Against Solipsism.

Originally posted by Needle.
There is one and only one thing in the universe that we know exists without question. For each of us, it is "I"--our self. But what is "I"? It is not the sum of all our parts, which is simply a collection of atoms whose independent existence cannot be proved. It is, rather, a concept. It is the characteristic function of all of our parts, all of our actions, and all of our thoughts.

That is the basic premise of solipsism. The ego exists, but the existence of all else, and the validity of our sensory experiences, is accepted on faith.

A popular solipsist idea is that what most of us call "the real world" is merely the solipsist's own dream. But certain questions can again raise doubts. If you're dreaming, why are you not God? If you're dreaming, why are the challenges that face you relatively mundane, rather than fantastically exciting? If you're dreaming, why do you get hangovers? If you're dreaming, why do you dream when you sleep, and, for that matter, why do you sleep? If you're dreaming, why do you give the world so much unnecessary detail? (You can have a good dream without imagining quantum mechanics, stellar structure, or mathematical ideas that you can't even comprehend.)

A sort of modified solipsism can answer some of these questions. Perhaps, for example, the solipsist is wired into a computer and being fed the illusion of life electronically. That would explain why there are concepts in the world with which he was not always familiar. The modified solipsism holds that there is, indeed, a real world, but our experience of it is limited to what the computer technicians see fit to impart to us in the form of novel ideas. But there are still unparsimonious concomitants. For example, why would anyone go to the trouble of keeping us captive in an electronic world? And why have we never noticed any of those programming glitches that seem to infest complicated software of all kinds?

So, more or less, what's wrong with solipsism is its defiance of the principle of Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation for what you see is that there is something there to be seen.

The explanation that there exists an invisible programmer coding things for you to see is more complicated (it posits unobserved entities whose necessitity is not proved) and, in the absence of evidence weighing in its favor, it is less preferred than the explanation that the world is real.

The explanation that your mind, alone, exists, but that it is dreaming up the world, fails to account for the existence of novel ideas, and, because of that failure, it is less preferred than the explanation that the world is real.

Against Leaps of Faith.

Originally posted by Needle.
Clearly, a concept is not physical, and yet here is one that exists. It not only exists, it is conscious (at least I am, although I can't be sure about you). One can argue that the abstract concept "I" and the "I" that is conscious and aware of its existence are two different things, but some remarkably useful ideas result if they are assumed to be one and the same.

Your "I" is a continuous reflex action caused by a brain with more capacity than it needs to carry out bodily activities. The greater is the excess, the more potential one has...

1. For the recognition of one's own being.
2. For awareness of what goes on outside the body.
3. For reflection upon the significance of (1) and (2).
4. For the invention of abstractions by which to relate to the world more efficiently.

From the outside, your "I" is excess brain capacity. Other minds regard your mind about the way they regard computer CPU chips: as capable or useful, to one extent or another, or for one purpose or another.

For you, though, your "I" is identical with the ongoing engagement of that excess in self-recognition. It is you, more than your physical parts, which you come to regard as being the primary tools for your "I" to use.

Originally posted by Needle.
From here, we can leap to the conjecture that concepts that are true of themselves are conscious beings. Therefore, existence, being true of itself, is a conscious being. It may look to us like a mere idea, concept, or property, but it is more than that. It is a being, and it is conscious, just as I am a conscious being, and presumably, so are you.

That leap was illogical. You have not shown that a concept is conscious. A mind is conscious by reason of having a neural network with excess capacity which has turned to self-awareness as an ancillary function. This continuous neural activity is consciousness. The ego is a short summary of this function, which the mind habitually uses in reference to itself. The ego is not consciousness itself; it is, rather, the way the mind pictures itself.

Don't think so? Imagine that time were frozen in place. A concept is entire in a moment, like the words on a page in a book, requiring no progression of time to be complete. But without time, that page could not be read, and reading the page is not a concept, but an activity. Consciousness, like reading, is an activity; it is not a concept.

A concept is information that a mind may contemplate, but the concept is not the mind, and the concept isn't the contemplation, either.

Further, the mind has a necessary physical basis whose existence is independent of the mind itself: the brain. You have not identified the brain within which "existence" is contained. That brain can't be existence itself because you've asserted that existence is the content, the subject matter that your posited "immanent consciousness" is dealing with.

Existence can't be both the brain and what the brain is thinking about. Before you can assert that existence is a conscious being, you must identify the brain, or else you're asserting that the dream (existence) is palpable but the dreamer is not. That is, you're in the same position that every other theist is in when questioned closely about his epistemology on the existence of God.

Just when a religious faith lacking a Kierkegaardian leap might come into existence, here's Needle, trying to put such a leap back into doctrine.

On Nothingness, Universes, and the Primacy of Existence.

Originally posted by Needle.
Is Nothing Unstable? It has become generally accepted that the universe began with a big bang, a sudden explosion of an infinitely dense particle. We shall see that at least the big bang part is correct. However, this leaves some sticky questions unanswered. What was there before the big bang? How can something be infinitely dense? In the concept model, a state of nothingness is unstable, as many physicists have suspected. But the minimal required entity is not some primal particle, as they all think. It is a thought--a single concept: existence. Existence and nothing are two states of a doublet. They are really the same concept and one is meaningless without the other. The concept existence exists necessarily.

Why "necessarily"? I think that it is true that existence exists necessarily, but what makes the existence of existence necessary? Conceptually, existence is necessary because invariant nothingness does not exist, and while that isn't a very profound concept, the way in which nature goes about implementing it is quite interesting.

The stuff of existence is energy, in both its matter and radiation forms, and the force interactions between their manifestations. An invariant nothingness, physically speaking, would be no energy at all, nowhere and not ever. And that's what can't happen: there can never anywhere be a zero that isn't varying in space or in time, or both. For that matter, since zero can be established as a "ground state" at any constant level, there's never anywhere such a thing as immutability. What is, must change.

Now engaged in opposition to this requirement for change are the ordered dimensions and natural laws of our universe. An important feature of this orderly opposition to change are the laws of thermodynamics, which establish a distinction between past and future. These dimensions and natural laws keep the requirement for change damped down to a background noise, such that its effect on us is restricted by rules (such as causality). However, whereas these dimensions and natural laws are limited to our universe, the requirement for change is not. Where a universe is not, there is the requirement for change unregulated by force or dimension.

We might as well begin referring to the requirement for change as "chaos." Chaos is the manner by which nature implements existence and abstains from invariant nothingness. In our universe, order (in the form of dimensions and natural laws) limits chaos to the background noise we call "quantum chaos," quantified by the uncertainty principle: dE dt < h_bar.

But just because existence exists does not mean that universes exist. Existence is a more general condition, and a universe is a special case. What besides existence is necessary for universes?

Universes are loci of spacetime that are partitioned from elsewhere by an event horizon, which in our case is an apparent "beginning of time" at what we call the Big Bang. It's a horizon because we can't sensibly refer to anything happening "before" the Big Bang.

Why do these event horizons occur?

Remember that apart from universes, chaos (the requirement of change imposed by the existence tautology) is unrestrained by limitations of order-oriented natural laws. The formation of universes is a statistical game in which energy randomly fluctuates everywhere. The fluctuations are mostly of the usual quantum sort, but there's no causal inhibition on their amplitudes, and so occasionally a very unusual fluctuation occurs that succeeds in isolating itself from its chaotic homeland with an event horizon.

In other words, a large fluctuation of energy might pull itself into its own spacetime pocket, and, once it's in there, new rules - orderly rules - may begin to appear.

I've used an analogy to explain why this universe-making process seems to begin with a Big Bang, when viewed from within. The motion of air molecules in a room is random, and statistically the most common distribution is one of almost uniform density thoughout the volume. But other distributions are possible, even though they are very unlikely. An extremely improbable distribution would crowd all the air in the room into a corner. So low are the odds, however, that I doubt there's a 50% chance for it to happen within the thermodynamic lifetime of the universe. But, in principle, it could happen.

If it did happen that all the air molecules in a room just happened to zip into the same corner of the room at the same time, the situation would not last very long. Only for a moment would the rest of the room be evacuated of air. In the next instant, all the air would come blasting back into the room from the corner it had occupied, and the more probable distribution of air would be quickly resumed. The blast of air from the corner, however, would resemble an explosion.

That's the sort of thing the Big Bang was. No Divine Being set off a bomb. It was just a chance gathering of a great deal of energy in one place, enough to form an event horizon, and since the energy could not disperse through the event horizon (i.e., could not go back to "before the Big Bang"), it began expanding space as it sought to return to a condition of maximum entropy. In essense, dimensioned space is caused by (gravitational potential) energy. Also, surfaces and textures are caused by (electromagnetic potential) energy.

That's what's going on. Needle's supposition regarding a Creator being required to think the thought which is the universe is an exercise in positing an entity not required by the known evidence. Most other theistic religions also do this, essentially asserting the primacy of one Divine Being another, with existence being relegated to dependency. We're not supposed to ask whether the Divine Being "exists." If we did, the answer would be "He does, but he's special." Or something of the kind. Immanent Cosmotheism tries to get around this with pantheist assertion that the universe, existence, and the Creator are all the same things. That's why the Creator is also called "the self-created," which has the same logical "first cause" flaw that can be found in most other theistic religions.

However, no chicken has ever laid the egg from which she, herself, hatched. If you managed to find such a miracle, you might regard the chicken as worthy of veneration. But you won't find that chicken, the one that laid the egg it hatched from. And neither will you ever find a universe that created itself by design.

In descending order of plausibility, here are the possible accounts for the universe.

1 (most probable). Random statistical fluctuations leading to a concentration of energy being isolated by an event horizon, within which appeared orderly rules, such as dimensions and natural laws, and those rules resulted in orderly changes (evolution) in the state of matter, which led to life and consciousness.

2. God exists and created the universe, and by "God" I mean the Old Man In The Sky sort of character. God, meddling in the stately working of the universe, frequently made special exceptions (creationism) to natural laws, resulting in life and consciousness.

3 (least probable). God is the Universe, which created itself, including its own mind, with a thought that somehow preceded the condition of having a mind to think with.

A Reply to Needle.

Originally posted by Needle.
Jenab said he was against Solipsism?

I wrote an essay to indicate some reasons why solipsism should not be preferred to the idea that the world is real.

Originally posted by Needle.
There is one and only one thing in the universe that we know exists without question. For each of us, it is "I"--our self. But what is "I"? It is not the sum of all our parts, which is simply a collection of atoms whose independent existence cannot be proved. It is, rather, a concept. It is the characteristic function of all of our parts, all of our actions, and all of our thoughts.

Originally posted by Jenab.
That is the basic premise of solipsism. The ego exists, but the existence of all else, and the validity of our sensory experiences, is accepted on faith.

Originally posted by Needle.
Another Straw-man and Red-herring Arguement, Jenab. It is quite clear again from what you have written that you really don't understand these concepts and are all caught-up in only your own Solipsistic "false reasoning".

Oh? Wasn't it clear to you that I was responding to something that you had written? It must have been clear.

You quoted the part of your text to which I was replying, then you quoted my reply, AND THEN you brazenly accused me of fabricating a straw man argument because I treated a topic that you raised yourself! Laying rhetorical ambushes as a way of scoring cheap points is a rather snide thing to do, Needle.

Originally posted by Jenab.
Just when a religious faith lacking a Kierkegaardian leap might come into existence, here's Needle, trying to put such a leap back into doctrine.

It is quite amusing to me to see an obviously and a quite dark pot calling the kettle black. It is very clear to me, Jenab, that you have mistaken only your own and quite factually inaccurate maps of the world for the actual world, itself. In your own Kierkegaardian leap of faith in only your own but quite false reasoning, assumptions, presumptions, and "faith" in a false Subject-Object Metaphysics.

If you think I'm "a quite dark pot calling the kettle black," then you must believe that I'm guilty of hypocrisy. You identify the hypocrisy as my treatment of "my quite factually inaccurate maps of the world" as though it were the world itself.

Well, everybody makes conceptual maps of the world. Nobody has the "world itself" inside his or her mind, and it's inside the mind where one decides what to believe and how to behave.

You have asserted that my conceptual maps are inaccurate. Please list the inaccuracies in my conceptual maps of the world that you have noticed. I will consider your assertions when they are made sufficiently specific, unambiguous, and supported by evidence.

You have asserted that I've made a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. Please identify the belief that I have taken entirely on faith - i.e., a belief not implied by the laws of nature or by the history of the universe.

You have descended from a tone of making good theological argument to one characterized by making wild accusations. It rather reminds me of debating liberals, since false assertions in the nature of "You are making a strawman argument!" frequently come from them.

Originally posted by Jenab.
Needle's supposition regarding a Creator being required to think the thought which is the universe is an exercise in positing an entity not required by the known evidence.

Originally posted by Needle.
On the contrary, the Creator is the Universe and is the Mind of GOD and is THE ONE ENTITY that all of the factually-known evidence most clearly indicates.

The "factually-known evidence" indicates that the universe exists, that it has matter that obeys the force of gravity, that there are such things as galaxies, stars, planets, and people. Among the things that the "factually-known evidence" does NOT indicate is that the universe is conscious in a general way, i.e., apart from the minds of living organisms. You are trying to slip a fabricated epistemology to the idea of "immanent consciousness" by conflating it with other ideas whose epistemology is already accepted, like a noxious rider on legislation pending in Congress.

You don't get to cheat.

If you assert that the universe has an "immanent consciousness," then you are obliged to prove that this must be true, and that no contrary explanation (one that leaves out the "immanent consciousness" idea) explains what can be observed as well.

Originally posted by Jenab.
Most other theistic religions also do this, essentially asserting the primacy of one Divine Being another, with existence being relegated to dependency.

Originally posted by Needle.
Indeed, but, most other theistic religions to not understand that existence and the Cosmic Mind are ONE and the Same. Cosmotheism and Panentheism and Classical Pantheism do.

For our purpose, that distinction makes no difference. That is, it does not matter whether the mind is the universe or whether the mind stands apart from the universe. What matters is which of the two, consciousness or existence, is the primary and which of them is the dependent.

The monotheistic religions answer that question the same way that you do: consciousness came first and is primary, and the universe is the creation of the Creator's mind, and therefore is dependent.

However, monotheistic theologians have been wrangling fine points of existentialism for centuries, and they've found most of the touchy problems that you're still banging into. For example, they don't regard the universe as quite all of existence. Existence, they say, is the universe plus certain invisible characters, such as God, angels, souls, demons, and the Devil, plus certain invisible places, such as Heaven and Hell. It is well for them that they do this, because it provides them with a way to explain where the universe came from. God, not being a part of the universe himself, made it. Poof. The monotheists might not be able to provide a First Cause for God, but they've got the universe covered just fine.

That's where the monotheists have an advantage on you. You claim that the universe and existence are the same, which puts you into the awkward position of asserting that the universe acquired a purpose to exist before it existed. Imagine any mind thinking, "Hey, I think I'll exist so that I can do significant things" before it does exist. The existence of a mind must precede the thoughts and purposes that the mind conceptualizes.

The problem with monotheism is the lesser problem of being unparsimonious: it defies the Occam's Razor principle. The problem with your Immanent Cosmotheism is a greater problem: it's logically self-contradictory.

Originally posted by Jenab.
We're not supposed to ask whether the Divine Being "exists." If we did, the answer would be "He does, but he's special." Or something of the kind.

Originally posted by Needle.
The Divine Being is All of Existence, itself! Cosmotheists do not anthropomorphize any such Personal Being or any such "He" or "She".

I didn't ask whether the Cosmotheists believed that the universe had a gender. The pronoun "he" is used to refer to any purportedly conscious being as a default case - i.e., when the being is not known to be specifically female - and I was providing a speculative quote regarding what a monotheist might say. Strawman, anybody?

The dispute between Needle and myself doesn't have to do with the universe's gender, nor does it pertain to whether the universe exists. Our dispute began with, and it remains, whether the universe is conscious in a general way - i.e., apart from the minds of living organisms.

Originally posted by Jenab.
Immanent Cosmotheism tries to get around this with pantheist assertion that the universe, existence, and the Creator are all the same things.

Originally posted by Needle.
Which, of course, it ALL IS. Only the Whole of Cosmos can be all these Beings in ONE ENTITY.

Nope. Not true. The monotheists could easily tell you that the Creator, the creative mind that brought the universe into existence, stands apart from the universe. There's nothing unprovable about the fundamental monotheistic "leap of faith." It's just not called for by the known evidence; i.e., it posits unobserved entities whose necessity is not proven. But that doesn't mean that monotheism has been disproved. Furthermore, the monotheists don't have the logical impossibility that you've saddled yourself with, namely, the impossibility of a mind purposefully creating itself. It's impossible because purposes can only exist in minds and because the purpose of a creation must precede the creative act itself.

Originally posted by Jenab.
That's why the Creator is also called "the self-created," which has the same logical "first cause" flaw that can be found in most other theistic religions.

Originally posted by Needle.
On the contrary, all of the scientific evidence indicates that the Cosmos, or the Creator, is both "self-created" and is the "First Cause" of All. The only logical flaw is the Blind-Faith belief in "EVERYTHING from NOTHING" of which Jerry and atheistic scientism and reductionism and materialism seem to subscribe and prescribe.

Scientific evidence does not link the Cosmos with the idea of Creator. Very careful measurements do show that there exists a background of quantum chaos responsible for such things as the Lamb shift, the Casimir effect, and an empirically quantifiable uncertainty principle. Within our universe, the orderly forces of nature keep the chaos reduced to the level of a low background noise. Without those orderly restraints, chaos can do anything it randomly pleases, and I'm guessing that universes are among the things that might result when an energy flux appears with the density necessary to produce an enclosing event horizon.

So, as you can see, I'm not just "blind faith" believing, as Needle would have you believe I'm doing.

Originally posted by Jenab.
However, no chicken has ever laid the egg from which she, herself, hatched. If you managed to find such a miracle, you might regard the chicken as worthy of veneration.

Originally posted by Needle.
Indeed. You have only just proven my own case here and not really your own, Jerry. Cosmic or "Immanent Consciousness" is far beyond both space and time dependent creations and this has actually created All of it from itself as nothing else can.

In other words, because we limited mortals can't hope to understand it all, we should just believe your Magic Words. You remind me more of a monotheist theologian with every post, Needle.

Originally posted by Jenab.
But you won't find that chicken, the one that laid the egg it hatched from.

Originally posted by Needle.
Indeed. You have only just proven my own case here and not really your own, Jerry.

That's not true. I've identified a problem with your logic. An effect is not its own cause, yet your theology requires an exception. A mind cannot purpose to create itself, yet your theology requires exactly this.

Originally posted by Jenab.
And neither will you ever find a universe that created itself by design.

Originally posted by Needle.
Indeed, but, except for our own, and of which obviously has real and overwhelming evidence to suggest that it did create itself by design with ordering Natural Laws.

Nope. Rather, we have "real and overwhelming evidence" that the universe and its natural laws exist. We DON'T have any evidence that the universe used these natural laws to create itself.

How else could it have appeared?

The monotheists have found another explanation: a God who exists "outside the universe."

I've found yet another: chaos and statistical oddities.

Jerry Abbott