3 ms·

If our consciousness is merely observing the universe, why do our physical mouths talk about the consciousness we experience? It sure seems like our consciousne

If our consciousness is merely observing the universe, why do our physical mouths talk about the consciousness we experience? It sure seems like our consciousness is affecting the material world.

bakuninsbart 4y ago
That's not really what the idea of determinism excluding free will is about: Let's assume for a second that the Big Bang is the singular starting point of the universe. The Big Bang causes the first things to exist or move. Everything else exists in a cause-effect-relationship with this first move, and we could imagine the whole history of the universe as a directed graph of causes and effects, with Earth, living beings, brains and consciousness being part of this inconceivably complex graph. If that was the case, then it makes sense that we do not have free will in the Christian sense, we are not really responsible for our actions. If it isn't the case it might well mean there are things that aren't caused by anything, which would be really weird as well.
- a_cardboard_box 4y ago
  Can we agree that consciousness is outside the realm of mathematics? That, while there could be a formula that determines what our conscious experiences should be, the fact that we actually experience them, as opposed to them just existing in some abstract sense, is not mathematical? So if the behaviour of our universe can be described entirely mathematically, isn't it weird that it physically contains this comment about how we know that we're in a universe that contains non-mathematical stuff? It's of course possible. But I find it strange. > If it isn't the case it might well mean there are things that aren't caused by anything, which would be really weird as well. Isn't this necessarily the case for anything to exist? Is it more strange for there to be exactly one thing without a cause (the initial conditions of the universe), or for things without causes to just be a regular part of the universe we live in?
  - bakuninsbart 4y ago
    > Can we agree that consciousness is outside the realm of mathematics? That, while there could be a formula that determines what our conscious experiences should be, the fact that we actually experience them, as opposed to them just existing in some abstract sense, is not mathematical? There's certainly a difference in our feelings, I'm not sure if a mathematical description of experience has to be incomplete - but I agree that all attempts of doing so have been complete failures. > So if the behaviour of our universe can be described entirely mathematically, isn't it weird that it physically contains this comment about how we know that we're in a universe that contains non-mathematical stuff? It's of course possible. But I find it strange. It is, but this kind of self-referential process isn't unheard of, in fact we are currently consciously discussing consciousness. A popular sentiment in some sci fi circles (fe. Babylon 5) would be to posit that life is the universe's attempt to become conscious of itself. If true, it would do worlds for us to regain the self-importance lost from Galilei and Darwin. > Isn't this necessarily the case for anything to exist? Is it more strange for there to be exactly one thing without a cause (the initial conditions of the universe), or for things without causes to just be a regular part of the universe we live in? You are absolutely right, I think we are generally much more used to the "first mover" concept, since it is the basis of most, if not all religions. Personally I find the concept of truly random events to be very unsettling. A possible out could be that the causality graph is not acyclic, that is, that future events can inform the past, and that for example the "last" thing to happen in the universe "caused" the first.

If our consciousness is merely observing the universe, why do our physical mouths talk about the consciousness we experience? It sure seems like our consciousness is affecting the material world.

bakuninsbart 4y ago

That's not really what the idea of determinism excluding free will is about: Let's assume for a second that the Big Bang is the singular starting point of the universe. The Big Bang causes the first things to exist or move. Everything else exists in a cause-effect-relationship with this first move, and we could imagine the whole history of the universe as a directed graph of causes and effects, with Earth, living beings, brains and consciousness being part of this inconceivably complex graph. If that was the case, then it makes sense that we do not have free will in the Christian sense, we are not really responsible for our actions. If it isn't the case it might well mean there are things that aren't caused by anything, which would be really weird as well.

a_cardboard_box 4y ago
Can we agree that consciousness is outside the realm of mathematics? That, while there could be a formula that determines what our conscious experiences should be, the fact that we actually experience them, as opposed to them just existing in some abstract sense, is not mathematical? So if the behaviour of our universe can be described entirely mathematically, isn't it weird that it physically contains this comment about how we know that we're in a universe that contains non-mathematical stuff? It's of course possible. But I find it strange. > If it isn't the case it might well mean there are things that aren't caused by anything, which would be really weird as well. Isn't this necessarily the case for anything to exist? Is it more strange for there to be exactly one thing without a cause (the initial conditions of the universe), or for things without causes to just be a regular part of the universe we live in?
- bakuninsbart 4y ago
  > Can we agree that consciousness is outside the realm of mathematics? That, while there could be a formula that determines what our conscious experiences should be, the fact that we actually experience them, as opposed to them just existing in some abstract sense, is not mathematical? There's certainly a difference in our feelings, I'm not sure if a mathematical description of experience has to be incomplete - but I agree that all attempts of doing so have been complete failures. > So if the behaviour of our universe can be described entirely mathematically, isn't it weird that it physically contains this comment about how we know that we're in a universe that contains non-mathematical stuff? It's of course possible. But I find it strange. It is, but this kind of self-referential process isn't unheard of, in fact we are currently consciously discussing consciousness. A popular sentiment in some sci fi circles (fe. Babylon 5) would be to posit that life is the universe's attempt to become conscious of itself. If true, it would do worlds for us to regain the self-importance lost from Galilei and Darwin. > Isn't this necessarily the case for anything to exist? Is it more strange for there to be exactly one thing without a cause (the initial conditions of the universe), or for things without causes to just be a regular part of the universe we live in? You are absolutely right, I think we are generally much more used to the "first mover" concept, since it is the basis of most, if not all religions. Personally I find the concept of truly random events to be very unsettling. A possible out could be that the causality graph is not acyclic, that is, that future events can inform the past, and that for example the "last" thing to happen in the universe "caused" the first.