Universe is expanding into what?

[HepCat]

Universe is as universe does, i.e. Universe is ruled by a Time axis.
Universe comes from C

This is another axiom. You define that universe comes from C.

What other option is there?

[normen]

What other option is there?

Heck if I know, what is the origin of that C? We "know" that there is consciousness and we know that there is a universe - that doesn't imply that one is dependent on the other, which is what I'm trying to say.

[HepCat]

Heck if I know, what is the origin of that C?

C is defined as the origin.
Infinite regression of origins can still have an origin, just as a circle of infinite sections can have one origin (focal point).
OK l accept l haven't demonstrated that infinite sequence of universes must have had a starting point.
BUT: Big Bang singularity (necessary for infinite sequence of universes) = absurd (some thing the size of no thing) = C needs to be invoked to give things a little push.
As for Solid State theory - yep l haven't (yet) demonstrated that an infinite universe needs to have an origin.

We "know" that there is consciousness and we know that there is a universe - that doesn't imply that one is dependent on the other, which is what I'm trying to say.

Well, l gave the steps in my reasoning at the end of the last page ... btw l said Universe = Consciousness of C = a Thought of C, not that Universe depends on Thought, it is the Thought.

[normen]

Heck if I know, what is the origin of that C?

C is defined as the origin.
Infinite regression of origins can still have an origin, just as a circle of infinite sections can have one origin (focal point).

We "know" that there is consciousness and we know that there is a universe - that doesn't imply that one is dependent on the other, which is what I'm trying to say.

Well, l gave the steps in my reasoning at the end of the last page ... btw l said Universe = Consciousness of C = a Thought of C, not that Universe depends on Thought, it is the Thought.

Well sure, if you define it that way then it has to be true according to that reasoning.

[HepCat]

Well sure, if you define it that way then it has to be true according to that reasoning.

I've edited my post a little bit. I am ad hoc-ing as you can tell, but l believe l'm being consistent.

When l say C is defined as the origin. l'm just saying "C" is shorthand for "The origin of the universe which caused it to unfold ex nihilo".

C is easier to write

A = the same, but in the case of our own consciousness, i.e. A = human soul, and B = the thought before every thought of ours, i.e. whatever it is that initiates our thoughts from tabula rasa (l'm open to B = A, being the pure "just is" existence of the human self).

[normen]

Well sure, if you define it that way then it has to be true according to that reasoning.

I've edited my post a little bit. I am ad hoc-ing as you can tell, but l believe l'm being consistent.

When l say C is defined as the origin. l'm just saying "C" is shorthand for "The origin of the universe which caused it to unfold ex nihilo".

C is easier to write

A = the same, but in the case of our own consciousness, i.e. A = human soul, and B = the thought before every thought of ours, i.e. whatever it is that initiates our thoughts from tabula rasa (l'm open to B = A, being the pure "just is" existence of the human self).

Yeah, this kind of goes back to the old esoteric explanation I described in my first post in this thread. The way I could imagine it is goes somehow like this: Imagine space/time is flattened to a 2D plane. Now consciousness is the third dimension. "You" are a point going through that 3D space, in space/time and consciousness. I wouldn't try and explain space/time from consciousness, why would consciousness confine itself to something it created? Mind over matter is bullshit from all we know.

[HepCat]

Yeah, this kind of goes back to the old esoteric explanation I described in my first post in this thread. The way I could imagine it is goes somehow like this: Imagine space/time is flattened to a 2D plane. Now consciousness is the third dimension. "You" are a point going through that 3D space, in space/time and consciousness.

Good point. Nothing to say consciousness is a dimension higher than space-time. I see the fundamental argument here though:
If matter is all there is, then consciousness arises from matter. Matter = under space time. Consciousness = above Matter, therefore Consciousness = above space time.

However, going back to my original ABC model, material explanation of Soul is rejected.

However, material explanation of Consciousness is not rejected.
I mean, Consciousness = Soul / Time.
Material world = under Time
Therefore Consciousness = Soul plus Material world?

But then, can we be conscious, and have thoughts, without a material body? Well, l think on Page 1, l said that even if you have the material body, how can you create consciousness rather than just having a dead body? Well, it could just be that you need a Soul, but for that soul to have Thoughts, you need a body.

So, yeah, okay, maybe Consciousness = higher than Space-Time

If consciousness = thoughts, and Space-Time = 2 other axes, then the entire graph = just me, only me. It can only be one person per graph.

SO, what we actually would have = electrical impulses moving around a brain, moving up, down, round and round.

I wouldn't try and explain space/time from consciousness, why would consciousness confine itself to something it created? Mind over matter is bullshit from all we know.

Consciousness = Soul / Time.

As the Consciousness vs. Space-Time graph changes, it does so encapsulated in a bell-jar which is YOUR Soul. It is all under your Soul.

That is not to say the Universe is under YOUR Soul.

A = pure existence behind human = human soul = micro ---> governs space-time of YOU = governs your brain
C = pure existence triggering Universe = soul of Universe = macro ---> governs space-time of ALL = governs Universe

Because human brain is subset of Universe, it follows that A is a subset of C, which l already derived in my original model
And in fact, it bolsters the idea that human brain is a microcosm of the Cosmos.

As you see, these are not mere definitions invented to prove themselves, these all tally with our own observable reality, e.g. the brain, the expanding universe and Big Bang theory. Bye for now, l hope to return later.

[EnochLight]

Hello,

Hi.

Please don't misquote me

I didn't. Misquoting would imply that I used something you said in a disingenuous manner. I did not. I clearly pointed out that you were still referencing the electric universe theory, when this has been a long disregarded idea.

Look, you're using a lot of colored text, and drawing from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ - I can appreciate that. But seriously, I have no desire to go back and forth. You're way more invested in this than I am, so please - continue. I'll happily bow out, with all due respect. Admittedly, I'm a fairly hard science kind of guy. Meandering off into philosophical arguments with little reasoning isn't my thing.

No, l'm not kidding. Sophistry is arguing for the sake of arguing. It is intellectually dishonest, it is purely a mental exercise about raising cavils to stall an opponent and seeing your opponent bat them for six, rather than maybe abandoning your own idea and accepting your opponent's, i.e. learning from the debate? I want to learn, l want to progress through debate.

Pot, meet kettle.

It's hopeless to ask you or normen to not be aggressive in the debate, and to avoid using logical fallacies (= sophistry), but l will say: l shall no longer respond to such, beyond pointing it out, which l have done (so many logical fallacies - wow)

Listen, just because I (or others) may not agree with you does not make our approach "aggressive". And claiming our points are logical fallacies is just a cop out. Don't be like that.

We are still comrades, we don't claw each others' eyes out like on other forums. If existential questions and the idea of a higher plane of existence bother you that much, perhaps abstain. Your knowledge of the Reason software is top notch and l hope you help me on other threads regarding that. Peace.

Yes, we are comrades. I'll bow out, as you seem to be pretty emotionally invested in this. I may not agree with much of your perspective, but I can respect you. Peace (and carry on)!

[plaamook]

Whew... Now, what were we talking about?

It's an interesting point about hard science v philosophy. They stem from the same place and philosophy used to contribute more to hard science in the past. It was only really the end of the 19th century that the split happened where maths really came into its own as the motor and arena of science. Particle physics, etc. The philosophy folk couldn't keep up but it's not just that, physics found its voice in a big way. But to my mind philosophy didn't go away it just turned its attention to other matters. Social,political, ethical matters etc but also consciousness which still has everyone stumped really. They're making in roads mathematically w consciousness in AI development which is interesting but mostly they're just proving how much more elusive it is that we first thought. If you're going to make a machine conscious you need to first understand what the actual goal is and we don't. So until we can get maths in there like some kind of task force philosophy (so to speak) is all we've got. It's speculation for sure but it's also a bunch of people trying to come up w models that can be tested to some degree that might explain it all. So you can't just fob it all off. Even the ideas put forth my neuroscience lately tend to have a more philosophical spin that anything but then they would sound like that. It's an uncharted red territory for physical science. I suspect that philosophical speculation will give rise to more robust models that may at some point become the area of maths like what happened w physics. But for now the task of anyone interested in the question is just to keep oneself separated from the new age spiritual types that imo just muddy the waters but is doesn't take away from the significance of the question.

[plaamook]

Sorry that was so long by the way...

[normen]

Because human brain is subset of Universe, it follows that A is a subset of C, which l already derived in my original model

It looks to me as if you have heavy confirmation bias here. How about you try a round with this not being the cae as an axiom?

[normen]

Whew... Now, what were we talking about?

It's an interesting point about hard science v philosophy. They stem from the same place and philosophy used to contribute more to hard science in the past. It was only really the end of the 19th century that the split happened where maths really came into its own as the motor and arena of science. Particle physics, etc. The philosophy folk couldn't keep up but it's not just that, physics found its voice in a big way. But to my mind philosophy didn't go away it just turned its attention to other matters. Social,political, ethical matters etc but also consciousness which still has everyone stumped really. They're making in roads mathematically w consciousness in AI development which is interesting but mostly they're just proving how much more elusive it is that we first thought. If you're going to make a machine conscious you need to first understand what the actual goal is and we don't. So until we can get maths in there like some kind of task force philosophy (so to speak) is all we've got. It's speculation for sure but it's also a bunch of people trying to come up w models that can be tested to some degree that might explain it all. So you can't just fob it all off. Even the ideas put forth my neuroscience lately tend to have a more philosophical spin that anything but then they would sound like that. It's an uncharted red territory for physical science. I suspect that philosophical speculation will give rise to more robust models that may at some point become the area of maths like what happened w physics. But for now the task of anyone interested in the question is just to keep oneself separated from the new age spiritual types that imo just muddy the waters but is doesn't take away from the significance of the question.

AI development as it happens now isn't really giving scientific answers as we know them though. I mean if you can feed a machine millions of images of things falling and bouncing and then it can predict the movements after a while, would you say thats a scientific explanation?

[plaamook]

@ Norman

No but that's what I mean. The whole thing just keeps raising questions.

I'm still in the process of reading Hofteader's Gödel Escher Bach and it offers some interesting ideas about how consciousness could arise in complex systems both natural and artificial but even there...just more questions.

Whatever. I'm no expert in the matter but it is v interesting to me.

[HepCat]

Look, you're using a lot of colored text, and drawing from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ - I can appreciate that. But seriously, I have no desire to go back and forth. You're way more invested in this than I am, so please - continue. I'll happily bow out, with all due respect. Admittedly, I'm a fairly hard science kind of guy. Meandering off into philosophical arguments with little reasoning isn't my thing.

Hi there, don't worry. I was only calling you out on objective fallacies of thought. Nothing personal. Also, l used the paragraph at the top of search results on Google for whenever l looked up a logical fallacy.

Btw I'm a hard science plus everything else kind of guy

Listen, just because I (or others) may not agree with you does not make our approach "aggressive". And claiming our points are logical fallacies is just a cop out. Don't be like that.

The fallacies were objective, nothing personal. If l've done the same l will unreservedly apologise and take back the fallacious argument

Yes, we are comrades. I'll bow out, as you seem to be pretty emotionally invested in this. I may not agree with much of your perspective, but I can respect you. Peace (and carry on)!

Thanks bro and hugs. I only get emotional over logical fallacies, they feel like wasted time, which is worse than time spent fooling around, at my age l need as much time as l can get.

[HepCat]

They're making in roads mathematically w consciousness in AI development which is interesting but mostly they're just proving how much more elusive it is that we first thought.

Because human brain is subset of Universe, it follows that A is a subset of C, which l already derived in my original model

It looks to me as if you have heavy confirmation bias here. How about you try a round with this not being the cae as an axiom?

Axioms used in the above:
Human brain is subset of Universe.
Human's pure existence (soul) is subset of Universe's pure existence (soul).

I don't see any faults nor alternatives ... except maybe if human soul was sat next to universe's soul, both being something not energy nor matter, and so human soul can be separate from the Universe even though Universe = "every thing".

I'm also certain there's a counterargument to my saying that the Universe has a soul (a first cause which brought the universe out of nothing), and that the human has a soul, which is the "thought before thought" i.e. initiates human consciousness. Once those two ideas are accepted, pretty much everything else in my argument falls into place. So ... there has to be a counterargument to those 2 axioms - that the human has a soul and the universe has a soul.

Btw: There will come a point when two opposing views reach a matter where the opposing views are irreconcilable in the simplest terms ("I think it is" - "I think it isn't") - that is not a failure, that is the desired result in a good debate. (I'll leave off again now ...)

[HepCat]

I think it comes down to this:

- Can pure existence be called "Soul"?
Against: A stone can exist. It has no soul.
For: Yet the stone came from the universe and the universe came from something. At one moment, the universe existed. The universe came from that moment. The universe is everything, so the moment the universe existed is nothing - but existence. Therefore the universe began with pure existence.
Against: Why would you call that a "soul"?
For: Because "soul" is defined (by me) as the most fundamental part of the existence of a thing. Stones do not have free will, so their fundamental existence goes all the way back to the existence of the universe itself. We have free will, therefore our fundamental existence is localised to our selves. Therefore l say the human has a soul, and the universe has a soul - not necessarily because we have free will, but rather, that we initiate our own thoughts, just as the universe initiates itself. So yeah, in that sense, perhaps Soul = the kernel of Free Will = something which drives the universe and ourselves? Or maybe the universe is initiated by something else that has the Free Will. But we certainly have our own Free Will.


- Does the human have a soul?
For: The soul would be that part of the human which, without necessarily having thoughts, just exists. That would be required for the first thought to emerge. It would be the "thought before the first thought". It would be the essence of a human's consciousness, the human's pure existence.
Against: Human consciousness began as neurons firing, no soul needed, self-awareness is an holistic effect of electrical noise in the brain
For: But: there isn't a shred of evidence that electrical circuits / neural networks can "give off" consciousness.
Against: There isn't a shred of evidence for the soul's existence, what ever happened to hard science?
For: Speaking of hard science, after all of our attempts at AI, all we've done is prove how untenable it is to us (so far). In other words, our researches tell us that consciousness, the kernel of which is self-awareness (= pure existence, the soul) does not arise from neural circuitry.
Against: Still, the existence of the soul is not proven, nor is the theory of consciousness ex machina disproven.
For: To the best of our ability, we have discovered that consciousness does not arise ex machina.


- Does the universe have a soul?
For: There must have been something to propel it out of void. Part of that "something" must be an "I am" i.e. pure existence
For: The universe is thought to be expanding, which if true, means it cannot really exist, because it would have to be expanding into something or around something. Therefore, if the universe is fake, then what made it would be real, and the most prior thing to the universe is its pre-existence, the "I am", i.e. its pure existence.
For: Therefore, if the universe has a pure existence, it has a soul, because the human's pure existence was defined as a "soul".
Against: There's no proof that the universe had a pre-existence, it just arose from quantum fluctuations in space-time. Also, there's certainly nothing to say that the universe is self-aware, Also, the universe isn't actually expanding, space is appearing within it.
For: How can quantum fluctuations arise from nothing? That is literally magic - not just primordial physics, but magic. Also, for space-time to exist, the universe must already be there. As for universe being self-aware, that's just my take on pure existence. As for the universe expanding around space that appears within it, as with whatever exists outside of the universe while it rapidly expands after the Big Bang, that is absurd, because the universe would be interacting with something else, and anything that the universe interacts with, is the universe.


Any thoughts anybody?

[avasopht]

Still I experience red, I am aware of it - thats something completely different imo than a neural network in a computer discerning red apples from green ones. If that is not so for you then you basically say that neural network that ran on my Laptop just a few days ago is in essence the same thing as you are and I killed it by ending the program.

Anyway, I am not really saying that consciousness is outside of the physical world or that theres a "consciousness world" influencing the physical world. This is not some kind of "mind over matter" bullshit. I am saying though that imo its not emergent from a bunch of atoms (as we understand them today) doing things. We're maybe missing a part in our explanation of matter or information, like I said its maybe a property of matter or simply how information feels when its transferred.

Delayed response, but I am in agreement with the aspect of qalia and at the same time a little conflicted. It's not that I don't acknowledge it, it just seems to me that there's an inescapable redundance; it's like only being able to take a step half the distance to the finish line - you're never any closer to the end. Everything I perceive about my experience of red and touch is a biological "computation" of sorts.

I don't have a solid argument against what you're saying though, I'm really just sharing my contention.

Cognitively we perceive what we can consciously distinguish. Synesthetic people can perceive the exact frequency of a note as well as the precision of violin harmonies.

I like to think of our conscious cognition as a sort of fuzzy layer / context.

For example, in your brain you have a rigid context for multiplying digits. It runs on your neurological hardware, but your internal system for mental arithmetic utilizes rigid serial and logical processing. I think conscious cognition is a context of its own but it might have some fuzziness to it.

Personally I see little that seperates us human beings from intelligent machines in terms of the potential of conscious experience. That is not to say that a neural network consciously sees red like us, because it would also require a context that supports the conscious cognitive "perception" of red.

And what is perception? If you think back to the harmony. Most people do not perceive the exactness of a violin harmony, yet they may unconsciously respond to it. A person who is consciously aware may respond to it mostly in the same way, but they can comment on what they heard with exactness.

The most beautiful people have a face closest to the composite of all faces of that sex. Neurologically this will likely create unconscious familiarity, in much the same way people with a "police" look get typecast as officers. Most people are unconscious about how their perceptions get distorted, but a tiny minority of people can perceve when their brain mentally associates faces and produces emotions associated with a particular person. This is why I think "attractiveness" has real world value.

Some people consciously detect the scent of pheremones, or the nuances of non-verbal communication that usually alters us emotionally without our awareness. So perception seems to be invovled in some way with our ability to think about what we are processing on a "conscious" level that otherwise would be responded to unconsciously.

Which makes me think that our "consciousness" is very much about the ego, the concept of self and the way we think about, rationalize and explain our decisions in response to what is presented to us.

[normen]

Sure but most examples you gave can easily be explained with evolution and neural networks really. Right down to pretty human beings. I'm quite sure a neural network will - if it fits its frame - find some things "pretty", the question remains if it actually experiences that or just acts upon it. And the fact that what our consciousness perceives is kind of framed in an "ego" perspective is also pretty obvious because the devices/senses and sorting/interpreting mechanisms built into that "machine" are part of it, hence that perspective.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the consciousness bit is actually part of that "being" though, maybe its a grander mechanism thats actually universal across beings/things/however far it goes down. Its not part of our current physics/maths, that much is for sure. Like for example maths and physics (like I said) can't properly unify things happening in time and things happening without time (e.g. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle), theres always separate formulas for either. Yet with your conscious experience you can very well connect the two so you know how to interpret stuff. This little habitat between being and becoming, between time and space could imo be where consciousness itself "lives".

As for the grander discussion - sure, its pretty much impossible to actually come to a fixed conclusion here, we don't have the devices to do that. You (or I) can't even say if I (or you) are actually conscious in the way you (or I) are, we just have to assume that. But as I said I think theres an obvious difference between a conscious being and a being that has some output based on some input.

Like for example a seesaw - you put something on the one end and the other one raises - you wouldn't expect the seesaw to "experience" that happening. Same imo for a computer doing some normal program, even the same for a computer processing a neural network, no matter how advanced it is. It would just do its thing, theres no need for experiencing - and like I said I don't see (and haven't read about) any reason why that would be needed at all to just survive and reproduce - even for humans. But with humans we do know that this thing is happening, they experience (and anyone with a pet who actually looked at it pretty much knows they do too).

[GeorgeFeb]

You better ask Neil Degrasse Tyson, he like has all the answers, or better listen to the StarTalk Radio!

But to answer the question which is really bothering you, even though you didn't ask it here, yes, when you die you die baby and that's it, over and done with! ☺

Hope that helps, boo!

[gak]

It's expanding into more trash.

[HepCat]

You better ask Neil Degrasse Tyson, he like has all the answers, or better listen to the StarTalk Radio!

But to answer the question which is really bothering you, even though you didn't ask it here, yes, when you die you die baby and that's it, over and done with! ☺

Hope that helps, boo!

I asked Neil the Grease, he awed me with more of his subgenius truisms, like: "Did you notice that no matter how heavy you are, when you jump up, you're pulled back down? That's due to GRAVITY." Then we moved on to "THEM = bad, WE Scientists = good, but them = make Kill-kill to us for centuries! (Now age of reason though, fuck you all, and fuck political correctness \/, and fuck arguing about ingredients and modifications, just eat that shit)". Then he gave me a meme and then he told me that we are the universe self-realising, but l pointed out Sagan already said that and he aint fit to cradle a turd from Sagan in his fat arms - and then he gave me a meme of himself shrugging. Failing that he offered me a Leah Remini meme, her dark smouldering eyes carrying the promise of analsex, taking it for the New Atheist team, but l pointed out that he's now being evasive and an irrelevant dirty useless count, then he foreclosed on me because evidently skepticism's a one-way street in New Atheism.

And l did ask what the point in our lives was, in the OP.

Boo.

It's expanding into more trash.

Anything the universe expands into, is interacting with the universe and is therefore of the universe.

[jappe]

Anything the universe expands into, is interacting with the universe and is therefore of the universe.

Like unified verses, part of the same song, leading to a chorus... where is it?

[normen]

Anything the universe expands into, is interacting with the universe and is therefore of the universe.

You still don't get the disconnect there. "into" implies space, which is only available inside the universe. There is no "into". But its understandable - your human brain is a product of time and space and can hence only explain things in terms of time and space. Its a bit like saying "well you have to be able to breathe something in space as you breathe air on earth".

[HepCat]

Anything the universe expands into, is interacting with the universe and is therefore of the universe.

Like unified verses, part of the same song, leading to a chorus... where is it?

Well, more like, chorus is made of verses too, so, the universe is the song (not a huge departure from your question though). Who is the singer? Who is the listener? What's the ultimate appreciation, the aesthetic, based on? Mysteries abound.

Anything the universe expands into, is interacting with the universe and is therefore of the universe.

You still don't get the disconnect there. "into" implies space, which is only available inside the universe. There is no "into". But its understandable - your human brain is a product of time and space and can hence only explain things in terms of time and space. Its a bit like saying "well you have to be able to breathe something in space as you breathe air on earth".

New space appears. Universe expanded into that. Where universe ends is where that space came from, i.e. where there's no universe. Basic stuff dude Although, being beyond Time and Space (yet you still have an anus?), you're probably going to turn me into a meme but before you do so O mighty one please get down and dirty with me and actually Reason.

[normen]

Where universe ends is where that space came from, i.e. where there's no universe. Basic stuff dude

The "where" is the issue in your sentence, basic stuff