seeds wrote:
You have made the assertion that consciousness presumes an unwarranted overestimation (a “gross distortion”) of its own value.
To which I responded by asking you to name just one thing (one ontic phenomenon) in the entire universe that would have any reason (i.e., any “purpose”) for existing if life and consciousness did not exist?
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:13 pm
Feel free to correct me if I misconstrue your question but its inference would suggest that any ontic phenomenon as an actual entity has no reason to exist unless life and consciousness validates its existence, that is, gives it purpose. As staged on this proscenium the universe is a morality play that requires consciousness to justify its existence. If the interpretation is inline with your meaning then I rest my case on consciousness making a total farce of itself far exceeding its mandate.
No, it is not inline with my meaning.
As just one simple example of what I am getting at, “visible light” (i.e., that which illuminates the three-dimensional structures of the universe) would have absolutely no reason or purpose for existing in a context where there is nothing conscious (alive) to
see anything.
In fact, according to certain interpretations of quantum theory, without the existence of consciousness to transform the waving, informationally-based (noumenal) underpinning of the universe into the phenomenal features that consciousness itself calls “reality”...
...then the entire universe would exist as a superpositionally entangled amalgam of potentialities (the
“universal wavefunction”) that has no reality as we understand reality to be.
In other words, minus the existence of life and consciousness, the universe would be a sightless, textureless, soundless, tasteless, odorless “field of information” that (for lack of a better visualization tool) would kind of resemble this...
If it is even remotely possible that such is the case, then don't you think that your insistence that the
value of consciousness is “inflated” and “exceeding its mandate,” could be a bit off the mark?
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:13 pm
Quantum theory or not, the idea is ludicrous beyond comprehension for that presupposes life and consciousness are its causing agents which puts the whole “To be or Not to Be” question on a vastly different level.
Of course it’s ludicrous, which is precisely why Schrödinger devised the “cat-in-the-box paradox” to show just how ludicrous it is. Even Einstein (Nick’s “cosmic man”) had problems with this issue.
However, the jury is still out.
Also, what I infer from your response is that you don’t seem to have given much thought to what quantum theory is implying (at least to the astute metaphysician) in how reality seems to be composed of a “mind-like” substance.
And I suggest that it is “mind-like” because the informationally-based essence from which the fabric of reality is woven (again, the noumenal underpinning of the universe) is apparently capable of being arranged in such a way that practically any (objective) phenomenal structure
“imaginable” can be created from it...
...in precisely the same way that any (subjective) phenomenal structure can be created from the noumenal essence that underpins our very own thoughts and dreams.
In which case, if it is indeed a possibility that all of reality is “mind-like” in nature (think Berkeley), then it would seem that consciousness (the overlord and manipulator of mind-stuff) would be critical to the system.
The point is that there are a lot of different pieces of the puzzle to consider before you dismiss certain concepts that seem ludicrous to you.
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:13 pm
I believe “the value of consciousness” should be rated according to its limitations which necessitates self-reflection. This doesn’t prevent it from incrementally surpassing itself but only if we keep our consciousness in harness to current realities.
If I am interpreting this correctly, then what you are saying is that one should always play it safe and only go by what your five senses tell you...
...and under no circumstance should you ever think outside of the box of materialism.
Is that about right?
_______