--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- 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. >
The fruit and music analogies are good and helpful. Do you recall the post number where you used the equations, x,y, and z to prove nothingness
