universe- why is it here?

Contra,

Pierce's book is available at the library here. I'll take a look at it. Thanks for lead. My math skills are extremely rusty though I've taken intro statistics and some calculus. It's a "I didn't use and lost it proposition" for me.

You mention math, biology, and philosophy. If this isn't too personal a question (ignore it if it is) is your training in biology with background in math and philosophy?

I used to run a simple version of life on my Commodore 64 years ago.

The old school behaviourist just wouldn't deal with consciousness at all. I woke up this morning and though my body functioned through the night there is a difference in my awareness as I type this in the cool morning air.

Are you advocating an extreme reductionist argument similiar to the behaviorist postition?

lfen

quote:

---

Yes. But I'm trying to get at the distinction between "mechanical" and "aware".

---

there is no distinction. Imagine two cogs; both contact and interact with the other, both are 'aware' of each other.

quote:

---

What is it that is aware of the mechanical? and that seems conceptual, so also what is aware of the sensory information?

---

Sensory information is, at the information level, indistinguishable from information that emanate from any organ. Light falls on the retina stimulating nerves which transmit a signal to other nerves. Thats all there is; the 'awareness' IS that process of electrical transmission.

How does a telephone become "aware" of an incoming call and "know" to ring? Without pseudo-mystical starting assumptions that there Must Be a difference between "matter" and "life", there seems to me no reason to hypothesize any difference at all.

This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-16-2004 10:43 AM

quote:

---

Pierce's book is available at the library here. I'll take a look at it. Thanks for lead. My math skills are extremely rusty though I've taken intro statistics and some calculus. It's a "I didn't use and lost it proposition" for me.

---

Heh, me too. Fortunately I don;t work in the deep end of informaiton science tho.

quote:

---

You mention math, biology, and philosophy. If this isn't too personal a question (ignore it if it is) is your training in biology with background in math and philosophy?

---

No, I trained as a programmer. I have read fairly widely on chaos, ecosystems, sundry other sciences.

quote:

---

The old school behaviourist just wouldn't deal with consciousness at all. I woke up this morning and though my body functioned through the night there is a difference in my awareness as I type this in the cool morning air.

---

Sure. And when your computer is idle, the screen saver comes on .

There are a number of non-conscious process changes your body implements when you sleep, too, such as your breathing becoming slower and deeper. To assert that consciousness is mechanical is not to imply it is always operational.

IMO, when you sleep your brain carries out a function that is analogous to disk compression defragmentation; puts files where they need to be. There is no need for me to claim the same process that expresses your sense of self need be present and active all the time.

This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-16-2004 10:43 AM

Contra,

Imagine two cogs; both contact and interact with the other, both are 'aware' of each other.

That is a very radical (i.e. to the root) statement. You are asserting that the awareness that I have as I write is a quality that is also found in inanimate interactions? If a rock rolls down a slope would you say the rock and earth of the slope are aware of each other?

Further are you saying that awareness is identical to information?
Matter/energy, space/time, information=awareness? information/awareness?

lfen

Contra,

Without pseudo-mystical starting assumptions that there Must Be a difference between "matter" and "life", there seems to me no reason to hypothesize any difference at all.

Do you mean "pseudo-mystical" or did you intend to say "psuedo-scientific"? If the former is what you meant I'd be interested in what you regard as truly mystical.

I see life as a property of the universe, it is a potential developement of atoms and molecules that has taken place at least on earth and could arise elsewhere given the right conditions. Awareness also must be a part of the universe. But I confess to not being able to believe that my coffee cup and the table it sits on are aware of one another in the same way that a fly and I are aware of each other as I try to eliminate the buzzing little devil and it avoids my hand.
And even less that the coffee cup has anything remotely like my awareness that "I" exist, and that "I am aware the coffee cup exists.".

lfen

quote:

---

That is a very radical (i.e. to the root) statement. You are asserting that the awareness that I have as I write is a quality that is also found in inanimate interactions? If a rock rolls down a slope would you say the rock and earth of the slope are aware of each other?

---

Yes and no. Inanimate objects interact, "communicate", pass forces and particles between one another, all the time. I am asserting that what you subjectively experience as "consciousness" is among these processes. Your relationship with a foodstuff, say - particles entering your nose, being sorted, signals triggered - may well be much more complex than a two cogs exchanging kinetic energy, but is not an essentially different process IMO.

Contra,

I'm revisiting our discussion as I came across the name Werner Gitt in another thread and googling on it discovered he defends the notion of a creater using some varient of information theory. You heard of this guy?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/w_gitt.asp

I don't know what to make of his argument as information theory is something I know so little about.

lfen

Way off topic here.

If someone want to discuss this propose a topic.

I'm not arguing for or against evolution but I don't understand why the universe could be here just because it's here. Doesn't it seem like there should be some type of higher intelligence to create the universe? It just doesn't seem right that all of space would be here just because it is.

Either the universe has existed eternally or something else that has existed eternally created the universe.

The big bang, which has been proven, suggests that the universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it could not have existed eternally.

There are numerous theories that seek to combine the big bang and an eternal universe, but none have been proven as of yet. So to the best of our current scientific knowldege, the universe began in the big bang. So the question is, who/what started the big bang? I believe that God did.

Some people in this thread have misused the idea of cause and effect. The law of cause and effect states, "every effect must have a cause."
It does not say "everything must have a cause, just every effect must a have a cause.

This answers the question, who created God? Since God is not an effect, he does not have to have a cause. He has always been.

As for the vast size of the universe, it shows the power of God and also the importance that he places on people. He thinks people are so important that he created this huge universe just for us.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

The law of cause and effect states, "every effect must have a cause."

For what reason do you believe this is a fundamental constraint on the universe?

It's fairly easy to prove that this is not a fundamental property of the universe. Many things occur without having been caused.

He thinks people are so important that he created this huge universe just for us.

General,

Just for homo sapiens???
I find that mind boggling. I understand being species centric but I wouldn't attribute that to the source of the universe.

lfen

It's fairly easy to prove that this is not a fundamental property of the universe. Many things occur without having been caused.

Such as???? Just because there appears to be no cause doesn't mean there is no cause.

Cause and effect is true by definition

If something did not have a cause, then it is not an effect.

Just for homo sapiens??? I find that mind boggling. I understand being species centric but I wouldn't attribute that to the source of the universe.

Just sayin what the Bible says, Ifen
If we were created in the image of God, then one human is more important than the whole universe. Makes me feel special.

"For the LORD delights in you, And to Him your land will be married. For as a young man marries a virgin, So your sons will marry you; And as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So your God will rejoice over you."

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent)

Such as????

Atomic decay, which happens at random along statistical distributions. Given one atom of an isotope there's literally no way to predict when it will decay, because nothing causes its decay. It just decays.

If something did not have a cause, then it is not an effect.

Ok, if you're drawing a distinction between things that happen and things that are effects, that's fine.

By what evidence, then, do you propose that the universe is an effect?

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-19-2004 05:54 PM

Atomic decay, which happens at random along statistical distributions. Given one atom of an isotope there's literally no way to predict when it will decay, because nothing causes its decay. It just decays.

Examples of things that seem to happen for no reason at all, things acribed to "chance," are just where we do not have a full understanding of everything involved. Just as Aristotle (I think it was him) concluded that certain kinds of fishes came into existence by chance, because he did not know about the microcopic world, modern day scientists invoke "chance" when they don't have a full understanding of how nature works. An atom decays in a certain, predictable way, we are just not able to predict it yet.

I don't see how something can "just decay." The laws of physics contradict this. An object at rest stays at rest, unless acted on by an outside force... there has to be something acting on the atom to make it start to decay.

Ok, if you're drawing a distinction between things that happen and things that are effects, that's fine. By what evidence, then, do you propose that the universe is an effect?

If the universe had a beginning, as the big bang suggests, then it is an effect, because something had to cause it to come into being.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the French accent!)

Examples of things that seem to happen for no reason at all, things acribed to "chance," are just where we do not have a full understanding of everything involved

Yea, Einstein felt a bit like that. He didn't like quantum mechanics and constructed a lot of arguments against it. However, the various things he tried have been shown to be wrong.

So it maybe that more learning about things will change this but so far it doesn't look like it. That seems to be the way things are.

If the universe had a beginning, as the big bang suggests, then it is an effect, because something had to cause it to come into being.

LOL, no no that is such totally circular it doesn't work. Things that are effects have to have a cause, by your definition but since some things are not effects and don't have causes you have to show that the universe is an effect not just declare that it is.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-20-2004 01:43 AM