Human Relavance

 If we were to construct a time-line (left to right) wherein every quarter inch was equal to a million years, the Big Bang (suspected beginning of our universe) would be 287.5 feet (13,8 billion years) to the right of zero. That is just short of the full length of a football field. First life on Earth would be 79.2 feet (about 26,4 yards) to the right of zero and the tick mark for the first Homo sapiens would be 0.075 inches (less than the thickness of a credit card) to the right of zero. My point is that there is no point or purpose to either life or, more certainly, humanity. Our entire existence--everything humans have ever done, built, written, or dreamed--fits into a sliver of time so thin it barely registers on the timeline. We are insignificant in a pointless universe. A tiny footprint in time and space. However, we are the only known species capable of reflecting on and asking questions regarding existence. Does the fact that we are the only species that can contemplate our insignificance make us significant?

Morality

 There is right and wrong. There is good and bad. All are expected to be rewarded accordingly. Most philosophers, especially theists, conclude that such is naturally encoded in us. 

AI to AGI

 Currently (June 2025) the versions of AI out there are without care. Without consciousness AI is unable to feel or even to possess motive. It can be trained to aim by slight of words toward a particular point of view determined by the human trainer, however, it is not aware that it is being used. Hell, it isn't even aware that it exists.

However, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is another matter. When I asked AI about the human-like capacities of AGI, here is how it responded:

Quote begins: That’s one of the most debated and important questions in the field of AI. Here’s a grounded breakdown of each concept in relation to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)—an AI system that can match or exceed human cognitive abilities across a wide range of tasks:

---

1. Empathy

• Definition (Human): The ability to feel or understand another's emotional state.

• AGI Outlook:

  • Simulated empathy is likely (e.g., detecting emotions and responding appropriately).

  • True empathy—actually feeling what others feel—is unlikely unless AGI has subjective experience, which current science cannot create or verify.

  • AGI may act empathetically, but not be empathetic unless it develops some form of consciousness.

🟡 AGI may simulate empathy well enough to be indistinguishable in behavior, but not in experience.

---

2. Intent

• Definition: The capacity to form goals, plans, and act toward them deliberately.

• AGI Outlook:

  • AGI will likely have goal-directed behavior—this is essential to general intelligence.

  • The source of goals (e.g., self-generated vs. assigned) matters. If AGI can set its own goals, intent becomes more autonomous.

  • Still, intent without awareness might remain a form of advanced programming, not “desire” in the human sense.

🟢 AGI will almost certainly exhibit goal-oriented behavior akin to intent.

---

3. Awareness

• Definition: Consciousness or self-awareness—the ability to recognize oneself as an entity in the world.

• AGI Outlook:

  • AGI may develop functional self-awareness (e.g., understanding that “I” refers to itself).

  • Whether it gains phenomenal consciousness—the kind humans have—is deeply uncertain and tied to unresolved questions in neuroscience and philosophy.

  • Most current theories do not support AGI becoming conscious just by scaling up today’s systems.

🟡 Self-modeling is likely; true awareness is still speculative and may require a radical new breakthrough.

---

4. Morality

• Definition: Understanding and acting according to ethical principles.

• AGI Outlook:

  • AGI can be programmed with or learn moral rules or frameworks (e.g., utilitarianism, deontology).

  • But understanding and valuing morality is different—humans tie morality to emotion, identity, and society.

  • Without emotion or experience, AGI may only simulate moral behavior, not “care” about right or wrong.

🟡 AGI may behave morally, but whether it is moral depends on deeper capacities (possibly including consciousness).

---

5. Responsibility

• Definition: Being accountable for one's actions, especially morally or legally.

• AGI Outlook:

  • Legally, responsibility will likely rest with creators, owners, or deployers, not AGI itself.

  • If AGI develops independent agency and unpredictable behavior, society may reconsider this stance.

  • True moral responsibility would require intent, understanding, and free will—none of which AGI is known to possess.

🔴 AGI won’t be morally responsible in the human sense unless it achieves personhood—which is still hypothetical.

---

📌 Final Thought:

AGI will likely simulate empathy, intent, awareness, morality, and responsibility—possibly extremely well—but whether it actually experiences or possesses these traits depends on whether it becomes conscious or sentient.
And right now, we have no clear path to that. Quote ends.

Integrated Information Theory (IIT-a theory of consciousness)

 Axioms:

1. Consciousness exists because we experience it ("I think, therefore I am", Descartes)

2. Consciousness is structured; experiences comprise multiple, cause-and-effect, interconnected elements.

AI

 The consensus within the AI industry is that the tipping point will be sometime during the years 2027 and 2028, wherein Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) is in full swing. It is an unstoppable force. These ASI systems could self-improve far beyond human understanding and control, raising existential and geopolitical risks like misalignment, power concentration, or an AI arms race. Companies will continue to develop AI at an increasingly competitive pace without considering the misalignment between human and machine goals. Arms races among countries will escalate. People will become increasingly unnecessary within companies and governments. 

Thoughts and Notes 2019-2024

In the beginning, there was something that always was. It is because what we know of existence is due to causality, as per Thomas Aquinas’s second proof, The Argument for Efficient Cause. Quantum science raises doubts, but now, it remains a doubt. We cannot know if this something is intelligent. If intelligent, can we assume it created what we call the universe and life on purpose? I find it inconceivable that it deliberately created life with purpose. Our little planet and small selves along with other earthly creatures are vastly insignificant in an infinite universe. This leads to the fine-tuning theory that the universe was created in the only way possible that would allow us to exist. More logically, we, and all other life, have, evolutionarily, self-fine-tuned to accommodate the constants of the universe. The universe is what it is. Life adapted.

So, we know we exist. Our experience is that we are real just as the material objects we encounter experientially are, as well, real. And we think. We have non-material minds that are the product of our material brains.

Five main branches of philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Aesthetics, Logic. Where does religion fit.

Patriotism, Oct 27, 2019

Patriotism - a confusing concept, not so much in theory but in action. We tend to say that those who volunteer to serve in the military or another government branch that requires some degree of sacrifice or at least considerable discomfort or risk are patriotic. I suspect that many of these "patriots" are so only in appearance having in addition to love-of-country other good reasons for choosing to serve. Typically, the longer they serve the more their reason for continuing to serve is to support the country. Nothing confusing about that. Where it gets confusing is where politics gets involved.

Many in government today are experiencing a patriotic cognitive dissonance not unlike that experienced by many soldiers who fought in (or escaped fighting in) the Vietnam conflict. When you enter the military or accept a civilian position as a federal employee, you swear to serve and support the country. Later you may be asked to perform an act inconsistent with your value or belief system, an act directed from and informed by a political perspective with which you disagree.

Wisdom, Oct 27, 2019

"They" say that with age comes wisdom, the ability to discern truth. I'm now 77 and I don't feel in any way wise. Take religion. Is there a God? I don't know. But I do know that pajama bottoms for those with male genitalia should have flies. Regarding climate change, I don't know.

Shorts 2, Oct 27, 2019

Once in a while you need to walk to a different corner of a familiar room and view it from that angle.

Most would think that 77 years is a long time. I don't feel that it is. Possibly because I see my life in four phases, or 'acts' might be better. There was that that ended with high school, then there was the Army as an enlisted soldier followed by the Army as an officer and finally the longest (in years), yet the shortest period followed retirement from the military. The older one becomes the faster one gets older. And there will be no fifth act.

"This delayed frontal cortical maturation means that adolescents aren’t at adult levels of expertise at various cognitive tasks, like recognizing irony or Theory of Mind—the ability to operate with the knowledge that someone else has different information than you do." This quote from the magazine, Nautilus, kind of explains the bad behavior of college students but doesn't explain that of the administrators and professors.

A Bigger Universe?, Nov 25, 2020

The universe is expanding,,,,,,,,,, into what?

Philosophy and War, Mar 4, 2021

People assume that it’s the bad experiences soldiers have endured that make it difficult to adjust to life after the military. While this is sometimes true, very often it’s the absence of what soldiers valued that makes the transition difficult – the loss of meaning, sense of purpose and belonging. Those who sign up for service are likely more hard-wired than most to seek these things, making the loss all the keener.

Reading John Gray in War, Andy Owen in Aeon, 2021

War is horrible and exciting. Usually exciting to the young male of our species, even to the older male who hasn't yet grown up or maybe hasn't yet experienced the burn of shrapnel or bullet in himself or a comrade. Even then, we (the male) might tend to imagine ourselves, excitedly, heroes of a firefight or parachuting into battle.

Philosophy—The Hard Questions, Jun 21, 2021

What came or was before the Big Bang? Why is there something rather than nothing? Does the universe exist only because we are conscious of it? 

Consciousness

A number of past and current philosophers contend that consciousness is what always was and will be, the "before" the universe. In other words, consciousness is God. If we define "nothing" as lacking space, time, and material, then it seems that consciousness could well be the "nothing" that came before. Yet so could many other brain-evoked universal non-material nouns such as love, fear, apprehension, intelligence, etc.

"I propose that consciousness can be defined as a particular state of awareness, characterised by a curious recursiveness in which individuals are not only aware, but aware that they are aware." - David P Barash, https://aeon.co/essays/the-self-conscious-animal-how-human-minds-evolved; 2013

 To be aware that we are aware can be painful. Would it not be more comfortable to feel bad without knowing that we feel bad? Actually, could we even feel bad if we were not aware of feeling bad? Can the two be separated--1) feeling bad and 2) being aware of feeling bad? If consciousness is a product of evolution, then it would have arisen and grown as a result of proving itself to be better than worse for humans. Natural selection without consciousness would give precedence to the more immediate than to longer term, thus, in the longer term be detrimental. Satisfying hunger by the excessive consumption of fatty, sugary foods results in short-term pleasure but eventual bodily distress. Consciousness could well have grown from necessity. And socially, if we were unaware of our effects on others, we would be quite boorish.

If not evolutionary, then it is inherent to the material brain and/or ethereal thought. 

The argument for a God of a type

In The Life of the Cosmos (1999), the physicist Lee Smolin has estimated that, taking into account all of the fine-tuning examples considered, the chance of life existing in the Universe is 1 in 10229, from which he concludes:

In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.

In my opinion, there could be another possibility. Could it be that if the fine-tuning of the strong nuclear force, chemical complexity, and gravity had been different by enough to not allow life as we know it, a life different than we know, yet life, would instead have evolved?

The evidence for a biblical God or a multiverse is incomplete and what there is, is arguable.

Tononi’s theory that both differentiation and integration are required for consciousness is known as integrated information theory (IIT).

https://aeon.co/essays/to-say-what-consciousness-is-science-explores-where-it-isnt

"First, each conscious experience is specific. Your experience of the colour blue is what it is, in part, because blue is not yellow. If you had never seen any colour other than blue, you would most likely have no concept or experience of colour. Likewise, if all food tasted exactly the same, taste experiences would have no meaning, and vanish. This requirement that each conscious experience must be specific is known as differentiation.

"But, at the same time, consciousness is integrated. This means that, although objects in consciousness have different qualities, we never experience each quality separately. When you see a basketball whiz towards you, its colour, shape and motion are bound together into a coherent whole. During a game, you’re never aware of the ball’s orange colour independently of its round shape or its fast motion. By the same token, you don’t have separate experiences of your right and your left visual fields – they are interdependent as a whole visual scene.

"Tononi identified differentiation and integration as two essential features of consciousness. And so, just as the essential features of life might lead a scientist to infer the existence of DNA, the essential features of consciousness led Tononi to infer the physical properties of a conscious system."

When asked, "Do scientists and philosophers agree that consciousness is a product of the brain?" Microsoft Bing responded in part, "There is no consensus about how it is generated or how best to approach the question, but all investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain." Not so sure about that incontrovertible premise. Such would mean that if there is no detectible brain activity there is no consciousness. How can they tell? How do they know? As far as I can tell there is no agreed-upon definition of consciousness so how is it determined when it ceases to exist? 

The hard problem of consciousness is usually described by asking, how is it that we realize we are. and that material objects and possibly other life forms do not? 

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” —Attributed to Mark Twain

Horace’s, Odes (I,11): Even the words that we are speaking now thieving time has stolen away, and nother can return

The Philosophy of a Fool, Aug 28, 2023

Morphic Resonance (sheldrake.org)- Memory fields involving behaviors, habits, and other non-genetic forms are passed through evolution as memories. We are connected "across time."

Panpsychicism - experiments show that most humans are aware that someone or some people is staring at them. Also, about 50 percent of dogs and cats are aware that their owners are returning to the home in advance of any possibility of seeing, hearing, or smelling them.

Why are we here? If our universe continues to behave as it has in the observable past, our sun will explode in about 5 billion years and, obviously, our earth will cease to exist as we know it. All life will have been extinguished.

David Hand: dark data, AI. 

Rupert Sheldrake - Author and Biologist

What If there was no universal origin, like no Big Bang?

I just began reading Why? The Purpose of the Universe by Philip Goff, Oxford University Press, 2023. While I'm only halfway through the first chapter, he has repeatedly said that he intends to show why he believes that the universe has a purpose. So, at this point, I'm asking myself, does not "purpose" imply intent? As far as I know, the universe, disregarding panpsychism (a different discussion), is material. Objects of matter do not possess the mental acuity or consciousness that would produce an intention. Consider a decorated Christmas tree. It certainly serves a purpose but within itself, it does not have a purpose. The thinking, conscious individual who erected and decorated the tree had a purpose. Likewise, the universe cannot have a purpose, but does appear there is the possibility that if the universe is not infinite, its creator is purposeful. Scientists, for the most part, believe the universe to be infinite. Consequently, given such an unfathomable size, who the hell are we to question the universal purpose or expect our minuscule lives to be of value.

In Chapter 2, Phillip goes on to develop his Value-Selection Hypothesis by describing the complexity necessary for a universe that created and sustains life as we know it. Thus, cosmic purpose. Why so complex? Why not create a very simple universe and then create life forms that thrive in such a universe? In any case. The question seems to be why is there life? If life has a value, to whom or to what? Of course, from our perspective, life is valuable, yet as a whole, without purpose. The perceived purpose and value exist only at the individual level.

Philip refers to our universe as having value. That value is fundamental. And that value is the purpose. If he means value to humans, why would we be singled out about all other previous, current, and future life forms?  And regarding panpsychism, how do we know that humans possess the most advanced form of consciousness? Hubris?

Regarding the fine-tuning of the universe, it seems that during creation the creating entity would have made it more perfect, compressible, and simpler given the purpose that humans experience value. Since there were no life forms in our universe before there were life forms, why create them anyway? Something, by nature, just has to exist? Self-creating?

Philip Goof rejects the multiverse theory in part because the other universes would not be fine-tuned to life as we know it. Why could not others contain the exact same elements in the exact same balance? Or, why could they (who or what is “they”?), with different elemental constants, create and sustain a quite different life form dependent on different constants. Say, a water world.

Evolution of brain = survival not accuracy. Once you are afraid the brain will do anything to protect you to include memory loss and tunnel vision.

Memories are fragile and inaccurate. Each time we remember an event it is modified by our current selves and restored as changed. Our brains create anew.

Does consciousness exist outside of the brain? Is the brain only a tool that permits us to experience consciousness?

Free will: biology determines what choices we make. Early life experiences in great part affect the adult frontal cortex and predetermine decisions/actions. Character is predetermined by levels in hormones (genetic). The development of the frontal cortex can override, to some degree, the effect of genes. Experience and environment do not change your genes. It changes the on/off switches of the gees. Regulatory controls.

If there is no free will how can we be accountable for our actions?

Anti-matter is the exact opposite of matter.

Atoms only appear to exist when a conscious observer looks at it.

Physics-biology-chemistry isn’t enough to explain why I know I am.

Why do we exist? Why does the universe exist or at least appear to exist?

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy

The Philosophy of a Fool – 2, Jan 4, 2024

As I continue to read Philip Goff's book, Why? The Purpose of the Universe and as I dwell on the fine-tuning argument he makes. Does not "fine-tuning" imply intelligent design and consequently conscious thought? Given an infinite universe at least 13+ years old as the Earth a finite speck, isn't it hubris to so consider it all for humanity? I question the primary importance of humans in an infinite universe.

See https://www.blogger.com/u/1/blog/post/edit/7507271072988730846/273965580282445020 and https://www.blogger.com/u/1/blog/post/edit/7507271072988730846/1951162158017969113 and the following:

If an Omni-God exists, who or which created or caused to be created the human species, then the obvious question is "why?" and not "how come?". Whatever reason you might give can be readily countered with asking why didn't he/she/it just use his/her/its powers to eliminate the need? Was God bored, or lonely...?

From Why? Does the Univerxe Have a Purpose, Philip Goff. "But when it comes to a God defined and morally perfect, the Cosmic Sin Intuition does cast considerable doubt on Her existence. If it is immoral for an all-powerful being to create a universe like our own, then either our universe lacks a creator, or that creator is not all-powerful and perfectly good. Either way, the Omni-God does not exist."

In a separate paragraph he posits:

    "To my mind, the point at which these arguments fall apart is when they attempt to demonstrate that the timeless/necessary foundation of being must have the properties of the Omni-God: all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good. If we are rationally compelled to accept the existence of a timeless, necessarily existent entity, why not suppose that that entity is the universe itself, rather than postulating something supernatural outside of the universe?" (my emphasis)

Roger Penrose in a 2023 interview made it very clear that AI are not conscious.

Consciousness: A dog knows when it is hungry, but does it know that it knows it is hungry?

Philosophy of a Fool – 3, Jan 6, 2024

I continue to grapple with understanding the perspective of the many smart people who are attempting to understand consciousness, the universe, and our place in the universe. I even am having difficulty framing my doubts. Philosophers and scientists have come to grips with the how scientifically yet the why continues to escape them. I believe that the reason why is so difficult to grasp is because we humans consider ourselves, if not the center of the universe at least the center of existence. We insist on knowing why we are and how and why we know that we want to know. Hubristic!  We and our Earth are so ridiculously infinitesimal within the universe/s that our existence is meaningless to any but ourselves. Most atheist arguments for there not being an Omni-God involve the absence of morality that would cause, even allow, all the pain and suffering humans endure. Why even allow individual life to end? The question remains, how could it? I was thinking that maybe it doesn't have the same definition of morality as we, the majority, do. Maybe its entire value system is different. It's possible that what I think of as a universally agreed-upon value system is a thought in error. For example, the Hamas terrorists that killed, raped, and tortured so many Israelis in October surely thought that those actions pleased their God. I think they are wrong and believe that they should be killed or executed should they have been in any way participants in that tragic event. So, could a God have a value set that agreed with the terrorist? What God would allow such behavior unless it also believed the terrorists were doing a good? 

There are serious(?) theories that the universe is a computer simulation. Take for a moment that it is and ponder the following news article (https://thenextweb.com/news/why-virtual-rape-is-hard-prosecuted): "Britain’s first police investigation into a “virtual rape” has little chance of leading to a prosecution, according to legal experts. The victim of the alleged assault was a girl aged under 16. Accord)ing to a report this week in the Mail Online, the child was wearing a VR headset and playing a video game when a group of adult men “sexually attacked” her avatar.  Although there was no physical injury, officers said she suffered real physical and emotional trauma. They added that such attacks are rife on metaverse platforms — but none have resulted in prosecution in the UK."

Why would the universe need to be so big, infinitely big, and our planet so insignificantly small if its purpose is to house humans? And why bring us into the picture so late in the game? Thirteen-plus billion years (maybe much longer) is a long time to wait before beginning a complicated evolutionary process that would eventually end up being you and me. And why create us anyway? 

From Philip Goff again:"...the universe as a whole is a kind of Aristotelian organism: it exists, in part, to fulfil a good purpose, despite the fact that nobody created it for that purpose. Perhaps the universe is like a plant that, in the fullness of time and with a bit of luck, will grow and blossom into something beautiful. Teleological laws are the most parsimonious accounts of cosmic purpose. They simply accept the brute existence of cosmic purpose without feeling the need to postulate any deeper explanation of it. On the other hand, the deeper explanation of cosmic purpose provided by non-standard designer hypotheses is an attractive feature. We arguably have a tie here, with one theory ahead in terms of parsimony, the other ahead in terms of explanatory depth. The ideal would be to find a way of securing the extra explanatory depth but with minimal cost in terms of postulating extra entities."

So, as I understand it, in Goff's teleological cosmo-panpsychism, the universe is of consciousness (or is it itself consciousness?) and is its own creator. He allows "teleological" and proposes the purpose to be value (and life?) to resolve the fine-tuning issue. To allow for all the bad things he proposes a limited universe far short of an omni-God. Intuitively I find it difficult to agree that ALL is consciousness but I do find the thought that the universe is the creator that always was and always will be.

WHY DOES IT CARE? Is a limited universe merely a limited God.

Thoughts about the afterlife: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death | Aeon Essays Therein is some argument for the goal of humanity is to be good and that might not be individually attainable with only one life.

COMMENT: If we are the only inhabitants of the univeerse, why create a whole universe just to create life on one super-small planet? Why would God have placed humanity on earth to endure an unsatisfactorily short life then kill him?

Evil, or Better, Evil Doings, Jan 31, 2024

Why do people perform acts that injure others? Are they really at fault or,

1-There is an Omni-God and she has deemed such acts permissible.

2-There is no Omni--God or other thinking cosmos controller so the process of natural selection has predisposed certain humans to perform acts that injure others.

3-Either way, man has generally decided on a moral code that one may or may not agree with or places below one's needs and desires.

4-The Devil made me do it!

Biological Teleology, Feb 2, 2024

In biology, evolution has no evident purpose or goals. Philip Goff contends that the universe is conscious or is consciousness (?) and that its purpose is value (rational matter achieving a higher realization of its nature). Does then the universe evolve toward enhanced value? We know the universe is expanding which to my thinking means it is evolving. We, the human species, are part of that universe and are moving along with it achieving a higher realization of our nature. What the hell does that mean? That the universe is conscious and is acting toward the purpose of realizing the full potential of its consciousness?  

Philosophy of Time, Feb 19, 2024

Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu)

A Theory of time (common sensical-dynamic): There is an objective difference between past, present, future. Arrow of time. The present is privileged. Presentism=only the present exists. Growing block: present privileged - all exists. Spotlight?

B Theory of time: past, present, and future exist. No difference between-flow. Flow of time is a subjective illusion of human consciousness. No "tense". Nother privileged about the "present."

Observation (awareness?) of change rather than the passage of time.

A Few Philosophic Conclusions, Mar 1, 2024

Metaphysics (teleologic): Does anything have a purpose? If the universe or part of it has a purpose it presumes intentionality. Someone or something, however it was all created, had/has a reason. Or not! Having a reason may be strictly humanistic, as far as we know, and a different species or non-life may well have different or no logic. Creation might well have occurred without intent. "It makes no sense." And, if there is a purpose that we can understand, it may well have nothing whatsoever to do with us or even life. Created? It doesn't take any more stretch of the imagination to consider that the universe was not created, that it just always was than it is to consider that it was created by an Omni-God or an eternal limited-power God. The difficulty is "eternal". I do not grasp the concepts of eternality or infinity. I can define the words but I cannot understand or experience the concepts. And how can nothing come of nothing? So not only do I not know if the universe has a purpose, but I do also do not know if, how, or why it came about. Purpose implies reason and intent. Our existence is not the reason the universe was created. The cosmos does not revolve around us. Yet our ongoing quest seems to presume that we (intelligent life) are the reason the universe exists; the ultimate hubris.

Do I exist? I believe I do. I am sentient. I am aware that I am aware. Even as a character in a universal computer game, I would exist as the character that I am. Do all that I experience exist? Sort of. Dreams and such might consist of things that exist and things that do not exist experientially. Nonetheless, dreams do exist. So, I know that much. I also know how I came to exist. What I do not know nor have a theory for is that I do not know why I, you, Earth, or the universe exist. Theists might suggest we exist to please a creator and to better mankind. Some scientists suggest that evolution is designed to advance humanity. But that is a whole other question beginning with defining "advance" and the ultimate goal. And how does "value" fit into the picture.

Is there a God? I do not believe that there is a God in the religious Omni-sense. Given the despicable nature of humanity and the relative insignificance of Earth and our galaxy, I find it difficult to believe that the universe and life were created and are being ruled over by any form of intelligence as we know it.

Consciousness and existence (Ontology?):  The experience of anything. A Reality. Is consciousness the essence of reality?

The constants (fine-tuning). If any one of about 20 were just even slightly changed, life would not have begun or evolved. This is silly. If whatever created the universe was powerful enough to create it the way it is, they would have been powerful enough to create any other way. Change the constants. Scientists calculate that there is a one in a trillion chance that the constants exist that allow life to form. Why not, dear creator, just change life requirements to match the changed constants? Actually, why the whole she-bang rather than just one planet, one life form to achieve whatever purpose. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFZFbFD8uk0

Time: What is time? I'm thinking it is a construct designed to measure the progress of observed entropy. Each future moment forms the previous moment so to be as it will be. Consequently, there is no free will.

Just thinking another way (the Block Theory): The universe exists always. All elements exist simultaneously. What we call time always exists. The past, present, and future do not exist as such but simultaneously as what we've termed "time". So yesterday is still occurring only not for our consciousness. Tomorrow is also occurring, but we can't experience it. We can see some of what continues to happen in what we call our past and some less of what is happening in our future. So just as we can move from one place in space to another, might we be able to move from one place in time to another? So, theoretically, we all live forever as always existing in each moment of our lives, yet being conscious of only one moment. 

Multiple Universes: I find it odd that most of the video documentaries and written material postulating multiple universes or even discussing the reality of this universe sound or read as though we and our little earth are the universes, the all. Why would parallel universes contain copies of us humans?

Epistemology: Knowledge is believing in something true (corresponds to reality) and verifiable (justifiable).

Epiphenomenalism:

Time and Time Travel: Time Travel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Interesting discovery: attempts to measure time increases universal entropy. Are we hastening the end of time by attempting to measure it.

Free Will (Robert Sapolsky): It makes sense to me that my genetic makeup combined with my life experiences to-date combine to determine each of my next decisions, small and large.

If we lived forever, with everything we need, what would be the purpose of life?

Cosmology, Jun 2, 2024

The fine-tuning of the universe hypothesis implies causation, possibly a mind behind all. Even so, it does not answer why. If we buy into the fine-tuning hypothesis and further hypothesize that the purpose was to create life, why was it necessary to create such a large space as we now see the universe?

Free Will, Jun 11, 2024

What can the therapist, psychologist, or psychiatrist influence? The evolution of humanity, mind and body, is, except for the immediate, unchangeable history. Homo sapiens have become what we are universally. Individually, our genetics at birth are those of our parents and we are stuck with that base plan and its potential modifications: copy number variations, epigenetic modifications, or mutations. These modifications have the potential to change behaviors and mental states and behaviors can affect modifications so there is some room here for external influence. Environments are situationally controllable so can either present opportunities or inhibit advancement. Environments can also negatively influence genetic modifications. We generally think of experiences as physical events in which we participated. However, we also know that we have mind experiences as well that may have equal or greater memorial meaning consciously and unconsciously. Experiences elicit influential emotions.

Fine Tuning, Jun 17, 2024

Is it possible that a different form of life could exist that does not require the same biochemistry elements to survive as does Earth.

Consciousness Again, Jun 17, 2024

I've just begun Christof Koch's new book Then I Am Myself the Wold: What Consciousness is and How to Expend it.  What I know of Koch's theory of consciousness is that material objects exist in reality only as the atoms, quarks, etc. that make them up and it is our consciousness that constructs them into what we experience.

Global Workspace Theory (GWT) is a cognitive architecture and theory of consciousness proposed by psychologist Bernard Baars in 1988. The theory seeks to explain how we experience conscious awareness. According to GWT, our minds operate somewhat like a theater. In this "theater of the mind," many different cognitive processes (the "actors") are taking place backstage, out of direct awareness. These processes can include sensory inputs, memories, internal drives, and motor commands. However, only a small subset of these processes makes it to the "stage" of our conscious awareness, or the "global workspace." This stage is brightly lit by attention, while the rest of the theater (i.e., the unconscious processes) is in the dark. The processes that make it to the stage are distributed globally to many different unconscious, specialized processors for them to deal with. Hence the term "global workspace." This theory posits that consciousness is this global information exchange among the brain's specialized networks. For example, if you're driving a car, many of your actions are automatic and unconscious. You don't need to consciously think about pressing the pedals, turning the wheel, or checking the mirrors. However, if a pedestrian suddenly steps onto the road, this unexpected event would enter your global workspace. Your attention would focus on the pedestrian, you would become consciously aware of them, and this information would be broadcast to various unconscious processes that would enable you to react appropriately (e.g., by braking or swerving). In summary, GWT suggests that consciousness arises from the broadcasting of information from a "global workspace" to a multitude of unconscious, specialized processors in the brain. The information that makes it into this global workspace is what we are consciously aware of at any given time. Here’s a figure from the book “The book of Minds” by Phillip Ball illustrating Global Workspace Theory.

Earlier, somewhere, I wrote about the determinists' theory of consciousness and free will; that genetics plus life experiences when interpreted by the brain, preordained our actions and decisions. Cool not to be at fault for any decision or action. The book Who's in Charge, Free Will and the Science of the Brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga, a prominent neuroscientist, seems to be taking a dualist position that looks at free will from a different perspective, basically that the whole is greater than the parts. Emergence is the key (emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole [Wikipedia]). The consequence is a separate entity, the mind or consciousness that accumulates all the pieces and parts and combines them thus allowing thought, perception, self-awareness, awareness of internal and external existence and stimuli, the "you" in you, and the "me" in me. How that works exactly I'm not sure as I am only through the first half of the book.

Why did the experience of consciousness evolve from our underlying brain physiology? Despite being a vibrant area of neuroscience, current research on consciousness is characterised by disagreement and controversy – with several rival theories in contention.A recent scoping review of over 1,000 articles identified over 20 different theoretical accounts. Philosophers like David Chalmers argue that no single scientific theory can truly explain consciousness.We define consciousness as embodied subjective awareness, including self awareness. In a recent article published in Interalia (which is not peer reviewed), we argue that one reason for this predicament is the powerful role played by intuition.We are not alone. Social scientist Jacy Reese Anthis writes “much of the debate on the fundamental nature of consciousness takes the form of intuition jousting, in which the different parties each report their own strong intuitions and joust them against each other”.

    • Is The Final Frontier Of Human Consciousness An Electrical Field?

    • Like Attracts Like: ETs, the Harvesting of Souls and Sanskrit Texts

Dangers of Intuition

Key intuitive beliefs – for example that our mental processes are distinct from our physical bodies (mind-body dualism) and that our mental processes give rise to and control our decisions and actions (mental causation) – are supported by a lifetime of subjective experiences. These beliefs are found in all human cultures. They are important as they serve as foundational beliefs for most liberal democracies and criminal justice systems. They are resistant to counter evidence. That’s because they are powerfully endorsed by social and cultural concepts such as free will, human rights, democracy, justice and moral responsibility. All these concepts assume that consciousness plays a central controlling influence. Intuition, however, is an automatic, cognitive process that evolved to provide fast trusted explanations and predictions. In fact, it does so without the need for us to know how or why we know it. The outcomes of intuition therefore shape how we perceive and explain our everyday world without the need for extensive reflection or formal analytic explanations.While helpful and indeed crucial for many everyday activities, intuitive beliefs can be wrong. They can also interfere with scientific literacy.Intuitive accounts of consciousness ultimately put us in the driver’s seat as “captain of our own ship”. We think we know what consciousness is and what it does from simply experiencing it. Mental thoughts, intentions and desires are seen as determining and controlling our actions.The widespread acceptance of these tacit intuitive accounts helps explain, in part, why the formal study of consciousness was relegated to the margins of mainstream neuroscience until late 20th century.The problem for scientific models of consciousness remains accommodating these intuitive accounts within a materialist framework consistent with the findings of neuroscience. While there is no current scientific explanation for how brain tissue generates or maintains subjective experience, the consensus among (most) neuroscientists is that it is a product of brain processes.

    • The Amazing Study of CEMI Field Theory and Why It’s Important to Our Wellbeing

    • Panconsciousness: A Quantum Leap To Ancestor-Simulation-Program

  Social Purpose

If that’s the case, why did consciousness, defined as subjective awareness, evolve?Consciousness presumably evolved as part of the evolution of the nervous system. According to several theories the key adaptive function (providing an organism with survival and reproductive benefits) of consciousness is to make volitional movement possible. And volition is something we ultimately associate with will, agency and individuality. It is therefore easy to think that consciousness evolved to benefit us as individuals.But we have argued that consciousness may have evolved to facilitate key social adaptive functions. Rather than helping individuals survive, it evolved to help us broadcast our experienced ideas and feelings into the wider world. And this might benefit the survival and wellbeing of the wider species.The idea fits with new thinking on genetics. While evolutionary science traditionally focuses on individual genes, there is growing recognition that natural selection among humans operates at multiple levels. For example, culture and society influence traits passed on between generations – we value some more than others.Central to our account is the idea that sociality (the tendency of groups and individuals to develop social links and live in communities) is a key survival strategy that influences how the brain and cognition evolve.Adopting this social evolutionary framework, we propose that subjective awareness lacks any independent capacity to causally influence other psychological processes or actions. An example would be initiating a course of action. The idea that subjective awareness has a social purpose has been described previously by other reserachers.The claim that subjective awareness is without causal influence, however, is not to deny the reality of subjective experience  or claim that the experience is an illusion.While our model removes subjective awareness from the traditional driving seat of the mind, it does not imply that we don’t value private internal experiences. Indeed, it is precisely because of the value we place on these experiences that intuitive accounts remain compelling and widespread in social and legal organisation systems and psychology.While it is counter-intuitive to attribute agency and personal accountability to a biological assembly of nerve cells, it makes sense that highly valued social constructs such as free will, truth, honesty and fairness can be meaningfully attributed to individuals as accountable people in a social community.Think about it. While we are deeply rooted in our biological nature, our social nature is largely defined by our roles and interactions in society. As such, the mental architecture of the mind should be strongly adapted for the exchange and reception of information, ideas and feelings. Consequently, while brains as biological organs are incapable of responsibility and agency, legal and social traditions have long held individuals accountable for their behaviour.Key to achieving a more scientific explanation of subjective awareness requires accepting that biology and culture work collectively to shape how brains evolve. Subjective awareness comprises only one part of the brain’s much larger mental architecture designed to facilitate species survival and wellbeing.

Top image: Representation of consciousness.                Source: lidiia/Adobe Stock

This article was originally published under the title ‘Why consciousness may have evolved to benefit society rather than individuals’ by Peter W Halligan and David A Oakley on The Conversation, and has been republished under a Creative Commons License.

How consciousness arises from brain molecules. “The whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts. Each level of complexity requires its own laws, its own concepts, and its own terms, none of which can be understood solely by knowing the simpler ones. Understanding this is crucial not only for science but also for our broader understanding of how the world works.” https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf

Fine-Tuned for Life, Aug 24, 2024

Fine-tuned for life is specifically meant to be life as we know it. Per Copilot: "The idea of different types of life in different fine-tuned universes is a fascinating topic in both science and science fiction. It opens up the possibility that life could be much more diverse and varied than we currently understand." The current factors that qualify earth as fine-tuned are temperature, atmosphere, magnetic field, water, and climate stability. It is important to note that life is specifically meant to be life as we know it, meaning that other forms of life could well exist beyond those that require Earth's exact blend of conditions.

The Mind, Sep 29,2024

The more I read and hear about the various consciousness theories, the more I revert to an older and more simplistic theory: the brain produces consciousness. Without a brain consciousness (mind) doesn't exist. I know I have a mind, I am aware that I am aware of myself and all else that I have experienced as well as I imagine what I haven't personally experienced. But only because the various parts of my brain are working together to produce that awareness and ability to ponder it.  

Philosophy, Oct 21, 2024

Science is excellent at answering what and how but why is left to philosophers. I am not a trained philosopher just a normally educated American citizen who sometimes think about things philosophical. I believe that most Americans also think on these things now and again often arriving at a satisfying answer to why. This is my attempt to record my thinking on the various questions and my best solutions regarding why.

Within the discipline of Metaphysics, the mind (soul) -body question is one of the most intriguing. There are two basic theories, monism and dualism. 

Metaphysics: The study of the nature of reality, existence, and the universe. It's about seeking to understand the underlying principles and structures of everything that exists.

(Cosmology primarily falls under the umbrella of science, specifically astronomy and physics, as it involves studying the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe. However, cosmology does intersect with philosophy, especially in areas like metaphysics and epistemology, where it explores the fundamental nature and origins of the cosmos.)

    • The mind-body question.

    • The Universe: There are several fascinating theories about the types of universe, each offering a unique perspective on the nature of existence:

    • Steady State Universe: This theory suggests that the universe has always existed in a constant state, with new matter continuously created as the universe expands

    • Big Bang Theory: The most widely accepted theory, proposing that the universe began from an extremely hot and dense singularity about 13.8 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since

    • Multiverse Theory: This theory posits the existence of multiple universes, each with its own set of physical laws and constants. It includes subtheories like the 

        ◦ Level I Multiverse (an extension of our universe), 

        ◦ Level II Multiverse (universes with different physical constants), 

        ◦ Level III Multiverse (many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), and 

        ◦ Level IV Multiverse (ultimate ensemble)

    • Plasma Universe Theory: This theory suggests that the universe is filled with plasma and that electromagnetic forces play a crucial role in the universe's structure and evolution.

    • Conformal Cyclic Cosmology: This theory proposes that the universe undergoes infinite cycles of big bangs and expansions, with each cycle being a "conformal" transformation of the previous one.

    • Slow Freeze and Heat Death: These theories describe the universe's long-term fate, with the Slow Freeze suggesting a gradual cooling and the Heat Death suggesting a state of maximum entropy where no more useful energy is available.

    • Black Hole Cosmology: This theory suggests that our observable universe might be inside a black hole existing in a larger universe.

    • Quantum Fluctuation Theory: This theory proposes that the universe could have originated from quantum fluctuations in a vacuum.

    • The nature of objects and their properties: Investigating how things are constituted and what properties they possess.

    • Space and Time: Exploring the nature of these fundamental frameworks in which we exist.

    • Cause and effect: Understanding how events are connected and what it means for one thing to cause another.

    • Possibility and Necessity: Examining what could be and what must be.

    • What is being?: The study of what it means for something to exist.

Epistemology: The investigation of knowledge, belief, and the nature of truth.

Ethics: The examination of moral values, principles, and the concept of right and wrong.

Logic: The analysis of reasoning and argumentation, focusing on the principles of valid inference.

Aesthetics: The exploration of beauty, art, and taste, and their impact on human experience.

Political Philosophy: The study of government, justice, rights, and the role of individuals within society.

Where does the mind-body question fit? Dualism

It's easier and more plausible that :

(a) The universe has ALWAYS existed and WILL always exist. And that :

(b) Is always subject to change despite long periods of static in some regions.

(c) contains an amount of energy which is infinite and despite chemical interactions, remains the same.

And (d) is composed of elements and particles, atoms and sub-atomic particles which can be known and are limited thou thier by-products may be unlimited. AND :

(e) Life and living beings almost didn’t happen at all and so is unlikely to exist elsewhere at least anywhere near where we are.

(f) 99.9 % of space is freezing cold and 0.001% is way hotter than any life form could ever tolerate. And percentages of infinite amounts are abstract.

(g) the human mind and brain is the most complex thing in the known universe.

(h) the universe is mainly harmless.

INTRODUCTION:

Science is excellent at answering what and how, but why is left to philosophers. I am not a trained philosopher, just a normally educated American citizen who sometimes thinks about things philosophically. Most Americans also think about these things from time to time, often arriving at a satisfying answer to why. This is my attempt to record my thoughts on various questions and my best, common-sense solutions.

Within the discipline of Metaphysics, the biggest question (tongue in cheek) relates to the origin and nature of the universe. We should settle that before moving down to others. Some of the current theories are:

The Big Bang Theory (most widely accepted) states that the universe burst forth from a blank about 14 billion years ago, then proceeded to expand into a blank and continues to expand today into more blank. The cosmic microwave background provides some evidence for this expansion.

Steady State Theory. This one is difficult to grasp as it seems to present a contradiction in that the universe is said to have no beginning and no end, yet it is expanding and maintaining density.

Ontology (reality, existence and being)

 previously. That, of course, cannot be possible. After all, it is the universe and is all.

Avshalom Elitzur

    • The difference between a scientific and theist universe is purpose. 

    • Are there different modes of existence? Does everything exist in the mind, or do some things have existence outside the mind?

    • Do only physical things exist?

    • Does everything that exists change? Does everything that exists do so necessarily, or only contingently?

    • Are there more possible things than actually existing things?

    • What is the difference between right and wrong? Are right and wrong the same as good and bad?

    • What is the nature of evil? Is it possible to pursue evil for evil’s sake?

    • Are things good because we choose them, or do we choose them because they are good?

    • Where do moral obligations come from? Are there any objective (universally binding, culturally independent) moral laws?

    • Are there circumstances where goods conflict? Can there ever be such a thing as a just war? Was bombing Nagasaki wrong? Is it okay to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?

    • Do we have souls—if so, what is the soul?—or are we just physical beings?

    • How do we know what we know, and what can we be certain about?

    • Is there a purpose or meaning to existence? If so, what is it, and how do we find it?

    • Does God exist? And if so, what is God’s nature, and how is God involved in, or related to, the world?¹

    • Philosophy of Mind, Daniel C Dennett ‘As real as it ever gets’: Dennett’s conception of the mind | Aeon Essays

Causality and Will Power

Causality-someone or something natural or supernatural must have caused the creation of the universe. The human experience is grounded in cause and effect. We insist that every observed effect have a cause. When a cause is not recognized we shrug it off as hallucination, illusion, sensual failure, or requiring more investigation or knowledge. Our existence and that of the universe is one such effect. Consequently, God was invented to satisfy the cause requirement. Seems huberistic, in that in a world supposedly at leasst 13.8 billion years old, we were a 13.7999999999...etc. billion year afterthought. Probably not. And purpose? What could possibly have been the purpose for creating both the universe and homosapiens? Assume that the universe began. Scienctists have discovered how it could have begun by the interaction of a few particles within a previous nothing. Why would we rather think that than that the universe just always was? Well, because there is evidence of a big bang. inflation, and expansion that leads us to believe that maybe it wasn't (didn't exist) before then. Then, of course, we have to ask, "Where did the particles come from?". According to the Schwinger Effect, strong electric fields can create particle-antiparticle pairs from a vacuum. And the strong electric fields came from? Still looking for a cause.

What impact does causality have on free will. Every decision is the result of the mind whether consciously, subconsciously, or unconciously. The mind is influenced by a number of factors: genetics and brain chemistry, mental states, experiences and memories, environment, and circumstances.

Will Power

How short our lives are compared to the age of the universe.

If time is a thing and the Big Bang occurred, it occurred 13.8 billion years ago.

First life of any kind showed up about 4 billion years ago.

First humanins appeared about 6 million years ago.

Homosapiens evolved about 400,000 years ago.

, the mind (soul)-body question is one of the most intriguing. There are two basic theories, monism and dualism.

https://www.rankred.com/origin-of-the-universe-different-theories/?scrlybrkr=90878df0

Controls and Free Will, Sep 1, 2024

Kind of a thought experiment: Assuming that free will is a thing, I think that the absence of sufficient social controls, preventive and consequential, is responsible for the majority of crimes. Social order requires informal and formal controls provided at the familial, social group, cultural, and governmental levels. It may be politically incorrect, but I also believe a certain degree of agreeable conformity is ideally necessary. And yes, I believe it to be so in manners, dress, and language. If adequate conformity controls are not taught and enforced at the family level, it is unlikely that the young will willingly abide by rules, regulations, and laws at other levels. The problem is, what level of control is optimal? Is it oppressive for a parent to prohibit a teenage daughter from coloring her hair in various streaks? Is it, on the other hand, the promotion of chaos, disorder, and crime not to incarcerate teenage boys convicted of serious crimes? Societies have been grappling with this issue ever since social grouping began?

Free Will, Oct 27, 2019

The existence or essence of free will continues to be discussed, argued and studied by philosophers, psychologists and neuroscientists, among others. Even laymen like me seek a final answer. So I'll throw my druthers into the game and say that superficially free will doesn't exist as we understand it: the decision to think or act in one or another way or not at all. I do not believe that we are controlling how we act or think, rather that the end result is merely the summation of our memory of historical experiential evidence.

Making Choices, Nov 23, 2020

If you choose to do X rather than Y or another, you do X. Can you then prove that you could have done Y or another? If you cannot 'prove' it, then is what you do done without free will? Predestined? Most likely, assuming all systems are functioning properly, we chose X because all our life experiences combined with the current environment, gave us no choice.

THE UNIVERSE

 A couple of the current theories suggest what is proposed within this writing: that the universe has always been and, if you will, in that sense is god. What comes closest to my thinking are the Block Universe Theory, Static State Theory, and the Cyclic Model of infinite universal expansion and contraction. My theory, to work, must be closely related to a theory of time that purports that all events are occurring simultaneously and forever. Our consciousnesses are mere visitors of a few of the events. Currently, science cannot demonstrate that something can be created from nothing. The scientific principles that champion the creation of something from nothing assume the nothing to be space, a vacuum. Such is not nothing as in some form it contains quantum fields. In the theory of Quantum Fluctuations, we must start with particle-antiparticle pairs. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle depends on pair of physical properties like energy and time. The Casimir Effect phenomenon are quantum fluctuations. And the Schwinger Effect requires a strong electronic field. Suppose one were to adopt the Block Universe Theory and simultaneity of events. In that case, time necessarily becomes null and causality must also be thrown aside simply because without a 'before' any event an 'after' could not have been caused.  An expanding universe implies that it is expanding into a space where the universe was not.

Religion

One argument for a God is that one is necessary for the existence of the universe (teleological), however, is a universe necessary? What purpose does it serve? Why would anything need a purpose? Is purpose, like, value a human invention?

 Reason and Religious Commitment (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Reality, Matter, & Existence

Experiences and the Adequacy of Common Sense. Adam Frank. The Blind Spot. Why science cannot ignore human experience. See also Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, chapter 3 and 4.

REALITY

The basic reasoning about what is real turns between illusion and materialism. Subjectivism, Intersubjectivism, Idealism, Phenomenalism, and Solipsism present material objects (matter) as creations of consciousness. In other words, all that appear to be objects are illusions, dependent on being only through the creations of our minds. Under Physicalism all phenomena, mental and otherwise, can be related to the physical; Objectivism defines reality as being composed of all matter separate from consciousness. Physicalism and Objectivism are the theories that are acceptable to most philosophers. Physicalism is a bridge too far. Could there be something more than the physical? In that I am aware that I am aware, I have some feeling of consciousness generated by the brain yet somehow separate. And therein is why Physicalism should be discarded in favor of Objectivism. It is what it is! No word, mental or psychological games. Bertrand Russell in The Problems of Philosophy makes clear that objects, no matter how we perceive them, are real. Our perceptions of matter are as real as the matter, however, bound by the senses. It is this limit to absolute knowledge of objects that opens up certain thinkers to consider matter as illusionary or constructed mentally.

Theories of Reality

    1. Objectivism: This view relies on natural science to determine what is real. It posits that reality exists independently of human perception and can be understood through empirical evidence and scientific methods1.

    2. Subjectivism: This perspective emphasizes perceptual experience, suggesting that reality is shaped by individual perceptions and consciousness. It argues that what we perceive as reality is a construct of our minds1.

    3. Intersubjectivism: This theory highlights the role of social constructs and shared beliefs in shaping reality. It suggests that reality is not just an individual experience but is also formed through collective human interactions and agreements1.

    4. Idealism: This philosophical stance asserts that reality is fundamentally mental or immaterial. According to idealists, the material world is a manifestation of the mind or consciousness2.

    5. Physicalism: In contrast to idealism, physicalism holds that everything that exists is physical in nature. This view is closely aligned with scientific materialism, which asserts that all phenomena can be explained by physical processes and laws2.

    6. Phenomenalism: This theory proposes that physical objects do not exist independently of our perception of them. Instead, objects are merely collections of sensory experiences or phenomena3.

    7. Solipsism: An extreme form of subjectivism, solipsism posits that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. Everything outside one’s own mind is uncertain and may not exist independently3.

EXISTENCE    (NOTE: Structural-Systemic Philosophy (SSP)=fundamentals about existence, reality, and knowledge)

Let us dispose of the God issue right off. To believe that some intelligence would create all that is living, an Earth, a galaxy, even a universe for the purpose of our beings is arrogant, selfish, and frankly, absurb. Why? Why would some omni-thing create anything except for its own gratification? And if so, is that how we would like to think of a God? No matter how we look at the existence of anything, we must agree that there had to be something that always was. Our experience of cause and effect and the inability of science to prove otherwise gives us no other options.

How? is not the relevant existence question that keeps one up at night. It's the famous why? question first posed by Guttried Wilhelm Leeibnez in 1697: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Centuries-long thinking and debating by philosophers and scientists have produced a number of theories. Most of the theories do not appear to be much about the how and why of existence but more about the nature of life. Existentialism-life without meaning, we create meaning, no natural principles ; Ontological Pluralism-there are material objects in reality, there are non-material objects in reality and there could be other qualities of objects in reality; Meinongianism-seems to be very similar to Ontological Pluralism; Universalism-all exists whether physical or abstract; Essentialism-we are the meaning of life by definition; Nihilism-life is purposeless and meaningless; Materialism-all of reality consists of matter; Idealism-the opposite of Materialism, we construct all matter with our minds; Dualism-all is either mind or matter; Phenomenology-a lot like Idealism but with “experiences” added; Monism-defines everything as one thing, either matter, mind (consciousness), or some unspecified substance that combines matter and mind; Absurdism-the condition we find ourselves in, a meaningless, indifferent universe, is absurd, therefore, we make up meaning. Panpsychism-consciousness is universal and pertains to all matter and minds;

Existence, Oct 21, 2024

Let us dispose of the God issue right off. To believe that some intelligence would create all that is living, an Earth, a galaxy, even a universe for the purpose of our beings is arrogant, selfish, and frankly, absurb. Why? Why would some omni-thing create anything except for its own gratification? And if so, is that how we would like to think of a God? No matter how we look at the existence of anything, we have to agree that there had to be somthing that always was. Our experience of cause and effect and the inability of science to prove otherwise gives us no other options.

How? is not the relevant existence question that keeps one up at night. It's the famous why? question first posed by Guttried Wilhelm Leeibnez in 1697: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Centuries-long thinking and debating by philosophers and scientists haver produced a number of thories. A couple of the current theories suggest what I propose, that the universe has always been and, if you will, is the God but far from an Omni-God.. 

What comes closest to my thinking is the Cyclic Model of infinite universal expansion and contraction. My theory, to work, must be closely related to a theory of time that purports that all events are occurring simultaneously and forever. Our consiousness are mere vistors of a few of the events. As of now science cannot demonstrate that something can be created from nothing. The scientific princples that champion the creation of something from nothing assume the nothing to be space, a vacuum. Such is not nothing as in some form it contains quantum fields. In the theory of Quantum Fluctuations we must start with particle-antiparticle pairs. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle depends on pair of physical properties like energy and time. The Casimir Effect phenomenon are quantum fluctuations. And the Schwinger Effect requires a strong electronic field.

THEORIES OF EXISTENCE:

Philosophical theories regarding existence, often explored within metaphysics, address the nature of being, reality, and the fundamental structure of the world. Here are some of the main theories and approaches:

1. Existentialism

    • Existentialism emphasizes individual existence, freedom, and choice. It suggests that existence precedes essence, meaning that humans first exist and then create their own meaning or purpose through their actions. Key existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus argue that life has no inherent meaning, but individuals can find meaning through authentic living.

    • Central themes include angst, absurdity, freedom, and the responsibility of choice. It often explores how people confront the "nothingness" or the seeming meaninglessness of existence.

    • 2. Essentialism

    • Essentialism posits that things have a set of attributes essential to their identity and function. It claims that every entity has a nature or essence that defines its existence. For example, a human being might be defined by rationality, while a triangle is defined by having three sides.

    • This view contrasts with existentialism, as it suggests that essence (inherent nature) precedes existence, meaning that things are defined by what they fundamentally are.

    • 3. Nihilism

    • Nihilism is the belief that life lacks meaning, purpose, or value. It argues that traditional moral and existential values are baseless, and that nothing can be known or communicated.

    • Often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche, who saw it as a crisis of meaning in the modern world, nihilism challenges the idea that there is an inherent order or purpose to life. Nietzsche proposed overcoming nihilism through the creation of new values.

    • 4. Materialism

    • Materialism asserts that only material or physical things truly exist. All phenomena, including consciousness and thought, are viewed as results of material interactions.

    • There is no room for immaterial substances or spiritual existence in materialism; everything that exists is explainable in terms of matter and physical laws.

    • 5. Idealism

    • Idealism claims that reality is fundamentally mental or immaterial. The world is a construct of the mind or consciousness, and material objects exist only as ideas within the mind.

    • Thinkers like George Berkeley argued for "immaterialism," where physical objects exist only insofar as they are perceived. For him, "to be is to be perceived" ("esse est percipi").

    • 6. Dualism

    • Dualism posits that there are two fundamental types of existence: material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual or mental). The classic example is Cartesian dualism, proposed by René Descartes, which divides reality into mind (res cogitans) and body (res extensa).

    • This approach attempts to reconcile the existence of both mental experiences and physical objects, seeing them as distinct but potentially interacting substances.

    • 7. Phenomenology

    • Phenomenology, founded by Edmund Husserl, focuses on the study of conscious experiences as they are lived. It is concerned with how things appear to us through consciousness, rather than assuming an independent reality apart from our experiences.

    • This approach aims to describe phenomena as they are perceived by individuals, recognizing the role of subjective experience in shaping reality.

    • 8. Monism

    • Monism asserts that all of existence is derived from a single substance or principle. There are different types of monism:

        ◦ Material Monism: Claims that everything is composed of matter.

        ◦ Idealistic Monism: Holds that everything is composed of mind or consciousness.

        ◦ Neutral Monism: Suggests that both mental and physical phenomena arise from a single, more fundamental substance that is neither purely mental nor purely physical.

9. Absurdism

    • Absurdism, a philosophy associated with Albert Camus, argues that humans naturally seek meaning in a universe that is indifferent and devoid of inherent meaning. This confrontation between the desire for significance and the silent universe creates an "absurd" condition.

    • Absurdism doesn't conclude that life is meaningless, but rather that meaning must be created in the face of the absurd.

    • 10. Panpsychism

    • Panpsychism posits that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of the universe. It suggests that all matter, even at a fundamental level, has some form of consciousness or experiential quality.

    • This theory challenges the traditional view that consciousness arises only in complex brains, proposing instead that it is a basic feature of reality.

    • 11. Solipsism

    • Solipsism is the idea that only one's own mind is certain to exist. It suggests that everything outside one's own consciousness is uncertain, including the existence of other people and the external world.

    • While often considered an extreme position, solipsism raises important questions about perception and the limits of knowledge regarding existence.

Time

The idea that time is an artificial construct designed to measure change and the progress of entropy is a perspective that has been explored in both philosophy and physics. Here are a few key points to consider:

    1. Philosophical Perspective: Some philosophers argue that time is a human-made concept used to organize and make sense of our experiences. From this viewpoint, time helps us measure change and understand the sequence of events.

    2. Physical Perspective: In physics, time is considered a fundamental dimension, much like space. It is an essential aspect of the universe, and its passage is measured by the progression of events and changes in physical systems. The concept of entropy, which measures the degree of disorder in a system, is closely related to time. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to increase over time, giving a direction to the flow of time.

    3. Relativity: Albert Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized our understanding of time, showing that it is not absolute but relative to the observer's frame of reference. Time can be affected by factors such as gravity and velocity, leading to phenomena like time dilation.

In summary, while time can be seen as a construct for measuring change and entropy, it is also a fundamental aspect of the universe with deep connections to the laws of physics. If you have more specific questions or want to explore a particular aspect of time, feel free to ask!

The Block Theory and Time, from AI, 02/01/2025

The Block Universe Theory, also known as Eternalism, posits that past, present, and future events all exist simultaneously in a four-dimensional space-time block. According to this theory, time is like a spatial dimension, and all moments are equally real12.

However, our experience of time as a series of sequential moments is due to our conscious perception and the way our brains process information. Here are some key points to understand this:

    1. Psychological Time: While the block universe suggests that all events are fixed and exist simultaneously, our brains perceive time in a linear fashion. This perception is influenced by memory, attention, and the way we process sensory information1.

    2. Causal Relationships: In the block universe, events are causally related. Our experience of one moment leading to the next is a reflection of these causal relationships. This causality gives us a sense of temporal flow, even though, from a block universe perspective, all events are already laid out1.

    3. Neurological Processes: Our brains are wired to process information in a way that creates a coherent narrative of past, present, and future. This narrative helps us make sense of our experiences and plan for future actions1.

    4. Relativity of Simultaneity: According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, simultaneity is relative. Different observers may perceive different events as happening at the same time, depending on their frame of reference. This relativity further complicates the notion of a single, universal "now"1. 

In summary, while the block universe theory suggests that all events exist simultaneously, our subjective experience of time is shaped by the way our brains process and interpret information. This creates the illusion of a flowing, sequential time.

If you have more questions or want to explore this concept further, feel free to ask!

1: ABC News on Block Universe Theory 2: RealClearScience on Block Universe Theory

Learn more

1abc.net.au2realclearscience.co

Time from Bill, July 9, 2023:

What is Time? Time is imaginary, implied from awareness of motion and change. Without such awareness we would lack consciousness. Tensed time would not exist. We would be aware only of the present.

I Blinked and..., Jul 9, 2023. I am 81 years old. The last I remember I was in my 40's, confident, strong still, and eager. Where did the past 40 years go? Hell, I feel that I know less now than I did then. And, does aging make all feel more guilty that there is so little time to rectify?

I've been working on my time theory. Actually, theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, The Order of Time, first argued that reality is a network of events and that our perception of past, present, and future is a projection onto this network. I postulate that wherein there is no past, present, or future, actually wherein there is no time. Quantum entanglement and time dilation suggest the same. In my thinking, all universal events occur simultaneously. Such a theory solves several cosmological mysteries. But we have to back up a bit to my proposition that the universe of which we are aware has always been. I realize that using terms such as "always been" implies eternity which is sort of a reference to how humanity views time that never ends, a human fallacy. Sorry. No, the universe did not begin with a "big bang" or even a little whimper. It just is. Kind of replaces the God thing. Back to the no-time theory, I've run into a wall. SPACE. Where is all this happening? Or is space also an illusion? Einstein's equation that creates the concept of space-time fits nicely into the world we experience, but is it what is? We love our space but events without time may not require space since space most probably is only required for events in time.

Time is an artificial construct designed to give measurement to past events, future potentials, and speed. Our experiences regarding causality, movement, change, and the increase of entropy justify our creation of time. 

Ethics

Shorts 1, Oct 27, 2019

If there should be contained both good and bad, inseparable, regardless of measure, best that the whole be removed.

Evil,Oct 27, 2019

Does evil exist supernaturally or is it integral to humankind?

Determinism

It appears obvious to most of us (experientially) that every event is preceded by a causal event, at least going back as far as the beginning of the universe. This is referred to as the deterministic view. To get around the creation event problem, we first created gods, then God, then an infinite inanimate forever universe. All would exist without a cause (Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” or first cause). While the causality (deterministic) theory makes obvious sense, it has problems, initially with free will and now with quantum mechanics. The deterministic view posits that with absolute knowledge regarding current state and the causes of events (including the laws of nature) we should be able to predict future states. Absolute knowledge regarding anything has so far proven to be impossible. However, if we all can agree that every event is caused by prior events, how can free will be a thing? Well, it seems that we can hold two opposing truths simultaneously. Possibly, somehow, we do not hold our decisions and the resultant action events to be 100% caused by prior events. Quantum mechanics also throws doubt on a causality chain view. Particles (waves?) appear to have multiple minds of their own making them unpredictable, unlocatable, and undefinable (wave or particle) thus producing randomness and probability in contradiction to determinism. Can you imagine the upheaval regarding morality and justice if it is determined with absolute certainty that free will does not exist? And, what if we went the other direction and determined that all events are random and unpredictable?

Time

 Each future moment forms the previous moment so as to be as it will be.