Bread and Puppet
Will_Baker
Vermont Veteran
In another tread I was asked:
What exactly do you mean by this broader organism? Like are we like the cells or proteins for some multi universe being? What sort of things make or allow you to think this could be the case?
-I conceptualize the theoretical situation as each subject, being sort of like a cell in the broader organism's body. The cell appears to exhibit self-reflection and free will. The cells exist within a greater context and this context, or Broader Organism, can communicate with the cell across time (read: history, paradigm shifts, etc.) The evidence for this would be what appears to be an inclination in the evolution of the species, and associated paradigm shifts and axial ages. In addition, Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance" provides one example of the transfer of particle data over distance. This would seem to provide a reasonable basis for the assertion that transmission of other particle data across distances could occur.
As an aside, this is not intended as an argument for intelligent design...
Comments
I am very doubtful about the suggestion that quantum entanglement applies at anything other than the sub-atomic level.
The other problem I have with your idea is the sheer size of the universe. We are a bunch of intelligent apes on a tiny speck of rock, there might be other intelligent species on other tiny speck of rock, but they are probably light years away. The distances involved are literally astronomical.
I didn't suggest quantum entanglement applies to anything other than what it does. I said it provides one example of the transfer of particle data over distance. Since we know there is one example, it seems to me there could very well be others. Since one mode is known to occur...
The quantum world is just weird though, the principles involved are very different to anything which happens at larger scales.
The other problem I have with your idea is the sheer size of the universe. We are a bunch of intelligent apes on a tiny speck of rock, there might be other intelligent species on other tiny speck of rock, but they are probably light years away. The distances involved are literally astronomical.
-Well, as you probably know, at one moment in time the universe was also inconceivably small/dense. On an interesting and possibly related note, my understanding is particle entanglement occurs when two particles are created at the same instant/point in space, sort of like plank epoch conditions. I don't see how space/time, the possible presence of other intelligent species and this idea are mutually exclusive. Why would they be?
Ps. Agreed on the apes comment :-)
-To paraphrase an old professor, General Relativity describes/explains a leaf's fall to the ground. QM describes/explains the leaf and its context. Agreed, QM is weird, but in my opinion it's necessary to develop a better understanding of reality...
There are different rules at different scales, and quantum mechanics only applies at the sub-atomic scale. Suggesting otherwise leads to pseudo-science.
I've just reread your OP and I am far from clear what you are actually proposing. Some sort of evolutionary principle for the universe? Some kind of intergalactic linkage of intelligent life forms? Something else? Could you elaborate on your idea?
There are different rules at different scales, and quantum mechanics only applies at the sub-atomic scale.
-Yes and no; the brass ring in physics is a grand theory which unifies both. The experiments running at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN may help in this regard. As an aside, many argue String Theory is the unified theory. But, it has it's problems, and for most, the question remains an open one. My bet is we will see a grand unified theory, I believe that the current path we're on has taken us to the very door step...
I've just reread your OP and I am far from clear what you are actually proposing. Some sort of evolutionary principle for the universe?
-My position flows from the problem of the logic of continuity. The Pythagorean argument resonates with me. I believe the truth might very well be independent of human beings. That being said I will readily stipulate when we die we also feed worms.
Some kind of intergalactic linkage of intelligent life forms? Something else?
-I don't know about linkage, but there certainly would be commonality.
The following conversation might be instructive in framing where I'm coming from, and if it isn't, it's certainly entertaining:[Excepted from - "Einstein and Tagore Plumb the truth : Scientist and Poet Exchange Thoughts on the possibility of its Existence without relation to Humanity" by Dmitri Marianoff, published in NewYork Times, August 10, 1930
https://mukto-mona.com/Articles/einstein_tagore.htm
A couple of questions:
Which Pythagorean argument do you mean?
Tagore talks about "universal mind" - how does that fit in to your proposal?
-The Pythagorean argument holds when "celestial bodies move" "music" is generated. This implies truth exist independently. As we now know, gravitational waves originating from black holes have been detected by instruments, and these waves can, in fact be "heard."
My position seeks to synthesize some of Tagore/Einstein. I am coming to believe their positions might not be mutually exclusive, perhaps they are describing aspects of the same thing (e.g. like the blind men and the elephant)...
Is the universal mind something that existed prior to conscious beings or is it something generated collectively by conscious beings?
Tagore seems to think humans are the only ones capable of perceiving truth and not only that but that no truth could exist apart from the human experience.
Maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't that mean evolution never happened except for through our perception?
If what he says is true then any alien lifeform that perceives truth would have to be considered human and anything on the evolutionary scale could not happen until humans evolved to be able to know it as the truth.
It all seems very ego serving and seems to assume that we are the only ones in the whole of the cosmos that will ever have the ability to properly perceive.
One view I visit from time to time is similar to the universal mind but not so tailored to humanity.
Tagore seems to think humans are the only ones capable of perceiving truth and not only that but that no truth could exist apart from the human experience.
-Yup, that was his argument; tell that to the big bang :-)
-Tagore generally argued it is the sum total of all conscious minds that ever lived, are living and who will ever live. I believe he modified his position over time somewhat though. For the most part, I agree with that, but I also believe truth exists independently. Earlier in the thread, SpinyNorman asked me to explain the Pythagorean argument. I could have just as easily said it is a proof/argument for a tree making a sound in the woods when it falls, even if no one is around to hear it...
Well... It would make sound waves but no actual sound until those waves reverberate off an ear drum.
Does a dog whistle make a sound?
Well, I guess since it includes beings who will live, it must either have existed before beings evolved or exists outside of time. Something that exists outside of time can't ever change though, since that is the definition of time.
So if it existed prior to beings does it have a will of its own? If it exists outside of time its effect would have to be constant, unchanging.
Maybe there is a third option that encompasses all of time and space. Some sort of big ball of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey stuff that our little ape minds can't grasp.
It makes sound waves but human ears won't complete the transmission.
-Basically, he argued it is a work in progress, beginning with upright man, and that those who came before us imprinted, effected what we have now as universal mind, and those living now are imprinting and effecting the development of it, as will those yet to come. My main takeaway is the implication which flows around responsibility for one's actions. There's a link above if you are interested in getting more on Tagore...
Maybe there is a third option that encompasses all of time and space. Some sort of big ball of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey stuff that our little ape minds can't grasp.
-Indeed :-)
Is it supposed to be some kind of impersonal cloud storage collective mind then? So our lives and experiences get transferred or are integrated with the universal mind? Then what, that universal mind influences the further development of humanity?
I suppose another option would be Carl Jungs "collective unconscious". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious
All this ideas look very speculative to me though, and perhaps driven by a need to believe there is something more than our transient human existence.
I would also say it's possible except I would not limit it to the present capacity of human understanding.
I feel that everything is the result of information being shared but am not so sure the sum of that knowledge is an entity. It could be but I'd imagine it is in the process of becoming ever more aware and not all knowing.
@person said:
-An individual subject is born, get's old, sick and dies. While alive the individual bears a great deal of responsibility for her or his actions, in that those actions have consequences beyond the individual. The individual's actions imprint on the world spirit/collective mind/broader organism (name your label). This always evolving collective mind is the context for individuals yet to be born, who will have their turn to make their mark (for good or ill). Think about how paradigm shifts work. This would be an example of universal mind in action. Let's take slavery. It was once common practice, now it's not. Sure it still occurs but practitioners, for the most part are considered pariahs.
-The challenge for me is to approach these questions from a scientific perspective, with the point of departure being on firm footing. I try to keep in mind I am an educated chimp, who, on a good day understands what clinging is. I also believe questions have answers, that, "when we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Why isn't normal social imprinting and evolution of thought enough to explain paradigm shifts or cultural evolution? What is there that makes you think something else is needed?
Why isn't normal social imprinting and evolution of thought enough to explain paradigm shifts or cultural evolution? What is there that makes you think something else is needed?
-In my opinion, the explanation is incomplete. Among other things, it fails to describe the evolutionary inclination I referenced above...
Evolutionary inclination is the backdrop of all cultural inputs. The good, the bad and the ugly. The need to dominate can be explained in evolutionary terms. However so can compassion.
In all due respect to Jung, he was criticized for bringing vague and sometimes unfalsifiable proofs. We also know a hell of a lot more about neuropsychology than they did in Jung's day.
That is not to say that the Jungian approach is clinically invalid. You just don't have to take it to the metaphysical level.
Another few of problems with invoking a "Universal Mind" hypothesis. This is no different the "God of gaps" to answer whatever scientific phenomenon that we do not understand. Not only that, by invoking such entities one does not further any understanding of reality for a couple of reasons.
Number one, you cannot prove it. Number two, you cannot use either hypothesis to make a prediction.
Evolutionary inclination is the backdrop of all cultural inputs.
-That's opinion not fact. As you say,"you can't prove it and you can't use the hypothesis to make a prediction..."
In all due respect to Jung...
-I did not introduce Jung into the discussion.
Suppose instead of intelligent organisms on a speck of rock that we are intelligent parasites on a vastly alive and intelligent organism giving birth and transmitting data to its parasitic offspring as well as spookily distant objects or entities. in addition to who will always be in some stage of developing intelligence plagued by the delusion that they possess so called "higher" intelligence. Just suppose. http://www.innerself.com/content/living/science-a-technology/8891-mother-earth-alive-conscious-aura-chakras-ley-lines.html
Now we're getting into the realms of decidedly woo-woo ideas proposed as supposedly verifiable pseudo-scientific research.
Sorry, I got confused reading who was making the statement. It was Spiny Norman who brought in Jung. As far as the term evolutionary inclination not being a provable backdrop to all cultural inputs. It already has been proven again and again. When one uses the term inclination you are dealing with emotions. These emotions exist throughout the animal kingdom in regards to mammals.
Humans are not the only species with the capacity for love, hate, cruelty, compassion, altruism and even humor are not uniquely human at all.Every emotion thinkable including altruism has survival utility. Altruism is an expression of esprit de corps which is an extremely powerful tool for survival as a group.
Any moral convictions that we have are strictly emotional. Socio-political convictions are emotionaly based and come straight out of your middle brain or the Limbic system which we share with other mammals.
I am not saying that it is deterministic but it is the backdrop of all of these inputs and it comes from evolution. Now we do have a neo cortex which allows us to overide our emotional conditioning which would be a reason why you could begin to suggest anything other than determinism. Still that is also a gift from evolution. Sorry for being so long winded.
They are in the sense that we are the ones who label them and give them attributes, If animals display such behaviours they do not consider them being "love, hate, cruelty, compassion, altruism and even humour".... They just behave that way because it's the way they decide to behave...We describe their behaviours in ways which we understand, not in ways, necessarily, that they do.
Do we need to distinguish emotion from instinct?
Could you provide a source that details this?
As far as the term evolutionary inclination not being a provable backdrop to all cultural inputs. It already has been proven again and again. When one uses the term inclination you are dealing with emotions. These emotions exist throughout the animal kingdom in regards to mammals.
-But as evolution relates to humans beings, evolved apes possessing self-reflection and consciousness, the fact is there are many open questions, particularly relating to language and the humanities. Here's an interesting link along those lines:
A related mystery concerns the extent to which this dominant form of communication depends on information maintained by social transmission. Even for theories postulating an innate universal grammar, the vast quantity and high fidelity of the information constituting even a typical vocabulary stands out as exceedingly anomalous from a biological point of view. How did such a large fraction of our communicative capacity wind up offloaded onto social transmission? And what explains the remarkable reliability of this process?
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2010/02/on-the-human-rethinking-the-natural-selection-of-human-language/
If woo-woo is not your thing maybe you might like trying a little wa-wa......http://www.hinduism.co.za/water.htm
Buddha save me from new-agers!
I got around to reading the article, his ideas are interesting. I don't have enough familiarity with the subject to say I really got it, but he seems to be saying that language (and perhaps other human abilities such as math or music) aren't fully explainable through biological evolution. In your brief excerpt above he questions the ability for such development through social transmission, but that was the only time I could think in a rather long article he addresses it. The article is really about language and biological evolution.
So language isn't fully biological in nature, which seems reasonable to me and not an idea I had thought of before. But I'm fine with thinking that certain social constructs, like language or physics, passes along externally to our biology, socially though, no need for hidden mysterious transmission. It isn't fully explained though so that does leave open the possibility for the influence of a universal intelligence.
Maybe there is some good philosophical argument as to why a universal intelligence should exist, above whether it could exist? Or maybe a good metaphor to help understand it better.
I'm just relating the idea of universal mind to the thing I like to champion, the hard problem of consciousness. There is the Mary's room thought experiment or the philosophical zombie argument, which give reasons to question physicalism.
When it occurs to me, that is how it occurs to me. It's the "why" of it all. Sure, there doesn't need to be a why at all but that doesn't mean there isn't one. And why are we born so full of wonder anyways?
When I think of it all as information being shared it hits home for me in a way that makes me wonder.
You mean the distinction between whether something could be and should be?
"...no need for hidden mysterious transmission."
-Perhaps it isn't hidden/mysterious (see below).
-Your brain generates about 12-25 watts of electricity...
http://bebrainfit.com/human-brain-facts/
-Scientists discover that our brain waves can be sent by electrical fields...
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-discover-new-method-of-brain-wave-transmission-electrical-fields
-UW study shows direct brain interface between humans...
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/11/05/uw-study-shows-direct-brain-interface-between-humans/
-The human brain also emits waves, like when a person focuses her attention or remembers something. This activity fires thousands of neurons simultaneously at the same frequency generating a wave—but at a rate closer to 10 to 100 (read: 10-100Hz) cycles per second.
http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/can-brain-waves-interfere-radio-waves
-The fundamental mode of the Earth-ionosphere cavity has the wavelength equal to the circumference of the Earth, which gives a resonance frequency of 7.8 Hz. This frequency, and higher resonance modes of 14, 20, 26 and 32 Hz appear as peaks in the ELF spectrum and are called Schumann resonance.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency
-It's a work in progress...
The links above look interesting. Hopefully tomorrow.
Or just that at times it makes more sense that it is.
I realise you are theorizing and not staking a bold claim as Tagore did so I am not trying to present an argument or counter point with this question but just trying to get an elaboration.
Would you suppose this "broader organism" is self aware or would it be aware almost vicariously through beings such as we?
A combination of both perhaps, with a gradual awareness?
Would you suppose this "broader organism" is self aware or would it be aware almost vicariously through beings such as we?...
-I believe the answer might be both. Perhaps it is self-aware across time, with historical past, a trans-formative present and an understanding of what is, and ought to be future, and, by virtue of its cells connectivity, a sort of real-time awareness also. We as constituent "cells," are networked together and running the broader organism "program" as a part of our general consciousness program.Yes, it seems to me this broader organism, would be distinct, self aware and trans-formative in nature.
A combination of both perhaps, with a gradual awareness?
-I believe in some ways, we are Organic Computers. Perhaps the broader organism developed/evolved along the lines of how current artificial intelligence is developing. Of course, the broader organism would be more sophisticated than AI.
So you're saying the brain creates low frequency waves that merge together and interact in some way?
For myself, I experience the "vibes" of a particular place. Being in a location for a while will have an effect on my own mind quite seemingly aside from any sensory info. So from my own experience I can buy into a sort of local effect.
I try to ask for hard evidence as much as possible though so I'm not deceiving myself into drawing false connections. But it isn't always available, so I suppose we just try to figure it out the best we can and take it with a grain of salt.
I experience something similar, like my state of mind seems in tune with the location. But it's difficult to say whether that is anything more than a psychological response.
I ask myself the same thing and I think I can be confident in saying it is something more than the difference between being in nature and being in the city. I work on and in people's homes and if I'm there for several days I find my thoughts and feelings change according to the vibes and then back again on the weekends or when I have time off. When a project is outside I find I'm not as affected, like people aren't around as much to infuse the area with their vibes. Also, I will sometimes work in total remodel projects where things all look the same from one project to the next which seems to rule out differing colors or decor. It's only personal data but the sample size is large and varied enough that it seems like I can rule out many ordinary environmental and psychological causes.
Clearly our environment effects our state of mind, so I don't see how you can "rule out" environmental and psychological causes.
A piece of music or a landscape view effects our state of mind. All sorts of experiences effect our state of mind, but what is the basis for assuming something spooky?