Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Free Will

[timtofly]

It seems that bees and ants are civilized entities that cannot change their behavior or even reaction to their environment. They continue to operate in a social behavior that benefits that society, even if an individual unit is destroyed in accomplishing that task.

 

[Kyriakos]

I wouldn't call them civilized, though, they are a communal-functioning entity with very clear distinctions in their types and corresponding vocation (worker ants, defender ants, queen). Likewise with bees (workers, queen, some bees that serve to impregnate the queen).
Those beings are obviously connected to their colony in some way that humans do not really have the ability to sense, like we do not sense just how a fungus identifies a threat due to a vast chasm in regards to the relative complexity between us and those entities.

Besides, not only communal insects are seemingly minding their own business. Butterflies obviously do not attack anything either, and they are not communal. Neither is the Praying Mantis, which probably is the most vicious hunter-insect around. Insects just operate in hugely different ways to humans.

 

[Gatsby]

But how can you speak of evolution as if it isnt an intelligent, harmonious proces? Where is that intelligence and harmony coming from? Can there be intelligence without consciousness? I doubt it. Intelligent design is all around only the consciousness isnt apparent. The fact that there is no consciousness and that it starts only from certain stage is the biggest illusion.

Because evolution is a ruthless remorseless process driven by Darwinian competition, natural (and other forms of) selection, evolutionary arms races, and ever-changing natural environments. That harmony you speak of is a fiction which is only plausible if either: a) you don’t look too closely, or for too long, at how evolution and life really work; or b) you have a VERY broad definition of “harmony”. Remember that evolution works through trial and error: for every one specimen or species that makes it in terms of procreation and long term survival, there are many other ‘errors’ that don’t. I hardly think that “harmonious” is an apt description of this reality.

You ask if there can be intelligence without consciousness. I think a better question is whether there can there be consciousness without intelligence? The more I think about it, the more consciousness seems to be an illusion created by extremely rapid and complex feedbacks of neurological processing and sensory data input, kind of like how the illusion of moving pictures is generated by a film projector.

As I said earlier, intelligent design seems to be apparent because our own intelligence evolved in, and is adapted to, the natural environment. Of course humans will see intelligent design all around them: if our intelligence didn’t give us an advantage in terms of understanding and manipulating our environment in our favour, then intelligence would have either been selected out of existence or it would have never emerged in the first place!

This is not really matter of what is suitable to humans at all. If there was no harmony on material level(no physical laws/ order). There wouldnt be even any galaxy or sun and planets. So you can marvel if you wish that the impossible has happened. God has created Ungod. Inconscience has produced consciousness. Infinite is limited.

There are trillions of stars and planets, even at this moment, in the cosmos. Most of them won’t have any life to speak of. Why should we marvel that this one little speck, out of the countless specks in the cosmos, has managed to do something unusual like give rise to us? Given enough roles of the dice and enough time, something like us is bound to emerge at some point. This universe alone provides a huge amount of dice rolls, to say nothing of other universes if they exist (and I don’t see why they wouldn’t). Even our own solar system produced seven ‘errors’ along with the ‘success’ of Earth, and that of course doesn’t account for Pluto, the asteroid belt, and all the moons.

No spider developed anything. Every single capacity of a spider is result of something behind its existence. Spider is only a term for surface reality which is represented by simple nervous system which spider itself has no idea that it has it.

Every single capacity of a spider is a result of lots of time + dynamic environment + natural selection processes (aka trial-and-error, aka crawling up one part of the probability tree). There is nothing “behind” the spider’s existence. Not only was intelligence not necessary in the spider’s evolution, the spider actually developed other adaptations instead of intelligence.

What are these "our interest"? Human nature is only a fraction of Nature and the human interests quite often go against the interests of Nature. Our bodily processes are not controled by human nature but are part of Nature.

Our interests are those which have been programmed into us by evolution, namely the desire to survive, procreate, and experience pleasure and belonging. How do you know that human interests go against Nature’s interests, indeed how do you know Nature even has interests at all?? Our mental processes are also part of nature, and indeed are a subset of it.

I havent been using much imagination so far but mainly power of observation.

Are you rigorously testing the inferences you derive from your observations?

Again judged from purely human way of thinking which is confortable in thinking in straight lines mainly we comprehend workings of Nature as "trial and error" but isnt it possible that these dynamics are much more complex then that? As you said before:"we still use human intelligence as the template for assessing all other intelligences..."

It’s more likely that the process of trial and error, given a big enough sand pit and enough time, can generate localised and temporary phenomena of staggering complexity and unusualness. This makes sense when you consider how empty of life the universe appears to be outside this one little planet.

What I meant by that comment is that: 1) we use our own intelligence because we have the most familiarity with it and the greatest degree of certainty regarding its existence; and 2) we tend to be quite narcissistic both in terms of how we assess the intelligence of other beings and what we infer about alleged ‘divine’ intelligences.

I am not following. How do you explain the actual existence of insecurity in human psychology if there is no apparent reason that it should exist at all? Why should there be possibility of insecurity in the universe "which doesnt care one little bit about any of these things"? Why would humans care for these things if their enviroment doesnt unless you bring into picture third element: secret Intelligence?

I thought I explained this pretty clearly. There IS a reason for this insecurity, or more precisely there is an evolutionary cause: our deeply ingrained instincts for survival and hierarchy have commandeered our highly developed intellectual capacities to create existential fear. In other words this insecurity is an unintended (obviously) by-product resulting from the combination of different adaptive traits which otherwise provide evolutionary advantages in and of themselves.

 

[Kyriakos]

Too bad no one ever told those people before the time of Darwin that their life was explainable in terms of darwinian competition.
Which, by itself, is even an idea found in an earlier english work, that of Thomas Hobbes and his (super-boring) leviathan.
Key-words like competition and survival of the fittest as an overarching phrase, only appear to work if one assumes his own version of a vast amount of time in the past is near to being correct, while they do not stand well in the present or in recorded history. All civilizations tried to have a degree of harmony, and still do. To aspire for something different makes one either an idiot, or an adolescent.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Which is the truer Rationalism, to admit that the works of Intelligence are produced by Intelligence or to assert that they are produced by a blind Machine unconsciously working out perfection? to admit that the emergence of overt intelligence in humanity is due to the specialised function of a secret intelligence in the universe or to assert that it is the product of a Force to which the very principle of Intelligence is absent? To justify the paradox by saying that things are worked out in a particular way because it is their nature to be worked out in that way, is to play the fool with reason; for it does not carry us an inch beyond the mere fact that they are so worked out, one knows not why.

The true reason for the modern reluctance to admit that Nature has intelligence & wisdom or is intelligence & wisdom, is the constant association in the human mind of these things with mentally self-conscious personality. Intelligence, we think, presupposes someone who is intelligent, an ego who possesses & uses this intelligence. An examination of human consciousness shows that this association is an error. Intelligence possesses us, not we intelligence; intelligence uses us, not we intelligence. The mental ego in man is a creation & instrument of intelligence and intelligence itself is a force of Nature manifesting itself in a rudimentary or advanced state in all animal life. This objection, therefore, vanishes. Not only so, but Science herself by putting the ego in its right place as a product of mind has shown that Intelligence is not a human possession but a force of Nature & therefore an attribute of Nature, a manifestation of the universal Force.

Mechanical discrimination, Nature certainly possesses in the highest degree; without it her teleological processes would be impossible. The tendril growing straight through the air comes into contact with a rope, a stick, the stalk of a plant; immediately it seizes it as with a finger, changes its straight growth for a curled & compressive movement, & winds itself round & round the support. What induces the change? what makes it discriminate the presence of a support & the possibility of this new movement? It is the instinct of the tendril and differs in no way, intrinsically, from the instinct of the newborn pup seizing at once on its mother's teats or the instinct of a man in his more mechanical needs & actions. We see the moon-lotus open its petals to the moon, close them to the touch of the day. In what does this discriminative movement differ from the motion of the hand leaping back from the touch of a flame, or from the recoiling movement of disgust & displeasure in the nerves from an abhorrent sight or from the recoiling movement of denial & uncongeniality in the mind from a distasteful idea or opinion? Intrinsically, there seems to be no difference; but there is a difference in circumstance. One is not attended with mental self-consciousness, the others are attended with this supremely important element. We think falsely that there is no will in the action of the tendril and the lotus, and no discrimination. There is a will, but not mentalised will; there is discrimination but not mentalised discrimination. It is mechanical, we say, - but do we understand what we mean when we say it, - & we give other names, calling will force, discrimination a natural reaction or an organic tendency. These names are only various masks concealing an intrinsic identity.

.......

 

[timtofly]

Because evolution is a ruthless remorseless process driven by Darwinian competition, natural (and other forms of) selection, evolutionary arms races, and ever-changing natural environments. That harmony you speak of is a fiction which is only plausible if either: a) you don’t look too closely, or for too long, at how evolution and life really work; or b) you have a VERY broad definition of “harmony”. Remember that evolution works through trial and error: for every one specimen or species that makes it in terms of procreation and long term survival, there are many other ‘errors’ that don’t. I hardly think that “harmonious” is an apt description of this reality.
You ask if there can be intelligence without consciousness. I think a better question is whether there can there be consciousness without intelligence? The more I think about it, the more consciousness seems to be an illusion created by extremely rapid and complex feedbacks of neurological processing and sensory data input, kind of like how the illusion of moving pictures is generated by a film projector.
As I said earlier, intelligent design seems to be apparent because our own intelligence evolved in, and is adapted to, the natural environment. Of course humans will see intelligent design all around them: if our intelligence didn’t give us an advantage in terms of understanding and manipulating our environment in our favour, then intelligence would have either been selected out of existence or it would have never emerged in the first place!
There are trillions of stars and planets, even at this moment, in the cosmos. Most of them won’t have any life to speak of. Why should we marvel that this one little speck, out of the countless specks in the cosmos, has managed to do something unusual like give rise to us? Given enough roles of the dice and enough time, something like us is bound to emerge at some point. This universe alone provides a huge amount of dice rolls, to say nothing of other universes if they exist (and I don’t see why they wouldn’t). Even our own solar system produced seven ‘errors’ along with the ‘success’ of Earth, and that of course doesn’t account for Pluto, the asteroid belt, and all the moons.
Every single capacity of a spider is a result of lots of time + dynamic environment + natural selection processes (aka trial-and-error, aka crawling up one part of the probability tree). There is nothing “behind” the spider’s existence. Not only was intelligence not necessary in the spider’s evolution, the spider actually developed other adaptations instead of intelligence.
Our interests are those which have been programmed into us by evolution, namely the desire to survive, procreate, and experience pleasure and belonging. How do you know that human interests go against Nature’s interests, indeed how do you know Nature even has interests at all?? Our mental processes are also part of nature, and indeed are a subset of it.
Are you rigorously testing the inferences you derive from your observations?
It’s more likely that the process of trial and error, given a big enough sand pit and enough time, can generate localised and temporary phenomena of staggering complexity and unusualness. This makes sense when you consider how empty of life the universe appears to be outside this one little planet.
What I meant by that comment is that: 1) we use our own intelligence because we have the most familiarity with it and the greatest degree of certainty regarding its existence; and 2) we tend to be quite narcissistic both in terms of how we assess the intelligence of other beings and what we infer about alleged ‘divine’ intelligences.
I thought I explained this pretty clearly. There IS a reason for this insecurity, or more precisely there is an evolutionary cause: our deeply ingrained instincts for survival and hierarchy have commandeered our highly developed intellectual capacities to create existential fear. In other words this insecurity is an unintended (obviously) by-product resulting from the combination of different adaptive traits which otherwise provide evolutionary advantages in and of themselves.

I would like to point out that things do not survive, because they adapt after the fact. Genes mutate, long before survival is an issue. If something adapted after the need to survive it would be a fluke. The others were already destroyed.

 

[Gatsby]

Too bad no one ever told those people before the time of Darwin that their life was explainable in terms of darwinian competition.
Which, by itself, is even an idea found in an earlier english work, that of Thomas Hobbes and his (super-boring) leviathan.
Key-words like competition and survival of the fittest as an overarching phrase, only appear to work if one assumes his own version of a vast amount of time in the past is near to being correct, while they do not stand well in the present or in recorded history. All civilizations tried to have a degree of harmony, and still do. To aspire for something different makes one either an idiot, or an adolescent.

Yes it is too bad, because that information would have gone a long way toward helping them understand why they lived impoverished lives as peasants under the oppression of monarchs, warlords, and church authorities. A little understanding of evolutionary biology could have also saved many of them from dying due to preventable and curable diseases.

I never advocated for the Hobbsian idea that nature is a “war of all against all”, if that’s what you’re suggesting. On the contrary, the stunning success of many diverse organisms such as bees, ants, dolphins and humans shows that social co-operation and orderly hierarchies can be very effective adaptations. But while nature is not a war of all against all, it is certainly not a bunch of cute fluffy creatures standing in a circle singing kumbaya in beautiful harmony either: co-operative hierarchies arise so that organisms can compete more effectively with different species as well as other members and co-operative hierarchies of the same species. From a biological point of view competition is inevitable, but war is expensive. Therefore each specimen and each group – including nations - must walk a tightrope between competition and cooperation to maximise their chances of survival, procreation and satisfaction.

So rather than a “war of all against all”, what we tend to see in nature is a “war of all groups against all groups, interspersed with periods of inter-group cooperation when and where conditions make such co-operation mutually advantageous.” A look back at recorded history will show that this is also an accurate assessment of human civilization: the relative peacefulness and stability in some parts of the world in recent times is due to the sort of serendipitous conditions mentioned above, including the particularly serendipitous condition that our current set of serendipitous conditions seems to be strongly self-reinforcing.

I would like to point out that things do not survive, because they adapt after the fact. Genes mutate, long before survival is an issue. If something adapted after the need to survive it would be a fluke. The others were already destroyed.

Organisms survive because they win the genetic and circumstantial lottery. Genes mutate anyway, because errors in copying of DNA are an inevitable part of the reproduction process. This is where trial-and-error comes in: the mutations in certain specimens will give those specimens a survival advantage over their fellow specimens. Those certain specimens will be more likely to pass on their genes, and thus the copying errors in the reproduction process of the next generation of that species will have a slight probability bias towards more pronounced versions of the sort of errors that gave those certain specimens their advantage. Multiply this effect over many generations and it becomes apparent how a species manages to climb a particular branch of the probability tree in its evolutionary development. This process is accelerated by sexual reproduction and environmental effects on gene activation.

 

[Gatsby]

Which is the truer Rationalism, to admit that the works of Intelligence are produced by Intelligence or to assert that they are produced by a blind Machine unconsciously working out perfection? to admit that the emergence of overt intelligence in humanity is due to the specialised function of a secret intelligence in the universe or to assert that it is the product of a Force to which the very principle of Intelligence is absent? To justify the paradox by saying that things are worked out in a particular way because it is their nature to be worked out in that way, is to play the fool with reason; for it does not carry us an inch beyond the mere fact that they are so worked out, one knows not why.

I’m not sure who you’re quoting her, but this reads more like a religious polemic than a rational argument. Anyway, the more accurate answers to both of these (very leading) questions are the latter options – although I never proposed the existence of a capital ‘M’ Machine, and I don’t know of any rationalist who has. Actually the references to a capital ‘M’ Machine and a capital ‘F’ Force are quite revealing, as they indicate just how thoroughly blinkered the author is by a theistic mindset.

Intelligence is a demonstrably evolving phenomenon: we can see its incremental growth in people as they develop from babies to adults; AI shows us how intelligence is a product of multiple components such as memory, pattern recognition, and data processing capability synergistically working together. To claim that all intelligence must ultimately be produced by a secret supreme capital ‘I’ Intelligence begs the same question as claiming that God is the First Cause: how do we then explain the existence of the supreme Intelligence/God? Talk about not carrying us an inch beyond the mere fact that they are!

We might not be able to say with absolute certainty that things are a particular way just because they can be worked out that way, but it does strongly suggest that they are that particular way, especially when: 1) no alternative hypothesis offers similar or greater explanatory power; 2) we continue to find more evidence that things work that way; 3) we can make accurate and useful predictions of real-world phenomena based on the assumption that things work that way.

The true reason for the modern reluctance to admit that Nature has intelligence & wisdom or is intelligence & wisdom, is the constant association in the human mind of these things with mentally self-conscious personality. Intelligence, we think, presupposes someone who is intelligent, an ego who possesses & uses this intelligence. An examination of human consciousness shows that this association is an error. Intelligence possesses us, not we intelligence; intelligence uses us, not we intelligence. The mental ego in man is a creation & instrument of intelligence and intelligence itself is a force of Nature manifesting itself in a rudimentary or advanced state in all animal life. This objection, therefore, vanishes. Not only so, but Science herself by putting the ego in its right place as a product of mind has shown that Intelligence is not a human possession but a force of Nature & therefore an attribute of Nature, a manifestation of the universal Force.

The reason for that reluctance is that "intelligence" and "wisdom" are conceptual constructs invented by humans, and inferring such human ideas and qualities onto nature is really no less narcissistic and small-minded than suggesting that a fat old bearded white guy rules over the universe. FYI, my conception of intelligence does NOT presuppose an ego that owns and operates the intelligence: on the contrary, I see the ego as a mental construct which arises when intelligence has reached a sufficient level of development. So I agree with the author to a point, but he/she goes too far in calling intelligence a force of nature. Intelligence is an evolutionary adaptation, and to call it a force of nature makes about as much sense as calling urination or fashion a force of nature. Science shows that intelligence is a *product* of nature, but it doesn’t show it to be a force of nature. If anything science shows that intelligence is an unusual phenomenon which arises when blind dynamic conditions manage (by sheer chance) to get caught in self-sustaining self-building feedback loops.

Mechanical discrimination, Nature certainly possesses in the highest degree; without it her teleological processes would be impossible. The tendril growing straight through the air comes into contact with a rope, a stick, the stalk of a plant; immediately it seizes it as with a finger, changes its straight growth for a curled & compressive movement, & winds itself round & round the support. What induces the change? what makes it discriminate the presence of a support & the possibility of this new movement? It is the instinct of the tendril and differs in no way, intrinsically, from the instinct of the newborn pup seizing at once on its mother's teats or the instinct of a man in his more mechanical needs & actions. We see the moon-lotus open its petals to the moon, close them to the touch of the day. In what does this discriminative movement differ from the motion of the hand leaping back from the touch of a flame, or from the recoiling movement of disgust & displeasure in the nerves from an abhorrent sight or from the recoiling movement of denial & uncongeniality in the mind from a distasteful idea or opinion? Intrinsically, there seems to be no difference; but there is a difference in circumstance. One is not attended with mental self-consciousness, the others are attended with this supremely important element. We think falsely that there is no will in the action of the tendril and the lotus, and no discrimination. There is a will, but not mentalised will; there is discrimination but not mentalised discrimination. It is mechanical, we say, - but do we understand what we mean when we say it, - & we give other names, calling will force, discrimination a natural reaction or an organic tendency. These names are only various masks concealing an intrinsic identity.

The author’s tendril example does not show evidence of a secret Intelligence; it shows how plants can evolve towards being able to obtain maximum energy with minimal energy expenditure. The same goes for the newborn pup, except that the mother also instinctively encourages this behaviour by positioning herself and her pups in such a way as to make suckling as easy as possible. The “difference in circumstance” that the author talks about is primarily down to a difference in the degree of complexity of the organisms. Ironically the author’s flame and abhorrent sight examples superbly illustrate how self-consciousness is NOT a yes-or-no thing, but something that occurs in varying degrees. The “intrinsic identity” is that all of these examples are stereotyped bio-physical responses which have arisen over many generations of evolutionary adaptation.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I’m not sure who you’re quoting her, but this reads more like a religious polemic than a rational argument. Anyway, the more accurate answers to both of these (very leading) questions are the latter options – although I never proposed the existence of a capital ‘M’ Machine, and I don’t know of any rationalist who has. Actually the references to a capital ‘M’ Machine and a capital ‘F’ Force are quite revealing, as they indicate just how thoroughly blinkered the author is by a theistic mindset.

O.K. so you are fine with the fact that our own conscious inteligence is no match for our subconscious inteligence. There are billions of operations happening at every moment within our physical body we have no dirrect influence on and on which our live depends. We do not posses this intelligence only we are to an extent conscious of it. Yet you see no place for a larger intelligence which may be responsible for it? The paradox is clear: The portion of intelligence within our consciousness is saying that there is no other intelligence beside it. Quite laughable.

Intelligence is a demonstrably evolving phenomenon: we can see its incremental growth in people as they develop from babies to adults; AI shows us how intelligence is a product of multiple components such as memory, pattern recognition, and data processing capability synergistically working together. To claim that all intelligence must ultimately be produced by a secret supreme capital ‘I’ Intelligence begs the same question as claiming that God is the First Cause: how do we then explain the existence of the supreme Intelligence/God? Talk about not carrying us an inch beyond the mere fact that they are!.

Yes we can see spontaneous rapid development of certain form of intelligence from childhood to adulthood. And then it practically stops! I am talking of inteligent design...

We might not be able to say with absolute certainty that things are a particular way just because they can be worked out that way, but it does strongly suggest that they are that particular way, especially when: 1) no alternative hypothesis offers similar or greater explanatory power; 2) we continue to find more evidence that things work that way; 3) we can make accurate and useful predictions of real-world phenomena based on the assumption that things work that way.

Indulge me just one more quote from the same author:

Nature is Force of Consciousness in infinite Being. The opinion that sees a mechanical world in which consciousness is only an exceptional figure of things, is a hasty conclusion drawn from imperfect data.

 

[Gatsby]

O.K. so you are fine with the fact that our own conscious inteligence is no match for our subconscious inteligence. There are billions of operations happening at every moment within our physical body we have no dirrect influence on and on which our live depends. We do not posses this intelligence only we are to an extent conscious of it. Yet you see no place for a larger intelligence which may be responsible for it? The paradox is clear: The portion of intelligence within our consciousness is saying that there is no other intelligence beside it. Quite laughable.

Our conscious intelligence is a very recent evolutionary development. What you call subconscious intelligence is the animalistic and reptilian neurological and physiological activity which has had much longer to evolve. Still, I wouldn’t say that conscious intelligence is “no match” for subconscious intelligence: each has its own functions, and saying one is better than the other makes about as much sense as saying that hand is better than a foot.

Those billions of operations only seem remarkable and intelligent when you ignore the fact that we humans are the product of 3.6 billion years of evolution driven by dynamic environmental pressures and self-reinforcing feedback effects such as those I have previously described. Our conscious intelligence is not a subset of a greater subconscious intelligence, rather it is an illusion generated by the complexity of our neurological processes.

Yes we can see spontaneous rapid development of certain form of intelligence from childhood to adulthood. And then it practically stops! I am talking of inteligent design...

I wouldn’t say it stops, but it generally does slow down because intellectual development eventually yields diminishing returns to the organism, just as bodily growth does. I know you are talking about intelligent design, but what I’m saying is that intelligence is an illusion: if intelligence itself is an illusion, then intelligent design must also be an illusion.

Originally Posted by Sri Aurobindo
Nature is Force of Consciousness in infinite Being. The opinion that sees a mechanical world in which consciousness is only an exceptional figure of things, is a hasty conclusion drawn from imperfect data.

That first sentence is about as meaningful as saying “the Gostak distimmes the Doshes”. An unintelligible platitude with capitalised key words is still an unintelligible platitude. Aside from the fact that I am hardly drawing a “hasty” conclusion here – indeed, I would prefer it if you and Sri Aurobindo were right – the idea that consciousness is an illusion generated by neurological activity is strongly consistent with both established and newly-incoming data. At any rate, I would rather form a coherent working hypothesis with strong explanatory power based on “imperfect data” (when is data ever perfect?) than take refuge in warm fuzzy mystical platitudes with little or no hard evidence to back them up.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Those billions of operations only seem remarkable and intelligent when you ignore the fact that we humans are the product of 3.6 billion years of evolution driven by dynamic environmental pressures and self-reinforcing feedback effects such as those I have previously described. Our conscious intelligence is not a subset of a greater subconscious intelligence, rather it is an illusion generated by the complexity of our neurological processes.

I wouldn’t say it stops, but it generally does slow down because intellectual development eventually yields diminishing returns to the organism, just as bodily growth does. I know you are talking about intelligent design, but what I’m saying is that intelligence is an illusion: if intelligence itself is an illusion, then intelligent design must also be an illusion.

So consciousness is an illusion? But how would you explain the fact that we need morality so badly in our daily lives. How could it ever gain such a prominence that it practically leads our lives? Your conclusion must be that we are an insane beings living in unreality. But why would "end" product of evolution after all that many miracles it has already accomplished be an insanity?
However if I turn your hyphotesis up side down: consciousness is all there really is and ever was I can quite easy see the following:

All life here is a stage or a circumstance in an unfolding progressive evolution of a Spirit that has involved itself in Matter and is labouring to manifest itself in that reluctant substance. This is the whole secret of earthly existence.
But the key of that secret is not to be found in life itself or in the body; its hieroglyph is not in embryo or organism, - for these are only a physical means or base: the one significant mystery of this universe is the appearance and growth of consciousness in the vast mute unintelligence of Matter. The escape of Consciousness out of an apparent initial Inconscience, - but it was there all the time masked and latent, for the inconscience of Matter is itself only a hooded consciousness - its struggle to find itself, its reaching out to its own inherent completeness, perfection, joy, light, strength, mastery, harmony, freedom, this is the prolonged miracle and yet the natural and all-explaining phenomenon of which we are at once the observers and a part, instrument and vehicle.

 

[Gatsby]

So consciousness is an illusion? But how would you explain the fact that we need morality so badly in our daily lives. How could it ever gain such a prominence that it practically leads our lives? Your conclusion must be that we are an insane beings living in unreality. But why would "end" product of evolution after all that many miracles it has already accomplished be an insanity?

What we call morality is an adaptive strategy: it is a social mechanic by which a co-operative group maintains and consolidates its cohesion. We need morality, laws and ethics in our lives because all of these are ultimately in the best interests of our individual and collective survival. Hence the tendency of most people to act benevolently towards people who are within their Dunbar’s Number. As societies became larger and more complex (i.e. with the emergence of civilizations), people were required to behave morally towards people outside their Dunbar’s Number. The most effective way of achieving that was to have a powerful centralised government lead by an emperor or monarch which could punish people for behaving badly. From this evolved the Abrahamic notion of a supreme God as an all-powerful divine monarch keeping the behaviour of all humans in check with the threat of divine retribution and the promise of heaven / divine favour for those who did the right thing.

Notice also that although morality is very important to social cohesion and collective survival, standards of morality can vary enormously both between different societies and within the same society over time. We can even see contradictory standards of morality within and across societies, e.g. 100 years ago homosexuality was a criminal offence in our society; a certain tribe in Papua New Guinea think it is a pubescent boy’s sacred duty to give oral sex to the elder men in the tribe. Moral values and behavioural codes are very much adaptive phenomena which evolve to suit the circumstances of their society.

However if I turn your hyphotesis up side down: consciousness is all there really is and ever was

Considering that a highly-evolved degree of consciousness is Homo sapiens’ evolutionary niche, don’t you think it’s a tad narcissistic to propose that this evolutionary quirk is the essence of all reality? It’s a bit like a bee claiming that honey is the primal substance of reality, or a spider claiming that spider silk is all that there really is and ever was.

All life here is a stage or a circumstance in an unfolding progressive evolution of a Spirit that has involved itself in Matter and is labouring to manifest itself in that reluctant substance. This is the whole secret of earthly existence.
But the key of that secret is not to be found in life itself or in the body; its hieroglyph is not in embryo or organism, - for these are only a physical means or base: the one significant mystery of this universe is the appearance and growth of consciousness in the vast mute unintelligence of Matter. The escape of Consciousness out of an apparent initial Inconscience, - but it was there all the time masked and latent, for the inconscience of Matter is itself only a hooded consciousness - its struggle to find itself, its reaching out to its own inherent completeness, perfection, joy, light, strength, mastery, harmony, freedom, this is the prolonged miracle and yet the natural and all-explaining phenomenon of which we are at once the observers and a part, instrument and vehicle.

Did you know that the word “spirit” derives from a Latin root word which means “breath”? It’s a good example of how our higher abstract and metaphysical concepts have their origins in much more tangible and immediately obvious concepts. (The word “metaphysical” itself is interesting in this way, i.e. meta-physical). Similarly we can see how increasingly abstract religions and philosophies have evolved from more concrete and ‘primitive’ ideas and beliefs, e.g. the worship of natural forces evolving into the worship of personal beings supposed to be within/behind those forces, in turn evolving into elaborate notions of a supreme Consciousness which creates and pervades all of those forces. Ignoring this evolutionary development of abstract thought, people like Sri Aurobindo declare that the ultimate purpose and nature of the physical world revolves around these abstract concepts.

Sure you can say that consciousness is masked and latent in unconscious matter if you really want to. You can also say the same thing about fire and gamma radiation. But I don’t see how that makes consciousness (or fire, or gamma radiation) more special or significant than any other phenomenon which emerges from matter, especially when consciousness is actually an illusion generated by matter moving in very specific ways. Consciousness may be a complex process through which matter can be aware of itself, but on behalf of the universe I feel compelled to ask: “so what?” You might be able to conceive of a Centre of the Universe, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that there actually is one or that you are it. All that dopamine-releasing talk about consciousness “reaching out to its own inherent completeness” etc. is actually very egocentric and narcissistic when you consider that there is zero evidence of consciousness being present anywhere other than this tiny speck of a planet.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What we call morality is an adaptive strategy: it is a social mechanic by which a co-operative group maintains and consolidates its cohesion. We need morality, laws and ethics in our lives because all of these are ultimately in the best interests of our individual and collective survival. Hence the tendency of most people to act benevolently towards people who are within their Dunbar’s Number. As societies became larger and more complex (i.e. with the emergence of civilizations), people were required to behave morally towards people outside their Dunbar’s Number. The most effective way of achieving that was to have a powerful centralised government lead by an emperor or monarch which could punish people for behaving badly. From this evolved the Abrahamic notion of a supreme God as an all-powerful divine monarch keeping the behaviour of all humans in check with the threat of divine retribution and the promise of heaven / divine favour for those who did the right thing.

Notice also that although morality is very important to social cohesion and collective survival, standards of morality can vary enormously both between different societies and within the same society over time. We can even see contradictory standards of morality within and across societies, e.g. 100 years ago homosexuality was a criminal offence in our society; a certain tribe in Papua New Guinea think it is a pubescent boy’s sacred duty to give oral sex to the elder men in the tribe. Moral values and behavioural codes are very much adaptive phenomena which evolve to suit the circumstances of their society.

Well thanks but I was even more interested to hear from you how something as illusory as consciousness and its derivative inteligence and its derivative morality was able to get into position that it not only has an impact on what you would call, I suppose, real but is actually something vital to humanitys survival.
The answer you are giving seems to rather affirm that intelligence/consciousness is something real as it seems that with its development it more and more prominently becomes something which determines everything around it.

Considering that a highly-evolved degree of consciousness is Homo sapiens’ evolutionary niche, don’t you think it’s a tad narcissistic to propose that this evolutionary quirk is the essence of all reality? It’s a bit like a bee claiming that honey is the primal substance of reality, or a spider claiming that spider silk is all that there really is and ever was.

Well I am not considering this option much you see. I can consider an atom a tiny insignificant particle maybe only til the point when I realise that under certain circumstances it can be instrumental in destruction of the whole world or an astonishing source of energy
However its not a matter of narcism at all. Since narcism is just another shape of (illusory) consciousness. What we need to determine is if this conciousness is something at the "core" of reality no matter how queer its existence may appear. And from this pov it seems to me highly affirmative.

Did you know that the word “spirit” derives from a Latin root word which means “breath”? It’s a good example of how our higher abstract and metaphysical concepts have their origins in much more tangible and immediately obvious concepts. (The word “metaphysical” itself is interesting in this way, i.e. meta-physical). Similarly we can see how increasingly abstract religions and philosophies have evolved from more concrete and ‘primitive’ ideas and beliefs, e.g. the worship of natural forces evolving into the worship of personal beings supposed to be within/behind those forces, in turn evolving into elaborate notions of a supreme Consciousness which creates and pervades all of those forces. Ignoring this evolutionary development of abstract thought, people like Sri Aurobindo declare that the ultimate purpose and nature of the physical world revolves around these abstract concepts.

I love Latin but if you look for more detailed description of supraphysical phenomena the most descriptive language would be Sanskrit.
It is an interesting theory but I doubt it will hold in case of Sankrit though but more importantly you are not really attacking the concept of involution of consciousness at all this way since everything which evolves is then part of this consciousness and quite obviously its true for primitive ideas and languages as well. Language is quite naturally up to borrow words which are familliar to our mundane experience to describe and aproximate something which is not yet as well established/manifested/evolved.

Sure you can say that consciousness is masked and latent in unconscious matter if you really want to. You can also say the same thing about fire and gamma radiation. But I don’t see how that makes consciousness (or fire, or gamma radiation) more special or significant than any other phenomenon which emerges from matter, especially when consciousness is actually an illusion generated by matter moving in very specific ways. Consciousness may be a complex process through which matter can be aware of itself, but on behalf of the universe I feel compelled to ask: “so what?” You might be able to conceive of a Centre of the Universe, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that there actually is one or that you are it. All that dopamine-releasing talk about consciousness “reaching out to its own inherent completeness” etc. is actually very egocentric and narcissistic when you consider that there is zero evidence of consciousness being present anywhere other than this tiny speck of a planet.

Its the other way around. It makes matter very special becouse it holds within itself consciousness.

"So what?" Humanity happens. And thats not the end...

Again it has nothing to do with narcisissm or egocentrism. Becouse the very fact of existence of all-pervading consciousness in its ultimate effect obliterates existence of limited personality and ego.

 

[Gatsby]

Well thanks but I was even more interested to hear from you how something as illusory as consciousness and its derivative inteligence and its derivative morality was able to get into position that it not only has an impact on what you would call, I suppose, real but is actually something vital to humanitys survival.
The answer you are giving seems to rather affirm that intelligence/consciousness is something real as it seems that with its development it more and more prominently becomes something which determines everything around it.

Consciousness, intelligence and morality are all adaptive strategies, so of course they are vital to humanity’s survival. Calling them illusory doesn’t mean they don’t really exist or don’t matter; it means that they are misinterpreted as something other than what they actually are. For example consciousness is misinterpreted as a non-material essential aspect of reality, when it is actually a process of rapid and complex feedbacks between sensory input, memory and cognition. Intelligence is likewise misinterpreted as something qualitatively different to non-intelligence, when it is actually a result of certain non-intelligent phenomena such as trial-and-error, habituation and pattern recognition reaching a sufficient level of synergistic complexity. I explained the illusory nature of morality in my previous post, but I would like to re-iterate that different cultures and historical periods can and do have contradictory ideas about what is and isn’t moral.

Well I am not considering this option much you see. I can consider an atom a tiny insignificant particle maybe only til the point when I realise that under certain circumstances it can be instrumental in destruction of the whole world or an astonishing source of energy
However its not a matter of narcism at all. Since narcism is just another shape of (illusory) consciousness. What we need to determine is if this conciousness is something at the "core" of reality no matter how queer its existence may appear. And from this pov it seems to me highly affirmative.

So the atom is insignificant to you until you perceive it as a threat and/or opportunity. This makes perfect sense in the context of evolution. But just because you find it significant doesn’t mean that the universe agrees.

Of course consciousness appears to be at the core of your reality; after all you experience everything through consciousness, so it’s hardly surprising that you have a strong pro-consciousness bias. But what you're saying is like a person who, having worn rose-coloured glasses for their entire life, concludes that the whole world is actually pink. You have consciousness because it is useful to you as an organism. The universe does not have any reason to share your high regard for consciousness, and indeed the universe shows no indication of sharing it whatsoever.

I love Latin but if you look for more detailed description of supraphysical phenomena the most descriptive language would be Sanskrit.
It is an interesting theory but I doubt it will hold in case of Sankrit though but more importantly you are not really attacking the concept of involution of consciousness at all this way since everything which evolves is then part of this consciousness and quite obviously its true for primitive ideas and languages as well. Language is quite naturally up to borrow words which are familliar to our mundane experience to describe and aproximate something which is not yet as well established/manifested/evolved.

I’m sure it would hold for all languages, although some may require deeper etymological digging than others. Hinduism might look pretty abstract and sophisticated today, but it’s pretty easy to see how it has evolved from a collection of more primitive tribal and folk religions.

We borrow familiar mundane words because these words describe the things which make up our primary experience of reality. Our experiences of spiritual things are derivative of our experiences of mundane reality: once we develop sufficient capability for abstract thought we use data from mundane reality to inform extraordinary imaginings in dreams and visions etc.

Its the other way around. It makes matter very special becouse it holds within itself consciousness.

"So what?" Humanity happens. And thats not the end...

Again it has nothing to do with narcisissm or egocentrism. Becouse the very fact of existence of all-pervading consciousness in its ultimate effect obliterates existence of limited personality and ego.

Consciousness is something which matter can do under very unusual conditions. To say that matter holds consciousness within itself is a like saying that a sheep ovum holds within itself a luxury woollen coat, or that an early single-celled organism held within itself the entire species of homo sapiens: by doing so you render logic and conceptual distinctions virtually meaningless and you might as well say that anything equates to anything else.

"Humanity happens". So what? "That’s not the end". Indeed; before humanity there were rocks and gas and fire and after humanity there will be rocks and gas and fire. So what?

In theory an all-pervading consciousness may obliterate ego, but in reality it gives people an excuse to inflate their sense of ego to all-pervading cosmic proportions.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Consciousness, intelligence and morality are all adaptive strategies, so of course they are vital to humanity’s survival. Calling them illusory doesn’t mean they don’t really exist or don’t matter; it means that they are misinterpreted as something other than what they actually are. For example consciousness is misinterpreted as a non-material essential aspect of reality, when it is actually a process of rapid and complex feedbacks between sensory input, memory and cognition. Intelligence is likewise misinterpreted as something qualitatively different to non-intelligence, when it is actually a result of certain non-intelligent phenomena such as trial-and-error, habituation and pattern recognition reaching a sufficient level of synergistic complexity. I explained the illusory nature of morality in my previous post, but I would like to re-iterate that different cultures and historical periods can and do have contradictory ideas about what is and isn’t moral.

Well my friend either consciousness is "non-material aspects of reality" or matter is essentially more than just lifless completely unintelligent phenomena. Either way consciousness is then "at the core of reality".
If intelligence isnt qualitatively different from non-intelligence than why did nature evolved it? Why do you need to evolve something which you already have? Again the only way I can agree with this pov is that what appears as unintelligence isnt in its totality so and evolution is a form of manifestation of some hidden potential.
In my view morality is the keeper of harmony and this way guardian of present and future progress. But why do you need to keep harmony in the world if it is exclusively material? For that all you would need are just so called physical laws. However we use morality becouse we have in some way recognised that man is not only body and life (like animals) but also potent and vibrant mental and emotional being whith its own specific forces/laws.

So the atom is insignificant to you until you perceive it as a threat and/or opportunity. This makes perfect sense in the context of evolution. But just because you find it significant doesn’t mean that the universe agrees.

Since the physical universe is build of atoms it can but agree.

Of course consciousness appears to be at the core of your reality; after all you experience everything through consciousness, so it’s hardly surprising that you have a strong pro-consciousness bias. But what you're saying is like a person who, having worn rose-coloured glasses for their entire life, concludes that the whole world is actually pink. You have consciousness because it is useful to you as an organism. The universe does not have any reason to share your high regard for consciousness, and indeed the universe shows no indication of sharing it whatsoever.

No what I am saying is like a person who can put on glasses of electronic microscope and through it and science become aware and see and put to use the power of an atom.

In your theory I have in fact no use for consciousness at all becouse if I didnt have any and thus be completely unintelligent it would be qualitatively the same and the universe would give just as much damn.

We borrow familiar mundane words because these words describe the things which make up our primary experience of reality. Our experiences of spiritual things are derivative of our experiences of mundane reality: once we develop sufficient capability for abstract thought we use data from mundane reality to inform extraordinary imaginings in dreams and visions etc.

This is an interesting thought but again if consciousness is the source then the opposite may be quite likely more accurate. What we call spiritual then would be in ascending and descending ladder on the way between the mundane and the source just like capacity for abstract thought.

Consciousness is something which matter can do under very unusual conditions. To say that matter holds consciousness within itself is a like saying that a sheep ovum holds within itself a luxury woollen coat, or that an early single-celled organism held within itself the entire species of homo sapiens: by doing so you render logic and conceptual distinctions virtually meaningless and you might as well say that anything equates to anything else.

Conciousness = Energy = Matter. Matter is transfigured consciousness for the purpose of creating physical universe.

"Humanity happens". So what? "That’s not the end". Indeed; before humanity there were rocks and gas and fire and after humanity there will be rocks and gas and fire. So what?

Lets discus it on the internetz....

"In theory an all-pervading consciousness may obliterate ego, but in reality it gives people an excuse to inflate their sense of ego to all-pervading cosmic proportions.

No worries, any ego ballon is sooner or later bound to deflate but the reality remains...

 

[Gatsby]

Well my friend either consciousness is "non-material aspects of reality" or matter is essentially more than just lifless completely unintelligent phenomena. Either way consciousness is then "at the core of reality".
If intelligence isnt qualitatively different from non-intelligence than why did nature evolved it? Why do you need to evolve something which you already have? Again the only way I can agree with this pov is that what appears as unintelligence isnt in its totality so and evolution is a form of manifestation of some hidden potential.
In my view morality is the keeper of harmony and this way guardian of present and future progress. But why do you need to keep harmony in the world if it is exclusively material? For that all you would need are just so called physical laws. However we use morality becouse we have in some way recognised that man is not only body and life (like animals) but also potent and vibrant mental and emotional being whith its own specific forces/laws.

Or consciousness is a meta-material phenomenon, an emergent property of matter under certain conditions. Consciousness would therefore ultimately be a material aspect of reality. Matter is sufficiently dynamic, varied, and complex that it can give rise to secondary phenomena like life, intelligence, and consciousness. Consciousness may seem to be at the core of our subjective experience of reality, but it is actually matter which is at the core of consciousness.

Intelligence evolved to varying degrees in different organisms because it helped those organisms to survive and procreate. I’m sure we’ve already covered this. Intelligence is still different to non-intelligence in degree, and you have to remember that there can be a lot of degrees of difference! We didn’t already have intelligence from the beginning; it developed in us (and other organisms) incrementally as a second-order phenomenon of matter, to the extent that circumstances encouraged its development. What appears as intelligence is ultimately unintelligent, but sufficiently complex and self-reinforcing that it can function as intelligence.

As for hidden potential: a child might have the potential to be a world class soccer player, but that doesn’t mean that the child is and always was a world class soccer player at the core of their being. The child also has the potential to be any number of other things, but the interplay of circumstances will determine whether or not they actually become a world class soccer player and even whether any such potential is identified at all.

Morality is also ultimately derivative from material realities. As I have said, the primary function of morality is to better enable co-operative organisms to survive and procreate. For example, if you read the Old Testament from this point of view then the seemingly nonsensical rules (e.g. forbidding the eating of shellfish) make perfect sense because you can see how they helped to ensure the survival and continuation of ancient Jewish society.

No what I am saying is like a person who can put on glasses of electronic microscope and through it and science become aware and see and put to use the power of an atom.
In your theory I have in fact no use for consciousness at all becouse if I didnt have any and thus be completely unintelligent it would be qualitatively the same and the universe would give just as much damn.

Consciousness is an amazing phenomenon, but it seems like you are infatuated with it.

You do have use for consciousness – which, remember, is a meta-material phenomenon - because it reinforces a sense of self, and that in turn enhances your instincts for self-preservation and reproduction. The universe ultimately doesn’t care either way, but then it doesn’t really have to.

This is an interesting thought but again if consciousness is the source then the opposite may be quite likely more accurate. What we call spiritual then would be in ascending and descending ladder on the way between the mundane and the source just like capacity for abstract thought.

IF consciousness were the source then I’d agree with you. But the evidence suggests that consciousness is derivative from matter rather than fundamental to it. This is a good thing, because it makes it possible to better understand what consciousness is and how it arises. If consciousness were the source, then how could we possibly explain and understand it?

Conciousness = Energy = Matter. Matter is transfigured consciousness for the purpose of creating physical universe.

That’s an over-simplification. Matter arises when energy behaves in certain ways, and consciousness arises when matter behaves in certain ways. We could perhaps say that they are all different nested orders of information.

No worries, any ego ballon is sooner or later bound to deflate but the reality remains...

That reality might turn out to be very humbling and not what you hoped for. Particularly if (as I strongly suspect) it forces you to confront the fact that you* are definitely not the Star of the cosmic show…


*Colloquial "you", not you specifically

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That reality might turn out to be very humbling and not what you hoped for. Particularly if (as I strongly suspect) it forces you to confront the fact that you are definitely *not* the Star of the cosmic show…

Well at least one of us knows something as definite then. But how did we get to the point that to concede possibility of universal consciousness is something egoistic, narcistic and even blasphemous? It feels like history wants to repeat itself in different form on another stage set...

“Matter itself, you will one day realise, is not material, it is not substance but form of consciousness, guna, the result of quality of being perceived by sense-knowledge.”

It is regarded (Matter) as a result of a certain power and action of consciousness which presents forms of itself to sense perception and it is this quality of sense-perceivedness, so to speak, that gives them the appearance of Matter, i.e. of a certain kind of substantiality inherent in themselves—but in fact they are not self existent substantial objects but forms of consciousness. The point is that there is no such thing as the self-existent Matter posited by nineteenth-century Science.

 

[JohannaK]

I am here to remind you that there are people reading (and enjoying) the discussion, so you keep the good work and civility and everything.

 

[Birdjaguar]

IF consciousness were the source then I’d agree with you. But the evidence suggests that consciousness is derivative from matter rather than fundamental to it. This is a good thing, because it makes it possible to better understand what consciousness is and how it arises. If consciousness were the source, then how could we possibly explain and understand it?

What is that evidence? Doesn't that depend upon how one defines consciousness? whose definition of consciousness should we be using and why?

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, i can imagine there being some creature that has conscience, but not any sense of matter or ability to view matter anyway. For it matter is a theoretical idea. So i would not think that matter is linked to conscience in any such way at all, despite humans having an obvious material form and occupations with it.