--- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote:
> Xeno, > > It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the > importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me present > you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient being in a > given universe, and you died, would the universe still exist? The answer is > NO. The universe will disappear to nothingness. Why? Because you are the > only person who is capable of conceiving the dimensions of space and time. > Without your presence, how is it possible for the universe to exist? > According to Chopra, he and Mlodinaw have been communicating after the debate, and even seem to have become friends, but just what they have discussed subsequently is unknown to me. They appear to be planning debates. Mlodinaw clearly had, as of the debate I posted a link for, not really considered the *hard problem* of consciousness, that is, how can something at seems immaterial be found in conjunction with that which is material, the universe? It seems they have participated in conferences. http://www.saybrook.edu/node/7690 Your thought experiment is a great situation, but I do not see how the answer could be known. If, for example, the current physical view of the beginning of our universe is 'real', then there were no sentient beings then, but they evolved later on. If this reasoning is valid, then upon the death of the last sentient being, awareness of that universe would end, but the universe would not end. If I were that being, my universe and perception of it would end. Maybe this is not the right question. If you were to die, your world would end, but mine would not, if I remained living. The question I have for myself is, if the most abstract value of existence is called 'being', is this value conscious or not? If it is not conscious, does it have the possibility of becoming conscious, and how would that happen? This has to do with whether the basic value of existence is dualistic or not. Another way to view this - if the most abstract value of existence is 'x', is it the seed value for unconsciousness *and* consciousness, or is it just consciousness, or is it just unconscious? Is it something neither conscious nor unconscious but the potential for both? This seems both a logical problem and a semantic problem. My own sense of this is the material universe and consciousness are identical, they are not separate entities, and that *being* is the potential for these. This would mean that spirituality and materialism are not in opposition and not distinct realms of experience. Therefore, you could explain the problem in either language (materialist or spiritual), but because of the bifurcating value of language and intellect, when you mix the two realms of thought you end up with logical impossibilities. This is because language of materialism connects with perceived entities and attempts to describe them, while *metaphysical* is essentially not descriptive of anything, but represents emotional states, and abstract states of experience in a kind of poetic way. When you listen to music (without words) the music seems only to represent itself, it does not depict the world. That is, we can use language to depict spiritual states but it is not factual like science depicts materialist states. If we use scientific language to describe consciousness, we will always come up with an evolutionary emergent property of matter when it is organised in a particular way. When we mix the two modes of language, it is like taking apples for oranges, but it does become apparent that as far as apples an oranges we can have the concept of fruit. We could image that a language that can encompass science and spiritual language would have to be something that neither currently can navigate separately or together.
