erraticwisdom

Comments

1. Right off the bat, I’m not an evolutionary biologist, or a quantum physicist, or well-read in philosophy. I’m just a guy with opinions.

   One thing I noticed right away, and it might just be a quirk of language, was the phrase “We’re flung randomly into these bodies …” This suggests that consciousness is not only distinct from physicality, but that consciousness can be separated from physicality. I don’t think that’s the case.

   I think that consciousness is an inseparable aspect of certain patterns of physicality, which seems to be borne out by all the things you mention: other animals having different kinds of consciousness, and the way physical modifications to the brain can change consciousness.

   The other thing I’d toss out is in response to “What is the reason for living morally?”

   “Morality” isn’t a predefined objective set of rules. Morality is relative to situation and to species. Our human species has evolved to survive and thrive when we behave in certain ways, specifically as cooperative social animals. Morality is a description of that behavior. Our sense of fairness and justice has developed to reinforce those behaviors, too.

   Is the Universe in something else? First, to separate definitions. I think you’re talking about “our very large bubble of three-dimensional space-time, outside which we cannot apparently reach” when you say “Universe,” as opposed to “everything that is, whether we can reach it or not.” I’ll substitute the term “cosmos” for the former, to avoid confusion.

   So, is our cosmos inside something else? Space is curved. It seems as though that curvature must exist in some frame of reference, which seems to infer that our cosmos is within something, even if all we can say about that something is that it is a “frame of reference.”

   Nougat

   Feb 8, 12:42 PM #

2. Hi Nougat,

   One thing I noticed right away, and it might just be a quirk of language, was the phrase “We’re flung randomly into these bodies …”

   That is just the language. I do believe what I say later about the physical nature of consciousness. It’s just that on an individual level, it feels like we’re thrown down here.

   “Morality” isn’t a predefined objective set of rules. Morality is relative to situation and to species.

   Agreed. I guess I was appealing to the common sense notion of morality to describe how I arrive at the general rules that guide my behavior.

   So, is our cosmos inside something else? Space is curved. It seems as though that curvature must exist in some frame of reference, which seems to infer that our cosmos is within something, even if all we can say about that something is that it is a “frame of reference.”

   Good point, the universe (or cosmos), might not even be the only one that “exists”. If, in principle, everything is contained within our cosmos (so that “outside of” as a relation doesn’t exist), what does it mean for a cosmos to diverge in a multi-cosmos?

   Thame

   Feb 9, 12:13 PM #

3. As a fellow atheist, I found this deeply intriguing. I especially enjoy the bit about morals, such as they are. Morals are indeed relative. It is perhaps good (if we are hard-wired this way) that we are moral, or else we would destroy ourselves for nothing more than entertainment. It is a biological safeguard, in the same way cows get Mad Cow Disease if they eat cow flesh, it helps preserve the species.

   As to the cosmos, recent studies suggest that it may be a torus (doughnut shaped). If this is so, then what occupies the middle? If all that exists exists in ‘the cosmos’ then there cannot be an outside ‘the cosmos’ as it is ruled out simply by definition.

   The Red King

   Feb 9, 08:32 PM #

4. Oh, what a relief. An American web developer who’s not banging on about his relationship with Christ!

   David Rodger

   Feb 12, 04:44 AM #

5. There cannot be any other explanation for the universe other than some being caused it to be. There is no chance that this universe happened by random. I can’t believe atheists love the internet, but fail to think how they could be propounding their non-faith through digital signals?

   You have no excuse to not believe in God, other than you are blinded by science. Look at the periodic table. You think it just happened by chance? What about your brain? Did it happen by random also?

   Look up and see that you have a creator who loves you and wants you to spend eternity with you.

   Sam Jones

   Feb 15, 12:37 PM #

6. The Red King: It is perhaps good (if we are hard-wired this way) that we are moral, or else we would destroy ourselves for nothing more than entertainment. It is a biological safeguard, in the same way cows get Mad Cow Disease if they eat cow flesh, it helps preserve the species.

   Interesting point, your highness :D. While the role of mirror neurons is actually getting cloudier, the idea is that there are networks in the brain that fire both when a behavior is observed and executed. These are thought to be important in learning movement and language, but could contribute to feelings of empathy. The fact that we can really feel someone’s pain could deter us from causing it.

   David Rodger: Oh, what a relief. An American web developer who’s not banging on about his relationship with Christ!

   Meh, makes for some amazing church websites.

   Sam Jones: There cannot be any other explanation for the universe other than some being caused it to be. There is no chance that this universe happened by random.

   I’m with you there. I’m not sure what it is that created the universe, but like I said, I’m unable to make the leap from “I don’t know” to “it was an omni-everything God”. There’s a big difference between an unknown force and a being that actually cares.

   You have no excuse to not believe in God, other than you are blinded by science. Look at the periodic table. You think it just happened by chance? What about your brain? Did it happen by random also?

   Yes, I do think it was random, but that’s just what I believe. Like I said, it’s a personal system and while you have found a deeper connection to God, I simply haven’t (although it’s a bit presumptuous to think I haven’t tried).

   Thame

   Feb 15, 04:57 PM #

7. I have a somewhat moot view of the universe and, more importantly, us humans. I’ve come to a sort of unstable conclusion that we are all robots—machines—developed by random (i.e. chance, not and omnipotent being) through evolution; we are just like any animal. Like squirrels in the parks, we live to procreate: we are programmed to eat, fight (for our lives and children), reproduce, and sustain our means of doing all the aforementioned.

   This leads me to what we perceive as consciousness. Our consciousness is nothing more than chemical reactions between our neurons. However, they are not just any chemical reactions: they are the same ones that occur from sensual inputs that were then stored in our memory. Only now, they, through trial and error, bounce around and sort of replicate our sensual responses into what is consciousness. My theory here is a little half baked, but seems to make perfect sense in my head (excuses, excuses, I know).

   Time is harder to grasp for me; I just stick with the “time is a line between points in a higher dimension, and we are in the infinitesimal number points long that line” theory.

   Matter is a concept that riddles my brain and then gives me a headache. I don’t dare try.

   (For the record and what it’s worth, I’m Mike P. from a previous comment. I figured I’d stick with my more-regular alias from now-on.)

   Grimmeh

   Feb 19, 08:02 PM #

8. Grimmeh: I have a somewhat moot view of the universe and, more importantly, us humans. […] This leads me to what we perceive as consciousness. Our consciousness is nothing more than chemical reactions between our neurons.

   Yup, our view of the random (or at most the directed but causal) origin of the universe does lead to an indifferent view towards the universe and its inhabitants. I think that’s inevitable and, after some serious coping, pretty liberating.

   Now, I’d like to ask you what you think our consciousness is and what we can extract from our own conscious experiences. Yes, our brains evolved; yes, our consciousness is a product of interactions in the brain. But, the fact remains that consciousness is distinctly different from everything else in the universe. It is not necessarily bound to homo sapiens, so what is consciousness and what does it mean about the universe that it can sustain (perhaps in the same sense it contains matter and time) consciousness?

   Thame

   Feb 22, 08:45 AM #

9. Now, I’d like to ask you what you think our consciousness is and what we can extract from our own conscious experiences.

   That is what I think our consciousness is. I don’t see that there is anything past it. At least, for now, that’s all I think it is (until any new neurological findings come up). Unless I’m missing what you’re asking. I don’t believe there’s anything more too it.

   But, the fact remains that consciousness is distinctly different from everything else in the universe.

   I don’t think so. At least, not to any significance. I think, possibly, the concept of consciousness isn’t unique: not to homo, not to animals, and not even to life. Possibly in a galaxy or a supernova where the clash of forces and chemical reactions and so-forth creates some sort of collective consciousness not directly apparent? Of course, that’s a little abstract and more like wishful thinking than a plausible idea; it’s not something I have support for (not that I have gathered or know).

   I guess that makes all this rambling, but it’s just my own perspective of the world. My apologies if you’re looking for something a little more scholarly.

   Grimmeh

   Feb 23, 05:25 PM #

10. Hey Grimmeh,

    That is what I think our consciousness is. I don’t see that there is anything past it.

    That is what produces consciousness, in some physical, determined way. But what do you make of things like mental states, qualia and subjectivity. These are produced by the interactions of neurons in the brain, but I think they’re different from everything else in the universe.

    I don’t think so. At least, not to any significance. Possibly in a galaxy or a supernova where the clash of forces and chemical reactions and so-forth creates some sort of collective consciousness not directly apparent?

    That’s certainly possible. There is some structure and interaction mechanism associated with consciousness that could be produced randomly. What I end up having difficulty understanding is how exactly non-conscious components can produce conscious agents (and how the laws defining the behavior of non-conscious particles govern the production of consciousness). I think this is where the most interesting answers will be.

    I guess that makes all this rambling, but it’s just my own perspective of the world. My apologies if you’re looking for something a little more scholarly.

    Not to worry, all I do is ramble.

    Thame

    Feb 24, 11:18 AM #

11. But, the fact remains that consciousness is distinctly different from everything else in the universe.

    I think consciousness is pretty nifty, yeah; but wouldn’t I, given that I presume my consciousness? The more I ponder, the more I am skeptical of the preciousness of our consciousness, that it’s derived from a self-selection bias and that it doesn’t obtain an intrinsic uniqueness. It’s precisely the issue with induction: how can we know enough about what else exists to decide on the distinctness of our consciousness?

    Daniel Black

    Feb 25, 08:26 AM #

12. Daniel Black: I think consciousness is pretty nifty, yeah; but wouldn’t I, given that I presume my consciousness? The more I ponder, the more I am skeptical of the preciousness of our consciousness, that it’s derived from a self-selection bias and that it doesn’t obtain an intrinsic uniqueness. It’s precisely the issue with induction: how can we know enough about what else exists to decide on the distinctness of our consciousness?

    Hey Daniel,

    To me, it’s a difference between objective and subjective aspects of the universe that makes our consciousness’ preciousness apparent. There’s matter, forces and time on one side, and lying on top of that is awareness, the ability of an agent to observe and think about the objective universe (that it is composed of, that produced it, and that determines its behaviors).

    As humans, we can “access” normal consciousness, LSD consciousness, and other humanoid variations. Other forms of consciousness in the universe could be inconceivably different, but they would share (by definition) the same foundation of subjectivity. The preciousness of our current implementation of consciousness is questionable (whether or not we are ethically using our ability to be and create consciousness), but that there is consciousness is of fundamental importance in the universe.

    By the way, I think this is a great bit of writing and that sounds like a fantastic coffee shop!

    Thame

    Feb 25, 10:11 AM #

13. To me, it’s a difference between objective and subjective aspects of the universe that makes our consciousness’ preciousness apparent. There’s matter, forces and time on one side, and lying on top of that is awareness, the ability of an agent to observe and think about the objective universe (that it is composed of, that produced it, and that determines its behaviors).

    There is definitely quite a lot there to sort out, I agree. It seems we must take as axiomatic that the mind is wholly emergent from brain activity, that “mind” is the metaphor with which we (clumsily) describe what our brains are doing. At least, some of what our brains are doing; I’m sure you could easily rattle off a litany of cerebral phenomena about which we are not “aware” or “conscious” as it’s happening.

    To that end, I recommend reading through this thread at The Galilean Library, entitled Is idealism a tenable position? . There’s some of that Gödelian incompleteness in the mix; we can’t describe the axiom that “mind” is emergent from neural activity using more fundamental neural phenomena. (With any luck, that sentence actually makes sense; I’m taking a break from what may be an all-night homework session, so things might be ambiguous.) This dissipates a little of my excitement around the whole cognition-as-a-metaphor-machine idea, since it’s only as useful as the premise of the nature of mind.

    [T]hat sounds like a fantastic coffee shop!

    I can’t imagine it wouldn’t succeed. It’s on the “once I graduate and have time to pursue it” list. Maybe we could have a chain—one in Cincinnati, and one in Buffalo. +)

    Daniel Black

    Feb 25, 10:19 PM #

14. The legacy of GOD being the creator of the universe will continue to live on through all “eternity.” No matter how many unique, descriptive or extensive your vocabulary is, it will not change the mind of some one with faith. It has happened, but through generations of time it is still passed on. It’s practically ingrained in DNA from this point. Just like the Red Ball, if 999,999 people believe in GOD, likely the next person born will believe in GOD. This sucks man, I hate fear, I hate GOD.

    Dustin R

    Mar 5, 11:23 AM #

15. First. You have a gorgeous website. Some of the cleanest typography I’ve seen. It, too, had a creator. ;-)

    In all seriousness, John 6:44 explains the inability for some to make the leap of faith in God. Why can’t you, a brilliant, thoughtful, obviously kind person experience God? Whereas someone who is equally brilliant (not me) could abandon what you would call rationality, in favor of believing what cannot be seen, touched, tasted, felt, or explained on anything other than a personal, experiential level.

    In paraphrase, John 6:44 says that it is impossible for us to “believe” God, unless he first “draws” us into his presence. The Greek translation of the word “draws” actually translates to “drags”. Essentially, He drags us kicking and screaming out of our own flawed rationality into realization.

    Say what you want about fairness. I can’t speak for God. I have no idea what his plans are, and why he does it. But God opens the eyes of some. And leaves closed the eyes of other.

    If I were God I would have already had a planet of adoring fans. But then, maybe that’s not the point.

    You are a brilliant guy, and probably one of the most thoughtful atheists I’ve read in a long time. My prayer, even if you think it irrational, is that God drags you into His presence. It’s a good place to be.

    On a side note, you are a fantastic web developer. I’ll be going over this site with a fine tooth comb in hopes that I can learn something.

    Thank you and may God richly bless you,

    Beau

    Beau

    Jun 3, 05:15 PM #

16. Beau: First. You have a gorgeous website. Some of the cleanest typography I’ve seen. It, too, had a creator. ;-)

    Haha, thanks.

    My prayer, even if you think it irrational, is that God drags you into His presence. It’s a good place to be.

    Not at all, thank you, being in someone’s thoughts is always good :)

    Thame

    Jun 4, 11:45 AM #

17. I find humans have a greater capacity to suspend disbelief than to accept evidence or reason. Why else would millions of parents tell their children about how it is good that some being would murder almost everyone in a day. An empirical mind rejects the story outright as absurd. A rational mind would consider this act an abomination so horrid that it makes the works of persons like Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin seem rather sensible in comparison. However, Hitler’s holocaust did not involve a boat and a bunch of cuddly animals.

    R Douglas Ezell

    May 14, 10:50 PM #

18. You have a beautifully designed site. I am in the process of designing a site as we speak and was looking for ideas when I came across your site and this article in particular.

    In examining your “foundational principles” as it were, it seemed that they were undermined by a lack of appeal to an authority. On what basis do you make the claims/descriptions that you do? Is it your own personal experience, a book that you read perhaps, or another source? What resulted in your coming to these conclusions? You state that no one can know the truth about the big questions in life, which in actuality precludes an examination of the facts about life that we can observe. Rather than taking a scientific approach to the world (seeing evidence and rationally drawing conclusions based upon them), it seems that your approach declares such an exercise pointless even before it’s begun. You again seem awfully sure of this assertion, and again I would question, at the risk of sounding a bit pedantic, “How do you know?”

    You make the strong claim that there are no absolute moral values. Isn’t that in and of itself an absolute moral declaration? Who/what made that one? Again, based on what? How about physical absolutes, such as “Humans will die apart from basic nutrition.” This is 100% true. If someone were deprived of these essentials for long enough, they would die.

    I then got to your first belief, and was pleased to see that it was one we share: that “the Universe operates according to stable natural laws, and it appears to be untouched since the day of its creation.” Overlooking your use of the word creation which implies a creator and a design, I wondered how you reconciled your atheistic view of the world with the existence of such laws? And again on what basis what you call those laws “natural” implying that they simply occurred? This would stand in the face of the face of accepted thermodynamics, which which states that things “naturally” move from order to disorder. These same thermodynamic laws also state that something cannot come from nothing, which again flies in the face of Darwinian evolution and would seemingly render void the idea of a cosmic big bang. If I were to look at your site and conclude that it had simply happened as opposed to having been designed by you, I would quickly be fitted in clothing that resulted in my hugging myself. In going to a store I never wonder whether or not the products I’m buying had a designer; it would seem to be obvious. Yet when it comes to the world, people declare this same idea nonsense. Seems a bit odd.

    As for evolution, we do indeed see much diversity within a species (many types of frogs, dogs, horses, etc, but we do not see any proof (fossilized or otherwise) of creatures jumping from one species to another the way that Darwinian evolution would necessitate.

    In examining your fourth point again I was confused as it seemed that you asserted that the human mind willed itself to develop. This Darwinian concept has been disproved time and time again as our understanding of DNA has developed. Drugs enhance or harm individual brains, but have no effect of the DNA of future generations that would be required to produce such development.

    Jordan

    Mar 14, 03:28 PM #

19. I grew up as an atheist, my parents were never religious and even though my grandparents dragged me to sunday school a few times, The whole jesus thing never really sat well with me.

    Having said that, I can remember that from a pretty young age I developed an interest in Buddhism. It might have had something to do with meeting a few monks when I was a kid, more likely it was just the fact that, to someone growing up in a middle class area of a western country, all the ritual and art surrounding buddhism seemed so exotic and mysterious.

    cut to the present and for a while now I’ve been practicing as a Zen buddhist, sort of. I was attracted to Zen because it stressed the importance of leaving language behind so to speak. theres a good quote “to think you understand is a defect, to know you dont understand is a virtue” etc etc.

    anyway, whilst I am in no means a master of any sort i thought It’d be fun to try answering your questions.

    the universe, what is it? in a word: mind. it was a confusing concept for me to wrap my head around but I’m actually quite taken with the notion that space, silence, and awareness are actually one and the same thing.

    as for consciousness – i cant say for sure (who could?), but i guess my intuition would be that what we call consciousness is not distinct from awareness, but it isn’t the same thing either. its like a sub-awareness, if the universe is (big)mind/awareness, then consciousness is (small)mind, ie. awareness that takes a ‘self’ as its foundation.

    you should probably ignore everything I say

    May 18, 08:25 PM #