Quantum Cosmology and the nature of Consciousness

[shunyadragon]

What exactly is crazy in the paper?

Nothing crazy to me just a stretch of personal interpretation of philosophy. I believe in a more direct matter of fact understanding of the relationship between Quantum Mechanics and our physical existence and that our consciousness is a product of the brain like all animals that experience consciousness.

 

[Left Coast]

Feeling? You are entitled to that of course.

If you have any actual evidence that Hawking would agree with you, feel free to bring it forward.

 

[atanu]

If you have any actual evidence that Hawking would agree with you, feel free to bring it forward.

It is curious. We are talking of Linde’s paper here. You say “Hawking would not agree”. And then you ask me to prove that Hawking would agree.

If you have anything to say on the paper, you are welcome. Else let us agree to disagree.

 

[Left Coast]

It is curious. We are talking of Linde’s paper here. You say “Hawking would not agree”. And then you ask me to prove that Hawking would agree.

Your implication was that my claim was based solely on my feelings rather than on fact. I thought it was pretty well known that Hawkins didn't believe in a God of any kind. If you'd like me to produce the evidence of that, I'm happy to. Other than that I'm happy to agree to disagree on the existence of consciousness outside a brain.

 

[ChristineM]

What exactly is crazy in the paper?

He is making leaps into unscientific areas and presenting them as scientific questions...

 

[atanu]

Your implication was that my claim was based solely on my feelings rather than on fact. I thought it was pretty well known that Hawkins didn't believe in a God of any kind. If you'd like me to produce the evidence of that, I'm happy to. Other than that I'm happy to agree to disagree on the existence of consciousness outside a brain.

No one has talked of god in this thread. Let us agree to disagree.

 

[atanu]

He is making leaps into unscientific areas and presenting them as scientific questions...

He has asked questions that arise on application of science.

 

[atanu]

Ed Witten says "the how of consciousness will be achievable and knowable, while the whys will remain out of our grasp".

Ed Witten

On the other hand, Greg Matlof believes that panpsychism can become an observational science.

Can Panpsychism Become an Observational Science? | Matloff | Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research

 

[shunyadragon]

He has asked questions that arise on application of science.

Here is where we disagree. He makes statements that go beyond Methodological Naturalism application of science based on objective verifiable evidence. It's ok, but his questions are speculative and a philosophical perspective is his and not science, and his science and cosmology is good science. The problem is linking Consciousness with the physical nature of our existence is speculative and not science.

 

[ChristineM]

He has asked questions that arise on application of science.

Nope, philosophy is not a science.

 

[atanu]

Nope, philosophy is not a science.

True. But do not put the cart before the horse. Because of a preconceived belief in ontological materialism, do not restrict free scientific enquiry.

In this matter it is instructive to read Steven Weinberg's 'Against Philosophy' from his book 'Dreams of a Final Theory'.
in his view, the influence of philosophy has not only been ineffective, but actually pernicious for the advancement of science: mechanism, positivism, and relativism. Clinging to any of these world views will not allow free query. I reproduce a part of what he says:

Steven Weinberg: “Against Philosophy” (from “Dreams of a Final Theory”).
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Steven-Weinberg-“Against-Philosophy”.pdf

Mechanism reached its zenith in the nineteenth century, with the brilliant explanation of chemistry and heat in terms of atoms. And even today mechanism seems to many to be simply the logical opposite to superstition. In the history of human thought the mechanical worldview has played a heroic role. That is just the trouble. In science as in politics or economics we are in great danger from heroic ideas that have outlived their usefulness. The heroic past of mechanism gave it such prestige that the followers of Descartes had trouble accepting Newton's theory of the solar system. How could a good Cartesian, believing that all natural phenomena could be reduced to the impact of material bodies or fluids on one another, accept Newton's view that the sun exerts a force on the earth across 93 million miles of empty space?

So, actually without fresh philosophical queries, science would not progress. You may wish to read what an eminent scientist says about this:

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
...

So, please let us focus on why Andrei Linde proposes what he proposes. Have you read in Andrei's paper the implication of Wheeler-DeWitt equation on evolution of universe as a whole?

 

[ChristineM]

True. But do not put the cart before the horse. Because of a preconceived belief in ontological materialism, do not restrict free scientific enquiry.

In this matter it is instructive to read Steven Weinberg's 'Against Philosophy' from his book 'Dreams of a Final Theory'.
in his view, the influence of philosophy has not only been ineffective, but actually pernicious for the advancement of science: mechanism, positivism, and relativism. Clinging to any of these world views will not allow free query. I reproduce a part of what he says:



So, actually without fresh philosophical queries, science would not progress. You may wish to read what an eminent scientist says about this:

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
...

So, please let us focus on why Andrei Linde proposes what he proposes. Have you read in Andrei's paper the implication of Wheeler-DeWitt equation on evolution of universe as a whole?

I am not saying philosophy does not have its use in science, i am saying philosophy is not science. As i said, once he has thought it out, done some calculations (he is very good it big... big calculations), passed it by other scientists and generally thought about it for a couple of years. Then he may (just may) have something that can be worked on is a scientific manner.

I read most of that Andrei Lindes work here
Search | arXiv e-print repository

 

[atanu]

I am not saying philosophy does not have its use in science, i am saying philosophy is not science. As i said, once he has thought it out, done some calculations (he is very good it big... big calculations), passed it by other scientists and generally thought about it for a couple of years. Then he may (just may) have something that can be worked on is a scientific manner.

I read most of that Andrei Lindes work here
Search | arXiv e-print repository

Great scientists may try to prove cosmic consciousness and may succeed one day or they may not. I linked a paper of Greg Matloff in a previous post.

But we say that one cannot and need not illuminate light with light. Consciousness illuminates even the mind. We know our thoughts because of underlying consciousness only. But that is another subject.

 

[ChristineM]

Great scientists may try to prove cosmic consciousness may succeed one day or they may not. I linked a paper of Greg Matloff in a previous post.

But we say that one cannot and need not illuminate light with light. That is another subject.

It take a lot of thought, research and review to become valid.

Light cannot be seen, its frequency range is far to high for human optics to see. What you can see are objects struck by light

 

[atanu]

Light cannot be seen, its frequency range is far to high for human optics to see. What you can see are objects struck by light

You do not need a 2nd light source to illumine a light source. That was my point.

 

[ChristineM]

You do not need a 2nd light source to illumine a light source. That was my point.

And my point is that light cannot be seen with the human eye, what you see in a light source is the light reacting with the medium producing the light and creating lower frequency heat.

 

[shunyadragon]

Great scientists may try to prove cosmic consciousness and may succeed one day or they may not. I linked a paper of Greg Matloff in a previous post.

But we say that one cannot and need not illuminate light with light. Consciousness illuminates even the mind. We know our thoughts because of underlying consciousness only. But that is another subject.

This remains philosophical conjecture and not science. Beyond consciousness being a neurological property of life, pretty much all mammals and likely other higher animals, there does not exist any adequate scientific basis for consciousness beyond this. In fact it is very anthropomorphic projection without even an adequate definition of what consciousness is beyond this. This philosophically is sometimes nebulously described as Panpsychism.

As far as science goes the theories and hypothesis of the nature of our physical existence is more than functionally adequate.

 

[atanu]

And my point is that light cannot be seen with the human eye, what you see in a light source is the light reacting with the medium producing the light and creating lower frequency heat.

Well. My point was related to Mr. Linde’s subject of cosmic consciousness. If there is cosmic consciousness, with what other consciousness can it be known? If there is a candle burning, do you need another burning candle to confirm the first candle?

 

[ChristineM]

Well. My point was related to Mr. Linde’s subject of cosmic consciousness. If there is cosmic consciousness, with what other consciousness can it be known? If there is a candle burning, do you need another burning candle to confirm the first candle?

And as i explained, and now refined for the candle, what you see is in the flame are burning gasses.

 

[atanu]

And as i explained, and now refined for the candle, what you see is in the flame are burning gasses.

He he.