or you don't. And belief or disbelief or non-belief in God is only a problem if you consider it a problem. -Excellent self-analysis. And we'll continue to discuss in that vein.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

dhw — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 13:48:34 +0000

DHW (to David): If I believed in God (and remember, I neither believe nor disbelieve), I would accept that he is a person like no other person, we are a tiny portion of what he is, he is enormously powerful etc. A)We can't create universes or life or the mechanisms of evolution, and so those claims would be entirely credible. But B) I still wouldn't understand how he could know all about matter before matter exists, and so I would ask myself if this might possibly indicate that like ourselves, C)he fulfills the potential of his intelligence by gathering information and learning as he goes along.-TONY: A) We can not even conceive their complexity or elegance, much less create it ourselves. B) Because he designed the rules that govern it, perhaps. I mean, if you were creating a car you could conceive and design it long before you implemented it. C) Possible, no way to know.-I could not conceive and design a car without already being possessed of vast amounts of knowledge accumulated over millennia of experience, ranging from the invention of the wheel to the mechanics of locomotion. This is the point that I don't seem to be able to get across to anyone: that if the first cause was pure energy, nothing else existed. There was no matter. Even if that energy was conscious, it would have had to make matter out of itself, and if matter had never existed before, how could it know how all the different forms would behave? David's answer is that God's consciousness is different from ours, and so we shouldn't ask such anthropomorphic questions. I have every right to ask such questions, and if I come up with a speculative answer (e.g. that your God had to learn as he went along), it should be taken seriously as a logical possibility. DHW:) A)I might even ask myself what he might have done with his self-consciousness for all of eternity before turning his energy particles into matter. I would not dismiss such questions or their possible answers as a mistake, a non-starter, illogical, anthropomorphic. B) And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course C) that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open.-TONY: A) Perhaps it was spent working out all the details before he implemented them.-Or perhaps he experimented with other universes and even other forms of life, for ever and ever. Or perhaps he wasn't even aware of anything until his energy happened to transmute itself into matter. We don't know, so one speculation is potentially as valid as another. (This is also my answer to David, who says God "would have to know about matter before he created it or how would He invent a universe which works?")-TONY: B) Of course it is, and some of us believe there is actually a "How To" book... some believe there are several... C) No, your curse is that you can't believe without seeing, that you demand evidence, that you have no faith; not in science, and not in god. Personally, I think I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe, whether I was right or not.-Of course I used "curse" ironically. I don't feel cursed. I am in fact blessed with a generally happy nature and have led a happy life. I have long since grown accustomed to living with my ignorance, although I opened up this website because I'm still eager to learn. It's true that the evidence I've heard from both sides still fails to convince me, but even this has proved to be a source of enjoyment and education, because people like David and yourself have offered me marvellous and stimulating company over the years. As for belief, I don't see it as a matter of "would rather". Either you have faith or you don't. And belief or disbelief or non-belief in God is only a problem if you consider it a problem. In fact, I suspect belief causes more problems than disbelief or non-belief, but that's another subject.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:10:31 +0000

> > DHW:) A)I might even ask myself what he might have done with his self-consciousness for all of eternity before turning his energy particles into matter. I would not dismiss such questions or their possible answers as a mistake, a non-starter, illogical, anthropomorphic. B) And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course C) that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open. > > > Tony: A) Perhaps it was spent working out all the details before he implemented them. > > B) Of course it is, and some of us believe there is actually a "How To" book... some believe there are several... > > C) No, your curse is that you can't believe without seeing, that you demand evidence, that you have no faith; not in science, and not in god. Personally, I think I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe, whether I was right or not.-Wonderful answers. Thank you.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:05:46 +0000

> dhw: If I believed in God (and remember, I neither believe nor disbelieve), I would accept that he is a person like no other person, we are a tiny portion of what he is, he is enormously powerful etc. We can't create universes or life or the mechanisms of evolution, and so those claims would be entirely credible. But I still wouldn't understand how he could know all about matter before matter exists, -God, in my view, would have to know about matter before he created it or how would He invent a universe which works? Yes, there is the possibiltiy of some experimentation since He used the process of evolution in having the universe develop from the BB.-> dhw: And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open. -Mine is also. > > dhw:Hardly surprising, since a glance at Wikipedia will tell you that many of the most prominent names are atheists. Of course that doesn't mean they are right, but it does suggest that quantum theory provides no more solid a basis for your beliefs than any other branch of the sciences.-I have chosen to place God in the quantum layer of reality. He can hid there and still run things. That is as far as I can go.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:50:57 +0000

DHW: If I believed in God (and remember, I neither believe nor disbelieve), I would accept that he is a person like no other person, we are a tiny portion of what he is, he is enormously powerful etc. A)We can't create universes or life or the mechanisms of evolution, and so those claims would be entirely credible. But B) I still wouldn't understand how he could know all about matter before matter exists, and so I would ask myself if this might possibly indicate that like ourselves, C)he fulfills the potential of his intelligence by gathering information and learning as he goes along.- A) We can not even conceive their complexity or elegance, much less create it ourselves.-B) Because he designed the rules that govern it, perhaps. I mean, if you were creating a car you could conceive and design it long before you implemented it.-C) Possible, no way to know. -DHW:) A)I might even ask myself what he might have done with his self-consciousness for all of eternity before turning his energy particles into matter. I would not dismiss such questions or their possible answers as a mistake, a non-starter, illogical, anthropomorphic. B) And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course C) that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open.- A) Perhaps it was spent working out all the details before he implemented them.-B) Of course it is, and some of us believe there is actually a "How To" book... some believe there are several...-C) No, your curse is that you can't believe without seeing, that you demand evidence, that you have no faith; not in science, and not in god. Personally, I think I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe, whether I was right or not.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

dhw — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:16:43 +0000

DAVID: You may certainly make up any rules you wish for your concept of the UC. I see no reason why my UC cannot be entirely self-conscious without matter being present. We start at very different points in this discussion. Adler, my mentor, describes God as a'person like no other person, like no one we can conceive of or imagine. There is a vast gap between human persons and God, the person. Yes we are in His consciousness image, but each of us is a very tiny portion of what He is. This is why you and I are talking at cross-purposes. You are leaving out the enormous power in the UC, and since you are not following Adler, as I do, our discussion is worlds apart. You are trying to apply human thought to something quite different.-If I believed in God (and remember, I neither believe nor disbelieve), I would accept that he is a person like no other person, we are a tiny portion of what he is, he is enormously powerful etc. We can't create universes or life or the mechanisms of evolution, and so those claims would be entirely credible. But I still wouldn't understand how he could know all about matter before matter exists, and so I would ask myself if this might possibly indicate that like ourselves, he fulfils the potential of his intelligence by gathering information and learning as he goes along. I might even ask myself what he might have done with his self-consciousness for all of eternity before turning his energy particles into matter. I would not dismiss such questions or their possible answers as a mistake, a non-starter, illogical, anthropomorphic. And I would even think it possible that he made my consciousness in the image of his own, and that wonderful things like love, empathy, and logical thinking might be part of our shared consciousness. But of course that is the curse of the agnostic. He will insist on keeping his mind open. dhw: The panpsychist hypothesis that forms the subject of this thread may be as full of flaws as your own concept of a universal consciousness, but I'd be most surprised if your theories concerning the presence of a universal consciousness in the quantum layer of reality were regarded by your fellow quantum theorists as being more likely than the presence of multiple consciousnesses or the presence of no consciousness at all. DAVID: The quantum theorists I read don't talk about dieties.-Hardly surprising, since a glance at Wikipedia will tell you that many of the most prominent names are atheists. Of course that doesn't mean they are right, but it does suggest that quantum theory provides no more solid a basis for your beliefs than any other branch of the sciences.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:20:00 +0000

> dhw: If I make something in my image, it must resemble me, and I must resemble it. Therefore we resemble your God. You specified that this image related to consciousness. Therefore there must be resemblances between God's consciousness and ours, and so it is perfectly reasonable to apply an anthropomorphic analysis to your personal interpretation of God's thinking.-Again, not the way I view it. I think of our consciousness as a very small manifestation of the UC; yes, resembling it but nowhere as complex or powerful in its attributes.-> > dhw: Of course you are allowed to believe what you want. However, I am also allowed to point out that a different concept of God (not to mention of the origin of the universe and life) can be extrapolated from the not illogical premise that consciousness can only function if there is something for it to be conscious of, and that information about matter can hardly exist before matter itself exists, and that any inventor will therefore have to gather information as he goes along. Such responses as "non-starter", "a mistake", "your own invention", "illogical", "anthropomorphic" sound just a little hollow when the only criterion appears to be your right to give your God whatever attributes you wish.-You may certainly make up any rules you wish for your concept of the UC. I see no reason why my UC cannot be entirely self-conscious without matter being present. We start at very different points in this discussion. Adler, my mentor, describes God as a'person like no other person, like no one we can conceive of or imagine. There is a vast gap between human persons and God, the person. Yes we are in His consciousness image, but each of us is a very tiny portion of what He is. This is why you and I are talking at cross-purposes. You are leaving out the enormous power in the UC, and since you are not following Adler, as I do, our discussion is worlds apart. You are trying to apply human thought to something quite different.-> dhw:The panpsychist hypothesis that forms the subject of this thread may be as full of flaws as your own concept of a universal consciousness, but I'd be most surprised if your theories concerning the presence of a universal consciousness in the quantum layer of reality were regarded by your fellow quantum theorists as being more likely than the presence of multiple consciousnesses or the presence of no consciousness at all.-The quantum theorists I read don't talk about dieties.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

dhw — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:37:22 +0000

dhw: Now you are saying that our own consciousness is in the image of the universal consciousness ... in which case, if we reflect your God, your God must reflect us, and an anthropomorphic analysis is a perfectly reasonable one to make. -DAVID: You forget we are made in His image, not the other way around. We immitate His makeup. You are again viewing the result of my thinking with anthropomorphic objections. The UC does not need matter or events to be eternal and to contain information and intelligence through a timeless eternity, until at some juncture the UC acts to create a universe and life. And the UC is in the quantum layer of reality, not ours.-If I make something in my image, it must resemble me, and I must resemble it. Therefore we resemble your God. You specified that this image related to consciousness. Therefore there must be resemblances between God's consciousness and ours, and so it is perfectly reasonable to apply an anthropomorphic analysis to your personal interpretation of God's thinking.-dhw: I agree that only conscious energy learns, .... But how does energy become conscious? According to you, it's always been conscious. However, to be conscious, you must have something to be conscious of! DAVID: Simply, I am allowed to develop a concept of my universal consciousness in any form with any attributes I wish. It may seem illogical to you that I arrived at this description, but that is what I have concluded. -Of course you are allowed to believe what you want. However, I am also allowed to point out that a different concept of God (not to mention of the origin of the universe and life) can be extrapolated from the not illogical premise that consciousness can only function if there is something for it to be conscious of, and that information about matter can hardly exist before matter itself exists, and that any inventor will therefore have to gather information as he goes along. Such responses as "non-starter", "a mistake", "your own invention", "illogical", "anthropomorphic" sound just a little hollow when the only criterion appears to be your right to give your God whatever attributes you wish. The panpsychist hypothesis that forms the subject of this thread may be as full of flaws as your own concept of a universal consciousness, but I'd be most surprised if your theories concerning the presence of a universal consciousness in the quantum layer of reality were regarded by your fellow quantum theorists as being more likely than the presence of multiple consciousnesses or the presence of no consciousness at all.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

GateKeeper — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:35:49 +0000

> > GK: could you Explain to me useing parts of the qm model how this "awareness" is working? Before I place our god in QM. For now, just limit its functionality in QM. With the understanding we all know its in the fabric of space to cosmic webs. > > If I realy knew how God worked, this would end all discussions.-I do not have as much faith as you do. It is why I kept looking.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:22:42 +0000

> GK: could you Explain to me useing parts of the qm model how this "awareness" is working? Before I place our god in QM. For now, just limit its functionality in QM. With the understanding we all know its in the fabric of space to cosmic webs. -If I realy knew how God worked, this would end all discussions.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:17:40 +0000

> > > GK:lmao > > > the bible is right. we are in its image. shush now, I know you guys don't like the bible. But for 2000 years ago? Eistien just aint that impressive to me. Base on what albie knew before he did what he did. Jesus was betting his life. albie was betting nothing. he was in a office job for the rest of his life if he didn't do something, anything. > > > > > > then he dumped is wife and kid. > > > > David: Who is albie? > > GK: albie eistien.-That is a fascinating biography of Albert Einstein. As a clerk, it gave him some kind of income while cooking up his special relativity theory. As a Jew he had very few other avenues to go forward.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

GateKeeper — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:42:59 +0000

GK: Your notions are 100% correct in how I see you presenting your idea. It is consistant with how physics uses the term "energy" when we get to this level. His God is, although very close to what I believe, is no more rational than your conclusion in my opinion. > > Please consider the placement of the UC (God) in the quantum layer of reality. I think that increases the probable rationality-ok. we started at qurk gluon soup. The the QM component is "in" this soup. Well, there is a better way to say it. But you guys get it. -could you Explain to me useing parts of the qm model how this "awareness" is working? Before I place our god in QM. For now, just limit its functionality in QM. With the understanding we all know its in the fabric of space to cosmic webs. -on a side note ... don't cammas go between "me" and "how"?-anther side note: gamma ray bursters remind me of atp to adp.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

GateKeeper — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:23:04 +0000

> > GK:lmao > > the bible is right. we are in its image. shush now, I know you guys don't like the bible. But for 2000 years ago? Eistien just aint that impressive to me. Base on what albie knew before he did what he did. Jesus was betting his life. albie was betting nothing. he was in a office job for the rest of his life if he didn't do something, anything. > > > > then he dumped is wife and kid. > > Who is albie?-albie eistien.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 01:42:39 +0000

> GK:lmao > the bible is right. we are in its image. shush now, I know you guys don't like the bible. But for 2000 years ago? Eistien just aint that impressive to me. Base on what albie knew before he did what he did. Jesus was betting his life. albie was betting nothing. he was in a office job for the rest of his life if he didn't do something, anything. > > then he dumped is wife and kid.-Who is albie?

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 01:38:39 +0000

GK: Your notions are 100% correct in how I see you presenting your idea. It is consistant with how physics uses the term "energy" when we get to this level. His God is, although very close to what I believe, is no more rational than your conclusion in my opinion. -Please consider the placement of the UC (God) in the quantum layer of reality. I think that increases the probable rationality

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 01:32:09 +0000

dhw: Now you are saying that our own consciousness is in the image of the universal consciousness ... in which case, if we reflect your God, your God must reflect us, and an anthropomorphic analysis is a perfectly reasonably one to make. -You forget we are made in His image, not the other way around. We immitate His makeup. The UC is in the quantum layer of reality. I view that layer as totally interconnected and timeless and only partially connected to us. Only when we do an experiment like the recent Wheeler delayed-choice do we see this. The secondary choice changes the first measurement in our layer of reality, but the interconnectedness of the particles in timeless quantum reality explains why. No time change in quantum reality, just sister particle relationships influencing each other, but since in our space-time reality we see sequential activity we see a confusing result because of our time consciousness. This is what Kastner was driving at with her transactional analysis.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:35:17 +0000

> dhw: I agree that only conscious energy learns, .... But how does energy become conscious? According to you, it's always been conscious. However, to be conscious, you must have something to be conscious of!-Simply, I am allowed to develop a concept of my universal consciousness in any form with any attributes I wish. It may seem illogical to you that I arrived at this description, but that is what I have concluded. You are again viewing the result of my thinking with anthropomorphic objections. The UC does not need matter or events to be eternal and to contain information and intelligence through a timeless eternity, until at some juncture the UC acts to create a universe and life. And the UC is in the quantum layer of reality, not ours.

A Panpsychist Hypothesis (reply)

GateKeeper — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:10:00 +0000

GK: If the universe "learned" it may have been "child like". We are in its image? > > DAVID: I think we are in the image of the universal consciousness, which I view as God, in the fact that we have our own consciousness, simple as that. How much that consciousness had to learn is the debate I'm having with DHW. > > A couple of weeks ago, David, you dismissed the idea that your God had to learn, because it made him indecisive and dithering. You then dismissed the parallel with our own intelligence - "a potential that develops accumulatively through experience of things that already exist" ... because it was "an anthropomorphic analysis". Now you are saying that our own consciousness is in the image of the universal consciousness ... in which case, if we reflect your God, your God must reflect us, and an anthropomorphic analysis is a perfectly reasonably one to make. HOW MUCH he had to learn is one more admission on your part that he had to learn, from which we can proceed from your hypothesis - of first cause energy always being conscious and in possession of the necessary information - to my alternative panpsychist hypothesis that first cause energy may not have become conscious until matter gave it something to be conscious of, thereby kickstarting the learning process.-lmao It seems that even us perfect people, like the Gater-god, still can learn.-the bible is right. we are in its image. shush now, I know you guys don't like the bible. But for 2000 years ago? Eistien just aint that impressive to me. Base on what albie knew before he did what he did. Jesus was betting his life. albie was betting nothing. he was in a office job for the rest of his life if he didn't do something, anything.-then he dumped is wife and kid.