How did matter become aware of itself?

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: whereislogic

... The whole universe could be conscious. It probably is.

I have seen or heard of no legitimate (or even good) evidence that would suggest the universe itself (or mindless matter) is conscious or self-aware. What I have seen is people using a lot of philosophical blah blah invoking quantum physics to make this argument, but that's totally unconvincing to me (see neoholographic's response to your comment). Which I find very typical for them to use a complicated subject such as quantum physics with lots of obscure technical jargon (technical terms) in order to impress people that they've got something here, that they're on to something (and that they're really smart and worthy to listen to and to be taken seriously). Often with the result of confusing their audience to such an extent that they don't really understand what it is that they're talking about, but it all sounds very sophisticated and clever to them and they are easily beguiled by the technical jargon, impressive words and sophisticated speech (philosophical and pseudoscientific blah blah) they don't even fully or really understand (a standard technique used by snake-oil salesmen and con-artists in order to beguile their audience and distract them from the issues with whatever they're 'selling', which in this case falls under philosophy & metaphysics, and not science, as it is presented sometimes, making it pseudoscience*).

With humans the evidence that we are conscious and self-aware is quite clear to me.

To me, those who suggest the universe is conscious or self-aware are letting their imaginations run a bit wild. It's about as nonsensical as Alice in Wonderland, apart from the fact that that book was written to make no sense and present pure fantasy, and the book is categorized as such (in the Fantasy genre), so there's no deception or pretense going on there. Unlike the way people talk about the universe (or mindless matter as in the thread title) being conscious and self-aware, as if it's up for serious consideration, perhaps even a scientific subject or proposition (or in some way supported or backed up by science/knowledge). I've actually seen it more used as an excuse to circumnavigate the evidence for a conscious Creator of the universe as can be observed by the design manifest in nature (the universe). Basically swapping out this Creator with a conscious self-aware universe. It's not very far-off from the claim made by Stephen Hawking, Peter Atkins, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins about a universe creating itself before it even exists yet to do anything, let alone create itself (a nonsensical statement in itself, see explanation in the video below after 2:50):

In context (playlist):

Psychology: The Art of selling nonsense/contradictions (Prologue: Stephen Hawking's nonsense)

*: from way earlier, they also don't want people to realize what Freeman Dyson explains regarding quantum mechanics (QM) or quantum physics in the video below at 21:23 - 23:56, keypoints at 22:05, 22:45 and 23:06:

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechanical language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms". Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle".

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened from what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."

The introduction may also be of interest especially starting at 0:30 with the keypoints at 2:03 - 3:34 and 5:35 - 6:03. That clears a lot up regarding all the pseudoscience invoking the topic of quantum physics and misapplications of "quantum mechanical language" and an "unnecessary and misleading" "picture" of "the role of the observer in QM" (specifically "the picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events" in the manner described in the preceding sentence from Freeman Dyson, conclusion 2. Pardon his use of technical jargon there, the presentation in the video is for an audience of scientists involved in QM, he's basically proving or demonstrating that what neoholographic has been saying about the topic of 'mind over matter', is false, i.e. not true; and that it creates an "unnecessary and misleading" picture of "the role of the observer [/mind] in QM" and in shaping reality, or the reality of matter; since that's the reality neoholographic is specifically denying).

originally posted by: neoholographic

In fact, there's no evidence that an objective material universe exist.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
...
It depends what kind of software gets loaded onto it.

If it has this software, it probably could read your face to tell if you are lying.

ggbnews.com...

From the article about AI from April 2021 that I quoted earlier (I'll bold the parts that talk about the same subject as the article from 1988 that I used, which you were responding to above):

The Problem of Human Language

His other argument for why an artificial general intelligence is nowhere near lift-off concerns human language. Our ability to use human language is only in part a matter of syntactics (how letters and words may be fit together). It also depends on semantics (what the words mean, not only individually, but also in context, and how words may change meaning depending on context) as well as on pragmatics (what the intent of the speaker is in influencing the hearer by the use of language). Larson argues that we have, for now, no way to computationally represent the knowledge on which the semantics and pragmatics of language depend. As a consequence, linguistic puzzles that are easily understood by humans and which were identified over fifty years ago as beyond the comprehension of computers are still beyond their power of comprehension. Thus, for instance, single-sentence Winograd schemas, in which a pronoun could refer to one of two antecedents, and where the right antecedent is easily identified by humans, remain to this day opaque to machines — machines do no better than chance in guessing the right antecedents. That’s one reason Siri and Alexa are such poor conversation partners.

...

It seems no significant progress has been made in the field of AI regarding the pragmatics of language; such as discerning "whether the speaker can be trusted or is being devious, whether a statement is to be taken literally or as a joke. The computer is not up to these challenges." (quoting from the 1988 article) And they still aren't, in spite of any exaggerated marketing claims and "the inflated claims made for artificial general intelligence" (quoting from the 2021 article again).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

... and that it creates an "unnecessary and misleading" picture of "the role of the observer [/mind] in QM" and in shaping reality, or the reality of matter; since that's the reality neoholographic is specifically denying).

As per Bishop Berkeley's philosophy of immaterialism (also promoted in the movie The Matrix). The snake-oil salesman who distributed tar-water from his Church as a cure for basically all known ailments (as indicated by his use of the word "etc."*), advising people to drink it "as much and as often as the patient can bear". A substance that according to an old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica causes symptoms similar to carbolic acid poisoning. It was drunk for a long long time, poisoning many people who believed in its medicinal value (the FDA banned it for medical use in 1991, citing a lack of evidence, see wikipedia page for tar water for this information). His philosophical 'tar-water' (poison) of immaterialism is still eagerly being gulped up (down?) by many.

*: he said: "I am persuaded tar-water may be drunk with great safety and success for the curing of most diseases, particularly all foul cases, ulcers and eruptions, scurvies of all kinds, nervous disorders, inflammatory distempers, decays, etc." (Siris: A Chain of Philosophical Reflexions and Inquiries Concerning the Virtues of Tar Water, and Divers Other Subjects Connected Together and Arising One from Another; by Bishop George Berkeley)

They even named a city and university in the US after this snake-oil salesman (selling both his philosophies and medical products, selling himself as an intellectual worthy of listening to). Just showing how easy it is for some people to impress and beguile people by means of philosophical blah blah and sophisticated beguiling speech (designed to make themselves look impressive and clever). Imagine being a student at Berkeley University and reading this comment... Pretty sure they never told them that at that University or presented him as such (a snake-oil salesman of worthless harmful philosophies and supposed medicinal products). This man was very good at filling people's minds and bodies with poison (see my signature and text under my profilename), even till well after his death in 1753.

And they're still at it:

Note, conveniently there's no mention of tar water in that video. I guess it's a little embarassing and would expose this man for what he really was. And possibly alert people to the possibility that his philosophical mental poison of immaterialism is just as harmful to your mind as tar water is to your body (when drunk).

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

Note the black goo (figurative tar water?) being fed to the babies in this scene, very metaphorical for what that movie is doing to people who take these promoted philosophies seriously (and not as mere entertaining fantasy):

originally posted by: daskakik
Me: "The entirety of constitutional law is made through intelligence to uphold the country. So too the entirety of physical law is made by through intelligence to uphold the material world."

You: "You mean gravity didn't exist before the consensus to make it a law by the scientific community??"

No, I am not saying that humans created physical laws. I am saying laws must be created by something intelligent. Obviously Newton didn't create the law, he just identified the law that was created by a higher intelligence. The constitution is an example of how an effective law must be implemented by something intelligent.

originally posted by: cooperton
No, I am not saying that humans created physical laws. I am saying laws must be created by something intelligent. Obviously Newton didn't create the law, he just identified the law that was created by a higher intelligence.

No, Newton identified a law, whether it was created by a higher intelligence has not been proven and that is why I said that if you actually proved that, it would put the argument to rest.

The constitution is an example of how an effective law must be implemented by something intelligent.

No, it shows it "can be" not that it "must be". In regards to the origin of the universe we still have gaps, which the post you replied to said, sarcastically, must be filled with "god" and you replied that that is better than "random chance evolution".

The fact is neither is better if it doesn't actually fill in the gap. The difference is that science is still trying while religion, or rather religious people, switch at that point to philosophy to avoid having to actually provide empirical proof because there really isn't any.

ETA: Oh yeah, and that was what I was pointing out earlier. some people realize that science and philosophy are not the same and accept that filling the gaps with god isn't scientific so they just view it as personal philosophy.

originally posted by: daskakik


The fact is neither is better if it doesn't actually fill in the gap.

Regardless, it is far more likely that the intelligible laws of nature were created by something intelligent rather than coming to be by random chance.

"God created everything by number, weight and measure."
-Isaac Newton

Random chance does not create measured and calculated constructs that perpetuate all of existence. Unintelligent design does not match the intelligible world we see around us and within us.

a reply to: cooperton
Like I said, if you prove it you can put this to rest. You can't so here you are quoting Newton as if his personal philosophy makes a difference.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik


The fact is neither is better if it doesn't actually fill in the gap.

Regardless, it is far more likely that the intelligible laws of nature were created by something intelligent rather than coming to be by random chance.

"God created everything by number, weight and measure."
-Isaac Newton

Random chance does not create measured and calculated constructs that perpetuate all of existence. Unintelligent design does not match the intelligible world we see around us and within us.

Excellent points

a reply to: Tempter

consciousness is fundamentally an energy from which matter arises.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Like I said, if you prove it you can put this to rest. You can't so here you are quoting Newton as if his personal philosophy makes a difference.

It's already proven by logic. Your stubbornness to accept the obvious has nothing to do with the unalterable truth. Unintelligent design is a silly concept, and is only perpetuated due to blind hubris.

originally posted by: cooperton
It's already proven by logic.

No, it isn't.

Your stubbornness to accept the obvious has nothing to do with the unalterable truth. Unintelligent design is a silly concept, and is only perpetuated due to blind hubris.

Since you can't prove anything either, pot meet kettle, which, by the way doesn't include me.

originally posted by: daskakik

No, it isn't.

You're a human being capable of logic and you're denying logic in the equation. That's about as illogical as it gets.

originally posted by: cooperton
You're a human being capable of logic and you're denying logic in the equation. That's about as illogical as it gets.

I am not denying logic in the equation. I am pointing out that logic has its limits in actually proving something and is not considered empirical proof. Again, the difference between science and philosophy.

As for me, I am what has been coined a spiritual atheist. I believe there is more to reality than just the material world but that doesn't mean it includes what many call god. I can't prove any of that so I try to refrain from calling materialists or theists silly. I'm also in a position to say to both sides "prove it".

Neither can, at this time but, like I said earlier, one side is trying to do that empirically while the other has limited itself to logic/philosophy and linguistics from old literature. I find the latter unconvincing.

a reply to: whereislogic

Indeed it's happening. People use QM in their explanations.
It's natural and cant be forbidden but I dont do it. Maybe if I wanted to explain the interaction of spirit and the smallest particles I'd refer to that but IMO it's a lame theory and nothing more than a theory with imaginary particles described in colors, smells and spins. Ok maybe a spin can be measured and recorded. Maybe all they have is pictures of random sparks from collisions and a theory glued to it. It doesnt explain the universe or life and consciousness.
It's inferior to philosophy and even religion in this field. Cosmology, the big bang theory and standard model of star evolution, gaseous Sun without a real surface,... it's been proven wrong but you'd have to look for it. Scientism became a religion. It became a political tool and is exercising it's power over society. How can you deny it when you pay carbon taxes?
Let's not even start about big pharma. It's you who should stop pretending that it matters more and has more valid right to rule over society like this.