Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

[Wootah]

Assuming the universe was created via the big bang, did the universal constants exist before the big bang or were they created at the same time as the big bang?

[bluegreenearth]

We know the mind exists. We dont know if it is an emergent property of the brain.

Maybe you can claim to know minds exist, but I do not know if minds exist in reality or are just an abstract concept our brains create as a survival advantage.

[William]

We know the mind exists. We dont know if it is an emergent property of the brain.

Maybe you can claim to know minds exists, but I do not know if minds exists in reality or are just an abstract concept our brains create as a survival advantage.

The thing I see in that, is the argument the mind is a fashioned tool, and as such can interact with the real world - not only in mundane matters, but in imoortant [important] matters, such as the aforementioned survival advantage.

The ET [Emergence Theory] shows us that the brain had to think up something from somewhere else other than the Physical Universe in order to survice [stay alive].

Even today, the DM [Device of the Mind] does not seem to have the ultimate answer to the brains problems, but at least we can say that without the DM we would still be swinging with the lesser Apes .



But we still cannot dismiss the idea that there is an overall underlying Mind behind what we agree as being real.

We know that our brains are deciphering the objective information it is receiving, into relatable bytes. We know that "We" means "Consciousness" and - like the mind - consciousness is also intangible but nonetheless recognized as real, even as it too is referred to as an abstract concept our brains created. As soon as something is referred to, We can assume it is therefore real.

Otherwise, We might as well just adnot [admit] that We lack belief in the reality of The Mind and Ourselves. [Consciousness and things related.]

Problematic to that, We then have to look at those 'things related' and adnot that the brains ability to abstract into existence, consciousness, and then interpret [into images and such] that which is objective to that consciousness, in order that the brain can survive its brief existence and understand that abstract alone are the driving force behind it all anyway...so "back to The Mind".

We cannot escape the circular conclusions ET brings forth.

Thinking outside the circular, we find the abstract and therein proceed.

The circle becomes a spiral...


Now re ET and brain creating consciousness, this supposes that something unconscious can create.

Where can we find evidence for this being the case?

How does a brain 'decide' to create 'consciousness' and then 'teach' consciousness about an abstract-looking objective reality [The Universe] through creating an unreal device [DM] just so's that the real device [brain - which is unconscious from the go get] would have the best possible survival advantage?

This pattern could only take place if consciousness/mind was the creator, rather than an unconscious brain.

Explaining ET means that the unconscious has purpose. Oxymoron.

Explaining how the unconscious has purpose without first being conscious is tricky...

[bluegreenearth]

But we still cannot dismiss the idea that there is an overall underlying Mind behind what we agree as being real.

I'm not dismissing the idea but examining the evidence reality provides me and find that it is insufficient to justifiably infer the existence of an "overall underlying Mind" as the best explanation at this time.

We know that our brains are deciphering the objective information it is receiving, into relatable bytes. We know that "We" means "Consciousness" and - like the mind - consciousness is also intangible but nonetheless recognized as real, even as it too is referred to as an abstract concept our brains created. As soon as something is referred to, We can assume it is therefore real.

Otherwise, We might as well just adnot [admit] that We lack belief in the reality of The Mind and Ourselves. [Consciousness and things related.]

Problematic to that, We then have to look at those 'things related' and adnot that the brains ability to abstract into existence, consciousness, and then interpret [into images and such] that which is objective to that consciousness, in order that the brain can survive its brief existence and understand that abstract alone are the driving force behind it all anyway...so "back to The Mind".

We cannot escape the circular conclusions ET brings forth.

Thinking outside the circular, we find the abstract and therein proceed.

The circle becomes a spiral...

Your commentary above is incoherent to me. I suspect it might be arguing against a unintentional strawman of my perspective.

Now re ET and brain creating consciousness, this supposes that something unconscious can create.

Where can we find evidence for this being the case?

How does a brain 'decide' to create 'consciousness' and then 'teach' consciousness about an abstract-looking objective reality [The Universe] through creating an unreal device [DM] just so's that the real device [brain - which is unconscious from the go get] would have the best possible survival advantage?

This pattern could only take place if consciousness/mind was the creator, rather than an unconscious brain.

Explaining ET means that the unconscious has purpose. Oxymoron.

Explaining how the unconscious has purpose without first being conscious is tricky...

There is nothing in the evolutionary process which prohibits the natural emergence of consciousness in brains. The first brains that happened to evolve a primitive consciousness experienced a survival advantage as a result and subsequently passed the genetic information for the emergence of consciousness to their offspring. Therefore, it is logically possible for consciousness to be an emergent property of an evolved brain without the need for an unconscious brain to deliberately create it.

[William]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #23]

I'm not dismissing the idea but examining the evidence reality provides me and find that it is insufficient to justifiably infer the existence of an "overall underlying Mind" as the best explanation at this time.

Yes.

Whereas my own subjective studies have me seeing an "overall underlying Mind" as the best explanation [for me at least] at this time.

There is nothing in the evolutionary process which prohibits the natural emergence of consciousness in brains. The first brains that happened to evolve a primitive consciousness experienced a survival advantage as a result and subsequently passed the genetic information for the emergence of consciousness to their offspring. Therefore, it is logically possible for consciousness to be an emergent property of an evolved brain without the need for an unconscious brain to deliberately create it.

I am fine with that explanation. There is no requirement to use language suggested of anthropomorphism, to explain said process.

Rather, the brain is simply the device in which the personality came through, and without the personality, the brain would be swinging with the rest of brains of the lesser Apes.

So even that it may appear that the brain created the personality, this may not be the case. It is just as logically possible that TMB [The Mind Behind the process] created the brain in order to use the brain in the manner that the brain is being used, which includes creating personalities.

Our brains are able to tell us that the objective reality might possibly be the result of a Macro-Mind involved with the micro-minds.

But even so, how to test that?



Atheism appears to have branched out into answering such a question with "why bother?" and answers like that.

But even so, Atheism - as a position - is no more natural/valid than Theism.

[bluegreenearth]

Atheism appears to have branched out into answering such a question with "why bother?" and answers like that.

But even so, Atheism - as a position - is no more natural/valid than Theism.

If you define atheism to be the position that believes there is no god or gods, then neither it nor theism has been falsified at this point.

[William]

Atheism appears to have branched out into answering such a question with "why bother?" and answers like that.

But even so, Atheism - as a position - is no more natural/valid than Theism.

If you define atheism to be the position that believes there is no god or gods, then neither it nor theism has been falsified at this point.

No. I define atheism as lacking belief in gods - developing that into a belief that there is no god or gods, are the positions of non-theism and anti-theism which branch off-of the atheist position



If the Universe exists because it is the product of a Mind, everything within the Universe - as well as brains - are thus emergent from that Mind.

Even if we can agree re the ET, that the Mind emerged from the Universe, in the same way consciousness can emerge from a brain, and did so because the Universe, although unconscious, naturally evolved a Mind so that it was able to become conscious, [as an abstract/immaterial thing] in order to interact with the unconscious material, this may have happen long before biological life on Earth even began and even long before Sol lit up the sky.

This could explain that Consciousness emerging from the Unconscious Universe, did so as a means of then eventually being able to make life on Earth [and perhaps other places] happen.

[bluegreenearth]

Even if we can agree re the ET, that the Mind emerged from the Universe, in the same way consciousness can emerge from a brain, and did so because the Universe, although unconscious, naturally evolved a Mind so that it was able to become conscious, [as an abstract/immaterial thing] in order to interact with the unconscious material, this may have happen long before biological life on Earth even began and even long before Sol lit up the sky.

This could explain that Consciousness emerging from the Unconscious Universe, did so as a means of then eventually being able to make life on Earth [and perhaps other places] happen.

Your choice of words above seems to subtly imply that there is intention behind the evolutionary process when there isn't.

[William]

Even if we can agree re the ET, that the Mind emerged from the Universe, in the same way consciousness can emerge from a brain, and did so because the Universe, although unconscious, naturally evolved a Mind so that it was able to become conscious, [as an abstract/immaterial thing] in order to interact with the unconscious material, this may have happen long before biological life on Earth even began and even long before Sol lit up the sky.

This could explain that Consciousness emerging from the Unconscious Universe, did so as a means of then eventually being able to make life on Earth [and perhaps other places] happen.

Your choice of words above seems to subtly imply that there is intention behind the evolutionary process when there isn't.

1: It is unknown either way.
2: Can you apply the same critique to your prior words regarding the brain creating abstracts such as the mind and consciousness?

I am not saying that the unconscious Universe might have always had said intention, but rather, that the intention developed as insight and purpose and knowledge increased naturally, enabling it to be able to created life on a planet.

We have evidence for both processes...life on Earth itself [of which we are part of] and emergence of consciousness and mind - re the human brain.

[bluegreenearth]

2: Can you apply the same critique to your prior words regarding the brain creating abstracts such as the mind and consciousness?

My prior words described the mind and consciousness as emergent properties. I'm not detecting any intention implied in that description.

[William]

2: Can you apply the same critique to your prior words regarding the brain creating abstracts such as the mind and consciousness?

My prior words described the mind and consciousness as emergent properties. I'm not detecting any intention implied in that description.

And I am only suggesting the same emergent properties and applying these to the Universe. Why would you not apply the same critique?