What hold Primacy?

[bernee51]

[HughDP]

It really is amazing and only possible for the inflated egotism of Man. No other conscious life in our great universe would possibly think that this enormous machine of virtually infinite volume comes into being and disappears subject to our imagination. We really must be the objects of pity on other worlds.

I don't think it's an 'ego' thing. Certain discoveries in quantum mechanics have led us to investigate a possible relationship between the observer and the observed, as described (partly) by the Measurement Problem.

It's far from decided yet, but scientists have to follow the evidence.

[bernee51]

[bernee51]

Such a vast role for consciousness would therefore seem to be nothing short of ridiculous.

It may seem that way but it could in fact be true.

It is a given property of quantum mechanics that material objects exist only as potentials until they are observed. That is to say, it is not just that we view them as potentials because we haven't measured them yet, but that all they actually are at that point are potentials.

So what is so special about the observer that he or she can turn a potential into an actual? Why, for instance, aren't there just actuals to begin with?

We tend to assume that consciousness means 'us' being conscious of something; that it is some inherent property we as individuals possess and that 'my' consciousness is separate to 'your' consciousness, but perhaps we need to extend the definition of consciousness.

Is there a suitable definition of consciousness that is able to be extended?

Perhaps consciousness is kind of like a frame of reference through which potentials become actuals, with the interdependence between observer and reality being similar to the way it works with relativity. Perhaps 'reality' is in fact just a set of potentials, yet what we observe (and usually call 'reality') can only come about as a product of those potentials and a 'consciousness'.

So if there's any credibility in what I've just mentioned then the reply to the OP would be that neither existence nor consciousness has 'primacy'.

I would have thought that what you are saying is that without consciousness the potential could not become a reality. Ergo putting forward a possible explanation of primacy of consciousness

Or are you saying cannot exist without the other?

You will have to forgive my poor explanation above. I'm a non-specialist reader of this sort of stuff from time-to-time and I find its counter-intuitiveness very difficult to comprehend. I can 'see' what its saying in the basic sense - and I really do think it's worthy of consideration - but it's as if a complete understanding is just beyond my grasp at the moment.

Thank you for your efforts.

[bernee51]

It seems in this day and age, people are not open to the existence and distinction between consciousness without an object analogous to the white light, and the contents of consciousness analogous to visible colors.

So much for "Let there be light" being indicative of conscious intent.

Your analogy as put would seem to suggest that without the contents consciousness could not exist.

Remove just one colour from the spectrum and the 'white' light no longer exists.

This extrapolates to - without existence consciousness cannot exist.

Thanks Nick.

[HughDP]

Is there a suitable definition of consciousness that is able to be extended?

That's a good point actually. I'm not sure there is in the way we're using it here. I mean, we can look in a dictionary but that really only gives us a definition and says little about the nature of consciousness. Some of things we're discussing go well beyond the idea of 'self awareness', which is a common definition of consciousness.

I would have thought that what you are saying is that without consciousness the potential could not become a reality. Ergo putting forward a possible explanation of primacy of consciousness

Or are you saying cannot exist without the other?

Well I was kind of saying that there is an objective reality and that's the quantum 'potential', and there are 'laws' that govern how that can be (quantum laws, essentially). Consciousness is what 'resolves' those potentials into what we commonly call 'the real world'.

It's actually kind of hard to say what holds primacy in such a situation. There definitely is 'existence', but in order for it to make any sense the potentials need to be resolved through consciousness.

Please note that I'm not saying I necessarily believe (or even fully understand) this sort of stuff but - as far as I can gather from my amateur reading on the subject - it is a worthy enough proposition to attract serious scientific study. I certainly find it intriguing anyway.

You will have to forgive my poor explanation above. I'm a non-specialist reader of this sort of stuff from time-to-time and I find its counter-intuitiveness very difficult to comprehend. I can 'see' what its saying in the basic sense - and I really do think it's worthy of consideration - but it's as if a complete understanding is just beyond my grasp at the moment.

Thank you for your efforts.

There was an excellent scientific article I read about this subject quite some time ago but I simply cannot find it now despite numerous searches. I'll search again on the weekend and see if I can find it.

[Nick_A]

[bernee51]

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door." Simone Weil

Again the dear lady hits the nail on the head in her beautiful laconic fashion!

Was she talking about the bible at the time?

[bernee51]

H

One scientist who understands these things far greater than I do is Basarab Nicolescu. This article is much food for thought on the subject:

http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c3.htm

[/quote]

I've read and reread the link you provided. What, in essence, he seems to be saying is "beware the false dichotomy"

[Nick_A]

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door." Simone Weil

Again the dear lady hits the nail on the head in her beautiful laconic fashion!

Was she talking about the bible at the time?

Not really. This was said in relation to how we can meet the contradictions of life. She seems to be asserting the value of the axiom of the included middle.

Simone and the Bible is another matter since she didn't really care for the majority of the OT. Its personal God to her was a false God and to make matters worse, it was imposed on early Christianity by Jewish nationalism and largely responsible for the emergence of Christendom.

[Nick_A]

H

One scientist who understands these things far greater than I do is Basarab Nicolescu. This article is much food for thought on the subject:

http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c3.htm

I've read and reread the link you provided. What, in essence, he seems to be saying is "beware the false dichotomy"[/quote]

Dr. Nicolescu writes:

The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle: it only constrains its sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded middle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations. On the contrary, the logic of the excluded middle is harmful in complex, transdisciplinary cases.

Its not as much a false dichotomy IMO as insisting on associative thought which functions with the axiom of the excluded middle to understand the triune universe. It requires becoming able to acquire the conscious ability to comprehend in terms of the axiom of the included middle which as a whole provides triune comprehension. They each have their domian but when reactive associative thought is not applicable it must surrender to this conscious quality of thought where smaller holons exist as one in a larger holon. It explains a lot in quantum physics that doesn't make sense with the classical logic of the excluded middle

As brilliant as Simone was she was willing to admit that in order to begin to acquire experiential understanding of the relation between the higher and lower or levels of reality:

"The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit." Simone Weil