I wrote the below sometime in 2019 but didn't publish it until now.
"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.
I wrote this in 2019 and failed to publish it until now.
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.
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.
Does evil exist supernaturally or is it integral to humankind?
From AI on 12/29/2024:The philosophy of evil is a complex and multifaceted topic that explores the nature, origins, and implications of evil. Here are some key aspects:
The Problem of Evil: This is a central issue in the philosophy of religion, questioning how to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. The problem is often divided into two forms:
Logical Problem of Evil: Argues that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God.
Evidential Problem of Evil: Suggests that the presence of evil makes it improbable that such a God exists.
Types of Evil: Philosophers distinguish between different types of evil:
Moral Evil: Evil resulting from human actions, such as murder or theft.
Natural Evil: Suffering caused by natural events, like earthquakes or diseases.
Theodicies and Defenses: Various responses have been proposed to address the problem of evil:
Free Will Defense: Argues that evil is a necessary consequence of granting humans free will.
Soul-Making Theodicy: Suggests that experiencing evil is essential for spiritual growth and development.
Secular Perspectives: Some philosophers explore evil from a secular viewpoint, focusing on its ethical and psychological dimensions without invoking religious explanations.
One argument for a God is that one is necessary for the existence of the universe, however, is a universe necessary? What purpose does it serve? Why would anything need a purpose? Is purpose, like, value a human invention?
Causality-someone or something natural or supernatural must have caused the creation of the universe.
Reason and Religious Commitment (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
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 think about things philosophical. 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 common man 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)
Will Power
, 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
Five main branches of philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Aesthetics, Logic.
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.
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;
TIME AND 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 previously. That, of course, cannot be possible. After all, it is the universe and is all.
Avshalom Elitzur
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
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 thinkign and debating by philosophers and scientists haver produced a number of
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a liberal conservative I believe that reproduction is essential to continuance of our species so in that regard I do have a horse in the abortion/assisted reproductive technologies race. I believe abortion to be a form of murder with the possibility of extenuating circumstances that should be considered. I do not know when life begins. It is generally accepted within the scientific community that life begins at fertilization (conception). As for assisted reproductive technologies, I am all for them and do not believe frozen eggs and embryos to be live humans. The only issues that need to be sorted out have to do with parental rights and each locality has to deal with that accordingly.
1. Majority Muslim countries' goal is to eliminate Israel.
2. Israel's goal is to continue to exist in peace.
3. Majority Muslim countries are not militarily able to defeat Israel.
4. A few majority Muslim countries use proxies to goad Israel into a major conflict that will give the appearance of Israeli war mongering agression thus prompting other countries to support the Muslim countries.
Isael in Palestine. Most U.S. so-called supporters of Palestine are wrong in theur conclusion that the Palestinians are innocent. The fact is, while they may not be direct supporters of Hamas, they fully support Hamas' goals regarding the total distruction of Israel and are passively sacrificing themselves and their children in efforts to protect Hamas.
Yemen: Another Iran backed group, Houthi, have targeted Israel.
I've been working on my time theory. Actually, theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, 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 theory, 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.
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”.
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.
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/
